Articles
   
       
       
Pics/Video
   
       
       
Shop
Search
 
 
 
 
 
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WAKE WORLD HOME
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > Non-Wakeboarding Discussion

Share 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       11-02-2011, 5:22 PM Reply   
For the fans of Cain, I was wondering what you guys thought of the allegations and the damage they may cause for his campaign.


Last edited by wake77; 11-02-2011 at 5:24 PM.
Old    Wes (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001       11-02-2011, 6:01 PM Reply   
Old    Wes (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001       11-02-2011, 6:02 PM Reply   
mitt romney, the luckiest ********dger on earth haha
Old    Michael Hunter (mhunter)      Join Date: Mar 2008       11-02-2011, 7:53 PM Reply   
Just talk no proof Dems must be very afraid of him.
Old    Train (ttrigo)      Join Date: Dec 2004       11-02-2011, 10:20 PM Reply   
I hope it is nothing. I want all the race baiting dems to have no race card to go to like the last election!
Old    Scott (magicr)      Join Date: May 2004       11-02-2011, 11:19 PM Reply   
He thought that he wouldn't be vetted if he became the front runner?

It just goes to prove that you have to have an ego the size of a house to run for President.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       11-03-2011, 3:27 AM Reply   
"Just talk no proof Dems must be very afraid of him."

A third person has come forward and Cain has hired some "crisis management" firm that is advising him. Also, he is no longer speaking about the incidents. Someone affiliated with Rick Perry's campaign has come forward as a witness to some of the alleged allegations. Last time I checked, Perry was a GOP candidate.
Old    Seahawks #1 Fan Robert T (cwb4me)      Join Date: Apr 2010       11-03-2011, 3:58 AM Reply   
I'm sure we are all better off now than we were in 2008.Unemployment is at record highs.FORCLOSURES left and right.National debt sky rocketing.We must have the solution in the White House now.Times are great.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       11-03-2011, 5:48 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwb4me View Post
I'm sure we are all better off now than we were in 2008.Unemployment is at record highs.FORCLOSURES left and right.National debt sky rocketing.We must have the solution in the White House now.Times are great.
Well what do we want? Get rid of fed deficit? Then you'd better vote for Ron Paul. We can cut the deficit and put millions of fed workers on unemployment. Which is fine with me. You want jobs? Then you'd better vote for more fed debt and spending because I don't see a candidate talking about a zero trade deficit.
Old    David Langston (rdlangston13)      Join Date: Feb 2011       11-03-2011, 7:00 AM Reply   
our main problem is we got so in debt without there being a crisis or need for it. now that there is a crisis we are already so far in debt that any more spending to help curve the damage of the crisis will potentially only create a larger crisis. the fed needs to act as an employment agency, if you can't find a job then the feds will contract you out to some construction building a house, road, or bridge or whatever. that way they get something in return for your welfare check and many illegals will be out of work and maybe just maybe they will stop trying to come over here. if you are too good to pick fruit or do construction then you get to starve.
Old    David Langston (rdlangston13)      Join Date: Feb 2011       11-03-2011, 7:02 AM Reply   
sorry, that was way off topic. i do not know if the allegations against cane are true or not but i sure hope they are not, it would be a major blow to the GOP if there is some base to these statements. i would really prefer ron paul and will vote for him but if he doesn't win the primary then herman cain would be my next choice
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       11-03-2011, 8:14 AM Reply   
A major blow to the GOP is what we need. Both parties have no intention of fixing anything. We know the Democrats are sitting pretty with an incumbant that's likely to win. The only way to get anyone who has any potential at all to do anything worthwhile is for a major shakeup. The GOP isn't currently on the path to do anything, and Cain is no solution to any problem.

People need to wake up an recognize that a major blow is just what the politcal process needs. I'll be perfectly happy to waste my vote on an independant this year because even if the worst happens and we elect one of the GOP idiots a quick demise to this country with another bad leader could be just the prescription for a paradigm shift.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       11-03-2011, 8:20 AM Reply   
I heard on ABC news this morning that it is strongly believed Rick Perry's campaign leaked the info about sexual harassment to the press.

"I'm sure we are all better off now than we were in 2008.Unemployment is at record highs.FORCLOSURES left and right.National debt sky rocketing.We must have the solution in the White House now."

I assume you believe that Congress and the Senate have done everything in their power to rectify our problem?? You do understand how our government works?
Old    David Langston (rdlangston13)      Join Date: Feb 2011       11-03-2011, 8:42 AM Reply   
shaking up the GOP will not fix anything, just allow Obama to spend 3.7 trillion dollars a year for four more years. i know the GOP is not going to stop the over spending but they probably wont spend 3.7 trillion, maybe only 3 trillion, and that is a win in my book. low standards i know. it is sad
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       11-03-2011, 9:04 AM Reply   
Well, sticking with that example, I'd say that there is a lot more to it than just cutting 700 billion that affects the economy. It's like the Iraq has cost us directly close to a trillion and the long term cost may be another trillion. But what it more significant and unanswerable is how many trillions did the war cost us by the damage to the economy? Same with our approach to Afghanistan. Who knows what the real net affect is from focusing on war instead of what was going on in our own economy.

I have little faith in the GOP talking about removing regulations to allow business to grow. I would bet that the regulations removed would be nothing more than charity to large corporations to do more damage. And nothing to the vulnerable small businesses who really do need more freedom and less bureaucracy that probably comes from the state level anyway.
Old    Seahawks #1 Fan Robert T (cwb4me)      Join Date: Apr 2010       11-03-2011, 10:50 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wake77 View Post
I heard on ABC news this morning that it is strongly believed Rick Perry's campaign leaked the info about sexual harassment to the press.

"I'm sure we are all better off now than we were in 2008.Unemployment is at record highs.FORCLOSURES left and right.National debt sky rocketing.We must have the solution in the White House now."

I assume you believe that Congress and the Senate have done everything in their power to rectify our problem?? You do understand how our government works?
Surely you knew i was joking about everything being okay.I am with John on this i don't see a Democrat or Republican that cares about the people or their problems.All they want is your vote for their empty promises.
Old    Cliff (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       11-03-2011, 11:00 AM Reply   
I'll say it again. Anyone is better than Obama. I'm sticking to that.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       11-03-2011, 11:41 AM Reply   
Gotcha, Robert.

Cliff, you are setting yourself up to be let down.
Old    Nacho (denverd1)      Join Date: May 2004       11-03-2011, 12:08 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wake77 View Post
Gotcha, Robert.

Cliff, you are setting yourself up to be let down.
How does Obama have a chance in 2012? All he does is talk. Nothing's been accomplished, although you'd think he saved the world the way he takes credit for things he barely had anything to do with. And continues to blame Bush for the economy and "party politics" for his crappy legislation that doesn't pass congress. Unemployment is still over 9%. Taxes will have to go up at some point to make up for all the spending, yet the system is too fragile to do it now. How does any democrat have a chance?

speaking of war, wasn't he bringing troops home? or was that just campaign talk?
Old    Cliff (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       11-03-2011, 12:19 PM Reply   
Obama won't get re-elected unless the Republicans hand him the election. The troubling thing is, at this rate, the republicans are handing him the election.

Jeremy, I would like to think that even liberals know that there is a better choice out there for them. It's to bad that the democratic party won't at least put someone against him in the primaries.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       11-03-2011, 12:32 PM Reply   
Cliff, there is no way the Dems would pick another candidate. They have no reason to. The object is to get elected, not to fix the country. The Dems are doing fine with that goal.

Nacho, Obama is still on top and the GOP is still serving up stinking piles of poo. Anyone who thinks differently is just fooling themselves or trying to fool others. Step away from the idiocracy and take a deep breath. Nothing good is likely to come from this election because the majority still believes in one of the two parties.

Unlike the last election this one is going to be a piece of cake because I have no reason to argue for either candidate. I couldn't give a crap which side takes it. Because we will all be taking it in the same place... and that's where the sun doesn't shine.
Old    Scott (magicr)      Join Date: May 2004       11-03-2011, 12:37 PM Reply   
Obama should not be re-elected (he's way over his head) but at this point he looks like a shoe in. The Republican party candidates are all truly embarrassing.

The presidential election on both sides has come down to who can get the most corporate money and influence.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       11-03-2011, 12:56 PM Reply   
Nacho or Cliff, name the GOP candidate that can beat him at the polls. From the looks of this scandal, it further advances my prediction that Romney is going to be the nominee. Hell, even Sam Ingram (probably the most conservative guy on Wakeworld and as anti-Obama as they come) said he will vote for Obama if Romney is the nominee. And I don't think that is a rarity, I think that is something that will occur across the US. But let's say Perry gets the nomination. Perry is a horrible debater and will get destroyed when it is time for him to debate Obama (and I don't think Obama is the greatest debater).
Old    Adam Van Dyke (lfadam)      Join Date: Nov 2008       11-03-2011, 1:10 PM Reply   
The future does look bleak with the candidates floating around right now...I dont see a winner. I would call myself very moderate, agreeing with certain democratic ideas as well as republican. To the post that says Obama hasnt done anything, I disagree. I really think he is trying, and has done things, they just may not be the best solutions. But I do applaud him for trying things instead of sitting back and doing nothing (maintaining the status quo).The bailout, that is a huge move...its effectiveness is debatable. It was extremely expense but we do still have GM. Was it worth it, maybe not. Also, he is getting the troops out of Iraq, so he says. If they do leave this december that will be a big accomplishment. Now he is trying to pass a huge jobs bill, theres the healthcare bill, etc. Again, Im not saying he has put together a resume of gold here, but he has tried. I like the govt spending more money but the goal IS for long term economic recovery/improvement which is what we all want. He is trying to get us there but it may or may not be working. My question is-can any other candidate do better? Is a GOP candidate going to just come in and try to reverse everything he has done and have us back to square one with no progress? I dont know, I dont see any candidate, Obama included, really stringing together success that gets us (significantly and for a prolonged time) back on the way up.
Old    Cliff (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       11-03-2011, 2:02 PM Reply   
beat him at the polls....probably no one at this point

do a better job.....any one of them

I was actually hoping that Bobby Jindal of Louisiana was going to run

lets face it, we all agree that politicians say what ever to get and stay elected. We all know that they either lie or just don't have the balls or political clout to stick to promises. We can all agree that the system is broken. etc...etc...etc....

Obama and his cronies want to redistribute wealth. He has come out and said it. I just do not believe in this!

Obama would be Robin Hood

In the story of Robin Hood, I believe him to be an outlaw. I believe the King to be a tyrant, the sheriff to be a servant and the people to be weak.

The way the story should read is: The sheriff, because he should be of higher moral ground, should organize the people, over throw the king, arrest the outlaw and establish order.
the new order would provide for a larger police force (jobs), a fair tax system that encourages business development (jobs), and a new government elected and run by the people(jobs)

Obama is Robin Hood, the sheriff (us) need to oust him and set up a better government (different us)

nothing can be said to change my view of him. Anybody that has worked their butt off, climbed the ladder, and has made a good living for themselves ought to be real concerned
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       11-03-2011, 5:46 PM Reply   
^That is chicken little mentality. Have your taxes been raised since Obama has been in office? That's all we heard in 2008, tax increases, spreading the wealth, blah, blah, blah. Cliff, you may have "worked your butt off, climbed the ladder, and made a good living for yourself", but politicians, GOP included, don't have your interests at heart. Not unless you are the head of a billion-dollar corporation.
Old    Cliff (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       11-03-2011, 5:59 PM Reply   
I agree that neither have my complete interest in mind, but Obama's agenda is as he has stated. Redistribute wealth

saying that it's a chicken little mentality is just casting a blind eye to who he is/isn't and what he stands for.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       11-03-2011, 6:00 PM Reply   
Then explain to me, since he has been in office for almost three years, how any wealth has been redistributed.
Old    Cliff (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       11-03-2011, 6:24 PM Reply   
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFdkTxYrCnQ

http://www.youtube.com/results?searc...q=obama+wealth

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRPbCSSXyp0

http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_...-topdown-.html

http://www.americansfortheconstituti...ion-of-wealth/

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/bu...leonhardt.html
Old    Cliff (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       11-03-2011, 6:33 PM Reply   
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yFwjUvI6J8
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       11-04-2011, 3:30 AM Reply   
Redistributing the wealth is what the govt has been doing for a long time. Obama isn't any different than what preceded him. In a healthy economy wealth is distributed. Redistributing the wealth without fixing the economy is what's bad. But the govt will do it anyway. Dems or republicans, it makes no difference.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       11-04-2011, 3:39 AM Reply   
Cliff, I'm sorry, but using Youtube videos and an opinion piece from a writer proclaiming "Obama is a socialist" to support your case? More chicken little tactics.
Old    Cliff (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       11-04-2011, 5:36 AM Reply   
he wants to "fundamentally change the country". Do your own research as to what that means. I'm sure that anyone can find stuff to support whatever view you want to support. For me, he wants to "level the playing field" like no other before him. Did you watch the videos of him talking? You won't sway me from what I think about him and I'm sure that I won't sway you. Apparently there are many more than just me who don't believe in him (any more) either. If he does get re-elected. I hope at least the dems will lose control of the Senate and he won't be able to do any damage.
Old    Nick Tomsyck (sidekicknicholas)      Join Date: Mar 2007       11-04-2011, 6:10 AM Reply   
Quote:
he wants to "fundamentally change the country". Do your own research as to what that means.
Fundamentals are different to everyone =
Quote:
Cliff, I'm sorry, but using Youtube videos and an opinion piece from a writer proclaiming "Obama is a socialist" to support your case?
I think in any other election, at any other time in the US's history a Republican should win this hands down.... I'm seeing a similar situation to what happened in Wisconsin earlier this year.... Whats faster than 14 runners? 1 Walker. All of these half-ass GOP candidates are flooding that side, splitting the GOP vote (I know they have to widdle down to a single guy/girl) but when your side is trying to crush others from the same side to the extent I'm seeing here, it seems foolish.

Obama hasn't done much these last 3 years.... best thing he could do in his last year is change the constitution to let Slick Willy back in and run with Ol' Bill.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       11-04-2011, 8:25 AM Reply   
This country needs a fundamental change. IMO anyone who looks at politics through partisan glasses is the problem. Why? because it means you support one of the two parties. And that's the biggest problem this country has wrt leadership. Never party deserves one ounce of support. What our leadership needs is to be told what's wrong.

The problem is that the media has puppet mastered everyone into supporting their own personal greed. Let's see.... the most recent was being upset that the govt might tell you to eat good food. No problem with years for the govt subsidizing bad food because we like bad food.

I think the govt should be more like Christianity... If we are informed about Jesus being the son of god and don't accept it, then we burn in hell for eternity. If we are informed about how to eat well and exercise and we reject it then we can die from our our obesity. Sounds fair right?
Old    Nick Tomsyck (sidekicknicholas)      Join Date: Mar 2007       11-04-2011, 8:28 AM Reply   
Quote:
think the govt should be more like Christianity... If we are informed about Jesus being the son of god and don't accept it, then we burn in hell for eternity.
I think that is Obama's biggest short coming is he was too in the middle too often.
You are the President of the United States.... DO WHAT YOU WANT. If you beat around the bush trying to please everyone all you're going to do is piss everyone off.
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       11-04-2011, 9:02 AM Reply   
What happened to Obama is he is a far leftist who was brainwashed by a echo chamber of like minded radicals but when he actually had to start getting facts, he had no choice but to be centered. Idealism only works for so long when reality strikes.

The issue even though he does appear to be in the middle on many open topics, he is still pushing radical agendas like letting the EPA loose to do its bidding. You don't need too many examples of a persons intentions when you actually listen to their words and how they associate with. He and his buddies are these pro United Nations bunch who will continue to try and pass little piece after little piece of legislation to put more power into the international community. You want to know why jobs have not started to come back? That is why internationalist/ spread the wealth people are trying to achieve for crying out loud. Why do you think these guys were so hot to trot on Kyoto Treaties and crap like that? Those are classic taxes that would go directly to the UN and to "under developed" countries. Guess who makes out when the world is allowed to tax American companies for "pollution" but those said countries can buy offset credits from undeveloped land holders (Africa anyone?). That is why they need to perpetuate the man made global warming myth so they can get these policies in place before the cat is out of the bag. One of the first actions was let the EPA rule the air you exhale as a pollutant. That is the start. California just opened the play book and now passed its own redistribution scheme in a cap and trade program so they can keep funding illegals for the tune to already over 20 billion a year by now. You have to understand that prior to Gray Davis in California being ran out as governer, he was on tape in a speech in Mexico stating that he could not wait for Mexico and California to be one great region again and he tried to pass laws that made it easier for illegals to vote in our elections in the state. Point is, all these progressives like Obama and Davis have the same goal and it is not to perpetuate the United States as a leader in the world but as a tax source for the world.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       11-04-2011, 9:23 AM Reply   
"rule the air you exhale as a pollutant"

What exactly does this mean? Are you saying that just because we exhale CO2, it can't be a pollutant? Feces come out of your ass, does that mean it is safe and not a pollutant? If so, eat a heaping mouthful next time you take a dump. You amaze me how truly clueless you are.
Old    Cliff (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       11-04-2011, 9:27 AM Reply   
I don't disagree with you entirely John, but the fundamental change that he wants is not the solution

agreed deltahoosier

I can't find the piece...at work.....but a while back there was an article about cap and trade. It sounded like the idea for and the founders of it were a part of the Chicago political clan......hmmmm
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       11-04-2011, 9:27 AM Reply   
Jobs spread the wealth. Are jobs bad? Delta, the wars have done significant damage to the US economy and you are still for them. Now you list a litany of insignificant crap as the problem.

Until we target a zero trade deficit we will continue to see a decline in the economy and increasing concentration of wealth at the top. The govt has to borrow and engage in economic expansion to replenish the domestic money supply. It replenishes by handing the money over to the wealthiest to take a cut before trickling down or by hiring more govt workers. I'd rather they just give the money straight to the people than hire more people to oppress us.

I have no problem siding with you on reducing govt size and power, but I'm not seeing you with the right picture of the problem. The problem isn't progressives, it's the power and size of govt, which increases with both progressives and conservatives. And it's like shooting fish in a barrel because the public isn't smart enough to stop supporting the two party process.
Old    Rich (digg311)      Join Date: Sep 2007       11-04-2011, 10:08 AM Reply   
Obama isn't remotely a "far leftist". That's exactly why he lost ground with folks on the left.... they realized this after they elected him.
Of course, you have to keep in mind that the middle isn't what it used to be... since what is now the right, used to be the super-extreme right. All of the ideologies are shifting over time.
Old    Pound (snyder)      Join Date: Feb 2006       11-04-2011, 1:37 PM Reply   
On topic...
Attached Images
 
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       11-05-2011, 2:26 AM Reply   
Jeremy, you ready to be shot down yet again? When will you learn. Did you know that the level of CO2 in the air would have to become poisonous to raise green house gases to the level that would raise the heat that much. Warming has pretty much stopped in the last decade even though more CO2 is been put in the air. During the era of dinasours, the CO2 where thousands of times high than they are now. Did you know that water vapor is a way bigger green house gas than CO2. Did you know that CO2 is plant food? We have been fine for thousands in not millions of years without the EPA regulating plant food. Do you know when in the history of earth when the earth has been its healthiest? It is when it is was actually warmer. Face it, it is a global tax scheme and you sound like you are on board with it which means you (like them) need to be defeated. Internationalist are the problem and the democrats support it lock step.

Rich,

Obama is a progressive through and through. Problem is he is smart, educated and he is a politician. The mix of him being those things means he can not intellectually fight facts when he is pinned down. He has been force to actually own up to his own parties real support for the wars (even though they lied and said they did not support the wars) and continue down the road of war. He basically enforced every single decision that president Bush made. Gitmo, Patriot Act, the Wars, you name it. That is why he lost support from the leftists. Remember the leftist tend to live in an emotional world. Every time leftist have gained true power, human rights and economies get trampled in the name of the greater good. They live in that world and they expected Obama to implement their policies. They Crucified Bush over his policies and Obama is continuing every one of them. That is why he lost support from them. I see your Republican issue to be the exact opposite. It used to be Republicans were for rich people (that is why the old adage you have to make over so much money to be republican and under so much to be a democrat). Now it is roughly 43% to 43% with swingers in the middle but everyone seems to agree that 1% of the people are real rich (dems and repubs alike) and that means that 42% of the people are not rich but still Republican. The democrats have been moving more and more left over time. So much so Ronald Reagan switched from Democrat to Republican and I liken the modern republicans to be more of a JFK type than anything right.

John,
You are so busy trying to be contrary to common sense that you disagree on sight anymore then you go on to agree with me without even knowing it. FIrst, of course Jobs spread wealth. Problem is, government does not create jobs. I mean it does make jobs but to not have your closed system close down, you have to have money coming into the country though products being made and sold to other sources of income (exports). The government does not do that. They only create money which makes inflation or they syphon off the private sector. Where does the private sector get its money? From import of money from goods and services being sold outside of your closed system. That is how economies grow. If not, you stay flat or decline. We are saying the exact same thing.

How can you possibly not say progressives are not a problem. That is their stated goal. How in the heck can you possibly identify the problem (money leaving), have an elected group campaign primarily on spreading America's wealth out of America and then not come away with the conclusion that these people are not the problem?

During the 90's when the Republicans had congress Newt and company seemed to stop the growth but yes it seems both parties seem to grow government. I don't know how you still blame the war when it is only a 4% GNP problem when we bailed out wall street for the cost of the war in one day and then everyone from the left was lock step in wanting Obamacare when it is over a 1 trillion dollar program by itself.

Ross Perot nailed it when he said the NAFTA will create a big sucking sound of jobs leaving the country. In the internationalists effort to open markets and cheap labor, they sucked the wealth out of America. I don't care if the so called 1% get rich as long as I can still make good money and have a good life. I do not understand this living life envious of others angle the left has always had. Most people have no clue about who and what the 1% are and like I had to point out to a kid a work, he is one of the top 10%. What if the bottom 90% start thinking the top 10% are too rich?
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       11-05-2011, 6:47 AM Reply   
Someone, maybe you should look at the report that was funded by the Koch brothers. Also, you could review the report (or read about the omissions in that report) that Governor Perry commissioned concerning the rising waters in Galveston. And did you know that ammonia nitrate is also plant food? Do you remember what Tim McVeigh did with that material? When it comes to SCIENCE, I listen to SCIENTISTS not some kooky radio show host or politician. I mean when you're sick, do you call into Rush Limbaugh and ask him what he advises?
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       11-05-2011, 7:58 AM Reply   
Delta, I don't care about if both parties are in lock step. I already get that both parties are lock step in growing govt and increasing debt. There is no way I will vote for Obama or presumably Romney at this point. If anyone goes independent and says some good things I'll vote of them or I won't vote at all. I'm not concerned about throwing my vote away.

I don't know how the war can be justified because it's only 4% of GNP. It was a mistake of greater magnitude than that. And I'm not defending bailing out wall street either. Obamacare was a flop because it just ended up being more corp welfare. So what I've learned in the last 10 years is that little the govt does is worthwhile, a lot it does is harmful, every rationale offered it a bunch of lies, and it's always lining someone's pocket and building more bureaucracy.

But, a real solution is going to be painful. So bring it on. It's not just NAFTA. It's everything that represents our trade deficit. Oil being a huge segment.
Old    Randy Paul (wakeskatethis)      Join Date: May 2011       11-05-2011, 7:59 PM Reply   
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       11-05-2011, 9:50 PM Reply   
Jeremy,

I listen to scientists but you are obviously into your conspiracies as well since the Koch Brothers is latest conspiracy theory from the left. Before that it was Rove. I can pretty much tell what you are reading. Before that who knows. I don't listen to Rush and I pretty much listen to sports radio at best and I read more leftist web sites than I do right leaning web sites. Just like every time the democrats riot in California and someone starts breaking up stuff, they always come one and say it was a "tea bagger" who infiltrated or some other agent other than one of them. You realize the people your aligned with take pride in ends justify the means right?

Ammonia Nitrate is regulated as a solid explosive (oxidizer if I recall). CO2 has been around for billions of years. How do you feel about the quality of earth back during dinasour times? Was it green and lush as reported? Well guess what, the CO2 levels were thousands of times higher then than they are now.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...on_Dioxide.png

[IMG]

I do look at science and I also look at human nature. The science angle to what these people are saying does not make sense. They have been caught in big lies and many of their predictions are simply not true. Why is it that the heating has pretty much stopped over the last decade? Why did we have more CO2 during the ice ages? When has the earth been the most supportive of life? Evidence does not match the so called research. Did you know the UN has students authoring their climate change papers?

I don't trust rich people either. I know that money has no soul and you can always count on human greed. I can deal with that because I can predict how someone is most like going to behave. I also know that the leftist in the democrat party (the ones currently in leadership positions nationally) have stated goals of sharing the wealth. Why would you assume they would not try to do so. Anyone who knows anything about money knows that if you make conditions for investment uncertain the money will stay away. That is only part of the democrats problem. They are not allowed to move the money directly where they want it so how do you do that? You do it by convincing the sheep that their is a problem that only the global community can solve. That problem is CO2. If we can only tax the users and give the money to poor countries, the problem of global warming will go away. Hate to tell you, you are getting exactly what you are voting for. The jobs are meant to move away from America because the stated goal of the democrats is to do just that.
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       11-05-2011, 10:06 PM Reply   
John,

I am not arguing whether the wars were justified or not. We have been down that road. What I am arguing about is we are not talking about a 4% short term problem. The problem is long term and a lot bigger than 4%. Just like Health Care and people being mad at insurance companies. The insurance companies are only making 4 to 5% but we are talking 20% to 30% problems.

You are right on track with money leaving the country. The only time we have been really prosperous is when we had something to make and sell. What brought us out of the great depression was WW2. We were making equipment fast as it could be used and selling it around the world. We hit it is transistors, computers, internet services and equipment. We do not have a product at the moment that is bringing vast sums of investment or purchases into the country. Only issue is we tend to go hog wild when there is big money and the price of everything goes up (as it should) but it kills us when the money is gone and no one can afford a pay cut.

I am glad you are on board with less is more to the federal government.

Here is the rub. The first Bush was a internationalist on the business front where businesses could get their hands on new markets and labor forces. Clinton went ahead with it in regards to NAFTA. We knew that would hurt.

The democrats have always stated that they are people of the world and do not recognize the Autonomy of America. They are proving it. They are not for American businesses or even Americans. They want the wealth of this country to be moved out of the country. Well they do in regards the ability to tax it and move it where they want it. What they did not count on is while they set up their tax scheme (global warming), they are driving the money off shore because no business wants to invest in a country that is trying to strip the wealth so it is better to sit on the wealth than to loose it outright. That is what we are in the middle of right now. We the American people are stuck in the middle. I know money is going to flow to the path of least resistance. We can manage that. Making anti-business regulations and taxing it anyway for personal use (UN, Al Gore and friends) will keep it out of the country by design. Sooner people understand these and squash these people, the quicker America will recover.
Old    Scott (magicr)      Join Date: May 2004       11-05-2011, 11:18 PM Reply   
Quote:
What brought us out of the great depression was WW2.
Massive government spending.
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       11-06-2011, 1:12 AM Reply   
Massive government spending kept us in the depression. It was technology advances and selling the weapons to Europe and China that brought money into the country. If government spending stopped the depression, then why did it last so long?

I can agree that government spending can help develop technologies that the private sector does not have the money to do (internet, computer technology) but eventually the private sector will not see a return on that until it is privatized. That is why the government should be the shock absorber. It needs to invest in technologies when things are down and reign in markets so they should not over heat when it is good.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       11-07-2011, 11:46 AM Reply   
Does everyone still agree with Sean Hannity and Herman Cain, "this is just a smear campaign from the left" after the allegations that surfaced today? Does this affect his electability?
Old    Scott (magicr)      Join Date: May 2004       11-07-2011, 12:52 PM Reply   
Quote:
If government spending stopped the depression, then why did it last so long?
Because we had the massive infusion of government spending for the war. All the auto companies were converted to make jeeps, and tanks for the government. All the aeronautics companies were converted to make airplanes for the war, all the ships were being made for the war, they were all payed by the federal government. You know that useless government spending.

The U.S. was not at war in the 1930s or we would have come out sooner.
Old    Pound (snyder)      Join Date: Feb 2006       11-08-2011, 7:00 AM Reply   
Maybe he was just doing a TSA pat-down. What he's accused of is no worse than what 1000's of people go thru daily in airports.

"Mr Cain! Don't you know I have a boyfriend?" "Hey, you want a job don't you?"
"Mr Screener! Don't you know I look nothing like a terrorist?" "Hey, you want to fly don't you?"
Old    Big D (bigdtx)      Join Date: Feb 2005       11-08-2011, 11:48 AM Reply   
" If government spending stopped the depression, then why did it last so long?"

Roosevelt started the new deal in his first term and unemployment went down and we started pulling out of the depression - albeit slowly. Just like today, Republicans campaigned heavily against the new deal and the budget deficit in particular and picked up seats in 1938. Congress then pressured Roosevelt to cut spending to lower the deficit and that killed the recovery and sent the country back into depression until the beginning of WWII.

So the answer is - Republicans (as usual).
Old    SamIngram            11-09-2011, 1:05 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigdtx View Post
" If government spending stopped the depression, then why did it last so long?"

Roosevelt started the new deal in his first term and unemployment went down and we started pulling out of the depression - albeit slowly. Just like today, Republicans campaigned heavily against the new deal and the budget deficit in particular and picked up seats in 1938. Congress then pressured Roosevelt to cut spending to lower the deficit and that killed the recovery and sent the country back into depression until the beginning of WWII.

So the answer is - Republicans (as usual).

Nice revisionist history report.... try actually reading a book would you?
Old    Big D (bigdtx)      Join Date: Feb 2005       11-09-2011, 1:13 PM Reply   
Quote:
Nice revisionist history report.... try actually reading a book would you?
You're kidding right?

I'd debate you but I can tell already that it would be pointless.
Old    SamIngram            11-09-2011, 1:27 PM Reply   
Yes I am serious! Where are you getting your information from? A cereal box? Try taking an economic class...

As Henry Hazlitt and John T. Flynn both predicted and told FDR, and now most modern day macroeconomics scholars have said, FDR prolonged the Great Depression, not got us out of it.

I guess you have never read Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian or even heard of Hazlitt or Flynn... They are all economists, with the former being at UCLA (a largely liberal school) and the latter two of America's most notable economists and writers...

Here you go, I'll let you read it yourself, so maybe you can stop spewing this trash...

New Deal Policies and the Persistenceof the Great Depression: A General Equilibrium Analysis

Get back to me after you educate yourself and then we can have that debate... moron.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       11-09-2011, 2:45 PM Reply   
^Sam, I would be careful of using Cole and Ohanian's paper as a basis of your argument. While it is certainly interesting, it has been proven that they skewed the unemployment figures of the era (for one, they didn't count WPA employees).

"The best regarded data excluding public-works employees traces a steady decline in joblessness through the first five years of the New Deal, from 25 percent when FDR took office to 14.3 percent in 1937. Then, however, joblessness rose, hitting 19.1 percent in 1938 before dropping back to 14.6 percent in 1940 and 9.9 percent in 1941. Include work-relief employees, and unemployment declined more steeply, falling to 9.2 percent in 1937. It then rose to 12.5 percent in 1938 before dropping back to 6 percent in 1941."

I know you are strongly anti-FDR and New Deal, but make sure you cover your bases before you start claiming someone got their info from a "cereal box".
Old    SamIngram            11-09-2011, 3:19 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wake77 View Post
^Sam, I would be careful of using Cole and Ohanian's paper as a basis of your argument. While it is certainly interesting, it has been proven that they skewed the unemployment figures of the era (for one, they didn't count WPA employees).

"The best regarded data excluding public-works employees traces a steady decline in joblessness through the first five years of the New Deal, from 25 percent when FDR took office to 14.3 percent in 1937. Then, however, joblessness rose, hitting 19.1 percent in 1938 before dropping back to 14.6 percent in 1940 and 9.9 percent in 1941. Include work-relief employees, and unemployment declined more steeply, falling to 9.2 percent in 1937. It then rose to 12.5 percent in 1938 before dropping back to 6 percent in 1941."

I know you are strongly anti-FDR and New Deal, but make sure you cover your bases before you start claiming someone got their info from a "cereal box".
That is just one of the many sources and one of the many papers... I guess the works of Hazlitt, Friedman, Rothbard, Samuelson, Poterba are garbage too?? Hell, even Hansen eventually agreed with Hazlitt. I had just finished testing on Cole's paper when I read this thread, which is why I brought it up. It is pretty damn interesting since both Cole and Ohanian reversed their previous decisions... BTW, the WPA doesn't even remotely fit the definition of regular employment in any school of economics. Stalin and Marx both considered it beyond the definition of employment. Stalin did to such a degree that he actually hid the numbers behind government works programs and forced labor camps until he could not any longer... which is why Solzhenitsyn won the Noble Prize... for ripping the cover off the gulag system...

I'm so tired revisionist historians that spew nothing but crap that someone told them. The Fed increased the monetary supply by over 100% during depression. The final result of any planned economy is the eventual collapse of that economy and/or a dictatorship.

If you want to keep spewing this BS go ahead, but its pure BS.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       11-09-2011, 4:15 PM Reply   
"BTW, the WPA doesn't even remotely fit the definition of regular employment in any school of economics."

Does it fit the definition of regular unemployment?

I wasn't trying to get this argument going, this thread was started concerning the allegations concerning Herman Cain. My point is, I guess, is that many economists will argue that the New Deal did help get us out of the Depression. You can disagree with them or not, but to say someone is wrong on this issue is solely your opinion. There are arguments for both sides. But there is no clear cut, definitive evidence that one can use to say it was a total success or a total failure. We can argue the pros and cons for the next few months.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       11-09-2011, 4:17 PM Reply   
And by the way, where in my post did I call Cole and Ohanian's paper garbage?
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       11-09-2011, 11:57 PM Reply   
Scott, That is right. They converted those plants for war use. Then they sold the products outside the United States which brought money into the country. It also invested in many new people getting training for industry jobs instead of manual farm labor type of jobs. The government can keep people employed for so long before they increase money supply (print money) to pay them or they use the investment for training and new products. At the end of the day, you have to have products to sell to someone.
Old    SamIngram            11-10-2011, 8:06 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by deltahoosier View Post
Scott, That is right. They converted those plants for war use. Then they sold the products outside the United States which brought money into the country. It also invested in many new people getting training for industry jobs instead of manual farm labor type of jobs. The government can keep people employed for so long before they increase money supply (print money) to pay them or they use the investment for training and new products. At the end of the day, you have to have products to sell to someone.
Partially true, but you are missing a HUGE factor... you have to have money to buy those products and money that is worth something. The inflation played a huge factor... since the monetary supply increased by over 100% the value of that fiat currency decreased.

In a planned economy the control of the money is everything. Has anyone ever looked at the availability of credit before the depression? What about the monetary supply? Where those figures adequate?

I'm done on this but part with this quote from Gustav Cassel,

"The leadership of the State in economic affairs which advocates of Planned Economy want to establish is, as we have seen, necessarily connected with a bewildering mass of government interferences of a steadily cumulative nature. The arbitrariness, the mistakes and the inevitable contradictions of such policy will, as daily experience shows, only strengthen the demand for a more rational coordination of the different measures and, therefore, for unified leadership. For this reason Planned Economy will always develop into Dictatorship."

and suggest this book to those who care!

Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics by Henry Hazlitt

A free PDF Version is here.
Old    Big D (bigdtx)      Join Date: Feb 2005       11-11-2011, 12:55 PM Reply   
Hi - I'm Sam and I'm an idot Internet troll!

Here is a sampling of my posts from this thread alone:
  • Nice revisionist history report.... try actually reading a book would you?
  • Yes I am serious! Where are you getting your information from? A cereal box? Try taking an economic class...
  • Get back to me after you educate yourself and then we can have that debate... moron.
  • If you want to keep spewing this BS go ahead, but its pure BS.

If your brain and mouth are inversely proportional then you are my kind of person - let's hook up!
Old    SamIngram            11-11-2011, 1:14 PM Reply   
Your just pissed that I called out your nonsense...
Old    Big D (bigdtx)      Join Date: Feb 2005       11-11-2011, 1:59 PM Reply   
+1 ^
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       11-11-2011, 4:45 PM Reply   
"Your just pissed that I called out your nonsense..."

Not exactly. You offered your opinion based on the works of a few economists, but I don't think you convinced anyone that you are correct and Big D is wrong.
Old    SamIngram            11-11-2011, 8:10 PM Reply   
History is history, it's not up for debate... FDR, the Feds actions, and the New Deal resulted in less work, inflation, and the general lengthening of the depression, very similar to today's stimulus is prolonging the housing crisis. I don't need to convince anyone what history is, if someone wants to know, they can read all about it.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       11-13-2011, 6:11 AM Reply   
^I can produce several convincing articles that claim astronauts never walked on the moon. Does that mean that I would be right, and everyone else that believes we walked on the moon is wrong?
Old    Nick911            11-13-2011, 6:23 PM Reply   
Deltahoosier,

You are well informed and accurate is your dissertations.

Please comment on organized labor in America and its effects on macroeconomics.
Old    SamIngram            11-14-2011, 8:40 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wake77 View Post
^I can produce several convincing articles that claim astronauts never walked on the moon. Does that mean that I would be right, and everyone else that believes we walked on the moon is wrong?
Yup, and I can show you the tracks on the moon from the lunar car and lander... I have seen them from the Kitt Peak National Observatory, actual physical proof is pretty damn hard to debate... as is actual data from the depression...
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       11-14-2011, 9:43 AM Reply   
I am mixed in regards to Organized labor (unions). I see it performing a valuable role in regards to the construction industry for instance. If not for the union, you would not have a viable resource for other companies to get the skilled labor they need to grow. No company would be able to keep enough labor on hand to build out a new wing or to put up a building. It provides a stable source for these people continue in their trades, keep current on training and have someone provide for their retirement and benefits.

On the other side of coin, unions like the ones in the auto industry seem to make the organization too large and inflexible to keep up with market pressures.

I get the fact that unions have helped the workers from being taken advantage of in times gone by. We can not hang our hat on all unions good and all unions bad. I understand that some companies just want to chew workers up and spit them out. The old trick of waiting until you get ready to retire then find a reason to fire you trick. I can understand that sometimes people want to work and not be bothered with climbing the ladder. I can respect that. I have also seen where people can not even be productive because you are not allowed to touch that hammer because that is not your job mentality. That is toxic to a company.

With all angles I am somewhat indifferent to the unions. I think there are more worker protections today and many companies in the auto industry that move out of the strong union states are doing pretty well. The workers seem happy and have good pay and the companies are doing well. The only thing people have to understand, if you are going to force yourself into a union in a company, you have to be willing to fail with that company or be prepared for that company to leave when your internal policy is costing too much.

In regards to economics. It is all the same thing. You become a high wage/ high benefit company and their ultimately someone opens up with the same technology in a different area, then you are going out of business. Car companies know how to build cars about anywhere. Computer programing is easy to outsource. IC chip manufacturers used to be a area specific job and the fabs take a while to come on line but even bay area companies like Intel have built massive plants in New Mexico. At the end of the day these companies are going to move to lower rent areas with less regulation. I am not sure right now but I think automobile manufacturing is out of California now. I don't think the Unions had that much to do with it. They are just looking at the market for relative pay.

I think the bigger problem is the liberal credit supply. It used to be a matter of pride to be able to even get a credit card. Now you have be given 3 or 4 and hardly have a job. The government allowed private industry the ability to create their own money supply backed up by them knowing the government will not allow them to fail (real money). They have created inflation and allowed many types of jobs exist that normally should not be able to in normal economic environments. In the midwest you will not see people making money the way they do out in California. For instance a guy at work owns a beauty shop on the side. He told me that several of the girls are making over $100,000 a year cutting hair in his shop. That is insane. Only reason this happens is due to all the money influx from other portions of the country and world into this part of the country. That is slowly moving away though. You can not support that level of income for long unless you have money from out your local area. I don't find unions playing a huge role in this. Unions in this regard are usually push backs on 1) toxic management styles of the businesses 2) the workers realize the local management is making bank while treating them (real or perceived) like crap. 3) the thought that the business is stuck in their town and they deserve some of the spoils. In California, many people are happy with their protections and the management so people rarely talk of unions even though this is a strong pro union state.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       11-14-2011, 2:35 PM Reply   
"as is actual data from the depression"

I provided you with data that shows there was job growth after the New Deal was implemented, are you implying that I got these numbers from my imagination? Let's just clear up the confusion. You chose to post some research that supports your beliefs and you claim that is infallible evidence. Sorry to disappoint, it isn't. Some people don't agree with you, it doesn't mean you're right and they're wrong or vice versa.
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       11-15-2011, 5:29 AM Reply   
Jeremy,

Of course there is going to be job growth when the government pays for it. The government gave thousands of jobs away. What you have to look at is where the money came from for those jobs. The government can only get the money from a couple of sources. Either they print it (inflation) or they increase taxes. Point is, government growth in jobs is historically bad for the economy over the long haul since the government does not make a profit. Sure, the government is good for infastructure which businesses need but no profit means no money coming in thus more inflation or more money from the people who ultimately make the money for the tax base. Eventually your economy collapses. History has proved it over and over. I want the government to sit back and be the impartial arbitor vs businesses. If we get mad at our employer because of unfair practices, who do you turn to then?
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       11-15-2011, 8:14 AM Reply   
"The government can only get the money from a couple of sources."

So are you saying the government can't sell assets?
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       11-15-2011, 3:00 PM Reply   
Governments are not in the business to sell assets (even though they did sell land during the end of Bush 1 term). What assets do you think they are going to sell while they were increasing their land grab for domestic projects? Even if they sell assets, that is not a long term fix for outgoing salaries. You have to realize that salaries are the biggest drain when it comes to budget. Basically selling assets is not a long term solution. Can you sell your home and your stereo to make it for the next 20 years? What makes you think the government can?
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       11-16-2011, 8:54 AM Reply   
"Can you sell your home and your stereo to make it for the next 20 years?"

That is not an accurate comparison. If I had 100 houses and 10,000 stereos, I could sell those and "make it for the next 20 years".
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       11-16-2011, 10:20 PM Reply   
I think it is accurate. How many people are employed either directly by the government or indirectly through contracts? There are over 2 million direct civilian employees (not including post office), 600,000 or so post office plus a million plus military. Then there are many other indirect contractors plus payouts for materials. Then you have all the people on the dole for benefits. This is year after year. You can only sell so many assets to pay for this. Plus once the assets are gone, they are pretty much gone for good. Yes, it can be a revenue source but you are not going to sell your gear just so you can finance your life. It is a negative gain plan. The way the government got those resources in the first place was from printing money or taxes.

If you had enough money to get this gear to support your life by selling it, then why did you get yourself into a situation to have to sell it in the first place? That is what our government is. They should not be in this situation and no one would ever plan their life based on what can I sell to keep my life going. It is not a healthy place to be.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       11-17-2011, 8:36 AM Reply   
There is a significant point being missed in this argument about govt spending and debt. And that is the amount of money leaving the economy each year is over a 1/2 trillion dollars. If you eliminate the federal deficit the domestic economy will dry up and you'll IMO see a depression of significant proportions. To eliminate the federal deficit without eliminating the economy deficit is a recipe for disaster. We need a cultural paradigm shift towards a zero trade deficit. This means domestic energy production is important as well as weening people off cheap foreign goods and getting back to manufacturing.

Most deluded - Republicans They believe that you can reduce govt spending to fix the economy. Won't work and not sustainable. Instant crash and massive poverty.

Next most deluded - Democrats They believe that you can improve the economy by spreading the wealth. Works for a while but not sustainable. Slow death.

Least deluded but still confused - Libertarians They believe that you can improve the economy by eliminating govt bloat and interference. This would make us more competitive and force us to face that paradigm shift that ultimately will point to the solution. IOW a painful unplanned exit strategy from a false economy. Could be disastrous but we know Americans only act in a crisis so what the heck. At least the crash won't be lining the pockets of the wealthy at the same time.
Old    SamIngram            11-17-2011, 2:55 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wake77 View Post
"The government can only get the money from a couple of sources."

So are you saying the government can't sell assets?
The government has no assets. The people have assets. As Lincoln said in the Gettysburg Address, the government is "of the people, by the people, for the people". Maybe you think like Nancy Pelosi and think that the government is entitled to our money and our assets, but this is incorrect! Taking from the people and giving it back to the people is not employment, it is redistribution (of both wealth and labor). I think Solzhenitsyn would argue that Lenin and Stalin did the very same thing that you talk about... they took the wealth and labor of the people and gave it back to them. In the process they gave them a nice new place to live called the gulag..

Wake77 you are drinking the kook-aid, actually do the research or rely on someone who has...

"Real gross domestic product per adult, which was 39 percent below trend at the trough of the Depression in 1933, remained 27 percent below trend in 1939," the authors write. And, "Similarly, private hours worked were 27 percent below trend in 1933 and remained 21 percent below trend in 1939."

This should be no surprise to anyone who has studied the reality of the Great Depression, for US Census Bureau statistics show that the official unemployment rate was still 17.2 percent in 1939 despite seven years of "economic salvation" at the hands of the Roosevelt administration (the normal, pre-Depression unemployment rate was about 3 percent). Per capita GDP was lower in 1939 than in 1929 ($847 vs. $857), as were personal consumption expenditures ($67.6 billion vs. $78.9 billion), according to Census Bureau data. Net private investment was minus $3.1 billion from 1930–1940. - Thomas J. DiLorenzo


I changed the size and italicized so that you knew I was quoting them.

Job growth is a BS indicator if the net output and consumption is the same...

John,
What the heck are you talking about in your most deluded posts? How is reducing the size of government and government spending unsustainable and how does this cause an instant crash and massive poverty? Please explain and please give an example! Under your viewpoint we would have the best economy if everyone worked for the government... Do you want a nanny-state?

I do see that you, at least in part, agree with the libertarians which is interesting seeing how it is as far away from the liberal (democrat) party as possible. The libertarians have most things correct; however, we must have an ordered society. This is why a conservative-libertarian approach is the best answer.

Reply
Share 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 7:31 PM.

Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
Wake World Home

 

© 2012 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us