The way we were

Blaming one party for the mess we're in, is like assigning the blame for a failed marriage upon one spouse. Hardly...

If you believe that taking a Trillion dollars from the skin of the public, while creating zero jobs an accomplishment, you're much smarter than I am apparently.

Who's not to say that the voting public wasn't gullible in electing Obama, who had an extremely weak resume for the oval office?

Tea Baggers, ok, what makes you think that Federal Spending is so lean and mean, that it's beyond scrutiny? Our federal budget is incredibly bloated, doesn't take a rocket scientist to clearly see that, does it?

Interesting, maybe telling, that you'd vote for a Republican in this election. Imagine what all these 2-3 yr unemployed folks think about all this? Again, they're aware of massive federal spending, and they cannot even get a full time job as a greeter at Walmart?

What really gets me, is that California, with 12% unemployment, is going to most likely re elect the same group of folks yet again....The definition of insanity...

[quote=BigFirepower]

Blaming one party for the mess we're in, is like assigning the blame for a failed marriage upon one spouse. Hardly...

The repubs controlled the house and Senate from 95 throufh 2007. They controlled the house senate and white house from 2001 through 2008. I've fingered the culprit.

If you believe that taking a Trillion dollars from the skin of the public, while creating zero jobs an accomplishment, you're much smarter than I am apparently.

Show me the money? If you mean the stim packege, much rev neutral and is in tax cuts. In fact 300 billion of the stim pack is in tax cuts. But don't tell any of this to the tea baggers. Appartently having to do math pisses them off. Just easier for them to rant.

Excluding tax cuts from obama the tea baggers are for tax cuts.

Who's not to say that the voting public wasn't gullible in electing Obama, who had an extremely weak resume for the oval office?

The gullibility of the american public can measured by those who think it is realistic that the economy turns on a dime. Just because Sarah Palin beleives that's the way it works doesn't make it so.

Tea Baggers, ok, what makes you think that Federal Spending is so lean and mean, that it's beyond scrutiny? Our federal budget is incredibly bloated, doesn't take a rocket scientist to clearly see that, does it?

I don't think it is lean and mean or should be beyond our scrutiny. But, for my entire adult life it has been beyond scrutiny. Most of that time a repub has been in the white house. No laying that on Obama.

How much of bloated budget is due to Iraq war debt?

Tea baggers want less spending but are clueless on what the actual spending is. The repubs, knowing economies don't turn on a dime are cashing in on the nations' pain because we are still feeling the effects of the crash. Political ads are running on every station that claim the bailouts are the problem. That, though the bailouts are over and proved to be rev neutral. The ads are dishonest. Yet, if the ads work, the dishonest will get into office. That's the type of thinking that got us into  this mess. The repubs are shameless at snookering their own faithful with this bullshit. "Tell em a lie, they're to stupid to figure it out for themselves.' And they are right.

Interesting, maybe telling, that you'd vote for a Republican in this election. Imagine what all these 2-3 yr unemployed folks think about all this? Again, they're aware of massive federal spending, and they cannot even get a full time job as a greeter at Walmart?

What massive fed spending? please expain in detail, including if spending will be money good at end.

What really gets me, is that California, with 12% unemployment, is going to most likely re elect the same group of folks yet again....The definition of insanity...

The problem in california is that the major repub candidates laid off a lot of people in their past lives as corp chieftains. That's just doesn't sit well. On a positive note for Californians, the Giants got past the Phillies. Californians should bask in that victory in the short time before they get crushed by Texas.   

[/quote]

Wow BG, where to start? "The problem in California is that the major repub candidates laid off a lot of people in their past lives as corp chieftans" Are you serious?! I have family in California and I have spent a significant amount of time in that state and I can tell you that your statement doesn't even register on the scale when one is trying to determine the problems in California. California is a liberal test lab that is in meltdown. Here's a few for you: onerous taxes and regulation compared to other states, rampant spending (if spending were to be adjusted for population increases and inflation from the late 70's when prop 13 was passed the state would be running a surplus), and generous public employee pension benefits. Servicing the pensions and health benefits for a bloated public sector in California is going to eat up increasingly large amounts of the California state budget. You've got 3 police forces in San Diego: the current force, the one that just retired, and the one that retired before that. The pension benefits many of these middle-class employees receive are the equivalent of a worker in their mid 50's having a 1mm retirement plan.  This is unsustainable. Finally, my liberal friend, the story that ices the cake is what is happening with the water situation in the state. Farmers in the central valley are being devestated as water supplies are being cut off to save the poor delta smelt. Yes, the delta smelt, an unedible, ugly fish that is about as long as your middle finger.

Bond Guy, if you take the most liberal voting cities in the USA, then look at their economies, quality of life, you see murder and mayhem simply rule the day. Fine, blame all the white folk for leaving places like Detroit, Philly, what have you, but those places HAVE INDEED been run into the ground by liberals. But hey, to each his own, and if it is any satisfaction to you, the liberals are winning the war on america. Pretty soon, we'll be just one big socialist happy family...

[quote=BigFirepower]

Bond Guy, if you take the most liberal voting cities in the USA, then look at their economies, quality of life, you see murder and mayhem simply rule the day. Fine, blame all the white folk for leaving places like Detroit, Philly, what have you, but those places HAVE INDEED been run into the ground by liberals. But hey, to each his own, and if it is any satisfaction to you, the liberals are winning the war on america. Pretty soon, we'll be just one big socialist happy family...

[/quote]

Big, you didn't answer the question: Show me the money? You can't go around complaining about government spending without understanding just what is government spending. Well, that is unless you're a tea party candidate trying to get elected and your core voter is as dumb as you are.

Philadelphia has been run into the ground? Are you on drugs? Didn't you watch the Phillies eat it in the NLCS? Looking at that new stadium in Philadelphia, just how run into the ground did Philly look? Philly has the fourth highest GDP of any american city, behind NYC, LA, and Chicago. And, while race may be an issue for you it's not an issue in Philly where there has been no 'White Flight."

Big, where did you get this misinformation? Please tell me you are smarter than this.

Oh, and BTW, Philly's budget, balanced! And, balanced by a tough as nails black democrat mayor! Go figure!

I'm not into this politics talk generally speaking, not here anyways. I'm here to discuss RR issues. It's the "as dumb as you are" type stuff I can do without.

Come on Bond Guy, don't resort to that stuff.

Anyways, enough politics...

[quote=FA86]

Wow BG, where to start? "The problem in California is that the major repub candidates laid off a lot of people in their past lives as corp chieftans" Are you serious?! I have family in California and I have spent a significant amount of time in that state and I can tell you that your statement doesn't even register on the scale when one is trying to determine the problems in California. California is a liberal test lab that is in meltdown. Here's a few for you: onerous taxes and regulation compared to other states, rampant spending (if spending were to be adjusted for population increases and inflation from the late 70's when prop 13 was passed the state would be running a surplus), and generous public employee pension benefits. Servicing the pensions and health benefits for a bloated public sector in California is going to eat up increasingly large amounts of the California state budget. You've got 3 police forces in San Diego: the current force, the one that just retired, and the one that retired before that. The pension benefits many of these middle-class employees receive are the equivalent of a worker in their mid 50's having a 1mm retirement plan.  This is unsustainable. Finally, my liberal friend, the story that ices the cake is what is happening with the water situation in the state. Farmers in the central valley are being devestated as water supplies are being cut off to save the poor delta smelt. Yes, the delta smelt, an unedible, ugly fish that is about as long as your middle finger.

[/quote]

The Delta Smelt is an indicator speicies. Look it up. How the fish looks and it's size have nothing to do with the factors surrounding it's survival. Past that, california's problems, which i will agree are many, are not purely the making of liberal democratic lawmakers. That the repub drumbeat of "look at this mess" isn't working in california shouldn't surprise anyone. The electoriate is well educated and things have been a mess for a long time. So, less inclined to buy the lie. On top of that my point sits that rich woman who lay people off and get bonuses to do so isn't going to sit well in a state with 12% unemployment.

You're attacking the least potent argument I make. And yes, California's problems - which can take bipartisan credit - are largely the result of a rubber stamp legislature and governorship. Take the parties out of it and it becomes more simple. Excessive spending and very poor assumptions made over the past few decades have made California a mess. It just so happens that the Republicans have got religion (i.e. are now self-proclaimed budget-hawks). I'll vote for that religion every time. The point of a well-educated electorate means nothing. Fact of the matter is California is a cesspool. I love many things about the state but at this point would not dream of moving my wife and I back there given the political/economic climate.

[quote=BigFirepower]

I'm not into this politics talk generally speaking, not here anyways. I'm here to discuss RR issues. It's the "as dumb as you are" type stuff I can do without.

Come on Bond Guy, don't resort to that stuff.

Anyways, enough politics...

[/quote]

Big, i don't think you are dumb. I view you as a positive contributor. That said, for a guy who doesn't want to talk politics, you responded to a purely politcal thread.

Follow me here, and i'll explain dumb:

We, as in most financail advisors had a front row seat to the debacle two years ago. This special seating gave us a below deck look at the real damage done to the bond and credit markets. That view afforded us a view of reality that wasn't taking place top side in first class. While those people were vaguely aware of a problem they were not aware of how critically stricken we were. To top that off,  they were being told that those who knew the truth, that the ship was going to sink in very short order, were chicken littles. But, down in the bowls of the ship, we saw the damage and knew the truth. We knew past a miracle we were done! Life as we knew it was over. For that reason there are few advisors who will deny that the bailouts and stimulous were needed.

AS we move along the time line, low and behold, the bailouts worked! As it turns out they are largely revenue neutral, or close enough. Stimulous in the form of tax breaks, and credits have helped keep the economy from a full blown depression. Other stimulous has saved an estimated 1,000,000 jobs, which in turn pumps the economy. Taken in total, the stim package with bailout included have saved our collective butts from a lot of misery. And, they have turned out to be almost revenue neutral.

Again we move along the time line. We are in a deep recession or just climbing out of one. The nation is in pain. High unemployment, shuttered businesses, foreclosure nightmare. Lots of pain. Again, as students of economics, we as advisors know that economies don't turn on a dime, and don't heal over night. it can take two years to recover from a moderate recession. Deep recession could take four, five, or more years. We know this, as does every student of economics.

Move further along the time line. What is the messege of almost every tea party and republican attack ad? The messege is all the wastefull spending going on in Washington. The messege is the stimulous package IS the problem. The bailouts are the reason for the pain. Just listen to those ads. The Repubs and Tea Partiers have demonized the very programs that saved our butts. They've taken a positive and turned it into a negative. The people who voted for these programs did the right thing. Now, they are characterized as hurting us. The people who did the right thing and saved this country are going to get voted out of office. That's not right. These ads are lies. They are dishonest.

Ok, gee, a dishonest politcal ad, dah!  What's the big deal? The big deal is this: Most advertising plays on human nature. That is, the trusting nature of most people to give you the benefit of a doubt. You say you won't raise taxes, OK,  i'll trust you at your word here's my vote. However, this year's crop of ads is different. How? They are playing on the uniformed non thinking way of the target audience. They are playing on the fact  most of their audience accepts their version of reality and why there is so much pain today. They know that most of their audience isn't paying attention and isn't thinking for themselves. it's a" we know the truth, but they don't, so the truth is what ever we tell them it is." And, the truth they are telling is a lie.

If you doubt this, when you hear the next attack ad today demonizing the bailouts and stimulous ask yourself this question: Who is the intended audience for that ad? Certainly not those who think for themselves. Certainly not the informed who saw life as they knew it pass before their eyes two years ago and know the truth. Who does that leave?

So, instead of counting on the good side of human nature to carry them to office, they are counting on their audience remaining a nation of sheep. They are playing on their stupidity. Regardless of your politcal leanings, that's just wrong.

[quote=FA86]

You're attacking the least potent argument I make. And yes, California's problems - which can take bipartisan credit - are largely the result of a rubber stamp legislature and governorship. Take the parties out of it and it becomes more simple. Excessive spending and very poor assumptions made over the past few decades have made California a mess. It just so happens that the Republicans have got religion (i.e. are now self-proclaimed budget-hawks). I'll vote for that religion every time. The point of a well-educated electorate means nothing. Fact of the matter is California is a cesspool. I love many things about the state but at this point would not dream of moving my wife and I back there given the political/economic climate.

[/quote]

Being a budget hawk is the next new new thing. it's what's selling these days in the political marketplace. In my state it's the same messege. Yet, considering the repubs played at least an equal roll in my state for creating the budget probelm only those born yesterday are buying into that message.

We;'ve got the same probelms, pensions killing us, out of control state employee unions etc. To top it off we get to throw several billion down the toilet every year on a failed education plan. The state tried to back out and the courts said no. Taken together this gives us the highest property taxes in the nation. So, when it comes to waste cry me a river! Been there, done that, got the T shirt.

My original answer to you goes to why a rich, and well funded repub may not get the nod.

BG, when you call someone dumb, you willingly give up your moral gravity.

Any party or discussion that ignores the fact that we are broke - is wasting precious energy.

The political establishment is about directing power and living in the big house. It will be positively influenced by the Tea Party, which will itself become corrupted by power and money.

Real wealth comes from empathy for others and doing a responsible job taking care of the people around you.

BG, since you are wealthy, you cannot separate the observer and the observed. Only poverty would give you objectivity. You can't "win" the debate. Your dog in the fight looks more like the Bill Gates foundation, which is itself distorting some private private economies. There is no end to the causality of big government, big business, big politics, big media, overpopulation ... conservative economics just gives us a little more dignity. Watch California melt down, and you'll see some real low class "liberal" "caring" behaviors - this is going to get ugly.

[quote=BondGuy]

[/quote]

AS we move along the time line, low and behold, the bailouts worked! As it turns out they are largely revenue neutral, or close enough. Stimulous in the form of tax breaks, and credits have helped keep the economy from a full blown depression. Other stimulous has saved an estimated 1,000,000 jobs, which in turn pumps the economy. Taken in total, the stim package with bailout included have saved our collective butts from a lot of misery. And, they have turned out to be almost revenue neutral.

[/quote]

BondGuy, don't believe the Fed's line about them making money on the bailout and how it didn't "cost" anything. You know better than that. Of course it cost a ton, otherwise the Fed wouldn't being hiding the details of the purchases and gifts to Wall Street firms and banks.

Here's a VERY interesting article that'll take you to Bloomberg News http://www.businessinsider.com/banks-fed-appeal-document-release-high-court-bailout-2010-10.  Remember, Bloomberg sued the Fed under an FOIA request, wanting to know what the Fed paid for those MBS assets and all as part of the bailout. - This is the Fed saying a big F-You to Bloomberg and to the American public.

It's easy to make up results (the bailout didn't cost anything) when there is no transparency, or honesty.

I'd be called a skeptic, except the things I'm skeptical about being crooked, are.

[quote=BBQ]

[quote=BondGuy]

[/quote]

AS we move along the time line, low and behold, the bailouts worked! As it turns out they are largely revenue neutral, or close enough. Stimulous in the form of tax breaks, and credits have helped keep the economy from a full blown depression. Other stimulous has saved an estimated 1,000,000 jobs, which in turn pumps the economy. Taken in total, the stim package with bailout included have saved our collective butts from a lot of misery. And, they have turned out to be almost revenue neutral.

[/quote]

BondGuy, don't believe the Fed's line about them making money on the bailout and how it didn't "cost" anything. You know better than that. Of course it cost a ton, otherwise the Fed wouldn't being hiding the details of the purchases and gifts to Wall Street firms and banks.

Here's a VERY interesting article that'll take you to Bloomberg News http://www.businessinsider.com/banks-fed-appeal-document-release-high-court-bailout-2010-10.  Remember, Bloomberg sued the Fed under an FOIA request, wanting to know what the Fed paid for those MBS assets and all as part of the bailout. - This is the Fed saying a big F-You to Bloomberg and to the American public.

It's easy to make up results (the bailout didn't cost anything) when there is no transparency, or honesty.

I'd be called a skeptic, except the things I'm skeptical about being crooked, are.

[/quote]

The total cost of the bailouts is about 60 billion. That's with a some money still on the streets. The lawsuit is about the mechanics of the bailouts, who got what, when, not the total cost.

The point is the bailouts saved us from a depression. The people in office who did the right thing and voted for the bailouts are now going to get voted out based on a lie. How does that sit with you? Those who will replace them will be there because they misled their core supporters. How's that sit with you?

That being the case, i don't blame you for being a skeptic.

BG - I agree with most of what you said about the bailouts/stimulus.  They were necessary and the people who voted for them did the right thing.  Mostly. 

I typically find myself agreeing in theory to most of what the Tea Party stands for, but I find myself recently getting frustrated that their arguments, like that of Glenn Beck and Fox News, are so blatantly one sided.  I think it's a dangerous thing to have one party in control of everything.  We just keep swinging that pendulum too far back and forth for my tastes. 

With that said, I believe you are incorrect in your assumption that the people who voted for the stimulus need to stay in office.  It's not just the stimulus bills that upset the average Tea Party or conservative voter.  It's the billions upon billions of dollars spent in ways that they think the federal government really shouldn't be spending money.  Their views are that the federal government should be limited in scope.  They want the power to go back to the individual states and local governments.  Why is it the federal government's job to make sure that we all have health care?  Why is it the federal government's job to make sure there is clean energy?  Why is it the federal government's job to make sure there's a chicken in every pot?  The constitution gives very limited authority to the Congress and even less to the Senate.  We've gotten well past that limited authority. 

It seems to me that the folks in Washington right now aren't really concerned about what the federal government's job really should be.  They're concerned with trying to make sure that more and more people are sucking at the federal teat and making sure that those people believe that the only place they can go for "help" is back to that federal teat.  And whose money are they using to "help" those folks? 

That's what pisses off so many Tea Party and conservative voters.  The current legislators don't have a clue how much money they're spending,  where it's coming from, or in the end where it's going.  The only recourse they have is to vote out those people who they perceive as guilty, whether by association or not, and vote in those candidates who they believe have the country's best interest at heart.  Time will tell whether they voted correctly or not. 

The Republicans who voted for it probably won't get voted out.

Space - that's a good post. And, i agree with much about what you're saying regarding DC's spending. The problem is, the hole we now find ourselves in took almost a decade to dig. Most of that hole was dug by the republican controlled house, senate, and white house. In fact very little has been dug by the current congress. They didn't create the problem. Yet, they are getting the blame.

 The  cry from the Tea Party is decidedly partisan. Only the dems are to blame. You point to Beck as one example.  Of course, the TP had to target some repubs earlier in the year to gain access to the national election. You will note they didn't target any dems in the primarys. That's because the dems are at the center of their bullseye.

The reason the dems are center of the target  is that this election isn't about money/spending/deficits or anything else. It's about power. Republican power. The means to an end- cashing in the nation's pain by fraudulently  framing the bailouts and stimulous AS the root of the problem. They are hitting the hot button in peoples lives and selling them a bag of lies.

The TP is playing the public like they're suckers. Glen Beck is one of the master manipulators.

And, it's working.

The liars will in control in January 2011. How does that make you feel about the direction of the country? People who played you for a mope running the country?

Regardless of whether you believe the dems should stay in power or not, that should give you pause.

Well, in the end, we have elections. Unfortunately, who knows how honest these elections will be.

Illinois is trying to screw overseas military ballots, the SEIU is in charge of voting machines in Nevada, a relative of Reid is in charge of elections, his name seems to be a default when voters show up, in other places the ballot is popping up straight dem ticket, and then of course we have the Dems doing everything possible to deter laws that require voters show ID or prove citizenship...

I'd love to see a liberal spin the last part. How on earth can any honest person be opposed to voters proving that they are eligible to vote?? I have to show ID to buy alcohol or tobacco, but in most places it is ILLEGAL to ask for id or proof of citizenship.

America has seen the true Democrat party, just like they did under Jimmy Carter. Democrats are essentially Euro type Socialists, that believe no problem cannot be solved without the heavy hand of the Federal Government. Well, sometimes folks need to be reminded, and now they have. So, the party of lesser evil will be voted back into power, and the GOP gets a chance to redeem themselves. The GOP needs to address illegal aliens, vote fraud, and ensure that America allows its own citizens the ability to create and grow small business. 

The GOP will not take the Senate, there simply aren't enough contests being run. But they should pick up a majority of Gov offices, and the House of reps. Several states should swing hard right. No matter how successful the GOP is on Tuesday, you can be 100% sure that it will be spun as some sort of loss by the big media.  

It may be comforting for you to keep the debate focused on the right-left dynamic, but the real issues are things like entitlements, debt, regulations and the obstacles to innovation (for example, change in education in the public schools).

Tea Partiers are sick of corruption, big government, sending tax money to government union pension funds, obstacles to expanding small business.

You keep trying to define the playing field in terms of traditional politics, but there is a fundamental shift and resentment about things like: government jobs can pay better than private (if you can even get a private sector job), taxes are a huge percentage of gross income ( property taxes too high as a percentage of mortgage payments), it costs too much to add another employee, personal health care premiums just increased 18%, with another huge increase slated for January, in response to the new requirements.

These considerations are far removed from the sheltered luxury of your comfortable Wall Street financed magnanimous perch. You don't really know what's going on out in the trenches, you come off as being sheltered and aloof, like O's army of overeducated and soft handed theorists. You like to argue the details, and ignore the hard facts like: people need to work longer, government unions need to take pension cuts, the private sector needs to increase while the public decreases,  health care costs need to be controlled by allowing more private competition and reducing entitlements ( not popular with broke baby boomers).

Times7, very well stated. 

Our country needs to head into the direction of less regulation, less nanny state, smaller government. Good Americans are tired of picking up the tab when it comes to pitiful Americans that don't work, criminals, do drugs, no taxes, live irresponsible lives. This new Healthcare Government Take Over, is basically the biggest federal heist of all time, in the history of the world.  Unchallenged, it will make our health care WORSE, and bankrupt us even faster than what we're doing right now. The UK has just cut substantially into their Federal Budget, it's high time we do this as well.

In fact, BG,  you bear responsibility for the fact that millions of American children are hungry. It is a combination of your failed Great Society programs and selfish wealth accumulation from Wall Street that brings us to our knees. If you had focused on one or the other, maybe you would really have something interesting to say to the group.

Exactly, big fire. This thing is still playing out. At precisely the time when America has promoted free trade, labor immigration, Bush tax cuts and such, she chokes. ( Selfish baby boomers who did not save jockeying for position with their hands held out to Uncle Sam.)

And then libs like BG start to do a slow about-face, reluctantly voting for the fiscal conservative candidate to try a new strategy. If you don't believe in yourself first and the markets, why in the heck are you making a living selling debt? This is the pinnacle of hypocrisy. Barney Frank is the poster boy for this liberal hypocrisy. Bush is the poster boy for the old school corporate status quo. Things have gotta change, don't make fun of the messengers.

I visited some young students at a Big Ten college this week. I can assure you, the next big wave of enthusiasm will be young people saying "no" to the entitlement borrowing and false charity of the baby boomers.

Watch California melt down. I'm sorry, this is not what I want to be talking and thinking about.

Here are your Goldman Sachs progressive Bond Guys, now trying to justify their own wealth through "charity" and good works. I'm all for redemption, but first you have to confess and come clean.

 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/16/goldman-sachs-fraud-expla_n_540938.html

[quote=Times7]

In fact, BG,  you bear responsibility for the fact that millions of American children are hungry. It is a combination of your failed Great Society programs and selfish wealth accumulation from Wall Street that brings us to our knees. If you had focused on one or the other, maybe you would really have something interesting to say to the group.

[/quote]

Dude, have you ever stopped to smell your own bullshit?

Stop talking - start showing links please! Show us the failed great society programs. Show is the liberal spending that has brought us to our knees. Less than ten years ago Clinton handed the repubs a budget surplus. No failed policies on that day in 2001. The hole we find ourselves in was dug by republican shovels.

By the way, what's the deal with you, just troll with a whacked out point of view?

BG, if you want to have a discussion, ok, but you need to lay off the heavy handed tactics. Of course, World history shows, that when liberals take power, freedom of speech tends to go out the window, right around the time gun rights are gone too.... I can send links, but I'm sure you're familiar with German, Russian, Cuban, Venezuelan, and Cambodian politics.

BG, you talk about Federal spending cuts, in only one department, defense. Well, Roosevelt did the same thing, and at Pearl Harbor, Denmark had a larger army than the USA. I'd agree that defense spending needs to be reduced, but not at the comprimise of national defense. But, at the same time, if govt cannot get itself out of 70% of the economy, then that speaks to a larger issue. The govt has become a living, breathing, and EATING entity, truly,....a beast.  

[quote=BigFirepower]

Times7, very well stated. 

Our country needs to head into the direction of less regulation, less nanny state, smaller government. Good Americans are tired of picking up the tab when it comes to pitiful Americans that don't work, criminals, do drugs, no taxes, live irresponsible lives. This new Healthcare Government Take Over, is basically the biggest federal heist of all time, in the history of the world.  Unchallenged, it will make our health care WORSE, and bankrupt us even faster than what we're doing right now. The UK has just cut substantially into their Federal Budget, it's high time we do this as well.

[/quote]

Big ,didn't you say you didn't want to talk politics? What you really meant was you don't know what you are talking about, can't back up statements you've mimicked off the local Tea Party website, and are just as clueless as the rest of the tea party followers. That and you want the dems out and you don't care how that happens.

To be against  healthcare you'd have to really understand how it works. Which, I'm sure you don't. But, benefit of a doubt, care to explain how the healthcare plan is the biggest federal heist of all time? Big, that's your cue to come back and say you don't want to talk politics.

Bond Guy, I'm sure it makes you feel better to call me an uninformed idiot, but I can assure you, that if I wanted to back up every statement I make, I could source the issues.

Would you like me to detail Hillary Clinton's pork belly futures trading for you?

Would you like me to explain how the UST shut down 30 yr bonds, for the benefit of the deficit, playing games, then letting GS profit from it?

I mean, we can have a real field day if you'd like? And how about my claims of vote fraud, care to debate that?

Or, maybe we'll just let the election do the talking, and we get back to biz?

Peace guy, I have all sorts of liberal friends, I can handle it.  

[quote=BigFirepower]

Bond Guy, I'm sure it makes you feel better to call me an uninformed idiot, but I can assure you, that if I wanted to back up every statement I make, I could source the issues.

Would you like me to detail Hillary Clinton's pork belly futures trading for you?

Would you like me to explain how the UST shut down 30 yr bonds, for the benefit of the deficit, playing games, then letting GS profit from it?

I mean, we can have a real field day if you'd like? And how about my claims of vote fraud, care to debate that?

Or, maybe we'll just let the election do the talking, and we get back to biz?

Peace guy, I have all sorts of liberal friends, I can handle it.  

[/quote]

No, you don't have to back up any of that, only the false claims you've made here earlier. Or, you can run and hide again and say, "I'm not into politics and don't want to talk about it."

The point of this thread is the dishonest nature of this election, of folks being intentionally mislead. You among them. But, apparently OK with you as long as the dems lose. Which surprises me. One of the tea Party's whacko claims is that the dems are practicing Marxism. And here you are, Ok with the lies. The end justifies the means, eh Big? Wow, that's irony! And, entertaining that you don't get it!

Dude, let's talk about the Goldman progressives. You and I sell securites and make a good living.

You try to serve two masters: Wall Street and a progressive agenda. I serve Wall Street and the elimination of big government.

No one is saying that we don't need liquidity in the system, but if you are going to sit here and make a living pitching debt while U.S. debt spirals out of control, AND be a hypocrite by blaming this party or that, you're just diverting attention away from the little man behind the curtain.

In terms of Goldman, "Bond Guy", you are that little man, with a lot of good friends in the White House and our Congress. And a big bank account full of bonds, I'll bet.

The world has changed, and you know it. I was around during the high tech boom of the 90's, you can sit here and talk about the good old days of Clinton ( for whom I voted ) - or you can at least quit trying to appease your guilt on a capitalist forum. Sheeesh. You're trying to rub everyone's nose in your dog's ka ka. We can all take credit for this mess, time to move forward and punish corruption! Can't wait for next week, but those Republicans need to repent and get capitalism, which can finally help those hungry kids in our own country.

BG do you ever stop to smell your own BS? I would have thought you could have seen past the whole "Bush inherited a surplus from Clinton and look what he did" argument. The assumptions and projections the CBO made were ridiculous at the turn of the century. We had a great 90's economy driven by a tremendous amount of innovation in the IT sector which had a profound impact throughout the broader economy. The same apes that tell you, "Well, Obama only wants to go back to Clinton era tax levels, what's wrong with that?" are the same ones who believe that Bush pissed away a golden decade of budget surpluses. Correlation does not imply causation. The argument "We had higher taxes and a stronger economy, therefore we need to raise taxes" is one for economic neophytes. Here's a link with more on the Clinton "surpluses" : http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

BG, I think it's high time for a National Review and/or Weekly Standard subscription. I'd gladly sponsor it. Some good economic reads can be found in their pages.

Oh, and BG, I agree with the aim of this thread. There is quite a bit of deception going on in the political ads. It happens every election and both parties do it. It's up to the voter to understand the issue. "Wall Street" and free trade are being excorciated this election. Heck, to the point where I've pondered how I can dress up as "Wall Street" for Halloween. The Republican gubernatorial candidate in my state worked for Lehman Brothers in our capital and his opponent is laying the blame squarely at his and Lehman's feet for the recession.

[quote=Times7]

Dude, let's talk about the Goldman progressives. You and I sell securites and make a good living.

Except your a troll and have never sold a security

You try to serve two masters: Wall Street and a progressive agenda. I serve Wall Street and the elimination of big government.

See above

No one is saying that we don't need liquidity in the system, but if you are going to sit here and make a living pitching debt while U.S. debt spirals out of control, AND be a hypocrite by blaming this party or that, you're just diverting attention away from the little man behind the curtain.

I'M STANDING DOWN WIND OF THIS, AND IT REALLY DOESN'T SMELL GOOD.

In terms of Goldman, "Bond Guy", you are that little man, with a lot of good friends in the White House and our Congress. And a big bank account full of bonds, I'll bet.

Dude, what's with the hard-on against Goldman? Let me guest they snookered you out of some money because they are smarter than you are?

Oh, and BTW, is this the first Whitehouse to have friends on Wall Street?

The world has changed, and you know it. I was around during the high tech boom of the 90's, you can sit here and talk about the good old days of Clinton ( for whom I voted ) - or you can at least quit trying to appease your guilt on a capitalist forum. Sheeesh. You're trying to rub everyone's nose in your dog's ka ka. We can all take credit for this mess, time to move forward and punish corruption! Can't wait for next week, but those Republicans need to repent and get capitalism, which can finally help those hungry kids in our own country.

Is there anyone you support?

[/quote]

[quote=FA86]

Oh, and BG, I agree with the aim of this thread. There is quite a bit of deception going on in the political ads. It happens every election and both parties do it. It's up to the voter to understand the issue. "Wall Street" and free trade are being excorciated this election. Heck, to the point where I've pondered how I can dress up as "Wall Street" for Halloween. The Republican gubernatorial candidate in my state worked for Lehman Brothers in our capital and his opponent is laying the blame squarely at his and Lehman's feet for the recession.

[/quote]

Dressing as Wall Street for Halloween?

That would be scary!

As for the deception, it's not the run of the mill campaign "tell'em what they want to hear." And, while i agree it is up to the voter to understand the issues, when was the last time that happened?

In this election the repubs running the false ads regarding bailout/stim are in one of two camps. They either don't understand the economic implications of those programs or they do. So, when elected we either get an uniformed boob or a liar .  Show me how we win?

At the same time we get the same party that ran up the bill over the past decade back in controll of one house. Again, The Way We Were.

And, ironically, the repub tea partiers are pointing at the Obama admin chanting Marxist! This while they themselves purposely practice "the end justifies the means" to distort the truth to win office.  They really don't get that, that's what they are doing. Again, people get upset when i call people stupid, but what else could you call it? I do find that aspect entertaining.

In true lib form, your last resort is personal attacks. You are a Goldman progressive and I can understand why you are trying to defend the status quo, because it has treated you very, very well.

You get on here and pick a fight with RRs ( don't need to prove that to you, but I can say I understand how wrap fees run through admin fees and payout grids as well as the next guy, and moving stuff to wrap because 12b1s may go away and you can borrow money from yourself in that VUL after the tenth year at zero interest, long duration bonds are going to get hammered as inflation kicks in from the printing and borrowing, Fed getting ready to put more inflationary cash out there next week by buying our own debt, don't try to assasinate me on cred, dude.)

I'm just pointing out your conflict of interest, and the fact that you call Tea partiers stupid is "laughable".

But not really, you just p*ss me off. Most of America is more like Sarah Palin than your little cozy fake bond world of printing debt and bailing it out. You don't really understand liquidity, and it's time for you to stop being such a tool.

Your game of raising the credibility of those who challenge your status quo is coming to a close, and now the hard work begins. This is not going to be fun for anyone, I think you trivialize the business and mock our profession with attacks on the cred of folks who want to bring in a third viewpoint. I'm going to guess that you're not as smart as you think, or you are just addicted to adrenaline.

You're not even honest with how you feel, you say Tea Partiers are entertaining, but really they threaten you and your world.

I would agree that both sides are acting in a ridiculous fashion, ends justifies the means and such. Seriously, I grew up in the time of hippies and gurus, tell me folks didn't get swept away by this BSer from Chicago. Sellout.

You don't really care, as long as your little pile is protected. Like Bill Gates, you feel guilty and want to distort the economy more with your charity. Don't act like a hypocrite, and attack other people's ideas for change, which really just take us back to good old American capitalism. Party's over, little man behind the curtain.

BG, I agree with you on the bailout/TARP issues. It sells well to call them bailouts for fat cat bankers but either party will use it if they can play it to their advantage. Our federal government is a torpid, sprawling octupus of bureaucracy that, well, is run like a government. I won't say tea partiers or Repubs have all the answers but I like to think that they are the ones with the ideas that will at least attempt at restoring sanity to our budget/entitlement nightmare. A lot of us on the right are pretty serious about sound fiscal policy and are extremely disappointed with Bush and his congress for abandoning the principles of fiscal restraint. Never again is our rallying cry - only time will tell if it holds true.

Dude, what's with the hard-on against Goldman? Let me guest they snookered you out of some money because they are smarter than you are?

This is for the other RRs here: As a small main street shop, I kept money in straight securities the whole time, that's what my clients pay me for, to be smart with their money.

You can allow Goldman to create CDOs and fail, but you can't bail them out. No more friends in the White House. We've always been smarter than that, now we're paying attention. Party's over.

[quote=FA86]

BG, I agree with you on the bailout/TARP issues. It sells well to call them bailouts for fat cat bankers but either party will use it if they can play it to their advantage. Our federal government is a torpid, sprawling octupus of bureaucracy that, well, is run like a government. I won't say tea partiers or Repubs have all the answers but I like to think that they are the ones with the ideas that will at least attempt at restoring sanity to our budget/entitlement nightmare. A lot of us on the right are pretty serious about sound fiscal policy and are extremely disappointed with Bush and his congress for abandoning the principles of fiscal restraint. Never again is our rallying cry - only time will tell if it holds true.

[/quote]

You lost me here.

The tea partiers won't do anything to change a thing. It's not about money, it's about power. Their entire campaign is a sham. Haven't you been paying attention? That's the point of this thread.

That, and a tea partier with an idea? Come'on, you can't be serious. Their central plank is rage, not new ideas.

Hang on man...I'm not saying I march with the tea party but I will say that Angle and O'Donnell aren't representative of everyone running that is associated with the tea party movement. I think you are misreading the tea party and their sympathizers. Based on what I've been able to glean it is a movement predicated on the fact that spending is out of control. Scoff all you want but guys like Paul Ryan and Chris Christie are in fact actually doing something about it. Christie in action and Ryan is trying to start the conversation. I disagree with you on the power grab. Sure the power attracts people but it attracts candidates regardless of political stripe. That said, I want people in positions of power who are at least willing to have a discussion about spending rather than sweep it under the rug.

[quote=Times7]

Dude, what's with the hard-on against Goldman? Let me guest they snookered you out of some money because they are smarter than you are?

This is for the other RRs here: As a small main street shop, I kept money in straight securities the whole time, that's what my clients pay me for, to be smart with their money.

You can allow Goldman to create CDOs and fail, but you can't bail them out. No more friends in the White House. We've always been smarter than that, now we're paying attention. Party's over.

[/quote]

OK poser, like you said, party's over. Care to explain Goldman's need for a CDO induced bailout?

Before you waste your time surfing the web for back up, let me save you the time - you won't find anything. Well, that is, anything factual. I am guessing that there is chapter and verse from the anti wall street TP faction.

I suggest you come back and tell us you don't want to discuss politics. And, in your case add finance to that. Obviously you don't understand  Goldman, the role they played as the mortgage debacle unfolded, or their lack of need of a bailout.  

While you say your clients pay you to be smart with their money how can you do that if you don't understand the cause of the greatest market crash in modern history? You blame Goldman?

Ok, i'll be nice and say that you are either uniformed or misinformed. Question is -Why?

BG, I find it pretty funny that the Tea Party is such angst for the big govt, and its supporters. Here is a loose knit group of concerned citizens that rail against big govt, and have put a target on the backs of Dems AND Republicans. The TP is real, and I think it's exactly what the country needs, a bunch of outsiders that have never been involved with politics. If we could just get term limits, we could rid ourselves of this eternal political corruption by BOTH parties. 

Seriously, I hate to break it to you, but the Democrat party is SOCIALIST. Arguing that, is frankly a waste of my time, it's obvious to... just about everyone.

It's time for "Don't Tread On Me" to actually mean something!

Democrat party is socialist; That's why they issued TARP back in....oh wait!

*cartwheels out of topic*

[quote=BigFirepower]

BG, I find it pretty funny that the Tea Party is such angst for the big govt, and its supporters. Here is a loose knit group of concerned citizens that rail against big govt, and have put a target on the backs of Dems AND Republicans. The TP is real, and I think it's exactly what the country needs, a bunch of outsiders that have never been involved with politics. If we could just get term limits, we could rid ourselves of this eternal political corruption by BOTH parties. 

Seriously, I hate to break it to you, but the Democrat party is SOCIALIST. Arguing that, is frankly a waste of my time, it's obvious to... just about everyone.

It's time for "Don't Tread On Me" to actually mean something!

[/quote]

Big, why do you keep coming back? This is a political discusion, you know, something you don't like to do.

That you think that the Tea Party is group of ordinary concerned citizens is, ah, quaint.  See, i was nice there even though you need to look up the players behind the TP movement.

I'll admit that i'm not a tea party expert, even though i seem to know more about them than you do. From what i can see every single Tea Party candidate is a liar trying to gain office by getting over on their core supporters. Again, a messege of this thread.

You can defend the liars all you want, though i question why you would do so. I don't need you or anyone else to try to explain away what I'm seeing with my own eyes. When you speak of the Tea Party candidates you speak in such virtuous terms. 'These are good people with a good cause." Yet lie after lie after lie inudates the airwaves.

[quote=FA86]

Hang on man...I'm not saying I march with the tea party but I will say that Angle and O'Donnell aren't representative of everyone running that is associated with the tea party movement. I think you are misreading the tea party and their sympathizers. Based on what I've been able to glean it is a movement predicated on the fact that spending is out of control. Scoff all you want but guys like Paul Ryan and Chris Christie are in fact actually doing something about it. Christie in action and Ryan is trying to start the conversation. I disagree with you on the power grab. Sure the power attracts people but it attracts candidates regardless of political stripe. That said, I want people in positions of power who are at least willing to have a discussion about spending rather than sweep it under the rug.

[/quote]

Christie is gov of my state and i voted for him. High marks for taking on the teachers union and killing the xanadu tunnel project. Low marks for costing us 400 mil in fed education dollars for no better reason than his ego. In the end he's a buffoon.

The tea party movment isn't grass roots. It's well funded by some rich business people who want Obama and his crew out. Thus, this isn't about money/spending/ out of control govt. Those are only the hot buttons to get elected. It's about power.

You look at their ads and even though you want them to win, you know the ads are lies. Yet, you are hanging your hat on these people to change DC?

Nothing will change. If DC is filled with liars today, we are electing nothing but a new crop. New day, new lie. Yet, this lie you believe?

then there is this, the bailouts were needed. If only to unlock the credit markets to avoid a complete capsize. the bailouts saved our butts from a massive depression or even possibly a total collapse of our country. this is no chicken little bullshit. if you were close enough to see the damage, you know this is truth. That said, these "it's a new day anti bailout tea partiers" get into office- what happens next time we need to be bailed out?

I could care less about all the lunatic ranting from these people. it's the damage they'll do the next time we need leaders to do the right thing.

BG, sure, every single tea party person is a criminal thug, racist, wife beating, child raping, murderer... What, because Olberman tells you so?

BG, I'll come back as often as I like, until folks like you change the law, make it illegal to express myself. Whether I want to post somewhere or not, please, be courteous enough to allow that up to me, ok?

Again, a discussion can be had without resorting to name calling, bullying and the like.

I'm going golfing. I'll be back...

But, first I'm going to check into the folks that think for me, you know, Karl Rove, Limbaugh, Beck, Sarah, and all those thugs at the Tea Party. Clearly, I'm unable to come up with a conservative thought in my own head, need their talking points...

[quote=BigFirepower]

BG, sure, every single tea party person is a criminal thug, racist, wife beating, child raping, murderer... What, because Olberman tells you so?

BG, I'll come back as often as I like, until folks like you change the law, make it illegal to express myself. Whether I want to post somewhere or not, please, be courteous enough to allow that up to me, ok?

Again, a discussion can be had without resorting to name calling, bullying and the like.

[/quote]

Express yourself? You come here with ridiculous anti government statements and when i ask you to back it those statements up you run away and hide. calling you uninformed is not name calling if it's true. An informed person can back up what they post and won't post anything they can back up. You aren't coming here to express yourself. You come here to rant and rave. Par for the course at the TP Club.

Still waiting for you to answer how healthcare is the biggest government heist?

Still waiting

Still waitng

One other point on Christie - the Xanadu tunnel was a dem controlled project. 9 bil going to democrat party faithful anf trough swillers. 300mil already spent and not a shovel in the ground yet. lots of dough to hand out in contracts. Christie killing this project isn't as altruistic as it might seem. It will eventually get reloaded as repub deal. Repubs, who were blocked out of the tunnel money party will be first in line at the feeder.

I'm happy Gov Christie killed it. It was a first class porker. But, he's not as clean as the repubs would have you believe.

Express yourself? You come here with ridiculous anti government statements and when i ask you to back it those statements up you run away and hide. calling you uninformed is not name calling if it's true. An informed person can back up what they post and won't post anything they can back up. You aren't coming here to express yourself. You come here to rant and rave. Par for the course at the TP Club.

I'll take this bait:

1. My property taxes are too high.

2. Too many regulations and taxes to warrant hiring a junior planner.

3. Cap gains going up 60% (rate of change) and ordinary dividends going up 190% with the expiration of Bush tax cuts.

4. My self-employed health insurance ( 5k deductible out of pocket) just went up 18%. Due for another increase in January.

5. Real unemployment here about 18%.

6. We'll see what happens with things like the tax free nature of life insurance cash values and death benefits. This type of "talk" is creating real concern.

" It's the economy, stupid".

My only point about you, BG, is that you are an irritating, aggressive progressive who likes to attack the cred of anyone who thinks outside the box. That's why we're kicking the box down.

You got greedy with your social agenda, now your group is going to be punished.

Watch and learn.

BG, sounds to me you're a cynic more than anything else. I can see how that happens. I guess the only thing any optimist has left is uh...hope for....change? BTW you never responded to my offer on National Review and/or Weekly Standard.

[quote=FA86]

BG, sounds to me you're a cynic more than anything else. I can see how that happens. I guess the only thing any optimist has left is uh...hope for....change? BTW you never responded to my offer on National Review and/or Weekly Standard.

[/quote]

I like PJ O'Rourke but !!!!

Are you a Neoconservative?

Healthy cynic only. Far from giving up. Often a realistic view of the world is mistaken as cynicism. Epecially on a negative topic.

Let me reframe the debate:

We can all agree that lying is wrong. For example: Even though we only do right for our clients it's not OK under any circumstances, for us to lie to them to induce them to act. So, if lying is wrong, and it's not OK for us to lie,  why is it Ok for these TP and Repub candidates to lie?

Would you hire a professional who lied to you to get your business? Of course not!  Yet, these lying TP candidates get a pass? Someone's got to explain that one to me.

And, again, hanging your hopes for change on a group of liars is, at best, naive.

OK there you have it-the answer that seperates our points of view- I'm a cynic and you are naive. Settled!

Negative ads have been around forever. Remember how Obama said he would take the high road and bring us all together. Look at him now.

It is more the $$ behind the TP candidates that is talking. This concerns me, unions are the biggest contributors now on the progressive side. As always, the little guy will pay.

If people end up having to work longer for their social security, if the health care bill can be reversed, if there is more competition in the health care market, if government and union employees get axed, I will write a check for campaign 2012.

Next week is going to be a bloodbath.

[quote=Times7]

Negative ads have been around forever. Remember how Obama said he would take the high road and bring us all together. Look at him now.

It is more the $$ behind the TP candidates that is talking. This concerns me, unions are the biggest contributors now on the progressive side. As always, the little guy will pay.

If people end up having to work longer for their social security, if the health care bill can be reversed, if there is more competition in the health care market, if government and union employees get axed, I will write a check for campaign 2012.

Next week is going to be a bloodbath.

[/quote]

Negative campaign ads? We're talking about out and out lies. Why is that OK?

You really trust the liars to change things?

How can you trust someone who lies?

I don't. When you want to eliminate vermin, you destroy their environment, in this case, it's big government. If the Tea Party monkey doesn't push the "no" button, we'll install a new monkey. Things will change this time, and it's not the rich or government progressives or the broke people who will be calling all of the shots.

No, there is no one that I specifically support.  Trust will need to be earned, so it's out with the old and in with the "new".

I agree with you that there are a lot of lies and promises. At least we are moving in the right direction and done with the social organizer promises for "unity"  and rich San Francisco liberal nanny state BS, and maybe finishing up with the stupid idea that government unions and service worker unions can contribute any real growth to this American economy.

People like you who have achieved something in the private economy need to take a fresh look, and stop defending the status quo.

All of these negative ads are literally money talking, no different than the pagentry and glamor of the inauguration of the first black American president, which was a historic and noble thing. Still just money talking. Time to hunker down and get to work, everyone. The recovery is going to be slow, and this market is standing on thin legs.

The point isn't that the dems didn't deliver a fast recovery, the point is that there is too much taxation, corruption, and public intervention in the private economy. Call our intervention opportunistic, and yes, it is no different than what the dems did two years ago. You can't create growth from thin air, and no one really knows where the demand will come from to drive the economy. It needs to come from innovation, that's why the shackles have to come off.

Baby steps.

Come on over to the winning side, it's called the "no" party, Tea Party is different them harassing the repubs is the best thing we've got right now.

Baby boomers never did learn how to say "no".

Come on BG, naive?? I wouldn't say that. I'm a realist. I know the severity of the challenges ahead and how campaigners often fail to do what they say when actually in office. But you can't say that the lying is only happening on one side. Look at Grayson down in Florida. Look at his ridiculous Taliban Dan ads. That's about as scummy as it gets. I'm not excusing it, I'm just saying it happens on both sides. It's deplorable that anyone will willingly lie to be elected. I am at times wistful when witnessing commercials/promotions/advertisements from just about anyone not in our industry. I would argue we're held to the highest standards of any profession in terms of disclosure and transparency. I wonder what the world would be like if everyone were held to that standard. Alas, it'll never happen.

[quote=Times7]

It may be comforting for you to keep the debate focused on the right-left dynamic, but the real issues are things like entitlements, debt, regulations and the obstacles to innovation (for example, change in education in the public schools).

Tea Partiers are sick of corruption, big government, sending tax money to government union pension funds, obstacles to expanding small business.

You keep trying to define the playing field in terms of traditional politics, but there is a fundamental shift and resentment about things like: government jobs can pay better than private (if you can even get a private sector job), taxes are a huge percentage of gross income ( property taxes too high as a percentage of mortgage payments), it costs too much to add another employee, personal health care premiums just increased 18%, with another huge increase slated for January, in response to the new requirements.

These considerations are far removed from the sheltered luxury of your comfortable Wall Street financed magnanimous perch. You don't really know what's going on out in the trenches, you come off as being sheltered and aloof, like O's army of overeducated and soft handed theorists. You like to argue the details, and ignore the hard facts like: people need to work longer, government unions need to take pension cuts, the private sector needs to increase while the public decreases,  health care costs need to be controlled by allowing more private competition and reducing entitlements ( not popular with broke baby boomers).

[/quote]

Times7=Ghandi

[quote=Times7]

Express yourself? You come here with ridiculous anti government statements and when i ask you to back it those statements up you run away and hide. calling you uninformed is not name calling if it's true. An informed person can back up what they post and won't post anything they can back up. You aren't coming here to express yourself. You come here to rant and rave. Par for the course at the TP Club.

I'll take this bait:

1. My property taxes are too high.

2. Too many regulations and taxes to warrant hiring a junior planner.

3. Cap gains going up 60% (rate of change) and ordinary dividends going up 190% with the expiration of Bush tax cuts.

4. My self-employed health insurance ( 5k deductible out of pocket) just went up 18%. Due for another increase in January.

5. Real unemployment here about 18%.

6. We'll see what happens with things like the tax free nature of life insurance cash values and death benefits. This type of "talk" is creating real concern.

" It's the economy, stupid".

My only point about you, BG, is that you are an irritating, aggressive progressive who likes to attack the cred of anyone who thinks outside the box. That's why we're kicking the box down.

You got greedy with your social agenda, now your group is going to be punished.

Watch and learn.

[/quote]

Times7,

bravo, bravo, bravo

Im your new jock sniffer

Times7=

[quote=BondGuy]

[quote=Times7]

Negative ads have been around forever. Remember how Obama said he would take the high road and bring us all together. Look at him now.

It is more the $$ behind the TP candidates that is talking. This concerns me, unions are the biggest contributors now on the progressive side. As always, the little guy will pay.

If people end up having to work longer for their social security, if the health care bill can be reversed, if there is more competition in the health care market, if government and union employees get axed, I will write a check for campaign 2012.

Next week is going to be a bloodbath.

[/quote]

Negative campaign ads? We're talking about out and out lies. Why is that OK?

You really trust the liars to change things?

How can you trust someone who lies?

[/quote]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Wait, I need to catch my breath.  

You act as though the current legislators and administration people are angels who can do no wrong and who are only looking out for the public good.  And yet you have the cajones to call the TP people uneducated.  Those are some big ones my friend. 

You're not seriously implying that Pelosi, Reid, Frank, et al are completely honest with the American public and their specific constituents at all times are you?  Surely you're not saying that President Obama can stand up there with George Washington and tell us that he cannot tell a lie.  Surely your not that naive. 

[quote=BondGuy]Let me reframe the debate:

We can all agree that lying is wrong. For example: Even though we only do right for our clients it's not OK under any circumstances, for us to lie to them to induce them to act. So, if lying is wrong, and it's not OK for us to lie,  why is it Ok for these TP and Repub candidates to lie?

Would you hire a professional who lied to you to get your business? Of course not!  Yet, these lying TP candidates get a pass? Someone's got to explain that one to me.

And, again, hanging your hopes for change on a group of liars is, at best, naive.

OK there you have it-the answer that seperates our points of view- I'm a cynic and you are naive. Settled!

[/quote]

It took a while but BG you have drug me back in again.

You forgot to mention the lies from the Dems. All parties lie. I know that you know that, hell everyone knows that but we have to put someone in office. Many people vote against candidates instead of for candidates.

They all lie and the people are sick and tried of it. Bush wasn't perfect by any means. He expanded govt (Homeland Sec, Patriot Act et al) then nearly broke the country by funding a war that is often debated as unnecessary. If the economy continued from 2000-2010 like it did from 1990-2000 then the deficit would not be much of an issue. Hind sight says the war was definitely a poor decision financially.

2008 comes along and the cool breeze of Obama and his promises of "Hope and Change" breathe life into the voters. They are tired of the government not listen, someone besides joe sixpack must take the blame for the economy, unemployment, foreclosures et al. It is time for "Change" but the only option besides the repubs is a dem? That sucks but "Change" is what the voters want so "Change" is what they got.

I think the "Hope and Change" was sold as one thing and is being delivered as another. The people do not want MORE government, the people do not want MORE taxes (on anyone), the people are sick and tired of the repubs and the dems and have no other choice but to vote for the TPs.

I have a question.  When Osama talks about the deficit he inherited, is he talking about the budget the Dem controlled Congress passed?  The spending he voted for?  Is this the deficit he is talking about?

Prime, it's Obama, not Osama. Your racist slip is showing.

[quote=Prime Time]

I have a question.  When Osama talks about the deficit he inherited, is he talking about the budget the Dem controlled Congress passed?  The spending he voted for?  Is this the deficit he is talking about?

[/quote]

Osama?  Wow you are an ass.  What's the matter, you can't post this on your litte AH site?

Too funny, Osama is "racist" huh?

Gee, what about the nasty name calling of Bush all those years huh?

Liberals have such a double standard.

Obama showing his true colors more and more (no racism intended).

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/11/01/boehner-blasts-obamas-enemies-line/

I never could figure out how the libs could be so flippant about " Osamas". They just want to hide their heads in the sand while women are increasingly exploited (as the Muslim population explodes). (No pun intended).

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0368913/

These " stupid" people are going to be celebrating soon!

http://il.youtube.com/watch?v=iIRQGAFw95A&feature=related

Bond - aren't you the guy who started this thread with this comment:

[quote=BondGuy]

The tea baggers remain as confused as always.

[/quote]

Perhaps you should pull the plank out of your own eye before you start pointing out the specks in others. 

The term tea baggers, while derisive, isn't racist. Calling the prez Osama is racist as it's trying to play on Islamic fear. Look it up. I guess i expect too much from you? Space, are you a racist?

Speaking of racist tea baggers, all of you Ok with Sharron Angle getting the nod in Nevada? This woman claimed, outrageously, that Islamic Sharia law is being instituted in Dearborn Michigan and Frankford Texas. She demanded to know how that happened in the United States? That's a really good question since it didn't happen.   Good old fashioned American law rules in Dearborn. As for Frankfort Texas, would one of you tea bagger lovers please call Sharron and let her know that Frankfort Texas was annexed by Dallas almost 40 years ago, so, technically, no such place. Par for the course for the morons. Oh, and dallas? American law!

You guys really want people like that running the country?

I wonder if Bill Maher is the pinhead or if it's BG. Check the video.

http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/

[quote=BondGuy]

Prime, it's Obama, not Osama. Your racist slip is showing.

[/quote]

I'm just a low information voter who clings to his guns and religion that is so scared I cannot think straight much less spell correctly.  I apologize.  Care to answer the question?

How is calling President Obama Osama racist? 

It's more cultural.  Just like calling someone a teabagger, is not racist, but could in fact be construed as sexually deviant in nature and implying that if you believe a certain way, you are sexually deviant.  Some may consider it offensive.

The question is:

Why does something that offends one group have more merit that something that offends another group?

Answer:

It doesn't.

[quote=BondGuy]

Prime, it's Obama, not Osama. Your racist slip is showing.

[/quote]

Funny how you picked that part out of his entire post and completely ignored the questions he asked you.

Anyway, how is that "racist"? In what way did you think Prime was comparing the two names? Osama is Middle Eastern and Obama is Multiracial (like most of us in America, but Obama considers himself to be African American). Osama is a radical muslim and Obama is Christian.

The connection I see, besides the obvious similarity in the spelling and pronouncing of their names, is that Prime stated he feels these two people are a threat to free market capitalism.

BG, are you a Black Panther?

OK, I hadn't heard that one about Sharon Angle.  So, I went to the most trusted new source out there to get information on it:  The Huffington Post.  Here's the link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/08/sharron-angle-muslim-law-_n_755346.html

Did you actually read how she answered the question?  Or did you just get your info from Jon Stewart and figure he wouldn't lie/hype it up at all?  Wait, maybe it was the Daily Kos.  Your comments come almost verbatim from their write up on the issue:  http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/10/12/908879/-How-Dearborn,-Michigan-came-to-be-under-Sharia-Law!-And-how-Sharon-Angle-lurned-it-was-so. 

C'mon BG, you aren't really just taking the left's talking points and regurgitating them, are you?  That seems a little too Sarah Palin-esque for you.  I thought your area didn't have any non-thinkers like we do here in the simple old conservative mid-west. 

Just to make sure we all know what 's actually being talked about here's another link: http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2009/07/special-report-sharia-comes-to-dearborn.html  This is the blog that started the whole thing.  So, BG, are you saying that it's OK for something like this to happen?  What kind of public outcry do you think there would have been had the religions been reversed?  What if a Muslim would have been even just verbally abused by a Christian?  How quickly do you think NBC, CBS, ABC, et al would have put that right in our faces?   

FWIW, I agree with Sharon that if it appears that Sharia law is being enforced over a constitutional right (the right to free speech in this particular case) then it needs to be stopped. 

So, to answer your question about being OK with Sharon Angle getting the nod in Nevada?  Based on this alone?  Yep, perfectly comfortable. 

[quote=Spaceman Spiff]

OK, I hadn't heard that one about Sharon Angle.  So, I went to the most trusted new source out there to get information on it:  The Huffington Post.  Here's the link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/08/sharron-angle-muslim-law-_n_755346.html

Did you actually read how she answered the question?  Or did you just get your info from Jon Stewart and figure he wouldn't lie/hype it up at all?  Wait, maybe it was the Daily Kos.  Your comments come almost verbatim from their write up on the issue:  http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/10/12/908879/-How-Dearborn,-Michigan-came-to-be-under-Sharia-Law!-And-how-Sharon-Angle-lurned-it-was-so. 

C'mon BG, you aren't really just taking the left's talking points and regurgitating them, are you?  That seems a little too Sarah Palin-esque for you.  I thought your area didn't have any non-thinkers like we do here in the simple old conservative mid-west. 

Just to make sure we all know what 's actually being talked about here's another link: http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2009/07/special-report-sharia-comes-to-dearborn.html  This is the blog that started the whole thing.  So, BG, are you saying that it's OK for something like this to happen?  What kind of public outcry do you think there would have been had the religions been reversed?  What if a Muslim would have been even just verbally abused by a Christian?  How quickly do you think NBC, CBS, ABC, et al would have put that right in our faces?   

FWIW, I agree with Sharon that if it appears that Sharia law is being enforced over a constitutional right (the right to free speech in this particular case) then it needs to be stopped. 

So, to answer your question about being OK with Sharon Angle getting the nod in Nevada?  Based on this alone?  Yep, perfectly comfortable. 

[/quote]

Space, are you kidding with this? Dude, try practicing your right to assembly and free speech while confronting union members on the sidewalk in front of their inflatable rat. After you get out of the ER see how interested the police or the courts are in helping your cause. Let me tell you how that will work. By approaching the lawfully assembled union members you are doing so for the unlawfull purpose of seeking to incite. Outside of the right to seek the immediate medical assistance you will need you have no rights at that point. Any rookie cop will tell you that.

I'll  watch the vid later. But, from the description, did the Christians provoke the Muslims or not? It reads as if they did. They entered the Arab festival with an anti arab agenda. It would be argued that they, the Christians, had given up their rights to assembly and free speech as their intention was to incite. There is that little word in the first amendment "lawfully" that covers that base. And, though i dispise any anti American rhetoric, the Arabs have first amendments rights to free speech as well. Later today, when time allows i'll watch the vid. If my opinion changes I'll let you know.

 And, as for the Arabs lying to the police, I thought you were Ok with lying?

Still, the issue isn't the event that caused Angle to respond. It's her racist and totally misinformed response that is at issue. That she's Ok with you and others is kinda scary. OK with me if guys like you want her for town council or state rep, but if you elect her to the senate then we all have to live with the consequences of a dumbed down upper house.

BG, you're as negative a O. What happened, Bond? You're the negative sales guy that needs to be put down.

I seriously doubt if anyone here is racist, stupid or mean.

Space, enjoy the moment. Best day of 2010.

Things are going to get a lot better, America is ready to get back to work and that is good for financial advisors.

If you are new to the business, better times are coming. Not easier times, better times when people will take your advice.

Don't pay any attention to negativity! You have my blessings to start drinking now.

I'm curious... When did becoming an Islamic apologist become part of the Democrats platform? Man, as if I needed any more reasons to fear the liberal ideolagy of Democrats!?

[quote=BigFirepower]

I'm curious... When did becoming an Islamic apologist become part of the Democrats platform? Man, as if I needed any more reasons to fear the liberal ideolagy of Democrats!?

[/quote]

I'm now starting to understand who will vote for the Angles, O'Donnells, and Paladinos.

What was that line from Forest Gump?

Stupid is as stupid does.

[quote=MLGONELOVESDIK]

Bondguy STFU you arrogant prick

[/quote]

A reason not to join the other advisor forum. As if Times7 and the other knucklehead alter egos haven't already given me enough reason to stay way from that group.

ML, about your screen name, how old are you, 13?

BG, you realize that the biggest election issues of Western Europe have been about immigration, and the radical elements of muslims affecting their nations? So, are those folks all stupid too? France, Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden, Germany...etc...

Avoid the word "stupid" BG, it isn't much of a discussion tactic that leads to anything other than an argument and hard feelings. I don't know, but maybe tomorrow you'll come to realize that liberal arrogance is what created serious election losses?

[quote=Prime Time]

I have a question.  When Osama talks about the deficit he inherited, is he talking about the budget the Dem controlled Congress passed?  The spending he voted for?  Is this the deficit he is talking about?

[/quote]

Prime, here's your answer:

The dems were in control for two years when Obama took over. Since you want to focus on congress and apparrently lay the deficit at the dems feet as they controlled the congress  from 2007, you should know that the repubs controlled congress from 1995 through 2006, handing control to the dems in jan 2007. Once free of having to compromise with a dem prez guess where the the spending went? It didn't go down.

 Bush came in with 4 trillion in national debt and a budget surplus on about a quarter billion dollars in 2002. When he left the national debt was 10 trillion and the deficit was about a trillion dollars. Despite having a healthy war economy for most of his whitehouse stay, the debt more than doubled. But, hey, it wasn't the tax cuts! Right?

It gets better - if the repubs gain control they will extend the Bush era tax cuts. Those tax cuts will reduce revs by 4 trillion. But, not to worry the repubs and tea baggers have got that base covered. They are proposing 700 billion in spending cuts to fill that gap. Let's see, 4 trillion less in revenue versus 700 billions in cuts? Yeah, that'll work!

Any more questions on how we got into this mess?

[quote=BigFirepower]

BG, you realize that the biggest election issues of Western Europe have been about immigration, and the radical elements of muslims affecting their nations? So, are those folks all stupid too? France, Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden, Germany...etc...

Avoid the word "stupid" BG, it isn't much of a discussion tactic that leads to anything other than an argument and hard feelings. I don't know, but maybe tomorrow you'll come to realize that liberal arrogance is what created serious election losses?

[/quote]

You're right. i should have skipped all that and just called you racist. But, i trying to cut you a break because, clearly, you are having trouble keeping up with the debate.

Big, the issue regarding the Christians trying to confront Muslims in Michigan is one of freedom of speech and peaceful assembly.  Both guaranteed by the first amendment. It's a constitutional issue, not a religious issue. Yet, for stating just that you called me an Islamic apologist. You pulled religion out of my answer, plugged in your negative belief system, and tatooed me with it. All, when religion was incidental to the issue.

So you know, if it had been Muslims trying to disrupt a Christian assembly, same answer. I guess that would make me a Christian apologist?

Big we've been down this comprehension path before. If you aren't sure what the post says feel free to PM me. I promise i'll never use anything gleened from a private conversation to hurt you on the open forum.

Big, the issue regarding the Christians trying to confront Muslims in Michigan is one of freedom of speech and peaceful assembly.  Both guaranteed by the first amendment. It's a constitutional issue, not a religious issue. Yet, for stating just that you called me an Islamic apologist. You pulled religion out of my answer, plugged in your negative belief system, and tatooed me with it. All, when religion was incidental to the issue.

I'm with Jon Stewart and Juan Williams on this one. Sorry.

Some day, progressives will look back and say, oh, it was a quality of life issue, my bad.

T7, your time is almost done here. Call me names if you like. You're the one who keeps popping up with new screen names every other week. What's up with that?

Tell ya what, prove to me that you are someone here who i recognise as a contributor  and i'll debate you until the cows come home. Until then, it's back to ignore.

BG, I apologize if you interpreted my response that way, and had debated briefly whether to disclaimer your statement from the part about Islam. That said, I am a bit disturbed that the Democrat party in many quarters, seems to be carrying the water for Islam. Call me whatever you'd like, but I do not want this nation to be heavily occupied by folks that are muslim or islamic. Those religions openly advocate hostility as part of their religion, and my own two eyes see the carnage that ensues when the Muslim faith even hits the 5% mark of the population.

When you come to America, you become American, and you don't bring your petty hatreds of other nations, or religions with you. This coming from me, a first generation immigrant. Muslims are MUSLIMS first, and they are clearly not assimilating the way a Hispanic Catholic does, or an Asian immigrant.

So again, call me a hater, racist, anything, go right ahead, but that is how I feel, and I believe I'm still in a country free enough to express that opinion of mine.

[quote=BondGuy]

[quote=MLGONELOVESDIK]

Bondguy STFU you arrogant prick

[/quote]

A reason not to join the other advisor forum. As if Times7 and the other knucklehead alter egos haven't already given me enough reason to stay way from that group.

ML, about your screen name, how old are you, 13?

[/quote]

You want to hear something really funny.  This ML dude/gal is actually the mod at AH named Primo trying to come across as someone else.   Not joking.  Also goes by the name Prime Time here.  Can't think of a better reason never to go there, this is the talent level over there.  You want him/her with access to your account?  lol what a sham.  Case closed.

[quote=BigFirepower]

BG, I apologize if you interpreted my response that way, and had debated briefly whether to disclaimer your statement from the part about Islam. That said, I am a bit disturbed that the Democrat party in many quarters, seems to be carrying the water for Islam. Call me whatever you'd like, but I do not want this nation to be heavily occupied by folks that are muslim or islamic. Those religions openly advocate hostility as part of their religion, and my own two eyes see the carnage that ensues when the Muslim faith even hits the 5% mark of the population.

When you come to America, you become American, and you don't bring your petty hatreds of other nations, or religions with you. This coming from me, a first generation immigrant. Muslims are MUSLIMS first, and they are clearly not assimilating the way a Hispanic Catholic does, or an Asian immigrant.

So again, call me a hater, racist, anything, go right ahead, but that is how I feel, and I believe I'm still in a country free enough to express that opinion of mine.

[/quote]

Big, i didn't misinterpret anything and you know it !

I agree that the Muslim faith is now being defined by the extremist. While the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful, it is not this peaceful contingent that is in control. Or so it seems. This is similar to the pre war Germany in the 20's and early 30's. Germans were a peaceful people at that time. They gave little attention to a small group of extremist, the nazis, who would come to define them in less than a generation. So it is with islam. The peaceful inmans do not have control of their religion. Yet, that being the case, we need to suppress the inner lynch mob mentality that many of us may want to act upon. Right now it's tough to maintain a centered view of Islam.

For those who don't like Muslims the news isn't good. If current demographic trends hold the primary religion in America by 2060 will be Muslim. They are having over twice as many children as other demographic groups.

Personally, in my neck of the wood the non american born muslims are assimilating just fine. They have embraced the american way of life,some as small business people, and have learned to speak our language well. They want what we want, a better life for their kids. In my area it is the hispanics, specificlly mexicans, who seem not to want to assimilate. They have moved into targeted towns. As they replace the american population, they take over the downtown business areas by shunning american businesses in place for generations. As the american business owners are forced out mexican businessowners take over. The towns have tried to ban rentals to illegal aliens but have been  shot down by the supreme court. meanwhile in some of these businesses a curious sign has cropped up in store front windows "We speak english too." Hmm?

Times are changing whether we like it or not.

i'll debate you until the cows come home. Until then, it's back to ignore.

You don't debate, that's the problem. When you attack other people's reading comprehension, you project your own biggest fault.

I'm just saying, you can attack my character, or you can quit stinking up the forum with your negative BS. 'Most everyone is tired of your whiney liberal moralizing, and tomorrow it is going to be time to get back to the real work of selling.

A sales environment needs to rid itself of the pussies.

Stop being pathetic. Even the name of you thread is whiney.

Here is a special video for BG and you other whiney libs, to honor you on a  on a very special day.

THE WAY WE WERE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4kS4CWhRVM&feature=related

[quote=BondGuy]

[quote=Spaceman Spiff]

OK, I hadn't heard that one about Sharon Angle.  So, I went to the most trusted new source out there to get information on it:  The Huffington Post.  Here's the link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/08/sharron-angle-muslim-law-_n_755346.html

Did you actually read how she answered the question?  Or did you just get your info from Jon Stewart and figure he wouldn't lie/hype it up at all?  Wait, maybe it was the Daily Kos.  Your comments come almost verbatim from their write up on the issue:  http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/10/12/908879/-How-Dearborn,-Michigan-came-to-be-under-Sharia-Law!-And-how-Sharon-Angle-lurned-it-was-so. 

C'mon BG, you aren't really just taking the left's talking points and regurgitating them, are you?  That seems a little too Sarah Palin-esque for you.  I thought your area didn't have any non-thinkers like we do here in the simple old conservative mid-west. 

Just to make sure we all know what 's actually being talked about here's another link: http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2009/07/special-report-sharia-comes-to-dearborn.html  This is the blog that started the whole thing.  So, BG, are you saying that it's OK for something like this to happen?  What kind of public outcry do you think there would have been had the religions been reversed?  What if a Muslim would have been even just verbally abused by a Christian?  How quickly do you think NBC, CBS, ABC, et al would have put that right in our faces?   

FWIW, I agree with Sharon that if it appears that Sharia law is being enforced over a constitutional right (the right to free speech in this particular case) then it needs to be stopped. 

So, to answer your question about being OK with Sharon Angle getting the nod in Nevada?  Based on this alone?  Yep, perfectly comfortable. 

[/quote]

Space, are you kidding with this? Dude, try practicing your right to assembly and free speech while confronting union members on the sidewalk in front of their inflatable rat. After you get out of the ER see how interested the police or the courts are in helping your cause. Let me tell you how that will work. By approaching the lawfully assembled union members you are doing so for the unlawfull purpose of seeking to incite. Outside of the right to seek the immediate medical assistance you will need you have no rights at that point. Any rookie cop will tell you that.

I'll  watch the vid later. But, from the description, did the Christians provoke the Muslims or not? It reads as if they did. They entered the Arab festival with an anti arab agenda. It would be argued that they, the Christians, had given up their rights to assembly and free speech as their intention was to incite. There is that little word in the first amendment "lawfully" that covers that base. And, though i dispise any anti American rhetoric, the Arabs have first amendments rights to free speech as well. Later today, when time allows i'll watch the vid. If my opinion changes I'll let you know.

 And, as for the Arabs lying to the police, I thought you were Ok with lying?

Still, the issue isn't the event that caused Angle to respond. It's her racist and totally misinformed response that is at issue. That she's Ok with you and others is kinda scary. OK with me if guys like you want her for town council or state rep, but if you elect her to the senate then we all have to live with the consequences of a dumbed down upper house.

[/quote]

Here's the response she gave to the question she was asked copied from the Huffington Post article:

"we're talking about a militant terrorist situation, which I believe it isn't a widespread thing, but it is enough that we need to address, and we have been addressing it."

"My thoughts are these, first of all, Dearborn, Michigan, and Frankford, Texas are on American soil, and under constitutional law. Not Sharia law. And I don't know how that happened in the United States," she said. "It seems to me there is something fundamentally wrong with allowing a foreign system of law to even take hold in any municipality or government situation in our United States."

Just so we're clear on what we're talking about, what part of that commentary would you call racist?  I keep looking, but not finding anything that I would call racist.  The Frankford, TX thing is confusing, but there is a case in the Dallas area of a Muslim couple getting a divorce and wanting to follow Sharia law, not Texas laws.  Where she got her info that it was in a city called Frankford, who knows.  But, it's obvious that you got your info from an AP reporter named Cristina Silva.  Funny, but I can't seem to find the whole transcript of what the whole question was and how Cristina pieced her response together. 

I'll wait until you watch the video to tell you what I think about whether or not the Christians were provoking the Muslims. 

Bond Guy, maybe you should start a new screen name. Come back as an American. Noboby remembers what you were before you went soft, anyway.

[quote=BondGuy]

[quote=Prime Time]

I have a question.  When Osama talks about the deficit he inherited, is he talking about the budget the Dem controlled Congress passed?  The spending he voted for?  Is this the deficit he is talking about?

[/quote]

Prime, here's your answer:

The dems were in control for two years when Obama took over. Since you want to focus on congress and apparrently lay the deficit at the dems feet as they controlled the congress  from 2007, you should know that the repubs controlled congress from 1995 through 2006, handing control to the dems in jan 2007. Once free of having to compromise with a dem prez guess where the the spending went? It didn't go down.

 Bush came in with 4 trillion in national debt and a budget surplus on about a quarter billion dollars in 2002. When he left the national debt was 10 trillion and the deficit was about a trillion dollars. Despite having a healthy war economy for most of his whitehouse stay, the debt more than doubled. But, hey, it wasn't the tax cuts! Right?

It gets better - if the repubs gain control they will extend the Bush era tax cuts. Those tax cuts will reduce revs by 4 trillion. But, not to worry the repubs and tea baggers have got that base covered. They are proposing 700 billion in spending cuts to fill that gap. Let's see, 4 trillion less in revenue versus 700 billions in cuts? Yeah, that'll work!

Any more questions on how we got into this mess?

[/quote]

You didn't answer my question, but I will talk about what you posted.  I am aware the Republicans controlled Congress from 95-06.  Let's look at debt during that time.  The debt at the beginning of FT96 was 4.973T and at the end of FY07 it was 9.007T for a dfference of 4.034T (Bush came into office with a 5.769T debt BTW).  The Dem controlled legislature went from a 9.007T to 13.561T at the end of FT10 for a difference of 4.554T.  That would be more deficit spending in 3 years for the Demo's than the 12 years from the Reps.  That should scare you.

My point in Obama complaining about a deficit he inherited when he voted for the spending is that it is intellectually dishonest, just as your initial post in this thread.  Both parties had their fingers in the economic mess we are in.  Saying it was all the faut of Bush is dishonest.

Of course, this is the primary reason the Rep's are making a comeback.  People are getting tired of Dem's running against a guy who hasn't been in office for two years.  They want to know what the Democratic party is going to do to fix the situation.  All they have heard is "we will  get to the economy right after we take care of _____" and vote for us because the other guys are  bad.  You don't hear any Dem's running on what they have done or will do.  People want our elected officials to lead, not blame.  So the Republican's will get another chance.  And before you start with the "party of no" garbage.  Sometimes preventing bad legislation is governing when you are the minority.

The House has returned to Republican control.  Now let's see what they do with it.

[quote=Times7]BG, when did you become such a pussy? When you got rich or before?[/quote]

Good debating skills. Clearly BG doesn't know how to "debate" as well as you do.

What has happened to this site? Wow.

[quote=anabuhabkuss][quote=Times7]BG, when did you become such a pussy? When you got rich or before?[/quote]Good debating skills. Clearly BG doesn't know how to "debate" as well as you do.

What has happened to this site? Wow.[/quote]

Correct, I would say BG is on a much lower level.

At least Times7 makes attempts to cite sources to back up his opinions. BG only resorts to calling people in disagreement with him a "liar", "stupid" and/or (my favorite) a "racist".

BG, your party's time has come just like it did in the 90's. It's time for Obama to move back toward the center just like the Repubs made Clinton do during his term.

[quote=BondGuy]

I like PJ O'Rourke but !!!!

Are you a Neoconservative?

Healthy cynic only. Far from giving up. Often a realistic view of the world is mistaken as cynicism. Epecially on a negative topic.

Let me reframe the debate:

We can all agree that lying is wrong. For example: Even though we only do right for our clients it's not OK under any circumstances, for us to lie to them to induce them to act. So, if lying is wrong, and it's not OK for us to lie,  why is it Ok for these TP and Repub candidates to lie?

Would you hire a professional who lied to you to get your business? Of course not!  Yet, these lying TP candidates get a pass? Someone's got to explain that one to me.

And, again, hanging your hopes for change on a group of liars is, at best, naive.

OK there you have it-the answer that seperates our points of view- I'm a cynic and you are naive. Settled!

[/quote]

[quote=BondGuy]

Negative campaign ads? We're talking about out and out lies. Why is that OK?

You really trust the liars to change things?

How can you trust someone who lies?

[/quote]

Really? You think only Rep and TPs are "liars"?

[quote=BondGuy]

I'm now starting to understand who will vote for the Angles, O'Donnells, and Paladinos.

What was that line from Forest Gump?

Stupid is as stupid does.  

[/quote]

Really +1? You think anyone that disagrees with you is "stupid"?

[quote=BondGuy]

Prime, it's Obama, not Osama. Your racist slip is showing.

[/quote]

[quote=BondGuy]

The term tea baggers, while derisive, isn't racist. Calling the prez Osama is racist as it's trying to play on Islamic fear. Look it up. I guess i expect too much from you? Space, are you a racist?

Speaking of racist tea baggers, all of you Ok with Sharron Angle getting the nod in Nevada? This woman claimed, outrageously, that Islamic Sharia law is being instituted in Dearborn Michigan and Frankford Texas. She demanded to know how that happened in the United States? That's a really good question since it didn't happen.   Good old fashioned American law rules in Dearborn. As for Frankfort Texas, would one of you tea bagger lovers please call Sharron and let her know that Frankfort Texas was annexed by Dallas almost 40 years ago, so, technically, no such place. Par for the course for the morons. Oh, and dallas? American law!

You guys really want people like that running the country?

[/quote]

Really +2? You think Space and anyone agreeing with the TP is "racist"? 

BG, you are freakin EPIC!! Whatever dude, whatever.

[quote=Spaceman Spiff]

Just to make sure we all know what 's actually being talked about here's another link: http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2009/07/special-report-sharia-comes-to-dearborn.html  This is the blog that started the whole thing.  So, BG, are you saying that it's OK for something like this to happen?  What kind of public outcry do you think there would have been had the religions been reversed?  What if a Muslim would have been even just verbally abused by a Christian?  How quickly do you think NBC, CBS, ABC, et al would have put that right in our faces?   

FWIW, I agree with Sharon that if it appears that Sharia law is being enforced over a constitutional right (the right to free speech in this particular case) then it needs to be stopped. 

[/quote]

I watched this video. Interesting stuff. Here's what i saw:

1. Christians with video cameras trying to agitate a peacefull well organized Muslim event.

2. Christian's clearly had a confrontational agenda. They show up wearing Christian shirts, armed to the teeth with video cameras, disingenuously asking for answers about a brochere, clearly looking to pick a fight for their ambush video.

3. Muslims may be many things, stupid is not one of them. Again, what is clear on the video to anyone with a centered POV, once the Muslims realized the Christians were there to agitate they asked them to leave. They asked them to leave several times.

4. The escalated events that follow are the fault of the Christians, who refused to follow the orders of event security when asked to stop video taping. When they refused to follow that order, they were asked to leave. If they had left, peacefully, there would have been no escalation of hostilities. If you really believe this escalation was caused by Sharia law, try this: This weekend go to a college or NFL football game. While there, be confrontational to those seated around you. Be a real pain in the ass. Disrupt the viewing of the game. Scream this is america, I have a right to free speech and will yell whatever i like. When security shows up to toss you, get in their face too! On Monday come on here and let us know how long it took you to get bailed out of jail.

5. When you ask someone to stop video taping you and they refuse, who's rights are being violated? Think about that for a minute. Yes, it's a free country. But your rights stop where my rights begin. You don't get to trample my rights, especially with a camera. In this age of cell phone cameras the courts are making this crytal clear to those who don't get it!

6. At the end of the tape, when the police are finally called in, it is the Christians who lie or lie first. They say "we were just trying to leave" before going to accuse security of assault. On the tape the entire escalation is caused by the Christian's refusal to leave. So, they've got a problem there.

Space, obviously you are anti Muslim to post this and believe it exonorates Angle or anyone else. No one's constitutional rights were violated. The Christains were clearly in the wrong chosing this event to record an ambush video. They caused the confrontation.

I don't think it was unreasonable for the Muslims at the table or security to ask the Christians to stop video taping. You show up, shove a camera in my face, and start firing questions I'm going to ask you to stop the tape as well. Even if only to find out your purpose and intent. The christians never gave the Muslims the respect to at least come to some agreement about taping.  

And while this America and we have rights to free speech and assembly, you don't have the right to come to my party and disrupt it because you don't like me.

Sadly,while this event was organized to foster greater understanding, it is instead being used by some to drive us further apart. Don't think for a moment that that doesn't fit someone's agenda.

BG, you are freakin EPIC!! Whatever dude, whatever.

Every time I look at the title of this thread I laugh and think about the Barbara Streisand movie. This guy (BG) is a commercial for hiding as much money as you can in your personal VUL policy. So is this guy:

http://www.jerrybrown.org/about

Now that the election is over, you have to admit the hard work begins. Thoughtful advisors will find ways for their clients to minimize taxes and increase personal wealth.

They will find comfort in thinking for themselves and avoiding distractions. 

[quote=N.D.]

[quote=anabuhabkuss][quote=Times7]BG, when did you become such a pussy? When you got rich or before?[/quote]Good debating skills. Clearly BG doesn't know how to "debate" as well as you do.

What has happened to this site? Wow.[/quote]

Correct, I would say BG is on a much lower level.

At least Times7 makes attempts to cite sources to back up his opinions. BG only resorts to calling people in disagreement with him a "liar", "stupid" and/or (my favorite) a "racist".

BG, your party's time has come just like it did in the 90's. It's time for Obama to move back toward the center just like the Repubs made Clinton do during his term.

[quote=BondGuy]

I like PJ O'Rourke but !!!!

Are you a Neoconservative?

Healthy cynic only. Far from giving up. Often a realistic view of the world is mistaken as cynicism. Epecially on a negative topic.

Let me reframe the debate:

We can all agree that lying is wrong. For example: Even though we only do right for our clients it's not OK under any circumstances, for us to lie to them to induce them to act. So, if lying is wrong, and it's not OK for us to lie,  why is it Ok for these TP and Repub candidates to lie?

Would you hire a professional who lied to you to get your business? Of course not!  Yet, these lying TP candidates get a pass? Someone's got to explain that one to me.

And, again, hanging your hopes for change on a group of liars is, at best, naive.

OK there you have it-the answer that seperates our points of view- I'm a cynic and you are naive. Settled!

[/quote]

[quote=BondGuy]

Negative campaign ads? We're talking about out and out lies. Why is that OK?

You really trust the liars to change things?

How can you trust someone who lies?

[/quote]

Really? You think only Rep and TPs are "liars"?

In this campaign they clearly were liars. Or, did the bailouts fail to stabilized the economy? Because what i heard from TP/Repubs was speech after speech about the failed bailouts. So, since the bailouts worked but they claim they didn't, what would you call that? I call it a lie. But, maybe in your neck of the woods where you're Ok with lying, you've got some other name for it.

And, yes, Dems lie too. But the dems stepped up to save this country two years ago and yesterday got their asses handed to them by liars who misled voters as to the true naure of why we are where we are. Same thing happened to Bush in 92. We'll move on. Still, it is naive to think we are better off with liars in control of congress.

Honestly, ND, would you do business with a liar? Then why elect one to represent you?

[quote=BondGuy]

I'm now starting to understand who will vote for the Angles, O'Donnells, and Paladinos.

What was that line from Forest Gump?

Stupid is as stupid does.  

[/quote]

Really +1? You think anyone that disagrees with you is "stupid"?

Only when they say something stupid. The above is out of context, but obviously the repubs nominated unelectable candidates in these three. if they had put up more reasonable, and,yes, smarter candidates, in a year that saw a republican wave they could have picked up more seats. What do you call people who vote against their own self interest in primarys? I call them stupid.

Really about the most interesting stupid thing I read, or came to understand in these threads is that many of you truely lack an understanding of the collaspe of the bond markets two years ago. it's like some of you have bought into the campaign rhetoric,blame Goldman Sachs etc. And, again, what do you call someone who stops thinking for themselves and lets someone else do their thinking for them? Ah, my first choice isn't going to be anything synonymous with smart.

[quote=BondGuy]

Prime, it's Obama, not Osama. Your racist slip is showing.

[/quote]

[quote=BondGuy]

The term tea baggers, while derisive, isn't racist. Calling the prez Osama is racist as it's trying to play on Islamic fear. Look it up. I guess i expect too much from you? Space, are you a racist?

Speaking of racist tea baggers, all of you Ok with Sharron Angle getting the nod in Nevada? This woman claimed, outrageously, that Islamic Sharia law is being instituted in Dearborn Michigan and Frankford Texas. She demanded to know how that happened in the United States? That's a really good question since it didn't happen.   Good old fashioned American law rules in Dearborn. As for Frankfort Texas, would one of you tea bagger lovers please call Sharron and let her know that Frankfort Texas was annexed by Dallas almost 40 years ago, so, technically, no such place. Par for the course for the morons. Oh, and dallas? American law!

You guys really want people like that running the country?

[/quote]

Really +2? You think Space and anyone agreeing with the TP is "racist"? 

Only if they say or do something racist. If you don't think calling Obama Osama is racist try it out in an open room on one of your black co-workers. At the larger firms you could probably count your continued employment in days, no more than a week. But, don't take my word for it, try it yourself. 

Angle's comments were racist and stupid. Stupid on two levels, first, that she chose this subject to speak out against and two, because she picked a town in texas that no longer exists. Racist because of the outrageous anti muslim claims she was making. Space agree's with the racist POV espoused by Angle.

I don't think all TP members are racist. But, obviously, as the video tapes show, some are. What's interesting here, is that i've flagged racist comments and you are calling me out on it. What's up with that?

BG, you are freakin EPIC!! Whatever dude, whatever.

That's a weak ending. At least the other guy gave me a laugh by calling me a pussy. I know you've got better than that!

One other thing-  on the net +1 means you agree with a poster's comment. Even if you are the tenth person to agree it's still +1, as you are only one person. Following you on this post was a little confusing because of the +1 +2 stuff. I had to reread it to understand that you were incorrectly using +1 +2 to number your points. Just sayin' so you don't embarrass yourself when out there in the real internet world and not among those who love you here.

[/quote]

[quote=Times7]

BG, you are freakin EPIC!! Whatever dude, whatever.

Every time I look at the title of this thread I laugh and think about the Barbara Streisand movie. This guy (BG) is a commercial for hiding as much money as you can in your personal VUL policy. So is this guy:

http://www.jerrybrown.org/about

Now that the election is over, you have to admit the hard work begins. Thoughtful advisors will find ways for their clients to minimize taxes and increase personal wealth.

They will find comfort in thinking for themselves and avoiding distractions. 

[/quote]

Thoughtful advisors don't rip off their clients with VUL policies.

Thoughtful advisors don't rip off their clients with VUL policies.

No, they cop an attitude about permanent protection early in their careers, and impose their own limited financial knowlege on every client equally, often leaving them unprotected or losing term policies right when coverage is needed most. Or vulnerable to (the expiration) of estate taxes.

Many advisors don't even bother to adequately protect their own families. They don't understand the implications of insurance in a changing economy.

But hey, pitching debt and imposing your progressive ideas for the redistribution of wealth is more fun.

You don't even have your CFP, do you? You're not a financial planner, you should consider investing in yourself before you advise others. Most planners, as they mature, begin to see the light about a lot of things, including the importance of positive peer leadership.

Be honest and note that as planners mature in their careers, they usually take a broader approach to hedging against the uncertainty of death, increasing taxes, health changes, job and benefit loss, family needs, bankruptcy protection for small business owners and others,  and so on. You don't know what you don't know.

Sitting here listening to Obama. Man does he sound defensive!

Reporter Savannah on the split screen looking at Obama as he defensively rambles incoherently in answer to her question on whether he's not getting it: she's a confused looking fox.

How can you seriously believe in this fellow? Everyone in the press room is starting to look pissed off. Now he's thinking about his answer to Savannah and lecturing us about how great his health care is - wow, this guy is over the top. Terrible politician.

The Clintons are off in some room far away laughing, bring on Hillary for 2012. Rambling, rambling about the specifics of paperwork for individual health care policies. Unbelievable waste of eveyone's time.

[quote=BondGuy]

4. The escalated events that follow are the fault of the Christians, who refused to follow the orders of event security when asked to stop video taping. When they refused to follow that order, they were asked to leave. If they had left, peacefully, there would have been no escalation of hostilities. If you really believe this escalation was caused by Sharia law, try this: This weekend go to a college or NFL football game. While there, be confrontational to those seated around you. Be a real pain in the ass. Disrupt the viewing of the game. Scream this is america, I have a right to free speech and will yell whatever i like. When security shows up to toss you, get in their face too! On Monday come on here and let us know how long it took you to get bailed out of jail.  

[/quote]

So many comments could be made from your post but I will cherry pick this little piece here and remind you that if someone PAYS for a ticket to watch a ballgame, they should not have to put up with someone being disruptive that obviously didn't purchase a ticket for its intended purpose of sale. 

As for the video, it is interesting because I decided to watch it the first time without sound. IMO it is obvious these guys (Christians?) are there to cause trouble. If they truly came only to "ask a question" then there would be no reason for the cameras.Yes this is America and free speech is a right but in my personal opinion it is a right that should be used and not abused. If you watch the video without sound you could not tell if this was a religious disagreement or abortion or gay rights or any other debated topic. Both the "Christians" and the "Muslims" should have held themselves to higher standards in this situation. If these guys were breaking a law i.e. trespassing or disturbing the peace then the security should have called law enforcement.

p.s. as for the +1, +2 etc, I guess I should have dumbed it down a little for you so let me help you by saying +1 = additional point of reference to the comment by Anunabuttkiss and not you (BG) on your debating skills as being somehow superior to another.

p.s.s. was that a better ending?

ND, ending? ahh, it was Ok. Still no real kick ass punch. I'll go back and reread your post and pick up what you say I missed.

I watched the vid only once, with sound. This was an organized event. Like political rallys, visits by the prez, controversial gatherings ie abortion, clan etc, the police designate an area for protesters to gather to practice their rights to assembly and free speech. While personally, i disagree with this, it's just the way these things are handled these days. At this event the event security personel can be heard telling them to go to the designated area. That they, as protestors, in effect, were trying to crash the event  my best guess is that they gave up whatever rights they think they had. And, getting into it with security is getting into it with security, paid admission or not. Personally, i thought event security handled themselves well. Especially the guy who seemed to be in charge. Getting in these guys faces and not putting down the camera, the Christian agitators were asking for it. They were purposely provoking the Arab security members. i was waiting for one of the security people to put one of the Christians on the floor. The Christians were lucky not to get hurt. Not that would have been right, but understandable. Incidents, like these, quickly can get out of hand. And, the police don't want to hear who threw the first punch and neither do the courts.

 At a protest earlier this year in Philly, several protestors just exercising their first amendment rights spent up to several weeks in jail.

[quote=Times7]

Thoughtful advisors don't rip off their clients with VUL policies.

No, they cop an attitude about permanent protection early in their careers, and impose their own limited financial knowlege on every client equally, often leaving them unprotected or losing term policies right when coverage is needed most. Or vulnerable to (the expiration) of estate taxes.

Many advisors don't even bother to adequately protect their own families. They don't understand the implications of insurance in a changing economy.

But hey, pitching debt and imposing your progressive ideas for the redistribution of wealth is more fun.

You don't even have your CFP, do you? You're not a financial planner, you should consider investing in yourself before you advise others. Most planners, as they mature, begin to see the light about a lot of things, including the importance of positive peer leadership.

Be honest and note that as planners mature in their careers, they usually take a broader approach to hedging against the uncertainty of death, increasing taxes, health changes, job and benefit loss, family needs, bankruptcy protection for small business owners and others,  and so on. You don't know what you don't know.

Sitting here listening to Obama. Man does he sound defensive!

[/quote]

Thanks for the insurance pitch. With the advent of the DNC  I hadn't heard it in a while. or, was that a validation speech? Why are you so touchy about what you do?

What is the vig on a VUL these days? Whatever it is, no reason to feel guilty about it with a validation speech to us. We all know the truth, so, no converts on this bus.

Oh, one more news flash for the sole resident of myopicville, Just because i defend Obama, doesn't mean i'm a fan. So, fire away with anti Obama rhetoric to your heart's content, just keep it factual.

BG - Let's get back to Dearborn.  I can see where you could say Nabeel, the leader of the group, and his friends were inciting and looking for a fight.  It's not my style of witnessing, but he has a ministry called Acts 17 Apologetics that is all about witnessing to Muslims.  I can see where he might find a few Muslims to witness to at an Arab festival. 

The reality of what's going on in Dearborn is troubling to me as a Christian.  If you search on YouTube for Dearborn Muslim, you'll see several other videos by the same group where they get arrested at that same festival the next year.  For talking to people.  Not for inciting a riot.  Not for handing out Bibles inside the festival.  Under Sharia law it is illegal for a non-Muslim to witness to a Muslim.  Evidently the Dearborn police agree because they keep arresting these guys.  In one video Nabeel was talking with a group of teenagers who approached him and started asking  him questions.  They were actually having a civil conversation, well as civil as you can have with a Muslim questioning a Christian, when the police show up and arrest Nabeel. 

So, what it sounds like to me is that if you live in Dearborn, MI and there's a festival of some sort going on and you have a differing opinion than they do,  you're not allowed to go to that festival and discuss your viewpoint with the people at the festival for fear of being arrested.  So, if there was a gay pride festival going on and a group of heterosexual people showed up and started answering questions they were asked about why it's better to be straight than gay, they'd be arrested?  Or do these rules only apply to religious events?  More specifically, to Christians?   

To Sharon Angle's point, I agree with her than anytime US laws are superceded by Sharia law, even if it's just an Arab Festival in Dearborn, MI, it should concern us all.  It's the proverbial foot in the door.  The question is where does it stop?  That's what we should be looking into. 

Angle needs to calm down.

Space, I can only respond to the video i watched.

I guess one question would be: If witnessing to Muslims is against Islam then why aren't the Christian's respecting the values of the Islamic religion? Just that, is reason enough to escalate a chat into a fight. By it's very nature it's provocation. And, quite frankly, I find that lack of respect reprehensible.

These guys are being arrested for breaking american laws. Most likely disorderly conduct laws by not keeping with police emergency regs usually in force at these types of events. In other words the Arabs have the right to be there but the Christians don't. At least Christians trying to cause trouble don't have the right to be there. Same rules for abortion protests political rallies etc. gay festivals etc.  If the cops say stay out, well, then stay out! Regardless of the purpose of the festival or gathering. The christians aren't being singled out, nor are the arabs being given preferential treatment.

As for Angle, Sharia law had nothing to do with what happened in dearborn. I'd like to say that she knows better, but i can't. Angle's comments were meant to plug into the anti-muslim sentiment that you've demonstrated here. No doubt, because the Christians got the crap end of the stick on this video, many believe as you do, that the Arabs are at fault and are being supported by a sympathetic law enforcement community. This is the energy that Angle sought to capture.

The centered no skin in the game POV is that the Christians are at fault. Some may think the arabs over reacted, but there is no doubt that it is the Christians provoking a fight and disrupting the gathering. Because that is the case we see Angle's comments for what they are: Islamic fear mongering.

Space, while i respect your right to practice your religion, that right ends at my property line. If for some reason you believe your God is telling you to violate my rights I assure you my God disagrees and your God will either need to bail you out or give you a ride to the ER if you don't immediately follow my order to stop.

I realize that some Christains believe they are entitled to violate the rights of others because they believe they answer to God's law only or God's law above man's. It is this type of entitled reasoning that is getting the Christians arrested in Dearborn.

[quote=BondGuy]In other words the Arabs have the right to be there but the Christians don't.[/quote]

I know it probably wasn't your intent to confuse the two but be careful to not compare a religion with a race. As a muslim, I find it frustrating when the term Muslim is thrown around so loosely to categorize terrorists rather than "Saudi's, Afghanis" etc while Lebanese muslims, Indonesian muslims, Indian muslims and American Muslims are flipping through TV stations eating popcorn or minding their own business.

O'Reilly did this too when he compared the attack from the muslims on 9/11 to the attack on pearl harbor by the japanese

*shakes head*

Well, a real question is whether we are fighting extremists, or nations that clandestine use extremist groups for cover. I think that the answer to the question is more than clear in the case of Iran, and old Iraq. Libya certainly was, but when given the ultimatum, backed down.

If the Tea party is astroturf, then maybe home-grown extremism is fake.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/dec/07/nation/la-na-us-radicalization7-2009dec07

[quote=anabuhabkuss]

[quote=BondGuy]In other words the Arabs have the right to be there but the Christians don't.[/quote]

I know it probably wasn't your intent to confuse the two but be careful to not compare a religion with a race. As a muslim, I find it frustrating when the term Muslim is thrown around so loosely to categorize terrorists rather than "Saudi's, Afghanis" etc while Lebanese muslims, Indonesian muslims, Indian muslims and American Muslims are flipping through TV stations eating popcorn or minding their own business.

O'Reilly did this too when he compared the attack from the muslims on 9/11 to the attack on pearl harbor by the japanese

*shakes head*

[/quote]

Point taken.

BG - you're seeing what you want to see with this video.  First, the guys with the cameras didn't tell anyone they were Christians.  Second, they went into a the tent to ask a question about a brochure they were handed earlier.  That was the purpose of the tent.  According to the video, the people inside the tent knew they had a camera.  Third, they asked both uniformed police officers and security at the event if they were allowed to video tape what they were doing.  Both of them said yes.  Fourth, throughout the short discussions with the people in the tent, nobody mentioned religion or Christianity. 

Did you hear the guy telling his camera man to turn off the camera at the beginning of the tape when he was asked to by the guy at the booth?  Did you see the hand reach up and grab the camera before the camera man had a chance to shut it off  Who was being disrespectful of whose religion? I've watched that video probably half a dozen times now and find that the only people being disrespected are the Christians. 

All of the Christians that I know try to follow both the laws of the land and the laws of our religion.  The laws of the land are typically much easier, BTW. 

As to BF's question about fighting extremists, in many instances I believe the answer to that is yes.  That's not fear mongering or racism, it's just watching the news.  How many terrorist attacks are perpetrated by Christians?  Hindus?  Athiests?  It's difficult to see report after report of this Muslim group or that Muslim group blowing up a market or a police station or a bus stop or hearing about a planned attack on an airport or Jewish religious center or office building and not think that there is a contingent among them that believes they are doing the will of Allah when they do that stuff. 

So, if we as Americans don't like the way the Muslim majority runs a country like Iraq, Iran, or Afghanistan but we start to see some of their rule of law creeping into our society, don't you think the obvious thing to do is investigate it?  Does it have to get to the point where that Muslim community condones the stoning of a woman for adultery (under Sharia law) on US soil before someone takes action? 

[quote=BondGuy]

I guess one question would be: If witnessing to Muslims is against Islam then why aren't the Christian's respecting the values of the Islamic religion? Just that, is reason enough to escalate a chat into a fight. By it's very nature it's provocation. And, quite frankly, I find that lack of respect reprehensible.

[/quote]

If a fundamentalist Muslim living in the US believes his book of faith teaches him to stone his wife for adultery, should I watch from a distance as he does it so that I don't "disrespect" him?  I would hate to disrespect his values and intercede on his wife's behalf.

IH, you need to come up with a more ridiculous example.

Space, the guy in the vid was wearing some type of shirt with a symbol or design that made him easily identifiable. And, did the vid start at the beginning or was there interaction before the camera's were rolling? The event organizers already knew who these people were.

I watched the video objectively. In fact maybe more on the Christian's side because based on your post i was waiting for the Christians to get their butts handed to them in some outrageous way. What i saw was the christians provoking a fight.

The Christians said they were there to ask questions. That leads to this question: Were the Christians really seeking answers? We all know the answer to that question is no. The Christians were there to film an ambush video. They have no interest in islam beyond destroying it. Regardless, of how you want to spin it, the chisitans approach was dishonest at best.

As for the police, the Christians by being disruptive got what they had coming to them. They broke american law. On a finer point, you could be standing outside a 7-11, if a cop tells you to move along if you resist, you're going to jail.

Sharia law is not creeping into our country.

Lastly, if a group of Muslims came to your church this Sunday and started chanting "Allahu akbar" how long before the cops show up? And, why would the cops be called?

BTW, I disagree with the mosque being erected near ground zero. Even though the Muslims have the right to build, respect for our wishes would go a long way towards helping relations.

[quote=BondGuy]

IH, you need to come up with a more ridiculous example.

Space, the guy in the vid was wearing some type of shirt with a symbol or design that made him easily identifiable. And, did the vid start at the beginning or was there interaction before the camera's were rolling? The event organizers already knew who these people were.

I watched the video objectively. In fact maybe more on the Christian's side because based on your post i was waiting for the Christians to get their butts handed to them in some outrageous way. What i saw was the christians provoking a fight.

The Christians said they were there to ask questions. That leads to this question: Were the Christians really seeking answers? We all know the answer to that question is no. The Christians were there to film an ambush video. They have no interest in islam beyond destroying it. Regardless, of how you want to spin it, the chisitans approach was dishonest at best.

As for the police, the Christians by being disruptive got what they had coming to them. They broke american law. On a finer point, you could be standing outside a 7-11, if a cop tells you to move along if you resist, you're going to jail.

Sharia law is not creeping into our country.

Lastly, if a group of Muslims came to your church this Sunday and started chanting "Allahu akbar" how long before the cops show up? And, why would the cops be called?

BTW, I disagree with the mosque being erected near ground zero. Even though the Muslims have the right to build, respect for our wishes would go a long way towards helping relations.

[/quote]

Aint a big fan of Muslims

Hate peeps blowing stuff up

hate peeps that hate

Think maybe this religion allows you to hurt others who dont beleive

Biggest problem in world today....................

having said all that.....cant block Mosque.  this is America.

You block that mosque you become them.   Chavez, Putin.

BG - I disagree that it was going to be an ambush video.  Now, I don't know what question they were planning on asking, other than it was a question about the Muslims' fight against terrorism.  The main guy says that at the beginning of the video.  I have no doubt that they disagreed with the contents of the brochure and were going to attempt to discuss it with the guys in the tent.  I don't believe that they were there to cause trouble.  In fact, they say that they had asked the people at the table a couple of times if they could video tape their converstions and were told yes.  Maybe a different guy was at the table when they came back.  That session could have turned out a lot differently.  But we don't really know how that it would have turned out because they never got to ask their question. 

I know you'll find this suprising, but I'm not sure what American law they broke?  If you're looking only at what happened on that clip, the only people who broke any American laws were the ones assaulting the guys with the video cameras. 

I realize that it's pointless to debate this with you.  You're not going to change your mind. 

As to your question about a group of people chanting "Allahu akbar" in my church,  I think it would depend on how they handled themselves.  If they just ran into the room yelling it, I'd suspect they'd get tackled.  Mostly because the majority of people believe that when a middle eastern looking guy walks or runs into a crowded room and says Allahu Akbar, the next thing that happens is he blows himself up.  If they walked in a weren't trying to cause a fight, they'd probably be allowed to stay.  They might get asked to leave, but IMHO it would take more than that to get kicked out of a typical American church. 

Heck, if they went into a Pentacostal church they might get to preach.  If they're speaking in tongues before the service even starts, they obviously have the Holy Spirit with them and He wants to be heard. 

Space, good point on things go boom right after Alla Akbar. I was really strectching for a point, which was these people, even of good intent, would be disrupting your service. And, though some churches might be tollerent, calling the police wouldn''t be out of line.

The confrontation derailed the christian's orgininal intent when it got into a pissing match about the cameras.  Still, all the christians had to do was shut up and leave. They didn't do that.

As for the law broken, i don't know what laws were broken. Probably disturbing the peace and or failure to follow a police order. The protestors were, apparently, anticipated, given a place to protest, and no doubt told to stay in that area if they wished to protest. That these people were out of that area and were then involved in a confrontation is an automatic arrest. Like i said, if they'd just left.

BG - You keep trying to make a point by using places that are not "public". You asked "what if someone stood up in a football stadium and started shouting" and now you are saying "what if someone enters a church and starts shouting". In both instances, I would say the "someone" has an ass whoopin coming.

Now back to the video, if there is no requirement to "decline" admission to the Muslim event then these Christians have the right to do as they please to the point of not disturbing the peace. If there is some kind of "gatekeeper" (ticket taker or city permit that allows for participation restrictions) one would have to "pass" by to enter the event then it should be assumed to be a non-public event which IMO limits free speech.

We cannot tell from the video if this event would be considered "open to the public" or some version of "by invitation only". The invitation could be made by the gatekeeper or prior to the event. Either way doesn't matter.

IMO free speech is not and should not include every square inch of real estate in the country. I hate that people choose to protest at funerals but if someone wants to protest a funeral then they should have that right but the cemetery should limit entrance to the cemetery during the burial.

OK, BG, I'll condede the point that the guys with the video cameras should have just gone home.  But you've got to concede that they got treated unfairly by the Muslim security folks.  There's enough fault on both sides to go around. 

Let's shift our attention to Oklahoma.  Why?  Because BG states that he believes Sharia law isn't trying to get it's foot in the door in the US.  According to the Huffington Post, the most factual website in cyberspace, there was a vote on the Nov 2 ballot in OK that would "prohibit state courts from considering international or Islamic law when deciding cases."  Sounds pretty simple.  The courts in OK can't look at Sharia Law, Hindu Law, Russian Laws, Australian Laws, etc when forming an opinion.  Well, guess who got his panties in a wad?  A guy named Muneer Awad, a Mulsim living in OK who feels his rights are being violated.  He believes that the new law, which was passed by a 70% vote by the people of OK, violates his rights.  He complains that "the measure transforms Oklahoma's Constitution into 'an enduring condemnation' of Islam by singling it out and barring courts from referring to Islamic law. It also alleges it violates the First Amendment's prohibition against laws regarding the establishment of religion."

The judge agreed with him temporarily.  So, the Attorney General, I believe, of OK has until Nov 22 to make the state's case or the judge is going to throw out the vote.  Hmmm...so, the people of OK voted overwhelmingly in favor of the amendment to their state's constitution, but a judge can say never mind and override them all?  Sounds like the tail wagging the dog to me.  

Let's say that the vote does get thrown out and  a few months later Mr. Awad finds out his teenage daughters are dating (gasp) non-Muslim boys, going to dances, and doing other things to dishonor the family.  So, as a devout Muslim, he decides that an honor killing is in order.  He gets them into his car and then honorably kills them both.  Does he then have a legal foot to stand on when he stands in front of the judge and tells him that under Sharia law, which as a Muslim he follows, he is justified in his honor killing?  Whose laws does the judge follow?  Do they follow American laws which say you can't kill people or does he follow Sharia law which holds honor evidently above the lives of your children?  I think an activist judge could have a lot of fun with that. 

How many instances do you need in this country of honor killings, court injunctions, Christians in handcuffs, etc before you wake up and realize that there is a radical religious group out there trying to work it's way into our culture like it has in the UK, France, and Germany?  Do you think our current Supreme Court has the cajones to tell the international community, much less the Muslim community here, that we're not going to play that game?  With a President going around the world bending over backwards to the Muslim community apologizing for the attitudes of the people of HIS country toward Muslims?  I have my doubts. 

So, BG, still want to tell me Sharia law isn't creeping into our country? 

Let's don't have an academic debate about the special legal rights of Muslims in America:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2VkIu8TL_I&feature=related

My comment was qued for moderation. Don't know if moderation is going to be cutting it for me here.

" The important thing about Sharia law is that it is perfect and sacred. Law based upon democratic process is offensive to Islam because such law is based upon people. Sharia law is based upon the Koran and Mohammed, the only perfect guidance. Therefore, it is an offence to Islam for Muslims to have to live under democratic constitutional law. "

 http://westernfrontamerica.com/2009/03/04/short-overview-sharia-law/

Putting the politics of fear and advantage aside, the motivation for events like 9/11 come into clearer focus. The analogy to personal perspective and clarity would be, when you start out in this career you are drinking from a fire hose of information and running about making a great effort, but when you are established, you sit back and steer the ship with great clarity and simplicity and money comes to you.

In other words, the American people are coming to know the true meaning of Sharia. Progressives are still struggling with their own sensibilities and definitions of personal versus social responsibility or "rights".

In the case of either Islam or Christianity (or Buddhism), progressives don't "get it", that you can have faith in something to the point of exclusion of alternative realities or even the "rights" of others.

Don't forget that the foundation of the concept of American exceptionism is immigration. If you want to deny American exceptionalism, ignore Sharia law.

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

That immigration screwed the native Americans and created free and globalized markets, so you have some historians making stupid theories denying American exceptionalism.

" Belief in American exceptionalism is more characteristic of conservatives than liberals. Howard Zinn and Godfrey Hodgson[3] said that it is based on a myth, and that "there is a growing refusal to accept" the idea of exceptionalism both nationally and internationally.[4] "

Will be interesting to watch it play out. Japan was supposed to be taking over the world at the end of the 80's, and then with her homogenous populution, declined. Now China is ascending, and the American mutts are wringing their hands. Maybe we should stop wringing our hands.

In other words, American exceptionalism is mostly based on the Judeo Christian tradition, which separates personal (spiritual)  law from public law.

Sharia does not separate the individual from society. No recognition of democratic constitutional law.

When progressivism seeks to redistribute wealth and direct behaviors, it is more akin to Sharia than to American exceptionalism. That's why progressive need to remain vigilant.