are we all here because we hate the opposite sex??? chat & forums.

It's about mind control and trying to get you to acquiesce to their liberal/socialist agenda.

Can you say Bill Gates?

Education is way overrated. It shows that you can jump through hoops and complete tasks.

Ambition and "common horse sense" are much more valuable

I'm sure a lot of women on this site take the initiative and contact you first. Am I wrong?

but the truth is the majority of marriages overall end in divorce.

I think one should get married only when they're ready to settle down and have children.

Even when a guy has taken all the precautions, there's no guarantees she's not going to take him to the cleaners.

besides a lot of those folks out on the southwest coast seem to be stuck in that state of mind that says .... you aren't" cool or hip or one of us", unless you dress like this, or drive one of those, or make this much money etc. etc.

instead of emulating all of these sorry examples of humanity that Hollywood has been showing us for the last 50 years.

There are basically two kinds of guys in this world: cads and dads. The women leave with the cads while sticking dads with the bill.

You say: "Prove this is true."
I say: "Prove this isn't true."

If the Cowboys gave themselves the name "Americas Team" which they didnt !!!!

Call them what you want but the Dallas Cowboys never asked to be labled "Americas Team"

too funny, what makes you qualified to even suggest that Slick? do you know me or what im all about?

pretty ignorant of you to assume things about me Jack.

I dont need a lesson in economics , I know how money works, and I have my money work for me, all you economics majors work for money, big difference but I doubt you know what im talking about, friggen socialists

Mr smartfun, that is the kind of rhetoric I would expect from the typical socialist who has no clue about how money works, whats got you in this mess is your socialist thinking, you're quick to blame everybody but yourselves

I give that my ignorant statement of the month award. I guess you're one of these people who think we've had free markets under central banking - the fifth plank of the communist manifesto. Turn off Bill Maher and do some reading.

Ever read Atlas Shrugged?

1st... your not out arguing anyone... Your just coming off like a big bully. Your facts and opinions are only yours....

People can decide to believe Shlaes story or McMillion... personally, I tried reading Charles McMillion and Sally Kohn on that Campaign for America's Future sight.... And they are bias and seem to want to dispute conservatives... No different than Hannity or anyone you knock conservatives from reading or listening to.... Just because your the center of your world, doesn't make you the center of everyones else's. I know I have discussed things with you before and you seem like a smart guy... but you come off arrogant like your the only one who knows anything.... Just my opinion. And I know this is only my opinion.... a lot of people probably agree with you...

Check your own stuff.... You're not perfect.

You're a lunatic if you think you or anyone else has out argued me in any form.

It's only a matter of opinion, only leftists (in particular liberal professors) push revisionist history upon the people in regards to the Great Depression. But the facts of the Great Depression cannot change. FDR basically continued the same thing that Hoover had done, causing the Depression to worsen and last longer.

The view that the New Deal was too small and accomplished little, that only WWII ended the Depression, is very widely held. But it is not correct. It is based on a mis-reading of reconstructed unemployment statistics from that time, which treat the workers actually employed by the New Deal as though they were unemployed. Which they were not.

In fact, the New Deal accomplished a huge amount, both in specific construction projects and in providing employment to the American people

At such a moment, it is imperative to expose a dangerous popular myth regarding the efficacy of President Roosevelt’s actions: that it was not the programs of the New Deal, but only the placing of the nation on a wartime footing years later, that restored the health of the nation’s economy.

This belief, though widely held, cannot stand up to even the most basic economic analysis. Yet the mainstream corporate media, which abound with anti-government ideology, seek to reinforce this myth.

The basic economic facts from the 1930s—according to the Department of Commerce, the Federal Reserve, and other official sources—are fundamentally different from the unsupported claims put forward by Shlaes and prominent in popular myth. The monthly data for industrial production show a near three-year collapse under President Hoover, ending when FDR came to office in March 1933. Production rocketed by 44 percent in the first three months of the New Deal and, by December 1936, had completely recovered to surpass its 1929 peak.

Unforunately only a government must control things liberal could ever actually believe that lack of government is what caused economic problems. Our federal government really is not supposed to run the economy. But why get all Constitutional, after all...what does the Constitution matter to a modern day liberal?

Your head is in the wrong place. Almost 70% of California's budget is spent on healthcare and education. (68.1% to be exact) Yet they are 26 billion in the hole. You know what we need? More federal government spending on healthcare and education, so we can bankrupt America just like California.

Liberals want to live in a fantasy land Democracy that doesn't even closely resemble the United States.

You define Socialism as how much of the economy the government owns. When Obama went into office it was 33%, after the stimulus it went to 40%. After healthcare reform it will be 46%. Germany is 47%.

I'm so sick and tired of hearing uneducated left wingers make claims about things they know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT.

Herbert Hoover was only in office for EIGHT months when the stock market crashed

The inaction of the United States government during the 1929–33 slide into the
Great Depression is both astonishing and puzzling when viewed from any of the
perpectives held today. All points of view today hold that governments should strive to
provide a stable environment in which the private economy can operate, and should do
this by keeping some broad nominal aggregate measure of spending or liquidity on a
stable growth path.

This, however, was not the policy followed during the Great Depression.4 The
Federal Reserve did not push reserves into the banking system during the 1929–33
decline. It passively stood by while the nominal money stock fell by a third. The federal govenment did not increase its spending while allowing its tax revenues to fall. Instead, strenuous efforts were made to balance the budget and keep it balanced.
These policies were disastrous. They certainly did not stop the contraction in
economic activity. They may well have severely aggravated it, and presumably played
an important role in making the 1929–41 depression into the Great Depression.

Economic Policy Under Hoover
Throughout this decline—which carried real GNP per worker down to a level 40
percent below that which it had attained in 1929, and which saw the unemployment rise
to take in more than a quarter of the labor force—the government did not try to prop up aggregate demand. The only expansionary fiscal policy action undertaken was the
Veterans’ Bonus, passed over President Hoover’s veto.

Contemplating the wreck of his country's economy and his own political career, Herbert Hoover wrote bitterly in retrospect about those in his administration who had advised inaction during the downslide:

The 'leave-it-alone liquidationists' headed by Secretary of the Treasury Mellonfelt that government must keep its hands off and let the slump liquidate itself. Mr. Mellon had only one formula: 'Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate'.He held that even panic was not altogether a bad thing. He said: 'It will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up the wrecks from less competent people'

But Hoover had been one of the most enthusiastic proponents of "liquidationism" during the Great Depression.

What then /did/cause cause the Great Depression? According to Shlaes, an overheated market, culminating in the October Crash of 1929, had something to do with it. So did bad banking policy and protectionism. "But the deepest problem was the intervention, the lack of faith in the marketplace. Government management of the late 1920s and 1930s hurt the economy...

There is very little support for this idea among professional economists. Consult Essays on the Great Depression by Ben S. Bernake, for example, and you will learn that a majority of macroeconomists have concluded in recent years that prolonged adherence to the gold standard played a dominating role in determining the worldwide monetary contraction of the 1930s. "We do not yet have our hands on the grail by any means," he writes, but countries that left the gold standard early were able to reflate their monetary supplies and price levels, while countries that remained on gold were forced into further deflation. In other words, some approaching a consensus exists among economists that poorly-designed institutions and short-sighted policies were at the heart of the Great Depression. That the understanding of these mechanisms is widely believed to have improved a great deal since then accounts for the appointment of Bernanke, a leading scholar of the mechanics of the Great Depression, as chairman of the Federal Reserve Board.

But these statements about Hoover provide a grossly distorted view of history. In contrast to George W. Bush, who, as the Yale historian Beverly Gage has said, "stood by and didn't forge a clear direction" as the housing market collapsed around him, President Hoover moved in unprecedented ways to cope with economic calamity. Two days after entering the White House in March 1929, Hoover, who for years had been warning about "the fever of speculation," exhorted Federal Reserve officials to rein in brokers and investment bankers. Following the Black Monday stock market crash that October, he summoned leaders of industry and finance to the White House, where he implored them to maintain wage rates; he urged Congress and state and local governments to accelerate public works spending; he prodded the Federal Reserve Board to expand credit; and he encouraged a newly created Federal Farm Board to bolster crop prices.

So conspicuous was the activism of a man reputed to be a do-nothing president that some historians perceive Hoover to be the progenitor of the New Deal. But that view is absurd. Even during the first two phases of the Depression, Hoover exhibited an almost pathological fear of granting federal relief to the impoverished. By the time the Depression had entered its third phase--the banking crisis of his last weeks in office--he had become a prisoner of economic orthodoxy, obsessed with balancing the budget.

Indeed, Hoover does resemble Bush in a number of regrettable ways. He was stubborn and often myopic. He rejected counsel that did not accord with his misconceptions, and he deceived himself that conditions were far better than they were. He agreed to a massive federal program only after a long period of resistance, and he appointed men to administer it who had small sympathy for government intrusion into the private sector. He favored aid to financial institutions, but not to the victims of hard times."

"Still, it's unfortunate that commentators and politicians are employing "Hoover" as an epithet for inaction. ...

[I]ntellectual coherence is not the purpose of Shlaes's project. The real point is to recreate the political mythology of the period. It does not matter that Shlaes heaps scorn on Roosevelt for doing things that liberals also scorn. Anything that tarnishes his legacy, she seems to think, tarnishes liberalism by association...."
-snip-

The final unanswered question that must nag at the minds of the true believers is how the Depression managed to develop even before Roosevelt assumed office. After all, his bungling caused the economy to stall for years, yet the Depression was already more than three years old before Roosevelt even took office. Shlaes's answer is to implicate Hoover as a New Deal man himself.... This part of Shlaes's argument has generated enormous enthusiasm on the right. At last the cultural baggage of Roosevelt's predecessor--Hoovervilles, Hoover flags, and the like--has been lifted off the shoulders of conservatism and onto the real culprit, which is liberalism. Senator Kyl proclaimed on the Senate floor last fall that "in the excellent history of the Great Depression by Amity Shlaes, The Forgotten Man, we are reminded that Herbert Hoover was an interventionist, a protectionist, and a strong critic of markets."... There is indeed a revisionist scholarship that recasts Hoover as an energetic quasi-progressive rather than a stubborn reactionary. William Leuchtenburg... settles on a more traditional conclusion. Leuchtenburg shows that Hoover's history of activism consistently left him with the belief in the primacy of voluntarism and the private sector, a faith that left him unsuited to handle a catastrophe like the Depression.... Shlaes's attempt to equate Hoover's disdain for short-sellers and Roosevelt's regulation of the market presumes that there is no important difference between expressing disapproval for something and taking public action against it....

[N]ow we have come to a time when leading Republicans and conservatives--not just cranks, but the leadership of the party and the movement--once again sound exactly like Herbert Hoover. "Prosperity cannot be restored by raids upon the public Treasury," said President Hoover in 1930. "Our plan is rooted in the philosophy that we cannot borrow and spend our way back to prosperity," said House Minority Leader Boehner in 2009. They have come to this point by preferring theology to history, by wiping Hoover's record from their memories and replacing it with something very close to its opposite. It is Hoover, truly, who is the Forgotten Man.

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/03/jonathan-chait-on-new-deal-denialism.html

And, to be brief, those taxes that were raised (Revenue Act of 1932) were in response to the wholesale slashing of them that occured under Coolidge's watch (again, same Treasury Sec., Andrew Mellon)- an inarguably CONSERVATIVE policy. Which produced the predictable deficits. So, in the name of balancing the budget- again, CONSERVATIVE policy- the taxes were raised in 1932.

If you raise my taxes, or force me to participate in programs I disagree with, then it is an attack on my liberty.

First of all, you clearly have no appreciation of the word "liberty". It certainly does not mean "make me do something I don't want to", which is kind of your chief, and immature, complaint. WE ALL HAVE TO PARTICIPATE IN 'PROGRAMS' WE DON'T WANT TO. ALL OF US. From fifth graders doing homework to paying parking meters....having to do things we "disagree with" is a staple of LIFE. The absence of "liberty" exists when you have absolutely no say in the process (like participation in goverment, ability to vote) and no outlet for protest. Goverment programs that majorities, however they are construed, want and the according taxes levied to pay them are not "attacks." Grow up- and face up to the fact you are FAR from the only "educated" person here (and it's the "left" that keeps out-arguing you).

I'm sure Sotomayor could find a "feel" good reason to blame the folks that got beat up. She did such a great job screwing those firefighters.

Please read up on Herbert Hoover and his NOT SO Laissez-Faire way of doing this.

You are helping my example by proving that people do not spend other people's money responsibly.

Since our nation was created and based upon the concept of freedom and liberty, who am I to have these thoughts?

I don't care all the ways you think we should give up liberty for safety.

It's immoral for you or anyone else to initiate force upon me. I don't do it to you or anyone else.

Get these damn liberals off my property, and to stop treading on my rights.

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Unemployment Compensation does not exist because the courts created them. I said they were unconstitutional. You've provided no information that suggests otherwise.

The internet is provided to the public by the market,

If only Herbert Hoover had practiced non intervention and small government, maybe there never would have been a Depression.

Just look at the states that have the biggest budgets. They are in serious financial trouble. Money given to elected politicians is never spent as well as money you, yourself earned and want to spend.

But at least my political philosophy suggests that you and I are free to choose our own lives, while yours suggests I should be forced to participate in government programs I disagree with.

The Democrats have ran the house since 2006 and they've done absolutely nothing to stop it, despite complaining about it when it first began under Bush.

My point is that it's not a conservative action to throw ANY tax payer dollars to any foreign nation for any reason.

So then by your defintion John F. Kennedy, LBJ, Harry Truman and FDR were all conservatives then, since they all increased military spending by a huge degree launching wars.

He did cut some taxes, but his increased spending and growth of government are not conservative actions. It would have been fine for him to cut taxes if he had reduced government at the same time. This must be understood.

Obama voted to continue the Patriot act, and guantanamo is NOT closing.

No Child Left Behind" was cosponsored by TED KENNEDY, and it is NOT a conservative action to increase federal spending on education. It is a state issue. You are unfortunately confusing Republican with conservative.

That program caused prescription drug prices to skyrocket, and it involved BIGGER government, not small.

It doesn't add up to "liberal"/Yes it does.

It's not a coincidence that every state going bankrupt also has a state income tax.

This is false. The top five percent of America pays 65% of the taxes our government takes in.

Except for the part where our government CANNOT afford them.

Both SS and Medicare are going bankrupt.

You do realize we have to borrow money from China just to continue running our government, right?

I understand. You're all about America being the policemen of the world. Got ya. And you call yourself liberal?

You carefully say this, yet do not respond to any of the things I listed that Bush did that I label as liberal.

We cut spending, everywhere. We end our global empire. It's entirely possible. Just look at all the states who are going bankrupt. All of them have state income taxes. Reduce governmnt, reduce spending, give the power back to the people.

Why do I bother standing up for the Constitution when we have fools saying things like this? We should reduce our foreign policy spending and absolutely abolish Social Security and Medicare.

No it wouldn't. I don't blame the people who advertise. I blame the sheep who blindly follow the nominated candidates.

Do you know that just over ten percent of America votes in the primary season? That means that McCain and Obama were chosen by1/10th of our country. Then everyone rushes out in the general election to vote for someone that around five percent of our country selected. The problems with America are the blind people who vote and do not understand what they are doing.

Take out Sarah and put in Obama in this statement... and all you guys who think your experts elected someone just like what your talking about.

kinda makes you honestly wonder why they are so afraid of her.

you gotta give her credit with handling everything thats been thrown at her with the dignity that shes shown.............

nor has she attacked the ones attacking her

Bush pretty much acted like a liberal while in office. I've said this many times and no left wingers ever dispute it.

You have one person who's talking about getting rid of the income tax, cutting back on welfare, ending our ridiculous massive spending and cutting taxes in general, and on the other side you would have Obama who's talking about raising taxes, expanding government further and increasing spending. It would be a clear choice for America.

True change would have been to reduce government. Very few liberals understand this.

I think they flat out just blindly followed him.

The best thing the Republicans can do in 2012 is run on the "Real change is reducing government" slogan.

Not to mention Romney looks like every used car salesman I've ever seen in my life.

But its obvious that you are simply listing Beatle albums regardless of their merit.

The sales are 1 way of comparing popularity of a work of art. Others are merely subjective.

The Beatles were great to many Americans, however you can't find a wedding nor party in African American neighborhoods where "I want to hold your hand" was ever requested.

"My point here is that most Beatles hits lacked longevity and never crossed genres nor ethnic boundries in popularity. In a sense time will tell about many Jackson hits but after 40-10 years for many of those hits they are still popular. Again, the Beatles never made hits collectively nor induvidualy in FIVE DECADES. What the Beatles did was ground breaking for the fad of the times and actually they set some precedent. "

The Eagles Greatest hits" is barely the top selling album in the USA.

Bascically you've argued the Beatles and Dylan are much greater than Michael Jackson because you love and admire them more

You've conceeded that your standards are based upon your own subjective persceptions. To this there is no need to debate. Find a logical and acceptable standard for measurement outside of your own mindset and perhaps a debate can begin. Otherwise, popularity will have to be measured by sales and longevity to at least some degree.

No rock historian credits Elvis with the start of a genre that started at least a decade (possible 3 decades)before he picked up a microphone. Surely you do not wish to debate Rock history with me. This is an area which is not nearly as subjective as setting a standard for influence and/or popularity(actually comparing sales to popularity is a great indicator, which is why my previous argument was a slam dunk).

What about Bad, Off The Wall, Dangerous?

As for the guy angry over Thriller always being voted the best video ever, you have to understand that at the time he set the standard for videos. Before that people stood around and lip synched to their music. Other than Duran Duran, Michael was the only one truly creating a story with his videos. He made MTV what it was in the 80's and which it will obviously never be again. It became important to put out a great video to sell your song.

Name the "like 5 "thrillers".

In terms of what? What would you use as the criteria here? In terms of sheer volume of sales MJ wins hands down!

Your contintion that Dylan had more of an affect on culture has no merit. Prove it! Never have seen Dylans style of dress, dance copied by so many people.

....propaganda. The facts paint a different story.

Every time there is a ''greatest music videos of all time'' countdown,"Thriller" will always be number one. Because it led the way.

I was around for the birth of MTV. A big complaint was that they didn't play black artists. Michael broke down those racial barriers at MTV. He became THE biggest artist on MTV.

YES, whether you believe it or not....he IS as big as The Beatles and Elvis.

If it ain't mutual, keep looking. If you can't be alone this will be tough. If you're content with being single if you don't find what you want, this will be a walk in the park.

I also think many men when they hit thier 40's give up because they see more younger guys being better than them in the dating world. Women are not lookign thier age and it is fully acceptable for women to not act thier age.
Many men do not age good, just is genes many times and nothing they can do about it, and if a man acts younger than he is, women frown upon it. So in the end most of the good men are usually under 40.

Can you name even one American citizen President Bush wrongly named an enemy combatant or wrongly detained? If you can, please do.

Why would any U.S. official listen in on a phone call you or I made overseas? I don't believe the Patriot Act authorizes that except for calls to the U.S. made overseas by people there is good reason to believe are jihadists.

I'm no great admirer of President Bush, and he is very far from being a conservative.

Unprincipled and mediocre educators have--I believe intentionally--taught millions of people who live here contempt for dead white men and their thoughts.

People who call themselves progressive or liberal tend to have less faith in individual decisions,

The AMT isn't as complicated as it sounds. Congress just likes to make it sound complicated. It's basically a flat tax.

The "stimulus deal" is an economic fraud. Banks aren't lending more than they would without it, and that was supposed to be one of its major purposes. There's no accountability.

Sounds so much more dramatic--and damning--to say the U.S. has TWO WARS going on, than just to say it's waging war against Islamic jihadism in several theaters. But if you don't have facts for the jury, you can always try to snow them with hype instead.

What Mr. Obama and people like him believe in is centralizing power in the federal government, and that's what he's doing. These projects, if carried through, will make every American even more subject to central control.

Increasingly, in the ordinary things we do--take out loans, buy cars, use health services, etc., we will have less and less personal freedom.

Nowhere does the Constitution authorize a totalitarian, redistributionist United States.

Labor is a commodity, just like new plant, materials, or machinery.

And where there are more qualified workers than jobs, especially if these workers have no special skills, their wages will be low.

I actually do believe that unions can help some individuals... better pay, and benefits... But it makes it unfair for others. It is kind of selfish.... I don't know about all unions.... and I'm sure like I have said before... there can be some that are good for the employee... and don't effect others.

1) Certain expiring benefits in the tax code that the current administration is letting expire.

Anyway.... Just because I don't agree with you, don't think I'm not listening (reading) what you have to say and believe you have a right to say it. I just have the same right to disagree.

I find Olbermann and the rest over there so bias left, it's pathetic. I know Hannity is bias too. But I will say he speaks more my language than those on the left.

The Screenwriters, were talking about going on strike again... after over a year ago, striking and almost crippling Hollywood, and a lot of other markets that depended on Hollywood.

And I can't see how having anything forced on us is a good thing.

I prefer spending my money to the small guy that will give me what I pay for, rather than paying a big union bill of hidden costs. (Like dues, health benefits, and stuffing union bosses pockets) But thats me.

I'm sure there could be cases out there that a union really is a benefit....

But why on earth... would we want to make it mandatory to join unions?

If I went to work someplace and they had a union.... and I didn't want to join, and I knew I was giving up some perks for not paying a dues... That should be my right.... I shouldn't be fined or forced into joining anything.

Like they believe that the Republican party is in bed with the owners of companies, and don't care about the worker.

After spending an astounding $61 million to elect Democrats in the 2008 elections

Card Check strips American workers of the right to a secret ballot

Talk radio, is not journalism, it's infotainment.

Those countries touted by U.S. Socialists also do not spend much on their defense.

We ought to withdraw our troops from Europe and let them fend for themselves.

Corporate taxes in the U.S. are much higher than in other countries.

If people want higher taxes move to Sweden

that we are not taxed enough

Don't sit around here wasting your time trying to talk people here into being socialists....

We don't need to turn into any European Country.