Get ready for the Obama takeover

[sprinter]

nerd-in-chief

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...al_gam_mostview

[Ralph Greene]

I'm not too happy with all this deficit spending myself. But a few months ago we were only a couple days from your visa card not working, your bank not taking your payroll check if it wasn't drawn on it, the whole check clearing system was freezing up, and banks were refusing to make over night loans to each other. The commercial paper market, where big compamies get their operating capital (and payroll), was freezing up. Momey market funds that buy this commercial paper ware breaking below $1 per share from redemptions and frozen paper markets. Normal credit making and mortgage product markets had already froze up. Clearly.....traditional conservative approaches to our system and markets were not going to get us out of this. Most of the public did not even know this was occurring, nor how bad it got. I know beause I used to trade futures contracts on all this stuff, and still somewhat follow these markets.

 

Some people stepped up with ideas that may work. At least they stepped up. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt. Congress went along, because they knew they had few choices. It's easy to be critical, especially if you don't know how bad it got, and how close to the brink we were.

Edited January 9, 2009 by Ralph Greene

[sprinter]

I'm not too happy with all this deficit spending myself. But a few months ago we were only a couple days from your visa card not working, your bank not taking your payroll check if it wasn't drawn on it, the whole check clearing system was freezing up, and banks were refusing to make over night loans to each other. The commercial paper market, where big compamies get their operating capital (and payroll), was freezing up. Momey market funds that buy this commercial paper ware breaking below $1 per share from redemptions and frozen paper markets. Normal credit making and mortgage product markets had already froze up. Clearly.....traditional conservative approaches to our system and markets were not going to get us out of this. Most of the public did not even know this was occurring, nor how bad it got. I know beause I used to trade futures contracts on all this stuff, and still somewhat follow these markets.

 

Some people stepped up with ideas that may work. At least they stepped up. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt. Congress went along, because they knew they had few choices. It's easy to be critical, especially if you don't know how bad it got, and how close to the brink we were.

 

 

They have only prolonged the inevitable collapse.

[Bored of Pisteon]

I just want to know where all the "change" is going to be that he ran on. Looking at his cabinet, it's entirely S.O.S.

 

Especially since they are all Clinton people.

 

You know as well as I do. Those two fuckers (Bill & Hillary) will be running things in the Obama administration.

[Ralph Greene]

They have only prolonged the inevitable collapse.

 

Not true....While not much of this spending has made it's way down to the consumer yet, the bond markets are working again. Banks are accepting checks from each other's customers again. Spreads between bids and asks are shrinking. Corporate bonds that at one time traded as low as roughly 20 cents on the dollar, are now trading higher with good volume. Commercial paper markets are working again, so big companies like Ford Motor Credit and GMAC can make loans to credit worthy borrowers. There is no doubt some more pain ahead, but collaspe not eminent now.

 

AIG....The largest insurance holding company in the world is solvent again. Among other things, AIG insures Minicipal bonds for cities, counties , and states. Now these same cities, counties and states won't have their bonds go into default because the terms called for insurance. If all these bonds had defaulted, then all the cities, counties, and states would have faced mandatory huge tax increases called for in the bond fine print, or would have faced bankruptcy. This is a major big deal the public didn't understand. But Paulson and company did. The government has been buying some mortgage bonds, and will soon be stepping up this program, in a effort to lower interest rates in the skittish mortgage market, bring new conforming mortgage rates down to the 4-4 1/2% range, and get the real estate market going again. The Treasury should make a lot of money on these bonds, buying them below 50 cents on the dollar, and selling them some day for 80-90 cents on the dollar. A lot of the money spent on TARP wil come back.

 

Much of the proposed new spending will be as investments in our infastructure. If you understand the principals of accounting, you know that the liability incurred by spendingf on an asset is offset by the value of that asset. IE....if you spend a trillion dollars on a road system, you have the road system as an asset forever. So infastructure spending will create assets for our country, so is not as detrimental as social and wefare spending. Administration knows this, which is why the jobs program will involve infastructure spending.

 

Obama and team has just announced a $300 billion tax decrease for business, encouraging them to spend on their business, and to begin some hiring. This money (tax decreases) can go into the economy much faster than any other kinds of spending, and is smart thing to do. Politically smart too, as Republicans will have to go along with this. After all, this is what they said they wanted.

Edited January 9, 2009 by Ralph Greene

[Trimdingman]

I don't buy all that brain wahed nonsense.

 

Being retired, I have the time to actually listen to what Obama says, not what some of you say he says. There is a big diffeence. You guys must be quoting some communist newspapers. or Fox owned newspapers.

 

I'm an old republican, and I am very optimistic about this coming administration. So far, they are taking suprisingly centrist positions. In all my years of being part of the political process, I have never seen a new administration try as hard to "reach across the isle" and embrace some republican ideas as this new Obama administration. Give him a break. He's not even in office yet, and you are already critizing him.

 

It's true, he is generally more liberal than I am. But so what, it's their turn to run the country. You think he can do worse, or hurt our standing around the world any worse? And....I'm all for taking those fake assult rifles out of your hands. Too many of them wind up being converted back to automatic, and hunters sure don't need them. And....Do you really think an armed bunch of citizens can protect the US from a foreign assult? About all our citizen guns do is shoot a few armed home invaders, shoot a few convenience store robbers, and kill a whole bunch of careless citizens who don't know how to use a firearm properly. I think guy laws should be tougher, with proof of knowledge you know how to use them. And sure I know the argument about criminals can get them easy. I also know in my neighborhood, you just can't allow some nervous neighbor to fire his 357 down the street at some imagined intruder....with the bullet going thru about 3 houses. BTW....I own a shotgun, and know how to use it.

 

 

The way Bush got trashed during his administration by the liberals was shameful. Now the Democrats are offering an olive branch. Fat chance. They started it with Nixon's Watergate, then Ford's stumble, Reagan's senility, read my lips, and WMDs. Now they want to shake hands and be nice. Well put on that blue dress with the white trim and light up that greasy cigar if you think that is going to happen.

Edited January 9, 2009 by Trimdingman

[Ron W.]

The way Bush got trashed during his administration by the liberals was shameful. Now the Democrats are offering an olive branch. Fat chance. They started it with Nixon's Watergate, then Ford's stumble, Reagan's senility, read my lips, and WMDs. Now they want to shake hands and be nice. Well put on that blue dress with the white trim and light up that greasy cigar if you think that is going to happen.

 

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090109/...5KdUVarKJQDW7oF

 

Congressional Democrats are firing a surprising number of unexpectedly sharp brushback pitches at President-elect Barack Obama and his staff over policy plans and personnel picks, making him look embattled during what was to be a triumphant debut week in Washington.

 

 

Obama ended his troubled search for CIA director by naming Leon Panetta. The immediate response: Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) fired off a statement of disapproval, giving a negative tilt to most coverage of the pick.

 

As Obama makes plans to roll out a sweeping economic plan, Majority Leader Harry Reid gave interviews with Politico and The Hill newspaper and made clear he won't take marching orders from Obama. "I don't work for" Obama, he told us.

 

Even before Obama’s plan was formally unveiled, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi made plain her displeasure with parts of Obama’s emerging fiscal plan, which she believes does not move fast enough to raise taxes.

 

-----------------------------------------

[Trimdingman]

glad i am a fascist not a communist, i read some where that the commies are behind feminism, and the green movement.

 

Fascism and Communism are just two names for the same thing. They both advocate Big Government. The feminists did not stand up for womens' rights in the Muslim countries where women are stoned to death for adultry because they love dictatorships, and they could not be seen as siding with their own government. The greens also will not condemn their beloved commies in China who are polluting worse than anybody. They are all cut from the same cloth, and only a brainwashed socialist can't see it.

Edited January 9, 2009 by Trimdingman

[the_spaniard]

Cautiously optimistic...but guarded.

 

I have been a gun owner all my life and enjoy shooting. I am not a supporter nor member of the NRA nor do I believe that any idiot should be able to buy an assault rifle. It should be difficult to own a gun period, and there should be psych test in there as well as the basic firearm knowledge and safety exam.No one NEEDS to own an AK-47 or SKS with a 29-round banana magazine. No reason for it. A friend of mine gave me an Italian AP80 (think AK, but in .22LR caliber) as a birthday present years ago. No way I need a weapon like that, so I gave it to the only other person I would trust with it - my father. Currently I'm down to two shotguns. A small Mossberg 500 and an old Iver Johnson single-shot. You can't really beat a shotgun for home defense anyway. So I'd love to see an assault rifle ban, as it wouldn't affect my future purchases.

 

As far as citizens being able to defend their shores against a foreign invader, I'd like to think that were true....but this isn't Red Dawn. In my experience some 40% of gun owners are safe, responsible owners. The rest are a bunch of idiots I wouldn't trust to make me a ham sandwich - much less count on them in a life/death scenario, or repel any invaders. Just owning a gun isn't enough...you need leadership, organization, and tactics.

[sprinter]

Not true....While not much of this spending has made it's way down to the consumer yet, the bond markets are working again. Banks are accepting checks from each other's customers again. Spreads between bids and asks are shrinking. Corporate bonds that at one time traded as low as roughly 20 cents on the dollar, are now trading higher with good volume. Commercial paper markets are working again, so big companies like Ford Motor Credit and GMAC can make loans to credit worthy borrowers. There is no doubt some more pain ahead, but collaspe not eminent now.

 

 

 

Really? This will be happening here soon too. At that point the FED will monetize the debt by being the only buyer of our government bonds. And then it will be off to the races. How far will we surpass Germany during its hyperinflationary period after WWI? All the money given out is going to Paulson’s buddies to insure they provide him employment in less than a month. Trickle down will not work.

 

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/16c7ceba-dcbe-11...0077b07658.html

A German sovereign bond auction failed on Wednesday as investors shunned one of the most liquid and safe assets in the world in a warning for governments seeking to raise record amounts of debt to stimulate slowing economies.

 

The fate of the first eurozone bond auction of 2009 signals trouble ahead as governments around the world hope to issue an estimated $3,000bn in debt this year, three times more than in 2008.

 

The 10-year bonds failed to attract enough bids to reach the €6bn the German government wanted. Bids of €5.24bn, a cover of only 87 per cent, amounted to the second worst auction on record in terms of demand.

 

Such developments were rare before the credit crisis. Before the seven German bond auctions that failed last year, the last German bond auction to fail was in July 2000 after the dotcom crash.

 

Analysts said the vast amount of supply is deterring investors and a growing number of countries, including those with deep and mature bond markets, such as Germany, the UK and Italy, are struggling to attract buyers.

 

The Netherlands has seen bond auctions fail, the UK and Italy have been forced to offer investors higher yields to meet their auction targets, while Spain and Belgium have cancelled offerings because of a lack of demand.

 

I am betting Peter is closer to being right than you.

 

Peter Schiff, president of Euro Pacific Capital

http://www.europac.net/externalframeset.as...me&id=15132

A few weeks ago when the Fed announced a strategy designed to bring down long-term interest and home mortgage rates through unlimited Treasury bond purchases, government debt staged a spectacular rally. To the unschooled market observer, the spike may be difficult to understand. After all, why would the value of Treasury bonds rise while their underlying credit quality is deteriorating faster than Bernie Madoff’s social schedule? The move is actually a perfect illustration of the tried and true Wall Street strategy of “buy the rumor and sell the fact”.

 

If it is well known that Fed will be a big purchaser of Treasuries, those buying now will be positioned to unload their holdings when the buying spree begins. If the Fed pays higher prices in the future, traders can earn riskless speculative profits. If the traders lever up their positions, as many are likely doing, even small profits can turn unto huge windfalls.

 

The downside of course, is that all of the demand for Treasuries is artificial. Treasuries are now in the hands of speculators looking to sell, not investors looking to hold. These players are analogous to the mid-decade condo-flippers who flocked to new developments for quick profits. They did not intend to occupy their properties, but rather flip them to future buyers. Once these properties came back on the market, condo prices collapsed, as developers were forced to compete for new sales with their former customers.

 

This is precisely what will happen with Treasuries. Just as the U.S. government issues mountains of new debt to finance the multi-trillion annual deficits planned by the Obama Administration, speculative holders of existing debt will be offering their bonds for sale as well. In order to prevent a complete collapse in the bond prices the Fed will be forced to significantly increase its buying.

 

However, since the only way the Fed can buy bonds is by printing money, the more bonds they buy the more inflation they will create. As inflation diminishes the investment value of low-yielding Treasuries, such a scenario will kick off a downward spiral. But the more active the Fed becomes in their quest to prop up bond prices, the bigger the incentive to hit the Fed’s bid. The result will be that all Treasuries sold will be purchased by the Fed. But with the resulting frenzy in the Treasury market, and with inflation kicking into high gear, we can expect that demand for other debt classes that the Fed is not backstopping, such as corporate, municipal and agency debt, to fall through the floor, pushing up interest rates across the board.

 

In order to “save” the economy from these high rates the Fed will then have to expand its purchases to include all forms of debt. If that happens, run-away inflation will quickly turn into hyper-inflation, and our currency will be worthless and our economy left in ruins.

 

To avoid this nightmare scenario, the Fed should pull out of the bond market before it’s too late and let prices fall to where real buyers, those willing to hold to maturity, re-enter the market. Given how high inflation will likely be by the time this happens, my guess is that long-term Treasury yields will have to rise well into the double digits to clear the market.

 

But we should know that the bursting of the bond market bubble will have even more dire consequences than the bursting of prior bubbles in stocks and real estate. Significantly higher interest rates and inflation that will result will severely compound the current problems. Imagine how much worse our economy would be if we faced double digit interest rates? In addition, not only will homeowners be confronted with record high mortgage rates, but the Government will be staring at trillion dollar annual interest payments on the national debt, making interest by far the single largest line item in the Federal budget. Just like homeowners who relied on teaser rates, the Government will face a similar problem when all its low-yielding short-term debt matures.

 

The grim reality of course is that when the real estate bubble burst the Government was able to “bail-out” private parties. However, when the bond market bubble bursts, it will be the U.S. Government itself that will be in need of the mother of all bailouts. If U.S. taxpayers or foreign creditors are unwilling or unable to pony up, and if the nightmare hyper-inflation scenario is to be avoided, default will be the only option. If misery really does love company, Bernie Madoff’s clients might finally find some comfort.

[fmccap]

Not true....While not much of this spending has made it's way down to the consumer yet, the bond markets are working again. Banks are accepting checks from each other's customers again. Spreads between bids and asks are shrinking. Corporate bonds that at one time traded as low as roughly 20 cents on the dollar, are now trading higher with good volume. Commercial paper markets are working again, so big companies like Ford Motor Credit and GMAC can make loans to credit worthy borrowers. There is no doubt some more pain ahead, but collaspe not eminent now.

 

AIG....The largest insurance holding company in the world is solvent again. Among other things, AIG insures Minicipal bonds for cities, counties , and states. Now these same cities, counties and states won't have their bonds go into default because the terms called for insurance. If all these bonds had defaulted, then all the cities, counties, and states would have faced mandatory huge tax increases called for in the bond fine print, or would have faced bankruptcy. This is a major big deal the public didn't understand. But Paulson and company did. The government has been buying some mortgage bonds, and will soon be stepping up this program, in a effort to lower interest rates in the skittish mortgage market, bring new conforming mortgage rates down to the 4-4 1/2% range, and get the real estate market going again. The Treasury should make a lot of money on these bonds, buying them below 50 cents on the dollar, and selling them some day for 80-90 cents on the dollar. A lot of the money spent on TARP wil come back.

 

Much of the proposed new spending will be as investments in our infastructure. If you understand the principals of accounting, you know that the liability incurred by spendingf on an asset is offset by the value of that asset. IE....if you spend a trillion dollars on a road system, you have the road system as an asset forever. So infastructure spending will create assets for our country, so is not as detrimental as social and wefare spending. Administration knows this, which is why the jobs program will involve infastructure spending.

 

Obama and team has just announced a $300 billion tax decrease for business, encouraging them to spend on their business, and to begin some hiring. This money (tax decreases) can go into the economy much faster than any other kinds of spending, and is smart thing to do. Politically smart too, as Republicans will have to go along with this. After all, this is what they said they wanted.

AIG solvent??? LOL Paulson???LOL Are you talking about the same one that said 3 days before all the fear mongering started about the dire consequences if we don't pass the bailout scam that our banking system is sound and the economy was fine?

 

Here is something you might find worth a read.

Jobs Contract 12th Straight Month; Unemployment Rate Soars to 7.2%

There is no official definition of depression. Here is mine: When the U-6 unemployment rate rises above 12.5 in conjunction with a stock market that is down close to 50%, the CPI is negative, and nominal wages are stagnant, it's an economic depression. We are in one.

 

Looking ahead, I expect the service sector to continue to weaken. Mall vacancy rates are rising and a huge contraction in commercial real estate is finally started. There is no driver for jobs and states in forced cutback mode are making matters far worse. Expect to see the official unemployment rate hit 9% in 2009.

 

Given that unemployment is a lagging indicator, it is likely to continue rising in 2010.

[Ralph Greene]

Sure....AIG is currently solvent.The Gov't owns 80% of it. All the nshares that trade that used to own 100% of it, now only own about 20%.

 

BTW....AIG is a holding company. it owns many insurance companies. None of the insurance companies it owned were in danger of liquidation. it was the holding company that had over reached it asset base. The Fed will make their money back as AIG liquidates assets.

 

The fact that a German bond auction didn't attract investors at a low rate only meams that investors wanted a higher rate for the risk they were taking. Maybe those bonds aren't as safe as you say in your quote. That's how bond auctions go and is a normal part of the process.

 

The US can still borrow money at close to zero rate, as....so far....the world will buy our bonds. However....you are right that there is a point some where they won't.

 

I'm not defending all our current borrowing as a good thing. It's a terrible burden to lay on our future generations. I'm just against all the lies and half truths from those who don't understand the fix we are in, and the limited choices there are to fix situation. Traditional Republican dogma just won't fix this. If Bush and Co had raised taxes to pay for all his deficit spending, we might not be in this fix. But politicians don't have the balls to raise taxes, nor the guts to cut spending.

 

I personally think we need a big tax hike to pay for our current programs, and after that to start paying down our debt. When we are out of debt, reduce taxes back to the level of outgo. But don't see that happening. Not sure politicians know how to do that....something so simple. Something every house hold in America can do.

[sprinter]

I personally think we need a big tax hike to pay for our current programs, and after that to start paying down our debt.

 

That would be a guaranteed death sentence.

 

Government needs to learn how to keep their nose out of everyone else’s business, reduce taxes, drastically shrink its size and cut spending. Getting rid of the Federal Reserve should be the first one eliminated.

 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AR2EtMteHCg

The Federal Reserve is as much FEDERAL as Federal Express. My sentiments exactly.

Edited January 11, 2009 by sprinter

[stephenhawkings]

Name 3 instances where he has reached across the aisle. And how can someone who is voted as the most liberal accomplish that task?

well he is no ralph nader, and he has joe biden as his VP, you can't go to much further towards middle of the road than that, unless your joe liberman

[fmccap]

Sure....AIG is currently solvent.The Gov't owns 80% of it. All the nshares that trade that used to own 100% of it, now only own about 20%.

 

BTW....AIG is a holding company. it owns many insurance companies. None of the insurance companies it owned were in danger of liquidation. it was the holding company that had over reached it asset base. The Fed will make their money back as AIG liquidates assets.

 

The fact that a German bond auction didn't attract investors at a low rate only meams that investors wanted a higher rate for the risk they were taking. Maybe those bonds aren't as safe as you say in your quote. That's how bond auctions go and is a normal part of the process.

 

The US can still borrow money at close to zero rate, as....so far....the world will buy our bonds. However....you are right that there is a point some where they won't.

 

I'm not defending all our current borrowing as a good thing. It's a terrible burden to lay on our future generations. I'm just against all the lies and half truths from those who don't understand the fix we are in, and the limited choices there are to fix situation. Traditional Republican dogma just won't fix this. If Bush and Co had raised taxes to pay for all his deficit spending, we might not be in this fix. But politicians don't have the balls to raise taxes, nor the guts to cut spending.

 

I personally think we need a big tax hike to pay for our current programs, and after that to start paying down our debt. When we are out of debt, reduce taxes back to the level of outgo. But don't see that happening. Not sure politicians know how to do that....something so simple. Something every house hold in America can do.

Just because the Government owns it, it's solvent?

 

Do you really think we will ever be out of debt? This monetary system will be history before that will ever happen. Earlier last year I seen that just the interest we pay stood at about 280 BILLION a year, I'm sure it's more now. We will never get out of this, that's 280 billion surplus we need just to pay interest, not happening.

[fmccap]

Obama Calls For Sacrifices, Scales Back Campaign Promises, Ups Jobs Program To 4M

Somehow, without increasing the cost of the plan, the number of jobs Obama wants to creat has risen from 2 million to 3 million to 4 million.

 

Keynesian Free Lunch Theory Yet Again

 

The curve in figure 1 amounts to the Keynesian Free Lunch Theory of economics all over again. If stimulus could create permanent jobs, then why not triple it, create 12 million jobs, and eliminate unemployment altogether?

 

With that, I wish to repeat what I said in Jobs Contract 12th Straight Month; Unemployment Rate Soars to 7.2% ....

 

Government cannot really "create" any jobs per se. It can raise taxes and shift private sector jobs creation to government jobs creation (typically a malinvestment), and it can bring production and consumption forward for those jobs that are genuinely needed (filling potholes), but once the potholes are filled, one has to ask the question, "What will we do for an encore?"

[retro-man]

Fascism and Communism are just two names for the same thing. They both advocate Big Government. The feminists did not stand up for womens' rights in the Muslim countries where women are stoned to death for adultry because they love dictatorships, and they could not be seen as siding with their own government. The greens also will not condemn their beloved commies in China who are polluting worse than anybody. They are all cut from the same cloth, and only a brainwashed socialist can't see it.

That's not the way I see it at all:

 

link Articles concerning NOW's agenda concerning women's issues in Afghanistan and other Middle Eastern countries. More: link

 

link An article (one of many) on the Sierra Club's website concerning environmental depredation in China.

 

These are just a couple, from the most prominent organizations in the respective areas you mentioned. There are zillions out there. It is flabbergasting that you believe that environmentalists are not concerned about manufacturing in China - au contraire, it is Wall Street profiteers that have perennially ignored that one - and that feminists have ignored women's rights abuses in Muslim countries. You truly just see what you want to see, don't you?

 

Your pitiful attempt to equate feminists with Islamo-fascists and environmentalists with Communists: lose!!

 

Reality: It's a bitch, but you really should look into it.

 

 

 

Oh, and for the record, one of the defining characteristics of Communism is that "the people" (i.e. the state) own the means of production. Fascism is state-sponsored corporatism (see Bush and Enron or Hitler and Krupp).

 

Krupp was initially hostile to the policies of Nazi Party. However, after a meeting on 20th February, 1933, he was persuaded by Adolf Hitler and Hjalmar Schacht that the Nazi government would destroy the trade unions and the political left in Germany. Schacht also pointed out that a Hitler government would considerably increase expenditure on armaments. Once converted, Krupp, as chairman of the Association of German Industrialists, was in a good position to encourage other business leaders to contribute to Hitler's election fund.

Edited January 11, 2009 by retro-man

[Mark B. Morrow]

Well said Retro Man. It's going to be a long 4-8 years for these guys.

[RangerM]

It's going to be a long 4-8 years for these guys.

 

Be careful what you wish for, you may get it.

 

As soon as the whole "First African-American President to....." stuff wears out (hopefully quickly), Obama is going to have to govern.

 

It could very easily turn out to be a long 2-4 years for you, as well.

[grbeck]

And....I'm all for taking those fake assult rifles out of your hands. Too many of them wind up being converted back to automatic, and hunters sure don't need them. And....Do you really think an armed bunch of citizens can protect the US from a foreign assult? About all our citizen guns do is shoot a few armed home invaders, shoot a few convenience store robbers, and kill a whole bunch of careless citizens who don't know how to use a firearm properly. I think guy laws should be tougher, with proof of knowledge you know how to use them. And sure I know the argument about criminals can get them easy. I also know in my neighborhood, you just can't allow some nervous neighbor to fire his 357 down the street at some imagined intruder....with the bullet going thru about 3 houses. BTW....I own a shotgun, and know how to use it.

 

The assualt rifle ban was a joke...more like a scary looking gun ban. It worked the same way as banning performance cars based on whether they had a hood scoop or stripes.

 

And please leave the strawman argument that people are shooting themselves accidentally with their own guns out in the field where it belongs. This myth has been debunked many times. It relies on junk science...the simple fact is that armed citizens PREVENT crimes and the number of crimes they prevent outweighs accidental shootings (which have been on a long-term decline for years).

 

And, you cannot randomly fire at a stranger on the street from your home, so that is another strawman argument. If you and the alleged bad actor are on the street, you can only take action against that person to protect yourself if he or she is DIRECTLY THREATENING you, and you have reason to believe that said person is placing you or a loved one in imminent, direct danger.

 

If you are in your home, the perpetrator must be placing you or a loved one in imminent, direct danger. Shouting at you from the street while you are in your home does not constitute imminent, direct danger in any jurisdiction within the United States, to the best of my knowledge. The perpetrator must be doing something ON YOUR PROPERTY that is placing you in danger.

Edited January 12, 2009 by grbeck

[NickF1011]

And please leave the strawman argument that people are shooting themselves accidentally with their own guns out in the field where it belongs. This myth has been debunked many times. It relies on junk science...the simple fact is that armed citizens PREVENT crimes and the number of crimes they prevent outweighs accidental shootings (which have been on a long-term decline for years*).

 

* - Unless you are a wide receiver for the New York Giants.

[grbeck]

That's not the way I see it at all:

 

link Articles concerning NOW's agenda concerning women's issues in Afghanistan and other Middle Eastern countries. More: link

 

link An article (one of many) on the Sierra Club's website concerning environmental depredation in China.

 

These are just a couple, from the most prominent organizations in the respective areas you mentioned. There are zillions out there. It is flabbergasting that you believe that environmentalists are not concerned about manufacturing in China - au contraire, it is Wall Street profiteers that have perennially ignored that one - and that feminists have ignored women's rights abuses in Muslim countries. You truly just see what you want to see, don't you?

 

Your pitiful attempt to equate feminists with Islamo-fascists and environmentalists with Communists: lose!!

 

Reality: It's a bitch, but you really should look into it.

 

 

 

Oh, and for the record, one of the defining characteristics of Communism is that "the people" (i.e. the state) own the means of production. Fascism is state-sponsored corporatism (see Bush and Enron or Hitler and Krupp).

 

If Bush had taken the fascist approach to Enron, he would have used government money to prop up the company when it collapsed (like he has done with GM and Chrysler, urged on by the UAW and Democrats, who, I guess, are now fascists...who knew?). When Enron went broke, he ignored Ken Lay's pleas and let the company file for bankruptcy, which was the proper course of action. Incidentally, it was CLINTON'S Secretary of the Treasury, Robert Rubin, who urged a government bailout of Enron, which Bush ignored.

 

I'm glad that feminists are FINALLY on board regarding the treatment of women in Islamic countries. It was LIBERTARIAN women (check out Reason magazine and writers like Virginia Postrel and Cathy Young) who were in the forefront of criticizing how Muslim women are treated by their culture, just as it was CONSERVATIVE, EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS who first raised concerns about what was happening in Darfur, long before George Clooney got involved. The left was slow to react, because the first involved criticizing people who are usually anti-American, and the second involved "people of color" doing bad things that couldn't be blamed on Republicans, the Klan or Exxon.

Edited January 12, 2009 by grbeck

[grbeck]

* - Unless you are a wide receiver for the New York Giants.

 

Judging by the way they played against the Eagles, maybe the players should make sure that the coaches aren't armed...

Edited January 12, 2009 by grbeck

[Mark B. Morrow]

Judging by the way they played against the Eagles, maybe the players should make sure that the coaches aren't armed...

 

 

That's funny. Everyone talked about how much Plax matured after he left the Steelers. His local nickname was "Stone Hands Walking Stick". Still a great talent hindered by a lousy attitude and lack of common sense.

[Mark B. Morrow]

If Bush had taken the fascist approach to Enron, he would have used government money to prop up the company when it collapsed (like he has done with GM and Chrysler, urged on by the UAW and Democrats, who, I guess, are now fascists...who knew?). When Enron went broke, he ignored Ken Lay's pleas and let the company file for bankruptcy, which was the proper course of action. Incidentally, it was CLINTON'S Secretary of the Treasury, Robert Rubin, who urged a government bailout of Enron, which Bush ignored.

 

I'm glad that feminists are FINALLY on board regarding the treatment of women in Islamic countries. It was LIBERTARIAN women (check out Reason magazine and writers like Virginia Postrel and Cathy Young) who were in the forefront of criticizing how Muslim women are treated by their culture, just as it was CONSERVATIVE, EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS who first raised concerns about what was happening in Darfur, long before George Clooney got involved. The left was slow to react, because the first involved criticizing people who are usually anti-American, and the second involved "people of color" doing bad things that couldn't be blamed on Republicans, the Klan or Exxon.

 

Our local Temples and Synagogues have been raising money for Dafur refugee relief for years. It is a shame our Government didn't have the interest in stopping the genocide.