quote:

Exactly.
.

quote:

Originally posted by thalo:

quote:

Thalo I know you don't want this thing passed but if it isn't the whole system will collapse.

Good. It should. Collapse Schmollapse. Eventually the markets would recover. There's opportunity in every disaster, IF you follow solid business practices. This is like giving heroin to a junkie because they're suffering from withdrawal symptoms. The symptoms feel like you're gonna die, but it's part of getting clean.

The problem with your scenario is that this is beyond the scope of the private sector to correct itself. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are institutions set up by the Federal Government. They are guaranteed by the Federal government. Those two institutions have created this vacuum. Whether you like it or not it is the responsibility of the Federal government to stop it. That is what the Federal Reserve was set up to do. Why have a crisis when the crisis can be averted. Doing nothing undermines the credibility of the whole system.

The institutions which did not follow solid business practices are Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Those institutions are directly regulated by the Federal government. The warnings about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac business practices were as I have pointed out fully disclosed back in 2004. Listen to Franklin Raines response in those C-SPAN 2 excerpts. Rep Shays asked the question if a Bank gets below 4% reserves to back it's loans they are in serious trouble. How is it okay that Fannie Mae is running at 3%. Raines responds that these loans are so riskless there capital could be below 2%. The whole nature of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are based on high risk loans. Listen to how the Democrats attack the regulator as though the regulator is doing something wrong by reporting to congress that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not running on sound business practices. There job is to report just that the regulator was set up by congress to regulate the situation but some how the regulator is turned into a public lyncher.

Here is the congressional hearings again. Like I said before it is the only excerpts I could find from the hearings in 2004.


Here is Terrorist Speaker of the House Pelosi before the vote on Monday. What the fuck is she talking about. Her party is to blame for the failure. Every thing she is accusing the Bush Administration and the Republicans of doing is exactly what the Democratic party members were doing in those hearings back in 2004. Just listen to this nitwit and you can see why this has all happened.

I don't like the bail out. I just don't see why the system should fail just for the sake of failing.

Link fixed.

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

quote:

Notice how quick Brad has to toss someone into a category so he can bring out the stereotypes and generalities.

Markle you are the only person here that is quick to be a dickhead. You are one big stereotype generality. There is no substance to anything you have to say other than your continued attempt to try to get everyone and anyone to be on your "team" like a little school girl that tries to get everyone to pick on someone because they are so petty themselves.

There are either one of two things going on with you. You have either been on the couch to long or you haven't been on the couch long enough.

.
Don't you have to be at least 12 to post on internet forums?
.

Brad:

quote:

Me, I'm curious about things. I'm curious about American history. I'm curious about the political process. I'm curious about human nature. I'm curious about science.

For all of Brad's portrayal of himself as a questioner, a Seeker Of Truth, all his questing shows only one preordained purpose: to prove that Democrats and liberals, in every respect and in every way, are BAD PEOPLE. It's post after post of the same tired rot. There must be SOMEthing else that this Renaissance Man can talk about.
.

In light of what is happening today. All you have to do is watch the link of Terrorist House leader Pelosi's speech linked above to realize that holy shit Broeder Nelson is absolutely 100% correct in his observations.

That lady is second in line to the Presidency. She is everything Nelson describes in the way of the modern Democrat.

Broeder Rico, the Terrorist Pelosi link you gave leads to the 2004-excerpts link above it.

(My internet connection is fucked, I'm posting this from my mum's house. I hope I can fix it myself.)

That is trivializing the issue.

No, it goes exactly to the heart of the issues. Progressives, as opposed to classical liberals, see no logical point beyond which government should not go. There is always some "for the children," "for the poor," or "to avoid abortions" (which Progressives are most decidedly for) reason for interfering, including reasons for indoctrinating everyone on their brand of sexuality. Families can't decide. The state knows better.

The progressive position is based on the idea that people aren't going to make just one of two choices: have sex to make babies or be abstinent (like the almighty Brad). People are going to have sex for a multitude of reasons that having nothing to do with baby making. Unwanted pregnancies are going to occur in situations that the individuals may have difficulty handling the situation. And incest and rape are extreme examples where abortion may be the only viable solution.

Unwanted pregnancies are indeed going to occur. The question is if always and ever, in the name of reducing some perceived or real problem, large or small, this gives justification for the state to enter the picture. Surely you can see there is then no logical barrier to state intrusion via this standard, especially if one sees the state as a vehicle that *can* always effect positive change. This is where conservatives differ from Progressives. Conservatives understand the many costs (sometimes hidden, but often not) that come with this state intrusion into our lives. Progressives (seemingly much like yourself) see this state intrusion as always being of some kind of benefit. That is the utopia mindset of Progressives. Conservatives know better. This Fanny Mae mess is evidence once again what happens when do-gooderism goes wild.

As a society, we should come together to help people out in these situations if we truly feel that a baby's life and its subsequent childhood and adult life are worth something, shouldn't we?

Do we want to make all the people wards of the state or not? That is the pertinent question. Darr, you can look at any question in society and propose that "Shouldn't the state help people out?" And if one holds the Progressive assumption, that answer will always be "Yes" and opponents of state involvement will always be painted by the high-minded Progressive moralizers as backward hicks. The opposite is almost always the case. People who say "No" to their children when they want something they shouldn't have are the ones actually being the adults.

We could have the state help out every time someone defaults on their mortgage. But there are costs. The main cost is that you facilitate bad behavior either by giving people incentives for risky, stupid behavior (like banks with Fanny Mae bailout stars in their eyes) or by getting rid of disincentives for bad, risky, or stupid behavior. Self-appointed and anointed Progressive do-gooders are usually so full of themselves they see only the good they can do and forget the often enormous costs of their do-gooder meddling. Their are entire books written outlining these enormous and egregious costs to society.

Progressives think that the government can play at least some role in helping out in this scenario. Not the main role, but some helpful role.

Ronald Reagan said the scariest words a person could ever hear are "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." I concur. If you simply look at the record of social devastation and waste wrought by Johnson's Great Society and Progressive policies in general, those words from Reagan are indeed wise word. Progressive have the arrogance to think that they know better than individuals do themselves. The rubric of "But we can help" gives them (at least in their own minds) license to add their little bits of help, bit by bit, until we wake up one day and see the ruin of the poor in New Orleans whose lives and dignity have been captured and wasted by do-gooderism. Making people dependent on the state, instead of their own talents and drive to work, undermines people. It doesn't help them. A case can be made for careful, limited, discriminating programs to help with worker retraining or to help those who have suffered accidents or, through no fault of their own, have been born with serious disabilities. Most Americans have no problem whatsoever helping these kinds of people. Americans have a big heart, but not necessarily a stupid heart. They know the devastation that can be wrought by nanny-stating people. Progressives, if they would just look at their own poor record in actually helping people (good intentions don't count) might come to this same conclusion.

But getting into the sex lives of people is most definitely where we don't want the state. If you look past your glowing good intentions to how these issues actually play out, you see how quickly this supposed do-gooderism turns into just the heavy hand of the state inserting itself -- demanding itself -- into the most intimate places in people's lives (including Obama's attempted intrusion of sex education into Kindergarten where it wasn't sex education he was really interested in, but in indoctrinating statism). That's the reality. That little tiny spot in the brains of Progressives where all their dreams end in multi-colored rainbows and puppy dog tails is about as close as they ever get to realizing these dreams.

Education about sexuality to help avoid the situation, financial aid to help someone who is struggling to provide a basic living, counseling to help the emotional aspect of the choices to be made.

Earth to Darr. We're all struggling to make it. And if the friggin' state can't manage its own affairs (and a look at the headlines of the newspaper today, or almost any other day, should make this clear), it's in no position to manage other people's lives. That's best left up to people regarding most things.

Sorry to hear about the expensive repair, Brad. My compressor went out eventually too, but I replaced it myself.

Screw self-made people with mechanical skills who know how to save themselves money. I'm just a ward of the automotive repair state when it comes to such things, Harv. But, for whatever reason, I just never liked fixing cars. But the Mark VIII still runs pretty well. I know there are some semi-expensive things that need taking care of (like the O2 sensor, or something like that). But it's a 1994. I'll try to squeeze a few more years out of it. It's the most comfortable car I've ever driven. And I get 19-1/2 MPG, so I could be doing worse.

I'll definitely pick your brain for any of my Mark VIII problems. Look for a "Car" thread if that ever happens. I've got a few niggling things (like the continued "Door Ajar" warning), but -- knock on wood -- nothing real major at the moment. It's just this grand old car slowly aging and falling apart like we all eventually do.

Yeah, the spring kits are an option. And if I had your do-it-yourself skills, that's definitely what I'd do. How much for a plane ticket to fly you to Washington? LOL.

Listen to how the Democrats attack the regulator as though the regulator is doing something wrong by reporting to congress that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not running on sound business practices. There job is to report just that the regulator was set up by congress to regulate the situation but some how the regulator is turned into a public lyncher.

Wow. That's a very Rush Limbaugh-like way of concisely putting it, Rico. Most people seem to be of the mind that something needs to be done. You make a good point that the very nature of Fanny and Freddie means that, even if this was a horrible thing to get into in the first place, the government may have some responsibility for ponying up the costs.

I watched a little bit of news in between the baseball games and saw Fox (on Hannity and Colmes) doing a live broadcast from the Senate. And they were talking about all the little earmarks that were on the previously failed bill (like ones for ACORN...man, what an in-your-face insult) and some of the earmarks on the new ones. And although some people do indeed watch C-SPAN and have been aware of this process, I get the feeling that perhaps a brighter spotlight has, at least temporarily, been shined on Congress. For the moment they are no longer like little cockroaches scurrying around in the dark doing their business unseen. And I had the feeling what a great, great thing it would be if each and every night the outrage of some of this pork-barrel legislation was daily scrutinized. What a victory for us all that would be.

Nice job filibustering, Brad. Ranting about some perceived "nanny-state intrusion" that doesn't exist doesn't solve the problem.

Maybe I can try English this time. In general, progressives don't want to FORCE government on you. They want to provide helpful avenues for those who WANT help. If you don't want sex education, home school your little brats. If you don't want welfare to help you out, don't accept it. It's pretty simple. In general, progressives are about using the government to provide opportunities to help individuals. Now, if you want to pervert that to something else because it helps to have a shadowy enemy that you can rage against while you cry yourself to sleep at night, well, I can't do anything about that.

Are some progressives overly zealous in their politics. To be sure. But no more so than some overly zealous conservatives in their politics. We should be vigilant on all sides for those who wish to build power through conservative or liberal ideologies.

But you still didn't answer the question.

Unwanted pregnancies are a problem. They happen not too infrequently in our society. They often lead to abortions. You don't like abortions. What would you do do help reduce or eliminate abortions besides making them illegal?

Nice job filibustering, Brad. Ranting about some perceived "nanny-state intrusion" that doesn't exist doesn't solve the problem.

Oh, nonsense. If you can't follow the point, Darr, that's not my fault. Make your case if you can for government intrusion.

In general, progressives don't want to FORCE government on you. They want to provide helpful avenues for those who WANT help.

That's total boloney. Progressives are forcing their agenda on all of America bit by bit. None of this stuff is optional. If Progressives were printing suggestions in the form of pamphlets, and not commandments in the form of laws, that would be different.

If you don't want sex education, home school your little brats. If you don't want welfare to help you out, don't accept it.

As I've said earlier in this thread, teaching the biological realities of sex in school is fine by me. But it's stupid to suggest that if you offer people free money that it's just a matter of not accepting it. That money in the first place was taxed from people, and via the force of law they had no choice in not accepting paying those taxes. Progressivism once again isn't even aware of its own costs because it is so enraptured by its do-goodism.

It's pretty simple. In general, progressives are about using the government to provide opportunities to help individuals.

That's surely that stated goal. And many sincerely believe it. But the only point that counts is whether or not people are actually being helped by Progressive policies. In far to many cases the answer is "No." And even if they do help in some cases, it's still the arrogance of government to think that it can, and should, do for people what they are more than capable of doing themselves. Too often Progressive "help" is just ensnaring people in government dependency and creating a bought-and-paid-for voter base.

But no more so than some overly zealous conservatives in their politics.

An over-zealous conservative is just what the doctor ordered. An over-zealous conservative would cut Federal spending across the board and reduce taxes. An over-zealous conservative would roll back as many intrusions of the state into the free market and private property rights as it could. The worst excesses of the supposed over-zealous conservative would to be to turn government back into what it was once meant to be, the guarantor of the ability of people to pursue their own happiness, rather than today's government which promises to deliver it to their doorsteps for them.

Unwanted pregnancies are a problem.

If you'll read back further in this thread, you'll find my quite detailed thoughts on abortion. First trimester abortions -- at most -- should be legal. Anything else is just killing babies for our convenience. Another Constitutional point is that Roe vs. Wade was an extremely bad ruling by the Supreme Court. This issue is best resolved via Congressional law and/or the laws the individual states adopt.

quote:

If you'll read back further in this thread, you'll find my quite detailed thoughts on abortion.

Nice dodge. Perhaps you can cut a brother some slack and just write those thoughts about what you would do to help reduce or eliminate abortions again here. You like to post long diatribes where you repeat yourself over and over, should be nothing to post a brief summation so ole Miths can catch up. I mean, if we're gonna have a constructive debate about abortion, shouldn't it include what you think would be reasonable alternatives, rather than just vomiting that Progressive solutions are all about government intrusion? The argument "neener neener they suck" doesn't really do much to solve a real world problem.

Perhaps you can cut a brother some slack and just write those thoughts about what you would do to help reduce or eliminate abortions again here.

Listen, to be honest, I'm not really interested in going another round with Markle-like argument clinic tactics. A few pages back you can find what I wrote. Thalo, me and some others were discussing this question. And I thought it was a rather good, if brief, discussion that strung along here and there for several pages. That discussion begins here. If you have an further thoughts or questions, let me know.

.
"Markle-like argument clinic tactics" are all your repetitive, never-ending, predictable, blinkered, advocacy-pretending-to-be-analysis tunnel-visioned partisan screeds deserve.
.

"Markle-like argument clinic tactics" are all your repetitive, never-ending, predictable, blinkered, advocacy-pretending-to-be-analysis tunnel-visioned partisan screeds deserve.

Repetitive? At least give me credit for moving on from Goldberg to Sowell. Next up is what appears to be a nifty (and timely) book called "Freedomnomics" by John R. Lott Jr. It's supposed to be a very good "pop" economic book. Sowell has written a couple, but I haven't ready any of his economic-specific books yet. I'll keep you informed, like it or not.

Both Chicago teams have lost their first game. According to MLB.com, only one team has lost game 1 of an NLDS (this applies to at least the Cubs) at home and rebounded to win the series. Tampa Bay and the Dodgers could be the Cinderella teams to watch. We'll see.

The VP debate is tonight.

The big back fire will be Gwen Ifill tonight. She will come across as Pro Hussein. The audience is going to be huge that will witness this. Ifill has already shown her partisanship towards Hussein/Biden during the National Conventions. At the RNC convention after Governor Palin gave her speech the first thing Ifill said from the convention floor was Governor Palin had belittled Senator Hussein. As though Hussein had not belittled Governor Palin the entire weekend before the RNC convention took place.

quote:

The VP debate is tonight.

Thalo's debate checklist:

Beer? Check.
Pretzels? Check.
La-Z-Boy Recliner? Check.
Econo-size lube in handy pump bottle? Check.
Baby wipes or tissues? Oh, shit, gotta run to the store, and it starts in one minute. Fuck.

OMG she sucks. Seriously.

Biden is more-of-the-same D.C. but she is just batshit crazy and a pinhead.

Fun to watch!

But...sad my country is going down the shitter.

Biden looks terrible. His right eye looks Botoxed half-shut.

I wish Plain wouldn't demonize Wall Street and oil companies. They help make this country go. Why has promoting business become like the third rail?

Paliln looks confident and competent. Biden looks worn and tired standing beside her. It's a great contrast. He screams "old establishment Washington" and she's the fresh change.

Every time Biden says "Barack Obama" you sort of wonder if they're talking about some foreign leader.

Palin makes a great point about doing more domestic energy production. It's a no-brainer, but who said Democrats had brains?

Eyeroll. Not denying the global warming scam has become the modern equivalent of a politician reaffirming their belief in god. Biden is sure that any climate change (the current cooling) is man-made. Too bad this issue has become a matter of faith, not science. Those who think all our problems are solved by eliminating god from civic life are severely fooling themselves.

Palin slammed Biden for his "raping the earth" line and the need for offshore drilling. Big point for Palin. Both believe in carbon caps. This is the equivalent of believing in the tooth fairy.

Biden is clearly two-faced about the gay marriage issue. Palin, agree or disagree, was very straightforward.

Finally, someone nailed these Democratic bastards for their non-support of the war. "We have got to win in Iraq." You got that right, babe. Does anyone believe Biden about his approach to Iraq and his phony apologies for Obama? Some surely do.

"Your plan is a white flag of surrender in Iraq." Got 'em, Captain. Finally someone took a shot at these two-faced bastards. She friggin' nailed Biden. You can tell when he gives that smarmy smile of his. And Biden's trying to play the "John McCain voted against funding" line. Yeah, like John is for cutting and running. But bold-faced liars often make for successful politicians.

Palin rips Biden a new one quote the leader of al-Qadea saying Iraq is the central front. Palin brings up the nut-job Iranian's promise to wipe Israel off the man. Palin is being proactive. Biden just seems like a weak apologist, which he is, of course.

Biden makes his "talk talk talk" diplomacy point. That probably scores well with pacifists. Palin reaffirms convincingly that Israel is one of our most important allies.

Palin makes a great point about "change is coming." Biden just sounds like a nag when he mentions Bush about ten times in a row.

Palin was terrific. Biden was okay. But Palin wins because she proved herself more than competent and a breath of fresh air. All Biden had was "not Bush." And, indeed, that may be enough for many people. Palin seemed sincere and fresh. Biden was serviceable, non-smarmy for him, but ultimately pretty boring. And anyone who actually knows where he stands on things, they know he's a pretty good liar. Can I watch some baseball now?