[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
We are witnessing history in the making, gentlemen.
Mmm…no we’re not.[/quote]
Ron Paul is history - is that what he meant?
I am witnessing that.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Here’s a not-so-good video in support of Ron Paul:
“All of our lives…we’ve been waiting…for someone to call our leader.”
What
???
That’s not what I’ve been waiting for. [/quote]
No kidding. I prefer the propaganda without lyrics.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
mstott25 wrote:
Newsflash: That article about the “insider” was written THREE FUCKING YEARS before the “goddamn paper” quote! For the love of god, read my post before you start disputing it and shut the fuck up about this stupid quote.
Yes, and the point - again - is that the guy has essentially zero credibility to produce such an outrageous story by his own admission.
The story isn’t about Bush’s golf score - it is about him basically making a treasonous statement with regards to his duty to uphold the Constitution. Such a serious claim would have to have bulletproof support - well, for non-Ron Paul numbskulls at least - otherwise, readers should remain skeptical.
Not you.
If someone wrote it and published it on an internet site, you run it up a flagpole and salute it without ever “daring” to question such an outrageous story. Not my problem to fix - just pointing out how ridiculous the claim is and how ridiculous it is for anyone to put any stock in it.[/quote]
For the last time…you pulled this out of your ass:
"It’s been debunked as fabricated tabloid trash: the author has admitted to having fictional sources. This is old news - it was essentially blog spam as far back as 2002. "
Really? Old News? Interesting how it was essentially blog spam three years before it was even written.
We call that a non sequitur. How would you like to discuss anything with me if you were to say that Iran has been assisting Al Qaeda according to President Bush and my reply was:
“That’s tabloid trash. It’s been debunked as far back as 2002 - Bush admitted he had fictional intelligence”
You related two totally isolated incidents to create something out of thin air. You did the same thing with the articles you cited - it’s like you don’t get what I’m saying. I don’t even know why the fuck i’m still talking to you. If you wanted to speak up - say it’s a speculative article don’t just make shit up and expect me to have any respect for your opinion.
[quote]mstott25 wrote:
Really? Old News? Interesting how it was essentially blog spam three years before it was even written.[/quote]
Wow - you operate as a mindless lemming and the best you got is that I typed the wrong year?
[quote]We call that a non sequitur. How would you like to discuss anything with me if you were to say that Iran has been assisting Al Qaeda according to President Bush and my reply was:
“That’s tabloid trash. It’s been debunked as far back as 2002 - Bush admitted he had fictional intelligence”
You related two totally isolated incidents to create something out of thin air. You did the same thing with the articles you cited - it’s like you don’t get what I’m saying. I don’t even know why the fuck i’m still talking to you. If you wanted to speak up - say it’s a speculative article don’t just make shit up and expect me to have any respect for your opinion.
[/quote]
What you fail to see is that a tabloid-style “internet magazine” whose editor has been shown over and over to have zero credibility has uttered a quote that needs bulletproof substantiation, only to have you try and pass it off as a legitimate event. My point was to demonstrate it was no such legitimate event and no one outside the realm of wild-eyed ideologues will touch it as legitimately occurring.
There is a reason you can only find it in the corridors of tabloid internet trash - what would be the “story of the century” (a sitting President essentially debasing the very Constitution he swore to uphold, a treasonous act) can’t get any traction outside the flimsy “news” sources you read - why do you reckon? It has been debunked by the very fact that no one will touch it.
If you don’t want to “talk to me”, fine - I won’t lose sleep - but don’t try and pass off garbage material and then whine like a nine year old with a skinned knee when you get called on the validity of the rubbish you post.
As for you “respecting my opinion” - yawn - but in reality all I expect is that you make an argument that the quote is somehow substantiated. You haven’t - and can’t. You have the word of a disgraced editor of an online political magazine akin to the National Enquirer.
Such an outrageous and serious claim - even if I wanted to believe it (as you certainly do) - would need a pretty high threshold satisfied for me to give it any legs.
Not for you - somebody said it, good enough - you believe it! Since that is true, don’t “expect” any of the rest of us to give the quote a presumption of good faith without something other than “well, the guy had, like, some sources” and trying to sweep the rest of his credibility problems under the rug.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
There is a reason you can only find it in the corridors of tabloid internet trash - what would be the “story of the century” (a sitting President essentially debasing the very Constitution he swore to uphold, a treasonous act) can’t get any traction outside the flimsy “news” sources you read - why do you reckon? It has been debunked by the very fact that no one will touch it.[/quote]
LOL.
You know very well that things aren’t “debunked” because nobody will touch it. After Dan’s little fiasco people know better than to make serious claims without having some proof to back it up.
Whether or not it happened, or did not, has not been shown either way, by anything to date.
It’s floating around as yet another unsubstantiated claim, rumor or whatever you wish to call it. But, as you know, it is almost impossible to debunk. We can’t take the word of any staunch Republicans present as they would certainly never let such a thing gain credence.
Calling it an “unsubstantiated claim” or a “baseless claim” should be enough… why try to say it has been debunked when it hasn’t? Don’t you know the difference?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
mstott25 wrote:
Really? Old News? Interesting how it was essentially blog spam three years before it was even written.
Wow - you operate as a mindless lemming and the best you got is that I typed the wrong year?
We call that a non sequitur. How would you like to discuss anything with me if you were to say that Iran has been assisting Al Qaeda according to President Bush and my reply was:
“That’s tabloid trash. It’s been debunked as far back as 2002 - Bush admitted he had fictional intelligence”
You related two totally isolated incidents to create something out of thin air. You did the same thing with the articles you cited - it’s like you don’t get what I’m saying. I don’t even know why the fuck i’m still talking to you. If you wanted to speak up - say it’s a speculative article don’t just make shit up and expect me to have any respect for your opinion.
What you fail to see is that a tabloid-style “internet magazine” whose editor has been shown over and over to have zero credibility has uttered a quote that needs bulletproof substantiation, only to have you try and pass it off as a legitimate event. My point was to demonstrate it was no such legitimate event and no one outside the realm of wild-eyed ideologues will touch it as legitimately occurring.
There is a reason you can only find it in the corridors of tabloid internet trash - what would be the “story of the century” (a sitting President essentially debasing the very Constitution he swore to uphold, a treasonous act) can’t get any traction outside the flimsy “news” sources you read - why do you reckon? It has been debunked by the very fact that no one will touch it.
If you don’t want to “talk to me”, fine - I won’t lose sleep - but don’t try and pass off garbage material and then whine like a nine year old with a skinned knee when you get called on the validity of the rubbish you post.
As for you “respecting my opinion” - yawn - but in reality all I expect is that you make an argument that the quote is somehow substantiated. You haven’t - and can’t. You have the word of a disgraced editor of an online political magazine akin to the National Enquirer.
Such an outrageous and serious claim - even if I wanted to believe it (as you certainly do) - would need a pretty high threshold satisfied for me to give it any legs.
Not for you - somebody said it, good enough - you believe it! Since that is true, don’t “expect” any of the rest of us to give the quote a presumption of good faith without something other than “well, the guy had, like, some sources” and trying to sweep the rest of his credibility problems under the rug.[/quote]
Funny how you hold such contempt for Captiol Hill Blue because they had a “fictional source” in 2002 yet you are defending the President who is known to take fictional information and use it to wage wars our nation can’t win and throw the country into an economic and foreign relations nightmare.
Let’s see - an ezine news publication that is tabloid trash had a source that turned out to be unreliable in 2002 so anything to come from them since then is trash and unreliable.
Our President received unreliable information and used that to campaign for an unpopular war that has cost thousands of american lives and hundreds of thousands of others.
So I have an idea for you Mr. Consistency - why don’t you use that impeccable logic you demonstrated and point it at the guy you’re defending. You think you have the right to scoff at anything coming from Capitol Hill Blue? I have the right to scoff at anything coming from the President.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Wow - you operate as a mindless lemming and the best you got is that I typed the wrong year?[/quote]
No. Wrong name, wrong year, wrong article, and I also noticed that you posted Doug Thompson as having the wrong job but I didn’t mention that one. You see wrong to you is so much more than a date or a name, it’s more like a central theme that you constantly build your arguments around.
Me the mindless lemming? Keep fighting the good fight and defending president bush at all costs; you my friend are the beacon of hope shining for this nation. If only people like you could get this excited about where your tax dollars are going or who’s financing this war in Iraq we might have a nation of capable people willing to think on their own.
Strippers for Ron Paul!
[quote]lixy wrote:
Strippers for Ron Paul!
Best. Video. Ever.
Now, let’s count the all “moral do-gooders” who come out of the wood work to call out Ron Paul on the fact that strippers support him–like somehow he’s responsible for their behavior because they dig his message.
[quote]mstott25 wrote:
Funny how you hold such contempt for Captiol Hill Blue because they had a “fictional source” in 2002 yet you are defending the President who is known to take fictional information and use it to wage wars our nation can’t win and throw the country into an economic and foreign relations nightmare.
Let’s see - an ezine news publication that is tabloid trash had a source that turned out to be unreliable in 2002 so anything to come from them since then is trash and unreliable.
Our President received unreliable information and used that to campaign for an unpopular war that has cost thousands of american lives and hundreds of thousands of others.
So I have an idea for you Mr. Consistency - why don’t you use that impeccable logic you demonstrated and point it at the guy you’re defending. You think you have the right to scoff at anything coming from Capitol Hill Blue? I have the right to scoff at anything coming from the President.[/quote]
Setting aside the discussion of the merits of the Iraq war - irrelevant to any point we are discussing - who said you couldn’t scoff at something coming from the President? You can criticize Bush and the Iraq war all you want - I never said you couldn’t.
But if you make a claim, rest assured that I won’t swallow your mediocre drivel without questioning it - especially as it pertains to a sitting President committing treason. I don’t have to support Bush or love the President to say “hang on a minute - that is a pretty serious claim…do you have any proof of it?”.
And curiously, my unwillingness to take the story on good faith is equated with “defending Bush” - which, of course, is nonsense. I may or may not defend the Iraq war, but whether this story has any truth to it has nothing to do with it. How interesting - if you don’t believe the story, you are a Bush cheerleader!
Anyone wondering what exactly is wrong with modern politics needs to look no further than your posts. You got challenged on the validity of a very sketchy story and your reply is essentially “oh yeah? You are a Bush lover and supported an immoral war!”
Real nice.
[quote]mstott25 wrote:
No. Wrong name, wrong year, wrong article, and I also noticed that you posted Doug Thompson as having the wrong job but I didn’t mention that one. You see wrong to you is so much more than a date or a name, it’s more like a central theme that you constantly build your arguments around. [/quote]
Hilarious. What part of the author’s credibility being a shambles don’t you get?
The question remains - do you have anything resembling proof - or at least relevant, good faith evidence - that Bush said what you claim he did? I’ve presented my information suggesting the claim is built on pretty shaky grounds - do you have anything to rebut that information?
No? Then why do you keep typing?
Again, me challenging you on the validity of the story summons not proof of its validity out of you, but rather “you are defending Bush, you Bush-loving Bush cheerleader!”
Save it - I realize you are incapable to the task.
[quote]mstott25 wrote:
See: vroom’s post. [/quote]
I am asking you - you are the one that posted it as legitimate.
Besides, I rarely read anything Vroom writes anymore - I skipped his post and went straight to yours.
Why tell a bartender when I have an internet forum discussing the very topic at hand?
“Kid” - hilarious.
As is, all I wanted was some semblance of evidence to show the quote was valid. I still have yet to see it - and there is no burden on me to “prove he didn’t say it”.
But, you are dead right about the “dumbass quotes” and the “half ass journalism”. Well done.
You wouldn’t be the first around here, sadly enough.
Well, chuckles, I didn’t get pissed off - I just pointed to the absurdity of your red herring. It was completely irrelevant to the issue - even the most staunch Bush hater can ask for reasonable evidence that Bush committed the suggested treason - a fact lost on you, apparently.
Why would I engage in such a useless time sink as taking it up with Vroom?
And, you aren’t that emotionally involved - it is an Internet forum where people debate, and really nothing more. Even this “kid” - still laughing at that - knows that.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
We are witnessing history in the making, gentlemen.
Mmm…no we’re not.[/quote]
Oh yes, we are.
Things are going to change significantly over the next decade, regardless of who gets elected.
This coming election is one for the history books.
I never said “we’re witnessing history in the making because Ron Paul is going to be the next president”. I simply said that we’re witnessing history in the making.
Specifically, we’re seeing the last years of the American empire. Another decade or so and the illusion of prosperity will be gone.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
molotov_Coktease wrote:
So, the other day I was driving down my Northern California freeway, when I look up and see a massive sign on the overpass that reads ‘JOIN THE RON PAUL REVOLUTION’.
It made my fucking day, since afterall, my freeway means more to me than fox news ever will. Or any other bullshit bought off slice of piss poor Americana. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not happy that it’s taken eons to expand the damn thing…
I’m pretty sure I could’ve gotten the job done drunk and equipped with nothing but a jackhammer and rake by now, but I digress. I was thrilled. So thrilled in fact, that I went and bought myself a huge slice of posterboard…
I felt compelled to add a few words to this mysterious message that would escape most, and by most I mean clueless, brainwashed, idiot old voters …the kind that drive like cunts on the same freeway and annoy me on my quest for punctuality on my way to work, to earn my check for social security and health care I will never see.
I got out my sharpie and I went to work. I decided on…
HEY BABYBOOMERS, GOOGLE RON PAUL AND JOIN THE REVOLUTION.
Had to be short and sweet you know. Can’t exactly write the constitution on a freeway sign, although for as much as its read or honored nowadays, I might as well have.
Yeah I’m a real cog in the movement now. I can hear your sarcastic wheels turning, creaking and moaning with your dried up old heartless blood acting as dead lube. Go and comment from the balcony like the old muppets you are. History has no place for you.
This is the typical ron paul voter.
Anyone still questioning why this guy has no chance?
Rage against the Machine!!! Please notice me, I’m “different.” My dad left because I was a bad person!!!
Instead of being a good person, telling the truth, participating in the process, I’ve got smelly, hair, I lie about women who would never look at me, I scream at Police, and don’t do anything for anyone else!!!
Go ron paul!!!
JeffR
[/quote]
There is absolutely nothing typical about me, I don’t exactly fit the ‘profile’ of this political agenda. Far from it. You don’t pay much attention JeffR. You think I’m some wannabe male punk trying to be the cock of the walk…with bad hygiene, trying to get close to women? I think you’re with a lack of observational skills so horrid I wouldn’t trust you to tell me the colour of the sky, much less put any stock whatsoever in your opinions.
I am a woman who fully participates in the ‘process’. The process of working hard for a living…and always endeavoring to be a good person…and oh have I ever got truth to tell, to those who are capable of receiving. Why don’t you rape somebody elses ears with your nonsense.
Right, I’m off to shout at some cops now and rage against the machine…maybe wrap some kittens up in an American flag and burn it. You know how I do, don’t ya JeffR. Your marksmanship leaves plenty to be desired. Dishonorable discharge.
PS- Orion… <3
Bringing Politics Back to the People - The Do-It-Yourself Campaign of Ron Paul
Sean Scallon
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=36288
August 28, 2007
n 1964, just before the New Hampshire primary, an average Joe named Paul Grindle didn’t particularly care for the choice of candidates running for the Republican nomination for President.
So he decided to run his own candidate for president.
With the help of a few friends and using the most sophisticated marketing techniques at the time, Grindle created a boomlet for Henry Cabot Lodge, former Massachusetts U.S. Senator, 1960 GOP Vice-Presidential candidate and then the U.S. ambassador to South Vietnam.
Lodge wasn’t running for anything, his name wasn’t even on the New Hampshire ballot. Grindle and his friends mailed out postcards to New Hampshire Republicans to find out if there was support for Lodge which they found out there was. Then they mailed out fliers for Lodge, letters for Lodge and pamphlets demonstrating how to write Lodge�??s name on the ballot. They even opened a headquarters for him in Concord.
All that postage spent for eventually paid off. Lodge won the New Hampshire Primary with a write-in vote, beating out that year’s eventual GOP nominee Barry Goldwater and former Vice-President Nelson Rockefeller despite all their money, all their TV ads and vast campaign apparatuses deployed in the Granite State.
Of course it helped Grindle that so many New Hampshire Republicans wanted someone other than Rockefeller and Goldwater, he just simply provided another candidate. But Grindle’s effort also goes to show that politics does not have to be “game” played only by a few professionals, or the hacks or even the wealthy. Sometimes, even the “average Joe” can play too if they have the knowledge, the gumption and a little luck.
It’s that same “do-it-yourself” spirit that Grindle showed 43 years ago that’s a part of Congressman Ron Paul�??s run for the White House today.
Forget the all internet activity, You Tube videos, or Facebook pages for a moment and focus on meat-and-potatoes politicking.
Out of all the candidates running for President in 2008, who among them has supporters willing to hang signs on freeway overpasses, to stand with signs outside events whatever the weather, who will volunteer their time to make phone calls or write letters to voters or do lit drops as well? Who among the candidates has supporters willing to pay for advertising in newspapers and radio out of their own pocket or are willing to write scripts for cable TV ads?
Who among the candidates has supporters so dedicated that they attend his rallies thousands of miles from home?
The Ron Paul campaign isn’t spending a lot of money right now because they don�??t have to. The spending time, money and talent coming from Ron Paul supporters across the country is cash one cannot measure but has become important to the credibility of the campaign.
You cannot write off Ron Paul because he has thousands of supporters in all 50 states willing to do things on their own initiative while other campaigns simply spend money on TV ads or give handouts to voters like free bus trips, straw poll tickets and meals. Indeed, former Massachusetts Governor Willard Romney�??s campaign has become a literal welfare agency in order to win votes.
Ron Paul supporters don’t need handouts to vote for him at local straw poll. They don�??t need orders from the central campaign office either. Much of what is done for Ron Paul by his supporters is done upon their own ideas and their own initiative.
For example, two weeks before the Iowa Straw Poll, Ron Paul supporters set up an account through Pay Pal.com to pool their money to buy advertising on Iowa radio stations and newspapers. One person made the ads buys, a few enterprising fellows came up with the idea for the ads (including a beautiful mosaic ad of Ron Paul’s head made up of pictures from thousands of supporters across the country with the Constitution itself as a backdrop.) and before the official campaign came up with their own radio and TV ads, Ron Paul’s message was being heard on the airwaves and in the pages.
Plans are afoot to do the same in New Hampshire and Iowa again and to expand to television as well. All on their own they did this. That�??s how devoted they are. As Ron Paul himself said. “I didn’t start a campaign, I joined a campaign.” Like the Minutemen of Lexington and Concord of old, Ron Paul supporters do not need �??orders�?? to shoot the Redcoats. All they needed were their rifles.
Candidates for President aren’t elected in vacuums. Powerful cultural forces pull them towards the White House. If Ron Paul wins the GOP nomination, goes on to win the Presidency itself, it will be because American voters begin to admire the plucky resolve and selfless determination of Ron Paul supporters, who created a campaign virtually from scratch of their own time, effort and resources and want to capture that spirit for themselves and recapture it for the nation.
Since 9-11, a whole nation wanted to do something, anything to help with the war efforts. A whole nation wanted some sense of pulling together and working together to help a country in distress.
They wanted time to go back to World War II, where food was rationed, gas was rationed, rubber drives organized, scrap drives organized, where people joined the Red Cross or the USO, or civil defense organizations, all of this done to help with the war effort in any way possible.
To be a slacker back then - if you weren’t fighting or doing something to help our “boys” overseas �?? was as bad a form of treason as “loose lips sink ships.” And yet did we go back after 9-11? No. Care packages, yellow ribbons pen pal letters to troops and greeters at the airport are important and nice gestures, but one doesn�??t get the sense a whole nation has been mobilized to do so.
No, instead, after 9-11, President Bush II told Americans they ought go out and buy more stuff. No calls for sacrifice were made. War wasn’t declared in Congress; just a resolution calling for military action was passed. They also pass resolutions on Capitol Hill to the declare National Pickle Day as well. That’s how much importance they gave to this cause.
No draft of any kind was issued, so the many millions who could fight instead stayed at home to watch the war on TV while those who did volunteer fought the war in their stead. Or when things weren’t going well, they could ignore what was happening overseas completely and go back to whatever it was they were doing on Sept. 10, 2001 as if time simply skipped over that day.
People wanted to help. They waited for orders to come from on high and yet such orders never came. Instead all they saw was a war turning sour because of the incompetence of the people in charge. Then they saw a great city destroyed by a natural disaster and saw that same government bumble the aftermath and reconstruction. That made it hard to help those who needed it and only wasted the energy of those who gave of their time and effort to help with the clean-up.
So where does all that energy go when its not be used? When it’s being left to dissipate on the sidelines and all that’s left is anger and bitterness at the authorities for their incompetence and their mismanagement? Well some have decided they aren’t going to wait for “orders” anymore. Some have decided on their own that they are going try and elect a man they believe is going to change things for the better. And whether or not Ron Paul could make such changes if he was elected President or get them through Congress really doesn’t matter when you think about it.
Just getting to that point will show that the nation has recaptured the do-it-yourself spirit that helped to found the country in the first place.
Many books have been written about how alienated the average voter is from politics with detailed explanations as to why. Yet all of them miss this essential point: People feel alienated to something when they believe that nothing they do concerning it matters because they are removed and remote to it.
As politics has become a “game” played by rich people and slick hustlers and where the game board is a television screen, voters just watch it all from a distance. They’re no longer a part of the process, just stage props for photos ops.
Once upon a time an “average Joe” could be a precinct captain. He could stuff mailers or put up signs in his neighborhood working for the political machine or his wife could host a coffee klatch or baby-sit at campaign headquarters. Now people are paid to do things like this. Politicians all like to talk about grassroots support but very few campaigns use volunteer labor like they once did.
Once upon a time the presidential campaigns of Barry Goldwater and George McGovern and Ronald Reagan were made possible by such grassroots support but in this day and age, only the late U.S. Senator Paul Wellstone really had an “army” of average people volunteering their time for him with their undying loyalty.
If more campaigns were as volunteer orientated as Ron Paul’s, perhaps voters would feel that connection with politics again and would use that untapped energy for a cause they believed in and one they didn’t need to be “directed” at. And if all that happened in the future, then Ron Paul’s campaign will be a success well past 2008.
Sean Scallon is a freelance writer and journalist from Arkansaw, Wisconsin
[quote]Molotov_Coktease wrote:
JeffR wrote:
molotov_Coktease wrote:
So, the other day I was driving down my Northern California freeway, when I look up and see a massive sign on the overpass that reads ‘JOIN THE RON PAUL REVOLUTION’.
It made my fucking day, since afterall, my freeway means more to me than fox news ever will. Or any other bullshit bought off slice of piss poor Americana. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not happy that it’s taken eons to expand the damn thing…
I’m pretty sure I could’ve gotten the job done drunk and equipped with nothing but a jackhammer and rake by now, but I digress. I was thrilled. So thrilled in fact, that I went and bought myself a huge slice of posterboard…
I felt compelled to add a few words to this mysterious message that would escape most, and by most I mean clueless, brainwashed, idiot old voters …the kind that drive like cunts on the same freeway and annoy me on my quest for punctuality on my way to work, to earn my check for social security and health care I will never see.
I got out my sharpie and I went to work. I decided on…
HEY BABYBOOMERS, GOOGLE RON PAUL AND JOIN THE REVOLUTION.
Had to be short and sweet you know. Can’t exactly write the constitution on a freeway sign, although for as much as its read or honored nowadays, I might as well have.
Yeah I’m a real cog in the movement now. I can hear your sarcastic wheels turning, creaking and moaning with your dried up old heartless blood acting as dead lube. Go and comment from the balcony like the old muppets you are. History has no place for you.
This is the typical ron paul voter.
Anyone still questioning why this guy has no chance?
Rage against the Machine!!! Please notice me, I’m “different.” My dad left because I was a bad person!!!
Instead of being a good person, telling the truth, participating in the process, I’ve got smelly, hair, I lie about women who would never look at me, I scream at Police, and don’t do anything for anyone else!!!
Go ron paul!!!
JeffR
There is absolutely nothing typical about me, I don’t exactly fit the ‘profile’ of this political agenda. Far from it. You don’t pay much attention JeffR. You think I’m some wannabe male punk trying to be the cock of the walk…with bad hygiene, trying to get close to women? I think you’re with a lack of observational skills so horrid I wouldn’t trust you to tell me the colour of the sky, much less put any stock whatsoever in your opinions.
I am a woman who fully participates in the ‘process’. The process of working hard for a living…and always endeavoring to be a good person…and oh have I ever got truth to tell, to those who are capable of receiving. Why don’t you rape somebody elses ears with your nonsense.
Right, I’m off to shout at some cops now and rage against the machine…maybe wrap some kittens up in an American flag and burn it. You know how I do, don’t ya JeffR. Your marksmanship leaves plenty to be desired. Dishonorable discharge.
PS- Orion… <3[/quote]
Translation: I was right on every score (including gender).
JeffR
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Economics was never my strong suit. But, you don’t have to be a Harvard Professor of economics to understand that the USA isn’t in danger of economic collapse.
[/quote]
Economics isn’t your strong suit and neither is analysis.
We have a strong GDP only because other countries allow us to borrow from them assuming as some point in time they will be repaid. If you don’t understand that the American economy is based on debt (over consumption) then you understand nothing. We don’t own anything outright. Where do you think the money to pay them back comes from considering we have been running trade deficits for over 2 decades?
How long do you think it will take for the rest of the world to realize our money is just paper?
Read today’s Mises article for an illustration:
[center]Rockwell’s Thirty-Day Plan
by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.[/center]
When Eastern Europe broke free in 1989, we all realized just how little thought had been given to the transition from socialism to capitalism. Mises had told us the collapse was coming, and we should have been prepared.
As America comes to resemble a command economy, we need a transition plan here too. Yuri Maltsev proposed a “One-Year Plan” for the U.S.S.R. We’re not in that bad a shape (yet), so we could do it in 30 days.
[i]Ouch, this is going to sting at first but soon you'll forget as you become healed.[/i]