The Observation Deck

Valerie Molinski wrote:ALL of his programs and "solutions" are government centered.

That is pretty much a core belief of the democratic party. Not too long ago, the Republican party was against Big Government... and now, they are all up in every one's business all the time. Don't see the difference here. At least the Dems are up front about it instead of the sneaky way the Repubs get the govt involved in everything under the sun.

When the Democratic part supports statist solutions it remains true to its core beliefs. When the Republican party supports statist solutions it betrays those core beliefs.

The left wing of the Democratic Party is salivating at the prospect of one party rule. They see trillions of dollars in tax increases and the silent nationalism of key industries as the key to prosperity.

One of Obamas friends and advisers was a member of the Weatherman terrorist group, he bragged about setting bombs off at the Pentagon. If one of John McCains friends and advisors was Timothy Mcvay would you be a little concerned?

Obama is the Manchurian Candidate with only a couple of years of public exposure. What do you really know about him?

Neither party has statist or anti-statist core principles, or ever has in its history as a mainstream party. Those are political theory paradigms that are much newer than the United States of America.

Liberterianism is a fabrication given prestige by revisioning early Americans whose principle occupations were inheriting a lot of land and slaves from their parents or father-in-laws, yet still managed to live in a constant state of near bankruptcy and debt to british and scottish merchants.

Ron Paul at best can be described as simpleterian. There are no iPods in a simpleterian state: you just grow up on a small dairy farm or mill town and become a medical doctor, dairy farmer, or mill worker. If you become a medical doctor you have more time to wonder why there are no more small dairy farms or mill towns. you wonder why there are no soda jerks at the pharmacy, no jazz or dance bands to hire for a reasonable price, why there are so many car accidents, why the drinking age is 21, why every household needs at least two cars and two full time jobs, why everyone gets offered dozens of credit cards a year...

Obama is so far the least likely candidate to have been brainwashed by Communists for 5 years. His history isn't unknown, it is simply small time. it is all on wikipedia. He wasn't working for the government or military or high powered law firm that entire time. at least he wasn't a used car dealer.

I still want to know why Bill wants to live in a country run like Hong Kong. Other than them being rich, there is likely not one aspect of how Hong Kong is run that he would support if proposed over here in the US. Yet Bill lauds Hong Kong's methods over what he feels Obama will do to us if he gets elected.

So why laud Hong Kong when you clearly don't want government owning all the land, no military protection and nearly 50% government spending to address social and welfare needs of all citizens. Since hyperbole is the name of this thread (or implied by the title of this thread) am I to assume these are programs you would support if proposed by McCain if he wins the job? Just curious.

Phil

Hong Kong is a Continental Capital, and also a Global Capital. They assemble a lot of stuff from Asia then ship it to much larger markets. And they manufactured a lot of stuff. And people who had made money elsewhere can play it in the Hong Kong financial Markets.

It looked like there were also a lot of slums there in Enter the Dragon, but that was over thirty years ago.

In the future all cities will be Global Capitals.

Every City will import raw materials and manufactured components from all over, then assemble or process them and ship them to the entire global market.

It kind of defies mathematical reasoning. but somebody will innovate something. Innovation is great.

Phil Florian wrote:I still want to know why Bill wants to live in a country run like Hong Kong. Other than them being rich

[quote="Phil Florian"]

I never said I want to live in a country run like Hong Kong. I was just pointing out that Hong Kong became one of the worlds wealthiest cities with very little government.

Hong Kong was settled by refugees from China who came to the City with nothing more than the clothes on their backs and yet they were able to create a peaceful and prosperous nation. Are you even a little curious as to why?

Obama has called for trillions of dollars in tax increases to fund various hand out programs (something like George Bush's $150 billion rebate program only 100 times as big). I happen to think that type of policy would mean disaster for the country.

Do those types of programs work? See this about Italy:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/104595

Obama is the Manchurian Candidate. What do you really know about him?

Obama is the Manchurian Candidate

I thought his father was Kenyan...mother US. When did he spend time in China?

Jeff

Bill, I hear what you are saying about Hong Kong and the romantic vision of it but just because the Chinese government hasn't gotten their hand in the pie as much Hong Kong does have its own ruling government and from what I read about it a big part of their success is a) government owning ALL the land and leasing it out to its citizens and business interests and b) the fact they don't have to pay a ridiculous amount of their money to have a standing army. And the "lack of government" you speak of actively supports the largest percentage of "nanny-state" ideals with a nearly 50% of government revenues spent on social welfare. If McCain said "let's get rid of the Army and buy up all the land and then charge you rent" Conservative's heads would explode. When McCain follows up with "...and lets spend half our money on those in need" Limbaugh's eyes would shoot out of his head like an old Warner Brother's cartoon with "aoooga" horn sound effect and all.

Just sayin'. I don't get the example as it has no comparison to the US as it stands right now. Compare apples to apples at least. I hate taxation as much as the next guy but compare these "ideal" countries where taxation is at its lowest with those at its highest and I have to ask, what country would you want to live in?

High taxed countries include Finland, Denmark, Italy or the UK or in low tax countries like Mexico, Ghana or the Ukraine? Just curious.

I am not advocating for higher taxes so we can be like Finland any more than you want us to be like Mexico but I think the tax issue is blown out of proportion and while Obama would hardly say in the same words what you think he is advocating ("beggar nation") I doubt any plan such as this would survive the test of the administration ("No new taxes" anyone?).

And Ryan pointed out, only one candidate was in the hands of anyone related to Manchuria for any length of time.

Hong Kong prospered as a focal point of British colonial interests, then as a protectorate, now as a semi-autonomous city state prospering in its niche in the current state of globalism. It isn't a nation or half a nation: it is the East Asian version of the Cayman Islands.

Jeff Endress wrote:

Obama is the Manchurian Candidate

I thought his father was Kenyan...mother US. When did he spend time in China?

Jeff

Darn! I really liked that line.