Liberals in Panic!

[xssve]

Republican policy always results in a recession, no exceptions, and there is some sort of real estate bubble/scam at the bottom of it - look at the numbers. You assholes will do the exact same thing next time, mark my words, it's a given.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Republican policy always results in a recession, no exceptions, and there is some sort of real estate bubble/scam at the bottom of it - look at the numbers. You assholes will do the exact same thing next time, mark my words, it's a given.

That's not entirely true. Here is a list of recessions and depressions in the history of the USA. The causes may be conjecture, and I am expressing neither belief nor disbelief in their correctness. I am merely passing this along for your information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions

Some of threse events occurred before the Republican Party even existed and some of them happened during Democratic administrations.

 

[amicus]

Interesting brief recap of recessions, Box, thank you.

Amicus...

 

[Le Jacquelope]

One of the reasons for the heavy Union losses in the last year, compared to earlier was that the earlier Union commanders, especially McClellan, were afraid to fight. Grant, on the other hand, was willing to incur casualties in order to win battles.

Worse yet, the South - or the Right Wing rebels - would have the entire Western world turning against them. We could pull in help from the EU if we needed. Amicunt doesn't realize just how isolated and alone his ideology is, but in a new Civil War, his "army" would find out the hard way just how unpopular they truly are.

 

[cloudy]

Worse yet, the South - or the Right Wing rebels - would have the entire Western world turning against them. We could pull in help from the EU if we needed. Amicunt doesn't realize just how isolated and alone his ideology is, but in a new Civil War, his "army" would find out the hard way just how unpopular they truly are.

Please stop with the stereotyping. Amicus isn't, and has never been, Southern.

On the other hand, I am, and resent being lumped in with him in your rants. Not all Southerners think the way you suppose they do.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Everyone in this country should be in a panic -- or at least deeply concerned. We are in very deep yogurt and the way out is not that obvious.

The "free market" economics of the Bush era have collapsed -- mostly because of executive greed and excessive concern for short term profits. It was corportate myopia that induced our business leaders to ship all of our production overseas. Cheaper in the short run -- but if there is no domestic production, eventually there is no money for domestic consumption -- and that eventual time has come.

The passion to reduce taxes and reduce spending has resulted in a terrible degradation of our infrastructure. We are faced with crumbling roads and bridges, leaky water systems, antiquated power grids. All this because the politician who lowered taxes won.

Most businesses go through a cycle of initial success, expansion, then, over expansion, loss of purpose, and collapse. A lot of our coroporations all seem to have hit the final phases at once. Look at how many store chains have over expanded. Look at how many corporations are in business to make money, period. And corporate loyalty? A thing of the past.

I don't even want to get started on how screwed up health care and higher education are -- those could take forever to unravel also.

So -- aside from the obvious problems with housing and the banks, we've just got a general mess on our hands.

Yep.

And it would be silly to talk about reaping and sowing and all that in this thread, I know...

What sucks is that they knew it - they wouldn't be reaping the crap they sowed. It would be future generations who reaped it. How nice. Why not go for the short term, when you only live for 70ish years if you're lucky? Why should anyone care what's going to happen to human beings or, god forbid, the planet, 100, 200, 500 years from now?

Fuck it. Show me the money.

 

[xssve]

That's not entirely true. Here is a list of recessions and depressions in the history of the USA. The causes may be conjecture, and I am expressing neither belief nor disbelief in their correctness. I am merely passing this along for your information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions

Some of threse events occurred before the Republican Party even existed and some of them happened during Democratic administrations.

So which of these was not caused by deregulatory policies, speculation and/or debt abuse?

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Please stop with the stereotyping. Amicus isn't, and has never been, Southern.

On the other hand, I am, and resent being lumped in with him in your rants. Not all Southerners think the way you suppose they do.

You know, I like it when people accuse me of ranting. But to be honest, I like it even more when I get someone to actually bet against me, especially when it comes to my speculations as to what will come of things. It makes it harder for someone to continue their argument when their argument has actually cost them money. But this is an online forum and betting via a recorded medium is probably not wise, much less legal, so there we are, I suppose.

Anyhoot. As for hating on the South, well, I suppose you can liken it to broad brushing ethnicities, with all its flaws. Amicunt may not be in the South, but his racism and *ahem* rants about rebellions, are typical South Shall Rise Again[tm] nonsense. You may be in the South but not a subscriber to the South Shall Rise Again[tm] idiocy. So again, there we are.

One other thing - I did say "the South - or the Right Wing rebels". That logically includes the neo conjobs in, say, Rhode Island. Amicunt is a right wing rebel, even if he is not from the South.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
That's not entirely true. Here is a list of recessions and depressions in the history of the USA. The causes may be conjecture, and I am expressing neither belief nor disbelief in their correctness. I am merely passing this along for your information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions

Some of threse events occurred before the Republican Party even existed and some of them happened during Democratic administrations.

So which of these was not caused by deregulatory policies, speculation and/or debt abuse?

You can read the reasons as well as I can but, remember, they are the opinions of the persons who prepared the table.

I posted the table to refurte your implication that recessions are caused by Republican policies.

 

[amicus]

It is curious, to say the least, to observe the 'cakewalk' or 'musical chairs', in the nations capitol and throughout the left wing media.

They all seem confused as to which horse to mount and whether to use spurs or kind words.

On one hand, some left wing Senators want to rejuvenate the old fairness doctrine of the FCC, not to equalize or make 'fair and balanced', they openly admit they want an enforced foil to the likes ofr Rush Limbaugh and Hannity.

That, to some other democrats, seems a little much as it is so transparent.

NewsWeek, another left wing outlet, "Will Afghanistan become Obama's Vietnam?"

The left wing, much like the absent minded professor, seems not capable of differentiating between pouring syrup down their backs or scratching their pancakes.

Ain't it wunnerful?

Amicus...

 

[Boxlicker101]

It is curious, to say the least, to observe the 'cakewalk' or 'musical chairs', in the nations capitol and throughout the left wing media.

They all seem confused as to which horse to mount and whether to use spurs or kind words.

On one hand, some left wing Senators want to rejuvenate the old fairness doctrine of the FCC, not to equalize or make 'fair and balanced', they openly admit they want an enforced foil to the likes ofr Rush Limbaugh and Hannity.

That, to some other democrats, seems a little much as it is so transparent.

NewsWeek, another left wing outlet, "Will Afghanistan become Obama's Vietnam?"

The left wing, much like the absent minded professor, seems not capable of differentiating between pouring syrup down their backs or scratching their pancakes.

Ain't it wunnerful?

Amicus...

The "Fairness Doctrine" did have some virtue at its beginning. Newspapers were plentiful, so opposing views were easily read. TV and radio stations were less common. This is not the case any more, with most metropolitan areas having multiple radio and TV stations, and usually only one newspaper. I was only about ten years old when it started, and didn't give it any thought but, looking back, I can't help but think it was a violation of the First Amendment for the FCC to regulate what could be said over the air, and what had to be said.

A responsible broadcaster should maybe be encouraged to let opposing views be heard, but I don't believe it should have been a rrequirement, any more than I believe a newspaper should regularly turn over its editorial page to allow people to express their differing views. Perhaps they should require a certain amount of time given over to public service, such as broadcasting the news, but it shouldn't go any further than that.

 

[amicus]

Uhm, Box, there was, when I was in Broadcasting, a requirement to fullfil FCC station license requirements, that a certain amount of air time be devoted to, 'public service' announcements. Of course, you know where that went, all lopsided to the left.

I stated, in a brief, that our news programs, although sponsored, were, 'in the public interest', and qualified as such.

And yes, when I take over, I will simply abolish the FCC. along with the IRS and dozens of other troublesome agencies such as the EPA.

Amicus...

 

[TE999]

The "Fairness Doctrine" did have some virtue at its beginning. Newspapers were plentiful, so opposing views were easily read. TV and radio stations were less common. This is not the case any more, with most metropolitan areas having multiple radio and TV stations, and usually only one newspaper. I was only about ten years old when it started, and didn't give it any thought but, looking back, I can't help but think it was a violation of the First Amendment for the FCC to regulate what could be said over the air, and what had to be said.

The first profit oriented attempt at 'liberal' talk radio, Air (some called it Error) America, despite periodic infusions of cash, was an abject failure because it could not attract sufficient advertisers. What does that tell you?

So much for free market 'fairness'. People listen to Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, et. al. because they're entertaining whether you agree with them or not. All their listeners can't be drooling, neo-nazi, racist neanderthals; they merely like to hear another view of things dealt with in a light hearted (for the most part) manner.

 

[Huckleman2000]

The first profit oriented attempt at 'liberal' talk radio, Air (some called it Error) America, despite periodic infusions of cash, was an abject failure because it could not attract sufficient advertisers. What does that tell you?

So much for free market 'fairness'. People listen to Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, et. al. because they're entertaining whether you agree with them or not. All their listeners can't be drooling, neo-nazi, racist neanderthals; they merely like to hear another view of things dealt with in a light hearted (for the most part) manner.

AirAmerica is still around.

 

[DesertPirate]

AirAmerica is still around.

Without George Soros money it would have disappeared 2 years ago

 

[Huckleman2000]

Without George Soros money it would have disappeared 2 years ago

So, what's the point? It's not gone.
There are many media companies on the Right that exist only by the generous machinations/donations of wealthy financiers. Just off the top of my head: Regnery Publishing; The American Spectator; Pajamas Media...

 

[xssve]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
That's not entirely true. Here is a list of recessions and depressions in the history of the USA. The causes may be conjecture, and I am expressing neither belief nor disbelief in their correctness. I am merely passing this along for your information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions

Some of threse events occurred before the Republican Party even existed and some of them happened during Democratic administrations.



You can read the reasons as well as I can but, remember, they are the opinions of the persons who prepared the table.

I posted the table to refurte your implication that recessions are caused by Republican policies.

I did say republican policies, not necessarily republicans - deregulation and the absence of infrastructure investment to create legitimate business opportunities almost invariably leads to debt abuse, public and/or private, fueling speculative bubbles - it's practically a law of unregulated markets, basic human behavior.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

I did say republican policies, not necessarily republicans - deregulation and the absence of infrastructure investment to create legitimate business opportunities almost invariably leads to debt abuse, public and/or private, fueling speculative bubbles - it's practically a law of unregulated markets, basic human behavior.

I was waiting for you to clarify that. It's a clear correlation, if not a direct causation.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

The first profit oriented attempt at 'liberal' talk radio, Air (some called it Error) America, despite periodic infusions of cash, was an abject failure because it could not attract sufficient advertisers. What does that tell you?

So much for free market 'fairness'. People listen to Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, et. al. because they're entertaining whether you agree with them or not. All their listeners can't be drooling, neo-nazi, racist neanderthals; they merely like to hear another view of things dealt with in a light hearted (for the most part) manner.

58 million people voted for McCain despite the multitude of embarrassing, indeed epic missteps of his campaign. That's probably larger than the number of people who listen to Limbaugh.

It is possible that Rush's audience is mostly a bunch of drooling, neo-nazi, racist neanderthals. But they were still unable to stop America from voting Democratic last year.

I'm sick and tired of people bringing up the Fairness Doctrine. It's a fool's quest. Forget about the stupid Fairness Doctrine. Just get over it, people. Seriously.

The Fairness Doctrine is not needed. The Republicans were voted out of power - and many were even put in prison during Bush's administration - without the Fairness Doctrine. If the Democrats fuck up badly enough, the Fairness Doctrine simply won't help them.

 

[Boxlicker101]

58 million people voted for McCain despite the multitude of embarrassing, indeed epic missteps of his campaign. That's probably larger than the number of people who listen to Limbaugh.

It is possible that Rush's audience is mostly a bunch of drooling, neo-nazi, racist neanderthals. But they were still unable to stop America from voting Democratic last year.

I'm sick and tired of people bringing up the Fairness Doctrine. It's a fool's quest. Forget about the stupid Fairness Doctrine. Just get over it, people. Seriously.

The Fairness Doctrine is not needed. The Republicans were voted out of power - and many were even put in prison during Bush's administration - without the Fairness Doctrine. If the Democrats fuck up badly enough, the Fairness Doctrine simply won't help them.

I agree, wholeheartedly. Not only is it not needed, it is WRONG and probably unconstitutional. It was WRONG when it was first imposed, and it would be even more WRONG now. However, now that Liberals (relatively) control the government, they may try to use it to stifle dissent, because so many of their positions are unpopular and would not be accepted by the citizens if they had a voice.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

I agree, wholeheartedly. Not only is it not needed, it is WRONG and probably unconstitutional. It was WRONG when it was first imposed, and it would be even more WRONG now. However, now that Liberals (relatively) control the government, they may try to use it to stifle dissent, because so many of their positions are unpopular and would not be accepted by the citizens if they had a voice.

Conservative talk radio had 6 years with Bush and the GOP to back them up, to make the case that liberal positions were wrong or that liberals were lying about their positions. If liberal positions were wrong or if they were lying, then why did the liberals win?

Perhaps it's the fact that, despite Conservative talk radio's "dominance", they still failed to make their case?

 

[Boxlicker101]

58 million people voted for McCain despite the multitude of embarrassing, indeed epic missteps of his campaign. That's probably larger than the number of people who listen to Limbaugh.

It is possible that Rush's audience is mostly a bunch of drooling, neo-nazi, racist neanderthals. But they were still unable to stop America from voting Democratic last year.

I'm sick and tired of people bringing up the Fairness Doctrine. It's a fool's quest. Forget about the stupid Fairness Doctrine. Just get over it, people. Seriously.

The Fairness Doctrine is not needed. The Republicans were voted out of power - and many were even put in prison during Bush's administration - without the Fairness Doctrine. If the Democrats fuck up badly enough, the Fairness Doctrine simply won't help them.

Conservative talk radio had 6 years with Bush and the GOP to back them up, to make the case that liberal positions were wrong or that liberals were lying about their positions. If liberal positions were wrong or if they were lying, then why did the liberals win?

Perhaps it's the fact that, despite Conservative talk radio's "dominance", they still failed to make their case?

Most people don't listen to talk radio, or do so rarely. Even so, Liberals would like to be able to stifle what Conservatives say.

As for why Liberals won in the last two general elections, it was a backlash against W and against the implosion of the economy a few months earlier, which was blamed on the Republican Administration. It was also the charisma of Obama and the relative lack of same of McCain, as well as McCain's age.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Most people don't listen to talk radio, or do so rarely. Even so, Liberals would like to be able to stifle what Conservatives say.

As for why Liberals won in the last two general elections, it was a backlash against W and against the implosion of the economy a few months earlier, which was blamed on the Republican Administration. It was also the charisma of Obama and the relative lack of same of McCain, as well as McCain's age.

You just can't blame this on the fact that McCain failed miserably?

McCain had Obama on the ropes with Palin.

And if conservatism was so great then why didn't Ron Paul or Bob Barr get even 5% of the vote?

 

[Boxlicker101]

You just can't blame this on the fact that McCain failed miserably?

McCain had Obama on the ropes with Palin.

And if conservatism was so great then why didn't Ron Paul or Bob Barr get even 5% of the vote?

McCain probably could have run a more agfressive, finger-pointing campaign. He could have strongly pointed out that Dems controlled Congress when the economy collapsed, which they did, and had for over a year. I realize the causes go back more than a year, but the Dems did nothing to change what was happening during their watch. McCain could have made much out of this, but he didn't.

Is Ron Paul a Conservative? I always thought he was more of a liberal Rep. As for Barr, he would have been seen as too much of an idealogue. Voters won't vote for extremists of any kind, which is why Goldwater and McGovern and Kerry lost, even though running against an incumbent who was generally disliked.

I stil say the reasons McCain lost were the ones I mentioned earlier.

 

[DesertPirate]

The liberals could be in a panic because so few are buying that brand anymore
The NY Times is now mortgaged to a rich guy in Mexico.
The Tribune Co. (Chicago Tibune and LA Times) is close to broke.
Even Time Warner is having difficulties.
GE (parent of NBC) is so bad that it's stock is close to junk status.

What a shame