|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: A 2012 US election thread
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
Every dollar spent by the government is a dollar taken from the private economy.
This is sheer idiocy. Does the government print two currencies -- one that can only be used for private enterprise, and the other for governmental purposes? Most folks who receive a social security check buy groceries from non-governmental stores; virtually all defense contracts are with private industry; the government constructs very few roads -- it contracts with private businesses for that; etc. This line of conservative bull is just about the stupidest crap that even right-wingers peddle, and that says a LOT.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanlion
editorial comment
# 10325
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
Every dollar spent by the government is a dollar taken from the private economy.
This is sheer idiocy. Does the government print two currencies -- one that can only be used for private enterprise, and the other for governmental purposes? Most folks who receive a social security check buy groceries from non-governmental stores; virtually all defense contracts are with private industry; the government constructs very few roads -- it contracts with private businesses for that; etc. This line of conservative bull is just about the stupidest crap that even right-wingers peddle, and that says a LOT.
--Tom Clune
Which came first, Capital or the Capitol?
Which one continues to exist if you remove the other?
Posts: 1486 | From: White Rose City | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Which came first, Capital or the Capitol?
Which one continues to exist if you remove the other?
Do you actually believe that these bumper stickers have anything to do with the discussion?
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Which came first, Capital or the Capitol?
Which one continues to exist if you remove the other?
If you remove the Capitol, the Greenback ceases to exist. Period. You have no government and no Federal Reserve to back the Greenback so it's worth the approximate value of the paper it's written on.
If you remove Capital, the stones of the Capitol are still there.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
TurquoiseTastic
Fish of a different color
# 8978
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Which came first, Capital or the Capitol?
Which one continues to exist if you remove the other?
"Whose image is this? And whose inscription?" (Matthew 22:20)
There is a reason why the denarius had Caesar's head on it. Currency exists largely because it is backed by the government; hence it nearly always has the symbol of the monarch, or the State, on it.
So I think the answer to your question is not what you think it is.
Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
Every dollar spent by the government is a dollar taken from the private economy.
This is sheer idiocy. Does the government print two currencies -- one that can only be used for private enterprise, and the other for governmental purposes? Most folks who receive a social security check buy groceries from non-governmental stores; virtually all defense contracts are with private industry; the government constructs very few roads -- it contracts with private businesses for that; etc. This line of conservative bull is just about the stupidest crap that even right-wingers peddle, and that says a LOT.
--Tom Clune
Closely related to the absurdist belief that the best way to lower the unemployment rate is to cut thousands of government jobs.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
[qb] While I consider Islam to be a cruel and evil ideology there seems to be no reason to purposely thumb the easily enraged in the eye like this.
Many would say the same thing about Christianity, but I'd hope they'd oppose desecrating the host or defacing a church.
People can not point to anywhere in the life of Christ and find evil. In Mohammed one finds a mass murderer, a rapist, a pedophile and a thief.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
Every dollar spent by the government is a dollar taken from the private economy.
This is sheer idiocy. Does the government print two currencies -- one that can only be used for private enterprise, and the other for governmental purposes? Most folks who receive a social security check buy groceries from non-governmental stores; virtually all defense contracts are with private industry; the government constructs very few roads -- it contracts with private businesses for that; etc. This line of conservative bull is just about the stupidest crap that even right-wingers peddle, and that says a LOT.
--Tom Clune
It depends. With today's federal budget there is a pretty good chance that it was money borrowed from someone.
What you do describe, though, is a few instances of government deciding it is better at allocating resources than free people acting freely.
On the other hand, I remember when I was but a wee lad hearing some of the grown ups complaining about space exploration while there is still hungry people on this planet. I wondered if rockets were edible.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Look around your home. See that Microwave, thank government technology for being the impetus for that development. The lights in your house? (Assuming you have CFL's). Again government technology started that. The grid that powers those lights? Made possible through the government. Internet? Government technology. If you travel a lot of it depends on government technology. Cell phones--government owned technology. Medical advances--thank government technology. Laptop or PC (or Mac)? Government technology.
There is an argument to be made that the space race we had with the Soviets improved our overall quality of life. There is also an argument we need to continue space exploration for that same reason.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anyuta
Shipmate
# 14692
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
Every dollar spent by the government is a dollar taken from the private economy.
This is sheer idiocy. Does the government print two currencies -- one that can only be used for private enterprise, and the other for governmental purposes? Most folks who receive a social security check buy groceries from non-governmental stores; virtually all defense contracts are with private industry; the government constructs very few roads -- it contracts with private businesses for that; etc. This line of conservative bull is just about the stupidest crap that even right-wingers peddle, and that says a LOT.
--Tom Clune
It depends. With today's federal budget there is a pretty good chance that it was money borrowed from someone.
What you do describe, though, is a few instances of government deciding it is better at allocating resources than free people acting freely.
On the other hand, I remember when I was but a wee lad hearing some of the grown ups complaining about space exploration while there is still hungry people on this planet. I wondered if rockets were edible.
where do you think the money goes? does it die? does it leave the marketplace to be hidden away in some government vault? was it borrowed? so what.. isn't that what our economy is based on?
every dollar that the government "spends" eventually ends up in the economy. spent on space exploration? yeah... mostly to private companies, which hire people, who spend their paycheck buying things from various private companies.
The comment that it's a waste of resources to spend them on space may be true.. there may be other ways to spend that same money, in the sense that what the "people" get for that money may not be as valuable as if the same money were spent on something else (but then again, perhaps it is)... but the idea that it's wrong to spend that money while people are starving sounds about the same as when my grandmother encouraged me to eat my vegetables because there were starving children in Africa. yes, of course, if the money was spent on feeding them instead of buying vegetables that I wouldn't eat, then it would help. but buying them, and then my eating them would NOT in any way help.
not to mention that increasing our spending on helping the staving folks in Africa (or wherever) is hardly at the top of the spending list of those who think that government should cut it's spending.
Posts: 764 | From: USA | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
[qb] While I consider Islam to be a cruel and evil ideology there seems to be no reason to purposely thumb the easily enraged in the eye like this.
Many would say the same thing about Christianity, but I'd hope they'd oppose desecrating the host or defacing a church.
People can not point to anywhere in the life of Christ and find evil. In Mohammed one finds a mass murderer, a rapist, a pedophile and a thief.
And the evidence of this comes from his enemies, correct?
Even if true you're comparing apples and oranges: Jesus IS God. Muhammad is a prophet who pointed the way to God, according to Islam. There are many Biblical characters who misbehaved too.
[ 05. March 2012, 18:09: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anyuta:
was it borrowed? so what.. isn't that what our economy is based on?
No. To all intents and purposes, the value of a country's money is based on the relationship between the money in circulation and the GDP, if I understand these things (which is not all that likely, if the truth were to be told.)
Nick raises an important point. We need to more-or-less balance our books at some point, and the government is currently torn between two competing views: one, that the government should use its monetary policy to help keep the economy on an even keel, and the other that government should stay out of economic life as much as possible.
Whether either of these views is right is debatable, but the real point is that the "compromise" the two sides have reached is that they will spend money on all manner of things and not bother paying for those things. This is clearly not sustainable. Eventually, the economy will collapse if it continues on this course. I suspect that Nick and I may have different answers as to what should give, but there is little doubt that something has to give to avoid a catastrophe.
--Tom Clune
[ 05. March 2012, 18:18: Message edited by: tclune ]
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
Government does not create wealth it spends it.
Your post makes a lot of sense in general, but this statement too often goes unexamined.
Who does create wealth? We can quickly agree on an assumption that farming and manufacturing workers create wealth. But who else does? If we limit wealth-creators to these, then government workers have too much excellent company for the condemnation to have much scope.
Do teachers, for example, ever create wealth? If so, do they need to work in private schools to do so? From an economic standpoint, I see no difference between what a public school teacher does and what a private school teacher does.
One economist whom I heard on the radio recently (unfortunately I have forgotten his name) says that the idea that government does not create wealth is one of the most misleading notions at large today. Societies without taxes, he notes, have no wealth.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
I don't believe it's a matter of needing books to be balanced, since that would remove an important source of investment - government bonds - which are held by individuals and institutions alike.
Government debt is far closer to the kind of debt carried in revolving credit. There is nothing wrong with carrying some debt. Many of us are able to do so throughout our lives without any fuss at all. The flat dollar amount doesn't tell us much either: a billionaire can carry far more debt in a flat dollar amount than someone who earns $10,000 without any harm. Historically, the U.S. has carried far higher levels of debt in the past than it does now without much fuss either - mostly after it has fought major wars.
What must be balanced is between the need to borrow for public works that will stimulate the economy (and return more taxation later) vs. the additional cost of interest that much be carried on those bonds.
The problem arises, however, when the level of debt grows faster than the growth in GDP over the long term. Annual deficits shouldn't cause the overall debt to grow faster than the economy is growing. If that is what you mean about balancing books, then I'd agree.
[ 05. March 2012, 18:42: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
[qb] quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
[qb] While I consider Islam to be a cruel and evil ideology there seems to be no reason to purposely thumb the easily enraged in the eye like this.
Many would say the same thing about Christianity, but I'd hope they'd oppose desecrating the host or defacing a church.
People can not point to anywhere in the life of Christ and find evil. In Mohammed one finds a mass murderer, a rapist, a pedophile and a thief.
And the evidence of this comes from his enemies, correct?
It comes from Islamic sources.
quote:
Even if true you're comparing apples and oranges: Jesus IS God. Muhammad is a prophet who pointed the way to God, according to Islam.
Muhammed pointed to Jesus as God?
quote:
There are many Biblical characters who misbehaved too.
Beyond misbehaved. Yet I don't see anything about them like I see this about Muhammed in the koran, (33:21) "Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for any one whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah."
Given the crap Muhammed pulled, no, I don't look at him as a good example for decent living.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
I don't believe it's a matter of needing books to be balanced, since that would remove an important source of investment - government bonds - which are held by individuals and institutions alike.
Government debt is far closer to the kind of debt carried in revolving credit. There is nothing wrong with carrying some debt. Many of us are able to do so throughout our lives without any fuss at all. The flat dollar amount doesn't tell us much either: a billionaire can carry far more debt in a flat dollar amount than someone who earns $10,000 without any harm. Historically, the U.S. has carried far higher levels of debt in the past than it does now without much fuss either - mostly after it has fought major wars.
What must be balanced is between the need to borrow for public works that will stimulate the economy (and return more taxation later) vs. the additional cost of interest that much be carried on those bonds.
The problem arises, however, when the level of debt grows faster than the growth in GDP over the long term. Annual deficits shouldn't cause the overall debt to grow faster than the economy is growing. If that is what you mean about balancing books, then I'd agree.
Just to be technical about it, books are always in balance. If you add debt in the credit column you either add an asset or expense in the debit column.
The rest of what you wrote has warmed the cockles of my generally-considered-by-many-to-be-conservative heart.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
Every dollar spent by the government is a dollar taken from the private economy.
This is sheer idiocy. Does the government print two currencies -- one that can only be used for private enterprise, and the other for governmental purposes? Most folks who receive a social security check buy groceries from non-governmental stores; virtually all defense contracts are with private industry; the government constructs very few roads -- it contracts with private businesses for that; etc. This line of conservative bull is just about the stupidest crap that even right-wingers peddle, and that says a LOT.
--Tom Clune
An even shorter answer: ROADS.
Money spent by governments that enables the private sector to make more money.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Just to be clear, I'm not even referring to the contract for constructing the road that tclune mentioned. I'm referring to the mere EXISTENCE of a road.
Or any of the other bits of infrastructure that government pays for. It's manifestly absurd to suggest that the government is sucking the private sector dry for no net benefit when you start listing all the infrastructure and other services that the public sector supplies so that individual private businesses don't have to solve every problem from scratch and can focus on whatever particular line of business they're interested in.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Some people have this fatuous idea that once you pay someone with a dollar, it stays there and doesn't go anywhere. While that's vaguely true of the super-rich, it's flat-out false for the rest of us. You pay me a dollar, and I spend it at the grocery store and it goes to pay farmers and truckers and cashiers, and they turn around and spend their dollars and it pays more people, and so on. That one dollar can feed a lot of people, until it trickles up and gets stuck in the pockets of the war pigs, who don't spend it but use it to play arbitrage games with stock and commodities and drive the rest of us to penury when they fuck up.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
Does the government print two currencies -- one that can only be used for private enterprise, and the other for governmental purposes?
The revenue all comes from one source, that is the point. It has nothing to do with being conservative or liberal. It just is what it is. Even borrowing, the second great source of revenue, is based on the belief in the government's future ability to continually raise revenue through taxation.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
A national budget is not analogous to a family budget--it's not even like a business. That's one of those ideas that is intuitively obvious but simply wrong. Public debt is not like private debt--actually, there's something like an inverse relationship between them. Our current problem is an excess of private debt that is stifling demand (consumers can't afford to buy stuff because they're trying to pay off their credit cards and their mortgages are underwater), so the government needs to spend to get employment up so consumers can get out of debt and start spending again. When private debt gets back to a manageable level, the government can work on paying off its debt. But until then, government austerity will only make things worse. For a more detailed explanation see Paul Krugman, here.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
An even shorter answer: ROADS.
Money spent by governments that enables the private sector to make more money.
An equally short answer: POLICE.
NPR's This American Life yesterday covered a near-crisis in Trenton due to the fact that the city responded to a state budget cut (thanks to Governor Christie) in part by laying off over a hundred cops from the payroll. This was only a few months ago, but street crime has already skyrocketed. It is already at the point where people feel unsafe to venture out of the house even in nice-looking neighborhoods, and the environment for business is discouraging.
Even if you wish to argue that police do not increase wealth, it is obvious to Trenton residents that the lack of police quickly destroys it.
If libertarians are sincere in their proclamation that private enterprise does not initiate force or fraud, then it should be obvious that policing is one basic function of government that cannot be outsourced.
I'm not generally one to call for more police, but Trenton and other cities in N.J. are now hurting.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
While I consider Islam to be a cruel and evil ideology ...
Mere Nick, it is late, i'm tired, and i have to get up early to go to work in the morning, but i just can't let that pass. I'll assume you didn't mean it personally, because that would involve a Hell call, but in actual fact the above quote is highly insulting and hurtful to members of my family. No member of my family, Muslim or Christian, is either cruel or evil. However intended, your quote highly offends me.
It is also too late in the night to once against refute that tired "pedophilia" canard. Maybe tomorrow. And maybe not, because reading some of your other comments shows difficulties with interpreting primary source materials that are right in front of you. Whatever Islamic sources (a rather vague term) you say you are using, it is really necessary to actually read them. One case in point will suffice:
In response to the quote "Muhammad is a prophet who pointed the way to God, according to Islam." you reply "Muhammed pointed to Jesus as God?" The quote is right there in front of you and you manage to misread it. And the quote clearly asserts that Muhammad pointed the way to God, not to Jesus as God.
Islamic sources of which I am aware are pretty unanimous in saying that in Islam Jesus is considered a prophet, as Muhammad is so considered. Neither Jesus nor Muhammad is considered to be more than human.
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
And apologies to other posters on this thread that by my above post i contributed to extending a tangent from the thread topic.
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
[qb] While I consider Islam to be a cruel and evil ideology ...
Mere Nick, it is late, i'm tired, and i have to get up early to go to work in the morning, but i just can't let that pass. I'll assume you didn't mean it personally, because that would involve a Hell call, but in actual fact the above quote is highly insulting and hurtful to members of my family. No member of my family, Muslim or Christian, is either cruel or evil. However intended, your quote highly offends me.
No doubt one could find Germans in 1942 who generally treated folks decently. That wouldn't change many people's view that Nazism was a cruel and evil ideology.
Until I see certain changes in the koran, in the way us vile infidels are treated in countries dominated by Islam, and how those countries treat those who leave Islam for other or no faith, Islam highly offends me.
quote:
It is also too late in the night to once against refute that tired "pedophilia" canard. Maybe tomorrow.
It is only refuted if one can prove that all the Islamic sources that say he got it with her when she was nine are wrong.
quote:
In response to the quote "Muhammad is a prophet who pointed the way to God, according to Islam." you reply "Muhammed pointed to Jesus as God?" The quote is right there in front of you and you manage to misread it. And the quote clearly asserts that Muhammad pointed the way to God, not to Jesus as God.
Then it appears 99.9% of all Christians should realize Muhammed did not point the way to God if he didn't point to Christ as God.
quote:
Islamic sources of which I am aware are pretty unanimous in saying that in Islam Jesus is considered a prophet, as Muhammad is so considered. Neither Jesus nor Muhammad is considered to be more than human.
Which, to a Christian, shows that Muhammed was wrong.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
Like Malik, I realize this is a probably a major tangent from the thread about 2012 US elections. I won't bring Islam back into it but will respond if any sort of respect for it is demanded.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
Mere Nick, I won't pursue this anymore on this thread except to say that your horrendous lack of factual knowledge on this subject makes it pointless to discuss this subject with you any further. My family members are not "good Germans" as it were. It is sad when irrational prejudice causes one to veer so wildly into fantasy and is dangerous for a civilised society. Again, i won't speculate on your personal motives because i have better things to do than waste my time on a hell call.
The fact remains that you owe my family and millions of decent people, Muslim andd otherwise, an 100% unconditional apology for your highly insulting and uncalled-for remarks. (Not that i'm holding my breath.)
[ 06. March 2012, 14:01: Message edited by: malik3000 ]
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
Mere Nick, I won't pursue this anymore on this thread except to say that your horrendous lack of factual knowledge on this subject makes it pointless to discuss this subject with you any further. My family members are not "good Germans" as it were. It is sad when irrational prejudice causes one to veer so wildly into fantasy and is dangerous for a civilised society. Again, i won't speculate on your personal motives because i have better things to do than waste my time on a hell call.
The fact remains that you owe my family and millions of decent people, Muslim andd otherwise, an 100% unconditional apology for your highly insulting and uncalled-for remarks. (Not that i'm holding my breath.)
I believe islam to be a cruel and evil ideology and won't apologize. If anything, Islam owes the world an apology. I get along perfectly well with the muslim family that lives next door, in case you were wondering.
When there is no longer a single country where apostasy is punished, non-muslims are no longer treated as less than equal, when non-muslims can openly express their beliefs, in short, when there is not a country in the world where, for Islamic reasons, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not fully respected, get back to me. Until then, Islam is and remains a cruel and evil ideology.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
In Mohammed one finds a mass murderer, a rapist, a pedophile and a thief.
The point I'm trying to make is that one finds mass murderers, rapists, paedophiles and thieves amongst Noah, Joshua, David, Saul, Samuel and many other Biblical characters revered by Judaism and Christianity alike.
Heck, the OT presents God Himself as ordering the mass murder of women, children and infants and telling Jews that it's perfectly okay to swindle Gentiles. In Numbers, God tells the Hebrews to keep (female) child captives for their sexual pleasure: "17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man." (Numbers 31)
quote:
longer treated as less than equal, when non-muslims can openly express their beliefs, in short, when there is not a country in the world where, for Islamic reasons, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not fully respected, get back to me. Until then, Islam is and remains a cruel and evil ideology.
The same could be said for every Christian country until about a century ago.
One may have reasons to dislike Islam, but judging Muhammad by a different standard than one would just our own Deity, prophets and heroes and nations is plain silly.
[ 06. March 2012, 14:53: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
This tangent really doesn't seem to have a lot to do with the US election. Can we get back on-topic please?
--Tom Clune, Purgatory Host
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
Here's a way to get back on the thread topic. I find it interesting that some would allow certain countries no slack until they fully respect the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Well, why just some countries? Why not the United States? The U.S. certainly does not fully respect the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The U.S. a beacon of freedom for the world? Hah! and ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) and ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
Just to name a few things Obama needs to answer for:
Gitmo?
The ongoing torture of Bradley Manning who has yet to even be charged with a crime? I know Obama is under a lot of pressure, but I think he could lift a finger to stop this.
And the Republicans simply want to take away voting rights (the voter ID farce) and put all of us except the few super-rich for whom they whore into essentially a state of slavery.
And as of this morning the Supreme Court is apparently in the process of taking away Miranda rights.
Given the dreadful alternatives, i'm rather sure i will be voting for Obama in the fall. But i am having less and less faith that voting even really matters anymore. But miracles do happen. Occasionally people diagnosed with terminal diseases are unexpectedly cured, and God may work miracles for a nation of people as well as for individuals. So who knows?
God help us, and God help this planet. ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I believe islam to be a cruel and evil ideology and won't apologize. If anything, Islam owes the world an apology. I get along perfectly well with the muslim family that lives next door, in case you were wondering.
Why is that? Did they apologize to you for being muslims? Or for being cruel and evil? I'm not sure I can picture it. Actually I can, it's just so unrealistic I can't believe it.
"Hi, we're the new neighbors next door. We'd just like to apologize in advance for Islaming up your neighborhood. Sorry about that, but you're welcome to come over any time you're out of cruelty or evil."
Seems like another variation of "I can't be prejudiced because I have X friends".
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
Just to name a few things Obama needs to answer for:
<snip>
The ongoing torture of Bradley Manning who has yet to even be charged with a crime? I know Obama is under a lot of pressure, but I think he could lift a finger to stop this.
Not true. Manning is charged with (I think) twenty-four violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, mostly regarding mishandling data. He just hasn't been convicted of anything. It should also be noted that even if he had been convicted, his treatment would still likely fall under the rubric of "cruel and unusual punishment".
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Why is that? Did they apologize to you for being muslims? Or for being cruel and evil? I'm not sure I can picture it. Actually I can, it's just so unrealistic I can't believe it.
Picture the reality of what I'm saying, then. Islam is a cruel and evil ideology. Yes, that is what I believe. Does that make all muslims cruel and evil? No.
I believe if you are being honest you know the difference. So does some 99% of those who look at, say, films on the History Channel about Nazism , WW2 and the like. They don't have to run disclaimers saying that it isn't an indictment of all things German.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I believe if you are being honest you know the difference. So does some 99% of those who look at, say, films on the History Channel about Nazism , WW2 and the like. They don't have to run disclaimers saying that it isn't an indictment of all things [Nazi].
You made a grammar/logic error. I fixed it for you. You really want to hang your hat on the position that Nazism may have been evil, but being a Nazi is still okay?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I believe if you are being honest you know the difference. So does some 99% of those who look at, say, films on the History Channel about Nazism , WW2 and the like. They don't have to run disclaimers saying that it isn't an indictment of all things [Nazi].
You made a grammar/logic error. I fixed it for you. You really want to hang your hat on the position that Nazism may have been evil, but being a Nazi is still okay?
If a Nazi today figured a person had the right to leave Nazism, that people could be honest in the condemnations of Hitler, his life and his teachings, that there was no reason for us non-Nazis to treat Mein Kampf like he says we must, that the teachings of Nazism doesn't have any power or control over the non-Nazi, etc., then he might be on the way to being ok.
In a way, you make a point. But, in a way, you don't. I believe the Saudis know more about Islam than you or I do and they take it very seriously. Would apostates, infidels and the like who are there say the muslims are ok?
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Would anyone care to take this anti-Muslim rant and throw it somewhere, preferably into Hell?
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Would anyone care to take this anti-Muslim rant and throw it somewhere, preferably into Hell?
Done
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
[qb] The rest of what you wrote has warmed the cockles of my generally-considered-by-many-to-be-conservative heart.
I don't think Keynesian economics and deficit spending in recessionary periods (practised by both U.S. political parties) is all that liberal...
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
[qb] The rest of what you wrote has warmed the cockles of my generally-considered-by-many-to-be-conservative heart.
I don't think Keynesian economics and deficit spending in recessionary periods (practised by both U.S. political parties) is all that liberal...
I was just comparing what you wrote to someone else I've been talking to on another message board. He's a federal reserve conspiracy theorist.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
Keynesian economics has an Achilles heel in that it is a demand based system. This causes problems when the demand simply is not there when folk are 'hoarding' due to economic uncertainty. The usual Keynesian response seems to be to stimulate growth by short term tax cuts/incentives, which is OK when it works, but then there are problems when the economy is weened off whatever stimulus package has been used this time round.
Government debt is another mixed blessing. All governments need some sort of debt to establish credit worthiness. That was Alexander Hamilton's stroke of genius in financing the Revolutionary War was making certain European powers 'investors' in a little project called American Independence. When that was achieved, the viability of the new country was established by its ability to pay its debts which in turn raised its credit with the bankers and allowed them to borrow more when the next crisis arose. It is precisely the same thing as happens with one's credit card. One starts with a low credit limit proportionate to income, and this is raised as you gradually establish a record of contracting and then paying off debt. The Credit Card Company allows you to contract more debt, but then you have to juggle ligh levels of debt, against your ability to pay it off. Experience a loss of income and your up shit creek.
I think the paranoia about the National Debt in the USA has several causes. The first is there is a worry about who owns the debt; a lot of it belongs to powers which are not always friendly towards the USA. Personally I think this is a chimera because, so long as you are paying up, it is in the interests of your creditors to be nice. A more important concern is the fact that the US economy is expanding relatively slowly, which makes it more difficult to service debt. There is a general feeling that the US is, in layman's terms, using one credit card to pay off another, and does not actually have the money to pay the interest in either. I do not think the USA is to that stage yet, but without a sharp drop in the government brrowing requirement, the US's credit rating will fall, and government brrowing costs will rise.
Printing money is a short term solution, but it has two risks. Firstly, as it is a paper currency, its value depends on the perceived ability of the Government to honour its debts. At the moment, the US government still generates enough confidence that the US dollar is a tradeable commodity. Secondly, too much printing money triggers inflation. There is significant inflation in the US economy in two areas - food prices (that may partially be a local phenomomen) and fuel prices - but this is partly offset by house prices (still falling) and consumer durables (relatively stable) which means an annual inflation rate of roughly 3.9% even though food and fuel have both risen 10% or more. If the US suffers an abrupt decline in international confidence in its ability to pay its debt coupled with continued "easing" - basically continuing to print money - then that will lead to an inflationary spiral that will massively devalue the currency. The archetypal example of a loss of internation confidence coupled with ill-advised easing of the currency supply is that which occurred under the Weimar Republic. This was largely fuelled by the immense debt in reparations imposed by the Allies on Germany through the Treaty of Versailles, which, when coupled with the War Debt, made Germany look like a very big risk indeed.
I personally believe that although the USA currently enjoys a high level of international confidence in financial matters, it is getting close to maxing out its credit cards, and could see another reduction in its credit rating. Therefore there is a need to do two things:
1. Increase revenue. It would seem the least painful way of doing this is by eliminating some personal exemptions and allowences. I tend to favour taxing income and expenditure not assets, so a major element in a successful tax policy would be making it more difficult for the rich to hide income.
The real looser on the taxation side of things, With consumer confidence as fragile would be a tax increase on the lower middle class.
2. Reduce spending by eliminating administration costs not capital projects. Government investment in infrastructure helps the economy long term. The target for reducing government expenditure should be the bureucracy. Overlapping departments could be merged or eliminated over the next eight years reducing administrative costs. IMHO, the first one that needs to go is Homeland Security, which has some significant overlaps with at least three other departments.
As always with eliminating jobs there is a need to go slowly. Natural wastage, not redundancies - you get the drift. Reducing the size of the bureaucracy too fast would create a very unpleasant short term blip in unemployment, and also harm that mysterious beast, consumer confidence.
I guess what I am saying is that there is a need for a balanced, fiscally conservative (but not too conservative) approach to the US economy to keep the government's credit rating stable, and to promote economic growth. I think what we are looking at is a slow 'claw back' rather than a rapid recovery because the government is out of options. For example, another stimulus package would be expensive and potentially damaging to the US's short term credit rating. However, there will be a need to continue reducing the public payroll even after the economy really starts to picks up again to reduce the overall level of public expenditure to help tackle municiple and national debt.
The question is does either party wish to face this unpleasant reality? The Dems owe the public sector unions whilst the Republicans are in hoc to the 'low tax; anti-tax' lobby. This gives neither side much room to move and tackle things head on.
PD
--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!
My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com
Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
I guess what I am saying is that there is a need for a balanced, fiscally conservative (but not too conservative) approach to the US economy to keep the government's credit rating stable, and to promote economic growth.
From your fingertips to Obama's ears. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
And I keep thinking about the campaign upcoming: do you think he'll be willing to debate his opponent much, if at all? I think he'll be reluctant but hope he does - it'll be great entertainment.
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 205:
And I keep thinking about the campaign upcoming: do you think he'll be willing to debate his opponent much, if at all? I think he'll be reluctant but hope he does - it'll be great entertainment.
I wonder to what extent this stupid Citizens United decision will influence the decision about debates. If Obama can't raise the billion dollars he did last time, he may want to have a fair number of debates. One thing that seems to be true of the Republican primaries is that the debates have been a serious equalizer, where less well-funded candidates can be taken seriously because the debates seem to be given more weight by the electorate than ads -- folks seem to feel that candidates are more reluctant to lie outright than are their anonymous surrogates, and the media seem to be more aggressive in fact-checking the candidates than the super packs.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
I do not think the USA is to that stage yet, but without a sharp drop in the government brrowing requirement, the US's credit rating will fall, and government brrowing costs will rise.
You may think the U.S. needs to cut spending to borrow, but the market disagrees with you. Borrowing costs for the U.S. government are phenomenally low right now. The ten year rate on U.S. bonds has been around 2% for quite some time now, which is a lot better indication of U.S. creditworthiness than credit ratings. If you factor in likely inflation, the rate at which the U.S. can borrow is actually negative. In short, people seem to be literally willing to pay the U.S. government in order to lend it money. Given that situation, not borrowing a whole bunch and sinking it in to infrastructure improvements seesm almost criminal.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 205:
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
I guess what I am saying is that there is a need for a balanced, fiscally conservative (but not too conservative) approach to the US economy to keep the government's credit rating stable, and to promote economic growth.
From your fingertips to Obama's ears.
And I keep thinking about the campaign upcoming: do you think he'll be willing to debate his opponent much, if at all? I think he'll be reluctant but hope he does - it'll be great entertainment.
Considering the current bumblers the GOP came up with (those that would cause the electorate to be salivating decided to sit this one out for some reason) I don't think Obama will have much of a problem. They all suffer from foot in mouth or extremist stances.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imaginary Friend
Real to you
# 186
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 205:
Do you think [Obama]'ll be willing to debate his opponent much, if at all? I think he'll be reluctant but hope he does - it'll be great entertainment.
What makes you think he'll be reluctant? I wasn't aware that he has form for ducking debates.
--------------------
"We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass."
Brian Clough
Posts: 9455 | From: Left a bit... Right a bit... | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
They all suffer from foot in mouth or extremist stances.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Seriously, I remember someone commenting how much she liked W just because he was so endearingly, erm..., human. Lots of Americans distrust 'polish'.
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 205:
Lots of Americans distrust 'polish'.
And even more of them can't tell the difference between sh*t and Shinola...
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
quote:
Originally posted by 205:
Do you think [Obama]'ll be willing to debate his opponent much, if at all? I think he'll be reluctant but hope he does - it'll be great entertainment.
What makes you think he'll be reluctant? I wasn't aware that he has form for ducking debates.
Obama was an excellent debater against Hillary and McCain in 2008 and certainly has put a few zingers over on Fox News reporters when they asked loaded questions since then.
Obama vs. Romney (who will have to defend his own liberal policies) or Santorum ('nuff said) should be a cakewalk for the president.
[ 07. March 2012, 16:21: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imaginary Friend
Real to you
# 186
|
Posted
Right, that's what I thought. So why might he be reluctant to take either of them on?
--------------------
"We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass."
Brian Clough
Posts: 9455 | From: Left a bit... Right a bit... | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
