Election of 2012....Who ya got?

EasyEJL

EasyEJL

Never enough
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
That's absolutely not true. The "people's" incomes would have to contract with the overall price structure. Less people would have jobs also as companies sought out more automation to control cost in a deflationary environment. As incomes contract so does purchasing power further exacerbating the cost structure for companies.
no, it doesn't. If with 100 employees, a factory makes 10 million widgets and charges $5 each then automates and can make 20 million widgets at $3.00 each it doesn't change what they pay each employee. The widgets get cheaper from efficiency. Inflation is an enemy to that.

deflation only hurts like you are saying on natural resources that are non-replaceable. Deflation in the price of iron ore, uranium, etc would be bad. deflation in the price of a car isn't.


As our money becomes more valuable relative to foreign currency exports would suffer. More jobs would begin to be pushed overseas to lower price producers.

In this scenario it's difficult to see the standard of living becoming better.
Nope, the reverse happens. our country continues to become more efficient, as we can continue to invest in our country and value isn't lost to inflation. So even though the value of our dollar is high, we could build cars for example for far less than even China could.

When you go back to tying the value of a dollar back to $35/oz of gold (ok today $1500/oz) and lock it there its not a case anymore of the dollar being more valuable compared to other currency. Its that the dollar is a stable currency, not a manipulated one. In the end, whether the sticker on the escalade is $55,000 $200 or $2,500,000 in USD, the ability to produce it more cheaply due to further internal investment in the US will make it cheaper to export.
 
Geoforce

Geoforce

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
Also, I am going to make an assumption (not a good ideas know) but if you are using the computer and living in this country, you are probably still doing better than over 90% of the rest of the world. So evidently, it's still not too bad.
Some truth in this. I used to hang out on a board that was largely hard core libertarians always talking about how horrible things were. The vast majority of these people were at home most of the day and very well off. Even though I agreed at times with a lot of what they said, them whining about how horrible their existence was because of the government was laughable. Their lives consisted of playing internet poker, playstation, and delivery pizza. I was always like "I think a LOT of people in the world would trade places with you." About the only thing the government had failed to provide them with was a girlfriend.
 
Rahl

Rahl

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Some truth in this. I used to hang out on a board that was largely hard core libertarians always talking about how horrible things were. The vast majority of these people were at home most of the day and very well off. Even though I agreed at times with a lot of what they said, them whining about how horrible their existence was because of the government was laughable. Their lives consisted of playing internet poker, playstation, and delivery pizza. I was always like "I think a LOT of people in the world would trade places with you." About the only thing the government had failed to provide them with was a girlfriend.
LMFAO!
 
EasyEJL

EasyEJL

Never enough
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Also, I am going to make an assumption (not a good ideas know) but if you are using the computer and living in this country, you are probably still doing better than over 90% of the rest of the world. So evidently, it's still not too bad.
Some truth in this. I used to hang out on a board that was largely hard core libertarians always talking about how horrible things were. The vast majority of these people were at home most of the day and very well off. Even though I agreed at times with a lot of what they said, them whining about how horrible their existence was because of the government was laughable. Their lives consisted of playing internet poker, playstation, and delivery pizza. I was always like "I think a LOT of people in the world would trade places with you." About the only thing the government had failed to provide them with was a girlfriend.
this all may be true, but how much better we are doing vs the rest of the world is in a constant decline. If we were doing four times as well as the rest of the world in 1980, we're only doing 2 times as well now.

People who live at poverty level in the US overall live better than middle class in 99% of the world. bigger housing, air conditioning, cars, televisions, etc.
 
Geoforce

Geoforce

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
this all may be true, but how much better we are doing vs the rest of the world is in a constant decline. If we were doing four times as well as the rest of the world in 1980, we're only doing 2 times as well now.

People who live at poverty level in the US overall live better than middle class in 99% of the world. bigger housing, air conditioning, cars, televisions, etc.
While this is true a lot of it has just as much to do with other areas increasing their quality of life. The fact is post World War II we were in a great place to be a dominant superpower for a time as many other areas of the world rebuilt. Is it bad that other areas of the world are driving more, getting more technology, getting access to better health care as they become more developed and more like us? Certainly not. But Americans are always so wanting to show how much better we are at every single aspect of everything and we talk about "our decline" if others are catching up in certain areas. It's always been "American decline" and never "German ascension" or something like that.*

*Obviously I'm not saying things are going especially great in the United States...but it seems as if we often neglect to point out the fact that some countries are really just developing when we look at these metrics and see how much "ground" we're losing.
 
Rahl

Rahl

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
no, it doesn't. If with 100 employees, a factory makes 10 million widgets and charges $5 each then automates and can make 20 million widgets at $3.00 each it doesn't change what they pay each employee. The widgets get cheaper from efficiency. Inflation is an enemy to that.

deflation only hurts like you are saying on natural resources that are non-replaceable. Deflation in the price of iron ore, uranium, etc would be bad. deflation in the price of a car isn't.

Nope, the reverse happens. our country continues to become more efficient, as we can continue to invest in our country and value isn't lost to inflation. So even though the value of our dollar is high, we could build cars for example for far less than even China could.

When you go back to tying the value of a dollar back to $35/oz of gold (ok today $1500/oz) and lock it there its not a case anymore of the dollar being more valuable compared to other currency. Its that the dollar is a stable currency, not a manipulated one. In the end, whether the sticker on the escalade is $55,000 $200 or $2,500,000 in USD, the ability to produce it more cheaply due to further internal investment in the US will make it cheaper to export.
So your saying that leaving the gold standard stopped innovation? That we would have automated more if we had stuck with the gold standard?

If we adopt the gold standard apple will be able start producing iPads in the US? I don't think so. I'm sure this is where government regulations come I to play?
 
Rahl

Rahl

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
While this is true a lot of it has just as much to do with other areas increasing their quality of life. The fact is post World War II we were in a great place to be a dominant superpower for a time as many other areas of the world rebuilt. Is it bad that other areas of the world are driving more, getting more technology, getting access to better health care as they become more developed and more like us? Certainly not. But Americans are always so wanting to show how much better we are at every single aspect of everything and we talk about "our decline" if others are catching up in certain areas. It's always been "American decline" and never "German ascension" or something like that.
"German Ascension" are words that scare a lot of people.

Some would prefer the good old days when an employer could pay you in company money that could only be spent in the company store.
 
Geoforce

Geoforce

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
"German Ascension" are words that scare a lot of people.

Some would prefer the good old days when an employer could pay you in company money that could only be spent in the company store.
Yeah I could (and maybe should) have picked another country. But still, us losing ground to country X in certain metrics because country x is improving its quality of life and becoming more like us is NOT a bad thing for the world at all.
 
CDB

CDB

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
That's absolutely not true. The "people's" incomes would have to contract with the overall price structure.
Yes. All prices would go down. That's the point, and the necessary first step to correcting the problem.

Less people would have jobs also as companies sought out more automation to control cost in a deflationary environment. As incomes contract so does purchasing power further exacerbating the cost structure for companies.
This is the downward spiral argument and it's bunk. The problem is manufacturers aren't producing what people want in the right amounts to begin with. Spending doesn't grow an economy, savings does. Prices for labor and consumer goods would drop but prices for capital good plummet. Which means it costs less to produce things, wage drop not withstanding. The 'race the the bottom' argument simply isn't true, if it were we never would have progressed out of the stone age.

In this scenario it's difficult to see the standard of living becoming better.
That's because it has to get worse for some before it can get better for everyone. The only alternative is to keep dumping money into the system hoping to keep the inflationary bubble going, but the root problem is it is unsustainable by nature and will bust eventually anyway. The wealth and standard of living you're trying to preserve is illusory to begin with.

Automation is what I do for a living so I fully understand its effect on employment.
No, you don't. Just because someone may be replaced with a machine doesn't necessarily make him or society worse off. It makes society better off because he is being replaced with a more productive process. It makes him better off too, so long as the government isn't kicking the economy in the balls repeatedly and stifling re employment options. Once more, what's the alternative? If automation is so bad for people why aren't we still in caves fending off the horror of all the gatherers who would be put out of work by this horrible new invention: the plow. Christ, if people could grow tons of food in one field, what would all those gatherers do for work?! And the hunters should have unionized in opposition to traps. Who needs 'em when we have spears? And think of all the hunters put out of work by efficient trapping..
 
CDB

CDB

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
Some truth in this. I used to hang out on a board that was largely hard core libertarians always talking about how horrible things were. The vast majority of these people were at home most of the day and very well off. Even though I agreed at times with a lot of what they said, them whining about how horrible their existence was because of the government was laughable. Their lives consisted of playing internet poker, playstation, and delivery pizza. I was always like "I think a LOT of people in the world would trade places with you." About the only thing the government had failed to provide them with was a girlfriend.
So we should consider ourselve privileged because our rapists use lube?

Sounds like another state line to me. "Who are you to complain, you're not as bad off as people from INSERT THIRD WORLD HELL HOLE." So ****ing what? The point is I could still be a lot better off and so could they. What, I'm supposed to sit here and accept my annual ass rape because it's a bit more tolerable than Rupert Refugee from hell hole 6?
 
CDB

CDB

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
While this is true a lot of it has just as much to do with other areas increasing their quality of life. The fact is post World War II we were in a great place to be a dominant superpower for a time as many other areas of the world rebuilt.
Which is completely in contradiction to the prescribed methods for fixing our current problems, because the economists like Krugman trying to tell us how to get out of our current hole by spending like morons are the same dipsticks who claimed we'd go into a major recession after WWII because of the massive decrease in government spending in entailed.

*Obviously I'm not saying things are going especially great in the United States...but it seems as if we often neglect to point out the fact that some countries are really just developing when we look at these metrics and see how much "ground" we're losing.
Does a thief get to justify taking your car by pointing out that a lot people in the third world still walk or ride old bikes?
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
So we should consider ourselve privileged because our rapists use lube?

Sounds like another state line to me. "Who are you to complain, you're not as bad off as people from INSERT THIRD WORLD HELL HOLE." So ****ing what? The point is I could still be a lot better off and so could they. What, I'm supposed to sit here and accept my annual ass rape because it's a bit more tolerable than Rupert Refugee from hell hole 6?
I agree, Its all our responsibility to be activists, from rich to poor, from business man to the slacker, if we arent involved and together government/corporatations will conquer us.

The best time to complain is when we have it good. Thats the best opportunity, at least we are in a position capable of doing something especially at a time when decline is obvious. This doesnt require a life sacrifice to be active.
 
AE14

AE14

Board Sponsor
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
And exactly how does that small group corner the entire, or even a significant portion, of the gold supply? Such 'cornering of the market' is a myth. As they bought it and supply in circulation dropped it would command a commensurately higher price for one, making buying up the entire supply an impossible goal, especially since as the price goes up sellers will become more scarce. Second, unless they have the legal authority to stop people from using other means of exchange then once it becomes useless in that regard other metals and/or commodities can be monetized at will. Or in other words, the idea that one group will control the supply of gold assumes government control where none is being proposed, and seriously misunderstands the nature and origins of money to begin with.

And even if they managed it, unless they used that gold for something, there would no use in having it to begin with. So it would have to be recirculated, unless of course these hoarders plan to eat it instead of corn or meat, or drive it to work instead of a car, or use it to whack off with. Their needs would eventually force the recirculation of the metals anyway, because it's only useful as money if it's used as money. If they manage to hoard it and then swim in it like Scrooge McDuck, it gets spontaneously demonetized anyway.

See above. How do they get control over the whole supply? With the government that's easy: The Fed. That's what it's for. Without legal authority to force sellers to sell and to control the price there's no way to corner a market on a specific commodity, and then one would also need legal authority via legal tender or other laws to stop any competitive product from being used. Not to mention that even with a controlled price there would be a black market and this would spur production of more gold anyway. So this worry is largely a load of crap.

Markets are born of interaction, one party never gets to dictate terms unless they're holding a gun to the other party's head. Consequently if a whole bunch of rich people bought up all the gold, so what? We can use silver. Or copper. Or palladium. Or ****ing artichokes if we need to. Money is merely a third commodity used to facilitate exchange. And if gold is money and someone hoards it all, unless they can stop everyone else from using something besides gold, all the hoarders just did was ensure a solid supply of gold teeth for themselves.

A simple look at their voting records and what they have and have not done while in office shows Romney is a statist war mongering prick, so is Obama, and Paul is a legitimate believer in peace and small government. So to the extent you ignore reality and evidence, yeah, they're the same.

I have. I used to be one on the other side in a manner of speaking. Like I said, Austrians have an annoying tendency to be right way more often than not. And opinions may vary but there is this annoying thing mentioned previously called reality that you do occassionally have to check your opinions against in order to gauge their worth.
I apologize for the late reply. Gotta love work meetings, but I will be brief as I am not on my laptop keyboard

Just to address the idea of the "myth" of cornering the market, really? Look through history,it has happened frequently. No one is suggesting 100% control, but enough control to maintain power. Remember the quote from the earliest Rothschild, the one who controls the $ controls the power. I am paraphrasing of course.

I also think you are underestimating those that CAN control the supply, and overestimating the others. We could use silver or artichokes, but the question is will the majority of the general public do that? The answer is a resounding no.

Also, your focus on a$$ rape has got me a tad worried. ;)
 
EasyEJL

EasyEJL

Never enough
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
So your saying that leaving the gold standard stopped innovation? That we would have automated more if we had stuck with the gold standard?

If we adopt the gold standard apple will be able start producing iPads in the US? I don't think so. I'm sure this is where government regulations come I to play?
It didn't stop innovation, it reduced internal investment within the US, which cut back on automation, and production capability. More investors look at making investments elsewhere for returns because their true net return in the US was being reduced by the "quantitative easing" ie printing wads of money and devaluing currency.

with a gold standard, our currency is stable. Without artificially created interest manipulated by the fed, US treasury 10 year bonds would pay in the 5-6% range. People would invest more internally in the US in terms of hard investments. more money would be spent on production equipment, so manufacturers of that equipment would have more revenue to do more R&D. A company has cash on hand to buy a $10 million piece of equipment. The way the fed and inflation has set things up, their best bet is to try to put off buying it as long as they can while putting that 10 million into riskier investments.

Could the ipad have been built here? I think so, considering the ipods all were initially manufactured here. The only real "magic" outside of cheap labor the chinese had was their factories were so flexible that a significant manufacturing change could be put into production in 24-48 hours, like when apple changed the glass they were using for the ipads. In the US? probably would take over a month. Look at how production works on car lines, and how they change what is being built. The reason its such a hassle is that it isn't worth it for them to invest the money in the automation equipment partially due to goddamn unions, but mostly due to the longer they put it off, the more that money can be put into use in other areas.
 
EasyEJL

EasyEJL

Never enough
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Which is completely in contradiction to the prescribed methods for fixing our current problems, because the economists like Krugman trying to tell us how to get out of our current hole by spending like morons are the same dipsticks who claimed we'd go into a major recession after WWII because of the massive decrease in government spending in entailed.
[video=youtube;WEoGKpnutyA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEoGKpnutyA[/video]
 
Rahl

Rahl

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
It didn't stop innovation, it reduced internal investment within the US, which cut back on automation, and production capability. More investors look at making investments elsewhere for returns because their true net return in the US was being reduced by the "quantitative easing" ie printing wads of money and devaluing currency.

with a gold standard, our currency is stable. Without artificially created interest manipulated by the fed, US treasury 10 year bonds would pay in the 5-6% range. People would invest more internally in the US in terms of hard investments. more money would be spent on production equipment, so manufacturers of that equipment would have more revenue to do more R&D. A company has cash on hand to buy a $10 million piece of equipment. The way the fed and inflation has set things up, their best bet is to try to put off buying it as long as they can while putting that 10 million into riskier investments.

Could the ipad have been built here? I think so, considering the ipods all were initially manufactured here. The only real "magic" outside of cheap labor the chinese had was their factories were so flexible that a significant manufacturing change could be put into production in 24-48 hours, like when apple changed the glass they were using for the ipads. In the US? probably would take over a month. Look at how production works on car lines, and how they change what is being built. The reason its such a hassle is that it isn't worth it for them to invest the money in the automation equipment partially due to goddamn unions, but mostly due to the longer they put it off, the more that money can be put into use in other areas.
So where was elsewhere if the whole
world has been easing for years and chinas currency is intentionally undervalued? India? Pakistan?
 
EasyEJL

EasyEJL

Never enough
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
So where was elsewhere if the whole
world has been easing for years and chinas currency is intentio, nally undervalued? India? Pakistan?
Sure in those places too, but by elsewhere i meant not into manufacturing equipment, not into research and development on production. That's part of what led to the internet bubble and recession, and the housing bubble and recession. People and businesses looking to invest in something else, something that would offer a better return today. Investment in equipment for production happens when you start to lose grounds to your competition and have to, not so much proactively. Invest in software sure, virtual value just like the dollar is virtual money.

Sure its hard to compete with Chinese labor costs, but at the same time at the low prices they too don't invest as much into equipment. so it is possible to beat them, or Mexico if our money system was stable.

The other part of this is that anything can manage to look good for some length of time before it falls apart. You could go on a diet of under 10g of fat a day and it would look successful for months till the negative health effects caught up.

China is already seeing their stuff begin to unravel. When you artificially control exchange rates and still can't meet your own economic growth forecasts, there's a problem. and too even with their artificial currency exchange we still do export quite a bit to them.
 
Rahl

Rahl

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Sure in those places too, but by elsewhere i meant not into manufacturing equipment, not into research and development on production. That's part of what led to the internet bubble and recession, and the housing bubble and recession. People and businesses looking to invest in something else, something that would offer a better return today. Investment in equipment for production happens when you start to lose grounds to your competition and have to, not so much proactively. Invest in software sure, virtual value just like the dollar is virtual money.

Sure its hard to compete with Chinese labor costs, but at the same time at the low prices they too don't invest as much into equipment. so it is possible to beat them, or Mexico if our money system was stable.

The other part of this is that anything can manage to look good for some length of time before it falls apart. You could go on a diet of under 10g of fat a day and it would look successful for months till the negative health effects caught up.

China is already seeing their stuff begin to unravel. When you artificially control exchange rates and still can't meet your own economic growth forecasts, there's a problem. and too even with their artificial currency exchange we still do export quite a bit to them.
Ah I'm following you now. I asked because I'm honestly curious what happens if we pull out of this system and the rest of the world doesn't. Because they wouldn't.

Greenspan created the housing bubble I clearly remember. And that was to shift focus and pump up the markets after the Internet bubble burst. The artificially low rates are a killer. My savings does nothing. Less than inflation by far.
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Rand Paul has endorsed Romney, he is either a snollygoster, or he simply wants to protect his dads life.
 
AE14

AE14

Board Sponsor
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Rand Paul has endorsed Romney, he is either a snollygoster, or he simply wants to protect his dads life.
or it is a deal to get a Paul on the ticket and pull in Paul supporters.

save his life? :lol: <puts tinfoil hat back on>
 
Whacked

Whacked

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
Im not a huge fan of Romney but anyone is better than this Marxist Commy we have in there now.

That said, until this past week, I had Obama with the edge (only b/c he appeals to the lazy masses with entitlement syndrome and b/c he is the smoothest liar I have ever seen) but I think Romney now has the edge.

PS: Does Obama even work anymore? Dude is in bed with Hollywood 24/7 and partying like a rockstar.

Worst president ever.
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
or it is a deal to get a Paul on the ticket and pull in Paul supporters.

save his life? :lol: <puts tinfoil hat back on>
Yes, tinfoil people are smarter than the average bear!

You bring up another good point though, maybe this brings strong emotion out of people and gives Ron P. stronger support.

Im not a huge fan of Romney but anyone is better than this Marxist Commy we have in there now.

That said, until this past week, I had Obama with the edge (only b/c he appeals to the lazy masses with entitlement syndrome and b/c he is the smoothest liar I have ever seen) but I think Romney now has the edge.

PS: Does Obama even work anymore? Dude is in bed with Hollywood 24/7 and partying like a rockstar.

Worst president ever.
I still dont see how Obama is a marxist. For example, forcing people to purchase insurance is far from socialist, its totally fascist.

Benito Mussolini is a better man to compare Obama too....but keep in mind Romney is a clone of Obama, if he wins other than the TV acting, all the corporate powers will continue to be in play, all the wars will continue to expand and grow, the military industrial complex will continue to propel, nothing will change.
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
PS: Does Obama even work anymore? Dude is in bed with Hollywood 24/7 and partying like a rockstar.

Worst president ever.
A part of political propaganda is to turn these politicians into celebrities. After all, these elections are only popularity contests, it has nothing to do with picking the best person to lead the nation. Infiltration of Hollywood brings powers to control mind to the masses (look at the Cultural Revolution in China, how Madam Mao was a movie director and made communist party films.)

Look how the queen of England and the prince/princess, etc...are worshiped even get live airtime the other day on every single news network (for that anniversary). Look how many people drool over bullcrap and their weddings, etc....
 
Whacked

Whacked

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
tru dat :(
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
I think what we have here is potentially Ron Paul and his crew selling out to the Republican Party.

What Rand Paul did is disgusting, he has politically betrayed all his supporters and my gut tells me Ron Paul will be blending in and getting a chair in the Romney campaign and becoming irrelevant.

I warned not to get all jolly tongued over this guy (so did AE14, he deserves credit as well).
 
carpee

carpee

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
I think what we have here is potentially Ron Paul and his crew selling out to the Republican Party.

What Rand Paul did is disgusting, he has politically betrayed all his supporters and my gut tells me Ron Paul will be blending in and getting a chair in the Romney campaign and becoming irrelevant.

I warned not to get all jolly tongued over this guy (so did AE14, he deserves credit as well).
at this point in the election cycle, they have to get Obama out.

it's not just about the NDAA, no matter how tyrannical it is

the globalists, theocratic world govt agenda is going to happen regardless
 
AE14

AE14

Board Sponsor
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Yes, tinfoil people are smarter than the average bear!

You bring up another good point though, maybe this brings strong emotion out of people and gives Ron P. stronger support.
I think that Rand will be a strong component in the campaign in an attempt to bring the Paul supporters in line with "the party"
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
I think the Bilderberg Group may possibly pick Marco Rubio as Romney's running mate.
Looks like the Bilderberg group are still considering selecting Rubio as I guessed back in April.

"Marco Rubio is being thoroughly vetted as part of our process,"
Romney said during a campaign stop in Holland, Mich.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/06/marco-rubio-vice-president-/1?loc=interstitialskip#.T-HFx_WwUyq
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
I keep hearing all this talk on Romney's tax records.

Its so silly and why would that change anything if he payed taxes or not?

Its detracting from the fact that the income tax is unconstitutional and illegal and these types of issues shouldnt exist.

All these debates of 27% or 29% is a primary focus when it really should be talks of going back to 0% prior to the 1913 Federal Reserve taking its illegal existence with the Glass-Owen Bill followed by the Sixteenth Amendment followed by WWI in 1917 propelling us into the Global Military Industrial Complex, etc...

There are no free people in America as long as they dont own the fruits of their labor.
 
carpee

carpee

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
the Romney tax attack is just smoke and mirrors so no one focuses on Obamas college records or origin.

its classic Axelrod - attack and demonize your opponent before they can do it to you. it's how Obama won the senate and it's a means to detract attention from his failed presidency.
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
the Romney tax attack is just smoke and mirrors so no one focuses on Obamas college records or origin.

its classic Axelrod - attack and demonize your opponent before they can do it to you. it's how Obama won the senate and it's a means to detract attention from his failed presidency.
Its illegal to get Obama's college records or any other of his past records. He made it illegal himself with one of his first 2 executive orders as soon as he took office, lol
 
carpee

carpee

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Its illegal to get Obama's college records or any other of his past records. He made it illegal himself with one of his first 2 executive orders as soon as he took office, lol
it probably wouldn't help him if people saw Marxist papers written by a foreign exchange student with bad grades, hahah
 
  • Like
Reactions: ax1
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
you cant be serious.
Obama barred the release of his own records as soon as he stepped into office with his first Excecutive Order #13489 "Presidential Records."
 
carpee

carpee

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
you cant be serious.
go look at the history of Obamas elections.

he demonizes every one of his opponents.

his own book talks about "Frank" referring to Frank Marshall Davis - card carrying communist, and Obamas mentor...
his book also says in college he attended socialist meetings and sought out Marxist friends.

what do you think his papers were about? what do you think he's hiding?
 
Whacked

Whacked

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
What does THAT tell ya! Scary times ;(

Obama barred the release of his own records as soon as he stepped into office with his first Excecutive Order #13489 "Presidential Records."
 
carpee

carpee

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
preaching to the choir.

it just amazes me they have the audacity to use that.

it goes back to "fundamentally changing" America.
we have a constitution based on freedom
and limited govt and people want to change that? hell no, we need to get back to that.

forward to what? is the question
 
carpee

carpee

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
another interesting aspect is Obamas proclaimed faith. he believes a sect of Christianity, liberation theology.

Dinesh D'Souza has a documentary coming out that talks about it.

they see Jesus as someone who wants to lead revolutions against capitalism...and has obvious ties with Marxism.
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
another interesting aspect is Obamas proclaimed faith. he believes a sect of Christianity, liberation theology.

Dinesh D'Souza has a documentary coming out that talks about it.

they see Jesus as someone who wants to lead revolutions against capitalism...and has obvious ties with Marxism.
Thats interesting, Ill keep my eyes our for it as I move "Forward."
 

D3Baseball

Member
Awards
0
I hope we all realize that the Marx vision of socialism is both fundamentally free and entails very small government.

Anyways, the President is not a socialist. He's been very much a moderate President, it just suits the wackos to paint him some other way. It's okay to not like him, but his being a "communist" is not a good reason. Judge the man based on what he's done in office, the thought that he has a secret plan that he wouldn't have done the first term is pretty silly. What difference would it make which term he wants to do his "communist takeover?" He'd have four years to do it, either way.
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
I hope we all realize that the Marx vision of socialism is both fundamentally free and entails very small government.

Anyways, the President is not a socialist. He's been very much a moderate President, it just suits the wackos to paint him some other way. It's okay to not like him, but his being a "communist" is not a good reason. Judge the man based on what he's done in office, the thought that he has a secret plan that he wouldn't have done the first term is pretty silly. What difference would it make which term he wants to do his "communist takeover?" He'd have four years to do it, either way.
I dont personally label him a "communist" I just label him a pro-corporate, pro-banking elite war time president, and a police state dictator (most executive orders in history) which is the way he has been running the executive office the past 4 years and flip flopped on all his campaign promises.
 
carpee

carpee

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
I hope we all realize that the Marx vision of socialism is both fundamentally free and entails very small government.

Anyways, the President is not a socialist. He's been very much a moderate President, it just suits the wackos to paint him some other way. It's okay to not like him, but his being a "communist" is not a good reason. Judge the man based on what he's done in office, the thought that he has a secret plan that he wouldn't have done the first term is pretty silly. What difference would it make which term he wants to do his "communist takeover?" He'd have four years to do it, either way.
maybe the vision is small government, but it's never actually played out that way...

and judging by what he's done in office:
-universal healthcare
-signing the NDAA, and the agricultural complex executive orders, the communications executive order, etc.
-openly pro union...planning a huge increase in federal employees under ACA (obamacare)
-increases the welfare state, unemployment/food stamps, etc.

not to mention all of his advisers and mentors are marxists...

but no he's a "moderate"...what a joke
 
AE14

AE14

Board Sponsor
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
I dont personally label him a "communist" I just label him a pro-corporate, pro-banking elite war time president, and a police state dictator (most executive orders in history) which is the way he has been running the executive office the past 4 years and flip flopped on all his campaign promises.
This^
 

D3Baseball

Member
Awards
0
I dont personally label him a "communist" I just label him a pro-corporate, pro-banking elite war time president, and a police state dictator (most executive orders in history) which is the way he has been running the executive office the past 4 years and flip flopped on all his campaign promises.
I don't agree with this, but this is far more reasonable

maybe the vision is small government, but it's never actually played out that way...

and judging by what he's done in office:
-universal healthcare Where? A Republican Congress wrote most of what went into the ACA
-signing the NDAA, and the agricultural complex executive orders, the communications executive order, etc. In the case of the NDAA, he openly opposed it, but Congress held it until he had to choose between not signing (military goes unfunded) or signing and just choosing not to detain people for no reason
-openly pro union...planning a huge increase in federal employees under ACA (obamacare) Some would call this "pro-jobs"
-increases the welfare state, unemployment/food stamps, etc. Uh huh...

not to mention all of his advisers and mentors are marxists...lol...not exactly true, but again, what would be wrong with knowing people that have different political beliefs? I think much of what libertarians say is nuts, but that doesn't mean I don't want them around or to hear their input.

but no he's a "moderate"...what a joke
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
I don't agree with this, but this is far more reasonable
I did vote for him believe it or not based on his inspiring campaign in 08. took me about 4-5 months after he took office before I started questioning what was happening and slowly turned on him.
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
I don't agree with this, but this is far more reasonable
I noticed you commented on Carpee's quote.

For your response "In the case of the NDAA, he openly opposed it, but Congress held it until he had to choose between not signing (military goes unfunded) or signing and just choosing not to detain people for no reason"

I condemn both sides for having this bill passed. Even if he chose not to detain people for no reason, we have a Constitution set in place for the protection of our liberties. Your laying the stepping stones for a grim future. You can tell he is a hypocrite though as he already ordered a hit on an American without trial before ever even signing the bill, although he claims he would never use those powers.

Besides NDAA, Obama has extended the Patriot act (which he campaigned against), and earlier this year signed an executive order (which he also campaigned against executive orders only to make the all time record, lol) "National Defense Resources Preparedness Act" which allows military to take our property and force us to military labor. With TSA expansion and 30,000 drones being put up in the air to further serveil us the country is turning into a police state cesspool. Im convinced his initial opposition of it was all a show based on his consistent pro police state policy.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/03/16/executive-order-national-defense-resources-preparedness

Universal Health Care - Where? A Republican Congress wrote most of what went into the ACA


Obama did not sign Universal Health Care. He signed a bill that mandates the purchase of insurance product. The bill also increased the IRS by 16,000 agents to enforce the law further. This increases the unconstitutional income tax and its enforcement. The bill also funds the Obama Civilian Army and other things but Im trying to keep this short, lol

I personally supported some kind of public option, minus the IRS...or wouldnt have been as upset if this was some type of "Medicare for All" while having health insurance as an additional option for the consumer.

Obama care is not Universal Health Care and my teeth grind everytime someone tells me Obama "gave" everyone "health care."

not to mention all of his advisers and mentors are marxists...lol...not exactly true, but again, what would be wrong with knowing people that have different political beliefs? I think much of what libertarians say is nuts, but that doesn't mean I don't want them around or to hear their input.

What is more alarming (well Im not suprised anymore) to me is the amount of Goldman Sachs personal have positions in the Obama administration. I can get into wondering why Obama would appoint a eugenicist (John P. Holdren, who even wrote about about it including the support for infanticide and sterilizing the population by putting drugs in the public water supply, etc...) as his primary science czar but Ill save that for another time :)
 

Similar threads


Top