Palin/Dobbs 2012
 

hal wrote:
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 06:59:54 -0800, dave wrote:

.... tHe_PC_JelLlLy BeAn!! .! !!! . wrote:
....just sayin'....
You heard it here first!

That would be a juicy final nail in the GOP coffin. Old Ev Dirksen must
be spinnin' in his grave.

The GOP running Palin again ????

BWWWHWAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAA !!!!!!!!!!


Precisely the reaction heard from your party in 1978, when Reagan stated
his intention to run.

JG

Palin/Dobbs 2012
 

John Galt wrote:


Precisely the reaction heard from your party in 1978, when Reagan stated
his intention to run.

JG

As a libertarian socialist I, by definition, am an NP.

At least Reagan could speak English. And his tenure was a disaster,
BTW. You are still paying off his blunders and plunders.

Palin/Dobbs 2012
 

dave wrote:
John Galt wrote:


Precisely the reaction heard from your party in 1978, when Reagan
stated his intention to run.

JG

As a libertarian socialist I, by definition, am an NP.

At least Reagan could speak English. And his tenure was a disaster,
BTW. You are still paying off his blunders and plunders.

He was indeed a disaster for anyone who believes that larger government
represents some sort of solution to the ills of man.

As to your opinion of his tenure, the consensus of professional
historians and scholars differs from yours. I prefer to agree with the
more scholarly analysis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histori...tes_Presidents

JG

Palin/Dobbs 2012
 

On Nov 12, 11:05*am, John Galt wrote:
dave wrote:
John Galt wrote:

Precisely the reaction heard from your party in 1978, when Reagan
stated his intention to run.

JG

As a libertarian socialist I, by definition, am an NP.

At least Reagan could speak English. *And his tenure was a disaster,
BTW. *You are still paying off his blunders and plunders.

He was indeed a disaster for anyone who believes that larger government
represents some sort of solution to the ills of man.

As to your opinion of his tenure, the consensus of professional
historians and scholars differs from yours. I prefer to agree with the
more scholarly analysis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histori...ted_States_Pre...

JG

He was certainly a disaster for anyone who thinks that a multitrillion
dollar national debt - in 1986 dollars - was a thing worth avoiding.
Likewise, a disaster for anyone who feels that a clean environment is
superior to a filthy one.

Yes, he faced down the Soviets using (some would say abusing) the
superior GDP of the US. At the time, a big deal. Historically, of
somewhat less importance, and not without long-term ramifications.

Bruce Jensen

Palin/Dobbs 2012
 

On Nov 12, 11:05*am, John Galt wrote:
dave wrote:
John Galt wrote:

Precisely the reaction heard from your party in 1978, when Reagan
stated his intention to run.

JG

As a libertarian socialist I, by definition, am an NP.

At least Reagan could speak English. *And his tenure was a disaster,
BTW. *You are still paying off his blunders and plunders.

He was indeed a disaster for anyone who believes that larger government
represents some sort of solution to the ills of man.

As to your opinion of his tenure, the consensus of professional
historians and scholars differs from yours. I prefer to agree with the
more scholarly analysis:

Historical Rankings of United States Presidents
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histori...tes_Presidents
-
- JG

Interesting as to what "The Scholars Think";
and what "the ordinary people's opinion" was
of these US Presidents.

Palin/Dobbs 2012
 

On Nov 12, 12:27*pm, bpnjensen wrote:
On Nov 12, 11:05*am, John Galt wrote:



dave wrote:
John Galt wrote:

Precisely the reaction heard from your party in 1978, when Reagan
stated his intention to run.

JG

As a libertarian socialist I, by definition, am an NP.

At least Reagan could speak English. *And his tenure was a disaster,
BTW. *You are still paying off his blunders and plunders.

He was indeed a disaster for anyone who believes that larger government
represents some sort of solution to the ills of man.

As to your opinion of his tenure, the consensus of professional
historians and scholars differs from yours. I prefer to agree with the
more scholarly analysis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histori...ted_States_Pre...

JG

He was certainly a disaster for anyone who thinks that a multitrillion
dollar national debt - in 1986 dollars - was a thing worth avoiding.
Likewise, a disaster for anyone who feels that a clean environment is
superior to a filthy one.

- Yes, he faced down the Soviets using (some would say abusing) the
- superior GDP of the US. *At the time, a big deal. *Historically, of
- somewhat less importance, and not without long-term ramifications.
-
- Bruce Jensen

Using GDP as a Weapon of War -or- Using Guns,
Bullets and Nuclear Bombs in a War . . .

gee - i vote for 'gdp' ~ RHF

? Is a Superior GDP a 'bad' thing ?
-note- China [PRC] doesn't think so . . .

? Are Jobs, Products and Services 'bad' things ?
-note- China [PRC] doesn't think so . . .

? Are Small Businesses, Family Homes and
Personal Wealth 'bad' things ?
-note- China [PRC] doesn't think so . . .

Palin/Dobbs 2012
 

dave wrote:
John Galt wrote:


Quite. However, since the incurred deficit is very much related to the
"facing down", I think it quite clear that making the incurred debt
the most important issue during his Presidency is largely armchair
quarterbacking. You weren't going to get the "face down" taken
seriously without the military buildup. There was no way to have both.

Bull****. The Soviets were finished when Carter tricked them into
Afghanistan in 1979.

ROTF. "Carter tricked them into Afghanistan."

You gotta quit drinking the Kool Aid.

And you need to start being honest. I was an adult during the period.
There was no public discourse about any pending economic dissolution of
the Soviet Union, and since Reagan ran on a platform of increased
military spending because of the demonstrated Soviet imperialism, it
obviously would have been raised during the campaign by Carter and the
Democrat Doves. It was not.

JG

Palin/Dobbs 2012
 

dave wrote:
John Galt wrote:
dave wrote:
John Galt wrote:


Precisely the reaction heard from your party in 1978, when Reagan
stated his intention to run.

JG

As a libertarian socialist I, by definition, am an NP.

At least Reagan could speak English. And his tenure was a disaster,
BTW. You are still paying off his blunders and plunders.

He was indeed a disaster for anyone who believes that larger
government represents some sort of solution to the ills of man.

As to your opinion of his tenure, the consensus of professional
historians and scholars differs from yours. I prefer to agree with the
more scholarly analysis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histori...tes_Presidents


JG
Graph 2 tells the whole story, Bozo.

http://www.sustainablemiddleclass.co...nequality.html

What story is that? Do you believe that government has, as its
objective, to dictate the incomes of its citizens?

I'd disagree. That's more of a Soviet notion than one to be found in a
free society. Are you a communist?

JG

Palin/Dobbs 2012
 

John Galt wrote:


And you need to start being honest. I was an adult during the period.
There was no public discourse about any pending economic dissolution of
the Soviet Union, and since Reagan ran on a platform of increased
military spending because of the demonstrated Soviet imperialism, it
obviously would have been raised during the campaign by Carter and the
Democrat Doves. It was not.

JG

I was a major market radio news director during the period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone

(this is from your CIA)

"The Failing System

From the mid-1970s to the eve of Gorbachev's assumption of party
leadership in the spring of 1985, the CIA portrayed a Soviet Union
plagued by a deteriorating economy and intensifying societal problems.
CIA products described the growing political tensions resulting from
these failures, the prospect that sooner or later a Soviet leadership
would be forced to confront these issues, and the uncertainty over what
form this confrontation would take.

These products include the unclassified testimony from each of DCI
Admiral Stansfield Turner's annual appearances before the JEC from 1977
through 1980 (Appendix A, references 1-4)--part of the "annual public
reports" cited by the HPSCI Review Committee. Turner's testimony and the
written submissions for these hearings described a "bleak" Soviet
economy for which continued decline through most of the 1980s was
"inevitable." The hearing reports include:

* CIA descriptions of how badly Soviet economic performance lagged
behind that of the West and the prospect that Soviet leaders would be
forced to confront growing conflicts between civilian and military uses
of resources and investment.
* CIA assessments that the Brezhnev leadership recognized the
potential for larger political repercussions from the economic failure;
that the Brezhnev regime (and possibly even an initial successor) was
nonetheless likely to attempt to muddle through rather than confront the
politically difficult choices necessary to deal with the decline; that
muddling through was not a viable option for the longer term; and that
by the mid-1980s the economic picture "might look so dismal" that a
post-Brezhnev leadership might coalesce behind policies that could
include "structural reforms."



Other unclassified CIA publications disseminated in 1977 and 1980
(Appendix A, references 5 and 6) presented the same picture of a
deteriorating economy that ultimately could provoke more radical policies.

From the late 1970s through the early 1980s, CIA produced several
papers addressing the prospects for "serious economic and political
problems" arising from the combined effect of growing consumer
discontent, ethnic divisions, a corrupt and incompetent political
system, and widespread cynicism among a populace for whom the system had
failed to deliver on its promises. (Appendix A, references 7 and 8 and
10-13). One of these papers, for example, described the problems
stemming from "long continued investment priorities favoring heavy
industry and defense, coupled with a rigid and cumbersome system of
economic organization" which "have combined to produce a consumer sector
that not only lags behind both the West and Eastern Europe, but also is
in many ways primitive, grossly unbalanced, and in massive disequilibrium":

* These products portrayed a Soviet leadership caught in a
descending spiral: declining productivity was depressing the economy,
which aggravated the cynicism and alienation of the populace; this in
turn further reduced productivity.
* CIA concluded that this "vicious circle" was potentially more
significant for the 1980s than "anything the regime has had to cope with
in the past three decades," and that the leadership and elites were
fully aware they confronted major problems.
* The analyses repeated the judgment that the Brezhnev regime and
the Andropov/Chernyenko successions were likely to rely on the
traditional Soviet instruments for controlling unrest and imposing
"discipline," but that such approaches would not hold for the longer
term in the face of a Soviet populace that was becoming less pliable and
more demanding."

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-f...oviet.html#ft5

Palin/Dobbs 2012
 

What story is that? Do you believe that government has, as its
objective, to dictate the incomes of its citizens?

I'd disagree. That's more of a Soviet notion than one to be found in a
free society. Are you a communist?

JG

I am an socialist libertarian. High taxes were supposed to be used to
prevent a permanent aristocracy, while benefiting society in general.
That is a concept from our Founders (who were way smarter than Ayn Rand.)

Palin/Dobbs 2012
 

dave wrote:


What story is that? Do you believe that government has, as its
objective, to dictate the incomes of its citizens?

I'd disagree. That's more of a Soviet notion than one to be found in a
free society. Are you a communist?

JG

I am an socialist libertarian.

And, a drug addled 'tard boy!

Palin/Dobbs 2012
 

dave wrote:

John Galt wrote:


And you need to start being honest. I was an adult during the period.
There was no public discourse about any pending economic dissolution of
the Soviet Union, and since Reagan ran on a platform of increased
military spending because of the demonstrated Soviet imperialism, it
obviously would have been raised during the campaign by Carter and the
Democrat Doves. It was not.

JG

I was a major market radio news director during the period.

Drugs put an end to that, boy?

Palin/Dobbs 2012
 

dave wrote:
John Galt wrote:


And you need to start being honest. I was an adult during the period.
There was no public discourse about any pending economic dissolution
of the Soviet Union, and since Reagan ran on a platform of increased
military spending because of the demonstrated Soviet imperialism, it
obviously would have been raised during the campaign by Carter and the
Democrat Doves. It was not.

JG

I was a major market radio news director during the period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone

See above. You may wish to focus your attention on the term "public"
prior to "discourse." These issues were not front-and-center during the
1980 presidential campaign, which is the relevant issue.

JG


(this is from your CIA)

"The Failing System

From the mid-1970s to the eve of Gorbachev's assumption of party
leadership in the spring of 1985, the CIA portrayed a Soviet Union
plagued by a deteriorating economy and intensifying societal problems.
CIA products described the growing political tensions resulting from
these failures, the prospect that sooner or later a Soviet leadership
would be forced to confront these issues, and the uncertainty over what
form this confrontation would take.

These products include the unclassified testimony from each of DCI
Admiral Stansfield Turner's annual appearances before the JEC from 1977
through 1980 (Appendix A, references 1-4)--part of the "annual public
reports" cited by the HPSCI Review Committee. Turner's testimony and the
written submissions for these hearings described a "bleak" Soviet
economy for which continued decline through most of the 1980s was
"inevitable." The hearing reports include:

* CIA descriptions of how badly Soviet economic performance lagged
behind that of the West and the prospect that Soviet leaders would be
forced to confront growing conflicts between civilian and military uses
of resources and investment.
* CIA assessments that the Brezhnev leadership recognized the
potential for larger political repercussions from the economic failure;
that the Brezhnev regime (and possibly even an initial successor) was
nonetheless likely to attempt to muddle through rather than confront the
politically difficult choices necessary to deal with the decline; that
muddling through was not a viable option for the longer term; and that
by the mid-1980s the economic picture "might look so dismal" that a
post-Brezhnev leadership might coalesce behind policies that could
include "structural reforms."



Other unclassified CIA publications disseminated in 1977 and 1980
(Appendix A, references 5 and 6) presented the same picture of a
deteriorating economy that ultimately could provoke more radical policies.

From the late 1970s through the early 1980s, CIA produced several
papers addressing the prospects for "serious economic and political
problems" arising from the combined effect of growing consumer
discontent, ethnic divisions, a corrupt and incompetent political
system, and widespread cynicism among a populace for whom the system had
failed to deliver on its promises. (Appendix A, references 7 and 8 and
10-13). One of these papers, for example, described the problems
stemming from "long continued investment priorities favoring heavy
industry and defense, coupled with a rigid and cumbersome system of
economic organization" which "have combined to produce a consumer sector
that not only lags behind both the West and Eastern Europe, but also is
in many ways primitive, grossly unbalanced, and in massive disequilibrium":

* These products portrayed a Soviet leadership caught in a
descending spiral: declining productivity was depressing the economy,
which aggravated the cynicism and alienation of the populace; this in
turn further reduced productivity.
* CIA concluded that this "vicious circle" was potentially more
significant for the 1980s than "anything the regime has had to cope with
in the past three decades," and that the leadership and elites were
fully aware they confronted major problems.
* The analyses repeated the judgment that the Brezhnev regime and
the Andropov/Chernyenko successions were likely to rely on the
traditional Soviet instruments for controlling unrest and imposing
"discipline," but that such approaches would not hold for the longer
term in the face of a Soviet populace that was becoming less pliable and
more demanding."

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-f...oviet.html#ft5

Palin/Dobbs 2012
 

dave wrote:


What story is that? Do you believe that government has, as its
objective, to dictate the incomes of its citizens?

I'd disagree. That's more of a Soviet notion than one to be found in a
free society. Are you a communist?

JG

I am an socialist libertarian.

A strong central goverment is antithetical to libertarianism.

High taxes were supposed to be used to
prevent a permanent aristocracy, while benefiting society in general.
That is a concept from our Founders

Interesting theory. One would have through it would not have taken us,
then, 150 years to come up with the notion of income taxation.

(who were way smarter than Ayn Rand.)

Does that sort of "cheap shot" make you feel better about yourself and
your views?

JG

Palin/Dobbs 2012
 

dxAce wrote:

dave wrote:

What story is that? Do you believe that government has, as its
objective, to dictate the incomes of its citizens?

I'd disagree. That's more of a Soviet notion than one to be found in a
free society. Are you a communist?

JG

I am an socialist libertarian.

And, a drug addled 'tard boy!


Precisely what I was thinking.

JG

Palin/Dobbs 2012
 

John Galt wrote:

I was a major market radio news director during the period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone

See above. You may wish to focus your attention on the term "public"
prior to "discourse." These issues were not front-and-center during the
1980 presidential campaign, which is the relevant issue.

JG

It was a secret.


Do you remember Iran-Contra? Reagan had more convicted staffers than
any president since Grant probably.

Palin/Dobbs 2012
 

John Galt wrote:

Interesting theory. One would have through it would not have taken us,
then, 150 years to come up with the notion of income taxation.

(who were way smarter than Ayn Rand.)

Does that sort of "cheap shot" make you feel better about yourself and
your views?

JG


Totally. I don't believe in any government larger than a community.

FYI, the entire cost of the Federal government was at one time paid for
by tariffs and duties.

Thom Hartmann may intrigue you. He has people from the Ayn Rand
Institute on his program regularly. I was kind of philosophically
adrift when I ran across Hartmann's radio show on XM back in 2002. I am
not in lock-step with him, but he helped me get my bearings. Very lucid.

http://www.thomhartmann.com/2007/11/...al-protection/

Palin/Dobbs 2012
 

John Galt wrote:
dxAce wrote:



And, a drug addled 'tard boy!


Precisely what I was thinking.

JG

There you go again...

Palin/Dobbs 2012
 

dave wrote:
John Galt wrote:

I was a major market radio news director during the period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone

See above. You may wish to focus your attention on the term "public"
prior to "discourse." These issues were not front-and-center during
the 1980 presidential campaign, which is the relevant issue.

JG

It was a secret.

Exactly the point. The candidate Reagan ran, in part, on a platform of
rebuilding the military in the face of increasing Soviet imperialism. IN
HINDSIGHT, history appears to show that the USSR would have caved in on
its own over time. That's fine, but it's hardly Reagan's fault that he
was unable to see into the future. (Although his wife tried her best.)


Do you remember Iran-Contra? Reagan had more convicted staffers than
any president since Grant probably.

Nixon wins that metric, but Reagan had his share.

However, if you use that metric, the best president in modern times was
GW Bush, with zero convictions from the Cabinet or key staff.

I'm guessing you dislike that fact.

JG

Palin/Dobbs 2012
 

dave wrote:
John Galt wrote:

Interesting theory. One would have through it would not have taken us,
then, 150 years to come up with the notion of income taxation.

(who were way smarter than Ayn Rand.)

Does that sort of "cheap shot" make you feel better about yourself and
your views?

JG


Totally. I don't believe in any government larger than a community.

That would be Galt's Gulch, then.

FYI, the entire cost of the Federal government was at one time paid for
by tariffs and duties.

Never completely true. The government used to borrow in the debt market
to fund various things. Read up on what Lincoln had to do to finance the
Civil War. Fascinating read. If not for a single Jewish bond salesman,
there might not have ever been a war.

Thom Hartmann may intrigue you.

Whatever floats your boat. I support free markets and getting the
government the hell out of the way. Hartmann doesn't.

JG


He has people from the Ayn Rand
Institute on his program regularly. I was kind of philosophically
adrift when I ran across Hartmann's radio show on XM back in 2002. I am
not in lock-step with him, but he helped me get my bearings. Very lucid.

http://www.thomhartmann.com/2007/11/...al-protection/

Palin/Dobbs 2012
 

John Galt wrote:
dxAce wrote:

dave wrote:

What story is that? Do you believe that government has, as its
objective, to dictate the incomes of its citizens?

I'd disagree. That's more of a Soviet notion than one to be found in a
free society. Are you a communist?

JG

I am an socialist libertarian.

And, a drug addled 'tard boy!


Precisely what I was thinking.

JG


He's trying to be cute..... so he used an oxymoron.


Socialism is 180 degrees out of phase with Libertarians. Both Socially
and economically.

Palin/Dobbs 2012
 

Toxic wrote:
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 08:41:41 -0600, John Galt wrote:

dave wrote:
Do you remember Iran-Contra? Reagan had more convicted staffers than
any president since Grant probably.
Nixon wins that metric, but Reagan had his share.

However, if you use that metric, the best president in modern times was
GW Bush, with zero convictions from the Cabinet or key staff.

So far the economic distraction has served to stall any prosecutorial
activity against the former criminal regime of the Bushco gang.

Without reason to think otherwise, I suspect the reason has more to do
with a lack of actionable evidence. Criminal courts still run on a
beyond-reasonable-doubt standard, and it is highly unlikely that
anything related to the decisioning around the Iraqi invasion would meet
that standard.

JG




I'm guessing you dislike that fact.

I doubt anyone is thrilled by Bush's residue, except maybe the heavily
moneyed sorts that are able to finesse those bailout ransoms the
taxpayers are being hit with.

Palin/Dobbs 2012
 

Toxic wrote:

On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 08:41:41 -0600, John Galt wrote:

dave wrote:
Do you remember Iran-Contra? Reagan had more convicted staffers than
any president since Grant probably.

Nixon wins that metric, but Reagan had his share.

However, if you use that metric, the best president in modern times was
GW Bush, with zero convictions from the Cabinet or key staff.

So far the economic distraction has served to stall any prosecutorial
activity against the former criminal regime of the Bushco gang.

I've a feeling that someday, the criminal regime of the Obamaco gang will
provide much fodder for discussion here!

Palin/Dobbs 2012
 

www.114thaviationcompany.com

I was in that Company in Vietnam in 1964.


Crank UP the Volume.Listen to that Drum tappin!
cuhulin

Palin/Dobbs 2012
 

Before I start laying plywood on top of my old house attic roof rafters,
(so I can stash a lot of my old things up there) I done deeeeeecided I
will lay some new fiberglass insulation up there.My old house was built
in 1947 and whatever kind of insulation that is up there, (I don't think
it is fiberglass) it has packed wayyyy down.

Talk about Dusty up there in that attic, hooooooo weee! I bought a
respirator mask thingy at the Lowe's store, (about thirty sompin
dollars) I am going to strap it on when I climb my ladder, going up
there.
cuhulin

Palin/Dobbs 2012
 

On Nov 13, 3:05*am, John Galt wrote:

As to your opinion of his tenure, the consensus of professional
historians and scholars differs from yours. I prefer to agree with the
more scholarly analysis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histori...ted_States_Pre...

JG

Any fool/believer in voodoo economics can call themself an historian.

Hudley Pearse

Palin/Dobbs 2012
 

On Nov 13, 5:40*am, RHF wrote:
On Nov 12, 11:05*am, John Galt wrote:



dave wrote:
John Galt wrote:

Precisely the reaction heard from your party in 1978, when Reagan
stated his intention to run.

JG

As a libertarian socialist I, by definition, am an NP.

At least Reagan could speak English. *And his tenure was a disaster,
BTW. *You are still paying off his blunders and plunders.

He was indeed a disaster for anyone who believes that larger government
represents some sort of solution to the ills of man.

As to your opinion of his tenure, the consensus of professional
historians and scholars differs from yours. I prefer to agree with the
more scholarly analysis:

Historical Rankings of United States Presidents
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Pre...
-
- JG

Interesting as to what "The Scholars Think";
and what "the ordinary people's opinion" was
of these US Presidents.
*.

Real scholars do not use Wikipedia.

Hudley Pearse

Palin/Dobbs 2012
 

John Galt wrote:
dave wrote:


Do you remember Iran-Contra? Reagan had more convicted staffers than
any president since Grant probably.

Nixon wins that metric, but Reagan had his share.

However, if you use that metric, the best president in modern times was
GW Bush, with zero convictions from the Cabinet or key staff.

I'm guessing you dislike that fact.

JG


You obviously don't remember Iran Contra. Herbert Pappy Bush never gets
any mess on himself. Too bad about Bill Casey.

Palin/Dobbs 2012
 

John Galt wrote:


Whatever floats your boat. I support free markets and getting the
government the hell out of the way. Hartmann doesn't.

JG


"...Greenspan, 82, acknowledged under questioning that he had made a
“mistake” in believing that banks, operating in their own self-interest,
would do what was necessary to protect their shareholders and
institutions. Greenspan called that “a flaw in the model ... that
defines how the world works.”...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27335454/

So much for what you support.

Palin/Dobbs 2012
 

Poetic Justice wrote:
John Galt wrote:
dxAce wrote:
dave wrote:

What story is that? Do you believe that government has, as its
objective, to dictate the incomes of its citizens?

I'd disagree. That's more of a Soviet notion than one to be found in a
free society. Are you a communist?

JG

I am an socialist libertarian.
And, a drug addled 'tard boy!


Precisely what I was thinking.

JG


He's trying to be cute..... so he used an oxymoron.


Socialism is 180 degrees out of phase with Libertarians. Both Socially
and economically.



Wrong, Bucko.

....In almost every case, the socialist movement has been divided along
authoritarian, and libertarian lines. The anarchists on the libertarian
side, and the Jacobins, Marxists, Leninists, Stalinists, and reformist
state-socialists on the authoritarian side. (And liberals more or less
split down the middle.)...



http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/libsoc.html

Palin/Dobbs 2012
 

dave wrote:
John Galt wrote:
dave wrote:


Do you remember Iran-Contra? Reagan had more convicted staffers than
any president since Grant probably.

Nixon wins that metric, but Reagan had his share.

However, if you use that metric, the best president in modern times
was GW Bush, with zero convictions from the Cabinet or key staff.

I'm guessing you dislike that fact.

JG


You obviously don't remember Iran Contra.

I do very well. He wasn't under discussion.

JG

Herbert Pappy Bush never gets
any mess on himself. Too bad about Bill Casey.

Palin/Dobbs 2012
 

dave wrote:
John Galt wrote:


Whatever floats your boat. I support free markets and getting the
government the hell out of the way. Hartmann doesn't.

JG


"...Greenspan, 82, acknowledged under questioning that he had made a
“mistake” in believing that banks, operating in their own self-interest,
would do what was necessary to protect their shareholders and
institutions. Greenspan called that “a flaw in the model ... that
defines how the world works.”...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27335454/

So much for what you support.

Not in the least. A flaw in the model doesn't mean you throw the model
away. You fix the flaw and move on. Greenspan went on to declare his
continued faith in the free market system.

So much for your puerile response.

JG

Palin/Dobbs 2012
 

John Galt wrote:

dave wrote:
John Galt wrote:


Whatever floats your boat. I support free markets and getting the
government the hell out of the way. Hartmann doesn't.

JG


"...Greenspan, 82, acknowledged under questioning that he had made a
“mistake” in believing that banks, operating in their own self-interest,
would do what was necessary to protect their shareholders and
institutions. Greenspan called that “a flaw in the model ... that
defines how the world works.”...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27335454/

So much for what you support.

Not in the least. A flaw in the model doesn't mean you throw the model
away. You fix the flaw and move on. Greenspan went on to declare his
continued faith in the free market system.

So much for your puerile response.

It was a drug addled response as well!

He needs to be moved along to another country where he'd be much happier right
out of the box.

Hopey, hopey, changey, changey, lies right across some border!

Palin/Dobbs 2012
 

dave wrote:
Poetic Justice wrote:
John Galt wrote:
dxAce wrote:
dave wrote:

What story is that? Do you believe that government has, as its
objective, to dictate the incomes of its citizens?

I'd disagree. That's more of a Soviet notion than one to be found
in a
free society. Are you a communist?

JG

I am an socialist libertarian.
And, a drug addled 'tard boy!


Precisely what I was thinking.

JG


He's trying to be cute..... so he used an oxymoron.


Socialism is 180 degrees out of phase with Libertarians. Both Socially
and economically.



Wrong, Bucko.

...In almost every case, the socialist movement has been divided along
authoritarian, and libertarian lines. The anarchists on the libertarian
side, and the Jacobins, Marxists, Leninists, Stalinists, and reformist
state-socialists on the authoritarian side. (And liberals more or less
split down the middle.)...

2 dimensional political models are too simplistic to capture the
nuances. I can see that it would be attractive to those who need to boil
the world down into simplistic chunks, but that's not how it works.

Much better is this view, which does show the correct relationship
between libertarians and anarchists (which is sharing only a distrust of
goverment and no other motivations).

http://www.baen.com/chapters/axes.htm

Or this:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2

JG






http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/libsoc.html

Palin/Dobbs 2012
 

Toxic wrote:

Nixon wins that metric, but Reagan had his share.

However, if you use that metric, the best president in modern times was
GW Bush, with zero convictions from the Cabinet or key staff.


Irving Lewis "Scooter" Libby

Palin/Dobbs 2012
 

Lung cancer?
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/r...?ArtNum=278172
cuhulin

Palin/Dobbs 2012
 

marxism - Summed up in seven words,,, Five Names/Born in Kenya!
DUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMB
ASSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS SSSSSSSS
www.rense.com/general88/simple.htm

Seeee, I Fixed the title of that article.
cuhulin, the Fixer

Palin/Dobbs 2012
 

"John Galt" wrote in message
...
dave wrote:
John Galt wrote:
dave wrote:


Do you remember Iran-Contra? Reagan had more convicted staffers
than any president since Grant probably.

Nixon wins that metric, but Reagan had his share.

However, if you use that metric, the best president in modern
times was GW Bush, with zero convictions from the Cabinet or key
staff.

I'm guessing you dislike that fact.

JG


You obviously don't remember Iran Contra.

I do very well. He wasn't under discussion.

JG

Herbert Pappy Bush never gets
any mess on himself. Too bad about Bill Casey.
..
..
Incompetence is not illegal!

Palin/Dobbs 2012
 

Sid9 wrote:
"John Galt" wrote in message
...
dave wrote:
John Galt wrote:
dave wrote:
Do you remember Iran-Contra? Reagan had more convicted staffers
than any president since Grant probably.
Nixon wins that metric, but Reagan had his share.

However, if you use that metric, the best president in modern
times was GW Bush, with zero convictions from the Cabinet or key
staff.

I'm guessing you dislike that fact.

JG

You obviously don't remember Iran Contra.
I do very well. He wasn't under discussion.

JG

Herbert Pappy Bush never gets
any mess on himself. Too bad about Bill Casey.
.
.
Incompetence is not illegal!



Very true.

JG

Palin/Dobbs 2012
 

Sid9 wrote:
"John Galt" wrote in message
...
dave wrote:
John Galt wrote:
dave wrote:
Do you remember Iran-Contra? Reagan had more convicted staffers
than any president since Grant probably.
Nixon wins that metric, but Reagan had his share.

However, if you use that metric, the best president in modern
times was GW Bush, with zero convictions from the Cabinet or key
staff.

I'm guessing you dislike that fact.

JG

You obviously don't remember Iran Contra.
I do very well. He wasn't under discussion.

JG

Herbert Pappy Bush never gets
any mess on himself. Too bad about Bill Casey.
.
.
Incompetence is not illegal!

In government it is mandatory!!