AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

I am so disappointed:

Here is what the legal genius, Debra L A W-wrote;
quote
Foxfyre's intellectual dishonesty is running amok.
end of quote

I was waiting for a full explanation of what Marx really meant.

Is it possible that the legal genius, Debra L A W is really a fraud?

Or perhaps, she was getting secret messages from that other shyster, Joe from Chicago. Debra L A W may not know that the Obama revolution in Chicago has led to the ouster of most white shysters--replaced by the real thing--black shysters.

But, please, Debra Law, you have disappointed your fans--More explication please.

You may not have understood Foxfyre but I am not a legal genius like you are and I understood her very well.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I went back and re-read that WSJ piece very carefully, and maybe I missed it, but I couldn't find anything in it regarding wages or GDP.

No, you didn't see those words, mostly b.c the WSJ doesn't want to acknowledge the truth of them and how that relates to our current woes. But they are quite relevant.

Quote:

What I saw was a pretty good analysis for why the economy is not recovering from a recession that historically would have bottomed and there should be signs that we are beginning to come out of it now.

'Historically?' Why would you even write that? This recession is not based on the same factors that caused other recessions historically; unless you want to count our last Depression, that is.

Statements like this make me question your understanding of what is happening to our economy. It seems that you and others believe that things are just going to go back to being better without a lot of change; they will not. The rot which has been exposed must be excised and that, Fox, is going to be a hell of a lot more painful than you think. Get ready for a lot of new regulations and rules governing wall street.

Quote:

What I saw was observation of policies that are hindering or worsening that recession. It rightfully identified the stock market as the indicator that the Obama policies were not inspiring confidence. But nope, nothing about taxes specifically or the GDP or wages.

The WSJ believes in Government by Dow; if the Dow rises, the government is doing correctly. If it falls, they are doing poorly. But of course, this is an idiotic way to look at things and an indication that they don't think of anything at all past next quarter's profits.

Let us not forget that the WSJ editorial board cheered the rise of the market using these deriviatives and false securities and they consistently fought any and all attempts to regulate it. They don't exactly have a lot of credibility on these issues.

Quote:

I did watch President Obama recently telling people that the declining market is no big deal as it naturally goes up and down--it's like a political tracking poll which only underscores his earlier admission that he doesn't know squat about the market.

I guarantee he knows more than you do, a person who as of two days ago had effectively zero understanding of how the financial crisis happened, until it was patiently explained to you by OE and I.

Quote:

But how utterly ignorant and insensitive a remark is that?

I agree, your comment about Obama not understanding the market was ignorant and insensitive.

Quote:

Countless retirees depend on their investments to live. Others ready to retire, and who may be required to retire, have seen their 401k's and IRA's reduced by more than a half, in some cases by three fourths. Businesses with eroding stock can't get credit and jobs by the tens of thousands can be lost.

Yup. And you can blame that squarely on the greed on Wall Street, the desire for short-term bonuses for execs at the expense of long-term stability.

The other person you can blame that on? The retirees. They knew that their portfolios could go up or down or lose ALL value, and that is what happened. Somewhere along the line, you older generation got the idea that the stock market was a money machine which could not fail. People bet their entire savings on this fact. And where are they now? It was a dumb bet and I have little pity for them.

Cyclotichorn

3 Replies

Walter Hintler wrote:

Well, we have to take philosophy classes when we want to get the final exams at high school. (You study philosophy only at college/university when you want to study it - or have to do so like in social work or law.)

Walter Hinteler is WRONG again. There are many high schools in the USA which teach philosophy classes --mainly private schools. The main reason for that is that many of our regular high schools have so many minority students who couldn't possibly understand the basics of philosophy( not because of IQ but because of the terrible schools hobbled by political correctness).

But Walter is eager to show how the Ubermensch really are, aren't you Walter?

0 Replies

Walter, Herr Doktor Walter wrote:

was Alexander the Greta great?

end of quote

Who in the hell was Alexander the Greta?

0 Replies

Obama's so-called "stimulus plan" constitutes an organized effort to use the federal government of the USA to steal what Americans have lawfully earned and give much of it to Americans who have not earned it. That which the "stimulus plan" steals and is not given away to Americans who have not earned it, is paid to increasing numbers of government employees.

Those Americans who are recipents of what the "stimulus plan" steals have become a loyal group of parasites who will thereafter are a devoted group of voters and accomplices.

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Obama's so-called "stimulus plan" constitutes an organized effort to use the federal government of the USA to steal what Americans have lawfully earned and give much of it to Americans who have not earned it. That which the "stimulus plan" steals and is not given away to Americans who have not earned it, is paid to increasing numbers of government employees.

Those Americans who are recipents of what the "stimulus plan" steals have become a loyal group of parasites who will thereafter become a devoted group of voters and accomplices.

As opposed to you group of lawful, upstanding citizens? Laughing

Pull the other one,

It's got bells on

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

The fact is that both Adolph Hitler and Vladimir Lenin were great admirers and quasi-disciples of Marx and used Marx's theories to undergird their own. And it was by their hand that millions died.

I've missed that. Sorry, Foxfyre, but that is really ... uneducated.
You should read a bit about Hitler. Wikipedia is good enough as starter.

Well you're right. I did definitely misspeak when I said both were quasi-disciples of Marx. Once Hitler chose dictatorship as the way he would govern, he did have to attack Marx and Marxism, at least the socialist aspects of Marxism, that got in his way. So my comment was not historical and I withdraw it and acknowledge it was a stupid thing to say.

I do believe however, as a young man, at least according to biographies I've read, that Hitler was intrigued with Marx and Marxist concepts. Was he not a member of the German Communist Party (or at least the equivalent) for awhile? This would have been during or shortly after WWI.

So even as he opposed Marxim in principle, even noting Marx's Jewish heritage, the roots of Nazi-ism were imbedded in Marxism. Hitler never intended to take it to the point where the protelariat would have power as Marx had envisioned:

Quote:

"We are socialists. We are enemies of today's capitalistic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions." --Adolph Hitler, May 1, 1927.

Quote:

The Nazis were Marxists, no matter what our tainted academia and corrupt media wishes us to believe. Nazis, Bolsheviks, the Ku Klux Klan, Maoists, radical Islam and Facists -- all are on the Left, something that should be increasingly apparent to decent, honorable people in our times. The Big Lie which places Nazis on some mythical Far Right was created specifically so that there would be a bogeyman manacled on the wrists of those who wish us to move "too far" in the direction of Ronald Reagan or Barry Goldwater. . . .

. . . .As the Nazis began to become a serious political party, in the 1930s, the Nazi deputies introduced a flurry of proposals: (1) to ban trading in stocks and bonds; (2) to nationalize all large banks; (3) to require registration of stock ownership with a state agency; (4) to limit interest by law to five percent; (5) to confiscate all profits acquired by inflation. These measures were not hidden; they were trumpeted on the front pages of Nazi periodicals to ensure that party members knew what the Nazi Party in the Reichstag was doing. Some Nazi proposals sound eerily modern. The Nazis, for example, proposed that old age and disability benefits (Social Security) be paid out of general revenue, rather than from the contributions of the individual recipient, and that the benefits be indexed to the cost of living.--Bruce Walker, writer & historian

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/the_nazis_were_maxists.html

Perhaps Walker can be rebutted. But I've read a couple of his books, and he sure seems to know his stuff.

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cyclo wrote:

Quote:

The other person you can blame that on? The retirees. They knew that their portfolios could go up or down or lose ALL value, and that is what happened. Somewhere along the line, you older generation got the idea that the stock market was a money machine which could not fail. People bet their entire savings on this fact. And where are they now? It was a dumb bet and I have little pity for them.

We (my wife and I) are retirees, and we have invested in the stock market. It "was" a money machine, but there was never a guarantee it would be profitable forever. Even until today, we are still in the black; our retirement investments are worth more today than what we invested into it. That's after we did major renovations on our home last year costing about $100,000 (that includes the cost of new furniture), and my spending on many trips around the world. In addition to that, I spent money on five trips last year.

When the market was above 14000, I sold some of our funds, and bought back some of the funds at 8500. I still have half of those funds in a money market account when the market goes lower; I'll buy back 25% at each lower level when I feel we have reached some kind of "bottom."

I don't feel too badly, because even Berkshire Hathaway lost 55% of their value during the past 52 weeks. We lost a whole lost less.

I still have long-term faith in our economy; without it, all of us will be in the dumps, and we will all be in the same boat.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Obama's so-called "stimulus plan" constitutes an organized effort to use the federal government of the USA to steal what Americans have lawfully earned and give much of it to Americans who have not earned it. That which the "stimulus plan" steals and is not given away to Americans who have not earned it, is paid to increasing numbers of government employees.

Those Americans who are recipents of what the "stimulus plan" steals have become a loyal group of parasites who will thereafter are a devoted group of voters and accomplices.

All Americans will benefit from new and improved infrastructure, sources of renewable energy, and access to affordable healthcare, etc. Although you do not believe that you should be required to contribute any of your earnings in the form of taxes for the benefit of the whole, you are not the victim of a theft. Besides, how many millions or billions do you need to retain in your own pocket to satisfy your personal pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness?

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Great post!

0 Replies

And, Foxfyre- Hitler adopted Maxist ideas to use in his drive for power. Because of Hitler's monomania about Jews, he was unable to use those ideas directly, since he always said that Jews predominated in Marxist activites but according to Jonah Goldberg's book- "Liberal Fascism", he was not loath to use their concepts.

Quote Goldberg--P. 60

Hitler viewed the bourgeoise in almost the same terms as Lenin did.
"Let us not deceive ourselves," Hitler declared,"Our bourgeoise is almost worthless for any worthwhile human endeavor...Had communism really intended nothing more than a certain purification by eliminating isolated rotton elements from among the ranks of our equally worthless Philistines,one could have sat back quietly and looked on for a while"

0 Replies

Debra LAW wrote:

All Americans will benefit from new and improved infrastructure, sources of renewable energy, and access to affordable healthcare, etc. Although you do not believe that you should be required to contribute any of your earnings in the form of taxes for the benefit of the whole, you are not the victim of a theft. Besides, how many millions or billions do you need to retain in your own pocket to satisfy your personal pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness?
end of quote

No, Debra L A W--Not all Americans will benefit from new and improved infrastructure. First of all, Not ALL Americans will pay for the infrastructure.

Secondly, the firms, like those in Illinois, who are in the back pocket of Senator Turban(sic) will, of course, feed back Thousands of dollars of campaign donations to the fine Senator who saw to it that the XYZ company( good friends of the Senator for years) got the Millon dollar contract.

I DO NOT WANT TO FUND THE ANTI-AMERICAN SENATOR DURBIN EVEN INDIRECTLY.

Thirdly: Sources of renewable energy??

Which sources are you talking about? Please explain. If you can't, I am sure that you are just expelling useless flatulence.

Affordable Health Care? I don't think you know a thing about affordable health care.
Do you know how the Messiah is trying to delude us?

Obama says that when Health Care for all is available, all will join up because it will be cheaper>

That is Pie in the Sky. Some young people, those who think they are invulnerable, and those who wish to have every penny in their checks available to them WILL NOT buy insurance even if it is a couple of thousand dollars lower than it is now. I have seen no studies that show that ALL or nearly ALL will join up.

Then, Debra L A W, since you don't seem to know a thing about Economics, Obama is pressing for a coverage of anybody with pre-existing conditions.

Only a cretin would tell you that this alone will make the plan Obama is pushing much more expensive-prohibitively so.

When entitlements are set up, the bureaucrats in DC, ALWAYS underestimate their true costs.

But the most egregious mistake is the one you make when you say "You do not believe that you should be required to contribute ANY of your taxes for the benefit of the whole"

I don't remember(please find the quote) that anyone said that they did not want to contribute ANY of their taxes. How much should they contribute?

And that is the nub of the argument. If you think that the affluent should contribute 90% of their income, say so.

If you don't know that higher tax rates always depress the amount of money coming into the Treasury( in real dollars) you know nothing.

I think that your philosophy might lean closer to the paragraph below:

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs) is a slogan popularized by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program.[1] The phrase summarizes the principles that, under a communist system, every person should contribute to society to the best of his ability and consume from society in proportion to his needs, regardless of how much he has contributed. In the Marxist view, such an arrangement will be made possible by the abundance of goods and services that a developed communist society will produce; the idea is that there will be enough to satisfy everyone's needs.[2][3]
************************************************************

When the Soviet Union imploded,they showed just how viable this idiotic philosophy was!!

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

I went back and re-read that WSJ piece very carefully, and maybe I missed it, but I couldn't find anything in it regarding wages or GDP.

No, you didn't see those words, mostly b.c the WSJ doesn't want to acknowledge the truth of them and how that relates to our current woes. But they are quite relevant.

Then why did you mention them and include the chart as if they were relevant to what was in the article? You didn't read the article did you. You also cannot provide any proof or evidence of what the WSJ does or does not want to acknowledge or what it publishes that relates to our current woes.

Quote:

Quote:

What I saw was a pretty good analysis for why the economy is not recovering from a recession that historically would have bottomed and there should be signs that we are beginning to come out of it now.

'Historically?' Why would you even write that? This recession is not based on the same factors that caused other recessions historically; unless you want to count our last Depression, that is.

Statements like this make me question your understanding of what is happening to our economy. It seems that you and others believe that things are just going to go back to being better without a lot of change; they will not. The rot which has been exposed must be excised and that, Fox, is going to be a hell of a lot more painful than you think. Get ready for a lot of new regulations and rules governing wall street.

I would write that because it was included in the article on which I was commenting--you know, that article you don't seem to have read before you started popping off about it? I believe the writer of the article can quite easily support his thesis there while I believe you have zero chance of competently rebutting it.

Quote:

Quote:

What I saw was observation of policies that are hindering or worsening that recession. It rightfully identified the stock market as the indicator that the Obama policies were not inspiring confidence. But nope, nothing about taxes specifically or the GDP or wages.

The WSJ believes in Government by Dow; if the Dow rises, the government is doing correctly. If it falls, they are doing poorly. But of course, this is an idiotic way to look at things and an indication that they don't think of anything at all past next quarter's profits.

Let us not forget that the WSJ editorial board cheered the rise of the market using these deriviatives and false securities and they consistently fought any and all attempts to regulate it. They don't exactly have a lot of credibility on these issues.

Please provide any evidence that you have for your claims here. That would be refreshing if you could do that.

Quote:

Quote:

I did watch President Obama recently telling people that the declining market is no big deal as it naturally goes up and down--it's like a political tracking poll which only underscores his earlier admission that he doesn't know squat about the market.

I guarantee he knows more than you do, a person who as of two days ago had effectively zero understanding of how the financial crisis happened, until it was patiently explained to you by OE and I.

If you can guarantee it then you must have something at your fingertips that would rebut his own statements in those videos. Please post it.

Quote:

Quote:
But how utterly ignorant and insensitive a remark is that?

I agree, your comment about Obama not understanding the market was ignorant and insensitive.

I'm sure it appears that way to an Obama disciple who worships his every essence and believes he is incapable of doing no wrong. Are you that disciple? If not have you EVER posted ANYTHING critical of Barack Obama? Could you direct me to it as evidence that you don't operate on totally blind faith?

Quote:

Quote:
Countless retirees depend on their investments to live. Others ready to retire, and who may be required to retire, have seen their 401k's and IRA's reduced by more than a half, in some cases by three fourths. Businesses with eroding stock can't get credit and jobs by the tens of thousands can be lost.

Yup. And you can blame that squarely on the greed on Wall Street, the desire for short-term bonuses for execs at the expense of long-term stability.

The other person you can blame that on? The retirees. They knew that their portfolios could go up or down or lose ALL value, and that is what happened. Somewhere along the line, you older generation got the idea that the stock market was a money machine which could not fail. People bet their entire savings on this fact. And where are they now? It was a dumb bet and I have little pity for them.

Ah yes, we can't blame the 'poor people' who took advantage of low interest, little or no down payment houses when they were offered them, but by all means let's blame the retirees for working for and investing their retirement with belief that their President would give a damn if they lost most or all of it. Naw, they shouldn't worry about an irresponsible economic policy. Obama is God. He will save them. Or maybe, because they were responsible, they'll just be written off as casualties and be deemed of little consequence. Let's worry about those who were irresponsible instead.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Hitler was a socialist who like many of his kind sought power. In seeking that power he decided to oppose rival socialist and communist groups and formed the National Socialist Party to support his quest for power. Ultimately, Hitler became a socialist dictator who selected the Jews to be the ones he blamed for Germany's many troubles. He convinced those who received a share of what Hitler stole, became his loyal subjects. To maintain their loyalty, he directed their mass murder of the millions of Jews he blamed for Germany's troubles.

OBAMA IS a socialist who like many of his kind SEEKS power. In seeking that power he decided to oppose rival LIBERAL groups and formed the OBAMA BRANCH OF THE DEMOCRAT Party to support his quest for power. Ultimately, OBAMA WILL BECOME a socialist dictator who HAS selected RUSH LIMBAUGH AND MEMBERS OF HIS CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT to be the ONES he BLAMES for AMERICA's many troubles. He convinced those who WILL RECEIVE a share of what HE IS STEALING, TO BECOME his loyal subjects. To maintain their loyalty, he WILL ULTIMATELY DIRECT THE mass murder of the millions of CONSERVATIVES he BLAMES for AMERICA's many troubles.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

BUT, Cyclo wrote it was from the WSJ. If it was copied from another organization, that's not my problem.

Cyclo wrote:
Quote:
Here's a great graph showing this - and it's from the WSJ itself:

Oh well, if Cyclop said it, then it must be true. I mean he is so careful to source the stuff he says and to support his opinion when requested to do so. Not!

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

Well if I split hairs, at least I split hairs that are actually there as opposed to you who just makes it up as you spew your insults.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

No, that's not my job; it's your "job" to correct what somebody else claims if you wish to challenge it. I don't. Cyclo can fend for himself. .

The issue is not who produced it or who posted it, but whether the graph has relevance. You keep harping on the unimportant junk - as usual.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Most of your post is tripe and not worth responding to. I have nothing to prove to you about the WSJ editorial board OR your ignorance of the details of our fiscal problems. Any regular poster would be embarrassed at displaying the level of financial idiocy you have over the last few days. I don't care what Obama says; he's smarter than you based purely on your own poor performance.

This part however is interesting.

Quote:

Ah yes, we can't blame the 'poor people' who took advantage of low interest, little or no down payment houses when they were offered them, but by all means let's blame the retirees for working for and investing their retirement with belief that their President would give a damn if they lost most or all of it. Naw, they shouldn't worry about an irresponsible economic policy. Obama is God. He will save them. Or maybe, because they were responsible, they'll just be written off as casualties and be deemed of little consequence. Let's worry about those who were irresponsible instead.

Can you link to where I said we couldn't blame people who got mortgages that they couldn't afford? Or that didn't read their mortgages? I doubt you can, b/c I've never said that. People who make bad decisions deserve to be blamed for them.

For you to call Obama's policies 'irresponsible' is a ******* joke, Fox. You champion irresponsible policies continually. You don't think we need more regulation of the market. You think that greed causes companies to self-limit and regulate. You're so wrong, it's pathetic.

If retirees thought that their investments were safe in the stock market, that it could not fail, they were idiots and deserve to lose their money. The market is crashing because of the greed of those who ran the thing! Not because of anything Obama has said or done.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Here's a statement with relevance-
Cicerone wrote:
We (my wife and I) are retirees, and we have invested in the stock market. It "was" a money machine, but there was never a guarantee it would be profitable forever. Even until today, we are still in the black; our retirement investments are worth more today than what we invested into it.
end of quote
How could that be?

Even after the worthless eight years of GWBush

0 Replies

Foxfyre- Cicerone wrote:

The issue is not who produced it or who posted it, but whether the graph has relevance. You keep harping on the unimportant junk - as usual.

I will remember that when I use some sources.Of course, CI would say it has no relevance. He wouldn't know relevance if it hit him in his buck teeth!

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know