The Goat Pen

Thirty years ago in Lebannon 249 Marines were killed by suicide terrorists driving two trucks packed with TNT. Funny how there was little or no denunciation of the president by the opposition party for circumstances surrounding that "dispicable act."

REAGAN!!

10ac wrote:I'm voting for whomever promises to kill the most arabs.

obama has to have 100 plus with drone strikes and a seal mission. I imagine he has to ok any drone strikes outside afghanistan

Ambassador assassinated.....O'bozo calls it random violence that escalated based on a stupid video tape....sends out minions to tell said lie to every Sunday morning talking head.....msm and other enablers swallow.....Sec. of State says it was planned act of terrorism......hmmmm conflicting info.....of course I'm just a red-neck teabagger.....


Now imagine Bush/Cheney....or Bush/Rice....sending out conflicting reports on ME violence......and all the knob gobblers here(and NYT...NBC).... go out hunting strawmen to avoid the obvious.

bluetick wrote:Was Obama's Illegal War in Libya a Trial Run to Attack Israel?
by Stella Paul, September 25, 2012

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/09/ ... srael.html

From the American Thinker no less...oft-quoted here by righties.

Makes you wonder how totally freaking nuts the right-osphere will get if Obama holds his lead as we get closer to November.

My head hurt reading that drivel.

I did appreciate, however, the ad for the seed tank - now I know where to get my survivalist gear!

"The defacto primary job of the Federal Government since 1932 has been to prevent another Great Depression."

De facto, perhaps, but is that really the constitutional job of the federal government? And even if I would agree that it is perhaps the job of the federal government to stave off catastrophic macro events such as the great depression via laws and regulations that would discourage corporate malfeasance on a massive level, I don't think 8% unemployment constitutes such a crisis. Yes, it sucks for the unemployed, but is it really the job of the federal government to "ensure" that unemployment is low? And if so, how low? Who decides what that number is or "should" be? It smells too much like Central Planning to me. The market should determine stuff like that, although I do realize that the federal government, in its current form, is a huge part of "the market". I'm just questioning if that's really what was intended to be by the founding fathers, although I suspect that answer is no, irregardless of whether it is currently the de facto state of things.

Also, it's kinda funny how so many ostensible repubs act like they don't want the government to "meddle" in the lives of citizens, but as soon as unemployment goes up, they're the ones crying for the government to "do something". If you don't think the government should give out food stamps (etc), why would you think the government should find you a job (or even manipulate the economy in such a way that it would be easier for you to find a job)? I would think that the same people criticizing the government for providing food to poor people (with cries of what amounts to "find your own damn food!") would just as readily be saying to unemployed people, "find your own damn job!" If you're going to take one position, why not the other?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/13/polit ... heney.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/14/polit ... heney.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/15/polit ... wanted=all

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/16/polit ... wanted=all

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/16/polit ... ref=slogin


Cheney involved in an accidental shooting (NO ONE DIED)on a hunting trip had the NYT in a week long frenzy.....Ambassador assassinations....not so much.

obama has to have 100 plus with drone strikes and a seal mission. I imagine he has to ok any drone strikes outside afghanistan

And I applaud him for it but he has a ways to go before he catches the Bush's. What we need is more shock and awe with lots of collateral damage.

hedge wrote:"The defacto primary job of the Federal Government since 1932 has been to prevent another Great Depression."

De facto, perhaps, but is that really the constitutional job of the federal government? And even if I would agree that it is perhaps the job of the federal government to stave off catastrophic macro events such as the great depression via laws and regulations that would discourage corporate malfeasance on a massive level, I don't think 8% unemployment constitutes such a crisis. Yes, it sucks for the unemployed, but is it really the job of the federal government to "ensure" that unemployment is low? And if so, how low? Who decides what that number is or "should" be? It smells too much like Central Planning to me. The market should determine stuff like that, although I do realize that the federal government, in its current form, is a huge part of "the market". I'm just questioning if that's really what was intended to be by the founding fathers, although I suspect that answer is no, irregardless of whether it is currently the de facto state of things.

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION wrote:We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION wrote:To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

"promote the general Welfare"

Promote is one thing. The level of economic government intervention and control that some people expect these days is magnitudes beyond "promotion"...

Citing that passage about the general welfare as justification for unlimited federal powers in every economic matter or, even worse, as the major arbiter of the overall economy is about like citing it as justification for food stamps and other "welfare" programs...

hedge wrote:Citing that passage about the general welfare as justification for unlimited federal powers in every economic matter or, even worse, as the major arbiter of the overall economy is about like citing it as justification for food stamps and other "welfare" programs...

Yep, have to agree with Hedge on this part besides it's the PREAMBLE to the Constitution but that hasn't stopped liberals from citing it to justify their welfare programs.

No conservatives I know of want gubment to "do something" about unemployment. To the contrary we want gubment OUT OF THE FREAKIN WAY so that private enterprise can start hiring again.

Just as we all know the President has little to do with gas prices, it's a what's good for the goose principal. A few years ago the libs and MSM was blaming Bush for the high gas prices, now they sweep it under the rug.

Oprama doesn't have anything to do with gas prices.

But his business killling policies DO have something to do with the high unemployment. Many businesses have said they are not hiring because of the healthcare bill or the uncertianty on taxes coming up. That's on him and his love of gubment meddling/regulation.

Big Orange Junky wrote:

hedge wrote:Citing that passage about the general welfare as justification for unlimited federal powers in every economic matter or, even worse, as the major arbiter of the overall economy is about like citing it as justification for food stamps and other "welfare" programs...

Yep, have to agree with Hedge on this part besides it's the PREAMBLE to the Constitution but that hasn't stopped liberals from citing it to justify their welfare programs.

No conservatives I know of want gubment to "do something" about unemployment. To the contrary we want gubment OUT OF THE FREAKIN WAY so that private enterprise can start hiring again.
. . .

That's on him and his love of gubment meddling/regulation.

A BRIEF HISTORY LESSON (Since the start of the GOP in 1860):

The Great Recession (2007) - George W. Bush (Republican) - Repeal of Glass-Steagall Act of 1932 and Deregulation of the Financial Industry leading to the creation and bursting of the real estate bubble and collapse of the financial industry.

Recession of 1981 (started July 1981) - Ronald Reagan (Republican) - Rising price of oil brought on by the overthrow of the Shaw of Iran and rise in the Prime Interest Rate to bring down high inflation resulting from previous economic turmoil

Recession of 1973 - Richard Nixon (Republican) - The stresses of the Vietnam War, the inflexibility of the gold standard, economic imbalainces from Nixon's wage and price freeze, all capped by the 1973 Oil Crisis finally pushed the robust economy of the 1960s into the overall worst recession since the Great Depression period.

Double Dip Recessions of 1958 & 1960 - Dwight Eisenhower (Republican) - Tight monetary policy by the Federal Reserve to combat inflation and other problems are behind both of these smallish recessions. The 1958 recession was made worse because of a world-wide economic dowturn as well.

Recession of 1945 - Harry S. Truman (Democrat) - Caused by the decelleration of the economy resulting from the end of WW II

Recession of 1937 - Franklin Delano Roosevelt (Democrat) - Roosevelt and the Fed tried to return to fiscal and monetary conservatism too soon causing a severe contraction during the recovery from the depression.

The Great Depression (1929) - Herbert Hoover (Republican) - The greatest economic depression in American history and it didn't have to happen. However, the classic forces were at work again, no regulation; boom times; although there was now a Federal Reserve, it did nothing; a reliance on the gold standard - the rest is history.

Recessions of 1918 and 1921 - Wilson (Democrat) & Harding (Republican) - A double-dip recession caused by the economic contraction that generally follows any war, in this case WW I and then greatly exascerbated by an overreaction of the Federal Reserve to rapidly rising inflation.

Panic of 1910 and Recession of 1913 - William Howard Taft (Republican) - Follow-on to the economic turmoil resulting from the 1907 Panic and the results of the anti-monopoly activities of the government

Panic of 1907 (The Banker's Panic) - Teddy Roosevelt (Republican) - Stock manipuation by Augustus Heinze and Charles Morse, no banking regulations


Actually, I won't go back farther since they were pretty much ALL Republican administrations the prior 40 years, but since 1860, the US has had 16 recognized economic downturns, with most of them (all of the severe ones) coming on the GOP's watch and almost universally connected to lack of regulation or deregulation of banking/financial markets.

http://myesoteric.hubpages.com/hub/A-Sh ... eir-Causes

BigRedMan wrote:Okay someone state the true facts for me please:

Unemployment rate - compared to when Obama took office till now. Unemployment claims? New job creation both public and private.

Price of oil - factors on this

These are the two things that directly impact me. That is all I truly care about.

true facts: August 2008: Job gains/losses---- lost of 84,000 jobs
August 2012: Job gains/losses---- gain of 96,000 jobs

"Yep, have to agree with Hedge on this part besides it's the PREAMBLE to the Constitution but that hasn't stopped liberals from citing it to justify their welfare programs."

In fairness (I realize that's a foreign concept around here), J's Daddy was not citing that "promote the general welfare" as a justification of welfare programs, he seemed to be citing it as a justification for federal activity/intervention in the overall economy. Fair-minded people can disagree about that, but it's certainly not fair to imply that he was citing that passage as a justification of welfare. FWIW, I haven't seen anyone else doing that, either...

Owlman wrote:

BigRedMan wrote:Okay someone state the true facts for me please:

Unemployment rate - compared to when Obama took office till now. Unemployment claims? New job creation both public and private.

Price of oil - factors on this

These are the two things that directly impact me. That is all I truly care about.

true facts: August 2008: Job gains/losses---- lost of 84,000 jobs
August 2012: Job gains/losses---- gain of 96,000 jobs

Unemployment rate? Unemployment claims?

A gain of 96000 jobs is pretty good start if it is lasting long term jobs.

96K would barely replace deaths and retirements and would keep unemployment amongst the yutes in high double digits....try again

...but in this new age of normalizing the absurd, maybe zero economic growth is preferred and Ambassador assassinations are just bumps in the road.

....after all, the polls and the local knob gobblers are telling us we're in for 4 more years of this new normal.

hedge wrote:"Yep, have to agree with Hedge on this part besides it's the PREAMBLE to the Constitution but that hasn't stopped liberals from citing it to justify their welfare programs."

In fairness (I realize that's a foreign concept around here), J's Daddy was not citing that "promote the general welfare" as a justification of welfare programs, he seemed to be citing it as a justification for federal activity/intervention in the overall economy. Fair-minded people can disagree about that, but it's certainly not fair to imply that he was citing that passage as a justification of welfare. FWIW, I haven't seen anyone else doing that, either...

Exactly. It is the job of the federal government to promote the GENERAL WELFARE - as in "make sure the country as a whole fares well" - which includes making sure we don't mirror the economy of Greece.

As for the bailouts - on a personal, selfish level, I was happy to see all the superioristic corporate yahoos fail and watch their glorified ponzi schemes collapse. I laughed at the douchebags who got ripped off by Bernie Madoff - "we're sophisticated investors and our transactions don't need to be regulated" - and they were ALL crying for Uncle Sam to step in and get their money back.

Personal schadenfreude aside, I'm convinced that if Bush hadn't stepped up with the bailout, we'd be looking at 20-25% unemployment and a completely different America.

One of my older church members who must be close to 90 told me back in 2008 that the US was not prepared to survive another Great Depression. In the late 20s/early 30s, though people didn't have money, we had an excessive of production/manufacturing so when they engaged in all of the great infrastructural projects in WPA, they were able to use American resources - steel, cement, etc. Now we import that stuff from China.

"The Great Recession (2007) - George W. Bush (Republican) - Repeal of Glass-Steagall Act of 1932 and Deregulation of the Financial Industry leading to the creation and bursting of the real estate bubble and collapse of the financial industry."

Since you are trying to give a history lesson, you may want to fact check on which President signed this.

Also, what's up with hedge and his Tea Party talk?