Barack Obama - No Socialist Aspirations Here

[Khariz]

Alright, first of all, before anyone reads these DIRECT QUOTES from Barack Obama, I have a disclaimer: I put this together by myself in-between the last two Nelemar hunts in Gemstone. You will not find this pre-packaged on some other web-site of the internet. The source is linked each time, and I used Obama's own websites as much as possible for authenticity reasons. I apologize if the formatting is off, and will fix it ASAP if it is.

Have fun reading!


1. "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK"


http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5h-wpxs1Re-8vx2Zk5xnYygW1W67w


2.


"Instead of supporting my plan to use the windfall profits of oil companies to help you pay rising costs, he's offering $4 billion more in tax breaks to oil companies like Exxon that just made the largest quarterly profit in the history of the United States of America. That's why Washington is broken."

http://www.barackobama.com/2008/08/06/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_103.php


3.


And if I'm elected President, unlike Senator McCain, I won't be giving tax breaks to oil companies that are doing better than ever while you're struggling more than ever. Instead, I'll immediately give working families across America a $1,000 energy rebate, paid for with part of the record profits the oil companies are making right now.

http://www.barackobama.com/2008/08/05/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_105.php


4.

I believe we should immediately give every working family in America a $1,000 energy rebate, and we should pay for it with part of the record profits that the oil companies are making right now.

http://www.barackobama.com/2008/08/04/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_104.php


5.

When special interests put their thumb on the scale, and distort the free market, the people who compete by the rules come in last. And when our government fails to meet its obligation - to provide sensible oversight and stand on the side of working people and invest in their future - America pays a heavy price.

http://www.barackobama.com/2008/08/02/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_102.php


6.

It's time to restore balance and fairness to our economy so it works for all Americans, recognizing that we must grow together, Wall Street and Main Street, profits and wages.

http://www.barackobama.com/2008/08/02/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_102.php


7.

That's why yesterday, I announced a two-part emergency plan to help struggling families make ends meet and get our economy back on track. The first part of my plan is to tax the windfall profits of oil companies and use some of that money to help you pay the rising price of gas.

http://www.barackobama.com/2008/08/02/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_102.php


8.

Well, I don't think we should be giving tax breaks to oil companies that are doing better than ever at a time when you're struggling more than ever. It's time to use some of their record profits to help you pay record prices by putting a $1,000 emergency energy rebate in the pockets of working families.


http://www.barackobama.com/2008/08/02/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_102.php


9.

We can choose to go another four years with a broken health care system; or we can finally guarantee health care for anyone who wants it, make it affordable for anyone who needs it, and cut health care costs for manufactures to help make them more competitive. That's a choice we can make in this election.

http://www.barackobama.com/2008/08/02/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_102.php


10.

We can choose to stay mired in the same education debate that's consumed Washington for decades, or we can invest in early childhood education, recruit an army of qualified teachers with better pay and more support, and make college affordable by offering an annual $4,000 tax credit in exchange for community or national service. That's how we'll prepare every American to compete and succeed in our global economy.


http://www.barackobama.com/2008/08/02/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_102.php


11.

You know that you can't take that seat at the front of the bus if you can't afford the bus fare. You can't live in an integrated neighborhood if you can't afford the house. And it doesn't mean a whole lot to sit down at that lunch counter if you can't afford the lunch.

http://www.barackobama.com/2008/08/02/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_101.php


12.

Senator McCain is opposed to regular increases in the minimum wage - I want to index it so that it rises with rising costs. He thinks the Earned Income Tax Credit is fine as it is - I want to expand it. He has no plans to make childcare more affordable or help people get paid sick leave - while I do.

In the end, Senator McCain's plans, if you're doing spectacularly well now, you'll do even better. Otherwise, you'll likely be stuck running in place - or fall even further behind.

http://www.barackobama.com/2008/08/02/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_101.php


13.

Now, I've been a proponent of public school choice throughout my career. I also believe that well- designed public charter schools have a lot to offer. That's why I helped pass legislation to double the number of charter schools in Chicago. But what I do oppose is using public money for private school vouchers. We need to focus on fixing and improving our public schools; not throwing our hands up and walking away from them.

http://www.barackobama.com/2008/08/02/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_101.php


14.

That's why I introduced a comprehensive plan last fall to recruit, prepare and retain effective teachers across America and why I added a program to the education bill that passed just yesterday to prepare high quality teachers in urban areas. That's why I introduced legislation to lower the dropout rate, starting in middle school. That's why, when I'm President, we'll give every child access to high quality pre-kindergarten programs, recruit an army of new teachers for our communities, stop leaving the money behind for No Child Left Behind, and make college affordable for anyone who wants to go.

http://www.barackobama.com/2008/08/02/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_101.php


15.

We know the difference we can make when we work together to open the doors of opportunity wide enough for everyone to walk through.

http://www.barackobama.com/2008/08/02/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_101.php


16.

Partnership and cooperation among nations is not a choice; it is the one way, the only way, to protect our common security and advance our common humanity.

http://www.barackobama.com/2008/07/24/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_97.php


17.

Now is the time to join together, through constant cooperation, strong institutions, shared sacrifice, and a global commitment to progress, to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

http://www.barackobama.com/2008/07/24/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_97.php


18.

This is the moment when we must build on the wealth that open markets have created, and share its benefits more equitably. Trade has been a cornerstone of our growth and global development. But we will not be able to sustain this growth if it favors the few, and not the many. Together, we must forge trade that truly rewards the work that creates wealth, with meaningful protections for our people and our planet. This is the moment for trade that is free and fair for all.

http://www.barackobama.com/2008/07/24/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_97.php


19.

We will have to provide meaningful resources to meet critical priorities. I know development assistance is not the most popular program, but as President, I will make the case to the American people that it can be our best investment in increasing the common security of the entire world. That was true with the Marshall Plan, and that must be true today. That's why I'll double our foreign assistance to $50 billion by 2012, and use it to support a stable future in failing states, and sustainable growth in Africa; to halve global poverty and to roll back disease. To send once more a message to those yearning faces beyond our shores that says, "You matter to us. Your future is our future. And our moment is now."

http://www.barackobama.com/2008/07/15/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_96.php


20.

They're telling us we're better off if we dismantle government - if we divvy it up into individual tax breaks, hand 'em out, and encourage everyone to go buy your own health care, your own retirement security, your own child care, their own schools, your own private security force, your own roads, their own levees...

It's called the Ownership Society in Washington. But in our past there has been another term for it - Social Darwinism - every man or women for him or herself.

It allows us to say to those whose health care or tuition may rise faster than they can afford - life isn't fair. It allows us to say to the child who didn't have the foresight to choose the right parents or be born in the right suburb - pick yourself up by your bootstraps. It lets us say to the guy who worked twenty or thirty years in the factory and then watched his plant move out to Mexico or China - we're sorry, but you're on your own.

It's a bracing idea. It's a tempting idea. And it's the easiest thing in the world.

But there's just one problem. It doesn't work. It ignores our history. It ignores the fact that it has been government research and investment that made the railways and the internet possible. It has been the creation of a massive middle class, through decent wages and benefits and public schools - that has allowed all of us to prosper. And it has been the ability of working men and women to join together in unions that has allowed our rising tide to lift every boat.

Yes, our greatness as a nation has depended on individual initiative, on a belief in the free market. But it has also depended on our sense of mutual regard for each other, of mutual responsibility. The idea that everybody has a stake in the country, that we're all in it together and everybody's got a shot at opportunity.

http://obamaspeeches.com/086-AFSCME-National-Convention-Obama-Speech.htm



21.

We can start by fixing our schools to make sure every child in America has the education and the skills they need to compete. We can start by making sure that college is affordable for every American who wants to go. And by giving unions a real role in creating a real system of lifelong learning so that workers who lose a job really can retrain for other high-wage jobs.

In this new economy, we can start giving our workers a chance by making sure that no matter where you work or how many times you switch jobs, you will have health care and a pension you can take with you always.

http://obamaspeeches.com/086-AFSCME-National-Convention-Obama-Speech.htm


22.

And in a world where two-income households are trying to juggle work and family, we can start giving workers a chance with policies that give families a chance. When a parent takes parental leave, we shouldn't act like caring for a newborn baby is a three-month break - we should let them keep their salary. When parents are working and their children need care, we should make sure that care is affordable, and that our kids can go to school earlier and longer so they have a safe place to learn while their parents are at work. And when a mom or a dad has to leave work to care for a sick child, we should make sure it doesn't result in a pink slip.

http://obamaspeeches.com/086-AFSCME-National-Convention-Obama-Speech.htm


23.

And as long as there are those who try to privatize our government and decimate our social programs and peddle a philosophy of trickle-down and on-your-own, I ask you to keep marching for a vision of America where we rise or fall as one nation under God.

http://obamaspeeches.com/086-AFSCME-National-Convention-Obama-Speech.htm


24.

I understand this view. There's something bracing about the Social Darwinist idea, the idea that there isn't a problem that the unfettered free market can't solve. It requires no sacrifice on the part of those of us who have won life's lottery...and doesn't consider who our parents were, or the education we received, or the right breaks that came at the right time.

But I couldn't disagree more. If we privatize Social Security, what will we tell retirees whose investments in the stock market went badly? We're sorry? Keep working? You're on your own?

When people's expected benefits get cut and they have to choose between their groceries and their prescriptions, what will we say then? That's not our problem?

When our debt climbs so high that our children face sky-high taxes just as they're starting their first job, what will we tell them? Deal with it yourselves?

This isn't how America works. This isn't how we saved millions of seniors from a life of poverty seventy years ago. This isn't how we sent a greatest generation of veterans to college so they could build the greatest middle-class in history. And this isn't how we should face the challenges of this new century either.

And yet, this is the direction they're trying to take America on almost every issue. Instead of trying to contain the skyrocketing cost of health care and expand access to the uninsured, the idea behind the President's Health Savings Accounts are to leave the system alone and give you a few extra bucks to go find a plan you can afford on your own. You deal with double digit inflation by going to the doctor less. Instead of strengthening a pension system that provides defined benefits to employees who've worked a lifetime, we'll give you a tax break and hope that you invest well and save well in your own little account. And if none of this works - if you couldn't find affordable insurance and suffer an illness that leaves you thousands of dollars in debt - then you should no longer count on being able to start over by declaring bankruptcy because they've changed the law to put the burden of debt squarely on your shoulders.

http://obamaspeeches.com/014-National-Press-Club-Obama-Speech.htm


25.

But the irony of this all-out assault against every existing form of social insurance is that these safety nets are exactly what encourage each of us to be risk-takers and entrepreneurs who are free to pursue our individual ambitions. We get into a car knowing that if someone rear-ends us, they will have insurance to pay for the repairs. We buy a house knowing that our investment is protected by homeowners insurance. We take a chance on start-ups and small businesses because we know that if they fail, there are protections available to cushion our fall. Corporations across America have limited liability for this very reason. Families should too - and that's why we need social insurance. This is how the market works.

This is how America works. And if we want it to keep working, we need to develop new ways for all of us to share the new risks of a 21st century economy, not destroy what we already have.

The genius of Roosevelt was putting into practice the idea that America doesn't have to be a place where our individual aspirations are at war with our common good; it's a place where one makes the other possible.

http://obamaspeeches.com/014-National-Press-Club-Obama-Speech.htm

[Daniel]

Are you joking or are you just stupid?

[Khariz]

Are you joking or are you just stupid?

If you think Barack Obama is joking...you are the fool.

[Daniel]

If you think any of that equates to some sort of marxist doctrine then you are a pretty serious retard.

[BigWorm]

Yeah Obama espouses the totally Marxist doctrine of imprving public schools. The horror!!!

[Khariz]

If you think any of that equates to some sort of marxist doctrine then you are a pretty serious retard.

Dude...

When you take all that shit above that he spouts, and COUPLE it with his lifelong associations, and the writings, books, and backgrounds of THOSE people...it's not to hard to come to a very simple conclusion.

I'll give you that maybe 5 of those quotes above are rather benign and political pandering only...but there is a CONSISTENT pattern on socialist ideals and rhetoric coming out of his mouth. That's what I came up with in 20mintues. Shall I scour the other 500 speeches of his that I have access to? It won't be that hard.

[inso]

Marxist proletariat-lead structural revolution? Nope.

Leninist vanguard-lead redistribution? Bingo.

[Gan]

Interesting quotes.

Thanks Khariz.

[Parkbandit]

Class warfare is the key to Obama's platform.

Sounds vaguely familiar....

[Warriorbird]

If you're gonna go that route...

Marx's own ideas even changed during his lifetime...

You're like the 'intelligent design' people. You're going in with a foregone conclusion.

A 'reasonable person' would not draw that from these quotes. Somebody who's trying to cling to objectivism above reality might.

[Parkbandit]

If you're gonna go that route...

Marx's own ideas even changed during his lifetime...

You're like the 'intelligent design' people. You're going in with a foregone conclusion.

A 'reasonable person' would not draw that from these quotes. Somebody who's trying to cling to objectivism above reality might.


OR, you can just completely ignore everything he says and just call people who question his motives crazy.

When you start saying you are going to seize the 'excessive' profits from independent companies and redirect that profit to give it to the 'poor', then you are clearly on Marxist Street.

I can only hope that the oil companies take the US Government to court if they ever try that shit.

[Warriorbird]

To repeat:

A 'reasonable person' would not draw Marxism from these quotes. Somebody who's trying to cling to objectivism above reality might.

1. Conservative. Sometimes American's need to practice frugality.

2. Tax breaks are pretty fucking stupid when a specific industry is doing well and you're planning on skyrocketing military spending. Conservative.

3. Tax rebates aren't actually Marxist. Doesn't mean I don't think he's foolish in this regard.

4. TR came up on trustbusting. When competition gets stifled it isn't healthy for the economy. Pure Laissez Faire lead to serious issues for the country.

5. Corporate owned politicians are a bad idea. Democracy can be subverted by the uncontrolled market.

6. I'm not getting the problem with trying to help every American. Should we only help corporations? Is that democratic?

7. ''

8. '' (broken record much?)

9. His system is nowhere near even what's offered by socialist countries. Your agenda clouds your reasoning.

10. People get more education... they make more money... they further our capitalist interests. Nowhere is this more evident than in places like the Deep South. A less educated populace is a poorer less spending populace.

11. It sucks to be poor. OMG, communism!

12. The poor don't actually spend that much.

13. So you want less people educated... if we have public schools, why not fix them?

14. Holy shit. Helping problem communities instead of insulting them! Communism!

15. He wants to help poor people. This does not equal Communism.

16. Actual diplomacy is sort of useful... Communism! Do you have ANY knowledge of history? Was NATO Communism?

17. Instead of dividing Americans (and if you don't think we're divided...look at this board)... he wants to unify them. Terrible idea!

18. A trade policy that helps America rather than mulitnationals is not a particularly Communist notion.

19. Some math. 50 billion on aid < 1 trillion on a war for people who don't give a fuck about us. I think you can fill in the rest.

20. Oh my... the idea that not ignoring the rest of the country is good... terrifying!

21. Public education = Communism to you. I really hope you didn't accept any student aid ever.

22. So... you hate kids.

23. Privatizing government hasn't worked terribly well. Explain that away. Divisions tear at us.

24. So you're against the Federal government if it isn't war or policing. How do we deal with things like natural disasters?

25. So... anti FDR.


Are you completely ignorant of history or what Marxism actually is?

It breaks down to whether you think spending money on pointless wars and giving tax breaks to companies is a good idea while increasing spending...
...or whether spending money on Americans is a good idea while increasing spending...
and the first costs more.
Yeah... McCain's an objectivist all right...
Obama might forward some socialist ideals... but he's certainly not a Marxist by any logical examination...
McCain's socialism is for corporations... and for wars. He cares if war has plenty to eat. I mean, war gets votes, right!

'Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran!'
-John McCain

They're both going to spend. I'm just going to choose America over Iran.

[Renian]

Warriorbird's post
http://bksschoolhouse.com/cart-imgs/prod13608_lg.jpg

[Khariz]

Again, I'm not pro-McCain. I'm just anti-Obama. McCain is a shitty candidate too. You and I agree there, WB.

Also, yes, I do cling to objectivism, but the difference between you and me, is that I know that it works. Like...always. And that only when government mucks with markets do they begin to truly fall apart.

Btw, "mucking" does not include insuring that fraud does not occur. We don't need companies overstating their books and fucking investors and the market up. But if all companies report their earnings properly, and competition flourishes in the marketplace, we don't need any type of government "regulation". As I said in the other thread, if a monopoly arises out of such a market situation, it's typically because the company genuinly has the best product at the best price. If someone can come along and produce a product better or for less money, then it will receive capitalization from investors and will exist, and flourish in the capitalist marketplace.

And besides all of the above, I think you might be confused as to what objectivism is. Objectivism stands for the proposition that reality exists SEPERATE from what our minds THINK it is. What does that mean? It means that there is a certain way that the world "works" regardless of how people "think" it works. Capitalism is the only successful economic condition. It's the only one that objectively works. That's the world as I have directly perceived it anyway!

[Warriorbird]

I think objectivism gets turned into neo-feudalism just as easily as Lenin's Communism got turned into Stalin's Communism.

Here's where I differ from you in my view of the government interfering with the economy... while the government inhibiting it can be problematic... I think the government giving certain portions of it favor perverts capitalism almost more.

I'm using objectivism as a Rand focused sort of libertarian (but not, or Rand would beat you up) ideal.

[Khariz]

I think objectivism gets turned into neo-feudalism just as easily as Lenin's Communism got turned into Stalin's Communism.

I don't think we need the government assisting the companies either.

I'm using it as a Rand focused sort of libertarian (but not, or Rand would beat you up) ideal.

Fair enough.

Actually and funny enough...I see myself as a Randian Libertarian. I mean...if you pegged me on a spectrum...that would be the best way to put it.

[Warriorbird]

I think corporations are inherently amoral. They'll always go for the easiest path. This is most of the time not a bad thing.

[Kranar]

As I said in the other thread, if a monopoly arises out of such a market situation, it's typically because the company genuinly has the best product at the best price. If someone can come along and produce a product better or for less money, then it will receive capitalization from investors and will exist, and flourish in the capitalist marketplace.


Aww man my post has turned into a wall of text.

Ah well... I would strongly argue against this. Now while I'm far from an economics/business guru, what you're espousing here has a similar mapping to the mathematical branch of game theory where such a statement is false.

In game theory you would study an environment composed of a multitude of strategies (you can think of a strategy as being a company) and we could assign to each strategy a possible value where that value corresponds to some ideal the environment is supposed to aspire to, for example, efficiency, or productivity, or the most basic value of all, profitability. The objective would be to find a way of producing an environment that maximizes that value.

Given such a model, your argument maps to the idea that the environment with a maximal value will eventually be achieved regardless of what the initial environment is as long as there are no restrictions on what strategies are allowed. That essentially, if you just let strategies duke it out on their own without limiting what strategies are allowed or being able to force strategies out of the environment, then in the long run the value of the environment as a whole will increase.

This is a provably false statement. It is possible for something called an evolutionarily stable strategy to develop which results in the environment reaching an equilibrium. In plain words this just means that it's possible for there to be a set of strategies that 'collude' in such a way that they prevent any other strategy from evolving, regardless of whether those other strategies would increase the value of the environment or not.

Translated into your economic terms, this means that it's possible for certain companies to get so powerful, that they have the ability to exert their power in ways that prevent new businesses from being created that would in the long run be more profitable. Now you put some mostly minor restrictions like companies have to honest, in game theory this is taken care of by a condition called complete information, ie. every participant of the environment has access to exactly the same information and the theorem holds with and without such a condition.

As an example in game theory you have the classic case of the prisoner's dilemma. If you're not familiar with that it should prove to be an interesting read, but the gist of it is that people are given a choice to cooperate or to betray someone else, if you cooperate with someone and they cooperate, both of you will gain the most, if you cooperate with someone who betrays you, you are screwed big time and the guy who defected gains a decent bit, if you both betray one another, you both gain a small amount.

In an environment where various strategies are designed to compete with one another one possible evolutionarily stable strategy is a world where every single person/corporation betrays one another; no corporation is to be trusted. Corporations always just think of their own interest and never engage in partnerships with other corporations. If the environment evolves into that, it is impossible for any new corporation to change the environment. Corporations will be able to produce profits in such an environment, but the environment is stuck that way and any new corporation that intends to cooperate will quickly find itself bankrupt.

Another possible equilibrium is a result of the famous tit-for-tat strategy. This is a strategy where when you encounter a new corporation you've never encountered before, you cooperate with them, then whenever you have a future business dealing with them, if the last time you dealt with them they cooperated with you, then you continue to cooperate, if the last time they betrayed you, then you betray them. Basically you always respond to a new business dealing the way that they last responded to you.

Because this is an equilibrium, an environment that evolves into this will also be immune to change. However, in such an environment, the profitability is greater than in the previous bleaker environment where every corporation just thinks about themselves. For example, when two tit-for-tat companies work together, since they will both cooperate with one another, they will both gain the most. If a tit-for-tat corporation does business with a vulture who only thinks about himself, that vulture will get a nice head start on the first business dealing, but that's all, in all future dealings that vulture is screwed.

These are two possible environments out of an entire multitude of possible equilibria, and it's just a matter of which equilibria happens to evolve first.

The point being that if the equilibria of companies, people, who ever, who never cooperate evolves first, then that environment is stuck to be that way forever and even if a group of tit-for-tat companies come along who would on their own evolve into a more profitable environment, they will not be able to prosper.

Now regardless of whether we are evolving into a environment of tit-for-tats, or an environment of vultures, or something in between (I'm actually somewhat optimistic), is irrelevent as I am not making a political argument. My only point in this is to give a broader picture of how systems can evolve over a long period of time, and that while systems often do evolve into an equilibrium state, it is not true that the equilibrium they evolve into is the optimal one.

[Latrinsorm]

But if all companies report their earnings properly, and competition flourishes in the marketplace, we don't need any type of government "regulation".Child labor? Slave labor? Or are these obviously more examples of regulation that's ok because you agree with it?

In a broader sense, Obama has already issued a rebuttal to your aspersions: "Yes, our greatness as a nation has depended on individual initiative, on a belief in the free market. But it has also depended on our sense of mutual regard for each other, of mutual responsibility. The idea that everybody has a stake in the country, that we're all in it together and everybody's got a shot at opportunity."

So-called "socialism" is as much a part of the fabric of American society as so-called "capitalism", and always has been. Progressives ended the first World War, FDR's full-on communism brought the nation out of the worst financial crisis of its history, multiple Presidents have received the "Trust-buster" moniker. To balk at socialism in America is to confess an ignorance of history.

I don't mean that in a bad way, really, but more in a pedagogical way. This is an excellent opportunity to cast off the common knowledge that is suffocating your brain; I hope you take advantage of it.

[Khariz]

Child labor? Slave labor? Or are these obviously more examples of regulation that's ok because you agree with it?

In a broader sense, Obama has already issued a rebuttal to your aspersions: "Yes, our greatness as a nation has depended on individual initiative, on a belief in the free market. But it has also depended on our sense of mutual regard for each other, of mutual responsibility. The idea that everybody has a stake in the country, that we're all in it together and everybody's got a shot at opportunity."

So-called "socialism" is as much a part of the fabric of American society as so-called "capitalism", and always has been. Progressives ended the first World War, FDR's full-on communism brought the nation out of the worst financial crisis of its history, multiple Presidents have received the "Trust-buster" moniker. To balk at socialism in America is to confess an ignorance of history.

I don't mean that in a bad way, really, but more in a pedagogical way. This is an excellent opportunity to cast off the common knowledge that is suffocating your brain; I hope you take advantage of it.


I understand full well the aspects of socialism that have "helped" our country, as you think of it. Trust me, I'm not just some bum waltzing into the PC and drooling on the board. I know my history, and I know my country.

Kranar is right...businesses cannot be expected to always behave properly. You are correct too, they will take advantages of things like child labor. What I'm saying is, is that it's not the government's place to regulate everything. Don't want children working in factories? How about their parents tell them they cannot. If the family needs the money so bad that they WANT the kid to work in the factory, it's not my problem.

Yes, FDR pulled the country out of a big rut, but he didn't "fix" anything. He put a giant band-aid on things. This band-aid has been soaked with blood and changed many times throughout the years. We didn't use the right material when applying these band-aids, and now the blood leaks out faster than the bandages can hold the blood in.

The socialistic nature of this country gets WORSE as the years go by, and not better. My whole point, in this thread, and the others that I have posted in on this topic is the following:

I will strive to elect people who will seek to either reverse course and/or preserve the status quo (with regard to how socialistic we are), rather than knowingly put someone in officer that will intentionally try to take the country in the very direction that I personally do not think *works*. That is all.

And in my personal opinon, that is a more valid reason for choosing who I will vote for as my president than "Because I'm a Democrat/Republican, and I vote on party lines". Not many people I know have any "good" reason why they vote for who they do. Most hear some things here and there, and just pull the lever however, or they default to party lines because they were too busy to educate themselves on any issues.

[Warriorbird]

That's the thing... the very principles that you say you espouse are also strongly against the government intervening and giving business anything either. What gets set up is an entirely different perversion of the purity of the market.

[Valthissa]

As an example in game theory you have the classic case of the prisoner's dilemma. If you're not familiar with that it should prove to be an interesting read, but the gist of it is that people are given a choice to cooperate or to betray someone else, if you cooperate with someone and they cooperate, both of you will gain the most, if you cooperate with someone who betrays you, you are screwed big time and the guy who defected gains a decent bit, if you both betray one another, you both gain a small amount.



For an interesting discussion on how and why cooperation among early humans might have arisen, I recommend Before the Dawn by Nicholas Wade.

C/Valth

[crb]

Child labor? Slave labor? Or are these obviously more examples of regulation that's ok because you agree with it?

If a company's social practices go against what is accepted by society, society will punish that company by not utilizing their services. You will undoubtedly point to some example where this is not happening, but what you perennially fail to realize is that a vocal minority from where you originate does not equate to society as a whole.



In a broader sense, Obama has already issued a rebuttal to your aspersions: "Yes, our greatness as a nation has depended on individual initiative, on a belief in the free market. But it has also depended on our sense of mutual regard for each other, of mutual responsibility. The idea that everybody has a stake in the country, that we're all in it together and everybody's got a shot at opportunity."

Pander Pander Pander.




So-called "socialism" is as much a part of the fabric of American society as so-called "capitalism", and always has been. Progressives ended the first World War, FDR's full-on communism brought the nation out of the worst financial crisis of its history, multiple Presidents have received the "Trust-buster" moniker. To balk at socialism in America is to confess an ignorance of history.

Holy made up history batman. Obviously we don't have time machines but many economists feel that FDR delayed recovery with his new programs, and there is no dispute that we didn't really recover until WWII.

I'm sure if, 8 years from now, a President Obama presides over the end of this current slowdown everyone will put him on a pedestal. Never wondering if maybe, a President McCain would have had it ended 7 years earlier.

Of coruse, this also ignores what put us into the depression in the first place, anti-free market anti-capitalist policies.

There are literally, hundreds of sources, books, etc, you can find on this topic. Here is one:

http://www.fee.org/publications/notes/notes/threemyths.asp

[crb]

Aww man my post has turned into a wall of text.

Ah well... I would strongly argue against this. Now while I'm far from an economics/business guru, what you're espousing here has a similar mapping to the mathematical branch of game theory where such a statement is false.

In game theory you would study an environment composed of a multitude of strategies (you can think of a strategy as being a company) and we could assign to each strategy a possible value where that value corresponds to some ideal the environment is supposed to aspire to, for example, efficiency, or productivity, or the most basic value of all, profitability. The objective would be to find a way of producing an environment that maximizes that value.

Given such a model, your argument maps to the idea that the environment with a maximal value will eventually be achieved regardless of what the initial environment is as long as there are no restrictions on what strategies are allowed. That essentially, if you just let strategies duke it out on their own without limiting what strategies are allowed or being able to force strategies out of the environment, then in the long run the value of the environment as a whole will increase.

This is a provably false statement. It is possible for something called an evolutionarily stable strategy to develop which results in the environment reaching an equilibrium. In plain words this just means that it's possible for there to be a set of strategies that 'collude' in such a way that they prevent any other strategy from evolving, regardless of whether those other strategies would increase the value of the environment or not.

Translated into your economic terms, this means that it's possible for certain companies to get so powerful, that they have the ability to exert their power in ways that prevent new businesses from being created that would in the long run be more profitable. Now you put some mostly minor restrictions like companies have to honest, in game theory this is taken care of by a condition called complete information, ie. every participant of the environment has access to exactly the same information and the theorem holds with and without such a condition.

As an example in game theory you have the classic case of the prisoner's dilemma. If you're not familiar with that it should prove to be an interesting read, but the gist of it is that people are given a choice to cooperate or to betray someone else, if you cooperate with someone and they cooperate, both of you will gain the most, if you cooperate with someone who betrays you, you are screwed big time and the guy who defected gains a decent bit, if you both betray one another, you both gain a small amount.

In an environment where various strategies are designed to compete with one another one possible evolutionarily stable strategy is a world where every single person/corporation betrays one another; no corporation is to be trusted. Corporations always just think of their own interest and never engage in partnerships with other corporations. If the environment evolves into that, it is impossible for any new corporation to change the environment. Corporations will be able to produce profits in such an environment, but the environment is stuck that way and any new corporation that intends to cooperate will quickly find itself bankrupt.

Another possible equilibrium is a result of the famous tit-for-tat strategy. This is a strategy where when you encounter a new corporation you've never encountered before, you cooperate with them, then whenever you have a future business dealing with them, if the last time you dealt with them they cooperated with you, then you continue to cooperate, if the last time they betrayed you, then you betray them. Basically you always respond to a new business dealing the way that they last responded to you.

Because this is an equilibrium, an environment that evolves into this will also be immune to change. However, in such an environment, the profitability is greater than in the previous bleaker environment where every corporation just thinks about themselves. For example, when two tit-for-tat companies work together, since they will both cooperate with one another, they will both gain the most. If a tit-for-tat corporation does business with a vulture who only thinks about himself, that vulture will get a nice head start on the first business dealing, but that's all, in all future dealings that vulture is screwed.

These are two possible environments out of an entire multitude of possible equilibria, and it's just a matter of which equilibria happens to evolve first.

The point being that if the equilibria of companies, people, who ever, who never cooperate evolves first, then that environment is stuck to be that way forever and even if a group of tit-for-tat companies come along who would on their own evolve into a more profitable environment, they will not be able to prosper.

Now regardless of whether we are evolving into a environment of tit-for-tats, or an environment of vultures, or something in between (I'm actually somewhat optimistic), is irrelevent as I am not making a political argument. My only point in this is to give a broader picture of how systems can evolve over a long period of time, and that while systems often do evolve into an equilibrium state, it is not true that the equilibrium they evolve into is the optimal one.
You're posting this as a curiosity right?

[Warriorbird]

So, crb. Since you're a historian... what exactly were the Republicans of that period doing about our complete and utter economic chaos?

If society doesn't know about a company doing anything wrong due to a complete lack of regulation... will a company continue doing wrong? Of course.

...and of course a think tank founded by the Chamber of Commerce is going to want things easier for business. Way to cite a completely unbiased source!

I'm mainly sorry that intellectual posts completely fail with you. Kranar's got a little bit of knowledge of things outside of how he wants life to be. I'm not sure that you do.

[Ashliana]

Of coruse, this also ignores what put us into the depression in the first place, anti-free market anti-capitalist policies.

Economists don't agree on what caused the great depression, but a key theme in almost everyone's theory is that the bubble we created by not regulating the credit market (Oh my god! A lack of regulation, which you claim is always just peachy for capitalism, helped create the depression?!) and allowing everyone to borrow, borrow, borrow without the means to pay it back, popped--people couldn't repay their loans, banks failed, businesses couldn't borrow from banks, no new investment, no new jobs. That's why the FDIC was formed.

[Daniel]

Of coruse, this also ignores what put us into the depression in the first place, anti-free market anti-capitalist policies.

There are literally, hundreds of sources, books, etc, you can find on this topic. Here is one:

http://www.fee.org/publications/notes/notes/threemyths.asp

Lol. Talk about made up history. The period immediately preceeding the great depression was the most economically open in the history of mankind. This is why it had such wide spread ramifications around the world.

[Daniel]

I understand full well the aspects of socialism that have "helped" our country, as you think of it. Trust me, I'm not just some bum waltzing into the PC and drooling on the board. I know my history, and I know my country.

Um..okay.



Kranar is right...businesses cannot be expected to always behave properly. You are correct too, they will take advantages of things like child labor. What I'm saying is, is that it's not the government's place to regulate everything. Don't want children working in factories? How about their parents tell them they cannot. If the family needs the money so bad that they WANT the kid to work in the factory, it's not my problem.

The inherent contradictions in these statements are baffling. Let's take the issue away from one in which you can claim no responsibility.

Let's look at environment degradation. A company has no reason to care about the environment, especially if it leads to an increase in their overhead and cuts into their bottom line.

So, what mechanism do you suppose will hold them accountable? The consumer? Okay, but what if A) I don't know about it or B) I'm not personally effected by the problems?

What's to stop me from selling my product in a region or area where they have no invested interest in fighting my pollution? Who then steps up to tell me what I'm doing is wrong?




Yes, FDR pulled the country out of a big rut, but he didn't "fix" anything. He put a giant band-aid on things. This band-aid has been soaked with blood and changed many times throughout the years. We didn't use the right material when applying these band-aids, and now the blood leaks out faster than the bandages can hold the blood in.


Okay. So change the bandages, but don't sit here and act like they weren't neccessary in the first place or even now.



The socialistic nature of this country gets WORSE as the years go by, and not better. My whole point, in this thread, and the others that I have posted in on this topic is the following:

I will strive to elect people who will seek to either reverse course and/or preserve the status quo (with regard to how socialistic we are), rather than knowingly put someone in officer that will intentionally try to take the country in the very direction that I personally do not think *works*. That is all.

And in my personal opinon, that is a more valid reason for choosing who I will vote for as my president than "Because I'm a Democrat/Republican, and I vote on party lines". Not many people I know have any "good" reason why they vote for who they do. Most hear some things here and there, and just pull the lever however, or they default to party lines because they were too busy to educate themselves on any issues.

I don't think anyone here is arguing against your own personal decision to choose the person you think best represents your values. The issue that I take, and I imagine others as well, is that you make very spurious claims as to the character and intentions of one candidate in an attempt to validate your position.

Spouting off about how Obama is leading the country towards a marxist revolution is not helping your agenda, nor is it making you look very smart; something you obviusly pride yourself on.

[Latrinsorm]

What I'm saying is, is that it's not the government's place to regulate everything. Don't want children working in factories? How about their parents tell them they cannot.Sure, that works so well for underaged drinking, drug use, teen pregnancies, etc.
If the family needs the money so bad that they WANT the kid to work in the factory, it's not my problem.You seriously think that a government should permit the exploitation of children so long as the parents think it's ok?
Yes, FDR pulled the country out of a big rut, but he didn't "fix" anything. He put a giant band-aid on things. This band-aid has been soaked with blood and changed many times throughout the years. We didn't use the right material when applying these band-aids, and now the blood leaks out faster than the bandages can hold the blood in.I didn't say he fixed anything. I said his policies brought us out of the worst financial crisis in our history, which they did. The fundamental source of that crisis was the finite nature of resources and the shortsightedness of people - these can't be solved by any governmental policies.
The socialistic nature of this country gets WORSE as the years go by, and not better.Do you think we're better off now than we were 40 years ago? 100? If so, do you have reason to believe this is in spite of or because of our increasingly socialist nature?
If a company's social practices go against what is accepted by society, society will punish that company by not utilizing their services. You will undoubtedly point to some example where this is not happening, but what you perennially fail to realize is that a vocal minority from where you originate does not equate to society as a whole.What I would actually point out is that society's punishment can be long delayed and unnecessarily violent (c.f. the Civil War, etc.). This is the fundamental problem with alleged free market systems - a system that will eventually fix itself will inevitably lead to transient suffering, yet you seem to have no sympathy for those doing the suffering over in some cases a generations-long period of transience. A cursory examination of history shows us that these people do not tend to comply with the elite's desires.
Obviously we don't have time machines but many economists feel that FDR delayed recovery with his new programs, and there is no dispute that we didn't really recover until WWII.For someone who so beloves history, you appear to ignore the fact that a consensus has historically been the worst way of discovering truth in science.
Of coruse, this also ignores what put us into the depression in the first place, anti-free market anti-capitalist policies.Name one.

[Khariz]

Look guys,

I didn't post this to debate whether Socialist or Capitalist regimes work better. Obviously, you already know my stance on that. If you like Socialism, you know how to vote!

Daniel, all I did was quote Barack Obama. Obviously, you are going to translate those quotes in the most innocent and benign way you can.

There's nothing "spurious" about what I've done here. There's nothing "spurious" about the claims I've made.

Before the Election, I will try to provide this for everyone else, since nobody cares to do it themselves: Figure out who helped Obama to the top of the heap. Figure out who they are, what they believe, what they base their beliefs off of. Figure out who he married. Figure out who he was counseled by. This man does not have an artificial device on his brain that allows him to take in the words and deeds of others and pass them through without processing. He knows what these people believe, just as anyone can tell from THEIR speeches, writings, and books.

If you want to believe that he can have such longstanding and close associations with so many people who believe one way, but that he DOESN'T believe that way too, than I'll tell you what: It is not me who is being intellectually dishonest.

[Daniel]

Daniel, all I did was quote Barack Obama. Obviously, you are going to translate those quotes in the most innocent and benign way you can.



Yea. I'm totally putting on the blinders when I don't see a marxist conspiracy in "Let's improve our school system because it will make our country better".

http://anglopapist.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/tin-foil-hat.jpg

[crb]

Economists don't agree on what caused the great depression, but a key theme in almost everyone's theory is that the bubble we created by not regulating the credit market (Oh my god! A lack of regulation, which you claim is always just peachy for capitalism, helped create the depression?!) and allowing everyone to borrow, borrow, borrow without the means to pay it back, popped--people couldn't repay their loans, banks failed, businesses couldn't borrow from banks, no new investment, no new jobs. That's why the FDIC was formed.
Hmm from the girl who doesn't understand what a monopoly is... I'm not sure anything you say on economic matters even deserves a response.

[crb]

Lol. Talk about made up history. The period immediately preceeding the great depression was the most economically open in the history of mankind. This is why it had such wide spread ramifications around the world.
So it was the success of the early 1920s that caused it... Right... So rather than say, 9/11, I could say the 2001 recession was caused by 1990 economic growth.. Makes sense...

Read a book:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot-Hawley_Tariff

[ClydeR]

Don't want children working in factories? How about their parents tell them they cannot. If the family needs the money so bad that they WANT the kid to work in the factory, it's not my problem.

Unfortunately, neither of the two leading candidates appears interested in revisiting the issue of child labor in the United States. I'd like to see that law repealed too. If we repealed restrictions on child labor, then we could better compete under NAFTA, which does not impose any restrictions on child labor.

The only difference between the two candidates on child labor is their view about trading arrangements with foreign countries that have no child labor laws. Perhaps NAFTA will eventually persuade politicians to revisit the issue for children inside America. I mean the ones here legally, not just the illegal ones.

[crb]

Name one.


I question whether it is even worth it to argue with people who are so ignorant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot-Hawley_Tariff

I'm no Daniel, I don't pull shit out of my ass (see gas consumption re: us military). I wouldn't have posted that without knowing I could back it up if needed

[crb]

I didn't say he fixed anything. I said his policies brought us out of the worst financial crisis in our history, which they did. The fundamental source of that crisis was the finite nature of resources and the shortsightedness of people - these can't be solved by any governmental policies.

No, they didn't. They prolonged it and WWII brought us out.

[TheEschaton]

crb is gaining PB-like levels of insane bias, but for some reason thinks he's smarter. It's amazing.

And LOL@the consumer regulating companies by "not buying from that company." As if consumer action has ever stopped anything outside of well-organized boycotts, which rarely happen any more.

-TheE-

[Parkbandit]

crb is gaining PB-like levels of insane bias, but for some reason thinks he's smarter. It's amazing.

And LOL@the consumer regulating companies by "not buying from that company." As if consumer action has ever stopped anything outside of well-organized boycotts, which rarely happen any more.

-TheE-

:rofl:

Who on this message board is truly unbiased?

And that glass house you live in must be a real bitch in the summer time.

[Daniel]

So it was the success of the early 1920s that caused it... Right... So rather than say, 9/11, I could say the 2001 recession was caused by 1990 economic growth.. Makes sense...

Read a book:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot-Hawley_Tariff

Who said anything about success? I said that it was the most open the economy had been to that point in history. That doesn't say anything about its relative success or not.

As for my reading a book? I will as soon as you learn how basic numbers work.

September 1929 is well before June 1930.

Thanks for playing.

[Ashliana]

Hmm from the girl who doesn't understand what a monopoly is... I'm not sure anything you say on economic matters even deserves a response.

No--more from the guy who blames the other side for all the problems that his side creates, and looks at the world through a completely delusional lens utterly detached from reality, and when confronted with reality, can't respond to the issue and instead resorts to personal attacks.


So it was the success of the early 1920s that caused it... Right... So rather than say, 9/11, I could say the 2001 recession was caused by 1990 economic growth.. Makes sense...


Wow. You don't even understand what he was saying, much less the history behind it--despite your claims. It wasn't "success"--it was growth propped up by massive, UNREGULATED BORROWING. They created a massive credit bubble which burst and had drastic consequences. How you can just mindlessly, ignorantly bullshit like this is mindblowing. Virtually EVERY economic theory about the great depression includes the credit bubble of the 1920s as a major factor.

The-E couldn't be more right. You are insanely biased, borderline delusional. Almost as bad as Clyde, if he was actually serious.

[Daniel]

I question whether it is even worth it to argue with people who are so ignorant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot-Hawley_Tariff

I'm no Daniel, I don't pull shit out of my ass (see gas consumption re: us military). I wouldn't have posted that without knowing I could back it up if needed

Quoted for posterity.

You realize the great depression began BEFORE this was enacted right?

Yea. I thought so.

As for me not backing up my claims? Feel free to follow the link in PB's profile and read the congressional inquiry.

[Ashliana]

Quoted for posterity.

You realize the great depression began BEFORE this was enacted right?

Yea. I thought so.

As for me not backing up my claims? Feel free to follow the link in PB's profile and read the congressional inquiry.

Not only that, but the Smoot-Hawley Tariff was enacted by Republicans. And as for the Republicans of the 1920s either liberal or conservative stances,



The 1920's were a critical period for the Republican Party. While the party would contain a progressive or liberal wing until the 1970's, during the 1920's the Wall Street wing gained an ascendency which it never lost.

http://www.mcn.org/e/iii/books/repubhst.html

[Gan]

For someone who so beloves history, you appear to ignore the fact that a consensus has historically been the worst way of discovering truth in science.
This thought made me chuckle when paralleled with global warming... oops, I mean the climate crisis.

[Khariz]

This thought made me chuckle when paralleled with global warming... oops, I mean the climate crisis.

:yeahthat:

[Daniel]

Well, thank god Latrinstorm gave you the perfect opportunity to deflect the conversation.

[Latrinsorm]

I question whether it is even worth it to argue with people who are so ignorant.As I'm sure you're about to point out, your wikipedia article provides the following helpful quotation:

"Although the tariff act was passed after the stock-market crash of 1929, many economic historians consider the political discussion leading up to the passing of the act a factor in causing the crash, the recession that began in late 1929, or both, and its eventual passage a factor in deepening the Great Depression."

Unfortunately, an actual source cited by your wikipedia article holds this gem:

"The Smoot-Hawley Tariff was more a consequence of the onset of the Great Depression than an initial cause."

:sorry:

[crb]

Quoted for posterity.

You realize the great depression began BEFORE this was enacted right?

Yea. I thought so.

As for me not backing up my claims? Feel free to follow the link in PB's profile and read the congressional inquiry.
READ A FUCKING BOOK.

Seriously Daniel, your posting is just reinforcing every negative african american steriotype.



Not only that, but the Smoot-Hawley Tariff was enacted by Republicans. And as for the Republicans of the 1920s either liberal or conservative stances,

Who fucking cares? And Democrats were pro-slavery. If we go back far enough they were even the same fucking party. Obviously parties change.



As I'm sure you're about to point out, your wikipedia article provides the following helpful quotation:

"Although the tariff act was passed after the stock-market crash of 1929, many economic historians consider the political discussion leading up to the passing of the act a factor in causing the crash, the recession that began in late 1929, or both, and its eventual passage a factor in deepening the Great Depression."

Unfortunately, an actual source cited by your wikipedia article holds this gem:

"The Smoot-Hawley Tariff was more a consequence of the onset of the Great Depression than an initial cause."

You douches are so partisan you can even rationally debate something that happened 80 years ago because you worry about how it reflects on your messiah of a candidate today.

The great depression lasted for more than 1 fucking weekend in 1929. Just because it is convenient for people to associate the start with the stock market crash of 1929 do you think that stocks going down instantly result in job losses and 4 quarters of negative GDP growth? And last for a decade?

Or maybe the Smoot-Hawley Tariff -- which yes... possibly did pass as a consequence of the economic downturn at the time by misguided politicians who thought it would help, actually was the straw that broke the camels back and changed it from a cyclical downturn and unwinding of credit to the Great Depression we all know.

Do you think, Latrine, that an economic problem is an sentient being that then forced politicians to vote for Smoot Hawley? Or perhaps politicians had passed a contingency law that force Smoot Hawley to be triggered when certain conditions were met?

Or do you think by "consequence" it could be meant that, panicked politicians in desperation to do something made a very bad decision that they thought would help but made the problem much much worse?

Do you think that something that happened in year 1 of a 10 year cesspool has no bearing on the depth or length of the downturn, because it didn't happen prior to year 0?

You asked me to provide one example, I did, you then try to discount it because it happened in 1930, instead of 1929, and therefor could not have been at all responsible for the economic malaise of the 1929-1939 period that is known as the Great Depression.

Stop being such a retard. If you know how to use a computer you shouldn't be this dumb.

[Daniel]

READ A FUCKING BOOK.

Seriously Daniel, your posting is just reinforcing every negative african american steriotype.




Lol.

What stereotype is that? That black people don't believe causation can be established after the fact?

[Clove]

Lol.

What stereotype is that? That black people don't believe causation can be established after the fact?:thinking:

[Gan]

Lol.

What stereotype is that? That black people don't believe causation can be established after the fact?

Black people dont read books? Much less fucking books?

http://www.erowid.org/library/books/images/kama_sutra.jpg

[RichardCranium]

I'm pretty sure they read fucking books, as long as there are pictures.

[crb]

Lol.

What stereotype is that? That black people don't believe causation can be established after the fact?
The one about them not reading and being dumb, like you.

If only the great depression was a single moment in time with a single isolate cause and not a 10 year period with multiple influences at all stages of it.

[Latrinsorm]

You asked me to provide one example, I did, you then try to discount it because it happened in 1930, instead of 1929, and therefor could not have been at all responsible for the economic malaise of the 1929-1939 period that is known as the Great Depression. I asked you to provide an example of what "put us into the depression in the first place". No one would argue that the Hawley-Smoot tariffs did not worsen an already-bad situation, but by that very language it is clear that the Depression was already underway. To refer to the most devastating stock market crash in history as a mere cyclical downturn suggests you may be as blinded by partisanship (though to what party, I do not know) as those you perceive.

[Kembal]

The one about them not reading and being dumb, like you.

Hello outright racism.

Though I find your theory of economic history and Khariz's warped view of socialism absolutely hilarious.

[Khariz]

Hello outright racism.

Though I find your theory of economic history and Khariz's warped view of socialism absolutely hilarious.

Oh goody! Please explain my warped view of socialism to me. I base my opinions off of what socialism has ACTUALLY DONE in other countries, and the fact that I don't want the same thing to happen here. Do tell!

[Kembal]

I call your view warped because what he's proposing comes nothing close to socialism.

The merits (or lack of) of socialism aside (and I don't care to debate that, because I'm not in favor of socialism either), you've got your head in the sand. At most, you can describe various policies in there as center-left. But socialist? Not a chance.

[Kranar]

To refer to the most devastating stock market crash in history as a mere cyclical downturn suggests you may be as blinded by partisanship (though to what party, I do not know) as those you perceive.


Don't forget Latrinsorm, it's only a matter of 'convenience' that the stock market crash is considered the beginning of the Great Depression.

I give crb credit for his use of rhetoric, he definitely knows what words to use to prop up his position. But the substance of his arguments is just baffling.

[Khariz]

I call your view warped because what he's proposing comes nothing close to socialism.

The merits (or lack of) of socialism aside (and I don't care to debate that, because I'm not in favor of socialism either), you've got your head in the sand. At most, you can describe various policies in there as center-left. But socialist? Not a chance.

Kembel, surely you realize that Barack Obama is a politician, right? And that the words that are coming out of his mouth, for the most part during this policital process are not going to be able to be 100% consistent with his own personal views, right? Because he would alienate too many voters if he did, you see?

What I've been saying, and this part everyone conveniently sidesteps every time because they know it's true, is that if you examine who Obama is friends and associates with, and do research into THEIR viewpoints, read their works, their writings, and their books, and listen to them about where they get THEIR inspirations from, and then just THINK about the fact that Obama has been a close friend/associate of these people for 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 years in some cases...you can make the LOGICAL INFERENCE that Barack Obama thinks and feels the same way.

He SURROUNDS himself with the same type of person in almost ever aspect of his life (and please you idiots, stop with the race bullshit, which is clearly NOT what I'm talking about). WAKE THE FUCK UP, PEOPLE! It's not all about what he says at his political speeches. You have to look beyond that and actually do research on the person himself to figure out who he is, and what he likely believes.

[Daniel]

The one about them not reading and being dumb, like you.

If only the great depression was a single moment in time with a single isolate cause and not a 10 year period with multiple influences at all stages of it.

If only something in the future could *cause* something now.

No one is debating that the tariff's were a bad idea, but they in no way validate your suggestion that the depression itself was *caused* by non liberal trade policies.

In fact, it would suggest that people were concerned with the existing liberalization in place.

[Daniel]

What I've been saying, and this part everyone conveniently sidesteps every time because they know it's true, is that if you examine who Obama is friends and associates with, and do research into THEIR viewpoints, read their works, their writings, and their books, and listen to them about where they get THEIR inspirations from, and then just THINK about the fact that Obama has been a close friend/associate of these people for 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 years in some cases...you can make the LOGICAL INFERENCE that Barack Obama thinks and feels the same way.



Only if you grossly exhaggerate his relationship to these people while outright dismissing his relationship to others.

Harvard Law is not exactly the bastion of socialist ideals. Neither is the Chicago Democratic party, of which, you think he is an elite of.

[crb]

I asked you to provide an example of what "put us into the depression in the first place". No one would argue that the Hawley-Smoot tariffs did not worsen an already-bad situation, but by that very language it is clear that the Depression was already underway. To refer to the most devastating stock market crash in history as a mere cyclical downturn suggests you may be as blinded by partisanship (though to what party, I do not know) as those you perceive.
Really, because that seems to be EXACTLY, what you were arguing.



Don't forget Latrinsorm, it's only a matter of 'convenience' that the stock market crash is considered the beginning of the Great Depression.

I give crb credit for his use of rhetoric, he definitely knows what words to use to prop up his position. But the substance of his arguments is just baffling.

Why don't you try arguing the point instead of attacking the messenger?

I'll try to explain it to you, and I'll try to use small words so you'll be sure to understand.

1. Everything was not peachy keen until the stock market crashed. Things were already headed down. Pretend the stock market crashed in October of this year and we entered a 10 year recession. Would you label the crash as the beginning of the troubles?

Market crashes are not causes of anything, they're results, they're indicators. The market crash did not cause the recession which turned into the great depression. The market crashed BECAUSE OF the recession which turned into the great depression.

The fact it, it is just the most famous event from the beginning of depression so, as a matter of convenience, it is often labeled the start. If you cracked open an economic history book you'd find a more detailed answer, but for a quick convenient answer it is often used.

Do you dispute this? If so, come up with a coherent argument against my reasoning, don't attack me, attack my argument.

2. The recession which lead to the great depression is not unlike what we have now. Increased levels of debt and speculation, people speculating on the stock market like they speculated on housing more recently, caused a bubble, which burst, causing people to lose equity, causing people to spend less, causing businesses to get less revenue, causing businesses to downsize, causing people to spend less, repeat. This happens all the time, that is why I said it is a cyclical downturn, all capitalist economies have bubbles because they grow, they all have corrections when things get out of hand, these corrections often cause recessions. It is cyclical.

The recession that lead to the great depression did not need to end as it did, what we needed was a correction, instead we got a huge swirve. With the right policies coming out of washington disaster could have been averted and we could have had a short recession instead of a 10 year depression. Instead we got protectionist and anti-free-market nonsense, from both parties, and then later FDR increased taxes repeatedly which just made things worse and prolonged the recovery. Which got us the depression.

Do you dispute this? If so, come up with a coherent argument against my reasoning, don't attack me, attack my argument.

3. A depression by definition is not instantaneous, it is a prolonged reduction in GDP. If the reduction is not prolonged or severe, it isn't a depression, it is a recession. When a depression starts you don't know if you're in a depression or a recession, you don't find out until after the fact. Hence, 6 months after Q4 2007 we found out GDP shrunk.

So, how can you, or anyone claim, that protectionism is an invalid cause for the Great Depression, which lasted 10 years, when it happened during year 1?

The question you must ask is would we have had a "Great Depression" had we not gone protectionist, had world trade increased instead of decreased, and had taxes been cut instead of raised. Would those policies have resulted in the downturn being a mere cyclical recession?

I haven't said that protectionism is what caused the original economic slowdown, I've said that it was a major contribution cause to "The Great Depression" which was a 10 year phenomenon.

Do you dispute this? If so, come up with a coherent argument against my reasoning, don't attack me, attack my argument.

[Valthissa]

I asked you to provide an example of what "put us into the depression in the first place". No one would argue that the Hawley-Smoot tariffs did not worsen an already-bad situation, but by that very language it is clear that the Depression was already underway. To refer to the most devastating stock market crash in history as a mere cyclical downturn suggests you may be as blinded by partisanship (though to what party, I do not know) as those you perceive.

I did what I always do when a question peaks my interest (and I'm a bit bored at work).

Q: What 'put us into the depression in the first place'

Step 1) Try and remember what I was taught on the subject - vague recollection that there was an over supply of banks and they were engaged in highly speculative stock investments. Smoot-Hawley and a drought in 1930? turned a recession into the depression.

Step 2) Call someone that really knows the answer and see what they say.

Step 3) Listen to lecture from my friend the economics professor while appearing to be working.

Step 4) Remember that you never get a nice, clear answer to complex question on economics from an academic.

One thing he did say that I found interesting was that there were regular economic downturns in the US during the 19th century that government did nothing to try and lessen precisely because people believed that economic expansions and contractions were unavoidable.

For what it's worth, he said that there is no consensus on the cause of the initial downturn.

C/Valth

[Kranar]

Why don't you try arguing the point instead of attacking the messenger?


Because you're so much of a hypocrit that you'd go so far as making a statement like:

"The one about them not reading and being dumb, like you."

And then object when you, the messenger, are being attacked?

Get over yourself.



1. Everything was not peachy keen until the stock market crashed. Things were already headed down. Pretend the stock market crashed in October of this year and we entered a 10 year recession. Would you label the crash as the beginning of the troubles?


I would pick the point in time that had the most explanatory power in predicting a future outcome. For a person who claims to be a 'man of science', you sure lack a understanding of fundamental scientific principles.

In this case we are trying to predict the onset of a future economic depression. The question is what is the most relevent indicator that can scientifically be used to predict the onset of a depression. Is it simply when the economy isn't 'peachy keen' as you put it, if a recession occurs brace yourself for another depression? Or is it when a freaking catastrophic stock market crash that seemingly comes out of nowhere takes place? Thus, arguing that the stock market crash is a consequence of a not so 'peachy keen' economy in recession, which has and does occur cyclically without such devastating results, does not help to predict anything. It is void of any information content.

However, a catastrophic stock market crash would be a good indicator of a future depression. What stands out about the Great Depression, which is why it is considered the beginning of the Great Depression, is the stock market crash because that is the one event that is unique to it.

This is not a matter of convenience, it is a matter of explanation.

[Kranar]

For what it's worth, he said that there is no consensus on the cause of the initial downturn.


That may very well be true, and I should note that I do not provide an explanation as to why the stock market crash occured in the first place which as you say is probably an intractable problem.

I am only arguing that the best indicator we have of a depression, will likely be when a massive stock market crash occurs. While this may seem unsatisfactory, it is the only event that will occur and will be unique to a depression and as such it is legitimate to call it the beginning of the depression.

[crb]

Because you're so much of a hypocrit that you'd go so far as making a statement like:

"The one about them not reading and being dumb, like you."

And then object when you, the messenger, are being attacked?

Get over yourself.



I would pick the point in time that had the most explanatory power in predicting a future outcome. For a person who claims to be a 'man of science', you sure lack a understanding of fundamental scientific principles.

In this case we are trying to predict the onset of a future economic depression. The question is what is the most relevent indicator that can scientifically be used to predict the onset of a depression. Is it simply when the economy isn't 'peachy keen' as you put it, if a recession occurs brace yourself for another depression? Or is it when a freaking catastrophic stock market crash that seemingly comes out of nowhere takes place? Thus, arguing that the stock market crash is a consequence of a not so 'peachy keen' economy in recession, which has and does occur cyclically without such devastating results, does not help to predict anything. It is void of any information content.

However, a catastrophic stock market crash would be a good indicator of a future depression. What stands out about the Great Depression, which is why it is considered the beginning of the Great Depression, is the stock market crash because that is the one event that is unique to it.

This is not a matter of convenience, it is a matter of explanation.
Unfortunately you're wrong. I also love to being lectured by someone on science in what amounts to a discussion of history. We're not investigating a natural phenomenon here.

In anycase, you're wrong. The 1929 crash was not unique or the worst.

The 1987 crash was a more than double 1 day loss than black thursday (10-22). The overall peak to trough loss was more or less equal in the long run (39/36). And yet we did not have a depression.

The 2000 Nasdaq crash did not have any large abrupt days, but the total peak to trough loss was 80% and more wealth evaporated than in the others.

Also, it did not "come out of nowhere" as you theorize. Have you ever even read anything about it? The market was already headed down when the "crash" happened.

So, just so we're clear, you dispute my point that the stock market crash was not the start of the economic downturn? I'm going to give you a second chance here, because this is a ridiculously easily verifiable fact. I really don't think you're so argumentative as to ignore that. I think you're merely argumentative enough to say the improper labeling of the crash as the "start" is because people want to keep it fresh in our minds as a "warning for the future" rather than because it is more convenient for people to simply say it started then rather than go on for a couple paragraphs explaining when and how it actually did start.





Because you're so much of a hypocrit that you'd go so far as making a statement like:

"The one about them not reading and being dumb, like you."

And then object when you, the messenger, are being attacked?

Get over yourself.

I always start out with the message, especially with a different poster, you think I haven't tried for pages and pages to reason with Daniel previously? I have. He doesn't respond. If you want to call me names, have at it, I deserve it probably, but don't just call me names.

[Kembal]

Kembel, surely you realize that Barack Obama is a politician, right? And that the words that are coming out of his mouth, for the most part during this policital process are not going to be able to be 100% consistent with his own personal views, right? Because he would alienate too many voters if he did, you see?

What I've been saying, and this part everyone conveniently sidesteps every time because they know it's true, is that if you examine who Obama is friends and associates with, and do research into THEIR viewpoints, read their works, their writings, and their books, and listen to them about where they get THEIR inspirations from, and then just THINK about the fact that Obama has been a close friend/associate of these people for 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 years in some cases...you can make the LOGICAL INFERENCE that Barack Obama thinks and feels the same way.

He SURROUNDS himself with the same type of person in almost ever aspect of his life (and please you idiots, stop with the race bullshit, which is clearly NOT what I'm talking about). WAKE THE FUCK UP, PEOPLE! It's not all about what he says at his political speeches. You have to look beyond that and actually do research on the person himself to figure out who he is, and what he likely believes.

So, then, what was the point of your 25 quotes? I thought they were supposed to illustrate his "socialism" by his words. But now you're arguing that his views aren't actually represented his words, but they're represented by who he associates with and what they think. You've built up your paranoia to the point where you freely contradict yourself and believe that it somehow reinforces what you are saying.

Right now, you're making the persona of ClydeR look sane.

[crb]

Who a presidential candidate associates with is very important. They only make a few thousand appointments.

[TheEschaton]

I think ClydeR may be controlling some of the rightwing types on the board so we might look more favorably on his less insane views. It's totally fucking with my head, man.

[Daniel]

I always start out with the message, especially with a different poster, you think I haven't tried for pages and pages to reason with Daniel previously? I have. He doesn't respond. If you want to call me names, have at it, I deserve it probably, but don't just call me names.

What reasoning have you done exactly? You attribute the great depression upon restrictive trade policies, denying the fact that the lead up to the depression was the most economically liberal in history up until that point.

Then you utilize events that happened subsequent to the depression to bolster your point. That is not reasoning, that is blantant justification that borders, if not outright is, fantasy. If you think that's somehow justifies making the comments you did, then..well that probably says a lot you as a person.

[Daniel]

So, just so we're clear, you dispute my point that the stock market crash was not the start of the economic downturn? I'm going to give you a second chance here, because this is a ridiculously easily verifiable fact. I really don't think you're so argumentative as to ignore that. I think you're merely argumentative enough to say the improper labeling of the crash as the "start" is because people want to keep it fresh in our minds as a "warning for the future" rather than because it is more convenient for people to simply say it started then rather than go on for a couple paragraphs explaining when and how it actually did start.




I'm responding to this seperately.

You are not helping your case here. If you want to make the suggestion that the great depression started *before* the stock market crash, then you are further reinforcing the ridiculousness of attributing the onset of the depression to something that happened after the fact.

[Khariz]

So, then, what was the point of your 25 quotes? I thought they were supposed to illustrate his "socialism" by his words. But now you're arguing that his views aren't actually represented his words, but they're represented by who he associates with and what they think. You've built up your paranoia to the point where you freely contradict yourself and believe that it somehow reinforces what you are saying.

Right now, you're making the persona of ClydeR look sane.

Apparently you have reading comprehension problems too.

I said, "And that the words that are coming out of his mouth, for the most part during this policital process are not going to be able to be 100% consistent with his own personal views, right".

You see those 25 quotes? That was from like 10 difference speeches. There was 100 times the amount of full body text to those speeches from the quoted lines. Obama can't avoid sometimes saying things that are consistent with his beliefs, either because they slip out, or because of the audience he is pandering to at the time. Some of those last quotes, to the union groups, are very telling.

I wasn't contradicting myself, I was POINTING OUT that Barack Obama is USUALLY disingenuous with his speech. JTFC due, get a clue.

[Kembal]

Apparently you have reading comprehension problems too.

I said, "And that the words that are coming out of his mouth, for the most part during this policital process are not going to be able to be 100% consistent with his own personal views, right".

You see those 25 quotes? That was from like 10 difference speeches. There was 100 times the amount of full body text to those speeches from the quoted lines. Obama can't avoid sometimes saying things that are consistent with his beliefs, either because they slip out, or because of the audience he is pandering to at the time. Some of those last quotes, to the union groups, are very telling.

I wasn't contradicting myself, I was POINTING OUT that Barack Obama is USUALLY disingenuous with his speech. JTFC due, get a clue.

Are you literally insane?

You said those quotes illustrate his socialism.
I pointed out that the policies proposed in those quotes are mainly center-left, and not socialist.
Then you said it's not his words, it's his associations that illustrate his socialism, because he's a politician and they make up stuff that hides their true beliefs.
Then I question the point of posting those quotes in the first place.
Then you say those words do illustate his "socialist" views, because he can't avoid saying those things. (never mind that those speeches are prepared down to the exact word beforehand, so they're not off the cuff.)

Seriously, you have self-reinforcing paranoia here. Get a grip. He's not a socialist.

[Khariz]

Are you literally insane?

You said those quotes illustrate his socialism.
I pointed out that the policies proposed in those quotes are mainly center-left, and not socialist.
Then you said it's not his words, it's his associations that illustrate his socialism, because he's a politician and they make up stuff that hides their true beliefs.
Then I question the point of posting those quotes in the first place.
Then you say those words do illustate his "socialist" views, because he can't avoid saying those things. (never mind that those speeches are prepared down to the exact word beforehand, so they're not off the cuff.)

Seriously, you have self-reinforcing paranoia here. Get a grip. He's not a socialist.

No. Just because you lack understanding of what's going on here doesn't mean you are right.

The 25 quotes are ***************examples************* of the socialist rhethoric that he uses. I said his associations COUPLED WITH what he said, PROVES that he is Socialist. As in...you know...not his words ALONE. Please don't be stupid.

[Back]

Don’t forget he is also a radical fundamentalist muslim. Oh yeah, and the anti-christ. Who would have thought he could be an evil socialist as well.

I’ll bet he is also the one behind all the bigfoot sightings.

[Khariz]

Don’t forget he is also a radical fundamentalist muslim. Oh yeah, and the anti-christ. Who would have thought he could be an evil socialist as well.

I’ll bet he is also the one behind all the bigfoot sightings.

This folks, is a classic deflection manuever.

When you can't argue on the merits because the premise is sound, you make silly claims about something else, and hope that everyone forgets what was just being discussed. Shame it doesn't work as well on message boards as it does in real life.

I would be happy to call Barack a muslim or the anti-christ if there was credible evidence to prove or infer that he was. There's plenty of credible evidence to infer that he is a socialst though. His friends have proven it for him! It was very kind of them.

[Daniel]

So what do you call it when you selectively ignore points or facts that would invalidate your position?

[Khariz]

So what do you call it when you selectively ignore points or facts that would invalidate your position?

Give me some. You've yet to say anything in this thread but "hahaha you are wrong".

[Daniel]

Only if you grossly exhaggerate his relationship to these people while outright dismissing his relationship to others.

Harvard Law is not exactly the bastion of socialist ideals. Neither is the Chicago Democratic party, of which, you think he is an elite of.

Already did.

[Back]

This folks, is a classic deflection manuever.

If you say so. I call it trying to bring some levity into the conversation.

[Khariz]

Already did.

You are kidding right?

So you are saying that because he went to harvard law school, because he's part of the Chicago democratic party, and because he has some friends that are also NOT socialists, that he therefore is NOT a socialist?

Wow, talk about logic!

Yep, you sure are right. Your point is much better than mine where I show specific socialist rhetoric he spouts, and then explain how it integrates with some of his longest held friendships and associations. The transformation from Barry to Barack didn't happen over night, Daniel. This was a long process of indoctrination for the man.

I realize I'm not being as specific as I COULD be. And I promist to rectify that. I'm currently still gathering all my research on the associations. I will post it as soon as I'm done. You have to understand that this is a side-hobby of mine. I also work full time, and am starting my last semster of law school...I'm trying to squeeze this in as much as I can. As soon as I'm done, and have found citations for all the claims I plan to make, I will post my entire package, with citations. Might take me a couple more weeks to get it into acceptable form for these boards.

[Warriorbird]

Some socialism != Marxist country, ZOMG!

[Khariz]

Some socialism != Marxist country, ZOMG!

Correct.

A. I have never mentioned the word Marxist in this thread.

B. Even in the other threads, I said he would try to take the country in the direction of Marxism. I've never claimed to think he could actually accomplish it. Why let him try though? Universal health care will just be one more giant step in that direction as more and more people come to rely on the government as their mother. I'll take preserving the status quo kthx.

[Daniel]

You are kidding right?

So you are saying that because he went to harvard law school, because he's part of the Chicago democratic party, and because he has some friends that are also NOT socialists, that he therefore is NOT a socialist?

Wow, talk about logic!


I'm glad you see the inherent fallacy of the logic you are using. You can't take snippets of what someone says, grossly exhaggerate the implications of those words, juxtrapose them with relationships you have very little if any knowledge of and then conclude that someone adheres to a particuar doctrine or dogma.

Either it works both ways or it doesn't. I can take all the times in your quotes when he mentions the power of the free market (4 times), cherry pick some associations with people and claim that he is a staunch libertarian?

No. That's complete bullshit.

You might as well stop while you're ahead. For whatever reason you have an axe to grind and it's readily apparent to anyone with some semblence of common sense.

[Daniel]

Correct.

A. I have never mentioned the word Marxist in this thread.

B. Even in the other threads, I said he would try to take the country in the direction of Marxism. I've never claimed to think he could actually accomplish it. Why let him try though? Universal health care will just be one more giant step in that direction as more and more people come to rely on the government as their mother. I'll take preserving the status quo kthx.

Well thanks for clearing that up. For a second there I thought you were spouting off half cocked conspiracy theories!

[Khariz]

You can't take snippets of what someone says, grossly exhaggerate the implications of those words, juxtrapose them with relationships you have very little if any knowledge of and then conclude that someone adheres to a particuar doctrine or dogma.

Either it works both ways or it doesn't. I can take all the times in your quotes when he mentions the power of the free market (4 times), cherry pick some associations with people and claim that he is a staunch libertarian?

No. That's complete bullshit.

You might as well stop while you're ahead. For whatever reason you have an axe to grind and it's readily apparent to anyone with some semblence of common sense.

You assume that I have "very little knowledge" of his associations. I have plenty of knowledge, and that's part of the upcoming package. Anyone who understands these associations, and learns who these people are and what they believe, cannot rationally believe that Barack is not a socialist.

I don't expect you to be rational though, Daniel. You've already shown me that you are incapable.

[Khariz]

Either it works both ways or it doesn't. I can take all the times in your quotes when he mentions the power of the free market (4 times), cherry pick some associations with people and claim that he is a staunch libertarian?

No. That's complete bullshit.


Daniel,

If you can quote-mine 10 of his speeches for Libertarian content, find 25 or more quotes for me, and then find, say, five people that Barack has *closely associated* with for 10 or more years who are Libertarians with provable Libertarian backgrounds, writings, and books, then you can make the same claims as I am making about him being a socialist.

It DOES work both ways...only THAT evidence isn't there, and THIS evidence is!

[Daniel]

Oh yea? So you follow Barry around and keep tabs on who he hangs out with? That's only slightly creepy.

If you think this thread is the epitome of rational thought, then I think I'll pass. I don't keep enough tinfoil on hand to keep up with you.

Thanks though.

[Daniel]

Daniel,

If you can quote-mine 10 of his speeches for Libertarian content, find 25 or more quotes for me, and then find, say, five people that Barack has *closely associated* with for 10 or more years who are Libertarians with provable Libertarian backgrounds, writings, and books, then you can make the same claims as I am making about him being a socialist.

It DOES work both ways...only THAT evidence isn't there, and THIS evidence is!

I think you need help.

Seriously.

[Khariz]

I think you need help.

Seriously.

Like I said in the other thread. When you can't argue on the merits, deflect!

You just set the standard for me. You said "Either it works both ways or it doesn't". I said it does work both ways. If you can provide me with the quotes, and the names and economic stance information of a sufficient number of Barack Obama's associates to infer that he is something other than a socialist, go for it.

If not...STFU, cause I can do just that with socialism.

[Warriorbird]

I argued the merits. You ignored it. This is what you get.

[Khariz]

I argued the merits. You ignored it. This is what you get.

The merits of what *I* was discussing, or on that socialism vs capitalist tangent that had nothing to do with me?

I'm honestly asking what you are referring to.

[Warriorbird]

Not my fault if you put your conspiracy theories in other threads. I spoke on that while referencing what you'd put forth.

[Daniel]

Like I said in the other thread. When you can't argue on the merits, deflect!

You just set the standard for me. You said "Either it works both ways or it doesn't". I said it does work both ways. If you can provide me with the quotes, and the names and economic stance information of a sufficient number of Barack Obama's associates to infer that he is something other than a socialist, go for it.

If not...STFU, cause I can do just that with socialism.

Why would I do that? Then I'd just be as stupid as you are.

Feel free to continue with your delusions. I'm sure you'll interpret it as people not being as intellectually "capable" as you, which is undoubtedly true as I've yet to go to Law School.

[Warriorbird]

I'm sure his analysis would be roundly praised at Regent or Liberty. You'll be Prime for a McCain internship, Khariz.

[Gan]

I think ClydeR may be controlling some of the rightwing types on the board so we might look more favorably on his less insane views. It's totally fucking with my head, man.

You're head was fucked up way before ClydeR came along...

[Back]

You're head was fucked up way before ClydeR came along...

You are head was fucked up?

I do believe you meant your. And your head is fucked up.

You’re welcome.

[Parkbandit]

You are head was fucked up?

I do believe you meant your. And your head is fucked up.

You’re welcome.


Your skill at being a douchebag is finely honed.

It's too bad there's no Olympics for that.. you would be a gold medalist.

[Back]

Your skill at being a douchebag is finely honed.

It's too bad there's no Olympics for that.. you would be a gold medalist.

Thats very flattering coming from you as I feel you far surpass my douchebaggery skills by miles. But thanks, chief.

[Parkbandit]

Thats very flattering coming from you as I feel you far surpass my douchebaggery skills by miles. But thanks, chief.

This is the 2nd time in two days that the "I know you are but what am I" retort has been dusted off and abused.

Are we going retro and no one told me?

[Gan]

You are head was fucked up?

I do believe you meant your. And your head is fucked up.

You’re welcome.

oooh burn

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f306/WmV337/1_free_internet.jpg