Socialism cannot compete!

8 Stocks to Buy if McCain Wins

ChrisB:

Campaign promise? Ha...ur sooo hilarious. Nice misread too: Dems are appeasing pacifists...don't take control of situations the way they should, which leads to bigger problems down the road...ala my assertion that they will let our security weaken until we are once again in *reactive* mode, instead of standing firm as Reagan did. Notable recent examples include Bill Clinton not taking bin Laden when he had the chance, his failure to respond properly to the *original* WTC bombing attempt, the U.S.S. Cole attack, etc. -- we knew of al Qaeda back then, as well as other terrorist groups and state-sponsored plots...Clinton failed to act. 9/11 was the result.

Russia and WW1: Nice try. Noone is debating what started WW1. The Russians paid a Serb to take out Franz Ferdinand. Alliances were not the cause - and you can hardly call it a local skirmish when Russia instigates war with the Austro-Hungarian empire! The use of smaller pawns in the "network" was merely an attempt to hide guilt for inception of the war. And yes, it is worth fighting for the freedom of small nations who cannot defend that right against a larger aggressor. Funny how liberals want globalism and diversity when its warm fuzzies, but don't want to put out when necessary!!

Obama's tax cut: I've heard his plan, and there's a fundamental problem with redistribution of wealth. It's socialism. Disincentivization for trying to get ahead. Socialism has utterly failed - the 20th century is enough proof of that! China will be next. It is a system for the lazy - when all get treated the same and there's no incentive to excel - that's what you get. In our case, many are becoming entitled and that is leading us on a reverse course toward socialism. Not good. Yes, borrow and spend is bad. Cut the damm spending already! Our government should be about 1/4th its present size, IMO.

Globalism: not so. Your unions love the ability to sell their products elsewhere. They just want it to cut only one way. Doesn't work like that and the Dems are now realizing their mistake. Furthermore, Dems have been terribly lax on border control and illegal alien labor -- what is that if not an underlying "globalism" that undermines the job security and wage levels of American workers???

Yeah...I heard about BS, FNM, FRE -- and no, I'm *not* pleased!! That much, it seems, we at least agree on. You can't privatize profits and socialize failure...that's akin to guaranteed trades with no losers - we'd all love that, but we know it can't be that way. Gotta own your mistakes and pay the price.


On Sep 11 09:21 AM Chris B wrote:

> Socialism,
>
> Good point about the uncertainty of a McCain war against Iran. So
> far that's only one of his campaign promises, and as we all know
> candidates often break campaign promises. Nonetheless, the year
> over year prices of commodities are pricing in the geopolitical risk
> of these threats. These high prices benefit many of McCain's contributors
> in the commodities industries, so perhaps if he can get away with
> inflating commodities prices through war-talk, he migh take that
> route.
>
> As for the probability that Obama would do the same, you say either
> party will attack Iran, but that Democrats are all appeasing pacifists.
> Well, which way is it? And are/were the dictator of Pakistan and
> the dictator of Saudi Arabia also fascist leaders of Muslim states?
>
>
> Russia:
> People are still arguing over exactly who or what started WW1, but
> the core reason was a network of alliances that made entire groups
> of nations responsible for fighting someone else's inevitable local
> ethnic skirmishes. The expansion of NATO forcefully argued for by
> McCain might make it necessary for American soldiers to die taking
> a side in some ethnic/tribal spat in someplace we've never heard
> of - such as Ossetia. Would you sign up to die in a war because
> some ethnic group X in Eurasia wants to dominate ethnic group Y?
> Is that really defending America?
>
> Other points:
> Obama's tax cut plan benefits the middle class more than McCain's.
> Research it. Also, if borrow-and-spend results in high inflation,
> isn't high inflation a cost just like taxation?
>
> Globalism and free trade treaties have always been argued for more
> strongly by Republicans than Democrats. Trust me, the UAW is not
> arguing for most-favored-nation status for China so Chery or Geely
> can dump cheap cars on our markets.
>
> The Republican Bush administration has in 8 year socialized several
> companies and industries, multiplying the federal payroll. Did you
> hear about Bear Sterns, Fannie & Freddie? The airport security industry?
> Did you hear the rhetoric and not the news?

8 Stocks to Buy if McCain Wins

ChrisB - you are a total farce: "what McCain will do is start wars." As if you know that? Go enjoy your career as a clairvoyant. If you were that omniscient you'd be running the Fed right now, not typing your ideological rhetoric! The cold war with Russia is Russia's doing...and Iran should expect an attack no matter who is president, if it develops nukes and does anything remotely resembling attempting to target with them.

Dems are staunchly pacifist no matter how determined our enemies are to attack us, even on our own soil. What Baraq *Hussein* Obama will do is attempt to appease fascist leaders of Muslim states...this is not clairvoyance on my part - he has already put his policy in action as shown by his willingness to meet Ahmadinejad without preconditions, and his willingness to publicly bash the U.S. while speaking in foreign lands (i.e. the Berlin speech). I fully expect an economic collapse after a repeat of 9-11 (albeit by another mode?) if Obama becomes president.

What will result in devaluation of the dollar is the ongoing debasing of the American economy, as espoused by Democratic policies which promote higher taxation, increased globalism yielding the exporting of skilled jobs abroad, and a failure to grasp that free-market economics are the best path to prosperity...not socialism!

Why Don't Earnings Matter Anymore?

einstein - the world will not eat *less*, but it may eat *differently*. meat requires 8x the crops to produce, than simply eating the crop itself. it's likely those with less disposable income will eat grains and greens and forego the meat...leading to lower demand for feed grains. it may become less profitable for farmers to buy potash when crop prices drop.

so...that's the theoretical possibility. i am still long POT, because i do not believe that would continue over the long haul...depends how long you are willing to wait.