You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: Wall Street and Banks Soaring since 2009
Presidents of corporations should also have term limits.
Sorry, I believe a private entity should be allowed to hire and employ whom they want. If you don't like who runs a company, don't buy their product. But the last thing I want is some congressman telling a business how to run. We've seen how well congress and the american people do when it comes to managing their finances.
- tejastech08
- Rep: 194
Re: Wall Street and Banks Soaring since 2009
Plus Presidents are always more fondly remembered in history than they actually were when you sit down and really examine what they did. In hindsight Kennedy and Lincoln weren't that impressive. The only guy who seemed to hold some real significance looking back was Teddy Roosevelt. The only President who truely called it down the middle.
I agree about JFK, but I strongly disagree about Lincoln. Probably the best we've had since Washington. Meanwhile, another great one was Andrew Jackson. If you hate the banks, then Jackson is your kind of guy. The bankers attempted to assassinate him because he fought the creation of a central bank. Despite his courage in resisting it, eventually they got exactly what they wanted when corrupt Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act into law.
- Communist China
- Rep: 130
Re: Wall Street and Banks Soaring since 2009
Jackson certainly had the very rare strength to wield the powers of the Presidency without succumbing to the standard pressures of government, but it's hard to embrace him if just for his race relations, coming from the modern perspective.
misterID, while Paul couldn't fight through Congress or the Fed, the executive branch does enough legislating that Paul would have ample opportunity to obstruct the usual processes on his own - and bailouts or TARP would've been vetoed. He'd likely be able to muster enough Congressional support to prevent Congress from overriding him consistently. If all arms of the government (Congress, Pentagon, Executive agencies, Fed) turn against him, it'd still be open enough that people could see it. I'd at least like to go down swinging at the bankers and the military-industrial complex and the moral busybodies. But anyways, to say it succinctly, if you think Obama is different enough from W to make meaningful change in the federal government, then certainly Paul is different enough from both to also make meaningful change.
Re: Wall Street and Banks Soaring since 2009
I'd at least like to go down swinging at the bankers and the military-industrial complex and the moral busybodies.
In a sea of endless corruption and tyranny it basically comes down to this.
These are not systemic deficiencies. They are criminal elements subversing our governments and robbing our assets.
Paul is offering liberty. It comes with a risk but the potential upside is historical. The other candidates, at best, are offering a continued banker dependency where the only prosperity will be able to pay your mortage on time. And more wars abroad with growing secret police groups making sure we behave and don't criticize the blunt implements in our rectums.
This is what big government gives you:
A pregnant Honolulu woman was arrested last week and had her 2-year-old daughter taken away by Child Welfare Services after eating a sandwich in a Safeway store and forgetting to pay.
Re: Wall Street and Banks Soaring since 2009
Let me say this: I do not think George W. Bush is evil. I think Obama and Boehner are actually decent guys who would work together in a productive fashion for the good of their country. But they're towing the line of Wall Street and that's unforgivable. Will they ever be perfect? No. But the fault of this is the american people and their apathy. Which leads me to this:
It doesn't take any type of big revolution. Did you see how quick the banks fell to their knees over the five dollar monthly debit fee with the American people stood up against them? I've never seen anything like that in my life. A lot of that had to do with OWS. This is why people are afraid of them. That gives me a lot of hope, along with Heath Shuler who's managed to get over 100 democrats and republicans to basicaly rebel against their own leadership (and Grover) and demand the grand bargain. Baby steps, but that's the way real change will happen. And I think if they can take out the roadblocks, Obama and Boehner could get something meaningful done.
Obstructionist republicans are going to be the ones hurt in the next election. And don't hold your breath for Obamacare to be going anywhere.
And I'm sorry, we need regulations. There are rules about operating your business, so saying the goverment shouldn't be telling people how to run their business is silly, when you already have to follow a certain set of rules to start and operate your business. We have rules. We need rules. We need better enforcement of rules.
Companies should be fined for outsourcing jobs. The corporate tax cuts should be only for companies that hire and carry a 75-80% Amercian worker ratio. And a % of products must be used with American materials. Wages have to be raised... They've actually gone down in the last 40 years. These are rules we need. You guys are setting yourselves up for a HUGE disappointment if you think liberatrian ideology works. It works about as good as socialism works. Parts do. But as a whole? It' don't.
Leaving people and coporations to their own devices is stupid. Corporations are going to have to take a finacial hit. That's the only way the country can come back. And that's their own fault for rigging the system for so long.
Paul is not offering liberty, he's offering his version of liberty. Not one congressman or senator would dare support any of his legislation, D or R, if he actually became president if they wanted to stay in office. Not when people had his ideas laid out before them and scrutinized on the scale of Herman Cain's 999 plan. But Paul's is so much more radical and dangerous, that it would blow 999 away in its controversy.
Re: Wall Street and Banks Soaring since 2009
Axlin08 wrote:Presidents of corporations should also have term limits.
Sorry, I believe a private entity should be allowed to hire and employ whom they want. If you don't like who runs a company, don't buy their product. But the last thing I want is some congressman telling a business how to run. We've seen how well congress and the american people do when it comes to managing their finances.
And we've all seen how corporate owners who are tied into government policy run it into the goddamn ground, because nobody checks or balances them.
They wield way too much power.
Axlin08 wrote:Plus Presidents are always more fondly remembered in history than they actually were when you sit down and really examine what they did. In hindsight Kennedy and Lincoln weren't that impressive. The only guy who seemed to hold some real significance looking back was Teddy Roosevelt. The only President who truely called it down the middle.
I agree about JFK, but I strongly disagree about Lincoln. Probably the best we've had since Washington. Meanwhile, another great one was Andrew Jackson. If you hate the banks, then Jackson is your kind of guy. The bankers attempted to assassinate him because he fought the creation of a central bank. Despite his courage in resisting it, eventually they got exactly what they wanted when corrupt Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act into law.
I just think Lincoln is overrated. I don't think he was awful though. But "freed the slaves" leader Lincoln is a historical farce perpetrated by a Union-biased telling of history.
Only now has more and more scholars unearthed material that shows how much Lincoln flew by the seat of his pants, and how much he absolutely hated the Confederacy, didn't want to touch the abolition movement with a 10-foot top hat,, despite wanting to "unify" Americans.
Re: Wall Street and Banks Soaring since 2009
The "freeing" of the slaves is another forgotten takover. Actually, if you read the amendment they didn't free black people, they just made white people equal. Ie. slaves. Black people were already protected by the constitution, people just didn't give a fuck!
Lincoln is great simply for being shot. You don't get shot unless you try to do something good.
Re: Wall Street and Banks Soaring since 2009
Remind me what Obama has done to fight terrorism exatcly?
Well first he placed emphasis on where the terrorists actually were (hint: Not Iraq) and has snuffed out top level terrorists ever since.
Making a phone call and keeping the EXACT same timelines and policies as Bush does not make Obama a warrior.
Nobody said they did. However somehow Obama seems to produce much better results than loser Bush. How could that possibly be?
Lets take a look at the list of fuckers Obama has snuffed out since taking office:
The list of senior terrorists killed during the Obama presidency is fairly extensive.
There’s Osama bin Laden, of course, killed in May.
Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) leader Anwar al-Awlaki as of today.
Earlier this month officials confirmed that al Qaeda’s chief of Pakistan operations, Abu Hafs al-Shahri, was killed in Waziristan, Pakistan.
In August, ‘Atiyah ‘Abd al-Rahman, the deputy leader of al Qaeda was killed.
In June, one of the group’s most dangerous commanders, Ilyas Kashmiri, was killed in Pakistan. In Yemen that same month, AQAP senior operatives Ammar al-Wa’ili, Abu Ali al-Harithi, and Ali Saleh Farhan were killed. In Somalia, Al-Qa’ida in East Africa (AQEA) senior leader Harun Fazul was killed.
Administration officials also herald the recent U.S./Pakistani joint arrest of Younis al-Mauritani in Quetta.
Going back to August 2009, Tehrik e-Taliban Pakistan leader Baitullah Mahsud was killed in Pakistan.
In September of that month, Jemayah Islamiya operational planner Noordin Muhammad Top was killed in Indonesia, and AQEA planner Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan was killed in Somalia.
Then in December 2009 in Pakistan, al Qaeda operational commanders Saleh al-Somali and ‘Abdallah Sa’id were killed.
In February 2010, in Pakistan, Taliban deputy and military commander Abdul Ghani Beradar was captured; Haqqani network commander Muhammad Haqqani was killed; and Lashkar-e Jhangvi leader Qari Zafar was killed.
In March 2010, al Qaeda operative Hussein al-Yemeni was killed in Pakistan, while senior Jemayah Islamiya operative Dulmatin - accused of being the mastermind behind the 2002 Bali bombings – was killed during a raid in Indonesia.
In April 2010, al Qaeda in Iraq leaders Abu Ayyub al-Masri and Abu Omar al-Baghdadi were killed.
In May, al Qaeda’s number three commander, Sheik Saeed al-Masri was killed.
In June 2010 in Pakistan, al Qaeda commander Hamza al-Jawfi was killed.
Source: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 … amas-belt/
and when the only action he takes is inaction (as in changing the course Bush set) you celebrate him as a hero yet still revile Bush.
What course Bush took? What are you talking about? Bush had his head up his ass and didn't accomplish jack shit during his "War on terror." He started a civil war in Iraq, handed out no bid corporate contracts to all his pals at Haliburton and then stuck a cod piece down his pants for a propaganda photo shoot.
Give me an example of a policy that is solely Obama's, something that he planned and started fresh. Cause if you can't, you're just a cheerleader who refuses to see the failures of Carter II. There's a reason why even in this era, Regan is the most admired President and the token Democrat, Roosevelt, plays second fiddle to him.
Well I would say the Health Care bill, but the reality is that was actually a Republican idea in the 90's. Most republicans today are too stupid to know their own policy history and were fine calling it "Socialism" though. I always thought that was pretty funny. One of the best moments of the GOP debates thus far was all of those losers, especially Newt, getting called on it. That moment got little coverage unfortunately. Sneaky Obama stole that one!
Going after terrorists and killing them was also a Republican idea (or so they say), yet today they are total doves, opposed to the spending required and the human causalities. I guess Obama stole that one too...awe shucks.
Saving the economy (AKA "bailouts") was also a Republican idea, fine under Bush, but as soon as Obama took office it became "Socialism" again. Would you expect anything less from a super secret mulsim born in Kenya though? Of course he'd try to save the economy like boosh did!
Deficit spending was another Republican idea advocated and condoned for nearly 8 years, until Obama became President. Then deficit spending as a means to save the economy from going down the shitter was also...you guessed it, the dreaded "S" word. Darn you Obama!
But that's irrelevant. You can name any policy over the years and I can show you were the opposite side has proposed it in some shape or form. It doesn't mean they aren't original policies with variations/tweaks. Again it's like saying a car and house both have windows, therefore they are the same thing. Reagan and Daddy Bush both raised taxes to keep our fiscal house in order. I guess today we'd say that Obama was using their policies right? That it really wasn't his original idea? Would any republican ever say that? Or would they say he was simply a "Socialist" who hated capitalism? Get real.
The real problem isn't Obama however, it's the poor sports of the GOP. The juvenile hypocrisy and bed wetting by these fucking psychos who can't stand to have Obama as their president. All their core values over the last 8 years suddenly vanished once Obama won. Not surprisingly their zealots have followed suit and are just fine with adopting a "willful amnesia" stance in regards to their ideology (ie whatever they are told to think by Fox news.) Suddenly everybody is a born again fiscal conservative who doesn't think we should be in the Middle East. Give me a fucking break.
Re: Wall Street and Banks Soaring since 2009
The "freeing" of the slaves is another forgotten takover. Actually, if you read the amendment they didn't free black people, they just made white people equal. Ie. slaves. Black people were already protected by the constitution, people just didn't give a fuck!
Lincoln is great simply for being shot. You don't get shot unless you try to do something good.
Pretty much. Another argument is that the North was perfectly fine with slavery as long as they were getting a taste of those cotton profits, which was the biggest export at the time -- coming out of the South. When the South went to pull it over more taxation on Southern barons, suddenly the North had morals and had a problem with slavery.
It was always a public relations thing, and like I said before, Lincoln was terrified of the issue. He actually foresaw and prophecized it would rip the country to shreds, but not for the reasons of loving blacks. More about it being a political quagmire.
