maple_leafs182 Posted August 8, 2011 Report Share Posted August 8, 2011 markets are tumbling, silver and gold are rising, good thing i bought silver... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted August 17, 2011 Report Share Posted August 17, 2011 markets are tumbling, silver and gold are rising, good thing i bought silver... yep. Good call. I expect Obama will wreak some more economic havoc in the world in order to blame someone else and in the turmoil and confusion he creates hope to enhance his chances of re-election. I expect silver and gold to perform until the next election. If he gets elected hang on to it; if he doesn't that will be the time to sell- and fast. Of course that must be tempered with who does get elected. If Ron Paul gets elected it might be good to hang on to it. If Mitt Romney or Rick Perry, or anyone else for that matter, get elected - sell. I don't think Obama will get re-elected but who knows what stunts he will try and pull off - maybe even attempting to delay an election but that's a stretch. I don't think he could get away with that no matter what the prevailing global conditions - too many Americans recognize him as the epitome of the irresponsible and opportunistic self-aggrandizing do-gooder politician out to save the world from itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 17, 2011 Report Share Posted August 17, 2011 ...I don't think Obama will get re-elected but who knows what stunts he will try and pull off - maybe even attempting to delay an election but that's a stretch. How the hell would Obama do that...it's not Canada! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorn Posted August 18, 2011 Report Share Posted August 18, 2011 I don't think Obama will get re-elected but who knows what stunts he will try and pull off - maybe even attempting to delay an election but that's a stretch. I don't think he could get away with that no matter what the prevailing global conditions - too many Americans recognize him as the epitome of the irresponsible and opportunistic self-aggrandizing do-gooder politician out to save the world from itself. I'm not a fan of Obama, but I think he will be re-elected simply because all the Republicans in the running to oppose him appear to be wack jobs from the far fringes of the far right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted August 18, 2011 Report Share Posted August 18, 2011 (edited) How the hell would Obama do that...it's not Canada! Who knows what calamitous event he can engineer? I did say it was a "stretch" only because it is America and not Canada. He has stated that he will "fundamentally transform America" whatever that can be interpreted to mean. Edited August 18, 2011 by Pliny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted August 18, 2011 Report Share Posted August 18, 2011 I'm not a fan of Obama, but I think he will be re-elected simply because all the Republicans in the running to oppose him appear to be wack jobs from the far fringes of the far right. A few of those Republicans running are fairly establishment conservatives. I believe you are confusing the far right (that is, national socialists and fascists) with centrists who advocate a small, limited government and a balanced budget. The positioning of these people as being on the far right is erroneous in my opinion, as the far right concerns itself with an entirely centrally engineered society, not dissimilar to the concept of the far left's centrally planned society although with obvious economic differences. Even the more politically central oriented progressive liberals have "faith" in big government and it's guidance of society whereas the small, limited government proposed by "rightists" are more centrist. I am speaking of course in relation to the currently understood left/right political spectrum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorn Posted August 18, 2011 Report Share Posted August 18, 2011 A few of those Republicans running are fairly establishment conservatives. I believe you are confusing the far right (that is, national socialists and fascists) with centrists who advocate a small, limited government and a balanced budget. The positioning of these people as being on the far right is erroneous in my opinion, as the far right concerns itself with an entirely centrally engineered society, not dissimilar to the concept of the far left's centrally planned society although with obvious economic differences. Even the more politically central oriented progressive liberals have "faith" in big government and it's guidance of society whereas the small, limited government proposed by "rightists" are more centrist. I am speaking of course in relation to the currently understood left/right political spectrum. I don't really count the likes of Nazis as being on the political spectrum as they really have no ideas or political ideology other than a hate of minority groups and Jews. So to me, someone like Rich Perry, who calls a prayer session to save the economy, talks about secession over taxes and calls the fed chairman a traitor seems to be kind of a wack job. He is, as I understand it, not very bright, and clearly knows nothing about economics. He articulates the rage of the ignorant, the indignation of people who don't understand why the world isn't working to their satisfaction, and the only thing he seems to have going for him is he looks good in a suit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 18, 2011 Report Share Posted August 18, 2011 Who knows what calamitous event he can engineer? I did say it was a "stretch" only because it is America and not Canada. He has stated that he will "fundamentally transform America" whatever that can be interpreted to mean. Cute, but without foundation. The Americans have federal elections like clockwork and by design to prevent that very kind of thing. US presidents do not have broad, unchecked power like a Canadian PM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorn Posted August 18, 2011 Report Share Posted August 18, 2011 Cute, but without foundation. The Americans have federal elections like clockwork and by design to prevent that very kind of thing. US presidents do not have broad, unchecked power like a Canadian PM. Given the quality of the people you elect lately that's definitely a good thing. Nixon ---- crook Carter --- well meaning fool Raygun --- moron Bush --- weasel Clinton--- degenerate AND crook bush --- moron Obama --- well meaning fool Perry? --- moron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 19, 2011 Report Share Posted August 19, 2011 Given the quality of the people you elect lately that's definitely a good thing. Maybe that explains why 15% of polled Canadians would give up their right to vote in Canada for a chance to vote in a US federal election. The Americans don't seem to be as interested the other way....just too boring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorn Posted August 19, 2011 Report Share Posted August 19, 2011 Maybe that explains why 15% of polled Canadians would give up their right to vote in Canada for a chance to vote in a US federal election. The Americans don't seem to be as interested the other way....just too boring. Perhaps Americans realize we generally select strong, intelligent leaders, whereas those Canadians you speak of are frustrated at the series of dolts and misfits you keep putting into the White House and would like to help... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 19, 2011 Report Share Posted August 19, 2011 Perhaps Americans realize we generally select strong, intelligent leaders, whereas those Canadians you speak of are frustrated at the series of dolts and misfits you keep putting into the White House and would like to help... Nah....most Americans flat out don't care who Canada "elects" as leader...because you don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted August 19, 2011 Report Share Posted August 19, 2011 Cute, but without foundation. Hopefully. The Americans have federal elections like clockwork and by design to prevent that very kind of thing. US presidents do not have broad, unchecked power like a Canadian PM. It doesn't mean progressivism takes a rest. If Canada has it then it must be ok, right? At least I think some Americans wouldn't bat an eye at some political change that makes you similar to Canada, like universal healthcare. I have heard talk that the whole political system in America is in constant election mode and is perhaps due for a change. The rest of the world is pressuring your Government to get in step with them and provide your people with human rights, social justice and equality - That's progressive talk for big government. Tradition can be trashed fairly easily if circumstance offers opportunity. FDR was probably the worst violater of your Constitution, Lincoln runs a close second. I will give FDR the consideration that he was President during the great socialist experiments that started after WWI. Or perhaps instead of WWI as the start we should mark the changes as starting after the passing of the Federal Reserve Act and the Sixteenth amendment. WWI started almost immediately after that followed by the Bolshevik revolution. Monarchies were made more or less redundant and most entirely eliminated in favour of Constitutional Republics in the wake of that war and the League of Nations came into existence. It's an evolutionary process and Obama is hurrying it up for you. Alec Baldwin will be moving after the 2012 election, I hear? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maple_leafs182 Posted August 19, 2011 Report Share Posted August 19, 2011 silver is moving on up, it was at 42.50 at one point today, hope you guys bought some. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 19, 2011 Report Share Posted August 19, 2011 ....I will give FDR the consideration that he was President during the great socialist experiments that started after WWI.... What consideration...your position is already compromised if you yield to FDR. President Obama cannot change the US Constitution on his own with respect to federal elections. Not going to happen..it is not a credible springboard for your extended rant about American "socialism". Obama will take his place with the others....that you and the world know by single names or initials (i.e. Ike, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Reagan), whether you want to or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted August 19, 2011 Report Share Posted August 19, 2011 What consideration...your position is already compromised if you yield to FDR. President Obama cannot change the US Constitution on his own with respect to federal elections. Not going to happen..it is not a credible springboard for your extended rant about American "socialism". Obama will take his place with the others....that you and the world know by single names or initials (i.e. Ike, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Reagan), whether you want to or not. Forgive Pliny... The meaning of the word socialism escapes him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorn Posted August 19, 2011 Report Share Posted August 19, 2011 silver is moving on up, it was at 42.50 at one point today, hope you guys bought some. Buy something which has been moving steadily upwards for weeks, based largely on fear? No thanks. Let me know when it's been moving steadily downward for weeks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maple_leafs182 Posted August 20, 2011 Report Share Posted August 20, 2011 Buy something which has been moving steadily upwards for weeks, based largely on fear? No thanks. Let me know when it's been moving steadily downward for weeks. ...it was at $50 and went down to $32, should of bought then. Long term it will still go up, it has to go up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorn Posted August 20, 2011 Report Share Posted August 20, 2011 ...it was at $50 and went down to $32, should of bought then. Long term it will still go up, it has to go up. Probably, but so will oil and gas, and they've been heavily beaten down the last couple of months. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maple_leafs182 Posted August 20, 2011 Report Share Posted August 20, 2011 Probably, but so will oil and gas, and they've been heavily beaten down the last couple of months. Oil demand falls with a weakening economy which brings down its price. Gold and silver go up when governments pump the market full of currency. Since the global economy is slumping and the only weapon central banks have is to pump money into the market, i'll assume they will do that again to prop the economy back up. Gold and silver are bound to go up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted August 20, 2011 Report Share Posted August 20, 2011 Take an ounce of good gold and try to sell it for cash - no one is going to give you 1800 bucks .....you are lucky to get half of that - if that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted August 20, 2011 Report Share Posted August 20, 2011 What consideration...your position is already compromised if you yield to FDR. He was challenged constitutionally on several occassions. Justices sided with him on social security. Do youthink justices will side with Obama on the Affordable Healthcare act? President Obama cannot change the US Constitution on his own with respect to federal elections. Not going to happen..it is not a credible springboard for your extended rant about American "socialism". Correct, he cannot change the Constitution himself. I'm sure you will agree with him to do so for the general welfare (common good) though. Obama will take his place with the others....that you and the world know by single names or initials (i.e. Ike, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Reagan), whether you want to or not. Yes. BO is exceptionally well-known already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 20, 2011 Report Share Posted August 20, 2011 He was challenged constitutionally on several occassions. Justices sided with him on social security. Do youthink justices will side with Obama on the Affordable Healthcare act? Yes...the justices will affirm most provisions of the Act, save for the mandatory purchase of insurance. The policy will be accomplished through the tax code and/or Medicaid instead. Correct, he cannot change the Constitution himself. I'm sure you will agree with him to do so for the general welfare (common good) though. No, it is not a possibility at all. Why you would propose such an idea is curious, given that a two term limit was in direct response to FDR. Attempts to repeal Ammendment 22 have been around for years: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hj111-5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted August 20, 2011 Report Share Posted August 20, 2011 Nah....most Americans flat out don't care who Canada "elects" as leader...because you don't. That is correct - they don't care who we elect and they don't care who they elect. Neither cares because the electoral system has fashioned itself into some sort of strange monster that runs on auto-pilot...If no one voted - not one single person - the same persons would take office with or with out the engagement of voters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 20, 2011 Report Share Posted August 20, 2011 That is correct - they don't care who we elect and they don't care who they elect.... Almost right....some Americans don't even bother to vote, same as some Canadians. But most Americans really don't care who Canadians vote for, and certainly don't track the nuts and bolts of Canadian politics unless having a personal interest. Americans do not stay up on Canadian election night to see which party has prevailed in Parliament, who will be the opposition, or if the Bloc is making a comeback. It may as well be an election in Belarus for all they care. Furthermore, if Americans did express more outright interest and influence than they already do/don't, I suspect that Canadians would be hopping mad. But they think nothing of forming action groups to influence American elections and support preferred candidates (e.g. Kerry, Obama). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.