The real progressive mind revealed.

[timesjoke]

So no. They aren't the same. Liberal and Progressive were pretty close, so I'll give you that one. But "progressive" doesn't mean "socialist" or "democrat", and so forth.

You have to pay attention, I said I was basing this on current political trends, not their definitions.

Progressives were all behind this free healthcare deal, they have taken over most of the car industry and the banking industry, the slow steps of the progressives are to have the Federal Government eventually own or strictly control everything in America, that my friend is socialist.

Name one area of American life that is not regulated or touched by the Federal Government Joker?

Yep, you know us. Just crazily wanting to spend money without cutting a thing. Fun fact: I hate how easy it is for people to get SSI. I think the restrictions should be way more expanded. As in, add more of them. So hey, stop paying money to lazy ******** who do nothing but live off of us so we could fund a school or something. That's moving forward

Give me an example of a progressive cutting spending on a social program in recent years.

I can't think of an example myself, but I can think of things like this new entitlement where people get free healthcare in America just for being in America. Sounds pretty progressive right? And passed exclusively by progressives/liberals/socialists......

Are you implying I hate people? Not that I identify as a progressive, mind you, but you lump me into there and make it sound as if I'm not a big fan of people.

What? Please take the time to actually read what I post so you don't have to run down the wrong street of conversation.

Progressives pretend they pass all these entitlements because they care about the poor and they claim conservatives do not support the programs because we hate the poor. My comment was that we care too, but we balance our care with the reality that money is not endless, it has limits, and we have to be responsible enough to stay within those limits.

Uh...what? Honest question: Are you saying we shouldn't tax the rich more than the poor? I don't mean taxing them 50% of their income or something ridiculous, I mean proportionally. Let's say, I get 1/3rd of my check taken out for taxes. Assuming I pull down 900 a check, I give them 300. So a rich fellow makes (in the same period of time) 9k. I believe they should take 3k of that for taxes. That seems fair.

And right now we do tax the rich at 50% of their income while most Americans pay nothing in federal tax.

If you truly believe all Americans should pay a "fair share" of taxes then you should be a conservative.

We do? Personally, I never once advocated anything like that. I don't believe everything should be given to me at the loss of others. We should all get government services equally.

You mean like free healthcare?

I have no problem at all with a government maintaining a system of roads, having a standing military, and governing foreign trade, etc... but there is no foundation under the Constitution for the Federal Government to try and force "Social Justice" on America. We are promised equal opportunity, not equal results.

The progressives, liberals/socialists want to create one huge daycare center where everyone is protected and safe while they run the daycare as they see fit.

I probably won't ever try that, you're right. I, again, think businesses should be paying proportionate sums. Small business pays x%, big business pays x%. Which is necessary if we're going to actually fund government services, like schools and firefighters and the like.

Now, I will admit wanting to give a small business a break on taxes the first couple of years it's open, just to figure out revenue and things, get the ball rolling, etc. But they will have to pay them back (x+10% or something) after that to make up for it, until it's even again. Now, there would be problems with this system, and you can argue that it's not equal, and it's not. At first, anyway. But if it allowed them to employ a few more people, pay off some debts, and get the ball rolling, etc, etc, it would be beneficial to their local economy, and eventually nationally if enough small businesses were able to do such things. Big business is already there. And in the end, they end up paying the same proportion after a few years anyway. Just an idea.

A business does not pay taxes in reality. Taxes fall under the "cost of doing business". They place that in the column of overhead and add that cost into their price of goods or services to the consumer. So when you raise business taxes, you raise taxes on those people who do business with that company.

Consumers pay all taxes on business.

 

[builder]

Progressives were all behind this free healthcare deal, they have taken over most of the car industry and the banking industry, the slow steps of the progressives are to have the Federal Government eventually own or strictly control everything in America, that my friend is socialist.

That, my friend, is conspiracy lunacy 101. Get a grip, TJ.

 

[timesjoke]

Progressives were all behind this free healthcare deal, they have taken over most of the car industry and the banking industry, the slow steps of the progressives are to have the Federal Government eventually own or strictly control everything in America, that my friend is socialist.

That, my friend, is conspiracy lunacy 101. Get a grip, TJ.

Really? I gave you some examples like taking over GM, setting aside contract law to reward the UAW and imposing their orders on how it will be run, the control of the banks and how they are pushing for the power to take over any company "they feel" needs to be taken over, that is not conspiracy, that is fact Builder.

One step at a time, right Builder?

What percentage of control must a Government have over these things for you to say we are already leaning socialist? In my opinion, creating massive legislation that spells out every move of an industry is the same thing as owning the industry. Call it a puppet industry for a better description....and Obama has the strings in his hands.

I will ask you the same question I asked Joker, can you name one industry in America that is not severely regulated and either directly or indirectly controlled by the Federal Government?

 

[ImWithStupid]

Progressives were all behind this free healthcare deal, they have taken over most of the car industry and the banking industry, the slow steps of the progressives are to have the Federal Government eventually own or strictly control everything in America, that my friend is socialist.

That, my friend, is conspiracy lunacy 101. Get a grip, TJ.

Hey pot, I'm kettle, says the 9/11 truther.

 

[timesjoke]

Progressives were all behind this free healthcare deal, they have taken over most of the car industry and the banking industry, the slow steps of the progressives are to have the Federal Government eventually own or strictly control everything in America, that my friend is socialist.

That, my friend, is conspiracy lunacy 101. Get a grip, TJ.

Hey pot, I'm kettle, says the 9/11 truther.

I always have a difficult time keeping that kind of thing straight, is Builder one of the people who believe Bush was a master mind who was so brilliant he ordered 9/11 to be done just to give him an excuse to wage wars and for not one piece of evidence or one person to come out and leak this to the press? I mean Bill Clinton could not get away with a blowj0b from miss piggy but these guys think Bush was that good?

Really? I thought even the 'man caused global warming' wackos were smart enough to see how that was already proven to be impossible. If Builder is "one of those" kind of crazy people, no wonder he is such a radical progressive, does he only use one sheet of toilet paper as well? I mean, that is what good humans do these days......Using more would be irresponsible to the world.

 

[jokersarewild]

Progressives were all behind this free healthcare deal, they have taken over most of the car industry and the banking industry, the slow steps of the progressives are to have the Federal Government eventually own or strictly control everything in America, that my friend is socialist.

That, my friend, is conspiracy lunacy 101. Get a grip, TJ.

Hey pot, I'm kettle, says the 9/11 truther.

I always have a difficult time keeping that kind of thing straight, is Builder one of the people who believe Bush was a master mind who was so brilliant he ordered 9/11 to be done just to give him an excuse to wage wars and for not one piece of evidence or one person to come out and leak this to the press? I mean Bill Clinton could not get away with a blowj0b from miss piggy but these guys think Bush was that good?

Really? I thought even the 'man caused global warming' wackos were smart enough to see how that was already proven to be impossible. If Builder is "one of those" kind of crazy people, no wonder he is such a radical progressive, does he only use one sheet of toilet paper as well? I mean, that is what good humans do these days......Using more would be irresponsible to the world.

What, people didn't cause Global Warming? Damnit. All this driving around in my Hummer has just been a waste of gas then .

And I offer you this, TJ: If the government hadn't taken over GM and such where they were failing, wouldn't that have caused the economy to collapse even more, because of the lost jobs, among other things? And what about making the banks get their **** together? Seems like it might've been a good idea.

 

[builder]

And I offer you this, TJ: If the government hadn't taken over GM and such where they were failing, wouldn't that have caused the economy to collapse even more, because of the lost jobs, among other things? And what about making the banks get their **** together? Seems like it might've been a good idea.

Careful now, Joker. You might expose his MO for the joke that it really is.

 

[timesjoke]

What, people didn't cause Global Warming? Damnit. All this driving around in my Hummer has just been a waste of gas then .

And I offer you this, TJ: If the government hadn't taken over GM and such where they were failing, wouldn't that have caused the economy to collapse even more, because of the lost jobs, among other things? And what about making the banks get their **** together? Seems like it might've been a good idea.

The free market system allows for failure. Don't feel bad about not understanding it, few do that have not had advanced business instruction but I will try to offer you a simple reply.

The notion that all of those jobs would have ended is completely false and is spread around by progressives to justify their socialist takeover of GM.

When a massive company like GM fails, it is not just one company, it is a combination of many, many companies and splinters, some of these are bad sure, but some of them are good too. What is supposed to happen under reorganization (bankruptcy) is the good parts of the company are salvaged and the bad parts are broken up and sold off.

The new, fat trimmed portions of the company are now able to move foward without the massive overhead of the bad segments of the company holding it back. This is a normal result of bad management of a company and the courts steepping in to do what it can to fix it.

So why is it Obama and his progressive agenda would not allow the established laws to settle this problem?

Unions, reorganization would have broken the stranglehold the UAW had on GM and after so many years of loyal dedication to Liberals and their campaigns, many millions of dollars spent to help them win elections, and Obama getting more than anyone else in history from the UAW, there was no way Obama was going to turn his back on them in their time of need.

The banking industry would have been the same thing, there were strong segments and weak segments, the established free market system has no problem rebalancing these things if the Government steps back and leaves it alone, but when the Government meddles in free markets, we get the mess we still have right now. The housing market is still out of balance, they have Government money and promises propping up the market and keeping prices well above where they should be. If the banks were allowed to feel their failures the market would have rebalanced in 8 to 12 months and we would now be well past the pain and well on the road to full recovery instead of treading water with no end in sight.

All free markets need certainty, they have to have set rules and set penalties, when the Federal Government steps in and changes the rules in isolated ways it disrupts everything. Now everyone in business is off balance, wondering what and where the next 'exception' will be.

I love you too Builder, so tell me, you really believe Bush was so brilliant he pulled off 9/11 as an inside job while Bill Clinton could not get away with playing 'hide the cigar' with miss piggy in the center of his power base?

Simply incredible, especially after thousands of hard scientists have some out and said things like explosives and such were impossible. I especially love the one where the wackos claim it was a missle that hit the Pentagon. Hundreds of civilian first responders were on sceene before most of the government people and they all reported seeing things like bodies so how do you suppose Bush hit the building wiht a missle, then planted the dead bodies, then got the trucks of bodies out before the first responders got there?

Or do you wackos believe all the civilians were in on the conspiracy too?

Talk about a joke, you have to be close to insane to belive that 9/11 was an inside job.

 

[ImWithStupid]

And I offer you this, TJ: If the government hadn't taken over GM and such where they were failing, wouldn't that have caused the economy to collapse even more, because of the lost jobs, among other things? And what about making the banks get their **** together? Seems like it might've been a good idea.

I don't think so. GM should have gone through the bankruptcy process that is in place for this kind of issue, same as many other companies including airline companies, have done in the past with arbiters to renegotiate contracts and streamline the business, in a fair way through negotiation, instead of a partisan lackey strong arming investors and executives on behalf of their special interests, and needlessly shutting down auto dealerships based on political affiliations.

The bankruptcy laws are in place for a reason.

 

[eddo]

And I offer you this, TJ: If the government hadn't taken over GM and such where they were failing, wouldn't that have caused the economy to collapse even more, because of the lost jobs, among other things? And what about making the banks get their **** together? Seems like it might've been a good idea.

I don't think so. GM should have gone through the bankruptcy process that is in place for this kind of issue, same as many other companies including airline companies, have done in the past with arbiters to renegotiate contracts and streamline the business, in a fair way through negotiation, instead of a partisan lackey strong arming investors and executives on behalf of their special interests, and needlessly shutting down auto dealerships based on political affiliations.

The bankruptcy laws are in place for a reason.

I totally agree. Making taxpayers pay for a company that, because of the way it was being run, was failing is not what the government is there for.

 

[ImWithStupid]

And I offer you this, TJ: If the government hadn't taken over GM and such where they were failing, wouldn't that have caused the economy to collapse even more, because of the lost jobs, among other things? And what about making the banks get their **** together? Seems like it might've been a good idea.

I don't think so. GM should have gone through the bankruptcy process that is in place for this kind of issue, same as many other companies including airline companies, have done in the past with arbiters to renegotiate contracts and streamline the business, in a fair way through negotiation, instead of a partisan lackey strong arming investors and executives on behalf of their special interests, and needlessly shutting down auto dealerships based on political affiliations.

The bankruptcy laws are in place for a reason.

I totally agree. Making taxpayers pay for a company that, because of the way it was being run, was failing is not what the government is there for.

Of course some of the problem was caused by the Federal government's CAFE standards.

Just saying. :whistling:

 

[jokersarewild]

And I offer you this, TJ: If the government hadn't taken over GM and such where they were failing, wouldn't that have caused the economy to collapse even more, because of the lost jobs, among other things? And what about making the banks get their **** together? Seems like it might've been a good idea.

I don't think so. GM should have gone through the bankruptcy process that is in place for this kind of issue, same as many other companies including airline companies, have done in the past with arbiters to renegotiate contracts and streamline the business, in a fair way through negotiation, instead of a partisan lackey strong arming investors and executives on behalf of their special interests, and needlessly shutting down auto dealerships based on political affiliations.

The bankruptcy laws are in place for a reason.

I was asking about the economic effect. Would it have made it far worse? Or not as bad as we might think?

 

[ImWithStupid]

And I offer you this, TJ: If the government hadn't taken over GM and such where they were failing, wouldn't that have caused the economy to collapse even more, because of the lost jobs, among other things? And what about making the banks get their **** together? Seems like it might've been a good idea.

I don't think so. GM should have gone through the bankruptcy process that is in place for this kind of issue, same as many other companies including airline companies, have done in the past with arbiters to renegotiate contracts and streamline the business, in a fair way through negotiation, instead of a partisan lackey strong arming investors and executives on behalf of their special interests, and needlessly shutting down auto dealerships based on political affiliations.

The bankruptcy laws are in place for a reason.

I was asking about the economic effect. Would it have made it far worse? Or not as bad as we might think?

I don't think there would have been any difference, and possibly not as bad, as not as many people would have been unnecessarily fired because of the needless closings of thousands of dealerships.

 

[wez]

I think what everyone is ignoring here is the bailouts were started and blessed by Bush and his "conservative" buddies..

 

[ImWithStupid]

I think what everyone is ignoring here is the bailouts were started and blessed by Bush and his "conservative" buddies..

No. I was against those then. You all seem to forget that it took two tries to pass TARP. The first time it failed because Republicans in the House wouldn't go for it. I had a conversation with a lib/Dem friend of mine back then. He called me up and asked what was wrong with the Republicans for blocking TARP. I said, "Good for them".

Unfortunately, when it came back around with a bunch of "pork" put in it, to many of them were bought off, like Democrats.

 

[wez]

The Bailout Plan

​

President Bush and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson went to Capitol Hill with a proposed $700 billion mortgage bailout plan that would create a fund to purchase distressed mortgage securities packages from financial firms. Under the proposed plan, the government would then hold on to these securities and sell them later.


President Bush Bailout Speech

 


Bush Announces Massive Government Bailout

 


Bush, Bernanke and a bad bailout

 





https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/YsDmPEeurfA?feature=oembed

 

[eddo]

Bush starting it doesn't give Obama excuse to do it again, or continue.

especially when he was all about "Change"

Just sayin'

 

[builder]

I love you too Builder, so tell me, you really believe Bush was so brilliant he pulled off 9/11 as an inside job while Bill Clinton could not get away with playing 'hide the cigar' with miss piggy in the center of his power base?

Simply incredible, especially after thousands of hard scientists have some out and said things like explosives and such were impossible. I especially love the one where the wackos claim it was a missle that hit the Pentagon. Hundreds of civilian first responders were on sceene before most of the government people and they all reported seeing things like bodies so how do you suppose Bush hit the building wiht a missle, then planted the dead bodies, then got the trucks of bodies out before the first responders got there?

Or do you wackos believe all the civilians were in on the conspiracy too?

Talk about a joke, you have to be close to insane to belive that 9/11 was an inside job.

Hmmm, missed this one, but you are in the habit of tacking these "responses" onto other's replies.

Shrub junior wouldn't have had a clue what Cheney was up to. Anyone who's grown out of short pants could tell you that.

And any amount of propaganda doesn't negate the facts, TJ. Trained pilots have concertedly stated that nobody could fly a jetliner on the path of the "plane" that hit the pentagon, and it is physically impossible to fly at that speed so close to the ground.

Shill all you like, my friend, but explain to me why the CIA and FBI was on hand within minutes to consfiscate all the footage from cameras within the area, and none of that very important footage has ever been released to the public.

Seems to me that the best defence system in the known universe could have easily defended the largest centre of "intell" in the west. What was NORAD doing in the hours between the first strike and the last?

 

[timesjoke]

Hmmm, missed this one, but you are in the habit of tacking these "responses" onto other's replies.

Shrub junior wouldn't have had a clue what Cheney was up to. Anyone who's grown out of short pants could tell you that.

And any amount of propaganda doesn't negate the facts, TJ. Trained pilots have concertedly stated that nobody could fly a jetliner on the path of the "plane" that hit the pentagon, and it is physically impossible to fly at that speed so close to the ground.

Shill all you like, my friend, but explain to me why the CIA and FBI was on hand within minutes to consfiscate all the footage from cameras within the area, and none of that very important footage has ever been released to the public.

Seems to me that the best defence system in the known universe could have easily defended the largest centre of "intell" in the west. What was NORAD doing in the hours between the first strike and the last?

Okay, start out with this:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842

And again, common sense can completely eradicate all doubt from any person if you just take the time to go step by step walking down the process of what would have had to happen for Bush, Cheeny, or anyone else to make this happen and how unlikely it is for the secrete to be kept.

I am not sure what version of lunacy you have decided to swallow but let's just take one and walk it down the path and see how many people have to be involved for it to be possible. Le't say someone in power wanted to shoot a missle into one of the buildings and blow it up, do you think the missle can be deployed without hundreds and maybe even thousands of people being involved in that action? You don't think Bush or Cheeny is out there flying a jet and fired the shot do you? Even if they did there would still be records and people on the ground who would know the truth. There is the inventory of the weapons that much be altered, there is the ground crew who must fuel, arm, and prepare the plane as well as service the plane after the flight. There is the military and civilian air traffic control who know of the flight and they have to alrter the recordings to erace the resord of the flight. And even if the President did fly the plane, no plane will lift off the ground without many people in the chain of command being involved and issuing orders.

Look, I understand the mindset of someone like you who "wants" to believe the worse about some people, especially those with power, and how they trample on other lives to gain power. But. How can you balance that with the need of normal every day people who would have to be involved in the conspiracy staying silent? Someone like Cheeny or Bush "might" gain power, but what does the flight crew who knows the truth get? Let's say you were on that flight crew, just a normal every day person doing your job of getting planes ready for launch and you know the plane departed with missles but came back without missles and there was an attack on the world trade buildings, do you think you might remember that? Would you keep your mouth shut? Some might, I give you that much, but not everyone, there is no way each of these people who had to be involved would all stay silent. Someone would feel the pressure of decency and truth building up inside them and let it out. Some would write things down, even keep documents hidden "just in case" it exploded up in the face. Lifetime generals and such would want assurances that if lower ranked people did blab, they would be preserved. The circle of conspiracy would have to be so large it would be impossible to keep it silent.

Any hard evidence proving this was an inside job would be worth millions and once the info was out, the person talking could not really be harmed without further tarnishing America, so there is no reason not to tell. Bill Clinton had only a couple people to control and he was in the most secure place a President can be and still he could not keep the truth about his affairs from being released so how can you honestly believe either Bush or Cheeny was so perfect they could pull off something like this, with so many people involved, and not one squeek of it gets out?

And let me ask you another question, how is it we have video of passengers getting on the planes, radar tracking of the planes all showing a timeline for the plane hitting the building........but if the plane did not hit the building, where did the planes and people go? Did the military make them land and use false the tracking info? If so do you believe that the military killed all of them on the base they landed at and disposed of the bodies? If you were one of the soldiers at that base would you kill the innocent passengers from the plane to help preserve the conspiracy?

You see, if you look close enough you keep finding ways that massive amounts of people must be involved in the conspiracy for it to work and why would all these people stay silent?

They don't have the money and power to gain that someone like Bush or Cheeny might get so what is their motivation to kill thousands of Americans? Why would they keep Bush or Cheeney's blood on their hands Builder?

Would you hold that blood on your hands and stay silent Builder? If not, then why would you believe anyone else would? If this was just about Cheeny, I might even consider the concept, but this is not about Cheeny or Bush, this is about the thousands of regular every day Americans that would have to be in on the conspiracy without anything to gain that tells me that logically, all the claims of 9/11 being an inside job is simply impossible.

 

[ImWithStupid]

I love you too Builder, so tell me, you really believe Bush was so brilliant he pulled off 9/11 as an inside job while Bill Clinton could not get away with playing 'hide the cigar' with miss piggy in the center of his power base?

Simply incredible, especially after thousands of hard scientists have some out and said things like explosives and such were impossible. I especially love the one where the wackos claim it was a missle that hit the Pentagon. Hundreds of civilian first responders were on sceene before most of the government people and they all reported seeing things like bodies so how do you suppose Bush hit the building wiht a missle, then planted the dead bodies, then got the trucks of bodies out before the first responders got there?

Or do you wackos believe all the civilians were in on the conspiracy too?

Talk about a joke, you have to be close to insane to belive that 9/11 was an inside job.

Hmmm, missed this one, but you are in the habit of tacking these "responses" onto other's replies.

Shrub junior wouldn't have had a clue what Cheney was up to. Anyone who's grown out of short pants could tell you that.

And any amount of propaganda doesn't negate the facts, TJ. Trained pilots have concertedly stated that nobody could fly a jetliner on the path of the "plane" that hit the pentagon, and it is physically impossible to fly at that speed so close to the ground.

Shill all you like, my friend, but explain to me why the CIA and FBI was on hand within minutes to consfiscate all the footage from cameras within the area, and none of that very important footage has ever been released to the public.

Seems to me that the best defence system in the known universe could have easily defended the largest centre of "intell" in the west. What was NORAD doing in the hours between the first strike and the last?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcrF346sS_I