Winston Churchill wisdom... Winston Churchill wisdom...
Bass Fishing Home PageTM    More Politics  
Boating Equip.
Guides
Tackle Shops
Fishing Acc.
Lodging


7-11-2013

Fishing Reports
BFHP Articles
Fishing News
Tournaments
Fishing Tactics
Places to Fish
Rods/Reels
Electronics
Boats/Motors
Boat Ramp Stories
Trailers/Towing
Props
Other Topics
Other Fishing Topics
Swap/Sell
Swap/Sell (no boats)
Props 4 Sale

Boats 4 Sale
Saltwater Fishing
Non-Fishing
Striped Bass
Lure Making
OBX Wildlife Photos
More Politics
Co-Anglers


More Politics

    Winston Churchill wisdom...
from Hutch #10968 #10968  
5/5/2012 11:54:41 PM

Rated:

 Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.
Winston Churchill


Hutch


Rate this message:
1 Star

2 Star

3 Star

4 Star

5 Star

   Brad did you get that from DaveT  5/6/2012 9:39:01 AM
 That was good thanks Hutch. Hutch you ever wonder where have all the Great leaders gone? Sure seems like we have a shortage of leaders now. Churchill was a GREAT leader.


   The real socialism in America... from Brad  5/6/2012 2:11:21 PM
 are all the corporations that take billions in taxpayer subsidies for doing NOTHING!


The real socialists are the ones who privatize the profits and use YOUR tax dollars to refill their coffers after committing the greatest transference of wealth in the history of the human race----> stock devaluation-----> TARP!


real socialism is when the largest and most profitable corporations are allowed to pass the cost of their externalities on to the taxpayer!


The day you royalty worshippers start to focus your angst against the real perps in this recession, is the day we can have reasonable dialogue on the subject...


have a nice day


   Certifiably insane..... from Hutch #10968 #10968  5/6/2012 2:20:57 PM
 That he would demean the greatest country in the history of the world is not only insane....... when he and others like him join together..... it is DANGEROUS....... Hutch


   shaking my head in disbelief.......... from RJR  5/6/2012 5:09:45 PM
 .


   And you expected what??? from Ppen  5/6/2012 6:03:25 PM
 .


   Not really expecting anything from Hutch #10968 #10968  5/6/2012 7:39:42 PM
 Really just waiting for our country to crash or go socialist as France did with the election of a Socialist president which now puts about 2/3 of that entire country under ELECTED socialist control..... THAT is really what I expect.... cause talking isn't gonna change anything.... Hutch


   Boy If there was only no corporations from Bender, MS Gulf Coast  5/6/2012 10:08:04 PM
  Then Brad would not have a computer. Hmmmm.... Or a Job and for that matter......... a Union.

Edited 5/6/2012 10:08:59 PM


   Partially right, Brad from Jeff Hahn  5/6/2012 11:23:43 PM
 Brad: You are partially correct. It is indeed socialism when the government hands out taxpayer dollars to corporations. Both parties are GUILTY of this sin. And, both parties are way too easy on corporations and their top level honchos who not only had conflicts of interests, but also engaged in outright fraud...such as Lehman Brothers.


However, your man in the White House had a choice to make a couple years back and he decided to hand out our money to the big companies who got us in this mess AND did it with NO STRINGS attached. Instead he wanted to save his political capital to ram his version of medical care down our throats. Thus, leaving the US ripe for a future financial debacle.


The success of a corporation should NOT be how closely it is tied to government, but how well it meets the needs of its customers. Under those circumstances, it should be free to make as much profit as the free market will allow.


Brad, if a company can not pass along its costs to consumers, how in the heck do you think it can continue to exist? Sheesh, you're even more clueless than I thought!


Jeff Hahn


   Who is representing the people as opposed to the corperation? from Brad  5/7/2012 7:43:10 AM
  WASHINGTON — The Senate on Tuesday blocked a Democratic proposal to strip the five leading oil companies of tax breaks that backers of the measure said were unfairly padding industry profits while consumers were struggling with high gas prices.


Despite falling eight votes short of the 60 needed to move ahead with the bill, top Democrats said they would insist that eliminating the tax breaks to generate billions of dollars in revenue must be part of any future agreement to raise the federal debt limit.


“We have to stand up and say, ‘Enough is enough,’ ” said Senator Al Franken, Democrat of Minnesota. “While oil prices are gouging the pocketbooks of American families, these companies are on a pace for a record profit this year.”


The defeat on Tuesday was expected since most Republicans were dug in against what they saw as a politically motivated plan in advance of the 2012 elections. Democrats had hoped that directing the savings toward the deficit would make it harder for Republicans to reject it.


In the 52-to-48 vote, 3 Democrats joined 45 Republicans in opposing the bill, which was supported by the Obama administration and fiscal watchdog groups that saw the tax help for the oil industry as wasteful. Forty-eight Democrats, two independents and two Republicans backed it.


Energy-state Democrats criticized the initiative, saying it was misdirected and would do nothing to ease gasoline prices and could cost American jobs.


“Why are we harming an industry — five large oil and gas companies that work internationally, that employ 9.2 million people in the United States directly?” asked Senator Mary L. Landrieu, Democrat of Louisiana. “Why are we doing it?”


Republicans, who on Wednesday will push their own plan to open more areas to oil drilling and speed government permits, said the Democratic proposal would contribute to higher prices and increase dependence on foreign oil even though a recent Congressional Research Service report predicted any impact on prices would be negligible.


“Clearly, this is not a serious effort to address the price of gas at the pump,” said Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader.


Under the proposal, Democrats would have eliminated five different tax breaks enjoyed by the multinational oil companies, producing an estimated $21 billion over 10 years.


More than $12 billion would have come from eliminating a domestic manufacturing tax deduction for the big oil companies, and $6 billion would have been generated by ending their deductions for taxes paid to foreign governments. Critics suggest that the companies have been able to disguise what should be foreign royalty payments as taxes to reduce their tax liability. The bill would also deny the companies the ability to deduct some intangible drilling and development costs.


The bill would have applied to BP, Exxon Mobil, Shell, Chevron and ConocoPhillips.


The White House lent strong support to the effort though the president in the past has recommended applying revenue generated by ending the tax breaks to the development of alternative energy sources.


Senator Harry Reid, the Nevada Democrat and majority leader, portrayed the vote as one that revealed the values of Republicans.


“Instead of defending oil companies, Republicans should be defending the American taxpayer,” Mr. Reid said. “We believe this is the kind of wasteful spending that will lead to an agreement on reducing the debt.”


While most Republicans have opposed eliminating the tax breaks as a back-door tax increase, some, including Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio and Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, the Budget Committee chairman, have indicated a willingness to consider the idea.


Also on Tuesday, Senate Democrats wrote to the Federal Trade Commission seeking an inquiry into whether domestic oil refiners had reduced production to drive down the gasoline supply and drive up prices. “This is just another piece of the puzzle that we need to get at as we try to take away taxpayer subsidies to Big Oil and hold Big Oil accountable for whatever may be going on in the supply chain that is hurting the families that I work for,” said Senator Claire McCaskill, Democrat of Missouri.


**********************************************************


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/18/us/politics/18congress.html


**********************************************************


Here
yet another example of your party PANDERING to corporations rather than representing PEOPLE!


Jeff, please tell us how giving the most profitable corporations on earth billions of tax dollars is going to improve the economy or reduce the deficit????



   Brad: Here's your answer from Jeff Hahn  5/7/2012 10:09:08 AM
 "The White House lent strong support to the effort though the president in the past has recommended applying revenue generated by ending the tax breaks to the development of alternative energy sources."


There's your answer. The Dems wanted to end the tax breaks, but they refused to compromise with the Republicans and allow more oil drilling. The Prez has done everything he can (intentionally or unintentionally) to prop up the price of oil (and indirectly the high prices we now pay) because he has refused to allow additional drilling in areas that hold oil. Instead, he and his cronies want all of us to suffer with high gas prices to make alternative source more price competitive.Se. it's real simple. Anyone who has taken ECON 100 should know that when demand exceeds supply, the price goes up. By not allowing the additional drilling, the Prez is artificially restricting the supply of oil, thus increasing the price of oil at the expense of consumers. If, on the other hand, the Prez would allow this additional drilling and the supply of oil increased, the price would come down, but then his alternative energy sources would not be price competitive. So, his conclusion is "SCREW THE CONSUMER!"


Just like with healthcare, he wants to shove his agenda down our throat, because, after all, liberals know best. He and his party's contempt for the American consumer knows no bounds.


Jeff Hahn


   Bwad, can you and ... from Funky  5/7/2012 12:11:55 PM
 Stuart Smalley explain to me exactly how raising taxes on oil companies will cut gas prices? I won't argue their profits are out of hand, but if you think by raising their taxes they are going to cut prices, I have a bridge I'd like to talk to you about.


It's not about doing something for the consumer like cutting prices... it's only about getting more tax revenues!


Crack Whores!


   A reminder..... from Hutch #10968 #10968  5/7/2012 3:13:33 PM
 When you make remarks that Democrats and Republicans are equally to blame.... that is a victory for the current Secular, Socialist based Democratic party. That is working quite well for them in fact..... Because anytime they can have people openly making such comments they are able to say "See the Republicans are just as bad as anyone" and that just IS NOT TRUE. Never , ever lose site of the fact that the core of the current Democratic party has a goal of bringing this country to it's knees....before you make off the cuff remarks about a party that is still deeply rooted in God and Family and Country. We all know there are bad eggs in every segment of society...but to equate the Democratic party with the Republican party is just giving the socialists a deeper foothold..... and Lord knows they don't need any more help..... as they now control the "mind shaping" of our citizens from birth to the grave.... and have for several years now....... If you don't know that then you are wearing blinders....It is no longer a Republican vs Democrat thing........ it is a matter of Honest, God Fearing people fighting for the survival of their country. Hutch


   Make up your mind Hutch from Funky  5/7/2012 3:53:05 PM
 First you have me siding with the "Socialist based Democratic party" and then you say it's "It is no longer a Republican vs Democrat thing"!


I never said the oil companies profit are because of the Republicans. Au contraire, the only reason for high prices and record profits is, as Jeff says, lack of supply, and that is being controlled and hindered mostly by the Democrats. I'm not sure the current players are interested in increasing supply. But you can rest assured if the opportunity arises and they do not, someone else will.


Supply and Demand.... it's not a Republican scam, it's the LAW!


   Lol Funky from Hutch #10968 #10968  5/7/2012 4:05:24 PM
 I have just noticed that there seems to have been too many instances of those broad sweeping statements about "Democrats and Republicans are equally to blame" Those kinds of statments just give the Secular, Socialist Democrats a stronger "nah, nah, nah" foothold and we surely need to concentrate our efforts on the true battle we are waging against a Democratic party that has become a true enemy of our country...... and pull together as the conservative arm of the REPUBLICAN party to try to stop this insanity..... That is our only possible salvation.....cause any independent effort is doomed to failure..... We have simply got to start showing more strength as a unified conservative party......EVERY CHANCE WE GET........... Hutch


   Brad if your Dem party wanted to cut the from DaveT  5/7/2012 7:52:18 PM
 tax breaks that the oil companies get. Why didn't they do it back when they had complete control for 2 years when Obama got elected. Your party sure crammed the health-care bill that most of America didn't want down our throats. Like Funky said above how do you think raising taxes on the oil companies is going to lower the price we pay at the pump.


   Hutch from Jeff Hahn  5/8/2012 12:33:32 AM
 Hutch: I may sometimes ay that both parties are to blame for a given problem. But, I gotta call'em as I see'm. Usually, however, each party is to blame, but for very different reasons.


The current economic mess, caused by the collapse of the housing market, is a great example. Yes, Barney Frank and the Dems demanded that lending institutions make loans to low income folks who otherwise would not have qualified for a mortgage. However, the Republicans repealed several previous laws that allowed large financial institutions to buy up smaller banks, expand across state lines, and become both commercial AND investment banks. The Republicans measures created larger, but fewer banks, while the Dems forced those banks to make risky loans. The result was a perfect storm. (This is only a nutshell version of the changes that took place and there were many others, each of which created conflicts of interest that fueled the eventual collapse.) Financial institutions thus became too big to fail and, when they did, we had no choice but to bail them out or watch our whole financial system collapse, much worse than it did. So, yes both parties are to blame, but for very different reasons.


And, many of those who are listed as Republicans are RINO's. And, others who are diehard conservatives favor big government, but in a different form than the Dems. Dems want big government to redistribute wealth while many who are Republicans want to big government to stick it's nose into people's personal business and morals.


I value, above all other civil virtues, personal freedom...the ability of individual's to choose their own course of action among the alternatives available to them. Government, unlike any other entity, has the ability to use coercion to force citizens to obey. Thus, government, by its very nature, restricts individual freedom of choice. Therefore, it must be limited in what it can regulate.


So, I don't like big government, no matter what form it takes. Although I am a registered Republican, in philosophy, I am much closer to a Libertarian who favors a government limited to only serving the basic functions of government...providing national defense, maintaining internal law and order, acting as an economic umpire to keep the road open for free enterprise and competition, doing public works (those things that are in no one's particular interest, but in the interest of society...roads, bridges, flood control, and maintaining a clean environment), and caring for those unable (not unwilling) to care for themselves.


To me, any function of government beyond these is an unnecessary restriction on individual freedom of choice. So, I often blame both parties for venturing beyond these basic functions. But, each party does so in very different ways. And, so, in my book, each party has no claim to moral superiority, as each has its own very different sins. To say one is worse is like comparing apples and oranges. To me, however, the sins of the Dems are much more obvious and more immediately destructive of freedom, especially since they assume that they know best and that most individuals are too stupid to see that they are "right." Therefore, the public must be forced to do what the intellectual liberals define and the "right" thing. But, in the long run, the sins of Republicans can be as
destructive to personal freedom, but they sneak in through the backdoor.


Jeff Hahn


   All you have to do is look at Europe from Hutch #10968 #10968  5/8/2012 1:04:44 AM
 And you will see the result of Socialist based economies... To compare conservative Republicans to Liberal Democrats snd to try to met out blame when the survival of our country is in danger of collapsing is frivilous, because you are indeed comparing apples and oranges as there is no longer a "noble" Democratic party to align with to do the correct thing.... and yet....... the core of the Republican Party is still composed of Honest, God Fearing, Family based, people who love their country. It is no longer an exercise in playing the "blame game" as we are in a battle for our very existance...... and unless we come together in some coherent and strong, unified manner...... we are doomed. Over 50 percent of the people who voted in France voted for the socialist, and it is his intent to raise taxes on everyone and increase the tax on the wealthy to 75 percent. I simply do not buy the argument that when Bill Clinton established the new "red line" standards for Freddie and Fanny..... and the Democratic controlled house and senate later abused that priviledge INTENTIONALLY.... that whatever the Republicans could have mustered in the way of new Banking or Housing Loan legislation could not have changed jack squat..... The dance was already over...... and how would/could they have changed it......? They were no longer in power when the system was raped ..... But my biggest concern is that people who will compare a party whose only objective is to destroy our country and try to create another to a party that is OUR ONLY hope of getting out of this cesspool...... is folly and hopeless "perfect ideology" ..... Hutch


   nicely put Jeff from MikeF  5/8/2012 8:25:40 AM
 Both parties suck but the republicans suck a lot less.


For a free market to work all transactions must be between a willing seller and a willing buyer. Anything that restricts those transactions such as limiting supply or competition creates problem. So does creating artificial demand.


In a true free market no one could make excessive profits because someone else would enter that market segment and the competition would reduce the price.


What the liberals don't get is a lot of what they do creates the opportunity for some companies to exploit the restriction and profit from the interference. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and the only people profiting are the ones who get the paving contracts because they have friends in government.


   I agree, but from Jeff Hahn  5/8/2012 8:25:49 AM
 Hutch: No need to preach to me about the destructive nature of socialism. Socialism and personal freedom are diametrically opposed to each other. I hate socialism as much as you.


The Republican repeal of the several laws I mentioned occurred when they were in power and were doing favors for their friends on Wall Street. It was only later on when the Dems were in power and pushing their agenda that the storm clouds began to gather. And, when G.W. Bush took power the Republicans failed to push for repeal of the lax lending standards Clinton and Frank put in place. Heck, even Reagan failed to repeal the Community Reinvestment Act passed under Carter.


I agree with you regarding your statement that most Republicans are good people with a clearly defined sense of morality. However, in modern society, unlike in years past, there is no longer one moral code that is widely shared across our society. Various diverse groups have very different values about what's right and wrong, proper and improper, and desirable and undesirable conduct.


Yes, 100 years ago there was a widely shared set of values across America. But, the last great effort to assert that moral code on others who had different values was Prohibition. Prohibition was much more than just a fight to end the drinking of alcohol. It was a cultural war fought by rural, middle class, native born, Protestants against the urban, lower class, foreign born, Catholics to whom the drinking of alcohol was a central part of their culture. It was a cultural war, exactly like the kind called for in Pat Buchanan's speech at the Republican convention in 1992. That's the kind of approach to morality that I disagree with...forcing those with different beliefs to live by the moral code dictated by those who control government.


Yes, my personal sense of morality is very similar to conservative Republicans. But, we differ in one important respect. I do not believe that I have the right to impose my beliefs and sense of morality on anyone else. Dictating morality is not a proper function of government and to do so restricts the freedom of individuals with different notions of morality. A government powerful enough to do impose one group's morality on others is also powerful enough, when the reins are taken over by liberal Dems, to impose socialist economic measures.


Let me quote Milton Friedman:


"We have been forgetting the basic truth that the greatest threat to human freedom is the concentration of power, whether in the hands of government or anyone else. We have persuaded ourselves that it is safe to grant power, provided it is for good reasons. Fortunately, we are waking up. We are again recognizing the dangers of an overgoverned society, coming to understand that good objectives can be perverted by bad means, that reliance on the freedom of people to control their own lives in accordance with their own values is the surest way to achieve the full potential of a great society."


And, (paraphrasing because I can not find the direct quote at the moment): "Limiting the power of government to do good is a small price to pay for limiting the power of government to do evil, especially since one man's good is another man's evil."


So, I want no part of either form of big government. Instead, I want a government whose power is limited to the basic functions. The best form of government is one that governs least (paraphrasing Thomas Jefferson) and in all other regards lets people live their own lives as they see fit.


Jeff Hahn


   Jeff from Hutch #10968 #10968  5/8/2012 10:40:18 AM
  I agree with 99 percent of what you say.....but now is not the time to try to stir up some pissing match to try to establish some secondary "perfect ideology" points when it damages the efforts of those who offer the only way we have out of this cesspool..... and that is not really political..... so much as it is putting our efforts behind the last group with a chance to turn things around..... because of the beliefs of the majority of that party (Republicans) and there certainly aren't enough Ron Paul's around to make anything other than a divisive effort possible. I know..... I helped Bill Clinton get elected when I voted for Ross Perot. We could discuss minutiea at length....... but now is not the time to lend ANY help to the Democratic party by dishing up little tidbits of "anti Republican" rhetoric as that serves no constructive purpose that I can see other than to give the Democratic party more "talking points" that distracts from what MUST be done by us as a group if we are to regain any semblence of control over an impending train wreck. It is kinda like Bill Clinton taking credit for what a Republican Congress did for him...... but being used in reverse by the current Democratic Heirarchy Do you still have those reels .....? Lol Hutch

Edited 5/8/2012 10:42:21 AM

Edited 5/8/2012 10:45:46 AM


   Nope, sold them from Jeff Hahn  5/8/2012 3:45:24 PM
 Hutch:


I sold those two mint reels at a swap meet late in the winter.


Jeff Hahn


Name:

Password:

Can't remember your password? Click here!
State:
Email Address:

Users with subscriptions can attach pictures to their comments by using the form at http://www.wmi.org/newboard/upload_pictures/"

Subject:

Comments:


 

Advertising/Sponsor Information
Subscriptions
Register to post messages and reports

7-11-2013

Subscribers don't receive these ads


Fishing Reports
BFHP Articles
Fishing News
Upcoming Events
Rally Page
BFHP Surveys
Fishing Tactics
Places to Fish
Rods/Reels
Electronics
Other Topics
Product Evaluations

Boats/Motors
Boat Ramp Stories
Trailers & Towing
Boats For Sale
Tournament Tactics
Striped Bass

Swap/Sell
Clubs 
Fly Fishing
Hunting
Props
Fish4
Saltwater Fishing
Non-Fishing 2
Political Hook
Tall Tales, Fiction & Legend
Complete Listing of Boards
Copyright © WMI, Inc. 1995-2014. All rights reserved.
This message board created and maintained by: WebMasters International, Inc. (WMI) address mail to wmi@wmi.org

WMI disclaimer
Privacy Statement

Google