Tuesday, October 16, 2012

Huffington Post Comments, 10/15/2012


Just a reminder: tomorrow is National Punch a Republican day, and since it is tuesday... do it twice for good luck. It is a free event.


If we had a "Punch a Democrat day"' would you still be amused by the idea?

Don't forget who owns the guns when you decide to start violence against the republicans.





Worthless Willard walked through a Chinese sweatshop and saw only a business opportunity. Oh he commented on the 10 girls to a dorm with one bathroom, just as if he was giving a weather report. Outside of his church and family he has no heart, no humanity and no eyes to see the truth of the world around him.

His business experience consists of destroying jobs and families. His outsourcing and company destruction has undoubtedly cost people their health insurance and their lives.

Yet good hearted people will vote for him because they can not see him as he is. Forget their image of President Obama, and how Toxic News has distorted his every word with chopped videos and hand picked parts of speeches, they see Mitt as a Christian who will return America to the God they believe in, not even looking at his religion which isn't what they think.

They are not voting for Mitt, but against the shadow figure of President Obama that they believe in.

When this election is over I hope the obsession with religio/politics ends and they come to their senses. I am sick, tired and disgusted with their e-mails and public rantings, and offensive bumper stickers.


Correct me if I'm wrong:

1. the Chinese workers were working there voluntarily

2. since they chose to work there, that would suggest that working there is their best option

3. the working conditions are less than ideal, but the workers have better lives with the factories then they would without the factories

4. the industrial revolution helped tremendously in increasing prosperity for the people who participated in it

5.Investors in Chinese factories make money, and so do the workers

"Outside of his church and family"

Except for the places he has a heart and humanity, he has no heart or humanity. 



Wow! You just put the reality of it all into perspective. And because intelligent people as yourself understand this, is the reason republicans want to take your vote away.


By "republicans want to take your vote away" do you mean "republicans want to verify that you can legally vote"?

Actually this is what I meant. But I guess I should have been more specific for people like you.

G.O.P. Operative Long Trailed by Allegations of Voter Fraud

Thousands of fake republicans are being registered.

RNC cuts ties to firm after voter fraud allegations

RNC cuts ties with firm over voter fraud allegations

The Republican Party is scrambling to cut ties from consulting firm headed up by an infamous voter registration consultant Nathan Sproul


It is always fun to converse with the left.  While talking to the left I have learned that I am: "racist," "a clown," "fascist," "hate the poor," etc.  What did you mean by "people like you"?

How does stories of republican voter fraud support the claim that "republicans want to take your vote away"?

Wouldn't voter registration lead to discouraging voter fraud from either side?

BTW, and this is just a suggestion: When I use a source in an attempt to point out where a liberal is wrong, I try to use liberally biased sources.  You've used all liberally biases sources too, but you are attempting to convince someone on the right, who has reason to doubt your sources.

If you want to convince me that voter ID is bad, then show me articles from conservative or libertarian sources, the same side that I am on.  Like this article: Voter ID Regulations: Real Problem; Wrong Solution


By using sources from you opponents' side you'll be making a better case by showing your opponent that even people from his/her side agree with you.

Could we agree that "republicans want to take your vote away" is meant more to provoke a response rather than something that is actually true?



I admit that Obama needs a good showing at the debate. I admit he's got his faults. But Romney and corporations are NOT what we need. The gazillionaires that are trying to BUY the Oval Office haven't provided the outcome they expected -- a slam dunk election. So now the Koch Bros. and other CEOs are threatening their thousands of employees that if Romney doesn't win this election, they will all be in the unemployment lines.


This is the most blatant act of tyranny I have ever seen in my lifetime, and that's coming up on 75 years now. We CANNOT let this contingent of corporate dictators win the election and start pulling the strings for how this country is run.


Those corporations that you deride supported Obama in 2008.


See: goldman Sachs
JP Morgan Chase

dis you notice how three of Obama's top 7 campaign contributes were the "big bad" wall street banks?

If companies are "threatening" jobs, then that would make sense because Obama has raised their cost of doing business. This has left them with less money available to hire employ people. See ACA for one example of raising the cost of business.


Sorry, don't agree with you.  No. 1, most of those you mentioned  are now in the Romney camp. They are making billions more than they were when Obama took office, but they don't want to spend any of it to hire new employees. Their bottom line would come back down to simply "profitable" and no longer be super-super-lucrative.
Some of the corporations want ALL EPA regulations lifted so they can pollute with impunity. Wall Streeters want to be de-regulated so they can go back to their corrupt systems that took this country near the cliff in 2008.
Don't ask me to embrace the CEOs that are so greedy they care nothing about the rest of the country. And don't ask me to embrace ANY employer that would stoop to forcing an employee how to vote.


Many of those big banks are indeed now supporting Romney.  Did you criticize Obama in 2008 for having their support like you are now criticizing Romney?  Or are their campaign contributions only bad when they support a candidate that you don't?

Many big companies in America (GE, GM, Chrysler, healthcare insurers, and many big banks) have gotten subsidies and favorable laws during this administration and previous ones.  We can both agree that crony capitalism is bad.  But laws that Obama has signed, like ACA, the new CAFE laws, and his goal of taxing the rich all make it more difficult to plan ahead and hire more employees.

The government has thousands of employment rules that make it more difficult to hire people.  Laws like minimum wages, overtime laws, and laws requiring breaks all make hiring employees more expensive.  You can argue that we are better off with these laws, but you cannot argue that they don't make it much more difficult to hire people (or that we live in a free country).

Some libertarians want the EPA eliminated as well.  Many of us hunt and fish and otherwise spend a considerable time outside.  We want the EPA gone because it infringes on our freedoms and slows our economy.  If someone is harmed then the harmer should, of course, pay for the damages.

We have 300,000 pages of laws covering every aspect of our lives.  You cannot claim that, in the presence of all of these laws, that it was a lack of regulations that caused our current situation.  You might argue that the regulators did not do their jobs.  If so, how would adding more laws, that they won't enforce, improve anything?

Another thing to take note of: the two worst depressions in American history happened when the government tried to help more than at any other time. (See: New Deal, Stimulus)

I was not asking you to embrace CEOs.  Some of them are bad.  Just like some teachers, nurses, and scientists are bad.  But they are not all the villains that you are claiming them to be.

I think that we can agree that all subsidies and bailouts for big businesses, or anyone else, are bad and we should encourage our politicians to oppose them in the future.

Where is the evidence that says some businesses are "forcing" their employees to vote in any way? 

Nearly all union money (which comes from dues, weather or not the union member wants to belong to it) goes to democrats.  Are you opposed to this as well?

Union members fined for not supporting Warren: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/are-unions-fining-members-who-dont-support-warren_654203.html



Friedman? Seniors?

This is an election about people(Obama) and Capital(Romney). If we get romney capital rules and the purchased benefit programs of americans are evicerated, (except for seniors, he read the 08 exit polls). Capital will be determined to be able to do no wrong and wealth will be the ultimate good.

History tells me this is the most likely outcome of the current greed based population of the United States. I can only Hope 40 dem senators will hold the line, but..... That seems unlikely.

Which then means 2016 or 2020 will be elections on reciprocity of lack of benefits for the elderly. After all why would the dominant segment of the population at that time(People with an insecure future) want to continue paying for seniors(To have a secure future) while they have to provide for themselves 100%. Answer they won't....


Are the approximately half the population that support Romney not people?

Many of Obama's biggest campaign contributors in 2008 were big banks.



By people I mean an inherent belief that government has a proper role ensuring a minimal level of suffering.

Romney doesn't believe that he believes you can stand in the mormon churches soup kitchen line, assuming you meet their tests for doing so.

And by capital I mean capital is completely unregulated or regulated so only as to limit liability of action in the courts(Sham regulation) vs. allowed to operate within acceptable limits so long as they don't harm the public welfare. Dem's are decidedly not anti capital but they aren't pro darwinian capitalism(with few exceptions). 


"ensuring a minimal level of suffering." 

I doubt that that is what you meant.  Although that does seem to be what happens to the people who get the most "help" from the government.

I'm afraid that I don't understand your second sentence.

What do you mean buy: "I mean capital is completely unregulated or regulated so only as to limit liability of action in the courts"?

Are you talking about campaign finance reform? or something else?

I'll bet that there is a law, however, about any subject that you mean.

300,000 pages ready to be searched:   http://uscode.house.gov/search/criteria.shtml



"What Obama has to show..." is that we should ignore our poor economy, no federal budget, and increasing federal debt in favor of supporting a president who "supports the people." Nevermind his actual results.

Michael Briggs

His actual results have been outstanding, and our economy is doing much better, thank you. Our nation is moving back in the direction it needs to move. Obama/Biden '12! 


So what you are saying is:

7.8% unemployment = outstanding results?

Underemployment is still big news = outstanding results?

53% of recent college graduates are unemployed = outstanding results?

US credit rating downgraded = outstanding results?

Record budget deficits = outstanding results?

$15 trillion federal debt = outstanding results?

By "His actual results have been outstanding, and our economy is doing much better, thank you." do you mean "His results have been awful, and our economy is still stagnant, but don't worry he plans to tax the rich."?



"What Obama has to show..." is that we should ignore our poor economy, no federal budget, and increasing federal debt in favor of supporting a president who "supports the people." Nevermind his actual results.

Chris Miilu

You might want to write your Republican Congressman. We have no budget because they ran home to campaign and left the budget on the table. They refused to fund infrastructure, creating jobs; they refused to fund education; they refused to bring the Jobs Bill to a vote. Perhaps that is where you should direct your attention.. 


 Not even the democrats in the senate voted for Obama's last proposed budget.


99 to 0

How is that the republicans' fault?

If the President can not even get his own party to give his proposed budget even 1 yea vote, then why is it the republicans who are the problem?

What makes you think that I don't also criticize republicans? I'm a libertarian. I criticize the republicans when they for FOR the things that you mentioned.

What, bye the way, was the official name of the "Jobs Bill"? How would it have created jobs?

If I were a congressman and proposed a "Unicorn Bill", would my bill create unicorns the same way the democrats "Jobs Bill" would have created jobs?


(in response to Chris Miilu's comment)



But why let logic get in the way of a good paranoid fantasy? 


Would you be calling me "paranoid"?

I do find it very amusing how often those of you on the left resort to name calling and insults rather than actual arguments.

Here is just one point of evidence to support my claim that this President has not helped this country: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/04/53-of-recent-college-grads-are-jobless-or-underemployed-how/256237/

If I give you a dozen more points of evidence to support my claim, will you still call my thoughts "a good paranoid fantasy"?



As if Mitt is proposing anything that wasn't tried with Bush?

It's not enough to say that the problems haven't all been solved. You have to also be proposing something that isn't the same as what got us into the mess in the first place, and Romney's not. 


Claiming that Romney's stated policies helped cause our current depression are half correct. But not the half that you think. It was the government's interfering with the housing market and poor monetary policy that caused our current situation. And the stimulus has only made things worse.


"The summer 2007 world-wide financial crisis and the recession in the U.S. that followed later that year have caused a number of journalists and non-Austrian economists to recognize the essential element of the Austrian Business Cycle Theory (ABCT): monetary excess triggered by central bank actions “lead to a boom and an inevitable bust” (Taylor, 2008).1 Responding appropriately to the current bust, or for that matter any crisis, requires first understanding the root cause. In the present situation, the underlying enabling cause was recently described from an Austrian perspective by Rizzo (2009) when he wrote that “[w]e must remember that the current state of affairs was caused by the Federal Reserve’s excessively low interest-rate policy from about mid-2002 through the third quarter of 2006,” which “resulted in significant economic distortions and/or imbalances."

Bye the way, the candidate that I will be voting for does have a better plan for improving the country. Including a budget that would be balanced in his first year!


In any case, the things that Obama has been proposing are the same things that were tried during the Great Depression.  And that only took more than 10 years for us to recover.

No comments:

Post a Comment