Re: Obama got elected president...

No one has elected George Soros either. 

 

You should take a quick course in economics, and maybe contemporary history.  Learn the definition of communism, socialism,  Trotskyism,  Maoism,  Stalinism,  and discover that none of these forms of social and political economic systems have ever worked, through recorded history.  

 

Free enterprise and capitalism is the only viable economic systems that have stood the test of time.   I know, you and your ilk believe that socialism, communism,  Stalinism,  Maoism,  et. al, are all wonderful systems, we just haven't had the right folks try and implement them yet, and Obama-Nation is the one to do it.

 

Once again, Steven, this is the reason that you are considered a Moonbat.

 

 

On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Stephen Stink <not4udude@yahoo.com> wrote:

Nobody elected the Koch Brothers, Richard Million Scaif, Pete Coors,
or the Waltons to any constitutional mandated office! Do you think The
Tea Fags will ever distinquish the differench between Free Enterprise
and Corporate capitalism? Nope! The are stooopid! Doncha know!
Wheeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I got your socialism right here! Bend over and get some free love!!!!

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Obama got elected president...

Nor did any of them run for constitutionally mandated offices. Instead
they invested in the candidates they supported just as Soros invested in
the terrible president we now are stuck with and to my way of thinking
they invested in far better candidates. Obama got elected president and
you can be sure that there are a lot of people who would love to take
back that vote based on the miserable job he has done so far. When you
see him compared to Jimmy Carter in being the worst president ever, that
pretty much tells you just how bad he is. Guess that is why Stephen
Stink supports him. He only supports losers.

Stephen Stink wrote:
> Nobody elected the Koch Brothers, Richard Million Scaif, Pete Coors,
> or the Waltons to any constitutional mandated office! Do you think The
> Tea Fags will ever distinquish the differench between Free Enterprise
> and Corporate capitalism? Nope! The are stooopid! Doncha know!
> Wheeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> I got your socialism right here! Bend over and get some free love!!!!
>
>

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

[Fwd: Woman claims she was groped by Carroll Shelby; raped at his home]

Any bets on the truth of this one? Sure does not sound right to
me. If he was demanding all that from her, then why did she stay
working there. I see all kinds of things wrong with this one.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Obama got elected president...

Nobody elected the Koch Brothers, Richard Million Scaif, Pete Coors,
or the Waltons to any constitutional mandated office! Do you think The
Tea Fags will ever distinquish the differench between Free Enterprise
and Corporate capitalism? Nope! The are stooopid! Doncha know!
Wheeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I got your socialism right here! Bend over and get some free love!!!!

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

interesting inbetween

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

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Debt-Ceiling Fraud

"Well, it was easy. I know conservatives. I have watched them for decades. They always cave. They've caved ever since the New Deal, when they threw in the towel and embraced the new welfare-state way of life that liberals (or progressives as many of them now like to call themselves) were foisting on American society."

Monday, August 1, 2011
Debt-Ceiling Fraud
by Jacob G. Hornberger

I told you so! For the past several months, I have been saying that the Republicans were going to cave on the lifting of the debt ceiling. I've been writing it and I've been proclaiming it on my weekly Internet show.

And sure enough, that's exactly what they did. After weeks of huffing and puffing about the enormous size of the national debt and the out-of-control federal spending, they caved, once again, and voted to lift the debt ceiling.

You might ask, "Jacob, how did you know that they would cave? They've been saying for weeks that they would never cave -- that they would never vote to lift the debt ceiling."

Well, it was easy. I know conservatives. I have watched them for decades. They always cave. They've caved ever since the New Deal, when they threw in the towel and embraced the new welfare-state way of life that liberals (or progressives as many of them now like to call themselves) were foisting on American society.

After fervently opposing FDR's Social Security, a program that originated among German socialists, conservatives ended up being one of this socialist scheme's biggest defenders.

When LBJ, following in the statist footsteps of FDR, succeeded in getting Medicare and Medicaid enacted, conservatives caved and exuberantly accepted the program.

In fact, as I have repeatedly emphasized for the past 21 years here at The Future of Freedom Foundation, there now isn't a dime's worth of difference between conservatives and liberals -- they both fully and completely embrace the welfare-state way of life and the warfare-state way of life that afflict our nation, along with the interventionist/regulatory system under which Americans must live.

Consider the following programs and ask yourself whether conservatives and liberals aren't both firmly committed to their existence and continuation: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, public schooling, education grants, farm subsidies, foreign aid, community grants, food stamps, corporate bailouts, stimulus spending, unemployment compensation, foreign wars, undeclared wars, a standing army, the military industrial complex, a foreign military empire, invasions, occupations, wars of aggression, torture, immunity for torturers, sanctions, embargoes, Gitmo, the war on terrorism, the Patriot Act, the enemy-combatant doctrine, paper money, the Federal Reserve, and, well, you get my point.

The fact is that the federal government has become the primary caregiver for the American people, and both conservatives and liberals are fine with that. The federal government has also become the world's policeman, intervener, interloper, invader, aggressor, sanction and embargo imposer, torturer, kidnapper, renditioner, and tribunal conductor, and both conservatives and liberals are fine with that too.

There was never any doubt that the debt ceiling would be lifted. As I have been repeatedly saying, the whole thing is one great big fraud on the American people, and unfortunately all too many Americans still permit themselves to be taken in by this fraud, thanks in large part to the deference-to-authority mindset that was drilled into them in the 12 long years they were forced to receive government schooling.

Think about it. Why do they even have a debt ceiling? What they're saying with a ceiling is what we libertarians hold: Too much debt is a very bad thing, both for a person and for a government. The fact that they put a ceiling on the amount of debt the federal government can incur is an implicit acknowledgement of that principle.

Yet, what do they do every time the ceiling is reached? They fuss and fuss and wring their hands … and then simply raise it again, so that we can go through this entire charade two years from now, when most everyone will have already forgotten the debt-ceiling charade of 2011.

Now, do you honestly think that from now until the next time the debt ceiling is reached, they're going to slash federal spending so that it won't be necessary to raise the ceiling a couple of years from now?

If you actually believe that, you're one of their public schools' greatest success stories.

Did you see them slashing spending the last time the debt ceiling was raised a couple of years ago? Did you hear them say, "We've got the ceiling coming up in 2011. We've got to stop spending so much money"?

Of course not. In addition to all the regular welfare-warfare state spending programs, they even embarked on additional big ones, with nary a concern about the approaching debt ceiling.

Remember the bailouts? Remember the stimulus plans? Remember the bombing of Libya? These were all big spending binges, all of which sent a simple message: "We don't give a hoot about that approaching debt ceiling. We'll just fuss and fuss and wring our hands and then raise it again."

It will be no different in the next two years. They will continue spending, taxing, borrowing, and inflating until the debt ceiling is reached again. It's what they've done for decades. Why do you think the value of the dollar is worth 5 percent of its value in 1913, when the Federal Reserve was established? It's because they've spent, borrowed, and inflated to fund their beloved welfare-warfare state for decades, raising the debt ceiling each time to accommodate it all.

Here was a grand opportunity for anyone interested in dismantling big government. If the debt ceiling had not been raised, the government would have been forced to sustain its operations with incoming tax revenues. What's wrong with that? What's wrong with not being able to go get a new credit card when you're already maxed out?

Here was a grand opportunity for conservatives. They could have proposed abolishing all sorts of departments, agencies, and bureaucracies. My preference would be to start with the crown jewels -- Social Security and Medicare, but if that would have scared them they could have begun with the Departments of Education, Commerce, Energy, and Labor. Didn't even Ronald Reagan support abolishing some of them? They could have ended the drug war. They could have terminated foreign aid. They could have brought the troops home from everywhere and discharged them. They could have simply said, "The money isn't there. We can't afford the entire welfare-warfare state anymore."

They could have made some serious inroads into big government. But they didn't, because deep in their hearts, conservatives love big government. They just love to preach libertarian mantras at the same time.

I've said it before but it bears repeating: The real battle facing our nation is not between the federal government and the terrorists. Instead, the battle is between libertarians and the statists. With their out-of-control spending, borrowing, taxing, regulating, and bombing, the statists are taking our country down, in the same way that those same policies took down the Soviet Union.

With our firm and unwavering commitment to sound money and our fierce opposition to out-of-control spending, borrowing, taxing, inflating, welfarism, interventionism, warfarism, the drug war, and imperialism, the simple fact is that we libertarians are the only hope for the statist woes that conservatives and liberals have brought to our land.

Let me say a word about the liberal statists, who are all sad and droopy-eyed because their beloved leader, Barack Obama, let them down by refusing to raise taxes on the rich. Unlike the conservatives, who know better but simply capitulate anyway, the liberals honestly believe that the key to a wealthy and prosperous society lies in massive, ever-growing government expenditures, taxes, and inflationary debasement of the currency.

That's one of the major dividing lines between liberals and libertarians. We libertarians know that such policies are the key to impoverishment, while liberals say they are the key to prosperity. That's the financial and economic choice that the American people must make in this battle between statism and libertarianism.

In making that choice, people should keep in mind that liberals have never been able to show why their policies are unable to make the people of Cuba and North Korea wealthy and prosperous. After all, wouldn't the governments in such nations simply have to inflate the money supply, debase the currency, tax the rich, and increase government spending and debt in order to produce wealth and prosperity?

Liberals are always befuddled over that one. They just never know how to answer it. The reason? Their policies are cockamamie, especially given that liberal policies are precisely why Cuba and North Korea are so poor. They've already done all the things that liberals prescribe -- Social Security, Medicare, public schooling, central bank, paper money, federal spending, military spending, welfare, debt, taxation, etcetera, etcetera. That's why they're poor!

And that's the road the statists have us on -- the road to bankruptcy, the road to impoverishment and, with the inevitable economic crises, ultimately the road to dictatorship. It's the road to the socialist paradises of Cuba and North Korea, right here in the United States, thanks to liberal economic statism.

There is only one way to get off the statist road, and that's libertarianism. The question is: Will a sufficient number of Americans join us in our grand and glorious cause to restore a free, prosperous, peaceful, and harmonious society to our land before it's too late?

http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2011-08-02.asp

Most of Newt Gingrich’s Twitter Followers Are Fake

politics
Most of Newt Gingrich's Twitter Followers Are Fake
By John Cook
Aug 1, 2011 4:05 PM

Yesterday Newt Gingrich laid out a new argument for why he should be the GOP presidential nominee: He's got the most Twitter followers. But according to a former Gingrich staffer, he bought them.

Gingrich complained yesterday that the press is ignoring his prodigious Twitter audience: "I have six times as many Twitter followers as all the other candidates combined, but it didn't count because if it counted I'd still be a candidate; since I can't be a candidate that can't count." Which is true! Gingrich currently boasts 1,325,842 followers, whereas competitors Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann have yet to crack 100,000.

But if Newt is winning the Twitter primary, it's because of voter fraud. A former staffer tells us that his campaign hired a firm to boost his follower count, in part by creating fake accounts en masse:

Newt employs a variety of agencies whose sole purpose is to procure Twitter followers for people who are shallow/insecure/unpopular enough to pay for them. As you might guess, Newt is most decidedly one of the people to which these agencies cater.

About 80 percent of those accounts are inactive or are dummy accounts created by various "follow agencies," another 10 percent are real people who are part of a network of folks who follow others back and are paying for followers themselves (Newt's profile just happens to be a part of these networks because he uses them, although he doesn't follow back), and the remaining 10 percent may, in fact, be real, sentient people who happen to like Newt Gingrich. If you simply scroll through his list of followers you'll see that most of them have odd usernames and no profile photos, which has to do with the fact that they were mass generated. Pathetic, isn't it?

That's quite a different explanation for Gingrich's Twitter popularity than the one offered by this Politico story on the subject: "[I]t's his personal touch: He tweets and manages his Twitter feed himself, his campaign confirmed to POLITICO. All told, he has tweeted 2,611 times in the 29 months since he joined the site."



While it would be impossible to survey all of Gingrich's followers, a cursory glance immediately turned up a few accounts that featured odd names, no personal information, no followers, no posts, and a small follow list. And there's certainly a healthy market out there for buying Twitter followers, either by hiring a company to strategically follow accounts that will follow you back or by paying for dummy accounts. If Gingrich did goose his Twitter numbers, it would help explain why he has, for instance, more than twice as many followers as Sarah Palin, which just doesn't sound right.

The Gingrich campaign didn't respond to a message seeking comment.

UPDATE: A couple folks have pointed to one possible explanation for Gingrich's high follow count -- he is on Twitter's recommended follow list, a privilege that has launched other political accounts to similar heights. But not all -- John Boehner and Sarah Palin are both on the same list as Gingrich, and neither one comes close to approaching his numbers.

[Photo via Getty Images]

http://gawker.com/5826645/most-of-newt-gingrichs-twitter-followers-are-fake

Cruel Laws

Cruel Laws
Walter E. Williams

What does it take to be able to own and operate a taxi and earn $30,000, $40,000 or more a year? You need to purchase a used car and liability insurance. Compared with other businesses, the startup cost to become a taxi owner/operator is modest; that's until you have to come up with money for a license. In May 2010, the price of a license, called a medallion, to own one taxi in New York City sold for $603,000. As referenced in my recent book, "Race and Economics," New York City is not alone. In Chicago, a taxi license costs $56,000, Boston $285,000 and Philadelphia $75,000. It's not rocket science to understand the effect of laws that produce these prices: They discriminate against anyone getting into the taxi business who lacks tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars or bank credit to be able to get a loan.

Suppose you're a trucker with an interstate license to ship goods but you want to expand to shipping goods within your state. Is it fair for the government to permit your competition to show up at your hearing, with their attorneys, to protest that your services are not needed and therefore you are denied what's called a "certificate of necessity," which would allow you to ship goods within the state? Attorney Timothy Sandefur discusses this despicable process in his recent article "CON Job," published by the Cato Institute (summer 2011). "Certificate of necessity" monopolistic restrictions exist across the country, governing a variety of industries, from moving companies and taxicabs to hospitals and car lots. The intention and the effect of these laws is to protect incumbent practitioners from open market competition, enabling them to charge higher prices as a means to higher income.

Interior designing has almost no startup costs. Not so if you want to practice in Florida. State law mandates that anyone who wants to practice interior designing have six years of education and experience, including graduating from a state-approved interior design program and completing an apprenticeship under a state-licensed interior designer.

Then the applicant must pass a state-mandated licensing exam. The sole purpose of the law is to keep the outs out so the ins can charge monopoly prices.

If interior designing is not for you, how about being a tour guide in Philadelphia or Washington, D.C.? Neither city will permit you to be a tour guide without a government-issued license.

In Phoenix, you could earn a living doing something as simple as shaping eyebrows, a safe and common practice known as "eyebrow threading." To do so legally, the Phoenix government requires you to take hundreds of hours of irrelevant training and spend thousands of dollars on classes. None of those classes actually teaches you how to practice eyebrow threading.

One would think that civil rights organizations, leftists and progressives would be fighting the battle for people's rights to earn a living. The fact of business is that they are often on the other side, and it's the Washington, D.C.-based Institute for Justice that has been waging war against entrenched incumbents who use government to protect them from competition. In fact, the Institute for Justice has current court battles against restrictions on tour guides, eyebrow threading and interior designing, as well as several more found at its website ( http://ij.org/economicliberty). The Institute for Justice has had remarkable success in lawsuits, breaking many economic barriers, such as those against hair braiding in Arizona, Minnesota, Mississippi, Ohio and California and taxi restrictions in Denver, Minneapolis, Cincinnati and Indianapolis.

Arbitrary licensing and permitting laws foreclose many occupations that are ideally suited to people of modest means, particularly minorities. Here's my bet: Ask any liberal politician, from the president and the Congressional Black Caucus to civil rights organizations and black local politicians, whether he'd take up the fight to eliminate these barriers to upward mobility. You'll get answers, but they won't be a simple yes. The reason is the ins contribute to their political campaigns and the outs don't.


Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com .

http://www.creators.com/opinion/walter-williams/cruel-laws.html

**JP** A look at the Afghan and US economy - an interesting read

An interesting article on the situation in Afghanistan and  US economy and how both are going in the same direction....Afghanistan is broke and corrupt, and US is defaulting and have nothing left but a total reliance on borrowings. It is time to stop spending trillions on wars and start spending on  its people, as a priority. Finally the democrats are cutting defense budget by some amount but will this do any good while the wars are ongoing?

http://www.economywatch.com/economy-business-and-finance-news/afghanistan-is-broke-us-drowning-in-debt%E2%80%93so-what-about-a-war-ceiling.02-08.html

Pics and toons 8/2/11 (4)

 

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Pics and toons 8/2/11 (3)

 

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Pics and toons 8/2/11 (2)

 

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Pics and toons 8/2/11 (1)

 

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

**JP** How Famous Companies Got Their Names

How Famous Companies Got Their Names

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "JoinPakistan" group.
You all are invited to come and share your information with other group members.
To post to this group, send email to joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com.pk/group/joinpakistan?hl=en?hl=en
You can also visit our blog site : www.joinpakistan.blogspot.com &
on facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-Pakistan/125610937483197