bush_cheney2004 Posted October 30, 2011 Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 (edited) Oh honestly, what kind moron would go back to the middle ages to defend behavior which is exhibited TODAY? Hey, nobody forced you to type that bigoted nonsense. Spout that crap about Muslim candidates and I bet you would get an HRC hearing. Edited October 30, 2011 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 30, 2011 Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 Hey, nobody forced you to type that bigoted nonsense. Spout that crap about Muslim candidates and I bet you would get an HRC hearing. That you keep using the word only reinforces my belief you don't know what it even means, and don't recognize it in yourself. True or false. 100% of the Ku Klux Klan supports Republicans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 30, 2011 Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 Economic inequality is a problem? To who Lenin? To anyone smart enough to understand the consequences of severe inequality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 31, 2011 Report Share Posted October 31, 2011 True or false. 100% of the Ku Klux Klan supports Republicans. I don't know...ask the Klan members in Canada, which doesn't really have "Republicans". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted October 31, 2011 Report Share Posted October 31, 2011 To anyone smart enough to understand the consequences of severe inequality. What consequences? Incentive to get your lazy ass out of poverty? This isn't 1700s France no matter how much you want it to be. Rich people actually improve the lives of everyone by existing in the economy. In 1700s France they sat on their wealth. Big difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted October 31, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 31, 2011 Rich people actually improve the lives of everyone by existing in the economy. In 1700s France they sat on their wealth. Big difference. Business Week - Overseas Cash Fuels Spending Spree US Corporations Awash In Cash They're not sitting on their wealth, but they're not trickling it down either, it seems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 31, 2011 Report Share Posted October 31, 2011 They're not sitting on their wealth, but they're not trickling it down either, it seems. Why should they...during times of uncertainty, cash is king. Consumers are spending less too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted October 31, 2011 Report Share Posted October 31, 2011 Business Week - Overseas Cash Fuels Spending Spree US Corporations Awash In Cash They're not sitting on their wealth, but they're not trickling it down either, it seems. Why would they in times of uncertainty. We have an unpredictable situation in Washington that is resulting in all these burdensome regulations. It's increasing the cost of production, so business has to adjust to those realities. Then there is the uncertainty, those businesses are worried that if they sink their money into something and there is an economic shock, they will lose their money. At least in these days we know that the wealthy will be back doing normal economic activity. In 1700s France, it was aristocrats sitting on their wealth, they did nothing with it except blow it on consumption and actively tried to keep people poor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted October 31, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 31, 2011 In 1700s France, it was aristocrats sitting on their wealth, they did nothing with it except blow it on consumption and actively tried to keep people poor. Plus ca change... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maple_leafs182 Posted October 31, 2011 Report Share Posted October 31, 2011 Sadly, Romney will most likely be the candidate. However, I think Ron Paul will do better then most people think. With his success in the primary and caucus', I predict Ron Paul will team up with judge Andrew Napolitano as his running mate and together they will run as independents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 31, 2011 Report Share Posted October 31, 2011 However, I think Ron Paul will do better then most people think. With his success in the primary and caucus', I predict Ron Paul will team up with judge Andrew Napolitano as his running mate and together they will run as independents. No matter what happens on the real GOP ticket, I agree that Ron Paul will do exactly as Ron Paul has done before. He will take his supporters money and buy ad time in a losing cause. If it makes him feel any better, he can point to partial Tea Party successes and winning candidates in Congress. But Rep. Ron Paul aint'a gonna beeya no US president. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted October 31, 2011 Report Share Posted October 31, 2011 No matter what happens on the real GOP ticket, I agree that Ron Paul will do exactly as Ron Paul has done before. He will take his supporters money and buy ad time in a losing cause. If it makes him feel any better, he can point to partial Tea Party successes and winning candidates in Congress. But Rep. Ron Paul aint'a gonna beeya no US president. The big difference seems that Ron Paul gets his money through the people who want to support him. Others are nothing more than corporate paid mouthpieces to do their bidding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted November 1, 2011 Report Share Posted November 1, 2011 No matter what happens on the real GOP ticket, I agree that Ron Paul will do exactly as Ron Paul has done before. He will take his supporters money and buy ad time in a losing cause. If it makes him feel any better, he can point to partial Tea Party successes and winning candidates in Congress. But Rep. Ron Paul aint'a gonna beeya no US president.On this point, we can agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted November 2, 2011 Report Share Posted November 2, 2011 What consequences? Incentive to get your lazy ass out of poverty? This isn't 1700s France no matter how much you want it to be. Rich people actually improve the lives of everyone by existing in the economy. In 1700s France they sat on their wealth. Big difference. The consequences? Violence. Social disorder. Riots. Terrorism. The rise of radical political groups. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted November 2, 2011 Report Share Posted November 2, 2011 At least in these days we know that the wealthy will be back doing normal economic activity. In 1700s France, it was aristocrats sitting on their wealth, they did nothing with it except blow it on consumption and actively tried to keep people poor. And this is different from 2011 how exactly? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted November 2, 2011 Report Share Posted November 2, 2011 The consequences? Violence. Social disorder. Riots. Terrorism. The rise of radical political groups. There's been a wealth gap in north america for hundreds of years, yet nothing too major has happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 2, 2011 Report Share Posted November 2, 2011 There's been a wealth gap in north america for hundreds of years, yet nothing too major has happened. Yea...there was a huge wealth gap between the America's and Europe, and we know what the Europeans did about that! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted November 2, 2011 Report Share Posted November 2, 2011 And this is different from 2011 how exactly? Because we have our wealth in this thing called a bank. You see people save their money in a bank and other people borrow the money and pay interest back on it to do various things with it. Also we invest our money in firms doing various projects. No money invested means no growth. Also we spend our money on things we want otherwise I am working for nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted November 2, 2011 Report Share Posted November 2, 2011 There's been a wealth gap in north america for hundreds of years, yet nothing too major has happened. It's never been this wide. The last time it approached this level, in the forties, I believe, the government got very worried and instituted a number of policies to narrow it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted November 2, 2011 Report Share Posted November 2, 2011 Because we have our wealth in this thing called a bank. You see people save their money in a bank and other people borrow the money and pay interest back on it to do various things with it. What if bank loans are only available to rich people? Tried to get a mortgage in the U.S. lately? Also we invest our money in firms doing various projects. No money invested means no growth. How is investing money in Asia and Latin America helping Americans? How is investing money in shorting stocks helping employ people? Also we spend our money on things we want otherwise I am working for nothing. Isn't that what Louis XVI said? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted November 2, 2011 Report Share Posted November 2, 2011 It's never been this wide. The last time it approached this level, in the forties, I believe, the government got very worried and instituted a number of policies to narrow it. Complete nonsense. And which policies were those? Anyways, people work for their wealth. As long as somebody isn't breaking the law, it's none of your business what somebody earns with their labour. And you don't deserve the fruits of other people's work. This income inequality nonsense has to stop. People work in different industries, doing diffent jobs, that require different skills, that produce different revenues. There's no such thing as income equality and income inequality. However, Karl Marx would certainly be proud. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted November 3, 2011 Report Share Posted November 3, 2011 What if bank loans are only available to rich people? Tried to get a mortgage in the U.S. lately? How is investing money in Asia and Latin America helping Americans? How is investing money in shorting stocks helping employ people? Isn't that what Louis XVI said? When interest rates shoot up, the banks fill up with cash and need to loan or otherwise they won't be able to pay the depositors, so rates drop and more loans are availible. People who retire and have investments benefit from investments abroad by getting returns on investments. Investing in stocks provides jobs to stock brokers and shorting sends signals to other parts of the economy and the market can adjust accordingly. So I should work and give all my money to the govt? Da comrade Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 3, 2011 Report Share Posted November 3, 2011 What if bank loans are only available to rich people? Tried to get a mortgage in the U.S. lately? Loans are available to people who meet risk criteria. Loans are not a human right, not even in Canada. How is investing money in Asia and Latin America helping Americans? It provides capital for businesses in huge developing markets, that's how. How is investing money in shorting stocks helping employ people? Shorting stocks is like any other form of gambling, only far more organized. Do you want to ban gambling too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted January 8, 2012 Report Share Posted January 8, 2012 It looks like you were right, Michael. Now, can he beat Obama? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 8, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 8, 2012 It looks like you were right, Michael. Now, can he beat Obama? 50-50. His biggest concerns is another right-of-centre candidate running on a 3rd party ticket. 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.