isadore;1184937 wrote:if you would like a history lesson, sure it has happened. jefferson, jackson, harding and coolidge all reduced are a few examples of presidencies when the number of government activiites decreased.

Ok, I was being a little facetious. It has happened, but not in recent history and I don't see it happening again in the near future.

FatHobbit;1184931 wrote:I guess, if you love the terrorists you might think like that.

quite the opposite, the change allows more Americans to participate in the war against Islamic terrorism.

FatHobbit;1184940 wrote:Ok, I was being a little facetious. It has happened, but not in recent history and I don't see it happening again in the near future.

I know this is something you probably want, but if got a big Republican majority in the House and Senate, with guys like Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan setting the agenda, you might get your wish. Of course the working people in the country would be screwe, but you would get your smaller government.

isadore;1184926 wrote:He is our elected chief executive and has that right. I know many were enraged when he ordered the end of the don't ask, don't tell policy, as their forebearers were enraged 60 plus years ago when Truman ended segregation in the armed services. tough.

That wasn't what I was referencing. I actually supported that decision, though I wish that government would just stay out of the private lives of the people.

What I was referring to was the use of it as a politicking tool. Even the more warm news outlets toward the president are saying he is misusing the ability. It's not that he does it too frequently. He actually doesn't do it that much, but when he does, it appears that he's merely ignoring the system of checks and balances.

I didn't dislike every platform of his when he campaigned, but he has renegged on the promises he platform on, so I can't say I like him any more than Romney. A liar versus a flip-flopped ... either one is a bad choice.

isadore;1184929 wrote:well since all republicans want to do is cut taxes for the rich and end regulations protecting average Americans, they are happy when the government is doing nothing else but reducing itself. So when republicans are not doing anything, they are ecstatic.

Not quite. Republicans were also happy to GIVE big businesses large sums of money a la the GWB bailout. But Obama did the same.

Goldman-Sachs doesn't donate so much money to Obama's campaign because they're suddenly feeling virtuous.

FatHobbit;1184940 wrote:Ok, I was being a little facetious. It has happened, but not in recent history and I don't see it happening again in the near future.

Probably not. The American public are too far removed from the independence that made them the great nation they were ... and could be again.

isadore;1184943 wrote:quite the opposite, the change allows more Americans to participate in the war against Islamic terrorism.

Why do you hate America?

FatHobbit;1184966 wrote:Why do you hate America?

gosh a ruddies, I love and that is why I want gay people to be able to have the chance to fight against Islamic terrorism.

O-Trap;1184964 wrote:That wasn't what I was referencing. I actually supported that decision, though I wish that government would just stay out of the private lives of the people.



Not quite. Republicans were also happy to GIVE big businesses large sums of money a la the GWB bailout. But Obama did the same.

Goldman-Sachs doesn't donate so much money to Obama's campaign because they're suddenly feeling virtuous.



Probably not. The American public are too far removed from the independence that made them the great nation they were ... and could be again.

Well you may not have been referencing it, but it was possibly the most controversial use of executive power during the President's first term in office.
That is a split in the party between the corporationists and the loons. The corporationists want no government regulation, but government protection for their big businesses. The loons are in love with the supposed free market.

isadore;1184994 wrote:Well you may not have been referencing it, but it was possibly the most controversial use of executive power during the President's first term in office.
That is a split in the party between the corporationists and the loons. The corporationists want no government regulation, but government protection for their big businesses. The loons are in love with the supposed free market.

Those same regulations that are meant to keep big businesses in check do little to effect them, but they cripple small business owners.

As far as the alternative to a free market, what distinction do you make between a lack of free market and a socialist state (ignore the normally inflammatory nature of that word)?

A free market is good for more than big business. It's good for small business, as well. I can't tell you how often I wish I could hire more people to work for my company (right now has one full-time and one part-time employee), but with tax burdens the way they are, not to mention minimum wage laws, I am forced to either take on the burden myself or outsource it to an international who I can afford.

A free market, with less tax or regulation, would honestly be a win all-around. Someone who is currently unemployed ($0 earned income) would be able to have a job (>$0 earned income), and my company could get more done, thus growing.

Given that none of us on here would be considered "fatcats" under most definitions, what would motivate such people to support free market economics other than the fact that it would benefit more than just the fatcats of society?

O-Trap;1185006 wrote:Those same regulations that are meant to keep big businesses in check do little to effect them, but they cripple small business owners.

As far as the alternative to a free market, what distinction do you make between a lack of free market and a socialist state (ignore the normally inflammatory nature of that word)?

A free market is good for more than big business. It's good for small business, as well. I can't tell you how often I wish I could hire more people to work for my company (right now has one full-time and one part-time employee), but with tax burdens the way they are, not to mention minimum wage laws, I am forced to either take on the burden myself or outsource it to an international who I can afford.

A free market, with less tax or regulation, would honestly be a win all-around. Someone who is currently unemployed ($0 earned income) would be able to have a job (>$0 earned income), and my company could get more done, thus growing.

Given that none of us on here would be considered "fatcats" under most definitions, what would motivate such people to support free market economics other than the fact that it would benefit more than just the fatcats of society?

Gosh a ruddies. Anti trust laws hurt small business more than they regulate big businesses? FTC rules hurt small business, more than they regulate big business. Glass Steagall hurt small banks more than it regulated big financial institutions. From the Progressive Era on we have had regulation on the market and still had a largely market economy. During the 1920s we returned to a more nearly market economy and we got the Great Depression. Then the New Deal and increased regulation of the economy we get overall growth for seven decades. Then the charge to deregulation and we get the Great Recession thank you. I know you find the minimum wage, workmen’s compensation and unemployment benefits chaining your economic freedom. But treating working people decently seems a good idea to me.

I think O trap should be permanently banned for this outrageous slam on the 2 presidential candidates and their respective parties.

Doesn't O-Trap realize that the other party is clearly right...whereby the other party is completely wrong?

The clip should have also included the identical views regarding occupation in countries that mean nothing to us and the supposed threats they impose. Or that they both agree that Americans dying half way across the world is somehow a noble cause...that they die "for our freedoms" whenever none of the above is true. The clip also should have expounded on the fact that both candidates have offered nothing of substance to reduce deficits.

Doesn't OTrap understand that this upcoming election is the most important ever and will determine whether America succeeds or fails? :laugh:

Hey O-Trap!! Bottoms up...to a great thread. No wonder George Carlin quit voting a long time ago.

isadore;1185014 wrote:Gosh a ruddies. Anti trust laws hurt small business more than they regulate big businesses?

Of course not. Don't be silly. I assume you recognize that I didn't say every iota of regulation is crippling to a small business.

isadore;1185014 wrote:FTC rules hurt small business, more than they regulate big business.

Actually, while I know you meant this to be tongue-in-cheek, it's more or less true.

When additional regulations by the FTC are placed on a particular industry, it more often than not affects the ability for the company to profit at the same rate. Not preferable, but survivable for large companies. However, small companies that are usually working with less in net can be affected beyond recovery.

Moreover, big business and small businesses share another element in many industries, and that is the need for outside vendors (who obviously enforce any new FTC mandate, not to their detriment).

A large business can leverage their large account in order to get deals or discounted rates that can help them recover the potential loss in net revenue as a result of new regulation. Small businesses don’t have that luxury, and are mostly forced to either lay off workers, shrink their growth potential, or go under altogether.

So while you might not realize it, yes, FTC regulations can cripple a small business much faster than a big one. As such, they are more detrimental to the small business than the large one.

isadore;1185014 wrote:Glass Steagall hurt small banks more than it regulated big financial institutions.

I wouldn’t know, honestly, but it doesn’t matter, since this administration seems perfectly content to bail out the big banks when they do have trouble on their own.

isadore;1185014 wrote:From the Progressive Era on we have had regulation on the market and still had a largely market economy. During the 1920s we returned to a more nearly market economy and we got the Great Depression.

Hardly, with the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913, we saw a temporary excess of a credit-created money supply, creating a bubble in the 1920s. The 1920s, and the subsequent depression, were a classic example of a boom-bust cycle, created by a currency able to be freely created "ex nihilo."

isadore;1185014 wrote:Then the New Deal and increased regulation of the economy we get overall growth for seven decades.

Growth of what? Debt. That would be correct. If I get a credit card, take out $1,000,000 against it, and spend that million over 20 years, does that make me financially prosperous or stable? Of course not. To suggest that the New Deal perpetuated a successful economy is to cover your eyes and ears and just pretend that the debt crisis we're in now never happened. And behind all the odd rhetoric, I know you're smarter than to do that.

isadore;1185014 wrote:Then the charge to deregulation and we get the Great Recession thank you.

A charge that was never actualized, so I'm not sure how you think it caused anything. GWB gave lip service to it, but he was just as bad as Obama, at least for our economy. His spending was out of control.

Not a single administration dating back for several decades has spent less than its predecessor, causing this now-critical debt weight. Again, you'd have to intentionally try to not see it in order to avoid recognizing it as the problem.

isadore;1185014 wrote:I know you find the minimum wage, workmen’s compensation and unemployment benefits chaining your economic freedom.

Not just mine. That's the thing. My two guys work their butts off, and STILL not everything gets done. It's chaining on their ability to develop specialties and grow their own elements of the business ... the ones that best suit their skills, and that could turn into long, lucrative careers.

That's the thing. If they're good at what they do, I not only want to pay them more, I HAVE to pay them more to keep them working for me, instead of my competitor. But since I can't take the burden of the mundane, day-to-day activities off their plates, I'm not sure how this will all pan out.

isadore;1185014 wrote: But treating working people decently seems a good idea to me.

If an 18-year-old home for the summer, and he thinks $5 an hour is being paid decently for a summer job ... and I am willing to pay it ... why is it that both he and I should be told, "No?" Why should the government mandate that if his choices are either below minimum wage or not working at all, he should be forced to choose 'not working at all'?

Gosh a ruddies. It's a mystery.

Footwedge;1185021 wrote:I think O trap should be permanently banned for this outrageous slam on the 2 presidential candidates and their respective parties.

Doesn't O-Trap realize that the other party is clearly right...whereby the other party is completely wrong?

The clip should have also included the identical views regarding occupation in countries that mean nothing to us and the supposed threats they impose. Or that they both agree that Americans dying half way across the world is somehow a noble cause...that they die "for our freedoms" whenever none of the above is true. The clip also should have expounded on the fact that both candidates have offered nothing of substance to reduce deficits.

Doesn't OTrap understand that this upcoming election is the most important ever and will determine whether America succeeds or fails? :laugh:

Hey O-Trap!! Bottoms up...to a great thread. No wonder George Carlin quit voting a long time ago.

At times, I don't blame him.

O-Trap;1185044 wrote:Of course not. Don't be silly. I assume you recognize that I didn't say every iota of regulation is crippling to a small business.



Actually, while I know you meant this to be tongue-in-cheek, it's more or less true.

When additional regulations by the FTC are placed on a particular industry, it more often than not affects the ability for the company to profit at the same rate. Not preferable, but survivable for large companies. However, small companies that are usually working with less in net can be affected beyond recovery.

Moreover, big business and small businesses share another element in many industries, and that is the need for outside vendors (who obviously enforce any new FTC mandate, not to their detriment).

A large business can leverage their large account in order to get deals or discounted rates that can help them recover the potential loss in net revenue as a result of new regulation. Small businesses don’t have that luxury, and are mostly forced to either lay off workers, shrink their growth potential, or go under altogether.

So while you might not realize it, yes, FTC regulations can cripple a small business much faster than a big one. As such, they are more detrimental to the small business than the large one.



I wouldn’t know, honestly, but it doesn’t matter, since this administration seems perfectly content to bail out the big banks when they do have trouble on their own.



Hardly, with the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913, we saw a temporary excess of a credit-created money supply, creating a bubble in the 1920s. The 1920s, and the subsequent depression, were a classic example of a boom-bust cycle, created by a currency able to be freely created "ex nihilo."



Growth of what? Debt. That would be correct. If I get a credit card, take out $1,000,000 against it, and spend that million over 20 years, does that make me financially prosperous or stable? Of course not. To suggest that the New Deal perpetuated a successful economy is to cover your eyes and ears and just pretend that the debt crisis we're in now never happened. And behind all the odd rhetoric, I know you're smarter than to do that.



A charge that was never actualized, so I'm not sure how you think it caused anything. GWB gave lip service to it, but he was just as bad as Obama, at least for our economy. His spending was out of control.

Not a single administration dating back for several decades has spent less than its predecessor, causing this now-critical debt weight. Again, you'd have to intentionally try to not see it in order to avoid recognizing it as the problem.



Not just mine. That's the thing. My two guys work their butts off, and STILL not everything gets done. It's chaining on their ability to develop specialties and grow their own elements of the business ... the ones that best suit their skills, and that could turn into long, lucrative careers.

That's the thing. If they're good at what they do, I not only want to pay them more, I HAVE to pay them more to keep them working for me, instead of my competitor. But since I can't take the burden of the mundane, day-to-day activities off their plates, I'm not sure how this will all pan out.



If an 18-year-old home for the summer, and he thinks $5 an hour is being paid decently for a summer job ... and I am willing to pay it ... why is it that both he and I should be told, "No?" Why should the government mandate that if his choices are either below minimum wage or not working at all, he should be forced to choose 'not working at all'?

Gosh a ruddies. It's a mystery.

Gosh a ruddies, it is really sad those regulation about restraint of trade, reports on mergers, laws against false advertising and fraud are interfering with your business. All these rules about deceptive practices just cripple our market economy. Caveat emptor and let the market roll.
Oh and the Depression was produced by a government ignoring its responsibilities to its citizens. Large banking institutions becoming involved in the Stock Market, no government insurance for the saving account in those banks, tax rates for the rich lowered producing a mal distribution of income and no safety for the collapse making condition horrendous.
Our current recession brought on by deregulation of banking in particular.
Our current debt problem was largely produced by the Reagan and Bush tax cuts.
Wow so this all comes down to the fact that you want to get some kid to work for you for a bag of beans and I am sure McDonalds and Walmart would like to do the same thing with each and everyone of their employees. Sorry we have a system in place to protect the worker from exploitation.

I'd like to play a game ...

We already are playing.. What started out as an attempt to differentiate conservative candidates from their more moderate republican counterparts, has been picked up by the left and the Democrats to divide and conquer the opposition. While it is fair to characterize Romney as a moderate, the attempt to equate him with Obama is really nothing more than a veiled, backhanded method of making Obama appear moderate to the electorate, instead of the liberal leftist that he is. That makes him more appealing to the voters, many of which rightfully fear the continued expansion of government. Moreover, the hope is to disenfranchise Tea party and Paulbots into staying home on election day. From all indications this game has been wildly successful judging from the posts on this thread....and I would suspect we will see it played thru November.

There is a huge difference between the two candidates if in nothing else, the candidates if elected, will have to cater to their respective bases for support.
So if you want BHO reelected, then go ahead and keep buying into the "they are the same' crap". You'll deserve the outcome.

No the people who went out and decided Romney was the best option deserve the outcome. Congrats to Romney for having the deepest pockets and most shallow character. I cant believe people think Romney will do anything other than rehash tired old neo con policies that will do nothing other than bury us deeper into our grave.

They may not be exactly the same but neither is drowning or suffocating to death but the same result is still achieved.

^^^Oh gee...the vast numbers of Americans are moderate...what a surprise.
FYI...the neo cons no longer control the republican party.

Unfortunately the vast majority of Americans dont have a clue whats going on. Thats what allows guys like Romney to get the nomination. If Romney wins you will see what Republican party is in charge.


crazy liberal or fake conservative. what a choice!

America is what it has always been....a compromise from the start.


I'm done playing this little game. In November you have a choice to decide what path this country should take. Make the best choice. That is what it has always been.

HitsRus;1185214 wrote:We already are playing.. What started out as an attempt to differentiate conservative candidates from their more moderate republican counterparts, has been picked up by the left and the Democrats to divide and conquer the opposition.

Hardly, as it vilifies the Democrat leader equally.

HitsRus;1185214 wrote:While it is fair to characterize Romney as a moderate, the attempt to equate him with Obama is really nothing more than a veiled, backhanded method of making Obama appear moderate to the electorate, instead of the liberal leftist that he is.

Not at all. The similarities (as shown in the video) suggest the stark similarities, but nobody is suggesting that they're meeting in the middle.

Romney, just as much of the Republican Party, has crossed the aisle in all but name ... and a few items of minutia.

Big, nanny state. Big military intervention. Idiotically high spending.

Just because the two are the same doesn't mean they met in the middle. Obama is not a moderate. Neither is Romney.

HitsRus;1185214 wrote:That makes him more appealing to the voters, many of which rightfully fear the continued expansion of government.

Any voter with two brain cells to rub together can see the expansion that has taken place as a RESULT of the current administration, but I'm no more comfortable replacing this administration WITH this administration and trying to calm their fragile little fears about the under-baked Obama with the other letter by his name.

HitsRus;1185214 wrote:Moreover, the hope is to disenfranchise Tea party and Paulbots into staying home on election day. From all indications this game has been wildly successful judging from the posts on this thread....and I would suspect we will see it played thru November.

Perhaps. I mean, the silly people who don't want the Obamney machine (its latest name in a list involving plenty on both sides of the broken system you continue to espouse ... proudly, it seems) to continue what it has been doing for decades should stay out of politics. Politicians should be free to pander to the largest backers of their campaigns on the backs of the American middle and lower class, right? That's how it's been for a little while, and that is how it should continue, correct?

HitsRus;1185214 wrote: There is a huge difference between the two candidates if in nothing else, the candidates if elected, will have to cater to their respective bases for support.

Why? Obama has broken many a promise from his campaign trail, and many Democrats are disappointed with the lack of Democrat-favoring change that has come out of this WH. Yet, there is no outcry to oust the incumbent. Why? Because until otherwise proven, he won, and that's as good for the party as anything.

All in all, that's the problem. When the party becomes satisfied with being "the one in control," then the party becomes the primary focus of the campaign, and not what's good for the country or the people in it, which ... in all honesty ... is why it doesn't matter what Romney or Obama does once they're in office. They'll be praised for their "accomplishments," and the other party will be vilified for what they don't achieve. Come the next election, nobody would call for the incumbent's ousting from within the party (sans those crazy Paulbots who don't see the point in winning if you're just gonna do the same damn thing as the last guy).

HitsRus;1185214 wrote: So if you want BHO reelected, then go ahead and keep buying into the "they are the same' crap". You'll deserve the outcome.

Honestly, BHO is no better and no worse. Romney has the same big donors behind him. He has the same track record supporting the same views (like it or not, the words spoken by Romney in the video are his actual words, and if you're not happy with that, I'd challenge you to dispute them). Not a single similarity pointed out in the video misconstrues Romney's positions at his time of communicating them. You can whine all you want about how that magic letter by his name somehow means the country would be better off with HIM making the same decisions BHO would make, but don't expect those realists that actually see the futility in it to take you seriously.

Anyone who votes for either Obama or Romney deserves more of what we're getting now, and have been getting for over a decade.

HitsRus;1185388 wrote:America is what it has always been....a compromise from the start.


I'm done playing this little game. In November you have a choice to decide what path this country should take. Make the best choice. That is what it has always been.

Exactly. I don't think we should vote for the guy who signed a health care mandate into law, believes that cutting spending will hurt the economy, believes the president has the authority to assassinate U.S. citizens without due process of law, believes the president has the authority to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens without due process of law, and is campaigning on a jobs record where "the economy was losing jobs when I took office and was gaining jobs at the end of my term".

pmoney25;1185293 wrote:Unfortunately the vast majority of Americans dont have a clue whats going on. Thats what allows guys like Romney to get the nomination. If Romney wins you will see what Republican party is in charge.


crazy liberal or fake conservative. what a choice!

One wolf doesn't masquerade. The other has sheepskin clothing on. Doesn't make one less of a wolf than the other.

HitsRus;1185388 wrote:America is what it has always been....a compromise from the start.

Why is it Republicans have done all the giving, then? They've sacrificed fiscal sanity (at the cost of the taxpayers, I might add). They've sacrificed non-interventionism, which was at one time Bush's platform ... oh how far we've fallen. They've sacrificed personal liberties, with Mittens supporting an individual mandate, the NDAA, PATRIOT Act, etc.

It's no wonder Romney and Obama are similar. Both are liberals. Not moderates (well, by European standards, maybe, since they only view outspoken Socialists as liberals). Full-blown liberal. It doesn't matter what they put next to their names, or what primary elections in which they take part. Their positional track record depicts them as the same person ... and if Romney wins the nomination, then it's apparent the Republican party WANTS their own Obama.

HitsRus;1185388 wrote: I'm done playing this little game. In November you have a choice to decide what path this country should take. Make the best choice. That is what it has always been.

Unfortunately, when the people give little thought to the actual ramifications of the positions their choice espouses, it's less like making the best choice, and more like playing Russian roulette with only one chamber empty.

Cleveland Buck;1185598 wrote:Exactly. I don't think we should vote for the guy who signed a health care mandate into law, believes that cutting spending will hurt the economy, believes the president has the authority to assassinate U.S. citizens without due process of law, believes the president has the authority to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens without due process of law, and is campaigning on a jobs record where "the economy was losing jobs when I took office and was gaining jobs at the end of my term".

Shhhh! The Romtards know what they think! Quit confusing them with facts and specific details!

O-Trap;1185601 wrote:Unfortunately, when the people give little thought to the actual ramifications of the positions their choice espouses, it's less like making the best choice, and more like playing Russian roulette with only one chamber empty.

Perhaps but unfortunately it almost always comes down to picking the least damaging candidate in our two-party system.

We certainly have the option of voting for our most favorite third-party candidate or independent. But while that may give the voter a temporary warm fuzzy feeling of "doing the right thing" it tends to be a de facto vote for the two-party system winner. With the race as close at it is now that will more than likely translate to a vote for 4 more years of Barrry.

I don't like this any better than the Pauliban, but I prefer taking the pragmatic route when it comes to selecting the POTUS.

Yes, Romney is Obama-lite blah, blah, blah but I know for a fact what we have now. I'll wince when I pull the lever for Willard in November but it's better than shooting myself by voting for Obama.

O-Trap;1185601 wrote:Unfortunately, when the people give little thought to the actual ramifications of the positions their choice espouses, it's less like making the best choice, and more like playing Russian roulette with only one chamber empty.

Perhaps but unfortunately it almost always comes down to picking the least damaging candidate in our two-party system.

We certainly have the option of voting for our most favorite third-party candidate or independent. But while that may give the voter a temporary warm fuzzy feeling of "doing the right thing" it tends to be a de facto vote for the two-party system winner. With the race as close at it is now that will more than likely translate to a vote for 4 more years of Barrry.

I don't like this any better than the Pauliban, but I prefer taking the pragmatic route when it comes to selecting the POTUS.

Yes, Romney is Obama-lite blah, blah, blah. But I know for a fact what we have now. I'll wince when I pull the lever for Willard in November but it's better than shooting myself by voting directly - or indirectly - for Obama.

O-Trap;1185601 wrote:Unfortunately, when the people give little thought to the actual ramifications of the positions their choice espouses, it's less like making the best choice, and more like playing Russian roulette with only one chamber empty.

What's unfortunate is that it almost always comes down to picking the least damaging candidate in our two-party system.

We certainly have the option of voting for our most favorite third-party candidate or independent. But while that may give the voter a temporary warm fuzzy feeling of "doing the right thing" it tends to be a de facto vote for the two-party system winner. With the race as close at it is now that will more than likely translate to a vote for 4 more years of Barry.

I don't like this any better than the hardcore Pauliban, but I prefer taking the pragmatic route when it comes to selecting the POTUS.

Romney is Obama-lite blah, blah, blah. But I know for a fact what we have now.

I'll wince when I pull the lever for Willard in November but it's better than shooting myself by voting directly - or indirectly - for Obama.