WTF Obama is crazy for sayin it, but good for him. v.WTC

[Casper]

It's not what you know, it's who you know.

Nepotism explains 99.9% of CEOs. Ever notice how dumb they are?

 

[Syrup Beaver]

It's not what you know, it's who you know.

Nepotism explains 99.9% of CEOs. Ever notice how dumb they are?

They're just politicians at that level.

Just with more pay.

And they're shielded from the day to day goings on, I watch what goes up the chain and it's filtered heavily.

 

[Casper]

They're just politicians at that level.

Just with more pay.

And they're shielded from the day to day goings on, I watch what goes up the chain and it's filtered heavily.

I see this shit even with private local firms. Not just talking about the S&P500 types.

I think some businesses are difficult to run into the ground.

 

[Syrup Beaver]

I think they get dumber as they get more and more overwhelmed.

 

[Casper]

If the reverse is true, I'm like the smartest person ever at work.

 

[APRIL]

Unless you live in an at will state

At will state means very little; a company still has to cover their asses.

 

[OzSTEEZ]

I don't argee with much this guy says, ut Ron Paul nailed the Park51 controversy right on the head.

Left and the Right Demagogue Mosque, Islam



Is the controversy over building a mosque near ground zero a grand distraction or a grand opportunity? Or is it, once again, grandiose demagoguery?

It has been said, "Nero fiddled while Rome burned." Are we not overly preoccupied with this controversy, now being used in various ways by grandstanding politicians? It looks to me like the politicians are "fiddling while the economy burns."

The debate should have provided the conservative defenders of property rights with a perfect example of how the right to own property also protects the 1st Amendment rights of assembly and religion by supporting the building of the mosque.

Instead, we hear lip service given to the property rights position while demanding that the need to be "sensitive" requires an all-out assault on the building of a mosque, several blocks from "ground zero."

Just think of what might (not) have happened if the whole issue had been ignored and the national debate stuck with war, peace, and prosperity. There certainly would have been a lot less emotionalism on both sides. The fact that so much attention has been given the mosque debate, raises the question of just why and driven by whom?

In my opinion it has come from the neo-conservatives who demand continual war in the Middle East and Central Asia and are compelled to constantly justify it.

They never miss a chance to use hatred toward Muslims to rally support for the ill conceived preventative wars. A select quote from soldiers from in Afghanistan and Iraq expressing concern over the mosque is pure propaganda and an affront to their bravery and sacrifice.

The claim is that we are in the Middle East to protect our liberties is misleading. To continue this charade, millions of Muslims are indicted and we are obligated to rescue them from their religious and political leaders. And, we're supposed to believe that abusing our liberties here at home and pursuing unconstitutional wars overseas will solve our problems.

The nineteen suicide bombers didn't come from Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan or Iran. Fifteen came from our ally Saudi Arabia, a country that harbors strong American resentment, yet we invade and occupy Iraq where no al Qaeda existed prior to 9/11.

Many fellow conservatives say they understand the property rights and 1st Amendment issues and don't want a legal ban on building the mosque. They just want everybody to be "sensitive" and force, through public pressure, cancellation of the mosque construction.

This sentiment seems to confirm that Islam itself is to be made the issue, and radical religious Islamic views were the only reasons for 9/11. If it became known that 9/11 resulted in part from a desire to retaliate against what many Muslims saw as American aggression and occupation, the need to demonize Islam would be difficult if not impossible.

There is no doubt that a small portion of radical, angry Islamists do want to kill us but the question remains, what exactly motivates this hatred?

If Islam is further discredited by making the building of the mosque the issue, then the false justification for our wars in the Middle East will continue to be acceptable.

The justification to ban the mosque is no more rational than banning a soccer field in the same place because all the suicide bombers loved to play soccer.

Conservatives are once again, unfortunately, failing to defend private property rights, a policy we claim to cherish. In addition conservatives missed a chance to challenge the hypocrisy of the left which now claims they defend property rights of Muslims, yet rarely if ever, the property rights of American private businesses.

Defending the controversial use of property should be no more difficult than defending the 1st Amendment principle of defending controversial speech. But many conservatives and liberals do not want to diminish the hatred for Islam -- the driving emotion that keeps us in the wars in the Middle East and Central Asia.

It is repeatedly said that 64% of the people, after listening to the political demagogues, don't want the mosque to be built. What would we do if 75% of the people insist that no more Catholic churches be built in New York City? The point being is that majorities can become oppressors of minority rights as well as individual dictators. Statistics of support are irrelevant when it comes to the purpose of government in a free society -- protecting liberty.

The outcry over the building of the mosque, near ground zero, implies that Islam alone was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. According to those who are condemning the building of the mosque, the nineteen suicide terrorists on 9/11 spoke for all Muslims. This is like blaming all Christians for the wars of aggression and occupation because some Christians supported the neo-conservatives' aggressive wars.

The House Speaker is now treading on a slippery slope by demanding an investigation -- a bold rejection of property rights, 1st Amendment rights, and the Rule of Law -- in order to look tough against Islam.

This is all about hate and Islamaphobia.

We now have an epidemic of "sunshine patriots" on both the right and the left who are all for freedom, as long as there's no controversy and nobody is offended.

Political demagoguery rules when truth and liberty are ignored.

 

[fly]

I don't argee with much this guy says, ut Ron Paul nailed the Park51 controversy right on the head.

Yeah, and if you ACTUALLY read more things that he wrote, you probaby would agree with them. Instead it seems that you'd rather go off half-truths and sound bites.

Either way, good start reading this one. It's EXACTLY the point.

 

[OzSTEEZ]

How do you know what I read of Ron Paul?

Assume much?

 

[fly]

How do you know what I read of Ron Paul?

Assume much?

I don't. I can only go off comments you've made about him. Have you read anything of his? End The Fed was an AWESOME read.

 

[OzSTEEZ]

I don't. I can only go off comments you've made about him. Have you read anything of his? End The Fed was an AWESOME read.

I've seen his addresses to congress, plus other committees regarding the "End the FED" campaign of his. I share his want of addressing the economic crisis, yet I just don't agree that ending the Federal Reserve completely would be a good thing for the US. I just believe the Federal Reserve should completely transparent and 100% accountable for their actions.

 

[fly]

I've seen his addresses to congress, plus other committees regarding the "End the FED" campaign of his. I share his want of addressing the economic crisis, yet I just don't agree that ending the Federal Reserve completely would be a good thing for the US. I just believe the Federal Reserve should completely transparent and 100% accountable for their actions.

It's simple. Markets are (generally) efficient. A group of 10 people are never smarter than a market acting in its own interest. It's very well thought out and explained in the book. I'm too tired this week to debate it with you again. You should really check it out. Be careful though, it may change your mind about big government in general!

 

[Casper]

It's simple. Markets are (generally) efficient. A group of 10 people are never smarter than a market acting in its own interest. It's very well thought out and explained in the book. I'm too tired this week to debate it with you again. You should really check it out. Be careful though, it may change your mind about big government in general!

If this is the foundation for his arguments, there might not be much he and I agree on.

 

[OzSTEEZ]

It's simple. Markets are (generally) efficient. A group of 10 people are never smarter than a market acting in its own interest. It's very well thought out and explained in the book. I'm too tired this week to debate it with you again. You should really check it out. Be careful though, it may change your mind about big government in general!

I will never trust the free market. I thought you already knew I was anti-capitalist.

 

[fly]

If this is the foundation for his arguments, there might not be much he and I agree on.

That is not the foundation of his arguments, but is true none the less.

 

[Casper]

That is not the foundation of his arguments, but is true none the less.

I've studied the efficient market hypothesis extensively. I would tend to shy away from using the term "the market" as there are infinite markets and do not perform under any universal rules about markets. In fact when people talk to me about "the market," I cringe and get that metal taste in my mouth. The characteristics of semi strong and strong efficiencies are nearly impossible to replicate outside of classroom examples. There are just too many assumptions about what constitutes typical behavior. We still can't account for greed and stupidity.

 

[fly]

I've studied the efficient market hypothesis extensively. I would tend to shy away from using the term "the market" as there are infinite markets and do not perform under any universal rules about markets. In fact when people talk to me about "the market," I cringe and get that metal taste in my mouth. The characteristics of semi strong and strong efficiencies are nearly impossible to replicate outside of classroom examples. There are just too many assumptions about what constitutes typical behavior. We still can't account for greed and stupidity.

Notice two things about my post. I said generally and markets. Does it always obey those rules? Of course not. And to be honest, I think government intervention is partially to blame, but whatever.

 

[OzSTEEZ]

I also notice how free market proponents never address greed.

 

[Casper]

Notice two things about my post. I said generally and markets. Does it always obey those rules? Of course not. And to be honest, I think government intervention is partially to blame, but whatever.

I wasn't criticising your use of market, just Ron Pauls. Government intervention can be an inefficiency, but there are larger and more difficult efficiency issues to address.

I also notice how free market proponents never address greed.

Free market proponents do not want efficiency -- even though they may tell you so. Wealth is created by taking advantage of market inefficiency.

 

[fly]

I also notice how free market proponents never address greed.

Are you sure you understand what you're talking about? We were talking about market efficiency theory.

I wasn't criticising your use of market, just Ron Pauls. Government intervention can be an inefficiency, but there are larger and more difficult efficiency issues to address.

Please dont take my grade school synopsis of the book as Ron Pauls words. You'll be sadly disappointed.

Free market proponents do not want efficiency -- even though they may tell you so. Wealth is created by taking advantage of market inefficiency.

I disagree. I DO want a free market and you list EXACTLY why. It's the great equalizer, because lower and middle class don't get to take advantage of those efficiencies. The current system benefits the rich alone, I wish more people could see that...