# Socialize/Nationalize the Oil Industry?



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

https://hotair.com/archives/2008/05...reatens-to-nationalize-americas-oil-industry/


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Once again congressional Democrats have proven that they are truly feckless and wholly ignorant of how the real world works.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Wow, that was...uh..uh, uh...basically....uh, uh...this liberal will be all about....uh, uh...learning some big words so I don't look so stupid...uh, uh...

Not only is the concept she attempts to present truly frightening in its misguided nature, but the fact that "this liberal" thinks she can actually accomplish the threatened outcome. I wish this clip would get more air time.


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

Yikes! I'm of Bengali origin and I've seen how nationalized industry leads to severe corruption and inefficiency. Stupid, stupid, stupid.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Wow, that was...uh..uh, uh...basically....uh, uh...this liberal will be all about....uh, uh...learning some big words so I don't look so stupid...uh, uh...
> 
> Not only is the concept she attempts to present truly frightening in its misguided nature, but the fact that "this liberal" thinks she can actually accomplish the threatened outcome. I wish this clip would get more air time.


The crazy thing was he didn't even call her a liberal that I saw. He just said "Congress."

I think she just made a Lenin, errr Freudian slip. :devil:

If I was him, I'd have all the Shell dealers in her district raise the price of gas $1/gal and post her picture by it with a caption, "Thank Congresswoman Maxine Waters for your higher gas prices."


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

ksinc said:


> If I was him, I'd have all the Shell dealers in her district raise the price of gas $1/gal and post her picture by it with a caption, "Thank Congresswoman Maxine Waters for your higher gas prices."


:aportnoy: Classic


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

I say socialize oil, cease international corporations, and sell gas at 75 cents/gallon like in Venezuela.

/end sarcasm


----------



## ajo (Oct 22, 2007)

What I dont understand is how overnight movement on the Barrel price of oil affects the immediate pump price? I mean its not like they process petrol at the pump and how are the oil companies able to get away with this? 

Does it work this way in the US is the flow on immeadiate or do you get some grace with the prices?

Is there any logic to the price of oil anywhere earlier this evening i filled the car up at $1.51 a litre! Totally absurd


----------



## maxnharry (Dec 3, 2004)

She's a silly person. Oil priced in Euros has not spiked in price. When priced in silver, gasoline has actually gotten cheaper. 

Nationalization will solve nothing and will actually inject more problems. Simply speaking, the dollar is off 50%. Until we restore confidence in it, fuel prices will continue to rise. The solution is a return to actual fiscal conservatism.


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

When there was a congressional hearing on the possibility of exploring Mars, the question came up as to how equipment would be transported.

Congressman Waters asked, in effect, "Can't we just use that little buggy that's up there, that we used before?"

(The buggy happened to be on the moon.)


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Once again I find myself embarrassed by the absolute absence of brainwave activity displayed by an actively serving elected official. I will only say...boy am I glad I'm not from California and don't have to claim the Honorable Congresswoman Waters as my own!


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

Obama/Waters '08 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

*laughter*

If you watch the video, you can actually see her own colleagues laughing at her behind her back.


----------



## Xhine23 (Jan 17, 2008)

maxnharry said:


> She's a silly person. Oil priced in Euros has not spiked in price. When priced in silver, gasoline has actually gotten cheaper.
> 
> Nationalization will solve nothing and will actually inject more problems. Simply speaking, the dollar is off 50%. Until we restore confidence in it, fuel prices will continue to rise. *The solution is a return to actual fiscal conservatism.[/*quote]
> 
> Who might solve this problem?


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

Xhine23 said:


> maxnharry said:
> 
> 
> > She's a silly person. Oil priced in Euros has not spiked in price. When priced in silver, gasoline has actually gotten cheaper.
> ...


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Dangerous move. When Iran tried to nationalize the oil industry a big, powerful country came along and installed a dictator to run the country. We wouldn't like it if someone did that to us.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> Dangerous move. When Iran tried to nationalize the oil industry a big, powerful country came along and installed a dictator to run the country. We wouldn't like it if someone did that to us.


Do you think that's why we have the relationship that we have now with Iran?


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> Simply speaking, the dollar is off 50%. Until we restore confidence in it, fuel prices will continue to rise.


While it's certainly true that the price of gas and oil has everything to do with the declining currency, I have to disagree on one point -- the price of the paper now commonly known as the "US Dollar" in the world commodity market has nothing to do with "confidence" or any other emotion. It has to do with the objective fact that the printing presses have been running overtime lately.

https://mises.org/content/nofed/chart.aspx?series=TMS

[Try clicking on the "M3" box and then the "Make Graph" button. But make sure your heart medication is current first. I'd hate to kill anyone.]

This is absolutely criminal. And I don't mean that figuratively. I mean that the perpetrators of this massive daytime robbery should be in jail.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> Do you think that's why we have the relationship that we have now with Iran?


Maybe not 100%, but after decades of the Pahlavi dictatorship you can see why they call us the great satan.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

jackmccullough said:


> Maybe not 100%, but after decades of the Pahlavi dictatorship you can see why they call us the great satan.


I don't know about all that. It's not like they don't have political prisoners post-Pahlavi. I also don't know which Iranians (outside of the Guardian Council) are still calling the US "The Great Satan"


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Yes, it's our fault that Iran was ruled by a dictator for all those years. Without our interference, they could have had a liberal democracy like all those other countries in the middle east, including....

...

...

...

hmmm...

Israel?


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

All those other countries didn't have elected governments that we overthrew, did they?


----------



## jamgood (Feb 8, 2006)

When Barrie O'Bama's posse raises the minimum wage to $500 hour, this too shall pass. A land of milk and honey.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

jackmccullough said:


> All those other countries didn't have elected governments that we overthrew, did they?


Hah! You lose this thread for bringing up Hitler, whose elected government we overthrew.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Hah! You lose this thread for bringing up Hitler, whose elected government we overthrew.


I don't know if you know better or not. At the very least you're being misleading about how Hitler came to power and what he did once he was appointed Chancellor. More likely, you just don't know.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Hah! You lose this thread for bringing up Hitler, whose elected government we overthrew.


What the hell are you talking about? If you may recall, I was responding to your discussion of "all those other countries in the middle east. "

Find me Germany on a map of the middle east, Howard.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

It's thanks to our overthrowing an elected government that Germany _isn't_ featured in maps of the middle east.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Perhaps Ms. Waters' colleagues were snickering because the oil industry already runs so much of our national energy policy, foreign policy and domestic priorities that they've "privatized" the national interest and made the nationalization of their interests the black letter law of the land subject to no challenges without declaring the opposition mentally defective and subject to eternal mockery.

Pretty stunning work and quite a turn around from the early 70's when there was the double-whammy of the Arab oil embargo and all those embarrassing illegal political contributions, bribes and kick-backs. But hey, a few mergers, changes in names (get rid of Gulf, become "Beyond Petroleum," etc.) and the collective memory is wiped clean. (Or has to wipe itself clean as we no longer have full-service stations anymore.)

They were the Men from Texaco and worked from Maine to Mexico but now they're all a big multinational fraternity counting the largest profits of any enterprise in recorded history. No wonder that in the presence of their double-chinned chiefs and persons the usually ebullient Ms. Waters was reduced to stuttering and making threats without any hope of reversing the situation. She works for them and they know it. Ah, to hear the chuckles later that night at the bar at the Mayflower Hotel!

Much amuses,
A.Q.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Quay said:


> Perhaps Ms. Waters' colleagues were snickering because the oil industry already runs so much of our national energy policy, foreign policy and domestic priorities that they've "privatized" the national interest and made the nationalization of their interests the black letter law of the land subject to no challenges without declaring the opposition mentally defective and subject to eternal mockery.
> 
> Much amuses,
> A.Q.


I'm sure that was it.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

PedanticTurkey said:


> It's thanks to our overthrowing an elected government that Germany _isn't_ featured in maps of the middle east.


Again, you're either intentionally misleading people or not clear on how Hitler and the Nazis came to power.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> Perhaps Ms. Waters' colleagues were snickering because the oil industry already runs so much of our national energy policy, foreign policy and domestic priorities that they've "privatized" the national interest and made the nationalization of their interests the black letter law of the land subject to no challenges without declaring the opposition mentally defective and subject to eternal mockery.


Please don't allow yourself to believe that this state of affairs is anything new. It certainly didn't start with Bush II, Bush I, or even Reagan. And it won't stop because Obama, of all people, is in the White House.

Here's one of my favorite quotes on the subject dating from 1935:

"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National city Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested."

Gen. Smedley Butler, USMC.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

marlinspike said:


> Again, you're either intentionally misleading people or not clear on how Hitler and the Nazis came to power.


Oh, really? So you're going to say that Truman wasn't elected either?


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Phinn said:


> Please don't allow yourself to believe that this state of affairs is anything new.....


Thank you for your caution but rest assured I don't believe this is indeed anything new. Except, of course, that we won't likely be seeing such profound summaries like Butler's from the memoirs of General Petraeus.

Cordially,
A.Q.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Quay said:


> Thank you for your caution but rest assured I don't believe this is indeed anything new. Except, of course, that we won't likely be seeing such profound summaries like Butler's from the memoirs of General Petraeus.
> 
> Cordially,
> A.Q.


Huh? Perhaps you can fix the second sentence so your backhand to Gen. Petraeus regarding his profundity is at least intelligible. ic12337:


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> Members of Congress,
> I am here as you required by law to provide a report on progress made in the past 6 months in Iraq. I am not here as a partisan or supporter of any political candidate or agenda, simply the Commander on the ground and representative of all the 150k+ troops serving there. First I would like to honor their tremendous efforts and the sacrifices they all have made, the fallen, the wounded and the amazing families that support them.
> 
> *My last testimony provoked claims that disbelief must be willfully suspended in order to accept it. The uniform I wear precludes me from answering such slurs directly, but fortunately the facts about our successes in Iraq do a better job of refuting the naysayers and defeatists than I would.*


Profound or not, I like him! :icon_smile_big:

A few interesting tid-bits about the General



> Long recognized as one of the Army's premier intellectuals, with a PhD from to complement his education
> 
> Petraeus received all three prizes awarded in his class at Ranger School, perhaps the Army's toughest physical and psychological challenge, and he later won the award as the top graduate in the Army Command and General Staff College class of 1983.
> 
> ...


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

ksinc said:


> Huh? Perhaps you can fix the second sentence so your backhand to Gen. Petraeus regarding his profundity is at least intelligible.


Nothing wrong with the structure in the context of this running discussion. This is an internet forum where folks use such things as references and allusions to many previous posts and animated smiles to express meaning instead of elaborating it in words. All fine and dandy. But since it's likely the content and not the structure that is not to your liking you could just say so.

However, since you requested it I am nonetheless happy to put things differently:

"Phinn, your quote from General Butler's writings certainly hits the mark. Soldiers are trained to serve and few of them see all the reasons why they're called to make such sacrifices, including the ultimate one. It's a shame that we won't be seeing any such profound remarks from the yet-to-be-published memoirs of General David Petraeus. Butler was able to see the larger picture in his time while Petraeus sees and reports things in narrower frames, at least publicaly."

Much better, of course.

Although as long as we have Congresspersons speaking the way Ms. Waters did in that hearing all our Generals will always seem in comparison to be exceptionally deep.

Cordially,
A.Q.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

ksinc, thank you for the quotes from the General and the Post piece. The "facts about our success in Iraq" will either crown him in laurels or lead to his personal infamy. Fortunately people other than Ms. Waters will be writing that history.

The Post article is interesting as well. It's cute they manage to call him "obsessive" and note his competitive streak and then go on to give some plausible reasons as to why -- he almost died on several occasions not related to combat. Death does have a way of focusing the mind!

However, a PhD from anyplace guarantees a credential not competence. I side with WFB on this: the first 1,000 people in the Boston telephone directory would make a better government than the entire faculty of Harvard. The principle would probably also apply to making good soldiers.

Cordially,
A.Q.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Quay said:


> Nothing wrong with the structure in the context of this running discussion. This is an internet forum where folks use such things as references and allusions to many previous posts and animated smiles to express meaning instead of elaborating it in words. All fine and dandy. But since it's likely the content and not the structure that is not to your liking you could just say so.
> 
> However, since you requested it I am nonetheless happy to put things differently:
> 
> ...


Ah, thank you.

It's now clear that you pretend to already know what will be in Gen. Petraeus' memoirs and that it will not contain such profound remarks; and that will be new. Rather confusing.

That's what I thought you might be saying, but that was so stupid that I gave you the beneift of the doubt that you were a victim of bad structure.

You, of course, are comparing Butler's contemporaneous and extemporaneous remarks as he testified before congress on CSPAN to his edited and published memoirs when comparing "Petraeus sees and reports things in narrower frames, at least public[a]ly.(SIC)" rather than Butler's big picture?

So, can you also save us the time and answer the General's own question then - "How will it end?"

Just look into your crystal ball or use your time machine; whatever you are using to make your spurilous predictions.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Quay said:


> ksinc, thank you for the quotes from the General and the Post piece. The "facts about our success in Iraq" will either crown him in laurels or lead to his personal infamy. Fortunately people other than Ms. Waters will be writing that history.
> 
> The Post article is interesting as well. It's cute they manage to call him "obsessive" and note his competitive streak and then go on to give some plausible reasons as to why -- he almost died on several occasions not related to combat. Death does have a way of focusing the mind!
> 
> ...


You're Welcome.

Two points:
Princeton is not Harvard. 
It's an indicator of his future profundity when he, in hindsight, analyzes the big picture as Butler did.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

ksinc said:


> Ah, thank you.
> 
> It's now clear that you pretend to already know what will be in Gen. Petraeus' memoirs and that it will not contain such profound remarks; and that will be new. Rather confusing.
> 
> ...


I did not view the hearings on CSPAN nor did I read the transcripts which I admit is unusual as I have a longtime interest in the theater of the absurd. I was talking about his published works including those done for the Army. My apologies for not making that clear.

And thank you for your invitations but I'm not familiar with the level you seek in which you want me to respond. So I shall leave that be.

Cordially,
A.Q.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

ksinc said:


> You're Welcome.
> 
> Two points:
> Princeton is not Harvard.
> It's an indicator of his future profundity when he, in hindsight, analyzes the big picture as Butler did.


WFB was asked many times whether he meant only Harvard or not. He always said he meant any ivy league school, including Princeton and especially his alma mater Yale.

The indicator is, though, a predictor of possible future profundity not a guarantee of it. Many an ivy leaguer has written astoundingly shallow things even when called upon to do much better in the service of the greater good.

Maxine Waters attended California State University, Los Angeles. I'm not sure what that says about anything but it doesn't seem to trend in a good direction.

Cordially,
A.Q.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Quay said:


> WFB was asked many times whether he meant only Harvard or not. He always said he meant any ivy league school, including Princeton and especially his alma mater Yale.
> 
> The indicator is, though, a predictor of possible future profundity not a guarantee of it. Many an ivy leaguer has written astoundingly shallow things even when called upon to do much better in the service of the greater good.
> 
> ...


You were the one making predictions, not me.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

ksinc said:


> You were the making predictions, not me.


Now who has a sentence that needs "fixing?" :devil:

Cordially,
A.Q.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Quay said:


> I did not view the hearings on CSPAN nor did I read the transcripts which I admit is unusual as I have a longtime interest in the theater of the absurd. I was talking about his published works including those done for the Army. My apologies for not making that clear.
> 
> And thank you for your invitations but I'm not familiar with the level you seek in which you want me to respond. So I shall leave that be.
> 
> ...


Uhm, I was asking about Butler (who died in 1940).

Since you're still behind a few levels ... CSPAN was started in 1979 and started covering the Senate live in 1986.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Quay said:


> Now who has a sentence that needs "fixing?" :devil:
> 
> Cordially,
> A.Q.


Well, it's hard to keep up since you refuse to stick with either apples or oranges. The point wasn't that sentence needed fixing, but that your sentence had no clear meaning unless one was using LSD.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

ksinc said:


> Well, it's hard to keep up since you refuse to stick with either apples or oranges.


What has fruit got to do with anything?

Cordially,
A.Q.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Quay said:


> What has fruit got to do with anything?
> 
> Cordially,
> A.Q.


Scroll up and think about it. Try to see the big picture instead of narrow frames. I'll wait here for you ...


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

ksinc said:


> Scroll up and think about it. Try to see the big picture instead of narrow frames. I'll wait here for you ...


What a kind offer but I won't trouble you to put yourself out for me. I'm sure you have better things to do than wait for a dullard to scroll.

Cordially,
A.Q.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Quay said:


> What a kind offer but I won't trouble you to put yourself out for me. I'm sure you have better things to do than wait for a dullard to scroll.
> 
> Cordially,
> A.Q.


Indeed, I do.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> Maybe not 100%, but after decades of the Pahlavi dictatorship you can see why they call us the great satan.


Mossadeq was not as "democratically" elected as many would like to remember. Besides, that was many decades ago. Curious how Japan, Spain, Germany and Mexico have learned to move on after getting the short end of the stick after a war with us and the Iranians have chosen another path. History is an excuse, nothing more.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Oh, really? So you're going to say that Truman wasn't elected either?


No, I'm not going to say that. Just google it and find out for yourself.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Spare me the posturing-- it really is obnoxious. Put up or shut up.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Spare me the posturing-- it really is obnoxious. Put up or shut up.


While his party was a minority, Hitler was appointed to the position of chancellor. How he came to lead the country is a bit more complicated, but it was trickery and thugery, not election.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Hitler originally came to his office by appointment and consensus, and far from being "a minority," the NSDAP was the single largest party and office holder in Germany, which of course did not have a two-party system like we do. Remember that Clinton never got a majority of votes cast-- was he not democratically elected?

Hitler certainly did use trickery and political maneuvering to increase his power. Of course, I don't know if you can name a single politician who hasn't, especially a contemporary...

In fact, it's sad to say, but I would compare Hitler's rise of power _favorably_ to, say, FDR's new deal. Maybe FDR had more popular support, at the beginning, but Hitler actually showed more respect for the law. It's depressing, I know.

But you're also forgetting that Hitler's power was cemented by a number of referendums, which overwhelmingly approved.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

As an aside, how does the subject of the Nazis and/or Hitler manage to invade so many threads in The Interchange? It really seems a peculiar obsession.

Cordially,
Adrian Quay


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

The topic of this thread talks about "Nationalizing/Socializing" an industry, and you wonder how Hitler could come up?


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Hitler originally came to his office by appointment and consensus, and far from being "a minority," the NSDAP was the single largest party and office holder in Germany, which of course did not have a two-party system like we do.


But the way you spoke of it was misleading. The national socialists had about 1/3 of the seats. You know as well as I do that when you say democratically elected most people think that means a majority of the people voted for him and that they occupied a majority of the seats.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Nonsense-- by your standard, most of Europe doesn't have democratically-elected governments. And Clinton, who never got more than half the vote-- was not Democratically elected?


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Nonsense-- by your standard, most of Europe doesn't have democratically-elected governments. And Clinton, who never got more than half the vote-- was not Democratically elected?


Two things. First, I'm saying that what you said was misleading, and I think you misled on purpose. You know what most people were thinking when they read what you said. Second, Hitler was appointed to Chancellor, not elected at all.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

What, you mean like Tony Blair was never "elected"?

This is getting on my nerves.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

This thread delivers. 

Can anyone point out the person that perseverates on tangential points to avoid answering gaffes on the actual topic?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> This thread delivers.
> 
> Can anyone point out *the person* that perseverates on tangential points to avoid answering gaffes on the actual topic?


I couldn't reduce the list to a single person. :devil:


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Wayfarer said:


> This thread delivers.
> 
> Can anyone point out the person that perseverates on tangential points to avoid answering gaffes on the actual topic?


It takes two to perseverate. What's the actual topic? That there are stupid politicians? Is that news to anybody?


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

PedanticTurkey said:


> What, you mean like Tony Blair was never "elected"?
> 
> This is getting on my nerves.


Correct.

I suggest you don't let it bother you.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

marlinspike said:


> It takes two to perseverate. What's the actual topic? That there are stupid politicians? Is that news to anybody?


Apparently. Someone keeps voting for Congresswomen Waters.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

marlinspike said:


> It takes two to perseverate. What's the actual topic? That there are stupid politicians? Is that news to anybody?


Hey, who *elected* you to give your opinion?

:biggrin2:


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

The problem with your continuing semantic argument is that though Hitler may not have been _initially_ elected, his rule was affirmed through overwhelming public support later with the plebiscites.

But I guess those technically weren't elections, so do we have to go there too?


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Wayfarer said:


> Hey, who *elected* you to give your opinion?
> 
> :biggrin2:


The workers of the world united, so I made myself dictator and WILL CRUSH THEM!!!!!


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Wayfarer said:


> This thread delivers.
> 
> Can anyone point out the person that perseverates on tangential points to avoid answering gaffes on the actual topic?


It's good to see that you don't still hold a grudge after your performance in the last thread.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

PedanticTurkey said:


> The problem with your continuing semantic argument is that though Hitler may not have been _initially_ elected, his rule was affirmed through overwhelming public support later with the plebiscites.
> 
> But I guess those technically weren't elections, so do we have to go there too?


I would. You may not.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> It's good to see that you don't still hold a grudge after your performance in the last thread.


LOL. Life without insight must be very nice. Why would I hold a grudge against someone that delivers like you do Peddie?


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Wayfarer said:


> LOL. Life without insight must be very nice. Why would I hold a grudge against someone that delivers like you do Peddie?


Because you're (barely, I guess) smart enough to know that I was right and you were wrong, but don't have the character to admit it?

And it's as plain as your face to everyone here, and you know that as well.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Because you're (barely, I guess) smart enough to know that I was right and you were wrong, but don't have the character to admit it?
> 
> And it's as plain as your face to everyone here, and you know that as well.


Ah Peddie, you still think externalities are manufactured by governments? While interesting, I am afraid you will win no prizes for economic thought. Or wait...are you going to perseverate on a tangential issue to avoid that fact your are daft on the OP again?

I know which one I will *vote for* predicting you do. Peddie, Peddie. You deliver son.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Gee, more naked assertions, posturing, and insults, and yet, still, no substantive argument to be found since you called me out in the other thread and insulted me.

This is getting tiresome.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Gee, more naked assertions, posturing, and insults, and yet no substantive argument to be found since you called me out in the other thread and insulted me.
> 
> This is getting tiresome.


LOL, I linked you to a rather classic treatment of Pigovian taxes, after I introduced the subject. Yes Peddie, no "substantive argument" 

So things for you are tiresome, getting on your nerves...you have it so tough here. Yet you keep posting and making an arse of yourself. You really do deliver Peddie. Were you a, "I'm taking my marbles and going" type kid that just kept playing and getting abused?


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

The article you pasted has absolutely nothing to do with your assertion that the welfare state does not create externalities-- it's a remarkable assertion, too, because I could literally shoot myself in the foot, hobble into a hospital penniless, and the taxpayers would have to foot the bill.

And let's not even forget what really upset me, your silly "neo con" slur. I hope you've at least taken the opportunity to learn the most basic and fundamental distinction between neoconservatives and classic conservatives like myself.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> you still think externalities are manufactured by governments? While interesting, I am afraid you will win no prizes for economic thought.


PM sent.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> The article you pasted has absolutely nothing to do with your assertion that the welfare state does not create externalities-- it's a remarkable assertion, too, because I could literally shoot myself in the foot, hobble into a hospital penniless, and the taxpayers would have to foot the bill.


You are consistent. Consistently faulty in your thinking.



PedanticTurkey said:


> ... and classic conservatives like myself.


I know classic conservatives, and you are no classic conservative. You have some twisted dogma going Peddie that blocks everything but your divinely revealed dogma.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

More insults, no substance from the guy who doesn't know what a neoconservative is. Shock, surprise!


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Like many here, I lived during OPECs first game. Gone were full service gasoline stations and soon the huge Chrysler, Cadillac, Pontiac Bonnevilles et al and the beginning of Toyota & friends ascendancy in the car market. I remember the 5 gallon limit, the coded flags at gasoline stations and the infamous double nickle speed limit. Detroit made a feeble attempt at Deisel passenger cars to tap into that cheap energy source. And people talked of mass transit and alternative energies so this would never happen to us again.And now almost what, 3-4 decades decades later America is blasting down a crumbling highway infrastructure at a safe and sane 85 MPH in cancer cell SUVs that make those old 60s canoes look lithe and nimble in comparison. Only this time we have SUPPORT OUR TROOP ribbons as Soccer Moms driving Tiffanys one block for riding lessons on yet a more ancient transportation medium get stuck in gridlock and fume about it on a cellphone and ,oh, why are we in Iraq with all that OIL that is OURS and I am going to listen more carefully to Oprah about these things. We don't need to Nationalise OIL. We need to enfranchise factory farm animals to raise our collective consciousness and memory as a Nation a few IQ points.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Hitler originally came to his office by appointment and consensus, and far from being "a minority," the NSDAP was the single largest party and office holder in Germany, which of course did not have a two-party system like we do. Remember that Clinton never got a majority of votes cast-- was he not democratically elected?
> 
> Hitler certainly did use trickery and political maneuvering to increase his power. Of course, I don't know if you can name a single politician who hasn't, especially a contemporary...
> 
> ...


You appear to have a very strange view of history and the world.

A couple of things:

The US does not require a 51% majority of all votes for a president to be elected, the US requires a plurality of votes to win a presidential election which Clinton won easily both times.

From Wikipedia: "Clinton won the 1992 presidential election (43.0% of the vote) against Republican incumbent George H. W. Bush (37.4% of the vote) and billionaire populist H. Ross Perot, who ran as an independent (18.9%)" "In the 1996 presidential election, Clinton was re-elected, receiving 49.2% of the popular vote over Republican Bob Dole (40.7% of the popular vote) and Reform candidate Ross Perot (8.4% of the popular vote)"

Hitler having respect for the law??? (I guess if you make your own laws you can respect them but he certainly didn't respect any others). It is really strange to see anyone try to put Hitler in a positive light, but then judging from your other comments here....


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

The reason I said that is because Hitler was at least honest about what he was doing. FDR would say he was doing one thing, and in reality do the opposite. What did he say, that our Constitution "has proved itself the most marvelously elastic compilation of rules of government ever written"? I imagine that appointing a whole new Supreme Court over four terms helped. FDR didn't bother to amend the Constitution, like Hitler did; he just had his lawyers reinterpret it. What does that do for the rule of law?

And so when the war was over it was easy to purge Germany of Hitler's abuses, but FDR's are with us today, as you'll note every payday when his "elastic" interpretation of the Constitution takes a third of your paycheck.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

MichaelS said:


> The US does not require a 51% majority of all votes for a president to be elected, the US requires a plurality of votes to win a presidential election which Clinton won easily both times.
> 
> From Wikipedia: "Clinton won the 1992 presidential election (43.0% of the vote) against Republican incumbent George H. W. Bush (37.4% of the vote) and billionaire populist H. Ross Perot, who ran as an independent (18.9%)" "In the 1996 presidential election, Clinton was re-elected, receiving 49.2% of the popular vote over Republican Bob Dole (40.7% of the popular vote) and Reform candidate Ross Perot (8.4% of the popular vote)"


Huh???

Where do you get that a plurality is required in a US Presidential Election?

Put the Wiki down and step back! :devil:

Al Gore won the popular vote with a 48.38% plurality in 2000 (FEC: link) and still lost the election in the electoral college 266-271 (538-1).

https://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm

The nation-wide popular vote means ZERO whether it is a majority or a plurality.

Bush is not the first and probably not the last to lose the popular vote and win the Presidency.

Even on a state-by-state basis, only 38 states legally restrict delegates to voting for the winner of the popular vote.

This is why some Dems & bloggers are down on Obama and afraid of McCain-Romney even though Romney wasn't a hugely popular national candidate. He helps win pivotal electoral college states for McCain. Although Romney doesn't add much national polling support to McCain and McCain-Romney vs. Obama-Unknown actually polls lower than McCain-Unknown vs. Obama-Unknown. Particularly, because the Romney name is big in Michigan (he beat McCain there) and Obama and the Dems screwed the pooch in Michigan with the delegates. McCain-Romney is therefore highest polling combination in the field if you break it down by states and electoral votes. Rove 'el architecto'  has been saying this for weeks, if not months. The electoral college math favors McCain-Romney. Only Hillary upsets the electoral college map and the math. IIRC she beats McCain pretty badly.

Don't take my or Rove's word for it, try a Huffington blogger:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-boyce/barack-obama-popular-vot_b_89525.html


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Technically, it's the States that vote for the president. I don't know if there's anything (or, at least, anything I would consider to be Constitutional) that prevents the state legislatures from directing their electors to vote against their state's popular vote.

In fact, I don't know if a popular vote is required at all, as a number of states didn't have one in the early days of the republic.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Technically, it's the States that vote for the president. I don't know if there's anything (or, at least, anything I would consider to be Constitutional) that prevents the state legislatures from directing their delegates to vote against their state's popular vote.
> 
> In fact, I don't know if a popular vote is required at all, as a number of states didn't have one in the early days of the republic.


^^ "38 states legally restrict delegates to voting for the winner of the popular vote."

Once pledged delegates must vote for whom they are pledged or they are "faithless."


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Unless it's in the state constitutions, that legal restriction is only as good as the state government's willingness to leave the law intact.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

ksinc said:


> Huh???
> 
> Where do you get that a plurality is required in a US Presidential Election?
> 
> ...


You are of course correct and I actually do know how presidents are "elected" in the US. My only excuse as poor as it is, was it was too early in the morning and I was more responding to the Hitler issues. (Wikipedia as the source of all knowledge did not say a plurality was required in the US, I mis-quoted).


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

One of the things that separates a republic from a democracy is the indirect way of doing things. Our Republic, like the Wiemar Republic, was designed and intended to frustrate ambitious politicians, and indeed the will of the majority...

FDR are Hitler are similar in many ways, but, like I said, they did differ in their approaches to breaking down the structural protections that stood in their way. Both brazenly broke the law when it suited them, although Hitler ultimately went to the trouble to actually change the law to make his actions legal. 

FDR just had his lawyers and judges declare that what he was doing had been legal all along, without bothering to amend the Constitution. To this day, we pretend like we're still following it.

But we're not.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> FDR are Hitler are similar in many ways...


I am the first one to indulge in a little, "FDR ruined the country" type talk, but to compare him to Hitler? 

No doubt this will be met with predictable responses from Peddie, but really, one of history's greatest evil dictators is "similar in many ways" to FDR? No, as much as I hate the "Raw Deal", that's just hyperbole.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> I am the first one to indulge in a little, "FDR ruined the country" type talk, but to compare him to Hitler?
> 
> No doubt this will be met with predictable responses from Peddie, but really, one of history's greatest evil dictators is "similar in many ways" to FDR? No, as much as I hate the "Raw Deal", that's just hyperbole.


They were both born in the 1880s and died in April, 1945.

They were both extremely influential idiots.

They were both saddled with nutcase women.

They were both propogandists.

:icon_smile_big:


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Let's see-- contemporaries, wartime leaders, "presidents for life" who died in office within a few months of each other, who got their political power from the depression, who saw the solution to their respective country's problems as greater centralization and national/federal power, who were socialists, who broke down the structural barriers in their respective governments through less-than-scrupulous means.

Saying that FDR can't be compared to Hitler is just nonsense.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Let's see-- contemporaries, wartime leaders, "presidents for life" who died in office within a few months of each other, who got their political power from the depression, who saw the solution to their respective country's problems as greater centralization and national/federal power, who were socialists, who broke down the structural barriers in their respective governments through less-than-scrupulous means.
> 
> Saying that FDR can't be compared to Hitler is just nonsense.


Unfortunately, I have been stuck on the side of PdTk.

FDR does have some similarities with Hitler.

The New Deal cannot be compared to the Holocaust; which are what has become synonomous with both men.

And now; with a click of the heels it's back to the land of rational efficiency ... "there's no place like home. there's no place like home. there's ..." :devil:


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Let's see-- contemporaries, wartime leaders, "presidents for life" who died in office within a few months of each other, who got their political power from the depression, who saw the solution to their respective country's problems as greater centralization and national/federal power, who were socialists, who broke down the structural barriers in their respective governments through less-than-scrupulous means.
> 
> *Saying that FDR can't be compared to Hitler is just nonsense.*


I wish we had a really good emoticon for this. One where the little guy is busting out laughing so hard he's crying.

Ummm, invading mutliple countries? Attempted extermination of everyone from the Jews and the gypsies to homosexuals? World dominiation plans?

Hyperbole Peddie, hyperbole.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Well, FDR sided with Stalin, who was a mass-murdering, neutral-country-invading son of a *****, at least as bad as Hitler, and almost as culpable for starting the damn war in the first place. He handed over Eastern Europe to the bastard, and indirectly caused the fall of China to the communists and the wars in Korea and Vietnam.

And, when FDR decided on "Germany First!," Stalin was an accomplished mass-murderer. Hitler wasn't much of one (yet). How's that for the man's legacy?

And I don't have to give up a third of my paycheck to Hitler's legacy every two weeks, either.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)




----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> And I don't have to give up a third of my paycheck to Hitler's legacy every two weeks, either.


One third of your paycheque goes to Social Security? I mean, FDR did not start the income tax. He did not start Medicare. He did not start state and local income taxes. His only legacy I can see on my paycheque is social security.

Hmm, more hyperbole Peddie? Sure seems so. Or just plain wrong. Your choice.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Wayfarer said:


> One third of your paycheque goes to Social Security? I mean, FDR did not start the income tax. He did not start Medicare. He did not start state and local income taxes. His only legacy I can see on my paycheque is social security.
> 
> Hmm, more hyperbole Peddie? Sure seems so.


Nope. FDR is the one who made the welfare state "constitutional." Without him, the "Great Society," "Part D," and everything in between would not have been possible.

It's not hyperbole, if you're well-informed enough to understand it.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Nope. FDR is the one who made the welfare state "constitutional." Without him, the "Great Society," "Part D," and everything in between would not have been possible.
> 
> It's not hyperbole, if you're well-informed enough to understand it.


Peddie, Peddie, lame attempt. For the one third number you quoted, you will have to maintain that Social Security and Medicare taxes cause 33% of your gross pay to be removed. That is clearly wrong.

Income taxes taxes of the federal, state, and local type all have nothing to do with FDR.

You lose. Buh bi Peddie


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

MichaelS said:


> You are of course correct and I actually do know how presidents are "elected" in the US. My only excuse as poor as it is, was it was too early in the morning and I was more responding to the Hitler issues. (Wikipedia as the source of all knowledge did not say a plurality was required in the US, I mis-quoted).


Hey, I understand. No excuse needed. None of us have evolved perfectly!


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Wayfarer said:


> Peddie, Peddie, lame attempt. For the one third number you quoted, you will have to maintain that Social Security and Medicare taxes cause 33% of your gross pay to be removed. That is clearly wrong.
> 
> Income taxes taxes of the federal, state, and local type all have nothing to do with FDR.
> 
> You lose. Buh bi Peddie


Oh, please. You're downright pathetic and _everyone_ can see it. Go play by yourself if you can't fit in with the adults.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Nope. FDR is the one who made the welfare state "constitutional." Without him, the "Great Society," "Part D," and everything in between would not have been possible.
> 
> It's not hyperbole, if you're well-informed enough to understand it.


:idea: It's like that movie _Pay It Forward!_, right?


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Never seen it, unfortunately. 

Maybe if I had 1/3 of the time I spend working back, I could watch more-- thanks, FDR!


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Oh, please. You're downright pathetic and _everyone_ can see it. Go play by yourself if you can't fit in with the adults.












This is great Peddie. I am pathetic because I will not believe FDR is responsible for 33% of our paycheques getting deducted? Now, I do not know what sort of welfare to work program you had, but Social Security + Medicare deductions =! 33%. FDR did not burden us with the various income taxes.

So Peddie, explain to me where that 33% comes from that you claim FDR burdened us with. Oh wait...you cannot :teacha:


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

So to summarize this thread Peddie style:

FDR = Hitler lite
33% deducted from your pay = Social Security + Medicare
Wayfarer = pathetic for pointing that out to Peddie.

:icon_smile_big:


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Wayfarer said:


> This is great Peddie. I am pathetic because I will not believe FDR is responsible for 33% of our paycheques getting deducted? Now, I do not know what sort of welfare to work program you had, but Social Security + Medicare deductions =! 33%. FDR did not burden us with the various income taxes.
> 
> So Peddie, explain to me where that 33% comes from that you claim FDR burdened us with. Oh wait...you cannot :teacha:


I can tell you where the 33% comes from, I just wish I could tell you where it goes. But that's government for you.

FDR did not create the income tax, true, but the income tax, like all other taxes, was originally supposed to only be permissibly used to raise money for legitimate government aims, those within the enumerated powers of Congress.

FDR fixed that, though, when his lawyers turned the "taxing power" into the "spending power." It turns out that our government of limited and enumerated powers can tax for and spend money on anything it wants, without regard to any express grant of power!

But that's really just the tip of the iceberg.

And, for the record, I said that FDR's _legacy_ was high taxes, and that is without a doubt true. And considering that I've spent a half-dozen posts ranting about the same subject, you've got no excuse for not getting it.

But that's okay.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> *And, for the record, I said that FDR's legacy was high taxes,* and that is without a doubt true. And considering that I've spent a half-dozen posts ranting about the same subject, you've got no excuse for not getting it.


Actually, what you said was:



PedanticTurkey said:


> And I don't have to give up a third of my paycheck to Hitler's legacy every two weeks, either.


Implying it was FDR's legacy that takes a third from your pay. I think at this point, even you have to admit that is false. Well then again....


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

No. FDR's legacy is big government, and big government means high taxes. This is not rocket science.

It's like your objecting to Hitler's legacy being the Holocaust, because Hitler didn't actually kill anyone himself. Wonderful argument you've got there.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> No. FDR's legacy is big government, and big government means high taxes. This is not rocket science.
> 
> *It's like your objecting to Hitler's legacy being the Holocaust, because Hitler didn't actually kill anyone himself. Wonderful argument you've got there.*


No you are really losing it. I never said anything remotely like that. I am getting more worried about you Peddie. Can you please point out where I said anything remotely like your above claim? Or just more of your idiotic, delusional assertions?

Also, to be pedantic to you Peddie, you are attempting one lame arsed _ad hoc_ rescue on FDR and your one third statement. Keep at it though Peddie!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> No you are really losing it. I never said anything remotely like that. I am getting more worried about you Peddie. Can you please point out where I said anything remotely like your above claim? Or just more of your idiotic, delusional assertions?
> 
> Also, to be pedantic to you Peddie, you are attempting one lame arsed _ad hoc_ rescue on FDR and your one third statement. Keep at it though Peddie!












OUCH!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Implying it was FDR's legacy that takes a third from your pay. I think at this point, even you have to admit that is false. Well then again....


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

ksinc said:


>


LOL, someone is having too much fun with emoticons


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> LOL, someone is having too much fun with emoticons


I've lost my mind studying ... I have 12 more hours to study if I don't sleep tonight. I might do 2-4 hours of sleep. I've gotten 4 hrs each night all week.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

ksinc said:


> I've lost my mind studying ... I have 12 more hours to study if I don't sleep tonight. I might do 2-4 hours of sleep. I've gotten 4 hrs each night all week.


I know you, you are going to do fine. My philosophy was always a good night's sleep beats last minute studying. Something tells me you are on Red Bull and espresso though


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Pedantic, I don't know what part of the south you reside in. But if it is by chance the former territory of the Five Civilised Tribes I want my share back, being of Choctaw ancestry. You want to beat on a man dead half a century? Heres a shovel, go dig him up and tell him yourself. Personlly I'm just going to desecrate currency with Andrew Jackson on it. Problem though, I'm all out until my part time job this weekend. But you give me the adress You will vacate for me and I'll send you that script, filthy lucre as it will be. Maybe you can go to the pound and watch a dog nuetered and adopt him. You can name him FDR and kick him around.Any other unresolved grievances; Attilla the Hun, Marshall Ney, Garibaldi?


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

My problem is not so much with what FDR did, it's with the fact that we haven't yet repudiated it.

The Russians have repudiated Stalin, the Germans Hitler, the Brits kicked Churchill out before the war was even over. But here we still are, stuck in FDR's welfare state.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> I know you, you are going to do fine. My philosophy was always a good night's sleep beats last minute studying. Something tells me you are on Red Bull and espresso though


I'm not from the Red Bull generation ... coffee and marble cheesecake. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> It's like your objecting to Hitler's legacy being the Holocaust, because Hitler didn't actually kill anyone himself. Wonderful argument you've got there.


Still waiting on this one Peddie. Exactly where did I say anything that even remotely resembles this?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I'm trying real hard to recall a more rediculous argument. Ah yes, I was using up my G.I. Bill getting an AA in Ag Science. Car was in the shop and I took the bus. These two 'guys' sat across from me and it didn't take pocket protectors or picking noses to drive a pin in each and with india ink label each one Californias Nerdensis. They had to be in their late 20s at least and had this game board of the North Sea dotted with 1/25000 scale lead, waterline ship models of the german and british fleets at Jutland. And they got into an argument about some manuever that exploded into tiny lead ships flying all over, one ( I think the Osterland) into my chest. And within seconds both rather obese lads were on all fours,butt cracks to the wind, crying and frantically retrieving their fleets ( those miniatures are rediculously expensive) and upsetting all these middle aged jewish ladies and latina domestics who thought they were sex perverts. Bus driver pulls over at the very next stop and tosses them both off. I thought one was having an epileptic fit, crying he was short one light cruiser. The doors folded close like a North Sea fogbank and we lurched forward. I sat there, admiring Imperial German Kreigsmarine design. Yea, I think that was about as rediculous as FDR compared to Hitler.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Sorry, Kav, the whole time I was reading your stream-of-consciousness rambling, I expected to see, "and then someone hurled a dictionary, which missed its intended target and struck me, wherein I learned how to spell 'ridiculous.'"


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> My problem is not so much with what FDR did, it's with the fact that we haven't yet repudiated it.
> 
> The Russians have repudiated Stalin, the Germans Hitler, the Brits kicked Churchill out before the war was even over. But here we still are, stuck in FDR's welfare state.


So, then why not move to Russia, Germany or the UK if things are so much better there? Isn't that what you neocons are always telling lefties to do? IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT HERE IN THE US of A, GET THE HELL OUT! Or you can just go on gnashing your teeth. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> So, then why not move to Russia, Germany or the UK if things are so much better there? Isn't that what you neocons are always telling lefties to do? IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT HERE IN THE US of A, GET THE HELL OUT! Or you can just go on gnashing your teeth. :icon_smile_big:


That's sort of like asking, if the jobs are being shipped overseas why don't the people in those jobs go with them, isn't it?


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

ksinc said:


> That's sort of like asking, if the jobs are being shipped overseas why don't the people in those jobs go with them, isn't it?


Touché


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

Three significant legacies from the FDR era. Some good, some not, just like any human endeavor. Without the first, the map of Europe today, would be one that would likely not allow the inhabitants the freedom that they enjoy, today.

In 1938, FDR was surrounded by isolationists that wanted to have absolutely nothing to do with stopping the aggression of Hitler, in Europe. The Republican Congress was totally isolationist. Lindbergh was the most popular voice in America, and he was championing the "America First Party" which was isolationist, to the core. Joseph Kennedy, who was the ambassador to the UK was very much for appeasing Hitler, as was the King of England. The upper classes in the UK largely favored Hitler, and thought that he would defeat the Bolsheviks, that they considered a much greater threat to their privileged life styles. 

Hitler saw the path to controlling Europe to be a relatively easy task, and it would have been, except for Churchill, and FDR. FDR realized that war with Hitler was inevitable, and if Europe was under Nazi control, we would have no way to bomb the third Reich. The longest range bomber that we had at that time was the B-17.

The B-17 was of no use without a base in England.

Roosevelt, alone and with great risk supported the UK. He felt at the time that the "lend lease" arrangement that he made to furnish destroyers to the UK, was an impeachable offence, and he was willing to take that chance.

On the other hand, those that bring up the economic legacy, also have a point. Harry Hopkins was FDRs most trusted adviser, and his famous advice was "Mr President; tax, tax, tax, spend, spend, spend, elect, elect, elect."

Roosevelt, and most politicians of both parties have taken this to heart, and have put us well on the way to socialism, in the years since then.

The most insidious thing that occurred, was when Congress was asked to authorize withholding of income taxes from individual tax payers.

Most Americans today, aren't remotely aware of how much they pay in taxes. They look only at the net that they get, and ignore the deductions.

If American taxpayers had to write an annual or quarterly check for income taxes, there would be a lot more resistance to our present profligate federal and state spending.

Sadly, most people look at income tax withholding like a Christmas club, and are pleased as punch to get a refund. They have no idea what that money would have earned had they been allowed to keep it in a savings account, for a year.

FDR: a cost for putting us on the path to socialism, very costly; Freedom - priceless. Take your pick.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Intrepid said:


> The most insidious thing that occurred, was when Congress was asked to authorize withholding of income taxes from individual tax payers.
> 
> Most Americans today, aren't remotely aware of how much they pay in taxes. They look only at the net that they get, and ignore the deductions.
> 
> ...


"Ain't that the truth! "


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

ksinc said:


> That's sort of like asking, if the jobs are being shipped overseas why don't the people in those jobs go with them, isn't it?


Exactly, and I mean exactly, what I did bud! :teacha:


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Sorry, Kav, the whole time I was reading your stream-of-consciousness rambling, I expected to see, "and then someone hurled a dictionary, which missed its intended target and struck me, wherein I learned how to spell 'ridiculous.'"


Yet still no answer to your "ridiculous" claims of an assertion I never made. I guess this shall just be ignored forever?


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

ksinc said:


> Hey, I understand. No excuse needed. None of us have evolved perfectly!


Hopefully I am still evolving!


----------

