Robert - you are trying to use logica foreign concept to some.
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 2:35 AM, Robert Munn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> wow, you are one sick puppy if you think that way. we have a volunteer
> military that believes in its mission and the value of its members'
> service.
> the
wow, you are one sick puppy if you think that way. we have a volunteer
military that believes in its mission and the value of its members' service.
they choose to maintain the fight because they believe in the fight. is that
so hard for you to comprehend?
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 10:59 PM, Gruss wro
> RoMunn wrote:
> and they voted ... for mccain
>
And so your point is that you can punish soldiers to death and they'll
still vote McCain?
I guess that means we can have infinite taxes then.
I think you've got an error in your principles. Better rethink.
~~
and they voted ... for mccain
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 10:26 PM, Gruss wrote:
> > RoMunn wrote:
> > The question you have to ask yourself is how much punishment you are
> > expected to take from the government for your success before it pisses
> you
> > off to the point where you refuse to work so
> RoMunn wrote:
> The question you have to ask yourself is how much punishment you are
> expected to take from the government for your success before it pisses you
> off to the point where you refuse to work so hard.
Ask a soldier, they bet their lives.
~~~
It is class warfare when I describe it as well, but I don't believe in
supporting it.
The question you have to ask yourself is how much punishment you are
expected to take from the government for your success before it pisses you
off to the point where you refuse to work so hard. When you hit that
wait why is it class warfare when she says it but not when you do?
Your statements mirror each other, you know.
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 3:24 AM, Robert Munn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There you go with the class warfare theme again. Who is skimming from the
> poor- Starbucks? Walmart?
>
>
> On Tu
>Is there a sudden bout of illiteracy occurring here? Please re-read my
>statement. In 1930, unemployment was 8.7%. In 1939, unemployment was 17.3%.
Here's what you said previously:
> The economy at the end of the 1930's was FAR worse than the economy at
> the beginning of the 1930's.
Last I ch
** Private ** wrote:
> Judah wrote:
>> Its going to be some smart people going to work hard trying to get us
>> out of a mess.
>
> And, if they are smart, they'll conclude we need immediate emergency
> government spending on the level of the WWII. Probably $1-3 Trillion
> right away.
You are focu
There you go with the class warfare theme again. Who is skimming from the
poor- Starbucks? Walmart?
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 12:26 AM, Maureen wrote:
> Neither is skimming money from those who can least afford it to fatten
> the coffers of the super-rich.
>
~~
Neither is skimming money from those who can least afford it to fatten
the coffers of the super-rich.
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 11:35 PM, Robert Munn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Whoever wins, I hope they do well - for everyone. Skimming money off the top
> to pay to the bottom is not progress.
>
>
>
Whoever wins, I hope they do well - for everyone. Skimming money off the top
to pay to the bottom is not progress.
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 11:19 PM, Maureen wrote:
> I'm going to be so gleeful when all your predictions of doom and gloom
> turn out to be wrong, and President Obama becomes one of t
I'm going to be so gleeful when all your predictions of doom and gloom
turn out to be wrong, and President Obama becomes one of the best
presidents ever.
I could send you a list of grief counselors in case you need one
Wednesday morning.
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 11:02 PM, Robert Munn <[EMAIL PROTEC
Oh, it could get worse, Obama could drive us into mass poverty, or even into
default as a nation.
Oh yeah, that's already happening because Democrats refuse to reform Social
Security and Medicare.
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 9:57 PM, Gruss wrote:
>
> Holy shit. It's almost like Bush fucked things up
> RoMunn wrote:
> I agree, I worry that Obama's beliefs run in that direction. If that is the
> case and the Democrats win in a sweep, we could be in for at least two very
> rough years economically.
>
Yeah! We could see the collapse of financial services industry
requiring the taxpayer to bailou
I agree, I worry that Obama's beliefs run in that direction. If that is the
case and the Democrats win in a sweep, we could be in for at least two very
rough years economically.
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 9:24 PM, Dana wrote:
> Who knows what socialists want. When I meet one I will ask him. But
>
Who knows what socialists want. When I meet one I will ask him. But
personally, I don't think the government has any business running a
business. How are other businesses supposed to comete with an entity
that can print money?
On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 9:16 PM, Robert Munn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 3:56 PM, Gruss wrote:
> (1.) If the government impacts any decision by banks (such as pairing
> down $40B in bonus money) will you then switch to opposing the bailout
> per your previous statement that the gov't should "have no say"?
The banks are free to ignore whatever t
Unlike you, apparently, I have other stuff to deal with.
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 7:43 PM, Gruss wrote:
> > at 7:53 PM RoMunn wrote:
> > As if we needed any further confirmation that
>
> hhheeey ... you wouldn't be avoiding defining those principles would
> ya?
>
>
~~
> at 5:56 PM gg wrote:
> When you recover, answer the questions. Because so far you're batting 0-0 at
> defining your principles:
> Let's hear those principles Robert.
>
> at 7:53 PM RoMunn wrote:
> As if we needed any further confirmation that
hhheeey ... you wouldn't be avoiding defining
> RoMunn wrote:
>> I'm not. Robert has trouble defining and sticking to principles as he
>> gets bogged down in personalities and positions.
>>
>
> ROTFL that really made my day.
>
When you recover, answer the questions. Because so far you're batting
0-0 at defining your principles:
(1.) If th
Is there a sudden bout of illiteracy occurring here? Please re-read my
statement. In 1930, unemployment was 8.7%. In 1939, unemployment was 17.3%.
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 5:56 AM, Larry wrote:
>
> >You like the New Deal? The economy at the end of the 1930's was FAR worse
> >than the economy at t
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 8:39 AM, Gruss wrote:
> > Scott wrote:
> > I fail to see how that can be pinned solely on the Republicans.
> >
>
> I'm not. Robert has trouble defining and sticking to principles as he
> gets bogged down in personalities and positions.
>
ROTFL that really made my day.
You're too funny.
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 6:57 AM, Larry Lyons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>kook. There is a difference between emergency one-time measures and
>>fundamental changes to the structure of our economy.
>>
>
> Its a pity you have to resort to name calling. It really shows the paucity in
> Scott wrote:
> I fail to see how that can be pinned solely on the Republicans.
>
I'm not. Robert has trouble defining and sticking to principles as he
gets bogged down in personalities and positions.
Fundamentally it's my contention that Robert and I agree 100% on the
principle. He just doesn
Didn't Obama (among others) push for the bailout?
Didn't the Democratically controlled congress pass the bailout bill?
I fail to see how that can be pinned solely on the Republicans.
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > RoMunn wrote:
> > as for not wanting t
> RoMunn wrote:
> as for not wanting to get out, the government has shares with no voting
> rights, so they could hold the shares forever and have no say in what the
> companies do.
>
So if the gov't DID have a say in what the companies do they you'd
oppose the bailout?
So, for example, if the go
>> You've seriously gone off the rails my friend.
>
>
>Uh, no. I am perfectly fine. What's foolish and wrong is trusting in
>socialism for economic growth when history demonstrates that it doesn't
>work.
Can you demonstrate that? Where is your supporting evidence? You cannot use the
Depression a
>kook. There is a difference between emergency one-time measures and
>fundamental changes to the structure of our economy.
>
Its a pity you have to resort to name calling. It really shows the paucity in
your arguments.
~|
Adobe
>Bullshit. Socialism is a choice, not a requirement. Socialism is going to
>turn the recession into a depression.
>
>You like the New Deal? The economy at the end of the 1930's was FAR worse
>than the economy at the beginning of the 1930's. That is what the New Deal
>did to us. Oh, and it saddled u
They are also the single largest ColdFusion customer. (completely unrelated
to the discussion at hand, but cool anyway)
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 8:46 AM, Larry Lyons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Don't forget major players in healthcare (medicaid/care/prison health,
> >military health)
> >and renta
>Don't forget major players in healthcare (medicaid/care/prison health,
>military health)
>and rental landlords (public housing, foreclosures, back tax property,
>prisons, military housing)
>
Also remember the Federal government is the largest employer, even when you do
not include the military.
On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 9:11 PM, Gruss wrote:
>
> In your own words you oppose "the government making any fundamental
> changes to the economy."
>
apparently you can't read, i said fundamental structural changes. the
government has become an investor, but the rules of investment have not
changed.
> RoMunn wrote:
> It is definitely an expansion of government, but that money will come back
> to the Treasury,
That money will come back IF and ONLY IF the economy recovers.
In other words, the government has purchased the financial services
industry and will control the means of production fore
It is definitely an expansion of government, but that money will come back
to the Treasury, perhaps even with a profit attached, as it did during the
savings and load bailouts in the 80's.
But I guess socialists don't care about profit, because they want all
business done through the government, r
> Dana wrote:
> because, see Gruss, it isn't an expansion of government to give money
> to big business.
>
> /me lols.
>
Right. and we wouldn't want to cut bonuses or these geniuses that've
taken down the entire economy might quit!
Oh Noes!
~~
because, see Gruss, it isn't an expansion of government to give money
to big business.
/me lols.
On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 1:17 PM, Robert Munn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 12:14 PM, Gruss wrote:
>
>> We're agreed that McCain and Obama - whichever is elected - will
>> preside
> RoMunn wrote:
> you can get medication for that
>
And if McCain is elected I'll get a profit for it, right?
~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to
date
Get the Free Trial
http://ad.dou
you can get medication for that
On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Gruss wrote:
>
>
> I heard if McCain is elected he'll slow down earth's rotation so we
> all get more daylight.
>
> And he'll make the moon pay us so we turn a profit.
>
>
~
> RoMunn wrote:
> If McCain is the President, you can be sure the government will get out as
> soon as possible and get the money back, perhaps with a profit attached.
>
I heard if McCain is elected he'll slow down earth's rotation so we
all get more daylight.
And he'll make the moon pay us so we
If the Democrats are in charge, never.
If McCain is the President, you can be sure the government will get out as
soon as possible and get the money back, perhaps with a profit attached.
On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Gruss wrote:
> > RoMunn wrote:
> > Wow, you are desperate now that everyone
> RoMunn wrote:
> Wow, you are desperate now that everyone knows Obama is a socialist.
>
When's the strike-date on that stock injection comrade Munn?
Hmmm?
Comrade?
~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and d
Wow, you are desperate now that everyone knows Obama is a socialist.
On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 12:14 PM, Gruss wrote:
> We're agreed that McCain and Obama - whichever is elected - will
> preside over the largest expansion of government into business in
> American history.
>
>
~
> RoMunn wrote:
> Only under Obama, not under McCain. You just don't get it.
>
Hey ... regarding your support of the bailout as good ole fashioned
American "emergency" socialism ... when is the documented sell date on
that stock injection?
Because, of course, if there isn't a documented sell date
On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 12:14 PM, Gruss wrote:
> We're agreed that McCain and Obama - whichever is elected - will
> preside over the largest expansion of government into business in
> American history.
Only under Obama, not under McCain. You just don't get it.
~
> RoMunn wrote:
> Well, I'm glad we all agree now that Obama's plan is socialist, despite all
> your protestations to the contrary.
>
We're agreed that McCain and Obama - whichever is elected - will
preside over the largest expansion of government into business in
American history.
But we get it
Well, I'm glad we all agree now that Obama's plan is socialist, despite all
your protestations to the contrary.
On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 11:27 AM, Gruss wrote:
> > Judah wrote:
> > Its going to be some smart people going to work hard trying to get us
> > out of a mess.
>
> And, if they are smart,
On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 11:21 AM, Judah wrote:
> You've seriously gone off the rails my friend.
Uh, no. I am perfectly fine. What's foolish and wrong is trusting in
socialism for economic growth when history demonstrates that it doesn't
work.
> Its going to be some smart people going to work
> Judah wrote:
> Its going to be some smart people going to work hard trying to get us
> out of a mess.
And, if they are smart, they'll conclude we need immediate emergency
government spending on the level of the WWII. Probably $1-3 Trillion
right away.
It may also mean buying into some industri
You've seriously gone off the rails my friend. Go hit the waves and
have a beer afterwards. Come January 20th I don't think you'll find
the country either a radical socialist country nor a suddenly
financially solvent Utopia.
Its going to be some smart people going to work hard trying to get us
ou
> RoMunn wrote:
> kook. There is a difference between emergency one-time measures and
> fundamental changes to the structure of our economy.
>
Ah. So on principle you favor emergency socialism to save capitalism?
~|
Adobe® ColdF
really? Bush was pretty good at declaring a permanent emergency. Want
to run the risk of somoene else doing the same?
On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 11:33 AM, Robert Munn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> kook. There is a difference between emergency one-time measures and
> fundamental changes to the structure
kook. There is a difference between emergency one-time measures and
fundamental changes to the structure of our economy.
On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 10:54 AM, Gruss wrote:
>
> So you oppose the bailout then? You've changed your mind?
>
>
~
> RoMunn wrote:
> Bullshit. Socialism is a choice, not a requirement.
So you oppose the bailout then? You've changed your mind?
~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to
date
Get the Free
Bullshit. Socialism is a choice, not a requirement. Socialism is going to
turn the recession into a depression.
You like the New Deal? The economy at the end of the 1930's was FAR worse
than the economy at the beginning of the 1930's. That is what the New Deal
did to us. Oh, and it saddled us with
> JJ wrote:
> Don't forget major players in healthcare (medicaid/care/prison health,
> military health)
> and rental landlords (public housing, foreclosures, back tax property,
> prisons, military housing)
>
>
::sigh:: Thanks for the reminder.
Oh, and even if all of the US savings (such as it is
Don't forget major players in healthcare (medicaid/care/prison health,
military health)
and rental landlords (public housing, foreclosures, back tax property,
prisons, military housing)
On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 11:45 AM, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Casey wrote:
>> http://www.marxists.
> Casey wrote:
> http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/keynes/general-theory/index.htm
>
I'm not sure what your point is, but I do know this: no matter who's
elected the government is going to be THE big player in the economy.
It already owns the financial services sector and auto a
ummm
Keynes is not a Marxist, or even a socialist. Marxists.org may know
about him, but that just goes to show that marxists have done some
basic research, which most people spouting off lately about socialism
have not.
If you take macro-economics at any university, you will be learning
the Keysi
On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 11:24 PM, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> So dust off your copy of The General Theory of Employment, Interest,
> and Money because - if you're lucky - that's going to be the way of
> the world, or at least the US, for the next decade.
>
http://www.marxists.org/ref
> RoMunn wrote:
> What surprises me is how many of these companies are politically so inept.
> The press is going to eat them alive, that is not generally good for
> business.
>
One thing you better get used to is socialism.
No matter who's elected there's only one way out of the hole we're in
ri
Personally I think it sucks, they should have attached string to the money.
They should still pay bonuses for high performers, otherwise they face a
huge talent drain at the worst possible moment. I don't think they should
pay huge bonuses. I don't have a number in my head for how much is too much,
Is socialism ok as long as it's for the rich?
---
Oct. 31 (Bloomberg) -- House Financial Services Committee Chairman
Barney Frank said banks using cash from the $700 billion U.S. rescue
plan for bonuses, acquisitions and other purposes unrelated to lending
are in ``violation'' of the law.
Goldman
63 matches
Mail list logo
