Has Goldman fatally damaged their Franchise?

[Aecetia]

Finally something Brian and I agree on: I would rather be rich than poor, too. Not Gates rich with security guards, comfortable rich, so I can pay vet bills, etc. If we need anything it is government health care for pets.

[briansd1]

Allan, by revolutionaries, I was talking about Castro and Mao who started out well-intentioned.

You cannot overturn the existing order and have prosperity at the same time.

With the American Revolution, there was rampant poverty brought on by war.

On FDR, I thought that the right sees him as a tyrant who did more harm than good?

FDR was able to achieve far-reaching social progress because the country had already sunk to a low in the Great Depression, and there was public support for his programs. And that’s why FDR was reelected 4 times.

Right now, while there is anger at Wall Street, the average American is not terribly suffering and not demanding “revolutionary” changes in the financial industry.

Even the Tea Party (the most angry of all) is no focused on “revolutionary” financial reform.

That’s my read of the politics.

[briansd1]

Allan, by revolutionaries, I was talking about Castro and Mao who started out well-intentioned.

You cannot overturn the existing order and have prosperity at the same time.

With the American Revolution, there was rampant poverty brought on by war.

On FDR, I thought that the right sees him as a tyrant who did more harm than good?

FDR was able to achieve far-reaching social progress because the country had already sunk to a low in the Great Depression, and there was public support for his programs. And that’s why FDR was reelected 4 times.

Right now, while there is anger at Wall Street, the average American is not terribly suffering and not demanding “revolutionary” changes in the financial industry.

Even the Tea Party (the most angry of all) is no focused on “revolutionary” financial reform.

That’s my read of the politics.

[briansd1]

Allan, by revolutionaries, I was talking about Castro and Mao who started out well-intentioned.

You cannot overturn the existing order and have prosperity at the same time.

With the American Revolution, there was rampant poverty brought on by war.

On FDR, I thought that the right sees him as a tyrant who did more harm than good?

FDR was able to achieve far-reaching social progress because the country had already sunk to a low in the Great Depression, and there was public support for his programs. And that’s why FDR was reelected 4 times.

Right now, while there is anger at Wall Street, the average American is not terribly suffering and not demanding “revolutionary” changes in the financial industry.

Even the Tea Party (the most angry of all) is no focused on “revolutionary” financial reform.

That’s my read of the politics.

[briansd1]

Allan, by revolutionaries, I was talking about Castro and Mao who started out well-intentioned.

You cannot overturn the existing order and have prosperity at the same time.

With the American Revolution, there was rampant poverty brought on by war.

On FDR, I thought that the right sees him as a tyrant who did more harm than good?

FDR was able to achieve far-reaching social progress because the country had already sunk to a low in the Great Depression, and there was public support for his programs. And that’s why FDR was reelected 4 times.

Right now, while there is anger at Wall Street, the average American is not terribly suffering and not demanding “revolutionary” changes in the financial industry.

Even the Tea Party (the most angry of all) is no focused on “revolutionary” financial reform.

That’s my read of the politics.

[briansd1]

Allan, by revolutionaries, I was talking about Castro and Mao who started out well-intentioned.

You cannot overturn the existing order and have prosperity at the same time.

With the American Revolution, there was rampant poverty brought on by war.

On FDR, I thought that the right sees him as a tyrant who did more harm than good?

FDR was able to achieve far-reaching social progress because the country had already sunk to a low in the Great Depression, and there was public support for his programs. And that’s why FDR was reelected 4 times.

Right now, while there is anger at Wall Street, the average American is not terribly suffering and not demanding “revolutionary” changes in the financial industry.

Even the Tea Party (the most angry of all) is no focused on “revolutionary” financial reform.

That’s my read of the politics.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]Allan, by revolutionaries, I was talking about Castro and Mao who started out well-intentioned.

You cannot overturn the existing order and have prosperity at the same time.

With the American Revolution, there was rampant poverty brought on by war.

On FDR, I thought that the right sees him as a tyrant who did more harm than good?

FDR was able to achieve far-reaching social progress because the country had already sunk to a low in the Great Depression, and there was public support for his programs. And that’s why FDR was reelected 4 times.

Right now, while there is anger at Wall Street, the average American is not terribly suffering and not demanding “revolutionary” changes in the financial industry.

Even the Tea Party (the most angry of all) is no focused on “revolutionary” financial reform.

That’s my read of the politics.[/quote]

Brian: You really aren’t a Progressive at all, are you? You pay lip service to the idea and its ideals, but what you’re offering is mere pablum.

So you know, your choices aren’t the status quo ante or Fulgencio Batista getting tossed on his keester. Nope. We live in a country where one can, through legislation, change things. You can even effect fairly sweeping change without revolution. Why, you can even elect a black man (!) president without a shot being fired.

Now, I’m sure all the chicks dig your Progressive line and feel that your well meaning polemic is truly sincere, but I think its time you come clean here, Brian, and admit that you really don’t believe most of the rhetoric you’re spouting.

Its okay. I’m a dude, too. I get it. Women like a winner, especially a sensitive, Leftist, “its for the children” kinda guy.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]Allan, by revolutionaries, I was talking about Castro and Mao who started out well-intentioned.

You cannot overturn the existing order and have prosperity at the same time.

With the American Revolution, there was rampant poverty brought on by war.

On FDR, I thought that the right sees him as a tyrant who did more harm than good?

FDR was able to achieve far-reaching social progress because the country had already sunk to a low in the Great Depression, and there was public support for his programs. And that’s why FDR was reelected 4 times.

Right now, while there is anger at Wall Street, the average American is not terribly suffering and not demanding “revolutionary” changes in the financial industry.

Even the Tea Party (the most angry of all) is no focused on “revolutionary” financial reform.

That’s my read of the politics.[/quote]

Brian: You really aren’t a Progressive at all, are you? You pay lip service to the idea and its ideals, but what you’re offering is mere pablum.

So you know, your choices aren’t the status quo ante or Fulgencio Batista getting tossed on his keester. Nope. We live in a country where one can, through legislation, change things. You can even effect fairly sweeping change without revolution. Why, you can even elect a black man (!) president without a shot being fired.

Now, I’m sure all the chicks dig your Progressive line and feel that your well meaning polemic is truly sincere, but I think its time you come clean here, Brian, and admit that you really don’t believe most of the rhetoric you’re spouting.

Its okay. I’m a dude, too. I get it. Women like a winner, especially a sensitive, Leftist, “its for the children” kinda guy.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]Allan, by revolutionaries, I was talking about Castro and Mao who started out well-intentioned.

You cannot overturn the existing order and have prosperity at the same time.

With the American Revolution, there was rampant poverty brought on by war.

On FDR, I thought that the right sees him as a tyrant who did more harm than good?

FDR was able to achieve far-reaching social progress because the country had already sunk to a low in the Great Depression, and there was public support for his programs. And that’s why FDR was reelected 4 times.

Right now, while there is anger at Wall Street, the average American is not terribly suffering and not demanding “revolutionary” changes in the financial industry.

Even the Tea Party (the most angry of all) is no focused on “revolutionary” financial reform.

That’s my read of the politics.[/quote]

Brian: You really aren’t a Progressive at all, are you? You pay lip service to the idea and its ideals, but what you’re offering is mere pablum.

So you know, your choices aren’t the status quo ante or Fulgencio Batista getting tossed on his keester. Nope. We live in a country where one can, through legislation, change things. You can even effect fairly sweeping change without revolution. Why, you can even elect a black man (!) president without a shot being fired.

Now, I’m sure all the chicks dig your Progressive line and feel that your well meaning polemic is truly sincere, but I think its time you come clean here, Brian, and admit that you really don’t believe most of the rhetoric you’re spouting.

Its okay. I’m a dude, too. I get it. Women like a winner, especially a sensitive, Leftist, “its for the children” kinda guy.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]Allan, by revolutionaries, I was talking about Castro and Mao who started out well-intentioned.

You cannot overturn the existing order and have prosperity at the same time.

With the American Revolution, there was rampant poverty brought on by war.

On FDR, I thought that the right sees him as a tyrant who did more harm than good?

FDR was able to achieve far-reaching social progress because the country had already sunk to a low in the Great Depression, and there was public support for his programs. And that’s why FDR was reelected 4 times.

Right now, while there is anger at Wall Street, the average American is not terribly suffering and not demanding “revolutionary” changes in the financial industry.

Even the Tea Party (the most angry of all) is no focused on “revolutionary” financial reform.

That’s my read of the politics.[/quote]

Brian: You really aren’t a Progressive at all, are you? You pay lip service to the idea and its ideals, but what you’re offering is mere pablum.

So you know, your choices aren’t the status quo ante or Fulgencio Batista getting tossed on his keester. Nope. We live in a country where one can, through legislation, change things. You can even effect fairly sweeping change without revolution. Why, you can even elect a black man (!) president without a shot being fired.

Now, I’m sure all the chicks dig your Progressive line and feel that your well meaning polemic is truly sincere, but I think its time you come clean here, Brian, and admit that you really don’t believe most of the rhetoric you’re spouting.

Its okay. I’m a dude, too. I get it. Women like a winner, especially a sensitive, Leftist, “its for the children” kinda guy.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]Allan, by revolutionaries, I was talking about Castro and Mao who started out well-intentioned.

You cannot overturn the existing order and have prosperity at the same time.

With the American Revolution, there was rampant poverty brought on by war.

On FDR, I thought that the right sees him as a tyrant who did more harm than good?

FDR was able to achieve far-reaching social progress because the country had already sunk to a low in the Great Depression, and there was public support for his programs. And that’s why FDR was reelected 4 times.

Right now, while there is anger at Wall Street, the average American is not terribly suffering and not demanding “revolutionary” changes in the financial industry.

Even the Tea Party (the most angry of all) is no focused on “revolutionary” financial reform.

That’s my read of the politics.[/quote]

Brian: You really aren’t a Progressive at all, are you? You pay lip service to the idea and its ideals, but what you’re offering is mere pablum.

So you know, your choices aren’t the status quo ante or Fulgencio Batista getting tossed on his keester. Nope. We live in a country where one can, through legislation, change things. You can even effect fairly sweeping change without revolution. Why, you can even elect a black man (!) president without a shot being fired.

Now, I’m sure all the chicks dig your Progressive line and feel that your well meaning polemic is truly sincere, but I think its time you come clean here, Brian, and admit that you really don’t believe most of the rhetoric you’re spouting.

Its okay. I’m a dude, too. I get it. Women like a winner, especially a sensitive, Leftist, “its for the children” kinda guy.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]Allan, by revolutionaries, I was talking about Castro and Mao who started out well-intentioned.

[/quote]

So, Castro and Mao were “romantic revolutionaries”? Wow. Communism killed nearly 100MM people and you find these two “romantic”?

How about Che? Was he romantic, too? I mean, do you have a thing for murderous Stalinists?

My point here is this: You’re more than comfortable glossing over those things you’d rather not confront and demonizing America for all sorts of ills throughout the world, but you find those who are truly despicable and reprehensible, romantic.

Mao and Castro did NOT start off with the “right” idea, dude. They worked off of a game plan that has caused more human misery than any in history. For someone so willing to call foul on organized religion(s) for the same “sin”, you seem strangely silent on this topic.

Or is that just more “moral flexibility”?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]Allan, by revolutionaries, I was talking about Castro and Mao who started out well-intentioned.

[/quote]

So, Castro and Mao were “romantic revolutionaries”? Wow. Communism killed nearly 100MM people and you find these two “romantic”?

How about Che? Was he romantic, too? I mean, do you have a thing for murderous Stalinists?

My point here is this: You’re more than comfortable glossing over those things you’d rather not confront and demonizing America for all sorts of ills throughout the world, but you find those who are truly despicable and reprehensible, romantic.

Mao and Castro did NOT start off with the “right” idea, dude. They worked off of a game plan that has caused more human misery than any in history. For someone so willing to call foul on organized religion(s) for the same “sin”, you seem strangely silent on this topic.

Or is that just more “moral flexibility”?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]Allan, by revolutionaries, I was talking about Castro and Mao who started out well-intentioned.

[/quote]

So, Castro and Mao were “romantic revolutionaries”? Wow. Communism killed nearly 100MM people and you find these two “romantic”?

How about Che? Was he romantic, too? I mean, do you have a thing for murderous Stalinists?

My point here is this: You’re more than comfortable glossing over those things you’d rather not confront and demonizing America for all sorts of ills throughout the world, but you find those who are truly despicable and reprehensible, romantic.

Mao and Castro did NOT start off with the “right” idea, dude. They worked off of a game plan that has caused more human misery than any in history. For someone so willing to call foul on organized religion(s) for the same “sin”, you seem strangely silent on this topic.

Or is that just more “moral flexibility”?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]Allan, by revolutionaries, I was talking about Castro and Mao who started out well-intentioned.

[/quote]

So, Castro and Mao were “romantic revolutionaries”? Wow. Communism killed nearly 100MM people and you find these two “romantic”?

How about Che? Was he romantic, too? I mean, do you have a thing for murderous Stalinists?

My point here is this: You’re more than comfortable glossing over those things you’d rather not confront and demonizing America for all sorts of ills throughout the world, but you find those who are truly despicable and reprehensible, romantic.

Mao and Castro did NOT start off with the “right” idea, dude. They worked off of a game plan that has caused more human misery than any in history. For someone so willing to call foul on organized religion(s) for the same “sin”, you seem strangely silent on this topic.

Or is that just more “moral flexibility”?

[Author]

Posts