Oct 13, 2008 5:10 PM GMT
All you Obama supporters I hope you don't have any investments.
http://ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=308530365266606
http://ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=308530365266606
Probably a waste of time but...
-
Oct 13, 2008 5:10 PM GMT -
Oct 13, 2008 5:56 PM GMTOh MY GOD!!!! The socialists are coming!!!! and they're bringing the terrorists and the antichrist and pedophiles and and and and....
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!
Do you wingnuts ever get tired of living in complete terror? Grow a pair!
The world is not going to end, no matter who gets elected. -
Oct 13, 2008 5:59 PM GMTWell, that is probably because socialism has failed in Europe.
Wait, what, the American economy is being blasted worse than the more controlled economies. What? Why do you hate America?
/Danger Will Robinson. Sarcasm. -
Oct 13, 2008 6:10 PM GMTdaystroom saidOh MY GOD!!!! The socialists are coming!!!! and they're bringing the terrorists and the antichrist and pedophiles and and and and....
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!
Do you wingnuts ever get tired of living in complete terror? Grow a pair!
The world is not going to end, no matter who gets elected.
Terror is exactly what the Republican party feeds on, why do you think they keep getting elected. The base, and some of these guys on here, feed on it. -
Oct 13, 2008 6:15 PM GMTExtracted from that linked article:
Investors' Real Fear: A Socialist Tsunami
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, October 10, 2008 4:20 PM PT
"The Crash: "Why has the market dropped so much?" everyone asks. What is it about the specter of our first socialist president and the end of capitalism as we know it that they don't understand?"
Back to me: well, what I DO understand is that the economic downturn actually got started well over a year ago, before such a "specter" of Obama existed. It didn't start the day Obama was nominated. A downturn all the experts with real economic credentials state was brought about by financial policies begun before Obama was even in the US Senate.
Not to mention the absurd assumption that Obama is a Socialist, the latest desperate lie coming out of the Republicans. If Socialism means the government being heavily involved in the private business sector, then Bush and his Treasury Secretary should be given the award as "Socialists of the Year."
Yeah, "wingnuts" nicely describes the people who would actually believe this revision of history, and denial of facts. -
Oct 13, 2008 6:17 PM GMTI am a socialist and I have investments and voting for Obama over the old guy and the cheerleader. -
Oct 13, 2008 6:20 PM GMT"And right now it looks like the U.S., which built the mightiest, most prosperous economy the world has ever known..."
If the present system is/was so great, why did it come crashing down?
It is absurd to try to blame the past on a future event. -
Oct 13, 2008 6:21 PM GMTAquanerd saidAll you Obama supporters I hope you don't have any investments.
http://ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=308530365266606
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Free_Trade.htm -
Oct 13, 2008 11:02 PM GMTIBD may have had an argument on Friday, when they wrote the editorial, but Aquanerd, why did you post this piece today? The stocks rallied on the news that the feds will nationalize the banks, which totally destroys the argument.
The economic theory behind temporary nationalization is well-regarded, and I have to laugh at the IBD's editorial, which offers absolutely no economic analysis whatsoever (and despite the hysteria regarding the upcoming "socialist" president, actually talks about tax hikes rather than bank nationalizations). Instead, they cite that letter that John McCain floated, ostensibly having 100 economists' signatures, which isn't that many considering it's a field with thousands of professionals. What makes it even more hilarious is that in actuality, McCain couldn't even find 100 economists!
(edited to fix "tax cuts" to "tax hikes") -
Oct 13, 2008 11:23 PM GMTHadn't it been reported in the US of A, that Obama has Reds under his bed? -
Oct 13, 2008 11:40 PM GMTI have investments and That's WHY I am voting for Obama
A Socialist Tsunami?
Whats that supposed to mean?
You guys couldn't get off this time with the Terrorism scare this time?
Now we're back to the Reds are coming ... the Reds are coming?
Republicans have no qualms against Socialism
...It's actually a very good friend of theirs
But only when it takes away their debt .. and their greddy mistakes
That's when they like it -
Oct 13, 2008 11:49 PM GMTI was hoping everyone was just going to ignore this one, but guess no luck. Well, I've already posted the answer to this elsewhere, but here it goes:
Aquanerd, I assume you've heard of a little publication called "The Economist"? I thought is was the fiscal conservative's bible. Anyway, I think it has better name recognition than ibdeditorials.com. The most recent issue has a survey of over 140 economists, and a majority responded that Obama has the better plan for the economy. Here's the article here, if you'd like to give it a read:
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12342127 -
Oct 14, 2008 12:44 AM GMTjaydub said
Aquanerd saidAll you Obama supporters I hope you don't have any investments.
http://ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=308530365266606
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Free_Trade.htm
Dude,
I am all for free trade, complete and utter free trade. If you believe that any Democrat will support true "free trade" you are completely forgetting that the unions will never allow it.
Add that to the list of fantasies for Obama supporter.
1. US out of Iraq.
2. A Nationalist health care sytem that is actually better than what employed Americans already have.
3. Less Governement Spending.
4. 95% of Americans will get a tax cut.
5. Freedom of Speak.
6. Gay Marriage in the USA.
7. Gays in the Military.
8. FREE TRADE.
If the Messiah wins, you heard it here first. How long will you all blame is ineptness on Bush!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1077345/Ive-lost-faith-The-Messiah-How-EDWARD-HEATHCOAT-AMORY-lost-Obama-mania.html -
Oct 14, 2008 12:48 AM GMTSatyricon331 saidIBD may have had an argument on Friday, when they wrote the editorial, but Aquanerd, why did you post this piece today? The stocks rallied on the news that the feds will nationalize the banks, which totally destroys the argument.
The economic theory behind temporary nationalization is well-regarded, and I have to laugh at the IBD's editorial, which offers absolutely no economic analysis whatsoever (and despite the hysteria regarding the upcoming "socialist" president, actually talks about tax hikes rather than bank nationalizations). Instead, they cite that letter that John McCain floated, ostensibly having 100 economists' signatures, which isn't that many considering it's a field with thousands of professionals. What makes it even more hilarious is that in actuality, McCain couldn't even find 100 economists!
(edited to fix "tax cuts" to "tax hikes")
Actually the point of my post was is that for some reason, people are looking to a complete socialist to fix a capitalist concept. Oh never mind this is the same group of people that are willing to put you health and the education of your children into the hands of people with not interest in either.
And temporary nationalization is well-regarded? In Nazi Germany and Fasict Italy in the 1930's maybe... -
Oct 14, 2008 1:04 AM GMTAquanerd: “And temporary nationalization is well-regarded? In Nazi Germany and Fasict Italy in the 1930's maybe...”
I often wonder how people with absolutely no economics training whatsoever manage to form strong opinions about economics matters. Physicists have vigorous debates about whether the universe is discrete or continuous, infinite or finite-yet-boundless, Euclidean or causal, etc., and while I find the ideas and disagreements fascinating, I could never say I have a strong opinion on the matter. I simply do not know enough to venture an original opinion.
Yet by contrast, ignorant people like you come out of the word work, spewing ignorant bile on subjects they know nothing about, using completely illogically structured arguments. You think you have an actual argument by merely attaching conclusory labeling to different positions. Simply labeling something “socialist” or “capitalist” does not constitute a logical argument, and comparing the UK or the US’ temporary nationalization of financial institutions to Nazi Germany is so spectacularly stupid, offensive, and inflammatory, I hardly know why I’m honoring you with a response.
If you had wanted a serious discussion about how to approach the twin problems of liquidity and solvency in the private sector, I would have loved to have had it – I really enjoy economics. Since obviously you have no interest in such a discussion, however, I will correct at least your ignorant labeling: The ownership stakes that the US and other Western governments will soon take in financial institutions is not truly socialist (and certainly not “completely socialist”), since unlike in socialism, they will not take voting shares, and consequently will have no control over the company’s internal operations. The ownership stakes simply amount to a capital injection. -
Oct 14, 2008 1:23 AM GMTThat article is blaming Obama for the current state of the economy, and he hasn't even been elected. Priceless. -
Oct 14, 2008 1:27 AM GMTAquanerd, you are right. This is a waist of my time. You are a cool guy so please dont make me dislike you. Enough with these threads please! -
Oct 14, 2008 1:30 AM GMTEricLA saidI was hoping everyone was just going to ignore this one, but guess no luck. Well, I've already posted the answer to this elsewhere, but here it goes:
Aquanerd, I assume you've heard of a little publication called "The Economist"? I thought is was the fiscal conservative's bible. Anyway, I think it has better name recognition than ibdeditorials.com. The most recent issue has a survey of over 140 economists, and a majority responded that Obama has the better plan for the economy. Here's the article here, if you'd like to give it a read:
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12342127
The funny thing is I didn't even have to read your post. Since I'd already read it. And if you do read the Economist regularly you knew who they were be supporting in 2005.
The bottom line is that people that believe that the Government is the answer to all of there needs will vote Democrat. Regardless of what they read or hear. If they believe that the government needs to be as small as possible they can never vote for a democrat. I'm not saying that McCain is the answer.
The most amusing thing is that the Democratic Fear Machine, the Mainstream Media, has you all believing that the one man that as been a complete pain in the ass to George Bush for the last 8 years, is just like Bush. He had to nominate Palin just to shore up their support of the Rightwinger. And the one candidate with no experience is the base man for the job, ever.
As I posted previously on another topic. I do not have a horse in this race. I lean Libertarian, and if Hilary had been nominate I probably would have held my nose and voted for Bob Barr (The Libertarians must have been smoking something).
And yes the world will go on. The Mainstream media has everyone believing, and they are hoping, that Capitalism is going down. The main thing that socialist, and other critics of Capitalism fail to understand is that Capitalism can only be ended by making is illegal and creating a totalitarian state that kills, imprisons, or otherwise controls it's population to keep them from practicing it. This was a major hit for people that treat investments like gambling. It you are in the stock market for the quick money, you are panicking, If you have a mortgage or a car you can't afford and fear going into bankruptcies, your panicking. I have a little house that I could afford to double up on the monthly mortgage payment, have a car that is paid for, and a diversified investment plan that has only had a slight overall dip (it might be back in the positive if today's bounce is a tend and not a correction), so I am sleeping nicely.
So yes we would survive 4 years of Obama in the White House. Mainly because unless Obama, Pelosi, and Reid can control there rampant hatred for Capitalism and individual freedoms, and don't try to engineer such a totalitarian state, that there will be an overwhelming backlash and just like Hilarycare created the Congressional revolution in 1994, 2010 will see another shift in political power, and the US will catch up with its European partners and put the Conservatives back in power.
For those of you that actually responded with thoughtful ideas and opinions, thanks. For the rest of you, faceless name calling it the definition of needing to "grow a pair." -
Oct 14, 2008 1:39 AM GMTSatyricon331 saidAquanerd: “And temporary nationalization is well-regarded? In Nazi Germany and Fasict Italy in the 1930's maybe...”
I often wonder how people with absolutely no economics training whatsoever manage to form strong opinions about economics matters. Physicists have vigorous debates about whether the universe is discrete or continuous, infinite or finite-yet-boundless, Euclidean or causal, etc., and while I find the ideas and disagreements fascinating, I could never say I have a strong opinion on the matter. I simply do not know enough to venture an original opinion.
Yet by contrast, ignorant people like you come out of the word work, spewing ignorant bile on subjects they know nothing about, using completely illogically structured arguments. You think you have an actual argument by merely attaching conclusory labeling to different positions. Simply labeling something “socialist” or “capitalist” does not constitute a logical argument, and comparing the UK or the US’ temporary nationalization of financial institutions to Nazi Germany is so spectacularly stupid, offensive, and inflammatory, I hardly know why I’m honoring you with a response.
If you had wanted a serious discussion about how to approach the twin problems of liquidity and solvency in the private sector, I would have loved to have had it – I really enjoy economics. Since obviously you have no interest in such a discussion, however, I will correct at least your ignorant labeling: The ownership stakes that the US and other Western governments will soon take in financial institutions is not truly socialist (and certainly not “completely socialist”), since unlike in socialism, they will not take voting shares, and consequently will have no control over the company’s internal operations. The ownership stakes simply amount to a capital injection.
Please elaborate on the "ignorant bile"
And you are correct, government ownership is by definition a component of Fascism. Which so many people on the site love to though in the direction of anyone that disagrees with them on anything. Was just having some fun, using it correctly. Sorry you didn't get my inference. Will you be labeling your MISUSE of the term as "spectacularly stupid, offensive, and inflammatory?"
And I'm sorry, I didn't think you wanted a discussion by throwing text books term, and calling me stupid, for simply asking others what they thought of an column. But Cheers anyway. -
Oct 14, 2008 2:01 AM GMTAquanerd: “ And you are correct, government ownership is by definition a component of Fascism. Which so many people on the site love to though in the direction of anyone that disagrees with them on anything. Was just having some fun, using it correctly. Sorry you didn't get my inference. Will you be labeling your MISUSE of the term as "spectacularly stupid, offensive, and inflammatory?"
Fascism entails government ownership, by definition. From that proposition, it is illogical to infer the converse – affirming the consequent does not yield the antecedent, and therefore government ownership does not render fascism suddenly relevant to the discussion. Since intelligent people reason logically, I concluded this “inference” of yours (not you) was stupid. Its offensiveness and inflammatory nature are too obvious to discuss. As for my “misuse” of the term “fascism,” the claim is preposterous, since I never used the term at all.
Aquanerd: “And I'm sorry, I didn't think you wanted a discussion by throwing text books term, and calling me stupid, for simply asking others what they thought of an column. But Cheers anyway.”
I’m not sure what you mean when you discuss textbooks, but my initial post was germane and invited discussion, since it pointed out a gap in the economic reasoning of the editorial. Rather than address that gap, you responded with an illogical and offensive claim, and it was only after that did I call the inference “stupid,” which it was. My conclusion that it was stupid could not have influenced your decision to avoid a substantive discussion, since it occurred afterward. So, we have a second irrational claim on your part.
In any case, this post will be my last on this wholly unproductive thread. Perhaps in my absence, Aquaman will see fit to "hav[e] fun" using illogical, unintelligent arguments regarding islamofascism.
