Democratic Advantage in Party Affiliation Shrinks - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-07-2009, 12:47 AM   #31
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,641
Local Time: 03:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Ownership by the federal government of two car companies and nine national banks isn't status quo. Not in this country anyway.
This really is a weak argument. It doesn't matter if it was Obama, McCain or INDY as the President they would have all ended up doing the same, no economist in their right mind could find another solution. It's just conveinent for the Hannity folks that a Dem was the one who did it so that they can keep talking about it...

The free market failed, as it will sometimes, it's something you have to face.
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2009, 01:04 PM   #32
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 04:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluer White View Post
I agree. But I think in a presidential race Obama could pretty easily do an 'about face' on his 04 campaign rhetoric about Afghanistan being the 'right' war...and blame Bush for 8 years of underfunding and undermanning the fight there. Which is probably true.

What also is probably true is the country doesn't have the culture, the infrastructure, educated population, or natural resources to make it a viable place for nation-building or pacification. Under Bush or Obama.

Or the British. Or the Soviets. (from years gone by)


we don't often agree, but i do want to say that i appreciate your sensible, informed posts.

i'm coming to the same tragic conclusion about Afghanistan.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2009, 02:04 PM   #33
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 10:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Ownership by the federal government of two car companies and nine national banks isn't status quo. Not in this country anyway.
These days, you're almost tied with Strongbow as the most predictably partial neo-con bot. The financial crisis started under Bush's watch. Most of those companies were in the process of being nationalised under Bush's watch. You do understand that don't you? I charted it all here. No FYM regular has any excuse not to know what was happening because I outlined what was happening in real time and what was going to happen right here.
__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2009, 02:08 PM   #34
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 10:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
The free market failed, as it will sometimes, it's something you have to face.

"Governments and central banks were responsible for making credit too cheap - encouraging debt, and punishing savers. Bankers were merely the agents, the expression of something deeper. This was a government-created crisis. It would never have happened in a genuinely free market." - Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2009, 07:19 PM   #35
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Se7en's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: all around in the dark - everywhere
Posts: 3,531
Local Time: 04:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
"...It would never have happened in a genuinely free market."
haha, of course not!
__________________
Se7en is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2009, 07:48 PM   #36
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 03:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
These days, you're almost tied with Strongbow as the most predictably partial neo-con bot.
Opposing the nationalization of banks and auto companies, minimizing government interference in the markets, that is the position of a traditional conservative. A neo-con might actually support such policies.

So if you insist on calling me a bot then jeez, at least get my programming language correct.
Quote:
The financial crisis started under Bush's watch. Most of those companies were in the process of being nationalised under Bush's watch. You do understand that don't you? I charted it all here. No FYM regular has any excuse not to know what was happening because I outlined what was happening in real time and what was going to happen right here.

I'm fully aware of the timeline, but let us see if the president truly wishes to see these companies become self-sustainable and profitable again or remain very large and expensive "make-work" programs.

Quote:
"Governments and central banks were responsible for making credit too cheap - encouraging debt, and punishing savers. Bankers were merely the agents, the expression of something deeper. This was a government-created crisis. It would never have happened in a genuinely free market." - Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
And if you concur then I agree with you 100%.
__________________
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2009, 07:54 PM   #37
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 09:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
From 2005-2008, whenever polls negative towards Bush were mentioned, you told us the result of the 2004 Presidential election was the only result that mattered.
It was the only thing that mattered when it came to foreign policy and national security policy. The negative poll results changed nothing when it came to policy.

The reason I brought up this particular poll was because some in here had declared the Republican party to be dead and buried with the election of Barack Obama. Thats definitely not the case.
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2009, 08:08 PM   #38
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 09:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
These days, you're almost tied with Strongbow as the most predictably partial neo-con bot.
The small minority of Republicans that come to this forum are anything but "bots". In addition, even Barack Obama would fit under your definition of neo-con as would probably every US President since FDR.

Quote:
The financial crisis started under Bush's watch. Most of those companies were in the process of being nationalised under Bush's watch. You do understand that don't you? I charted it all here. No FYM regular has any excuse not to know what was happening because I outlined what was happening in real time and what was going to happen right here.
I think most people realize that and its also important to note that many of the problems that help lead to the financial crises started even before Bush came to office. I support what Obama is doing to try and stimulate the economy.
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2009, 08:16 PM   #39
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 10:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
It was the only thing that mattered when it came to foreign policy and national security policy.
You are on record on this forum, time and again, as saying that polls indicating reduced support for the Bush administration were of no importance on the basis that the 2004 Presidential election result was the only poll that mattered.

As such, you now claiming that what you were really saying was that the Presidential election result of 2004 'the only thing that mattered when it came to foreign policy and national security policy' is not simply an evasive misrepresentation of your own previously expressed point of view, but a simple, basic, straightforward lie.
__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2009, 08:20 PM   #40
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 10:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
The small minority of Republicans that come to this forum are anything but "bots".
Most of them aren't exactly singing your praises, which is interesting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
In addition, even Barack Obama would fit under your definition of neo-con as would probably every US President since FDR.
I would view Obama as an interventionist liberal rather than a neo-con.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
I think most people realize that and its also important to note that many of the problems that help lead to the financial crises started even before Bush came to office.
Drivel. You don't have a clue about economic issues. You've demonstrated that time and again.
__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2009, 08:23 PM   #41
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 10:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Opposing the nationalization of banks and auto companies, minimizing government interference in the markets, that is the position of a traditional conservative. A neo-con might actually support such policies.

I'm fully aware of the timeline, but let us see if the president truly wishes to see these companies become self-sustainable and profitable again or remain very large and expensive "make-work" programs.
The difference is, Bush was elected on the platform of fiscal conservatism.

Obama was elected on the platform of being a left wing interventionist, so unlike Bush, he is being consistent.
__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2009, 08:33 PM   #42
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 09:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
You are on record on this forum, time and again, as saying that polls indicating reduced support for the Bush administration were of no importance on the basis that the 2004 Presidential election result was the only poll that mattered.

As such, you now claiming that what you were really saying was that the Presidential election result of 2004 'the only thing that mattered when it came to foreign policy and national security policy'.
Nope, in terms of what was relevant as far as public opinion, the 2004 election still stands head and shoulders above any of the individual polls posted during that time period. They also definitely did not matter in terms of impact on Presidential policy which is what I thought you were initially refering too.

Not sure why your bringing this up in a thread comparing polls of party affiliation.
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2009, 08:39 PM   #43
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 03:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
The difference is, Bush was elected on the platform of fiscal conservatism.
Bush was a fine supply-side conservative (lowering taxes to stimulate economic growth with subsequent increases in treasury receipts). But he turned out to be a lousy fiscal conservative with huge increases in government spending, the national debt and a new federal entitlement all occurring under his watch. Not to mention TARP and the early rounds of auto bailouts.
Quote:
Obama was elected on the platform of being a left wing interventionist, so unlike Bush, he is being consistent.
No, he was sold as a consensus oriented centrist or moderate.
__________________
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2009, 08:42 PM   #44
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 09:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
Most of them aren't exactly singing your praises, which is interesting.








Drivel. You don't have a clue about economic issues. You've demonstrated that time and again.
Well, care to elaborate? Or is this just more baby talk?
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2009, 08:43 PM   #45
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 10:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Bush was a fine supply-side conservative (lowering taxes to stimulate economic growth with subsequent increases in treasury receipts). But he turned out to be a lousy fiscal conservative with huge increases in government spending, the national debt and a new federal entitlement all occurring under his watch. Not to mention TARP and the early rounds of auto bailouts.
Agreed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
No, he was sold as a consensus oriented centrist or moderate.
Yes, but we all know that really means. People read between the lines and voted for their bailouts and they got them - at least, that's my take.

Interesting article here:

Adam Smith would not be optimistic in today's economic world - Telegraph
__________________

__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Chain lyrics GAME... theSoulfulMofo Lemonade Stand Archive 578 01-14-2003 11:26 AM
Janet Reno's 'Dance Party' Gina Marie Free Your Mind Archive 4 07-20-2002 04:14 PM
Poltical Party affiliation (for the U.S.A.) Zooropa Free Your Mind Archive 19 06-10-2002 02:02 PM
andrew wk... Screaming Flower Lemonade Stand Archive 30 04-19-2002 09:16 AM
The MacPhisto Society, Revisited Echo PLEBA Archive 15 11-26-2001 03:01 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com