|
|
On November 04 2012 06:06 johny23 wrote:
Looks like the trolls are coming out in full force now, so I think I am done here. DoubleReed, you're either a troll or I will admit that I am jealous that you live such a great and comfortable life that you think people in power will always put their own interest aside to look out for you.
Either way great job, nicely done.
You know, if you're going to whine that I strawmanned you, the very least you could do is not strawman me back.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 04 2012 06:01 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 05:49 oneofthem wrote:the fed is now simultaneously evil and having too little impact. it is more charmeleon than mitt. impressive. Low interest rates are not an excuse that the government should spend on every project it sees. Low interest rates indicate that it will be easier to find profitable opportunities, but IMO the government should leave that to private individuals. If you think otherwise, we can have that discussion but it's a difference of opinion. why not though, after all, in many cases you are just providing the financing to other private individuals. having the whole thing fall even further will cause severe damage, like in spain and other places. Uh, I've never said the Fed is evil. I think they're playing a very dangerous game for questionable gain and supporters of QE are underestimating the possible consequences, but I don't think anyone WANTS terrible things to happen to the US economy. And it's a ridiculous extension of the government to give them the opportunity to seek out investment projects. That's the ultimate in private gain with social risk. In limited cases, we're willing to tolerate it - for instance, scientific research or weapons production. But the government should not be investing in businesses without a very good reason. Profit is not one of these "very good reasons".
i was talking about this other guy saying the fed is evil etc.
but anyway, not sure what your foundations are on the claim that it will be an extension of government authority to invest, as you call it. it is a mischaracterisation of the government's interest. it's not profit seeking. the profit thing is presumably to say that, government financed projects will be efficient. the point of government stimulus is to get the economy moving again and maintain activity, which is a clear mandate.
|
If Romney loses:
This fucking Republican Bubble has to burst. IT NEEDS TO, if they ever plan on ever winning an election. This perception and mythology that Republicans and conservatives have created around the Obama presidency is fucking ridiculous.
Obama isn't perfect, but he did save the Auto industry, prevent a great depression, add 4.5 million jobs, reform health care, reform student loans, cut 1 trillion in spending, end the war in Iraq, liberate Libya, and killed Osama Bin Laden and most of Al Qaeda's key operatives in four years.
Conservatives insist that Obama is an abomination, or the worst president in US history. Pffft. He isn't even the worst president in the last 8 years.
|
On November 04 2012 06:03 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 06:01 coverpunch wrote:On November 04 2012 05:49 oneofthem wrote:the fed is now simultaneously evil and having too little impact. it is more charmeleon than mitt. impressive. Low interest rates are not an excuse that the government should spend on every project it sees. Low interest rates indicate that it will be easier to find profitable opportunities, but IMO the government should leave that to private individuals. If you think otherwise, we can have that discussion but it's a difference of opinion. why not though, after all, in many cases you are just providing the financing to other private individuals. having the whole thing fall even further will cause severe damage, like in spain and other places. Uh, I've never said the Fed is evil. I think they're playing a very dangerous game for questionable gain and supporters of QE are underestimating the possible consequences, but I don't think anyone WANTS terrible things to happen to the US economy. And it's a ridiculous extension of the government to give them the opportunity to seek out investment projects. That's the ultimate in private gain with social risk. In limited cases, we're willing to tolerate it - for instance, scientific research or weapons production. But the government should not be investing in businesses without a very good reason. Profit is not one of these "very good reasons". Republicans do.
Ha ha who knows, maybe
Maybe parralel universe is right and we do need a crash before we can seriously think about growth again.
The financial crisis wich started in 2008 in the usa and got prolonged in europe in 2010-2011 seems to be over a bit to soon and i dont think the underlying causes have been realy solved or changed.
A crash and a big reset could be painfull now but might give us better prospects for the future in the end.
If a crash would be needed i fully count on the republicans to pull this off by letting the usa economy crash on the fiscal cliff, or in the unlikely case they win the election:by starting a war with iran.
It is verry tempting to start shorting the dow the day after the election, speculating on this.
On the other hand:if the economy realy makes a recovery and no new problems arise we could be at the start of a multi decade bull again,the economy and dow has been flat for 10+ years now, about as long as it was in the 70,s and 30,s after wich we had verry long periods of growth.
So:it all is verry complicated and basicly annything can happen
|
On November 04 2012 05:59 Feartheguru wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 05:54 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 04 2012 05:03 BluePanther wrote:On November 04 2012 03:40 ZeaL. wrote:On November 04 2012 03:37 Risen wrote:On November 04 2012 03:30 Adila wrote:
If Romney loses, I'd blame the far-right in the Republican party that forced him to morph into severe conservative Mitt. I'd also blame them for driving away any of the more pragmatic Republicans from running this year.
The Republican primary was a huge joke. This is the reason. Not the media, not Romney as a flawed candidate. It's the idiots in the party itself. The Republican party will evolve (hopefully) and be back in 2016. I dunno man. The game plan seems to be "when in doubt, shift to the right". only for the idiots in the party the phenomenon of Republican self-hatred for it's own base is not only remarkable, but extremely unhelpful. I don't know if you are Republican, but this comment exemplifies the attitude perfectly, and I've heard it a lot recently from the more moderate Republicans. I think it's rooted in things like Ford being the most hilariously bad choice when you think about the conservative base, who wanted Reagan. Reagan's success and Ford's failure are pretty interesting examples that run against the perception that shitting on conservatives is a good political move for Republican politicians. ask George H.W. Bush what happens when you compromise on your word and run against your base. ask the House Republicans the 1930s to the 1990s what happens when you make compromising your strategic goal. you build a minority mindset and you give false legitimacy to the other side's agenda and ideology. Eisenhower did more for making the New Deal the norm than FDR ever did. Nixon did more for the normalizing the positions of the modern Democratic party than Johnson ever could have. even Bush can stand as an example: a soft-conservative. he would be perfect sometimes, and then he would completely fail by trying to appeal to people whose entire agenda was to discredit and destroy him. the irony I feel in having Democrats lecture me about civility to the President, or in being obstructionist, is only eclipsed by the satisfaction I have in knowing that I've been inoculated to their hypocrisy. if the left doesn't think turnabout is fair play then they can keep sacrificing real life for the fantasy they've invented, and conservative's will still be here, pointing out the truth. we haven't moved to the right, ya'll let Obama push you to the left. either way, this election will be the big decider. I say the American people will deserve whatever they pick. if they want Fast&Furious, Benghazi, "great" unemployment numbers of 7.9%, imprisoning film makers, an Al Qaeda takeover of Mali and Libya, a Muslim Brotherhood takeover of the Middle East, a belligerent Iran, a beleaguered Israel, and high taxes, then I say "let 'em have it." conservatives should pull an Ayn Rand and say "Peace out" if Obama wins and let the car go flying off the cliff because apparently we like being the whipping boy for our government. if Obama wins it's not the conservative's fault. we offered a real alternative. everyone else either went along for the ride willingly or asked to be dragged along for the benefit of a pittance. funny thing is, as much as I'll be washing my hands of it if he pulls of the miracle of miracle's and does actually win, you won't find me crying and pointing fingers. I'll just shrug and start thinking about 2014. dollars to dimes, it'll be the establishment Republicans and moderate Independents that put him office twice that'll be the one's screaming and crying. but like I said, it doesn't matter. Romney is decently ahead in the swing states, with more than a comfortable enough lead to be confident about a win. the Senate is up in the air, but a jump ball was always the best shot we were gonna get so I'm not worried too much. polls that presuppose a higher Democrat turnout in 2012 than in 2008 should be flat out ignored for a reason. Can someone please explain something to me. It's been bothering me lately. How does someone convince themselves that Obama is at fault for letting 4 people die in an embassy on foreign soil but it's not Bush's fault that 3 planes crashed into American buildings killing thousands. Mind = Blown
it's a difference in preparation, response, and of simple history. Bush bears some of the blame for 9/11 in the fact that like his predecessors, he ignored the warning signs. however, his response was very good, and instead of shirking responsibility, he took it and owned it. and I can't blame him too much for the failures of his predecessors.
Obama does not have this luxury. unfair or not, Obama came into office with the full knowledge and awareness of the magnitude of the threat that radical, Islamist terrorists pose to this country and it's people. another successful terrorist attack, on the anniversary of 9/11 no less, is unacceptable. he failed in his most important duty, which is to secure the safety of our people, and he did so with the full knowledge of the risks involved. unlike Bush, he does not have the failures of his predecessors to blame for this. Libya was a situation of his own making and the results of it were entirely his own responsibility.
now to his response. has he been open and forthcoming? no. has he recognized the severity of the act and done all that he can to ensure that it never happens again? no. has he taken responsibility, unequivocally, and without hesitation? no. he has blamed, in succession: a Youtube video, a film-maker, Romney, the CIA, the intelligence community as a whole, the State Dept., the people on the ground, conservatives, and Fox News. to my knowledge, he has yet to publicly apologize for neglecting to secure his diplomat. we can only assume that in his mind, he bears no responsibility for securing the ambassador. Obama has done nothing but obfuscate and point fingers since the minute the attack was reported on and there is no indication whatsoever that this behavior is abnormal to him, but rather, in his perception, the inevitable reality.
|
On November 04 2012 06:12 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 06:06 johny23 wrote:
Looks like the trolls are coming out in full force now, so I think I am done here. DoubleReed, you're either a troll or I will admit that I am jealous that you live such a great and comfortable life that you think people in power will always put their own interest aside to look out for you.
Either way great job, nicely done. You know, if you're going to whine that I strawmanned you, the very least you could do is not strawman me back.
I just think it's dangerous to give the words " conspiracy theory" so much power that you try to lump a thought, theory or a person into that group in order to automatically dismiss or disprove it. Conspiracy Theory = automatically impossible to some people. When in reality a lot of people are talking about things as simple as a small group of powerful people manipulating something for their benefit... that's not that hard to do or pull off. IE: The previous example I gave of information being leaked or known ahead of time.
And saying the FED is owned by jew's and that I am trying not to be a sheeple, was strange to me. As I never brought up either of those, yet you're trying to lump me into some group.
|
On November 04 2012 06:18 Defacer wrote:
If Romney loses:
This fucking Republican Bubble has to burst. IT NEEDS TO, if they ever plan on ever winning an election. This perception and mythology that Republicans and conservatives have created around the Obama presidency is fucking ridiculous.
Obama isn't perfect, but he did save the Auto industry, prevent a great depression, add 4.5 million jobs, reform health care, reform student loans, cut 1 trillion in spending, end the war in Iraq, liberate Libya, and killed Osama Bin Laden and most of Al Qaeda's key operatives in four years.
Conservatives insist that Obama is an abomination, or the worst president in US history. Pffft. He isn't even the worst president in the last 8 years.
lol, what? Are you serious in this post? He prevented a great depression? He liberated Libya? Talk about mythology, what world are you living in?
And just because something occurs while a person is in office does not mean that person did it. What a simplistic way to view things.
The partisan bubble is what needs to burst. Guess what everyone: Neither Bush nor Obama destroyed nor saved the US economy. The shock and horror of common sense!
|
On November 04 2012 05:54 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 05:03 BluePanther wrote:On November 04 2012 03:40 ZeaL. wrote:On November 04 2012 03:37 Risen wrote:On November 04 2012 03:30 Adila wrote:
If Romney loses, I'd blame the far-right in the Republican party that forced him to morph into severe conservative Mitt. I'd also blame them for driving away any of the more pragmatic Republicans from running this year.
The Republican primary was a huge joke. This is the reason. Not the media, not Romney as a flawed candidate. It's the idiots in the party itself. The Republican party will evolve (hopefully) and be back in 2016. I dunno man. The game plan seems to be "when in doubt, shift to the right". only for the idiots in the party the phenomenon of Republican self-hatred for it's own base is not only remarkable, but extremely unhelpful. I don't know if you are Republican, but this comment exemplifies the attitude perfectly, and I've heard it a lot recently from the more moderate Republicans. I think it's rooted in things like Ford being the most hilariously bad choice when you think about the conservative base, who wanted Reagan. Reagan's success and Ford's failure are pretty interesting examples that run against the perception that shitting on conservatives is a good political move for Republican politicians. ask George H.W. Bush what happens when you compromise on your word and run against your base. ask the House Republicans the 1930s to the 1990s what happens when you make compromising your strategic goal. you build a minority mindset and you give false legitimacy to the other side's agenda and ideology. Eisenhower did more for making the New Deal the norm than FDR ever did. Nixon did more for the normalizing the positions of the modern Democratic party than Johnson ever could have. even Bush can stand as an example: a soft-conservative. he would be perfect sometimes, and then he would completely fail by trying to appeal to people whose entire agenda was to discredit and destroy him. the irony I feel in having Democrats lecture me about civility to the President, or in being obstructionist, is only eclipsed by the satisfaction I have in knowing that I've been inoculated to their hypocrisy. if the left doesn't think turnabout is fair play then they can keep sacrificing real life for the fantasy they've invented, and conservative's will still be here, pointing out the truth. we haven't moved to the right, ya'll let Obama push you to the left. either way, this election will be the big decider. I say the American people will deserve whatever they pick. if they want Fast&Furious, Benghazi, "great" unemployment numbers of 7.9%, imprisoning film makers, an Al Qaeda takeover of Mali and Libya, a Muslim Brotherhood takeover of the Middle East, a belligerent Iran, a beleaguered Israel, and high taxes, then I say "let 'em have it." conservatives should pull an Ayn Rand and say "Peace out" if Obama wins and let the car go flying off the cliff because apparently we like being the whipping boy for our government. if Obama wins it's not the conservative's fault. we offered a real alternative. everyone else either went along for the ride willingly or asked to be dragged along for the benefit of a pittance. funny thing is, as much as I'll be washing my hands of it if he pulls of the miracle of miracle's and does actually win, you won't find me crying and pointing fingers. I'll just shrug and start thinking about 2014. dollars to dimes, it'll be the establishment Republicans and moderate Independents that put him office twice that'll be the one's screaming and crying. but like I said, it doesn't matter. Romney is decently ahead in the swing states, with more than a comfortable enough lead to be confident about a win. the Senate is up in the air, but a jump ball was always the best shot we were gonna get so I'm not worried too much. polls that presuppose a higher Democrat turnout in 2012 than in 2008 should be flat out ignored for a reason.
You're delusional if you think Romney is still ahead.
According to the polls he's basically lost every battleground state except FL and NC. Yes, the polls can be wrong and biased. But to say Romney is ahead according to the polls is being completely out of touch. Romney can still win, because according to Nate Silver there's a 20% chance that the polls are biased enough that he is able to win.
Let's go through this point by point:
either way, this election will be the big decider. I say the American people will deserve whatever they pick. if they want Fast&Furious, Benghazi, "great" unemployment numbers of 7.9%, imprisoning film makers, an Al Qaeda takeover of Mali and Libya, a Muslim Brotherhood takeover of the Middle East, a belligerent Iran, a beleaguered Israel, and high taxes, then I say "let 'em have it." conservatives should pull an Ayn Rand and say "Peace out" if Obama wins and let the car go flying off the cliff because apparently we like being the whipping boy for our government.
Fast and furious isn't Obama's fault, it started under Bush and despite the best efforts of Republicans they've found no evidence of wrongdoing. You can't blame Obama for the attack at Benghazi.
Unemployment has been falling, and the reason why it isn't falling faster is because recoveries from financial crises have historically been slow and Republican obstructionism, preventing more stimulus. The CBO estimates the stimulus created 3 million jobs, more stimulus would have created even more jobs. But Republicans want to cut spending, but hypocritically, they're completely Keynesian on the fiscal cliff, where they suddenly think that reducing the deficit would destroy the economy.
I don't know what film maker you're talking about. Obama isn't responsible for what happen in Mali, and how do you know the CIA isn't working hard to stop al Qaeda there?
Egyptians voted for the Muslim Brotherhood. The US isn't in the business of fixing foreign elections.
Iran is suffering the most crippling sanctions ever. Look at their currency. It's dropped to near worthlessness. And what's your complaint about Israel?
![[image loading]](http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2012/09-2/IRRUSD_0.png)
We need higher taxes. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Office published a report showing no correlation between lowering taxes and higher growth. Republicans made them withdraw the report because it disagree with their dogma: http://news.yahoo.com/u-agency-withdraws-tax-report-challenging-republican-ideas-215057131.html
Here's the report: http://www.dpcc.senate.gov/files/documents/CRSTaxesandtheEconomy Top Rates.pdf
We have the facts on our side. For the most part, Obama has been a good President. It's Romney who will tank the economy with his no detail, unspecified, and mathematically impossible tax and spending plans.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 04 2012 06:30 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 06:18 Defacer wrote:
If Romney loses:
This fucking Republican Bubble has to burst. IT NEEDS TO, if they ever plan on ever winning an election. This perception and mythology that Republicans and conservatives have created around the Obama presidency is fucking ridiculous.
Obama isn't perfect, but he did save the Auto industry, prevent a great depression, add 4.5 million jobs, reform health care, reform student loans, cut 1 trillion in spending, end the war in Iraq, liberate Libya, and killed Osama Bin Laden and most of Al Qaeda's key operatives in four years.
Conservatives insist that Obama is an abomination, or the worst president in US history. Pffft. He isn't even the worst president in the last 8 years. lol, what? Are you serious in this post? He prevented a great depression? He liberated Libya? Talk about mythology, what world are you living in? And just because something occurs while a person is in office does not mean that person did it. What a simplistic way to view things. The partisan bubble is what needs to burst. Guess what everyone: Neither Bush nor Obama destroyed nor saved the US economy. The shock and horror of common sense!
apply austerity to the u.s. and watch it burn.
|
Obama isn't perfect, but he did save the Auto industry, prevent a great depression, add 4.5 million jobs, reform health care, reform student loans, cut 1 trillion in spending, end the war in Iraq, liberate Libya, and killed Osama Bin Laden and most of Al Qaeda's key operatives in four years.
^
I want everyone to read this, seriously.
Do you have any idea what the President actually does?
HAIL OBAMA AMIRITE?
|
On November 04 2012 06:33 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 06:30 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 04 2012 06:18 Defacer wrote:
If Romney loses:
This fucking Republican Bubble has to burst. IT NEEDS TO, if they ever plan on ever winning an election. This perception and mythology that Republicans and conservatives have created around the Obama presidency is fucking ridiculous.
Obama isn't perfect, but he did save the Auto industry, prevent a great depression, add 4.5 million jobs, reform health care, reform student loans, cut 1 trillion in spending, end the war in Iraq, liberate Libya, and killed Osama Bin Laden and most of Al Qaeda's key operatives in four years.
Conservatives insist that Obama is an abomination, or the worst president in US history. Pffft. He isn't even the worst president in the last 8 years. lol, what? Are you serious in this post? He prevented a great depression? He liberated Libya? Talk about mythology, what world are you living in? And just because something occurs while a person is in office does not mean that person did it. What a simplistic way to view things. The partisan bubble is what needs to burst. Guess what everyone: Neither Bush nor Obama destroyed nor saved the US economy. The shock and horror of common sense! apply austerity to the u.s. and watch it burn.
Is austerity here being used as a euphemism for a balanced budget? How many decades of stimulus do you recommend to prevent the depression?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
google it if all else fails.
and it seems like you identify all kinds of govt spending, at least those that are not helping corporations, as stimulus. great
|
On November 04 2012 06:19 Rassy wrote:
Maybe parralel universe is right and we do need a crash before we can seriously think about growth again.
It was johny23 who said that, not me.
|
Just for reference.
U.S. Embassies, Consulates and Diplomatic Missions around the world.
+ Show Spoiler +
AFRICA
• Africa Regional Services - Paris
• Angola: Luanda | Português
• Benin: Cotonou
• Botswana: Gaborone
• Burkina Faso: Ouagadougou | Français
• Burundi: Bujumbura
• Cameroon: Yaounde | Français
• Cameroon: VPP Septentrion
• Cape Verde: Praia | Português
• Central African Republic: Bangui
• Chad: N'Djamena | Français
• Democratic Republic of the Congo:
Kinshasa | Français
• Republic of the Congo: Brazzaville | Français
• Côte d’Ivoire: Abidjan | Français
• Republic of Djibouti: Djibouti
• Equatorial Guinea: Malabo
• Eritrea: Asmara
• Ethiopia: Addis Ababa
• Gabon: Libreville
• Ghana: Accra
• Guinea: Conakry | Français
• Guinea-Bissau VPP
• Kenya: Nairobi
• Lesotho: Maseru
• Liberia: Monrovia
• Madagascar: Antananarivo
• Malawi: Lilongwe
• Mali: Bamako | Français
• Mauritania: Nouakchott | Français | عربي
• Mauritius: Port Louis
• Mauritius: VPP Seychelles
• Mozambique: Maputo | Portuguese
• Namibia: Windhoek
• Niger: Niamey
• Nigeria: Abuja
• Rwanda: Kigali
• Senegal: Dakar | Français
• Sierra Leone: Freetown
• Somalia: VPP Somalia
• South Africa: Pretoria
• South Sudan: Juba
• Sudan: Khartoum
• Swaziland: Mbabane
• Tanzania: Dar es Salaam
• Tanzania: VPP Zanzibar
• The Gambia: Banjul
• Togo: Lome
• Uganda: Kampala
• Zambia: Lusaka
• Zimbabwe: Harare
• U.S. Mission to the African Union
THE AMERICAS
• Argentina: Buenos Aires | Español
• Bahamas: Nassau
• Barbados: Bridgetown
• Belize: Belmopan
• Bermuda: Hamilton
• Bolivia: La Paz | Español
• Brazil: Brasilia | Português
• Brazil: Rio de Janeiro | Português
• Brazil: Recife | Português
• Brazil: São Paulo | Português
• Canada: Ottawa
• Canada: Calgary
• Canada: Halifax
• Canada: Montreal
• Canada: Quebec
• Canada: Toronto
• Canada: Vancouver
• Canada: Winnipeg
• Chile: Santiago | Español
• Colombia: Bogota | Español
• Costa Rica: San Jose
• Cuba: U.S. Interests Section | Español
• Dominican Republic: Santo Domingo| Español
• Ecuador: Quito | Español
• Ecuador: Guayaquil | Español
• El Salvador: San Salvador | Español
• Guatemala: Guatemala City | Español
• Guatemala: VPP Xela
• Guyana: Georgetown
• Haiti: Port-au-Prince | Français
• Honduras: Tegucigalpa | Español
• Honduras: VPP San Pedro Sula | Español
• Jamaica: Kingston
• Mexico: Mexico City | Español
• Mexico: Ciudad Juarez | Español
• Mexico: Guadalajara | Español
• Mexico: Hermosillo | Español
• Mexico: Matamoros | Español
• Mexico: Merida | Español
• Mexico: Monterrey | Español
• Mexico: Nogales | Español
• Mexico: Nuevo Laredo
• Mexico: Puerto Vallarta
• Mexico: Tijuana | Español
• Mexico: VPP El Bajio | Español
• Mexico: VPP Chiapas-Tabasco | Español
• Netherlands Antilles: Curacao
• Nicaragua: Managua | Español
• Panama: Panama City | Español
• Paraguay: Asuncion | Español
• Peru: Lima | Español
• Suriname: Paramaribo
• Trinidad & Tobago: Port of Spain
• Uruguay: Montevideo | Español
• Venezuela: Caracas | Español
• U.S. Mission to the OAS
• U.S. Mission to the U.N.-New York
EAST ASIA AND PACIFIC
• Australia: Canberra
• Australia: Melbourne
• Australia: Perth
• Australia: Sydney
• Brunei: Bandar Seri Begawan
• Burma: Rangoon
• Cambodia: Phnom Penh | Khmer
• China: Beijing | 中文版
• China: Chengdu | 中文版
• China: Guangzhou | 中文版
• China: Shanghai | 中文版
• China: Shenyang | 中文版
• China: Wuhan | 中文版
• China: VPP Kunming | 中文版
• China: VPP Lhasa | 中文版 | Tibetan
• China: VPP Zhengzhou (中文版)
• Fiji: Suva
• Fiji: VPP Tonga
• Hong Kong and Macau | 中文版
• Indonesia: Jakarta | Bahasa
• Indonesia: Surabaya
• Indonesia: APP Medan | Bahasa
• Japan: Tokyo | 日本語
• Japan: Fukuoka | 日本語
• Japan: Nagoya | 日本語
• Japan: Osaka/Kobe | 日本語
• Japan: Sapporo | 日本語
• Japan: Naha, Okinawa | 日本語
• Korea: Seoul | 한국어
• Korea: Busan | 한국어
• Laos: Vientiane
• Malaysia: Kuala Lumpur | Bahasa Malaysia
• Republic of the Marshall Islands:
Majuro
• Federated States of Micronesia:
Kolonia
• Mongolia: Ulaanbaatar | МОНГОЛ
• New Zealand: Wellington
• Papua New Guinea: Port Moresby
• Republic of Palau: Koror
• Philippines: Manila
• Philippines: VPP Mindanao
• Samoa: Apia
• Singapore
• Thailand: Bangkok | ภาษาไทย
• Thailand: Chiang Mai
• Timor-Leste: Dili
• Vietnam: Hanoi | Tièng Viêt
• Vietnam: Ho Chi Minh City | Tièng Viêt
• U.S. Mission to ASEAN
• Taiwan**
EUROPE AND EURASIA
• Albania: Tirana | Shqip
• Armenia: Yerevan | Հայերեն
• Austria: Vienna | Deutsch
• Azerbaijan: Baku | Azeri
• Belarus: Minsk | па-беларуску
• Belgium: Brussels | Français | Nederlands
• Bosnia & Herzegovina: Sarajevo | B/H/S
• Bulgaria: Sofia | Български
• Croatia: Zagreb | Hrvatski
• Cyprus: Nicosia
• Czech Republic: Prague | česky
• Denmark: Copenhagen
• Denmark-Greenland: VPP Nuuk
• Estonia: Tallinn | Eesti keeles | Pycckuú
• Finland: Helsinki | Finnish
• France: Paris | Français
• France: Bordeaux | Français
• France: Lille
• France: Lyon | Français
• France: Rennes | Français
• France: Toulouse | Français
• France: Marseille | Français
• France: Strasbourg | Français
• France: VPP Monaco
• Georgia: Tbilisi | რთულად
• Germany: Berlin | Deutsch
• Germany: Düsseldorf | Deutsch
• Germany: Frankfurt | Deutsch
• Germany: Hamburg | Deutsch
• Germany: Leipzig | Deutsch
• Germany: Munich | Deutsch
• Greece: Athens
• Greece: Thessaloniki
• Hungary: Budapest | Magyarul
• Iceland: Reykjavik
• Ireland: Dublin
• Italy: Rome | Italiano
• Italy: Florence | Italiano
• Italy: Milan | Italiano
• Italy: Naples | Italiano
• Italy: VPP San Marino
• Kosovo: Pristina | Shqip | Srpski
• Latvia: Riga | Latviski | Pycckuú
• Lithuania: Vilnius
• Luxembourg
• Macedonia: Skopje | Shqip | Македонски
• Malta: Valletta
• Moldova: Chisinau | Română | Pycckuú
• Montenegro: Podgorica
• The Netherlands: The Hague
• The Netherlands: Amsterdam
• Norway: Oslo
• Poland: Warsaw | Polski
• Poland: Krakow | Polski
• Portugal: Lisbon | Português
• Portugal: Ponta Delgada, Azores | Português
• Romania: Bucharest
• Russia: Moscow | Pycckuú
• Russia: St. Petersburg | Pycckuú
• Russia: Vladivostok | Pycckuú
• Russia: Yekaterinburg | Pycckuú
• Serbia: Belgrade | Srpski
• Slovakia: Bratislava | Slovenská
• Slovenia: Ljubljana
• Spain: Madrid | Español
• Spain: Barcelona | Español | Catalá
• Sweden: Stockholm
• Switzerland: Bern
• Switzerland: VPP Liechtenstein
• Turkey: Ankara | Türkçe
• Turkey: Adana
• Turkey: Istanbul
• Ukraine: Kyiv | Українська
• United Kingdom: London
• United Kingdom: Belfast
• United Kingdom: Edinburgh
• United Kingdom: VPP Cardiff
• The Vatican
• U.S. Mission to International
Organizations in Vienna
• U.S. Mission to the EU
• U.S. Mission to NATO
• U.S. Mission to the OECD
• U.S. Mission to the OSCE | Pycckuú
• U.S. Mission to the UN-Geneva
• U.S. Mission to the UN-Rome
• U.S. Mission to UNESCO
MIDDLE EAST AND NORTH AFRICA
• Algeria: Algiers | Français | عربي
• Bahrain: Manama
• Egypt: Cairo
• Egypt: APP Alexandria
• Iran: Virtual Embassy Tehran | فارسی
• Iraq: Baghdad | عربي
• Iraq: Basrah
• Iraq: Erbil
• Iraq: Kirkuk
• Israel: Tel Aviv
• Jerusalem | عربي
• VPP Gaza | عربي
• Jordan: Amman | عربي
• Kuwait: Kuwait City | الصفحة العربية
• Lebanon: Beirut | عربي
• Libya: Tripoli | عربي
• Morocco: Rabat | Français
• Morocco: Casablanca
• Oman: Muscat | الصفحة العربية
• Qatar: Doha | عربي
• Saudi Arabia: Riyadh | الصفحة العربية
• Saudi Arabia: Dhahran
• Saudi Arabia: Jeddah | الصفحة العربية
• Syria: Damascus | الصفحة العربية
• Tunisia: Tunis | Français | عربي
• United Arab Emirates: Abu Dhabi
• United Arab Emirates: Dubai
• Yemen: Sana'a | الصفحة العربية
CENTRAL AND SOUTH ASIA
• Afghanistan: Kabul | دری | پشتو
• Bangladesh: Dhaka
• Bangladesh: VPP Chittagong
• Bangladesh: VPP Jessore
• Bangladesh: VPP Sylhet
• India: New Delhi
• India: Chennai
• India: Hyderabad
• India: Kolkata
• India: Mumbai
• India: VPP Bangalore
• Kazakhstan: Astana | Русский | Қазақша
• Kazakhstan: Almaty | Русский
• Kyrgyz Republic: Bishkek | Кыргызча | Русский
• Nepal: Kathmandu
• Pakistan: Islamabad
• Pakistan: Karachi
• Pakistan: Lahore
• Pakistan: Peshawar
• Sri Lanka: Colombo
• Sri Lanka: VPP Maldives
• Tajikistan: Dushanbe | Русский
• Turkmenistan: Ashgabat | Türkmen dilinde | Русский
• Uzbekistan: Tashkent | Русский | O'zbekcha
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 04 2012 06:35 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 06:33 oneofthem wrote:On November 04 2012 06:30 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 04 2012 06:18 Defacer wrote:
If Romney loses:
This fucking Republican Bubble has to burst. IT NEEDS TO, if they ever plan on ever winning an election. This perception and mythology that Republicans and conservatives have created around the Obama presidency is fucking ridiculous.
Obama isn't perfect, but he did save the Auto industry, prevent a great depression, add 4.5 million jobs, reform health care, reform student loans, cut 1 trillion in spending, end the war in Iraq, liberate Libya, and killed Osama Bin Laden and most of Al Qaeda's key operatives in four years.
Conservatives insist that Obama is an abomination, or the worst president in US history. Pffft. He isn't even the worst president in the last 8 years. lol, what? Are you serious in this post? He prevented a great depression? He liberated Libya? Talk about mythology, what world are you living in? And just because something occurs while a person is in office does not mean that person did it. What a simplistic way to view things. The partisan bubble is what needs to burst. Guess what everyone: Neither Bush nor Obama destroyed nor saved the US economy. The shock and horror of common sense! apply austerity to the u.s. and watch it burn. Is austerity here being used as a euphemism for a balanced budget? How many decades of stimulus do you recommend to prevent the depression?
Stop with your black and white arguments that no one is advocating. Who is saying we need decades of stimulus?
|
On November 04 2012 06:37 oneofthem wrote:
google it if all else fails.
You are definitely one of the great posters on this site. I wish I could learn from your quality posting so I didn't get banned so much.
|
Romney is ahead in Virgina and Florida. He has NC locked up, and is within 2 points in NH, CO, and Iowa. All three of those are wide open. He is within 3 points in Ohio, which means turnout and the undecided vote will decide, both are heavily favoring Romney right now. He's also within 5 points in: michigan and Penn, and is close to 5 in Wisconsin. he is within 3 points in NV.
all that is RCP data, so it's based in part off the same polls that are vastly oversampling Democrats. looking at the electoral map:
Right now, RCP has it at 201-191 with Obama in the lead. Romney will win FL and NC. 201 - 235 Romney. VA is pretty much a lock, meaning that it's 201-248.
Obama will probably win Penn and Michigan, and possibly Wisconsin. 247-248 with a Romney lead. CO and NH are both likely to fall to Romney: 247-261. NV and Iowa are likely Romney victories, giving him at least a 273 EC victory with the very real possibility of Ohio adding to it, giving him a 291-247 win. personally, I would predict a Romney victory in WI and Penn, giving him the 321-217 sweep.
either way, the election is still wide open for Romney, with the onus on Obama. we'll see how the next 3 days play out, but I think Romney is probably feeling pretty comfortable right now.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 04 2012 06:38 jdseemoreglass wrote:You are definitely one of the great posters on this site. I wish I could learn from your quality posting so I didn't get banned so much.
i could actually get important work done when im banned. wonder what you'll be doing in yoru time away from trolling. i hope you'll actually get informed on the issues rather than taking feeds from mises.org or other great fountains of economic wisdom
|
On November 04 2012 06:35 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 06:33 oneofthem wrote:On November 04 2012 06:30 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 04 2012 06:18 Defacer wrote:
If Romney loses:
This fucking Republican Bubble has to burst. IT NEEDS TO, if they ever plan on ever winning an election. This perception and mythology that Republicans and conservatives have created around the Obama presidency is fucking ridiculous.
Obama isn't perfect, but he did save the Auto industry, prevent a great depression, add 4.5 million jobs, reform health care, reform student loans, cut 1 trillion in spending, end the war in Iraq, liberate Libya, and killed Osama Bin Laden and most of Al Qaeda's key operatives in four years.
Conservatives insist that Obama is an abomination, or the worst president in US history. Pffft. He isn't even the worst president in the last 8 years. lol, what? Are you serious in this post? He prevented a great depression? He liberated Libya? Talk about mythology, what world are you living in? And just because something occurs while a person is in office does not mean that person did it. What a simplistic way to view things. The partisan bubble is what needs to burst. Guess what everyone: Neither Bush nor Obama destroyed nor saved the US economy. The shock and horror of common sense! apply austerity to the u.s. and watch it burn. Is austerity here being used as a euphemism for a balanced budget? How many decades of stimulus do you recommend to prevent the depression?
If Republicans weren't such hypocrites they wouldn't be talking about the fiscal cliff, which will lead almost to a balanced budget, in such apocalyptic terms. Balanced budgets are good, right?
The economy is recovering, we don't need years of stimulus, probably the Jobs Act and a little more on top of that to speed things up. Some numbers to keep in mind, CBO says stimulus created 3 million jobs. Jobs Act is estimated to create about 1-2 million jobs. Returning public sector employment to where it was before all the cuts in government workers would add around another 0.7 million jobs.
|
On November 04 2012 06:37 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 06:19 Rassy wrote:
Maybe parralel universe is right and we do need a crash before we can seriously think about growth again. It was johny23 who said that, not me.
I obviously don't claim that to be the end all. I am simple stating from a point of life cycle of good times and bad times, that you cannot have never ending growth and debt. I mean that statement really can't be argued, only the time frame can. Growth and debt cannot be infinite...even using the most extreme examples at some point it needs a correction or has to contract before it can grow again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
