# The Second American Revolution - We The People



## twogreen2c (Mar 26, 2009)

The gentlemen who made this video is Dr. Bob Basso.  Obama has seen this video and contacted Mr. Basso and said he was very disturbed by his video and invited him to the White House.  He told him not to discuss the invitation with anyone.  Dr. Basso was suppose to make a second  appearance on the Jerry Doyle talk radio show, but had to back out because of The White House request.  I know this because I was listening to the radio show as this developed.  I would be very afraid if I was this guy.  Obama's politics uses a thug mentality and I believe they are going to try and destroy him.  Look what that did the Joe the Plumber.  This guy is calling for a revolution and people are getting fired up.  Is our government finally feeling a bit fearful?

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbv8LRVRTaA[/ame]


----------



## Ravi (Mar 26, 2009)

twogreen2c said:


> Obama has seen this video and contacted Mr. Basso and said he was very disturbed by his and invited him to the White House.  He told him not to discuss the invitation with anyone.




Sounds like a perfect thread for conspiracy theories.


----------



## Truthmatters (Mar 26, 2009)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHJAH

what did they do to "joe" whos not named joe "the plummer" and is not a plummer?


----------



## dilloduck (Mar 26, 2009)

Truthmatters said:


> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHJAH
> 
> what did they do to "joe" whos not named joe "the plummer" and is not a plummer?



See if you can pay attention to the point of the post for just one day at a time. Focus


----------



## Gunny (Mar 26, 2009)

dilloduck said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHJAH
> ...



You're kidding, right?


----------



## Gunny (Mar 26, 2009)

Ravi said:


> twogreen2c said:
> 
> 
> > Obama has seen this video and contacted Mr. Basso and said he was very disturbed by his and invited him to the White House.  He told him not to discuss the invitation with anyone.
> ...



Hello ... there's been a LOT of talk about revolution lately.  Think you can make it go away by trying to marginalize and hide it? 

But you wouldn't know anything about it, would you?  YOU are the type person the revolution would be against.  

Is our loyalty to this Nation and the ideals that embody it?  Or to a government that does not embody either one?  Simple question.


----------



## twogreen2c (Mar 26, 2009)

Truthmatters said:


> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHJAH
> 
> what did they do to "joe" whos not named joe "the plummer" and is not a plummer?



First of all, I believe his middle name was Joe.  There are plenty of people who don't go by their first name.  You are such an idiot.  Personally, if a guy can do plumbing, I have no problem calling him a plumber.  With your mentality you would put many people out of work.  Guess you wouldn't hire a skilled handyman?


----------



## slackjawed (Mar 26, 2009)

Gunny said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > twogreen2c said:
> ...



It is never patriotic to blindly follow our so-called leaders. It is patriotic to defend our great nation from our corrupt self-serving government.........


----------



## Ravi (Mar 26, 2009)

Gunny said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > twogreen2c said:
> ...


Are you threatening me, Gunny? Still with the rightwingnut claim that anyone that doesn't agree with your view is a traitor?

I was commenting on his claim that Obama called this guy and told him not to tell anyone.


----------



## American Horse (Mar 26, 2009)

twogreen2c said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHJAH
> ...



I know this much; when I first saw this video a week ago on Glenn Beck it stirred some strong emotions in me.  Just as in a thread yesterday about the John Birch Society (never mind slamming  their flaws please) and their Saturday morning radio message which was very effective, this stirs things up in the here-and-now, like that of the JBS in the 60s.  It reflects the true mood of the broader America.  This is not going to be put down by ridicule, and hopefully not by pressure. The Obama administration will want to hammer this guy, and the fear they have of him shows if they really do want to talk to him personally.

There's a strong message right here on this board that says G.B. is an idiot and shouldn't be paid attention to.  However people who really do want to get some view of what's going down should take a few moments out of their 'oh-so-busy' days, rouse up their highly touted curiosity,  and pay attention to the GB show if only for the novelty of seeing what about half the US population is curious about.


----------



## twogreen2c (Mar 26, 2009)

Jerry Doyle stated on his show yesterday that Mr. Basso will give him the first exclusive interview resulting from his meeting with Obama.  So this tells me Jerry may have been the first to get Mr. Basso's message out via talk radio.  Jerry also said (I am paraphrasing) he isn't looking to take credit for this movement, but more interested in getting the message out and will share and spread the word to whatever media outlet is willing to listen.  Jerry played the entire youtube video audio on his radio program.  He said this was against his radio programming rules, whereby he isn't suppose to exceed  3 minutes.  I assume a break is required.  But Jerry didn't care and let it roll.  I just hope he isn't going to be out of a job soon.


----------



## editec (Mar 26, 2009)

The proscriptions for what needs to be done are pretty much right on.

What this man appearss to be lacking is any REAL WAY to get to that happy state of affiars which most real liberals and conservative American patriots want.

A tea-letter to our representatives will scare them?

Please, do not make me laugh.

When millions of Americans went to the streets to protest the illegal and immoral war in Viet Nam, they gassed the American people, and they beat them, and the imprisoned them without charges or constitutional protections.

And many of you on this board who THINK you're patriotic Americans probably STILL applaude your government for doing that, too, don't you?

Apparently the right is just now beginning to understand what the left has ALWAYS understood about the people in POWER in AMERICA.

They are NOT conseervatives, they are NOT liberals, they are neither left nor right, they are not CAPITALISTS _neither are they socialists. _

They are an insiders party arrogant with power that a LOT of Americans not only give them, but_ continue_ to give them.

Take a look around you. 

This nation now has more ARMED GUARDS working for corporations (the insiders' corporations, not every corporation) than the rest of the nation COMBINED. The SERVANT CLASS PROTECT THE MASTER CLASS, folks. 

No TYRANT ever had any difficulty finding men willing to kill for his tyranny, and America is NO EXCEPTION to that rule of political nature.

And, while I admire our military, I do NOT think that the military BRASS (who are after all well paid members of the insiders party) are about to stand up against the criminal class which control them, either.

You say you revolution?
Well, you know, we'd all love to see your plan.
But if you talking about destruction?
Well, don't you know that you can count me out.​ 
The solution, the ONLY solution that will bring us the America we ALL THINK is what we want is POLTICAL REVOLUTION.

And how does that POLITICAL MOVEMENT really take hold?

Well it has to start by convincing one hell of a LOT of Americans that this is not now, nor has it EVER been a problem of liberals V conservatives.

That confusion most of you people on this board have is the result of DECADES AND DECADES of _propaganda._

Some of you_ folks are SO ANGRY that you want to shoot you NEIGHBORS!!!_

As though, the poor schmuck living next door to you is RESPONSIBLE for what EITHER PARTY's MASTERS did?!


Until you folks are ready to admit that YOU were PLAYED FOR FOOLS, until you understand that what we are living with is -- _not_ capitalism, it's _not _socialism, it's _not _democracy, it's _not_ communism, it's a long standing ongoing _RAPE _of our society by the *INSIDER PARTY* -- you will continue to be SLAVES to these people.

Now which of you SERVANTS who are well PAID FUNCTIONARIES to the system is willing to give up YOUR RICE BOWL?

Not a single fucking one of you will do that would be MY guess.

And that is why _they_ will continue to win the battle for the hearts and minds of Americans until this nation is bankrupted and most of us are living like third world refugees.

This obscene ripoff by our bankers SHOULD have been all you need to understand _who the bastards are._

But STILL the idiots on this board (and every one like it) think the problem is liberalism or conservatism.

You fucking idiots don't know what EITHER poltical philosophy stands for because you have been lied to, and most of you are too god damned lazy (and many of you too filled with smug conceit, too) to READ what those things actually mean.

WAke up and smell the CHAINS you folks are mostly WILLINGLY wearing.


----------



## American Horse (Mar 26, 2009)

My God, if this keeps up we may have an insurrection of the ordinary citizens of this country!  
Who would want that?  
What if we had the birth of a real revolution and our MSM refused to report it?  

<CLICK HERE>


----------



## twogreen2c (Mar 26, 2009)

editec said:


> Some of you_ folks are SO ANGRY that you want to shoot you NEIGHBORS!!!_



No.  Take aim at the government.  Are we going to start seeing our tax dollars going towards bodyguards?  AIG executive, Liddy, spoke of death threats to his employees.  Next up will be an increase in threats directed at high profile Senators and White House officials.  Obama speaks of a civilian security force.  What, ACORN type folks?  Well if they came knocking at my door, I wouldn't be greeting them with a smile.  I don't trust Obama or his agenda.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Mar 26, 2009)

editec said:


> The proscriptions for what needs to be done are pretty much right on.
> 
> What this man appearss to be lacking is any REAL WAY to get to that happy state of affiars which most real liberals and conservative American patriots want.
> 
> ...



In a lot of ways, I don't think you are far off the mark, especially if I view the world from your particular vantage point. I think actually you and Mark Levin have identified pretty much the same culprits. He calls them "statists" you call the the "Insider Party" but the roster is pretty much the same.

The last 8 years were an abject lesson in the fact that statists exist in both political parties. I would add to your list of things people need to get real about that people need to understand the government should almost never "provide" you with anything ever. The government teat is not in the social contract embodied in Constitution. To the extent it exists now, it acts a lever of control. The more people suckling at it, the fewer people who will want to do without it.

As to whether any revolt is actually coming from our far too content populace, I would have to see voter registration and voting shoot up to record numbers before I'll believe we're on the verge of doing anything remotely like either a political or actual revolution. That would be the precursor -- political activation. People know what's going on and are activated to do something about it.


----------



## eots (Mar 26, 2009)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysnf6nfI6dI]YouTube - Alex Jones in Waking Life[/ame]


----------



## midcan5 (Mar 26, 2009)

A few things he said we could all agree on but the tone and rip van winkle aspects of it amaze me. Where were these people the past eight years? Are they all far right republicans or have they all just woken from a deep sleep. Reagan/Gingrich/Bush made this nation a debtor nation, where were they then? Did we see them in the streets then or were they too busy watching Fox pretend news and cheering Jack on 24? TV reflects our dreams and Fox reflects some paranoid dreams. 

On the web, in wingnut writing, wingnut radio, wingnut Fox, you see this anti-government stuff, but I never see it in real life. There are nut cases out there but hardly in the numbers one sees on the web etc. And I have seen the local cranks in center city Philly and Washington, but people walk by them and do things that normal people do. They even enjoy the sites and sounds of their government, after all it is theirs.

When Clinton was elected the wingnuts went after him and Hillary from day one. The hatred and propaganda directed at them was at a level similar to now. Clinton was elected in 93, the Oklahoma City bombing occurred in 95. The government then as now was the culprit. It would take a Don DeLillo to do justice to these strange rantings from the right, their bizarre echo chamber, and their affect on some citizens.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Mar 26, 2009)

Personally, as a libertarian, not a member of the libertarian party, but a true liberal, not what passes for a liberal these days, I find nothing with which to disagree in this video.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Mar 26, 2009)

midcan5 said:


> A few things he said we could all agree on but the tone and rip van winkle aspects of it amaze me. Where were these people the past eight years? Are they all far right republicans or have they all just woken from a deep sleep. *Reagan/Gingrich/Bush made this nation a debtor nation, where were they then?* Did we see them in the streets then or were they too busy watching Fox pretend news and cheering Jack on 24? TV reflects our dreams and Fox reflects some paranoid dreams.
> 
> On the web, in wingnut writing, wingnut radio, wingnut Fox, you see this anti-government stuff, but I never see it in real life. There are nut cases out there but hardly in the numbers one sees on the web etc. And I have seen the local cranks in center city Philly and Washington, but people walk by them and do things that normal people do. They even enjoy the sites and sounds of their government, after all it is theirs.
> 
> When Clinton was elected the wingnuts went after him and Hillary from day one. The hatred and propaganda directed at them was at a level similar to now. *Clinton was elected in 95*, the Oklahoma City bombing occurred in 95. The government then as now was the culprit. It would take a Don DeLillo to do justice to these strange rantings from the right, their bizarre echo chamber, and their affect on some citizens.



You got some major shit wrong in your post. Just factually. Either you're practicing selective memory or you are too young to remember so let me refresh you.

I watched to debates in 1980. If you go back and watch them too, you will be treated to Gov. Reagan taking Pres. Carter to task for creating a national debt that was so large that if it were stacked up would reach all the way to the moon. So Reagan had a head start.

Reagan also had a Democrat house. Reagan's plan was to cut taxes and cut spending. Tip O'Neil made him pick one. When you don't have both houses there is only so much you can do.

Clinton was elected in 1992. I'm not sure where you got 1995.


----------



## AssHatZombie (Mar 26, 2009)

midcan5 said:


> A few things he said we could all agree on but the tone and rip van winkle aspects of it amaze me. Where were these people the past eight years? Are they all far right republicans or have they all just woken from a deep sleep. Reagan/Gingrich/Bush made this nation a debtor nation, where were they then? Did we see them in the streets then or were they too busy watching Fox pretend news and cheering Jack on 24? TV reflects our dreams and Fox reflects some paranoid dreams.
> 
> On the web, in wingnut writing, wingnut radio, wingnut Fox, you see this anti-government stuff, but I never see it in real life. There are nut cases out there but hardly in the numbers one sees on the web etc. And I have seen the local cranks in center city Philly and Washington, but people walk by them and do things that normal people do. They even enjoy the sites and sounds of their government, after all it is theirs.
> 
> When Clinton was elected the wingnuts went after him and Hillary from day one. The hatred and propaganda directed at them was at a level similar to now. Clinton was elected in 95, the Oklahoma City bombing occurred in 95. The government then as now was the culprit. It would take a Don DeLillo to do justice to these strange rantings from the right, their bizarre echo chamber, and their affect on some citizens.



Alex Jones has been around for a long time, saying the same stuff, and he's not a republican, you ignorant dillhole.


----------



## Kalam (Mar 26, 2009)

"Second American Revolution" would be a misnomer. The American Revolution was fought against a foreign colonial power who taxed us without giving us representation in their government. The target here is our own government. We're all represented in this government. What I don't understand is why these malcontents who are supposedly so dedicated to the constitution didn't talk about "revolution" during the last administration as well.


----------



## AssHatZombie (Mar 26, 2009)

Kalam said:


> "Second American Revolution" would be a misnomer. The American Revolution was fought against a foreign colonial power who taxed us without giving us representation in their government. The target here is our own government. We're all represented in this government. What I don't understand is why these malcontents who are supposedly so dedicated to the constitution didn't talk about "revolution" during the last administration as well.



Yes they did.  You're just ignorant.  A revolution doesn't have to be against a foreign occupying power.  You're adding things to the definition to suit your idiotic purpose.


----------



## American Horse (Mar 26, 2009)

midcan5 said:


> A few things he said we could all agree on but the tone and rip van winkle aspects of it amaze me. Where were these people the past eight years? Are they all far right republicans or have they all just woken from a deep sleep. Reagan/Gingrich/Bush made this nation a debtor nation, where were they then? Did we see them in the streets then or were they too busy watching Fox pretend news and cheering Jack on 24? TV reflects our dreams and Fox reflects some paranoid dreams.
> 
> On the web, in wingnut writing, wingnut radio, wingnut Fox, you see this anti-government stuff, but I never see it in real life. There are nut cases out there but hardly in the numbers one sees on the web etc. And I have seen the local cranks in center city Philly and Washington, but people walk by them and do things that normal people do. They even enjoy the sites and sounds of their government, after all it is theirs.
> 
> When Clinton was elected the wingnuts went after him and Hillary from day one. The hatred and propaganda directed at them was at a level similar to now. Clinton was elected in 95, the Oklahoma City bombing occurred in 95. The government then as now was the culprit. It would take a Don DeLillo to do justice to these strange rantings from the right, their bizarre echo chamber, and their affect on some citizens.



You assume that your issues are the issues of the majority of the people, and they simply are not.  On the other hand you make that assumption because you discount the issues of the majority of citizens as strange rantings. That comes from paying only attention to and communicating  with those in your own social group or political/philosophical community of thought.

One subtle reason you don't necessarily observe what is all around you is that there is such a profound tendency by the chattering classes to ridicule that group, calling them bizarre, wingnuts, rantings, etc that they just move on and rarely publicly speak up, _if they know what is good for them._


----------



## midcan5 (Mar 26, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> You got some major shit wrong in your post. Just factually. Either you're practicing selective memory or you are too young to remember so let me refresh you.
> 
> I watched to debates in 1980. If you go back and watch them too, you will be treated to Gov. Reagan taking Pres. Carter to task for creating a national debt that was so large that if it were stacked up would reach all the way to the moon. So Reagan had a head start.



Reagan made use a debtor nation that fact is not even debated. I give him some credit as he realized his mistake and had the largest peacetime tax increase in history. A head start is no excuse for voodoo economics and its consequences.



AssHatZombie said:


> Alex Jones has been around for a long time, saying the same stuff, and he's not a republican, you ignorant dillhole.



Oh it's you, darn, I was going to reply with what are you talking about? But that is too far advanced beyond your insane worldview. Please remember to take your meds or get rest you need it.


----------



## AssHatZombie (Mar 26, 2009)

midcan5 said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > You got some major shit wrong in your post. Just factually. Either you're practicing selective memory or you are too young to remember so let me refresh you.
> ...



I'm saying Alex Jones has been around for a while.  Which word didn't you understand?


----------



## midcan5 (Mar 26, 2009)

American Horse said:


> You assume that your issues are the issues of the majority of the people, and they simply are not.  On the other hand you make that assumption because you discount the issues of the majority of citizens as strange rantings. That comes from paying only attention to and communicating  with those in your own social group or political/philosophical community of thought.
> 
> One subtle reason you don't necessarily observe what is all around you is that there is such a profound tendency by the chattering classes to ridicule that group, calling them bizarre, wingnuts, rantings, etc that they just move on and rarely publicly speak up, _if they know what is good for them._



My issues? and you know them how? What I wonder at, is why the righties come out of the walls when a democrat is elected, and the last president pretty much screwed everything up, and until there was no way you could even hide from the screw ups, said nothing. You could call this hypocrisy or you could call it a partisanship that cares only about itself and not the health of the nation.


----------



## midcan5 (Mar 26, 2009)

AssHatZombie said:


> I'm saying Alex Jones has been around for a while.  Which word didn't you understand?



From the little I have seen, I can't stand Alex Jones and haven't a clue what the hell you are even referring to him for. Jones seems as nutty as the original nut job in this thread.


----------



## AssHatZombie (Mar 26, 2009)

midcan5 said:


> American Horse said:
> 
> 
> > You assume that your issues are the issues of the majority of the people, and they simply are not.  On the other hand you make that assumption because you discount the issues of the majority of citizens as strange rantings. That comes from paying only attention to and communicating  with those in your own social group or political/philosophical community of thought.
> ...




I thought lefties were against tyranny too?  Freedom and all that?  Maybe I'm mistaken.


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Mar 26, 2009)

Oh my god... this guy goes on TV in _period attire_?

C'mon guys... He's a joke. Send a tea-bag to our congressman? Please...


----------



## Kalam (Mar 26, 2009)

AssHatZombie said:


> Yes they did.


Not like they are now. I'm not an Obama fan or anything, but I'm bewildered by how much the lunatic fringe seems to hate him. Most of these fools weren't whining as loudly during Bush's presidency or during the tenure of any of the other constitution-trampling administrations that have been in power since 1933 and earlier. Why the sudden obsession with "revolution"? 



AssHatZombie said:


> You're just ignorant.


You mad? 





AssHatZombie said:


> A revolution doesn't have to be against a foreign occupying power.  You're adding things to the definition to suit your idiotic purpose.


I was referring to the American Revolution. Shame on me for assuming that you'd be able to deduce that after reading the thread title and the first couple of words of my post.


----------



## Kalam (Mar 26, 2009)

Epsilon Delta said:


> Oh my god... this guy goes on TV in _period attire_?
> 
> C'mon guys... He's a joke. Send a tea-bag to our congressman? Please...



That's the extent of their imbecility.


----------



## American Horse (Mar 26, 2009)

midcan5 said:


> American Horse said:
> 
> 
> > You assume that your issues are the issues of the majority of the people, and they simply are not.  On the other hand you make that assumption because you discount the issues of the majority of citizens as strange rantings. That comes from paying only attention to and communicating  with those in your own social group or political/philosophical community of thought.
> ...


You just confirmed it for everyone to see.  Your post said all anyone needs to know about your politics being the very air that you breath.  Does what you said in your ref'd post sound non-partisan?  Does it sound open minded?  Objective? Tolerant?


----------



## midcan5 (Mar 27, 2009)

American Horse said:


> You just confirmed it for everyone to see.  Your post said all anyone needs to know about your politics being the very air that you breath.  Does what you said in your ref'd post sound non-partisan?  Does it sound open minded?  Objective? Tolerant?



I'm not really sure what that means, but if it means I cannot criticize the abject failures of these past thirty years then so be it. Calling a spade a spade is ok in my book. PC can be just a way to hide behind a confusing gloss on what really is happening to the working people in this nation and to the middle class. You know like 'fair and balanced' when it is anything but. 

I am reminded of the Madoff case, when people criticized and called into question the ridiculous returns they were criticized, called all sorts of names, but in the end the truth and its harsh reality comes out. So I ask again, where were you guys when Bush was destroying the nation. (sorry I know that is exaggeration but.)


----------



## dilloduck (Mar 27, 2009)

midcan5 said:


> American Horse said:
> 
> 
> > You just confirmed it for everyone to see.  Your post said all anyone needs to know about your politics being the very air that you breath.  Does what you said in your ref'd post sound non-partisan?  Does it sound open minded?  Objective? Tolerant?
> ...



You can't find a Bush supporter who supported every single action he took or failed to take.
Put down the broad brush. He fucked up a lot as is Obama. They are politicians.


----------



## Diuretic (Mar 27, 2009)

We the losers, pissed off because our dumbarse candidates were roundly rejected by the American people want to waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Not fair! Not fair!!!!!!


----------



## editec (Mar 27, 2009)

Skull Pilot said:


> Personally, as a libertarian, not a member of the libertarian party, but a true liberal, not what passes for a liberal these days, I find nothing with which to disagree in this video.


 
Personally as SOME KIND of lbieral, neither do I.

Except of course for the fact that he offers no solutions that are real.

But hey, one cannot blame him for that.

None of us can find solutions that are REAL, can we?

By_ real_ I mean solutions that actually have any kind of chance of being implemented.


----------



## twogreen2c (Mar 27, 2009)

American Horse said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> > A few things he said we could all agree on but the tone and rip van winkle aspects of it amaze me. Where were these people the past eight years? Are they all far right republicans or have they all just woken from a deep sleep. Reagan/Gingrich/Bush made this nation a debtor nation, where were they then? Did we see them in the streets then or were they too busy watching Fox pretend news and cheering Jack on 24? TV reflects our dreams and Fox reflects some paranoid dreams.
> ...



I have tried discussing Obama's policies and his cabinet appointees with my mother's husband.  This man has never been one to listen to other opinions.  He fits the mold of the typical Democratic supporter where they speak their mind, then shout you down when it is your turn to speak.  This man is so stubborn and thinks everything Obama is doing is great.  What I found very amusing was he also applies his shouting down to the TV.  I witnessed him watch a news story on the financial crisis and Geithner's plan.  As soon as the story turned to Republican House Minority Leader, John Boehner to give his perspective, he yelled at the TV and walked out of the room.  So when you have people like this who refuse to even listen to a short counterpoint view on a news network that is already biased towards the Obama administration, I guess I shouldn't be amazed a community organizer got elected to the highest office of the U.S.  People can be so stupid.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Mar 27, 2009)

Truthmatters said:


> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHJAH
> 
> what did they do to "joe" whos not named joe "the plummer" and is not a plummer?



Now the cool part is that this idiot doesn't have the SLIGHTEST CLUE, that she answered her own  question...

ROFL... Hysterical.


----------



## twogreen2c (Mar 27, 2009)

Jerry Doyle reported yesterday that today (3/27) Dr. Bob Basso is to meet with Obama (meeting time not specified).  Dr. Basso told Jerry he will be the first person he contacts after his meeting.  Below is a link to where you can listen to Jerry's radio programs.  You can download the player and listen to the streaming audio of Jerry's show.  You will notice he has various time slots, with the earliest show starting at 3 PM out of Worchester, MA, WCRN 830 AM radio.  I don't know if the later time slots are pre-recorded from earlier.   

Jerry Doyle: Radio Station Finder


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Mar 27, 2009)

Ravi said:


> twogreen2c said:
> 
> 
> > Obama has seen this video and contacted Mr. Basso and said he was very disturbed by his and invited him to the White House.  He told him not to discuss the invitation with anyone.
> ...



Yeah...  I would agree, given that a conspiracy is the complicit efforts of two or more towards an illicit end... except you want to define conspiracy differently... implying that conspiracy is the realm of the delusional...

I couldn't help but to notice that you opted to avoid this person's argument... one with which you clearly disagree, but instead opted to dismiss the argument as a function of delusion.

Now reason is served by the conclusion that an argument which can only be implied and decidely NOT STATED, is much more likely to be a function of delusion than that to which the implication is responding.

Care to offer a clearly stated, well reasoned, intellectually sound, logically valid argument in response to the argument presented in the video, which was ALL OF THE ABOVE ?


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Mar 27, 2009)

midcan5 said:


> American Horse said:
> 
> 
> > You just confirmed it for everyone to see.  Your post said all anyone needs to know about your politics being the very air that you breath.  Does what you said in your ref'd post sound non-partisan?  Does it sound open minded?  Objective? Tolerant?
> ...




ROFLMNAO... Now WHO was it and this WILL REQUIRE A SPECIFIC CITATION... that was criticizing Madoff... BEFORE HIS SCHEME CRUMBLED?

It wasn't YOU!  I've known your work in at least TWO forums and not ONCE have I seen you speak up against Madoff...  Maydoff was not a Capitalist; MADOFF was a THIEF.  Plain and simple...


Political Correctness is a lie... and it's a lie which is applied 100%, without exception BY THE IDEOLOGICAL LEFT for the purposes of cultural subversion.

There is no supporting it, it's a deception.  And you, as has every other leftist on this board has AVOIDED the relevant argument within the video and the reason is BECAUSE YOUR PURPOSE IS DECEPTION AND THERE IS MEANS TO SPEAK AGAINST HIS ARGUMENT AND MAINTAIN CONTINUITY WITH YOUR OWN ADVERTISED, LIES... about your ideological intentions.

This guy NAILED you idiots and he's exactly RIGHT.

If you have an argument in DIRECT CONTEST OF HIS POINT, post it.  Otherwise, your obfuscation only serves to underscore his point and as your tactical advisor, you're better served to just let it go on by... meaning either put up or shut the fuck up.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Mar 27, 2009)

editec said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Personally, as a libertarian, not a member of the libertarian party, but a true liberal, not what passes for a liberal these days, I find nothing with which to disagree in this video.
> ...



Actually, he did offer a very real solution... it's simply one which you're not willing to except, thus making you part of the very problem to which he spoke.

Every single point he made is a very real solution; and they're solutions which can't FAIL.  You simply do not expect that the Government of the US is anything but the center of all power, that you're rights come from that government, are limited to whatever that government says that your rights are and can't phathom that the government was ever anything BUT THAT, thus it can never RETURN to something that it never was.  

You like to call yourself a realist... when what ya are is a coward. 

When this character meets with King Hussein; there are only three things that can happen.  Either Hussein will convince this fellow that the points he advances in the video are wrong; OR...  this gentleman will convince Hussein that Hussein is wrong and that his points are valid... or neither will convince the other and the King will apply the full value of Federal power to influence this guy to shut up...  Starting with some abuse of power where his income taxes are audited, his personal record publicly discussed, his personal failures made to represent the full scope of his character and in general attack him personally, in an attempt to discredit his message.

And all because, he message is 100% correct, 100% plausible and a VERY real threat to the unconstitutional powers that BE.


----------



## twogreen2c (Mar 27, 2009)

Here is Dr. Basso's other video.  If you Google Dr. Basso, you will learn he is an inspirational speaker.  I would love to be a fly on the wall listening to the verbal exchange between Dr. Basso and our stuttering President.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKFKGrmsBDk]YouTube - The Second American Revolution[/ame]


----------



## American Horse (Mar 27, 2009)

twogreen2c said:


> I have tried discussing Obama's policies and his cabinet appointees with my mother's husband.  This man has never been one to listen to other opinions.  He fits the mold of the typical Democratic supporter where they speak their mind, then shout you down when it is your turn to speak.  This man is so stubborn and thinks everything Obama is doing is great.  What I found very amusing was he also applies his shouting down to the TV.  I witnessed him watch a news story on the financial crisis and Geithner's plan.  As soon as the story turned to Republican House Minority Leader, John Boehner to give his perspective, he yelled at the TV and walked out of the room.  So when you have people like this who refuse to even listen to a short counterpoint view on a news network that is already biased towards the Obama administration, I guess I shouldn't be amazed a community organizer got elected to the highest office of the U.S.  People can be so stupid.



Conservative people, because of the ubiquity of liberal news sources, get a constant sampling of liberal opinion.  If (like I do) they listen to NPR in the mornings and evenings, read their local newspaper which relies on AP and UPS reports, or if during the day or on sunday mornings they tune into the usual _fora_ on CBS, ABC, or NBC, watch or listen to C-SPAN in the mornings when calls are taken, they are handed the liberal slant at all times as if it was the only view worth considering.  We learn to live with that as if it were the atmosphere; in effect it becomes the manufactured conventional wisdom and is believed to be public consensus.

Liberals see all of that foggery as if it actually were the only valid point of view, and instantly reject any other viewpoint as though from the lunatic fringe, and those who don't necessarily agree with their self generated'conventional wisdom' or 'consensus' as "sheep". That just requires less work on their part.  

Just as a clarification without going into political viewpoints either way I offer  CSPAN's 'Morning Journal':  On the morning segment articles are read for public review and input by the audience.  These are read from major US (and some European) newspapers by the call-in host.  Out of this grouping of newspapers there only two which could be classified as "conservative"; _The Washington Times_ and secondly _The Wall Street Journal._  The _WT_ has reporting that you simply won't get in the news sections of other major newspapers, catering to those who want those news items which are usually buried on the back sections of other papers because they are critical of the D party, and an editorial page which clearly leans right about as much as the _NYT_ leans left. The _WSJ_ has neutral news reporting and a conservative leaning editoral page with liberal thought pieces being common, but in the minority.

The C-SPAN caller lines are divided into three categories: Democrat, Republican, and Other.  All the calls on the _Democrat_ line are Democrats, all the calls on the _Other_ line are Democrats and at least half the calls on the _Republican_ line are dubiously Republicans and almost certainly Democrats.  Real Republican caller often complain about how hard it is to get through, and that the Ds use their line to make crank or spurrious calls.  This situation produces about 85 percent D callers and 15 percent R callers.  Therefore, watching this program would give the impression that that is about the make-up of the country at large, since the C-SPAN show is created by the cable industry as a non-partisan public service to cable viewers.  The host will challenge some of the D callers on the R line, but since that slows down the need for expeiency, these challenges are rare. This becomes a self reinforcing phenomena. 

But there are several moral hazards in this brew for the Ds and for the country.  One is that they deceive themselves as to the acceptance of their opinions and policies by the broader public.  Another is that since they are not often tested or challenged they become dogmatically convinced of the correctness of their ideas.  Because of that they are more apt to rely on ad hominem attacks when challenged, to rely on emotional arguments, and are inflexible or a better word might be "brittle"; finally this leads us to be a nation without having any useful debate about major issues which affect us all. This includes the 54% who voted for the present administration, and the 46% which voted against it.  We become a nation in which our sentiments are reduced to polling data, and that too can be deliberately infected with distortion by the pollsters.


----------



## editec (Mar 27, 2009)

PubliusInfinitum said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


 
His solution was to mail teabags to our Congresspersons.

Perahps you think that'll solve the problem, I don't.

That makes me a coward?

You, sir, are a very silly man.


----------



## slackjawed (Mar 27, 2009)

Personally, I just love this guy's videos. I don't think teabags will help either, since the mail people at congress has already said they are afraid of poison or something and will throw out bulging envelopes without delivering them. Now the revolution folks are saying just send the tag, not the bag.
Interestingly enough, I showed these videos to my brother and his reaction was to not only send teabags, but within an hour he was cleaning his guns.
subliminal message maybe?


----------



## Tech_Esq (Mar 27, 2009)

midcan5 said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > You got some major shit wrong in your post. Just factually. Either you're practicing selective memory or you are too young to remember so let me refresh you.
> ...



Well if you haven't had it debated up to this point, I'll debate you on it. Do you want to take the position that the US was not in debt prior to Ronald Reagan taking office in 1981? Because that's what you are saying.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Mar 27, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> > Tech_Esq said:
> ...



LOL... Tech, everyone involved in this discussion, INCLUDING MIDCAN, knows that she is not going to debate anyone on anything.  She's more apt for the quarrel... where she can respond with any number of points in irrelevance... cliches and platitudes, wach one designed to avoid the argument through the facade of intellectualy superiority... a facade which in no way veils her stark ignorance. 

If Midcan has proven ANYTHING, it is that.


----------



## Truthmatters (Mar 27, 2009)

Have fun with the teabag propaganda


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Mar 27, 2009)

Diuretic said:


> We the losers, pissed off because our dumbarse candidates were roundly rejected by the American people want to waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Not fair! Not fair!!!!!!



The beautiful thing about this comment is how it us thoroughly  isolated from ANYTHING which any of her opposition in this thread, from the OP, the video to the various contributors has said.

It is a complete fabrication of the intellectual vacuous variety and a PERFECT example of the full measure of her intellectual means...

Count Diur among the total sum of the left on this thread who have RUN SCREAMING from the points at issue... who have taken every opportunity to change the subject; and for good reason...  if the subject remains at issue, they're completely SCREWED!


----------



## Truthmatters (Mar 27, 2009)

Urban Dictionary: tea bagging

It has a BIG image problem


1.  tea bagging  943 up, 108 down 
 The act of putting your balls in and out of a persons mouth. 
Well if ya didnt sleep with your mouth open I wouldnt have tea bagged ya dude 
by E Mar 16, 2003 share this  
2.  tea bagging  510 up, 61 down 
 the act of lowering one's balls onto someones face, or into their mouth while they are laying down. Kind of resembles dipping a tea bag into a hot cup of water. 
Pohlman's dad was wrestling with Devon and accidentally tea bagged her. 
by Cooter May 23, 2005 share this  
3.  tea bagging  196 up, 86 down 
 When a guy lowers his junk, or balls, onto someones face, or into their mouth, while they are lying on the ground. Resembles dunking a tea bag into a hot cup of water. 
Pohlman's dad was wrestling with Devon, and when he had her pinned, he accidentally tea bagged her!!!!!


----------



## Tech_Esq (Mar 27, 2009)

Truthmatters said:


> Urban Dictionary: tea bagging
> 
> It has a BIG image problem
> 
> ...



I think the libs here were too quick to scoff at this idea. I'll just run up to Capital Hill and tea bag Barbara Boxer. I'm sure it will make an impression on her.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Mar 27, 2009)

PubliusInfinitum said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > midcan5 said:
> ...



OOOOOHHHHHH! You're saying Midcan is a PUNK. I got you. Thanks, good to know.


----------



## Truthmatters (Mar 27, 2009)

Hey its this nutter whos sending tea bags to people .


----------



## Tech_Esq (Mar 27, 2009)

I was here for the Anthrax thing. I will not be sending anything but paper to Congress.

But I am enjoying the visual of tea bagging a few select senators.


----------



## Truthmatters (Mar 27, 2009)

I didnt know you swung that way?


----------



## Tech_Esq (Mar 27, 2009)

Truthmatters said:


> I didnt know you swung that way?



???? kind of an odd comment. Who were you thinking I would be teabagging?


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Mar 27, 2009)

editec said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...




His solution is for citizens to form in mass, in the sum of millions and march on Washington DC, to shut it down... to demand that the LEGISLATURE CHANGE VERY SPECIFIC POLICIES which are so out of constitutional bounds as to be LAUGHABLE...   and I most assuredly DO think that if such can be organized that it will work.

As there is no way that it cannot work...  the issue is not IF it will work, but how one gets it organized.  Frankly, the only way it will work is where the impetus for sufficient people to see the need for it.  We're approaching that point... I'd say that should things continue along there current course, that the pending hyper inflation and the just as certain calls by King Hussein to convert the US currency to some international Monopoloy Money will be more than enough... now when that happens is anyone's guess, but I can't see it being much than and surely inside the scope of a couple of years.

You think that what you've known all your life is permanent, that it must always be this way, because that's all you know... but permeance is an illusion and you're about to get a lesson in that.  And when that lesson comes, the question will become, what side will it be that you come to adhere; that of the Statists, or to that which seeks to return the US to it's contitutional foundation and the notion which returns 'the rights of the people', to the sustainable and original understanding that "The Rights of The People" can ONLY be ASSURED, through THE SECURED RESPECT AND PROTECTIONS FOR THE _RIGHTS INDIVIDUAL PERSON_.

It's not a complex issue Ed... not even close to complex... it's black and white, no shades of gray... the contrast could NOT BE more DISTINCT.  The US is off it's foundation and the ideological left is not the only reason... or even the most significant reason.

We, I, THE CONSERVATIVES, the AMERICANS, the ADULTS... we tolerated you buffoons and we did very little to stop you... we were distracted with being free and pursuing the fulfillment of our individual lives and we failed to realize soon enough that we had left children in charge; by all appearances you seemed like reasonable people... but it turns out that you're not reasonable people; you're not NEARLY reasonable people and I... took much of this for granted and I have decided to check myself; and in so doing to check YOU and the rest of the addle-minded herd... and to do what I need to do to put the US BACK on it's Constitutional Foundation...  A constitution that is written, NOT LIVING and NOT subject to the absurd rationalizations which seek to destroy it's meaning.

The party is coming to a close Ed... the band is wrapping up its last set, the booze is played out and as usual there's nothing left but diet 7-Up... and a couple of bags of trail-mix and the ever present unrefridgerated case of Natural Light... the pickin' are gettin MIGHTY THIN.

Pick a side sport... 'cause the leftism has hit the fan and  it has hit us all and there ain't NO ONE coming out clean... the good news is that what rises up from the inevitable ashes of the coming conflict will be a culture free of any TRACE of left-think... and where such is not only NOT TOLERATED... the mere THOUGHT of tolerating such will be a capital offense.  AND that you wouldn't want to live here under such conditions is a given and a certifiable PLUS!


----------



## twogreen2c (Mar 27, 2009)

twogreen2c said:


> Jerry Doyle reported yesterday that today (3/27) Dr. Bob Basso is to meet with Obama (meeting time not specified).  Dr. Basso told Jerry he will be the first person he contacts after his meeting.  Below is a link to where you can listen to Jerry's radio programs.  You can download the player and listen to the streaming audio of Jerry's show.  You will notice he has various time slots, with the earliest show starting at 3 PM out of Worchester, MA, WCRN 830 AM radio.  I don't know if the later time slots are pre-recorded from earlier.
> 
> Jerry Doyle: Radio Station Finder



I took some time to browse the radio stations broadcasting Jerry's show.  I found a station in California (Welcome to KAHI Radio, AM 950) where you can stream the talk radio programs instantly.  Jerry's program starts 12 Noon Pacific time.  I am hoping he has something to report on Dr. Basso's meeting.


----------



## jillian (Mar 27, 2009)

Gunny said:


> Hello ... there's been a LOT of talk about revolution lately.  Think you can make it go away by trying to marginalize and hide it?



Only among the wingiest of wingnuts who have been anti-democracy for the past eight years. They really need to grow up.... 

or is "democracy" only good when their guy wins.

I'm sorry... I don't take people who want to live in a banana republic very seriously.


----------



## twogreen2c (Mar 27, 2009)

jillian said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > Hello ... there's been a LOT of talk about revolution lately.  Think you can make it go away by trying to marginalize and hide it?
> ...



Did you watch the videos?  Do you have anything to contribute in regard to Dr. Basso's message?


----------



## Ravi (Mar 27, 2009)

twogreen2c said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Gunny said:
> ...


When are you going to present evidence that he met with Obama and Obama told him to keep the meeting a secret?


----------



## twogreen2c (Mar 27, 2009)

Ravi said:


> twogreen2c said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Uh excuse me but where did I say that the meeting was a secret?  Dr. Basso told Jerry Doyle that the Administration asked him not to discuss their upcoming meeting.  And for your information, this meeting is far from a secret.  Basso was once an anchorman in Hawaii.  Turns out the Hawaiian media learned of Basso's video and his White House invitation and they ran a story on it.  They also mentioned Obama remembers Basso from when he was a news anchor.

Don't you have anything better to contribute to this discussion than untruthful statements?


----------



## American Horse (Mar 27, 2009)

editec said:


> His solution was to mail teabags to our Congresspersons.
> 
> Perahps you think that'll solve the problem, I don't.



Ed, I disagree.

It seems to me that he didn't consider that to be a solution at all but instead a clear symbol.  Even if the addressee did not open the letter they could get a count of the sentiments involved.  It was a method of communicating the amount of that sentiment or opinion held by the politician's constituency

Clearly he believes that communication is a partial answer to the problem and a step to a solution.  The tea bag is also a symbol many of us can rally around with a national historical meaning attached to it reminiscent to our present national situation.


----------



## American Horse (Mar 27, 2009)

slackjawed said:


> Personally, I just love this guy's videos. I don't think teabags will help either, since the mail people at congress has already said they are afraid of poison or something and will throw out bulging envelopes without delivering them. Now the revolution folks are saying just send the tag, not the bag.


So.....?  Thousands of undelivered teabag envelopes sends it's own message.  How many congresspeople are moved to ask..."How many of those were meant for me, I wonder?"

They know well enough those bags only contaned tea-bags, and not chemicals or poison. And they are getting the message too.


----------



## twogreen2c (Mar 27, 2009)

twogreen2c said:


> Jerry Doyle reported yesterday that today (3/27) Dr. Bob Basso is to meet with Obama (meeting time not specified).  Dr. Basso told Jerry he will be the first person he contacts after his meeting.  Below is a link to where you can listen to Jerry's radio programs.  You can download the player and listen to the streaming audio of Jerry's show.  You will notice he has various time slots, with the earliest show starting at 3 PM out of Worchester, MA, WCRN 830 AM radio.  I don't know if the later time slots are pre-recorded from earlier.
> 
> Jerry Doyle: Radio Station Finder



Correction to my above statement in which I stated Dr. Basso was to meet with Obama today.  I must have misunderstood Jerry's words because Dr. Basso called into Jerry Doyle's radio program today and stated he is still waiting for a confirmation date from the White House.

I suggest you all podcast Dr. Basso's interview with Jerry if you can find it.  I cannot state everything he said and definitely cannot articulate it in the way he does.  But in a nutshell, Dr. Basso is saying we need an event where millions of people march on Pennsylvania Avenue.  It would take an event of that type of magnitude to get the attention of our President, Congress and the media.  Dr. Basso questions whether Americans will put down their lattes and get off their lazy asses and rise to the occasion.  His concern is that people will not make the effort. 

Yep, sadly most Americans wouldn't want to miss an episode of American Idol for the good of their Country.  Everything is about convenience these days and let someone else go to battle.  Dr. Basso is making a lot of appearances.  Sounds like this guy has the right stuff and MAYBE the media will give him some play.  If he gets big enough, they will have no choice.


----------



## Gunny (Mar 27, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



As usual, Madame Twist-a-Lot and her melodrama can't answer even an simple question without attempting to deflect by putting words never spoken into someone's mouth.  I must admit though, you HAVE outdone even YOUR usual with this load of shit.

One, there's not threat, idiot.

Two, put up or shut up.  Provide the evidence that I have ever stated anyone that does not agree with my views a traitor.  

O r I can save you the trouble.  You're a liar.  I have never stated anything even YOU could misconstrue into THAT.  You have knowingly attempted to attribute to me something I have never said.

And it doesn't take a rightwingnut to be to the right of you.  Just a fucking brain.


----------



## Gunny (Mar 27, 2009)

midcan5 said:


> American Horse said:
> 
> 
> > You just confirmed it for everyone to see.  Your post said all anyone needs to know about your politics being the very air that you breath.  Does what you said in your ref'd post sound non-partisan?  Does it sound open minded?  Objective? Tolerant?
> ...



You don't and have not criticized anyone but the right since coming to this board, and if there's nothing to criticize, you make shit up.


----------



## Gunny (Mar 27, 2009)

Diuretic said:


> We the losers, pissed off because our dumbarse candidates were roundly rejected by the American people want to waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Not fair! Not fair!!!!!!



In other words, you have no argument and nothing intelligent to offer on this topic.  Lameass deflection attempt noted.


----------



## Gunny (Mar 27, 2009)

jillian said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > Hello ... there's been a LOT of talk about revolution lately.  Think you can make it go away by trying to marginalize and hide it?
> ...



Give it a rest, huh?  Only the wingiest of wingnuts will continue to support this administration.  Only the wingiest o f wingnuts would even try to compare this administration to Bush's.  This current administration makes the previous one look like rank amateurs at circling the drain.

And only the wingiest of wingnuts would come out of what I stated about not hiding the topic with the basesless counteraccusations YOU have.

I don't take blind fucking sheeple who can't pull their head out of the sheeple's ass in front of them to see you're marching single file over a cliff very seriously either.


----------



## Gunny (Mar 27, 2009)

twogreen2c said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Gunny said:
> ...



Don't waste your breath.  if it doesn't have a "D" behind it, it doesn't count in her little world.


----------



## Gunny (Mar 27, 2009)

Ravi said:


> twogreen2c said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



You need to not worry about anyone presenting a thing until you present the evidence to back up your baseless accusations against me, liar.


----------



## Gunny (Mar 27, 2009)

twogreen2c said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > twogreen2c said:
> ...



You don't have to a say a word with her around.  She'll be more than happy to put them in your mouth.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 27, 2009)

Now this is change I can believe in.


----------



## Ravi (Mar 27, 2009)

Gunny said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Gunny said:
> ...


No offense, but go fuck yourself. You claim that it is people like me that the revolution will be against. Why? Because I think the economy is worth saving? Because I didn't vote for McCain? Because I think the government should not penalize AIG employees for their bonuses? Because I think illegal immigration is a wedge issue and not the problem it is made out to be? Because I think the war in Iraq was a mistake? Why exactly are you singling me out, Gunny, what viewpoint of mine makes you claim that I am the type of people the revolution will be against?

As for your question, I have more loyalty to the country than the government...but they are both intertwined because WE are the government.


----------



## Gunny (Mar 27, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



What's the matter, liar?  If you can't stand the heat, get your ass back to Romper Room where it belongs.

Your ass got NAILED dead to rights telling a straight-up lie.  End of story.  Live with it.

Sure you can't think up anymore stupid reasons for my comment that would not apply to me?  One thing you have proven in the last couple of days ... you don't know a damned thing about me, even though it's been posted all over this board for 5+ years.  You're head is stuck up your own ass stereotyping anyone that doesn't believe as you do you just attribute standard, what you believe to be "rightwingnut" responses to anyone to the right of you.


----------



## Ravi (Mar 27, 2009)

Gunny said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Gunny said:
> ...


I apologize for calling you a wingnut Gunny, and quite honestly I didn't know it would offend you to this extent. I would still like you to explain why you think this supposed coming revolution will be against people like me.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 27, 2009)

slackjawed said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Where you for the last eight years?


----------



## Toro (Mar 27, 2009)

If you believe in revolution in this country, you do not believe in democracy.

Full stop.

This country is the most democratic in the world, _by far!_  Americans vote on everything.  FFS, Americans elect their national college football champion.  That's a little over the top for me - democracy on steroids.  But it is a compelling argument that democracy permeates through most everything this country does.


----------



## xsited1 (Mar 27, 2009)

twogreen2c said:


> The gentlemen who made this video is Dr. Bob Basso.  Obama has seen this video and contacted Mr. Basso and said he was very disturbed by his video and invited him to the White House.  He told him not to discuss the invitation with anyone.  Dr. Basso was suppose to make a second  appearance on the Jerry Doyle talk radio show, but had to back out because of The White House request.  I know this because I was listening to the radio show as this developed.  I would be very afraid if I was this guy.  Obama's politics uses a thug mentality and I believe they are going to try and destroy him.  Look what that did the Joe the Plumber.  This guy is calling for a revolution and people are getting fired up.  Is our government finally feeling a bit fearful?
> 
> YouTube - The Second American Revolution - We The People



This is perhaps the best political video I have ever seen.  I'll rep you for it as soon as I can.


----------



## American Horse (Mar 27, 2009)

Toro said:


> If you believe in revolution in this country, you do not believe in democracy.
> 
> Full stop.
> 
> This country is the most democratic in the world, _by far!_  Americans vote on everything.  FFS, Americans elect their national college football champion.  That's a little over the top for me - democracy on steroids.  But it is a compelling argument that democracy permeates through most everything this country does.



No one wants to overthrow the government; however there is a grave concern among a huge proportion of citizens over the way the country is going, and it's as if there is already a revolution going on; an overthrow already in progress.  People in the middle realize that the ever increasing velocity of the change that has already been going on, is about to fly out of control, in a revolutionary fashion.   They  fear that they will not recognize their country in only a few years. There is also a fear that this change will have become irreversible, and it will not be a happy place we are going to.  Much of this problem is made more chronic because clear mandates from a majority of the public are ignored for political purposes, mainly to the benefit to the political elite.

The people want a real leader. A constant complaint of responsibility for taking charge by complaining about the mess he has been left does really get it. Neither does it sound very leaderlike to say "this is really tough work; if it wasn't so hard it would've already been done" (that was only a paraphrase but it's what it souunds like to the average person.) Just imagine a leadership figure in your own life; in your place of employment for instance.  Say you get a new manager or foreman in your workplace, and every time he speaks to the group he makes a statement about what a mess he has been left, what needs to be done; how it was left over for him to fix.  This sort of complaint is not one the American people are used to hearing, and it does not instill confidence in that leadership, and it doesn't sit well.


----------



## Toro (Mar 27, 2009)

A revolution of ideas or politics, fine.

A revolution of violence?  Not so fine.


----------



## eots (Mar 27, 2009)

Toro said:


> A revolution of ideas or politics, fine.
> 
> A revolution of violence?  Not so fine.



sometimes to make a omelette you got to break a few eggs.....


----------



## elvis (Mar 27, 2009)

eots said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > A revolution of ideas or politics, fine.
> ...



who will you start with?


----------



## Toro (Mar 27, 2009)

eots said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > A revolution of ideas or politics, fine.
> ...



A culinary revolution is good as well.


----------



## midcan5 (Mar 28, 2009)

I generally don't get into long debates with conservatives, when you are dealing with small children you cannot convince them with reason they are wrong as any parent knows. And conservatives are mostly(?) children as their beliefs are founded in myth and imaginary people. But I will address Ronnie and debt, I was there and saw firsthand the negative effect he had on America. 

For those who point to Carter, Google stagflation and Nixon/Ford. Carter inherited a mess. Clinton inherited a mess. Obama inherited a mess, history for republicans does indeed repeat itself.

I'm sure the blind will question the sources and not the content, but hey, you know what they say about ducks.

"In the Reagan years, more federal debt was added than in the entire prior history of the United States." Richard Darman (Reagan advisor)

"Early in his presidency, Reagan chose as his economic advisors a group that espoused a radical economic theory called "supply-side."  The supply-siders told Reagan that if he gave tax cuts to the top brackets (the wealthiest individuals) the positive effects would "trickle down" to everyone else.  Tax cuts, they argued, would produce so much growth in the economy that America could simply outgrow its deficits.  Reagan bought into supply-side theory, which is why in 1981 he predicted that there would be a "drastic reduction in the deficit."

However, Reagan soon discovered that his supply-side advisors were wrong.  Tax cuts, instead of reducing the deficit, caused the deficit to balloon.  After 1981, Reagan made no more rosy predictions regarding the deficit."
Economic Policy - The Reagan Years

"[In]1985 US Becomes Debtor Nation For the first time since 1914, the United States owed more money to foreigners than it was owed."

"Reagan's spending grew the size of government and set the stage for runaway government spending which has now taken our national debt to $9.2 trillion and has seen the U.S. shift from the largest creditor nation to the largest debtor nation. It could be said that Reagan's legacy was leading this nation down the path to bankruptcy (to which we have now arrived)."
American Chronicle | Even Reagan Was No Ronald Reagan
(The above is from a conservative? weird stuff these conservatives.lol)

"Mr. Reagan also helped redistribute American income and wealth with a bold assault on American labor. In 1981 he summarily fired 12,000 air traffic controllers who went on strike for better working conditions. This ushered in a new and dark era of labor relations, with employers now free to "permanently replace" striking workers. The median real wage failed to grow during the decade of the 1980s.

The Reagan revolution caused even more economic damage internationally, for example by changing policy at the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. Thus began the era of "structural adjustment" -- a set of economic policies that has become so discredited worldwide that the IMF and World Bank no longer use the term. The 1980s became "the lost decade" for Latin America, the region most affected by Washington's foreign economic policy. Income per person actually shrank for the decade, a rare historical event, and the region has yet to come close to its pre-1980s growth rates."

Ronald Reagan's Legacy

"Reagan's first tax proposal, for example, had previously been endorsed by the Democratic Congress beginning in 1978, and the general structure of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 was first proposed by two junior Democratic members of Congress in 1982. Similarly, the "monetarist experiment" to control inflation was initiated in October 1979, following Carter's appointment of Paul Volcker as chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. The bipartisan support of these policies permitted Reagan to implement more radical changes than in other areas of economic policy."

Reaganomics, by William A. Niskanen: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty

"Reagan left three major adverse legacies at the end of his second term. First, the privately held federal debt increased from 22.3 percent of GDP to 38.1 percent and, despite the record peacetime expansion, the federal deficit in Reagan's last budget was still 2.9 percent of GDP. Second, the failure to address the savings and loan problem early led to an additional debt of about $125 billion. Third, the administration added more trade barriers than any administration since Hoover. The share of U.S. imports subject to some form of trade restraint increased from 12 percent in 1980 to 23 percent in 1988." from above


"[Reagan] opposed to the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was the same year that Goodman, Schwerner and Chaney were slaughtered. As president, he actually tried to weaken the Voting Rights Act of 1965. He opposed a national holiday for the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. He tried to get rid of the federal ban on tax exemptions for private schools that practiced racial discrimination. And in 1988, he vetoed a bill to expand the reach of federal civil rights legislation....
Congress overrode the veto. Reagan also vetoed the imposition of sanctions on the apartheid regime in South Africa. Congress overrode that veto, too."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/opinion/13herbert.html?_r=1


Reagan's legacy from others
Salon.com Politics | The Reagan legacy
The Reagan Legacy
Ronald Reagan's Legacy
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/opinion/21krugman.html
graphs
Hale "Bonddad" Stewart: Ronald Reagan: Fiscal Disaster


"Remember Reagan; respect him. But don't let them make you revere him. He was a divider, not a uniter."  Rick Perlstein


----------



## Toro (Mar 28, 2009)

midcan5 said:


> For those who point to Carter, Google stagflation and Nixon/Ford. Carter inherited a mess. Clinton inherited a mess. Obama inherited a mess, history for republicans does indeed repeat itself.



It goes further than that, however.  The genesis of the 1970s inflation was the Vietnam War, and the escalation of it in the 60s under LBJ.  Legend has it that at his ranch in Texas, LBJ threw Fed Governor William McChesney Martin - i.e. yesterday's Alan Greenspan or Ben Bernanke - up against a wall and demanded that the Fed lower interest rates to inflate the economy for the war effort.


----------



## midcan5 (Mar 28, 2009)

Gunny said:


> You don't and have not criticized anyone but the right since coming to this board, and if there's nothing to criticize, you make shit up.



I will agree with the first part of that, but not the second. And by the way, I will continue the first part especially when I see nonsense like this thread.


"The unity of Government, which constitutes you one people, is also now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquillity at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very Liberty, which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee, that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment, that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national Union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the Palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion, that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts."

Quote DB :: Speeches :: George Washington :: George Washington's Farewell Address Speech


----------



## BrianH (Mar 28, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...




Not at our current state as a nation.  That's the point of this thread, is that the representatives are not really representing us.  You have all of these bills and stimulus packages being passed even though a HUGE majority of people are pissed off about it and don't approve of it.  Now if WE are the government, why is our government governing without us?  How can something pass into law when the vast majority of people are opposed to it?  Our presidents can be elected with 51 percent of the vote, why are laws and bills passed with only 20 percent approval?  I'm not suggesting the actual numbers of real events, but simply demonstrating that at the moment, WE are not the government....and that's the problem.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 28, 2009)

Toro said:


> If you believe in revolution in this country, you do not believe in democracy.
> 
> Full stop.
> 
> This country is the most democratic in the world, _by far!_  Americans vote on everything.  FFS, Americans elect their national college football champion.  That's a little over the top for me - democracy on steroids.  But it is a compelling argument that democracy permeates through most everything this country does.



When did you cast your vote for both stimulus packages?  When did you cast your vote for both wars we're involved in?  

No one is talking about having an armed revolution and beheading all of the bureaucrats and politicians.  But our system needs to be "checked and balanced."  The government currently has WAY TOO MUCH power and is wanting more.


----------



## Ravi (Mar 28, 2009)

BrianH said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Gunny said:
> ...


I don't think you are right, Brian. Most Americans support the stimulus package.

Support for stimulus plan slips, poll finds - CNN.com


----------



## Toro (Mar 28, 2009)

BrianH said:


> When did you cast your vote for both stimulus packages?  When did you cast your vote for both wars we're involved in?



You can say that about any policy you do not like.  We live in a representative democracy where we elect individuals to make decisions for us.

Democracy would not work if every single person refused to accept the outcome unless they received every single thing they wanted.  Democracy is about reaching a consensus amongst competing interests, not everyone being strident and absolute in one's own position and not accepting the outcome.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Mar 28, 2009)

jillian said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > Hello ... there's been a LOT of talk about revolution lately.  Think you can make it go away by trying to marginalize and hide it?
> ...



Democracy is not the end to any means which provides for it.  Which is what you're saying here... that the imperative IS the Democracy...  

Democracy is merely a Democratic process...  Your position requires the imperative be the existence of the Democracy itself.  That somehow 'Democracy' means something, in and of itself...

In reality what 'counts,' which is to say the IMPERATIVE, is the individual liberty, which is sustained through the bed-rock principle upon which liberty rests...  democracy is the means which seeks to serve THAT END through the means of each individual to cast a virtuous; prudent and morally sound vote, which serves that IMPERATIVE; but where a democracy lacks virtue and where that absence of virtue rejects it's natural prudence; such a democracy stands as a threat to THE JUST AND VALID PRINCIPLES OF INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY; it becomes the tyranny that smothers individual liberty; thus destroying it; such a democracy comes to stand in opposition to those bed-rock principles on which individual liberty rests.  

Democracy as such becomes little more than the popular whimsy of a misguided majority; 'mob rule' where the perception of a majority which is the result of deception and manipulation by a devious ruling minority, who use democracy to feather their own duplicitous nest; the tiny tyrants for instance who used the power granted them through democratic rule, to coerce those in the financial markets to set aside prudent actuarial lending thresholds, in the name of equality!!  Manipulating the meaning of equality, blurring it with that of subjective fairness; inevitably destroying the very market which had provided for decades, a stable and sustainable means for hundreds of millions of free people to trade their fair value for fair value in return; but which was set upon and all but destroyed by the non-virtuous tyrants wielding tiny minds and cold hearts, because that market failed to provide HOME OWNERSHIP to those who were not otherwise capable of such; that the market did provide housing to the least able WAS NOT ENOUGH, it wasn't FAIR.   

The tiny tyrants rejected out of hand that such could not 'own' a home because of their inherent financial instability.

Prudence requires that where one injects instability into a market, that the market will inevitably succumb to the calamitous effects of instability... but the tiny tyrants did not care...  they demanded that PRUDENCE BE DAMNED!  That what COUNTED WAS FAIRNESS and they implied a MAJORITY DEMAND that prudence be set aside to accommodate that projected majorities desire for fairness and in so doing CORRUPTED THE FINANCIAL MARKETS, leaving them in their present state of calamity which we're all so very familiar...  Sadly, the tiny tyrants are presently setting aside prudence and virtue and stealing the incomes of four generations, obligating THEM to pay for their mistakes; punishing success and subsiding that which succumbed to their catastrophic lack of concern for prudent, virtuous judgment.



Democracy is not an end in and of itself... fairness is not equality and popular will is not the measure of prudent and virtuous governance; and where popular will seeks to empower that majority over the valid and just rights of the individual; it is the duty of the virtuous people to cast off that misnomer and replace it governance that understands that the RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE can only be sustained WHERE THE RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL ARE RESPECTED AND THEIR MEANS TO EXERCISE THOSE RIGHTS PROTECTED... that ONLY THEN, will the Right of the sum of individuals; "THE PEOPLE" be secure.


----------



## Ravi (Mar 28, 2009)

PubliusInfinitum said:


>


Keep typing, Cheeta
.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Mar 28, 2009)

Toro said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > When did you cast your vote for both stimulus packages?  When did you cast your vote for both wars we're involved in?
> ...




What we find here is an excuse which serves to set aside the responsibility of the elected representatives in a democratic representative republic to exercise virtuous prudence... in effect the assertion is that because Representatives have been elected, THEY ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE SAME VALID REASONING WHICH SUSTAINS INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY without regard to the specific form of governence which is charged with defending it.

Similar to that of Jillian, the imperative becomes the Representative Republic itself... and NOT the principles on which that Republic was formed... the implication being that the Republic is the end, by which the means served to promote; and nothing can or could be farther from the truth.

Democracy can only "WORK" where a virtuous people, seek to serve through that Democracy, Democratic Representative Republic or other forms of democratic government; the principled imperative for which it was designed to promote.  Which is to say that the Democracy rest upon a virtuous people who understand the principles which the Democracy was designed to serve and will use their influence to promote those principles, thus sustaining the culture which designed the democracy towards that end in the first place. 

Where the people who comprise that Democracy do not possess the knowledge or understanding of those principles, or who have come to reject those principles, then that  government no longer serves such and where there remains present, those who DO understand and who DO respect the natural and immutable principles, it falls to them at some point to CHANGE that government and REFORM those who would contest its natural sustenance.

The US government is, as noted by Toro, a Representative Republic which is designed to promote and defend the Constitution which established that Republic.  A constitution which was written and designed to PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL from the power of a government from usurping their means to exercise those rights.  

The gentleman in the video who has become the subject of the OP was precisely correct in every one of his many points which described the absurd detachment which the US Legislature has established for themselves...  He is precisely correct, that there is NO MEANS WITHIN REASON which could possibly argue that these detachments from their responsibility could POSSIBLY SERVE A SUSTAINABLE FREEDOM...

And where those detachments PREVENT the means of the sum of individuals which comprise 'the people' to bring that legislature back into alignment with their constitutional responsibilities... inevitably it falls to the sum of those individuals to do so by whatever means is available to them; and to initiate those means in the order which prudent judgment provides.  

Revolution comes in many forms.. but in every revolution sweeping change is its function and as such, once it begins, where it ends is always in doubt... and because of this, it is the tendency of most people to tolerate the intolerable... up to the point, where the intolerable earns it's stripe and the anxiety born in the doubtful outcome is preferable to that which left such as their only remaining alternative, to that which they could no longer accept.

These are immutable principles; they're not subject to the whimsy of a projected popular consensus or the threat of unspeakable power...  they're not impressed by haughty rejections born of some faux intellectual enlightenment... 

They are the principles of nature; and while one can fight the inevitable effect inherent in nature, one cannot long withstand the inexorable forces which nature's inevitability assures.

So I suggest you govern yourself accordingly and in so doing, be prepared to accept the inevitable consequences of your actions...  which I should note, in closing, come to us all...  Except the consequences of actions born of principled virtue are commonly recognized as the *benefit* of such... in contrast to the 'consequences' negatively associated with it's antithesis.


----------



## roomy (Mar 28, 2009)

PubliusInfinitum said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...




For the life of me I can't understand why everyone hates you, I think you are...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Mar 28, 2009)

Ravi said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



That "most PEOPLE" support a given policy IN NO WAY ESTABLISHES THAT SUCH POLICY IS A VIRTUOUS AND PRUDENT DECISION WHICH BEST SERVES THE INTERESTS OF INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY...  

If 98% of "THE PEOPLE" voted to BURN DOWN THE SUM OF ALL MEANS OF FOOD PRODUCTION... that would not be a virtuous and prudent decision in support of individual liberty either.  

So this idiotic notion that "majority RULES"  is BULLSHIT, where that majority does NOT SERVE THE PRINCIPLES ON WHICH THEIR MEANS TO GOVERN RESTS...  The left doesn't have a right to destroy the US currency, just because they were elected to a majority.

PERIOD.  

And this all hinges on the certainty that NO ACTION BY ANY INDIVIDUAL OF SOME OF INDIVIDUAL CAN RIGHTFULLY USURP THE MEANS OF OTHERS TO EXERCISE THEIR RIGHTS.  And when your actions destroy my means to engage in commerce... you've indisputably usurped my means to exercise my right to pursue the fulfillment of my life through the fruit of my labor.

And that's a problem...  Now you claim you have a majority and that this makes you right...  well if you idiots keep pushing this freedom killing policy, you had better hope you've a majority and one which has the means to defend thsemselves from that very well regulated 'minority' who you'll have THROUGHLY pissed off and who will be in no mood to hear your snotty fallacious retorts, let alone to accept them as a viable defense.

But far be it from me to offer an opinion designed to PREVENT hostility... you just keep advancing that 'let them eat cake' attitude, Marie... and we'll see how it plays out.


----------



## slackjawed (Mar 28, 2009)

"And that's a problem... Now you claim you have a majority and that this makes you right... well if you idiots keep pushing this freedom killing policy, you had better hope you've a majority and one which has the means to defend thsemselves from that very well regulated 'minority' who you'll have THROUGHLY pissed off and who will be in no mood to hear your snotty fallacious retorts, let alone to accept them as a viable defense."

I want to point out that the majority now may not be the majority in the future. Justifying unconstitutional actions by means of claiming a majority is a double edged sword and can be used against one group when another comes into power and is the 'majority'. 
That's why we have a constitution that defines us a (democratic) representitive republic. This was an attempt by our founding fathers to protect our country from the "tyranny of democracy".(ie mob rule)
Until the American people start to see through the divisionary tactics used by our so-called leaders and unite with one voice, we the people won't see any results in our favor.
Stop the partisan bickering, it is a ploy by our corrupt leaders to divide us and manipulate us against each other all the while enriching themselves and their friends.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Mar 28, 2009)

roomy said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...




First, that you believe that everyone hates me, says far more about your limited intellect, your lack of virtue and your disregard for prudence, than the comment could ever hope to say about me.

You have, as is the habit of your ilk, thus representing the danger inherent in your right to vote, sought to avoid the argument I presented.  And ya did so for NO OTHER reason than you simply lack the intellectual means to do so; reason is served by the certainty, that IF you COULD advance a well reasoned, intellectually sound, logically valid rebuttal, which YOU FELT offered a sound refutation of my position... or one which even mounted a worthy defense of that to which I contested... YOU WOULD.

But thank you for demonstrating my point...

I would like to take this time to inform the board that I in NO WAY, directly or indirectly encouraged this individual to offer a position which supports fundament elements of my position.  

Had I so much as asserted that this person was limited to such intellectual non-starters, they'd have vociferously denied it  and demanded I PROVE IT!

Thus, towards that end, I submit this members post as evidence of their severe intellectual means and their free deomonstration of the stark absence of any discernable moral virtue or prudent judgment being possessed by them.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Mar 28, 2009)

slackjawed said:


> "And that's a problem... Now you claim you have a majority and that this makes you right... well if you idiots keep pushing this freedom killing policy, you had better hope you've a majority and one which has the means to defend thsemselves from that very well regulated 'minority' who you'll have THROUGHLY pissed off and who will be in no mood to hear your snotty fallacious retorts, let alone to accept them as a viable defense."
> 
> I want to point out that the majority now may not be the majority in the future. Justifying unconstitutional actions by means of claiming a majority is a double edged sword and can be used against one group when another comes into power and is the 'majority'.
> That's why we have a constitution that defines us a (democratic) representitive republic. This was an attempt by our founding fathers to protect our country from the "tyranny of democracy".(ie mob rule)
> ...



First...  I reject out of hand, the notion that 'partisan bickering' is even a valid notion...  in my experience, its a term which is used by the 'middle way(ers), the centrist, the fascists... that use it in an vain attempt to establish their own moral superiority; which would be fine, if their positions were not being created from the ideological ether and didn't rest on the tedious infinite point of endless cliches and meaningless platitudes, such as that which "partisan bickering" effectively illustrates.

You will never find me resting from my opposition to the principle-less, liberty killing advocacies of the ideological left.  The "American People" are but a tiny minority within the ranks of the US population.  Leftism is the antithesis of American and as such they do not represent, cannot represent and will NEVER represent ANY AMERICAN, let alone advocate for American principle.

If you can't recognize that immutable fact, then you are part of the problem. 

Now before ya start cryin' that I've misrepresented that for which you should be labeled; TAKE THE TIME TO ADVANCE A LEFTIST POSITION WHICH YOU FEEL ON SOME LEVEL EXEMPLIFIES "AMERICA."


----------



## Ravi (Mar 28, 2009)

PubliusInfinitum said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...


Chill out, Pubic. He was arguing that a revolution would be valid since the majority is against current governmental policies. I was merely pointing out that the majority isn't at that point.

But please list what you believe the government is currently doing that is destroying your means to engage in commerce or your means to exercise your right to pursue the fulfillment of your life through the fruit of your labor. And please don't respond with one of your typical hysterical verbose rants...give me one or two concrete examples.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Mar 28, 2009)

Ravi said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Printing money against no measured value, through which they fund government debt instruments and with which they in turn BUY THOSE DEBT INSTRUMENTS WHICH ARE BASED UPON UNFUNDED *BAD DEBT*.

Claiming the power to seize private property on dubious grounds of 'rights of the collective.'

Redefining their means to tax business on ever declining scales of minutie, such as cap and trade...

Stuff like that...


----------



## Ravi (Mar 28, 2009)

PubliusInfinitum said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > PubliusInfinitum said:
> ...


I'm not familiar with the last one, but the first two haven't happened...and I fail to see how any of them restricts your ability to make a buck.


----------



## slackjawed (Mar 28, 2009)

PubliusInfinitum said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> > "And that's a problem... Now you claim you have a majority and that this makes you right... well if you idiots keep pushing this freedom killing policy, you had better hope you've a majority and one which has the means to defend thsemselves from that very well regulated 'minority' who you'll have THROUGHLY pissed off and who will be in no mood to hear your snotty fallacious retorts, let alone to accept them as a viable defense."
> ...



When I see partisan bickering in our country, I see two groups of people that want essentially the same thing, but disagree on how to get there. 
If people concentrated on their simularities, instead of their differences, more would be accomplished because more of our leaders would be willing to compromise.
I reject your theory on partisan bickering that you presented. However; I want to assure you that I respect your opinion and applaud the fact that we all have the freedom to voice our opinions.
I agree with your opinion that my opinion and the term partisan bickering can be used as a political tool by the fringe groups among us, but point out that it has also been used by our mainstream (alleged) leaders.
I also agree with your statements about the left not representing Americans, but I think that you didn't go far enough because I don't think that the right, in it's present form, represents Americans either.
My opinion is that we the people have been abused for years by our so-called leaders for a variety of reasons. I maintain that until we the people unite as such, and stop being party members, we are not going to see any change in that situation.
I also think that too many people that have heard this guy are jumping to the conclusion that revolution always means guns and violence. I don't think it has to be that way. 
These American Tea Party people are already talking about waging 'economic war', in other words, they are going to try to organize a day when everybody in their movement pledges not to spend any money. I don't know if there are enough of them to make a difference, I don't know if it will work. It is however, a powerful weapon that would be a form of revolution.
BTW- I don't fit any of the labels you tossed out there, and certainly have no illusion of superiority moral or otherwise. I am just like most Americans, I am trying to figure out what the hell is going on so I can decide what I need to do to protect myself, my family and my community. The only difference between myself and a lot of Americans is that I live in a very remote area where a lot of those 'fringe' people live. I don't have a choice but to pay attention because where I am, there have been 'little uprisings' in the past.


----------



## slackjawed (Mar 28, 2009)

I love this publicus, very good examples imho:

Printing money against no measured value, with which they fund government dent instruments and with which they BUY THOSE DEBT INSTRUMENTS WHICH ARE BASED UPON BAD DEBT.

Claiming the power to seize private property on dubious grounds of 'rights of the collective.'

Redefining their means to tax business on ever declining scales of minutie, such as cap and trade...

I don't see these as partisan examples, this is being done by our so-called leaders. i don't care what party they belong to, this is what our leaders are doing.
Now the discussion of whether we have the right leaders in place may be a partisan discussion....those discussions generally take place during elections.


----------



## Againsheila (Mar 28, 2009)

American Horse said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > If you believe in revolution in this country, you do not believe in democracy.
> ...



Um, I do.  Our elected officials haven't been working for we the people for a long time.


----------



## elvis (Mar 28, 2009)

Ravi said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



If we are talking about the same issues, the first two have happened.  The dollar is not backed by gold anymore.  So when we owe China money we don't have, we must print more dollars, which devalues them.  
Properties can be seized if the state wants to build a highway that happens to go "through" your house. I believe also, if you grow marijuana on your property, the government can seize the property, but that's another story.


----------



## Toro (Mar 28, 2009)

American Horse said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > If you believe in revolution in this country, you do not believe in democracy.
> ...



Some do, I'm afraid.



Againsheila said:


> Um, I do.  Our elected officials haven't been working for we the people for a long time.



If one is for violent rebellion to overthrow a democratically elected government - no matter what your political affiliation - one is a fringe extremist.  Saying that one supports a violent uprising _in the most democratic country on the planet_ in the name of "We the people" is no different than the Marxist who also claims to know some eternal truth.  It is two sides of the same coin.


----------



## Againsheila (Mar 28, 2009)

Toro said:


> American Horse said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



I had hope before this last election that this could be settled non-violently as so many people didn't want to vote for either party, but in they end, they elected one of the two most corrupt parties in the history of our country to lead us.

At this point, regardless of what you call me, I don't think we can fix our problems short of a bloody revolution.


----------



## Ravi (Mar 28, 2009)

Who is the enemy, Shelia?


----------



## Gunny (Mar 28, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



I am not offended by being called a wingnut.  I know I'm not one.  I AM offended that you would state that I have called ANYONE a traitor or was guilty of treason on this board when I have argued AGAINST ANYONE using those terms without absolute, unimpeachable evidence.  There is a reason treason has such a strict definition and one does not meet the definition literally, then they are not guilty of treason.

I argue against your beliefs.  I have never once attempted to deny you your political beliefs nor have attempted to censor them.  I don't consider freedom of expression to be treason ... it's a Right, guaranteed by the Constitution.  

And for anyone else using the term "wingnut" or "traitor" go read slackjawed's posts.  He makes excellent points.  "Revolution" does not require violence.  It requires action.  At no point have I EVER supported the violent overthrow of our government.

Why the "war" or "revolution" would be against people like you is simple ... you support Obama's socialist and fascist policies and his burying us in debt so far that most of us probably won't be alive to see it paid off.


----------



## Againsheila (Mar 28, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Who is the enemy, Shelia?



Our "elected officials" the lobbyists and those that pay the lobbyists.

Our government is currently owned by a very few wealthy elite, they are the enemy.


----------



## slackjawed (Mar 28, 2009)

I think it's important to remember that these videos did not one time call for more than non-violent protest. This guy Basso and his backers make very powerful videos, and even though he never actually called for violence, it seems to have that effect on some people. 
My brother for example, I showed him these videos and within an hour he was cleaning his guns. I suspect a subliminal message, but then again, my brother is a hot-headed idiot sometimes. (aren't we all?)
I think that there is a difference between our government and our so-called leaders. That, to me, appears to be the target of these videos, our leaders. He calls them our "non-representing representitives". I would argue that elected leaders that do not act in the public interest as enemies of our government.
I don't believe that very many Americans would rebel against our government, which has been in place since our founding. I do believe that it is possible that enough Americans would rebel against our so-called leaders to make a difference.
I for one, believe that our leaders have not acted in our best interest for most of my adult life. I don't think it is a partisan issue at all because regardless of which party is in power, we the people still get the shaft. I do think the partisan arguments are created by these parties to make it easier to fleece the American taxpayers. I thought that about Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush2. During their reigns of power, I was vocal about it too. 
I think the message of these videos is:
If the people want their country and their government to represent them, they are going to have to rebel against their so-called leaders, who at present seem to serve only themselves.


----------



## American Horse (Mar 28, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> *Properties can be seized if the state wants to build a highway that happens to go "through" your house.* I believe also, if you grow marijuana on your property, the government can seize the property, but that's another story.




But that is land or real property taken by the power of emminent domain, and  at least the owners are paid for their property at current valuations to comparable properties in the same area.

A far more pernicious taking is declaring a piece of property subject to environmental conditions.  In this case they don't actually take title to the property, but nor do they reimburse the owner for the loss of use of the property.  By establishing "zones" which specify and limit allowable uses, and then determining the land cannot be used for that specified use, the land is rendered unsalable, and the loss is financial; and is a taking. This sounds only theoretical but it is not.

I would've sworn that a situation like that was so rare as to be irrelevant until my own county determined that the only way they would permit development of a piece of land I owned required building a road across it connecting two roads on either side.   However the State Department of Environmental Management (pursuant to an interpretation of EPA regulations) won't allow a road to be built because it would cross a low "grassy area" through which water drains during storm events.  By calling that "grassy area" a part of the "waters of Indiana", they disallow any road to be built. 

This is to preserve certain life forms living (common insects, worms, and other lower life forms) in the grass and soil there, and also in a multiplicity of other similar locations where water occasionally runs ending up in Indiana streams and rivers. With that decision a piece of property, required to be, and suitable only for commercial development becomes useable only for a single home building site.  It's value in that situation is  a fraction of its value as a commercial use property.

Your second example, Elvis, involves use of property for illegal activites, but there is a strong temptation for some bureaucrats to obtain property in that way by trumping up charges or by framing someone.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Mar 28, 2009)

This video was spot on.  People are fed up always getting the shaft and our leaders continually ignore what we want.  What he's saying is get involved, do something, make your voice be heard, make them listen.   The question is, how many are willing to do this?  Are you?  It's easy peasy to sit on a message board and bitch and moan but that accomplishes nothing.  If you're dissatisfied with the direction this country has taken and the direction this country is headed,_ do something about it_.


----------



## American Horse (Mar 28, 2009)

Zoom-boing said:


> This video was spot on.  People are fed up always getting the shaft and our leaders continually ignore what we want.  What he's saying is get involved, do something, make your voice be heard, make them listen.   The question is, how many are willing to do this?  Are you?  It's easy peasy to sit on a message board and bitch and moan but that accomplishes nothing.  If you're dissatisfied with the direction this country has taken and the direction this country is headed,_ do something about it_.



In the past I equated dollar donations to candidates of my choice to be a substitute for "activism".  In 1976, when there was a strong unionization push in "Right to Work" states, including our own, I donated $500 to Richard Lugar's US Senate campaign, and he was subsequently elected. He followed through on his promise on that issue and in every bill since has supported "small business".  Today funds are scarce so I intend to take up action in lieu of financial support. I will be amongst those at a "Tea Party" here on April 15 carrying a sign, and hoping to stir things up by showing support.

There is great value in giving these ideas and events publicity on the internet and on boards like this one.  Perhaps someone will be motivated to go out and protest and the numbers may be substantial.  If later there were a march on DC similar to the "Million Man March" I would find a way to be there.


----------



## elvis (Mar 28, 2009)

Gunny said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Gunny said:
> ...



You say you don't call people traitors because of their views.  From what I have seen, you haven't.  What if an American supports al qaeda's views?  Does that make that person a traitor?  What would make someone a traitor on this board?


----------



## Ravi (Mar 28, 2009)

Againsheila said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Who is the enemy, Shelia?
> ...


And me, according to Gunny. Not that he advocates shooting me or anything.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Mar 28, 2009)

Ravi said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...




When the US Federal Reserve, buys US Treasury bonds with MONEY THAT THE FED DOES NOT HAVE... THAT IS the US Treasury BUYING IT'S OWN BAD DEBT...  If you want to argue that the Fed is not the US Treasury, that's fine; it won't help ya here, but it's fine.  

Long-term interest rates dive on Fed plan to buy T-bonds | Money & Company | Los Angeles Times

Happened last week...

Leftists have LONG Argued for the 'right' of the collective over those of the individual... it's the defining trait of the ideological left...

From local imminent domain where municipalities confiscate private property to pad their tax base buy giving that property to more affluent private interests...  which is a policy that was confirmed by a majority decision of  leftist sitting on the US Supreme Court.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

... to the new powers being sought by the Treasury Dept (The US Executive) to sieze businesses which they deem "Too big to fail" to prevent the failure of those businesses from bringing down the Leftist Financial House of Cards... 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/25/business/25web-bailout.html


Leftists have been taxing the crap out of industy/business, thus the market in general, in the US and everywhere else they've found power, for 80 years... to even TRY and deny it is absurd beyond measure. 

The Kyoto Accords is just the latest farce, of which King Hussein is now advocating and that is SPECIFICALLY the relevance of her mention of "SCIENCE"  in her inaugeration spewing.


----------



## Sinatra (Mar 28, 2009)

twogreen2c said:


> The gentlemen who made this video is Dr. Bob Basso.  Obama has seen this video and contacted Mr. Basso and said he was very disturbed by his video and invited him to the White House.  He told him not to discuss the invitation with anyone.  Dr. Basso was suppose to make a second  appearance on the Jerry Doyle talk radio show, but had to back out because of The White House request.  I know this because I was listening to the radio show as this developed.  I would be very afraid if I was this guy.  Obama's politics uses a thug mentality and I believe they are going to try and destroy him.  Look what that did the Joe the Plumber.  This guy is calling for a revolution and people are getting fired up.  Is our government finally feeling a bit fearful?
> 
> YouTube - The Second American Revolution - We The People



I don't agree with all of this, but most of it  - HELL YES.

I am getting very upset at the direction of our nation - and have been for a number of years.  The downward spiral has been greatly expedited since Obama has been elected and it really scares me.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 28, 2009)

twogreen2c said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Some of you_ folks are SO ANGRY that you want to shoot you NEIGHBORS!!!_
> ...



But you supported the PNAC, correct?


----------



## Sinatra (Mar 28, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> twogreen2c said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...



CO2?

Water Vapor?


----------



## Ravi (Mar 29, 2009)

Oh I get it Pubic, any law or interpretation of the law that you disagree with you deem "leftist" even when it can be shown that the right was responsible for it.

I still am not seeing how your ability to make a buck has been affected.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Mar 29, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Oh I get it Pubic, any law or interpretation of the law that you disagree with you deem "leftist" even when it can be shown that the right was responsible for it.
> 
> I still am not seeing how your ability to make a buck has been affected.



Well of course you don't see how confiscatory taxation, adding untold liability to commerce; the printing of more worthless money against debt which they fund through the writing of bad checks could possibily interefere with ANYONE'S MEANS to earn a living.  If you could understand it Ravi, you wouldn't be a LEFTIST!

Now I've seen ou complain in previous posts on other threads, throughout this board of what you sometimes refer to as 'outsourcing' where US industry has moved their manufacturing off shore... or their tech call centers or what have you...

Now you find SOMETHING wrong with that...  do you not?  Aren't you one of the chrmoic criers that the US government should protect US jobs?  Or do you contest those people, recognizing them as idiots?

Because THAT is a symptom of precisely what I'm talking about.

A policy is a LEFTIST policy when that policy promotes the tenets and the otherwise stated goals of leftism...  Where the stated goal is to fund ever expanding government through taxation and regulation... it's leftism.  Where that goal is to epxand social entitlements to protected classes, at the expense of others... It's leftism.  Where such policy sets aside prudent financial thresholds to protect a fatally flawed SCIENTIFIC economic $cheme designed to manipulate the markets towards empowering the left... ITS LEFTISM.

Where the government supports a scheme which can only serve to devalue the instrument through which I exchange the value of the product of my labor, it undermines my right to pursue the fulfillment of my life through the product of that labor... where the government implements policy that forces the value at which I must exchange my labor to beyond what the market is willing to pay, forcing me to accept less than what I need through the implentation of that labor, it undermines my means to exercise my rights... and so on.

That you don't understand that, has no bearing on that being so... what's more its just as so for YOU as it is for me and AGAIN... you not understading that doesn't CHANGE THAT.

Now while you likely can't understand that either... I've nonetheless taken the time, ONCE AGAIN, to explain it to you.  Despite you presenting yourself as an obtuse example of you being PART OF THE PROBLEM!


----------



## twogreen2c (Mar 29, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> twogreen2c said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...



I am not familiar with this group, but went to their website and read an excerpt from their Statement of Principles (see below).  I cannot say I would support their principles as a whole (see bolded text).  Support would be dependent on the issues at hand, the parties involved, the consequences to the U.S. and whether it falls under our Constitutional guidelines.  Intelligent arguments for or against would have to be debated by the Congress.  That's the scary part.

 From the Projects founding Statement of Principles

As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the worlds most preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievement of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

[What we require is] a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; *a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States global responsibilities.*

Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. *But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership of the costs that are associated with its exercise*. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of the past century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Mar 29, 2009)

twogreen2c said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > twogreen2c said:
> ...



You've just challenged a leftist to THINK... 

Thus that conversation is OVER, short a couple of tired cliches and thread bear platitudes of the vacuous variety.

PNAC advocates for the American Perspective...  Thus PNAC stands as the antithesis of the ideological left, from the meek Centrists who just isn't comfortable with the idea that we should be protecting our interests over those of other people with differing ideas and the Marxist who is CERTAIN that the American perspective is WRONG; neither can tell you WHY they feel the American Perspective is wrong... but that doesn't even slow them down from implying or stating outright that it is.


----------



## editec (Mar 29, 2009)

bla bla bla LEFTIST bla bla bla confiscatory taxes bla bla bla liberals.

yawn!


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Mar 29, 2009)

Ravi said:


> No offense, but go fuck yourself. You claim that it is people like me that the revolution will be against. Why? Because I think the economy is worth saving? Because I didn't vote for McCain? Because I think the government should not penalize AIG employees for their bonuses? Because I think illegal immigration is a wedge issue and not the problem it is made out to be? Because I think the war in Iraq was a mistake? Why exactly are you singling me out, Gunny, what viewpoint of mine makes you claim that I am the type of people the revolution will be against?
> 
> As for your question, I have more loyalty to the country than the government...but they are both intertwined because WE are the government.




HEY!  A perfect score...  NO! On all of the above, you managed to COMPLETELY avoid the point.

You're part and parcel of the probem, BECAUSE YOU LACK THE MEANS TO UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM AND ADVOCATE FOR THAT WHICH PROMOTES THE PROBLEM.

For instance you state that ya feel that 'the economy is worth saving'...  yet you advocate for policy THAT CAUSED THE PROBLEM and the policy for which you advocate to SAVE the economy will at BEST mask the fatal flaws which the same but previously implemented policy have created...

All of which means that you're not anything APPROACHING an American... because you have no idea what America is and you've shown NO signs of possessing the minimal intellectual means necessary to understand it.  Yet you possess the means to vote and with every vote you vote AGAINST the interests of America; while proclaiming you love for her.  

You're EXACTLY the problem and if a traitor is a citizen that promotes the interests of the enemies of their nation, and if enemy is that which is defined as that which seeks to or can only result in her destruction; then there's absolutely NO Evidence on the table that you've anything OTHER than a traitor to the US.

No you'll unquestionably reject this conclusion, but you'll do so through empty denials; you'll claim that 'honest people can disagree on this or that policy' and while that is a zippy cliche which serves to promote comity between two idiots who want to hide their means to lay down an effective argument for their respective positions, honest people cannot disagree on the certainty that left-think, IN EVERY CONCEIVABLE FACET of any given 'ism'... is the very antithesis of that beacon of individual liberty known as AMERICA!


----------



## American Horse (Mar 29, 2009)

twogreen2c said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > twogreen2c said:
> ...



Here's a 10 minute video tangential to America's leadership in the world with questions answered by John Bolton as asked by Glen Beck  Take the ten minutes.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Mar 29, 2009)

editec said:


> Publius Infinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



  bravo!  

   BRAAAV*O*!   

This thread really needed a fascist to run in and prove my point by avoiding that point through the IMPLICATION that left-think is NOT the rock in the Policy road which has set the US from her principled FOUNDATION... no doubt born of a DESPERATE need to 'spread the blame to 'both sides...'  (which I've already done...  the right is to blame for allowing the left and their comrade centrists to place leftists in government, which has brought us to where we are...  a problem which we're determined to resolve one way or another.)

Now Ed would have LOVED to have come in with a well reasoned, intellectually sound, logically valid argument, wherein she established that left-think is in line with the bed-rock principles that ARE the foundation of America; but she isn't capable of such, so the yawn was about all she had...

Now the good news for Ed here, is that NO ONE is capable of such, because Left-think represents the very ANTITHESIS (that means the opposite Bobo) of the principled founding of America... so there's absolutely no means to do so...  PERIOD.

Great Job Ed...  ya done the best ya could, God bless ya... had someone asserted that you were a fascist prone to defend left-think, you'd have run to deny it and DEMANDED that they PROVE it...

So you coming in here to prove it... Really HELPS!

Thanks...


----------



## editec (Mar 29, 2009)

bla bla bla editec bla bla bla leftist bla bla bla wah! wah! wah!

Now go wrap yourself in the flag for somebody stupid enough to think you know what the fuck you're talking about, okay, sonny?

As long as you think the problems of our work are based on some specious theory of economics, and not based on the ongoing crime of our leaders (or both parties) you are nothing but another American dupe.


----------



## Ravi (Mar 29, 2009)

PubliusInfinitum said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > No offense, but go fuck yourself. You claim that it is people like me that the revolution will be against. Why? Because I think the economy is worth saving? Because I didn't vote for McCain? Because I think the government should not penalize AIG employees for their bonuses? Because I think illegal immigration is a wedge issue and not the problem it is made out to be? Because I think the war in Iraq was a mistake? Why exactly are you singling me out, Gunny, what viewpoint of mine makes you claim that I am the type of people the revolution will be against?
> ...


The economy is worth saving. How it it is saved is a matter for debate. Financial companies should be regulated so this doesn't happen again. You are free to call me un-American as you please, that doesn't make it true. I swear, you are some kind of troll that works for the DNC to further make Republicans look like howling morons.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Mar 29, 2009)

editec said:


> bla bla bla editec bla bla bla leftist bla bla bla wah! wah! wah!
> 
> Now go wrap yourself in the flag for somebody stupid enough to think you know what the fuck you're talking about, okay, sonny?
> 
> As long as you think the problems of our work are based on some specious theory of economics, and not based on the ongoing crime of our leaders (or both parties) you are nothing but another American dupe.



Ed, while I know that you're threatened by this thread pointing out the failure of your most closely held beliefs... and ya desperately need to change the subject; but the fact remains that the centrist 'Mixed Economy" advocates have DESTABLILIZED the US economy by introducing, rather intentionally so, the INHERENT INSTABILITY COMMON TO SOCIALIST POLICY...  

And I know that you'd LOVE to advance an intellectually sound, logically valid argument to contest that fact... but you're simply not capable of doing so....  

Now I'd like ot limit your humiliation here, but we can't do that if you keep returning with these flaccid little post which in effect scream: My NAME IS ED and I'm a DUMBASS!

So maybe you should just shush and go find a thread where they're discussing family recipes for a nice hot chilly or how best to build a compost system...


----------



## twogreen2c (Mar 29, 2009)

Ravi said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...




Wow Ravi.  You need to come out from under that rock.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Mar 29, 2009)

midcan5 said:


> I generally don't get into long debates with conservatives



Roflmnao..

Anyone that has ever read your work can appreciate how you've come to that decision...  and this departure from that learned behavior is going to put you right back on track... so not to worry...



> when you are dealing with small children you cannot convince them with reason they are wrong as any parent knows.



WHEW! Aint THAT THE TRUTH!  The key is to recognize that you're intellectual limitations will always leave you as the child in these discussions... and to fight that certainty is just not healthy.  You're a leftist Midcan and the ideological Left is the political means by which the STUPID advance their voice... and you know this, yet you keep returning only to realize greater and greater levels of humiliation...





> And conservatives are mostly(?) children as their beliefs are founded in myth and imaginary people.



And yes... this is where it all starts, with these flacclid little pricks, which you shove fruitlessly against the whole of knowledge, only to find frustration, leading you to ever deeper levels of eternal impotence.

So let's get to it...






> But I will address Ronnie and debt, I was there and saw firsthand the negative effect he had on America.



Oh good... I was there too... 



> For those who point to Carter, Google stagflation and Nixon/Ford. Carter inherited a mess. Clinton inherited a mess.



Lets set aside the google sources... and your implication which projects an empty validation of your conclusion and recognize what ya just said... 

'Carter Inherited Stagflation...'

Let's assume for the sake of argument that this is correct... Carter's economic policy, of confiscatory taxation, absurd regulation and encouraging ridiculous Fed policy COULD ONLY HAVE EXACERBATED INFLATION (That means it made it worse... Bobo)




> I'm sure the blind will question the sources and not the content, but hey, you know what they say about ducks.



Huh... so you're advancing a fallacious defense of your dubious sources, to offset any criticism that they're simply revising history in an overt act of deception?  While disengenuous and openly deceitful, tactically it's all ya have... isn't it?  So it serves reason.



> "In the Reagan years, more federal debt was added than in the entire prior history of the United States." Richard Darman (Reagan advisor)



"In the Reagan Years"... Golly, is it ME, ir are ya running to use that quote to imply something ENTIRELY distinct from what it actually says?

I mean it says "In the Reagan Years"... which is to say that it SPECIFICALLY does NOT SAY: "REAGAN ADDED MORE DEBT..."  

Let's move on, I just wanted to clear that misnomer up while it was fresh...



> "Early in his presidency, Reagan chose as his economic advisors a group that espoused a radical economic theory called "supply-side."



Radical?  Huh... So supply and demand is a Radical notion of economics?  Well that can't possibly be any clue that the veracity of your source is doubtful... and you were worried.




> The supply-siders told Reagan that if he gave tax cuts to the top brackets (the wealthiest individuals) the positive effects would "trickle down" to everyone else.  Tax cuts, they argued, would produce so much growth in the economy that America could simply outgrow its deficits.  Reagan bought into supply-side theory, which is why in 1981 he predicted that there would be a "drastic reduction in the deficit."



Actually, the truth is that Reagan was not being so advised, as much as this was Reagan's own recognition of the immutable certainty, that reducing economic drag, which is otherwise induced on the economy by the liability of high taxation, would induce greater gains in production, due to the reduction in economic drag cutting the certainty of losses to risked capital, induced by that tax liability, promoting economic growth...  it's a certainty in nature and can produce no other potential effect.  Which as is always the case in a valid calculation, the inverse is just as true; induce more drag through greater tax liability and you'll REDUCE production...   If you doubt that... just look at any market place and observe the a product cycle... The housing market is a great example... when mortgages were plentiful due to the imprudent reduction of lending thresholds, induced by the left, housing was relatively cheap... and being in high demand these reductions in mortgages threshold exponentially expanded the size of the qualified market...

Of course over the 5 year spand of peak idiocy, the average price of a house in the best markets shot from under 100,000 to over 600,000 for THE SAME HOUSE.

Now you WERE THERE MIDCAN... what happened to that MARKET?  What was the trickle down effect of increasing liability in the housing market?  

I'm sure you'll agree that the HOUSING MARKET COLLAPSED when the cost of buying a house was no longer sustainable by the stark majority of the market...  it had nothing to do with available credit ...  as credit was WIDELY AVIALABLE...   it had everything to do 
with DEMAND DROPPING LIKE A STONE...  everyone that had previously wanted a house, had one, and that meant that the only people left buying were the speculators and the market had exploded beyond the means of the market's average buyer to justify the risk of buying at those highly inflated prices... thus there was NO DEMAND FOR CREDIT, thus the ENORMOUS VOLUME OF fees which the credit maket had been enjoying dried up and the party was over...  the only fees coming in was the principle payments on the TRILLIONS IN COIN THAT THEY HAD BORROWED, so they could LOAN IT and they did not have the capital reserves to manage those liabilities...  which was bad enough... but when the collapse of demand DEVALUED THE PROPERTIES ON WHICH THOSE MORTAGES WERE BASED...  they turned to the vehicles which they had used to offset the potential for loss against unforeseen risks, AKA: INSURANCE... (That points to AIG Bobo) the whole house of cards came crashing down... ONCE AGAIN PROVING THE ABSURDITY THAT IS FRACTIONAL BANKING... (Bobo that is a SCIENTIFIC FORMULA of the LEFT)  Now that is a demonstration of inflation... the devaluation of the asset or that which secures the assets, and who can we point to here and reasonably assess as being responsible for creating this inflation??  (This is asking who sets the rate on available credit... who sets the threshold of required reserves against realized liabilities and so on?  Who demanded that the financial markets set aside their own actuarial thresholds in the name of fairness, etc?)  See: the Federal Reserve.




> However, Reagan soon discovered that his supply-side advisors were wrong.  Tax cuts, instead of reducing the deficit, caused the deficit to balloon.  After 1981, Reagan made no more rosy predictions regarding the deficit."



ROFLMNAO... Well sure... because "EVERYONE KNOWS" that reducing liability on the market will naturally require Congress to SPEND more money.... which is the ONLY POTENTIAL SOURCE FOR *DEFICIT SPENDING.*


Economic Policy - The Reagan Years

You should contact your geocity source and explain that their stated conclusion is a non sequitur, thus it's logically invalid and is thus NOT intellectually sound.




> "[In]1985 US Becomes Debtor Nation For the first time since 1914, the United States owed more money to foreigners than it was owed."



Golly... 1914?  That's so Odd... I mean the Fed was created in 1913...  But hey, let's not get side tracked on that one...  as that wouldn't even BE FAIR!



> "Reagan's spending grew the size of government and set the stage for runaway government spending which has now taken our national debt to $9.2 trillion and has seen the U.S. shift from the largest creditor nation to the largest debtor nation. It could be said that Reagan's legacy was leading this nation down the path to bankruptcy (to which we have now arrived)."
> American Chronicle | Even Reagan Was No Ronald Reagan



ROFLMNAO... It never ceases to amaze me how the left drapes itself in "American' this or that, when they are working so hard behind that name to undermine America...

Reagan in fact spent most of his Presidency trying to get the leftist controlled congress to CUT spending...  which they not only refused to do, but when in 1984 Reagan established a compromise for a dollar for dollar spending cut for every dollar in tax increase that THE LEFTIST LEGISLATURE DEMANDED... the congress took the tax increase, but *never cut one red cent of SPENDING* instead INCEASED their un-constitutional Social Spending...  which of course had been designed into the budgets ever since LBJs "the Great Society"  with mandatory increases of 3-5% PER YEAR for their various faux wars...  Crime and Poverty, etc...

Reagan's only increase in the scope of the US government, which wasn't an increase at all, but is one the left chronically demands to be such, was President Reagan's constitutional mandate to provide for the common defense; which he dutifully tended to through the building of a sufficient military to  kick the shit out of the Soviets if they failed to heed Nature's warnings to not screw with America.  Of course this was expensive, as the Ford and Carter Administrations, particularly Jimma Catta... had EVISCERATED US MILITARY READINESS...



> (The above is from a conservative? weird stuff these conservatives.lol)



Your source was not a conservative... and to pretend he was just sets to lie any notion that presumes that you're as intelligent as a bag of nails.



> "Mr. Reagan also helped redistribute American income and wealth with a bold assault on American labor.



There's no means to redistribute wealth through an assault on labor... as labor is not a source of wealth, thus attacking labor, presumably to strip them of their wealth would be a colossal fool's errand... so once again your source is found basing their argument upon the invalid reasoning of a non sequitur...



> In 1981 he summarily fired 12,000 air traffic controllers who went on strike for better working conditions.



Well... Reagan didn't fire them because they went on strike, per se... he fired them because their contract expressly prohibited them going on strike; thus they violated that contract, and when this was explained to them and they refused to adhere to their contractual obligations, Reagan, THEIR BOSS, canned their collective asses ON THEIR HAVING VIOALTED THEIR CONTRACT...  

And man I LOVED IT... I literally stood up and cheered as did everyone in our ready room when they heard that news...  It was WONDERFUL to see an actual American back in the White House REJECTING the addle-minded left and their 'we-be-victims' bullshit...



> This ushered in a new and dark era of labor relations, with employers now free to "permanently replace" striking workers. The median real wage failed to grow during the decade of the 1980s.




Yeah, having to live up to one's contractual agreements can really put a damper on the children of the left who prefer to ignore RESPONSIBILITY...  

Now I would LOVE to hear how you square this direct and unambiguous Leftists flight from responsibility as the action of ADULTS; given your assertion at the outset of this now long since discredited screed...  (It's all coming back to her now kids... she's remembering why she rarely debates conservatives at any depth... it JUST NEVER GOES WELL!)



> The Reagan revolution caused even more economic damage internationally, for example by changing policy at the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. Thus began the era of "structural adjustment" -- a set of economic policies that has become so discredited worldwide that the IMF and World Bank no longer use the term. The 1980s became "the lost decade" for Latin America, the region most affected by Washington's foreign economic policy. Income per person actually shrank for the decade, a rare historical event, and the region has yet to come close to its pre-1980s growth rates."



Yes that's right because the Fed prefers the Fractional Reserves policy which the meltdown the financial markets are presently reeling...  Reagan sought to simply adjust the structure of the reserves and that of course lead to a strong US dollar and the Europeans HATED THAT! ...  Which is the basis behind the: "a set of economic policies that has become so discredited worldwide..." comment.  

And yeah... those changes have been set aside, the reserve thresholds returned to leftist margins and the US Dollar is all but worthless...  GREAT JOB KIDS!



> Ronald Reagan's Legacy



ROFl... Oh "Common Dreams"... the original "Progressive Echo-Chamber"... Always nice to kick their ball into the street... I appreciate-cha bringing them in... that was a hoot!



> "Reagan's first tax proposal, for example, had previously been endorsed by the Democratic Congress beginning in 1978, and the general structure of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 was first proposed by two junior Democratic members of Congress in 1982. Similarly, the "monetarist experiment" to control inflation was initiated in October 1979, following Carter's appointment of Paul Volcker as chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. The bipartisan support of these policies permitted Reagan to implement more radical changes than in other areas of economic policy."
> 
> Reaganomics, by William A. Niskanen: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty



ROFLMNAO... Oh GOD that's precious... WHAT "FIRST TAX PROPOSAL?"  Your quote didn't specify...  Are we to believe that you're suggesting that Reagan ripped the Democrats off when he first proposed his tax cuts, the one's you just spent 500 words lamenting?  Or are ya speaking of the Tax increases of 86?  Which were again a result of a negotiated dollar for dollar CUT IN SPENDING, which the leftist legislature FAILED TO IMPLEMENT? (That means they lied, Bobo...)  



> "Reagan left three major adverse legacies at the end of his second term. First, the privately held federal debt increased from 22.3 percent of GDP to 38.1 percent and, despite the record peacetime expansion, the federal deficit in Reagan's last budget was still 2.9 percent of GDP. Second, the failure to address the savings and loan problem early led to an additional debt of about $125 billion. Third, the administration added more trade barriers than any administration since Hoover. The share of U.S. imports subject to some form of trade restraint increased from 12 percent in 1980 to 23 percent in 1988." from above




Well this is displaced accountability on parade... REAGAN SPENT 8 YEARS TRYING TO GET CONGRESS TO CUT SPENDING...  *THE CONGRESS REFUSED...*  CONGRESS IS THE ONLY PARTY IN THE US GOVERNMENT THAT CAN SPEND A DIME FROM THE US FEDERAL TREASURY... PERIOD.  Every PENNY OF FEDERAL MONEY THAT IS SPENT IS AUTHORIXED BY CONGRESS... So this entire SCREED tries to lay the blame for CONGRESSIONAL SPENDING ON A PRESIDENT WHO FOUGHT FOR 8 YEARS TO GET THAT CONGRESS TO CUT SPENDING....





> "[Reagan] opposed to the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was the same year that Goodman, Schwerner and Chaney were slaughtered. As president, he actually tried to weaken the Voting Rights Act of 1965. He opposed a national holiday for the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. He tried to get rid of the federal ban on tax exemptions for private schools that practiced racial discrimination. And in 1988, he vetoed a bill to expand the reach of federal civil rights legislation....



ROFLMNAO...

This is deceit of the highest order... Reagan was not even in the federal government in 1964, his contest of the legislation was one regarding THE SPENDING THAT IT PRODUCED... THE SPENDING WHICH WAS STILL BEING EXANADED WHEN HE TOOK OFFICE 16 YEARS LATER...



> Congress overrode the veto.



Which stands in evidence OF CONGRESS EXPANDING SPENDING IN DEFIANCE OF REAGAN'S VETO WHICH WAS DESIGNED TO CUT SPENDING... 



> Reagan also vetoed the imposition of sanctions on the apartheid regime in South Africa. Congress overrode that veto, too."
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/opinion/13herbert.html?_r=1


Yes, he did... again on grounds that it was COSTING US MONEY... where again the LEFT voted to INCREASE SPENDING IN DEFIANCE OF REAGAN'S ATTEMPT TO CUT SPENDING...



> Reagan's legacy from others
> Salon.com Politics | The Reagan legacy
> The Reagan Legacy
> Ronald Reagan's Legacy
> ...



Salon, the nation, thethirdworldtraveler, the huffington post and the NY TIMES...

ROFLMNAO... Sweet mother, how Pravda managed to miss that litanny of propaganda is known ONLY to you...



> "Remember Reagan; respect him. But don't let them make you revere him. He was a divider, not a uniter."  Rick Perlstein



Yessir... Mr. Reagan definitely did not apologize for his innate understanding of the Rights and responsibilities intrinsic to the foundation of America and that DEFINITELY Divided the Anti-Americans from the Americans... which was his goal... 

But it cannot be argued that Mr. Reagan did not succeed in UNITING Americans against the addle-minded subversives of the ideological left.

Now go lick your wounds dipshit... and remember your place from now on.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Mar 29, 2009)

Ravi said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Yeah... that's right, it's 'debatable' that policy which caused the problem, such as the 'regulations imparted upon the financial markets which caused them to lower their actuarial thresholds in the name of FAIRNESS'...  should be considered as a means to 'save the economny'... BRILLIANT!

You  are un-patriotic, IF patriotism is defined as someone who SUPPORTS the best interests of their country.  Ya see Ravi... advocating for policy which has historically threatened one's country is NOT a trait which indicates "SUPPORT FOR THE BEST INTERESTS OF ONE'S COUNTRY..."

And for what it's worth, I could not POSSIBLY care LESS about what you are anyother leftist feels about me and my stated reasoning...  that you oppose my reasoning merely proves conclusively that my reasoing is right on target.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 29, 2009)

Ravi said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...




I'll agree that most people support A stimulus package.  But most people haven't read the current package, and did not read the previous packages.  How can someone support something they know nothing about.  Hell, I'd bet that many of our congressmen and women didn't read it.  I support some sort of stimulus package, but do not support the current one that is being passed.


----------



## Ravi (Mar 29, 2009)

Did you read it, Brian?


----------



## midcan5 (Mar 30, 2009)

Listen all you swinging Cheneys, these 'thanks' for inane nonsense constitute the greatest circle jerk I have witnessed in recent years. LOL

But I still ask, where were you so called pretend revolutionaries when Bush/Cheney/Gonzales were breaking the fundamental individual rights laws of this nation? Or are you all revolutionaries on the far left. Probably you are confusing ideologies or are such blind partisans you are clueless. I vote clueless.

When Change Is Not Enough: The Seven Steps To Revolution | OurFuture.org


----------



## editec (Mar 30, 2009)

BrianH said:


> I'll agree that most people support A stimulus package. But most people haven't read the current package, and did not read the previous packages. How can someone support something they know nothing about. Hell, I'd bet that many of our congressmen and women didn't read it. I support some sort of stimulus package, but do not support the current one that is being passed.


 
Based on what little most of us (myself included ) CAN know of it, I think you've about summed up what we're facing.

I certainly cannot support anything that keeps the terribly flawed system we had going, that's for_ damned_ sure.

And since I see nothing in this plan that changes any of the fundamental problems that are bankrupting this nation, and since this TARP program seems designed to make Americans even more indebted to the masters of the financial universe, I surely do NOT support the plan as I understand it.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Mar 30, 2009)

midcan5 said:


> I generally don't get into long debates with conservatives



Roflmnao..

Anyone that has ever read your work can appreciate how you've come to that decision...  and this departure from that learned behavior is going to put you right back on track... so not to worry...



> when you are dealing with small children you cannot convince them with reason they are wrong as any parent knows.



WHEW! Aint THAT THE TRUTH!  The key is to recognize that you're intellectual limitations will always leave you as the child in these discussions... and to fight that certainty is just not healthy.  You're a leftist Midcan and the ideological Left is the political means by which the STUPID advance their voice... and you know this, yet you keep returning only to realize greater and greater levels of humiliation...





> And conservatives are mostly(?) children as their beliefs are founded in myth and imaginary people.



And yes... this is where it all starts, with these flacclid little pricks, which you shove fruitlessly against the whole of knowledge, only to find frustration, leading you to ever deeper levels of eternal impotence.

So let's get to it...






> But I will address Ronnie and debt, I was there and saw firsthand the negative effect he had on America.



Oh good... I was there too... 



> For those who point to Carter, Google stagflation and Nixon/Ford. Carter inherited a mess. Clinton inherited a mess.



Lets set aside the google sources... and your implication which projects an empty validation of your conclusion and recognize what ya just said... 

'Carter Inherited Stagflation...'

Let's assume for the sake of argument that this is correct... Carter's economic policy, of confiscatory taxation, absurd regulation and encouraging ridiculous Fed policy COULD ONLY HAVE EXACERBATED INFLATION (That means it made it worse... Bobo)




> I'm sure the blind will question the sources and not the content, but hey, you know what they say about ducks.



Huh... so you're advancing a fallacious defense of your dubious sources, to offset any criticism that they're simply revising history in an overt act of deception?  While disengenuous and openly deceitful, tactically it's all ya have... isn't it?  So it serves reason.



> "In the Reagan years, more federal debt was added than in the entire prior history of the United States." Richard Darman (Reagan advisor)



"In the Reagan Years"... Golly, is it ME, ir are ya running to use that quote to imply something ENTIRELY distinct from what it actually says?

I mean it says "In the Reagan Years"... which is to say that it SPECIFICALLY does NOT SAY: "REAGAN ADDED MORE DEBT..."  

Let's move on, I just wanted to clear that misnomer up while it was fresh...



> "Early in his presidency, Reagan chose as his economic advisors a group that espoused a radical economic theory called "supply-side."



Radical?  Huh... So supply and demand is a Radical notion of economics?  Well that can't possibly be any clue that the veracity of your source is doubtful... and you were worried.




> The supply-siders told Reagan that if he gave tax cuts to the top brackets (the wealthiest individuals) the positive effects would "trickle down" to everyone else.  Tax cuts, they argued, would produce so much growth in the economy that America could simply outgrow its deficits.  Reagan bought into supply-side theory, which is why in 1981 he predicted that there would be a "drastic reduction in the deficit."



Actually, the truth is that Reagan was not being so advised, as much as this was Reagan's own recognition of the immutable certainty, that reducing economic drag, which is otherwise induced on the economy by the liability of high taxation, would induce greater gains in production, due to the reduction in economic drag cutting the certainty of losses to risked capital, induced by that tax liability, promoting economic growth...  it's a certainty in nature and can produce no other potential effect.  Which as is always the case in a valid calculation, the inverse is just as true; induce more drag through greater tax liability and you'll REDUCE production...   If you doubt that... just look at any market place and observe the a product cycle... The housing market is a great example... when mortgages were plentiful due to the imprudent reduction of lending thresholds, induced by the left, housing was relatively cheap... and being in high demand these reductions in mortgages threshold exponentially expanded the size of the qualified market...

Of course over the 5 year spand of peak idiocy, the average price of a house in the best markets shot from under 100,000 to over 600,000 for THE SAME HOUSE.

Now you WERE THERE MIDCAN... what happened to that MARKET?  What was the trickle down effect of increasing liability in the housing market?  

I'm sure you'll agree that the HOUSING MARKET COLLAPSED when the cost of buying a house was no longer sustainable by the stark majority of the market...  it had nothing to do with available credit ...  as credit was WIDELY AVIALABLE...   it had everything to do 
with DEMAND DROPPING LIKE A STONE...  everyone that had previously wanted a house, had one, and that meant that the only people left buying were the speculators and the market had exploded beyond the means of the market's average buyer to justify the risk of buying at those highly inflated prices... thus there was NO DEMAND FOR CREDIT, thus the ENORMOUS VOLUME OF fees which the credit maket had been enjoying dried up and the party was over...  the only fees coming in was the principle payments on the TRILLIONS IN COIN THAT THEY HAD BORROWED, so they could LOAN IT and they did not have the capital reserves to manage those liabilities...  which was bad enough... but when the collapse of demand DEVALUED THE PROPERTIES ON WHICH THOSE MORTAGES WERE BASED...  they turned to the vehicles which they had used to offset the potential for loss against unforeseen risks, AKA: INSURANCE... (That points to AIG Bobo) the whole house of cards came crashing down... ONCE AGAIN PROVING THE ABSURDITY THAT IS FRACTIONAL BANKING... (Bobo that is a SCIENTIFIC FORMULA of the LEFT)  Now that is a demonstration of inflation... the devaluation of the asset or that which secures the assets, and who can we point to here and reasonably assess as being responsible for creating this inflation??  (This is asking who sets the rate on available credit... who sets the threshold of required reserves against realized liabilities and so on?  Who demanded that the financial markets set aside their own actuarial thresholds in the name of fairness, etc?)  See: the Federal Reserve.




> However, Reagan soon discovered that his supply-side advisors were wrong.  Tax cuts, instead of reducing the deficit, caused the deficit to balloon.  After 1981, Reagan made no more rosy predictions regarding the deficit."



ROFLMNAO... Well sure... because "EVERYONE KNOWS" that reducing liability on the market will naturally require Congress to SPEND more money.... which is the ONLY POTENTIAL SOURCE FOR *DEFICIT SPENDING.*


Economic Policy - The Reagan Years

You should contact your geocity source and explain that their stated conclusion is a non sequitur, thus it's logically invalid and is thus NOT intellectually sound.




> "[In]1985 US Becomes Debtor Nation For the first time since 1914, the United States owed more money to foreigners than it was owed."



Golly... 1914?  That's so Odd... I mean the Fed was created in 1913...  But hey, let's not get side tracked on that one...  as that wouldn't even BE FAIR!



> "Reagan's spending grew the size of government and set the stage for runaway government spending which has now taken our national debt to $9.2 trillion and has seen the U.S. shift from the largest creditor nation to the largest debtor nation. It could be said that Reagan's legacy was leading this nation down the path to bankruptcy (to which we have now arrived)."
> American Chronicle | Even Reagan Was No Ronald Reagan



ROFLMNAO... It never ceases to amaze me how the left drapes itself in "American' this or that, when they are working so hard behind that name to undermine America...

Reagan in fact spent most of his Presidency trying to get the leftist controlled congress to CUT spending...  which they not only refused to do, but when in 1984 Reagan established a compromise for a dollar for dollar spending cut for every dollar in tax increase that THE LEFTIST LEGISLATURE DEMANDED... the congress took the tax increase, but *never cut one red cent of SPENDING* instead INCEASED their un-constitutional Social Spending...  which of course had been designed into the budgets ever since LBJs "the Great Society"  with mandatory increases of 3-5% PER YEAR for their various faux wars...  Crime and Poverty, etc...

Reagan's only increase in the scope of the US government, which wasn't an increase at all, but is one the left chronically demands to be such, was President Reagan's constitutional mandate to provide for the common defense; which he dutifully tended to through the building of a sufficient military to  kick the shit out of the Soviets if they failed to heed Nature's warnings to not screw with America.  Of course this was expensive, as the Ford and Carter Administrations, particularly Jimma Catta... had EVISCERATED US MILITARY READINESS...



> (The above is from a conservative? weird stuff these conservatives.lol)



Your source was not a conservative... and to pretend he was just sets to lie any notion that presumes that you're as intelligent as a bag of nails.



> "Mr. Reagan also helped redistribute American income and wealth with a bold assault on American labor.



There's no means to redistribute wealth through an assault on labor... as labor is not a source of wealth, thus attacking labor, presumably to strip them of their wealth would be a colossal fool's errand... so once again your source is found basing their argument upon the invalid reasoning of a non sequitur...



> In 1981 he summarily fired 12,000 air traffic controllers who went on strike for better working conditions.



Well... Reagan didn't fire them because they went on strike, per se... he fired them because their contract expressly prohibited them going on strike; thus they violated that contract, and when this was explained to them and they refused to adhere to their contractual obligations, Reagan, THEIR BOSS, canned their collective asses ON THEIR HAVING VIOALTED THEIR CONTRACT...  

And man I LOVED IT... I literally stood up and cheered as did everyone in our ready room when they heard that news...  It was WONDERFUL to see an actual American back in the White House REJECTING the addle-minded left and their 'we-be-victims' bullshit...



> This ushered in a new and dark era of labor relations, with employers now free to "permanently replace" striking workers. The median real wage failed to grow during the decade of the 1980s.




Yeah, having to live up to one's contractual agreements can really put a damper on the children of the left who prefer to ignore RESPONSIBILITY...  

Now I would LOVE to hear how you square this direct and unambiguous Leftists flight from responsibility as the action of ADULTS; given your assertion at the outset of this now long since discredited screed...  (It's all coming back to her now kids... she's remembering why she rarely debates conservatives at any depth... it JUST NEVER GOES WELL!)



> The Reagan revolution caused even more economic damage internationally, for example by changing policy at the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. Thus began the era of "structural adjustment" -- a set of economic policies that has become so discredited worldwide that the IMF and World Bank no longer use the term. The 1980s became "the lost decade" for Latin America, the region most affected by Washington's foreign economic policy. Income per person actually shrank for the decade, a rare historical event, and the region has yet to come close to its pre-1980s growth rates."



Yes that's right because the Fed prefers the Fractional Reserves policy which the meltdown the financial markets are presently reeling...  Reagan sought to simply adjust the structure of the reserves and that of course lead to a strong US dollar and the Europeans HATED THAT! ...  Which is the basis behind the: "a set of economic policies that has become so discredited worldwide..." comment.  

And yeah... those changes have been set aside, the reserve thresholds returned to leftist margins and the US Dollar is all but worthless...  GREAT JOB KIDS!



> Ronald Reagan's Legacy



ROFl... Oh "Common Dreams"... the original "Progressive Echo-Chamber"... Always nice to kick their ball into the street... I appreciate-cha bringing them in... that was a hoot!



> "Reagan's first tax proposal, for example, had previously been endorsed by the Democratic Congress beginning in 1978, and the general structure of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 was first proposed by two junior Democratic members of Congress in 1982. Similarly, the "monetarist experiment" to control inflation was initiated in October 1979, following Carter's appointment of Paul Volcker as chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. The bipartisan support of these policies permitted Reagan to implement more radical changes than in other areas of economic policy."
> 
> Reaganomics, by William A. Niskanen: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty



ROFLMNAO... Oh GOD that's precious... WHAT "FIRST TAX PROPOSAL?"  Your quote didn't specify...  Are we to believe that you're suggesting that Reagan ripped the Democrats off when he first proposed his tax cuts, the one's you just spent 500 words lamenting?  Or are ya speaking of the Tax increases of 86?  Which were again a result of a negotiated dollar for dollar CUT IN SPENDING, which the leftist legislature FAILED TO IMPLEMENT? (That means they lied, Bobo...)  



> "Reagan left three major adverse legacies at the end of his second term. First, the privately held federal debt increased from 22.3 percent of GDP to 38.1 percent and, despite the record peacetime expansion, the federal deficit in Reagan's last budget was still 2.9 percent of GDP. Second, the failure to address the savings and loan problem early led to an additional debt of about $125 billion. Third, the administration added more trade barriers than any administration since Hoover. The share of U.S. imports subject to some form of trade restraint increased from 12 percent in 1980 to 23 percent in 1988." from above




Well this is displaced accountability on parade... REAGAN SPENT 8 YEARS TRYING TO GET CONGRESS TO CUT SPENDING...  *THE CONGRESS REFUSED...*  CONGRESS IS THE ONLY PARTY IN THE US GOVERNMENT THAT CAN SPEND A DIME FROM THE US FEDERAL TREASURY... PERIOD.  Every PENNY OF FEDERAL MONEY THAT IS SPENT IS AUTHORIXED BY CONGRESS... So this entire SCREED tries to lay the blame for CONGRESSIONAL SPENDING ON A PRESIDENT WHO FOUGHT FOR 8 YEARS TO GET THAT CONGRESS TO CUT SPENDING....





> "[Reagan] opposed to the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was the same year that Goodman, Schwerner and Chaney were slaughtered. As president, he actually tried to weaken the Voting Rights Act of 1965. He opposed a national holiday for the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. He tried to get rid of the federal ban on tax exemptions for private schools that practiced racial discrimination. And in 1988, he vetoed a bill to expand the reach of federal civil rights legislation....



ROFLMNAO...

This is deceit of the highest order... Reagan was not even in the federal government in 1964, his contest of the legislation was one regarding THE SPENDING THAT IT PRODUCED... THE SPENDING WHICH WAS STILL BEING EXANADED WHEN HE TOOK OFFICE 16 YEARS LATER...



> Congress overrode the veto.



Which stands in evidence OF CONGRESS EXPANDING SPENDING IN DEFIANCE OF REAGAN'S VETO WHICH WAS DESIGNED TO CUT SPENDING... 



> Reagan also vetoed the imposition of sanctions on the apartheid regime in South Africa. Congress overrode that veto, too."
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/opinion/13herbert.html?_r=1


Yes, he did... again on grounds that it was COSTING US MONEY... where again the LEFT voted to INCREASE SPENDING IN DEFIANCE OF REAGAN'S ATTEMPT TO CUT SPENDING...



> Reagan's legacy from others
> Salon.com Politics | The Reagan legacy
> The Reagan Legacy
> Ronald Reagan's Legacy
> ...



Salon, the nation, thethirdworldtraveler, the huffington post and the NY TIMES...

ROFLMNAO... Sweet mother, how Pravda managed to miss that litanny of propaganda is known ONLY to you...



> "Remember Reagan; respect him. But don't let them make you revere him. He was a divider, not a uniter."  Rick Perlstein



Yessir... Mr. Reagan definitely did not apologize for his innate understanding of the Rights and responsibilities intrinsic to the foundation of America and that DEFINITELY Divided the Anti-Americans from the Americans... which was his goal... 

But it cannot be argued that Mr. Reagan did not succeed in UNITING Americans against the addle-minded subversives of the ideological left.

Now go lick your wounds dipshit... and remember your place from now on.



Now, I would Like Midcan to respond to this... naturally, her refusal to repond, and/OR her attempt to dismiss it absent an intellectually sound, logically valid, WELL REASONED, POINT FOR POINT rebuttal, advanced in a reasonably timely manner, will constitute a CONCESSION wherein she admits, either by default or overtly through her unlikely ascension (As to ascend to the points made would require some discernable means to reason...) that her above stated position and the full scope of revisionist Left-think amounts to little more than a childish rationalization to avoid being held accoutnable for their indisputable failures.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Mar 30, 2009)

midcan5 said:


> Listen all you swinging Cheneys, these 'thanks' for inane nonsense constitute the greatest circle jerk I have witnessed in recent years. LOL
> 
> But I still ask, where were you so called pretend revolutionaries when Bush/Cheney/Gonzales were breaking the fundamental individual rights laws of this nation? Or are you all revolutionaries on the far left. Probably you are confusing ideologies or are such blind partisans you are clueless. *I vote clueless.*
> 
> When Change Is Not Enough: The Seven Steps To Revolution | OurFuture.org



Clearly you're clueless, you supported the candidacy of a Marxist Muslim, at a time when the US was at war with islam and struggling against the catastrophic effects of Marxist promoting policy set upon our financial markets... that goes without saying; but it was nice to see ya admit it... perhaps that's a good sign, but I doubt it.

Now Midcan... this is a concession that your stated position is absurd revisionist left-think... and that the fulls scope of your ideology amounts to BULLSHIT!

And I'm willing to withhold judgment... in that the act of doing so can only amplify your humiliation... and given that the act itself is a delicious IRONY in that it's _ALL IN THE NAME OF FAIRNESS_... to give you an EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TO FULLY SUPPORT YOUR NOW, LONG SINCE DISCREDITED, SCREED...

With that said, I'll just ask you to cite ONE 'right' which the Bush administration usurped...

Wherein, of course, you'll be wholly unable to advance an valid example only ADDING to the HEAPING, STEAMING MOUND of humiliation which you're presently dropping.


----------



## midcan5 (Mar 30, 2009)

PubliusInfinitum said:


> Now, I would Like Midcan to respond to this... naturally, her refusal to repond, and/OR her attempt to dismiss it absent an intellectually sound, logically valid, WELL REASONED, POINT FOR POINT rebuttal, advanced in a reasonably timely manner, will constitute a CONCESSION wherein she admits, either by default or overtly through her unlikely ascension (As to ascend to the points made would require some discernable means to reason...) that her above stated position and the full scope of revisionist Left-think amounts to little more than a childish rationalization to avoid being held accoutnable for their indisputable failures.



I'm not sure if you realize it, but you did not do a very good job of defending your hero. Ad hominem and shooting the messenger, media in this case, without addressing the content is weak at best and irrelevant in the end.

Why do wingnuts have to parse through replies with cute answers, much in upper case? Is that your idea of an answer. Do you really think upper case makes an empty point less empty?

I think had Reagan not had Alzheimer's, he may at some point realized his mistakes. He did so when it came to taxes. Had he lived to see what happened to the middle class after corporations could do as they pleased, I doubt he would have looked at his firing as a good thing. But we live in history and there are few do overs.

Why would any American cheer fellow Americans getting the axe for striking against government. I guess you fail to see the irony here. You simpletons are calling for revolution because you lost the election, but when average Americans exercise their rights, you corporate tools cheer. You are sad, confused people.

I will give you another reason why you corporate tools cheer, because ultimately you are fascists at heart, it is why you want to control a woman's life and person right to marry, but don't want government interfering in the corporate right to screw up the economy. You say freedom but you mean something entirely different.

You obviously forgot that famous line, 'it's the economy stupid.' Reagan failed the economy, Bush failed the economy, and I will grant you Carter failed the economy. Only people who did hard things helped the economy. FDR's new deal, LBJ's great society, Clinton raising taxes, history is there in Google if you doubt that.

I notice too you do not give URLs defending your position. At least share a nugget of truth from another, but maybe you can't as fantasy is just that, fantasy. And often it is in the mind of fantasist.   

I still ask, for at least the third time, where were you so called pretend revolutionaries when Bush/Cheney/Gonzales were breaking the fundamental individual rights laws of this nation? Or are you all revolutionaries on the far left. Probably you are confusing ideologies or are such blind partisans you are clueless. I vote clueless.

Principles in Collission, The right to strike v. the right to stay in business ( IUSLabor - UPF )

"...President Reagan authorized the firing of thousands of striking air traffic controllers in 1981. Although this arose under a federal law for public employees, the action set the tone for the larger society."

"...with the percentage of the private sector unionized workforce plunging from about 35 percent in the early 1950s to about eight percent today, employers are less hesitant to invoke the prospect of hiring permanent replacements."

see second paragraph

The economy in the Reagan years: the ... - Google Book Search

Reagan: Media Myth and Reality


Rights example???   are you lost?

http://www.epluribusunumblog.com/2006/09/bush-cheney-escape-war-crimes-prosecution/


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Mar 30, 2009)

PubliusInfinitum said:


> Now, I would Like Midcan to respond to this... naturally, her refusal to respond, and/OR her attempt to dismiss it absent an intellectually sound, logically valid, WELL REASONED, POINT FOR POINT rebuttal, advanced in a reasonably timely manner, will constitute a CONCESSION wherein she admits, either by default or overtly through her unlikely ascension (As to ascend to the points made would require some discernable means to reason...) that her above stated position and the full scope of revisionist Left-think amounts to little more than a childish rationalization to avoid being held accountable for their indisputable failures.





> I'm not sure if you realize it, but you did not do a very good job of defending your hero. Ad hominem and shooting the messenger, media in this case, without addressing the content is weak at best and irrelevant in the end.
> 
> Why do wingnuts have to parse through replies with cute answers, much in upper case? Is that your idea of an answer. Do you really think upper case makes an empty point less empty?




*LOVE the IRONY!*

Upper case merely amplifies the point... as in shouting; its a tool of rhetoric designed to promote EMPHASIS!  



> I think had Reagan not had Alzheimer's,



MAN!  You really ARE a fan of ad hominem aren'tcha?




> ... he may at some point realized his mistakes. He did so when it came to taxes. Had he lived to see what happened to the middle class after corporations could do as they pleased, I doubt he would have looked at his firing as a good thing. But we live in history and there are few do overs.



Reagan never retreated from the certainty that his attempt to lower the loss liability on the average American was the right thing to do... He also never retreated from his decision to firer the AT Controllers...  That too, was the right thing; if not the ONLY RESPONSIBLE; the only ADULT thing to do...



> Why would any American cheer fellow Americans getting the axe for striking against government.



Because they signed a CONTRACT wherein the AGREED NOT TO STRIKE...  this because their position was critical to public safety and the stability of national commerce...



> I guess you fail to see the irony here.




Not hardly sis... your would-be argument is STEEPED IN IRONY, as I've pointed out now on several occasions...



> You simpletons are calling for revolution because you lost the election,



False... there is not a SINGLE Conservative anywhere calling for a revolution on the grounds that we lost an election...  NO WHERE, No how...  that is an implication of the vacuous variety which you assert for NO OTHER REASON THAN DECEPTION.... proving your intellectual means to be indiscernable and your veracity non-existent.




> I will give you another reason why you corporate tools cheer, because ultimately you are fascists at heart, it is why you want to control a woman's life and person right to marry



ROFLMNAO... So fascism is a function of contesting suffrage and reproductive choices and queers needing extra-_*super SPECIAL*_ rights over everyone else?  

Fascinatin'...  you're the first to advance such a notion; what a pity that you realized your limitations to substantiate it and decided to leave it as a baseless opinion of the flaccid variety...  but you're doin' the BEST YA CAN... God bless your ignorant ass...




> You say freedom but you mean something entirely different.



Do we?  How so?  I mean do you ever INTEND TO SUPPORT ANY OF YOUR ASSERTIONS?

In this case, as is nearly ALWAYS the case you separate FREEDOM from the responsibilities inherent in the RIGHTS WHICH MAKE IT POSSIBLE.  Ya want the freedom... ya just want someone else to have to take responsibility for your freedom... In the case of the woman who wants to kill the child she conceived through HER DECISION TO ENGAGE IN SEXUAL INTERCOURSE to have the freedom to engage in sexual intercourse, and elave the innocent human being conceived through that intentional CHOICE... to bear the responsibility for that freedom; and in the case of the lowly homosexual that just wants to marry his bestest good buddy... you want THEM TO HAVE THE FREEDOM TO DO SO... you just want the culture which succumbs to the normalization of sexual deviancy to bear the responsibility FOR THEIR FREEDOM...




> You obviously forgot that famous line, 'it's the economy stupid.'



Nonsense... I LOVE THAT LINE... it was a myth generated by a deceptive ideology which deceptively asserted poor economic conditions onto a period where the economy was growing by greater than 4% and US employment was greater than 95%...  It's a classic case of '_deception on parade,_' which is TYPICAL of propaganda promoting Leftist Popularism...



> Reagan failed the economy, Bush failed the economy, and I will grant you Carter failed the economy.



LOL... MOMMA WOULD BE SO PROUD!  1.5 OUT OF A POSSIBLE 3... Right down the middle... GOOD for you Comrade Moderate... 



> Only people who did hard things helped the economy. FDR's new deal, LBJ's great society, Clinton raising taxes, history is there in Google if you doubt that.



One of these days you MUST find the courage to EXPLAIN your 'feelings' on just HOW increasing liability costs could POSSIBLY promote the growth of WHATEVER it is that one may be trying to GROW....

You and the gals just LOVE to make that blind assertion, but WE NEVER HEAR YOU EXPLAIN HOW IT COULD WORK, HOW YOU FEEL IT DID WORK and all ya have to do is to SHOW YOUR MATH!  I mean all we want to know is the means by which you come to conclude that raising the cost of something might promote a greater volume of sales...  

Which is after all the goal of economics, to grow the economy... which serves reason given the growing population; as a growing economy with expanding production is the only means to provide for more workers and to pay those workers greater compensation when they acquire more valuable skills...  right?



> I notice too you do not give URLs defending your position.



That's because my position is founded in sound reasoning, resting in and summed through valid logic; thus the position stands on its own merit and where someone may concur with my position and they may desire to link to my position...  I simply find that I do not need the validation of ascending argument... my positions stand on immutable bed-rock principle... which is more than enough in most cases; this case being no exception.




> At least share a nugget of truth from another, but maybe you can't as fantasy is just that, fantasy. And often it is in the mind of fantasist.



Fantasist... LOL... such as those who cast revised history as fact and choose to set those historical revisions aside when directly and unambiguously challenged to support them and return to vomit an ever less effective strain of the same rhetorical bile? 

ROFLMNAO...  As I said... my arguments come with the warranty intrinsic in the principle on which they rest and validity inherent in their reasoned calculation... and so far, in 15 years of debate, I've never had to return a single one.  So it's workin' for me...  




> I still ask, for at least the third time, where were you so called pretend revolutionaries when Bush/Cheney/Gonzales were breaking the fundamental individual rights laws of this nation?



Of course ya do... that's because ya desperately want to ignore the direct and unambiguous challenges to SPECIFY THE POLICY OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION WHICH YOU FEEL 'broke some fundamental rights...'  I spoke to the inspections of Air travelers and such... I suspect that this shut your complaint to those would-be violations down, so you've decided to pretend that it wasn't answered, again, for the PURPOSES OF DECEIVING THIS BOARD.



> Or are you all revolutionaries on the far left. Probably you are confusing ideologies or are such blind partisans you are clueless. I vote clueless.



I've already adhered to your assertion that you engage in 'clueless voting...' so to do so again, would just be redundant.

Now again fellow board member's we need to give credit where credit is due... and while Midcan advances a vacuous, addle-minded deceptive screed... it IS the VERY BEST she can do.  And while this impotent little rebuttal stands as little more than a concession that her entire ideology is a farce; that her most closely held ideas are simple childhood fantasies born in left-think rationalizations... historical revision of the lowest order...  we should commend her for her complete abandon of any hope that she will ever being taken as a serious contributor to any discussion regarding sustainable self governance...  

But hey... when it's all said and done, what Leftist is?

ROFLMNAO&#8230; You&#8217;re dismissed Midcan&#8230; ya did the VERY BEST ya could, God bless ya.  And please when you&#8217;re next tempted to engage conservatives in debate&#8230; try to remember the reason why you&#8217;re not often found doing so&#8230;   as while humiliating you idiots is rare entertainment&#8230; too much can appear to the average idiot to seem very close to simple abuse; and who needs that?


----------



## BrianH (Mar 30, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Did you read it, Brian?



Sorry, I didn't realize you posted a source.  Your last post threw me for a second. While the source does say that the approval rate of the stimulus package is 54%, I am not particularly enthused about believing a mass-media source for polls.  If it were a Fox News poll, I wouldn't belive it either...and I bet it would say only 46% think it should pass. lol.  

These polls could be correct, but I'll correct my statement by saying EVERYONE I've talked to about it doesn't support it.  They think there should be some kind of spending/stimulus bill, but believe it's going to the wrong places.....


----------



## twogreen2c (Mar 30, 2009)

This thread has been very entertaining and informative.  I hope Bob Basso gets his invitation to the White House and can share the results with us.  That meeting would make for a great Pay-for-View event.  Better yet, I'd love to see Basso school the Congress on our Constitution.


----------



## Ravi (Mar 30, 2009)

BrianH said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Did you read it, Brian?
> ...


I'll give you that...but most polls, so far, have Americans still in support...shakily, maybe, but that could be a result of the right wing echo chamber. 

I'm just curious to know if you read the bill yourself?


----------



## Ravi (Mar 30, 2009)

twogreen2c said:


> This thread has been very entertaining and informative.  I hope Bob Basso gets his invitation to the White House and can share the results with us.  That meeting would make for a great Pay-for-View event.  Better yet, I'd love to see Basso school the Congress on our Constitution.


I thought the invitation was a done deal from what you posted.


----------



## AFWife (Mar 31, 2009)

editec said:


> The proscriptions for what needs to be done are pretty much right on.
> 
> What this man appearss to be lacking is any REAL WAY to get to that happy state of affiars which most real liberals and conservative American patriots want.
> 
> ...



I'm really sure you might make some decent points, but when you can't spell and use proper grammar, even on an elementary level, your whole argument becomes invalid.....as well as really annoying to read.


----------



## editec (Mar 31, 2009)

> I will give you another reason why you corporate tools cheer, because ultimately you are fascists at heart, it is why you want to control a woman's life and person right to marry, but don't want government interfering in the corporate right to screw up the economy. You say freedom but you mean something entirely different.


 
Spot on.


----------



## twogreen2c (Mar 31, 2009)

Ravi said:


> twogreen2c said:
> 
> 
> > This thread has been very entertaining and informative.  I hope Bob Basso gets his invitation to the White House and can share the results with us.  That meeting would make for a great Pay-for-View event.  Better yet, I'd love to see Basso school the Congress on our Constitution.
> ...



The White House requested the invitation not be made public.  But now that it is, I wouldn't be surprised if they renege the invite.  You think the Obama would want to give Basso more publicity?  Right now he is pretty much only a Youtube star.   I think the WH made a major blunder contacting Basso and expecting him not to tell anyone.  So now IMO the last thing the WH wants to do is give this gentlemen mainstream media attention.  Think about it, an average citizen being invited to the WH to school the President on the Constitution of the United States.

I just hope Basso didn't make any errors on his tax returns.  You know you can't trust that Turbo Tax to ask you all the right questions.  Just ask Geithner, he knows all about that.


----------



## Ravi (Mar 31, 2009)

twogreen2c said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > twogreen2c said:
> ...


I think Basso made the entire thing up.


----------



## twogreen2c (Mar 31, 2009)

Ravi said:


> twogreen2c said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Just when I think you can't get any dumber, you come up with a remark like that.  Why don't you do a little research before opening your mouth.  It will save you from the embarrassment of being wrong so many times.


----------



## Ravi (Mar 31, 2009)

twogreen2c said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > twogreen2c said:
> ...


Yeah, because World Net Daily is such a credible source.

Dubya invited me to the White House all the time, but he always chickened out in the end and canceled.


----------



## twogreen2c (Mar 31, 2009)

Ravi said:


> twogreen2c said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Fool.  Go put your head back in the sand.  The story of Bob Basso was reported by a Hawaiian news station and I saw the video.  But I'm not going to bother finding the link for you because I already know your type.  You can't handle the truth.


----------



## Ravi (Mar 31, 2009)

twogreen2c said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > twogreen2c said:
> ...


Let me guess...FOX affiliate?


----------



## American Horse (Mar 31, 2009)

Ravi said:


> twogreen2c said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


Some people are so doctrinaire/dogmatic that they completely deny themselves any new information.  Conservatives can't do that because they are so surrounded by liberal media sources that they actually do evaluate contesting ideas.


----------



## Ravi (Mar 31, 2009)

American Horse said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > twogreen2c said:
> ...


Awesome...then could you show me some evidence to support this guy's claim that Obama fears his message, asked for a secretive meeting, and then canceled the meeting?

Thanks.


----------



## American Horse (Mar 31, 2009)

Ravi said:


> American Horse said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


_Non sequitur...._


----------



## twogreen2c (Mar 31, 2009)

Ravi said:


> American Horse said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



For the second time I will address your false statement claiming the meeting was secretive.  Show me where I said it was a secret meeting.  *Stop repeating your lies*.  The White House requested that Basso not make the invitation public news.  Basso has no motive for making up this story.  And as far as the report Obama was disturbed by Basso's video message, knowing Obama's agenda, I do not find it too difficult to come to the conclusion he wouldn't be happy with Basso's video message.  I didn't say Obama feared his message.  You obvious hear what you want to hear.


----------



## twogreen2c (Mar 31, 2009)

Computer problem, double post deleted.

But not to waste this post.  Ravi maybe you should change your reading material to comic books, since you are having trouble with this adult material.


----------



## Ravi (Mar 31, 2009)

twogreen2c said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > American Horse said:
> ...


If it isn't public news, it is secretive. Do you need me to buy you a brain?

Do you honestly think Obama sits around in the White House and watches youtube videos and worries about them? Of course you do. 

So, are you telling me you agree this meeting was a figment of Basso's imagination?


----------



## Red Dawn (Mar 31, 2009)

twogreen2c said:


> The gentlemen who made this video is Dr. Bob Basso.  Obama has seen this video and contacted Mr. Basso and said he was very disturbed by his video and invited him to the White House.  He told him not to discuss the invitation with anyone.  Dr. Basso was suppose to make a second  appearance on the Jerry Doyle talk radio show, but had to back out because of The White House request.  I know this because I was listening to the radio show as this developed.
> 
> I would be very afraid if I was this guy.
> 
> ...





Dude, that was fucking awesome!   Thanks!!


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Mar 31, 2009)

Ravi said:


> twogreen2c said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...




Huh... I see an assertion made wherein the speaker from the OP made a claim and I see Ravi denying that the claim is legitimate, on absolutely no basis beyond she chooses not to believe it.

It's a small irrelavant point, so because it has the value of distracting from the left having been fed to their American opponents, it's the best she can hope for.

How this member is suppose to know the veracity of the speakers claim is known only to Ravi, yet she stands on it as if it were the purest essence of reason...

LOL... 
.
.
.
 Leftists...


----------



## American Horse (Mar 31, 2009)

twogreen2c said:


> The gentlemen who made this video is Dr. Bob Basso.



Indianapolis expects 8,000 for its Indiana Tea Party, April 15th, and Dr. Bob Basso will be the guest of honor, when making an appearance there. We're having one of our own here in Bloomington, 50 miles to the south....

Here's the BLOG alert: Indiana Tea Party- Check it out; it's pretty cool, how far this all has developed already.


----------



## twogreen2c (Mar 31, 2009)

Ravi said:


> twogreen2c said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



You are such a waste of time.  You don't believe the media is biased, unless of course it's Fox.  There is no way the liberal media outlets are going to give Basso any type of publicity.  Basso stated in an interview, the only way to get the attention of the media is to stage an event with millions of people.  When the media covers the National Tea Party events, they will claim there to be few hundred people when in fact there were a few thousand.  And they make sure to find an Obama supporter in the vicinity to interview.

And yes, I do believe Obama was made aware of the Youtube video.  You will find multiple links to Mr. Basso's video on Youtube.  The original is under funbobbasso.  His video alone has already gotten over 1.7 million views.  And you don't think the WH isn't aware of this?    Time for you to go bury your head.      

And for the record and to correct a previous statement of mine.  The day Mr. Basso received the call from the WH he was suppose to call the Jerry Doyle Show.  He didn't call and I was under the impression, it was because of the WH's request.  When Basso called the next day, he said when the story leaked out, he was bombarded with media calls and that was the reason he didn't call in.


----------



## Ravi (Apr 1, 2009)

If he lies about this then he's really only in it for the attention, IMO. There is no credible reason for me to believe a president would set up a meeting with a crack pot, nor should they.

So until he offers proof I will think of him as nothing but a crack pot.

It'd be a lot more effective, btw, to just not pay your taxes this year...

Also, are you this Basso dude?


----------



## twogreen2c (Apr 1, 2009)

Ravi said:


> If he lies about this then he's really only in it for the attention, IMO. There is no credible reason for me to believe a president would set up a meeting with a crack pot, nor should they.
> 
> So until he offers proof I will think of him as nothing but a crack pot.
> 
> ...



So in your view you consider Basso a liar and crackpot.  But what about his message in the video?  Do you agree with any of his points made?  Please do tell.


----------



## wolf.01 (Oct 10, 2009)

Half of you on here will be the first casuilties of any civil unrest. You have no clue, look around you you are in the first stage of the coming revolution divid and comnqure. They our government is now in the process of dividing us all through what ever means possible. Tell on your friend for being radical, or every negative comment obout obama is racially motivated so they want us to believe. We are letting them divide us through what we dont understand, by the wording they use to minipulate their agenda when do we all wake up and what side will we be on once again will it be brother against brother, or WE THE PEOPLE against the ones the our turning us against one another. I ask you all the ones who believe and those who dont believe of the next revolution to pick a bill any bill and read it with an open mind and with your childerns future in mind is this what you want for them our children are broke and will remain broke in their futures remember some one has to foot the bill it will be them andone last thing any dont fear our military for they me being one have an oath that they have taken we do not pledge our allegience to anyone accept you the american people. here is our pledge and in my opinion every true americans pledge. Please keep in mind this is our duty as amercians and to our family.

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." We have the right to disobey any order that we deem unconstitutional and killing americans, disarming americans is unconstitutional.


----------



## Againsheila (Oct 10, 2009)

wolf.01 said:


> Half of you on here will be the first casuilties of any civil unrest. You have no clue, look around you you are in the first stage of the coming revolution divid and comnqure. They our government is now in the process of dividing us all through what ever means possible. Tell on your friend for being radical, or every negative comment obout obama is racially motivated so they want us to believe. We are letting them divide us through what we dont understand, by the wording they use to minipulate their agenda when do we all wake up and what side will we be on once again will it be brother against brother, or WE THE PEOPLE against the ones the our turning us against one another. I ask you all the ones who believe and those who dont believe of the next revolution to pick a bill any bill and read it with an open mind and with your childerns future in mind is this what you want for them our children are broke and will remain broke in their futures remember some one has to foot the bill it will be them andone last thing any dont fear our military for they me being one have an oath that they have taken we do not pledge our allegience to anyone accept you the american people. here is our pledge and in my opinion every true americans pledge. Please keep in mind this is our duty as amercians and to our family.
> 
> "I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." We have the right to disobey any order that we deem unconstitutional and killing americans, disarming americans is unconstitutional.



They started the "divide and conquer" back in the 60's with Teddy's immigration bill which limited people from first world nations from immigrating here in favor of people from third world nations.  People who were used to doing EXACTLY what their government, their police said.  At the same time they started teaching population control in our schools, convincing Americans to limit their population growth.  As a result we have a country now that is heavily on the immigrant side.  Few real Americans are left to fight for our freedom and the immigrants don't care.  You think the government didn't know what they were doing in the 60's when they changed the immigration laws?  Yeah, I know, another conspiracy.  Just because it's a conspiracy doesn't mean it's not true.


----------



## California Girl (Oct 10, 2009)

twogreen2c said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > If he lies about this then he's really only in it for the attention, IMO. There is no credible reason for me to believe a president would set up a meeting with a crack pot, nor should they.
> ...



According to the left wing bible 'Rules for Radicals', standard procedure - attack the messenger. 

The problem is that every one else has read the book now too so we are familiar with the tactic.  Unfortunately, because our education system no longer teaches us HOW to think and focuses on WHAT to think, the left are not smart enough to work out a new tactic.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

I wonder if anyone realizes that this thread was necroed and has been dead for the past 6 months. Responding to the points now is like asking to remember a conversation six months ago.


----------



## Againsheila (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> I wonder if anyone realizes that this thread was necroed and has been dead for the past 6 months. Responding to the points now is like asking to remember a conversation six months ago.



What's wrong with bringing it up again for another look?


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

Againsheila said:


> What's wrong with bringing it up again for another look?



That's like necroing threads from three years ago and responding to points three years ago. It's something that's just not suppose to be done.

If you want to talk about it, start a new thread. Though I'm not sure why people even go so far back to find these threads and respond to them with points not even worth reopening the thread for.


----------



## Againsheila (Oct 10, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > What's wrong with bringing it up again for another look?
> ...



Perhaps someone new comes along and responds and we respond to them?


----------



## Modbert (Oct 10, 2009)

Againsheila said:


> Perhaps someone new comes along and responds and we respond to them?



*Shrugs* So be it. I'm just saying that new people to message boards ought to know better than to respond to threads from 6 months, 3 years ago, etc when there are new threads daily.

However, when you begin to respond to the original points made over six months ago, it's a bit dishonest. Especially since those people may not even be around anymore to defend their points. See my point?


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 11, 2009)

Gunny said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > twogreen2c said:
> ...



Looks to me like the simple question is why do you Conservatives believe that you have the right to talk armed revolution just because you were put out of office as per our Constitution, because you are such a bunch of stupid incompetants.

Show me where the present government is doing anything that is either Unconstitutional, or infringing on the right of the citizens. Just because it is liberal, not Conservative, does not give you the right to consider armed revolution.

This kind of talk is the very kind of thing that sets up the Timothy McVieghs to feel justified in the kind of insanity that they engage in. And this kind of talk is setting up a climate for fruitcakes to feel justified in assinating an American President.


----------



## PeterS (Oct 11, 2009)

twogreen2c said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > If he lies about this then he's really only in it for the attention, IMO. There is no credible reason for me to believe a president would set up a meeting with a crack pot, nor should they.
> ...



He starts out by quipping "the largest spending bill in history." If you check out the CBO every spending bill has been the largest spending bill in history. In fact you would have to go back to the end of WWII to find a YoY decrease in spending. Basso is a nut...though I do agree we have the largest spending bill in history...


----------



## PeterS (Oct 11, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Let them consider armed revolution.They will soon find out they are not the only ones armed...


----------



## NYcarbineer (Oct 11, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Revolution is treason, unless you win.


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 11, 2009)

wolf.01 said:


> Half of you on here will be the first casuilties of any civil unrest. You have no clue, look around you you are in the first stage of the coming revolution divid and comnqure. They our government is now in the process of dividing us all through what ever means possible. Tell on your friend for being radical, or every negative comment obout obama is racially motivated so they want us to believe. We are letting them divide us through what we dont understand, by the wording they use to minipulate their agenda when do we all wake up and what side will we be on once again will it be brother against brother, or WE THE PEOPLE against the ones the our turning us against one another. I ask you all the ones who believe and those who dont believe of the next revolution to pick a bill any bill and read it with an open mind and with your childerns future in mind is this what you want for them our children are broke and will remain broke in their futures remember some one has to foot the bill it will be them andone last thing any dont fear our military for they me being one have an oath that they have taken we do not pledge our allegience to anyone accept you the american people. here is our pledge and in my opinion every true americans pledge. Please keep in mind this is our duty as amercians and to our family.
> 
> "I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." We have the right to disobey any order that we deem unconstitutional and killing americans, disarming americans is unconstitutional.



wolfie....

I can't seem to find my tin foil hat....Do you have an extra?


----------



## Smartt33 (Oct 11, 2009)

Gunny said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > twogreen2c said:
> ...



You are correct. This president has shown less respect for this country than do the enemy. He is leading us, not to greater things, but to destruction.

He is not an American, and refuses to wear even a pin that has an American flag on it. His plane had an American flag painted on it, but he had it removed. 

He apologized to the Muslim world for America's "arrogance." 

He bragged about how much the Muslims have contributed to America, while on the same tour where he claimed we are not a Christian nation. Soon after that he said that America might [someday] be the largest Muslim country in the world. 

Where do you think he is going with that?

He claims to be a Christian but hides Christian symbols while at college speeches.

He is spending money we don't have for children not yet born to pay back. They will have to do that with money they won't have because he wants to allow illegals to have all of our benefits for free. 

I am for the revolution, the peaceful one that includes marches and demands without apology. I am for free speech to talk about this person who was elected by deceiving the people who voted for him. 

When will we stand up? Political Correctness will  not stop me from telling it the way I see it. 

With that said, I believe God also has a mighty hand in the events that are happening, and have been happening. I believe there is a direction we are headed that has far greater impact on the world than most people can imagine. I believe God is not controlling these events, but He may have a Judas in the office of President of the United States of America. 

I don't mind praying for the president. I would help him to get out of the mess he has caused if he would just step down. If he was drowning, I would absolutely do what I could to help him. I don't hate him, but I do hate what he is doing. 

I am an American and I stand with the ones who will walk in the revolution. I like what the video speaker said at the end of the speech, which indicated that he is not preaching a violent revolution. He said that we need to do something now, OR get a gun because if things keep going as they are, we will need one.


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 12, 2009)

Smartt33 said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Nobel Peace Prize winner Obama is one of the finest American Presidents of the last hundred years. 

"We the People" saw this when we elected him by a 2:1 margin over the candidate of that failed party. It is malcontents like Smartt33 who are undermining this great country that "We the People" have created.


----------



## Smartt33 (Oct 12, 2009)

rightwinger said:


> Smartt33 said:
> 
> 
> > Gunny said:
> ...



I really believe you are wrong, but if I am proven to be the one who is wrong, I will gladly move over to that which is right.  

Until then, I believe I am standing on the solid ground of truth and right.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 12, 2009)

Smartt33 is wrong, I think, but I defend his and almost everyone else's right to free speech, though I am wavering on William Joyce.  If he really thinks as he posts, he is as dangerous to society as agna.


----------



## California Girl (Oct 13, 2009)

Smartt33 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Smartt33 said:
> ...



It's my privilige to stand right beside you.


----------



## California Girl (Oct 13, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> Smartt33 is wrong, I think, but I defend his and almost everyone else's right to free speech, though I am wavering on William Joyce.  If he really thinks as he posts, he is as dangerous to society as agna.



I think you are wrong, but I will also defend your right to speak as you feel inclined.


----------



## saveliberty (Oct 13, 2009)

"Nobel Peace Prize winner Obama is one of the finest American Presidents of the last hundred years." - Smartt33

Please define finest.  His prize is based on what actions on his part?  What campaign promises are now complete?


----------



## California Girl (Oct 13, 2009)

saveliberty said:


> "Nobel Peace Prize winner Obama is one of the finest American Presidents of the last hundred years." - Smartt33
> 
> Please define finest.  His prize is based on what actions on his part?  What campaign promises are now complete?



Actually, it wasn't Smart33, it was "Rightwinger" (who I might add is most definitely not a RIGHTwinger).....

But the point is valid. WTF?  On what planet can anyone - assuming it is a serious comment - claim Obama is one of the finest POTUS in the last 100 years, after only nine months in office. 

I can now confidently completely ignore anything that Righwinger says because this 'logic' is most defintely flawed beyond salvation.


----------



## jamest1965 (Dec 19, 2009)

what is happening in America right now is why Socrates and Plato where against democracy as a form of gvernment.  The founding fathers thought they craeted the solution to the problems they pointed out-the right to bear arms they assumed would mean periodic revolution, not to change forms of gov but to get rid of the coruption they knew would occur due to power and money.  Unfortunatly there are very few people in this country who are men like our foundung fathers, willing to fight and die if necessary for their principles and beliefs.  We should have had a revolutiom long ago maybe now finally we can right this terrible wrong brought us by these corrupt politicians who care only for their wallets and could care less about America.  I say revolution NOW!cuckoo:


----------



## jamest1965 (Dec 19, 2009)

editec said:


> The proscriptions for what needs to be done are pretty much right on.
> 
> What this man appearss to be lacking is any REAL WAY to get to that happy state of affiars which most real liberals and conservative American patriots want.
> 
> ...




right on bit as you said most people here and in america are too stupid to get it because they LIKE the lies lies make them COMFORTABLE, along with their amex visa and volvos


----------



## jamest1965 (Dec 19, 2009)

obamas a frickin idiot, a politician like all the rest, corrupted.  Finest president, based on what? that he's black?  Thats gotta be it because he has done nothing else.  I am so sick of african americans saying obama is the best simply because he's black. Leave the racisim behind for ounce


----------

