Obama '08?

There may not be an honest person in the financial sector.

"Me thinks he doth protest too much!"

Me knows that you never protest at all against the numerous barbaric war crimes committed by your government and your neighbors. In fact you do all you can to divert attention away of said crimes.

Is that what qualifies a person as an American patriot, someone who actively seeks to subvert all that America is supposed to stand for?

pom, rather than making a sarcastic remark about your statement, I will kindly point out that you really need to re-examine your basic beliefs. You seem to stereotype people in business, to the point that I think you have been indoctrinated against business and banking in general. Your slanted thinking does not allow you to see the world clearly.

The beauty of the free market system in a country with a set of laws to take care of dishonesty and corruption, as we have in this country, is that poorly run businesses will eventually go out of business, more efficient companies will still serve the people, and the corrupt people that have broken the law can be prosecuted. In other words, the system can operate smoothly and efficiently in a way that cleanses itself and keeps itself efficient. In contrast, big government is by nature inefficient and often corrupt, with no efficient mechanism to correct the inefficiencies and corruption, especially if the party in power makes a habit of protecting their own. And this has been too often the case, one example being the Fannie and Freddie debacle. We still have no prosecution of those that were involved in the corruption, because the Democratic Party and Obama has declined to do anything.

I love this! okie wrote:

JTT. is Obama responsible for those alleged war crimes? If not why bring them up on this thread, Obama '08? Bring those war crimes up on a thread that discusses the war crimes committed by the various nations that committed them. If no such thread exists, then you should create such a thread to satisfy your yearnings.

How about starting with Germany, Russia, Japan, China, America, Afghanistan, and Iraq?

Would you and okie stop accusing cicerone of being a liberal? He has been saying he is not for the seven years this forum has existed and for years on its predecessor, abuzz. When you are smart enough to read his mind, he will let you know.

You will not address me or anyone else in that fashion. I have lived a life of philosophical, social and intellectual examination.



Look at the pot calling the kettle . . .



Laws which you and other conservatives who totally lack a sense of personal responsibility hate and want to see eliminated; laws which raygun and the two bushwackers weakened so that we are in an historical low.

You know nothing.

Yeah, okie ought to have his own radio show. The Redneck Economics Hour.

How about 'golf ball hit show' or 'goofball show'?

NO! I WILL NOT STOP!

Cicerone is a leftist liberal by definition. He advocates stealing via taxation wealth people earn and giving it to those who do not earn it. He calls that fair!

You too, plainoldme, are a leftist liberal by definition. You advocate the same thing! You too call that fair!

You are drooling again, Ican. Take a deep breath and wipe your chin.

FUNDAMENTAL TRUTHS

Leftist liberals seek to secure their right to steal wealth others earn.

Rightist liberals seek to secure their right to retain wealth they earn.

Leftist Liberals think legitimizing the stealing of wealth others earn will lead to equalization of wealth and the elimination of hateful behavior. Actually neither will be achieved. Those in the government minority performing the redistribution of wealth will be the ones growing wealthier and more powerful, while their victims, the majority, as well as their beneficiaries will gradually grow poorer and less powerful.

Rightist Liberals think that laws that violate the Constitution must be repealed in order to rescue and renew America. Laws that violate the Constitution serve only to increase the power of government over the power of the people.

"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

America began its corruption about 100 hundred years ago when its Congress, its presidents, and its courts began to redistribute wealth. It increased its rate of corruption when it deemed the Constitution of the USA a "Living Constitution" (i.e., changeable by opinion instead of by its Article V amendment process). More recently it has accelerated its rate of corruption by deeming the Constiitution an "Obsolete Constitution" (i.e., no longer valid).

QUOTES OF OUR FOUNDING FATHERS
“If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men should possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.” -- Samuel Adams

“The powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction.” – James Madison

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” -- Benjamin Franklin

They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety.” -- Benjamin Franklin

However, you "people" believe it's fair to increase our national debt that must be paid for by our children and grandchildren.

It's not stealing when taxes must pay for what our government(s) approve in their budgets - whether we agree with them or not. That is how democracies work. Where do you get the idea that taxing wealthy people gives it to the poor? You don't understand anything about government operations and how they approve their budgets. You are not only blind, but stupid too!

If wealthy people are paying the vast majority of the taxes in this country, yes, that means it is effectively being redistributed to the poor, because rich and poor alike all receive pretty much the same benefits of what the government provides. It also means that the rich are paying the way of the no-payers.

By the way, if we actually paid for the benefits being provided, and if all men are considered equal in this country in terms of the rights and benefits of government, such as national security and protection of basic rights, shouldn't everyone in the country pay roughly the same dollar amount in taxes, without regard to what they earn? Given the 2010 budget of about 3.55 trillion, isn't that approximately $10,000 for each man, woman, or child in this country? If we are all going to want to pay our way in this country, why wouldn't that be one fair way to do it? Just a question to give you something to ponder. I am not proposing it, but I am throwing that idea out there as one solution or approach.

And you are a brain dead ****.

Listen, twerp, the man has been saying for years who and what he is. His writing here evidences that his IQ is higher than yours. He has lived in his own skin for more than 60 years. You are telling him he doesn't know himself. If he wrote as badly as you do, you would have some justification, but, you have none.

You can't read well enough to define anything.

Tax breaks . . . write offs . . . trickery. Surely, you have heard of those things that the rich use to dodge paying taxes.


Oh, but, I forgot, you would rather take the oatmeal out of the mouths of kids whose parents earn $25,000/annum.

okie, What are you talking about? You say that the rich and poor get the same benefits? How does national security that protects the wealthy people's assets become equal to the poor people's assets? Are you saying that the wealth people's mansions, yachts, and airplanes are not being protected by our country?

That is definitely new news to me!

You must be brain dead, because you don't see anything with a clear view. Your eyes are always fogged in reds that prevents you from seeing the real world.

Shouldn't the wealthy be paying a proportional percentage of our national defense to protect their assets?

When we buy car insurance the premiums are the same for a $10,000 car as for a $50,000 car arnt they? So a person who makes $25,000 a year should pay the same rate as a multimillionare. Right?

Forget national security of assets. I can make it even simpler.

People making less don't drive as much. So why would they pay the same for interstate highways?

People making less don't use as much coal, gas or electricity. Why would they pay the same amount for mine inspectors, oil and gas regulations, subsidies, and all the other related government expenses?

People making less don't fly as much, if at all. Why would they pay the same for air traffic control, airport security and airline bailouts that have been deemed necessary to avoid a monopoly and benefits those with the means to fly by keeping ticket prices low?

People making less don't have stocks and bonds. Why should they pay for federal government department employees hired to regulate the associated industries?

People making less don't consume as much. Why should they pay the same for port security, interstates for transporting goods, farmer subsidies, ...

and on and on.

Why wouldn't those that benefit more due to their ability to afford to take advantage of these benefits, pay more?