Herman Cain: Liberals Want to Destroy America

[dust1n]

Ummm, so why did they omit the word "Economically"? Isn't the whole "unintended consequence" what I said with the dog ******* on the Persian rug?

And individual news company seeks to remove the word economically either a.) on the web, because it's the way online news works and attention spans and reading levels are expected to be lower, for faster consumption and appeal. OR b.)in the paper because of size issues with layout design or ink costs. I could go so much further into this...

Just curious, how many economically-destroyed countries are you are of that aren't destroyed in every other sense?

 

[dust1n]

Then I believe I misunderstood what you said. But how is it telling if most people don't believe the OWS folks intend to destroy the economy?

Don't waste your time. His ego is a troll that sneaks around the edges.

 

[dust1n]

Money.

Consumers, Distributors, and Producers.

 

[dust1n]

Given that "most people" thought that Obama would be their savior from whatever ailed them, I'm not deeply impressed with what "most people" think. All one need do is look at the history of Communism and Socialism to find the answers. It's not a pretty history.

Care to expand on what exactly you are implying?

 

[dust1n]

People, people, people.....it's campaign time.
Both sides are talking about the evil intents of the other.
And each side probably does want to destroy America....that is, the version of it which they oppose.
Meh....I'd like to destroy the Pub & Dem versions of Yankeeland too.

No one wants to destroy America (except statistical outliers). Everyone wants to advance their own personal, ill-advised agenda.

 

[dust1n]

You seem to be ignoring the fact that Obama has raised millions more than any other contender. Surely you don't think he's not being supported by Big Business (ie, Wall Street)?

Hahah, no one ignores this. But what everyone seems to be ignoring is that Obama (despite all the ****...) isn't (...on top of all the ****) trying to destroy simple basic rights like 'gayness' and 'abortion'.

 

[dust1n]

There's liberals who want to see the American economy crash and burn so that we can withdraw from our imperialistic goals in a la-la isolationist world.

There's conservatives who want to see doctors and lawyers shot in the face or lynched because they support abortion rights for women.

There's libertarians who want to see the entire world economy collapse so that we can build some market utopia.

There's socialists who want to see American military personnel and cops eradicated from the face of the Earth.

There's Christians who want to ban atheism.

There's atheists who want to ban Christianity.

There's posters on religious forums who want to replace all dairy products with bacon.

If Cain refuses to distinguish radical liberals from sensible liberals, it opens up a whole can of soup.

GENE, FTW. As always.

 

[dust1n]

Originally Posted by GeneCosta
If Cain refuses to distinguish radical liberals from sensible liberals, it opens up a whole can of soup.

Would it not be helpful if said liberals distinguished themselves first?

What said liberals? Gene mentioned two different types of liberals..., before that, no specific liberals were ever mentioned except Wall Street, and I've yet to see any of those sources laid out.

 

[dust1n]

Well, it tells me that, like so many people, you are seeing what you want because the "protesters" have not come out with anything in particular we can seriously discuss. THAT is my point. Due to the lack of message coming from these ragtag groups, people are being pretty foolish saying they support them. Officially, no one knows why they are there - as there is no official statement. My question is, "Do you normally support people who do not have clear ideas - and after four weeks of haggling - still have nothing concrete to say?"

That's reasonable. So, again, whose intention was it to weaken the economic strength and health of America?

 

[dust1n]

I know we live on different planets, Gene, but isn't that exactly what people demand from anyone who even mentions the Tea Party movement is a positive light? Even after such clarifications are made, the baiters still carry on as if nothing had been said. From the get go, there has been a far different view given, en masse, of the "Occupy ...." groups, allowing for their crazier elements, almost fawning over the eccentricities of this wonderful crowd.

Ah, well see the huge major difference is this: OWS are a complication mixture of idiots and geniuses who can't correlate a coherent message (what large group of people can?), but they have some sincere genuine common sense regarding the progression of our population. The Tea Party were a complicated mixture of mostly idiots and some geniuses who couldn't correlate a coherent message, but they really couldn't give a **** about politics or humans enough to understand some of the most basic principles of civics.

Granted, there is a herd mentality, but it really is up to these groups of the disenfranchised to remove the toxic elements from their midst if they are actually going to effect change.

If they effect changes that you agree with you, why would you care? (BTW, if this hasn't been made clear, I don't really think much about OWS, but that's because they aren't going to actually do anything.

 

[dust1n]

I certainly don't deny that damage was done by Republicans, but since taking office, the current dismal crop of Democrats have simply put the pedal to the metal.

For the most part, rich people don't care for the poor.

 

[dust1n]

Question for you all:

Is this sort of statement different than the prevalent sentiment among democrats that republicans are being purposefully obstructionist in Congress so that the economy won't recover (or any other good thing happen), so that Obama won't get re-elected?

I think the reasonable sentiment would be that a rich person (someone who makes more than, say, half a mil a year), (except statistical outliers), whether is congress or in business, doesn't care about you, your circumstances, or your well-being.

 

[dust1n]

Nearly A century, the last real Republicans were in Coolidge's time.

And since then, most of the players have too much sympathy for the ideas of the other team.

Coolidge ain't bad, but this isn't the early 1900's...

 

[dust1n]

From another thread, but it's appropriate here:

Look, our federal budget was already tattered and torn before Obama and Congress apparently went ape **** crazy on it the first 18 months of his Presidency. What has alarmed so many people is at that critical point (Obama's election) and from that point forward, the money/budget which desperately needed moderating and controlling, has instead, been handled with wild abandon. It seems so extreme that it's either insane, or calculated to achieve something other than the stated goals. Surely - SURELY - the majority of our elected representative can do SIMPLE MATH!!! Would any of them handle their own budgets this way?

No, seriously though, before we go into fancy bar graphs... what does this have to do with the OP?

 

[dust1n]

You're right - that's not how it happened. Yes, GWB waged two very expensive wars, but Obama has continued waging ineffectual and costly wars - STOP THE MADNESS.

And just like a majority of people who want to see the madness stop, there will be no true effort to stop the madness. The status quo move on but very, very slowly, we learn to dissociate with it all, then we have kids.

 

[dust1n]

Certainly, if the government gives me money, then I & my workers see economic benefit.
But those who must pay that money see a corresponding economic loss.
To take money from Peter (a lowly taxpayer) & hand it to Paul (who basks in political favor) is a shell game.

I'd call it thievery, but that's just me.

 

[dust1n]

This gives me an idea! If they took less in taxes, it could stay in the economy all along.
We'd be less dependent on government then.

Or, like in an natural economy, the money could just slowly transfer to the wealthy and powerful who don't claim transparency, rights, or care. YAH! It would stay in the economy all along. We'd be more dependent on our privatized overloads then. Sigh. You're bringing me back to the good ol' days of 1860's politics again.

Alas, that would cut their power...& what politician wants that?

Yeah, and if they took more taxes, effective social programs that truly reflected democratic desire would cut the power of wealthy men independent of government. And what wealthy man would want that?

 

[dust1n]

How many jobs were actually created or saved by the Stimulus, especially from the Republicans who took the Stimulus money? What good did it actually do?

Did you ever bother to ask those who received it?... :cover:

 

[Majikthise]

Somebody is having a great deal of fun talking to themselves over here.

G'night.

 

[dust1n]

That's the question which I never see properly addressed.
It seems to be a mere article of faith that our money must be taken & then handed back to the few government-anointed companies who will work miracles.

Yeah... the government is the only person know the launder money.. and the government has never stopped any of them from laundering money...

Let me address the question for ya. It doesn't matter the answer, because money has always been created by an elite over a particular population as a method to manipulate others to achieve their positions. It's a stupid question anyways.