A half century of social abuse.

  

Category:  News & Politics

By:  vic-eldred  •  one month ago  •  229 comments

A half century of social abuse.
“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”

They were once regarded as the backbone of America. In the 1970's, Richard Nixon called them the Great Slent Majority.

They created the norms of a society and established the family as central to that society. They knew their place and tended to mind their own business. We can still remember the days of a crowd of adults waiting at a bus stop, lunch bags in hand or lined up in the school yard waiting to pick up their kids. They were simple people and they were once America's great middle class.


They were the ones who built America and they were the ones who defended America. They were once optimistic about the future. They built a strong society and for a long time the traditional system of authority held.

What happened to them in the past 50 years?

The elitists gave away their livelihood to nations that advanced through cheap labor. Big Pharma preyed upon them. The American left made them the foil to advance an agenda. It is they who's values and goals are hostile to our nation's inherited cultures and the old majority. Thus, those in the functioning society who are successful, content and happy are tormented and targeted for they are indicted as either the oppressors or oppressor groups. Hence the self described oppressed have become the real oppressors and wield substantial power throughout our society and our culture despite being a fraction of the American population.

I say this cannot go on much longer. The problem has long been ignored, but now the left has taken it to a new level, in which no American can walk away from it. One way or the other we will have to remove this cancer on our civilization.



When the American Revolution looked lost, Thomas Paine wrote the American Crisis (No 1) which opened with:

"These are the times that try men’s souls: The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly:  It is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to set a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed, if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated."

It was a call to action and that time has come again.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  author  Vic Eldred    one month ago

First we must organize

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
1.1  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    one month ago

Oh dear, channeling William C. Hammond are you?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.2  Texan1211  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    one month ago

Let's start with the midterms.

Kick Democrats out of power.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.2.1  XXJefferson51  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2    one month ago

Let’s go Brandon!  Go away.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.3  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    one month ago

How about you cite where this 'Tyranny' that needs to be 'conquered' is coming from Vic? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.3.1  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @1.3    one month ago
First we must organize
 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
1.3.2  Hallux  replied to  Texan1211 @1.3.1    one month ago

After 4+ years of rallies, y'all need to organize?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.3.3  Texan1211  replied to  Hallux @1.3.2    one month ago
After 4+ years of rallies, y'all need to organize?

Okay.

Quote feature ignored.

Check.

th?id=OIP.qtZVI4m7UfnOEaJXEkAcXQHaHa&w=94&h=100&c=8&rs=1&qlt=90&o=6&dpr=1.25&pid=3.1&rm=2

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.3.4  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @1.3    one month ago
How about you cite where this 'Tyranny' that needs to be 'conquered' is coming from Vic? 

Let's start right here:

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1.3.5  JBB  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.4    one month ago

No Vic, it is not tyranny if law enforcement Investigates threats made to elected officials even those lowly as school board members. 

How do you expect to be taken seriously if you promote every wild conspiracy theory out there? The Department of Justice is not out to investigate parents. You have to pose a real threat to even get their attention. What should the FBI do about the nutcases threatening our public officials over imaginary nonproblems? 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.3.6  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.4    one month ago

So it's YOUR posit that addressing threats and intimidation against school board members is Tyranny? 

Is requesting assistance from the FBI in other crimes also Tyranny Vic? I mean they are called in to help LEO's from all over the country after all.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.3.7  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @1.3.5    one month ago
No Vic, it is not tyranny if law enforcement Investigates threats made to elected officials even those lowly as school board members. 

Such as when a man's daughter was raped and it was kept quiet by the school board. The same school board that was so determined to implement their transgender rest room plan. The same school board that tranfered the rapist in secrecy to another school to do it again.

The father only learned of the rape when he was at a school board meeting. He was tackled and arrested and the radical prosecutor is vowing to put him in jail.

And the investigators are: The same DOJ that was so heavily politicized by Barack Obama and are now getting involved because the radical scholl board requested intervention.

Are you really going to try and defend that?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.3.8  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @1.3.6    one month ago
So it's YOUR posit that addressing threats and intimidation against school board members is Tyranny? 

It's MY posit that we are living under a leftist dictatorship.


Is requesting assistance from the FBI in other crimes also Tyranny Vic? 

It absolutely is when the request is frivoulous and the FBI is corrupt and lacks jurisdiction.  That is what the school board association should have been told. 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1.3.9  JBB  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.7    one month ago

No, that actually has nothing to do with law enforcement investigating credible threats made to school board members. That whole story about that alleged rape is implausible anyway. In any case, it does not translate into America devolving into tyranny. Get real...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.3.10  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @1.3.9    one month ago

That has everything to do with it.

Just because a few assholes went to college and got indoctrinated and somehow got to the school board doesn't mean that parents are going to be thrown in jail.

It's coming...Can't you feel it?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.3.11  Tessylo  replied to  JBB @1.3.9    one month ago

It's coming...Can't you feel it?

jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1.3.12  JBB  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.10    one month ago

No Vic, America is not a leftist dictatorship and that is not an excuse to threaten the safety of elected officials, their homes or families...

[deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.3.13  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @1.3.11    one month ago
Such as when a man's daughter was raped and it was kept quiet by the school board. The same school board that was so determined to implement their transgender rest room plan. The same school board that tranfered the rapist in secrecy to another school to do it again.

Had nothing to do with his daughter being raped.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1.3.14  JBB  replied to  Tessylo @1.3.11    one month ago

[removed]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.3.15  Tessylo  replied to  JBB @1.3.14    one month ago

What else is new?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
1.3.16  Gordy327  replied to  Tessylo @1.3.15    one month ago

Absolutely nothing. jrSmiley_7_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
1.3.17  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.8    one month ago

That demonstrates a total disconnect from reality.

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
1.3.18  Thomas  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.8    one month ago
It's MY posit that we are living under a leftist dictatorship.

Are all leftist dictatorships subject to being voted out of office? 

jrSmiley_123_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
1.3.19  Thomas  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.10    one month ago
And the investigators are: The same DOJ that was so heavily politicized by Barack Obama and are now getting involved because the radical scholl board requested intervention.

Ehhheemm../ Can you say William Barr?

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.3.20  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.8    one month ago
It's MY posit that we are living under a leftist dictatorship.

No that's not your posit Vic, that's your proclamation. 

As members here know, you have no intention of supporting your calm and I doubt that you could if you tried. 

It absolutely is when the request is frivoulous

Why do you think it's frivolous Vic? 

and the FBI is corrupt 

jrSmiley_90_smiley_image.gif

and lacks jurisdiction.

As I said, the FBI is called in to assist LEOs all over the country and they have over 450 field offices in cities and small towns.  

  That is what the school board association should have been told.

Why would the DOJ share your fallacious blather with them Vic? 

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Guide
1.3.21  bugsy  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.7    one month ago
Are you really going to try and defend that?

Yes....yes he is.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.3.22  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.7    one month ago
Are you really going to try and defend that?

Vic, when you fabricate a fantasy scenario to bolster your unfounded posit, you lose. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.3.23  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @1.3.22    one month ago

I'm only waiting for one thing today.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.3.24  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.23    one month ago

A truthful argument? 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.3.25  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @1.3.24    one month ago

You have 2 guesses left.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.3.26  XXJefferson51  replied to  JBB @1.3.9    one month ago

Alleged rape?  It’s been proven that it happened.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Principal
1.3.27  epistte  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.23    one month ago

A JimmyJohns delivery?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.3.28  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  epistte @1.3.27    one month ago

That's 2 down.

Where have you been?  Haven't heard from you in a long time. There aren't many who kept their Newsvine screen names.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
PhD Guide
1.3.29  Thrawn 31  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.7    one month ago

[removed]

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.3.30  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Thrawn 31 @1.3.29    one month ago

[removed]

 
 
 
Veronica
Junior Guide
1.4  Veronica  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    one month ago

Might I  suggest:

shopping?q=tbn:ANd9GcSDOyTvAOv4UMEhQP9sEMxiwFzwODwqa4Q1q2-R1xzkx2HtuKtuOAlipHmBQQidu5-xYu2QANw1n08&usqp=CAc

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.4.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Veronica @1.4    one month ago

Great for holding loose screws

 
 
 
Veronica
Junior Guide
1.4.2  Veronica  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.4.1    one month ago

And it is capable of holding a lot of them...

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.5  XXJefferson51  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    one month ago

I agree.  Great find.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
2  Gordy327    one month ago

Another "blame the left for everything" article? They're a dime a dozen.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Senior Participates
2.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Gordy327 @2    one month ago
They're a dime a dozen.

Yes, the problems caused by the left are a dime a dozen.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
2.1.1  Gordy327  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.1    one month ago

How droll

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Senior Participates
2.1.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.1    one month ago

Imagine that, I thought that with you comment.  

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.1.3  Trout Giggles  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.1    one month ago

and totally lame

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
2.1.4  Gordy327  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.1.3    one month ago

Yep.

 
 
 
dennis smith
Masters Silent
2.1.5  dennis smith  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.1    one month ago

Biden blames everyone except himself for everything that has gotten worse under his admin.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Principal
2.2  epistte  replied to  Gordy327 @2    one month ago

Who wants to explain to whining conservatives they there is no right not to be criticized for their speech, or for them to hold social power?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
2.2.1  Gordy327  replied to  epistte @2.2    one month ago

Even if it's explained, I doubt it would sink in. You'll just hear more complaints and whining about being "censored" or persecuted or some such nonsense. 

 
 
 
Gsquared
Junior Principal
3  Gsquared    one month ago
They knew their place

The oligarchic Republicans like middle class Americans to "know their place".   Don't dare strive to better yourself.  Don't dare to get an education.   Don't dare join a union.   Don't dare to vote for your own self-interests.   The oligarchic Republican 1% are in charge here and don't forget it!

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
3.1  Gordy327  replied to  Gsquared @3    one month ago

The whole article reads as one big whine-fest by someone who cannot accept or deal with the fact that times and society changes.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gordy327 @3.1    one month ago
The whole article reads as one big whine-fest by someone who cannot accept or deal with the fact that times and society changes.

The Cuban people had the same problem in 1959.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
3.1.2  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.1    one month ago

We're not Cuba Vic. Nice fail!

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  Gsquared @3    one month ago

Thanks for pointing that out specifically. Vic obviously wrote this "piece" and he does like when people "know their place".

[deleted]

 
 
 
Gsquared
Junior Principal
3.2.1  Gsquared  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.2    one month ago
I wonder where he thinks my place is. Or CB's. Or Kavika's.

I think we know.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.3  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gsquared @3    one month ago

The Republican Party is a multiracial coalition of middle and working class Americans. It is the democrats who are the oligarchical secular progressive bi coastal elitists.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.4  Texan1211  replied to  Gsquared @3    one month ago
The oligarchic Republicans like middle class Americans to "know their place".   Don't dare strive to better yourself.  Don't dare to get an education.   Don't dare join a union.   Don't dare to vote for your own self-interests.   The oligarchic Republican 1% are in charge here and don't forget it!

Truly impressive that you managed to get so much wrong in just one post.

jrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
4  JBB    one month ago

Ozzie and Harriet were not killed. Old age got them.

Unless you are an old ass racist this is a good thing.

Blacks in back and gays in the closet was not great.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @4    one month ago

That's the good fight and everything can be justified via fighting "racism!"

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5  JohnRussell    one month ago

I think this speaks for itself

excerpt from the book Anti-Intellectualism In American Life by Richard Hofstadter, written in 1964

...One can hear in the anguished cries of the 1920’s a clear awareness that the older American type was passé, and the accusation that it was the intelligentsia who were trying to kill it. In 1926 Hiram W. Evans, the Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, wrote a moving essay on the Klan’s purposes, in which he portrayed the major issue of the time as a struggle between “the great mass of Americans of the old pioneer stock” and the “intellectually mongrelized Liberals.’”

All the moral and religious values of the “Nordic Americans,” he complained, were being undermined by the ethnic groups that had invaded the country, and were being openly laughed at by the liberal intellectuals.


“We are a movement of the plain people, very weak in the matter of culture, intellectual support, and trained leadership. We are demanding, and we expect to win, a return of power into the hands of the everyday, not highly cultured, not overly intellectualized, but entirely unspoiled and not de-Americanized, average citizen of the old stock. Our members and leaders are all of this class—the opposition of the intellectuals and liberals who hold the leadership, betrayed Americanism, and from whom we expect to wrest control, is almost automatic. This is undoubtedly a weakness. It lays us open to the charge of being “hicks” and “rubes” and “drivers of second-hand Fords.” We admit it. Far worse, it makes it hard for us to state our case and advocate our crusade in the most effective way, for most of us lack skill in language … .
 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @5    one month ago

I know this speaks for itself

Except from the all but forgotten article written by Felicity Baringer penned "the Mainstreaming of Marxism in US colleges and universities" written 3 decades ago:

‘Marx’s Ideological Heirs’

On October 25, 1989, a mere two months after Poland’s pivotal election, the  New York Times  published an article, headlined “ The Mainstreaming of Marxism in US Colleges ,” describing a strange and seemingly paradoxical phenomenon. Even as the world’s great experiment in Marxism was collapsing for all to see, Marxist ideas were taking root and becoming mainstream in the halls of American universities.

“As Karl Marx’s ideological heirs in Communist nations struggle to transform his political legacy, his intellectual heirs on American campuses have virtually completed their own transformation from brash, beleaguered outsiders to assimilated academic insiders,” wrote Felicity Barringer.

There were notable differences, however. The stark, unmistakable contrast between the grinding poverty of the Communist nations and the prosperity of Western economies had obliterated socialism’s claim to economic superiority.

As a result, orthodox Marxism, with its emphasis on economics, was no longer in vogue. Traditional Marxism was “retreating” and had become “unfashionable,” the  Times  reported.

”There are a lot of people who don’t want to call themselves Marxist,” Eugene D. Genovese, an eminent Marxist academic, told the  Times . (Genovese, who died in 2012, later abandoned socialism and  embraced  traditional conservatism after rediscovering Catholicism.)

Marxism wasn’t truly retreating, however. It was simply adapting to survive.

Watching the upheaval in Poland and other Eastern bloc nations had convinced even Marxists that capitalism would not “give way to socialism” anytime soon. But this would cause an evolution of Marxist ideas, not an abandonment of them.

”Marx has become relativized,” Loren Graham, a historian at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, told the  Times .

Graham was just one of a dozen of the scholars the  Times  spoke to, a mix of economists, legal scholars, historians, sociologists, and literary critics. Most of them seemed to reach the same conclusion as Graham.

Marxism was not dying, it was mutating.

”Marxism and feminism, Marxism and deconstruction, Marxism and race – this is where the exciting debates are,” Jonathan M. Wiener, a professor of history at the University of California at Irvine, told the paper.

Marxism was still thriving, Barringer concluded, but not in the social sciences, “where there is a possibility of practical application,” but in abstract fields such as literary criticism.

A Strategic Shift

Marxism was not defeated. The Marxists had just staked out new turf.

And it was a highly strategic move. “Practical application” of Marxism had proven disastrous. Communism had been tried as a governing philosophy and had failed catastrophically, leading to mass starvation, impoverishment, persecution, and murder. But, in the ivory tower of the American university system, professors could inculcate Marxist ideas in the minds of their students without risk of being refuted by reality.

Yet, it wasn’t happening in university economics departments, because Marxism’s credentials in that discipline were too tarnished by its “practical” track record. Instead, Marxism was thriving in English departments and other more abstract disciplines.

In these studies, economics was downplayed, and other key aspects of the Marxist worldview came to the fore. The Marxist class war doctrine was still emphasized. But instead of capital versus labor, it was the patriarchy versus women, the racially privileged versus the marginalized, etc. Students were taught to see every social relation through the lens of oppression and conflict.

After absorbing Marxist ideas (even when those ideas weren’t called “Marxist”), generations of university graduates carried those ideas into other important American institutions: the arts, media, government, public schools, even eventually into human resources departments and corporate boardrooms. (This is known as “the long march through the institutions,” as coined by the early twentieth-century Marxist theoretician Antonio Gramsci.)

Indeed, it was  recently revealed  that federal agencies have spent millions of taxpayer dollars on programs training employees to acknowledge their “white privilege.” These training programs are also found in countless schools and corporations, and people who have questioned the appropriateness of these programs have found themselves  summarily fired .

A huge part of today’s culture is a consequence of this movement. Widespread “wokeness,” all-pervasive identity politics, victimism, cancel culture, rioters self-righteously destroying people’s livelihoods and menacing passersby: all largely stem from Marxist presumptions (especially Marxism’s distorted fixations on oppression and conflict) that have been incubating in the universities, especially since the late 80s.

As it turned out, what was happening in American universities in 1989 was just as pivotal as what was happening in European parliaments.

Especially in an election year, it can be easy to fixate on the political fray. But the lesson of 1989 is that today’s culture and ideas are tomorrow’s politics and policies.

That is why the fate of freedom rests on education.

To advance the cause of freedom for today and tomorrow, please  support  the Foundation for Economic Education.

Source:   The New York Times Reported ‘the Mainstreaming of Marxism in US Colleges’ 30 Years Ago. Today, We See the Results – Foundation for Economic Education

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1    one month ago

Doesnt it bother you that the ideology you operate under, the MAGA ideology, echoes the Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan from a hundred years ago? 

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
5.1.2  Thomas  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1    one month ago
The stark, unmistakable contrast between the grinding poverty of the Communist nations and the prosperity of Western economies had obliterated socialism’s claim to economic superiority.

If you would, please ignore China...not that it is any more an example of true communism, but it is a largely state managed economy

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
5.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  JohnRussell @5    one month ago
it makes it hard for us to state our case and advocate our crusade in the most effective way, for most of us lack skill in language … .

Then they should have stayed in school....how is that the fault of the "mongrelized liberals"?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.2.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Trout Giggles @5.2    one month ago

The idea that liberals and intellectuals betray "Americanism" is a pretty old one isnt it? 

The chapter in the Hofstatder book where the KKK quote about liberals appears is titled "Fear Of Modernism" .

The political right always wants to go back to some perfect time (for them).  I was listening recently to a podcast with James Carville. He said MAGA's want to go back to the 1950's, and life was perfect then, for white males. 

 
 
 
evilgenius
Professor Guide
5.2.2  evilgenius  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2.1    one month ago

The idea that liberalism has no ethics or morals that MAGAs use today also echo the same recruitment tactics of the Taliban. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6  JohnRussell    one month ago

The truly sad part about all this is that no one in America has lost any "freedoms"  , unless you call the freedom to call people the n-word and 'f-ggot' and to brag about grabbing strangers 'pu--ies, and the freedom to keep minorities out of the bars where you hang out, and the freedom to spread a pandemic if you feel like it, ------------- are those the "freedoms" the right wants to start a civil war over? 

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
6.1  Hallux  replied to  JohnRussell @6    one month ago

Some in America have an insatiable vicarious desire for 'heroes'.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  Hallux @6.1    one month ago
Some in America have an insatiable vicarious desire for heroes.

It gets balanced out by some in America having an insatiable, vicarious desire for villains.

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
6.1.2  Hallux  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.1    one month ago

I believe we know who the seeder's villains are. You probably have a minute or two to alter your comment.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  Hallux @6.1.2    one month ago
You probably have a minute or two to alter your comment.

No, I like it exactly as how it reads.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1.4  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @6.1.2    one month ago
I believe we know who the seeder's villains are.

In Marx's lexicon of the oppressors & oppressed, I have turned it on it's head, haven't I?

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
6.1.5  Thomas  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.4    one month ago

[removed]

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
6.1.6  Hallux  replied to  Thomas @6.1.5    one month ago
I have turned it on it's head, haven't I?

Oh you certainly have, watch out for when Canada's 1000 or so cottage Marxists join up with America's 3-4000 or so Disneyland Marxists, y'all be Red in no time ... oh wait, you, already are.

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
6.1.7  Thomas  replied to  Thomas @6.1.5    one month ago

From Your Article:

They were once regarded as the backbone of America. In the 1970's, Richard Nixon called them the Great Silent Majority.

Richard Nixon. Now there is someone who I hold in high regard./s

Nixon was a crook and a liar and as good at creating fantasy ideas that we could all hang our hats on, no matter how disparate the "we' actually were, as good ol' 45. Con men are like that: Good at telling us a story that we can all see ourselves in as the (select appropriate role here). Whatever the role you play, you are still the Mark in the con man's eyes.

They created the norms of a society and established the family as central to that society. They knew their place and tended to mind their own business. We can still remember the days of a crowd of adults waiting at a bus stop, lunch bags in hand or lined up in the school yard waiting to pick up their kids. They were simple people and they were once America's great middle class.

Ahhhhh, the nostalgia of a better time when all the birds were not really drones and small children did not eat their parents, where it was always summer and the neighbors let you skinny dip in their pool. Oh, wait, that isn't true either. It is an idealized fantasy creation. People are mostly good, when left to their own devices, but there is ugly and bad in all of us, and when we get together, if there are no rules then the mob rules. Just who (which) the "mob" is depends on just who we are in the, " ...norms of a society."

They were the ones who built America and they were the ones who defended America.They were once optimistic about the future. They built a strong society and for a long time the traditional system of authority held.

Yeah, sure. They built America? I don't suppose they had any help either, like from the richer folk who may have taken a liking to them, or the poorer folk who did their laundry or shoveled coal/shit/dirt so that they didn't have to worry about getting their white collars stained. 

What happened to them in the past 50 years?

The elitists gave away their livelihood to nations that advanced through cheap labor. Big Pharma preyed upon them.

Sounds like that was capitalism to me. 

I grow weary of the incessant drone of the oppressing oppressed. It is all really such unabashed bull shit, like the four year old who will not stop tormenting you to give them another piece of candy or they will throw a fit.... yet again.

 
 
 
Veronica
Junior Guide
6.1.8  Veronica  replied to  Thomas @6.1.7    one month ago
but there is ugly and bad in all of us

So true.

 
 
 
Gazoo
Sophomore Silent
6.2  Gazoo  replied to  JohnRussell @6    one month ago

That’s not true, john. watch a black stand up comedian and you’ll hear “nigga” and “faggot” all throughout his or her act. Oh, and “bitches” too.

i think you’re too focused on one moment in time and i just read we’re not supposed to do that.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
6.2.1  Dulay  replied to  Gazoo @6.2    one month ago

You know that using a word doesn't necessary mean you are CALLING someone that word right? 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.3  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @6    one month ago

Tell that to the people of Chicago or those who live along the southern border. Tell them that the government is fighting racism and that they are to blame.

Oh wait: They've already been told, haven't they?

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
7  bbl-1    one month ago

Don't think so, Vic.  The half century of abuse began with Supply Side Economics and culminated with it's bastard baby Citizens United.

Yeah Vic, freedom is tough and getting tougher with having to fend off wannabe American Orban and Putin boot polishers.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  bbl-1 @7    one month ago

We knew that when Biden destroyed America's energy independence.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
7.1.1  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1    one month ago

When was America ever energy independent? Certainly not within the last 50 years at least.

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
7.1.2  Split Personality  replied to  Gordy327 @7.1.1    one month ago

1950.

Towards the end of the Obama years consumption approached equality with production.

Further efficiencies since then have continued a decrease in oil imports since the high in 2006

which are still staggering numbers.

Obama paved the way to start LNG plants in Houston which started exporting Liquid Natural Gas in 2016.

Several more plants came on line during the Trump years improving our export numbers exponentially.

Electric vehicles will put further pressure on decreasing demand for refined oil products like gas and motor oil.

The Trump declared "independence" was a sham.

We still imported roughly 10,000 barrels a day about half of it from Canada, 10%  from the ME.

Under Biden the oil from the ME has dropped to 6.6% for the first 6 months of 2021.

Even while denigrating renewable energy and declaring it worthless, Trump ignored that

11.5% of our "independence" was from solar and wind, largely in Texas.

.

.

But Biden is destroying it.  /S

Echoes of Fox news, laura Ingraham and the Boston Herald's sky is falling Biden bashing.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
7.1.3  Kavika   replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1    one month ago

How did Biden destroy our energy independence? 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
7.1.4  Gordy327  replied to  Kavika @7.1.3    one month ago

Apparently by simply being a Democrat and elected President. At least that's how some seem to think.

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
7.1.5  bbl-1  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1    one month ago

Gee Vic, if that is all you got it is past time to "Cash out and never come back."-----A line by Bogart in the movie, "Casablanca."

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7.1.6  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Kavika @7.1.3    one month ago

You really don't know? I'll bet everyone knows.

So let me state it so you can try and debate it:

He killed off both the keystone pipeline and this drilling in Anwar.

Biden's I nterior Department suspended several oil and gas leases in the arctic.

He temporarily stopped granting permits for oil and gas operations on federal lands, which will reduce U.S. oil production and was immediately challenged with a lawsuit.

There were at least 10 other orders and directives issued aimed at repealing directives issued by Donald Trump. For the oil and gas industry, Biden’s orders specifically mention methane emission regulations to establish comprehensive standards of performance and emission guidelines from existing oil and gas operations. Additionally, the order requires Texas to submit State Implementation Plan for Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) by January 2022.

.

"With dwindling supplies, many forecasts rising petroleum prices and U.S. households could spend a cumulative $19 billion more on energy by 2030, the API study stated.

Biden’s executive orders will reduce U.S. oil supplies that reached historic levels of 13 million barrels per day just one year ago.

The increase in production allowed the U.S. to become a net exporter of oil and natural gas. It was labeled by some as an “energy renaissance” and others called it “energy independence.”

 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7.1.7  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gordy327 @7.1.4    one month ago

Why don't you stand up for green energy if you believe in it. Biden did!

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
7.1.8  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.7    one month ago

What does that have to do with my comment? And how do you know where I stand with green energy? Got anything better than a Strawman argument?

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
7.1.9  Split Personality  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.6    one month ago
He killed off both the keystone pipeline and this drilling in Anwar.

Neither of which were affecting present production, in fact the keystone pipeline would only

have INCREASED IMPORTS from Canada.

He temporarily stopped granting permits for oil and gas operations on federal lands

Again, doesn't affect present production.

There were at least 10 other orders and directives issued aimed at repealing directives issued by Donald Trump. For the oil and gas industry, Biden’s orders specifically mention methane emission regulations to establish comprehensive standards of performance and emission guidelines from existing oil and gas operations. Additionally, the order requires Texas to submit State Implementation Plan for Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) by January 2022.

Oh my, but when Trump did it to Obama policies were you counting those too?

Looks like Biden is returning to common sense without affecting production.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
7.1.10  Gordy327  replied to  Split Personality @7.1.9    one month ago
Looks like Biden is returning to common sense without affecting production.

Also understanding potential tribal and environmental impacts of such a project. In addition, this might spur the development and sale of green energy sources as an alternative or supplement to current productions, which will only reduce our dependence on foreign sources. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
7.1.11  Split Personality  replied to  Gordy327 @7.1.10    one month ago

Another article on line signaled bad news for coal producers.

Chinese solar electric production is at the cusp of providing 50% of their electricity

with 75% of all residences and small businesses having some sort of solar generation.

Coal imports are expected to decrease or plummet dramatically in the next few years.

They will still need to make or import coke for steel production.

As they too transition to electric vehicles, their oil imports will also decline.

We do not exist in a vacuum.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
7.1.12  Kavika   replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.6    one month ago
You really don't know? I'll bet everyone knows

It's obvious that you don't have a clue, so let's go through it.

He killed off both the keystone pipeline and this drilling in Anwar.

You do realize that the Keystone Pipeline brings in CANADIAN oil, right? how is that being energy independent it's a  Canadian co with oil coming from Canada.  The remaining pipeline coming from Canada was expanded to handle more than the Keystone could handle when completed. 

I'm sure Canada will be more than a bit confused to now know that they are the 51st state. 

Anwar: It was open for leases yet the oil industry was very slow in getting the leases. There would be experimental drilling to see if there actually was oil there and in what quantities and the cost. NO OIL HAS BEEN  DRILLED IN ANWAR AND WE HAVE NOT USED ONE DROP OF OIL FROM ANWAR so how can that help us be energy independent if we have never received a drop of oil from Anwar?

Biden's I  nterior Department suspended several oil and gas leases in the arctic.

Yes, in Anwar. That been discussed .

He temporarily stopped granting permits for oil and gas operations on federal lands, which will reduce U.S. oil production and was immediately challenged

BILLINGS, Mont. — Approvals for companies to drill for oil and gas on U.S. public lands are on pace this year to reach their highest level since George W. Bush was president, underscoring President Joe Biden's reluctance to more forcefully curb petroleum production in the face of industry and Republican resistance.

The Interior Department approved about 2,500 permits to drill on public and tribal lands in the first six months of the year, according to an Associated Press analysis of government data. That includes more than 2,100 drilling approvals since Biden took office January 20.

New Mexico and Wyoming had the largest number of approvals. Montana, Colorado and Utah had hundreds each.

There were at least 10 other orders and directives issued aimed at repealing directives issued by Donald Trump. For the oil and gas industry, Biden’s orders specifically mention methane emission regulations to establish comprehensive standards of performance and emission guidelines from existing oil and gas operations. Additionally, the order requires Texas to submit State Implementation Plan for Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) by January 2022.

Ok, Please list these directives from Trump and requiring drillers to be in compliance is a good thing for most.

       

"With dwindling supplies, many forecasts rising petroleum prices and U.S. households could spend a cumulative $19 billion more on energy by 2030, the API study stated.

Biden’s executive orders will reduce U.S. oil supplies that reached historic levels of 13 million barrels per day just one year ago.

The increase in production allowed the U.S. to become a net exporter of oil and natural gas. It was labeled by some as an “energy renaissance” and others called it “energy independence.”

api

API is a fricking lobbing group for the oil industry. 

Review the number of oil well pumping pre-pandemic and currently...Biden has nothing to do with that, it's the oil companies. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
7.1.13  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.6    one month ago
So let me state it so you can try and debate it:
He killed off both the keystone pipeline and this drilling in Anwar.

Vic, the Keystone pipeline would have transported CANADIAN oil, therefore it would NOT have moved the US toward energy INDEPENDENCE. 

The ANWAR leases are suspended though I hope they ARE dead. The best estimate for the TOTAL amount of oil at ANWAR is LESS that what the US uses in ONE YEAR.

Oh and BTFW, one year of oil doesn't move the US toward energy INDEPENDENCE either... 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.1.14  Tessylo  replied to  Split Personality @7.1.9    one month ago
"Neither of which were affecting present production, in fact the keystone pipeline would only have INCREASED IMPORTS from Canada."

No matter how many times that is debunked it is ignored.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7.1.15  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Kavika @7.1.12    one month ago
API is a fricking lobbing group for the oil industry. 

Oh dear!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7.1.16  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @7.1.14    one month ago

Biden’s energy policies help Russia, his tax policies help China.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Principal
7.1.17  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.15    one month ago

Lobbing group? Like a slow pitch softball team?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7.1.18  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @7.1.17    one month ago

I guess the idea is always to shoot the messenger, whenever confronted with the unalterable truth.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.1.19  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.18    one month ago
"whenever confronted with the unalterable truth"

Not to be found here.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
7.1.20  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.18    one month ago

Right, because the oi lobbying group API wouldn't 'alter' facts, would they Vic? 

It's telling that you couldn't come up with a better source to bolster your failed posit. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7.1.21  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @7.1.20    one month ago
Right, because the oi lobbying group API wouldn't 'alter' facts, would they Vic? 

If they did, they'd be easy to disprove. You haven't done that.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
7.1.22  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.21    one month ago

Kavika took care of that Vic. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.1.23  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @7.1.22    one month ago

Indeed he did, he provided the truth.  

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
7.1.24  Kavika   replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.18    one month ago

Vic, you couldn't or didn't post the unalterable truth at all. Most of what you posted was BS as usual. You should actually try researching and posting accurate information. 

It's really difficult to take someone seriously that still doesn't know that Canadian oil isn't making us energy independent. I  would suspect that a 3rd grader knows that Canada isn't the 51st state.

Carry on or perhaps Jim can explain the difference between Canada and the US. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
7.1.25  XXJefferson51  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.6    one month ago

I doubled down on coal companies, oil and natural gas futures since Biden became President.  With Biden restricting natural gas development, coal power plants that would have been replaced by NG will live longer and if winter is cold, a lot of coal will be providing heat and electricity that could have been cleaner burning gas. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7.1.26  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  XXJefferson51 @7.1.25    one month ago

You mean reliable resources.

Did you catch Carlson's expose on the vulnerabilities of the ugly windmills?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.1.27  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @7.1.14    one month ago
"Neither of which were affecting present production, in fact the keystone pipeline would only have INCREASED IMPORTS from Canada."
"No matter how many times that is debunked it is ignored."
"Biden’s energy policies help Russia, his tax policies help China."
No matter how many times that is debunked it is ignored.

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
7.1.28  Split Personality  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.26    one month ago
Carlson's expose

Another oxymoron?

SMH

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Principal
7.1.29  epistte  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1    one month ago

When did Joe Biden do that, and how did he do that when the energy is privately owned?

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Principal
7.1.30  epistte  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.26    one month ago

Did he prove that they cause cancer, as Donald Trump claimed?

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
7.1.31  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.26    one month ago
Did you catch Carlson's expose on the vulnerabilities of the ugly windmills?

No but I'd love for you to explain why you think that windmills are ugly.

Here is what our local energy source looks like Vic:

512

Now THAT is ugly. 

In comparison to most other energy sources, windmills are beautiful. 

 
 
 
dennis smith
Masters Silent
7.1.32  dennis smith  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.26    one month ago

Since Biden took office the price of gas at the station is up over $1.50 per gallon. He says the price will not go down until 2022.  heating homes are expected to increase up to 30$ more than last year. 

Joe is a dickhead without the head.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7.1.33  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  dennis smith @7.1.32    one month ago
Since Biden took office the price of gas at the station is up over $1.50 per gallon.

Just wait until winter comes to the northern part of the country. Those heating bills will really crucify homeowners. 

What would Joe say to that?

His idiot card would probably say tell them to get solar heat!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7.1.34  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @7.1.31    one month ago
windmills are beautiful. 

Which is why Ted Kennedy killed the deal to put a winmill farm in Cape Cod Bay or why Andrew Cuomo stuck New York's windmills in red districts.

Btw the way they are unreliable in the winter. They failed in Texas and CA.

That's 2 knocks....they are unreliable and they are an eyesore!

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
7.1.35  Kavika   replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.34    one month ago

They failed in Texas because they did not winterize them...They operate in ND and MN and do an auto shutdown when the temperature reaches 20 below zero. 

More facts for you, Vic.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7.1.36  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Kavika @7.1.35    one month ago

Here they are:

http://www.nov79.com/wdm.html#:~:text=Large%2C%20commercial%20windmills%20cannot%20be%20efficient%20due%20to,reduces%20efficiency%2C%20when%20there%20are%20so%20few%20blades.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7.1.37  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.36    one month ago

Want another:

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
7.1.39  Kavika   replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.38    one month ago

I never said anything about efficient or inefficient I stated that Texas didn't winterize them and that they run to 20 below zero in MN and ND...The rest of the strawman/BS that you posted didn't have anything to do with what I posted but that all you have all the time.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
7.1.40  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.34    one month ago
Which is why Ted Kennedy killed the deal to put a winmill farm in Cape Cod Bay

Are you sure that Bill Koch's $1.5 million donation to the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound wasn't what tipped the scale? 

Or maybe it was Mitt Romney's opposition...

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

or why Andrew Cuomo stuck New York's windmills in red districts.

I didn't know that Andrew Cuomo built windmills. Interesting...

jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

Btw the way they are unreliable in the winter. They failed in Texas and CA.

You know what else failed in Texas Vic? Natural gas distribution. It wasn't properly winterized, just like the windmills. Cold weather countries all over the world rely on windmills Vic. Just stop. 

Secondly, windmills didn't fail in California Vic. 

That's 2 knocks....they are unreliable and they are an eyesore!

Both of which miss the mark. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
7.1.41  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.38    one month ago

How about this:

No, frozen wind turbines aren’t the main culprit for Texas’ power outages

Lost wind power was expected to be a fraction of winter generation. All sources — from natural gas, to nuclear, to coal, to solar — have struggled to generate power during the storm that has left millions of Texans in the dark.

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
7.1.42  Split Personality  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.38    one month ago

Do us all a favor, stay the fuck out of TX

and stop commenting on Texas issues based on banned junk journalism from banned sources.

We AVERAGE 20% wind generation, most of which did NOT FAIL during the recent storm.

Fact check: The causes for Texas’ blackout go well beyond wind turbines | Reuters

During a historic cold snap that has left millions of Texans without electricity, water, and heat for days, claims that the state’s use of renewable energy sources, specifically wind energy, are to blame have circulated on television and social media. These claims are misleading, as they shift blame for the crisis away from what appears, so far, to be the root cause: record cold temperatures that affected generation and transportation across all fuel types (including, but not limited to, wind energy), combined with the inability of the state’s independent and isolated electricity grid (operated by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, or ERCOT) to source supplies from elsewhere.

25,000 megawatts of natural gas production was lost due to un winterized equipment,

while only 17,000 megawatts of wind generation was lost because of auto shutdowns of unwinterized

(no upgrades) wind turbine equipment.

What does Abbot do? Asshole wants incentives for fossil fuel distribution

and penalties  for renewables that don't " perform. ".

Does MA need a slightly used asshole for Governor?

I can recommend Abbott.

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
7.1.43  Split Personality  replied to  Split Personality @7.1.42    one month ago

Natural gas is responsible for 40% of TX electric generation. Coal & nukes make up 40%

Almost all of it froze because there is no enforcement for not winterizing. Nothing.in Ercot has no authority,

Gas failed spectacularly when it simply froze in the pipes.

Coal & nukes shut down automatically when cooling systems began to freeze as designed.

So let's blame renewables ( wind 17.8% and solar 1.2%. )

With almost no MSN coverage, the Texass PUC was finally ordered Thursday to enforce their new authority

to enforce previous  winterization "recommendations".

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7.1.44  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Split Personality @7.1.42    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.2  Tessylo  replied to  bbl-1 @7    one month ago

Like we were energy independent with whatshisnamejrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7.2.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @7.2    one month ago

I hate to break the news to ya, but we were!

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
7.2.2  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.2.1    one month ago

Not for many decades.

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
7.2.3  Split Personality  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.2.1    one month ago
I hate to break the news to ya, but we were

Trump propaganda repeated by Laura Ingraham again.

Fake news.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
7.2.4  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.2.1    one month ago

That's false Vic. 

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
7.2.5  Kavika   replied to  Vic Eldred @7.2.1    one month ago
I hate to break the news to ya, but we were!

Only in your dreams, Vic.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7.2.6  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Split Personality @7.2.3    one month ago
Fake news.

That's an interesting slogan.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.2.7  Tessylo  replied to  Gordy327 @7.2.2    one month ago

We know the truth, not to be found here.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Principal
7.2.8  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @7.2.7    one month ago

From ANYONE either side I am sure you mean

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
7.2.9  Gordy327  replied to  Tessylo @7.2.7    one month ago

Indeed.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.2.10  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @7.2.7    one month ago

That's not what I mean.

 
 
 
Dig
Masters Guide
8  Dig    one month ago
The elitists gave away their livelihood to nations that advanced through cheap labor.

Those 'elitists' were free market conservatives obsessed with breaking down barriers to trade, which included destroying unions. They were Reagan Revolution Republicans.

The American left made them the foil to advance an agenda.

The middle class has historically been more left than right, especially back in the heyday of labor unions. Organized labor built the middle class, and organized labor is a left thing. The right will pander to the middle class, and especially to the working poor for votes, but in the end they always favor capital over labor, and their policies prove it.

I say this cannot go on much longer. The problem has long been ignored, but now the left has taken it to a new level, in which no American can walk away from it.

Taken what to a new level, specifically?

One way or the other we will have to remove this cancer on our civilization.

Sounds like you're just itching for violence, so much so that you keep blaming the left for ills of the right in an attempt to manufacture enough rage to justify it. If anything is a cancer that needs to be removed, it's sick, twisted, evil shit like that.

The (near) half-century of abuse was perpetrated by the post-Reagan Republican Party.

original

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
8.1  bbl-1  replied to  Dig @8    one month ago

Supply Side explained.  SSE concentrates then moves the wealth up.  That is all it does.  That is what it was bred to do and thus far, it is still working and working perfectly.

Well done.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
8.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dig @8    one month ago

The trick is to find out how it happened. We know about Carter and globalization, but the past 13 years has added a lot to the mix.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
8.2.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.2    one month ago
The trick is to find out how it happened

Read John's comment at 9

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
8.2.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Trout Giggles @8.2.1    one month ago

Try reading Post 5.1

And don't forget - we had a deal.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.2.3  Tessylo  replied to  Trout Giggles @8.2.1    one month ago

I trust you would hold up your end.  

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
8.2.4  Trout Giggles  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.2.2    one month ago

What deal was that? If it was I didn't post in your seeds and you didn't post in mine...well you broke that deal a couple of weeks ago when you posted in my group

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
8.2.5  Trout Giggles  replied to  Tessylo @8.2.3    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
8.2.6  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Trout Giggles @8.2.4    one month ago
If it was I didn't post in your seeds and you didn't post in mine...

Yes, that was it.


well you broke that deal a couple of weeks ago when you posted in my group

What was my comment?


If you want to end the deal that's fine as long as civility prevails.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.2.7  Tessylo  replied to  Trout Giggles @8.2.4    one month ago

I know you would be civil and would hold up your end of any alleged deal.  Obviously others won't/can't/don't.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
8.2.8  Trout Giggles  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.2.6    one month ago

You expect me to go back two weeks and find that comment? You made one comment and suddenly realized you were in an unfriendly neighborhood and ran with your tail between your legs.

[removed]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.2.9  Tessylo  replied to  Trout Giggles @8.2.8    one month ago

jrSmiley_93_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.3  Tessylo  replied to  Dig @8    one month ago
"Sounds like you're just itching for violence, so much so that you keep blaming the left for ills of the right in an attempt to manufacture enough rage to justify it. If anything is a cancer that needs to be removed, it's sick, twisted, evil shit like that. The (near) half-century of abuse was perpetrated by the post-Reagan Republican Party."

jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
9  JohnRussell    one month ago

I'd like to recommend a book 

Evil Geniuses

THE UNMAKING OF AMERICA: A RECENT HISTORY

By   KURT ANDERSEN

During the twentieth century, America managed to make its economic and social systems both more and more fair and more and more prosperous. A huge, secure, and contented middle class emerged. All boats rose together. But then the New Deal gave way to the Raw Deal. Beginning in the early 1970s, by means of a long war conceived of and executed by a confederacy of big business CEOs, the superrich, and right-wing zealots, the rules and norms that made the American middle class possible were undermined and dismantled. The clock was turned back on a century of economic progress, making greed good, workers powerless, and the market all-powerful while weaponizing nostalgia, lifting up an oligarchy that served only its own interests, and leaving the huge majority of Americans with dwindling economic prospects and hope.

Why and how did America take such a wrong turn? In this deeply researched and brilliantly woven cultural, economic, and political chronicle, Kurt Andersen offers a fresh, provocative, and eye-opening history of America’s undoing, naming names, showing receipts, and unsparingly assigning blame—to the radical right in economics and the law, the high priests of high finance, a complacent and complicit Establishment, and liberal “useful idiots,” among whom he includes himself.

Only a writer with Andersen’s crackling energy, deep insight, and ability to connect disparate dots and see complex systems with clarity could make such a book both intellectually formidable and vastly entertaining. And only a writer of Andersen’s vision could reckon with our current high-stakes inflection point, and show the way out of this man-made disaster.
 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @9    one month ago

As long as we are recommending books:

We should begin with "The End of Prosperity"

Arthur B. Laffer, Stephen Moore and Peter J. Tanous give Ronald Reagan full credit for laying the foundation for decades of U.S. prosperity. They see today's government programs as a return to the worst of Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal and Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society. The authors find it strange that the U.S. is adopting a more European model just as many European countries are moving more toward Reaganomics. They suggest a different path to good fortune: Get government out of the way of individual, entrepreneurial opportunity. If this reasoning persuades you, pay particular attention to their chapter describing how California, once the most prosperous U.S. state, became an economic basket case - a decline that the authors blame on the expansion of government spending, regulations and taxes. Laffer's advocates, including those who also favor a flat tax, see this book as an instant classic; his opponents have already dismissed it. getAbstract suggests it to those seeking a conservative take on current economic policy.

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
9.1.1  bbl-1  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1    one month ago

Supply Side stuff huh?  Trickle Down, onto your forehead and down your legs.  Panties not required.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.1.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  bbl-1 @9.1.1    one month ago

The 20 year boom that even Bill Clinton benefited from. Have a good night.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
9.1.3  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1.2    one month ago
The 20 year boom that even Bill Clinton benefited from.

That's delusional Vic. 

Reagan promised to end the recession by cutting government spending. Instead he RAISED government spending by 2.5% every year of his term. Reagan oversaw a 142% INCREASE in the deficit. Clinton oversaw a 1% DECREASE. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.1.4  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @9.1.3    one month ago

I can't believe that anyone would dare argue about how Reagan saved the economy.

Here goes: It wasn't until 1983 that Reagan got his tax cut. Later that year the US economy expanded by 3.5% and in 1984 by a whopping 6.8%, after inflation. That was the single higest growth rate in 50 years at that point. Regan proved how less taxes can provide more revenues. At that point Reagan was entitled to fulfill his promise to rebuild the military and if today's democrats could do that they would have an argument for spending.

As I recall Reagan said "I knew it was working the day they stopped calling it Reaganomics."

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
9.1.5  JBB  replied to  Dulay @9.1.3    one month ago

Clinton handed off a budget surplus to Bush which he promptly undid. Trump's 2020 budget deficit was about four time Obama's last year's. There are two ways to stimulate an economy. Cut taxes or increase spending.

The gop understands this and goes all Super Keynesian when they have power then claim we can't afford healthcare or infrastructure as soon a Democrats get close to doing the things which will help our economy longterm.

"Economics is just math" - Bill Clinton 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.1.6  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @9.1.5    one month ago
Clinton handed off a budget surplus

Clinton didn't even understand why there was a surplus. It had to be explained to him that the unexpected additional revenues were coming in via a still expanding economy courtesy of the Reagan policies. Clinton also had the benefits of the Tech boom.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
9.1.7  Tessylo  replied to  JBB @9.1.5    one month ago

Reagan did not save the economy.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
9.1.8  Sean Treacy  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1.4    one month ago
I can't believe that anyone would dare argue about how Reagan saved the economy.

I'm never surprised by the idiocy I see here at this point. There's a certain clique of progressives who will deny water is wet. 

Or  some love the days of high unemployment and inflation.  "Bring back those 15% mortgages" cry the progressives. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
9.1.9  Sean Treacy  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1.6    one month ago

The country was also entering a recession when Clinton left office and was booming when he was sworn in. But reality isn't part of the myth progressives peddle.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.1.10  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sean Treacy @9.1.8    one month ago
There's a certain clique of progressives who will deny water is wet. 

They want to re-write history. Especially when it comes to Ronald Reagan

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.1.11  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sean Treacy @9.1.9    one month ago

Yes that was a big part of it.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
9.1.12  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @9.1.7    one month ago

And he is not the God or Hero that he is made out to be by the alleged conservatives.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.1.13  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @9.1.12    one month ago

Could we say somewhat less than a God, but a bit more than a man?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
9.1.14  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @9.1.12    one month ago

No comparison to a god in any way shape or form.  

Whatever the fuck 'a bit more than a man' is supposed to mean??????????????????????

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
9.1.15  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1.4    one month ago
At that point Reagan was entitled to fulfill his promise to rebuild the military and if today's democrats could do that they would have an argument for spending.

You claimed that Reagan caused a '20 year boom' Vic.

ONE year of GDP growth failed to show Reagan's policies caused more growth than prior or future Presidents. 

Carter's GDP average is only .24% lower than Reagan's. 

Clinton's was 4% HIGHER. 

As I recall Reagan said "I knew it was working the day they stopped calling it Reaganomics."

No one stopped calling it Reagonomics Vic. 

Reagan's economic policies were a failure for everyone but the wealthy. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
9.1.16  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @9.1.15    one month ago

"Reagan's economic policies were a failure for everyone but the wealthy."

Just like whatshisnames economic 'policies'

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
9.1.17  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @9.1.9    one month ago
The country was also entering a recession when Clinton left office and was booming when he was sworn in.

The GDP when Clinton took office was 3.5, which YOU claim was 'booming'. 

The GDP when Clinton left office was 4.1, which YOU claim was 'entering a recession'. 

jrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gif

But reality isn't part of the myth progressives peddle.

Since the above illustrates your idea of reality, why would progressives want to peddle that myth? 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
9.1.18  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1.6    one month ago

You surprise me every day with the whoppers you extract from your nether regions Vic. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
9.1.19  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1.10    one month ago
They want to re-write history. Especially when it comes to Ronald Reagan.

No Vic, unlike you and yours, I'm merely citing statistical facts. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
9.1.20  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1.11    one month ago
Yes that was a big part of it.

Sean's comment is false Vic. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
9.1.21  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @9.1.17    one month ago

Last quarter of 1992 growth was 4.8%

The country went into recession in March 2001...

Yet again, you are wrong. Must be tiresome. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
9.1.22  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @9.1.20    one month ago
ean's comment is false Vic

Lol. You stooping to  making things up doesn't prove anything. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
9.1.23  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @9.1.22    one month ago
Lol. You stooping to  making things up doesn't prove anything. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
9.1.24  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @9.1.21    one month ago
Last quarter of 1992 growth was 4.8%

Do you and yours never tire of posting false equivalencies Sean. 

A QUARTER is not the average for the YEAR Sean. Just stop!

The country went into recession in March 2001...

Did you READ your link Sean? It states:

It ruled that the long expansion ended in March and the nation's tenth recession since the end of World War II began at the same time.  "The NBER's Business Cycle Dating Committee has determined that a peak in business activity occurred in the U.S. economy in March 2001," the panel said in its announcement. "A peak marks the end of an expansion and the beginning of a recession."

You know that Clinton left office in Jan. 2001 right Sean? 

I just love when a member posts links that refute their own comments.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
9.1.25  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @9.1.22    one month ago

I proved that your comment is false Sean. Deal with it. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
9.1.26  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @9.1.24    one month ago

 of posting false equivalencies Sean.

[deleted]

UARTER is not the average for the YEAR Sean. Just stop!


No shit. [deleted] I never claimed it was the "average of the year."  Who the fuck invented that standard? Oh, that's right, you did becasue you can't deal with the actual data detailing the state of the economy at the actual times at issue. 

You just made that up to try and distract from being a made a fool because you got caught lying again.

The economy was booming when George H.W. Bush left office and I used the data from the quarter when he left office to show it. You, per your usual dishonest m.o.. decided to change the time frame and use outdated data . So sad and so transparent!  Who do you imagine is dumb enough to fall for such half assed deception?

 know that Clinton left office in Jan. 2001 right Sean?

No shit. That's the point. Read what I wrote. "The country was also entering a recession when Clinton left office"  .   The 4th Q of 2000 growth was only 1% as the economy slid towards the recession it officially entered six weeks after Bush was sworn in. Yet again you can't argue honestly.

 just love when a member posts links that refute their own comments

[deleted]

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
9.1.27  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @9.1.25    one month ago

 proved that your comment is false Sean. Deal with it. 

Yet again, you literally just make shit up, ignore reality, data, logic and the English language and claim you "prove" things.  It's sad. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
9.1.28  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @9.1.27    one month ago

Again you post a false comment. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
9.1.29  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @9.1.28    one month ago

Now you don't know what false means.  [deleted]

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
9.1.30  Kavika   replied to  Dulay @9.1.15    one month ago

Reagan leads us from being a creditor nation to a debtor nation. In 1985 Reagan said it was nothing to be concerned about...Seems that was a load of shit according to today's republicans. 

Reagan raised tax a couple of times after his first tax cut.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.1.31  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @9.1.15    one month ago
You claimed that Reagan caused a '20 year boom' Vic. ONE year of GDP growth failed to show Reagan's policies caused more growth than prior or future Presidents.

Are you serious or do you think everyone is stupid? Are you really saying that a 20 year boom means the economy would have to grow by almost 7% per quarter?

Here Dulay, do some reading:

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, April 09, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Golden Age: After 25 years of record-setting economic performance around the world, set off by President Reagan's free-market policies, the world has fallen into a recession. Is this the inevitable end of an era?

Read More: Economy | Budget & Tax Policy

Let's go back to 1982, in many ways the bleakest year since the Depression. The economy had emerged severely damaged by the stagflation of the 1970s. Americans' confidence, both in government and in the economy, had reached a low ebb in 1980. Many felt our best years lay behind us.

On the nations' campuses and even in some of its boardrooms, people were talking about capitalism as a failed system.

Some advocated a "third way" between socialism and capitalism, as in Europe, which would include heavy doses of government intervention in markets to bring them back to life. Still others took up the call in E.F. Schumacher's best-seller, "Small Is Beautiful," to downsize expectations. Live frugally, they said. Inhabit small houses. Drive small cars. Don't use oil. Rein in your ambitions.

One man didn't agree with this: President Ronald Reagan, elected in 1980 amid a wave of voter disgust at his predecessor's failures.

It was Reagan who brought America's capitalist economy roaring back to life, ending energy price controls, slashing income tax rates by 25% and dramatically reducing tax rates on capital gains.

Americans had been told for years — as they're now being told again — to expect diminished standards of living. Then they watched as the Reagan years set in place one of the most durable and remarkable booms in incomes and wealth in history.

Yet the media and academia rarely credited Reagan for his accomplishments — especially on the economy, where "Reaganomics" became a term of opprobrium among the intelligentsia.

But it's a fact. As the nonpartisan National Bureau of Economic Research once declared, we lived in the "longest sustained period of prosperity in the 20th century" from 1982 to 1999 — one big boom, the NBER said, set off by Reagan.

Reagan's magic was simple. He wanted to lower interest rates, slash inflation, cut unemployment and boost economic growth. These things, at the time, seemed impossible. But he did it.

The so-called misery index — that is, unemployment plus inflation — hit 21% as Reagan was elected in 1980. By the time his terms were over, it had plunged to around 9%.

Interest rates likewise plunged — contrary to the predictions of many pundits, who boldly predicted that the budget deficits which emerged in the 1980s would send rates spiraling upward. From a stratospheric 21% in 1980, the prime rate fell to 7% by decade's end.

During the 1970s, many Americans for the first time saw incomes shrink. But from 1981 to 1989, median real household income rose by $4,000. The poorest Americans, who saw their incomes fall 5% in the 1970s, watched their incomes rise 6% in the 1980s.

After the staunchly free-market Reagan, things got a bit rocky.

President George H.W. Bush's four years included some mistakes and questionable moves — a record rise in regulations, for one, and the infamous breaking of his "no new taxes" pledge that, after 1991's mild recession, handed the 1992 election to Bill Clinton.

President Clinton won largely because he promised change. He had also promised a middle-class tax cut, among other things.

But his popularity plunged when, instead of cutting taxes, he raised them by a record amount. That tax hike contributed to one of the slowest economic recoveries from a recession since WWII.

The young Arkansan president looked like a one-termer.

But things changed. Slashing defense spending after the collapse of communism (another Reagan victory), Clinton and the new GOP Congress in 1994 started to shrink the deficit. Clinton sounded Reaganesque declaring: "The era of big government is over."

Meanwhile, after raising interest rates in 1994, Fed chief Alan Greenspan began cutting them as inflation and the deficit fell. The economy and the stock market soared. Budget surpluses emerged.

The Reagan era's star companies begat the Internet boom; they helped save Clinton's presidency. Two stand out: In 1993, Intel unveiled its Pentium chip. In 1995, Microsoft released Windows 95.

By 1996, the economy was rocking and so was the stock market. Employing his famous policy of "triangulation," Clinton wisely signed welfare reform into law, bringing millions of people off the dole and into the productive work force, many for the first time.

A year later, and with much less fanfare, Clinton signed into law a tax bill produced by the Republican Congress to cut capital gains tax rates. The result was the record boom of 1997 to 2000, the result of which was an unprecedented expansion of wealth.

Indeed, this 25-year Reagan boom was the most profoundly democratic era of capitalism ever. In 1980, just 16% of all workers owned stock. By 2000, that had expanded to 52%. Stock ownership moved from Wall Street to Main Street.

Even so, President George W. Bush inherited a mess in 2000. The Nasdaq was at the tail end of a record plunge — which began in 1999 after the Fed aggressively raised rates to quell inflation and end "irrational exuberance." As Bush entered office, the economy was already in recession. Job growth was nil. The 9/11 attacks that killed 3,000 cast a pall over the nation's spirit and the economy.

Still, Bush managed to push through two major tax cuts. The second one, in 2003, helped set off a five-year growth spurt that went all but uncovered by the nation's media.




The rest of us lived through it!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.1.32  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @9.1.15    one month ago
Reagan's economic policies were a failure for everyone but the wealthy. 

Of course that is a lie.


No one stopped calling it Reagonomics Vic. 

The biasaed, lying media stopped calling it Reaganomics. You forgot?

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Guide
9.1.33  bugsy  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1.32    one month ago

Of course he and most other leftists forgot. They stopped calling it Reaganomics because it would give credit to the good economy we had during the Reagan years.

We all know most leftists are not allowed to give credit to a republican. They get reprimanded for it. Called Uncle Tom, etc.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
9.1.34  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1.31    one month ago
Are you serious

Yes. 

or do you think everyone is stupid?

Not everyone. 

Are you really saying that a 20 year boom means the economy would have to grow by almost 7% per quarter?

No. 

How about you address the stats I posted instead of asking me to argue your fantasies. 

Here Dulay, do some reading:

Opinion pieces by unnamed authors hold little sway Vic. 

The rest of us lived through it!

So did I. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
9.1.35  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1.32    one month ago
Of course that is a lie.

Nope. 

The biasaed, lying media stopped calling it Reaganomics.

If they are biased and lying WHY do you care what they called it Vic?

You forgot?

You made it up. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
9.1.36  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @9.1.33    one month ago

You prove over and over again that you have no clue about people on the left. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
9.1.37  XXJefferson51  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1.4    one month ago

And Trump proved Reagan right with his tax cut and the government receiving more in revenues the most recent FY than were projected assuming no tax cuts. 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
9.1.38  JBB  replied to  XXJefferson51 @9.1.37    one month ago

Trump's 2020 deficit was the biggest in history!

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
9.1.39  XXJefferson51  replied to  Dulay @9.1.36    one month ago

Going After The Economy!

Tom Stiglich    Oct 19, 2021    Cartoons  

ts680_211019.jpg
 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
9.1.40  JBB  replied to  XXJefferson51 @9.1.39    one month ago

The DOW was at 26,501 November 2nd 2020.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
9.1.41  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @9.1.38    one month ago

Pelosi's 2020 deficit was the biggest in history!

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
9.1.42  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @9.1.41    one month ago

Nope, Trump signed it and so Trump owns it...

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
9.1.43  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @9.1.42    one month ago
Nope, Trump signed it and so Trump owns it...

Some folks learn in school that a President can't spend a dime that isn't FIRST appropriated by Congress.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
9.1.44  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @9.1.43    one month ago

Well, in that case, then those Trump's tax cuts were actually Nancy Pelosi's tax cuts. Right?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
9.1.45  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @9.1.44    one month ago
Well, in that case, then those Trump's tax cuts were actually Nancy Pelosi's tax cuts. Right?

Also at school, many folks learn that tax cuts are NOT expenditures.

Please do quote Nancy Pelosi EVER saying anything of the sort, too!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.1.46  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  XXJefferson51 @9.1.37    one month ago

Less taxes means more revenues. Democrats just don't get it or they don't really care. I'm not sure which it is.  


Either way the American people are ready to boot them out and they know it.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
9.1.47  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @9.1.36    one month ago
"You prove over and over again that you have no clue about people on the left."

Or anything else.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
9.1.48  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @9.1.24    one month ago
"I just love when a member posts links that refute their own comments."

Ya!  Happens all the time!  With certain members!

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
9.1.49  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1.46    one month ago
Less taxes means more revenues.

Oh please DO post a link that proves that ridiculous claim. 

Because, EVERY report released by the Treasury states that Reagan's 1981 tax cut COST BILLIONS in revenue. In fact, the Treasury analysis shows a average of $111+ BILLION reduction in revenue over the first 4 years. 

Oh and BTFW, even Reagan recognized that it was unsustainable and RAISED taxes in '83, '84, '86 and '87, and George H.W. [NOT NEW TAXES] Bush raised taxes again in '90, effectively trying to scratch back much of Reagan's tax cuts.

Democrats just don't get it or they don't really care. I'm not sure which it is.  

Democrats DO get 'it' Vic. 'It' just isn't the 'it' you get. Unlike your 'it', our 'it' is based on DATA and the US Treasury's DATA doesn't lie. Reagan's tax cuts have cost BILLIONS in revenue to the US Treasury. PERIOD, full stop. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
9.1.50  Dulay  replied to  XXJefferson51 @9.1.39    one month ago

[removed]

 
 
 
dennis smith
Masters Silent
9.1.51  dennis smith  replied to  Sean Treacy @9.1.27    one month ago

The response when presented with facts from some on the left is often that the fact is a false comment.

 
 
 
dennis smith
Masters Silent
9.1.52  dennis smith  replied to  Dulay @9.1.36    one month ago

People on the left have no clue

 
 
 
dennis smith
Masters Silent
9.1.53  dennis smith  replied to  Texan1211 @9.1.43    one month ago

And some folks never seem to learn

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
9.1.54  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @9.1.26    one month ago
I never claimed it was the "average of the year."  Who the fuck invented that standard? Oh, that's right, you did becasue you can't deal with the actual data detailing the state of the economy at the actual times at issue. 

Vic set the standard Sean, he cited Reagan's 6.8% GDP in 1984. THAT is the average for the YEAR. DO try to follow the thread in the future. 

BTFW Sean, the yearly GDP is data detailing the state of the economy at the actual time at issue. The GDP of ONE quarter is NOT more accurate. 

No shit. That's the point. Read what I wrote. "The country was also entering a recession when Clinton left office"  .

YOUR linked source states that the recession did NOT begin until MARCH. 

  The 4th Q of 2000 growth was only 1% as the economy slid towards the recession it officially entered six weeks after Bush was sworn in. Yet again you can't argue honestly.

Then WHY did YOUR source insist that the recession STARTED in MARCH Sean? 

The 4th quarter GDP for 2000 was 4.1%.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
9.1.55  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @9.1.54    one month ago

Vic set the standard Sean, he cited Reagan's 6.8% GDP in 198

[deleted]

. The GDP of ONE quarter is NOT more accurate. 

Of course it is when you are talking about the state of the economy at a specific point in time.  [deleted]

Guess what? The economy changes over time,. and a year is a long time, making data from a year ago not very relevant to today.  [deleted]

OUR linked source states that the recession did NOT begin until MARCH.

What imaginary strawman are you attacking now? DO try to follow the thread in the future. .  I specifically wrote that the recession began in March 2001. Your big "gotcha" is repeating what I already wrote? sad. 

n WHY did YOUR source insist that the recession STARTED in MARCH Sean? 

Because it did. Which is why I said it did. [deleted]

[deleted]

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
9.1.56  Sean Treacy  replied to  Sean Treacy @9.1.55    one month ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
9.1.57  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @9.1.54    one month ago
The 4th quarter GDP for 2000 was 4.1%.

Pointing out this false claim is apparently a COC violation.

Here's a link from the New York Times, which probably will now be found to be a  banned source.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
9.1.58  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @9.1.55    one month ago
What imaginary strawman are you attacking now? DO try to follow the thread in the future. .  I specifically wrote that the recession began in March 2001. Your big "gotcha" is repeating what I already wrote? sad. 

You stated TWICE:

Read what I wrote. "The country was also entering a recession when Clinton left office"  

So unless your posit is that Clinton left office in MARCH of 2001, which would be a  ridiculous claim, you're WRONG.

Because it did. Which is why I said it did.

Well THAT clears is up Sean. /s

jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
9.1.59  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @9.1.57    one month ago
Pointing out this false claim is apparently a COC violation.

The link I posted with that data isn't behind a paywall Sean. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
9.1.60  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @9.1.59    one month ago
The link I posted with that data isn't behind a paywall Sean.

You didn't post a link with that data. Did you not read your own link, or do you not understand it?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
9.1.61  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @9.1.58    one month ago

 unless your posit is that Clinton left office in MARCH of 200

Of couse it's not. Which is why I never claimed it. 

As I said, The  country was also entering a recession when Clinton left office"  That's indisputably true.  The economy stalled in the second half of 2000 and entered recession in March 2001. Pay attention. I didn't claim it was "in recession" I said it was entering a recession, which it officially did about six weeks after Clinton left office. How hard is that for you to understand?  

Well THAT clears is up Sean.

Finally. I only had to repeat numerous times.

 
 
 
GregTx
Sophomore Participates
9.1.62  GregTx  replied to  Dulay @9.1.59    one month ago

Neither is the link Sean posted.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
9.1.64  XXJefferson51  replied to  JBB @9.1.40    one month ago

And Trump was President until 20 Jan 2021 and his vaccines became public knowledge after that date.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
9.1.65  XXJefferson51  replied to  Sean Treacy @9.1.55    one month ago

Great post.  All of it is right on and was well said. I agree 100%.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
9.1.66  XXJefferson51  replied to  Sean Treacy @9.1.57    one month ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
9.1.67  XXJefferson51  replied to  Sean Treacy @9.1.57    one month ago

I can’t read it because of their paywall.  Can you please cut and paste the most offensive portions to our liberal friends for me?  

 
 
 
GregTx
Sophomore Participates
9.1.68  GregTx  replied to  XXJefferson51 @9.1.67    one month ago

It is? I owe an apology.

 
 
 
GregTx
Sophomore Participates
9.1.69  GregTx  replied to  Dulay @9.1.59    one month ago

I apologize Dulay, as before I didn't have the issue with the paywall.

Report Says Economy Slowed Abruptly in Fourth Quarter

By Reuters

  • Jan. 31, 2001

The powerhouse U.S. economy slowed sharply in the closing quarter of 2000, posting the weakest growth in 5-1/2 years as consumers clamped their purses shut and goods piled up on store shelves, the Commerce Department said Wednesday.

Gross domestic product, which measures the value of all goods and services produced within U.S. borders, advanced at a lackluster 1.4 percent annual rate during the October-December fourth quarter, down from 2.2 percent in the third quarter. It was the weakest pace of GDP increase for any three-month period since a 0.8 percent increase in the second quarter of 1995 when the economy also was coping with overstocked inventories.

The fourth-quarter performance was weaker than predicted by Wall Street economists who had forecast a 1.9 percent rate of quarterly GDP growth. The report came as Federal Reserve policymakers gathered for the final round of a two-day meeting expected to result in announcement of a half-percentage-point cut in U.S. interest rates on Wednesday afternoon, the second aggressive slash in rates in a month to try to stimulate an economy that Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan said last week was posting "close to zero" growth.

The U.S. economy began to slow in the second half of 2000, after a robust opening six months that helped give the country its strongest full-year growth in 16 years. GDP for all of 2000 increased by 5 percent, well ahead of a 4.2 percent gain in 1999, for the biggest annual gain since 7.3 percent in 1984.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
10  devangelical    one month ago

... tricky dick should have died a national disgrace as a prisoner in club fed.

I say this cannot go on much longer. The problem has long been ignored, but now the left has taken it to a new level, in which no American can walk away from it. One way or the other we will have to remove this cancer on our civilization. First we must organize.

I agree. the unamerican remnants of white supremacy, evangelical dominionism, and co-opted trumpster fascism must finally be permanently eradicated from american society. it's time to cut the lines of all the 19th century anchors our ship of state has been dragging for the last 50 years and move forward into the future, and leave the past behind.

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
10.1  bbl-1  replied to  devangelical @10    one month ago

As should have Reagan.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
10.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @10    one month ago

Keep us updated on the fight against "white supremacy."  We are all waiting for the results.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
10.2.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Vic Eldred @10.2    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
10.3  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @10    one month ago
"I agree. the unamerican remnants of white supremacy, evangelical dominionism, and co-opted trumpster fascism must finally be permanently eradicated from american society. it's time to cut the lines of all the 19th century anchors our ship of state has been dragging for the last 50 years and move forward into the future, and leave the past behind."
jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif
jrSmiley_93_smiley_image.jpgjrSmiley_93_smiley_image.jpgjrSmiley_93_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
10.3.1  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @10.3    one month ago

Progressives don't really want to move forward.

If they did, they would stop living  in the past and stop trying to make  people feel guilty over stuff they had nothing to do with.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
10.4  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @10    one month ago
"Less taxes means more revenues. Democrats just don't get it or they don't really care. I'm not sure which it is.  Either way the American people are ready to boot them out and they know it."

It's EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE

No surprise, the typical projection, deflection, and denial.  

 
 
 
dennis smith
Masters Silent
10.5  dennis smith  replied to  devangelical @10    one month ago

When Biden dies it should be how you describe Nixon.

 
 
 
Veronica
Junior Guide
11  Veronica    one month ago
“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.

OMG - pearl clutchers unite!!!!!

You do realize they say that in EVERY generation.  How many armageddons have we survived?  This piece is bordering on the ridiculous & is fear-mongering at it's best.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
12  Tessylo    one month ago

10.3.1 Not worth a penny.  You must have to pay for it.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
12.1  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @12    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online


Kavika


29 visitors