On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 12:10:25 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Let the Record show that Demon Buddha on or about
Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:12:12 -0400 did write/type or cause to appear in
seattle.politics the following:


Trouble is, so very few have the diciple or IQ to anticipate. Take
Pearl Harbor, they should have been on alert and not golfing. Most
people are denialists, a major flaw in our species which allows our easy
manipualtion toward nafarious ends.

Hitting bottom is necessary for the masses to wake up and smell the
coffee that liberalism and corruption are the problem, not the solution.

I tend to agree with this. On the whole, people don't learn until they
get their asses beaten badly enough. Even then...

"The ear of the fool is in his back." Egyptian proverb I learned
while there.

-
pyotr filipivich.
Just about the time you finally see light at the end of the tunnel,
you find out it's a Government Project to build more tunnel.

....seattle.politics...the stomping ground of jps. Now I see where all
these turkeys came from.

Thanks jps. You and Harry are doing your best. It's appreciated.

On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:23:33 -0400, Demon Buddha
wrote:

Um... not likely. Runaway inflation is not a result of economic
growth, but of out of control printing of paper money, which our
esteemed ex-president and congress were quite happy to kick off and
which our current Nobel laureate has taken to heights GW's puny mind
could unlikely wrap itself around.

I don't see that there is a significant difference between the two
presidents here. They both work for Big Business, with the huge tax
of a huge deficit we will pay.

--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison

On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:20:13 -0500,
(Gray Ghost) wrote:

Don't forget the people like me who would rather see the house burn down than
go socialist.

I won't. I don't understand why someone would rather see the house
burn down than go socialist.

But for now, I am assuming that like most people, you are very
selective about what socialism you are willing to die for. Social
Security is an obvious example of socialism - but as far as that goes,
*all* insurance is socialism. Public schools is socialism. Publicly
paid for military is socialism. Public roads is socialism. It's hard
to see how anybody will benefit by burning them all down.

--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison

rOn Mon, 12 Oct 2009 14:03:59 -0600, Howard Brazee
wrote:

I don't see that there is a significant difference between the two
presidents here. They both work for Big Business, with the huge tax
of a huge deficit we will pay.

I totally agree with you, but it seems to me that the Democrats craft
policies that benefit the middle and lower classes and Republican
policies benefit the wealthy. Because Republican policies benefit
the minority--the wealthy, they need hate speech, racism, and wedge
issues to distract and divide so that they can win elections. JMO

Gray Ghost wrote:

Don't forget the people like me who would rather see the house burn down than
go socialist.

We already are socialist and have been since 1933, thanks to that
commie rag FDR. We have been a crypto-socialist affair for abut 76
years. I don't see that changing any time soon. All those people on
welfare for the 5th generation running would not know what to do with
themselves. But let us hope I am wrong and they become faced with the
choice of finding a job or starving to death.

Yes, we have been socialist, but have now added the factor of more or
less bald-faced fascism to the mix. I do not consider the USA to be a
constitutional republic any longer in terms of how we actually do our
business. We are a fascist capitalist police state. Things are likely
to get worse before they get better. A lot worse.

Howard Brazee wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:23:33 -0400, Demon Buddha
wrote:

Um... not likely. Runaway inflation is not a result of economic
growth, but of out of control printing of paper money, which our
esteemed ex-president and congress were quite happy to kick off and
which our current Nobel laureate has taken to heights GW's puny mind
could unlikely wrap itself around.

I don't see that there is a significant difference between the two
presidents here. They both work for Big Business, with the huge tax
of a huge deficit we will pay.

I terms of principle, I fully agree. In terms of degree, I must part
company with you a bit. Though my logical mind knew things could be
worse than Bush, my heart didn't really want to believe it. Obama
shattered that by putting GW to shame in terms of incompetence, avarice,
hubris, out of control spending, and doing nothing of value. I can
hardly believe that it would have been possible to outstrip Bush by such
a margin, and yet here we are. Amazing.

Demon Buddha wrote:
Howard Brazee wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:23:33 -0400, Demon Buddha
wrote:

Um... not likely. Runaway inflation is not a result of economic
growth, but of out of control printing of paper money, which our
esteemed ex-president and congress were quite happy to kick off and
which our current Nobel laureate has taken to heights GW's puny mind
could unlikely wrap itself around.

I don't see that there is a significant difference between the two
presidents here. They both work for Big Business, with the huge tax
of a huge deficit we will pay.

I terms of principle, I fully agree. In terms of degree, I must
part company with you a bit. Though my logical mind knew things could
be worse than Bush, my heart didn't really want to believe it. Obama
shattered that by putting GW to shame in terms of incompetence, avarice,
hubris, out of control spending, and doing nothing of value. I can
hardly believe that it would have been possible to outstrip Bush by such
a margin, and yet here we are. Amazing.


chuckle

....the more things "change" the more they stay the same...

Howard Brazee wrote in
:

On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:20:13 -0500,
(Gray Ghost) wrote:

Don't forget the people like me who would rather see the house burn down
than go socialist.

I won't. I don't understand why someone would rather see the house
burn down than go socialist.

But for now, I am assuming that like most people, you are very
selective about what socialism you are willing to die for. Social
Security is an obvious example of socialism - but as far as that goes,
*all* insurance is socialism. Public schools is socialism. Publicly
paid for military is socialism. Public roads is socialism. It's hard
to see how anybody will benefit by burning them all down.


Don't like Social Security.
Don't like public schools.
Insurance provided by the free market is not socialism, it is free preople
working together.
The military is not socialism.
Public roads, well, would you prefer driving on a goat path?

But socialism rots the soul and removes the incentive to improve oneself. And
lets petty tyrants decide your fate.

Burn it down and start over.

Demon Buddha wrote in
:

Gray Ghost wrote:

Don't forget the people like me who would rather see the house burn down
than go socialist.

We already are socialist and have been since 1933, thanks to that
commie rag FDR. We have been a crypto-socialist affair for abut 76
years. I don't see that changing any time soon. All those people on
welfare for the 5th generation running would not know what to do with
themselves. But let us hope I am wrong and they become faced with the
choice of finding a job or starving to death.

Yes, we have been socialist, but have now added the factor of more
or
less bald-faced fascism to the mix. I do not consider the USA to be a
constitutional republic any longer in terms of how we actually do our
business. We are a fascist capitalist police state. Things are likely
to get worse before they get better. A lot worse.


Which is why a fire is needed.

queenie wrote in
:

rOn Mon, 12 Oct 2009 14:03:59 -0600, Howard Brazee
wrote:

I don't see that there is a significant difference between the two
presidents here. They both work for Big Business, with the huge tax
of a huge deficit we will pay.

I totally agree with you, but it seems to me that the Democrats craft
policies that benefit the middle and lower classes and Republican
policies benefit the wealthy. Because Republican policies benefit
the minority--the wealthy, they need hate speech, racism, and wedge
issues to distract and divide so that they can win elections. JMO



Try posting after you get your brain back from the cleaners.

If you really think the Democrats are for the little guy in anything other
than name only you are a complete fool.

788 billion dollar "stimulus". Did big business get that or was it
distributed to the poor and needy?

Maybe you think nationalized health care is to help the porr and needy. Ask
your Congressman for specfics, he won;t have any. It was written by special
interests and not one single Congressdroid has the least freaking idea what's
in the bill.

If they don't know what's in the bill, how can they know is for those in
need?