[clue-talk] it's over!
Nate Duehr
nate at natetech.com
Fri Nov 7 03:05:44 MST 2008
Sorry long debates are difficult without a keyboard. You get the
idea. LOL
--
Nate Duehr
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 5, 2008, at 9:52, Angelo Bertolli <angelo at freeshell.org> wrote:
> Grant Johnson wrote:
>>>> Time for the cycle - Republicans back in two years, in four
>>>> 'hope' will turn back to 'read my lips, no new taxes'. The more
>>>> things change, the more they remain the same. :-)
>>>>
>>> The cycle would be Republican moving towards control of congress
>>> in 2010, Obama being re-elected in 2012. I somehow doubt that the
>>> Republican party is going to be able to do ANYTHING in 2010,
>>> though. This was a thorough trouncing, a complete rejection of the
>>> Republican party on almost all levels of government. It's going to
>>> take a long time for the Republican party to recover.
>> There is little left of the GOP. They tried so hard to be
>> centrist that they no longer stood for anything. Perhaps we will
>> have a new party. A reasonable, good one, that realizes that
>> people don't need the government to do everything for them, one
>> that understands that helping people down and out should be
>> charity, not compulsory, one that understands that while under
>> capitalism some succeed, and some fail, under extreme solcialism,
>> all fail.
>>
>
> Ah yes, if only they had been more to the right, that would have
> gotten them more votes! Actually I think it is a bit the opposite:
> they went a little too far with the campaign issues that mattered to
> certain groups within their party, that they alienated both the
> centrists of the country and the small-government conservative
> portion of their own party. They proved that lower taxes does not
> equal smaller government.
>
> You can argue against social programs all day, and put any labels on
> them that you wish, but systems of government since feudal times
> simply haven't been around long enough for anyone to say there are
> any clear winners. There are good and bad balances of social
> programs, all which should focus on encouraging people (rich and
> poor) to add value through work to the society they live in.
>
>
>> Read Farenheit 451. The interesting part is where they have made
>> everyone equal. Not by bringing the underclass up, but by
>> bringing the strong down. SPecifically, they are watching TV and
>> notice that an athlete must be very strong, demonstrated by the
>> very heavy weights he is forced to carry to make it fair.
>>
>
> There is a truth in all of these economy philosophies, but none of
> them have been proven to be totally true. With the new financial
> crisis, it's starting to become more convincing that pure
> capitalism, by its nature, brings booms and crashes: an unstable
> economy. With only the Great Depression to look back on, we could
> say that it was a special case, and only--if only--we could
> manipulate the market properly (as Alan Greenspan tried to do) we
> could avoid this cycle. Yes, things like pure Socialism may require
> people to be more honest and less selfish than they really are, but
> things like pure Capitalism require people to be more intelligent/
> critical and cautious than they really are.
>
> Neither extremes reflect reality (well if you care about quality of
> life and human suffering, that is).
>
> I hope the today's stock market is just one of the many fluctuations
> we've seen in the current instability and not about anticipating
> Obama. We'll see if it goes up this week.
>
> --
> Angelo Bertolli
> http://angelo.bitfreedom.com/
>
> ~ I'm a sig virus. Please add me to your signature and help me
> spread! ~
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> clue-talk mailing list
> clue-talk at cluedenver.org
> http://www.cluedenver.org/mailman/listinfo/clue-talk
>
More information about the clue-talk
mailing list