Who has more experience? Palin or Obama?

[rwh11385]

That is untrue however, the Fed knows and has stated it is not good.

That said thanks for playing your same old economy song. you are a one hit wonder. I am bored of your one boring old song.

The EU is doing the exact same thing. It's not great over there, but they also didn't get attacked by a hurricane, 2 planes, nor as much as a hit on energy. (The slide in EURO/USD slowed how they felt the increase in oil prices).

Given everything, I say it's good we haven't seen a recession. Bad would have been a massive, long inflation. Bad would have been if Bush's tax stimulus package wasn't introduced. Bad would be if some democrat gets elected and uses taxes to redistribute income. Bad would be if we don't do something about corporate taxes soon. Bad would be if people keep thinking raising minimum wage is good.

The best thing people could do is to realize cut min wage, cut corp taxes, leave marginal tax rates as is or cut them, encourage alternative fuels, and train unskilled workers or retrain people from a dead industry to a needed one. (and teach people to take care of themselves rather than look for a goddamn handout)

and private social security, and improve efficiency of medicare / medicaid.

[s0urce]

^nicely put.

[parkerbink]

The EU is doing the exact same thing. It's not great over there, but they also didn't get attacked by a hurricane, 2 planes, nor as much as a hit on energy. (The slide in EURO/USD slowed how they felt the increase in oil prices).

Given everything, I say it's good we haven't seen a recession. Bad would have been a massive, long inflation. Bad would have been if Bush's tax stimulus package wasn't introduced. Bad would be if some democrat gets elected and uses taxes to redistribute income. Bad would be if we don't do something about corporate taxes soon. Bad would be if people keep thinking raising minimum wage is good.

The best thing people could do is to realize cut min wage, cut corp taxes, leave marginal tax rates as is or cut them, encourage alternative fuels, and train unskilled workers or retrain people from a dead industry to a needed one. (and teach people to take care of themselves rather than look for a goddamn handout)

and private social security, and improve efficiency of medicare / medicaid.

Your points are valid however have nothing to do with my main point of what is worse:

Loss of personal liberty.

You realize you have no reasonable right to privacy? Do you realize any and all of your communications are subject to being tapped without so much as a hint that you are doing wrong?

Do you see that if this continues your kids will live in a United Sates where freedom is a memory like the Buffalo roaming the plains?

[E30 Cabrio]

Privatize Social Security, Abolish the IRS and institute a Flat Tax.

BTW, the MSM has been saying "Recession" since last September/October and it hasn't happened.

The MSM has lost all credibility with their blatant cheerleading for Obama and their hate for Palin.

They can't stand the idea of a self-made woman who wasn't assisted by an assortment of Government entitlements.

[rwh11385]

Your points are valid however have nothing to do with my main point of what is worse:

Loss of personal liberty.

You realize you have no reasonable right to privacy? Do you realize any and all of your communications are subject to being tapped without so much as a hint that you are doing wrong?

Do you see that if this continues your kids will live in a United Sates where freedom is a memory like the Buffalo roaming the plains?

You are skirting the issue you / Lair were gunning for.

After 9/11, the American public was once again gullible and wanted revenge and was afraid. They demanded security and that was their focus.

Locke's writing on social contract proposed that people have up a bit of rights and property in order to protect the rest. In our greed for security, we allowed some rights to be taken. That was the will of the people at the time, without thinking of the consequences. (which is typical American)

In order to fix the situation, the people should only have to let their views be known of the proper balance of having their privacies but still keeping track "of the bad guys".

The UK has a big brother feel with CCTV, but it did play a vital role in reacting to failed terrorist attacks and catch those involved quickly.

Is your privacy of foot smell, 12 oz of shampoo, or what's in your bag worth the risk of not having tighter security?

There needs to be a proper Libertarian who wants to leave the goddamn economy on its own and not mess with the workings. And leave the people the freedom to do as they wish as long as they don't hurt others (and hurt is not the same as make uncomfortable). And achieve a reasonable balance of security and privacy.

Is a metal detector unreasonable invasion of privacy at a courthouse? Let me know where you want the line drawn... or better yet, let your Senators know.

Is it ruining your freedom of speech you can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater? Is it against 4th amendment rights if you are pulled over for crossing the center line and breathalyzed?

[Pinepig]

Your points are valid however have nothing to do with my main point of what is worse:

Loss of personal liberty.

You realize you have no reasonable right to privacy? Do you realize any and all of your communications are subject to being tapped without so much as a hint that you are doing wrong?

Do you see that if this continues your kids will live in a United Sates where freedom is a memory like the Buffalo roaming the plains?

Personal liberty and freedom started dieing along time ago, to blame it all on the last 8 years is shortsighted at best. You seem to forget that without GWBs supreme picks the Second Amendment ( which is in actuality is the one that really protects all the others ) would have been dead.

[parkerbink]

Personal liberty and freedom started dieing along time ago, to blame it all on the last 8 years is shortsighted at best. You seem to forget that without GWBs supreme picks the Second Amendment ( which is in actuality the one that really protects all the others ) would have been dead.

Homeland security and the Patriot Act are this administrations baby, they allow all of your rights to legally go away.

[nando]

Personal liberty and freedom started dieing along time ago, to blame it all on the last 8 years is shortsighted at best. You seem to forget that without GWBs supreme picks the Second Amendment ( which is in actuality is the one that really protects all the others ) would have been dead.

while that may be true - it's definitely gotten worse. I certainly wouldn't want to be a kid in school these days, you can't even be a kid anymore.

[Pinepig]

Homeland security and the Patriot Act are this administrations baby, they allow all of your rights to legally go away.

That is still short sighted, as they get challenged ( and they either have already or will soon ) for constitutionality parts will go away.

Patriot act is time limited, it WILL go away.

[parkerbink]

You are skirting the issue you / Lair were gunning for.

After 9/11, the American public was once again gullible and wanted revenge and was afraid. They demanded security and that was their focus.

Locke's writing on social contract proposed that people have up a bit of rights and property in order to protect the rest. In our greed for security, we allowed some rights to be taken. That was the will of the people at the time, without thinking of the consequences. (which is typical American)

In order to fix the situation, the people should only have to let their views be known of the proper balance of having their privacies but still keeping track "of the bad guys".

The UK has a big brother feel with CCTV, but it did play a vital role in reacting to failed terrorist attacks and catch those involved quickly.

Is your privacy of foot smell, 12 oz of shampoo, or what's in your bag worth the risk of not having tighter security?

There needs to be a proper Libertarian who wants to leave the goddamn economy on its own and not mess with the workings. And leave the people the freedom to do as they wish as long as they don't hurt others (and hurt is not the same as make uncomfortable). And achieve a reasonable balance of security and privacy.

Is a metal detector unreasonable invasion of privacy at a courthouse? Let me know where you want the line drawn... or better yet, let your Senators know.

Is it ruining your freedom of speech you can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater? Is it against 4th amendment rights if you are pulled over for crossing the center line and breathalyzed?

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

Benjamin Franklin

Again you muddle the issue with sideways argument. Metal detectors are a necessary evil they only slow the line & find look for weapons, that is one thing.

Taking laptops without suspicion is another.

That is still short sighted, as they get challenged ( and they either have already or will soon ) for constitutionality parts will go away.

Patriot act is time limited, it WILL go away.

Being overturned is meaningless today. It is the law and freedom is the causality TODAY.

[rwh11385]

Homeland security and the Patriot Act are this administrations baby, they allow all of your rights to legally go away.

Patriot was also voted "YAY" by 98 Senators. Homeland secuirty was voted "YAY" by 90 senators.

HSA: "criticized by nearly every source on the internet, nonetheless passed the House 299-121"
Patriot: 257 - 171

are you saying that these people voted wrongly for the people they represented? why didn't their constituents write them a letter and let them know to repeal it?

Yeah man, Bush totally acted alone on this...

[rwh11385]

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

Benjamin Franklin

Again you muddle the issue with sideways argument. Metal detectors are a necessary evil they only slow the line & find look for weapons, that is one thing.

Taking laptops without suspicion is another.

You misquoted him.

"Those who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security."

[parkerbink]

You misquoted him.

"Those who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security."

The spirit is there I am not 100% certain you are right.

Perhaps we are both wrong

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Argue this:

The sky is blue


I did not blame Bush, I blamed the ADMINISTRATION.

2000-2006 he had complete control of congress, therefore all of his initiatives were basically rubberstamped.

You are a world class arguer. I will give you that.

[rwh11385]

The spirit is there I am not 100% certain you are right.

Perhaps we are both wrong

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Argue this:

The sky is blue


I did not blame Bush, I blamed the ADMINISTRATION.

2000-2006 he had complete control of congress, therefore all of his initiatives were basically rubberstamped.

You are a world class arguer. I will give you that.

Your version made it seem like he was a kook that thought it would never be reasonable to ever give up a fraction of liberty for social order, protection, or security. Government by sheer existence takes a bit of freedom from its people, even in pure democracy a person may not get what he wants if he's on the losing side of the vote. Unless you're 5 years old, you know you can't always get what you want and there are rules to follow. Laws limit one's liberty, but we accept them to protect our lives, our property, and remaining liberties.

You have been ranting and raving about how you hate Bush and think he is bad. He was the leader of the executive brand, but Congress represented the American people. They represented how their constituents felt at the time and voted to satisfy their desires.

If the American people didn't think much of the consequences because of the fear of more attacks, then maybe when they have taken a breath and realize they are still in power by their vote that they can let those who represent them know that an adjustment dialing invasion of privacy needs to occur. But BLAMING those who were in charge is ignoring who put them there and who tells them how to vote (that call or letter, not youtube or a fucking blog online).

[parkerbink]

Your version made it seem like he was a kook that thought it would never be reasonable to ever give up a fraction of liberty for social order, protection, or security. Government by sheer existence takes a bit of freedom from its people, even in pure democracy a person may not get what he wants if he's on the losing side of the vote. Unless you're 5 years old, you know you can't always get what you want and there are rules to follow. Laws limit one's liberty, but we accept them to protect our lives, our property, and remaining liberties.

You have been ranting and raving about how you hate Bush and think he is bad. He was the leader of the executive brand, but Congress represented the American people. They represented how their constituents felt at the time and voted to satisfy their desires.

If the American people didn't think much of the consequences because of the fear of more attacks, then maybe when they have taken a breath and realize they are still in power by their vote that they can let those who represent them know that an adjustment dialing invasion of privacy needs to occur. But BLAMING those who were in charge is ignoring who put them there and who tells them how to vote (that call or letter, not youtube or a fucking blog online).

No I have not. I have never said Bush is bad. I have said his administration has made mistakes that made this country worse today than it was when they were elected.

I am bored of repeating myself. Stop misquoting me, misinterpreting me and trying to make me the one ranting.

You have and continue to be the boards resident debater.

No argument to the sky is blue?