Re: God

On Jul 8, 5:15 pm, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Thats great man

I'm flattered. Really....

I was amazed to find we are 99.8% Neanderthal genome.
If only Scripture read; "and Cain knew his Neanderthal wife".
(G. Freeman)

There would be no question of an Almighty God.

I think Darwin would have agreed....

I think I'll have a Bible printed with "Neanderthal" in there.
Give a whole new light to the Torah. Can you imagine
what the reaction of organized religion would be....

>
> On Jul 8, 3:39 pm, HaShem Rules <01910infin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 8, 2:07 pm, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > None of those are the National Motto of the United States.
>
> > You figured that out, huh...?
>
> > > You don't have to like it
>
> > The National Motto doesn't scare me. It's not a threat.
> > The Muslim Motto is scary and threatening...
>
> > Almighty God is all that 'counts' to me. It trashes Islam's
> > rogue angel God.....
>
> > ~>
> > OOFA...
>
> > All Mighty/Omniscient Allah. And Islam...
> > verses
> > Almighty/Omnipotent HaShem. And Judaism...
>
> > Will the real Creator God please stand up....?
> > And kick Allah's ass....
>
> > > On Jul 8, 1:49 pm, HaShem Rules <01910infin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 8, 11:34 am, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Its the only National Motto we have
>
> > > > Motto...seen on plaques in Mosques....
> > > > "Allah is our objective.
> > > > The Prophet is our leader.
> > > > Qur'an is our law.
> > > > Jihad is our way.
> > > > Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope."
>
> > > > (Pathetic morons who may rule the world with
> > > > Sharia Law)
>
> > > > The Muslims could claim the God on our money
> > > > is referring to Allah...a generic man made God.
>
> > > > Unless it says Almighty God, it's a generic God.
>
> > > > OOFA....
> > > > All Mighty/Omniscient Allah..
> > > > verses
> > > > Almighty/Omnipotent HaShem....
>
> > > > Will the real Creator God please stand up....?
>
> > > > > On Jul 8, 10:58 am, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > I am a liberal that likes in God we trust on the dollar bill.
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > why?
>
> > > > > > On Jul 3, 11:55 pm, "cackalackyha...@gmail.com"
>
> > > > > > <cackalackyha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > Date: Sunday, July 03, 2011 10:59:56 pm
> > > > > > > To: politicalforum@googlegroups.com
> > > > > > > From: "Sharon Fuentes" <oneforentr...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: God
>
> > > > > > > I am a liberal that likes in God we trust on the dollar bill.  Everytime I
> > > > > > > pay for something.  I think....in God I trust that this currency will stay
> > > > > > > strong  and that it quits sinking against the Euro.  In fact I really don't
> > > > > > > care where the word God appears....It doesn't bother all of us.
>
> > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 12:22 PM, HaShem Rules <01910infin...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > The Liberal half asses of Ass wholes want the word 'God' taken off,
> > > > > > > > and out, of everything
> > > > > > > > it's being used for...
>
> > > > > > > > What about the 'God' they trust in, on their money? When does that God
> > > > > > > > come off?
>
> > > > > > > > That 'God', is a generic God. It should say; "In Almighty God We
> > > > > > > > Trust"...
> > > > > > > > There is only one of those. All others are, at most, Omniscient. None
> > > > > > > > Omnipotent.
>
> > > > > > > > All Mighty/Omniscient Allah..
> > > > > > > > verses
> > > > > > > > Almighty/Omnipotent HaShem....
>
> > > > > > > > Will the real Creator God please stand up....?
>
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > > > > > > > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/P-Hidequotedtext-
>
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

The Numbers - they are awful

NYTNewYorker said...,,Hey Plouffe....oh yeah and Garage.,,"The
numbers, they are awful.",,
9.2% — unemployment rate for June.,,
0.1% — increase since May.,,
16.2% — underemployment rate for June.,
,0.4% — increase since May.,,
8% — conventional wisdom for the maximum allowable unemployment rate to
win reelection.,,
15 — remaining BLS reporting months before Election Day.,,
255,000 — net jobs that must be created each and every month to reach 8%.,
,18,000 — net jobs created last month.,,
44,000 — downward revision to April and May job creation.,,
3,825,000 — total net jobs needed before Election Day.,,
2,100,000 — jobs created in the last fifteen months.,,
11.2% — unemployment rate if the labor participation rate was as high as
it was in January, 2009.,,
290,000 — best monthly net jobs gain during Obama administration.,,
231,000 — real best gain, minus temporary Census hiring.,,
14 — months since best monthly gain.,,
1% — decrease in DJIA in the opening minute of trading, day that jobs
figures released.,,
$1,200,000,000,000 — cost of ARRA "stimulus," with interest.,,
1,900,000 — net jobs lost since ARRA was signed.,,
2 — quantitative easing programs since 2008.,,
~$2,000,000,000,000 — total of first QE program during Great Recession.,,
$600,000,000,000 — total of second QE program, just ended.,,
40% — increase in federal debt since January, 2009.,,
30% — increase in annual federal spending since January, 2009.,,
20% — decrease in federal revenues since January, 2009.,,
12% — decline in value of US dollar since January, 2009.,,
37% — increase in number of Americans on food stamps since January, 2009.,
,62% — increase in Misery index since January, 2009.,,
800 — days since the Senate passed a budget.,,
1.9% — last quarterly GDP increase.,,
2.5% — consensus projection for last quarterly GPD increase.,,
2.7% — official White House projection.,,
3.0% or better — GDP growth needed to dent unemployment.,,
3.6% — official White House GDP growth projection for 2012.,
,2.7% — IMF GDP growth projection for 2012.,,
30% — federal debt held by public as percentage of GDP, 2005.,
,60% — federal debt held by public as percentage of GDP, 2010.,,
180% — federal debt held by public as percentage of GDP, CBO estimate,
2035.,,0% — odds of current path being sustainable.,
,7/8/11 8:48 PM,

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: God

On Jul 8, 5:15 pm, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Thats great man

Thank you?

OOFA
It trashes Islam's rouge angel God.....
Sorry Father...
He trashes Islam's rouge angel God,

>
> On Jul 8, 3:39 pm, HaShem Rules <01910infin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 8, 2:07 pm, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > None of those are the National Motto of the United States.
>
> > You figured that out, huh...?
>
> > > You don't have to like it
>
> > The National Motto doesn't scare me. It's not a threat.
> > The Muslim Motto is scary and threatening...
>
> > Almighty God is all that 'counts' to me. It trashes Islam's
> > rogue angel God.....
>
> > ~>
> > OOFA...
>
> > All Mighty/Omniscient Allah. And Islam...
> > verses
> > Almighty/Omnipotent HaShem. And Judaism...
>
> > Will the real Creator God please stand up....?
> > And kick Allah's ass....
>
> > > On Jul 8, 1:49 pm, HaShem Rules <01910infin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 8, 11:34 am, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Its the only National Motto we have
>
> > > > Motto...seen on plaques in Mosques....
> > > > "Allah is our objective.
> > > > The Prophet is our leader.
> > > > Qur'an is our law.
> > > > Jihad is our way.
> > > > Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope."
>
> > > > (Pathetic morons who may rule the world with
> > > > Sharia Law)
>
> > > > The Muslims could claim the God on our money
> > > > is referring to Allah...a generic man made God.
>
> > > > Unless it says Almighty God, it's a generic God.
>
> > > > OOFA....
> > > > All Mighty/Omniscient Allah..
> > > > verses
> > > > Almighty/Omnipotent HaShem....
>
> > > > Will the real Creator God please stand up....?
>
> > > > > On Jul 8, 10:58 am, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > I am a liberal that likes in God we trust on the dollar bill.
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > why?
>
> > > > > > On Jul 3, 11:55 pm, "cackalackyha...@gmail.com"
>
> > > > > > <cackalackyha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > Date: Sunday, July 03, 2011 10:59:56 pm
> > > > > > > To: politicalforum@googlegroups.com
> > > > > > > From: "Sharon Fuentes" <oneforentr...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: God
>
> > > > > > > I am a liberal that likes in God we trust on the dollar bill.  Everytime I
> > > > > > > pay for something.  I think....in God I trust that this currency will stay
> > > > > > > strong  and that it quits sinking against the Euro.  In fact I really don't
> > > > > > > care where the word God appears....It doesn't bother all of us.
>
> > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 12:22 PM, HaShem Rules <01910infin...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > The Liberal half asses of Ass wholes want the word 'God' taken off,
> > > > > > > > and out, of everything
> > > > > > > > it's being used for...
>
> > > > > > > > What about the 'God' they trust in, on their money? When does that God
> > > > > > > > come off?
>
> > > > > > > > That 'God', is a generic God. It should say; "In Almighty God We
> > > > > > > > Trust"...
> > > > > > > > There is only one of those. All others are, at most, Omniscient. None
> > > > > > > > Omnipotent.
>
> > > > > > > > All Mighty/Omniscient Allah..
> > > > > > > > verses
> > > > > > > > Almighty/Omnipotent HaShem....
>
> > > > > > > > Will the real Creator God please stand up....?
>
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > > > > > > > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/P-Hidequotedtext-
>
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

About that Debt Limit

The Goal Is Freedom
About that Debt Limit
Maxing out the credit card panics the politicians.
Sheldon Richman
Posted July 08, 2011

What's the point of a debt ceiling if raising it is a mere formality?

As the U.S. government neared its $14.29 trillion debt limit, the congressional vote to raise it was expected to be uncontroversial. That's pretty much how it's been in the past. In the first decade of this century, the limit was raised a half-dozen times. But this time it's different. The public is worried about the inconceivably large budget deficits and a total national debt that approaches 100 percent of GDP. Politicians, opportunistically and otherwise, decided to cash in -- pun intended -- on the public's concern: There would be no raising the debt limit without a deficit-reduction plan.

At first this position was treated as outrageous. Grownups, the "serious" pundits said, don't act like this. Grownups would simply raise the limit -- enabling the government to incur new debt in order to pay the interest on old debt. It's an odd idea of what grownups do. But the public was in a deficit-reducing mood, so the demand for a "clean" debt-ceiling bill softened.

So here we are. The debt limit technically was reached in May, but Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner engaged in some accounting maneuvers to pay the bills, extending the de facto deadline to early August. (Robert Murphy has the details.) That leaves just a few weeks to come up with a deal. Efforts at compromise so far have yielded nothing. The hitch is that President Obama and congressional Democrats want new tax revenues to go along with spending cuts, while Republicans oppose increasing taxes. There's been some ambiguity in the GOP ranks over whether ending corporate tax credits or deductions counts as a tax increase. We'll let that go here, except to say that giving politicians more money to spend is the nuttiest thing I can imagine.


Catastrophe in the Offing?

The message from Washington -- and from most pundits -- is that if the debt ceiling is not raised, great catastrophe will befall the United States of America and its people.

Is it true? Consider the source. The people telling us this are the same people who think government spending and tax revenues are never high enough. These are the people who measure "national greatness" in budgetary terms. Of course they'd panic at the news that their credit cards are maxed out.

Would the sky fall if the government couldn't borrow another penny? Robert Higgs addresses the question:

Have governments defaulted in the past? Of course, they have, on hundreds of occasions over the centuries. Have these defaults triggered "catastrophic economic and market consequences"? No. When a government defaults, there are consequences, of course, including heightened reluctance of lenders to lend to the deadbeat government in the future or at least to lend at such favorable interest rates. Often partial payments of principal and interest are arranged or debts are restructured. The world keeps spinning.

Yes, but we're not talking just any nation. We're talking about the United States ­ American exceptionalism and all that. Writes Higgs:

Has the U.S. government ever defaulted before? Yes, in 1933, by refusing to honor the gold clauses in its bonds, the Treasury engaged in a massive default. Ironically, for mainstream economists and economic historians, the government's abandonment of the gold standard, along with its associated default on its gold obligations, is seen as the decisive government action that stopped the Great Contraction and set in motion a recovery from the Depression. (Don't laugh: for some time, this interpretation has been the reigning view in academia.)

Religious Tones

Peter Klein, another excellent economist, notices what I've noticed. Pundits and politicians talk about the government in almost religious tones. Its word is sacred, and thus default would be an unspeakable sin.

In following the debates over raising the US debt ceiling I'm struck by the frequent claim that defaulting on public debt is unthinkable because of the "signal" that would send. If you can't rely on the T-Bill, what can you rely on? Debt instruments backed by the "full faith and credit of the United States" are supposed to be risk-free, almost magically so, somehow transcending the vagaries of ordinary debt markets. The Treasury Bill, in other words, has become a myth and symbol, just like the Constitution.

I find this line of reasoning unpersuasive. A T-bill is a bond, just like any other bond. Corporations, municipalities, and other issuers default on bonds all the time, and the results are hardly catastrophic. Financial markets have been restructuring debt for many centuries, and they've gotten pretty good at it. From the discussion regarding T-bills you'd think no one had ever heard of default risk premia before. (Interestingly, this seems to be a case of American exceptionalism; people aren't particularly happy about Greek, Irish, and Portuguese defaults but no one thinks the world will end because of them.) So, isn't it time to de-mythologize all this? Treasuries are bonds just like any other bonds. There's nothing magic, mythical, or sacred about them. A default on US government debt is no more or less radical than a default on any other kind of debt.

Chris Matthews would be screaming, "Heretic!" right about now.

But come on. Really. The fate of the world hinges on the U.S. government's credibility? That's a joke, right? Have you followed WikiLeaks?


$750 Billion

Robert P. Murphy puts in all in perspective.

Debt service currently consumes about one-sixth of incoming revenues….

[I]f the government merely returned to its 2003 spending levels, then the current revenue stream would be enough to pay for everything ­ including interest on existing debt. I personally don't remember the country falling apart in 2003 from lack of federal-government expenditures.

That would mean cutting $750 billion from the nearly $4 trillion budget. (One item, the war in Afghanistan, costs $10 billion a month.) Murphy suggests that if the politicians don't want to cut spending, they could sell off government assets to get the money. No need to raise the debt ceiling.

Those are moderate solutions that would leave no lasting reforms. Default would bring lasting benefits. For one thing, it would make people less eager to lend to the U.S. government, and how could that be bad? Debt, among other evils, makes government bigger. As Jeffrey Rogers Hummel says, default would be a balanced-budget amendment with teeth!

The government should indeed give up its land and other assets, but I don't see why its voluntary creditors should be first in line for payment when there are so many coerced creditors around, including Social Security recipients, who had their potential savings stolen throughout their lives.

Consenting creditors -- people who chose to buy T-bills -- count on getting repaid with stolen property, aka tax revenue, which in my book taints the contract. If justice is the standard, the State's victims should get restitution first.

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/tgif/about-that-debt-limit/

Krugman and "economic fallacies"

Friday, July 8, 2011
Krugman and "economic fallacies"
William Anderson

With the job numbers today looking dismal, I figured that the Paul Krugman would call for more borrowing and spending, and he did not disappoint. However, as an added bonus, Krugman also declares certain things to be "economic fallacies," which not only turns upside down any meaning of "economics," but also is built upon that Mother of All Economic Fallacies, the "Fallacy of the Broken Window."

Krugman writes:

One striking example of this rightward shift came in last weekend's presidential address, in which Mr. Obama had this to say about the economics of the budget: "Government has to start living within its means, just like families do. We have to cut the spending we can't afford so we can put the economy on sounder footing, and give our businesses the confidence they need to grow and create jobs."

That's three of the right's favorite economic fallacies in just two sentences. No, the government shouldn't budget the way families do; on the contrary, trying to balance the budget in times of economic distress is a recipe for deepening the slump. Spending cuts right now wouldn't "put the economy on sounder footing." They would reduce growth and raise unemployment. And last but not least, businesses aren't holding back because they lack confidence in government policies; they're holding back because they don't have enough customers ­ a problem that would be made worse, not better, by short-term spending cuts.

Notice what Krugman is saying: Government magically can do away with opportunity cost by spending. (Yes, I know, his argument is that government spending will transform "idle resources" and then give the economy "traction" to move on its own.)

Furthermore, he is not listing anything close to an "economic fallacy." Instead, he is dealing with policy issues, while having economic implications, are not economic theories themselves. An "economic fallacy" deals with a violation of either premises or what we might call a "law" of economics.

Perhaps the most famous of the fallacies is about which Frederic Bastiat wrote in "What is seen, and what is not seen" when he described the view that "broken windows" are necessary to keep an economy going:

Have you ever been witness to the fury of that solid citizen, James Goodfellow, when his incorrigible son has happened to break a pane of glass? If you have been present at this spectacle, certainly you must also have observed that the onlookers, even if there are as many as thirty of them, seem with one accord to offer the unfortunate owner the selfsame consolation: "It's an ill wind that blows nobody some good. Such accidents keep industry going. Everybody has to make a living. What would become of the glaziers if no one ever broke a window?"

Now, this formula of condolence contains a whole theory that it is a good idea for us to expose, flagrante delicto, in this very simple case, since it is exactly the same as that which, unfortunately, underlies most of our economic institutions.

Suppose that it will cost six francs to repair the damage. If you mean that the accident gives six francs' worth of encouragement to the aforesaid industry, I agree. I do not contest it in any way; your reasoning is correct. The glazier will come, do his job, receive six francs, congratulate himself, and bless in his heart the careless child. That is what is seen.

But if, by way of deduction, you conclude, as happens only too often, that it is good to break windows, that it helps to circulate money, that it results in encouraging industry in general, I am obliged to cry out: That will never do! Your theory stops at what is seen. It does not take account of what is not seen.

It is not seen that, since our citizen has spent six francs for one thing, he will not be able to spend them for another. It is not seen that if he had not had a windowpane to replace, he would have replaced, for example, his worn-out shoes or added another book to his library. In brief, he would have put his six francs to some use or other for which he will not now have them.

What Krugman advocates, of course, is something like the "Broken Window Fallacy" (all in the name of claiming that the BWF is a fallacy in itself), for unless government spending via taxation, monetary creation, and borrowing can create wealth where there was none before, government simply is transferring resources or it is blocking the transference of resources from lower-valued to higher-valued uses.

Now, it is true that if government cuts spending, it will create more unemployment in the short run, but to Krugman, there only is a short run. Because the Keynesian viewpoint holds that resources (for economic purposes) are homogeneous, it does not matter where spending is directed, just as long as "new jobs" are created.

Yet, it DOES matter where spending is directed and it is not a fallacy to emphasize that point. For the past three years, the government has engaged in policies of bailouts, "stimulus" spending, new regulations, and throwing huge amounts of money at "green" energy projects, and we are further away from an economic recovery than when we started.

Yes, Krugman can claim that government spending is falling and that the government already is engaging in "austerity." That is nonsense, but nonsense is what prevails in Washington.

Is Propaganda = Teaching?

Is Propaganda = Teaching?
Posted by Kathryn Muratore on July 8, 2011 05:37 PM

I could hardly believe my ears at the audacity of this program described on Marketplace yesterday. As a resident of Maryland, I can attest that having a security clearance around here is viewed (by the sheeple, that is, almost everyone) as the best career move you can make. I've heard my superiors at my current and past jobs in the area promote this. But, it turns out that this is now the new 'vo-tech' substitute at Baltimore schools. No need to learn a skill, just make sure that you keep up the right image to get a security clearance!

So, I'm not surprised that the feds (in cahoots with contractors) are making propaganda videos and getting them played at high schools. I just don't understand how an intelligent person could hear this story on the radio and come away thinking that public schools are interested in education and uninterested in blatant propaganda. But, at the same time, I know that this opinion prevails despite evidence as glaring as this "career guidance"/pro-security clearance program.

Of course, it helps that the teachers themselves are utterly brainwashed (emphasis added):

[Baltimore teacher Tina Edler]: The one thing that I really love about teaching this content is that I'm allowed to have those courageous conversations that never take place in the classroom.

Price Controls Make A Statement About Society

The Economic Imagination
Price Controls Make A Statement About Society
Art Carden
Jul. 8 2011 - 7:20 am

Economics has a reputation for being a "dismal science" in part because highlights the ways in which various utopian schemes are impractical or impossible (Sandra Peart and David Levy point out that it's also because some of the early classical economists made " radical claims about the equality of all men," but that's not my focus here).  The last refuge of the interventionist defeated at every turn by the laws of supply and demand is to say that while his or her program might have unintended consequences, it "makes a statement about the kind of society we live in."

Interventions make statements, to be sure, but they aren't statements to be proud of.  In the case of various forms of interference with the market–minimum wages, redistribution, price controls, immigration restrictions, and so on­the messages are unmistakable and unflattering.

Consider price controls, which legislate maximum prices that suppliers can charge for rental apartments or "essential" supplies after natural disasters. Basic microeconomics shows how price controls create shortages. What kinds of messages do price controls send about the kind of society in which we live?

They say that our society doesn't know the lessons economics has to teach.  Price controls create shortages, and they also drive a wedge between the price of a good or service and what people are willing to pay or accept.  Suppose someone is willing to pay $10 for a gallon of gas after a storm but is only allowed to pay $2 in cash.  If he values his time at $8 per hour, he will be willing to pay with $2 in cash and an hour of time spent standing in line.  The cruel irony of this is that the entire difference between the legal maximum price and the price people are willing to pay for every gallon that is supplied will evaporate as people stand in line for gas.  Everyone is unambiguously worse off relative to where they would be without price controls.

They say that our society is elitist.  Price controls inflict positive harm on precisely the people we wish to help, and for what?  So that people removed from the situation can feel good about themselves?  Excusing others' suffering in the name of your ideals is neither virtuous nor compassionate.  The Foundation for Economic Education's Sheldon Richman once said that advocating policies when you don't understand their unintended consequences is "the intellectual equivalent of drunk driving."   If you're advocating price controls and don't understand what the laws of supply and demand have to say about your proposal, you aren't courageous or compassionate.  You're dangerous.

They say that our society is violent.  Trade is a fundamentally peaceful undertaking that unites people who might even dislike one another.  Government intervention is literally the imposition of someone willing to use force to prevent people from cooperating. Michael Munger explains more about "euvoluntary exchange" in a recent EconTalk podcast.

They say that our society is superficial.  The economist Wilson Mixon characterizes this as the attitude that it is "better to feel good than to do good."  To give at the office is one thing.  To "give" at the voting booth is another, especially when your "giving" is actually hurting the people you think you're helping.

People who advocate price controls and other interventions often do so because they want to send a message about the kind of society we live in.  In light of how price controls create shortages, though, I don't think the messages are the ones people want to send.  Or receive.

http://blogs.forbes.com/artcarden/2011/07/08/price-controls-make-a-statement-about-society/

When Will Obama Crack? By Mychal Massie

When Will Obama Crack? By Mychal Massie twg2a PitBull | July 8, 2011 at 14:21 | Categories: Miscellaneous | URL: http://wp.me/pMJTI-YF

    When will Obama crack in public? Posted: April 19, 2011 By Mychal Massie ... At a time when many Americans can barely afford Burger King and a movie, Obama boasts of spending a billion dollars on his re-election campaign. Questioned at a recent appearance about the spiraling fuel costs, Obama said, "Get used [...]

Read more of this post

Add a comment to this post

WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress! Manage Subscriptions | Unsubscribe | Express yourself. Start a blog.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://subscribe.wordpress.com

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Don’t Support the Troops ­ Bring Them Home

Don't Support the Troops ­ Bring Them Home
by Sheldon Richman, July 8, 2011

Reversing long-standing policy, President Obama will now send condolence letters to the families of U.S. military personnel who commit suicide in combat zones.

That's nice. But he could prevent future suicides by bringing all the troops home and ending America's interventionist foreign policy.

"They didn't die because they were weak," Obama said. "And the fact that they didn't get the help they needed must change."

But the help they really needed was not to be sent to invade foreign countries in the first place and to fight senseless wars, like the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan. Repeated combat tours in behalf of imperial policies are intolerable. But even one tour is one too many. For the last 10 years the U.S government has fought aggressive wars by choice. They were not defensive but rather a continuation by other means of American intervention in the Arab and Muslim worlds. The criminal attacks on 9/11 were not the cause of that intervention but the consequence.

Wars of aggression such as the U.S. government has pursued since 2001 have many costs. First are the lives lost and ruined among the foreign population. Presidents Bush and Obama undoubtedly are responsible for more than a million deaths, many civilians among them, including those in Pakistan and now Libya. The U.S. government calls many of its victims "insurgents" and "militants," but that may mean only that they objected to a foreign occupier. The cost also includes destruction of water and sanitation facilities and power generation, jeopardizing the health and lives of people, especially children and the elderly.

Another obvious cost is the money sunk into imperial missions. The occupation of Afghanistan costs $10 billion a month. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars have now cost more than $1 trillion, and these money pits are still in operation. Let that sink in: The government has a $14 trillion debt. Annual budget deficits are running at more than $1 trillion a year. Congress and the president are wrangling over whether to raise the debt ceiling. And the government is spending $10 billion a month in Afghanistan alone.

If this were a movie, you'd dismiss it as ridiculous beyond belief. Yet our "leaders" expect us to accept this as reasonable, reassured that wise people in power know what they are doing. If it seems screwy, you must be an "isolationist" or uninformed.

Finally, there is the personal cost to the U.S. troops. Here we have a horrifying lesson in the old saying "talk is cheap." Politicians love nothing better than to pay tribute to "our troops," especially those who have made "the ultimate sacrifice." Yet those words stink of hypocrisy when one realizes that the same politicians create the conditions that then are used to justify invasions, occupations, and war in foreign countries. Despite all the nonsense about valor on the battlefield and sacrifice for one's country, war wreaks havoc with the lives of those who physically survive it. Some are wrecked bodily, others psychologically. Their marriages and families are disrupted if not destroyed. Some will return home permanently scarred, perhaps to live on the streets as beggars. Others will take their own lives.

The Indianapolis Star reports, "By 2008, the Army suicide rate surpassed the national average, reaching a rate of 20.2 per 100,000, compared to the national average of 19.2 out of 100,000." The New York Times notes, "There were more than 295 suicides last year among active-duty personnel, a majority outside combat zones." How many were waiting to ship out?

Suicide is a chosen act, of course, but the politicians and war planners share in the responsibility because of the horrors to which they callously subject young people.

Apologists for the empire will laud American military personnel for "serving their country" and for "fighting for our freedom." Nonsense. They, like the public, were duped into believing that. In fact, their lives were destroyed serving the political and economic interests of empire-builders and contractors. There was nothing elevated in what the troops were ordered to do. Their mistake was in trusting the people who claim to be "leaders."

Support the troops, we're told. Here's a better idea: Don't "support" them. Bring them home now.

http://www.fff.org/comment/com1107g.asp

Bastiat for the Ages

Bastiat for the Ages
Friday, July 08, 2011
by Jeff Riggenbach

[Transcribed from the Libertarian Tradition podcast episode "Frédéric Bastiat (1801–1850)"]

It was back in 1962, as I recall, when I was 15 years old and a junior in high school, that I first read something by a French writer on free trade whose name, my friends and I thought at first, would probably be pronounced "Frederick BAHS-tee-aht." Since several of us were enrolled in Madame Wall's beginning French class that semester, it didn't take us too long to discover that his name was probably closer to "Frayed-air-EEK Bah-STYAH." But his ideas fascinated us all the same, as did the organization whose free pamphlets included Bastiat's arguments against tariffs and other government-imposed impediments to commerce -- an organization called the Foundation for Economic Education.

The Foundation for Economic Education -- FEE, usually pronounced like the word "fee" -- had been founded just after the end of World War II, by a radicalized former Chamber of Commerce executive named Leonard Read. The late George Roche III, who spent the last three decades of the last century as president of Hillsdale College in Michigan, published a very readable and useful biography of Bastiat back in 1971, in which he writes, "Leonard Read … rescued Bastiat from the historical ash-heap." Read, according to Roche's account, "was among the first to realize the enormous importance of Frédéric Bastiat."

My friends and I, back in 1962, thought Bastiat seemed pretty important. He was certainly a remarkable writer -- uncommonly lucid, extraordinarily clever, a real find. But we were unable, in that pre-Internet age, to locate much of anything in the way of biographical information about him. And the problem wasn't just that there was no Internet in 1962. Nothing much had been published on Bastiat in any form in 1962. It would be seven more years until 1969, when Dean Russell would publish his book Frédéric Bastiat: Ideas & Influence, the first book-length treatment of Bastiat ever published in English -- and it was published, unsurprisingly, by FEE. Roche's book, Frédéric Bastiat: A Man Alone, came two years later, in 1971.

Bastiat, as it turned out, was born 210 years ago. Some accounts give his birthdate as June 29, 1801, but Russell and Roche, the most authoritative sources on Bastiat for an English-speaking audience, both report that his actual date of birth was the last day of the month, June 30, 1801. He was born in Bayonne, a seaport in southwestern France, near the Bay of Biscay. His family was prosperous, having enjoyed substantial success as importers and bankers. He went into the family business himself for a few years in his late teens and early twenties, but he had no obvious aptitude for it, and, when he inherited his grandfather's country estate in 1825, at the age of 24, he settled into the routine and the lifestyle of a gentleman farmer. He devoted himself to scholarship, chiefly in political economy, on account of questions that had been raised in his mind by his own brief experience in business. He employed others to run his affairs, and prospered by doing so.

For the next 20 years, this is how he lived ­ reading in political economy in French, English, and Italian (the three languages that Bastiat could call his own), thinking, making notes, gradually perfecting his understanding of what Ludwig von Mises would later call praxeology, the principles underlying human action. Then, one day in the late 1830s, when Bastiat was himself in his late 30s, he began reading in English newspapers about an extraordinary new organization called the Anti-Corn Law League. It was operated by a Manchester businessman-turned-political-activist named Richard Cobden, and it sought to end protectionist policies in the United Kingdom and replace them with truly free trade with all nations. Cobden believed that this would weave stronger commercial bonds with other states and would virtually guarantee ongoing peace with those other states.

Bastiat was impressed. He had reached identical conclusions about the benefits of removing government-imposed barriers to trade. But he had never considered actually attempting to win implementation of such ideas. Cobden was undertaking just such an attempt. And, as Bastiat continued to follow the activities of the Anti-Corn Law League over the next few years, it became clear to him that Cobden was enjoying a considerable degree of success with his efforts. None of this was being covered or discussed at all in the newspapers in France.

Bastiat believed the French public needed to be informed of what was happening in England. He also believed they should be informed of the reasons tariffs prevented them from enjoying as high a standard of living as they could enjoy. To that end, he had become a part-time journalist, writing on economic issues for daily and weekly papers and for monthly magazines, mostly in Paris. Now he packed up and went to England and met and befriended Richard Cobden and interviewed him at length about his ideas and his activities. He interviewed others as well. Then he came back to France and wrote a book.

The book was called Cobden et la Ligue -- Cobden & the League. It was published in 1845, when Bastiat was not quite 44 years old. As Jim Powell tells the tale in the chapter on Bastiat in his book The Triumph of Liberty, Cobden & the League "scooped all other French journalists." It certainly redoubled demand for Bastiat's articles, 22 of which he collected into yet another book, Economic Sophisms, for publication later that same year.

By 1846, Bastiat had become editor of his own paper, Le libre-echange --The Free Exchange. By then he had also begun touring France extensively, giving lectures and speeches and trying to raise money for a new Free Trade Association, patterned after Cobden's Anti-Corn Law League. George Roche tells us that Bastiat's articles and books had begun to be "printed abroad in several languages," and that he now regularly "received invitations to speak across the European continent." And by early 1848, according to Roche, when Bastiat was still only 46 years old, he was "publishing a weekly newspaper," The French Republic, which he had opened virtually the day after his previous weekly, The Free Exchange, had ceased publication. He was also "speaking at meetings, corresponding with new free-trade associations which were forming in the provinces, [and] writing letters and controversial articles in three different journals."

But the end was in sight. Bastiat had contracted tuberculosis and could somehow never find the time to do the resting his physicians told him was essential to any sort of full recovery. Instead, he gradually wasted away. Looked at from any point of view outside his own, it was as though he was consumed from within. Little wonder that in the 19th century tuberculosis was commonly referred to as "consumption." Bastiat was entirely consumed by Christmas 1850; he passed away on December 24 of that year, at the age of 49.

He left behind him enough journalism to fill seven volumes -- much of it, like all the best intellectual journalism, timeless, as relevant today as it was in the Paris of more than 150 years ago. "This is the way an opinion gains acceptance in France," Bastiat wrote. "Fifty ignoramuses repeat in chorus some absurd libel that has been thought up by an even bigger ignoramus; and, if only it happens to coincide to some slight degree with prevailing attitudes and passions, it becomes a self-evident truth." Could any other description fit more precisely with the way in which it quickly became a self-evident truth that our current economic crisis here in the United States was caused by insufficient regulation of the financial sector? Talk about "absurd libels" and chorusing ignoramuses!

"We know," Bastiat wrote,

that the number of government jobs has been increasing steadily, and that the number of applicants is increasing still more rapidly than the number of jobs. … Is this scourge about to come to an end? How can we believe it, when we see that public opinion itself wants to have everything done by that fictitious being, the state, which signifies a collection of salaried bureaucrats? … Very soon there will be two or three of these bureaucrats around every Frenchman, one to prevent him from working too much, another to give him an education, a third to furnish him credit, a fourth to interfere with his business transactions, etc., etc. Where will we be led by the illusion that impels us to believe that the state is a person who has an inexhaustible fortune independent of ours?

These words were written early in 1850; with only one small change -- the substitution of the word "American" for the word "Frenchman" -- they might have been written anytime in the last couple of years.

And Bastiat knew back in 1850 the answer to his question, "Where will we be led by the illusion … that the state is a person who has an inexhaustible fortune independent of ours?"

He wrote that

under the name of the state the citizens taken collectively are considered as a real being, having its own life, its own wealth, independently of the lives and the wealth of the citizens themselves; and then each addresses this fictitious being, some to obtain from it education, others employment, others credit, others food, etc., etc. Now the state can give nothing to the citizens that it has not first taken from them.

Yet, Bastiat thundered,

What class does not solicit the favors of the state? It would seem as if the principle of life resided in it. Aside from the innumerable horde of its own agents, agriculture, manufacturing, commerce, the arts, the theatre, the colonies, and the shipping industry expect everything from it. They want it to clear and irrigate land, to colonize, to teach, and even to amuse. Each begs a bounty, a subsidy, an incentive, and especially the gratuitous gift of certain services, such as education and credit. And why not ask the state for the gratuitous gift of all services? Why not require the state to provide all the citizens with food, drink, clothing, and shelter free of charge?

Bastiat famously said that "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." And for this situation, he maintained, "there is only one remedy: time. People have to learn, through hard experience, the enormous disadvantage there is in plundering one another." In another place, he wrote that "the only remedy is in the progressive enlightenment of public opinion."

Bastiat did much himself to enlighten public opinion. Thanks to Leonard Read, he continues to do so. He was, as Friedrich Hayek once put it, "a publicist of genius." He had that rarest of talents -- the talent for high-quality popularization. He could write clearly and persuasively about complex ideas in such a way that beginners could follow him; yet those who were more expert in their knowledge could find nothing in his presentation to criticize or dislike.

And there have long been those who have believed that this early 19th century French liberal was not "merely" a popularizer, but also did much to advance human understanding of economic truth. Ludwig von Mises opined in the '20s that Bastiat's "critique of all protectionist and related tendencies is even today unsurpassed. The protectionists and interventionists have not been able to advance a single word in pertinent and objective rejoinder." Mises's biographer, Jörg Guido Hülsmann, considers Bastiat "an important forerunner of today's academics who have married law and economics into a new discipline." And Murray Rothbard, in his Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought, calls Bastiat "a perceptive political, or politico-economic, theorist" who "has been systematically derided and undervalued," despite the fact that he made more than one "important contribution to economic theory."

One of these, Rothbard suggests, was his famous "fable of the broken window," which

brilliantly refuted Keynesianism nearly a century before its birth. Here, [Bastiat] outlines three levels of economic analysis. A mischievous boy hurls a rock at a plate glass store window, and breaks the glass. As a crowd gathers round, the first-level analysis, common sense, comments on the event. Common sense deplores the destruction of property in breaking the window, and sympathizes with the storekeeper for having to spend his money repairing the window. But then, says Bastiat, comes the second-level, sophisticated analyst or what we might call a proto-Keynesian. The Keynesian says: oh, but you people don't realize that the breaking of the window is really an economic blessing. For, in having to repair the window, the storekeeper invigorates the economy by his spending, and gives welcome employment to glaziers and their workers. Destruction of property, by compelling spending, therefore stimulates the economy and has an invigorating "multiplier effect" on production and employment.

But then in steps Bastiat, the third-level analyst, and points out the grievous fallacy in the destructionist proto-Keynesian position. The alleged sophisticated critic, says Bastiat, concentrates on "what is seen" and neglects "what is not seen." The sophisticate sees that the storekeeper must give employment to glaziers by spending money to repair his window. But what he doesn't see is the storekeepers's opportunity foregone. If he did not have to spend the money on repairing the window, he could have added to his capital, and to everyone's standard of living, and thereby employed people in the act of advancing, rather than merely trying to sustain, the current stock of capital. Or, the storekeeper might have spent the money on his own consumption, employing people in that form of production.

In this way, the "economist," Bastiat's third-level observer, vindicates common sense and refutes the apologia for destruction of the pseudo-sophisticate. He considers what is not seen as well as what is seen. Bastiat, the economist, is the truly sophisticated analyst.

So he is -- or was. Two hundred and ten years old he may be, but his ideas are forever young.


Jeff Riggenbach is a journalist, author, editor, broadcaster, and educator. A member of the Organization of American Historians and a Senior Fellow at the Randolph Bourne Institute, he has written for such newspapers as The New York Times, USA Today, the Los Angeles Times, and the San Francisco Chronicle; such magazines as Reason, Inquiry, and Liberty; and such websites as LewRockwell.com, AntiWar.com, and RationalReview.com. Drawing on vocal skills he honed in classical and all-news radio in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Houston, Riggenbach has also narrated the audiobook versions of numerous libertarian works, many of them available in Mises Media.

This article is transcribed from the Libertarian Tradition podcast episode "Frédéric Bastiat (1801–1850)."

http://mises.org/daily/5429/Bastiat-for-the-Ages

Kissing Your IRAs and 401ks Goodbye

Friday, July 8, 2011
Kissing Your IRAs and 401ks Goodbye
by Jacob G. Hornberger

Americans might be wise to prepare themselves for what might happen if the feds are permitted to continue spending and borrowing to their heart's content, which of course they will be able to do if the debt ceiling is raised. At some point, the level of debt gets so high that no one is willing to lend the government any more money simply because the risk of default is too high. That's what happened in Greece.

If things get to that point, people might well find themselves kissing their IRAs and 401ks goodbye. Why? Because a wounded, angry, voracious federal government, desperately in need of money to fund its welfare-warfare activities, might well go looking for large sums of ready cash to seize. And what juicier fruit than IRAs and 401ks?

That's essentially what government officials in Argentina did when the government ran out of money and no one was willing to lend it any more. They just went out and nationalized people's private retirement accounts.

And don't forget that that's essentially what FDR and his statist cronies did during the 1930s. They seized everyone's gold and then made it a felony offense to possess gold, notwithstanding that gold coins (and silver coins) had been the nation's official money for more than a century.

FDR and his merry band of looters got away with it. Oh, that's not to say they didn't pay for the gold. They did ­ with devalued paper money. Obama and his fellow statists undoubtedly would do something along the same lines after confiscating people's retirement accounts. They'd give people debased and devalued U.S. bonds, which, they would tell people, are as good as gold.

Since the situation would inevitably involve a severe financial crisis, federal officials would inevitably cry the two magic words that would secure them the allegiance of the judiciary: "national security." There would also be boisterous patriotic campaigns, much like FDR's Blue Eagle campaign, that would condemn and ostracize those who objected to having their money stolen from them.

But protests would most likely be for naught, just as they were after Argentina's nationalization of retirement accounts and FDR's nationalization of gold. Given that federal officials have succeeded in ignoring important constraints in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, there's little reason to think that they wouldn't get away with ignoring the Fifth Amendment's express prohibition against depriving people of property without due process of law too.

http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2011-07-08.asp

Re: Texas Execution violated international law, UN says

The US did not try or execute the man.... Texas did. Texas is not a
signatory to the Covenant. One of the last remnants of the tenth
amendment to stand unscathed.

On Jul 8, 3:40 pm, dick thompson <rhomp2...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> After reading what the guy did I am not concerned at all.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> GregfromBoston wrote:
> > I bet Texas and the US are really concerned
>
> > On Jul 8, 5:25 pm, dick thompson <rhomp2...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14089246

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Texas Execution violated international law, UN says

After reading what the guy did I am not concerned at all.

GregfromBoston wrote:
> I bet Texas and the US are really concerned
>
> On Jul 8, 5:25 pm, dick thompson <rhomp2...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14089246
>>
>
>

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

The Shredder

 

This is why ASSUME is a BAD word.   THIS IS A CLASSIC " The Shredder " A young engineer was leaving the office at 5:45 p.m. when he found the CEO standing in front of a shredder with a piece of paper in his hand. "Listen," said the CEO, "this is a very sensitive and important document, and my secretary is not here. Can you make this thing work?" "Certainly," said the young engineer. He turned on the machine, inserted the paper, and pressed the start button. "Excellent, excellent!" said the CEO as his paper disappeared inside the machine, "I just need one copy." Lesson: Never, Never, ever assume that your boss knows what he's doing.

 

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Texas Execution violated international law, UN says

I bet Texas and the US are really concerned

On Jul 8, 5:25 pm, dick thompson <rhomp2...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14089246

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Olive Garden Takes Fries and Milkshakes Off the Kids' Menu

http://eater.com/archives/2011/07/07/olive-garden-takes-fries-and-milkshakes-off-the-kids-menu.php

 

 

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Texas Execution violated international law, UN says

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14089246

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Senate Republicans Are Selling Out

The bill and the amendment are completely seperate

On Jul 8, 4:57 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> Senate Republicans Are Selling OutPosted byLaurence Vanceon July 8, 2011 08:38 AM
> Twenty-one Senate Republicans are backinga billto raise the debt limit by $2.4 trillionin exchange for spending cuts and a balanced budget amendment. Hey GOP, how about no more compromises, exchages, and sellouts? Another dumb thing about this bill is that an amendment must be ratified by the states. That could take years. We will reach the new debt limit by then.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: God

Thats great man

On Jul 8, 3:39 pm, HaShem Rules <01910infin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 8, 2:07 pm, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > None of those are the National Motto of the United States.
>
> You figured that out, huh...?
>
>
>
> > You don't have to like it
>
> The National Motto doesn't scare me. It's not a threat.
> The Muslim Motto is scary and threatening...
>
> Almighty God is all that 'counts' to me. It trashes Islam's
> rogue angel God.....
>
> ~>
> OOFA...
>
> All Mighty/Omniscient Allah. And Islam...
> verses
> Almighty/Omnipotent HaShem. And Judaism...
>
> Will the real Creator God please stand up....?
> And kick Allah's ass....
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 8, 1:49 pm, HaShem Rules <01910infin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 8, 11:34 am, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Its the only National Motto we have
>
> > > Motto...seen on plaques in Mosques....
> > > "Allah is our objective.
> > > The Prophet is our leader.
> > > Qur'an is our law.
> > > Jihad is our way.
> > > Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope."
>
> > > (Pathetic morons who may rule the world with
> > > Sharia Law)
>
> > > The Muslims could claim the God on our money
> > > is referring to Allah...a generic man made God.
>
> > > Unless it says Almighty God, it's a generic God.
>
> > > OOFA....
> > > All Mighty/Omniscient Allah..
> > > verses
> > > Almighty/Omnipotent HaShem....
>
> > > Will the real Creator God please stand up....?
>
> > > > On Jul 8, 10:58 am, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > I am a liberal that likes in God we trust on the dollar bill.
> > > > > ---
> > > > > why?
>
> > > > > On Jul 3, 11:55 pm, "cackalackyha...@gmail.com"
>
> > > > > <cackalackyha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > Date: Sunday, July 03, 2011 10:59:56 pm
> > > > > > To: politicalforum@googlegroups.com
> > > > > > From: "Sharon Fuentes" <oneforentr...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > Subject: Re: God
>
> > > > > > I am a liberal that likes in God we trust on the dollar bill.  Everytime I
> > > > > > pay for something.  I think....in God I trust that this currency will stay
> > > > > > strong  and that it quits sinking against the Euro.  In fact I really don't
> > > > > > care where the word God appears....It doesn't bother all of us.
>
> > > > > > On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 12:22 PM, HaShem Rules <01910infin...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > > > > > The Liberal half asses of Ass wholes want the word 'God' taken off,
> > > > > > > and out, of everything
> > > > > > > it's being used for...
>
> > > > > > > What about the 'God' they trust in, on their money? When does that God
> > > > > > > come off?
>
> > > > > > > That 'God', is a generic God. It should say; "In Almighty God We
> > > > > > > Trust"...
> > > > > > > There is only one of those. All others are, at most, Omniscient. None
> > > > > > > Omnipotent.
>
> > > > > > > All Mighty/Omniscient Allah..
> > > > > > > verses
> > > > > > > Almighty/Omnipotent HaShem....
>
> > > > > > > Will the real Creator God please stand up....?
>
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > > > > > > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/P-Hidequotedtext-
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Senate Republicans Are Selling Out

Senate Republicans Are Selling Out
Posted by Laurence Vance on July 8, 2011 08:38 AM

Twenty-one Senate Republicans are backing a bill to raise the debt limit by $2.4 trillion in exchange for spending cuts and a balanced budget amendment. Hey GOP, how about no more compromises, exchages, and sellouts? Another dumb thing about this bill is that an amendment must be ratified by the states. That could take years. We will reach the new debt limit by then.

Bad Poll for Socialist..err...Democrats: 72% favor Free Market Economy over Government Run Economy

Bad Poll for Socialist..err...Democrats: 72% favor Free Market Economy over Government Run Economy Scotty Starnes | July 8, 2011 at 2:07 PM | Tags: Democrats, economy, free market, free market economy, government controlled economy, socialism | Categories: Political Issues | URL: http://wp.me/pvnFC-5yC

Obama and his gang of progressive-socialist Democrats hardest hit by this poll.

Voters remain strongly supportive of a free market economy over one controlled by the government and still think small businesses are hurt more than big businesses when the government does get involved.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 72% of Likely U.S. Voters believe a free market economy is better than an economy managed by the government. Just 14% think a government-managed economy is better. Another 14% are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here).

Republicans and unaffiliated voters overwhelmingly prefer a free market approach. Among these segments of the electorate, the number preferring a government-managed economy is in the single digits.

Among Democrats, 48% say a free market is better, but 29% think a government-managed economy is the answer. Twenty-three percent (23%) are not sure.

As usual, Democrats are on the opposite side of Americans.

Seventy-five percent (75%) of those who work for a private company give the nod to a free market economy, compared to 53% of government employees.

Government employees are leeches who depend upon those working in the free market to pay their salaries.

The majority (56%) of all voters think increased competition rather than increased government regulation is the best way to hold big business accountable. But 34% see increased regulation as the better course.

Continue reading>>>

 

Add a comment to this post

WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress! Manage Subscriptions | Unsubscribe | Reach out to your own subscribers with WordPress.com.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://subscribe.wordpress.com

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: God

On Jul 8, 2:07 pm, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> None of those are the National Motto of the United States.

You figured that out, huh...?
>
> You don't have to like it

The National Motto doesn't scare me. It's not a threat.
The Muslim Motto is scary and threatening...

Almighty God is all that 'counts' to me. It trashes Islam's
rogue angel God.....

~>
OOFA...

All Mighty/Omniscient Allah. And Islam...
verses
Almighty/Omnipotent HaShem. And Judaism...

Will the real Creator God please stand up....?
And kick Allah's ass....
>
> On Jul 8, 1:49 pm, HaShem Rules <01910infin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 8, 11:34 am, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Its the only National Motto we have
>
> > Motto...seen on plaques in Mosques....
> > "Allah is our objective.
> > The Prophet is our leader.
> > Qur'an is our law.
> > Jihad is our way.
> > Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope."
>
> > (Pathetic morons who may rule the world with
> > Sharia Law)
>
> > The Muslims could claim the God on our money
> > is referring to Allah...a generic man made God.
>
> > Unless it says Almighty God, it's a generic God.
>
> > OOFA....
> > All Mighty/Omniscient Allah..
> > verses
> > Almighty/Omnipotent HaShem....
>
> > Will the real Creator God please stand up....?
>
> > > On Jul 8, 10:58 am, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I am a liberal that likes in God we trust on the dollar bill.
> > > > ---
> > > > why?
>
> > > > On Jul 3, 11:55 pm, "cackalackyha...@gmail.com"
>
> > > > <cackalackyha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > Date: Sunday, July 03, 2011 10:59:56 pm
> > > > > To: politicalforum@googlegroups.com
> > > > > From: "Sharon Fuentes" <oneforentr...@gmail.com>
> > > > > Subject: Re: God
>
> > > > > I am a liberal that likes in God we trust on the dollar bill.  Everytime I
> > > > > pay for something.  I think....in God I trust that this currency will stay
> > > > > strong  and that it quits sinking against the Euro.  In fact I really don't
> > > > > care where the word God appears....It doesn't bother all of us.
>
> > > > > On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 12:22 PM, HaShem Rules <01910infin...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > > > > The Liberal half asses of Ass wholes want the word 'God' taken off,
> > > > > > and out, of everything
> > > > > > it's being used for...
>
> > > > > > What about the 'God' they trust in, on their money? When does that God
> > > > > > come off?
>
> > > > > > That 'God', is a generic God. It should say; "In Almighty God We
> > > > > > Trust"...
> > > > > > There is only one of those. All others are, at most, Omniscient. None
> > > > > > Omnipotent.
>
> > > > > > All Mighty/Omniscient Allah..
> > > > > > verses
> > > > > > Almighty/Omnipotent HaShem....
>
> > > > > > Will the real Creator God please stand up....?
>
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > > > > > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/P-Hidequotedtext -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

so its' true what they say

Friday, July 8, 2011

http://bighomocon.blogspot.com/2011/07/so-its-true-what-they-say-about.html

So it's true what they say about...

.... Clinton average 5.2, Bush average 5.3, Obama 9.2!

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.