Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

How long before Republicans say Voter Fraud got Obama elected

Surprised it hasn't happened already.

Voter fraud in Obama's second term will make the birther movement look like a ticket taper parade.

by Anonymousreply 8111/07/2012

Unfortunately, given all the Repug-perpetrated voter ID laws and poll watchers in place for this election, they'd only be asserting their own gross incompetence.

by Anonymousreply 111/07/2012

There was a Black Panther outside a polling station in Philadelphia! He stole the election!

by Anonymousreply 211/07/2012

The "voter fraud" crap backfired. Minority turnout was up over 2008. If you threaten to take away someone's right to vote, they are going to be very determined to vote.

by Anonymousreply 311/07/2012

I agree. It's common marketing: People want something even more when you are taking it away from them or tell them it's only available in a limited amount (of time, quantity, etc.).

by Anonymousreply 411/07/2012

It's those hundreds of thousands of Black Panthers who were crouched next to the polling booths with AK 47s and rubber band bombs

by Anonymousreply 511/07/2012

Those analogies pale in comparison to taking away black people's right to vote. It's not just general human nature. It's about history.

by Anonymousreply 611/07/2012

Gays prevented good hearted Christian voters from voting by giving them fashion advice.

by Anonymousreply 711/07/2012

Who the fuck is going to believe that Americans would commit fraud to stand in line for up to six hours for anything other than an Iphone?

by Anonymousreply 811/07/2012

Oops, meant to link here

by Anonymousreply 911/07/2012

I don't think they are going the fraud route.

They will more likely take the excuse offered by Fox last night. That the soulless Obama committed character assassination and spread outrageous lies about the excellent Romney.

by Anonymousreply 1011/07/2012

[quote] That the soulless Obama committed character assassination

Romney has character??

by Anonymousreply 1111/07/2012

As has been said several times before, why on earth would anyone want to wait in line for hours just to commit voter fraud?

by Anonymousreply 1211/07/2012

There was a woman at my polling station that came in to vote and they said she was sent a mail in form to vote. They told her that she could do a provisional vote so that if records were checked and she had not voted already they would use her provisional vote.

I headed out and don't know if she went ahead and voted or remembered she voted already.

Could help but wonder if she was trying to vote twice or had just discarded the mail in vote.

by Anonymousreply 1311/07/2012

They need to accept the truth. The Tea Party has fucked them over. They need to kick that shit to a third party and start all over again.

by Anonymousreply 1411/07/2012

To be honest I am a bit confused about this article. Do they make a point that the Tea Party is in trouble or do they make a point that most of the Tea Partiers were able to hold on to their seats?

by Anonymousreply 1511/07/2012

Neither. They are just providing election results. However, the number of TPers in the House will be 20% to 25% lower, for various reasons.

by Anonymousreply 1611/07/2012

All of the voter fraud this year was Republican inspired. The fact that the votes cast outweighed any voter disenfranchisement put in place plainly shows how much the Republican party has moved away from the American Voter.

2014 will be the warm up for 2016 when the fat lady will sing for the Republican Party.

Like Glinda, unwittingly murdered by her father, the Republican party will be let out of the bag in 2016 to sing one last time before it dies.

by Anonymousreply 1711/07/2012

go to mittens facebook. they're screaming voter fraud. Obama stole the election, he was in the pockets of big money, illegal immigrants voted Obama in. They're sad, they're crying, their heads are exploding!

by Anonymousreply 1811/07/2012

[quote]The electoral system no longer represents the interest of the people, I watched four networks report four different of returns... thtwo of which said OB was in the lead even though the numbers disagreed with their reporting. Then suddenly and magically OB wins! The system is broken.

by Anonymousreply 1911/07/2012

YAWN, they can say whatever the fuck they want. I really don't care. I don't watch Faux news or deliberately listen to rightwing facist nutbars. I am happy, we won!

by Anonymousreply 2011/07/2012

Two comments I've seen.

[quote]NAACP is ok to imtimidate whites but Tea Party is bad doing the same thing?? Oh that's right we want equal but special rights....

[quote]Not to mention the New Black Panthers, at least they weren't carrying rifles, which I have seen in the past.

Yep, it's all about voter intimidation by that almost non-existent NBP AND NAACP. Notice the old cunt claims to have seen one with a rifle. LIAR, LIAR!

by Anonymousreply 2111/07/2012

Obama won because his constituency of government workers, welfare recipients, the super-rich (who get a huge tax break thanks to the debt he runs up that is paid for by tax-free bonds that they buy), and liberals who think the debt never has to be paid back.

If the economy remains functional, the Democrats will continue to rule. If the Ryan and Paul followers are correct, and Armageddon hits, then people will be more open to their point of view, but even then, the last time we had a true depression, we moved even more to the left than to the right.

I guess we're so wealthy as a nation that even as socialists, enough people do well that we will keep electing the wealth-redistributors.

by Anonymousreply 2211/07/2012

Teabaggers hear buzzwords, then embellish. Then when you ask them "How has Obama taken away your freedom?" or "When did you see Black Panthers with guns intimidating people?" They can't answer.

It's that empty chair they're talking about.

by Anonymousreply 2311/07/2012

[italic]National Review:[/italic] Americans "not equipped" for liberty:

by Anonymousreply 2411/07/2012

I have been on the receiving end of overt racism from Obama supporters, some of whom have an us-vs.-them mentality that shames even the redneck Republicans, but this is a tiny number of people.

It's just the nature of politics in America. There will always be extremists who make much more noise than the average American.

by Anonymousreply 2511/07/2012

Republicans underestimated the Voter Frau

by Anonymousreply 2611/07/2012

r22, in a word LOSER!

by Anonymousreply 2711/07/2012

R22? I guess you haven't learned that your rhetoric is passe and that people have access to FACTS.

A lot of that wealth is "redistributed" to red states. Red states with big mouths and empty wallets.

It doesn't work anymore. Have a talk with your party. Let them know that if they plan on lying, they better learn how to shut down access to information.

Your party's lies can be called out within seconds - realize that.

by Anonymousreply 2811/07/2012

R26: HA!

by Anonymousreply 2911/07/2012

R23,

Having fun with your strqaw man?

Obama destroyed the MERITOCRACY in this country by bailing out the rich, rather than letting them go bankrupt.

Is it so difficult to comprehend that if you earn a large amount of money, that this money will lose its purchasing power if the government PRINTS money and gives it to those who have proven financially incompetent?

This is a cancer on our economy, but since most people aren't smart enough to get ahead in a meritocracy, they are more than willing to vote in a socialist who will just give them what they are unable to earn. The takers in this country have numbers which have overwhelmed the makers, who can still get ahead, but who will have to work ten times harder to make one-tenth the progress they'd make if we had never done the bailouts.

Here's an example: you start with $100k, and lose it all by investing in some bankrupt company. I start with $1k and make $100k by shorting its stock. In a meritocracy, I deserve to have $100k and you deserve to have nothing. Now enter a bailout, where the company you've bought and I have shorted gets new life, not because they earned it, but because Obama has decided that you need to stay rich, even if doing so makes ME poor.

In that scenario, you are squanedering money, while I am making it, yet you wind up richer than me. That is NOT capitalism. You can get "99 percent" of the vote and nothing changes what I just said.

This is the country the people have voted for. Our constitution says we have a republic, not a capitalist republic. We are now a socialist republic, for all that entails, good or bad. I personally find this abhorrent, and a terrible bait-aqnd-switch, because I grew up in a meritocracy where skill and hard work were actually rewarded.

by Anonymousreply 3011/07/2012

R27,

You sound like the liberal version of those idiots from Fox News.

Calling me a loser won't fix the economy that's about to crash because of the socialist policies of this president.

How about we undo all the bailouts and then see who wins? Fact is, most of today's rich are nothing more than upscale welfare bums who'd be in soup lines without the bailouts.

by Anonymousreply 3111/07/2012

R28,

Facts?

Simple fact: we bailed out ALL the rich (red or blue) in 2009. Under capitalism, people who fail are supposed to go broke. That's a FACT.

Ask the GM Bondholders who were thrown under the bus how fair this was. Time was the bondholders would take over a bankrupt country.

The bailout cost at least $5-10 trillion. The next time we go broke, which will be soon, we won't be able to throw that kind of money at the problem and you'll see what happens when my rhetoric meets the road.

by Anonymousreply 3211/07/2012

Oh shut the fuck up, freeper asshole at R22 and R25.

Whining. Fucking. Victims.

That's what you and your little friends are - which would be less repulsive if only you weren't so incredibly ill-informed and downright stupid at the same time.

Here's a clue: You miserable fucks have been whining and complaining and trying to get rid of sensible social programs since before FDR. You have failed and failed and failed again FOR A REASON. You do not represent America or Americans. We don't believe your shrieking predictions, we don't like your ideas and we are not going to vote for your crackpot fucking candidates.

by Anonymousreply 3311/07/2012

[quote]Fact is, most of today's rich are nothing more than upscale welfare bums who'd be in soup lines without the bailouts.

I sure as hell agree with this, but until a viable third party is around to address this, we have no choice but to support the Dems and have the changes made within.

by Anonymousreply 3411/07/2012

[quote]Obama won because his constituency of government workers, welfare recipients, the super-rich (who get a huge tax break thanks to the debt he runs up that is paid for by tax-free bonds that they buy), and liberals who think the debt never has to be paid back.

No, actually that's not even remotely Obama's "constituency," nor will you find any liberals "who think the debt never has to be paid back.

[quote]If the Ryan and Paul followers are correct, and Armageddon hits, then people will be more open to their point of view

*Shrug* We already have ample evidence that Ron Paul, in particular, is wrong, just as he's been wrong for the past 30 years.

[quote]but even then, the last time we had a true depression, we moved even more to the left than to the right.

That's probably because the policies that caused the Depression were from the right and the policies that got us out of it were from the left. Funny how that works.

[quote]I guess we're so wealthy as a nation that even as socialists, enough people do well that we will keep electing the wealth-redistributors.

Except that we're not "socialists," nor has Obama espoused or managed to pass, any "socialist" policies, not by any reasonable definition of that word.

As for the "redistributors," according to the available data, everyone does better when the wealthy are taxed more heavily.

by Anonymousreply 3511/07/2012

R28,

If I'm so wrong, why did we need to bail out the banks or even the auto companies?

Government-subsidized industry is the hallmark of socialism and communism, not capitalism.

You can argue that people need their jobs, or that the economy would take a hit without the bailouts, but you can NOT call it a meritocracy anymore when those who fail are bailed out financially, at the expense of those who succeed.

Margaret Thatcher said it best: "The problem with socfialism is that sooner or later, you run out of other people's money."

Would you take the paycheck of one hard-working member of your family and give it to a relative who does nothing but blow it on booze and partying? Do that long enough and see how long the former keeps reporting to work, or how much wealth is created by the latter.

We are now a socialist country. People who do not dserve to have money have money because of this.

by Anonymousreply 3611/07/2012

[quote]Teabaggers hear buzzwords, then embellish. Then when you ask them "How has Obama taken away your freedom?" or "When did you see Black Panthers with guns intimidating people?" They can't answer.

Here's a fun one.

"I'll listen to your theories about Benghazi if you can tell me the status of the 'mosque at Ground Zero,' which was a story of equal importance not long ago."

by Anonymousreply 3711/07/2012

R35,

Obama took money from people who earned it and gave it to people who went broke. That's socialism.

He broke the contract with the GM Bondholders, who lost money that wound up going into the pockets of GM workers. That's socialism.

He bailed out the banks which went broke, and used the money (or credit) of taxpayers who earned it to do so. That's socialism.

How can you call this capitalism or meritocracy?

Do you know what the "Big" question on the GAMBLERS' ANONYMOUS questionnaire is?

"Have you ever had a BAILOUT."

Give money to compulsive gamblers who don't work for it, and they will eventually go broke again. Give it to failed banksters or corporations, and they will eventually go broke again. All you'll have to show for it is phantom economic stability for a few years, and a pile of debt.

Whoever said that Dems don't believe the debt ever has to be paid back don't even try to come up with a set of numbers that would truly repay the debt or balance the budget. In fact, when pressed to do so, those who call for "rational debate" wind up sounding like loudmouthed fundies.

by Anonymousreply 3811/07/2012

R36, let's see if you're capable of honesty (I doubt it): Were you this outraged when Bush signed TARP? Were you this outraged when a trillion dollars went into a war of choice and gave tax cuts to the wealthiest?

You people were NO WHERE to be found when Bush wasted two trillion, were you? I sure as hell don't recall any posts from "fiscal conservatives" when Bush did far worse with this country's money.

by Anonymousreply 3911/07/2012

R34,

Rick Santelli's "rant" got it dead right.

"Who wants to subsidize an extra bathroom for people who can't pay their bills?"

He said we should give money to those who CARRY the water, not those who DRINK the water.

he also said we should let nature take its course and let money and assets wind up in the hands of people who might actually prosper down the road.

Taking money from people who know how to succeed and giving it to those who fail is long-term economic suicide. Even Thomas Jefferson said that.

by Anonymousreply 4011/07/2012

[quote]I guess we're so wealthy as a nation that even as socialists, enough people do well that we will keep electing the wealth-redistributors.

Don't you see r22/25/30-32?

YOU ARE THE REASON YOU LOST THE ELECTION.

by Anonymousreply 4111/07/2012

And you just know the person going off about the "Ground Zero Mosque" lives in bumfuck while thousands of tax-paying Muslims have been living/working in NYC for decades.

by Anonymousreply 4211/07/2012

R40 is scared of reality:

by Anonymousreply 4311/07/2012

So... very.. scared... of... reality:

by Anonymousreply 4411/07/2012

R39,

I was LIVID when the bailouts were appoved.

I never ran up student loans (another bailout on the way), I didn't hitch my wagon to the corporate ticking time bomb I knew would go broke, spent years sacrificing and building my business, finally came into a nice amount of money just as everyone who had told me their way was superior was going broke, and at that VERY MOMENT, those who assets I had every right to plunder (as a byproduct of success) were GIVEN money that allowed them to keep it, not by merit, but by government fiat.

Like a true conservative, I did not whine, but just adapted to the new reality, and have been making my way back up the ladder ever since. The problem is Ineed to make twenty times as much money thanks to the government giving money to people who cannot compete with me on skill or merit.

Imagine if you're at a poker table where everyone stars with $100.00. Now let's say you wind up with all $500.00 in chips, with the other four players going broke, only to have Obama dump $3,000 in chips into the pot. You can say I'm just angry that he did it, but you can't say the other players deserved their newfound chips. It should also be obvious that if we keep playing, without further bailouts, that my skill will leave me with all the chips once again.

Why should I have to earn the same money five times over when proven losers are GIVEN that money?

Call it what you want, but it's not capitalism. It might be better for the masses, but it's not a meritocracy. It is SOCIALISM.

Of course, when 90 percent of the country needs a bailout (socialism) to keep its job (in an economy that would crash under a meritocracy before being rebuilt), their noise is going to drown me out.

What is lost here is that if we had let everything crash, those who picked up the pieces would have been the ones who EARNED it, and they would have rebuilt a great economy. This is why our economy thrived after the Depression. We started from a position of everyone being broke, and the smartest, most skilled, and most deserving created a postwar boom which lasted for three generations.

by Anonymousreply 4511/07/2012

If you want to know whats going on in Freeperville and Teabagistian - here you go

by Anonymousreply 4611/07/2012

You're a real dickhead, r45.

by Anonymousreply 4711/07/2012

R41,

I'm not talking about the election or the horse-race aspect of it. I'm talking about the bailouts and how socialism won.

I can't control who wins elections. I can only work to succeed under whichever system we vote in. The problem I have with the bailouts is that I grew up under a capitalist meriocracy where people who failed went broke.

Now that I know we are a socialist country instead, I have adjusted accordingly and am rising up under that system.

The bailouts were a vicious bait-and-switch, but at least now I know what I'm getting from my government, and that's an improvement.

I'm actually happy for the people who got what they wanted with Obama. I like it when people are political, even if I deplore what they vote in. I don't begrudge you your victory, but I refuse to call this anything but the SOCIALIST economy that it is.

If you don't like the SOCIALIST label attached to your money or your job, you have only yourself to blame for voting in a socialist leader. We can function just fine as a nation under socialism, but it is only fair to let peole know that is what we are. In 2008 and 2009, we did not do this. In 2012, we did, and that's fine with me.

At least now i know the rules for success. In 2009 they moved the goalposts on me.

by Anonymousreply 4811/07/2012

[quote]Having fun with your strqaw man?

Considering what you've posted in this thread, you hardly have room to talk.

[quote]Obama destroyed the MERITOCRACY in this country by bailing out the rich, rather than letting them go bankrupt.

That was Bush, actually.

[quote]Is it so difficult to comprehend that if you earn a large amount of money, that this money will lose its purchasing power if the government PRINTS money and gives it to those who have proven financially incompetent?

That depends on the economic circumstances at the time. And is it really so difficult to comprehend that allowing the economy to completely melt down causes *everything* to "lose its purchasing power?"

[quote]This is a cancer on our economy,

Oh, please. Drama, much?

[quote]but since most people aren't smart enough to get ahead in a meritocracy, they are more than willing to vote in a socialist who will just give them what they are unable to earn.

Um, speaking of "strqaw man" [sic]....

[quote]The takers in this country have numbers which have overwhelmed the makers

That nonsense was false when Romney spewed it. Spewing it again doesn't make it any less the partisan drivel it is, wholly disconnected from reality.

[quote]This is the country the people have voted for.

Nope, not even close, but thanks for playing. We have some lovely consolation prizes for you.

[quote]We are now a socialist republic, for all that entails, good or bad.

And again, nope, not by any reasonable definition of the word "socialist."

[quote]I personally find this abhorrent, and a terrible bait-aqnd-switch, because I grew up in a meritocracy where skill and hard work were actually rewarded.

LOL.... I can practically hear the violins in the background as you lament. Forgive me if I remain unsympathetic and unmoved by your wholly-disconnected-from-reality rants.

by Anonymousreply 4911/07/2012

Too big a victory, OP.

It IS, however, why Romney delayed conceding; he had to get his orders.

by Anonymousreply 5011/07/2012

[quote]Like a true conservative, I did not whine

BWAHAHAHAHAHAH!! Dude, your whole post is nothing but a long, tiresome whine. You could have saved your time and bandwidth by just writing, "Boo hoo! I didnt get what I want! WHAAAA! Its so unfair!"

by Anonymousreply 5111/07/2012

[quote]This is why our economy thrived after the Depression. We started from a position of everyone being broke, and the smartest, most skilled, and most deserving created a postwar boom which lasted for three generations.

Well, that and the Works Progress Administration.

So what's to keep "the smartest, most skilled, and most deserving" from doing it again? Pique? Petulance?

by Anonymousreply 5211/07/2012

[quote]That depends on the economic circumstances at the time. And is it really so difficult to comprehend that allowing the economy to completely melt down causes *everything* to "lose its purchasing power?"[/quote]

I understand this perfectly. As a nation, we decided that keeping losers in their jobs, and with money, i.e., propping up the house of cards that led to the problems, is a better option than allowing some serious economic pain for a while (as you noted), as a precursor to those who actually DESERVE to be wealthy, becoming wwealthy.

Everything would never crash in this country. We have too many natural resources. I also believe in a strong social safety-net.

To me, a "bailout" should be nothing more than three hots and a cot. I support that on CONSERVATIVE grounds, because it keeps individuals from crashing, and allows them to rebuild and eventually thrive.

What I do NOT support is giving billions to the wealthy and propping up the losers. Support it all you want, but you are supporting SOCIALISM, not Capitalism.

Whoever said that Bush began this process is also correct. I am not tied to either party's ideology. Some of my views are to the left of Obama, while others are to the right of Ron Paul. My political compass points north at what I believe history will view as correct, not what either party happens to endorse as its flavor-of-the-month.

by Anonymousreply 5311/07/2012

R13, I had to do a provisional vote too. My mail in ballot got water damages. No fraud from me.

by Anonymousreply 5411/07/2012

R51,

I could taunt the gays here over gay marriage using your logic, saying you're just whining that you haven't gotten the legalized same-sex marriage nationally. it's an ad-hominem argument not worthy of DL.

Stating my opposition to socialism and bailouts is not whining. I still work to get ahead, and am still doing better than most, because have the skills.

It's like saying if I say bank robbing is wrong, that I'm whining because I didn't go rob one. Logically flawed.

by Anonymousreply 5511/07/2012

[quote]Calling me a loser won't fix the economy that's about to crash because of the socialist policies of this president.

Oh, please. Get over yourself and stop behaving like a drama queen. Obama hasn't even remotely done anything "socialist" and the economy isn't about to crash. Idiots like you have been predicting this for five years now. The economic conditions are just not ripe for the Armageddon and hyper-inflation you've been predicting.

[quote]Simple fact: we bailed out ALL the rich (red or blue) in 2009.

Um, not, that's even remotely a "fact," which is why you can't support it, any more than you can the other bilge you've been spouting.

[quote]Ask the GM Bondholders who were thrown under the bus how fair this was. Time was the bondholders would take over a bankrupt country.

Gee, I thought that you said that we bailed out "ALL the rich." Sounds like we missed some of them. And I thought you *wanted* these companies to go bankrupt, which would, in fact, have caused those bondholders to get "thrown under the bus." The auto bailout was a managed bankruptcy. Guess what: in a bankruptcy, some people lose. Is it really too much to ask that you display a little consistency here?

[quote]The next time we go broke, which will be soon, we won't be able to throw that kind of money at the problem and you'll see what happens when my rhetoric meets the road.

Uh-huh, so people like you have been asserting for decades. I'm not holding my breath.

by Anonymousreply 5611/07/2012

R52,

The WPA is a good example of a proper bailout. Unless we want to let people starve, and I do not, we should put them to work and rebuild our infrastructure while giving them the three hots and a cot (or money to buy it) that everyone needs.

That's a far cry from $787 billion and god knows how many trillions given to the baksters.

I suppose I should modify my view to say that I favor extremely limited socialist elements within what should be primarily a capitalist jungle.

Nothing is stopping me from succeeding under our new, socialist system, but the bailouts are a drag on the pace at which I'm accumulating wealth. I'm not immortal, so time is money. I also noted that the other issue I had with the bailouts in 2009 was that it was a bait-and-switch from the system I grew up under.

by Anonymousreply 5711/07/2012

R52,

Your point about the "smartest, most skilled" getting ahead was at the root of Reaganomics. He believed that the rich should keep their money because they would multiply it, and increase government revenues, while if you take their wealth, they have less of it to multiply, and it winds up a drag on the entire economy.

How big would Microsoft have become if Gates had been taxed at 90 percent? He got to keep a lot more of his money than previous billionaires, and he was almost singlehandedly responsible for a twenty-year economic boom which can be traced directly to the incredible efficiency and new industries which stemmed from Microsoft standardizing the PC.

by Anonymousreply 5811/07/2012

[quote]I understand this perfectly.

No, I don't think you do, based on your posts here, particularly since you're conflating three separate and distinct events: printing money (which is the Federal Reserve, not Obama or Bush), the auto bailout, and the bank bailout. And you don't show any sign that you understand any of these three, given the crap you've been writing.

[quote]As a nation, we decided that keeping losers in their jobs, and with money, i.e., propping up the house of cards that led to the problems, is a better option than allowing some serious economic pain for a while (as you noted), as a precursor to those who actually DESERVE to be wealthy, becoming wealthy.

Given the ignorance you've displayed here, I really doubt that you "DESERVE" to be wealthy.

[quote]My political compass points north at what I believe history will view as correct

If you really did understand history, or economics, for that matter, you wouldn't be writing what you're writing.

by Anonymousreply 5911/07/2012

Note to spelling trolls:

I'd like to see how well you do with my vision.

by Anonymousreply 6011/07/2012

[quote]Call it what you want, but it's not capitalism. It might be better for the masses, but it's not a meritocracy. It is SOCIALISM.

Putting it in ALL CAPS doesn't make it any more accurate than when you wrote it the first two dozen times. You're still wrong and you're still displaying an abysmal ignorance of economics, of history, and of political philosophies.

by Anonymousreply 6111/07/2012

[quote]How big would Microsoft have become if Gates had been taxed at 90 percent?

Gee, I don't know. Why don't you look at all of the behemoth companies that grew that large and larger during the time when their owners were taxes at 90%? I suggest you look at some history before you continue to embarrass yourself here with your ignorance.

[quote]he was almost singlehandedly responsible for a twenty-year economic boom which can be traced directly to the incredible efficiency and new industries which stemmed from Microsoft standardizing the PC.

Oh, garbage. I work in computers and your explanation of the "twenty-year economic book" is rubbish. Again, learn some history, particularly about Microsoft and Bill Gates, before you again display your ignorance.

by Anonymousreply 6211/07/2012

"The problem is Ineed to make twenty times as much money thanks to the government giving money to people who cannot compete with me on skill or merit."

Why did you have to make 20 times as much money? And were you in the banking business or auto business, assuming gov't was giving an unfair advantage to them and not you?

Your statement makes no sense on any level. Sounds like you were just jealous that they got their debt covered and you did not. Did you ever consider that there may be a reason for that you did not consider.

Strange post.

by Anonymousreply 6311/07/2012

R56,

[quote]Oh, please. Get over yourself and stop behaving like a drama queen. Obama hasn't even remotely done anything "socialist" and the economy isn't about to crash. Idiots like you have been predicting this for five years now. The economic conditions are just not ripe for the Armageddon and hyper-inflation you've been predicting. [/quote]

Obama has been printing money to buy up the T-bills, which bails out EVERYONE who is not broke. I actually was predicting Armageddon for fifteen years, and it hit in 2008. Even our leaders said that we were in Armageddon without the bailouts.

How well does an unemployed drug-addict do if those who give him money cut him off? That's the future of our economy without unsustainable bailouts.

[quote]Given the ignorance you've displayed here, I really doubt that you "DESERVE" to be wealthy.[/quote]

So if I can pick stocks which triple in a year, I don't deserve to become wealthy? If I can build a business that is worth millions because it helps make others money (or save it), I don't deserve to be wealthy?

Duly noted.

[quote]If you really did understand history, or economics, for that matter, you wouldn't be writing what you're writing.[/quote]

Your Boolean argument boils down to this:

1. I disagree with you;

2. Anyone who disagrees with you does not understand economics; (implied)

3. Therefore, I do not understand econmics.

Throughout history, when debt reaches a certain point, there is no way to pay it back without printing money. As the world's reserve currency, we will eventually do this, and very high inflation will reset everything by force. The alternatives are balancing the budget (not even close to happening), or defaulting on the debt.

I do understand why people voted for socialism, but they should own up to what they voted for.

by Anonymousreply 6411/07/2012

[quote]Putting it in ALL CAPS doesn't make it any more accurate than when you wrote it the first two dozen times. You're still wrong and you're still displaying an abysmal ignorance of economics, of history, and of political philosophies[/quote]

Call it whatever you want, but I call it socialism when we take $5-10 trillion from people who have money, and give it to people who lost theirs.

What would you call the bailouts?

by Anonymousreply 6511/07/2012

[quote]Why did you have to make 20 times as much money? And were you in the banking business or auto business, assuming gov't was giving an unfair advantage to them and not you? [/quote]

Actually I made my money day-trading and through betting on games of skill. I do that because those are meritocracies, where the best man actually wins and takes money from those less skilled. I knew the day they bailed out AIG that the markets had bottomed because they were the backstop for all the economic shit we had been piling up.

In early 2009 I found my stride and turned a very small amount of money into a very large amount of money, just as the economy was crashing. With all the money and jobs drying up, my cash was worth an incredible amount of money. People in Manhattan were moving home and sublettting thier apartments dirt-cheap just to survive. I could have had a 1br in a doorman building in a top neighborhood for $600.00 a month, which I deserved to have becuase I knew how to play the markets while others did not.

Post-bailout, I predicted that the t-bill would keep dropping when it was 3.75 percent. It is now at historic lows. I adapted to the new system and knew that people would fly their money into the only turly safe investment, even if they are eventually going to get wiped when inflation hits (got out after a huge drop).

Right now I have a penny stock that sells for 7 cents a share (they're in regenerative medicine and stem cells) that will hit $40.00 a share once their treatments are approved (it's already worked in animals). I found it because I used to work for a place that was the birthplace of the genome, and knew that one day its potential would be realized. I'm a few years early.

In 1995 I said AOL would go through the roof; it went up 10,000 percent. Also predicted the internet bubble. Picked stocks that went up tenfold as if it were a fixed horse race. Cashed in many times, spent the money, made more, etc, all the while building intellectual property which continues to spit out money at me to this day.

The way I make money is with my brain, not because the government gave my boss a trillion dollars in bailout money. Now consider who depends on those people fgor work, and who depends on them, and the dominoes should connect for you. If all those people go broke, they have to sell their assets at firesale prices, just like in the Depression.

Walk around NYC. I bet you'll see a number of businesses which say "Established 1932." (or (1933). That's no accident, because labor was dirt-cheap, people needed work, and it took brains, not handouts, to get ahead.

[quote]Your statement makes no sense on any level.[/quote]

Which makes ONE of us stupid.

[quote] Sounds like you were just jealous that they got their debt covered and you did not. [/quote]

Argument ad-hominem. If someone steals your money, and you say it's wrong, are you "jealous" or just pointing out an injustice? Are gays who support federal same-sex marriage just jealous that they can't marry, or standing up for what's right?

Even worse is that I say what I say in the hope of pointing out that even the poor suffer under socialism once it crashes. Just ask those from the former Societ Union.

[quote]Did you ever consider that there may be a reason for that you did not consider. [/quote]

Of course there was a reason: I avoided running up debt in the first place. Thosae like me who lived within their means will obviously oppose those who did not, and then want a bailout.

It's as if I were at a buffet table, where I toook one dinner, the guy next to me took nine, at all of them, and then asked for half my plate becuase hbe ran out of food.

Other than attacking your perception of my emotions, how can you say that bailouts are not socialist?

by Anonymousreply 6611/07/2012

[quote]Obama has been printing money to buy up the T-bills, which bails out EVERYONE who is not broke.

There's this entity called the Federal Reserve which you should look into. Free clue: it's not run by Obama. This is what I mean when I talk about your manifest ignorance.

[quote]I actually was predicting Armageddon for fifteen years, and it hit in 2008. Even our leaders said that we were in Armageddon without the bailouts.

Yes, but you're predicting Armageddon for the wrong reasons. A stopped clock is right twice a day; that doesn't make it right.

[quote]How well does an unemployed drug-addict do if those who give him money cut him off? That's the future of our economy without unsustainable bailouts.

And, again, utter nonsense. And you haven't even managed to figure out which bailouts you're talking about.

[quote]So if I can pick stocks which triple in a year, I don't deserve to become wealthy?

LOL.... No, actually you don't.

[quote]Your Boolean argument boils down to this

No, actually, it doesn't. Since you've not seen fit to even try to support the drivel you're writing here, I don't feel compelled to post the data and links that contradict it, particularly since you can't even figure out what you're whining about.

[quote]Throughout history, when debt reaches a certain point, there is no way to pay it back without printing money. As the world's reserve currency, we will eventually do this, and very high inflation will reset everything by force.

Again, that depends on the economic circumstances at the time. In a liquidity trap, which we are currently in, the hyperinflation you are predicting cannot occur. There are too many downward pressures on the system. As we emerge from trap, the need for the support diminishes and the Federal Reserve retreats, just as it is supposed to.

[quote]I do understand why people voted for socialism, but they should own up to what they voted for.

As soon as I find someone who "voted for socialism," I'll let you know. Out here in the real world, the majority of us voted for Obama.

by Anonymousreply 6711/07/2012

I'm going to avoid being redundant here, but i do hope that the DLers at least consider that not every Republican or conservative is evil, and that oru points of view are as legitimate as those who support Obama's brand of socialism, bailouts, wealth redistribution, or whatever you call it.

You guys won last night. For better or wrose, I must live under your rules. I'll still beat you at your own game, but it is a game I would simply rather not have to play.

Like it or not, it's people like me who fund this country, not those who take from the government.

by Anonymousreply 6811/07/2012

[quote]The problem is Ineed to make twenty times as much money thanks to the government giving money to people who cannot compete with me on skill or merit.

TRANSLATION: WHAAAAA!!!!! Cant you see it?? All these people who are not as worthy as me are doing well when in fact they should be suffering. Its as if I am not as assume as my mommy told me I am!

[quote]Why should I have to earn the same money five times over when proven losers are GIVEN that money?

TRANSLATION: It's all about me.

Sorry dude, but in any language, what you are doing is whining. You feel you're entitled to something you're not getting and throwing a tantrum as a result. Guess what pal, you're not the most important person in the world. America rejects your values and your leaders. That's what really has you upset. You dont have the clout you think you should have. Sucks to be you.

by Anonymousreply 6911/07/2012

So has Victoria Jackson spoken?

by Anonymousreply 7011/07/2012

not as assume should be not as awesome

by Anonymousreply 7111/07/2012

[quote]I'm going to avoid being redundant here, but i do hope that the DLers at least consider that not every Republican or conservative is evil, and that our points of view are as legitimate as those who support Obama's brand of socialism, bailouts, wealth redistribution, or whatever you call it.

Actually, no, they aren't. We are objectively right, and you are objectively wrong. Deal.

by Anonymousreply 7211/07/2012

[quote]oru points of view are as legitimate as those who support Obama's brand of socialism, bailouts, wealth redistribution, or whatever you call it. ... Like it or not, it's people like me who fund this country, not those who take from the government.

You really haven't learned anything, have you? I think we're done here. There's no point in arguing against such rigid, dogmatic ignorance.

by Anonymousreply 7311/07/2012

[quote]I must live under your rules. I'll still beat you at your own game, but it is a game I would simply rather not have to play.

MARY!!!

[quote]Like it or not, it's people like me who fund this country, not those who take from the government.

“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.”

― John Kenneth Galbraith

What do you do for a living that you have such a high opinion of yourself? Also, which state?

by Anonymousreply 7411/07/2012

This useless fuckwit who keeps posting his drivel here is just another poorly educated Randbot.

The way he references the GM bondholders who didn't get to weasel in and take over the company, it seems as if he was one of them.

He's crying in his beer now because he wasn't allowed to plunder ailing companies and exploit the economic devastation of his fellow Americans. His desire to do this and his belief that it is his right to do this is why people like him are a blight on the country.

Go find a banana republic to live in, asshole. With any luck you'll last long enough for your slaves/employees to rise up and slaughter you.

by Anonymousreply 7511/07/2012

Victoria Jackson's words.

Fucking drama queen. Bitch, not everyone who is a christian is a dumb cunt like you.

by Anonymousreply 7611/07/2012

[quote]Like it or not, it's people like me who fund this country, not those who take from the government.

So says the drama queen who is using a computer network that was developed with tax payer dollars.

by Anonymousreply 7711/07/2012

[quote]Nothing is stopping me from succeeding under our new, socialist system, but the bailouts are a drag on the pace at which I'm accumulating wealth. I'm not immortal, so time is money.

OK, but what's the alternative? Not accumulating wealth just to make your point?

Talk about drinking poison in hopes it'll hurt your enemy.

by Anonymousreply 7811/07/2012

[quote]the bailouts are a drag on the pace at which I'm accumulating wealth.

TRANSLATION: I need instant gratification. Cant you see, its all about me and my wants. The fact that I have to wait like some common peasant is beyond offensive.

by Anonymousreply 7911/07/2012

These people want control. Not just over their own money and life, but over the money and lives of others. They won't be happy until they can shout 'jump!' at every men in this country and getting the reply 'how high do you want me to jump, master?'.

Their insecurities and them failing to accomplish the high goal of unlimited control is eating them alive from the inside like cancer.

Live and let Live is the ultimate path to a (mentally) healthy life.

by Anonymousreply 8011/07/2012

And it's even worse than that, R80, since the poor guy can't even figure out what he's railing against. He doesn't seem to understand the difference between the actions of the Federal Reserve (quantitative easing, printing money, and the like), the financial system bailout (which was Bush, not Obama, and which was mostly paid back), and the auto bailout (which was a managed bankruptcy.

by Anonymousreply 8111/07/2012
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.
×

Follow theDL catch up on what you missed


recent threads by topic delivered to your email

follow popular threads on twitter

follow us on facebook

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!