Obama Joker Poster Case

[Mike Hawk]

Like I said, I'm for a mixed balance of both socialism and capitalism.

 

What you're talking about falls under communism, not necessarily socialism. Communism is an extreme form of socialism. You don't go around interchanging fascism and capitalism, do you? But people don't hesitate to do so to communism and socialism.

 

 

 

Nobody here is talking about communism.

 

Yugoslavia Wikipedia

 

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

 

"Main articles: Kingdom of Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and Federal Republic of Yugoslavia"

 

 

Again research your agrument before you attack.

[AtTheDriveIn]

Yugoslavia Wikipedia

 

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

 

"Main articles: Kingdom of Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and Federal Republic of Yugoslavia"

 

 

Again research your agrument before you attack.

 

You didn't reply to my post?

 

Too much for you? I can understand if it was.

[Mike Hawk]

You didn't reply to my post?

 

Too much for you? I can understand if it was.

 

Lol, there was nothing to reply to in your Imbisclatic Post.

 

Explain to me how its fair for a company like Ford to compete agaisnt a new Government Owned General Motors?

 

No one has explained that to me yet, and the more you allow things to go like that, then the system is doomed for failure.

[AtTheDriveIn]

Lol, there was nothing to reply to in your Imbisclatic Post.

 

Right, because you can't think of an answer or reply to it. Here you go once again:

 

I like it how you used the 'j' to make it sound authentic, but forgot to put on at the start of Jugoslavija. If you want to sound different, check yo' spelling, dawg.

 

 

Nobody was talking about communism either, by the way. We're talking about socialism. A socialist government is one where everything is actually shared amongst the people equally. For such a poor economic standard, a socialist government in Bosnia, or in the hip, retro, 'jugoslavija' is impossible. It can only be run through a set of strict political rules, which would no longer make it a socialist government. And if you knew anything, you'd know that they're not the same thing because communism focuses mainly on many political issues, meanwhile, Marx said that the idea of 'socialism' was about the economy and not about politics.

 

Thus far, there hasn't been many countries that have been able to implement Marxism correctly mainly because the level of economic growth was just too poor and almost all 'ideas' of socialism came from poor states who wanted a better lifestyle, but couldn't exactly get it.

 

Communism, on the other hand, usually mixes in socialism and a form of dictatorship together and disguises it under the name of 'socialist republic' so that they don't have every capitalist country in the world attack them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By the way, the word imbisclatic doesn't exist.

[Mike Hawk]

Right, because you can't think of an answer or reply to it. Here you go once again:

 

I like it how you used the 'j' to make it sound authentic, but forgot to put on at the start of Jugoslavija. If you want to sound different, check yo' spelling, dawg.

 

 

Nobody was talking about communism either, by the way. We're talking about socialism. A socialist government is one where everything is actually shared amongst the people equally. For such a poor economic standard, a socialist government in Bosnia, or in the hip, retro, 'jugoslavija' is impossible. It can only be run through a set of strict political rules, which would no longer make it a socialist government. And if you knew anything, you'd know that they're not the same thing because communism focuses mainly on many political issues, meanwhile, Marx said that the idea of 'socialism' was about the economy and not about politics.

 

Thus far, there hasn't been many countries that have been able to implement Marxism correctly mainly because the level of economic growth was just too poor and almost all 'ideas' of socialism came from poor states who wanted a better lifestyle, but couldn't exactly get it.

 

Communism, on the other hand, usually mixes in socialism and a form of dictatorship together and disguises it under the name of 'socialist republic' so that they don't have every capitalist country in the world attack them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By the way, the word imbisclatic doesn't exist.

 

 

And I replied to that Post by saying that Yugoslavia was Socialist, Read it right.

And actually the region of Yugoslavia had a lot of money back then and was growing at a 7 Percent GDP every year until it started having economic problems. You really neeed to learn your history before you argue about something.

 

You still havent explained to me how Its fair for Ford to compete agaisnt GM?

 

I hope your teachers at school dont give you an F on a final and then let you retake it until you get an A, and get it right. Its called you have to take the whole class again to build the foundation to gain the knowledge you need.

[AtTheDriveIn]

And I replied to that Post by saying that Yugoslavia was Socialist, Read it right.

And actually the region of Yugoslavia had a lot of money back then and was growing at a 7 Percent GDP every year until it started having economic problems. You really neeed to learn your history before you argue about something.

 

Yugoslavia wasn't socialist. =S Oh [expletive], I can make points without having factual evidence too.

 

Do you know what toe USSR stands for? Did you know the word 'Socialist' is one of the S's? Who actually considers Former Russia a Socialist country? Stalin never declared himself a dictator, but everyone knew exactly what he was. He had secret police, for [expletive]s sake. How is that 'social'?

 

Where's this major money, by the way? I've been in 'Yugoslavia' between 1991-1994, 1999, 2001, and 2004 and do you know the main difference? Sometimes they have electricity at night as opposed to not having any electricity for four years between during the Bosnian War. Hell, the Bosnians don't even own 49% of their land because they can't afford to keep it controlled and maintained. That doesn't seem like a country which has developed much of anything, does it? And it's certainly a prime candidate for a strong leader with socialist ideas.

 

Serbia's exactly the same; they're so busy compensating for the Wars to other countries that they don't even have the expenses to let their economy function and grow the way it probably should. Croatia long distanced itself from it's poorer neighbours but it's still suffering from the wars from the Serbian idiots.

 

My parents also lived in Bosnia from the 1960s and they said it's as bad now as it was then. I don't need silly stastics that show the communist governments make money and then they don't distribute to the people. It's useless unless you've seen it first hand. This economic rise certainly didn't help the people. It might have helped the government build and restore some of the medieval castles, but it did nothing for the people. And they're still suffering because of it.

 

 

 

So explain to me, even with the whole 7% thing, where's this money? It's certainly not in their economy.

 

 

You still havent explained to me how Its fair for Ford to compete agaisnt GM?

 

I hope your teachers at school dont give you an F on a final and then let you retake it until you get an A, and get it right. Its called you have to take the whole class again to build the foundation to gain the knowledge you need.

 

Jesus Christ, you can't be more than thirteen years old.

 

Its called, get some better comebacks, lyk, kewl?

 

And I never argued about Ford in the first place. I'm not into the automotive industry and I don't know much about how they buy/sell companies, especially not in America. If you can show me where I've engaged in some argument about GM and Ford, then I'll concede that I lose that argument simply on the basis that I don't know what I'm even arguing about, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't engage in any sort of argument about car companies. Not today anyway.

 

 

And please, if you reply, for your sake, argue every point, don't leave out bits and then say 'oh it's stupid' when I question you on it. You just make yourself look more like the moron you are.

Edited August 21, 2009 by AtTheDriveIn

[Mike Hawk]

Yugoslavia wasn't socialist. =S Oh [expletive], I can make points without having factual evidence too.

 

Do you know what toe USSR stands for? Did you know the word 'Socialist' is one of the S's? Who actually considers Former Russia a Socialist country? Stalin never declared himself a dictator, but everyone knew exactly what he was. He had secret police, for [expletive]s sake. How is that 'social'?

 

Where's this major money, by the way? I've been in 'Yugoslavia' between 1991-1994, 1999, 2001, and 2004 and do you know the main difference? Sometimes they have electricity at night as opposed to not having any electricity for four years between during the Bosnian War. Hell, the Bosnians don't even own 49% of their land because they can't afford to keep it controlled and maintained. That doesn't seem like a country which has developed much of anything, does it? And it's certainly a prime candidate for a strong leader with socialist ideas.

 

Serbia's exactly the same; they're so busy compensating for the Wars to other countries that they don't even have the expenses to let their economy function and grow the way it probably should. Croatia long distanced itself from it's poorer neighbours but it's still suffering from the wars from the Serbian idiots.

 

My parents also lived in Bosnia from the 1960s and they said it's as bad now as it was then. I don't need silly stastics that show the communist governments make money and then they don't distribute to the people. It's useless unless you've seen it first hand. This economic rise certainly didn't help the people. It might have helped the government build and restore some of the medieval castles, but it did nothing for the people. And they're still suffering because of it.

 

 

 

So explain to me, even with the whole 7% thing, where's this money? It's certainly not in their economy.

 

 

 

 

Jesus Christ, you can't be more than thirteen years old.

 

Its called, get some better comebacks, lyk, kewl?

 

And I never argued about Ford in the first place. I'm not into the automotive industry and I don't know much about how they buy/sell companies, especially not in America. If you can show me where I've engaged in some argument about GM and Ford, then I'll concede that I lose that argument simply on the basis that I don't know what I'm even arguing about, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't engage in any sort of argument about car companies. Not today anyway.

 

 

And please, if you reply, for your sake, argue every point, don't leave out bits and then say 'oh it's stupid' when I question you on it. You just make yourself look more like the moron you are.

 

LOL I was there through the whole war. My family came here because there was no more opportunity over there. Do you want short term gain for a long term pain. Its all up to you, thats exactly what you get with that type of system.

 

LOl and its funny what you are saying because that system actually helped my Family a lot. My dad was very succesful over there in the prior system. After it collapsed there was no More. Thats why I said its the short term gain for the long term gain. There is no hope for thsoe coutnries now, they had their prosperous gains now they are failures.

 

You are arguing that Obama is right in what he is doing. So he supports the government buying GM, so you are arguing for that argument.

 

So explain to me how its fair for Ford to compete against a Government bought GM? Thats what Obamas view is, if you cant explain that then please exit the thread.

 

People need to grow some balls and start taking care of their responsibilities and Mistakes. You lose then you lose, no point in having someone bail you out especially if its the government.

 

Like I said I rather have every American citizen get a check in the mail for 1 Million dollars than to give it to a company like GM who failed on their own.

[AtTheDriveIn]

Thanks for the life story.

 

So uh, where's the money gone?

Are you conceding to Yugoslavia not being a socialist country? Why/Why not?

 

I don't think I've written the word 'Obama' in any of my posts in this thread. I came in here to tell you you're an idiot; not to argue Obama, lol.

[Lkr]

Imagine if there was one government owned cable company. They could charge you $500 a month for 2 channels, and if you didn't like the service, you can't cancel or go anywhere else!

[alcstarheel]

Ah, political debates, on a forum with a lot of teens. If grown men and women can't agree on politics (or religion) then we know these threads are doomed from the start.

 

A couple remarks I'd like to add.

 

You could say that a major part of Finland's, Denmark's, and Switzerland's "happiness" can be attributed to their type of government, but one thing they have compared to the U.S. is that those countries only have to satisfy 5-9 million people. The U.S. has over 300 million to look after. Also, with so many of those residents being born of the country, with so many of their same descent, the citizens may be a little more content with what goes on in the country.

 

Then again, they may be more content because they've seen how the government's work, has worked.

 

The U.S. is a very capitalistic country, i.e. people want to "capitalize" on every opportunity, no matter if it's good in the long run or not. I have a couple of Indian-born coworkers (from India) and they have remarked on the capitalistic nature. What they've said is that, even though you make more money over here, people in general are happier in India. Money-money-money isn't the focus over there like it is here. So they come here and live, but they just send some of that higher income back to their families.

 

So what you can say is that a lot of people immigrate to America because they can make more money here first and foremost, not because it's such a happy place to live.

 

You guys can debate whether we're turning socialist or not, but for it to even happen would take 50+ years of constant governmental policy and procedural changes.

 

You know what's funny...the second largest corporation (in employee numbers) is the USPS, a government-operated mail processing and delivery service. They have a constitutional monopoly on the use of individual mailboxes. I don't hear anyone complaining.

 

You know why? Because UPS and FedEx are big in this country, as direct competitors to the PO. Government owned-operated, necessary service for the U.S. population, and it hasn't caused any problems with other players in the market. Sound familiar?

 

Basically we should just look at it as government intervention is necessary or we'd be running around with our heads cut off. Too little intervention and too much intervention are never good. We will remain somewhere in the middle throughout Obama's term and throughout the next generation. We should also look at it as this country is the greatest in the world, but don't forget what started that. And don't think 200 years will be changed in the 4 or more years that Obama will be in office, either. That is unless we have a war on it, I guess.

[Mike Hawk]

Thanks for the life story.

 

So uh, where's the money gone?

Are you conceding to Yugoslavia not being a socialist country? Why/Why not?

 

I don't think I've written the word 'Obama' in any of my posts in this thread. I came in here to tell you you're an idiot; not to argue Obama, lol.

 

LOL, apperently you live in the 1965s, because Yugoslavia split at the begining of the 90s thats why whe had the wars. Of course there will be no money in the country after a war. The money was gone when people stopped trying because they were all guaranteed a job and thats exactly what I was trying to explain to you, that you cant have 0 unemployment and expect a Prosperous country, it doesnt work. Prior to popular beliefs not everyone is created equal, so they dont get paid equally.

 

This thread is about Obama, so again please exit the thread, unless you can explain to me how its fair for Ford to compete against GM. Or if you are actually contributing to the thread Read the OTR guidelines, otherwise you are just baiting.

 

I also on the other hand would have liked 1 Million in my bank account instead of giving it to GM.

[alcstarheel]

Lol, there was nothing to reply to in your Imbisclatic Post.

 

Explain to me how its fair for a company like Ford to compete agaisnt a new Government Owned General Motors?

 

No one has explained that to me yet, and the more you allow things to go like that, then the system is doomed for failure.

 

 

Imagine if there was one government owned cable company. They could charge you $500 a month for 2 channels, and if you didn't like the service, you can't cancel or go anywhere else!

 

I mentioned it in my post but I'll also mention it here. USPS is government run. UPS and FedEx have no problem whatsoever competing with that gigantic entity, in the U.S. or internationally.

[Mike Hawk]

I mentioned it in my post but I'll also mention it here. USPS is government run. UPS and FedEx have no problem whatsoever competing with that gigantic entity, in the U.S. or internationally.

 

Yes but do you want everything to be ran by the government. Some things have to be ran by the government or else it wont work like the Military. You cant have State Run militaries in every 50 states.

 

I dont think its fair for GM to get a bailout when they make mistakes. But the good hard work of ford goes unnoticed because they had enough money to save for a rainy day. So you are telling me if I make a mistake, its okay I will get rewarded. But If I got money and I am doing good I dont need to get rewarded F Me. Do you see what I am getting at and what this is teaching other companies and industries.

 

Do you want the goverment deciding when you need a new knee or prostetic leg. Because thats whats happening in Canada, they also have sign up lists for Medical Procedures. Thats why so many people come down here to get the care they need.

[Real Deal]

But to suggest that we just let companies fail (such as GM) and let the country fall into a depression...that's insane. Anyone who lived through the Great Depression would drop their jaw at someone suggesting such a thing.

 

We aren't even in a full, severe recession yet. I don't ever want to know what a depression is like, and I could care less how it's suppressed as long as it's done.

[Mike Hawk]

But to suggest that we just let companies fail (such as GM) and let the country fall into a depression...that's insane. Anyone who lived through the Great Depression would drop their jaw at someone suggesting such a thing.

 

We aren't even in a full, severe recession yet. I don't ever want to know what a depression is like, and I could care less how it's suppressed as long as it's done.

 

Brandon.

Like I said before instead of bailing out GM, give every American a stimulus check for 1 Million dollars in the mail. THen they can decide on whatever they need to spend it on, and I guarantee there would be no depression. Because people would spend the money on the things they need.

[Real Deal]

Brandon.

Like I said before instead of bailing out GM, give every American a stimulus check for 1 Million dollars in the mail. THen they can decide on whatever they need to spend it on, and I guarantee there would be no depression. Because people would spend the money on the things they need.

Give every American a million dollars? Where are we going to get that kind of money at? That's going to cost us more zeros than our national debt.

 

800 Americans = $800 million.

 

Not a chance.

 

And just like many millionaires, a lot of them will keep that money. Then the US will get a huge slap in the face because the economy fails quicker than it could ever go.

[Mike Hawk]

Give every American a million dollars? Where are we going to get that kind of money at? That's going to cost us more zeros than our national debt.

 

800 Americans = $800 million.

 

Not a chance.

 

And just like many millionaires, a lot of them will keep that money. Then the US will get a huge slap in the face because the economy fails quicker than it could ever go.

 

Give them 100 Thousand then whatever. Its better to invest in the people than to invest into failed Companies. You are really punishing the hard working companies by doing that, and encouraging them to take on risky investments, and now they have to take on Risky investments because they cant compete with a Government owned GM anymore. The people will buy with that money the things they really need and put it back into the economy. That way our national debt will go down. I love how we are in debt and are going even further in debt, it does not make sense, if you lose shouldnt you be trying to win than lose again?

[Real Deal]

Give them 100 Thousand then whatever. Its better to invest in the people than to invest into failed Companies. You are really punishing the hard working companies by doing that, and encouraging them to take on risky investments, and now they have to take on Risky investments because they cant compete with a Government owned GM anymore. The people will buy with that money the things they really need and put it back into the economy. That way our national debt will go down. I love how we are in debt and are going even further in debt, it does not make sense, if you lose shouldnt you be trying to win than lose again?

Well, $100k pays off a house around here, probably pays about a fourth of a decent house in California.

 

Housing isn't a problem, but that's what many will use that money for, and that means that banks will be less involved.

 

Banks fail, car dealerships fail, economy fails, and people will be without jobs and without their $100k.

 

Everything isn't so basic, or else we'd all be running for President.

[Mike Hawk]

Well, $100k pays off a house around here, probably pays about a fourth of a decent house in California.

 

Housing isn't a problem, but that's what many will use that money for, and that means that banks will be less involved.

 

Banks fail, car dealerships fail, economy fails, and people will be without jobs and without their $100k.

 

Everything isn't so basic, or else we'd all be running for President.

 

Ok people buy houses. That money goes back into the country and stimulates the economy. Explain to me how the country fails more that way. Than by bailing out GM and giving what 1000 peole work or something?

[Real Deal]

Ok people buy houses. That money goes back into the country and stimulates the economy. Explain to me how the country fails more that way. Than by bailing out GM and giving what 1000 peole work or something?

Pay off a house, and it's yours. The banks are done with you at that point. They make no money off of you.

 

Banks would rather you have to pay on it for 25 years, as they rack up interest.

 

Same with vehicles.

 

The difficulty of getting a loan doesn't help the economy at all, because at the end of the day, people paying on cars are making money for the economy, not people buying them directly, because technically, the bank purchases that car from the dealership and puts their hand out for your own money.

 

Banks are key to this economy. Giving everyone money only eliminates banking from purchases, crushing the US economy.

[Mike Hawk]

Pay off a house, and it's yours. The banks are done with you at that point. They make no money off of you.

 

Banks would rather you have to pay on it for 25 years, as they rack up interest.

 

Same with vehicles.

 

The difficulty of getting a loan doesn't help the economy at all, because at the end of the day, people paying on cars are making money for the economy, not people buying them directly, because technically, the bank purchases that car from the dealership and puts their hand out for your own money.

 

Banks are key to this economy. Giving everyone money only eliminates banking from purchases, crushing the US economy.

 

Well wouldnt you want to pay off the house? Isnt the government loosing out more, by not having the people in Houses? I mean you got all these empty houses that you cant charge taxes 2? Isnt it easier to put everyone in a house and not let it decline over time. Than to keep houses empty and taxless?

 

But no you are wrong. Do you know how our problem started? Our problem started by the Glass Seagull Act I am not sure on the spelling. Which was signed by Bill Clinton, it deragulated the banks, and we had our housing appreciate for a while, but once that deregulation failed, we had the housing market fail msierably, because everyone was buying them who could not afford them. I rather have people realistic and affording what they can buy instead of buying what they cant afford.

 

You spend your 100k, if you didnt buy what you needed then you are screwed. But at the same time you have stimulated the economy though by cutting our national Debt. Simple Concept?

[Guru]

Brandon.

Like I said before instead of bailing out GM, give every American a stimulus check for 1 Million dollars in the mail. THen they can decide on whatever they need to spend it on, and I guarantee there would be no depression. Because people would spend the money on the things they need.

The US Dollar would depreciate faster than Usain Bolt if you did that.

[Mike Hawk]

The US Dollar would depreciate faster than Usain Bolt if you did that.

 

And its not doing that Now????????

[Guru]

And its not doing that Now????????

Not even close to the rate it would if your genius plan went into effect.

[Mike Hawk]

Not even close to the rate it would if your genius plan went into effect.

 

You are failing to see the point.

The people get 100K, buy things that they really need. The money is pumped back into the economy, reducing its national debt?????

Get it now???