• Welcome to BellGab.com Archive.
 

October Surprise

Started by Zircon, July 20, 2012, 12:33:34 PM

Zircon

MV (your #58). You make very good points and I can't argue with your assessment of either Obama or Romney. Nothing is seriously going to change if Mitt wins. The "change" that would occur is that we'd do something about taxes and Obamacare and get rid of those who are systematically shackling our feet and hands. I hate this president because he is so arrogant, Narcissist and insults all of us when he opens his mouth.

It is shocking that around 40-50% of the American people are so fucking stupid they can't see this guy as a complete fraud. I guess their hatred of success, business and republicans is so engrained they can't see what fools they are. Whoever gets elected is looking out for their own crowd and not really a knight in shining armor for the masses. That "savior" bullshit has never been true anywhere or at anytime. Yet it is peddled each election cycle and people buy into it.

Also notice how neither candidate has really elaborated on just what it is they're going to do to save our nation. They are too busy telling the people what a fucking jerk the other guy is. People are not thinking anymore with their brains. They are feminized and emotional.

Yep, Obama creates jobs. No he doesn't. McDonalds and the gas station you refer to. Also repo and collections callers and phone solicitations jobs are up. Notice how many universities have popped up in the last 3-5 years? All wanting a slice of that federal education budget. What a fucking industry!

MV/Liberace!

Quote from: Zircon on July 25, 2012, 11:04:44 AM
The "change" that would occur is that we'd do something about taxes and Obamacare and get rid of those who are systematically shackling our feet and hands.


i just don't see this as the result of a romney win.  i can't.  under romney, i think obama's health legislation will remain and tax law will go on as it has for generations with virtually zero meaningful reform. 


for a long time i supported republicans thinking they were the solution for tax reform, etc..  how jaded i've become. 


i MIGHT agree with your assessment above (or at least hold out hope) if the republican nominee were anyone BUT romney.  however, he's not someone likely to make waves or fundamentally reform anything.  on the contrary, romney is a safe, establishment approved candidate who, as governor, signed a very similar health care bill into law in massachusetts.  how is he going to debate obama on this issue with ANY credibility in the coming months?  you're in for 4-8 years of disappointment if this empty suit gets elected. 


beyond all of this, romney is just a difficult man to like.  not so with the president.  obama is extremely likable, and if it weren't for the fact that he's an america hating marxist, he'd own the country.


also, the economy is so fundamentally flawed i don't think it CAN be fixed.  my instincts tell me we've not hit bottom, and when it happens during the next presidential term, the party in the white house will be TOAST.  if you call yourself a republican, i'm not so sure having your man in the white house during the coming four years will be beneficial to the party.

MV/Liberace!

Quote from: MV on August 03, 2012, 01:02:25 PM
...he's not someone likely to make waves or fundamentally reform anything.  on the contrary, romney is a safe, establishment approved candidate who, as governor, signed a very similar health care bill into law in massachusetts.  how is he going to debate obama on this issue with ANY credibility in the coming months?  you're in for 4-8 years of disappointment if this empty suit gets elected.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/08/andrea-saul-health-care-romney-/1#.UCLX8E2PWb8

Quote from: MV on August 03, 2012, 01:02:25 PM
i just don't see this as the result of a romney win.  i can't.  under romney, i think obama's health legislation will remain and tax law will go on as it has for generations with virtually zero meaningful reform. 

Depends on Congress.  If the House passes a repeal bill and it gets thru the Senate - which I think it would, Romney will sign it.  But they would do well to retain the portions of it that are beneficial.  Repeal and return to the previous status quo wouldn't be acceptable either.  Health care in this country badly needs market based reform.

Quote from: MV on August 03, 2012, 01:02:25 PM
for a long time i supported republicans thinking they were the solution for tax reform, etc..  how jaded i've become. 

The RINOs and 'moderates' aren't useful, that's why the Tea Party candidates are taking them out one by one.  The Bush/McCain/McConnell/Lindsay Graham types are not helpful to the party or the country.  Romney may be one of those, but he knows which way the wind is blowing.  And he's not Obama.

Quote from: MV on August 03, 2012, 01:02:25 PM
beyond all of this, romney is just a difficult man to like.  not so with the president.  obama is extremely likable, and if it weren't for the fact that he's an america hating marxist, he'd own the country.

Obama can't run on his record, he can't run on that health care bill, he can't run on the economy, he can't run the same campaign as last time - hope, change, bringing us all together.  All he has is his 'likeability, and every lie, every hit ad, every attack on entrepeneurs and the middle class he just looks more and more like the Chicago machine politician that he is - and less and less 'likeable.  This campaign is really going to test the ability of the media to get their guy re-elected.

Quote from: MV on August 03, 2012, 01:02:25 PM
also, the economy is so fundamentally flawed i don't think it CAN be fixed.  my instincts tell me we've not hit bottom, and when it happens during the next presidential term, the party in the white house will be TOAST.  if you call yourself a republican, i'm not so sure having your man in the white house during the coming four years will be beneficial to the party.

You may be right.  But I'd rather have someone that wants to fix things than someone actively trying to destroy the country.  I'd like to hear Romney say he'd throw out the Goldman Sachs types that Obama, Holder, and the rest of the administration favor.  That would be a big plus.

MV/Liberace!

Quote from: Paper*Boy on August 08, 2012, 07:13:01 PM
You may be right.  But I'd rather have someone that wants to fix things than someone actively trying to destroy the country. 


i think a catastrophic series of economic implosions and the ensuing chaos are what will be required in order to fix things.  we require a true reboot.  thus, if obama destroys our economic system more quickly than romney will (although both paths do lead to destruction), it means he brings us to the cure more quickly.  yeah, a screwed up view, i know... but i do NOT see any other way out economically.  we'll have to go through road warrior scenarios.

ziznak

Quote from: MV on August 08, 2012, 11:21:39 PM

i think a catastrophic series of economic implosions and the ensuing chaos are what will be required in order to fix things.  we require a true reboot... we'll have to go through road warrior scenarios.
REALLY?  you think this is unavoidable and will be THAT bad?

MV/Liberace!

Quote from: ziznak on August 08, 2012, 11:32:53 PM
REALLY?  you think this is unavoidable and will be THAT bad?


i think our national debt alone illustrates our precarious economic situation.  it is impossible for us ever to pay it back.  meanwhile, we continue to borrow.  i think nasty times are coming.

ziznak

I get that but do you really see a mad max scenario?  If so, have you stock piled enough ammunition?

Virtual

Quote from: MV on August 08, 2012, 11:21:39 PM

i think a catastrophic series of economic implosions and the ensuing chaos are what will be required in order to fix things.  we require a true reboot.  thus, if obama destroys our economic system more quickly than romney will (although both paths do lead to destruction), it means he brings us to the cure more quickly.  yeah, a screwed up view, i know... but i do NOT see any other way out economically.  we'll have to go through road warrior scenarios.

Last year us Occupy Wall Street founders had a party after King Bloomberg used para military tactics to take it down and more than a few people expressed the same sentiment. I was always a skeptic about the whole economic thing collapsing. That was until 2008 and I looked deeper into the subject. Now I just see the system as flawed and held together by paper.

Unlimited growth with a finite resource base is one reason. For instance.

We need that car because we want independence. Our society is planned around the use of a car which pollutes in so many different ways. If you don't own a car there is little recourse for many people around the country. Purchasing a car requires some sort of financing. Credit, which is the exact reason we are in an economic downturn. Keeps us as indentured servants to big banks.

But the issue is even deeper. Society as a whole is unable to see past their own ego. Past what we need right now.

Cities like L.A. and Seattle sold their trolly car system to a private corporations in the 1940's. The corporation bought these lines to close them and sell cars/buses, sell oil, sell tires. They ripped up all the trolly car lines. Now we pay BILLIONS of dollars (through financing) to rebuild those exact same light rail lines.

And we have Oil/Automobile industries spending hundreds of millions of dollars to PREVENT alternatives to oil based transportation even to this day. Plus our government subsidizes these industries.

But everyone. Keep your independence. We will just keep watching Corporations send jobs to China. A communist country BTW. We spent Trillions of dollars, killed millions of people and had a cold war to stop communism over 45 years. Then Corporations decide that Communism is good for corporate profits and we want to exploit that too. So now wages haven't increased for 15 years and we can afford all that paper financing anymore.

Why the hell don't we eliminate that tax break and give it to corporation who keep jobs in America. Because Corporations don't want those Trolley lines right now. Short Sighted. Sorry about the rant.

BTW, I have been hearing about October surprises for 3 decades now. If you keep saying it one day you might be right. Oh, let me go check the Lotto Numbers.

Quote from: MV on August 08, 2012, 11:43:26 PM

i think our national debt alone illustrates our precarious economic situation.  it is impossible for us every to pay it back.  meanwhile, we continue to borrow.  i think nasty times are coming.

The first step is to void all debt owed to China.  All the jobs that have been shipped there, all the technology they've stolen, the garbage they've shipped back - the poison dog food, exploding car tires, all the greenwall that had to be replaced, fish that had been laying in chemicals before being sent over here, and all the rest of the junk, lets just call it even.

Next up is Social Security.  We just can't pay it.  And just because the last generation decided to fund the prior generation through a government ponzi scheme does not obligate the current generation to do so.  Truly poor retirees could still get a check, but not everyone.
In fact we can repudiate most of the rest of the debt - if we do nothing, it will all start to go sour anyway, may as well make a clean break.  No one would lend to the govt after repudiation and that would mostly be a good thing.  In a few years, just like personal bankruptcy, people would be lining up to loan to a debt free America anyway.

Same goes for the states and cities with their bloated pension obligations - cap the pensions at something like $25k a year and no one gets a check until age 70.  Anyone retiring before that can save their own money for the years between desired retirement and age 70 when the check starts coming.  It's ridiculous cops and firemen retire in their 40s and 50s - when they get older they can move over to dispatch, training, investigation, commnity outreach, records, HR, management, not just sit home and live off the rest of us.

It's about the only way out of this.  Another alternative is to send these bills to the Democrat Party, the people that got us into this in the first place, but I don't think they can cover it either.


ziznak

Quote from: Virtual on August 09, 2012, 01:17:47 AM
Last year us Occupy Wall Street founders...
UH OH!  this threads gonna be a warzone...

Virtual

Quote from: Paper*Boy on August 09, 2012, 01:21:35 AM

The first step is to void all debt owed to China.  All the jobs that have been shipped there, all the technology they've stolen, the garbage they've shipped back - the poison dog food, exploding car tires, all the greenwall that had to be replaced, fish that had been laying in chemicals before being sent over here, and all the rest of the junk, lets just call it even.

Pipe dream though it would be cool. Here China, just take all these Ipods.

Quote from: Paper*Boy on August 09, 2012, 01:21:35 AM

Next up is Social Security.  We just can't pay it.  And just because the last generation decided to fund the prior generation through a government ponzi scheme does not obligate the current generation to do so.  Truly poor retirees could still get a check, but not everyone.
In fact we can repudiate most of the rest of the debt - if we do nothing, it will all start to go sour anyway, may as well make a clean break.  No one would lend to the govt after repudiation and that would mostly be a good thing.  In a few years, just like personal bankruptcy, people would be lining up to loan to a debt free America anyway.

In actuality there was suppose to be a division between those funds and the general fund. But it seems that since the LBJ administration the funds have been used to balance budget deficits all the way up to today.

From Yahoo - ""Here's how the raid works: The surplus payroll tax dollars go into the Social Security Trust Fund, which in turn uses them to buy special issue bonds from the U.S. Treasury.

Then Congress can use those dollars, in the Treasury, to spend on anything it wants. All that Social Security has are the bonds. The bonds pay interest, but Congress raids the interest, too, by simply placing more bonds in the trust fund. The trust fund itself is a FILING CABINET in West Virginia â€" it doesn't have any real funds in it and you probably shouldn't trust it."

It is estimated that Social Security is a viable system well into 2040's. That was if Congress. Whether Republican or Democrat didn't use it as a personal piggy bank.

Quote from: Paper*Boy on August 09, 2012, 01:21:35 AM

Same goes for the states and cities with their bloated pension obligations - cap the pensions at something like $25k a year and no one gets a check until age 70.  Anyone retiring before that can save their own money for the years between desired retirement and age 70 when the check starts coming.  It's ridiculous cops and firemen retire in their 40s and 50s - when they get older they can move over to dispatch, training, investigation, commnity outreach, records, HR, management, not just sit home and live off the rest of us.

I always thought it was incredulous that a person could heap on a bunch of overtime in their last year of service to boost the pension numbers. I think many things should be capped. Not only pensions, which have been gutted sold, and over financed to hell anyway. The only reason I see as to why there is such a huge level of propaganda about the stock market is because the whole Baby Boomer generation is betting on it for their retirement. Everything else takes a back seat to profits so pension plans and 401k's can stay as a viable retirement means.

But if we cap Pensions we also have to cap executive salaries and bonus's.

Quote from: Paper*Boy on August 09, 2012, 01:21:35 AM

It's about the only way out of this.  Another alternative is to send these bills to the Democrat Party, the people that got us into this in the first place, but I don't think they can cover it either.

Eh, Bush spent and spent and spent. Whether he had a Republican or Democratic Congress. There are 3 branches to our government. Each should be checking and balancing. Both parties have exploited and mismanaged every part of them for profit. Shouldn't Mr Bush Jr have thought that the fake war in Iraq would cost 2-3 Trillion before he did his John Wayne act. I want to send Rove and Cheney that bill.

Just like I am pissed at Clinton for letting Wall Street destroy a huge part of our country by eliminating glass/steagall.

Seems like something in our electoral process keeps allowing for short sighted, unqualified people to win office and make poor life changing policy/decisions. Perhaps we should find out what that is and change it before starting the micromanaging.

Virtual

Quote from: ziznak on August 09, 2012, 01:24:44 AM
UH OH!  this threads gonna be a warzone...

I am a true Libertarian in the mold of Art Bell. Whatever ideas people conjured up from the media war that ensued over those 4 months about Occupy Wall Street does not bother me. I know what REALLY happened. Don't believe anything you read or heard. If you want to know the real story just ask.

Once again, listen to George Knapp's show a few Sundays ago about how Media is manipulated. That is the control lever that kills the discussion and moves it to inconsequential conversations.

That is why Coast to Coast was such a great show many years ago. Because Art Bell kept the creative control. He kept the propaganda machine out of his office and aired what he thought was important. A real Libertarian forum.

Zircon

Virtual, I believe you are relatively new to this forum. I wanted to express my high regard for the quality of your posts. They fully explain your positions on the key points you're trying to make in a fluid manner. Further, we both agree on about 99.9% of those positions you've taken. Nice to see more people taking an honest look at things.

ziznak

Totally not what I thought was gonna happen when you got here Zircon... my mind is blown.

b_dubb

re: social security ... people are paying more into social security than they are getting out of it.  it's really just a second ... third? ... tax now. 

Sardondi

Quote from: MV on August 08, 2012, 11:43:26 PM

i think our national debt alone illustrates our precarious economic situation.  it is impossible for us ever to pay it back.  meanwhile, we continue to borrow.  i think nasty times are coming.

I think you're right. More than that, unless, beginning January 21st, 2013 (assuming George's Mayan Calenderians allow us to proceed after December 12th and/or 21st) we undertake sweeping, major, unprecedented reforms to the way we've approached governance in the last 80 years, I fear we're going to have a true big-G, big-D "Greater Depression". And I mean riots and blood in the streets.

I don't want to return this thread to the bare-knuckled eye-gouger that I to my embarrassment admit I engaged in when we addressed Iran, but I believe with all my heart that this county cannot ultimately survive, in its current and historical form, a second term of Barack Obama...unless he has a veto-proof Congress led by strong personalities committed to "conservo-libertarian" principles. The country which a Barack Obama would turn over on January 20, 2017 would be unrecognizable when held up to that from which President Clinton stepped down in January 2001. Which is what Obama's life has been about since he was taken under wing as a young adult by a coterie of committed leftists.

Let the games begin.

analog kid

More gloom and doom: There's something called the "three days to chaos" rule (or maybe it's six days) that says that, if the food supply in the US is interrupted, we have three days before the entire country and society collapses into complete violent chaos.

b_dubb

when Hurricane Fran hit North Carolina in 97(?) we were without power for 8 days.  instead of descending into madness people were sharing resources.  if someone needed something, there was someone willing to share or help find it.  besides if food trucks stopped coming to chapel hill nc people would just start thinning out the deer/squirrel/fish population and growing food locally or even in their backyards.  people who dish this three/seven day rule seem to forget that once upon a time everyone had to find their own dinner

analog kid

This rule I think was applying to Europe, but urban areas in the States would be a very dangerous place to be. I was without power for a solid month (and water for two weeks), after hurricane Rita. It was very brutal, hard to get supplies, ice was most important thing in the world, but at no time did anyone starve, because food was still available to everyone. When that supply stops completely, and all the grocery stores are empty, people are going to lose their marbles. I've also starved for an extended period of time after Hurricane Andrew in Key Largo, and I don't know if you've experienced significant starvation, but you are completely out of your mind and everyone is hyper angry, to the point were they are contemplating homicide all the time. When you are really hungry, you're shaking and willing to eat anything. When people get to this point, in many areas of the US, they are going to be paying you a visit to acquire your resources. It's a very different world than in the days of the Great Depression. We're very spoiled and rely completely on things that didn't even exist in those days.

b_dubb

that hasn't been my experience

Virtual

Quote from: analog kid on August 09, 2012, 02:49:08 PM
It's a very different world than in the days of the Great Depression. We're very spoiled and rely completely on things that didn't even exist in those days.

I grew up with my Grandparents for a large portion of childhood. They really had a different view of society. I remember going fishing and bringing in a huge haul of snapper. It filled a 32 gallon garbage can. All day we went around the town giving away snapper to the old timers.

My Grandmother grew up in a family with 14 children. Living in a house with that many people over a wide range of ages gives you a much different view of people and your personal role in society than we get today. Sadly that generation is fading away and we are left with the .... well I don't want to get negative after such nice thoughts.

Sardondi

well, let me bring everybody down then. Regarding an earlier offshoot of this thread and what appeared to be an attempted apology for Iran's nuclear program and an apparent claim its "foreign policy" is misunderstood.


I happened to see today links to this video http://youtu.be/s-3Qotue-b4


It is of Hezbollah Prime Minister Walid Sakariya, in which he clearly states that the very purpose of Iran's nuke program is to annihilate "the Zionist entity". For those unfamiliar with the insanity endemic to a significant portion of the population of the Middle East, "Zionist entity" is a euphemism for "Israel", a name which many fundamentalist Muslims will not utter because they refuse to recognize the existence of Israel (have they tried closing their eyes to see if Israel would go away?). Also many think they befoul their mouths by saying the word "Israel". It is unknown what the Muslim position is with regard to the half-life of "Zionist foulness", and how many centuries Israeli territory must be left abandoned after the "nuclear fuel" which Iran possesses somehow is used in a nuclear explosion in Israeli territory and "annihilates" (the PM's word) all Jewish occupants therein...along with everyone and everything else.

Quote from: Sardondi on August 09, 2012, 05:24:49 PM

It is of Hezbollah Prime Minister Walid Sakariya, in which he clearly states that the very purpose of Iran's nuke program is to annihilate "the Zionist entity". For those unfamiliar with the insanity endemic to a significant portion of the population of the Middle East, "Zionist entity" is a euphemism for "Israel", a name which many fundamentalist Muslims will not utter because they refuse to recognize the existence of Israel (have they tried closing their eyes to see if Israel would go away?). Also many think they befoul their mouths by saying the word "Israel". It is unknown what the Muslim position is with regard to the half-life of "Zionist foulness", and how many centuries Israeli territory must be left abandoned after the "nuclear fuel" which Iran possesses somehow is used in a nuclear explosion in Israeli territory and "annihilates" (the PM's word) all Jewish occupants therein...along with everyone and everything else.

The video says "Zionist enterprise" not "Zionist entity"
The "Zionist enterprise" is most likely the retaking of the 4 holy cities-of which Hebron is part of the West Bank.
Zionism-retaking the land that occupied ancient Israel-would involve seizing land from the Golan Heights, Syria, and Jordan.
oh and some of Lebanon too (the source of the video)

http://aboutusisraelis.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/map-of-the-kingdom-of-david-and-salomon.jpg

analog kid

I agree with Pat Robertson there - "Israel has 300 nukes, while Iran has none. Who presents the existential threat to whom?"

Ben Shockley

MV, do you really believe the political stuff you write?  Or are you just doing schtick?
You often seem too smart to really believe it.
Sorry for being away a while.

Quote from: MV on July 25, 2012, 10:37:31 AM
...the democrats/leftists are also responsible for america's decline because their hatred of and contempt for business has motivated them to implement confiscatory tax policies and burdensome regulations...
... liberals/progressives/leftists/democrats...harbor a psychopathic, suicidal hatred of business..."
First: the first incident I remember of ever hearing the word "confiscatory" was from Rush Limbaugh himself back around 1989/90; it stuck in my mind as some weird self-indulgent word --because it had been about taxes--  from a guy who sounded fat even before I ever saw him.
True socialists like me have no problem with "business," despite what you assert.  Unless you think that "business" means the absolute subjugation of workers and the total abdication of any social responsibility like paying taxes and mitigating environmental impacts.  Is that what you do in your "business?"
I am opposed to "murderous capitalism," not "business."   I hope you are not equating yourself with that, because I seriously imagine that the big capitalist boys would kick a "small business" guy (like you) to the curb quicker than you would kick a hungry person even on your meanest day.
Meaning: you have more in common with us who work for the working class than with the billionaires.   You ain't them, and they will quickly let you know it.

Quote from: MV on July 24, 2012, 09:25:52 PM
...anyone who thinks i didn't build my business is a fucking moron who has no real life experience, credibility, or remote sense of fairness.  oooooh, he wasn't talking about MYYYY business, you say.  he was talking about "other" business.  ok.  whatever.  nice sidestep of the obvious....
Right.  Has someone set you right in this yet?   I see that you have been watching only Faux "News" and their carefully edited version of the Pres's speech.   On the "you didn't build that" -- dude, you HAVE to get it that he had led into that line with all kinds of set-up about community infrastructure; the idea being that all the things that let you do what you do .... roads, schools, public utilities... YOU didn't build those!   Context/Syntax:  he referred to all the infrastructure collectively as "that" --  you didn't build "that."    For example, MV -- I doubt if you're going to try to claim that you built the phone lines and towers and everything that lets you run this site.  Are you?    All that?
Better yet:  even if you try to claim that, will you claim that you built them out of dirt and rocks, eschewing any previous human-community-built products?

Thanks to/for everyone who piled on me after I had the temerity to answer McPhallus calling me "arrogant."   But seriously--   look at the absolute / categorical statements made in here all the time, like MV going way over the top in writing about the Pres.    What DOES constitute "arrogant" to you righties?   I can only conclude that it's politically determined.

analog kid

By Pat Robertson, I meant Pat Buchanan. Big difference.

Juan

Ben, we talked about confiscatory taxes in the 60s - when Rush was still a high school DJ wannabe.  Of course, the top marginal rate was 70 some odd percent back then. 

As for the context of President Obama's "You didn't build that" speech, I find the context more troubling than the line. The context is that no one builds anything - only collectivism builds things.

Ben Shockley

Quote from: UFO Fill on August 11, 2012, 04:37:43 AM
Ben, we talked about confiscatory taxes in the 60s - when Rush was still a high school DJ wannabe.  Of course, the top marginal rate was 70 some odd percent back then. 
Nice try.  I didn't say it had never been said.  I said it was the first time I heard it.   God, you guys try so hard ..!!

Quote from: UFO Fill on August 11, 2012, 04:37:43 AM
As for the context of President Obama's "You didn't build that" speech, I find the context more troubling than the line. The context is that no one builds anything - only collectivism builds things.
Right.  Tell us how you built every link that lets you write in here.

Ben Shockley

...god, it's not about "collectivism," as if that is so bad...
Each of you you supposed capitalist heroes uses things built by others who came before.
Deny that.
Does your business use a water system?  Did you create it and build it?
Did you create the machines that dug it out?
God, can y'all quit trying to oppose Pres. Obama on any stupid artificial pretext and just admit that y'all can't stand a Black guy in the White House...?

Powered by SMFPacks Menu Editor Mod