Gore is Clinton's Legacy. Australian Paper said "most corrupt, vicious and lawless administration in American History"greenspun.com : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread
If unbiased overseas reporters percieve that the antics of the Gore campaign have "shown nothing but contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law, Abusing its power, intimidating critics and obstructing justice" the United States is in danger of losing our fredoms by action currently underway in the efforts to subvert the election in Florida as we read this.
The link is http://www.newaus.com.au/us164gore.html This is must reading. One problem is that many Democrats have been lulled into believing that the Democrat Party is the same as it was 10 or 20 years ago. It is not. The goals and objectives have changed drastically. Most of the Democrats would not support Mr. Gore if they knew what the true agenda of the party was. Look at the events that have happened since 1992. The prosperity is solely the result of a huge increase in the money supply. Instead of general inflation, the increase was diverted into the stock market. Now earnings are falling. Numereous stocks have dropped in value by 40 per cent or more. It is a rotating devestation from one market sector to another. There is no budget surplus. This is the big lie. The only thing that is growing is the National Debt and the Balance of trade deficit at approximately one $Billion per day.
The Germans believed that Hitler would save them too and look what happened. The Democrat motto is Divide the people, get them argueing about minor issues and take over the country. It is happening. People are more interested in the football scores than what is happening to our freedoms and our country. If a person in Australia can see what is happening, why can the Al Gore supporters not see it?
Please ignore the following posts by the idiot factor who think that the Democrat Party is the greatest thing to happen to this country since ice cream. They are trying to keep you asleep. Look at the Gore supporters. Some of them can not even read the ballot and then they complain later that they voted for the wrong person. You might want to print the attached article and see if it comes true if Mr. Gore wins the battle in Florida.
-- Jim Smith (Smithy@amazed.wow), November 19, 2000
I'm tickled at comparisons between this nation and Nazi Germany. There are some key differences.
Our president's power is strictly limited by the Constitution. The power granted a German leader in the 1920's and 30's was considerably broader. The story of how Hitler came to absolute power includes duping the military, snowing poor Hindenburg (who was half-senile by that time, anyway) into appointing him Chancellor and finally, burning the Reichstag (well ... Goering did that[g]) so that he could declare a national emergency and rule by decree.
But nonetheless, Hitler couldn't have taken power if the people hadn't let him. You should take the time to learn WHY they let him do so, and you'll see that the situation in Germany was far worse than any scenario that you could contrive for us here.
Germany's humiliation after WWI was a key factor; the people were bitter and were itching for revenge. Anti-semitism was MUCH stronger there than here. The communist party had achieved some power, which terrified the rich industrialists; they were willing to get rid of them at any cost. Finally, the depth of the depression in Germany at that time makes our Great Depression pale into a minor recession. The average Joe had long sinced passed the "upset" stage and was ripe for revolution.
Even if our stock market were to collapse into a pile of rubble tomorrow, it wouldn't get that bad here.
Finally, as a Bush supporter, I have to say this. I voted for Bush. I want him to win. I also think that Gore is a spoiled brat who's trying to steal an election that's not his to have. But I really am tired of all the gibberish about how "dangerous" Gore is, and comparing him to Hitler goes beyond rational into the absurd.
-- Stephen M. Poole (email@example.com), November 19, 2000.
Stephen you raise some good points. Perhaps the comparison to Hitler was a little extreme but the point was that if people are living payday to payday, they vote their pocketbook and do not even try to understand the long term objectives of the candidate. You also stated that it could not be that bad here as in Germany. Maybe or maybe not. Now there is a 6 trillion dollar debt and a huge balance of trade deficit of almost $1Billion per day and the good paying manufacturing jobs have been shipped overseas. A big market decline, margin calls, unemployment, loan defaults, derrivitives crashing causing bank failures, massive bankruptcies and repossessions, more unemployment etc. could lead to a breakdown that could take several years to resolve. The term is cascading cross defaults and the general public is clueless that this is even a possibility. Even with low debt levels in the 1930s, the thing that ended the depression was not Roosevelts policies which had been trying for 7 years but WORLD WAR II. That is the scary part.
-- Jim Smith (Smithy@amazed.wow), November 20, 2000.
Sure, and let me clarify: when I said "it wouldn't get that bad here," I referred to the actions of the American people, not necessarily to the state of the economy. Yeah, if the stock market collapsed totally, it would be VERY bad economically. It would certainly bring another depression.
Maybe I have more faith in the American people. In the Great Depression, in spite of a great deal of misery, there was no move toward outright communism (and the communist party in the USA certainly tried to exploit that misery to gain power).
(Of course, Roosevelt's opponents argued that HE was a "closet socialist," but that's a different discussion.[g])
I think there are more recent examples. Hurricane Floyd in NC, for example, caused terrible destruction and suffering, but in general, people helped one another. Those who had shared with those who didn't.
Besides, I think it's unlikely that the stock market could crash as far as postulated, so it's probably a moot point. Technology stocks are taking their usual roller-coaster ride right now, but that's been happening for years. :)
The big problem in 1929 was that the stock market was inflated with purchases made on credit. Today's yuppies may be flat-brained airheads, but even THEY have enough sense not to mortgage the family estate to buy Amazon.com.
(Well ... MOST of 'em, anyway.[g])
-- Stephen M. Poole (firstname.lastname@example.org), November 20, 2000.
You two seem intelligent. Surely you realize we are in the largest credit bubble in history. A lot (most) of that money has entered the stock market. So, it follows reason to assume the market has a lot of borrowed money in it.
Speculators (not investors) will always gamble the farm, whatever the economy or market's position at the time.
It took two years for the "crash of 1929" to bottom. There will be plenty of time for people to lose their savings in a bear market. A crash is unlikely. There is too much manipulation in the market. The plunge protection team comes to mind. The manipulation of commodities prices, especially gold and silver, is rather obvious to open eyes.
A large devaluation of the dollar is a more likely scenario. This would be just like a crash to most Americans, that have no money in the stock market, living payday to payday as you mentioned.
The people are now divided right down the middle, left and right, with some fringes hanging around. I don't think they will become the "brown shirts", Gestapo, SS, or anything else resembling that era.
What we may get, is a very exaggerated repeat of the sixties' demonstrations. People on both sides will try to outdo the other, which is dangerous. As bad as the protests of the sixties were, there was only one side protesting. The problem arises when there are two opposing opinions in equal numbers trying to be the loudest.
-- TDA (email@example.com), November 20, 2000.
I think that a large portion of the "bubble" isn't from credit, it's from disposable income. The growing economy begets more disposable income, which is then invested back into the market, fueling more growth. Yuppies and Tinkers are buying into mutual funds (directly or indirectly) at an unprecedented level; these FUNDS made the decision to go heavily into the stock market (particularly in tech stocks, after seeing what happened to Microsoft!) back in the early 90's, fueling the current "bubble."
Someone who's better at understanding the markets could probably tell me when this started and what thing(s) set it off. I have my own suspicions: the Republican Congress was a big plus, as was Clinton's decision not to tamper with the Fed. His support of NAFTA is also in his favor (NAFTA could have been better-written, but overall, it has benefited the economy).
I'd have to see some hard figures to convince me otherwise. What I have seen leads me to believe that there is NOWHERE near the speculative, on-credit buying that marked the 1920's. Sure, some of the current "bubble" IS speculative buyers working on credit. Not all gamblers go to Vegas or Atlantic City, after all, and not all play Black Jack. :)
Actually, what I get from discussions like this is that some people are just nervous. When the economy's bad, they moan about how hard it is to pay the bills. When it's good, they moan about the fact that it could TURN bad at any moment. :)
There's just no satisfying some people. :)
-- Stephen M. Poole (firstname.lastname@example.org), November 20, 2000.