"He is pro-free trade, not an alarmist on globalization, and a defender of subprime lending on the grounds that it has expanded home-ownership for minorities."
haha!
(the article, published in August in the neocon Weekly Standard, writes the above approvingly)
On October 30 2008 06:22 Carnac wrote: This may sound random to some people, but I just noticed that the election is on a Tuesday... over here elections are always on a Sunday.
We have Sunday too, but you can vote like 10 days earlier for 5 days period then there is few days waiting for actual election day.
Last election around 32% voted before actual election day.
On October 30 2008 08:11 HnR)hT wrote: Here is that article on Austan Goolsbee:
"He is pro-free trade, not an alarmist on globalization, and a defender of subprime lending on the grounds that it has expanded home-ownership for minorities."
haha!
(the article, published in August in the neocon Weekly Standard, writes the above approvingly)
Goddamn minorities and their goddamn home-ownership.
On October 30 2008 08:11 HnR)hT wrote: Here is that article on Austan Goolsbee:
"He is pro-free trade, not an alarmist on globalization, and a defender of subprime lending on the grounds that it has expanded home-ownership for minorities."
haha!
(the article, published in August in the neocon Weekly Standard, writes the above approvingly)
Goddamn minorities and their goddamn home-ownership.
Home ownership? That requires that you actually pay your mortgage loans
On October 30 2008 08:11 HnR)hT wrote: Here is that article on Austan Goolsbee:
"He is pro-free trade, not an alarmist on globalization, and a defender of subprime lending on the grounds that it has expanded home-ownership for minorities."
haha!
(the article, published in August in the neocon Weekly Standard, writes the above approvingly)
Goddamn minorities and their goddamn home-ownership.
Home ownership? That requires that you actually pay your mortgage loans
It does? Tell the people in Australia that! We have a house there, and everyone is mortgaged up to the hilt; more specifically, do renters not count? Besides, all you Americans knock socialism simply because it is socialism. That is just stupid. Thats like hating ice cream just because it's called ice cream, and not really trying the smooth tasty goodness thats within. So communism got a bad name from the Soviet Union. But that wasn't Communism anyways! That was a dictator ship built around the word communism.
To the same extent; the two party system is almost as close too a dictatorship as the entire western world! Seriously what the hell kind of choice is represented by two parties that are almost identical (as much as you'd like to say they're MILES apart) They are both so far right your almost voting for a name. In the name of getting the indepentants (which are the only people who actually count, since hard core's vote for their party regardless) they've turned into practically the same thing! You call a progressive tax socialist, and yet nearly every country in the western world has it! Too be fair, I'd say big business probably sponsors both sides, for promises and favors. In all fairness; not much would really change regardless. It seems everyone in America is ether a Republicrat or Demopublican with the same people in power benefiting regardless... What the hell kinda sham is that for a Democracy is that!?
On October 30 2008 03:29 fusionsdf wrote: when it comes to national issues, she basically does know nothing.
I mean I for one trust her to fix the econ-basically its got to be about job creation
On the economy, from what I gather Obama would be far worse than a cactus.
Damn, vote for the Cactus ! appereantly, hes the best candidate
Or the next best thing: someone with enough principle and down-to-earth common sense to resist the temptation to "do something" simply because he can.
The economy is far too complex for too-clever-by-half technocrats even when well-intentioned, which is in fact rarely the case.
You want to take a bet? Under Mccain US debt will increase or decrease by a maximum of 10% Under Obama it will decrease with 50% or more.
I don't know about the first one, but I definitely don't believe the second one.
Of course you don't, so whats the stakes? 100 bucks? An official apology for our stupidity posted whereever the winner wants? Or just the right to a "lololol ur stupid" quote?. Not that neither me nor you will remember it in four years but still.
So Klackon, you are willing to bet money that during the start of a recession, with a proposed national health care system and only a tax increase on the wealthy, that the debt will decrease several trillion dollars?
On October 30 2008 03:29 fusionsdf wrote: when it comes to national issues, she basically does know nothing.
I mean I for one trust her to fix the econ-basically its got to be about job creation
On the economy, from what I gather Obama would be far worse than a cactus.
Damn, vote for the Cactus ! appereantly, hes the best candidate
Or the next best thing: someone with enough principle and down-to-earth common sense to resist the temptation to "do something" simply because he can.
The economy is far too complex for too-clever-by-half technocrats even when well-intentioned, which is in fact rarely the case.
You want to take a bet? Under Mccain US debt will increase or decrease by a maximum of 10% Under Obama it will decrease with 50% or more.
I don't know about the first one, but I definitely don't believe the second one.
Of course you don't, so whats the stakes? 100 bucks? An official apology for our stupidity posted whereever the winner wants? Or just the right to a "lololol ur stupid" quote?. Not that neither me nor you will remember it in four years but still.
So Klackon, you are willing to bet money that during the start of a recession, with a proposed national health care system and only a tax increase on the wealthy, that the debt will decrease several trillion dollars?
On October 30 2008 08:11 HnR)hT wrote: Here is that article on Austan Goolsbee:
"He is pro-free trade, not an alarmist on globalization, and a defender of subprime lending on the grounds that it has expanded home-ownership for minorities."
haha!
(the article, published in August in the neocon Weekly Standard, writes the above approvingly)
Goddamn minorities and their goddamn home-ownership.
Home ownership? That requires that you actually pay your mortgage loans
How'd Obamas big commercial go? I turned it on and was like 'oh man this is cheesy as balls' and turned it off. It might be true and all, but man way 2 lame.
On October 30 2008 10:15 HnR)hT wrote: And if we are far-right, what does that make Russia - a country that does have a flat tax?
I don't know what that makes Russia, but the killing of journalists who criticize the government makes it pretty damn far to the right.
Just like USSR?
yes
To quote Karl Hess...
“Power, concentrated in few hands, is the dominant historic characteristic of what most people, in most times, have considered the political and economic right wing."
“The far left, as far as you can get away from the right, would logically represent the opposite tendency and, in fact, has done just that throughout history. The left has been the side of politics and economics that opposes the concentration of power and wealth and, instead, advocates and works toward the distribution of power into the maximum number of hands."
“The attitude on that farthest left toward law and order was summed up by an early French anarchist, Proudhon, who said that ‘order is the daughter of and not the mother of liberty.’ Let people be absolutely free, says this farthest of the far, far left (the left that Communism regularly denounces as too left; Lenin called it ‘infantile left’). "
blame the sins of stalinism and american propaganda for the silly caricatures of leftist totalitarianism. although this is not to say that the left should be given a pass, but that authoritarian brutality is a distinct political phenomenon that is not ideologically specific.
so calling authoritarianism 'left' or 'right' is not going to get us anywhere except rhetorical posturing, authoritarianism is the characteristic of particular regimes. although, to be technical, the right's understanding of liberty is a bit narrower than that of the left