You truly have NO clue!Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
|
You truly have NO clue!Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I'm going on what you've said. Remember...coffee and cookies??? Remember???
That's not all I said. You do the same thing with Bible quotes. *sigh*Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Yeah. There was that extremely important part about writing them a check. Do you really believe that a couple of early morning house burglars are going to go out the front door singing, "Happy Days are Here Again" and wait til the bank opens to deposit your check???
What has been said is kind of important.
And... (What else did I say? Stop cherry-picking what I said.)Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I promise I won't stop payment.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
My treasure is in the bank. In my house are boxes of bandages, bottles of hand sanitizer, a good supply of masks, ancient kitchenware and furniture, a closet full of linens, and a black cat.
"At its core, the filibuster is not about stopping a nominee or a bill, it's about compromise and moderation. The nuclear option extinguishes the power of independents and moderates in the Senate. That's it, they're done. Moderates are important if you need to get to 60 votes to satisfy cloture; they are much less so if you only need 50 votes. Let's set the historical record straight. Never has the Senate provided for a certainty that 51 votes could put someone on the bench or pass legislation."( Quid in a speech on the Senate floor 2005)
He regularly joined Dem filibusters in his Senate years .
Can Biden still remember anything he said in 05?
can Biden remember anything he said yesterday
Joe knows full well he doesn't have the votes to beat a filibuster as long as Sinema and Mancin sit with repubs.
I still like the idea of changing it to return to the days of 'Mr Smith Goes to Washington'.
I see Dem heads exploding when Ted Cruz opens up the Dallas Fort Worth phone book and starts reading it .
Why wouldn't he make it more interesting and start with the collected works of Shakespeare followed by Tolstoy
Cruz would ;or he may start out reading all the 'Federalist Papers' . 85 essays written in 1780s American vernacular . Throw in some OT fire and brimstone for effect .
I can go with the old school filibuster, but it should be restricted to relevant facts and events, but ideally screw that whole thing, since debate and compromise is the job of congress and eventually an up or down vote. Ol' Joe made a good point the other day in regards to his ideas were popular among the people in a bi partisan way so, whatever the politics of it is I think congress is the problem.
I must admit when it comes time for repubs to get stuff shoved down their throats they always balk and obstruct and have shown no will to move the country forward in a productive way. I understand that's the nature of the conservative beast though to resist any change, at least that's what conservatism has become, but things ARE changing whether one likes it or NOT.
Obviously conservatives don't believe resistance is futile, but it's just a matter of time.
Moving the country forward of course is code to moving the country to a radical progressive agenda .Like the Fabians of old ,incremental socialism . I support obstructing that every time .Quote:
they always balk and obstruct and have shown no will to move the country forward in a productive way.
The growing minority classes don't know or care about Fabian, Marx, or Mao. Are you paranoid or don't want to evolve or something? What's good enough for YOU may not be as good for me, nor fit as well. That's why I think a more aggressive dem approach to governance is warranted and needed. Pass or fail let's debate and VOTE.
PS.
Ain't falling for that socialism label this time.
I ask again - what exactly are the socialism programs offered by the Democrats that you object to? Last time I asked, you couldn't, or wouldn't, answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
the whole Dem agenda is socialist .
Lol - not very specific, is it?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
You really don't know, do you? For the great majority of the right, "socialism" is simply a useful trigger word that resonates with other rightists. They never have details when challenged - just slogans.
You confuse compassionate liberalism with socialism? Maybe read up on both so you can tell the difference. Or is it more a racial ideological bias?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
not all that hard at all . It is the Dems who cloud it because they think if they get free enterprise capitalism to pay for socialism that it isn't really socialism . $2 trillion+ infusion of government money to make a green agenda work is not capitalism right ?(and that is just Quid's plan ....forget what the Green New Deal would cost) Nor is price fixing for agriculture . Nor is the Goracle pushing for the use of ethanol when he knew it was a lie . Compelling banks to take government money against their will during the financial crisis was socialism .
All the government control comes at a cost of liberty . The more the welfare state is adopted the more intrusive and oppressive government becomes. Planning by means of command is not freedom. Our system was designed to protect individual rights ;not group ,not the collective . For that alone I the socialist agenda . You see it now with all the blacklist postings I make . A democracy that socialists create is NOT liberal in the classical sense. It is illiberal where the woke or the Jacobins or Maoist or Stalinists do essentially the same thing to varying degrees ....social engineering to make sure human free thought is purged .
exactly the thought control I just spoke of . Smear anyone who opposes your agenda as a racist .You are better than thatQuote:
You confuse compassionate liberalism with socialism? Maybe read up on both so you can tell the difference. Or is it more a racial ideological bias?
Where is the compassion in capitalism?
It was to avoid a worldwide depression - a drastic step, yes, but necessary. I assume you would have let the banks fail regardless of the result.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
The Preamble to the US Constitution says to "promote the general welfare", not "promote individual rights".Quote:
Our system was designed to protect individual rights ;not group ,not the collective
In allowing anyone who is willing to work hard to be able to make a good living.
What's your definition of "work hard"?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
What's your definition of a "good living"?
If you don’t know what those two mean then I can’t help you.
Share your compassion out of your own pocket . Where is the virtue in forcing someone else to pay for your compassion ?Quote:
Where is the compassion in capitalism?
Thus, there is no compassion in capitalism.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Preambles do not confer either rights or powers . There is also a general welfare clause in Article 1 Sec 8 . Then the framers made it very clear after that what powers the Federal Government had to spend on the General welfare . They were specific as a matter of fact ...or as us conservatives like to say ;the powers of the government are enumerated . They did that for a reason . They did not want the states to lose their powers to decide spending priorities . The powers of the Federal Government being few and enumerated ;Everything else was left for the states to decide . They further strengthened that with the 10th amendment of the Bill of Rights .'Quote:
The Preamble to the US Constitution says to "promote the general welfare", not "promote individual rights".
With respect to the two words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. (James Madison Federalist 45)
An economic system that leaves people free to pursue economic fulfillment is quite compassionate.
Developing new technology takes money and last I checked government has been PARTNERING with the private sector to do just that. I darn near fell off my chair at the notion of banks being compelled to take money against their will. LOL!Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
What was I thinking? Of course you're right. Screw voting and just let the rich guys run the show. I'm sure their social engineering is better than the governments. Sure you ain't a Chinese sympathizer trying reverse psychology? Define socialism for gosh sakes.Quote:
All the government control comes at a cost of liberty . The more the welfare state is adopted the more intrusive and oppressive government becomes. Planning by means of command is not freedom. Our system was designed to protect individual rights ;not group ,not the collective . For that alone I the socialist agenda . You see it now with all the blacklist postings I make . A democracy that socialists create is NOT liberal in the classical sense. It is illiberal where the woke or the Jacobins or Maoist or Stalinists do essentially the same thing to varying degrees ....social engineering to make sure human free thought is purged .
It was a rhetorical question as anybody that knows you understands your racial bias is GREEN! I don't mean Martians either. Throwing out those meme labels without defining them doesn't help the case you're making and implies BIAS.Quote:
exactly the thought control I just spoke of . Smear anyone who opposes your agenda as a racist .You are better than that
I.e., An economic system that leaves ONLY A FEW people free to pursue economic fulfillment ISN'T VERY compassionate.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Give an example.
You are the first example that comes to mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
your assumption is correct . I don't believe in too big to fail. If banks know there are no consequences for risky reckless behavior they act accordingly. Bank failures were not catastrophic before 2008 . Why was the prospect of CitiCorp going down a game changer ? Would you care if Amazon or Microsoft went belly up ? Would you want the Government to bail them out ? Both are much bigger than any of the big banks ever were . We have FDIC . So the only people who would've taken a hit was the investors . The government bailed out the investors at the expense of main street . Why would you favor that ? Because you believe the lie that the whole house of cards was going to tumble ? You were sold a bill of goods . The economy would've taken a temporary hit ..... not a decade long recession .Quote:
I assume you would have let the banks fail regardless of the result.
and who is to blame for this state of affairs, politicians and lobbyists
Very good!Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
The perfect squelch. LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Then you would have no objection to the states redistributing income and, as you put it, coercing taxpayers to pay others?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
And millions of employees, tangential businesses and their employees, the whole structure of finance - domestic and international. GM was also saved plus all the subsidiary companies down to the local delis and McDonald's.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
The bill of goods sold was the deregulation leading up to the Great Recession, and the criminal actions of Wall Street and the ratings agencies in the pocket of the banks selling toxic collaterilized bonds.Quote:
You were sold a bill of goods .
Rather unsurprisingly, you left out yourself. You also left out everyone on this board. You also left out the tens of millions of Americans who have worked hard and done well for themselves. Remember all of them?Quote:
You are the first example that comes to mind.
Or the government pushing sub prime mortgages like il duce did when he ran HUDQuote:
The bill of goods sold was the deregulation leading up to the Great Recession,
If you're referring to the CRA, that was passed in the 1970s and it's hard to see that as a major contributing factor. Most of the analyses of the Great Recession did not point a finger at the CRA (at least not that I could find). The chief culprits were the rating agencies and the investment banks especially Goldman who Taibbi called "a great vampire squid".Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
The pushing of subprime mortgages was the work of the banks packaging these and reselling them as AAA securities even tho they were garbage and soon defaulted, leading to the recession.
Thanks for bringing up Taibbi in your recent post - I had forgotten about him and it's good to be back reading him.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:31 AM. |