I have to weigh in with oex...

The reason why Bin Laden put out a videotape today was that was all he can do with the resources available to him.

Did he put out a video before 9/11 espousing his views and calling on the American people to effect a change? No, he just blew up two buildings in the center of our nations most prosperous city, killing thousands.

He used the only means available to him now to affect the upcoming election, a video. Seems the American Homeland security has caused him to have essentially the same resources as Michael Moore, whom he essentially quoted in his diatribe. I didn't see the same thing in Spain, where his followers can move a little more freely.

The security and foreign policy issues that we face today will be the same regardless of who is President. I don't think that Kerry has the leadership ability to get people to follow him out of an outhouse.

As for the economic impact, which is what this thread was based on, the Republican platform promotes limited government and small/large business growth through investment. If you have less taxes to pay, you have more money to invest. The Democratic platform is essentially to win the elctioon, by any means. Just ask long time Democratic Senator Zell Miller, there is no Democratic platform.

The beauty of this country is that we can have our own opinion, and not get thrown into jail because of it.

My .02...

John

OEX,

Do you really believe that drugs will get cheaper? The prices of drugs will never get cheaper. Cable Companies don't lower their rates, Insurance Companies don't lower their rates. Nobody lowers rates.

What makes you think that everyone in America can afford health insurance for their families? You obviously live in some sort of bubble.

As far as the drugs, the same drugs here are the same drugs in Canada, the same companies make them. How do I know? My brother-in-law works for Merck.

Your right, there is no draft. But when you sign up for a specific period of time. You should not be forced to stay in longer as is the case with my nephew.

I was discharged while the war in 91 was still going on.

You have probably made valid points about the economy ,

Then you say "I thank all those who protect me and my family" but when you finish off your post by saying "they wanted an education" or "if you wanted a free world" and Nuke them all. That is just idiotic.

That is basically saying this: "I could care less about those guys who's families don't make enough money to pay for their college or their not bright enough to get a scholarship, they knew what they were getting into when they signed up. So, if they die oh well. And furthermore, because I, OEX am better than everyone else on the planet we should just nuke them because those dirty Arabs don't want to conform to our way of life. After all, I'm sitting here in my living room nice and cozy playing Monday morning quarterback I've never for one minute considered picking up a rifle in support of the "cause" but I CAN TALK MY ASS OFF.

By the way- What exactly is the "cause"

The G.I. bill isn't used as much as you might think it is.

It sounds like you want a free world. You can sign up for the military all the way until your 35 years old. Hell, you sound like a real smart guy, by the time your done you might even be running the show over their. So, if your intrerested I can make a couple of calls, we can have you signed up and on the first thing smokin' to the Persian Gulf. You can fight for the cause. I'll make you a deal, if you go, I'll go with you. Maybe that will open your eyes. Afterall, we need guys like you with that killer mentality. It'll be a real hoot!!!.

I met alot of guys in the military who didn't feel like they had any options after high school. They weren't smart enough to go to college, had no job prospects, had to get out of the house for 100's of different reasons, wanted to learn a skill, but most of all they wanted to better their lives. Absolutley, we know the risks of war. A helluva lot more than you do.

And with your collateral damage comment, why don't you have the stones to just say
"dead soldiers" I thought you weren't trying to be politically correct, you can't use the term collateral damage until you've witnessed collateral damage, or at least put on a uniform.

Change your way of thought- it's not too late. your a better person than that.

OEX is so far the most accurate in his views.

But let me talk about a few things you will never hear on the news. You will just have to trust me when I say I have seen all of this in hard copy first hand.

A vote for Kerry is to choose globalism (or NAFTAISM) by caving in to the demands of other foreign corporate governments and accept usurpations of our rights, freedoms, properties and jobs under his constituents policy model under the guise of adapting to global trends. I.e. we don’t need apple farmers anymore because apples are so plentiful and cheep in china, or we need to cut out summer vacation, and recess so that our children can be more like the Japanese.
This model puts more money into foreign governments hands.

A vote for Bush and his constituent’s policy model, is to choose a home base stance of preemptive hostile takeovers of foreign corporate governments and accept a survivable level of alienation from the global community, usurpations of our rights, freedoms and properties will still take place in this model under the guise of quelling the fears of the masses, however local jobs will increase and more money will be put back into the local economy.


Kerry does not care about the right or wrong he just desires power. That’s why he sounds like a very smooth Mussolini when he gives a speech.
Kerry’s answer to every problem is simply vote for him and it will all work out. He strikes me as a man who would be better suited on a used car lot. Further I honestly believe the man would sell us all out if a gun were pointed at him. I wish a different man was chosen by the Democratic Party, this guy scares me


Bush actually has a shred of honesty and knows the difference between right and wrong but is essential powerless to do anything about things he knows are unjust. That’s why he stutters and seems fearful to speak at times. He as well as the rest of the bush family has a lot of trump card savvy by maintaining strong financial ties with other powerful business entities, which comes in handy when the chips are down.


Meat and potatoes part,
The United States is not the same thing as the United States of America. The United States is a corporation that was created at the same time as the federal reserve system near the turn of the century as part of a scheme to control global finance. The “United States of America” is not a democracy it is a Republic, where as the “united states corporation” is politically a democracy which is governed almost completely by policy which is not in any way constitutional law, but something referred to in legal circles as the numbers game and further by a set of rules that I am not conferrable mentioning the name of here.

If your business is incorporated, it is incorporated into the united states corporation. And therefore subject to the rules and regulations they’re under as set aside from the Constitutional United States of America.


Who we are expected to vote for is in fact the president of the corporation. That being said, what is the goal of every corporation? To increase profits? Cut expenses? Expand business relationships? Create advertising that convinces everyone your product is hands down the best, nay not just the best, but also a necessary part your life? Perform hostile takeovers to rapidly expand business assets?


That being said, lets take a grand step backwards.


Consider this, any major economic change instituted by our corporate government can take 6 to 10 years to fully manifest its self, this is true of the Regan years


The great financial boom of the 90s (as OEX mentioned) was due almost entirely to technology advances and Regan era politics (which incidentally took about 7 years to manifest after Regan first initiated his financial policies).


Bill Clinton has most everyone convinced that he was the champion of this great financial boom. However the opposite is in fact true, as he did everything possible to destroy our economy from pushing for NAFTA out sourcing, all way down to trying to sue Microsoft out of business. By the end of Clinton’s term, jobs were being lost by the 10s of thousands and the economy was going into the tank quick (Unfortunate that people have short memories about such things).

When bush took office he was stuck with.

Clinton’s financial mess-

Clintons Osoma Bin looser mess, The Bush family may have ties to the bin ladens, but Clinton had ample info and time to deal with this guy, but he did nothing about the problem either, simply because Clinton as well as most of the other goodfellas have similar corporate ties.


Clintons CIA (remember the guys who gave bush the Iraq info)

Clintons decimated military, (God bless those men and women) which he cut mostly in half to balance the budget, which he of course brags about all the time, but always forgets to mention what was cut so the Budget could be balanced


In the wake of all of this, Bush as a transitional president is thrown the worst 911 curveball possible. Bushes entire presidency has been about playing patch the holes in the dike that Clinton drilled. (To be quite frank, I am simply amazed that the economy is doing as well as it is in light of all that is going on). On top of all this, crooked congressmen like John Kerry are trying to blame Bush for all of Clintons and his constituents “democratic” corruptions, simply to get himself elected as the front face, who will in turn be doing the bidding for the same policy people that Clinton was subject to.


I am not out to be bashing democrats or republicans, but the differentiation is an utterly pointless argument at this point, it’s like trying to compare the benefits of one mafia boss over another.

Notwithstanding

Bush’s policies will be a better path for financial growth for all of corporate America period. As bad as it may sound, without this bullish strong-arm push we will probably end up with oil shortages and we all know what that means in the end. But on the other hand we are going to take a few extra environmental dents as well as piss off a few people who probably have some of the 50 missing Russian suit case nuclear weapons in their possession.

Kerry’s policies will make us better friends with some countries, but may also be the final nail in the coffins of a lot of domestic industries and their related jobs, when those businesses fail so will the economy. Bottom line-Kerry will raise taxes to compensate (a lot) I am sure he will be very confident about this decision. Further he is probably going to get us into trouble with North Korea and the Chinese rather quickly, so be for warned.


Note on Kerry’s comments about job loss in America.
Kerry’s job numbers are based solely on clock punchers like those who work for Boeing or GM and does not include private and small business enterprises, further it also does not include those employees who in increasing numbers work for big companies but do so from their homes, telecommuters for example.


When you factor in all of these other workers you find that Bush is telling the truth about job growth and Kerry is just plain lying again.


Reducing the “Deficit” whatever, what they should be talking about is the debt, which has grown so great (trillions of dollars), that it is universally believed that it probably cannot be paid off. All we can hope for is to pay the interest, which is all your FICA tax does anyway as not one dime of your FICA tax goes to pay for roads, schools, bombs or welfare it just goes to pay the interest on a debt that can never be paid off. The government actually collects its taxes in the form of excises and duties which is why it is advantages for the government to have more imported products, hence fewer “US” jobs while promoting over seas production. If any one tells you different they don’t know jack or are just plain lying to you and don’t expect a straight answer from the IRS as they only follow the internal revenue manual which is not even law, its only "policy" The IRS is the collection agent for the federal reserve system which isn’t even part of the federal government, this is why IRS agents are supposed to maintain foreign agents registration certificates as delegates of the secretary of the treasury, not to be confused with the treasurer of the United States of America. A lot of IRS agent don’t know this which puts them in violation of several federal laws they are never prosecuted for, go figure
If I were running the show, the first two things I would do right now is substantially increase the military and dramatically reduce the export of raw unprocessed products (like timber & metal ore's) as well as reduce the import those products that can be produced domestically in abundance (mostly agricultural).

I could actually write a hundred pages on the above in more elaborate detail, but I have probably already over stayed my welcome, so I wont get into the implications of 26 USC 7701 “exempt international organizations”. I will leave it at this for now.


Oh, I used to teach tax law.

Sky - i can only keep a connection for a minute at a time but will reply as soon as possible.

PLEASE DONT THINK MY COMMENT ABOUT NUKING THEM ALL was in reference to our military. It was directed to the entire middle east including France. It was tied to the collateral damage remars. It do however stand by the GI Bill comment. Those who use it shoulod understand what they are signing for.

Excuse my poor typing skills, Larry has pointed them out before. I support our military 100%.

Remember that our military supports Bush by a HUGE margin. This should say something.

Ask anyone, Maybe RTI, the increase in drug costs is a direct correlation to costs associated with product liability. There is also R&D. We fund the R&D of te world because we can. Its a price we pay for being on the cutting edge of medicine.

Skybird - I hope your family member returns safe.

I wish there would be more truth in the election process. It would help us cut thru the bull.

Forgive me for attempting to introduce facts into your belief system. If my gross income is 10 million dollars and I pay 10 per cent of it in taxes my tax burden is 1 million dollars. If that number is changed to 50 thousand dollars and the tax paid is 40 per cent the about of tax paid is but 20 thousand dollars. In arrigate numbers he who makes more money pays more taxes.
As a per centage of income he who makes less pays more. Which of the two do you think is adversely affected by his tax payments or has the greater tax burden? The idividual with 30k left over or he who has 9 million left in disposable income?

I can skew these numbers further by defining my sample group more broadly. If I define "wealthy" as anyone making 100 thousand dollars per year I can prove almost anything I want; from the aggrigate per centage of who pays taxes to lowereing the per centage of taxes paid as a funciton of gross income. But these numbers are somewhat location specific. I live in NY where the cost of living is quite high. My sister lives in Lexington, KY., where the cost of living is much less. Someone with a gross income of 100k in NY is hardly affluent but in Lexington he can do very well for himself. In Lexington 400k buys you a new 8 thousand ft sq. home. 400k might purchase a 1500 ft sq apartment in Queens or Brooklyn. With high real estate prices come high rents. Therefore, stores selling food must charge more as their fixed costs are greater than those in Lexington. There are also far more individuals earning 100k than 250k and up. By including that larger number of individuals one can actually distort the situation and obscure the actual situation. The gap between the wealthy and the middle class is widening. The gap between what executives and workers earn is also widening. By expanding the category obfuscation takes place not illumination.

You do not need a calculator to reach the conclusion that while the wealthy pay more money in total they pay less as a per centage of total income. This is still furher skewed in their favor, for as you have written, they can take advantage of all sorts of loop holes in the tax laws that less well affluent tax payers cannot.

If you are really interested in testing your beliefs against the facts you might wish to read " Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich - and Cheat Everybody Else" by David Cay Johnston. Johnson is the tax reporter for the NY Times. Before you dismiss him as an other example of liberal media bias ( and I would love to see evidence of this as opposed to religious assertions of this claim as fact ) please note that he is a registered Republican. However, even were he not a conservative, Republican ( as he defines himself ) one could still read his book and perhaps discover information we did not know.


Please supply a foot note. I do not know to what Clinton speach you are referring but I suspect that if you actually read the speach you might find that what Clinton actually said was something very different. But you would actually have to read...... and not merely listen to pundits on talk radio and TV.


Let us try to think critically and not merely spout slogans.
Tax revenues also increased from 1950-1970, as the American economoy witnessed an unpredidented economic expansion, the largest in recorded history . They also increased under Clinton following the tax increase he and the Republican Congress passed in 1992 to deal with the deficet. Were these tax increases the result of tax policy, money supply manipulation by the Fed, or expanding economy from 1950-1970 or the Stock market boom during both Regan and Clinton's tenures as President? Or some other factors yet to be added to either of our lists? They were certainly the result of fantastic economic growth. A triffle simplistic to assign the cause of the Regan boom to tax cuts, especially after David Stockman's admissions.


And when did the Regan recession begin? Might the date be 1987 following the stock market crash? Might there be a correlation between the colapse of a stock market bubble, a severe recession and falling tax revenues? And, indeed, might the Regan economic boom be little more than the fortunate result of that economic bubble when Wall Street funded junk bonds to help corporate raiders purchase and break up companies? The raise of 401K's and its affect on stock market revenues? Or the foolishness of banks to lent money for speculative real estate ventures without adequate capital to support those loans? Perhaps also the result of Rupublican bank deregulation policies that helped to bring about the S&L crash and resultant S&L bail out? Want to guess if the wealthy Wall Street investors, banking industry or large corporations paid for this bail out or if it was the small guy-often the same samll guy who lost his savings from those failed S&Ls. As I recall neither Mr. Keating nor our current President contributed to that bail out to the degree you and I have.

You have, of course, the economic data to support this contention? You know precisely when Y2K spending began and what its aggrigate economic numbers were as a per centage of GNP? You mean the Internet stock boom had no affect on the economy? Nor did lowering the deficet and the concomitant effect that had on interest rates? That increasing housing prices also did not have any economic consequences? That the housing boom and its attendany affects on other industries ( including our own - we do sell electronics - so might a real estate boom not also affect the economy?)

I apologize for suggsting that you have a belief system and you have yet to back up any contention with any kind of factual evidence. I do not for a moment think that any evidence of facts I or anyone else could supply will pursuade you to think diffenently. You are typical of most supporters of Republican politics since Regan as you hold certain beliefs to be self evident and no amount of evidence will alter your a priori assumptions and political cum religious beliefs. I heard a critic explain this the other day and you wrote something similar in an earlier post. Working class supporters of the Republican party have less faith in the ability of the govenment to make the correct decisions with their money and they have even less faith in leaving decisions to elite, over educated, technocrates. This I can understand.

Fine. It is much like discussing the devine origin of the bible ( new or old testament ), the devine nature of Christ, the superioity of one religious denomination to an other ( and please keep in mind that almost 250 years of European civilization fought wars over these issues ) or if Mohamed is the true prophet of G-d? You cannot hold a discussion on such suspects and at base these are non rational. I have no desire to debate the existance of G-d. One's beleifs are unchallangable and not subject to reason. They exist therefore they must be true.

Nice assertion. If I write that the sky is red does it mean that I am correct? In actutuallity, running a deficit can be good or bad fiscal policy depending on the economic circumstances. If the economy needs priming, as it might in an economic down turn or as the inevitable economic consequences of being at war, deficit spending makes sense. However, the money supply is not infinate. If goverment competition for that finite supply of money to pay its bond holders' ( that is what is implied by running a deficit. The government borrows money from wealthy individuals and foreign governments ) interest the price of money increases. This drives up interest rates and makes it more expensive to borrow money for the rest of the economy.
This makes it more expensive to to business. It also has an affect on our national security as we are economicly vulnerable to foreign powers who own that debt.

Actually you have less than 10 per cent of the facts here. Lower prices for Canadian drugs are the result of that government's policy decision to use its purchasing power to force lower prices from drug manufacturers. We had the same opportunity to do the same thing here but Bush chose not to do this. It is not unusual for large purchasers to win discouts from their suppliers. This practice is common among all large corporations. But this common business practice was rejected by this administration. Raising health care costs are less affected by malpractice and tort cases as you suspect and allege. Technological advancesin medicine are expensive and drive up the cost of medical care, high demand for medical services from an ever increasing aging population, unnecessary medical procedures ( and not all of these are the result of fear of tortious law suits. Some are the reslut of greed as when someone without insurance pays more for a service than someone with insurance ) and inefficiecies in the system.


The facts are really simple. Wars are expensive. But sound fiscal policy says that we should pay for our expenditures. As a society we do not do this. We have the highest consumer debt and lowest saving rate in the developed world. If we, as a society, decide that it is necessary to fight a war where we will ask fellow citizens to give up their lives and risk their health then the rest of us should be prepaired to make, at minimum, financial sacrifices. Try reading Paul Fussel's "Wartime," or John M. Blum's " V Was For Victory" for some examples of shared war time sacrifices by society as a whole and Fussel's " The Great War and Modern Memory" or Abrose's " Band of Brothers" for examples of sacrifices soldiers made. You do not lower revenues when at war because it is immoral to ask you decendants to pay for your expenditures in the here and now. The fact is that it is difficult to finance wars without running a deficit. The issue the the extant of that deficit.

There are more ironies here than I can account for. The party of the rich is now largely supported by working people. The party of the poor is supported by a larger portions of the very rich ( and very poor ). Rupublicans have abandoned thier past adherence to fiscal conservatism and are now as guilty as Democrats of over spending. Don't want to believe me? Take a gander at Peter Peterson's new book, Running On Empty: How The Democratic and Republican Parties Are Bankrupting Our Future and What Americans Can Do About It. "

I know. You are too busy to read. This democracy stuff is really difficult. This is the last public response to this political thread. This is a technical forum. Anyone interested in continuing this with me can do so off line.

[edited to fix typos and for a bit of clarity.]

Alan













This message was edited by Audible Solutionns on 10/31/04 08:07 ET.

This is really good stuff. Lot's of great comments. It occurs to me that the conservative responders tend to be more logical and reference actual facts. You Kerry supporters would be better served by following this system. If there were any truth to all the hysterical accusations about Bush, I would definitely reconsider my vote. However, there is just no evidence to support all the lunatic rants and conspiracy theories. If there is then why don't you site some facts instead of spewing Kerry sound bites. Also, there are several reasons why drugs are cheaper in Canada, the medical malpractice situation, ALL the R&D and FDA trials performed soley by the US manufactrer's, and Canada's government subsidises their drugs. Canada also doesn't need to maintain much military because they know that any attack on their soil will be dealt with by the US. BTW Canada is not all that happy with Kerry's plan to buy all their drugs. Turns out there's not enough to go around, and we know what happens to prices when this happens.

I wonder what Ben would think about the patriot act and how it affcts his constitution.

Tax cuts for the rich were designed to subsidize domestic growth and make it easier for larger companies to grow stronger so that they could provide more prosperity within the nation. Not move offshore to take advantage of slave labor and leave the middle class holding the bag. That middle class represents a good portion of our potential revenue.

This message was edited by teknobeam1 on 10/30/04 12:59 ET.

Oex,

I know that your Nuke 'em all comment was intended for the Middle East, France, Germany and whoever else does not agree with your view point.

Why is it so important to you that the entire world agrees with you?

And your solution is to Nuke em all if they don't.

In case you don't know, that is a blantantly racist comment.

You're saying..... "If you don't agree with my agenda, then you should die."

That is sad.

The reason why the military supports the president is because he is OUR BOSS!!!

We support any president, if Joe Shmoe became president we would applaud for him just like we applaud for Bush. That is part of our job.

Our job in the military is not to pick presidents, it's to follow orders from the president, whomever he is.

Is that supposed to be some attempt at a rationalization? If you continue to ignore the reality of what is happening to the social economic structure, you will no doubt be surprised when it directly affects your livelihood in a negative way. Makes you wonder what Ben franklin and the boys would think of those kinds of perspectives

Nuke who? all of the arabs in the middle east including the women, children, and the ones that aren't remotely involved in any of these hostilities? Or were you talking about the specific groups of people that are truly the enemy. We made it through the cold war without a single nuke going off. Maybe that was before your time, but obviously you have no appreciation for what it would mean to use a nuclear weapon in hostility as a means to solving a problem. Russia still has enough nukes to vaporize us in about half an hour. nuking anyone would be the start of WW3.

Um! I was also in the Gulf in '91. I have always supported the President that I believed would be the better candidate. Rep. usually spend more on defense. Dem. usually cut the defense budget. That is why IMO why most of the military supports Bush.

Dave

Folks you are missing the whole obviousreason of why our drugs are cheaper everywhere else. It is all a function of what the market will bare. Canada's market won't bare our high prices because of the many reason cited (gov't subsudies, etc..). Same drugs are 30% cheaper in Mexico becasue Mexico's economy can only afford those prices.

I get so tired of people (even OEX) who think that tort reform is the panacea to everything. Liablitiy payments, insurance, malpractice, R&D, clinical trials are all a mere fraction of the budget of drug companies compared to their marketing budget. How much do you think all those Viagra or Lipitor commercials cost during the national nightly news costs? Every wonder why so many drugs are pimped during those periods? If they are so broke, could thay afford these marketing budgets? And while on the subject of Tort reform. I always felt that Rebublican's recent (last 20 years) support of tort reform was the height of hypocrisy. We Republicans are always saying "less Gov't, blah...blah...blah" - including me. Yet am I the only one who realizes that we need the threat of liabilty to keep corperations in check, in the absense of legislation? I support the threat of malpractice and not legislation to enforce accountablity becasue I don't trust government to make the right decisions. This is the definitive description of "less government" in my book. There is very little that government does better than private enterprise, including f*7$ing the public.

Never mind.

This message was edited by Tom Ciaramitaro on 10/31/04 02:54 ET.

Wow. Lots of opinions flying around here. We seem to be an accurate cross-section of the US as a whole. Sharply divided, and completely unbending. I'm pleased to know this division will be the legacy of GW. At times like this we'd be better off if the south had won the civil war.

So here's my 2 cents :

It's not wrong to make a preemptive strike against a government that we believe will attack us. It's not wrong to protect ourselves at any cost, and alienate our allies in the process, if it's in the best interest of the country.

If I believed for one second that those were Bush's motives, I'd vote for him without hesitation.

When the planes hit on 9/11, Bush was told immediately, but he remained seated for another, what, 10 minutes? The terrorists could have easily known where he'd be that day, and easily taken him out, considering their attack method of choice. But he stayed put... he knew they weren't coming after him. But just in case they changed their mind, he chose to be in the most morally reprehensible place to attack - a school.

He had the entire country behind him, and did the right thing. Sent troops to Afghanistan to oust the Taliban, who were known harborers of terrorists, including OBL.

But then he veered off course. He named the 3 "axis of evil" countries, who had no connection to terrorism against the US, and proceded to focus all energy on ONE of them. The one run by the man his father couldn't take out, the one he knew had WMDs, but could never tell us HOW he knew - it would most likely implicate his father.

Sure, Saddam was a prick, but also a coward, who knew better than to provoke us. Hell, we overtook their government & military in what, 2 weeks? When Saddam was finally captured, he didn't go out in blaze of glory. He cowered & offered to negotiate.

Bush goal (mission) was accomplished, as he stated loudly. He beat Saddam.

His motives were a personal vendetta, and had nothing to do with the well-being of our country. Yet he still maintains the smokescreen of National Security. And who better to pull it off, than the son of a former CIA director. This is the sort of thing George Sr. did for a living, although usually kept on the QT.

All this is the only explanation that makes any sense to me at all. The only good thing to come out of it is the public rush to vote. It's the only thing that we, the "little guys" can do to stop him.

Who are you calling our allies? Corrupt members of the UN?


They were, and everyone agreed with him, including Kerry and the Clintons, so vote without hesitation.


It was 7 and so what? Do you think it's just possible that secret service told him to stay put til they secured his exit? What should he have done? Run out of the building screaming?


With complete support of both Republicans and Democrats.


Pure conjecture on your part and does not coincide with any facts.


I just wish you would vote based on facts instead of lunatic conspiracy theories. Also, I can't believe anybody would think of themselves as a "little guy". I think this mentality is a big problem with the US today.