I'll show you mine if you show me yours....

[sirkickyass]

Tell that to Bill Gross.

*edited out for being too mean*

I disagree with the applicability of your article to the moral hazard issue I was discussing with franklin.

 

[TroutBum]

Or because you're a smart salesman. Guys like you should get a special exemption to the one account rule. One for your regular activity and one for sensitive topics that might push business away.

I would actually support said special exemption.

I am touched that you guys think that I could actively participate in this conversation. I do like the idea of a duplicate account. Please PM if serious.

 

[One Brow]

Originally Posted by Duck Rodgers
There is a British-Anglo satanic empire

What the hell does this mean? Google was no help. What the hell does this mean? Google was no help.

Takes me back to my JW days. The Anglo-american empire is the last head of beast of Revelation, to them.

 

[franklin]

Probably. I recognize the problems with transfer payments, I just don't think we're in the nightmare moral hazard scenarios that the right asserts. And frankly, I think they'll assert the extreme moral hazard for as long as New Deal-style programs exist.

The second sentence is fact, but a big why on the first? 3 years unemployment benefits?

No nightmare with the runaway spending we've seen? Please. They're talking about cutting a few billion from a trillion dollar raise.

I personally know plenty sitting and waiting it out. These are good people--hard working Americans--but shouldn't they adjust expectations for the short run at least? Taking a job increases demand and bumps the resume. Collectively pulling bootstraps helps the individual.

Make a case for me, please. I'm all for raising taxes, cutting military, capital projects galore, and taking away social security for millionaires while simultaneously raising their ss taxes, but where and why do we balance it on the other end?

 

[babe]

No. I'll admit I do get a little confused how people can debate things like what constitutes murder, theft, deception, and wanton criminality. Those are things that are extremely clear to me. Not much grey area there. But when our leaders are active participants in all of those areas, I don't expect everyone to be able to point out right and wrong because we are all taught that these people are good.

There is no Jewish conspiracy, there aren't Muslims in caves tossing around the nuclear football, and the people that campaign as Christians are more often than not anything but. There is a British-Anglo satanic empire(with a few very powerful Arabs, blacks, and Asians tossed in for good measure) however and they only fear one thing - Christianity.

I'm having a problem being able to pos rep Duck. Looks like I hafta spread it around. Well, actually, just about everyone in here presents the same dilemma. Looks like I'll have to go rep some people in the Jazz forum.

It's the natural consequence of the remnants of the British Empire, including the USA, being quite expertly manipulated by the master puppeteers while their butlers and maids fix their meals and change their sheets........ and they sit in their parlors and only pretend to be totally useless morons.

 

[Duck Rodgers]

Takes me back to my JW days. The Anglo-american empire is the last head of beast of Revelation, to them.

I'm sure they absolutely hate it when somebody tries to connect Charles Taze Russell to that empire. I'm more interested in money trails than the book of Revelation though, but if you can match something you find with verse, I don't see a problem with it, and it's certainly interesting to read the connections made by people much smarter and more spiritual than myself, though a lot of people will ultimately make dubious connections from a lack of understanding. The problem with a lot of religious people is that they are attached to churches and always think the outcome of a New World Order or America collapsing is that they will have no barriers in place in regards to proselytizing. If Jesus were here physically right now leading people, I'd agree with that. But working with the mere mortals that we have in power right now, there is nothing to that line of thinking. The UN and the Vatican both talk about one world religion. How's does a mixture of diluted Christianty and Neo-Druidism sound?

British-Anglo is an important distinction though , both because the City of London is the financial center and because Anglo in that context is describing white nobility in the former colonies, not white skin color. The other side of the group is the black(not skin color) nobility that is connected to the Vatican.

 

[babe]

I'm sure they absolutely hate it when somebody tries to connect Charles Taze Russell to that empire. I'm more interested in money trails than the book of Revelation though, but if you can match something you find with verse, I don't see a problem with it, and it's certainly interesting to read the connections made by people much smarter and more spiritual than myself, though a lot of people will ultimately make dubious connections from a lack of understanding. The problem with a lot of religious people is that they are attached to churches and always think the outcome of a New World Order or America collapsing is that they will have no barriers in place in regards to proselytizing. If Jesus were here physically right now leading people, I'd agree with that. But working with the mere mortals that we have in power right now, there is nothing to that line of thinking. The UN and the Vatican both talk about one world religion. How's does a mixture of diluted Christianty and Neo-Druidism sound?

British-Anglo is an important distinction though , both because the City of London is the financial center and because Anglo in that context is describing white nobility in the former colonies, not white skin color. The other side of the group is the black(not skin color) nobility that is connected to the Vatican.

I find this fascinating. Every now and then, while listening to radical conservative talk radio I hear an ad that's pushin' a book about how the "green empire" of Prince Charles and the supposedly apostate Church of England is fronting for the devil in setting up the apocalyptical evil empire. . . . . yeah, I know some also say it's the evil Catholic Church, etc etc etc etc. The fundamental realities don't need an explanation like that. We have always had a few elites with big ideas of world empires of some kind. The UN might figure as a corpus for a lot of manipulations from many sources. . . . but the basic gist of political "evil" is the core concept of control/management that is neither beneficial to nor appreciative of the inate, natural liberties once claimed by Americans.

God help us separate the "interests" from the power.

 

[franklin]

The UN and the Vatican both talk about one world religion. How's does a mixture of diluted Christianty and Neo-Druidism sound?

Really? A Christian religion wants everyone to eventually come into the fold? Shocking. "Every knee shall bow..."

I get kicks over these anti-NWO LDS folks who speak out the other side of their neck about the coming Zion--a NWO, a one world government, a theocracy. How's this supposed to happen without a governmental confluence? LOL @ Christians who are against a one world government.


Did you read Caritas in Veritate (Charity in Truth)? It was made out to be this grand NWO call, but that couldn't be further from the truth. It was all about solidarity and respecting sovereignty, ya know, things the NWO is in favor of, I'm sure. Talking sovereignty doesn't mesh with the Bircher crowd's agenda, so the ecnyclical was spun as a Benedict The Anti-Christ shoutout to the UN by cherry picking and focusing heavily on the solidarity parts.

The Vatican says the opposite but it's not enough, never is.

 

[TroutBum]

Personally, I can't wait.

 

[PearlWatson]

Let's dissect this some. Do you really think Colbert and Stewart are the same thing as Hannity, Rush and Beck? Either in terms of the size of their megaphone (regular listeners/viewers), type of rhetoric, or ability to sink individuals in their party?

The comedians on the Left are there to "sink individuals in the other party" if anything. Collectivists don't turn on themselves.

 

[One Brow]

The comedians on the Left are there to "sink individuals in the other party" if anything. Collectivists don't turn on themselves.

So, are you claiming that Stewart and and Colbert aren't "comedians on the Left", or that they don't savage members of their own party as well as Republicans? I'm just curious about the specific disconnect you have with reality here.

 

[PearlWatson]

So, are you claiming that Stewart and and Colbert aren't "comedians on the Left", or that they don't savage members of their own party as well as Republicans? I'm just curious about the specific disconnect you have with reality here.

They don't savage members of their own party. If you have an example where they have I'll be glad to consider it.

 

[sirkickyass]

They don't savage members of their own party. If you have an example where they have I'll be glad to consider it.

Jon Stewart killed Paul Begala (and Tucker Carlson) famously on CNN's Crossfire. Begala is one of the most recognizable faces/names from the Clinton administration. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE

Stewart has repeatedly stated that he thinks Democrats are ineffectual and incompetent at getting any policies passed (examples: Larry King interview, Terry Gross NPR interview and one of my favorite Stewart quotes ""It's not that the Democrats are playing checkers and the Republicans are playing chess. It's that the Republicans are playing chess and the Democrats are in the nurse's office because once again they glued their balls to their thighs.")

Stewart went after Obama over Libya last month: https://www.theblaze.com/stories/the-critics-are-lining-up-now-jon-stewart-attacks-obama-over-libya/

Colbert is tricky because he's playing a character so any "criticism" of Democrats can be dismissed as part of the performance. However, I do remember that he went after particular Democrat Senators on the health-care debate. https://www.examiner.com/political-...senate-democrats-who-killed-the-public-option

These are just from memory running only google searches based on things I personally remember. I'm sure I could get you dozens if I did this in any systematized way.

But this is actually proving two different points:

1) That they do criticize members of the Democratic party; and
2) unlike the other people they were compared to, approval from Stewart and Colbert isn't a functional litmus test for suitability for office.

 

[VINYLONE]

They don't savage members of their own party. If you have an example where they have I'll be glad to consider it.

You can't be serious. You can't be.

 

[LogGrad98]

I have always thought Stewart was pretty balanced, even if his left leanings do still shine through from time to time. As was stated, Colbert plays a character, a character that I don't like so I don't watch his show.

 

[PearlWatson]

Jon Stewart killed Paul Begala (and Tucker Carlson) famously on CNN's Crossfire. Begala is one of the most recognizable faces/names from the Clinton administration. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE

Stewart has repeatedly stated that he thinks Democrats are ineffectual and incompetent at getting any policies passed (examples: Larry King interview, Terry Gross NPR interview and one of my favorite Stewart quotes ""It's not that the Democrats are playing checkers and the Republicans are playing chess. It's that the Republicans are playing chess and the Democrats are in the nurse's office because once again they glued their balls to their thighs.")

Stewart went after Obama over Libya last month: https://www.theblaze.com/stories/the-critics-are-lining-up-now-jon-stewart-attacks-obama-over-libya/

Colbert is tricky because he's playing a character so any "criticism" of Democrats can be dismissed as part of the performance. However, I do remember that he went after particular Democrat Senators on the health-care debate. https://www.examiner.com/political-...senate-democrats-who-killed-the-public-option

These are just from memory running only google searches based on things I personally remember. I'm sure I could get you dozens if I did this in any systematized way.

But this is actually proving two different points:

1) That they do criticize members of the Democratic party; and
2) unlike the other people they were compared to, approval from Stewart and Colbert isn't a functional litmus test for suitability for office.

The first one is just media personality against media personality. The funniest part of his interview was to hear a partisan hack call other partisan hacks, partisan hacks.

On a tangent: It is unbelievable to me, especially after the past 2 years, that you believe Stewart when he says the Democrats are ineffectual in getting their policies passed.

Stewart's criticism of Obama on one thing is not "sinking an individual" unless your definition of sinking is really weak.

You seriously think you somehow proved #2?

 

[babe]

Liberals do their own group-cleansing in general; they won't even let conservatives "help". In the old days, the saw was that while Republicans circle the wagons and shoot out at their opponents, Democrats circle the wagons and shoot in----at each other.

I expect a showdown soon on the Chicago-run faction of the Democratic Party versus the Clinton/neoLiberal faction. Obama and the Black Liberation theology/ mob-ocrats as represented by Harry Reid and Jesse Jackson versus the bought-and-paid-for democrats completely owened by the establishment, as represented by Clinton and Lieberman. I don't think Obama will even get his party's own nomination for a second term. He is already in complete lameduck mode. But then, I could be wrong if George Soros pulls the lever again.

 

[PearlWatson]

Liberals do their own group-cleansing in general; they won't even let conservatives "help". In the old days, the saw was that while Republicans circle the wagons and shoot out at their opponents, Democrats circle the wagons and shoot in----at each other.

How is it that I see the exact opposite happening?

 

[sirkickyass]

Liberals do their own group-cleansing in general; they won't even let conservatives "help".

I think "block voting" records going back to 1994 don't support your theory. In practice, those on the left side of the aisle have been significantly more likely to cross-over than those on the right regardless of which party is in the majority. That tends to indicate little propensity for bipartisanship rather than a pattern of being shut out.

I don't think Obama will even get his party's own nomination for a second term. He is already in complete lameduck mode.

I think you would get long odds on that. This looks like wishful thinking on your part.

 

[One Brow]

On a tangent: It is unbelievable to me, especially after the past 2 years, that you believe Stewart when he says the Democrats are ineffectual in getting their policies passed.

The final products wind up looking little like the original policy proposals.

Stewart's criticism of Obama on one thing is not "sinking an individual" unless your definition of sinking is really weak.

The point was that Stewart didn't hae that kind of influence in the first place, regardless of what he said.

As an example of critcizing Democratic politicians, on last nights repeat he referred to Obama's budget proposal speech as needing to send royalties to the estate of George Orwell, and made fun of Biden sleeping during the speech.

You seriously think you somehow proved #2?

#2 can't be proven, since it is a negative and fairly nebulous to begin with, not to mention Stewart and Colbert don't actually endorse/oppose candidates directly.