Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
detwahDJ: Now I appreciate your earlier note about my post being fair, but I didn't see your follow up to the next question being fair.
Quote:
Jeez, double-spaced Fox slogans repeated yet again. Clinton, the Dems, Soros, Carter, "liberal" media WHATEVER - the great power structure responsible for everything bad.
Blaming one side will indeed accomplish nothing. I agree there.
Quote:
* Repub "Hands off" Wall Street allowed them to gamble with people's money, lose, then threaten to crash the economy. They got the money then gave themselves bonuses. I have yet to figure why conservatives support this - conservative media doesn't speak against it. It could be "more power to you" money mindset no matter how you get it.
It's been pointed out over and over that it was under Clinton with a highly bi-partisan Congress that allowed this to happen when Glass-Steagal was overturned. The fault does not belong all to Clinton but that is where it really started and as I note, the vote was passed by a large percentage of Dems and Reps.
Quote:
* The "globalists" are repub outsourcers, killing Democratic measures to bring jobs back to America. Foreign trading "partners" practicing protectionism which repubs either embrace or don't care about. Fox not reporting this?
Obama promised to go after those who send jobs overseas but he did nothing to follow up on that. One can't use campaign promises as an example of doing something.
Quote:
* Soros & other money support is much different than media scripts, talking points and policies handed down from Republican Central's secret meetings (Rove, the Kochs, ---). BTW, in case Fox didn't tell you, Democrats have as much right to monetary support as Repubs. Financial support, left at that, is a different issue than the simplistic top-down control and policy guidance of friendly allies like Rove and billionaire investors - a system favored by the conservative psyche.
This is just totally dismissable.
Quote:
* Outsourcing of jobs did not start with Obama. It started with rewarding businesses to do so through actual tax breaks. Democrats now trying, through legislation, to reward bringing jobs back and being obstructed by repubs. No Fox report on this?
It started in earnest with things like NAFTA which you note further on but you attempt to dismiss the (D)'s participation here. The House had 256 (D)'s so it does not pass without them or without Clinton's signature. (Just to note, Pelosi voted for it)
Quote:
* So Clinton not so liberal after all? NAFTA ws a republican proposal reported by bellowing conservative media as "stolen" from them by Clinton. How dare he take credit for their proposal. Fair-and-balanced Fox should refresh your memory on this.
Face it, the worse off repubs can help make the country, the better for them at election time (unless people stop relying on Fox for "information").
435 in the House of which 258 were (D)'s. It never gets out of the House without the (D)'s.
In the Senate it passed with 61 votes, 27 of which were (D)'s.
You will note that it was the *right* including many listed in the video who said "no" to more stimulus. Stimulus is just code word for more help to Wall Street.
But yes, it is very difficult to get your ideas across when both the "left" and the "right" support those like Geithner.
You will note that it was the *right* including many listed in the video who said "no" to more stimulus. Stimulus is just code word for more help to Wall Street.
But yes, it is very difficult to get your ideas across when both the "left" and the "right" support those like Geithner.
Are you talking about stimulus or bailouts? In theory businesses should be allowed to fail - but only if not allowed to become monopolistic (like a handful of banks for instance). Then their demise can cause big trouble for the economic interests of the country. Regulation, opposed by repubs, is needed to prevent this.
The govt has a place in stimulating business growth and regulating against malfeasance which would affect the country's well being or "general welfare" as proposed by the Constitution. In other words, businesses cannot be allowed to "run amok" for the sake of their own profit. They will merge into monopolies because it means more price control (manipulation of consumers).
The "left" does not support Geithner. Anyone listening to progressive media would see that - but people are swayed by Fox's message of fear. Fox likes to "spread the blame around" when its cronies mess up. Blame the opposition for their screw-ups, spread the blame around for ours - a tactic of propaganda.
It it the progressive "left" which is demanding accountability from Geithner, the Federal Reserve's conflicts of interest, and other similar issues. The hated progressive movement consists of liberal, moderate, and traditional conservative values. Fox is beyond conservative, yet people embrace them as "fair and balanced". Amazing!
Are you talking about stimulus or bailouts? In theory businesses should be allowed to fail - but only if not allowed to become monopolistic (like a handful of banks for instance). Then their demise can cause big trouble for the economic interests of the country.
For some reason this line of reasoning really has caught on. A vaccum is always filled. Sure, there would have been some short term problems but if big bank A failed, big bank B is quickly going to work to fill that vacuum.
Rather than take the short term hit we went with the long term hit.
Quote:
Regulation, opposed by repubs, is needed to prevent this.
The govt has a place in stimulating business growth and regulating against malfeasance which would affect the country's well being or "general welfare" as proposed by the Constitution. In other words, businesses cannot be allowed to "run amok" for the sake of their own profit. They will merge into monopolies because it means more price control (manipulation of consumers).
The "left" does not support Geithner.
The left in the terms of the proper Tea Party no, but both are marginalized by the more middle of the two groups. If Obama is re-elected Geithner stays. (or his exact twin replaces him). If Romeny wins, his exact twin replaces him.
Quote:
Anyone listening to progressive media would see that - but people are swayed by Fox's message of fear. Fox likes to "spread the blame around" when its cronies mess up. Blame the opposition for their screw-ups, spread the blame around for ours - a tactic of propaganda.
It it the progressive "left" which is demanding accountability from Geithner, the Federal Reserve's conflicts of interest, and other similar issues. The hated progressive movement consists of liberal, moderate, and traditional conservative values. Fox is beyond conservative, yet people embrace them as "fair and balanced". Amazing!
Sorry, I do not hear it by any of the mainstream media. I'm sorry but I have to say it. You sound silly trying to blame everything on Fox News especially when little has changed in economic policies under Obama.
For some reason this line of reasoning really has caught on. A vaccum is always filled. Sure, there would have been some short term problems but if big bank A failed, big bank B is quickly going to work to fill that vacuum.
You are assuming automatic competition. Why do conservatives believe there is no such thing as collusion (their rationale for deregulation)? A consortium of banks can act like a monopoly. Total deregulation allows them to merge totally into a true monopoly.
Quote:
The left in the terms of the proper Tea Party no, but both are marginalized by the more middle of the two groups. If Obama is re-elected Geithner stays. (or his exact twin replaces him). If Romeny wins, his exact twin replaces him.
Well that's an assumption you're entitled to - possibly correct under present policies. Progressives want reform and investigation of the Fed which is secretive, owned by private banks, has boardroom bankers as its own "regulators", is exempt from audit and scrutiny by the American people. This, among other things, is why the Right denounces and debases progressives who want changes (such as campaign reform) in the status quo.
Quote:
Sorry, I do not hear it by any of the mainstream media. I'm sorry but I have to say it. You sound silly trying to blame everything on Fox News especially when little has changed in economic policies under Obama.
* The mainstream media, with few exceptions, is not progressive. It is conservative corporate-owned with its views pushed in many markets.
* "Fox" is metaphoric for right-wing media. The people who believe it is "fair and balanced" are equally at fault. It takes two. Yeah Obama has acquiesced too much and many are puzzled by it but I don't see a connection with Fox. To say I blame Fox for "everything" requires clarification.
This thread is growing whiskers anyway. Don't know if I want to continue.
When the tire meets the road, the imposters are culled.
Anyone can say they are a Tea Party member... Anyone.
The truth comes out in their actions.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
