| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Warmskin
Forum Member
|
 Posted - 12/28/2010 : 02:28:31 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by openess
That particular Pelosi moment ("are you serious?") was chilling.
Nancy Peloosi, at that time, admitted she is not an American, and is a traitor.
As to HernandoCouple's statements, let's be more concrete.
Back in the early 17 century, one of the American colonies had a pure socialistic economy. All your work belonged to the people. You took from the labors of others, all you needed for sustanence. Paradise? Not really. Read on.
The people who parcitipated in this workers' socialist paradise found themselves with diminishing food supplies. No one was responsible for individual productivity, and no one was responsible for how much a family needed. Result, supplies were nearly exhausted, while lazy families had all they wanted.
Re-boot for this colony. The leader told everyone to fend for themselves. You had to grow you own food, and eat what you grew. Productivity turned around dramatically. Private enterprise took hold and there was plenty for everyone.
If you want a nation to be wealthy, in general, learn from this colony how to do it. If you don't want to learn, then you're stuck back in the 1500s. Not very enlightening if you can't learn from one of our early colonies.
The colony? Oh yeah, it was the Pilgrims. They learned the hard way, while current Americans are little more than sheep who will follow any corrupt shepard.
Socialism brings poverty to a people. Private enterprise, where the gov't is small, is a tremednous producer of wealth for the average person. If this were, say, 1984, where would you want to go shopping -- at a typical American store, or a Soviet store? The question answers itself.
Socialism cannot exist in a small gov't. It needs big gov't. Personally, I don't like big gov't. It is too oppressive, and liberty dies from that.
"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."
James Madison
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1964 |
 |
|
|
hernandocpl
Forum Member
|
Posted - 12/28/2010 : 09:54:11 AM
|
I do believe that all the Pilgrims would have died if it wasnt for the natives. And as there wasnt a walmart on the corner, you ate what you grew or traded some form of work.
Live love and have fun
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 247 |
|
|
|
sailawaybob
Forum Member
|
Posted - 12/28/2010 : 7:35:53 PM
|
it amazes me that when obama went along with the conservatives on the tax cuts the liberals said we couldn't afford it but when they finally agreed they put billions of dollars in earmarks into it and yes some conservatives followed along, so we americans can't afford a tax break unless we spend billions on waste and fraud, what gives. and for this socialist healthcare program why do people from canada and from around the world come to america for healthcare, the problem is millions of americans don't want to spend there savings on healthcare let the government do it, my healthcare is $500. a month obama leave me alone i don't want you and your cronnies interferring with my freedom of choice.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1268 |
|
|
|
Warmskin
Forum Member
|
Posted - 12/28/2010 : 9:42:09 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by hernandocpl
I do believe that all the Pilgrims would have died if it wasnt for the natives. And as there wasnt a walmart on the corner, you ate what you grew or traded some form of work.
Live love and have fun
The native Americans were indeed a big help to the Pilgrims. However, the transactions were voluntary, and not edicts handed down from King James I. If there were already big government at Plymouth Roc, everyone would have died, because of ridiculous regulations, taxes, privileges dispensed to the rich by the government, etc. That is a weird concept full of inconsistencies, but still one can imagine the Pilgrims bogged down by government regulation.
The main thing to remember is that the Pilgrim's experience was a great experiment in what actually works for a people - socialism, or private enterprise. The latter worked far better and always has.
"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."
James Madison
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1964 |
|
|
|
hernandocpl
Forum Member
|
Posted - 12/29/2010 : 10:37:11 AM
|
A big help, just a tad understated, like dying is quite fatal I believe.
Live love and have fun
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 247 |
|
|
|
FlCpl4NewdFun
Forum Member
|
Posted - 12/29/2010 : 6:37:37 PM
|
Bringing the discussion back into the 21 century.
The following article is just plain horrifying! How are we ever going to possibly pay for all of this debt given the current political, economic, and social framework? Some bold and courageous leadership is desperately needed to change course. Tough decisions need to be made, and sacrifice from all - be it poor, middle class, wealthy, ultra wealthy....ALL!!! This isn't a partisan issue, it's really one of survival of way of life. Most of our leaders today are cowards, and the current entitlement mentality of the a small but growing portion of the citizenry is shameful!
Can you image even as little as a decade ago a family just saying "I'm going to stop paying my mortgage for 18 months and I'm not moving. It's not my fault I bought a house I couldn't afford, the damn bankers tricked me into thinking $65k a year could afford a $750k adjustable rate interest only mortgage; and besides, I deserve 4 bedrooms a media room and 4 1/2 baths!"
For those who think this sounds callous, think again. It's much more empathetic and respectful to the dignity and self worth of those who have fallen on hard times to continue to expect integrity and honoring one's commitments, than lulling one into a false sense of security with patronizing feel-good victimization.
Ooops... Ranted far too long, climbing off the soapbox now! Here's the article.
111th Congress Added More Debt Than First 100 Congresses Combined: $10,429 Per Person in U.S.
Monday, December 27, 2010
By Terence P. Jeffrey
The federal government has accumulated more new debt--$3.22 trillion ($3,220,103,625,307.29)—during the tenure of the 111th Congress than it did during the first 100 Congresses combined, according to official debt figures published by the U.S. Treasury. That equals $10,429.64 in new debt for each and every one of the 308,745,538 people counted in the United States by the 2010 Census. The total national debt of $13,858,529,371,601.09 (or $13.859 trillion), as recorded by the U.S. Treasury at the close of business on Dec. 22, now equals $44,886.57 for every man, woman and child in the United States. In fact, the 111th Congress not only has set the record as the most debt-accumulating Congress in U.S. history, but also has out-stripped its nearest competitor, the 110th, by an astounding $1.262 trillion in new debt. During the 110th Congress—which, according to the Clerk of the House, officially convened on Jan. 4, 2007 and adjourned on Jan. 4, 2009--the national debt increased $1.957 trillion. When that Congress adjourned less than two years ago, it claimed the record as the most debt-accumulating Congress in U.S. history. As it turned out, however, its record did not last long. The $3.22 trillion in new federal debt run up during the 111th Congress exceeds by 64 percent the $1.957 trillion in new debt run up during the 110th. Although the 111th Congress cast its last vote on Dec. 22, it will not officially adjourn until next week. Democrats controlled both the House and Senate in the 110th and 111th Congresses. The 108th Congress ($1.159 trillion in new debt) and 109th ($1.054 trillion in new debt) take third and fourth place among all U.S. Congresses for accumulating debt. In both these Congresses, Republicans controlled both the House and Senate. Still, the $3.22 trillion in new debt accumulated during the record-setting 111th Congress is more than three times the $1.054 trillion in new debt accumulated by the last Republican-majority Congress (the 109th) which adjourned on Dec. 8, 2006. Historically, according to the U.S. Treasury, the federal debt did not reach $3.22 trillion until September 1990, during the 101st Congress. Between the first Congress, which adjourned in 1791 leaving behind approximately $75 million in debt, and the convening of the 101st Congress, which occurred on Jan. 3, 1989, the national debt grew to $2.684 trillion. During the Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) tenure as speaker, which commenced on Jan. 4, 2007, the federal government has run up $5.177 trillion in new debt. That is about equal to the total debt the federal government accumulated in the first 220 years of the nation's existence, with the federal debt rising from $5.173 trillion on July 23, 1996 to $5.181 trillion on July 24, 1996. In her inaugural address as speaker, Pelosi vowed that Congress would engage in no new deficit spending. "After years of historic deficits, this 110th Congress will commit itself to a higher standard: Pay as you go, no new deficit spending,” she said in an address from the speaker’s podium. “Our new America will provide unlimited opportunity for future generations, not burden them with mountains of debt."
Source:
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/111th-congress-added-more-debt-first-100
|
|
Country:
| Posts: 219 |
|
|
|
sailawaybob
Forum Member
|
Posted - 12/30/2010 : 02:29:43 AM
|
between the wars overseas,bailouts, stimulas spending and entitlements for those that don't want to contribute to our society we are headed down the path of no return, but the other day i was watching a show about the united states head for a depression in 1946 and i thought wow didn't they just come out of a depression and two wars back then. but we had some smart and apparently honest people back then that steered the country the other way cut spending, put people back to work and paid down the war debt. nowdays most not every politician has his/her hands in the till and we have a president flying circles around the globe in that plane and the planes that follow it. when is someone going to sit down and say hey lets take care of america and it's citizens first.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1268 |
|
|
|
balataf
Forum Member
|
Posted - 12/31/2010 : 03:38:49 AM
|
The main difference between 1946 and now, is that income was way down in the '30s, even after the basic Depression (1929-31,) This was followed by a time (WW2) with huge incomes earnings and almost zero production of consumer non-essentials. When this pent-up demand was opened up, it weas comparatively easy to re-tool the factories and sell. People have forgotten that there was a waiting list more than 1 1/4 years long between ordering a car and receiving it, for one example. In 1946, there was a massive housing shortage and suburbs mushroomed, eating up land. Today, there is a vast oversupply of housing on the market.
A good retooling example. Grumman had a plant on Long Island to produce fighter aircraft wing tanks. (Aerodynamic, made of aluminum, with internal reinforcing bands and struts.) With minimal changeover, it made several million aluminum canoes for the public.
While America's manufacturi/ng grew treme3ndously in recent years. (2007 was two and three quarters the size of 1980.) it has done so with robots, computers and has only about 30 percent of the workforce it needed then. Imagine how bad it would be if it had not grown well!
Iraq's war is sputtering out and ending.
The Afghan project is directly aimed at protecting America by roothing out one of the key bases for Islamic radicals, altho there are others. Our defense is a GLOBAL War on Terror. Rather than a drawback, this is positive benefit to the citizens of America. I would not wish to have a premature withdrawal.
I have l list of 87 insurgency wars since 1850. The Taliban's equivalents won only 17, with 7 ending in negotiated compromise agreements. That leaves the NATO coalition types with asround 63, if we have the basic intellegence not to screw it up by quitting.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 661 |
|
|
|
Warmskin
Forum Member
|
Posted - 01/06/2011 : 03:14:44 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by hernandocpl
A big help, just a tad understated, like dying is quite fatal I believe.
Live love and have fun
The main point is that the Pilgrims tried socialism, or one could say communism, and it failed. Then they tried private initiative which helped them immensely. In both cases there was trade with the Native Americans. From this, the Natives were not a factor when it comes to seeing which is better -- communism or private enterprise.
If you prefer communism, there is a flash news bulletin just out -- the USSR collapsed -- seemed that there was no incentive to work harder if one always got the same results.
"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."
James Madison
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1964 |
|
|
|
hernandocpl
Forum Member
|
Posted - 01/06/2011 : 5:08:06 PM
|
Communism in the 1500's.................WTF are you completely round the bend or do you just have to put a tag on anything. I suppose cavemen were socialists 'cause they shared food etc.....get a grip man
Live love and have fun
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 247 |
|
|
|
balataf
Forum Member
|
Posted - 01/06/2011 : 11:30:36 PM
|
H, Warmskin is actually correct on the details. Communal relgious factions have been tried more than a dozen times in US history, mostly on the frontier settlements. Oneida NY, Amana, Ia., Harmony Penna, New Harmony Ind, the Shaker religious group, and others. They have never been overwhelmingly successful, but Oneida Silversmiths and Amana appliances are corporations that are so descended.
We are not talking Marxist modern Communism, but something very much like the early feudal village communal organizations. Socialists have always over-romanticized the system. It only "works " when the isolated groups totally suppress individual freedom and initiative, but force minimal compliance to continue the system.
In the Medieval towns, the government was mostly a federation of craft guilds. They carefully regulated production to keep supply down in order to control prices. Even if a person should inherit money from marriage, he was totally forbidden from adding production or hiring new people. Yet, on the other hand, orphans were cared for, and while the prices were kept in line to squeeze others, the Guild ensured the quality of items made and sold.
The system evolved and survived for centuries by mutual support with the Nobles and the all-encompassing church. (You coul;d be whipped nude in public for skipping daily mandatory services.) Church services functioned as a daily town meeting.
I have posted extensively in other threads about the village communal bathing and saunas, and how European Nudism/Naturism started out as a branch of the Social Democratic Party in Germany, and the Scandinavian and Baltic nations. This was heavily influenced by the Jewish village / shtetel mikva baths. This wes a background of the same communal mentality.
|
Edited by - balataf on 01/06/2011 11:53:14 PM |
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 661 |
|
|
|
Warmskin
Forum Member
|
Posted - 01/09/2011 : 05:54:16 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by hernandocpl
Communism in the 1500's.................WTF are you completely round the bend or do you just have to put a tag on anything. I suppose cavemen were socialists 'cause they shared food etc.....get a grip man
Live love and have fun
Thank you for your intellectual discourse.
What you seem to disregard is that generic communism, or socialism if you like, was the first method of government that was set up by the Pilgrims, with William Bradford as their leader. I have no idea who was the very first group of people to engage the folly of socialism. It's irrelevant to this discussion. Let's just say some folks out there, way back in time, decided to take over control of the available goods and the distribution of them.
At first, the Pilgrims put their production results into a common storage place. No one owned their own goods of production. Does this sound like communism? Of course it does, and it does not matter who was the first to try it on the public. What matters is the results of communism versus free enterprise. Whatever food you grew, or trees you cut down belonged to the state, such as it was back then.
The people could withdraw food and other supplies according to what they were told they needed. So, you produced for the state, and the state controlled your share of the goods produced.
When Bradford changed his mind and let the people produce on a free enterprise basis, production went up quite nicely. Each family or person had to grow as much food as they needed to survive. The impetus to produce much was thus launched by Bradford. If you didn't produce, you did not survive. I cannot speak for you, but this arrangement would make me work very hard to produce as much as I could. With communism, it does not make a difference if you are that good a worker or not. You will still get what the government thinks you need. You don't get to define that amount. Isn't that lovely? Makes me want to go out and celebrate my absolute dependency on government, and their ownership of me.
This classical economics, and it does not matter what century in which this took place. It's like physics; the rules don't change. Same with economics. What works, works, and what doesn't, doesn't.
The intelligent objective is to find out what works. Free enterprise works wonders where it is tried, and it gives us many, many choices as to what we can buy, and how we can produce things or provide services. Beats the dickens out of the old empty Soviet grocery store shelves.
As Winston Churchill said -- communism is the equal sharing of misery. Capitalism is the unequal sharing of wealth. I'll take the latter over the former anyday. Or, as Robert Frost said -- let the cream rise to the top (referring to talented people).
Further, the notion that government can wisely decide for 310,000,000 American people what they should buy or sell, creates an enormous bottleneck on productivity and the purchasing of those good and services. Can a government department make the trillions of marketplace decisions every day? Do they have both the unlimited resources and IQ to perform that function everyday? I don't think so. Those trillions of decisions rightfully belong to the people, and not to an elite power.
America is about common people making marketplace decision in complete freedom, except for those who would defraud, or commit violence to get their way.
"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."
James Madison
|
Edited by - Warmskin on 01/09/2011 05:57:03 AM |
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1964 |
|
|
|
hernandocpl
Forum Member
|
Posted - 01/09/2011 : 3:02:11 PM
|
Miss Giffords had been named in March as a political campaign target for conservatives in November’s elections by former Alaska governor Sarah Palin for her strong support for the health reforms of President Barack Obama.
Mrs Palin had published a “target map” on her website using images of gun sights to identify 20 House Democrats, including Miss Giffords, for backing the new health care law.
The congresswoman, who is Jewish, is a gun-owner and supporter of the right to bear arms. She was also a strong advocate of abortion rights. She won re-election to her third term in Congress last year, beating off a challenge for a Republican candidate endorsed by the Tea Party.
She was one of 20 Democrats who Sarah Palin identified on a website with a scope sight pattern overlaying their photos for supporting Obama's Health reforms, she is Pro abortion rights, Jewish, she beat off a Tea Party candidate in last year's Mid Terms and it happened in Arizona home of Yosemite Sam rednecks and other various s***kicker types.
Take your pick, any one of those is more than enough for some to load up the extra capacity Glock Mag with hollowpoint rounds they got at a gunshow by showing their Library card and promising they would only be used on Figure 11s.
And we wonder why the rest of the civilised world shake their heads at us! Of course palin will back track, deny and cafuffle her way out of any responsibility at all, wont she.
Live love and have fun
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 247 |
|
|
|
HomeNudist
Forum Member
|
Posted - 01/09/2011 : 3:37:51 PM
|
I knew this was going to show up. Sarah Palin did not order a hit on Giffords. It is irresponsible to make such a foolhardy claim. I could make an equally irresponsible claim that Obama caused yesterday's shooting by his speech in Philly where he said “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” .
The graphic symbol used in the Palin campaign map was a cartographer's location symbol. What about the Democrat map from the last election using red Bullseye targets on it? http://www.postonpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/dccc-target-map.jpg How is that any different? Or, why not blame the liberal Daily KOS who put a bullseye on Giffords. http://i56.tinypic.com/2apvzk.jpg
More to the point, the wounded were not yet in the hospital and Liberals were trying to link this horror to the Tea Party Movement and Palin, Beck, Rush, and conservative talk radio. All FALSE claims. It turns out that according to classmates of the shooter, he is a passionate leftest and liberal. According to the school that kicked him out, he is mentally unstable. There is nothing - NOTHING - that links Jared Laughner to Palin or Conservatives in general.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 182 |
|
|
|
Warmskin
Forum Member
|
Posted - 01/09/2011 : 8:37:51 PM
|
Yes, right, Palin ordered a hit job. Riiiight. Are all liberal politicians that tasteless? While we're at it, did Nixon kill Kennedy from that grassy knoll? And did Carter shoot Reagan? Rumors and innuendo are not needed. Save it for elections, or during normal times.
Could you seriously believe that Palin had a conversation with a hit man? I certainly don't. But, let's play with the people who believe she was responsible for these mulitple murders. I can imagine what is going throught their mind. Would it be something like the following, with Palin talking to a Mafia hit man? The following is not meant at all to incite, but rather to illustrate the ludicrousness of letting our imagation go, and dreaming up things that do not exist.
Palin: Hi Guido. Hey, I got a hit job I want you to do for me. Yep, I'm calling in a favor for the moose meat I sent you.
Guido: Yeah, dat was good moose meat ya know. Tanks a lot Sarah. You got class, kid. So's, what can I do for ya?
Palin: Well you know, Guido, there is this little woman who is giving us neoconervatives a problem.
Guido: You wants dat I should take her out? No problem lady? But, I gotta tell ya, dis requires more moose meat. Can ya kill anothuh moose for me -- nothing special ya know, just some okay moose. Den we can talk turkey. Got it?
Palin: You betcha. Okay, Guido, but sheesh, now I gotta get more bullets, and they don't run cheap. Maybe I can get Bristol on a reality show or something. That would raise the money. Traveling back and forth, giving frivilous speeches to drum up some more wars isn't cheap.
Guido: Listen dame, I don't care what you gotta do, you got my price. Either send it to me, or get off my phone, lady.
Palin: You betcha, Guido. I'll do my best.
Guido: Who is this person you wants that I should turn the lights out on?
Palin (playing with her hair): There is this lady in who is giving me as many fits as a moose has fleas. I'll tell you later about that. Meanwhile, I will get you your stuff to you via an overnight courrier. Do you want me to clean and dress the moose, or overnight it to you the way it was just after I killed it. Lemme know. Okay?
Guido: Clean it before you send it. I'm a very sensvitive person, ya know. Dat's my girl. I tink I know a patsy who is as looney as your last speech. We can pin it on him.
Palin: Please don't remind me about that one.
Dick Cheney wrote that one for me. He wanted 8 more wars around the world.
Guido: Lissen lady, I don't care about no Cheney stuff. Just send me my payment.
Palin: You betcha, Guido, right after I have my hair done. Haven't had it done since yesterday, and I don't kill mooses on a bad hair day. What will my supporters think?
Guido: <click>
Now, some might find this "transcript" absurd, (I hope so!), but then trying to make political points immediately after a horribe tragedy hits the news, is plainly offensive.
First things first. Treat the survivors. Let the families deal with their unspeakable grief, and have their respective funeral services. Find out the facts. Analyze them. After all is said and done by people who actually care, then let the talking heads and pundits, and their acolytes do what they will with facts.
I would rather wait for all these former things take their course.
If this post is too far off base, please delete it.
"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."
James Madison
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1964 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Nudist-Resorts.Org Discussion Forum Bulletin Board Nudism Clothing Optional Resort Naturism Nude Beaches |
© 2002-2020 SUN |
|
|
|
General Political Discourse
