quote:

Not ironically, in my opinion, the politics of personal destruction (remember the Democratic propensity for assertively projecting their own stuff onto others) have cowed many Republicans

Oh, shed a tear for those poor, innocent, noble Republicans, with only the likes of Lee Atwater, Karl Rove, and the Swiftboaters to protect them.
.

quote:

intelligent coverage = what you agree with

Nah man, they do just as much coverage of stuff I don't agree with. Actually Cavuto's take is only a small part of the coverage. Plenty of other heavy hitters have a different view. Even O'Reilly. Who I really don't agree with on this.

CNN had Jeffrey Miron on, but that's about it. MSNBC is ridiculously liberal, and network news is completely biased.

quote:

network news is completely biased.

How? Because they don't just repeat the Republican talking points of the day, the way Fox does?
.

quote:

Originally posted by Markle:

quote:

network news is completely biased.

How? Because they don't just repeat the Republican talking points of the day, the way Fox does?
.

No because they repeat the Democratic talking points of the day.

This is to funny.

The Hussein/Biden ticket is in serious trouble for the debate Thursday night. The moderator is Gwen Ifill of PBS. She will be releasing a pro Hussein book around the time of the next Presidential inauguration. Here is the title: "The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Hussein".

Gwen will not be able to hold back her bias in the debate. The American public don't like that shit one bit. Another reason people will be voting McCain/Palin come November.

quote:

How? Because they don't just repeat the Republican talking points of the day, the way Fox does?

No, because as Rico says, they repeat the Democratic talking points of the day... exclusively.

Fox is the best news on TV. And it's not without its problems, so that's not saying much. I want to smack Sheppard Smith sometimes... he's like the Ryan Seacrest of Fox. But Brit Hume is a real newsman. Greta, despite being a crazy, botox-eyed Scientologist, is actually a good journalist.

Cavuto is a gem. The recent interview with Dick Grasso and Ken Langone was great.

"Fox and Friends"? The gay guy annoys me, but Gretchen Carlson is hot.

So is Martha MacCallum on Live Desk. Trace Gallagher, meh.

Here is a Youtube collage of the hearings that were held back in 2004 on the shady accounting practices of Fannie Mae. It was the only thing I could find of the C-Span2 footage. It is clear that the Republicans knew there was a problem and suggested a fix. It is also clear that the Democrats claimed there was no problem at all.

The anchor around Senator Husseins neck is the money he received from Fannie Mae. He is second on the list of Senators who have received money from Fannie Mae. This all in 3 years.

Franklin Raines former CEO of Fannie Mae was quoted in the Washington Post as advising Senator Hussein months ago. When this all broke out the Hussein/Biden campaign all of a sudden denied Raines was advising them. They can not distance themselves from Jim Johnson another former CEO of Fannie Mae as Johnson was chosen by Hussein to help him find a VP candidate.

I wonder if Markle can explain why Senator Hussein hasn't been grilled by the networks on how he received all this money from Fannie Mae? Or the fact that these former CEO's of Fannie Mae are so close to his campaign. Even the fact that Senator Hussein is out on the campaign trail blaming President Bush and the Republicans when it is clear it was the Democrats who have caused this financial mess. Shouldn't Katie Couric be in his face saying how can you lie to the electorate like that Senator? Markle have the networks even brought any of this to light? They are after all non-partisan right?

quote:

No, because as Rico says, they repeat the Democratic talking points of the day... exclusively.

Pretty sad when you're reduced to quoting Bozo.... Did he hijack you to his planet for a makeover? What did the pod people do with the real thalo? Can we at least have his body back, or is it a dried-up wrinkled husk thrown out in some alien trash bin? Poor thalo.....
.

Franklin Raines former CEO of Fannie Mae was quoted in the Washington Post as advising Senator Hussein months ago. When this all broke out the Hussein/Biden campaign all of a sudden denied Raines was advising them. They can not distance themselves from Jim Johnson another former CEO of Fannie Mae as Johnson was chosen by Hussein to help him find a VP candidate.

Don't get me wrong, Rico. (And don't hurt me.) These guys, including Obama, have core values. But because those core values are so radical and unpalatable to the common man (for whom they actually have little or no respect sometimes, and that's where the "clinging to guns and religion" line directly intersects), they must hide them, and thus their campaign, at least come election time, is a PR campaign of bamboozlement, shifting truths, and outright lies. One day Raines is the smartest guy in the world. The next day they've never heard of him. And all this goes toward shifting the public's perception (who, unlike us, mostly do not pay attention to all this stuff in such great detail) just enough to win an election. That technique and reality is, of course, somewhat of a political universal for all parties, but the left must depend on it. Imagine, for example, Obama actually putting out commercials highlighting his core beliefs. They could show some baby, who had survived an abortion attempt, sitting on a shelf and left to die. They could show the reality of what an ACORN "community organizer" was actually all about as they show these loony, over-the-type and sometimes outright unhinged "advocates" lying, cheating, and using slimy intimidation tactics on local neighborhood businesses. Such a thing would be quite distasteful to most Americans, and so they must hide behind euphemisms and slogans. "A woman's right to choose." That sounds a lot better than "The right to leave a baby on a shelf to die."

Obama could not feature a commercial highlighting his true religious beliefs because those, too, would be distasteful to most Americans (although that majority is clearly shrinking as more and more people become automatic radical mouthpieces as they parrot the slogans of their Commissars). Imagine a video of him sitting in Pastor Wright's church listening admiringly to one of his bombastic services. (In fact, if such a video existed, it could bring down his election.) Obama could not feature a commercial highlighting his true record in the Illinois Senate where he voted "present" 130 times, or in the Senate where he spent much of that time (when he wasn't accumulating the most liberal voting record in the Senate) campaigning for president. Granted, this is America where any schmuck can run for, and become, president. But that's the point. He is a schmuck and without the 100% endorsement and kid-gloves support of the mainstream media, he wouldn't stand a chance, and the media knows this.

So when discussing these issues of the left, and their candidates, one inevitably involves oneself in the heavy dogma-filled denial-filled reality distortion field of the left. They absolutely need this. And it's really quite surprising to me, as someone who studies human nature, to see how readily and easily some people uncritically buy it and soak it up. But an understanding of human nature also tells me that if you give white hats to one set of people, and yellow hats to another, natural and quite boisterous rivalries will surely develop. Much of this noise, particularly from the left (but not exclusively from it by any means) is simply the culture of leftist radicalism (and leftism is inherently radical) being expressed through their "yellow hat" supporters.

So, although it is certainly true that Obama shouldn't be electable, he needs only to actually appear electable and to have the media continue to carry his water while continue being Inquisitioners for the other side for just long enough to fool enough of the people some of the time. And if you think this Fanny Mae mess is big, it's nothing compared to what unconstrained liberalism will get you, as we saw from FDR and as we saw from Johnson. Both sets of policies did not even begin to meet their goals (and left quite a swath of destruction that, once again, is ignored by the media) although, of course, the PR campaign and reality distortion field of the left (of "progressives") remains in full force. The only way to win an election against these cranks is to puncture that field, not try to dance a bipartisan dance with it.

LMFAO! I'll have you know "Bozo" has scored pretty high with much of what he's said, predicted, and analyzed.

And although Brad prefers to cite things that buttress his political views, many of which I share, he's far far from the lunatic fringe worst case scenario of the right.

As far as the media goes, intelligent coverage to me is just that, intelligent. It's sober, objective (or at least balanced when it's subjective), and most of all, its language isn't slanted toward sensationalism/ratings more than it is getting information to the public.

These days, EVERY news channel is a business. They have a degree of marketing corruption that stands in the way of being unbiased or "fair and balanced." And I never, ever took Fox news' assertions of fair and balanced at face value, until I began watching and comparing news channels more carefully. They at least try. And they're up-front about the stuff that's clearly opinion.

It's not that Fox News is conservatively biased. Oh no, they're much more cunning than that. They've made up their minds to go against the flow of other news channels, or at least offer alternative perspectives. And one of the great, undeniable proofs of liberal media bias, is that Fox turned out to attract so many conservative viewers, and has been more successful with its more conservative opinion segments.

They have the same pressures on them as any outlet. And yet they DOMINATE now, and it ain't because they're more conservative. It's because they're less liberal. And as for their opinion guys, it was a ratings masterstroke to simply make them less America hating than your garden variety liberal pundit. It changed the whole game. And soon every channel HAD to follow suit in some form, because they were getting trounced.

What's really unbelievable and telling to me, however is that this liberal dominated media, keeps their bias in news REPORTING, but never, ever does a liberal political opinion segment. Where's the Al Franken show? Nobody watched. Where's the Alec Baldwin or Susan Sarandon show? They're scared to friggin' DEATH to come out and really have people articulate liberal philosophy or agenda. For them, it's better to friggin' pretend that the WORLD is liberal, and it's just the news. It's like the old Soviet Union. Coordinate all your news stories according to what the State wants to say. It's just that in our case it's a political party rather than the state.

Personally, I'd LOVE to watch liberals, even kooky far-left Che-wearing peaceniks, have shows where they spouted their line of shit. For guests they could have Marxist economists from all over Academia. Getting the liberal stuff out there in editorial/opinion shows might in fact give some credibility back to the media.

But it's the same here at thalo.net. Nobody ever argues the liberal side. Pretty much because nobody here, except Snobby, is a liberal. Nobody steps up and has a dialog with say, Brad on political philosophy, because they don't believe it.

That's where liberalism is insidious. Where the stark light of reason is cast upon it. It really is more effective when it stays in the "good intentions" arena. When it's debated or articulated, it sounds anti-American, hypercritical, and often ridiculous. POLITICIANS are way more adept at getting liberal ideas out there, but watch how they do it, with emotion and demagoguery. Almost never on the merits. This is something Brad has said time and again, and it's true.

I'd respect somebody coming on here and soapboxing liberal democratic ideas. Liberals usually don't have the nads. They're worried they'll sound like commies. Wait, I'd respect a full-bore COMMUNIST expressing their views here, more than I would people who shrink from dialog. Snobby has started the ball rolling, he's been fearless, in a very funny few posts... and that's what this place is about.

But in general everything you throw at "bozo" or Brad, or me, is straight reaction, criticism for us going right, supposedly losing perspective, and reaction to the fact that we are moving from some perfect idea of the center. And the usually intellectually unflappable HH is reduced to telling Brad to blow it out his ass, because he can't take people who exclusively argue one position.

And yet sometimes it's like you forget what thalo.net is. We're not a news agency. We don't have to be fair and balanced. We don't have to give credence to "the other side." Sometimes we do, when they deserve it. We're a place for free and open discourse. The only time we've ever put out balanced, un-opinionated stuff is when we're arguing devil's advocate type of things, with ourselves, because nobody is taking the bait or entering into a dialog.

As you see with HH's Brad meltdown, where he told him to blow it out his ass, it's really up to the concerned party to stop dialog. You're never going to shut up the other guy, or stop them from expressing themselves in the way they want to. The most you can hope for is that they'll be nice enough to ignore you if you ask, otherwise you have to ignore them. Most Markle posts read like, 'oh god, I WISH x would shut up.' Or 'I wish they weren't this way, or didn't believe that.' Wish all you want, it's a free country.

You either get into it with somebody or you don't. It's been that way since our origins at MFI. You make points or you don't. Respond or don't. You can save time by saying "Everything Rico or Brad says, I disagree with" and choosing not to respond to any of their posts... and yet even you have been able to begrudgingly admit that there are thoughtful ideas being expressed. You just don't agree with them. And your bickering with Rico, which you endlessly complain about, is one of the most entertaining things on here. It's like watching a chick fight.

Now, it's fine to be involved with the quality of others' ideas. But dialog happens when you put in your own. And serve them up for others to determine THEIR quality.

I used to say in the old days, that the only way to steal my thunder was to never respond to a single post of mine. Never enter into a dialog or debate with me. That's how you win. Even a peanut-gallery response, or name calling nowhere man/bozo type of things, that's fuel. That means you want to talk. Means you're here and you care.

Like an old married couple, where the antagonizing replaces love and lust, you cling to that. There is still something that matters to you, with respect to what the person thinks. Some people communicate by saying "you're wrong" rather than "here's what I think."

This message has been edited. Last edited by: thalo,

A good thought piece, thalo. Which brings me to a quick aside about being RIGHT, and not just a mouthpiece. I heard Rush mention on the radio yesterday how National Review Online was turning into something a bit different than what it was under Buckley. I mentioned this a week or two ago myself. They got this one chick, Kathleen Parker, who is a bit of a waste of space. And they had someone doing this truly awful Screwtape Letters-type thing. I swear, if it wasn't for the fact that they posted Mona Charen, Michelle Malkin, and Thomas Sowell opinion pieces once in a while, they would be extremely thin. They're all turning into William Kristol.

I have half a mind to email brother Jonah (who I hope is not behind the recent downgrade) and urge him to start a new site (he seems to have been elbowed out a bit) dedicated to real opinions and not this elitist beltway mouthpiece garbage. These people need to get out a bit more in Palin country. And, besides, brother Jonah is funny as hell. I've been told I should create my own blog. And I may one day do that. But there is just so much to learn first. And yet, when I look at some of the opinion pieces from you, me, Rico, and some others here, we're covering an area unserved by other online sites. As soon as you have reputation and ratings to protect, you can quickly find yourself at arm's length from the truth. And the truth these days is usually very politically incorrect. And the anarchy and nihilism of a Huffington Post or Daily Kos is no substitute for true knowledge and apt analysis. It's just more leftist noise. And the last thing I want to be (unless I'm doing so on purpose just to get a rise out of people) is to be rightist noise. Those two words are supposed to be oxymoronic. Conservatism isn't supposed to be about bamboozlement. As brother Sowell said about the founding ideals of this country: "In short, it did not pretend to have doctrinal truth but instead implied a deep skepticism that anyone had either a monopoly on doctrinal truth or such moral or intellectual rectitude as to be exempt from constraints, condemnations, or dismissals from office by their fellow men." That means the counter-argument to leftist radicalism is not just radicalism from a different direction. And so when I say one needs to play the adult in the face of child-like temper tantrums, hysteria, and unhinged emotion, this is what I mean.

quote:

They're scared to friggin' DEATH to come out and really have people articulate liberal philosophy or agenda. For them, it's better to friggin' pretend that the WORLD is liberal, and it's just the news. It's like the old Soviet Union. Coordinate all your news stories according to what the State wants to say. It's just that in our case it's a political party rather than the state.

That is the liberal news world in a nutshell. Extremely well said. Extremely good analysis. And the funny thing is, even on opinion shows such as Hannity and Colmes (which do not try to masquerade as an objective newscast), who is the one not afraid to rip fellow conservatives a new one? That's right, it's Hannity while Colmes, although he might occasionally offer some mild criticism of liberals, rarely does so. He mostly carries the party line, Soviet-style. And that really is the mindset behind this. Not all conservatives agree on the same things, and I should hope they would not. But any true conservative is (or should) agree on the point that principles, not power, are what ground this great country. Liberals play almost exclusively power politics where they fall into line and dare not show a crack by questioning their own. Conservatives, on the other hand, will whack any and all over the head if they, like McCain, espouse some pretty stupid ideas. It's not parter uber-alles on the conservative or Republican side. Republicans actually will kick out misbehaving members while Democrats do nothing but apologize for their own. It's power vs. principle, and this is an inherent part of the right vs. left debate in this country even if that does not mean, of course, that the right is only and every arguing from principle and the left is only and every arguing from a stance of power. But overall, I think those apply, and we see this playing out with the anal-puckering tightness of the circle-the-wagons media which actually makes a joke of their profession.

Thalo, what is your sense of whether the Wall Street bailout bill is going to pass when the Senate votes on it later today? The Senate being more status quo oriented, it's my sense that it will pass with both Republicans and Democrats supporting it wholeheartedly.

There is one radio station that doesn't pretend not to be left. Well sort of they have changed liberal to progressive which in their case stands for full blown communists. That is Air America Radio. They don't hold back on that show. And it does come across just as thalo described. It is out right scary what they say on that show. They represent the core values of todays Democratic party. If Democrats listened to Air America Radio they would not be voting Democratic that is for certain.

The one DJ that used to be on Air America Radio was this women Randi Rhodes. She used to talk about the Clintons as though they were the second coming. Over the top accolades. Then all of a sudden Senator Hussein comes on the scene. Randi Rhodes was eventually removed from the air because she was working a fund raiser were she was calling Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro bitches and fucking cunts.

When I have the chance I like to tune into Air America Radio. I am pretty sure their main broadcast station is out of New York. The signal is so weak I have a hard time receiving it. Air America Radio is fine example of what happens when the left is up front about being left even though they change the words from liberal to progressive. Nobody tunes in to listen. Al Franken found out as he left the show because they could no longer pay him.

Markle will get a kick out of this. I was listening to the really terrific conservative commentator, Kirby Wilbur, this morning. He had a noted economist on his show (I forget his name, but he was extremely common-sensical about this whole financial mess...not at all a hysteria or Armageddon monger), and he basically said that the speech Bush gave the other night was so fear-based and scare-tactic that it was one of the worse speeches by an American president since Jimmy Carter. I didn't hear the speech, but clearly Bush has gone into McCain mode where he thinks the American electorate will start jumping off buildings if everyone in Washington doesn't do something real fast. Quite the contrary, it was the American public that was saying slow down. This economist was not of the opinion that a credit crunch was in the works or anything like that. He said that a simple adjustment of the market-to-market practice (or regulatory standard) and a few minor things was all it would take. I wish I could remember this guy's name.

This economists said the market did exactly the right thing the other day by going down. This was a rational response. And my own thoughts are that everyone is calling this a "crisis," and certainly Obama's change of nomenclature from "bailout" to "rescue" shows the word games that people can play with this. But to me, this is primarily a scandal, and one that the politicians are trying to wallpaper over with this idea of it being a "crisis." A temporary problem it may be, and maybe even a big one. But I think it is more of a scandal than a crisis, per se.

The Dems are in full denial and cover-your-ass mode, so it's hardly worth mentioning what these clowns are saying and doing. But I do think it is extremely important what that potential fixers of this problem are thinking and doing. And McCain and Bush have come up short, although the House Republicans (with a prompting from masses of phone calls, reportedly running about 300 to 1 in disfavor of the bailout as proposed a couple days ago) seem to be on the right track.

Surprise, who’d a thunk I’d show up again. Sorry for the very long absence. I won’t go into the details, but some serious things cropped up in life and took me out for awhile. And then I forgot about this place. With the elections coming, I came back looking for a little piece I had written here in 2004 about what liberals/Democrats need to stand for. I found it on page seven of this thread, which is still going strong amazingly enough.

Just reading the last few pages, I see everyone is up to their old tricks. Good to see much hasn’t changed. How the hell are all you guys?

Of course, I just wanted to take that old piece, but then I read thalo’s last post and felt the urge to write at least one post. Damn you thalo!

Brad, thalo, Rico, you ARE wrong, and here’s what I think …

Liberal bashing IS just another name-calling tactic, except you usually direct the name-calling globally rather than personally. Liberals hate America. Give me a break. By the same measures you’re espousing, I’d say conservatives hate America too. The same criticisms you level are easily turned around and leveled back. This whole election cycle has been each side using the same argument against each other. Quite odd if you’re so far apart. I have to admit, you do have this I’m rubber, your glue shtick down pretty good.

America was founded on the principle of individual freedoms. Liberalism, by definition, considers individual liberties to be THE most important goal of society. Religious freedom, sexual freedom, intellectual freedom – all these are liberal goals. Separation of church and state so state can govern everyone equally and everyone can worship equally, God damn right America! Straight sex, gay sex, all kinds of sex so everyone can pursue happiness equally, fucking A-right America! The freedom to think and espouse what you want, so everyone has intellectual liberty, Jim that is logically correct America!

The true liberal doesn’t want government to interfere in our personal lives. The government is solely there to help further individuality. To provide mechanisms so that the vast majority of folks can improve their individual lives. Providing help for the poor if they want/need it. Providing equal rights to all citizens no matter what race, color, gender, or creed. Protecting against censorship so ideas can be free. Providing a livable social contract that protects all individual freedoms. Tell me what’s wrong with that?

You guys just don’t understand what a true liberal is. You’ve bought into this cari-, oh Katie what am I trying to say, oh yeah caricature spoon fed to you by your favorite news business. You buy into it because, as HH rightly points out over and over again, you soooo want to root-root-root for your team and therefore the other team has to be the rival, the enemy. Okay. Either you don’t have the balls, intelligence, or independence to see that there are many, many excellent tenants of liberalism, and that the mocking caricature is simply a tool to focus your anger and hatred. Apparently it works with you rubes.

Nancy Pelosi hates us. Harry Reid hates us. Barack Obama hates us. They’ll destroy the country. Boo fucking hoo. Do you think George Bush hates us? Dick Cheney hates us? John McCain hates us? Why not? Oh yeah, they’re your guys. I’m pretty sure their policies over the last eight years haven’t been all peaches and cream for the regular Joe in America. If you stand back and take an honest and unbiased look, you can see that the bag is at best mixed for your oh so favorite conservatives. There were some good things, some decent things, some bad things, and some horrendous things done in the last eight years. Do they hate us? Nah, governing at that high a level will reveal some incompetence in everyone.

Personally, I don’t think anyone running for national office hates America. In part, they want to do their best for the country using their ideas, conservative or liberal. That’s the good part every politician has (or had at one time) in them. The bad part, many of them also want power and money. This is a universally corrupting feature that affects all spectrum of politicians from right to middle to left. That’s what this bailout shows. It is a big mistake for America, but the politicians just can’t help themselves with the power and money grab. Me personally, I’m voting against any politician who votes for the bailout (Dem or Repub).

Those leftist liberals want to take away everything that is American. Like what? Liberals want to make you become a gay lesbian sister that they can incestuously rape and force you to have a late-term abortion on the taxpayer’s dollar that they stole from rich people who had their guns taken away while you say the pledge of allegiance without “under god” and “happy holidays” during Christmas? Barack Obama is a liberal terrorist Manchurian candidate who will convert our country to a radical Muslim state where women are veiled and the men fuck goats during the dirty time of the month? Eye roll!

Liberals want to increase government, you say. I don’t know about liberals en masse (I sure don't), but some Democrats that Republicans like to paint as liberals do. So don’t vote for them. Except, hasn’t our government increased over the last eight years? Seems to me you can’t vote for the Republicans either. Vote for the Libertarian then. Wait, you’re not on their team so you can’t do it. That means you’ll happily ignore all those problems in your own party, while you zealously attack the same wrong headedness in the opposing party? Seems logical to me. Not.

Are many on the Democratic side partisan? Yep. Are many on the Republican side partisan? Yep. So we get the ass-clenching partisan crap that goes along with it. Nancy offends you with partisan talk. Johnny’s feelings are hurt and he pounds the partisan soapbox with his little baby fists. Barney says he’ll suck dick if it will make the sensitive Republicans feel better and cum around. I’m just waiting for Roy to say all the liberals want to make him gay. ‘Cause that’s all these folks know how to do when they get their partisan panties in a bunch. Round and round it goes like a Hatfield-McCoy circle jerk.

Anyway, what makes a lot of these arguments so ludicrous is that each side will adopt the exact opposite stance when it is convenient. Barack is too inexperienced. Sarah is too inexperienced. What? John has lots of experience. Joe is too experienced. What? We need less regulation. We need more regulation. Huh? I have to say, this election cycle is the most absurd I’ve seen yet. If it doesn’t make you weep for the future of our government, you are an idiot. And yes, I am an elite intellectual.

Have fun guys. I might post more frequently again, but with my lab full steam ahead, life has gotten pretty busy. Hope all you guys are doing well in these tough times.

Nice to hear from you, Miths.

OMG! Thundar has returned.

I thought the science police were never going to let him go.

Liberal bashing IS just another name-calling tactic

No, that's leftist spin based on the belief that where you're coming from isn't a bias or political position at all but the most normal, natural thing in the world. It's neutral, in your eyes, and thus undeserving of any kind of name whatsoever. But to call liberal ideas liberal is simply to put the proper name on them. If that's name-calling, then so be it. Liberals call conservatives names all the time -- and then retreat to this ridiculous position that their policies don't have a name.

Good to see you again, Darr. More coming, but the damn stock market crash has left me so damn busy at the moment handling orders and new business.

quote:

Originally posted by mithradites:
Me personally, I’m voting against any politician who votes for the bailout (Dem or Repub).

So, you aren't buying the blather coming from the Bush-McCain-Obama-Wall Street axis of evil? Good man!

It probably won't hold up but it's good to see McCain and his pretend opponent Obama get their asses handed to them by the citizens for a change. Opposition parties, yeah right! To them, we're the opposition.

I've been trying to read as much as I can about the bailout. Seems to me the big problem is with the derivatives market. I don't have enough acumen to understand it entirely, so I'd love to hear from informed people. However, in my searching, I did find a pretty good article that helped me.

What is scary to me is the idea that we are simply "plugging a very leaky boat, keeping it afloat another day". The leveraged positions are so large that I'm not sure anything the government does will help. The shit might very well hit the fan even with government intervention (which I'm against on sheer principle), so all we'll do is transfer tax money to a bunch of rich folks.

I dabble in the stock market a little on my own. I've taken up short positions that blew up in my face. Guess what happened? I lost money. If those are the rules for me, why shouldn't they be the same rules for these financial institutions gambling leveraged positions on the hopes of increasing valuation of their asset base? 'Cause they're too big to fail? What does that mean?