Discussion in 'World Events' started by youreyes, Feb 1, 2017.
And your beloved Obama is responsible for post 20,000 for DowJones too?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Oh no! That is all the Donald - probably his greatest accomplishment EVER! It's yuuuuge! The Dow hit 20,100 for Trump!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I mean, that's a whole 36 point increase in the Dow - from the previous high of 19,963 on 1/6 under Obama! A .0018 change! Paaarrrtty! Youreyes have never seen such a magnificent jump!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
As soon as you say the words "rightwing socialist", you have stopped thinking.
When my beloved Obama took office the Dow was at 8,000 and headed lower. When he left office the Dow was very close to 20,000. Yeah, I'm very happy with that. You aren't? The Dow has almost tripled under Obama's leadership. The nation has gone from losing nearly a million jobs a month to consistently adding hundreds of thousands of jobs every month. Unemployment has gone from 10% to 4.7% achieving full employment.
You think those are bad thing?
Below is a chart of the S&P during Obama's presidency.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I trust YourEyes will promptly ignore the facts you provided, joepistole and Randwolf, and start re-iterating his desired narrative.
Be happy. This is how inflation works. If you print money, you have inflation. But not the same inflation for everything. Because the highest inflation will be for what those who get the newly printed money buy.
Now, in the US oligarchy, who gets the newly printed money? The superrich. What do they buy? More hamburgers? No. They buy stocks. So there will be inflation in stock prices.
Comrade Schmelzer, that's not how inflation works. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
If you knew anything about macroeconomics you would know better. US inflation during Obama's presidency has been virtually zero. It takes more than printing money Comrade Schmelzer to cause inflation as demonstrated by the last 8 years in the United States. And the "super rich" wouldn't put there money into the stock market if they felt the market was over valued, and there is no indication the US stock market is overvalued. The stock market isn't the only investment vehicle afforded the "super rich".
Overall stock valuations are inline with historical norms. Some sectors, e.g. banks, remain undervalued and are selling at or below book value. So the data, the facts, as is almost always the case with you, are not supportive of your assertions.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Oh yes, no true Scotsman around here, the Germans were just 'good at marketing'.
Okay, let me rephrase just for you: Either we will end up with a Socialist Authoritarian that kills a bunch of people or one that first starves and then kills a whole lot of people.
My guess is, the later is more likely.
Exactly. Since the alternative is to think that the likes of Krupp Industries, IG Farben, and the Reichsbank, were "socialist" - and that's just too damn idiotic.
What's going to happen to the Democrats and Republicans? You planning on Trump and the lads just going away quietly?
I'm sure by the time you're done, there'll be No True Scot's living in Scotland.
If you want to categorize one particular illusive flavor of State Authoritarian-violence that's initiated against morally innocent humans trapped in a geopolitical domain 'for the good of The People/Worker' as flavor type: 'Socialism', go for it.
National Review: Bernie’s Strange Brew of Nationalism and Socialism
Oh, I'm sure Trump seems quite important, but much like Obama - he'll play a minor (yet necessary role/step) in our transition towards a dictatorship. These things take time.
What's going to happen to the Democrats and Republicans? What happened to the Senate in Rome? It was still there. Someone has to rubber stamp the Alpha's decrees into Law. That's how it works.
Anyway, numerous studies show that not only most of IQ, but that much of our behavior, including our inclinations towards certain ideals, is genetic:
Smithsonian: Are Your Political Beliefs Hardwired?
Brain scans suggest Democrats and Republicans actually are different biologically. Welcome to the world of political neuroscience.
So? What to do? What does one do when they realize their brain, which produces their consciousness, is to a large effect making proteins, lipids, nucleotides and processing carbohydrates in a manner that to a large degree predetermines their notions of what ought and is?
I think we do this: We start with the premises, that we should not lie, cheat, steal or hit. You know, those things your mothers taught to you when you were a child. Then, when meme's are implanted into your head, you know, like Citizen, Nation State, Religion, etc... reflect back on these initial premises and work hard to maintain them in your life. If it means you go with less, then go with less. If it means you don't get to have certain things, then you don't get to have them. You know, maybe there's that special actress or actor you really really really want to hang out with, maybe even marry - if only they noticed you Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Well, you don't get to kidnap them and hold them hostage. Sorry, but no. And, sorry, but taking a vote, isn't going to change my opinion on that. Not even in a *GASP* Nation State Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Either make the case and earn your way, voluntarily, or go without. If you happen to find yourself in a society where somehow your parents were able to survive until a reproductive age, have you, and then somehow you were raised to adulthood - and after all this, no one around you wants to voluntarily have anything to do with you, even charity, it's time to take a long hard look in the mirror. Because people don't pop into society from out of the void, and given their existence, usually they've come in contract with others around them.
Here was a funny report: Study from 2012 now corrected to show liberals, not conservatives, more authoritarian.
It's not just that report, body counts for "National Socialists" (as defined by everyone but you) are in the millions, but no where NEAR the number of dead that accumulate under Progressive Communism. And, if you find yourself leaning towards "Socialism" (a form of State Authoritarianism), then perhaps you want to look back at this study and wonder why your DNA is manipulating you towards ideas of Authoritarianism? Socialism is only possibly by coercive violence. Now, I know, I know, if we don't threaten to beat up one another then we can't live in very dense cities without pooping all over ourselves. Okay, then we don't live in dense cities. It's really THAT simple.
By the time I'm done, you will have come to understand that people born and raised in Jamaica with black skin and frizzy hair do not become Scotsmen by naming their reggae band "The Scotsmen".
"National Socialists" is a brand name. It's most famous use (in German) was by the NAZI Party in Germany, that flourished from the Depression until the end of WWII. Their government was fascist, which means capitalist economic structure - a defining feature of fascism.
If you are comparing total fascist mass murder with total socialist mass murder, the socialist will probably have murdered more. But not as much as you think - fascist mass murdering started earlier, continued longer, and was much more widely spread (Africa, Indonesia, the Americas, Asia, etc.. Mao did not invent mass murder in China, remember - fascist strongman Chiang Kai-Shek and the fascist Imperial Japanese beat him to it.).
Pol Pot beat you to that one - study his thinking: you'll find it strangely familiar.
If you look at the riots at Berkley, the paid protesters in hoods, were using violence to shut down free speech. The Nazis also used intimidation and violence to shut down free speech. When people are afraid to speak up, the POV of the bullies, can become the mainstream way of thinking. It becomes the only show in town. When intelligent speakers appear, who can reason and pursued a crowd, the left has to shut this down, less that illusion be broken. American universities appear to be using intimidation, so allowable ideas default to leftist thinking.
If you look at Trump's choice for the Supreme Court, this man was already confirmed by the Senate for a different post, and was found to be a man of good character. Since that confirmation, he has been clean as whistle. In spite of this reality, many liberal Senators are trying to paint him with all types of negative attributes; he hates the handicaps and is against women. This tactic is also a way to limit free speech. It attacks the messenger, so his message is not taken seriously, or can be taken out of context. The Nazis used that same tactic against the Jews. They painted a sinister picture of an entire group of people. This poisoned the well for the German people. People who drank of this poison well, began to live in that alternate reality. The Jews could not even defend themselves , with hard data to the contrary, since the messenger had been demonized. Trump is not intimidated by the Fascists bullies who demonize, and fights back before the well is poisoned with lies.
An executive order, which Trump signed yesterday, got rid of a law, created by then Senator Lyndon B. Johnson, in the 1950's, that was used to prohibit religious and other tax exempt groups, from engaging in political actions. Conservative preachers have been afraid of politicking from the pulpit, less a liberal cry of foul, be used to shut them down. Now, they can legally speak up and engage in the political process. This will have an impact on the left, since this will make it harder to intimidate one aspect of free speech. Many of the preachers are effective speakers, so the leftist base may not be easily sheltered from the truth.
Preventing tax-exempt religious institutes from politicking is not "attacking free speech"... simply put, why should we, the people, foot the bill for these oganizations to partake in a process that they pay nothing into? Religion SHOULD NOT have any voice in US Law - separation of Church and State and all that.
Factor, also, that not ONCE has the government actually shut down a church for talking politics. It is illegal, currently, but it is unenforced. What was enforced was other tax-exempt organizations using their income to benefit one party or another.
Not that such facts matter much to you, Wellwisher... never have, never will I'm sure.
They can, but they shouldn't then be subsidized by the government.
Then they should pay taxes (truth be told, anymore, I think all religious institutes should pay taxes on income... I mean sheeeit, look at some of the mega-churches (and the scandals surrounding them) - I'm sorry, if you have a building larger than some sports stadiums and an electronics suite that would make Kid Rock droll at the prospect of using... then you can pay some damn taxes!)
You do realize there are thousands of cities in this country. Just because a few people in one city became violent, it doesn't make it a nationwide effort to suppress speech, much less a left wing effort to supress free speech. There is however evidence to support the notion that the American right wing is and has a long running effort to supress free speech by drowning out other voices with dishonest paid advertisements, e.g. Citizens United, and right wing entertainment.
The senior adviser to our Republican president recently instructed our free press to "shut up". Republicans, the American right, as reflected by Trump's senior adviser, views the free media as the enemy.
Just days after President Trump spoke of a “running war’’ with the media, his chief White House strategist, Stephen K. Bannon, ratcheted up the attacks, arguing that news organizations had been “humiliated” by the election outcome and repeatedly describing the media as “the opposition party” of the current administration. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/26/business/media/stephen-bannon-trump-news-media.html?_r=0
Unfortunately for you and your right wing fellows Wellwisher, the truth still matters. I know of no one on the left who has endorsed or supported violence period, much less to silence free speech as you have asserted. Now if you can prove otherwise, now is the time to do it. But you can't and for obvious reasons.
Well we don't know if he has been "clean as a whistle". That's why we have a vetting process. The fact that you are asserting something without the evidence to back it up, which is all too typical of you and those like you Wellwisher, speaks to your biases and dishonesty. The fact that you and like you are so willing to believe things for which you have no evidence is frightening. That was in fact integral to Nazi strategy. The Nazis could never have done what they did were it not for people like you, who believe without question whatever the party tells you. That was the poisoned well" you referred to.
And let's remember, Republicans didn't even give Obama's nominee for that very same vacancy on the court a hearing. Obama's nominee is a man with exceptional credentials and an outstanding reputation. Yet Republicans which controlled the Senate left the seat unfilled for almost a year on the hope they could replace Obama's nominee with a more partisan nominee, and that's what they are doing now. Whether you and your right wing, i.e. Republican, fellows like it our not, the US Constitution requires appointees to the Supreme Court be vetted and approved by the US Senate. That has absolutely nothing to do with Nazism. It has everything to do with our Constitution. The irony here is that you and your Republican fellows have a lot more in common with the Nazis than the people you like to accuse of being Nazis. Oh, the irony is rampant and robust.
No, he did not. You should know this. I shouldn't have to explain it to you. You should have learned this in grade school civics class. The president cannot override law with an executive order. He cannot "get rid of a law" with an executive order. But as demonstrated by your post, this is just one of the many untruthful and ignorant things right wingers, i.e. Republicans, believe.
Conservative preachers can say whatever they want anytime anywhere. The Johnson Amendment doesn't prevent preachers from saying whatever they want whenever they want. The Johnson Amendment is part of the tax code. It says charitable organizations cannot receive the tax exemptions they are afforded under the tax code if they use their resources to engage in partisan activities. The amendment draws a line between charitable activities , e.g. religion, and political activities. If churches want to act like churches, they will be taxed like churches. If they want to act like political organizations, they will taxed as political organizations. There is nothing nefarious in that.
What you and your Republican fellows want is to circumvent campaign finance laws by allowing churches to act like and in effect become political entities rather than religious entities. There is great danger in that, and that is why the founding fathers created a line between church and state. It's a good line, and that line should be maintained. It should not be crossed as Republicans wish to do. The irony here is that Republicans claim to be strict constructionists. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The reality is Republicans are "strict constitutional constructionists" when it favors them and not so much when it doesn't. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Pol Pot was another Authoritarian Nation Statist. I'm sure if you asked him, he'd tell you he was a Socialist. And Progressive to boot.
I mean, just, wow.
And in just a few generations of Central Banking and Income Tax. It reminds me of the House Slave or the Jews who worked as the guards in the concentration camps. Just wow. You have to give it to the State, it's religious memes are really amazing. What some people won't stoop to for a 'free' road..... Again, wow.
Notes from, Life On The Farm
Yeah, WOW. Why is that a radical thought for you Michael? You don't believe in the separation of church and state?
What has any of that to do the "Central Banking and Income Tax"? It has nothing to do with "Central Banking and Income Tax", or slaves, house or otherwise, or Jews who guards in concentration camps or anywhere else for that matter.
One of them many unfortunate realities for you is we do need government to address and resolve mutual problems. Government is much more efficient than each of us fighting it out on our own and reinventing the wheel 330 million times. That's why we have government, and that government incurs costs and those costs are passed on to us via taxation. There is nothing magic about income tax. Before income tax, government was funded by value added taxes and tariffs.
And you share much of his family values, morality first, taxation is theft, world view, as I quoted. As he declaimed, in more general terms: If you can't keep a city from drowning in sewage without an immoral tax-levying government, then you shouldn't have cities - which means, of course, doing something about the shit-free cities the intellectual elites with their immoral taxes have already set up.
So he did.
Separate names with a comma.