Randi Rhodes' Rant Reminds Re: Radio

Incidentally, SFCraig, I'm not saying that the Democrats are the party of pedophiles, I'm saying that the same faulty reasoning that says Republicans are the party of racists can be used to say that the Democrats are the party of the pedophiles.

SFCraig wrote:You say this knowing that the guy you voted for gave us the largest entitlement in U.S. History? This is better than the fiscally responsible Clinton/Gore administration?

Methinks you're confused.

You know what Craig, I agree with you 1,000 percent. Our congress should repeal the unconstitution perscription medicare act. In fact, I agree that they should repeal the unconstitutional medicare act in it's entiretity along with every other unconstitutional act.

I'm glad we could agree although I'm a little suprised you feel the same way I do. Anywho...

SFCraig wrote:
How does Newt justify a vote for the fiscally irresponsible Bush? Reagan raised the debt to 4 trillion. Repugnicans are anything but low-spenders.

Newt doesn't justify anything. You mistakeningly gave credit to Clinton/Gore for the successes of the 90's when we both know that it was the income generated with the dot.com bubble coupled with the congressional leadership of Newt Gingrich not caving to every whim of the executive branch and her husband that lead to the projected surplus that GWB inherited.

So are you clear now???

Stephanie wrote:
I am also willing to recognize that a currency backed by nothing, that is printed out of thin air every time the banks face a credit crunch, isn't worth a whole lot. The idea that a private bank controls the US currency and prints billions of $ whenever they like is just plain stupid.

Steph, I've often pondered the problem of "money supply", but never for too long nor ever arrived at a resolution. So far, for me, it has been a real "Catch 22".

What I mean is, as long as our population keeps increasing, from say the once 100 million, .... to the 200 million, ...... to the now 300 million, ...... the Government had to "print more Dollar Bills" so that all the new citizens could "earn some of their own".

Steph, you have played the game "Monopoly", right.

Well now, think of the US economy as a "big Monopoly game" …… but one where “new players” without any Monopoly Money keep joining into the Game every “hour on the hour”.

Now if the Bank doesn’t distribute more Monopoly bills, ….. pretty soon there will not be sufficient quantity “in play” ……. for all the Players to transact their business.

So, the question is, …… what, where, why, when and how much…… is a fair and equitable means for the Bank to interject more money “into play”. Interjecting too much causes inflation, not interjecting enough causes a depression.

And when Congress has the authority to tell the Bank “to whom and how much” to inject, …… that is what causes things to go FUBAR.

cheers

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:I know what they've done Craig. But that wasn't the question. The question was, which was worse of two evils. To me the choice is clear. Either way, the fed's going to spend. I might as well have some money in my pocket as opposed to giving it to Sister Nan, dingy Harry and the rest to blow on UNCONSTITUTIONAL entitlement programs. That's why I voted for Dubya over the nincompoop you guys nominated in 2000.

Bush didn't give you that money. All he did was con you into stealing it off your grandchildren- along with the compounded interest on it.

Didn't we hear this same sad song and dance about run away spending and how our kids kids would have to pay for it after Reagan cut taxes and restored our military in the 80's? And wasn't it less then 10 years later that Newt Gingrich and his Congressional leadership had us on a projected surplus?

Bottom line is, the only thing fiscally that is going to destroy this country is entitlement programs. Military spending can be cut in a year. Aid, we can cut that at any time. The only spending, which already accounts for a good portion of our annual budget that can't be cut easily is unconstitutional entitlement programs. Once some dumba$$ liberal makes those promises, generatoins pay out their butts.

The simple truth is, it's not Iraq or the military that is stealing from our grandchildren. It's the programs of FDR and LBJ and yes, GWB's entitlement programs.

Stephanie wrote:GWB, McCain, and Aaron in Poca think we can "fix" Iraq.

Nope, I don't think we can fix Iraq. I had a teacher who once said in regards to Jimmy Carter's peace efforts,

..."Jesus Christ himself couldn't bring peace to that part of the world, what makes a United States President think he can?"...

That one line sticks with me to this day. No Stephanieinfantasyland, Aaron in Poca doesn't think we can fix Iraq. Aaron in Poca doesn't want to fix Iraq. What Aaron in Poca KNOWS has to be done is that we have to maintain some stability in that region, even if it is by foce, to ensure that someone like Muqtada al Sadr or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Individuals like this don't care about money as much as they in creating economic havoc on our economy by disrupting the oil supply.

Now I know you say that oil doesn't belong to us and I've never said it does. I don't think we should steal it or anything like that even though you've impLIED numerous times that I have. All I want is some stability simply because it was us that caused the instability. Personally, if al Sadr were to give assurances, with the understanding that the US would respond with deadly force were he to break agreements, that he would give increase production of oil and in some manner repay the US for upgrades to the Iraqi oil infracture, power plants and such, I'd say, MARCH OUT. Let him have the country and if he kills hundreds of thousands of Suni, so be it. That's none of our business. But the bottom line is, we are responsibility for the instability, it is our responsibility to work on that and then we get out.

SheikBen wrote:
I think it's possible, believe it or not, to oppose affirmative action based on race and still not be a racist.

I have talked to one person about this. I was wetting in an operations meeting in February when our HR woman took her turn. She passed out a binder covering all federal employment programs. Once she got to AA, the plant manager of our Philadelphia facility, a black female, shut her book and looked down. I thought she was sick. I ask her if she was ok. She said it was the topic of discussion.

When we went to break, I ask her what her feelings were about AA. She said it was the most disgraceful, disrespectful program ever placed on African Americans.

That's good enough for me.

Sam,

I have played a ton of Monopoly over the years. When I was a kid with my brothers.....a LOT.....and as a Mom with my kids a WHOLE LOT. You've played a time or two yourself, right?

In Monopoly sooner or later, no matter if you have 2 players or 7, in the end one person owns all of the real estate and everyone else is bankrupt.

The constant influx of additional dollars into our economy is a huge problem. It devalues the dollar and causes inflation. We are reaping what the Fed has sowed right now. The price of oil has skyrocketed in US dollars, but when compared with the price of gold it has remained pretty gosh darn stable.

I say if the Fed is going to continue this practice of printing up billions and billions of dollars they should be send those dollars out to US citizens. I think it was $50,000,000,000 last time. There are about 300,000,000 Americans. That works out to about $166 per American. 166x4=$664 for my household of 4. That would offset the inflation they're causing, and all of those new "players" entering the economy would get that money too.

Stephanie wrote:I say if the Fed is going to continue this practice of printing up billions and billions of dollars they should be send those dollars out to US citizens. I think it was $50,000,000,000 last time. There are about 300,000,000 Americans. That works out to about $166 per American. 166x4=$664 for my household of 4. That would offset the inflation they're causing, and all of those new "players" entering the economy would get that money too.

Is that Dr. No's suggestion? I mean, I've read his writings about the gold standard but I've never seen addressed how you account for increased population. I wonder is your entitlement based solution is his.

Also, I've never read a solution about how to deal with the gap of the value of currency and actual currency in circulation. I've ask you several times so obviously you don't have a clue so I was wondering, how does Dr. No address it? I'm really curious.

Geez you love to twist things. I didn't say I support the Fed printing more money. What I said was IF they insist on continuing this practice, they should send the money directly to the American people.

To my knowlege Congressman Paul does not believe the Fed should just continue printing money out of thin air.

I see a couple of ways to deal with the gap in currency. Ron Paul has made his goals quite clear. They include, but are not limited to, ending the Fed's control over our currency, retrieving the nation's gold from the fed, and legalizing the use of gold and silver as currency.

Personally I see no reason why gold has to be the only thing backing our currency. Gold, silver, platinum, and other valuable commodities could be used. Just because fixing a problem will be difficult in painful, doesn't mean it should be ignored.

Stephanie wrote:In Monopoly sooner or later, no matter if you have 2 players or 7, in the end one person owns all of the real estate and everyone else is bankrupt.

Now Steph, what happens at "the end of the game" is of no concern relative to this discussion. I believe we were discussing "how to keep the game being played" as the "Board properties" keep increasing in numbers and new "players" are constantly joining in to "play".

Stephanie wrote:To my knowlege Congressman Paul does not believe the Fed should just continue printing money out of thin air.

But Stephanie, ...... someone has to ....... has to provide enough physical Dollar bills ...... to satisfy the "exchange needs" of the ever increasing number of "players" (population).

.

Stephanie wrote:Geez you love to twist things. I didn't say I support the Fed printing more money. What I said was IF they insist on continuing this practice, they should send the money directly to the American people.

To my knowlege Congressman Paul does not believe the Fed should just continue printing money out of thin air.

I see a couple of ways to deal with the gap in currency. Ron Paul has made his goals quite clear. They include, but are not limited to, ending the Fed's control over our currency, retrieving the nation's gold from the fed, and legalizing the use of gold and silver as currency.

Personally I see no reason why gold has to be the only thing backing our currency. Gold, silver, platinum, and other valuable commodities could be used. Just because fixing a problem will be difficult in painful, doesn't mean it should be ignored.

I agree with that. So why did I have to ask the question 47 times to get an answer?

Because I had decided I needed a break from you.

http://airamerica.com/live

Randi hangs it up.

Stephanie wrote:Because I had decided I needed a break from you.

I talk to officials ALL the time at sporting events. Nothing brings me more pleasure then to know they 'hear' me.

Thanks.

ohio county wrote:http://airamerica.com/live

Randi hangs it up.

Hi OC,

As much as I have an unfortunate amount of sheudenfraude (or whatever the word is in German that refers to rejoicing at the pain of one's enemies--I seriously believe it's a character flaw of mine), I have to say that I find the whole situation unfortunate. Are they really so childish as not to be able to put a couple of stupid statements behind them?

Do you think the same result would have come about had it not been for the Imus controversy?

Given Air America's lack of success, I found their last sentence more than just casually ironic. "Accelerate" their growth?!?!

Air America is such a cancer that the only thing that is going to accelerate their growth is a good day at Three Mile Island.

SheikBen wrote:Incidentally, SFCraig, I'm not saying that the Democrats are the party of pedophiles, I'm saying that the same faulty reasoning that says Republicans are the party of racists can be used to say that the Democrats are the party of the pedophiles.

Feel free to make that argument if you can back it up. If most registered sex offenders vote Democrat it would be interesting (they have to be voting for someone, no?)

That being said, we KNOW that the racists of today are largely Republicans or Libertarians. This is not an accident as they were courted outright by Nixon, and have been coddled ever since by even the mainstream GOP candidates. The GOP decided to draw the southern racists into the fold.

I give McCain credit for speaking and acknowledging his mistake re: MLK day. It took courage to address a group that most likely will not give him the nod.

The GOP decided to be a home for racists; now if the Dems have decided to court the most unsavory in America that would give me pause, but I would not ignore the facts.

Aaron wrote:

SFCraig wrote:You say this knowing that the guy you voted for gave us the largest entitlement in U.S. History? This is better than the fiscally responsible Clinton/Gore administration?

Methinks you're confused.

You know what Craig, I agree with you 1,000 percent. Our congress should repeal the unconstitution perscription medicare act. In fact, I agree that they should repeal the unconstitutional medicare act in it's entiretity along with every other unconstitutional act.

I'm glad we could agree although I'm a little suprised you feel the same way I do. Anywho...

I don't think any American voter is for wasteful spending, or even spending beyond our means. It's just a patent fallacy to believe that the Republicans are more careful with your money.

Can any Republican voters here remember that the reasoning behind voting for Bush was because Republicans are "good on foreign policy", or "good on the economy"?

Can we finally put that canard behind us? Then we can deal with the lies about "globalization" and "laissez-faire capitalism".

Nixon's Southern Strategy does not a trend since then make.

How have Ford, Reagan, Bush Sr, and Bush Jr "coddled racists?" The Willie Horton ad is cited, although calling it racist is not beyond dispute, and otherwise the charge seems to come from Republican opposition to affirmative action. Do you have other examples to back up the claim of Republican racism?

Incidentally, there are reasons to oppose making MLK Day a national holiday other than racism as well, just as some opposed renaming Veterans Parkway in Cleveland, Martin Luther King Jr Blvd, for reasons other than racism.

I reckon there are more left-handed Democrats than left-handed Republicans, but just as with the racist thing, it doesn't prove anything.

SFCraig wrote:

Aaron wrote:

SFCraig wrote:You say this knowing that the guy you voted for gave us the largest entitlement in U.S. History? This is better than the fiscally responsible Clinton/Gore administration?

Methinks you're confused.

You know what Craig, I agree with you 1,000 percent. Our congress should repeal the unconstitution perscription medicare act. In fact, I agree that they should repeal the unconstitutional medicare act in it's entiretity along with every other unconstitutional act.

I'm glad we could agree although I'm a little suprised you feel the same way I do. Anywho...

I don't think any American voter is for wasteful spending, or even spending beyond our means. It's just a patent fallacy to believe that the Republicans are more careful with your money.

Can any Republican voters here remember that the reasoning behind voting for Bush was because Republicans are "good on foreign policy", or "good on the economy"?

Can we finally put that canard behind us? Then we can deal with the lies about "globalization" and "laissez-faire capitalism".

Actually one of the main reasons I voted for Bush was Gore wasn't good for much of anything. 8 year's later, he's still useless.

Whoa, now wait a minute there, Craig. The foreign policy we were promised by Bush on the campaign trail is not the foreign policy we have been getting from President GWB.

True capitalism would require fair trade agreements, not the lopsided nightmares currently in place. It's impossible to compete under these circumstances, especially when you take into consideration it's all being bought & sold with fiat money.

Stephanie wrote:Whoa, now wait a minute there, Craig. The foreign policy we were promised by Bush on the campaign trail is not the foreign policy we have been getting from President GWB.

True capitalism would require fair trade agreements, not the lopsided nightmares currently in place. It's impossible to compete under these circumstances, especially when you take into consideration it's all being bought & sold with fiat money.

He didn't say true capitalism, he said laisse faire capitalism, which requires NO trade agreements or no government interference whatsoever. Big difference.

Is he saying that's what GWB espouses? I swear the more liberal they are the less I comprehend them.

I have no idea what he's saying. He often makes very little, if any sense.

SheikBen wrote:Nixon's Southern Strategy does not a trend since then make.

How have Ford, Reagan, Bush Sr, and Bush Jr "coddled racists?" The Willie Horton ad is cited, although calling it racist is not beyond dispute, and otherwise the charge seems to come from Republican opposition to affirmative action. Do you have other examples to back up the claim of Republican racism?

Incidentally, there are reasons to oppose making MLK Day a national holiday other than racism as well, just as some opposed renaming Veterans Parkway in Cleveland, Martin Luther King Jr Blvd, for reasons other than racism.

I reckon there are more left-handed Democrats than left-handed Republicans, but just as with the racist thing, it doesn't prove anything.

As I've said, do you think it is a coincidence that Reagan announced his candidacy in Philadelphia, Mississippi where civil rights workers were slain (and the inspiration for Mississippi Burning)? He declared his support for "State's Rights" while there, which was known to whites and blacks alike as code for "You can do what you want to your Negroes?"

In the era "Post-Southern Strategy", disaffected white racist voters in the South flocked to the GOP. Why? They haven't stopped migrating, as is evidenced by voting trends.

Jesse Helms? Trent Lott? Strom Thurmond? The CCC?

Conveniently, the GOP doesn't come out and say "we're racist, vote for us if you are too". They couch their positions behind fears of Chicoms during Clinton's Presidency, and now fear of Mexicans via the immigration ruse.

Bob Jones University? McCain's "black baby" in 2000?

Reagan said that it was okay for sellers to discriminate against blacks during housing transactions, invented the myth of the "welfare queen" driving her Cadillac;

Reagan's Education Secretary, Terrell Bell, said that the cabinet often called MLK "Martin Lucifer Coon" and referred to "sand niggers".

Do I have to go on?