Re: POLITICS - Bailout Reader was: Secretary of Treasury becomes financial dictator if we let him

November 2, 2008

Gene,

>> He attended about 500 times according to his own account, so his claim

>> to never have heard the radical sermons is unlikely.

> And this implies that he is a racist? Unbelievable.

I don't see how I said that anywhere. I said it suggests he *might*

be a supporter of black liberation theology, and emphasized " might "

with asterisks. I said I was less inclined to consider black

liberation theology racist than others would be, with the little I

know of it.

>> So I think one

>> can make the argument that this *suggests* Obama *might* be a

>> supporter of black liberation theology, and then one can debate

>> whether that theology is " racist, " which I think is much more

>> subjective. I'm fairly sympathetic to black

>> nationalist/separatist/power type causes, like the Black Panthers, so

>> I'm less inclined to consider some of this stuff racist, but it

>> becomes somewhat more of a concern for the president to be a supporter

>> of it.

> As usual you will go to ANY length to support your original

> contention. In the absence of ANY corroborative evidence from the rest

> of Obama's life that he is a racist, simply citing his Church

> attendance does not support that there is therefore a contention

> between his attendance and the vague notion that he " MIGHT " be racist.

> All I see here is the attempt to take some very sloppy logic and smear

> the guy - who to my mind deserves smearing but only for his policies.

If you would acknowledge the progression of the thread, my point was

to place a limitation on the extent of Sharon's argument from that

evidence, which was similar to your own point, although I did not

place the limit as extremely as you did. For some reason you seem to

be reacting as if I were promoting the idea that Obama is racist.

> And, in addition - you admit (kind of ) that the pastor's views aren't

> racist in your view, and that therefore, by implication, his

> attendance wouldn't add ANY weight to him being racist. Whether you

> think that it's a " concern " for a president to have sympathetic views

> towards views similar to the pastor's is an issue of public relations,

> not racism.

If you acknowledge that I acknowledged the pastor's views aren't

racist in my view, why do you insist that I am trying to salvage my

poorly formulated " original " argument that they *were* racist?

Chris

November 2, 2008

On Nov 2, 2008, at 1:30 PM, Masterjohn wrote:

> Gene,

>

> >> He attended about 500 times according to his own account, so his

> claim

> >> to never have heard the radical sermons is unlikely.

>

> > And this implies that he is a racist? Unbelievable.

>

> I don't see how I said that anywhere. I said it suggests he *might*

> be a supporter of black liberation theology, and emphasized " might "

> with asterisks. I said I was less inclined to consider black

> liberation theology racist than others would be, with the little I

> know of it.

>

You said this in support of the idea that his church attendance

implied that he " might " be a racist. Given that you don't believe the

views are racist, your point is invalid for a number of reasons that

I've already explained.

>

> >> So I think one

> >> can make the argument that this *suggests* Obama *might* be a

> >> supporter of black liberation theology, and then one can debate

> >> whether that theology is " racist, " which I think is much more

> >> subjective. I'm fairly sympathetic to black

> >> nationalist/separatist/power type causes, like the Black

> Panthers, so

> >> I'm less inclined to consider some of this stuff racist, but it

> >> becomes somewhat more of a concern for the president to be a

> supporter

> >> of it.

>

> > As usual you will go to ANY length to support your original

> > contention. In the absence of ANY corroborative evidence from the

> rest

> > of Obama's life that he is a racist, simply citing his Church

> > attendance does not support that there is therefore a contention

> > between his attendance and the vague notion that he " MIGHT " be

> racist.

> > All I see here is the attempt to take some very sloppy logic and

> smear

> > the guy - who to my mind deserves smearing but only for his

> policies.

>

> If you would acknowledge the progression of the thread, my point was

> to place a limitation on the extent of Sharon's argument from that

> evidence, which was similar to your own point, although I did not

> place the limit as extremely as you did. For some reason you seem to

> be reacting as if I were promoting the idea that Obama is racist.

>

My limit wasn't extreme. Yours was illogical. I pointed it out. Logic

matters. I don't think that you're promoting the idea that he's a

racist, but you're allowing the possibility based on totally corrupt

reasoning.

>

> > And, in addition - you admit (kind of ) that the pastor's views

> aren't

> > racist in your view, and that therefore, by implication, his

> > attendance wouldn't add ANY weight to him being racist. Whether you

> > think that it's a " concern " for a president to have sympathetic

> views

> > towards views similar to the pastor's is an issue of public

> relations,

> > not racism.

>

> If you acknowledge that I acknowledged the pastor's views aren't

> racist in my view, why do you insist that I am trying to salvage my

> poorly formulated " original " argument that they *were* racist?

>

I've explained why I think that your logic doesn't make sense.

>

> Chris

>

November 2, 2008

On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 6:51 PM, Masterjohn

<chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

> On 11/1/08, <slethnobotanist@...> wrote:

>

>> Yeah I saw that youtube. My understanding of the story was that some

>> were told the bailout was necessary to prevent a huge drop in the Dow,

>> and that if they didn't pass it the administration would institute

>> martial law. Of course they passed it and the Dow still had a huge

>> drop.

>

> It's been all over the place, and up a lot now.

I actually saw it within a day or two of it being first posted on

youtube awhile back..

> Hannity was

> salivating over the great performance of the stock market this week.

Wow, you actually watch Hannity :-)

> As North pointed out, among the 20 largest percentage increases

> in the Dow over the past century, 17 were during the Great Depression

> and two were in the last month. Not sure how good news that is.

Absolutely. The current percentage gains do not change the

fundamentals or the fundamental volatility of the marketplace.

--

Buffalo too, has beautiful summers but not this year. Cool and rainy.

For the first time in ten years, we never installed the air

conditioners. My line on all this is, somebody better do something

about global warming before I freeze to death. - Ostrowski

" If you're not on somebody's watch list, you're not doing your job " -

Dave Von Kleist

November 2, 2008

> -

>

>> They are both owned by Wall Street (check out who are the biggest

>> donors for each candidate).

>

> Although we have yet to see whether it'll make a functional

> difference, Obama has gotten a phenomenal amount of his campaign money

> from small donors, which is a marked contrast to the way things are

> usually done.

While I guess hope springs eternal, I doubt it will make any

difference. It certainly hasn't made any difference thus far in his

policy proclamations.The nature of the political process is such that

Goldman Sachs and company will have far more influence than a whole

bunch of small time donors.

>> They both are redistributionists. It is laughable to hear McCain

>> talk about Barack Obama as a socialist. Taking money from me and

>> giving it to say...Lockheed is every bit as redistributionist as

>> anything Obama would do.

>>

>> ...

>>

>> One is a red state fascist and the other is a blue state socialist.

>> Not comforting no matter how you look at it.

>

> I have to say, it's sort of amusing to see you in one breath talking

> about how ridiculous it is for McCain to accuse Obama of being a

> socialist, and in the next breath to accuse Obama of being a

> socialist. Either they're both socialists or neither one of them is a

> socialist.

Not at all. It wasn't clear above but thanks for giving me a chance to

clarify. I think it is ridiculous and hypocritical for McCain to

charge Obama with being a socialist, ***as defined by McCain.***

Claiming Obama is a socialist because he is a redistributionist is

silly when McCain himself does the same thing, which on McCain's

definition means he is also a socialist.

McCain's understanding of Obama has no logical connection to the

conclusions I have drawn about both men and the end of my post.

--

Buffalo too, has beautiful summers but not this year. Cool and rainy.

For the first time in ten years, we never installed the air

conditioners. My line on all this is, somebody better do something

about global warming before I freeze to death. - Ostrowski

" If you're not on somebody's watch list, you're not doing your job " -

Dave Von Kleist

November 2, 2008

,

>> It's been all over the place, and up a lot now.

>

> I actually saw it within a day or two of it being first posted on

> youtube awhile back..

I actually meant the Dow, not the youtube video. LOL.

Chris

November 2, 2008

LOL!

On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 3:27 PM, Masterjohn

<chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

> ,

>

>>> It's been all over the place, and up a lot now.

>>

>> I actually saw it within a day or two of it being first posted on

>> youtube awhile back..

>

> I actually meant the Dow, not the youtube video. LOL.

>

> Chris

November 2, 2008

-

> While I guess hope springs eternal, I doubt it will make any

> difference. It certainly hasn't made any difference thus far in his

> policy proclamations.The nature of the political process is such that

> Goldman Sachs and company will have far more influence than a whole

> bunch of small time donors.

I don't think we can measure the impact of the horde of small-dollar

donors yet because he's in the campaign phase which requires securing

the votes of people who *haven't* donated. Just as with other types

of campaign contributions, most of the impact (if there is a

significant one in this case) will come during actual governance.

> Not at all. It wasn't clear above but thanks for giving me a chance to

> clarify. I think it is ridiculous and hypocritical for McCain to

> charge Obama with being a socialist, ***as defined by McCain.***

> Claiming Obama is a socialist because he is a redistributionist is

> silly when McCain himself does the same thing, which on McCain's

> definition means he is also a socialist.

>

> McCain's understanding of Obama has no logical connection to the

> conclusions I have drawn about both men and the end of my post.

I see, so you conclude that Obama is a real socialist while McCain

isn't?

-

November 3, 2008

Sharon,

>> > I think comparing the Great Depression to the modern-age stock market

> beast

>> > is the equivalent of comparing cholesterol knowledge of the 1920's to

> now.

>>

>> What's the specific difference between now and then?

>

> I see several areas making for greater complexities/difficulties now - hedge

> funds (unregulated! who the heck knows them or can explain 'em?), the buying

> up of international debt, and international investors not only in our

> markets but real estate holdings. And maybe even the idea that we don't

> have a manufacturing base, having shipped that all off-shore.

There is an awful lot in the above paragraph which bears commenting

on, but to keep from making this post any longer than it is, I will

restrain myself. I will just say while it is not an exact equivalent,

the response to the crisis today is largely the same as the response

to crisis then, and the fruit of that response will largely be the

same, which sadly will be tough on all of us. I see no sound economic

basis for thinking otherwise.

> There are

> limits as to what gov't can actually do to get us back to productivity that

> generates jobs.

I'm not sure what you have in mind by " get back to productivity " but

as a general economic principle, the government can't do anything

proactively to get us back to productivity except get out of the way.

Government intervention causes great distortions and malinvestment in

the marketplace that lead to the kind of bubbles and problems we have

today. It has been the Federal Reserve's policy since 9/11 that has

brought us to the brink of a worldwide depression.

> Where is our possibility of manufacturing and industry

> (although it took a war to make it happen) - a willing workforce - making

> real money (and not just from dot-com bubbles or real estate bubbles)...

Again, a lot going on in the above paragraph, but I still say that

unless one has a solid grasp of sound economic doctrine, the thorniest

political problems will elude any decent analysis. There is a basic

economic fallacy - the broken window fallacy - in suggesting that

manufacturing and industry benefited because of the war. And the real

estate bubble was largely the result of the Fed's policies under

Greenspan.

For a quick overview of the broken window fallacy go here:

http://freedomkeys.com/window.htm

For a reapplication of the fallacy in our day go here:

http://mises.org/story/2868

For a good and readable introduction to solid economics that puts the

axe to so many popular fallacies, I would highly suggest perhaps the

most popular book ever written on economics, _Economics in One Lesson

by Henry Hazlitt_: http://snipurl.com/4zwev

> And having said all that, analysts have YET to explain the causes and

> mechanics of the Great Depression. I like North's article which lays

> it out far better than I am able. He doesn't have two hungry children

> wanting breakfast.

> http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_04/north080204.html

In the linked article, which I think I read back in 2004 (why it is at

the link you posted I don't know) North does suggest a solid analysis

of the causes and mechanics of the Great Depression:

" In the 1930s, the economic system stopped working. Economists still

debate over why it stopped working. Maynard Keynes had an answer

in 1936: not enough government spending. Milton Friedman had an answer

in 1963: not enough money creation by the Federal Reserve System,

1929-1932. Murray Rothbard had an answer in 1963: too much money

creation by the Federal Reserve, 1924-1929, and too much economic

regulation by the Hoover Administration, 1929-1932. Keynes won the

debate in academia for forty years, and in politics still has won it.

Friedman has won the debate in academia, but not in politics, since

about 1975. Rothbard's answer is acceptable only to those few people

who trust neither the politicians nor the central bankers to fix the

system. I'm with Rothbard... "

Rothbard has written the definitive treatment on the causes of the

Great Depression entitled, appropriately enough, _America's Great

Depression_: http://www.mises.org/store/Americas-Great-Depression-P63.aspx

You can download it for free here: http://mises.org/rothbard/agd.pdf

And North did go through the recession/depression of 1981-83 as an

adult with debts and family responsibilities. He has talked openly

about it and says it is a very scary time for those who go through

such stuff with family and debt obligations.

> But even then, he in his wisdom recommended gold and silver, and I can tell

> you from my own portfolio, even he doesn't have the answers.......

He has been pretty good as of late, and since he doesn't just

recommend a flat gold/silver buy/hold position, you probably should

pay closer attention to what he is recommending for the sake of your

own portfolio :-)

> We live in an economic system in which arrogant but politically clever men

> believe that they can use political coercion to adjust the economy more

> favorably - more favorably for their constituents, whom they equate with The

> People. They intervene to make the system better. Problem: you can't change

> just one thing.

>

> We see the FED playing the role of the sorcerer's apprentice. To understand

> Alan Greenspan and the system he represents, visualize Mickey Mouse in

> " Fantasia, " with the sorcerer's pointed cap on his head, and the brooms

> hauling water and dumping it. There is lots of liquidity!

>

> Have you ever noticed how much a sorcerer's cap resembles a dunce cap?

LOL!

Did you notice however the prediction that the Austrian economists

made regarding the next Depression that North mentions in his article

back in 2004?

" The Great Depression has cast a long shadow over the voters and the

politicians ever since. No one wants that to happen again. Keynesians

say it will not happen again because politicians will always run

deficits large enough to prevent one. Friedman says it will not happen

again because central bankers learned their lesson. They will not

again allow the banking system to run short of monetary reserves.

" Rothbardians think that it will happen again. They debate over

whether central bankers will first destroy the monetary units by

inflation before the next Great Depression arrives. Meanwhile, they

predict, central bank money creation will lead to a series of asset

bubbles, all of which will eventually pop, and any one of which may

trigger the next depression. For a Rothbardian or a follower of Ludwig

von Mises, the economy resembles this astronomical phenomenon, which

they refer to as the Greenspan Nebula. "

The " Greenspan Nebula " is hilarious. He said that in 2004. Guess

what? In 2008 we now know the Keynesians were wrong. Friedman was

wrong. The Rothbardians and Miseans were right.

To put it within the context of the current political process, Ron

was right, as he warned repeatedly what was coming before and

after he became a candidate for the presidency, and the MSM has noted

this recently over and over again.

>> > And they weren't trying to nationalize back in the 20's, either - yet

>> > another differentiator.

>>

>> Yes they were. It is just unlike today their efforts were rebuffed.

>

> The world doesn't even look the same today as then. I can't wrap my mind

> around comparing Now and Then in that fashion. A brain block. The

> intent is the same, however - money-grabs, political power, world control

> and domination - same old, same old, vanity, vanity........but to point to

> specifics and compare what worked or didn't work them to now, seems a

> crapshoot.......or to even call their " nationalization " the same thing as

> ours today - I'm not able to see common ground.

The common ground is there.

" The claim of the Austrian School that has scandalized members of

other schools for 150 years is the following. The propositions of

economics are universal. The principles apply in all times and all

places, because they derive from the structure of reality and human

action.

" What brought about economic growth, inflation, or the business cycle

in China in 300 BC are the same institutions that drive phenomena in

the United States in AD 2008. The circumstances of time and place

change, but the underlying economic reality is identical.

" That claim has made other economists — to say nothing of

sociologists, historians, and politicians — scatter like pigeons. The

Historical School poured scorn on this idea, and Carl Menger, the

founder of the Austrian School, fought them tooth and nail. The

Chicago School of positivists found the claim preposterous, and Mises

and Hayek and Rothbard battled them. The Keynesians have long been

outraged, and the postwar Austrian generation reasserted the truth.

The socialists, who posit that rearranging property titles will

transform all of reality, say that the claim is absurd, capitalistic

nonsense. "

http://mises.org/story/2868

--

Buffalo too, has beautiful summers but not this year. Cool and rainy.

For the first time in ten years, we never installed the air

conditioners. My line on all this is, somebody better do something

about global warming before I freeze to death. - Ostrowski

" If you're not on somebody's watch list, you're not doing your job " -

Dave Von Kleist

November 3, 2008

Sharon,

>> I don't think it makes one bit of difference who gets elected. Both

>> those jokers are almost identical on the main issues, in fact McCain

>> is a little bit scarier in certain areas and vice versa but they are

>> very very close. It was the same back when Kerry/Bush were running

>> despite all the rhetoric to the contrary. I wrote about that here:

>> http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/miles3.html

>>

>

> Agreed on the joker aspect of both. But I've never assumed, I suppose, that

> the President has any real power or is the one in control. What I would

> like to think differentiates (and yes, this is totally wishful thinking)...

If the President has no real power, what does it matter what

differentiates them?

>> They are both warmongers.

>

> Maybe,

Maybe? Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Russia - you name it they

are BOTH on the same page. For some reason Obama gets a pass on Iraq

because of his early stance during the primaries when he beat Hillary

over the head with her equivocating, but his position today is nearly

identical to Bush, and he has said as much. He also is

committed to doing **anything** to keep Iran from becoming a nuclear

power. Despite people wishing and projecting their own hopes on him,

Obama and McCain are evil twins pursuing the same agenda when it comes

to foreign policy IF one goes by their own words, and not what they

hope they would say.

> but I see one for the purposes of being the Aggressor and the other as

Defender.

If they are both hawking for the same thing, how can they be different?

My guess is that you see McCain as being strong on terrorism and Obama

as being weak on terrorism, when the truth of the matter is terrorism

is the big bogeyman the government has used to continue to implement

degradations against the American people, and both candidates will

continue such policies once in office.

As Randolph Bourne has said, " war is the health of the state. "

>> They both *vigorously* supported the bailout.

>>

>> They are both owned by Wall Street (check out who are the biggest

>> donors for each candidate).

>>

>> They both are for the advancing of the security police state and the

>> continued destruction of our civil liberties.

>>

>> They both are redistributionists. It is laughable to hear McCain

>> talk about Barack Obama as a socialist. Taking money from me and

>> giving it to say...Lockheed is every bit as redistributionist as

>> anything Obama would do.

>>

>> They both would do nothing about the Federal Reserve.

>>

>> They both would continue deficit spending.

>>

>> One is a red state fascist and the other is a blue state socialist.

>> Not comforting no matter how you look at it.

>

> Agreed to all, but I'm more " familiar " or " comfortable " (neither good words)

> with one than the other.

If you agree that the bailout was a financial dictatorship imposed on

the American people (which is a fact by the way, not a matter of

opinion), with all the trappings that any good fascist would be proud

of....

If you agree that " Big Bank " Barack and the fake Maverick McCain are

owned by Wall Street despite the formers attempt to portray himself as

a man of the people and the latter as an independent maverick...

If you agree that the both are for the advancement of the security

state and the continued destruction of civil liberties...

If you agree they are both redistributionists...

If you agree that neither would do anything about the EVIL Federal Reserve...

If you agree that deficit spending would not be checked (imagine if

you ran your household budget that way)....

If you agree that neither believes in genuine liberty, whether they

believe in slavery of the socialist variety or the fascist variety...

If you agree with all of that, why would you be comfortable with

EITHER man as a political candidate?

More importantly why would you vote for anyone who championed such

policies unless you thought they didn't matter or agreed they were

okay positions to hold?

> Barack is racist. I can't relate to his church,

> his pastor, his hatred,

From what I can tell, McCain is dishonest, undisciplined, a cad (at

least he was), physically sick, and has a HUGE scandal regarding his

POW days that the press for whatever reason is refusing to explore.

Even if Obama were personally a racist which I have no clue about (I

have not read his personal material, in particular the first book he

wrote before he was a politician), we have had all manner of folks in

the White House, including racists. Lincoln most notably comes to mind

(although he certainly is not alone by any stretch of the

imagination).

My point is, whatever their personal proclivities and issues, I don't

even have to go there. On the issues ALONE, I can and do reject both

of them.

As for his pastor, that is another one of those

conservative/Republican bogeymen. On the one sermon in particular that

the press went ape wild over, which I took the time to listen to the

whole thing, was right. It just revealed some ugly truths about

America that neither the right or left are willing to admit. The bulk

of what got everyone upset wasn't even from him, he was quoting a

Reagan administration official. Further the sermon was very

appropriate since its essential message was " are you ready (eternally)

if the unthinkable were to happen to you today (like 9/11)? "

> his interpretation of the Bible - it's coming down

> to an Israel vs. Palestine for me.

You would glide over all of the above and use Israel as your single

voting point? This MUST be theological in nature. Personally I think

this is a grave mistake. But don't worry, both candidates are

thoroughly in the hip pocket of the Israeli lobby. It is a rite of

passage to be considered meaningful on the national political scene by

the influence peddlers. Just ask Palin.

>> Voluntary globalization isn't the problem, but arrogant governments

>> and central banksters is another story.

>

> Do Christians do anything voluntarily? Washer has a good sermon

> presented to a youth conference but applicable to all ages:

> http://www.heartcrymissionary.com/resources/sermons/paul_washer

>

> And as Piper put it in a sermon last month, in the short run,

> Christians will always lose, but eternally, we win.....so vote as if we are

> not voting.

>

http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/TasteAndSee/ByDate/2008/3347_Let_Chri\

stians_Vote_As_Though_They_Were_Not_Voting/

While I have appreciated some of Piper's work in the past

(especially his article from years ago on " The Cult of Self-Esteem " ) I

fear that he and I would profoundly disagree on the nature of the

Christian enterprise, the role of the Church, human agency and free

will as it relates to salvation, and a number of other issues since I

am part of the ancient Eastern Orthodox Church and he is very much a

modern day Protestant. Thanks for the links and I will listen to them.

--

Buffalo too, has beautiful summers but not this year. Cool and rainy.

For the first time in ten years, we never installed the air

conditioners. My line on all this is, somebody better do something

about global warming before I freeze to death. - Ostrowski

" If you're not on somebody's watch list, you're not doing your job " -

Dave Von Kleist

November 3, 2008

> For some reason Obama gets a pass on Iraq

> because of his early stance during the primaries when he beat Hillary

> over the head with her equivocating, but his position today is nearly

> identical to Bush, and he has said as much. He also is

> committed to doing **anything** to keep Iran from becoming a nuclear

> power.

That would be very un-American of him since we are, according to a report by

Lou Dobbs 3 days ago, helping to *fund* the development of nuclear weapons

in Iran, while at the same time labeling them as part of the " Axis of Evil "

and posturing on how we won't tolerate their evil.

LOU DOBBS U.S HELPING FUND IRAN NUKES

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sL9xwcIDlvw

Suze

November 3, 2008

Sharon,

> If I attended a church that had the following priorities:

> 1. Commitment to the White Community

> 2. Commitment to the White Family

> 3. Adherence to the White Work Ethic

> 4. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills

> available to the White Community .

> 5. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for

> Strengthening and Supporting White Institutions

> 6. Pledge allegiance to all White leadership who espouse and embrace

> the White Value System

> 7. Personal commitment to embracement of the White Value System.

>

> .....I can tell you my backside would not have been in a pew for 20

> years. Change " white " to black " and I call that a racist view.

> That's what I'm talking about........

**Politically speaking**, I think any approach that helps a group get

off the government teat can't be all that bad. That is why, except for

the Vietnam War, Malcolm X usually had more interesting things to say

than Luther King, and it was a shame that he was gunned down by

the National of Islam after he had rejected the Nation of Islam's

theological racism (and Elijah Muhammad's claim to be a prophet), i.e.

the idea that the white man is the embodiment devil.

Having said that, the Christian enterprise should certainly be

color-blind, but committing oneself and one's resources to building up

a particular community that you think needs the help need not be

racist per se but rather a matter of enlightened choice. Missionaries

and pastors make that decision all the time in choosing areas of

society in which they wish to minister.

I'm curious, do you have a source for the above? When I substitute

black for white in some of the above it doesn't make sense to me. For

example, what is a " black work ethic? "

--

Buffalo too, has beautiful summers but not this year. Cool and rainy.

For the first time in ten years, we never installed the air

conditioners. My line on all this is, somebody better do something

about global warming before I freeze to death. - Ostrowski

" If you're not on somebody's watch list, you're not doing your job " -

Dave Von Kleist

November 3, 2008

On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 6:05 PM, Suze Fisher <suzefisher@...> wrote:

>> For some reason Obama gets a pass on Iraq

>> because of his early stance during the primaries when he beat Hillary

>> over the head with her equivocating, but his position today is nearly

>> identical to Bush, and he has said as much. He also is

>> committed to doing **anything** to keep Iran from becoming a nuclear

>> power.

>

> That would be very un-American of him since we are, according to a report by

> Lou Dobbs 3 days ago, helping to *fund* the development of nuclear weapons

> in Iran, while at the same time labeling them as part of the " Axis of Evil "

> and posturing on how we won't tolerate their evil.

>

> LOU DOBBS U.S HELPING FUND IRAN NUKES

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sL9xwcIDlvw

Well that way the US can make sure they have a " reason " for going to

war with Iran, causing a hyperinflation, and declaring martial law.

--

Buffalo too, has beautiful summers but not this year. Cool and rainy.

For the first time in ten years, we never installed the air

conditioners. My line on all this is, somebody better do something

about global warming before I freeze to death. - Ostrowski

" If you're not on somebody's watch list, you're not doing your job " -

Dave Von Kleist

November 3, 2008

Sharon,

> *,

> The gregory166 article states that Obama/McCain are the same on energy...and

> I've seen that stated other places. What I've seen about McCain's views on

> energy, have come from Palin and her desire to be energy-independent, and

> can only assume she speaks for McCain.

IMO, bad assumption. She is there for one reason and one reason alone.

to keep certain elements of the Republican party from jumping ship or

sitting it out. I mean there seems to be simply no enthusiasm for

McCain among the Republicans.

Besides, what does energy independence mean? The gov't is going to get

out of the energy business? I don't think so. The gov't is going to

stop protecting private companies interests when they are mucking

around overseas in foreign territories? I don't think so. The gov't is

going to let the market determine what is valuable rather than

stuffing things like bio-fuels down our throat which end up causing

distortions elsewhere? I don't so.

> Obama? I see issues like this.....

> Hidden Audio: Obama Tells SF Chronicle He Will Bankrupt Coal Industry By

> P.J. Gladnick (Bio <http://newsbusters.org/bios/p-j-gladnick.html> |

> Archive<http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick>

> )

> November 2, 2008 - 07:26 ET

>

> Imagine if McCain had whispered somewhere that he was willing to

> bankrupt a major industry? Would this declaration not immediately be front

> page news? *Well, Barack Obama actually flat out told the San Francisco

> Chronicle (SF Gate) that he was willing to see the coal industry go bankrupt

> in a January 17, 2008 interview. *The result? Nothing. This* **audio

> interview* <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdi4onAQBWQ>* has been hidden

> from the public...until now. Here is the transcript of Obama's statement

> about bankrupting the coal industry* (emphasis mine):

> Audio

I saw that on the Drudge Report a few days ago so I don't think it was

hidden even if the mainstream outlets played it down. Keep in mind

that saying the two candidates are the same doesn't mean they are

identical twins on every single point. Of course there are some

differences on the margin, but their core issues and approach are

fundamentally the same, while allowing there is going to be some

diversity here and there.

--

Buffalo too, has beautiful summers but not this year. Cool and rainy.

For the first time in ten years, we never installed the air

conditioners. My line on all this is, somebody better do something

about global warming before I freeze to death. - Ostrowski

" If you're not on somebody's watch list, you're not doing your job " -

Dave Von Kleist

November 4, 2008

-

> If you agree that deficit spending would not be checked (imagine if

> you ran your household budget that way)....

The position underlying this complaint in particular strikes me as

being ludicrous -- and fundamentally undermining your entire body of

economic theory. Over the long term, of course, the government

shouldn't continue running a deficit and building up the debt

indefinitely. Over the long term, the debt should ideally be zero.

And yes, presidents and congresses of both parties have over the last

few decades spent like drunken idiots, though the worst accumulation

of debt has taken place under Republicans. But would you tell a

business never to take out a loan in order to expand or improve its

business? Would you call it evil or immoral or wrong to do so no

matter the circumstances? Is it fundamentally immoral to take out a

loan to go to college? If a household runs into temporary problems

because of economic or medical difficulties, should its members just

accept homelessness and death rather than borrow money in order to get

through the difficulties and back on firm footing?

If not, then how can you justify opposing any deficit spending ever?

-

November 4, 2008

,

> The position underlying this complaint in particular strikes me as

> being ludicrous -- and fundamentally undermining your entire body of

> economic theory. Over the long term, of course, the government

> shouldn't continue running a deficit and building up the debt

> indefinitely. Over the long term, the debt should ideally be zero.

> And yes, presidents and congresses of both parties have over the last

> few decades spent like drunken idiots, though the worst accumulation

> of debt has taken place under Republicans. But would you tell a

> business never to take out a loan in order to expand or improve its

> business? Would you call it evil or immoral or wrong to do so no

> matter the circumstances? Is it fundamentally immoral to take out a

> loan to go to college? If a household runs into temporary problems

> because of economic or medical difficulties, should its members just

> accept homelessness and death rather than borrow money in order to get

> through the difficulties and back on firm footing?

The problem, putting aside 's moral objections to government

per se, is not so much the idea of borrowing, but the context in which

government inevitably borrows. The largest debt holder is the Federal

Reserve, which is owned by private banks and has the exclusive right

to generate new money in order to purchase government debt. This

essentially transfers ownership of the government from, at least

theoretically, the " people, " to the banks. Furthermore, it requires

the generation of new money, which transfers wealth from holders of

future dollars to spenders of present dollars, effectively robbing

people who have saved and people on fixed incomes to give to people

with political connections.

On a slightly less immoral level, but nevertheless immoral, deficit

spending is consistently used to levy taxes for which there is no

political will. The tax is hidden in inflation, which makes deficit

spending not only a form of stealing, but a form of lying.

If the government were to borrow money from private individuals who

earned the money rather than have an exclusive right to counterfeit

it, I think that would be a much different case and your argument

would begin to have more merit.

Chris

November 4, 2008

Chris-

> On a slightly less immoral level, but nevertheless immoral, deficit

> spending is consistently used to levy taxes for which there is no

> political will. The tax is hidden in inflation, which makes deficit

> spending not only a form of stealing, but a form of lying.

>

> If the government were to borrow money from private individuals who

> earned the money rather than have an exclusive right to counterfeit

> it, I think that would be a much different case and your argument

> would begin to have more merit.

I agree that our financial system as constituted, with the Fed, is a

disaster and must be changed (not that I believe it will, at least not

in any fundamentally constructive way) but I was talking about deficit

spending in the abstract, and while I agree that it can be used to

levy taxes for which there is no political will, I think that's

largely enabled by the obscurantist way our financial system is

currently constituted and operated. More to the point, the fact that

something CAN be misused is no grounds at all for banning it

entirely. We'd be left with nothing whatsoever, not even including

our lives, if we subscribed to such a philosophy..

-

November 4, 2008

,

> I agree that our financial system as constituted, with the Fed, is a

> disaster and must be changed (not that I believe it will, at least not

> in any fundamentally constructive way) but I was talking about deficit

> spending in the abstract, and while I agree that it can be used to

> levy taxes for which there is no political will, I think that's

> largely enabled by the obscurantist way our financial system is

> currently constituted and operated. More to the point, the fact that

> something CAN be misused is no grounds at all for banning it

> entirely. We'd be left with nothing whatsoever, not even including

> our lives, if we subscribed to such a philosophy..

Historically, the main motivation for deficit spending and inflation

has been war. The populace almost never considers it worth the money

it really costs. As far as I know, deficit spending has always been

associated with corrupt central banking and war. I think you can

posit an alternative in which deficit spending is not inherently bad,

but I think it is questionable whether you could trust gov't to use it

responsibly. A business has to use it responsibly, or it will go bust

and its resources will be allocated to another business. A family

might plunge itself into ruin in some cases, but it doesn't impact the

whole populace, and in a market system families would generally be

much less able to plunge themselves into ruin simply because

artificially cheap credit wouldn't be made available but

gov't-licensed counterfeiting. The gov't, in contrast to a business,

has no accountability to the public, and, moreover, exploits the

public's want of handouts. A politician can always displace

responsibility for a deficit on the other party or other members of

her own party, and the debt is passed on to the next politician to

manage if she gets booted out. So the gov't should be more strictly

limited.

If the gov't should borrow, it should be from private individuals, and

there should be some strict timeline to pay it all back. However, I'm

leery that's a slippery slope, because once borrowing is allowed, any

timelines will be pushed back and any debt celings will be pushed

higher. The world would not fall apart if there were a balanced

budget amendment passed, but the debt-mongers would.

Chris

November 4, 2008

Clinton balanced the budget. Reagan and Bush II ran up the deficit.

I actually don't have a problem with moderate deficit spending. The

Republicans have taken it too far, in my humble opinion.

mike

November 6, 2008

On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 8:17 AM, haecklers <haecklers@...> wrote:

> Having never been a minority we can't speak to what is racist and

> what is them trying to get equality very well.

I'm curious, to whom are you referring to as " we " ? Do you have a

breakdown of the racial makeup of the people who post/lurk on this

list?

> There are many in

> this country who feel that enough members of the majority are racist

> that it is a struggle for minorities to get by and achieve the same

> standard of living as the rest of us.

Perception and feelings are often not the same as reality, and except

for a relatively small segment of the black population in America, the

numbers don't jibe with reality. Besides the fact it is a myth that

racism, i.e. discrimination, leads to poverty.

" Prior to the 1964 Act, when few welfare or transfer payment programs

as such were in place, a majority of blacks had actually pulled

themselves above the poverty line despite open hostility from many

whites and open segregation and discrimination in job and housing

markets. On several other measures- from youth employment to crime,

blacks posted a much better showing prior to the expansion of the

welfare state, or the affirmative action era, than after. "

This blows up myths on both the right and left, but I won't go there

at the moment.

" As Sowell observes, the Chinese have never enjoyed an equal

playing field in Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, or

Vietnam, yet the Chinese minority in these countries – a mere five

percent of the population – owns most of these nations' total

investments in a variety of key industries. In Malaysia, the Chinese

minority suffers official discrimination at the hands of the Malaysian

constitution, and yet their incomes are still twice the national

average. Italians in Argentina were subject to discrimination but

ultimately outperformed native Argentines. Similar stories could be

told about Jews, Armenians, and East Indians. In the United States,

the Japanese were so badly discriminated against that 120,000 of them

were confined in detention camps for much of World War II. Yet by 1959

Japanese households had equaled those of whites in income, and by 1969

they were earning one-third more. "

and

" For a quarter century, in fact, college-educated black couples have

earned slightly more on average than college-educated white couples,

yet " civil rights " leaders prefer to obscure the real situation by

looking at the two races in the aggregate. Only that way can they

claim that " racism " is the explanation for white-black income

differences. "

http://snipurl.com/55lop

and here is the thesis (plucked from Wikipedia) of a great book by

Sowell called _Black Rednecks and White Liberals_:

" What some portray as " authentic black culture " is actually a relic of

a highly dysfunctional white southern redneck culture. Such a

dysfunctional white culture Sowell maintains, in turn derived from the

'Cracker culture' of certain regions in Britain, mainly the harsh

English borderlands, origin of many 'cracker' migrants. Sowell gives a

number of examples that he regards as supporting the lineage,

including an aversion to work, proneness to violence, neglect of

education, sexual promiscuity, improvidence, drunkenness, lack of

entrepreneurship,… and a style of religious oratory marked by strident

rhetoric, unbridled emotions, and flamboyant imagery.

" Sowell also provides figures to support his argument that there was a

far bigger divide between the cracker/redneck culture of the Southern

and Appalachian regions and the culture of more northerly Americans,

than between whites and blacks. E.g. Northern blacks tried to stop

redneck blacks coming up from the South, and the same happened between

northern whites and redneck whites. This thesis is the title essay of

Sowell's book Black Rednecks and White Liberals. "

> Living here in Southeastern PA

> I know minority people in the suburbs and rural areas who tell of

> being beaten up in school and suffering threats - and the Northeast

> is not even an area that is in the heart of racist America.

Of course that doesn't really tell us anything. I know some white

folks living in the suburbs who have been beaten up and suffered

threats. Where exactly is the heart of " racist America " ?

> I won't start throwing stones at a minority person's involvement in

> something like that which I can't understand because of not having

> the same experience of my country as they did.

One of the great myths in this country is the idea the " black

experience " is a homogeneous one, or that black culture is now and/or

has ever been monolithic, and that the corresponding response to the

" black experience " by the varying cultures that make up Black America

is singular in nature.

Having said that, it isn't all that difficult to get a handle on

" liberation theology " and then to make a judgment as to whether that

is an adequate response to the " black experience " in America.

> There are some ridiculous claims being passed around the internet as

> fear-mongering efforts to save McCain's failing run for presidency.

> My Republican brother-in-law said he won't vote for McCain partly

> because of the irresponsible depths of lying and such that he and his

> campaign have sunk to.

Well it is politics after all <g>

>

>> >> .......

>> >

>> >> Agreed to all, but I'm more " familiar " or " comfortable " (neither

>> >> good words)

>> >> with one than the other. Barack is racist. I can't relate to his

>> >> church,

>> >> his pastor, his hatred, his interpretation of the Bible - it's

>> >> coming down

>> >> to an Israel vs. Palestine for me.

>> >>

>> > Obama is a racist? This is irresponsible bull. What in the world

> are

>> > you talking about? And, if you're into this guilt by association

>> > thing, personally, I prefer his pastor's politics. He had it right

>> > about America.

>>

>> If I attended a church that had the following priorities:

>> 1. Commitment to the White Community

>> 2. Commitment to the White Family

>> 3. Adherence to the White Work Ethic

>> 4. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills

>> available to the White Community .

>> 5. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for

>> Strengthening and Supporting White Institutions

>> 6. Pledge allegiance to all White leadership who espouse and embrace

>> the White Value System

>> 7. Personal commitment to embracement of the White Value System.

>>

>> .....I can tell you my backside would not have been in a pew for 20

>> years. Change " white " to black " and I call that a racist view.

>> That's what I'm talking about........

>>

>> Sharon

November 6, 2008

Gene,

> I think that there should be (and is among enlightened folks) huge

> differences in the interpretation of 'pride' when it refers to a

> minority that has been historically discriminated against, and 'pride'

> when it refers to those who have done the discriminating. For gay

> people to express gay pride, or native americans to express native

> american pride, or black people to express black pride is not

> inherently bigoted, and does not imply that others are inferior, or

> should be discriminated against in some way. However, when you start

> talking about 'white pride', this assumes a different cultural

> meaning. If I were gay, and expressed solidarity with the gay

> community, this should be understood in the context of some very

> legitimate cultural reasons, and in the context of justice

> overall....when you start talking about solidarity with the white

> community, etc, suddenly this takes a very different, kind of ugly

> meaning. Some of the logic is indeed cultural, but indeed - white

> pride movements do have a rather racist tinge. For people who have

> historically been treated as lesser, expressing pride in who they are

> seems logical, and an important step in taking rights that have been

> denied them.

While it is true that expressing pride in one's heritage need not

signal racism, it is a rewriting of history to suggest that white

people all have a singular heritage and that to take pride in that

heritage is somehow different than anyone else, and even racist, or at

least racially tinged in its celebration.

For example, nearly every ethnic group at one time or another has

practiced slavery, including those with a west African heritage, which

makes up the bulk of folks in America who are African-Americans

(incidentally, Obama is of East African descent). So historically,

almost all groups, when in the ascendancy, have engaged in injustices

that have come today to be associated only with particular groups. To

therefore suggest that they cannot engage in a " white " pride because

they have really only been the oppressors is not consonant with

historical reality, especially given that many of the problems that

afflicted Black Americans have historically also afflicted various

white ethnic groups as well.

Being proud of one's Italian heritage doesn't make one a racist or

make such a celebration racially tinged

Being proud of one's English heritage doesn't make one a racist or

make such a celebration racially tinged

Being proud of one's Irish heritage doesn't make one a racist or make

such a celebration racially tinged. And so on it goes.

It is equally true however that being proud of one's West African

heritage does not make one a racist, even though West Africans did

practice slavery and were responsible for the arrival of many West

African slaves into the New World.

Now are there racists among these groups? Sure, but there are racists

among the groups you mentioned. Racism knows no boundaries and a time

of cultural oppression doesn't make any particular group immune to

such tragic behavior. If so we would have no bigoted Blacks, or Jews

or whathaveyou in our midst today.

Most white pride movements I am aware of are usually expressed by

particular groups most of us would find objectionable and racially

tinged even if they were not celebrating " white pride. " IMO, while

making a valid point, you are painting with far too broad a brush.

> The notion that because he attended his community church (primarily, I

> would imagine) for spiritual reasons, and did not disassociate himself

> with politics expressed by the pastor is something that you can

> criticize (I don't agree with the criticism), but that is a huge leap

> from concluding that Obama is therefore racist. This level of guilt by

> association is so much more severe, applied to Obama, than people

> generally apply to other candidates,

You mean like Ron ? <g>

--

Buffalo too, has beautiful summers but not this year. Cool and rainy.

For the first time in ten years, we never installed the air

conditioners. My line on all this is, somebody better do something

about global warming before I freeze to death. - Ostrowski

" If you're not on somebody's watch list, you're not doing your job " -

Dave Von Kleist

November 6, 2008

Sharon,

> Sadly, it is human nature to attempt to feel superior over another human.

> If we were all the same skin color, human nature is such there'd still be

> those who have to mock, belittle, or threaten others, just to make

> themselves feel superior..........

A quick survey of the world scene, and you will find lots of

discrimination amongst people who look the same outwardly.

>> I won't start throwing stones at a minority person's involvement in

>> something like that which I can't understand because of not having

>> the same experience of my country as they did.

>>

>

> And their experience in America compared to what they could have had in

> Africa is......so much worse? It's time for everyone to grow up and start

> being thankful for what they've had......

One of the great untold stories of American history, indeed world

history, is that black Americans came so far and achieved so much with

so little in such a relatively short period of time. It is something

to be grateful for and to celebrate. Instead all we normally see in

the media and our conventional institutions are the purveyors of

racial demagoguery who find it in the best interest of their own

financial and ideological agendas to perpetuate the victim status of

black Americans.

I would highly recommend Sowell's _Ethnic America_:

http://www.amazon.com/Ethnic-America-History--Sowell/dp/0465020747

> What I find troubling is the argument being used in this election that if

> you're white, and don't vote for Obama, you're a racist, as in Ogletree's

> comments:

>

http://www.openmarket.org/2008/10/31/charles-ogletree-declared-dim-bulb-for-call\

ing-america-racist/

That is a troubling argument, but I doubt it was representative of

most of the people who voted for Obama.

At any rate he is now the president-elect. Lets hope he doesn't get

assassinated and touch off racial strife of a kind this country has

never seen.

--

Buffalo too, has beautiful summers but not this year. Cool and rainy.

For the first time in ten years, we never installed the air

conditioners. My line on all this is, somebody better do something

about global warming before I freeze to death. - Ostrowski

" If you're not on somebody's watch list, you're not doing your job " -

Dave Von Kleist

November 6, 2008

Gene,

> No - it's time for you to 'grow up' and stop using any argument and

> crazy stuff you find on the internet to justify your own intolerance.

I don't see how you can logically characterize Sharon's position as

intolerant, without the ability to read her heart or know her motives.

She says she didn't want to vote for Obama because she believes he is

racist (intolerant), partly because he belongs to a church that seems

to want to minister ONLY to the black community, whereas she seems to

prefer a more racially diverse outreach (i.e. her backside would have

been elsewhere if her church were ONLY interested in the white

community). I don't get how you can draw the conclusion she is trying

to justify her own intolerance from such a position.

--

Buffalo too, has beautiful summers but not this year. Cool and rainy.

For the first time in ten years, we never installed the air

conditioners. My line on all this is, somebody better do something

about global warming before I freeze to death. - Ostrowski

" If you're not on somebody's watch list, you're not doing your job " -

Dave Von Kleist

November 6, 2008

Sharon,

>>> They are both warmongers.

>>

>> Maybe,

>

> Maybe? Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Russia - you name it they

> are BOTH on the same page. For some reason Obama gets a pass on Iraq

> because of his early stance during the primaries when he beat Hillary

> over the head with her equivocating, but his position today is nearly

> identical to Bush, and he has said as much. He also is

> committed to doing **anything** to keep Iran from becoming a nuclear

> power. Despite people wishing and projecting their own hopes on him,

> Obama and McCain are evil twins pursuing the same agenda when it comes

> to foreign policy IF one goes by their own words, and not what they

> hope they would say.

>

>> but I see one for the purposes of being the Aggressor and the other as

Defender.

>

> If they are both hawking for the same thing, how can they be different?

It occurred to me that you might think these wars are necessary. If

so, I would encourage you to read anything by ce Vance over at

lewrockwell.com on the Christian and war, or check out his website:

http://www.vancepublications.com/

--

Buffalo too, has beautiful summers but not this year. Cool and rainy.

For the first time in ten years, we never installed the air

conditioners. My line on all this is, somebody better do something

about global warming before I freeze to death. - Ostrowski

" If you're not on somebody's watch list, you're not doing your job " -

Dave Von Kleist

November 6, 2008