Fri, Aug 29, 2014, 9:47 PM EDT - U.S. Markets closed

Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

The Boeing Company Message Board

x9xxx234 171 posts  |  Last Activity: 10 hours ago Member since: Apr 14, 2014
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • x9xxx234 x9xxx234 10 hours ago Flag

    Good post zombie......you're right of course. It's reached the point where it no longer matters if a candidate is a lying scoundrel. What's important is that the lying scoundrel is our guy and he can win. What we need are REAL AMERICANS in bother major parties who will stand up and demand accountability no matter what party they're in.

    The TEA Party is a good example of what happens when REAL AMERICANS stand up. They are hated by both parties for wanting our politicians to obey the constitution.

  • x9xxx234 x9xxx234 11 hours ago Flag

    "Once one accepts the principle of self-ownership, what's moral and immoral becomes self-evident. Murder is immoral because it violates private property. Rape and theft are also immoral -- they also violate private property. Here's an important question: Would rape become morally acceptable if Congress passed a law legalizing it? You say: "What's wrong with you, Williams? Rape is immoral plain and simple, no matter what Congress says or does!" If you take that position, isn't it just as immoral when Congress legalizes the taking of one person's earnings to give to another? Surely if a private person took money from one person and gave it to another, we'd deem it theft and, as such, immoral. Does the same act become moral when Congress takes people's money to give to farmers, airline companies or an impoverished family? No, it's still theft, but with an important difference: It's legal, and participants aren't jailed." -- Walter Williams

  • When government taxes us for courts, police, national defense or parks that we all use, that justifiable taxation. When the government taxes what one person has earned and gives it to another person who didn't earn it, that's theft and involuntary servitude or a form of slavery.

    "Once one accepts the principle of self-ownership, what's moral and immoral becomes self-evident. Murder is immoral because it violates private property. Rape and theft are also immoral -- they also violate private property. Here's an important question: Would rape become morally acceptable if Congress passed a law legalizing it? You say: "What's wrong with you, Williams? Rape is immoral plain and simple, no matter what Congress says or does!" If you take that position, isn't it just as immoral when Congress legalizes the taking of one person's earnings to give to another? Surely if a private person took money from one person and gave it to another, we'd deem it theft and, as such, immoral. Does the same act become moral when Congress takes people's money to give to farmers, airline companies or an impoverished family? No, it's still theft, but with an important difference: It's legal, and participants aren't jailed." -- Walter Williams

  • x9xxx234 x9xxx234 Aug 28, 2014 11:12 AM Flag

    Good validation of the the post georgewbushisachickenhawk.

    I bet you think Sheila Jackson (I'm a freed slave) is an intellectual genius. Hank (I'm afraid Guam will capsize) Johnson is a science expert, Maxine (let's nationalize the oil companies) Waters is an economic knowledge base, John (why read the Bill) Conyers another intellectual giant, Nancy (we have to pass the bill to find out what's in it Pelosi) in an expert political strategists and B. Hussein (if you like your doctor you can keep you doctor) Obama tells the truth.

  • x9xxx234 x9xxx234 Aug 27, 2014 1:34 PM Flag

    How has the 1% has been raking it in hand over fist at the expense of the 99%?

  • x9xxx234 x9xxx234 Aug 27, 2014 1:31 PM Flag

    What's a "progressive?"

  • x9xxx234 x9xxx234 Aug 27, 2014 1:14 PM Flag

    They are impotent......the public has decided to stick with the Democrats regardless of how corrupt they get. They've discovered voting Democrat is better than working.

  • With all the corruption and lying going on by the Democrat Party Obama's approval will not likely go much lower than is right now. That's because a significantly high percentage of Democrats will continue to vote a straight party line regardless of the content of a candidate's character. It's party before country and it's the lust for the power to spend other people's money.

  • The Congressional Budget Office is out with its long-term budget and economic projections, updated from their April 2014 report. Not a lot has changed in the internecine months, but a few aspects of the report stick out.
    First, the deficit this year is slightly larger. Slower-than-expected economic growth has lowered the CBO's projections for revenue this year. Second, their long-term deficit projections over the 2015-2024 period has been lowered by $69 billion.
    What's interesting is the CBO's analysis of the makeup of the labor force. Over the next ten years, the CBO doesn't project a return to the size of the labor force that we saw pre-2007 recession. In fact, the size of the labor force from 1984-2007 now looks to be a historical outlier:
    What the CBo does write, though, is that one of the downward pressures on the labor force is Obamacare. As the report finds:
    Over the next few years, CBO expects that the rate of labor force participation will decline about 1/2 percentage point further... the most important of those factors is the ongoing movement of the baby-boom generation into retirement, but federal tax and spending policies will also tend to lower the participation rate. In particular, certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act will tend to reduce labor force participation, with the largest effect stemming from the subsidies that reduce the cost of purchasing health insurance through the exchanges. Because the subsidies decline with rising income (and increase with falling income) and make some people financially better off, they reduce the incentive for some people to work as much as they would without the subsidies.
    We won't rehash the debate here over whether or not it's a good thing for the welfare state to provide so much that people will choose not to work - but it's pretty undeniable at this point that ACA is disincentivizing work for Americans in an era where we're wondering if the decline in labor force participation is the new normal.

  • x9xxx234 x9xxx234 Aug 26, 2014 2:42 PM Flag

    There are plenty of jobs......why do think illegals keep coming here? If you can't find a job.....blame Obama. illegals are taking jobs and driving down the price of wages. If you don't believe me, just go to any Walmart on Saturday afternoon. They're buying and they're not using EBT to buy with. Democrats want those Latino votes more than they want jobs for Americans. They'll buy the votes of jobless Americans with Welfare and food stamps.

  • x9xxx234 x9xxx234 Aug 26, 2014 2:29 PM Flag

    You're a little late to the party nimble.....TEA party people reached that conclusion long ago but then TEA Party people have been proven to be more intelligent and better informed than non-TEA party people ;-)

  • Reply to

    Rights Versus Wishes

    by x9xxx234 Aug 25, 2014 12:21 PM
    x9xxx234 x9xxx234 Aug 25, 2014 12:30 PM Flag

    He is God's assistant.

  • x9xxx234 x9xxx234 Aug 25, 2014 12:29 PM Flag

    President Barack Obama is sending three White House officials to the funeral service of the Missouri teenager whose death in a police shooting in Ferguson, Missouri, has sparked days of racial unrest.

    Leading the group for Monday's service will be the chairman of the My Brother's Keeper Task Force, Broderick Johnson. My Brother's Keeper is an Obama initiative that aims to empower young minorities. Johnson is also the secretary for the Cabinet.

    Also attending will be the deputy director of the White House Office of Public Engagement, Marlon Marshall, and an adviser for the office, Heather Foster.

    The decision would be highly questionable as is, but when compared to the White House’s presence at, say, the funerals of Maj. Gen. Harold Greene or British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, it’s deplorable.

    The White House has been selective in sending representatives to funerals — recall that only a low-level delegation was sent to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s service last year. More recently,President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden skipped the funeral ofMajor General Harold Greene, the 2-star general killed in Afghanistan on Aug. 5.

    (In case you were wondering, Obama was golfing during Greene’s funeral.)

    Quite predictably, neither close friends nor family will be delivering the 18-year-old’s eulogy; it will be Rev. Al Sharpton.

  • Congress' budget debate would be much more honest, and perhaps more fruitful, if we clean up some of our thinking about what is a right and what isn't. People say they have rights to medical care, decent housing and food even if they can't pay for it. If these goodies aren't forthcoming, somehow their rights have been violated. Let's discuss rights.

    Imagine that I meet an attractive young lady. I ask her to marry me. Suppose she says no, have my rights been violated? Or, suppose I ask to live in your house, and you say no, have you violated my rights to decent housing? Finally, suppose I ask you for a job, and you say, "No! I refuse to hire you because you're too tall, and I don't like tall people." Have you violated my rights? In any meaningful sense, of the term rights, none of these acts constitutes a violation of my rights.

    True rights, such as those in our Constitution, exist simultaneously among people. The exercise of a right by one person does not diminish those held by another and imposes no obligations on others except those of non-interference. If I ask for a job, a person is no more obliged to enter into a work contract with me than they would be obliged to enter a marriage contract with me. By contrast if you and I enter into a work contract, or if a young lady agrees to marry me, and a third party initiates force to prevent the transaction, my rights have been violated.

    To say people have rights to housing, medical care, and jobs is an absurd concept. Those "rights" can be realized only by governmental imposition of burdens on others. For government to guarantee a "right" to housing, it must diminish someone else's rights to their earnings. This modern vision of rights, if applied to my right to speech, worship and travel, would require government to force (tax) others to provide me with an auditorium, church and airfare.

    If, instead, we called these new-fangled rights wishes, I'd be in agreement with most other Americans. I also wish everyone had decent housing, nutritious meals and good medical care. However, if we called them wishes, there'd be cognitive dissonance problems among people making the pretense of morality. The average American would cringe at the thought of government punishing one person because he refused to make someone else's wish come true. If I simply had a wish for a five bedroom house, and Congress told its agents at the IRS to take other people's money to make my wish come true, you wouldn't think much of Congress. Americans find it easier to live with their conscious, and find congressional initiation of force against others more palatable, if it were said I have a "right" to a five bedroom house. After all it's Congress' job to protect rights.

    We can compare rights versus wishes another way. Suppose someone initiated force to prevent another from speaking and Williams privately stepped in to protect that person's right to speak. Would I be declared a hero or villain? Then suppose I saw a homeless person and did privately exactly what government does - initiate force to take someone's money to guarantee that homeless person's "right" to housing. What would you call me? In the first case, most would probably call me a hero and in the second I'd rightfully be called a despicable thief.

    Separating wishes from rights has great relevance to today's federal budget debate. After all Congress' making wishes come true constitute two-thirds of federal spending. The nation's problem is there's not a single member of Congress who has the courage to point out that the moral route to a balanced budget is for Congress to protect rights not guarantee wishes.

  • Reply to

    Is Freedom of Association a Basic Right

    by noel_kreding Aug 25, 2014 8:53 AM
    x9xxx234 x9xxx234 Aug 25, 2014 12:10 PM Flag

    Only people who exercise their choice to drive have to stop at red lights. My stopping at red light does not require the suspension of someone else's rights.

  • x9xxx234 x9xxx234 Aug 25, 2014 12:04 PM Flag

    Just a classless bigoted president on display for the world to see.

  • x9xxx234 x9xxx234 Aug 25, 2014 12:01 PM Flag

    zosima = victim of socialized government education parroting propaganda?????

  • ....all they want to use freedom for is to take drugs, kill innocent babies and plunder tax payers.

  • The idiot has driven the economy into a ditch, now he's put the whole country in danger with his incompetence. Time to give him another shellacking in November.

  • Reply to

    Obamas continued bombing in Iraq will cause......

    by jjovaz Aug 21, 2014 4:19 PM
    x9xxx234 x9xxx234 Aug 22, 2014 8:51 AM Flag

    hertz.....is a ball of stupidity, no wonder he like being genna.

BA
126.80-0.31(-0.24%)Aug 29 4:00 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.