<
>

Page 1 of 90

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Last

All Posts by lomiller - 1785 found

7/11/08 8:50 PM
Viewed 326, Replies 40

 

Who is campaigning on tax cuts to big business.  I’ll give you a hint, his name starts with an M and ends with a cCain.  Who is complaining Obama will raise taxes on people making over 250K a year, McCain.  Who wants the richest of the rich who own these business to make their personal profits tax free, that’s another longstanding Republican line.

 

As I said elsewhere big business gives to both sides so the winner “owes” them, you’re your “facts” tell us is that no one things McCain will win.

7/11/08 8:43 PM
Viewed 213, Replies 16

Anyone with any sense knows business gives political donations to influence the winners.  That’s why they almost always give to *both* sides.  Republican donations are down because it’s blindingly obvious they can’t win.  All things being equal however they will normally give more to Republicans, which is why Republicans normally have 2X-3X as much money to spend on election campaign.

Now,  {Mod Edit} can we address the topic of the thread? 

7/11/08 7:39 PM
Viewed 213, Replies 16

http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/11/news/companies/indymac_close.ap/index.htm?postversion=2008071118

 

Banking regulators just took over Indymac, the 7th largest mortgage lender in the US.  This ranks a the second largest financial failure in US history behind the Bear Sterns failure earlier this year. 

 

7/11/08 6:46 PM
Viewed 241, Replies 21

Originally posted by olddaddy

Without Fannie May and Freddie Mac many more banks would fail. So yes, the Bush administration announcement to not let these publicly traded companies fail is a good thing.

 

 

I agree.  Normally you don’t want government interfering to much, but in this case there is a strong likelihood of broad structural damage to the economy if they fail.  This is why you need regulations designed to keep this situation from happening in the first place. 

7/11/08 6:39 PM
Viewed 398, Replies 55

It’s certainly not universal or even conscious but there may in fact be a sound evolutionary reason for women being attracted to guys who treat them badly, at least according to some evolutionary biologists. 

 Men who are sexually aggressive, do whatever they can to get laid including lies, deceit, trickery, alcohol/drugs and even force etc may not make good husbands but, any male children they father will tend to have more children of their own.   The evolutionary agenda for women is therefore to have a “nice guy” for a partner, but have the “bad” one father all their children. 

 I think there have even been studies that women are more attracted to “nice” reliable men who would make good reliable partners when they are not fertile, and then prefer the aggressive “bad boys” when they are fertile. 

Men have evolutionary strategies to counter this of course.  One, being they don’t end to be interested in a relationship unless it’s “good girls” they view as being less likely to cheat. 

7/11/08 6:12 PM
Viewed 241, Replies 21

Originally posted by bluberryhaze

the bush administration?

or the government?

 

 

 

The Bush administration heads the executive branch of government so there is no difference.  However, I can see why someone with an agenda would want to pretend there was. 

 

In related news, no link yet but I just heard on the news Indymac, the 7th largest US mortgage lender is no more.  It sounds like the US government is absorbing their assets and liabilities to prevent a failure cascade.  This may be the largest bank failure in US history. 

7/10/08 10:56 PM
Viewed 326, Replies 40

Originally posted by bluberryhaze

 

you leftist enjoy rewriting history.

the cold war was 'fought' between the US and USSR.

who won the cold war? are you saying russia won?

 

 

When did the US troops march surround the red army and capture Moscow, I must have missed that.  Oh, I see, you are saying they did and it’s all just a giant conspiracy to hide it and revises history.

 BTW I’m a moderate right of center who doesn’t care for extremists of any flavor, and doesn’t like propaganda BS from right or left,  The problem is the US right has it’s head so far up the ass of their corporate overloads they can’t see they have been made into

7/10/08 6:23 PM
Viewed 326, Replies 40

 

If Reagan “won” the cold war why did Gorbachev get the Nobel peace prize instead? I realize you were not even born back then but if you had been you would realize that end of the cold war came because Gorbachev decided to ignore Reagan’s militarism and act unilaterally. You would also realize the cold war wasn’t actually a war and it had been going on in every presidency on that graph. (What is it with Republicans, everything is a “war”. I think that could be why they handle real wars so badly, they don’t really understand what they are.) 
 
 
BTW, the cato institute is another right wing propaganda organization designed to convince people to turn over their money and liberty to big biasness. You may want to take anything they say with a  grain of salt, they do not have your best interest at heart. 

7/10/08 10:25 AM
Viewed 326, Replies 40

 

You are not reading it wrong, you are just looking at the wrong thing. Debt by itself isn’t very useful. A person making $100 000 a year will almost always owe more money then a person making $10 000. 
 
What does count is debt vs income, or in the case of a country, debt vs GDP.   

7/10/08 8:59 AM
Viewed 326, Replies 40

Originally posted by Vemoi

Debt has been going up forever and yes it is a problem.....that is the American way.


 

 

Outside of the Civil War, WWI and WWII no US president besides Reagan Bush and Bush has ever run a deficit over the course of their term.   In fact 3/4 of all US debt was incurred under those three Republicans.

 

Originally posted by Vemoi


 Man, It is like you live in Canada and don't realize tax cuts raise revenues.


I live in reality, and here in reality tax cuts do not increase revenues. 

7/09/08 6:48 PM
Viewed 326, Replies 40

Originally posted by Thrakk

the current economic problems go all the way back to Reagan and the path of destruction he set up.

 


 

 

The faulty theory goes back to Reagan and the birth of the borrow-and-spend wing of the Republican Party. Bush I was actually pretty good, on that front but Republicans in Congress undermined him. Clinton was really outstanding on the economy. Look up some of the things Greenspan had to say about him.
 
As to the current problems, yes they are Bush’s fault. 
A)  Tax Cuts – these are great when you can afford them, but if they send you into deficit, as Bush’s did, they rack up enormous long term damage.  The debt they accumulated dove the dollar down and is a significant factor in the increase in oil prices.
 
B) The war in Iraq – spend spend spend. Great for military contractors but bad for everyone else.
 
C) Tax Cuts #2 – Bush’s tax cuts were used to stimulate spending the soften the recession of 2001. This made for a paper recovery without really allowing the underlying fundamentals to correct. Consumer stimulus kept investors aggressive so internet bubble money flowed into the real-estate market setting the stage for last years collapse. 
 
D) Energy policy – Bush’s energy policy essentially amounted to encouraging more drilling, but the US simply doesn’t have the resources in the ground to make headway on the production front. He failed to push conservation or better practices, so US oil consumption went up when it should have been going down. Had the US takes steps to reduce oil usage over the last 7 years not only would the impact of high gas prices be lower but the trade deficit would be as well.
 
E) Trade with China – trade is good for an economy, but only with partners who allow you equal access to their own markets, China does not. It imports technology and know how and natural resources, nothing else. They are not a good trade partner by any means. 

7/05/08 8:59 PM
Viewed 250, Replies 19

 

I didn’t include there because I couldn’t decide if they were really love songs or not. 

 

Loreena McKennitt- The Highwayman

http://youtube.com/watch?v=S2CFM4ev-g8

 

Dr Hook - Sylvia's Mother

http://youtube.com/watch?v=WGJIZmGV69A&feature=related

 

Jacksone Brown – Shape of a Heart

http://youtube.com/watch?v=CIUnWuAeKl8&feature=related

7/05/08 8:17 PM
Viewed 250, Replies 19

Originally posted by CactusmanX

#5  The Cure - Love Song


 

 

 

Great choice!!  I haven’t heard that song in so long I forgot about it!  I need to add it to my list.  I also lovethat Teala put in some Laura Branigan songs but they don’t quite make my list.

 

I know, I know, there are some pretty sappy ones in there.

 

5) The Cure - Lovesong

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4SZhumbv0s&feature=related

4) Concrete Blonde - Joey

http://youtube.com/watch?v=MIIlUHBNkEc

 

3) Chicago - Hard for me to say I’m sorry

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QEyS5adfRQ&feature=related

 

2) Tracy Ullman – They don’t know

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4K1xnVFxfw0

 

1) Cowboy Junkies – Misguided Angel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-dtwVEPjto

7/03/08 6:12 PM
Viewed 368, Replies 27

 

The Bible is a spiritual guide not a science text book. It’s not intended to describe the physical universe it describes the spiritual universe using metaphor and allegory. Science describes the physical universe, but can never provide absolute certainty, final answers or look beyond some horizons. 
 
As I see it the two don’t overlap at all and therefor can never contradict each other.  Evolution describes a physical process and therefore falls firmly in the realm of science to prove or disprove. 

7/03/08 8:54 AM
Viewed 545, Replies 72

Originally posted by Torak
Originally posted by lomiller

Gravity is also a theory, aren’t you terrified you could float off into space at any moment?

You mean you don't anchor yourself to the ground at all times????

Very brave.

You totally missed my point.

 


 

 

No. Your point totally missed reality. All of science is “just a theory” but to deny it you must deny the existence of the computer you are typing on, then electricity that powers it, they material it’s made of, the house you live in, the car you drive, etc, etc, etc.
 
To deny some piece of science because “it’s just a theory” is to deny science completely, and to deny the existence of every piece of technology (applied science) around you. 

7/02/08 11:39 PM
Viewed 545, Replies 72

Originally posted by Torak

The key operating word here is "Theory".

 

It is not the "fact of evolution" or just plain old "evolution" as it can not be proven. It is a simple preference of belief.

The main thing with this is it helped  people start thinking outside of prescribed religion.

 

 

 

Gravity is also a theory, aren’t you terrified you could float off into space at any moment?

Theory is in fact the strongest statement science ever makes, it equates to the way laymen use the word fact in ordinary discussion. 

7/01/08 10:17 PM
Viewed 243, Replies 27

 

That’s a whole lot of excuse making. 
 

Violent crime isn’t going to make a significant difference in life expectancy in either country. Published papers rank well ahead of your “feelings” no mater which country they are published in, and it’s not cost brining down the US in the WHO rankings. (One could make an argument for funding mechanism working against the US, but Canada also has some quirks in the ranking system working against it).

 

 

BTW don’t trust anything that comes out of the Fraser institute, they are a special interest “think tank”.  Waiting lists do exist in Canada, just as many people can’t get immediate care in the US, by and large they are for *elective* surgery.

7/01/08 6:23 PM
Viewed 243, Replies 27

 

LOL who is getting peeved at having their preconceived notions dismantled?  Enigma suggested something that patently was not true and I called him on it.    

 

Canada ranks higher then the US in WHO rankings

 

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

 

Canada has a lower infant mortality rate and longer lifespan

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate_(2005)

 

Canadians have a longer lifespan (despite generally similar lifestyles) 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

 

Canada outperforms the US in a majority head to head studies

 

http://www.openmedicine.ca/article/view/8/1

 

7/01/08 5:50 PM
Viewed 243, Replies 27

Originally posted by Enigma

Universal Healthcare is horrid. No doctor will work in a communistic state of affairs. My church has a ministry where we take canadians to the US and pay for their various medical issues. We take families where their situations are dire and we have a seperate budget for this ministry and we have a co op of doctors who do this as a charity (so that our budget is not as burdened).

 

 

Canada routinely ranks ahead of the US in quality of care surveys.  Canada has lower infant mortality.  Canadians have longer lifespan.  All this and everyone is covered for 1/2 of what the US currently spends per capita on health care. 

 

If you are saying Canadians would even consider trading their system for a US style system you are a flat out liar.  If you are suggestion the US system performs better then the Canadian one you are a flat out liar. 

7/01/08 5:39 PM
Viewed 171, Replies 32

Originally posted by Cabe2323
Originally posted by Nierro
Originally posted by Cabe2323


 

Okay just so we are clear then If McCain has no Executive Experience while serving as a CO of a large squadron of over 1000 people

No he didn't.


 

So Obama has no experience at all leading people. 

 

Okay I am glad we have that clear now. 

 

 

Perhaps you don’t understand what leadership is…

 

What we are talking about here is Executive experience, and neither Obama nor McCain has such experience.   Leadership is a more ambiguous term.  Here is what wikipeida says:

1) Those entities that perform one or more acts of leading.

2) The ability to affect human behavior so as to accomplish a mission.

3) Influencing a group of people to move towards its goal setting or goal achievement.”

 

I don’t think there can be any question Obama has this quality is abundance. 

Page 1 of 90

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Last

Legend

Locked
Hot (25+ Posts)
New Posts
No New Posts