Federal Tyranny must end!

TheMan13

TheMan13

Well-Known Member
TonightYou said:
I'm glad this conversation remain somewhat civil. I don't speak for Obama by any means, and to be honest I'm disappointed in him. But that's neither here nor there, and how we got to this mess was with banking having to be propped up by the federal government. If we didn't do that our economic situation right now would be much worse. This not as an opinion this is researched, studied, and documented by people much smarter than myself.
we got into this mess by banks being unable to cover there bats in the financial market. The housing bubble created toxic mortgages which are then placed into collateralized debt obligations which are traded and sold on the open market. Thanks decided to shorter on investments knowing the mortgages for toxic causing the colapse of AIG insurance company which allowed banks to insure their bets.
Click to expand...
I was in the halls of congress in the 90's brother. As the Democrats (esp Dodd & Frank) loosened lending requirements for housing and (Clinton) repealed the part of Sarbanes-Oxley barring banks from being casinos at the same time. Their story line then was distinctly different from what it is today. I can remember John McCain clearly depicting the 2008 collapse as he opposed these actions on the Senator floor and witnessed with my own eyes so many laugh at him. Imagine if you will, just a little over a decade later, watching those whom laughed at this man literally blame the collapse upon him (Republicans).

Do you know what the problem in resolving any reality from post #45 is? The truth ...

[video=youtube;lgT1AidzRWM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgT1AidzRWM[/video]
 
Murfy

Murfy

Well-Known Member
cool link-

Mr. Jefferson, who was once regarded as good Democratic authority, seems to have a different opinion from the gentleman who has addressed us on the part of the minority. Those who are opposed to this proposition tell us that the issue of paper money is a function of the bank and that the government ought to go out of the banking business. I stand with Jefferson rather than with them, and tell them, as he did, that the issue of money is a function of the government and that the banks should go out of the governing business.

They complain about the plank which declares against the life tenure in office. They have tried to strain it to mean that which it does not mean. What we oppose in that plank is the life tenure that is being built up in Washington which establishes an office-holding class and excludes from participation in the benefits the humbler members of our society. . . .
Let me call attention to two or three great things. The gentleman from New York says that he will propose an amendment providing that this change in our law shall not affect contracts which, according to the present laws, are made payable in gold. But if he means to say that we cannot change our monetary system without protecting those who have loaned money before the change was made, I want to ask him where, in law or in morals, he can find authority for not protecting the debtors when the act of 1873 was passed when he now insists that we must protect the creditor. He says he also wants to amend this platform so as to provide that if we fail to maintain the parity within a year that we will then suspend the coinage of silver. We reply that when we advocate a thing which we believe will be successful we are not compelled to raise a doubt as to our own sincerity by trying to show what we will do if we are wrong.
I ask him, if he will apply his logic to us, why he does not apply it to himself. He says that he wants this country to try to secure an international agreement. Why doesn’t he tell us what he is going to do if they fail to secure an international agreement. There is more reason for him to do that than for us to expect to fail to maintain the parity. They have tried for thirty years—thirty years—to secure an international agreement, and those are waiting for it most patiently who don’t want it at all.
Now, my friends, let me come to the great paramount issue. If they ask us here why it is we say more on the money question than we say upon the tariff question, I reply that if protection has slain its thousands the gold standard has slain its tens of thousands. If they ask us why we did not embody all these things in our platform which we believe, we reply to them that when we have restored the money of the Constitution, all other necessary reforms will be possible, and that until that is done there is no reform that can be accomplished.
Click to expand...
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
TheMan13 said:
Obama took an economy "incompetently and unpatriotically" burning a half trillion more than it was taking in and literally tripled that in no time (1.4 trillion).
Click to expand...
demonstrably false.

why you gotta lie all the time?

obama inherited a $1.4 trillion dollar deficit and has since cut it in half.

1998
$69.2 Billion Surplus$99.28 Billion SurplusDRR
1999
$125.6 Billion Surplus$176.16 Billion SurplusDRR
2000$236.4 Billion Surplus$320.76 Billion SurplusDRR
2001$127.3 Billion Surplus$168.16 Billion SurplusRDR
2002$157.8 Billion Deficit$205.2 Billion DeficitRDR
2003$377.6 Billion Deficit$479.8 Billion DeficitRRR
2004$413 Billion Deficit$511.14 Billion DeficitRRR
2005$318 Billion Deficit$380.84 Billion DeficitRRR
2006$248 Billion Deficit$287.7 Billion DeficitRRR
2007$161 Billion Deficit$181.51 Billion DeficitRDD
2008$459 Billion Deficit$498.37 Billion DeficitRDD
2009$1413 Billion Deficit$1539.22 Billion DeficitDDD
2010$1294 Billion Deficit$1386.92 Billion DeficitDDD
2011$1299 Billion Deficit$1350.31 Billion DeficitDDR
2012$1100 Billion Deficit$1120.16 Billion DeficitDDR
2013
$759 Billion Deficit$759 Billion DeficitDDR


most of the recent deficit reduction we are seeing is thanks to the increase in taxes on the very wealthy via the expiration of the bush era tax cuts, which republicans opposed tooth and nail.

so to blame obama for bush's (record) deficit and to credit the republican's with obama's deficit reduction is a pure lie.

i despise liars.
 
TonightYou

TonightYou

Well-Known Member
It's the construction of a false narrative.
Honestly I enjoy a good lively discussion with folks of different opinions. What I find painfully annoying are those with some sort of dogmatic beliefs.
Further more promoting falsehoods which are very easily demonstrably false, particularly in the face of a proper source or authority drives me to the point of simply losing interest. At that point, there is no discussion, Just someone screaming in the wind.
 
TheMan13

TheMan13

Well-Known Member
TonightYou said:
It's the construction of a false narrative.
Honestly I enjoy a good lively discussion with folks of different opinions. What I find painfully annoying are those with some sort of dogmatic beliefs.
Further more promoting falsehoods which are very easily demonstrably false, particularly in the face of a proper source or authority drives me to the point of simply losing interest. At that point, there is no discussion, Just someone screaming in the wind.
Click to expand...
I sure hope you are referring to asshat whom posted right before you (#68)? It is exactly that lack of integrity, dignity and intellect (dogmatic beliefs) that has put this country in the position we are today. You know, the exact same types whom drove Detroit into bankruptcy in the name of the poor and bigotry. How is Chicago doing these days under such rule? Any ideas of where DC will be in a couple decades at this rate and control?
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
TheMan13 said:
I sure hope you are referring to asshat whom posted right before you (#68)? It is exactly that lack of integrity, dignity and intellect (dogmatic beliefs) that has put this country in the position we are today. You know, the exact same types whom drove Detroit into bankruptcy in the name of the poor and bigotry. How is Chicago doing these days under such rule? Any ideas of where DC will be in a couple decades at this rate and control?
Click to expand...
why did you name three predominantly black cities?

there are other, much whiter cities that are in much worse shape. take stockton california for example.

stockton is a much whiter city, but every bit as bankrupt and in disrepair. DC is in much better shape, as is chicago.

the reason i bring this up is because i see those three cities named so often on sites likes stormfront. i like to do opposition research and the white supremacists on that website are fond of criticizing those three same predominantly black cities, even though whiter cities are in worse shape left, right, and center.

so why did you not name other cities that are in worse shape?
 
TheMan13

TheMan13

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
why did you name three predominantly black cities?

there are other, much whiter cities that are in much worse shape. take stockton california for example.

stockton is a much whiter city, but every bit as bankrupt and in disrepair. DC is in much better shape, as is chicago.

the reason i bring this up is because i see those three cities named so often on sites likes stormfront. i like to do opposition research and the white supremacists on that website are fond of criticizing those three same predominantly black cities, even though whiter cities are in worse shape left, right, and center.

so why did you not name other cities that are in worse shape?
Click to expand...
Those are the cities I have spent a majority of my life in punk. That's the problem with bigotry, you make accusations from afar and your ignorance is bliss.

[video=youtube;nvg2dDGKgZI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvg2dDGKgZI[/video]
 
TonightYou

TonightYou

Well-Known Member
That would be a fitting example, but if anything it's an individual over simplifying a problem which has been decades in the making brought on by different forces.
 
The Growery

The Growery

Active Member
UncleBuck said:
why did you name three predominantly black cities?

there are other, much whiter cities that are in much worse shape. take stockton california for example.

stockton is a much whiter city, but every bit as bankrupt and in disrepair. DC is in much better shape, as is chicago.

the reason i bring this up is because i see those three cities named so often on sites likes stormfront. i like to do opposition research and the white supremacists on that website are fond of criticizing those three same predominantly black cities, even though whiter cities are in worse shape left, right, and center.

so why did you not name other cities that are in worse shape?
Click to expand...
you to need to get together with the guy from office space who invented the "jump to conclusion" game mat. get it? you Jump... to conclusions! get it?
 
Murfy

Murfy

Well-Known Member
TonightYou said:
It's the construction of a false narrative.
Honestly I enjoy a good lively discussion with folks of different opinions. What I find painfully annoying are those with some sort of dogmatic beliefs.
Further more promoting falsehoods which are very easily demonstrably false, particularly in the face of a proper source or authority drives me to the point of simply losing interest. At that point, there is no discussion, Just someone screaming in the wind.
Click to expand...

avid use at its simplest?-

do you use it on everything?
 
TonightYou

TonightYou

Well-Known Member
Well based on population demographics Chicago is more multicultural and DC is a freak city based on being the capitol with many working but not living in.

I think making it about race is again over simplification. These cities have problems stemming from corruption, mismanagement, poor priorities and global markets forces.
 
Huel Perkins

Huel Perkins

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
why did you name three predominantly black cities?

there are other, much whiter cities that are in much worse shape. take stockton california for example.

stockton is a much whiter city, but every bit as bankrupt and in disrepair. DC is in much better shape, as is chicago.

the reason i bring this up is because i see those three cities named so often on sites likes stormfront. i like to do opposition research and the white supremacists on that website are fond of criticizing those three same predominantly black cities, even though whiter cities are in worse shape left, right, and center.

so why did you not name other cities that are in worse shape?
Click to expand...
Why do you dislike white people and want to single out the "whiter" cities? Whats motivating your racism?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top