1876 replies to this topic

[Sakura Blossoms]

So we ended up having to bail out Wall Street, so hopefully as a result we wont end up in the absolute financial crisis Europe currently finds itself in:

http://news.yahoo.co...inancial_crisis

[Strangelove]

This is what happens when countries that have lived beyond their means, have to come to terms in well, paying the bills...then when they start cutting down on spending the average living standard goes down.

What they could do though, is to monetize their currency, and print their money, okay sure inflation will go up, money will become worthless, and prices will rise, as well as personal savings will decimate. But at least you can create this fake prosperity for a few days...

Edited by Strangelove, 28 April 2010 - 03:56 AM.

[Sakura Blossoms]

But at least you can create this fake prosperity for a few days...

Lol, only a few days...

[Strangelove]

Lol, only a few days...

If your lucky a month or two, till the bills start piling up.

[Codus N]

Well, it's those kittenin' fatasses of Wall St. Lobbying. Hell, I'm beginning to start getting apaethic towards democracy & believe it doesn't exist at all. I've been reading Future of Freedom and boy, is Mr. Zakaria right.... democracy has been dead for over 40 years ago.

Edited by Sakura Blossoms, 29 April 2010 - 01:28 PM.
No cursing. Should know this rule by *now*

[Nee-sama]

Congress will discuss Puerto Rico today, if I understand it right. First, they will vote on the decision to leave its political status as it is, or change it. If they decide to make a change it could be come the 51st state, given

sovereignty --Click here to view--

"Sovereignty in association with the U.S., in which the two would form a political association between two sovereign nations in which Puerto Rico would not be subject to the territorial clause of the U.S. Constitution"

, or become an independent nation.

http://www.ballot-ac...to-rico-status/
http://biggovernment...-to-make-it-so/

I am curious to know what the people of Puerto Rico really want, and if adding a Spanish speaking state would really be as devastating as some make it out to be.

[Dreamer]

Well, it's those kittenin' fatasses of Wall St. Lobbying. Hell, I'm beginning to start getting apaethic towards democracy & believe it doesn't exist at all. I've been reading Future of Freedom and boy, is Mr. Zakaria right.... democracy has been dead for over 40 years ago.

Yeah kind of agree with ya, Repubs and Dems arguing at each other getting nothing done, majority of the senators come from wealthy families or don't know anything about middle class hardships/struggle, or just don't care with their fat paychecks.

CEO bonuses are ridiculous and shouldn't even have any considering how much they make in the first place.

[Sakura Blossoms]

Charlie Crist making things easy for Florida Democrats:

http://news.yahoo.co...senate_democrat

[Dreamer]

Correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't he the same republican govenor who had close ties to president Bush helping him when election, if so then there likely won't be a democratic senator.

Shauna may i ask, don't take it personal, but are you a biased democrat supporter? It seems almost every post and link you made refers to something bad about the republicans and uplifting for the democrats. Also the time i mentioned something about democratic member it felt like you got mad at me or offended.

Edited by Uzumakikage, 30 April 2010 - 08:36 PM.

[Nate River]

Correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't he the same republican govenor who had close ties to president Bush helping him when election, if so then there likely won't be a democratic senator.

Shauna may i ask, don't take it personal, but are you a biased democrat supporter? It seems almost every post and link you made refers to something bad about the republicans and uplifting for the democrats.

She's a Democrat. She's been open about it and said so several times.

Baised? Probably so, but no more or less than anyone else here. I really don't see the problem either. I'm a conservative (though Strangelove doesn't think so) and I tend to see the word that way. Most of her links are from yahoo who primarily post dispatches from the AP and, on occasion, Politico, Reuters, and Talking Points Memo: all, IMO, fairly liberal sources (though Kodachi would disagree with me on Politico). So, it's to be expected.

[Sakura Blossoms]

Correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't he the same republican govenor who had close ties to president Bush helping him when election, if so then there likely won't be a democratic senator.

Shauna may i ask, don't take it personal, but are you a biased democrat supporter? It seems almost every post and link you made refers to something bad about the republicans and uplifting for the democrats. Also the time i mentioned something about democratic member it felt like you got mad at me or offended.

What Nate said. I vote Democratic, and I've mentioned it more than once. *But* I'm a Democrat who only voted for Obama because he was essentially 'the last one standing'. Don't like how he governs, understand for the most part why he feels the need to gobble up everything private, and make it either a little or all-out government-run, but still don't like his politics.

I'm not sure what you mean by biased. Republicans look out for Republicans, Democrats look out for Dems, that's the nature of the game. Not really sure how I would be any more 'biased' than the next party member. And I don't remember at all this incident where you say I 'got mad at you'.

May I ask which party you support?

[Dreamer]

I apologise for asking, I must of been absent from the thread or due to a later member joining date. Well what i mean biased as simply as a majority supportive to democratic party over republican ideals./foundation, nothing offensive. I thought you were mad when, you know the time i suggested Obama should turn his blackberry phone off and ignore Beck comments ("step down from the high horse"), as a simple gesture of the president should seperate his high authority and responsibility from little celebrity matters like the Kanye incident as well. It just left me with the weird impression that you didn't like/want to hear any negative comments of the democratic party. Well I'm just a independent voter, i like to stay open to the running presidential candidates and their supportive beliefs and so on.

Sorry i couldn't direct quote ya, i'm using my PS3 web browser and it's limited to a number of words.

Edited by Uzumakikage, 01 May 2010 - 02:38 AM.

[Strangelove]

Here is the problem with Democrats and Republicans.
the Republicans "conservatives" claim "small government" yet they use big government in many areas, including foreign policy interventions, and drug prohibition, they claimed to support state's rights, but oppose such rights when it comes to medical marijuana. Also their desire for government intervention on social issues suggest that Republicans do not believe that people can make good choices on their own, and that government should intervene, thus making them a paternalistic type of party, in which the government knows better than the people being governed.

The Democrats "Liberals" believe that markets and other private arrangements work poorly and that government intervention offers the most solution to today's problems. They also pay lip service to the right to choice, the sanctity of life, and the values of helping the poor. They defend the right to choose when it comes to abortion but not in Paternal decisions about parochial schools. They argue about the sanctity of life when it comes to the death penalty but not in the case of abortion. They advocate anti poverty spending but oppose expanded immigration. Their desire that government intervention on economic issues suggest that Democrats do not believe that people can make good choices on their own, and that their government should intervene, making them a paternalistic type of party, in which government knows better than the people being governed.

This does not apply to every single one though, and some people are the exception.

Edited by Strangelove, 02 May 2010 - 06:56 PM.

[socermania2]

Here is the problem with Democrats and Republicans.
the Republicans "conservatives" claim "small government" yet they use big government in many areas, including foreign policy interventions, and drug prohibition, they claimed to support state's rights, but oppose such rights when it comes to medical marijuana. Also their desire for government intervention on social issues suggest that Republicans do not believe that people can make good choices on their own, and that government should intervene, thus making them a paternalistic type of party, in which the government knows better than the people being governed.

The Democrats "Liberals" believe that markets and other private arrangements work poorly and that government intervention offers the most solution to today's problems. They also pay lip service to the right to choice, the sanctity of life, and the values of helping the poor. They defend the right to choose when it comes to abortion but not in Paternal decisions about parochial schools. They argue about the sanctity of life when it comes to the death penalty but not in the case of abortion. They advocate anti poverty spending but oppose expanded immigration. Their desire that government intervention on economic issues suggest that Democrats do not believe that people can make good choices on their own, and that their government should intervene, making them a paternalistic type of party, in which government knows better than the people being governed.

This does not apply to every single one though, and some people are the exception.

You hit the nail on the head.
Most Democrats are fiscally liberal- more spending; and socially conservative- Gov't shouldn't choose stuff like abortion. It should be left to the people.

At the same time, Republicans are fiscally conservative- less pay, and socially liberal- Gov't should enforce abortion and so on.

[Zatren6]

What Nate said. I vote Democratic, and I've mentioned it more than once. *But* I'm a Democrat who only voted for Obama because he was essentially 'the last one standing'. Don't like how he governs, understand for the most part why he feels the need to gobble up everything private, and make it either a little or all-out government-run, but still don't like his politics.

Then why did you vote for him? If you didn't like anyone, you could have not voted at all, or you could have voted Independent. If you don't like him, what's the sense in voting for him?

If I may ask.

[Sakura Blossoms]

Then why did you vote for him? If you didn't like anyone, you could have not voted at all, or you could have voted Independent. If you don't like him, what's the sense in voting for him?

If I may ask.

I never said I didn't like anyone. There were other candidates that ran besides Obama, you know. And I never said I don't like him. I said I don't like the way he governs, and I am not the only one. Many people who were positively enamored of him when they voted for him are quite disillusioned now, and if asked if they would vote for him again right now can no longer answer with a positive yes.

And of course I still voted for him. I'm Democratic and am very loyal to my party. I will always vote Democratic. And given a choice between McCain/Palin and 4 more years of Republican rule after having to suffer under Bush, do you honestly think I would 'not' vote for Obama.

[Strangelove]

I never said I didn't like anyone. There were other candidates that ran besides Obama, you know. And I never said I don't like him. I said I don't like the way he governs, and I am not the only one. Many people who were positively enamored of him when they voted for him are quite disillusioned now, and if asked if they would vote for him again right now can no longer answer with a positive yes.

And of course I still voted for him. I'm Democratic and am very loyal to my party. I will always vote Democratic. And given a choice between McCain/Palin and 4 more years of Republican rule after having to suffer under Bush, do you honestly think I would 'not' vote for Obama.

You suffered under Bush :O, what did he do?

[Psss hey look im an Academy Teacher ]

Edited by Strangelove, 09 May 2010 - 05:46 PM.

[Sakura Blossoms]

You suffered under Bush :O, what did he do?

Is that...a serious question?

[Strangelove]

Is that...a serious question?

Yes? I mean did he send you to prison, spied on you? Stole your house? What sort of evil did Bush do to you to make you suffer.

[Nate River]

He destroyed our language everytime he talked, does that count? I cannot confirm or deny that he spied on us, however widespread wiretapping was in fact instituted. But I guess he wasn't Chavez.

I'm not sure why Strange asked that question, since everything that's going to be said has been said a thousand times. He likely knew the answer to his own question when he asked.

That said....is that really the best you can do?