General discussion

Locked

Libya is just between tyrants.

By _Papa_ ·
Tags: Off Topic
article root

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

38 total posts (Page 3 of 4)   Prev   01 | 02 | 03 | 04   Next
| Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

The inevitable failure of Obama and Alinsky politics

by Rick Lowe In reply to It's always somebody else ...

The idea that a seventy-odd year old man with a history of cancer should pull a virtual cartoon character off the tundra, who would be our alternative president in case he couldn't serve...
The idea that somebody living in Alaska couldn't possibly be as qualified to replace a sitting president as the current VP brain trust who can't even consistently lie about his academic scholarship (more properly, his lack thereof) is duly noted. This would be the same guy who said Roosevelt got on television when the stock market crashed, right?

Given how rarely we lose a president and get the VP versus the immediacy of what the elected president does, personally, I don't vote on the basis of who the person in the wings is.

What he got wrong was not spearheading a drive to regulate the behavior of banks, and to break them up into small-enough-to-fail pieces.

Or perhaps, deciding that federal regulations using the CRA to force banks to give loans to people who didn't qualify financially, against normal prudent banking practice, might be a good place to remove regulations. Or perhaps figure out a way to avoid a future occurrence of what Barney Frank and fellow Democrats did with Fanny and Freddie, continuing to ramp up their unsafe lending in the face of calls that they were in deep trouble, might be a good way to look at curtailing government interference in prudent bank practice.

There is a very definite difference between actions that are "the behavior of banks" and bank actions that are the result of "the behavior of politicians". How convenient to blame banks for the regulations, policies, and agendas put in place by the governments who regulate them.

As an investor, why WOULDN'T you buy derivatives from a bank when they are made up of mortgages from institutions that government is assuring anyone are financially sound, great national assets, and the mortgages are backed by the full faith and credit of the US? Takes the entire aspect of risk out of considering investing in derivatives when the government is telling you they'll cover them and therefore there really is no risk, doesn't it? They become more like a very well paying bond under those circumstances. Of course, what Barney was telling Congress and the business community wasn't exactly correct, as we now know. And yet somehow or other, it becomes all the banks' fault, and Barney is nowhere to be found.

Instead, he underestimated the task and the viciousness of the fight to pass it, and led with his spirit of compromise. It was half as big as was needed, and poorly applied.

Right. If it had been twice as big instead, 1.7 trillion dollars, then it would have been more efficient and the money better spent. Double the taxpayer money spent, double the efficiency. Works every time.

I am constantly bemused at complaints of how hard Obama had it passing legislation when he also had large majorities in the Senate and House. Oh... and the spirit of compromise... "Republicans can come along, they just have to ride at the back". What trouble Obama did have was Democrats who weren't blind to the fact a lot of Americans who voted Democrat didn't want anything to do with these plans either.

It is easy after the fact to say "My plan would have worked if I'd had more money or if Democrats hadn't been giving me a hard time about how they'd vote after listening to their constituents". You don't stand on your record on what you did, you claim it would have been successful if you'd done it differently. Of course, if he'd spent twice as much and it still failed, then the complaint would have been the stimulus really should have been twice that big again. For socialists and statists it's never "Well, that didn't work". It's always "Well, we just didn't spend enough, regulate enough - we just didn't go far enough". The idea that their beliefs are a failure simply never occurs to them.

Maybe if we surpass Japan's number of porkulus packages and spending after their bubble burst, we'll be able to surpass their record of a Lost Decade as well.

Again, he trusted to the good will of squabbling men beneath him to do the right thing, and he blew it.

Hey, I recognize that: "Pass this bill." "Pass it now". "Do it". The idea that Obama and these enormous porkulus packages might actually be the wrong thing to do is, of course, barely worthy of consideration. Those "squabbling men" may have realized what a disaster it would be despite Obama's dreaming. Perhaps because they'd been in government so many years they knew spending like that always evaporates once it disappears into bureaucracy. Perhaps because they were horrified at the thought of saddling their kids with that sort of debt. But more than a few of them - some being Democrats - predicted exactly what would happen to the money in that porkulus package. And as it turns out, they were right.

I see no evidence that Obama is a socialist, nor any more of a statist than the Republicans who have gone before him.

Well, when you think twice as money should have been spent on Porkulus v1.0, much of that on entitlement spending, I imagine your bar of what constitutes socialism is quite high. When somebody talks about "redistributing the wealth" and "the fortunate can afford to pay more" (i.e. you didn't work harder or longer or smarter, you just log fortunate), that's socialism. When the top 25% of taxpayers (gross income threshold: $67,280) pay 86.34% of all income taxes collected in the US while the bottom 47% pay no tax at all for the services they use, and it's still not enough, that's already socialism. When you want to tax that top group for being "fortunate" even more, that's really socialism. As in "from each according to his means, to each according to his needs". How could it be different?

Is tax and spend entitlement program socialism confined only to the Democrat ranks? Not hardly. And is statism restricted to the Democrat party? No, not hardly. Lots of RINOs around. Which is what set the stage for the Taxed Enough Already Party philosophy to appear.

Chattering about the socialist Saul Alinsky is a way of not talking about anything Obama has done.
Really? The class warfare "millionaires and billionaires", "make the rich pay their fair share"? The nasty banks and HMOs? That doesn't fall in with Alinsky's rule to demonize the other side? The irreverence and ridicule - Obama's kids can do their homework but the people in the House apparently can't do the same?

Obama started out working for an Alinsky offshoot. He TAUGHT Alinsky's tactics and strategies in the communities he worked in, not just practised it. And he's never been able to rise above being a community organizer and rabble rouser. It's in every domestic speech he gives about finance and public policy.

You can't talk at what Obama has done - or at least tried to do - and the manner in which he has tried to do it without seeing Saul Alinsky and his Rules for Radicals all the way. It is part and parcel of Obama.

It's simply a fact. Just as it is a fact that Obama had a long relationship with another radical, a criminal one - Bill Ayers. Unrepentent domestic terrorist and the man who gave Obama his political coming out. And one more - Jeremiah Wright, black bigot and anti-Semite. Sat and listened to the hatred Wright spews for 20 years with never a word of protest until that got at least some media coverage.

That is our current president, and yet apparently a candidate from Alaska or somebody who openly professed religious faith would be scary.

Collapse -

Divine Right of Kings

by Rick Lowe In reply to History

Seems to me that what you're really talking about is the rejection of the notion of the divine right of kings, not theocratic rule.

Kings ruled as they saw fit. Some allowed religous figures do tell them what they would and wouldn't do - most didn't. Henry VIII being the most outstanding example. France's sun kings certainly didn't allow the church to rule the country. Russia? Hah!

What changed is people suddenly decided kings and queens were not sent to them by God, and they wanted a say in how they were governed.

Collapse -

That's a mite lean...

by AnsuGisalas In reply to Divine Right of Kings

The churches prospered from catering to royalty and nobility (Harry VIII is not an exception, since he wanted to be the pope of England himself - so the catholics lost out, but the replacements certainly prospered).

All the revolutions in Europe were also revolutions against the Church. In some places like Denmark the revolution was ONLY against the church, the King was obliged to let the people go along with reformation, lest he lose his own station.
The churches held Europe in an intellectual headlock known as scholastics. It was a tyranny of the mind.

Collapse -

That embarrassing English Bill of Rights

by Rick Lowe In reply to That's a mite lean...

All the revolutions in Europe were also revolutions against the Church.

Like The Glorious Revolution, perhaps? What part of the English Bill of Rights contains limitations on the church? Any church?

Seems to me one of their chief complaints was the Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes (Google it) and their repression of the Protestant church.

Here, I won't force you to Google "The Glorious Revolution" so you can find out what it was and read the Wikopedia version. It was the revolution against the Divine Right of Kings in England, and resulted in the English Bill of Rights.

How that revolution was also supposedly also a revolution against the church, how the English Bill of Rights supposedly reduced the power of the church, gave the individual protection against churches, etc would be most interesting. I don't think it had anything whatsoever to do with also being a "revolution against the church". But perhaps you can provide us with some evidence I'm wrong on that.

Collapse -

Didn't need but read two paragraphs:

by AnsuGisalas In reply to That embarrassing English ...

King James's policies of religious tolerance after 1685 met with increasing opposition by leading political circles who were troubled by the King's Catholicism and his close ties with France.
So there you have your "any church". While you eat some Crow, I'll be over here not giving a damn.

Collapse -

...And unfortunately, lacked the comprehension to read further.

by Rick Lowe In reply to Didn't need but read two ...

So there you have your "any church". While you eat some Crow, I'll be over here not giving a damn.

How do you fit both your feet in your mouth at the same time?

There's a saying: "Children and jackasses should not see half done work" It applies to you - in this case, your inability to do anything other than Google. Wikopedia academics don't mean much - go back and read that page again. They have these things called "books"... they're printed on "paper".

The Glorious Revolution, leading the EBR, was spawned by among other things the Kings suppression of other religions in favour of Catholicism. For example, disarming Protestants while putting Catholics in power, imprisoning Protestant church leaders, attempting to convert the nation to Catholicism, etc. Now I don't know where you got "religious tolerance" in that, but if you actually bother to read the EBR, it's pretty clear they rebelled against religious intolerance and selective repression of other religions.

And rather importantly related to that, is the fact the King also happened to be the Defender of the Faith. The head of the Church of England. The Church of England is not Catholicism. So the King, boosting Catholicism while repressing the Church of England and thereby violating his holy oath at his coronation, was just a bit objectionable.

Is a hint of a glimmer of comprehension shining in the murky recesses of your mind yet?

So no, the EBR was not a rebellion against the church. Most particularly the Church of England which survives to this day. It was a rebellion against repression of the Church of England by a monarch who was the sworn Defender of the Faith of that religion. As well as all the other diverse wrongs.

And if that isn't enough to help you figure it out, you'll note that the sovereign has been the Defender of the Faith since before the Glorious Revolution, and remains the Defender of the Faith and head of the Church of England to this day. In fact, it is part of the oath each monarch swears at their coronation, to defend the faith.

So much for the EBR being a revolution and a constitutional document giving the church the boot.

How's that crow tasting there, young fella?

Children and jackasses, children and jackasses...

Well, work beckons. Bye bye...

Collapse -

so, you acknowledge defeat, yet pretend victory?

by AnsuGisalas In reply to ...And unfortunately, lac ...

must be fun being so unconnected.
How is a reaction against the catholic church not a reaction against a church?
Don't bother answering, as you will make no sense...
And even if we pretend you've found an exception to the rule, well... it only changes "all" to "all but one".
And that's provided we overlook that this "glorious revolution" - a bit of parliamentary scheeming and an invader waiting stage right - is even comparable to the popular uprisings of continental europe, and not a "revolution" of name only.

Collapse -

You two

by santeewelding In reply to ...And unfortunately, lac ...

Hang it up.

Either that or bend your efforts to truly insidious insult. What you are doing is not even amateurish.

Collapse -

Ever read Rikki-tikki-tavi, Santee?

by AnsuGisalas In reply to ...And unfortunately, lac ...

I am fluttering about, ineffectively - my wing obviously broken.
How better to make the snake reveal itself?

Collapse -

I would not refer

by santeewelding In reply to ...And unfortunately, lac ...

Not even obliquely, to Rick as a snake.

Back to After Hours Forum
38 total posts (Page 3 of 4)   Prev   01 | 02 | 03 | 04   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums