Every day I visit tons of website, forums, and social networks for all types of topics, most of which are technology based in some sort of form. This election cycle has really brought out the best of the liberal “group think” mentality regarding Obama. On just about every social network Obama is praised as “the one” and any hint of disagreement with his policies or ideals is immediately responded with accusations of racism, or just plain insults. Anybody who wants to claim that liberals are tolerant to others, please give me a shout because I can quickly debunk that. Even here on our network of sites, there have been insults tossed at the slightest hint of either supporting McCain, or being against Obama. I’m certainly not saying conservatives don’t dish out their fair share, but the mentality of liberals has once again bordered on the insane and hateful.
It’s tough being a proud conservative, as I will say what I think regardless of what the group and mob mentality is. The real shame is so many people, especially bloggers in the tech area, are afraid to do the same. I have received so many private notes and comments in support of standing up for conservatism, it’s almost crazy. The best comparison I can make is how conservative actors in Hollywood are often ridiculed or turned down for roles because of their conservative beliefs, and the same mentality is going on right now in the blogosphere. Conservative bloggers, some of which can be considered A-list are having to remain silent about their thoughts on Obama and McCain, simply because they are afraid of retribution from their employers or just not being able to pickup work from other sites. It’s a shame, and it’s more telling about liberals than it is anything.
I am a conservative, I don’t like Obama, and I will never let anyone intimidate me because of that.
Your observational skills are generally lacking aren't they? I had a lengthy post in page 38 that apparently was overlooked by you, my guess is you had just been too blinded by ignorance to accept the fact that someone might differ from what your beliefs are and you simply skipped right over it.
Rather than being quick with a witty rebuttal why don't you actually try reading for a change, this is the 2nd time you've called me out for not participating in the discussion when I've had plenty to say. You know what they say... ignorance is bliss. Sounds to me like your in paradise at the moment.
No, I read it. And it's just one long op-ed right wing rant stating the same old outdated, thoroughly discredited dogma. Discredited in every way as you can cite no objective sources for any of it and have therefore taken no credibly debateable positions.
For example, from your SELF-LEGENDARY single post you refer to on page 38...
Patently absurd. Our Constitution's checks and balances are designed such that WE as a people, a government, and as a society make these determinations. Just because YOU don't like it, doesn't mean that America made this decision in error or that it violates the laws of our land.
WE, the educated and critically observant, shall agree on no such thing. From the armed forces to the police to the fire department to the etc. etc. OUR government does an excellent job of many huge organizations and none of these are "flat out broken". Again, when you resort to unsubstatiated hyperbole to support extreme and ill-informed positions, you open yourself up for quite easy rebuttals.
Misleading. While Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were incentivized to open up loans to a broader market in 1999, it was only when the Wall Street financial institutions created the CREDIT DEFAULT SWAP financial instruments (as a means of dispersing risky loans) and then took that to outrageous extremes that we ran into the current economic collapse. Basically, the Republicans (and Democrats, though they were in the minority for all of this) were paid by the Wall Streeters to deregulated the amount of assets to debts ratio that had sustained the market since the Great Depression (roughly 3 to 1). This ratio soared to 20/50/100 to 1 in some cases and you can tell which institutions crashed first when their notes came due. Now, NORMALLY, government regulators would have kept an eye on this, but Bush gutted EVERY government agency upon coming to power, replacing all the top tiers of every agency with unqualified political appointees. Those career professionals who weren't canned, often resigned in protest. You can trace everything from the failure of the Hurricane Katrina reponse to the Justice Department scandals to the tainted goods from China to the failure to monitor Wall Street to this unprecedented gutting of government agencies by Bush. So, you can SAY the government failed here, but it is MUCH more complicated than that. If all of the previous elements had not happened, SOMEBODY would have blown the whistle on this years ago...and SOMEBODY would have had the authority to act. There is PLENTY of failure to go around here and EVERYONE let us down.
Again, this is just a rant, stating a position that has been disproven by countless studies , etc. I hope that you are never in the situation many people are finding themselves these days. Not everyone who is broke and homeless started out that way.
Again, you are just spreading some right wing dogma that isn't making any real point here whatsoever. I think the point of the increasing the tax slightly on the wealthiest Americans is that Bush's tax cut did NOT provide the trickle down economic stimulus that he promised. So all Obama has been talking about doing is taking away the failed tax cut GIFT the wealthy got 8 years ago. Which means, if Bush hadn't given this away, the wealthy would have paid more for 8 years, and then be paying THE SAME AMOUNT now. So, you are complaining because it got easier for the rich for 8 years, and it's now going back to the way it was 8 years ago...when our economy was booming, unemployment was at its lowest, and our government was running a surplus and paying down its debts. The dollar was quite strong and the stock market was making real money (unlike the phantom money that just disappeared with the housing bubble).
So, he wasn't even asking for more than they were already paying 8 years ago. And yet, the right wing bitches as if he's talking about doubling their taxes. Puh-lease. They got a GIFT for 8 years and the CHEAPER RIDE is coming to an end.
Boo. Hoo.
Regardless, the American public has voted. A majority has decided that those tax cuts were a bad idea and we'd like to see our tax money reapportioned in a more humane and pro-American citizen way.
My position, as a businessman, is that I'd rather pay a little more in tax if my gross receipts are going up due to a strong economy (because I will be making NET a lot more money) than pay a little bit less in taxes off a shitty gross because nobody is spending their money.
A critical thinker would notice that your "post" is nothing but a bunch of uninformed "positions" presented as if they carried the weight of reason behind them. But they don't.
So the reason I ignored the post earlier is that you simply didn't say a single thing that added to the discussion. It was quite rightly dismissed as uneducated drivel. In this case, right wing drivel.
Now, can you counter this with any rationale arguments, or are you just going to rattle off more insults in an effort to dodge the actual points I've made?
The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.
Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.
The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.
Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.
''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''
What a load of nonsense that is. The government distributing money in a "humane" way? Oh goodness.
Tax cuts were not a failure, nor are they a gift. The tax cuts is what got us out of the first recession, and when those tax cuts expire, every taxpayer will get a tax increase.
You obviously don't understand how tax cuts work for businesses. They are not gifts, and businesses do take those tax cuts and reinvest in things like....well I don't know.....hiring people maybe.
The stock market was making real money? Things were just great? Where were you eight years ago?
The Dot-com bubble crash wiped out $5 trillion in market value of technology companies from March 2000 to October 2002.[11]
Some believe the crash of the dot-com bubble contributed to the housing bubble in the U.S. Yale economist Robert Shiller said in 2005, “Once stocks fell, real estate became the primary outlet for the speculative frenzy that the stock market had unleashed. Where else could plungers apply their newly acquired trading talents? The materialistic display of the big house also has become a salve to bruised egos of disappointed stock investors. These days, the only thing that comes close to real estate as a national obsession is poker.”[14]
You also may want to check your facts as the average unemployment rate was higher for the Clintion years 5.2% than for the Bush years 5.1% even including the fact that all thr Dot Com unemployment ended up in Bush's lap. That is through August of this year and since then it has gotten worse with mortgage crisis but statistically I would venture that it will end up about the same average as the Clinton years. The poverty index was 14.2 % under Regan, 13.1% under Clinton and and 12.4% under Bush again up to the present.
The staistics hardly add up to the " good old times of 8 years ago"
Well obviously you go through life with blinders on or live in pleasantville somewhere. And I'm sorry...but I don't go around asking people how they got here or what their nationality is. But I can see clearly that many make no effort whatsoever to learn our language or become a productive/contributing member of society...it has nothing to do with being grateful...it has everything to do with a free ride. They abuse the system for all its worth and contribute nothing in return except violence. I see it in the news all the time. I have no problem with immigrants wanting to come here...but use the front door please and work and contribute like the rest if us.
And if you can't see the difference between immigrants back then and now...I'm not even going to waste my time trying to explain it. And guess what...I'm not an immigrant in the sense that I came here from somewhere else...I was born a raised right here. And back then people made it a point to learn the language and become working member of society...and not through several generations...you had to know at least some of the language as well as the history before you could get in...and they did it by coming through the front door...not sneaking in or hoping a fence.
But...think what you want.
Man! I would like to meet one of those old dudes.
You got a mouse in your pocket?
Actually, if ya read your history, the colonies just bought the slaves, other nations captured and transported them here for the most part. As a second generation american,my family had nothing to do with that so I don't feel any guilt and if I did, how many years centuries should I feel guilt. When should the past be the past and just a learning point! Americans did worse to the native indians. We're still paying for that. Oh, and my family wasn't here for that either. Wonder why Puerto Rico doesn't want to be a state? They get more $$$ the way it is now, so why be a state. Wonder why the mexicans are still crossing the border? Guess they can still make more money here and get free medical. Oh and a Calif. drivers licence. WOM ponders if he left anybody out.
1k is definitely within our sights, here, folks!
Would that be a 1k liberal number or 1k conservative number?
Bullshit. See below.Hmm, seems as if I missed that part in the Constitution where it says the Government has the right to take some of my hard earned money and give it to people that are "Less fortunate".It's called taxation WITH representation and it has been the way of this country since it revolted against England for taxation WITHOUT representation. If you don't like the fact that this country spreads the wealth around a bit, you are welcome to leave. After all, every other country...oh wait...every other country spreads the wealth around MORE than we do. It's why they have longer life expectancy, health care they can count on, take care of their mentally ill so they don't go all postal on our children in college or high school, etc.So, you've exercised your position with your vote. The American way. And I voted to help those less fortunate, amounting to a 2% shift in taxation for upper income earners...LIKE MYSELF. I didn't find it unreasonable at all. After all, I've been rich and I've been broke before. I remember both very well, thank you.So, in four years, feel free to vote for the more selfish, less generous, candidate or party of your choice.
I am one man. I get one vote. And yet I am taxed hundreds of times more than other Americans. That's your idea of taxation with representation? So if the colonies of 1776 would have been given a token vote in Parlament you would argue that the revolution had no justification?
You have an interesting concept of compassion. You voting for me to pay for other people doesn't make you compassionate.
I find it ironic that on a discussion forum that I provide for free you would somehow imply that I'm the selfish one. I suspect I also give more to charity each year than most of the participants here too.
"If you don't like the fact that this country spreads the wealth around a bit, you are welcome to leave."
I won't be leaving but a lot of my wealth may be leaving the US. That's what happens when you raise taxes. The age of globalization is a good thing IMO.
I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
-Ayn Rand
A more apt quote cannot be had.
Alright, guys. Only 12 to go!
11
6?
User was banned for this post!
WHAT first recession? We were BOOMING under Clinton. The bursting of the Internet bubble wasn't a RECESSION, it was just the usual market correcting over-inflated BS. And do you think ANY recent market up and down compares in the slightest to the situation we are in now?
LOANS from the Chinese paid for that tax cut, which sank the value of the US dollar against other currencies, etc. There is no free money here. Bush just traded LOANS for votes that have to be paid for by the next two generations of American productivity.
As I said above, PLENTY of blame to go around. As I have also REPEATEDLY said, Wall Stree lobbyists bought and paid for EVERYBODY. But, regardless, no one in congress wanted to rock the money boat as long as everyone was profiting.
You will notice, however, that the Democrats were in the MINORITY throughout the past 12 years, which meant that the REPUBLICANS set the legislative agendas, called the votes, and wielded the presidential VETO that kept only the GOP agenda moving slowly through the halls of government.
I'd suggest you study how those checks and balances work a little better, because you seem to think that just because Barney Frank is the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee during these times that he was the Chairman of the committee (he wasn't the Republicans being the majority chose that). It just means he was the biggest tuna in the minority pond.
Either way, I've said they ALL deserve our scorn, but, under our system of government, the GOP party that has controlled the White House for 8 years and the congress for 12 bears the brunt of the blame.
In both the Dot-com bubble, and the housing bubble, that was PHANTOM value. It had no real tangible asset value supporting those numbers.
For example, someone bought their house for $100,000 in 2000. Then it went up to say $300,000 in 2006 and now has "crashed" back down to $150,000+. Now, the ignorant would claim that they "lost" $150,000. But in reality, their house was NEVER worth $300,000 EVER. It was all phantom, virtual, hype dollars.
If their house appreciated NORMALLY then it's probably worth right around where the housing market has bottomed out, maybe more due to a negative overcorrection. We won't know for another year or two.
So the whole point is that in these two bubbles, the values were NEVER real and tangible, supported by proper bona fides.
Neither the Dot-com bubble or this CDS housing bubble wiped out any real value for anyone. It was all an illusion created out of institutionalized wishful thinking. And now that REALITY has returned, we're going to take the next year or two to get everything sorted out and back to what their REAL value is.
I'm not asking for anyone to feel guilty. I was just making the point that he was hauling out the same crap that every generation hears when a new wave of immigrants arrives on our shores. It's always proven NOT to be true, one wave after another, one generation after another, for over two centuries now.
You also MAKE hundreds of times as much as other Americans. As a PERCENTAGE you are paying what everyone else pays + a few more percent because of the way our system is tiered. And because you have truly crappy financial advice.
He hasn't raised anything yet! And he certainly isn't planning on raising it any higher than you were already paying under Reagan, Bush Sr., and Clinton, for pete's sake.
As for me, I think we're ALL going to be paying the price for the Bush bankrupting of this nation for the next few years. Reduced discretionary spending is already spreading around the world, because this collapse is already rippling.
Good luck with your offshore tax haven research!
As for me, this country has been so damn good to me that a proposed slight change in the tax code isn't going to run me off. But I've never been a selfish person by nature.
Just bitter and antagonistic.
Interesting how Rand's ideals of "laissez-faire capitalism" that were so popular through this imaginary boom time have now come crashing down all around us. I've seen a number of good commentaries recently on how Rand is now thoroughly discredited.
Cain's words have come to symbolize people's unwillingness to accept responsibility for the welfare of their fellows — their “brothers” in the extended sense of the term. The tradition of Judaism and Christianity is that people do have this responsibility."
So I guess I'm curious as to why am I the one here giving the right wing conservatives (who presumably espouse "Judeo-Christian" values) today's lesson in "what would Jesus do?"
Again, the "strategy" from the conservative base here seems to be that they choose to hurl an insult in the hopes that we'll look past the fact that you ignored participating in the argument.
...or are you just trying to get the post count up?
it's like thread envy...
I'm buyin!
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
