|
Post by fredorbob on Jan 26, 2010 12:04:31 GMT -6
Just maybe it's cheaper to import gas from Canada and Mexico, as we do now.. Until they join OPEC, or until oil rises again because during cheap oil times the free traders refused to put a tariff on imports so therefore oil-shale, tarsands, and coal to oil investment is zero.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Jan 26, 2010 12:03:27 GMT -6
simple answer: if it's not a renewable energy source, it's wasted money more pragmatic answer: charge a water tax on the production facility and go from there. "renewable" is a buzzword Green Commies use.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Jan 26, 2010 11:57:28 GMT -6
Ron Paul isnt the only non-commi to vote against those bailouts.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Jan 26, 2010 11:45:36 GMT -6
The Catholic church is internationalist, I find this declaration to be odd.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Jan 26, 2010 11:42:34 GMT -6
Green Communism and the Mexican invasion is why California is broke.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Jan 7, 2010 8:04:26 GMT -6
Do you know what I find to be the most sad of all?
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Jan 7, 2010 7:54:39 GMT -6
. . . The number of Americans filing for personal bankruptcy rose by nearly a third in 2009, a surge largely driven by foreclosures and job losses. . . . You could probably scratch out the words "foreclosures and", so it would more accurately read: Foreclosures don't cause personal bankruptcies, foreclosures are what people do BECAUSE they are bankrupt. So the only thing left "causing bankruptcies" is "job losses". Cause and effect here... Cause: Bankruptcy Effect: Foreclosure not... cause: Foreclosure effect: Bankruptcy That's bass ackwards.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Jan 3, 2010 10:53:17 GMT -6
My predictions for 2010: Democrats will remain in control of Congress. haha
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Jan 3, 2010 10:51:52 GMT -6
Well we could always treat our meat with lye, like lutefisk.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Dec 29, 2009 8:26:45 GMT -6
Yeah that's how a Bull Market opera.....um...Oh hehe that's a "Ponzi scheme", *giggles*, my bad.
Silly me, I keep mixing the two concepts up.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Dec 27, 2009 0:03:44 GMT -6
Green is the new red. No, that's not accurate, Greens are worse than communists; while communists are the advocates of the poor and enemies of the rich, Green is the enemy of all mankind.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Dec 26, 2009 23:46:30 GMT -6
No rational argument exists to continue this policy because it is damaging America as a country even though it continues to provide cheap goods to American consumers. "cheap goods to American consumers"? Oh really, so shoes do cost $5, oil costs 50 cents a gallon, and keyboards are a dime a dozen. Oh reaaaaallly. Cheap goods hmmm? Last time I checked there was price INFLATION on everything except for a few made in America goods.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Dec 25, 2009 9:18:06 GMT -6
Page not found
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Dec 23, 2009 13:25:28 GMT -6
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_approval_rating (all those graphs at bottom) This seems to be the pattern, high approval rating at beginning of administration, dipping down at end. All this proves is how stupid voters are, they are always setting themselves up for disappointment. The only anomaly to this pattern is Clinton, who had the Wacco Massacre in 1993.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Dec 23, 2009 13:07:11 GMT -6
Not reverse communists, not anti-communists, neocons are inverse communists.
Where the communist believes in lowering the wages of the rich to equal the wages of the welder, the factory worker, and the carpenter; the neocon believes in artificially lowering then wages of the welder, the factory worker, and the carpenter by flooding the labor market with cheap foreign labor while lowering the taxes on the rich to prop their wages up.
The Communist has preconceived notions in what people should earn, which is the inverse of the Neocon's preconceived notions of what people should earn.
Ask a neocon how they feel about a factory worker earning $40 an hour and they recoil in horror.
Ask a communist how they feel about a banker earning $40 an hour and they recoil in horror.
In the 1990's, in my early twenties I was earning $50,000 a year, by driving truck. Not because I was particularly skilled (although not getting into accidents was a big plus), but because nobody likes going over the road and being away from home for months at a time driving truck all over the damn place. Supply and Demand, there was a low supply of truck drivers so therefore the wages were artificially high (which is why I started driving truck in the first place cause I understood this concept, not cause I had some uncle driving truck). But to the neocons this is an abomination, "no truck driver should earn more then minimum wage, in fact those skill-less yahoos should be earning less then minimum wage". The neocons would rectify this situation by flooding the country with millions of mexican truck drivers. See the neocons don't actually believe in supply and demand, neocons are inverse communists.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Dec 23, 2009 12:44:08 GMT -6
Hehe, I know nothing of sports and so does this guy John Tamny.
I still believe in some supply-side propaganda:
"Taxing the rich is just taxing yourself." Ah but that only works if the rich are employing Americans.
"The laffer curve, taxing the rich at greater amounts brings diminishing returns to the treasury." Yes but we are well under the crest of the laffer curve, Bush's upper bracket tax cut's when he first got into office proved that.
"Taxing the successful doesn't raise up the unsuccessful." I totally agree. And neither does propagandizing for green Communism Global Warming prop up the standard of living, and all blue bloods are Green Commies. If the blue bloods have less money then they will propagandize less.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Dec 23, 2009 12:26:07 GMT -6
HAHAHAHAHA HAHAHA HA HA haaaaa
That's funny. The people in power are bankrupting the country with Luddite technology (windmills) and destroying nuclear/coal/hydro power plants as fast as possible.
Replacing obsolete industries, lawl. Give me a fucking break. We're going backwards.
And the neocons opposing these Luddites want to return to the days of slavery. "replacing obsolete industries," GTFO of here.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Dec 22, 2009 6:28:59 GMT -6
The "fund more education to be internationally competative" is just another bullshit argument from the Globalist con artists. It's an argument used to distract.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Dec 22, 2009 6:26:22 GMT -6
Even if torture was successful at stopping terrorist attacks, for every one step forward these globalists take 2 steps back.
For every successful stopped terrorist attack these Globalist bastards let 100 sleepers into the US with open borders, or they empower the foreign terrorists with their pro-OPEC Globalist policies.
If you could simplify the equation down these bastards are torturing and killing for 'Free Trade' and 'Open Borders'.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Dec 22, 2009 1:20:59 GMT -6
What exactly are the "audit the fed" people looking for anyways? We need to know with more certainty how much money the Fed has given away both directly and indirectly (i.e., through overpayment to purchase toxic assets), and we need to know to whom these handouts went. I don't think anyone knows how much money has gone to Government Sachs, either by known documented transfer, or by secretive addition of 0's onto their account ledgers. In fact, there are a lot of other firms that have gotten funds from the Fed. Some foreign banks probably received US taxpayer money as well. And if you this doesn't convince you, just look at how hard Bernanke is working to block any such audit. There appears to be a lot of financial chicanery that Uncle Ben and Terrible Timmy don't want the public to know about. 14 billion, isn't that what Goldman Sachs received? Hehe, check out this free traitor article, read it then look at the date it was published: www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2008/03/cheap_labor_is_very_expensive.htmlThen if you don't get it, look at the comments.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Dec 22, 2009 1:14:51 GMT -6
Yesterday a talking head on FOX said that the "Brazillian Supreme Court was gone for winter vacation." hehe, they are on the other side of the equator meaning when we got winter they got summer.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Dec 21, 2009 13:48:38 GMT -6
So foreigners have US Constitutional rights huh.
So can a Chinese citizen sue the Chinese government in US court for denying them their US Constitutional right to privacy, freedom of religion, press, speech, and right to bear arms, etc...?
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Dec 21, 2009 13:41:41 GMT -6
Until recently I use to follow the Republican party bravado towards 'water boarding', then I read the details about it. It isn't "simulating" drowning it "is" drowning. I'm pretty much against it now, however it still doesn't change the fact that foreigners don't have US Constitutional rights.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Dec 21, 2009 13:01:58 GMT -6
Fox News seems to be happy about this news. "A multi-million dollar yacht can employ a thousand people at $20 an hour." Wow amazing stuff huh, i'm so happy.
The rich get richer and the middle class disappears.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Dec 21, 2009 10:29:34 GMT -6
Whether you agree with Ron Paul on all issues .... I could agree with a "whi-te power" neonazi on stopping immigration, for different reasons. I can agree with Ron Paul on about abandoning NAFTA, for totally different reasons. To Ron Paul NAFTA isn't "free trade" enough for him, Regressives like him call it "managed trade", NAFTA isn't suicidal enough for him. So if I were to vote for him and he actually managed to abandon NAFTA, then he'd turn around and lower all US tariffs to zero "regardless of what other nations do." Suicide Libertarians. Trade treaties are done via "treaty" meaning you get something from them, they get something from you. If the US lowers tariffs here, then Mexico lowers their tariffs there. If the US lowers these tariffs, then Mexico lowers those tariffs. That monkey-face Libertarian would lower US tariffs to zero while Mexico would raise their tariffs. Then he'd put US currency on the gold standard, HAH! We'd be out of gold in 6 months, then what.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Dec 21, 2009 10:22:37 GMT -6
When someone is "audited" then someone is looking for something.
What are you all looking for when you want to "audit" the Fed?
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Dec 21, 2009 10:21:09 GMT -6
If an audit on the Federal Reserve can get the Chariman of the Fed to admit on television that they had no choice to print 700 billion dollars last year because 700 billion dollars left the country last year so therefore all these economic woes originate from free trade, then heck i'm all for it.
Otherwise what exactly does Ron Paul expect to find from an audit? He won't find anything, how can he find something if he doesn't know what he's looking for. What exactly are the "audit the fed" people looking for anyways?
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Dec 18, 2009 7:23:01 GMT -6
I remember reading it was passed in the mid 1990's.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Dec 18, 2009 7:08:45 GMT -6
He's also an open-border, pro cheap foreign labor, work visas, free trading regressive. That puts him in the worst of all possible categories. I haven't listened to him that much. Is Gingrich also a pro-war advocate like most other Republicans? I think he's all gungho for the never-ending war. Very few Republicans voted against the authorization for war (euphamism for declaration of war).
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Dec 18, 2009 6:38:15 GMT -6
. . . All that being said, the only solution to our trade deficit is tariffs. We cannot control what other countries do to their currency, or how they treat their workers. We cannot control whether they subsidize their exports — either directly, or thru VATs. But we can control what comes in to this country. And we can make foreign goods more expensive. And we can make it unprofitable for American companies to move production overseas, fire their American workers, and replace them with cheaper foreign workers. . . . What's with all the negativity attached to tariffs: "We can make foreign goods more expensive"? The federal government is run on money, it's either going to tax American wages or tax foreigners. I'd think it'd be a tad bit better to tax foreigners, especially ones that practice trade nationalism against my country. The goal of taxation isn't to make things more expensive, it's to collect revenue. The IRS motto isn't, "To make life more miserable for Americans home and abroad," although it should be.
|
|