Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - For my Libertarian friends
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedFor my Libertarian friends
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 269>
Author
Message Reverse Sort Order
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 18 2010 at 16:40
The senate has finally repealed DADT.

I approve.
Back to Top
JJLehto View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 18 2010 at 14:43
Went back a few pages and couldn't find the political thread, so leaving it here


This is so full of LOL not for any side or anything, this is just hilarious.


Don't worry, he really doesn't crush Hannity, it's pretty stupid all around. Thus, it's hilarity.
Back to Top
JJLehto View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 17 2010 at 13:37
Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Maybe he should say please...


The conversation went two different ways:

Group A (Honest Businesses):

Obama: "Yo, hire some people, because this unemployment sucks."
CEOs: "How can you expect us to hire at a time like this? The fundamentals of the market remain terrible. It's impossible to access risk due to uncertainty in tax rates and  the Fed's monetary manipulation, vagueness of massive new legislation which has yet to be fully digested, and the lurking possibility of further legislation being passed. Current unemployment rates are just a sympton of the massive distortions in the market, not a cause of our economic downturn."
Obama: "Huh?"

Group B (Other Businesses):
Obama: "Yo, hire some people, because this unemployment sucks."
CEOs: "If we do what do we get?"
Obama: "Too big to fail status, guaranteed contracts, and a 100 billion dollar check with the next round of QE."
CEOs: "Done deal."

------------------------------
The Press: "Group B businesses after meeting with President Obama are taking an aggressive stance on unemployment hiring millions of people to help stimulate the economy and turn around the recession. Meanwhile greedy Group A businessmen decide to hoard their money, swell their bank accounts while laughing at the poor downtrodden public.



Oh this is really something else, but what else can do after a post like this Shields... Here: 

Clap
Our problem lies in the fact that I believe most businessmen fit in group B... Cry

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

I agree , for large businesses anyway.


So we're in agreement gents.
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 17 2010 at 12:34
I agree , for large businesses anyway.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 17 2010 at 12:32
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Maybe he should say please...


The conversation went two different ways:

Group A (Honest Businesses):

Obama: "Yo, hire some people, because this unemployment sucks."
CEOs: "How can you expect us to hire at a time like this? The fundamentals of the market remain terrible. It's impossible to access risk due to uncertainty in tax rates and  the Fed's monetary manipulation, vagueness of massive new legislation which has yet to be fully digested, and the lurking possibility of further legislation being passed. Current unemployment rates are just a sympton of the massive distortions in the market, not a cause of our economic downturn."
Obama: "Huh?"

Group B (Other Businesses):
Obama: "Yo, hire some people, because this unemployment sucks."
CEOs: "If we do what do we get?"
Obama: "Too big to fail status, guaranteed contracts, and a 100 billion dollar check with the next round of QE."
CEOs: "Done deal."

------------------------------
The Press: "Group B businesses after meeting with President Obama are taking an aggressive stance on unemployment hiring millions of people to help stimulate the economy and turn around the recession. Meanwhile greedy Group A businessmen decide to hoard their money, swell their bank accounts while laughing at the poor downtrodden public.



Oh this is really something else, but what else can do after a post like this Shields... Here: 






Clap







Our problem lies in the fact that I believe most businessmen fit in group B... Cry
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 17 2010 at 08:02
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Maybe he should say please...


The conversation went two different ways:

Group A (Honest Businesses):

Obama: "Yo, hire some people, because this unemployment sucks."
CEOs: "How can you expect us to hire at a time like this? The fundamentals of the market remain terrible. It's impossible to assess risk due to uncertainty in tax rates and  the Fed's monetary manipulation, vagueness of massive new legislation which has yet to be fully digested, and the lurking possibility of further legislation being passed. Current unemployment rates are just a sympton of the massive distortions in the market, not a cause of our economic downturn."
Obama: "Huh?"

Group B (Other Businesses):
Obama: "Yo, hire some people, because this unemployment sucks."
CEOs: "If we do what do we get?"
Obama: "Too big to fail status, guaranteed contracts, and a 100 billion dollar check with the next round of QE."
CEOs: "Done deal."

------------------------------
The Press: "Group B businesses after meeting with President Obama are taking an aggressive stance on unemployment hiring millions of people to help stimulate the economy and turn around the recession. Meanwhile greedy Group A businessmen decide to hoard their money, swell their bank accounts while laughing at the poor downtrodden public.




Edited by Equality 7-2521 - December 17 2010 at 12:35
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
JJLehto View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 17 2010 at 02:24
Originally posted by Henry Plainview Henry Plainview wrote:

I don't know why, but the constant use of urge and curb is really annoying me. It's not as bad as Czar or -gate, but it feels like doublespeak.


Because it is?
Back to Top
Henry Plainview View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 26 2008
Location: Declined
Status: Offline
Points: 16715 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 17 2010 at 02:23
I don't know why, but the constant use of urge and curb is really annoying me. It's not as bad as Czar or -gate, but it feels like doublespeak.
if you own a sodastream i hate you
Back to Top
horsewithteeth11 View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: January 09 2008
Location: Kentucky
Status: Offline
Points: 24598 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 16 2010 at 11:07
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Maybe he should say please...

Well, like almost any politician in this country, Obama's solution to solving any problem is "spend more money".
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 16 2010 at 08:22
Maybe he should say please...
https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 16 2010 at 07:51
Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

Pat, Llama, what do you think would have happened in this USA if the South had won the civil war? 

Pretty much what LLama has said. Slavery would have been ended peacefully. The Federal Government would have seen a real check on its power. States rights would probably have remained alive for some period longer.

Who knows a lot of the bloody and unnecessary wars of imperialism we fought later in the century may not have happened or be lessened in scope. Our whole foreign policy would be different probably. There's probably a chance that the Great Depression wouldn't have been nearly as severe. 
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 16 2010 at 07:47
Originally posted by Kestrel Kestrel wrote:

True, as far as I know. However, the war started because the South seceded because of slavery. They were angry over states rights because of slavery. Slavery was the root cause of the entire war.

No it didn't. The North and South had been divided on the issue of slavery since the founding of the country. You think one day both sides just woke up and poof decided to go to war? 

The Civil War was fought mainly due to tariffs, which disproportionally effected Southern States, but were being spent entirely to further industrialize the North. 

It was a war cultivating for a long time between two subdivisions of the nation which have a different culture, economic base, and philosophy of government. It was a clash between State and Federal power. To say slavery caused the civil war is like saying Lexington and Concord caused the Revolutionary War. 
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
JJLehto View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 15 2010 at 23:44
Originally posted by thellama73 thellama73 wrote:

Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

Pat, Llama, what do you think would have happened in this USA if the South had won the civil war? 


I would live in the happy, free Confederate States of America and Pat would live in the United States of America and we be trading partners and remain united in our mutual hatred of Canada and Mexico. I honestly don't think slavery would have lasted too much longer even without the war. No nation that condoned it would have been accepted as a major force going into the twentieth century.


Agreed. Slavery was on its way out anyway until the cotton gin came along, and even then...I thought slavery was a pretty inefficient system. Part of the reason it was an aristocratic thing. They could do so.
And you're right....even if it did happen eventually even the south would have gotten with the times Tongue and slavery would become obsolete or totally intolerable


Edited by JJLehto - December 15 2010 at 23:44
Back to Top
thellama73 View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 15 2010 at 23:41
Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

Pat, Llama, what do you think would have happened in this USA if the South had won the civil war? 


I would live in the happy, free Confederate States of America and Pat would live in the United States of America and we be trading partners and remain united in our mutual hatred of Canada and Mexico. I honestly don't think slavery would have lasted too much longer even without the war. No nation that condoned it would have been accepted as a major force going into the twentieth century.
Back to Top
JJLehto View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 15 2010 at 23:38
Yes, but anywho we were talking about Lincoln, and his intent for the war was not freeing the slaves at first.

And of course most northerners were racist, just not pro slavery. And good parts of the south (the small farmers) were also against slavery.

Too bad most people in this thread know history..I love shattering people's beliefs!



Edited by JJLehto - December 15 2010 at 23:38
Back to Top
Kestrel View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: June 18 2008
Location: Minnesota
Status: Offline
Points: 512 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 15 2010 at 23:34
True, as far as I know. However, the war started because the South seceded because of slavery. They were angry over states rights because of slavery. Slavery was the root cause of the entire war.
Back to Top
JJLehto View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 15 2010 at 23:19
wait, I assume this line is what you're getting at

"Civil War was originally NOT about freeing the slaves "

SIGH....I thought it was understood, why does this thread make us spell everything out LOL
For LINCOLN it was not about freeing the slaves originally.
It was about preserving the Union.

Back to Top
JJLehto View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 15 2010 at 23:17
Originally posted by Kestrel Kestrel wrote:

Originally posted by JJLehto JJLehto wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Don't worry our coalition is two people strong. 


Well, not sure if I'd say I dislike him...but yeah he certainly, er...over stepped his Presidential boundaries by a good bit and violated a right or two.
And the who slavery civil war thing making up for it kinda feels fake since Lincoln was a racist, (maybe against slavery but was very racist, and as we know (?) wanted to send them back to Africa) and the Civil War was originally NOT about freeing the slaves.
That was more a move later on to keep will high.

Granted when many troops saw the conditions they were horrified and honestly became abolitionist.

So yeah, Lincoln was pretty complex.

The South seceded because of slavery.


.....thanks?

And if you REALLY want to split hairs....
That was the final straw yes, and turned out to be the major argument but a real divide between North and South was growing for a long time over states rights. Although slavery was the catalyst, yes.
Back to Top
Kestrel View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: June 18 2008
Location: Minnesota
Status: Offline
Points: 512 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 15 2010 at 23:14

Originally posted by JJLehto JJLehto wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Don't worry our coalition is two people strong. 


Well, not sure if I'd say I dislike him...but yeah he certainly, er...over stepped his Presidential boundaries by a good bit and violated a right or two.
And the who slavery civil war thing making up for it kinda feels fake since Lincoln was a racist, (maybe against slavery but was very racist, and as we know (?) wanted to send them back to Africa) and the Civil War was originally NOT about freeing the slaves.
That was more a move later on to keep will high.

Granted when many troops saw the conditions they were horrified and honestly became abolitionist.

So yeah, Lincoln was pretty complex.

The South seceded because of slavery.



Edited by Kestrel - December 15 2010 at 23:14
Back to Top
JJLehto View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 15 2010 at 23:12
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Don't worry our coalition is two people strong. 


Well, not sure if I'd say I dislike him...but yeah he certainly, er...over stepped his Presidential boundaries by a good bit and violated a right or two.
And the who slavery civil war thing making up for it kinda feels fake since Lincoln was a racist, (maybe against slavery but was very racist, and as we know (?) wanted to send them back to Africa) and the Civil War was originally NOT about freeing the slaves.
That was more a move later on to keep will high.

Granted when many troops saw the conditions they were horrified and honestly became abolitionist.

So yeah, Lincoln was pretty complex.
As many Presidents were


Edited by JJLehto - December 15 2010 at 23:16
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 269>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.328 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.