I agree 100%.
Perry isn't going to waste much time on the smaller issues. He's going to talk work.
Well no... he's going to pray a lot, kiss the right asses, hurt the right people and it won't matter. He's a very bad governor. He won't win.
It's almost -- almost -- to the point where ANY Republican would win over Obama. If the economy is still in the shitter a year from now, Obama will lose to almost anybody you throw at him.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
As long as the economy is good and people have job security and cash, it's easy to pull the wool over our eyes. For Clinton, the Dot.coms were issuing make-believe stock out, there were no wars or enemies, the Seattle music scene was hitting its peak, and the Slickster was nailing ugly women left and right .... times were good. And times have changed.
right ... but you could be in a time of no-war if it wasn't for the neocon admin ... and if you didn't deregulate everything - maybe the economy would be more stable ... ?? ...
Things aren't truly deregulated. If anything things are more overregulated than they have ever been. Things are so overregulated that the little guy can't even dream of competing with the big corporations. When politicians talk about "deregulation" they are really talking about more ways to regulate in a way that makes it easier for the fat corporate fucks to take advantage of loopholes. If we didn't have such protectionisms in place the corporations would be forced to actually compete on a level playing field as opposed to gaming the system. Increasing regulations only plays into solidifying those at the top. Sure, outwardly it looks like it affects them too, but in the end it stagnates everything.
Also, this Clinton taxes business annoys me to no end. Correlation does not equal causation. The government cannot create jobs out of thin air. Its inherent nature does not allow for this. All goverment can do is redirect the jobs in the market through spending to what some fat fuck bureaucrat at the top thinks is appropriate. Anytime the government "creates" a job, a potential job that would actually present real growth is not realized due to the redirection of resources.
I think someone earlier in the thread pointed out that the .com bubble was pretty much the reason for the booming economy...and because those jobs created by that bubble were not real growth, once it burst so too did those jobs. That has more to do with why things were good when Clinton was in office and why things went sour once Bush was in office. Bush's unprecedented (at the time) increase in government size and spending only managed to quicken how bad things have become.
I don't think there's a single administration in the history of America, neocon or not, that wouldn't be at war in Afghanistan right now.
Your point, vis a vis Iraq, is a valid one.
i don't want to derail the thread any more than i have ...
i just wanna say tho that afghanistan is a clustercuss and that the biggest area of gov't associated with fraud is the pentagon ... i find it incredulous that no one ever wants to talk about the corruption that goes on there ... was bombing the shit out of afghanistan the right approach or even justified? ... you found the fucker in pakistan ... now all afghanistan is ... is a nice fat check for defense contractors and paramilitary groups ...
anyhoo - i find it sad that people here would vote for an earthworm over obama ... partisanship is killing the US and this is why ...
I don't think there's a single administration in the history of America, neocon or not, that wouldn't be at war in Afghanistan right now.
i have to disagree with you here. we would be finished in afghanistan ages ago if we had not detoured and diverted all of our resources to iraq. only a neocon administration would have possibly thought going into iraq at the expense of winning in afghanistan was a brilliant idea.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
I don't think there's a single administration in the history of America, neocon or not, that wouldn't be at war in Afghanistan right now.
i have to disagree with you here. we would be finished in afghanistan ages ago if we had not detoured and diverted all of our resources to iraq. only a neocon administration would have possibly thought going into iraq at the expense of winning in afghanistan was a brilliant idea.
I am willing to concede the point that Iraq diverted resources and attention from Afghanistan. I'm still not sure we would be finished there had it not been for Iraq because I'm not sure the problem(s) in Afghanistan could be solved simply by funneling more resources and attention there.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
I don't think there's a single administration in the history of America, neocon or not, that wouldn't be at war in Afghanistan right now.
i have to disagree with you here. we would be finished in afghanistan ages ago if we had not detoured and diverted all of our resources to iraq. only a neocon administration would have possibly thought going into iraq at the expense of winning in afghanistan was a brilliant idea.
I am willing to concede the point that Iraq diverted resources and attention from Afghanistan. I'm still not sure we would be finished there had it not been for Iraq because I'm not sure the problem(s) in Afghanistan could be solved simply by funneling more resources and attention there.
i believe that had we not diverted troops, equipment, $, and FOCUS to iraq from afghanistan we would be done in afghanistan. or at least significantly less of a presence. they hamstrung our efforts in afghanistan by moving onto the boogeyman in iraq. then they had to occupy iraq while nationbuilding there instead of foucing on the task at hand, and that was to get rid of the taliban and try to get the afghans under some form of a stable government rather than continue to be a collection of lawless tribes, all while trying to help them build and train a military and police force of their own.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
i believe that had we not diverted troops, equipment, $, and FOCUS to iraq from afghanistan we would be done in afghanistan. or at least significantly less of a presence. they hamstrung our efforts in afghanistan by moving onto the boogeyman in iraq. then they had to occupy iraq while nationbuilding there instead of foucing on the task at hand, and that was to get rid of the taliban and try to get the afghans under some form of a stable government rather than continue to be a collection of lawless tribes, all while trying to help them build and train a military and police force of their own.
I think, in general, we are on the same page. Was kind of a threadjack anyway.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
i believe that had we not diverted troops, equipment, $, and FOCUS to iraq from afghanistan we would be done in afghanistan. or at least significantly less of a presence. they hamstrung our efforts in afghanistan by moving onto the boogeyman in iraq. then they had to occupy iraq while nationbuilding there instead of foucing on the task at hand, and that was to get rid of the taliban and try to get the afghans under some form of a stable government rather than continue to be a collection of lawless tribes, all while trying to help them build and train a military and police force of their own.
I think, in general, we are on the same page. Was kind of a threadjack anyway.
i think you and i both want the same thing, just can't agree on how to get it done.
i do believe that history will remember the iraq war as the blunder that destroyed our economy.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
i believe that had we not diverted troops, equipment, $, and FOCUS to iraq from afghanistan we would be done in afghanistan. or at least significantly less of a presence. they hamstrung our efforts in afghanistan by moving onto the boogeyman in iraq. then they had to occupy iraq while nationbuilding there instead of foucing on the task at hand, and that was to get rid of the taliban and try to get the afghans under some form of a stable government rather than continue to be a collection of lawless tribes, all while trying to help them build and train a military and police force of their own.
I think, in general, we are on the same page. Was kind of a threadjack anyway.
i think you and i both want the same thing, just can't agree on how to get it done.
i do believe that history will remember the iraq war as the blunder that destroyed our economy.
Iraq War certainly didn't help, but I'd point to the collapse of the housing market as the prime driver in the destruction of the economy.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
I would never vote for any of those pricks at all and i'm not going to vote for Obama again , i just won't vote at all fuck this those Republicans are all sad sacks ....
As long as the economy is good and people have job security and cash, it's easy to pull the wool over our eyes. For Clinton, the Dot.coms were issuing make-believe stock out, there were no wars or enemies, the Seattle music scene was hitting its peak, and the Slickster was nailing ugly women left and right .... times were good. And times have changed.
right ... but you could be in a time of no-war if it wasn't for the neocon admin ... and if you didn't deregulate everything - maybe the economy would be more stable ... ?? ...
Things aren't truly deregulated. If anything things are more overregulated than they have ever been. Things are so overregulated that the little guy can't even dream of competing with the big corporations. When politicians talk about "deregulation" they are really talking about more ways to regulate in a way that makes it easier for the fat corporate fucks to take advantage of loopholes. If we didn't have such protectionisms in place the corporations would be forced to actually compete on a level playing field as opposed to gaming the system. Increasing regulations only plays into solidifying those at the top. Sure, outwardly it looks like it affects them too, but in the end it stagnates everything.
Also, this Clinton taxes business annoys me to no end. Correlation does not equal causation. The government cannot create jobs out of thin air. Its inherent nature does not allow for this. All goverment can do is redirect the jobs in the market through spending to what some fat fuck bureaucrat at the top thinks is appropriate. Anytime the government "creates" a job, a potential job that would actually present real growth is not realized due to the redirection of resources.
I think someone earlier in the thread pointed out that the .com bubble was pretty much the reason for the booming economy...and because those jobs created by that bubble were not real growth, once it burst so too did those jobs. That has more to do with why things were good when Clinton was in office and why things went sour once Bush was in office. Bush's unprecedented (at the time) increase in government size and spending only managed to quicken how bad things have become.
can you give one example of over regulation? causing a little guy not to compete?
Comments
It's almost -- almost -- to the point where ANY Republican would win over Obama. If the economy is still in the shitter a year from now, Obama will lose to almost anybody you throw at him.
for the least they could possibly do
Things aren't truly deregulated. If anything things are more overregulated than they have ever been. Things are so overregulated that the little guy can't even dream of competing with the big corporations. When politicians talk about "deregulation" they are really talking about more ways to regulate in a way that makes it easier for the fat corporate fucks to take advantage of loopholes. If we didn't have such protectionisms in place the corporations would be forced to actually compete on a level playing field as opposed to gaming the system. Increasing regulations only plays into solidifying those at the top. Sure, outwardly it looks like it affects them too, but in the end it stagnates everything.
Also, this Clinton taxes business annoys me to no end. Correlation does not equal causation. The government cannot create jobs out of thin air. Its inherent nature does not allow for this. All goverment can do is redirect the jobs in the market through spending to what some fat fuck bureaucrat at the top thinks is appropriate. Anytime the government "creates" a job, a potential job that would actually present real growth is not realized due to the redirection of resources.
I think someone earlier in the thread pointed out that the .com bubble was pretty much the reason for the booming economy...and because those jobs created by that bubble were not real growth, once it burst so too did those jobs. That has more to do with why things were good when Clinton was in office and why things went sour once Bush was in office. Bush's unprecedented (at the time) increase in government size and spending only managed to quicken how bad things have become.
i don't want to derail the thread any more than i have ...
i just wanna say tho that afghanistan is a clustercuss and that the biggest area of gov't associated with fraud is the pentagon ... i find it incredulous that no one ever wants to talk about the corruption that goes on there ... was bombing the shit out of afghanistan the right approach or even justified? ... you found the fucker in pakistan ... now all afghanistan is ... is a nice fat check for defense contractors and paramilitary groups ...
anyhoo - i find it sad that people here would vote for an earthworm over obama ... partisanship is killing the US and this is why ...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I am willing to concede the point that Iraq diverted resources and attention from Afghanistan. I'm still not sure we would be finished there had it not been for Iraq because I'm not sure the problem(s) in Afghanistan could be solved simply by funneling more resources and attention there.
for the least they could possibly do
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I think, in general, we are on the same page. Was kind of a threadjack anyway.
for the least they could possibly do
i do believe that history will remember the iraq war as the blunder that destroyed our economy.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Iraq War certainly didn't help, but I'd point to the collapse of the housing market as the prime driver in the destruction of the economy.
for the least they could possibly do
can you give one example of over regulation? causing a little guy not to compete?
http://www.doaskdotell.com/content/smallbiz.htm
http://www.pagoppolicy.com/Display/Site ... hivers.pdf