If I wanted America to fail...

[therealUT]

I suppose I wouldn't change a single thing.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ-4gnNz0vc[/youtube]

 

[Ned Ray McWorkher]

Double talking dummy. He says all that **** with a straight face too.

 

[T-TownVol]

telling

 

[Ned Ray McWorkher]

Bet he is a republican.

 

[therealUT]

Double talking dummy. He says all that **** with a straight face too.

Are you anti-free-market?

 

[Ned Ray McWorkher]

storytelling

.

 

[GAVol]

Bet he is a republican.

I don't care if he's the Easter Bunny. He's right.

 

[Ned Ray McWorkher]

Are you anti-free-market?

I am for anything within reason that will help America make the turn around it needs. And it has been in need of a turn around for many years now. Maybe ***** Romney has a 'master' plan to get this nation back on track. :birgits_giggle: I guess we will see soon.

 

[therealUT]

I am for anything within reason that will help America make the turn around it needs. And it has been in need of a turn around for many years now. Maybe ***** Romney has a 'master' plan to get this nation back on track. :birgits_giggle: I guess we will see soon.

What do you see as "within reason"? More fundamentally, do you think that a strong economy is necessary for high quality of life across the board? Do you think that government regulation, involvement, and/or interference hinder or help economies?

 

[Ned Ray McWorkher]

I don't care if he's the Easter Bunny. He's right.

About everything he said?????? He is certainly wrong about the global warming issue. The rest of that **** I wont even touch. But I don't think he is right about everything he said. Not at all.

 

[therealUT]

About everything he said?????? He is certainly wrong about the global warming issue. The rest of that **** I wont even touch. But I don't think he is right about everything he said. Not at all.

Certainly wrong? The entire issue of global warming is problematic and declaring a definitive answer on either side, is, as it stands now, leaping to conclusions from very contentious premises.

However, if I were to tell you that the increase in the caloric intake per individual, the access to medical care per individual, the access to adequate shelter per individual, and the access to hygienic services per individual have all risen drastically since the industrial revolution, thus drastically reducing famine, disease, and infant mortality rates, would you still want to severely restrict and limit industry on a hunch that some of the global warming theories might be right, resulting in catastrophe centuries from now? Or, would you think that by allowing industry free reign, humanity is more likely to develop the capacities to deal with the threats of global warming; and, given centuries to develop such capacity, this is probably the prudent course of action?

 

[GAVol]

About everything he said?????? He is certainly wrong about the global warming issue. The rest of that **** I wont even touch. But I don't think he is right about everything he said. Not at all.

That's a long way from your original dismissal of the whole thing . . . but the individual issues aren't really the point.

 

[Ned Ray McWorkher]

What do you see as "within reason"? More fundamentally, do you think that a strong economy is necessary for high quality of life across the board? Do you think that government regulation, involvement, and/or interference hinder or help economies?

Within reason to me means that we don't cripple ourselves in an attempt at improving ourselves. He whole spiel came off as republican double-talk. So, even though I listened, it was with disdain. Is he the new republican candidate? Sounds like he has it all together. -- A strong economy is the key to a nations survival. Period. I personally feel that if the people at the bottom are not doing well then it is all about to come crashing down from above. Just my opinion though. -- Government regulation, involvement, and/or interference is supposed to serve the purpose of keeping things in line. Are they always successful in their efforts? Hardly. But there must be regulations in place. The key is getting enough people in the right places to work on solving America's problems. Right now we appear to only have a bunch of in-fighting, which generally leads nowhere (except more in-fighting).

 

[therealUT]

Within reason to me means that we don't cripple ourselves in an attempt at improving ourselves. He whole spiel came off as republican double-talk. So, even though I listened, it was with disdain. Is he the new republican candidate? Sounds like he has it all together. -- A strong economy is the key to a nations survival. Period.

A strong domestic economy, fueled by domestic resources is the key to a nation's survival.

I personally feel that if the people at the bottom are not doing well then it is all about to come crashing down from above.

The people at the bottom need jobs; most of those jobs come from above.

Just my opinion though. -- Government regulation, involvement, and/or interference is supposed to serve the purpose of keeping things in line.

Free-markets are more self-regulating than governments (i.e., what governs the government?). The mechanisms involved in economic transactions are much more objective and stable than the mechanisms involved in any type of political apparatus. Basically, asking the government to keep the economy in line reduces to asking a more volatile system to ensure that a less volatile system remains stable. It does not make sense.

Are they always successful in their efforts? Hardly. But there must be regulations in place. The key is getting enough people in the right places to work on solving America's problems. Right now we appear to only have a bunch of in-fighting, which generally leads nowhere (except more in-fighting).

The key is removing government from the economy. "The which governs best, governs least." -- Thoreau. I suggest you read The Wealth of Nations, Freedom and Capitalism, and then Keyne's Theory of Money. Tell me which of the three is the most coherent.

 

[T-TownVol]

Bet he is a republican.

Duh

 

[T-TownVol]

I bet the narrator thinks Zimmerman is innocent too.

 

[lawgator1]

If I wanted America to fail, I'd sell the lower and middle classes on the notion that their physical labor, which makes me wealthy beyond most of their comprehension, is merit based, and not by birthright, or by criminal activity, and certainly not by virtue if me donating millions to campaigns and contracts and super pacs.

If I wanted America to fail, I'd sell the lie that the environment is one gigantic bandaid, capable of curing all the scars I put on her.

If i wanted America to fail, I'd subtly blame all crime on a racial minority, maybe two. I"d certainly never admit that there was an historical or institutional disadvantage to being in the minority.

If I wanted to ruin America, I suppose I would keep a GOP House.

 

[GoBigOrangeUT]

If I wanted America to fail, I'd sell the lower and middle classes on the notion that their physical labor, which makes me wealthy beyond most of their comprehension, is merit based, and not by birthright, or by criminal activity, and certainly not by virtue if me donating millions to campaigns and contracts and super pacs.

If I wanted America to fail, I'd sell the lie that the environment is one gigantic bandaid, capable of curing all the scars I put on her.

If i wanted America to fail, I'd subtly blame all crime on a racial minority, maybe two. I"d certainly never admit that there was an historical or institutional disadvantage to being in the minority.

If I wanted to ruin America, I suppose I would keep a GOP House.

I laughed. Not because it's funny, but because it's true.

 

[Ned Ray McWorkher]

Certainly wrong? The entire issue of global warming is problematic and declaring a definitive answer on either side, is, as it stands now, leaping to conclusions from very contentious premises.

However, if I were to tell you that the increase in the caloric intake per individual, the access to medical care per individual, the access to adequate shelter per individual, and the access to hygienic services per individual have all risen drastically since the industrial revolution, thus drastically reducing famine, disease, and infant mortality rates, would you still want to severely restrict and limit industry on a hunch that some of the global warming theories might be right, resulting in catastrophe centuries from now? Or, would you think that by allowing industry free reign, humanity is more likely to develop the capacities to deal with the threats of global warming; and, given centuries to develop such capacity, this is probably the prudent course of action?

Global warming is hardly problematic. The heat melts the ice. The resulting water from the melted ice will raise sea levels. A rise in sea level will have a couple of distinct effects. First, we will lose coast lines all over the globe to flooding. That is easily catastrophic, as the coasts are heavily populated, world wide. The other effect will be an altering of the ocean currents (and their distribution of heat around the planet). When the equatorial heat is not spread around the globe due to the oceanic currents, the oceans will in effect stop circulating. This will cause the polar ice to advance rapidly. The growing ice will reflect sunlight (and it's heat), further increasing colder temps (and thus leading to the creation of even more ice). Unless we are all going to live like the Alaskan's, that is a problem. -- I would stop short of "free reign" but industry must be allowed to explore and innovate. Do we have 'centuries' left to fix our problems? I'd say that is a bit optimistic. We need to be working on them now. Instead of fighting based on political lines.

 

[lawgator1]

I laughed. Not because it's funny, but because it's true.

Just meeting pure propaganda with pure propaganda.

 

[RespectTradition]

Global warming is hardly problematic. The heat melts the ice. The resulting water from the melted ice will raise sea levels. A rise in sea level will have a couple of distinct effects. First, we will lose coast lines all over the globe to flooding. That is easily catastrophic, as the coasts are heavily populated, world wide. The other effect will be an altering of the ocean currents (and their distribution of heat around the planet). When the equatorial heat is not spread around the globe due to the oceanic currents, the oceans will in effect stop circulating. This will cause the polar ice to advance rapidly. The growing ice will reflect sunlight (and it's heat), further increasing colder temps (and thus leading to the creation of even more ice). Unless we are all going to live like the Alaskan's, that is a problem. -- I would stop short of "free reign" but industry must be allowed to explore and innovate. Do we have 'centuries' left to fix our problems? I'd say that is a bit optimistic. We need to be working on them now. Instead of fighting based on political lines.

There are many climatologists that disagree. They are just in the minority. That does not necessarily make them wrong.

Virtually every prediction made about global warming from the commonly used models have not panned out. Just research it. Look at the various things that the Hansen fellow said back in the 80s and early 90s and then try to match that to what has happened. It is a simple exercise and your opinion, or mine, are totally irrelevant. The predictions either came true or they did not. Hint: they didn't.

 

[Ned Ray McWorkher]

The people at the bottom need jobs; most of those jobs come from above.

"Most of which are heading overseas and into the land of automation. Death knells for the working man."

Free-markets are more self-regulating than governments (i.e., what governs the government?). The mechanisms involved in economic transactions are much more objective and stable than the mechanisms involved in any type of political apparatus. Basically, asking the government to keep the economy in line reduces to asking a more volatile system to ensure that a less volatile system remains stable. It does not make sense.

"If you say so."

The key is removing government from the economy. "The which governs best, governs least." -- Thoreau. I suggest you read The Wealth of Nations, Freedom and Capitalism, and then Keyne's Theory of Money. Tell me which of the three is the most coherent.

Do you mean which is more coherently written, or which one more directly relates to what America is going through currently? Also, should our politicians read them, our do you think they are sufficiently educated and well-read as to be able to handle the problems of the world?

 

[RespectTradition]

Do you mean which is more coherently written, or which one more directly relates to what America is going through currently? Also, should our politicians read them, our do you think they are sufficiently educated and well-read as to be able to handle the problems of the world?

Take the climate test I suggested earlier and apply it to the economy.

Look at what the people who are in favor of Keynesian economics have predicted and then see the results and see if they match. Another hint: they don't.

 

[Cartervol]

A strong domestic economy, fueled by domestic resources is the key to a nation's survival.



The people at the bottom need jobs; most of those jobs come from above.



Free-markets are more self-regulating than governments (i.e., what governs the government?). The mechanisms involved in economic transactions are much more objective and stable than the mechanisms involved in any type of political apparatus. Basically, asking the government to keep the economy in line reduces to asking a more volatile system to ensure that a less volatile system remains stable. It does not make sense.



The key is removing government from the economy. "The which governs best, governs least." -- Thoreau. I suggest you read The Wealth of Nations, Freedom and Capitalism, and then Keyne's Theory of Money. Tell me which of the three is the most coherent.

I agree with this. We need a whole lot less government involvement with a lot of things.

 

[Ned Ray McWorkher]

There are many climatologists that disagree. They are just in the minority. That does not necessarily make them wrong.

Virtually every prediction made about global warming from the commonly used models have not panned out. Just research it. Look at the various things that the Hansen fellow said back in the 80s and early 90s and then try to match that to what has happened. It is a simple exercise and your opinion, or mine, are totally irrelevant. The predictions either came true or they did not. Hint: they didn't.

The ice is melting. Faster than ever before. That is not a prediction. It is an observation. The ice takes longer to reform each winter. Another observation. Polar bears are coming into contact with Kodiak or Brown bears in Alaska when that used to hardly ever occur in the past (due to a lack of an ice barrier). Another observation. The melted ice will raise sea levels, just as when there is an abundance of ice the sea levels drop concurrently. Yet another observation. The only 'prediction' that I will make is that the trend will not reverse on its own. It will require direct action. Not political fighting.