genoves
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 16 May, 2009 11:33 pm
Mysteryman wrote:

But thats precisely the type of argument that the more loony liberal people have tried to use.

They have said that criminals are totally a product of their environment, and that it is society's fault that someone became a criminal.
*****************************************************************

An interesting take on this which PROVES that the environment is not the be all and end all can be found by referencing--"The ten thousand year explosion"

Anti-Semites like Cicerone Imposter will hate it.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 May, 2009 01:29 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

You scared of a little swine flu, or all those killings by drug gangs? LOL


not the flu. that'll be kicking everybody's ass this next fall.

those por vida dudes? eehhh. what can i say? my bulletproof days are kinda doing the rear view mirrior thing. Shocked

realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 May, 2009 09:37 am
@realjohnboy,
realjohnboy wrote:

Good afternoon. Every couple of weeks since the 1st of March, I have been posting polling results on President Obama's approval ratings as gathered by the polltaker Rasmussen. Here is the latest update:
The 1st set of numbers is the % of respondents who STRONGLY APPROVE of Mr Obama's performance vs the % who STRONGLY DISAPPROVE. The 2nd number is the index obtained by subtracting the DISAPPROVE from the APPROVE. The 3rd set is the % of folks who APPROVE vs DISAPPROVE, dropping the word "STRONGLY."

3/1/09: (38%-30%) = +8 (58%-40%)
3/15/09: (37%-31%) = +6 (56%-43%)
4/1/09: (37%-29%) = +5 (56%-44%)
4/14/09: (35%-32%) = +3 (55%-44%)
5/2/09: (33%-32%) = +1 (54%-45%)
5/16/09: (34%-30%) = +4 (56%-43%)

Mr Obama got up to an index level ranging from +5 to +9 a week or so ago, but is now being hurt by dissipation among those who STRONGLY APPROVE. There seems to be skepticism that his health care plan will get passed and, if it did, would reduce costs. Mr Obama's decision to allow Gitmo tribunals also seems to have hurt him amongst the STRONGLY APPROVE folks.

Dropping the STRONGLY adverb, broader support for Mr Obama remains stable.

cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 May, 2009 10:35 am
@DontTreadOnMe,
Isn't that "pura vida?"
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 May, 2009 12:40 pm
@old europe,
I bet you don't feel this same way when talking about gun control.
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 May, 2009 12:41 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Isn't that "pura vida?"


heh, not with the vatos loco around here.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  6  
Reply Sun 17 May, 2009 12:49 pm
@maporsche,
I feel exactly the same way.

I don't think the government forced the financial sector into taking crazy-ass high risks that ultimately lead to a financial meltdown (which is the argument that people have been making here), but I definitely see it as a failure of the government to deregulate the entire sector and scrap all the regulation that was put into place in the wake of the Great Depression.

Same for gun control. Scrapping all laws that regulate gun ownership etc. certainly wouldn't mean that the government is forcing people to kill each other (or whatever argument you're trying to make here), but it certainly would make the state complicit in whatever consequences would arise from such a situation.

It's pretty much how I see the role of government in general.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 May, 2009 01:46 pm
@old europe,
Somebody earlier on this thread used the word "coerced" by the government, so I asked what they meant by that. Never got an answer.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 May, 2009 01:53 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Check out Pavlov ci. Carrots and sticks.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  2  
Reply Sun 17 May, 2009 01:55 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Somebody earlier on this thread used the word "coerced" by the government, so I asked what they meant by that. Never got an answer.


maybe they don't always supply answers for follow up questions on the talking points memos.
0 Replies
 
genoves
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 17 May, 2009 05:27 pm
It is clear that Old Europe is a Doctrinaire Socialist.

He wrote:

I don't think the government forced the financial sector into taking crazy-ass high risks that ultimately lead to a financial meltdown (which is the argument that people have been making here), but I definitely see it as a failure of the government to deregulate the entire sector and scrap all the regulation that was put into place in the wake of the Great Depression.
end of quote.

He seems to be ignorant of the fact that FDR( who, in fairness, was less destructive of the US Economy than BO) who placed burden after burden, regulation after regulation on Business DID NOT get us out of the Depression of the thirties.

I am sure Old Europe does not know that in January 1937, five years after FGR began dismantling the US economy, the Unemployment Rate was still very very high--15%.

Only World War II, with its massive spending and subsequent fiscal deficits, allowed the US to lower the Unemployment Rate.

BO, who I am sure idolizes FDR, will not allow FDR to beat him out. BO's recession will last far longer than five years.
nimh
 
  7  
Reply Sun 17 May, 2009 05:51 pm
@genoves,
Genoves is obviously ignorant of the fact that noone less than the esteemed erudite Richard Posner has acknowledged that deregulation had indeed gone too far.

It is clear that Genoves, ideologue that he is, has not read up on the latest writings of Posner, who in a recent interview has said: "I do say that we went too far in deregulating the banking industry". Asked who was to blame for the current economic crisis, Judge Posner answered: "Primarily the deregulation movement"people like me who didn't carve out banking from the other industries to be deregulated."

It might surprise Genoves, who is obviously a hardcore apologist for his ideology, that Posner chided people like him for not realising the depth of the problems:

"On the extreme right are really people who don't want to do anything and let the depression unwind of its own force. And they're very fearful of inflation and of the government getting too deeply involved in the banking industry. I'm sympathetic to those concerns. I just think the situation is too serious to take a laissez-faire view."

But then Posner is an educated enough man to revise his views over time. It is clear that the dimwitted Genoves, who loves to deride FDR and his Keynesian-inspired New Deal, has not taken note of Posner's recent insights, such as where the man wrote:

"And then came the financial crash last September and the ensuing depression. These unanticipated and shocking events have exposed significant analytical weaknesses in core beliefs of conservative economists concerning the business cycle and the macroeconomy generally. Friedmanite monetarism and the efficient-market theory of finance have taken some sharp hits, and there is renewed respect for the macroeconomic thought of John Maynard Kenyes, a conservatives' bĂȘte noire."
sozobe
 
  2  
Reply Sun 17 May, 2009 05:52 pm
@nimh,
heh...
DontTreadOnMe
 
  2  
Reply Sun 17 May, 2009 05:55 pm
@nimh,
nimh wrote:

...It is clear that Genoves, ideologue that he is,..


i just thought he was nuts.


realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 May, 2009 06:00 pm
Hi, Nimh. And a really big hello to Sozobe. It is great to see yall again.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  2  
Reply Sun 17 May, 2009 06:57 pm
@sozobe,
i couldnt resist ... Twisted Evil
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Sun 17 May, 2009 07:21 pm
@DontTreadOnMe,
Me too! From a long time ago; I put him on Ignore.
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 May, 2009 07:30 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Me too! From a long time ago; I put him on Ignore.


same here. he's the only one.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 May, 2009 08:07 pm
Genoves bursts too many liberal balloons to be liked very well. He does it with serious sarcasm and ridicule, so obviously anyone that disagrees with him is going to be highly irritated. However, you guys must admit he at least provides alot of information to back up his posts, something that is rare for some posters.

So I endorse much of his opinions, not all, but I do not endorse his style. At least, thats batting 50%, which is better than alot of posters here.
Foxfyre
 
  0  
Reply Sun 17 May, 2009 08:17 pm
While the portions of Posner's essay that Nimh posted are significant and definitely worthy of discussion, though perhaps more appropriately on the Conserviatism thread than here, Nimh did not post the paragraph that immediately followed the one he did post:

Quote:
There are signs and portents of liberal excess in the policies and plans of the new administration. There will thus be plenty of targets for informed conservative critique. At this writing, however, the conservative movement is at its lowest ebb since 1964. But with this cardinal difference: the movement has so far succeeded in shifting the center of American politics and social thought that it can rest, for at least a little while, on its laurels.


I think the message of the Tea Parties against the excesses in the policies and plans of the new Administration, at least for those who choose to listen to that message, may indeed resurrect a new and reasoned conservatism that has shed most of its more unattractive components. I am even seeing a quiet but noticable shift in some of the President's rhetoric that is putting him in a new lifght. He has already adopted some sensible policies contrary to his campaign rhetoric and seems to be suggesting that he realizes that his game plan has overstepped the available resources to accomplish it. If he turns out to be a statesman rather than just another politician, that will bring a great sigh of relief through a very large segment of the population here.
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Demand a plan - Discussion by H2O MAN
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 1260
Copyright © 2018 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 09/20/2018 at 10:25:03