Extreme Right

[bloodlusta]

There has been a lot on the News lastly about the extreme right wing supporters in America. What is making these people so angry? And please nobody say "the government” because that is not an answer. What is it that the government is doing that is wrong? They can't blame the recession on the left wing government as it was the Bush administration that lowered interest rates to 1% that sparked the whole problem with sub-prime mortgages in the first place.

Read a very good article in the Waikato Times about the American Right. The key point was that they don't just say Obama is a bad president they say he is an illegitimate one. They don't just say their left wing opponents are wrong they say they are "un-American". At their town hall meetings they shout people down rather than having a reasoned debate with them.

And now they are reforming their Militia. You got to love their version of democracy "we are for freedom, liberty and democracy, but if you don't elect who we want we are going to take up arms against you and become Christian terrorists and will kill people who don't share our view points".

It always amazes me just how similar the Muslim and Christian Terrorists are. They both want the same thing. To live in a world governed by the laws set out in their holy texts and for everyone to think and act like them. And they use similar methods to achieve their goals.

[Steve_TPF]

Supporting evidence required. Particularly regarding the "we are for freedom, liberty and democracy, but if you don't elect who we want we are going to take up arms against you and become Christian terrorists and will kill people who don't share our view points".

[Draven]

Blood,

First off, the economy can be blamed on Bush ture but not for the tax cuts. The war spending; yes, the unemployment; yes & the lack of inferstructure spending; yes...

Secondly, Obama made it worse with continued war spending (he said he won't but he spent more then Bush, so far), unemployment; oh hell yes (look government employees state & federal get their salaries from tax dollars paid by none government supported job employees. Taxing the American people into oblivion (Bush spent a trillion in 8 years and Obama have spend 3 trillion so far and around 4 to 5 trillion by the end of this year to pay for government jobs which increase the tax burden exponentally.) And inferstructure spending is a joke for Obama because its going to community organizations with a political agenda that limits the aid and jobs to the community at large based on political beliefs.

Third, Militias were forming and coming back due to Clinton and then again during Bush's draconian Domestic Security Policies. These same militias are skeptical of anyone who supports slavery (forced volunteerism is slavery), does not support the individual right to bear arms and an outright supports terrorists and racists openly in the public eye. It has nothing to do with Obama being black, it has everything to do with Obama's policies and actions.

Only spineless race baiters are hiding behind Obama's skin tone.

Fourth, do some historicial research (I know you have the internet) the issues with Obama's policies began with Woodrow Willson. More so, Obama has yet to prove his birth which is a requirement for President and military officers who have refused the obey orders from Obama have been charged and aquitted of Disobeying Orders based on the facts concerning Obama's citizenship.

Fifth, America is a Republic not a democracy, the Government is restained by the laws which establish it. While people are democractically elected those elected are not free to do as they please they are restrained by the laws of the Republic established by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, which also grants the power of the people the right to establish a militia and to keep & bear arms...

[bloodlusta]

Originally Posted by Steve_TPF

Supporting evidence required. Particularly regarding the "we are for freedom, liberty and democracy, but if you don't elect who we want we are going to take up arms against you and become Christian terrorists and will kill people who don't share our view point’s".

These militia spring up whenever a democrat is in power.

They take up arms and form armed militia

They are Christian who hold a literal rather than metaphorical belief in the bible

They are terrorists because they use terror to target people who disagree with them. E.g. Police stations attacked and abortion doctors killed

Funny you should mention Obama's military spending as a cause of resentment. Because so of these militia groups and their members were saying that Obama was not supporting their troops because he was slashing military spending, but now it is bad that he is increasing spending?

Also if Obama was cutting taxes and spending less you would complain that he was operating a contractionary fiscal policy during a recession. The guy just can't win.

Also the whole Birth certificate thing has been proved wrong again and again. He has provided his birth certificate. The (republican) governor of Hawaii has said Obama was born there. There was Birth notices placed in a paper the day after Obama was born about his birth.

One of the funniest things I saw was an episode the "daily show" ran where they showed a clip from a CCN show where the presenter debunked all the Obama birth conspiracy by showing a copy of the birth certificate and a whole list of other evidence. The next day however on the same show a different presenter said "we still haven’t seen any proof that Obama was born in America" it’s just crazy! (Mind you it seems that the same people who are asking for "proof" of Obama's birth are the same people who think there is no "proof" of evolution.

[shetlan]

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

These militia spring up whenever a democrat is in power.

They take up arms and form armed militia

They are Christian who hold a literal rather than metaphorical belief in the bible

Correction: They get more press when a democrat is in power.

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

They are terrorists because they use terror to target people who disagree with them. E.g. Police stations attacked and abortion doctors killed

Really? Feel free to cite an instance in the last 30 years where a conservative group bombed a police station. On the other hand, I'll be happy to give you a list of dozens of bombings by the ultra-leftist Wheather Underground, violence perpetrated by the Black Panthers, and and a list of people beaten bloody by "peace protesters".

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

Funny you should mention Obama's military spending as a cause of resentment. Because so of these militia groups and their members were saying that Obama was not supporting their troops because he was slashing military spending, but now it is bad that he is increasing spending?

Let's look at Obama's spending versus his own statements.

Obama increased the funding for the war in afganistan; but according to Obama, there are no "terrorists" (with the exclusion of any citizen who disagrees with him). That being the case, why are we in Afganistan? If he claims there are no terrorists, why are we there?

On the other hand, he cut the funding for the missile defense system in half - a system that would render any enemy missile useless.

Which of these would be a bigger priority if you where president?

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

Also if Obama was cutting taxes and spending less you would complain that he was operating a contractionary fiscal policy during a recession. The guy just can't win.

No, then he would be fiscally responsible - and we would complement him for it.

Incidentally, that's NOT a contradictory fiscal policy. Multiple economists both projected before and continue to claim that if Obama had kept his nose out of it, the recession would be over and we would be on our way to recovery - I cited you three examples of that last time we had this discussion.

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

Also the whole Birth certificate thing has been proved wrong again and again. He has provided his birth certificate. The (republican) governor of Hawaii has said Obama was born there. There was Birth notices placed in a paper the day after Obama was born about his birth.

First, feel free to provide any evidence of that "birth notice" from the paper.

Second, the governor of Hawaii doesn't have access to the records needed to prove that, only Hawaii's health director does.

As I said in another thread Lusta':
He could have ended this entire discussion by simply ordering that photocopies of the original certificate be released to the public - so why didn't he?

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

One of the funniest things I saw was an episode the "daily show" ran where they showed a clip from a CCN show where the presenter debunked all the Obama birth conspiracy by showing a copy of the birth certificate and a whole list of other evidence. The next day however on the same show a different presenter said "we still haven’t seen any proof that Obama was born in America" it’s just crazy! (Mind you it seems that the same people who are asking for "proof" of Obama's birth are the same people who think there is no "proof" of evolution.

You're getting your political information from Comedy Central . . . wow, this discussion just went from silly to stupid.

[bloodlusta]

Originally Posted by shetlan

Really? Feel free to cite an instance in the last 30 years where a conservative group bombed a police station. On the other hand, I'll be happy to give you a list of dozens of bombings by the ultra-leftist Wheather Underground, violence perpetrated by the Black Panthers, and and a list of people beaten bloody by "peace protesters".

Yea the Left wing is "bad". But Im talking about the right wing groups, what one group does, does not justify the actions of the other.

Originally Posted by shetlan

Obama increased the funding for the war in afganistan; but according to Obama, there are no "terrorists"

When did he say this?

Originally Posted by shetlan

On the other hand, he cut the funding for the missile defense system in half - a system that would render any enemy missile useless.

And right now what nations pose a threat which have missiles? (besides NK whos misslies can easliy be shot down by the current defense system)

Originally Posted by shetlan

that's NOT a contradictory fiscal policy.

"A policy to reduce government spending to reduce economic activity"

Originally Posted by shetlan

First, feel free to provide any evidence of that "birth notice" from the paper. .

Obama Birth Notice From Honolulu Sunday Advertiser - Google Search

Originally Posted by shetlan

Second, the governor of Hawaii doesn't have access to the records needed to prove that, only Hawaii's health director does.

Her to
Hawaii: Obama birth certificate is real - USATODAY.com

Originally Posted by shetlan

As I said in another thread Lusta':
He could have ended this entire discussion by simply ordering that photocopies of the original certificate be released to the public - so why didn't he?

But he has!
Barack Obama's birth certificate revealed here | Top of the Ticket | Los Angeles Times

Originally Posted by shetlan

You're getting your political information from Comedy Central . . . wow, this discussion just went from silly to stupid.

So that means you can just ignor it?

Even if Obama turned up your door and slapped you in the face with his birth cetificat you would not beleve it. The fact is you don't want him to be an American so not matter what happens you will not belive it because you can't.

[shetlan]

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

Yea the Left wing is "bad". But Im talking about the right wing groups, what one group does, does not justify the actions of the other.

Great. Still waiting on those examples.
My entire point was that the opinion you gave (violent right wing militia groups) is a total lie.

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

When did he say this?

The administration issued a statement that the phrase "terrorist" and the title "war on terror" where no longer to be used. They've replaced it with the phrase "man caused disaster". This was months ago, how do you not hear about these things?

Obama-Speak: Homeland Security Secretary Replaces 'Terrorism' With the Term 'Man-Caused Disaster' | NewsBusters.org

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

And right now what nations pose a threat which have missiles? (besides NK whos misslies can easliy be shot down by the current defense system)

Iran, North Korea, China, and Russia are all viable threats either to the US or its allies.

The current missile defense system is land and sub-marine based, meaning even if the missile is taken down, it would still have the potential to kill millions of people (either in the US or in countries it passes on the way). The current system also costs an insane amount to run - which could be entirely replaced by five properly equipped planes.

If the missile defense shield was put into service, it would make launching a missile against the US or its allies a suicidal act; the missile would be shot down before it finished its booster phase - detonating when it falls back on it's launch pad. Putting the system to go into service would make ICBMs an archaic technology - literally eliminating the possibility of nuclear war.

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

"A policy to reduce government spending to reduce economic activity"

Good for you - you can quote a bumper sticker.

The government can only provide "stimulus" by taking money out of the economy - so any money the government returns to the economy is pointless.

If I take $100 from you, keep $20, and return $80 am I really "giving" you anything?

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

Obama Birth Notice From Honolulu Sunday Advertiser - Google Search

If I may quote the second hit on that search ". . . this is by no means unimpeachable evidence"

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

Her to
Hawaii: Obama birth certificate is real - USATODAY.com

Saw that when it came out - which is what prompted me to ask "Why don't they just show it and be done with all this". Long story short, having someone come out and say, "It's real" with no evidence, no proof, no back-up doesn't mean anything.

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

But he has!
Barack Obama's birth certificate revealed here | Top of the Ticket | Los Angeles Times

You mean the one that multiple forgery specialist comfirmed was a fake based on his sister's.

The NSA denied Obama security clearance for classified documents specifically because he "could not produce a legitimate birth certificate". That was linked to in the thread on Obama's birth certificate.

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

So that means you can just ignor it?

Yes, yes it does.
One has to question not only the intelligence but the sanity of anyone who gets their political information from a source that is expressedly meant to be funny rather than accurrate.

If you listen to John Stuart anytime he gets his ass kicked in an argument with a conservative - "Well don't look at me man, I'm just a comedian".

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

Even if Obama turned up your door and slapped you in the face with his birth cetificat you would not beleve it. The fact is you don't want him to be an American so not matter what happens you will not belive it because you can't.

Look at this with a bit of logical questioning lusta'.

1: There is question as to whether or not he's a citizen.
2: He could close that discussion by simply showing his birth certificate.
3: He refuses to show his birth certificate.
One must ask why.

Additionally
1: He's yet to display a real birth certificate.
2: The NSA refused him security clearance because he refused to produce one.
If he had one, why didn't he produce it?

It's as simple as that Lusta. If you could write your name on a release form and silence a few million people that are accusing you of treason - wouldn't you?

[Steve_TPF]

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

These militia spring up whenever a democrat is in power.

They take up arms and form armed militia

They are Christian who hold a literal rather than metaphorical belief in the bible

They are terrorists because they use terror to target people who disagree with them. E.g. Police stations attacked and abortion doctors killed

I said references, not claims. Don't you know the difference?

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

Funny you should mention Obama's military spending as a cause of resentment. Because so of these militia groups and their members were saying that Obama was not supporting their troops because he was slashing military spending, but now it is bad that he is increasing spending?

I didn't mention Obama, or military spending. You should have made it clear that you were responding to Draven.

[bloodlusta]

Shetlan you just proved my point. Even though he has released it people still don't believe him because they can't. The reason I didn't hear about that "no terrorist" thing is because I live in NZ and American politics aren’t head line news over here. All American presidents are essentially the same. The only difference between Bush and Obama is Obama has a good speech writer.

But that whole war on terror thing has a good point and it is one I have made on here before. The idea of a Terrorist is just a concept. You can't fight a global war on terror because technically you are trying to use terror to affect other people and therefore a terrorist yourself. And America was never fighting a global war on terror anyway. They were fighting against fundamentalist, extreme right wing Islamic militia groups who where targeting the USA. I didn't see the US going into Ireland to try and fight the IRA or RIRA or whatever the fuck they are calling themselves now.

America was attacked by one of these ERWIMGs and they retaliated and gave them a good old ass kicking and you got to give them props for that. But saying they are going to put a stop to terrorism was just stupid and made things a lot worse.

China and Russia? Come on man this isn't the cold war anymore, their economies depend on the US so they have no reason to attack it. Iran would not lunch against the US because they would be wiped out in a heartbeat. Also there is a strong educated student movement who want to move away from the traditional ways and we will see they emerge in the next 10 years. They only reason Iran wants nukes is because Israel has them. And North Korea is living back in the 1960s. They will never do anything, they like to think they are big but their top generals know how small they are and how short the battle would be, so they won't attack. They are simply the masters of sabre rattling

Ummmm no I can quote and economic text book. You said that decreasing government spending was not contractionary fiscal policy, when in fact it is.

You obviously have no idea how economics work if you think that is how "stimulus" works. A stimulus is simply an injection into the economy, and is applied through an increase in government spending.

Oh and Steve you seemed to work out it wasn't directed at you so I assume most over people would be able to as well

[Steve_TPF]

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

Iran would not lunch against the US because they would be wiped out in a heartbeat.

The US would wipe them out just for having lunch? That's a little extreme.

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

Oh and Steve you seemed to work out it wasn't directed at you so I assume most over people would be able to as well

You made that comment just under a quote from me. When you addressed Draven you should have made that clear.

Furthermore, the only references you have provided so far relate to Obama's birth certificate. Where's your evidence of these "right-wing terror groups"? Or their supposed killing of people who don't like their views?

[bloodlusta]

Rofl very good, that made me laugh. launch

Democracy Now! | Abortion Doctor Killed

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/01/us/01tiller.html

AFP: Right-wing militias on the rise in US: report

[shetlan]

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

Shetlan you just proved my point. Even though he has released it people still don't believe him because they can't.

He released a forgery - a forgery that was confirmed as a forgery by multiple experts as well as the NSA itself - and my refusal to accept his forgery as a real birth certificate proves something?

That's some seriously screwed-up logic.

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

The reason I didn't hear about that "no terrorist" thing is because I live in NZ and American politics aren’t head line news over here.

It's more likely because you get your news from Comedy Central - who would never dare say anything bad about Obama.

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

All American presidents are essentially the same. The only difference between Bush and Obama is Obama has a good speech writer.

If I may quote Steve: ". . . references, not claims. Don't you know the difference?"

As I've told you in multiple other threads Lusta', you seriously degrade your credibility when you go on your anti-American rants, largely because you back them with nothing but your own speculation.

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

But that whole war on terror thing has a good point and it is one I have made on here before. The idea of a Terrorist is just a concept. You can't fight a global war on terror because technically you are trying to use terror to affect other people and therefore a terrorist yourself. And America was never fighting a global war on terror anyway. They were fighting against fundamentalist, extreme right wing Islamic militia groups who where targeting the USA. I didn't see the US going into Ireland to try and fight the IRA or RIRA or whatever the fuck they are calling themselves now.

I'll remind you that the CIA was largely involved in the fight against the IRA - we're back to that "you need to do research before you talk" problem again.

Additionally, the IRA has little meaning in this discussion, as the group itself has almost completely abandoned terrorism with the exception of a few rouge elements.

Also, your "two way terrorism" is a red herring.
Terrorism is the use of violence against non-military/non-combatant targets for the singular purpose of causing fear.
The US is using violence against combatants and mercenaries to kill them before they kill someone else.

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

America was attacked by one of these ERWIMGs and they retaliated and gave them a good old ass kicking and you got to give them props for that. But saying they are going to put a stop to terrorism was just stupid and made things a lot worse.

And what things did it make worse Lusta
Back some of this stuff up, you're reducing yourself to a melodramatic teenager here.

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

China and Russia? Come on man this isn't the cold war anymore, their economies depend on the US so they have no reason to attack it.

That's the kind of naive thinking that gets countries overrun. Your enemies don't stay enemies forever, nor do your allies stay allies forever. Better to be prepared for contingencies than be surprised by them.

You and I have already discussed why creating new technologies during times of peace not only helps win conflicts but will often prevent them from happening.

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

Iran would not lunch against the US because they would be wiped out in a heartbeat.

Hence the phrase "or its allies".

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

Also there is a strong educated student movement who want to move away from the traditional ways and we will see they emerge in the next 10 years.

You mean unless they don't just kill the protesters like they have been. Iran is a tyrannical regime Lusta', they don't take well to revolution attempts be they intellectual or military.

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

They only reason Iran wants nukes is because Israel has them.

Wow, you flat out don't pay attention to world affairs at all do you.

Amadinejad has made multiple speeches on Al-jezeera TV stating flat out that they want nuclear weapons so they can "destroy Israel" and "the great Satan" (meaning the US).
This is also well laid out in his short "How to Conquer the World for Islam" - a work which is often reflected by the "Supreme Leader".

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

And North Korea is living back in the 1960s. They will never do anything, they like to think they are big but their top generals know how small they are and how short the battle would be, so they won't attack. They are simply the masters of sabre rattling

Germany would never try to take on the Soviets - they would never win.
Japan would never try to take on the US - they'd never win.
Saddam would never invade Kuwait - he'd never beat the US.

Countries do stupid things sometimes.

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

Ummmm no I can quote and economic text book. You said that decreasing government spending was not contractionary fiscal policy, when in fact it is.

Wow, you must have some seriously screwed up economists in NZ if you guys think that makes sense.

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

You obviously have no idea how economics work if you think that is how "stimulus" works. A stimulus is simply an injection into the economy, and is applied through an increase in government spending.

And where does the government get money Lusta'?
Use a little common sense.

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

Rofl very good, that made me laugh. launch

Democracy Now! | Abortion Doctor Killed

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/01/us/01tiller.html

No suspects, no murder weapon, no nothing - just the speculation that it was done by an anti-abortion proponent. Thank you for proving my point.

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

AFP: Right-wing militias on the rise in US: report

If Ogle had done more research into the question, he would find that right-wing militia groups have been on the rise - not since Obama's election, but sicne 9/11.

Again, thank you for proving that you don't do any research before you make these ridiculous claims.

[Steve_TPF]

Originally Posted by New York Times

Officials offered little insight into the motive, saying that they believed it was “the act of an isolated individual” but that they were also looking into “his history, his family, his associates.”

An isolated individual. Not a right-wing religious extremist group. Hardly a convincing reference for your claims.

[Draven]

Well Blood, sorry I didn't see the one referenced remark to me amongst all that scramble thoughts. Here is the thing, Yes Obama's war spending is an issue. Not because he spent money on those soldiers but because he said first that e would cut war spending and reduce the impact of the war. If you reduce war spending but not the impact of the war you endanger your troops, if you reduce the impact of the war you can effectively reduce the supply by requirement.

Here is where that comes into being an issue...
1. Bush established strong foot holds in urban areas of Iraq and conducted operations in rural and wildnerness (deserts mostly) area in force. Obama has not changed that strategy he has just rode in on Bush's heels and took credit for someone elses work.

2. Obama reducing funding for a Missle Defense Shield which effects us by making us weaker. North Korea is a creditable threat, even if liberals are dumb enough to think that a weaker enemy will reveal their true strength.

N. Korea may hide Missiles in Cargo Ships

More so, China is a creditable threat and Russia is still upset of the US training Georgian troops to fight Russian military. More so, Russia will lash out at the US directly if we try to assault them directly with a proxy war from georgia.

3. The economic conditions is this; the government gets its money from tax payers, government job based tax payers do not count because their gross income is solidly funded from private sector tax payers. So when Obama increases war spending for soldiers but cuts on a defense shield its shady but no big issue (if you don't count having a plan for getting nuked your ok) but when the economy is doing a downward spiral and your increasing government jobs and spending you are a) establishing a greater source of tax burden on tax payers and b) cause a huge deficiet that requires the printing of more money and the devaluation of the dollar or greater outsourcing the US debt, which makes it easier for another nation to destory our economy without the need to fire a shot. More specifically China...

However we gave more funding to our troops and established a longer stay then intended by the last adminstration, change the definition of the war and decreased spending intended to maintain a missile defense shield. More so, we are building up our inferstructor Obama & company are increasing jobs which place a greater tax burden on the people because they want to appear to succeeding. However spending more on social-experiments which is a violation of public trust and doing so in way which undermine the Constitution simply is unacceptable.

Further more I have issues when Bush was doing similar, but you'll try to play sides and use pointless labels like "right-wing" or "left-wing" or some other baseless liberal by product of stupidity. The fact is the new boss is worst then the old boss and the old boss was fucked up...

[bloodlusta]

Originally Posted by shetlan

He released a forgery - a forgery that was confirmed as a forgery by multiple experts as well as the NSA itself - and my refusal to accept his forgery as a real birth certificate proves something?
.

Link please.

Originally Posted by shetlan

It's more likely because you get your news from Comedy Central - who would never dare say anything bad about Obama.
.

No its because funnlily enough the world doesn't revolve around America (shock, horror)

Originally Posted by shetlan

Also, your "two way terrorism" is a red herring.
Terrorism is the use of violence against non-military/non-combatant targets for the singular purpose of causing fear.
The US is using violence against combatants and mercenaries to kill them before they kill someone else.

Originally Posted by shetlan

That's the kind of naive thinking that gets countries overrun. Your enemies don't stay enemies forever, nor do your allies stay allies forever. Better to be prepared for contingencies than be surprised by them.

And it that kind of thinking that makes you enemys in the first place. If China set up a missile defense system that could shoot down all US missiles I bet you would feel threatend.

Originally Posted by shetlan

You mean unless they don't just kill the protesters like they have been. Iran is a tyrannical regime Lusta', they don't take well to revolution attempts be they intellectual or military.

But those people don't stay in power forever. Your not looking at an over night revoltion. You will see the slow applaction of this next generation into power. Iran is already far ahead of other middle eastern nations in terms of human rights and civil liberties

Originally Posted by shetlan

Amadinejad has made multiple speeches on Al-jezeera TV stating flat out that they want nuclear weapons so they can "destroy Israel" and "the great Satan" (meaning the US).
This is also well laid out in his short "How to Conquer the World for Islam" - a work which is often reflected by the "Supreme Leader"..

He wants to destroy Israel (and most of the points he makes are fair, not that I agree with the destroying Israel bit). But he has never said he would use nukes. He says he is not trying to build nukes so why then would he say he would use them agaist Israel?

Originally Posted by shetlan

Germany would never try to take on the Soviets - they would never win.
Japan would never try to take on the US - they'd never win.
Saddam would never invade Kuwait - he'd never beat the US.

All irelvent as no WOMDs would have been used agist them

Originally Posted by shetlan

Wow, you must have some seriously screwed up economists in NZ if you guys think that makes sense.

No that is the definition for a contractionary fiscail policy

Originally Posted by shetlan

And where does the government get money Lusta'?
Use a little common sense.

Loans
GIR
SOE
ect ect

Originally Posted by shetlan

No suspects, no murder weapon, no nothing - just the speculation that it was done by an anti-abortion proponent. Thank you for proving my point. :

And we will just ignor all the death threats shall we?

Originally Posted by shetlan

If Ogle had done more research into the question, he would find that right-wing militia groups have been on the rise - not since Obama's election, but sicne 9/11. :

There as been three main growth peroids for these groups. The Clinton term, the Democatec majority in the senete and Obama's term

Draven I completly agree with you about Obama, I don't like the guy. But I don't like people attacking him for the wrong reasons. I had the same issue with people attacking Bush for his poor speechs. Attack the policys and not the man.

However what you people don't seem to understand is the during a ressesion you should run an exspationary ficasl policy (which will increase debt) and during a boom you should run a contractionary fiscal policy (which will pay off debt). However Bush ran an exspanstioary fiscal policy during a boom and that has set up a lot of problems now.

[Steve_TPF]

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

Link please.

We had to ask you three times to get your lame references and now you're demanding a link?
The pot calls the kettle black...

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

All irelvent as no WOMDs would have been used agist them

Really? Evidently you've never heard of Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

However what you people don't seem to understand is the during a ressesion you should run an exspationary ficasl policy (which will increase debt) and during a boom you should run a contractionary fiscal policy (which will pay off debt). However Bush ran an exspanstioary fiscal policy during a boom and that has set up a lot of problems now.

Economic advice from you? That's a laugh.

And BTW bloodlusta, learn to spell.

[bloodlusta]

Originally Posted by Steve_TPF

We had to ask you three times to get your lame references and now you're demanding a link?
The pot calls the kettle black...
.

If you look you will see references
(By the way like your use of language there. You asked and I demanded? I wasn't demanding I was simply interested as I had heard nothing about a forgery and when I looked on Google all I got was conspiracy theories)

Originally Posted by Steve_TPF

Really? Evidently you've never heard of Hiroshima or Nagasaki.
.

When Japan attacked they had no idea the USA would have nukes, or the capabilities to launch them against mainland Japan

Originally Posted by Steve_TPF

Economic advice from you? That's a laugh.
.

Wow what a brilliant and well structured argument. And by the way it’s not from me; if you ever choose to open a book once in a while you would find that it is standard economic practise. Anyone who completed TL1 (or NCEA3) economics would know that.

Originally Posted by Steve_TPF

And BTW bloodlusta, learn to spell.

Yeah my new (old) computer doesn't exactly have spell check and my English isn't that great so I apologise.

[_Th0r_]

Bloodlusta - You've talked of death threats. Who told us of those death threats exactly?

US Secret Service officials in I believe press conferences.

Since their allies of the president it's not like they have something to gain from telling people he's receiving 30 death threats a day...

And if it really is a 400% increase in the number of threats he's been receiving it ought to tell him that if he's getting more threats than any other president he must be doing something wrong.

Yeah my new (old) computer doesn't exactly have spell check and my English isn't that great so I apologise.

ieSpell - Spell Checker add-on for Internet Explorer

SpellBound - Spellchecker for Firefox and the Mozilla Suite

Google Chrome - Download a new browser

Spellcheckers for both IE and Firefox as well as a link to Chrome. A browser with a built in Spell Check built in.

[Steve_TPF]

Nice work Thor.

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

If you look you will see references (By the way like your use of language there. You asked and I demanded? I wasn't demanding I was simply interested as I had heard nothing about a forgery and when I looked on Google all I got was conspiracy theories)

Three references, two were about the same incident. My point was, we had to ask three times. You posted an opinion and then went looking for evidence later.

I like my use of language too. Shows what you can do if you pay attention in class.

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

Wow what a brilliant and well structured argument. And by the way it’s not from me; if you ever choose to open a book once in a while you would find that it is standard economic practise. Anyone who completed TL1 (or NCEA3) economics would know that.

This is why you need to include references. Am I really supposed to accept your word for it? Particularly given that you can't spell "expansionary?" Or "fiscal?"

[Draven]

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

There as been three main growth peroids for these groups. The Clinton term, the Democatec majority in the senete and Obama's term.

Actually thats not true, the main periods of growth of Militias have been during the Clinton & Bush 2 years, most militias formed in fear of Bush's draconian domestic policy. Bush ignored them but Obama & the libs are riding the race card heavy. The reason why militias get more press during the Democratic majorities is because the liberals, socialized democrates and other groups are afraid of an armed population.

The US went this way before prior to the election of Ronald Raegan who did allot to gain public trust and following that the Bush 1 years had allot to do with the rise in militias, of which the Clinton liberals claimed it was because of him and conservative hate groups. It standard BS and the fact that your trying to say its all because of Obama or Clinton being in office shows how little you know about the issues. But your focused on those evil hate groups and ignoring the fact that Obama and his hate church support militant extremists of their own. So its a complete double standard to assume that all militant or militia organizations are simply "right-wing" or only oppose democrates and liberals. Dems and libs have their own armed militant groups the most famous of which being the Black Panther Party and the most recent variantion the NBPP; who loves Obama & wants to kill all "Crackers..."

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

Draven I completly agree with you about Obama, I don't like the guy. But I don't like people attacking him for the wrong reasons. I had the same issue with people attacking Bush for his poor speechs. Attack the policys and not the man.

However what you people don't seem to understand is the during a ressesion you should run an exspationary ficasl policy (which will increase debt) and during a boom you should run a contractionary fiscal policy (which will pay off debt). However Bush ran an exspanstioary fiscal policy during a boom and that has set up a lot of problems now.

First of all when people call someone a great speaker and he sounds like an idiot, people will attack him. And, well this is America we can say anything we freaking want or disagree with anyone for any reason. Whats a good reason for you may not be a good reason for someone else and visa versa, so thats basicly a pointless arguement...

As for the economic policy; WTF Over!?

First off, go out and buy a credit card and start running it up and when you can't pay the bill get another one and another one and another one. Thats what increased debt does to a country on a larger scale then for the individual. Increasing your debt when you have no income; or for a nation increasing the tax debt when you have a weak inferstruction, only boggs down the economy and prevents growth. More so, increasing debt during a failing economy and paying off debt when you have a increasing economy only keeps an economy stagnate. More so, an economy should be expanded during times of growth and debt should be limited during times of recession or else it leads the recession to depression...

Secondly, America would have survived its last depression in a far shorter time period then it did had the Government programs have not been implimented. Bush caused some of the greatest economic growth via his tax cuts to big businesses but he also burned several billion dollars on the wars in Affganistan & Iraq, money which would have been generated back to the economy when the tax cuts expired. Then he played out over a trillion for TARP, which was stupid.

But, Obama wants an new TARP to bail out more banks and more businesses and he wants to increase the tax urden on those companies but give them Government contracts. He wants to increase jobs in the government while taking away private sector jobs. Without private sector jobs the economy fails and the government gets no new tax money. So what does that leave for us, a drained and failed economy...

It took Bush 8 years to run up a Trillion and now under Obama's fiing the economy its been increased to 4 Trillion so you tell me...?

[bloodlusta]

Thor I was making reference to the death threats the docture received to Obama, sorry should have made that clearer.

Draven many people seem to think that all growth (in an economic sense) is good. Its not. Ecomonies always go through a time line of Boom-Peak-Ressesion-Recovery-Boom ect. What the government would want to do is maintain steady growth, rather than exsseve growth.

The main problem with exseive growth is the high level of velocity of money (the idea of this is how quickly money changes hands, in theory if the velocity of money was high enough everyone in the US could be Billionares). This means that during a peroid of exseive growth people are earning a lot more and spending a lot more (and therfore companies are investing in capital to exspand supply to meet demand).

However this means that when there is a slight dip in the market everyone panics and stops spending and the flow on affect is companys have to cut costs so they fire staff who then can't spend so demand drops and you know the rest. Obvously this ression was a bit differnent because we had to take into account the whole subprime mortagae problems the US faced but the general factor was people living beoynd their means because they could because of the high velocity of money. Had theis growth been slowed earlier we would not have faced these problems now.

Fiscal Policy: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty

I have seen Obama waste that money. He seems to like to do these little exsperaments as though one of them will fix the company. and the concept of bailing out a failing company just doesn't work. The compnay needs bailing out because they are not profitable handing them money will only keep them going for a short while.

Draven I am well aware of these left wing milita groups. However I know what is making them angry (and I doubted I would find any of them on here). I simply wanted to know what was making these right wing groups angry because all I could find was was that they were 'hicks' who were afraided the governement was going to come in the night and steal all their guns or that they were racist. And I was pretty sure that wasn't the case, so I wanted to get their point of veiw.

[Draven]

Blood the debt economy existed hundreds if not thousands of years ago and it allowed bankers to control the movements, actions and directions of politics. The Founding Fathers of the USA didn't want a debt based economy and while your right economies go through Booms, Peak, Ressesion, Recovery and Repeat it is the responsibility of those invested in the economy to be prepared for that fact within their own holdings and finances.

Which is why you use Booms to fortify their economic structure and weather recessions with stable holdings and savings, if one cannot manage money then they have no reason to try to make it. Government regulation of the economy is very much akin to economic welfare which has been proved to deepen and extend the times of recession and/or depression while weakening the periods of Booms. Traditional debt based economies have been proven to fail...

More so, you have to understand left-wing and right-wing politics and the right-wing has been angry since Waco where the FBI & ATF murder 86 poeple and called it a suicide and Rudy Ridge where agents gunned down a unarmed 14 your old boy and a FBI sniper shot a mother nursing her baby. The American people are angry not just the right or the left and the current left-wing administration is picking cherries to make it seem like they are victims. Its a fucking joke...

[bloodlusta]

Originally Posted by Draven

Blood the debt economy existed hundreds if not thousands of years ago and it allowed bankers to control the movements, actions and directions of politics. The Founding Fathers of the USA didn't want a debt based economy and while your right economies go through Booms, Peak, Ressesion, Recovery and Repeat it is the responsibility of those invested in the economy to be prepared for that fact within their own holdings and finances. ...

You havn't been watching the zeighiest by any chance have you?

Originally Posted by Draven

Which is why you use Booms to fortify their economic structure and weather recessions with stable holdings and savings, if one cannot manage money then they have no reason to try to make it. Government regulation of the economy is very much akin to economic welfare which has been proved to deepen and extend the times of recession and/or depression while weakening the periods of Booms. Traditional debt based economies have been proven to fail...

Which is why you pay off loans during a boom so you have the abiltiy to take them out during a ressesion.

[Draven]

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

You havn't been watching the zeighiest by any chance have you?

I hate that movie but, bankers has had a huge influence on all sides...

However you cannot deny that the current banking system without a gold standard is shady at best and down right misleading at worse. Look for those of us familiar with US history we had a period in time when coal companies would pay employees in script which was useless paper money and wooden nicles that could only be spent at company stores...

Since then fiat and false money has been illegal in the US except for Federal Reserve Notes which are a clear violation of Constitutional Article 1 Section 8. More so, the Supereme Law of the Land the US Constitution requires that the US base its currency on coins of Gold or Silver. That standard of worth is established and even a paper dollar representing a measure of gold or silver is far more stable then fiat dollars back by a federal reserve which is made up of all banks within the country and does not hold any measure of wealth within itself, except the illusions of debt. You cannot owe anyone anything which in itself has no inheriant value.

More so the President who created the Fed Reserve also said afterwards;
From: http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote/...son_quote_57f1
"A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is privately concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men who, even if their action be honest and intended for the public interest, are necessarily concentrated upon the great undertakings in which their own money is involved and who necessarily, by very reason of their own limitations, chill and check and destroy genuine economic freedom." -Woodrow Wilson (1856-1924) 28th US President

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

Which is why you pay off loans during a boom so you have the abiltiy to take them out during a ressesion.

True, but if you diversify your portfolio and your business structure you won't need loans because other sources of income remain active and while others may fall in the red others will extend through the black even during recessions. Why would I need to borrow money when I can have a business that is diverse because I didn't squander my income?

I am a small business owner and I have never needed a loan, due to the fact that I have a diversified personal income structure and find no reason why those who have far greater incomes through their businesses cannot do the same. Sorry but modern economics is based on failed policies and smart investors and economist don't by into a system of debt which is designed to keep people under foot. The only way to be free is to owe no one nothing, not waste your energy riding a finacial roller coaster based on short-term economic flows. You need long term stable economic growth which is can hold on during the ups and downs. Also consider that for the last 50 years the Federal Reserve has limited growth and expanded down turns so that it has held the economy down and yet increased the flow of currency to devaluate the dollar. It serves no purpose except to suppress the economy and does not stablize it except to drag it down...