Re: OT: US Pres election
 

Yes I am serious and frankly I don't enjoy the tone of your comment in that it comes across as condescending to me because I support McCain and Palin. You do not have that right to talk down to me and I would expect that you would elect to reign in your sarcasm and think twice about how you speak to people in the future.

While a great amount of lead way is given in any heated discussion, when tongue in cheek comments are intended, it is best to validate them with sincere humor to avoid the propriety of condescendence.

I ask you to enlighten me as to what you believe the "glaring problem is." Are you mistaking her humble likability as weakness? Are you assuming that because she isn't a rude, obnoxious, blow hard, elitist, media vetted, Washington insider that she is somehow weak, pathetic, stupid, or unqualified?

I don't see her as a weak uneducated women with no qualifications to lead our nation as you apparently do, what I see is a women who is comfortable in her shoes. Oh sure a bit lacking in awareness of current issues both domestically as well as abroad, but again, thats not a weakness its simply that she hasn't been a Washington insider over the last few years.

I do not look down upon her because Tina Fey can carry off a good parody, a parody being the key phrase here, over a bad interview with Katty Couric. All politicians have their moments with the media that are then used against them time and time again. I do not believe Sarah Palin to be some dumb country bumpkin because of the way she talks, how her voice sounds, how she looks, how she acts, or how she answered Katty's questions. To do so is to be bias.

I honestly believe that the dislike for her comes from fear that she is weak because she doesn't sound like the other people from Washington DC. Look at how well those sorry a**ed elected officials have ran things over the last two years and then think to yourself about what defines real qualifications. The Democrats have had the power to make real change now for two years and they have done nothing. In fact they hold the lowest approval rating of any congress since the formation of our nation. If those people are the people to whom you are using as a yard stick to measure Sarah Palin's abilities and qualifications, then I would submit to you that perhaps you should consider a change.

Speaking of change, when Obama speaks about change, he does so as if he owns the word without having any real understanding of what change really means. He comes from the Chicago political machine, the good old boys factory, and he plays dirty politics with the best of em. His phrase, "change" along with his tactics are text book Che Guevara communism. So what does real change really mean when it comes from Senator Obama if his inspiration and indeed his entire campaign effort was rooted from socialism and backed by the hard core dirty tactic using Chicago political machine? It means that Obama doesn't represent change, he represents radical change. A radical change that would fundamentally and negatively alter our perception of who we are as nation. While Obama himself cannot affect major change, he coupled with the liberal democrats in congress could quite literally change the very fabric of our constitutional society. And that is something that cannot be aloud to happen for all of our sakes.

The liberal agenda is already known, no expression of religion, no gun rights, no conservative talk radio, no Fox News, more taxes, higher taxes, more restrictions on where we can go through oppressive environmental regulations. Forget about driving your car, assuming you could afford fuel, you wouldn't be able to pay the new taxes imposed upon its use.

It amazes me that liberals will shout from on high about the rights of people who's phone calls might be monitored as part of an ongoing anti-terrorism program, but say nothing about the fact that every single email that they have ever sent or received is achieved by their email provider. Where were the liberal rights advocates when Sarah Palin's email account was hacked? Had Obama's or even Biden's email accounts been hacked by the son of a republican state representative, holly hell would have been raised. But again, since it happened to Palin, nothing.

I say that this anti-Palin rhetoric is because it is okay to trash Palin since she is viewed by the media as being something of a Dan Quayle for which, in all reality, she is not.

McCain won't win in November and while I strongly disagree with Senator Obama's political ideology, I will support him, aside from his anti-military, anti-gun rights, and unacceptable tax increase initiatives. And come Nov 2012 I will look to the Republican party to put forth a real challenger and vote freedom and nation first in the hopes that we will defeat him and his democratic cohorts and then restore the rights and privileges lost to us during his reign as Czar.

If I am as you say, bias, then that is a welcome labeling that I will wear proudly.

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

One thing is certain, every politician lies.

I was actually hoping that Huckabee would win over McLame.

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

Okay, Atrocities, your tirade makes it apparent that you haven't read the rest of the thread, including my previous posts.

And anyway, my quote from you had nothing to do with Palin specifically. You made the assertion that somehow Palin's election to Governor, was proof positive of her abilities. I was exasperated that anyone could claim that by sheer virtue of holding an office, someone is magically gifted with the ability to perform well.

Personally, I think Palin is in WAY over their head as a Governor, and has no business in the White House at all - in an official capacity.


You have got to be kidding me, seriously. Rights and privileges? Like the right to not be covertly surveyed without a warrant? The right to due legal process? The right to travel on the same continent without being treated like a criminal? The right to earn enough money to even HAVE a quality of life? The right to not have your government co-opted by corporate interests, in a burgeoning police state?

Yeah. I should vote Republican too, the party of civil liberties, and fiscal sensibility.


(PS- I love our two party system where any yahoo can walk into this thread and see me bash Palin, and automatically think that I am in love with Obama. Might read the part where I'm not a Democrat, you fuzzy and likable person.)

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

Now JimMorrison, where in my post did I make the assertion or accusation that you were either Democrat or an Obama supporter?

I made the connection because I was speaking about Palin and it was pretty clear that your comment was meant to be condescending. I am not an idiot so please don't attempt to play me for one.

I again ask you to explain, if you will, why you believe this. Its your opinion, so put some effort into it and explain it. Do you believe that she is under qualified to be a Governor because she is a women, or perhaps because she has a down to earth way of talking? Does your pernicious opinion of her have anything to do with how the liberal bias media has been treating her and her reputation? Do you believe that she is somehow lacking in the intelligence department because she doesn't speak like those oh so unsuccessful politicians from Washington DC? I just want to know the reasoning behind your opinion. Is there a reason or is it simply that you dislike her because you believe everyone else does? Its your opinion, please explain it.

I was, when commenting about rights and privileges, referring to the second amendment.

I am no fan of the Patriot Act and fear that has the potential to be horribly abused. If you dislike someones point of view, and you're in the white house, you could simply invoke the Patriot Act and charge that person to whom you disagree with as being a domestic terrorist and have them shipped off to God only knows where. Bush, to the best of my knowledge, hasn't abused the Patriot act domestically and I would demand proof from you if you say that he has. And please, not far left propaganda, actual concrete physical proof.

[quote]The right to travel on the same continent without being treated like a criminal? The right to earn enough money to even HAVE a quality of life? [/quote[

Now its my turn to say really. :)

The only examples that I can find of people being treated like criminals for traveling on "the same continent" are the arrests of drug traffickers, illegal aliens, known felons, and those involved in criminal activities. Of course these people should have the right to travel wherever they want without being treated like criminals even though by most laws they are. But that might depend upon what you mean by traveling on the same continent..

As to the earning money aspect of your above comment, unless you are referring to criminals or illegal aliens not having the right to earn enough money to even have a quality of life, I cannot find any instances of anyone being barred or prohibited from working and earning a wage.

A police state. If you honestly believe that we are now living in a burgeoning police state just wait until after Obama takes office. Under his administration you will see some of the most restrictive anti-freedom laws take affect from attacks on the first and second amendment, to limiting your mobility through higher taxes on vehicles, fuel, licenses, and so on. You are only as free as the distance you can afford to travel.

You are right, I haven't read every single post in this thread, I am working my way through it through, so I don't know everything there is to know about what you or others have said. You see it takes time to get up to speed when there is so much to go through. But rest assured I will work my way through it, kinda like Sarah Palin is now doing with Washington DC politics. So if I make a gaff, step on someones toes or unintentionally get a fact or two wrong, I offer up a preemptive apology.

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

You not only walked into this thread completely belligerent, but you are purposefully obtuse, and now I am quite convinced that you are just pushing my buttons so that you can point your finger at me when this thread devolves even further.

I'm just glad that the people who think like you, are in fact a shrinking minority, while awareness and rational thought are becoming more and more popular these days.

I honestly can't believe you think I dislike Palin for being a woman. So glad I'm not your psychoanalyst.....

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

I'm truly saddened that the media has fanned the fires of hatred. Those of us who are Americans should be able to debate freely without being hated. I think we need to fire the news anchors that are trying to demonize the other side. Also we need to fire all politicians who have served a term. To be in politics successfully you have to have a machine and money behind you. This means they control the politicians actions. This must stop before we lose our fine nation. Bwaha

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

Don't you just love political rhetoric

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

This isn't about you. There are two types of people in this world, those who do for others, and those who do for themselves. You fall into the latter category since you believe that this whole discussion is all about you.

I needn't remind you that it was you who responded to my posts in a condescending tone that did little more than identify you as a hot headed, ill informed, fatuous with poor impulse control.

I am merely expressing my opinion within an open discussion on a topic of interest. If you feel pressured by my questions than please don't respond to my posts with pernicious type comments and expect to get away free and clear without challenge.

As to the thread devolving any further, I think you should stop trying to play the victim and review your own incendiary comments before you try and float the asinine accusation that my comments are somehow devolving this thread.

The one constant in the universe is that when liberals are faced with an opposing point of view, in most cases the that being the truth, they, instead of participating in an open discussion, choose to attack those who express differing opinions. Now you can say that you are not a liberal, but your words and actions say otherwise.

And for the record, I never stated that "I" thought that you dislike Sarah Palin because she is a women. I left it up to you to say for yourself.

Given the tone of your comments and the lack of a meaningful response, I am left to wonder if you possess the basic discussion skill set of an educated individual to express ones motives behind ones opinion in an articulate and meaningful manor. I am therefore going to do you a favor. I am going to tell you why it is that some people believe that Sarah Palin is under qualified to be the Veep let alone the President.

According to those educated individuals who chose to state specifically why it is that they feel Sarah Palin is not qualified to be commander and chief is because she lacks a command presence.

You should, with your limited tunnel vision, be able to take it from their. And in the future I suggest that you keep your elitist inspired condescending tone in check.

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

I think that the democrats need to un-republican the country abit so I really want to vote that way.

But I must admit that I really like some of the sexy pictures of Palin. Particularly the swim suit video when she was competing in the beauty contest. (yeah I know, not good reasoning. But its not much worse than some Ive seen here) :p

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

I just want to see someone elected to office who really cares about the people first and foremost. Someone who won't erode our constitutional rights, anger our allies, lie to us, or rather pass a lie to us. A leader who, like Harry Truman, Teddy Roosevelt, or JFK, has character and takes the heat when it gets hot and comes out on top putting the nation and our way of life first. It doesn't matter to me if the person is rep dem or indy, a man or a women, or what race they are. I just want what we had before it was taken from us before its completely gone for good. My last blog kinda spells out how I feel.

PS, Jim, I am not trying to push any ones buttons. I played it a bit hot in my last post, a bit of tit for tat so to speak, but really all I originally intended was to state my point of view and explain my motives for my opinions. If that got under your skin and pushed your buttons, it wasn't my intention.

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

What ticks me off is the constant lies that are taught in our schools. For instance tail gunner Joe McCarthy is portrayed as a villain, I've had arguments with my buddy's and they claim he was a member of HUAC. Not so my friends, he was a senator. Also his claims of soviet infiltration of the state dept. are a matter of historical fact. If you don't believe me check into the Verona decrypts. Now I'm not red baiter, but I read a fascinating but very dry book. I will get the title to you later, but it is the memoirs of a GRU general. Lastly my late friend Ted was a devout Maoist. We argued constantly but loved each other regardless of our political positions. :soap: :D

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

Thank you. I also apologize if my criticism of Palin as a political figure was harsh. If I had to put my finger on my problem with her (beyond the fact that she doesn't seem intelligent or informed at all), it's her religion. Not her specific religion - I would just like to see someone in our highest office that doesn't put their god, or conception of god first. I want someone who is not a Christian, or a Jew, or a Muslim, or a Buddhist, as both our President, and VP. I want them to put their country first - not their faith.

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

The US is supposed to be a free democracy: that means people should have freedom of views, and the free speech to express those views.

That Communists were trying to infiltrate the USA is irrelevant. The fact is that many of McCarthy's victims had done nothing wrong, he had no adequate evidence they'd done anything wrong, yet he ruined their lives, many even had to leave the USA. He did so because they had merely the barest of links to left-wing thought. He was a vicious bully; he was thought police; he was a force of oppression. That's why he is a villain, and even he caught as much as a whole spy ring he'd still be a villain.

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

Dear Agema, it was a group of house members that did this. Huac was a over-reaction. McCarthy was not a part of it. Historical fact. That you were taught this is exactly what I object to. Its not your fault that you've been taught untruths. I blame the teachers. Not all teachers indoctrinate their students, but rather teach them to think. These I approve of.:D

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

I wasn't taught McCarthy was part of HUAC.

He was a public face of anti-Communist hysteria, and I don't doubt he had indirect influence on them. He was chairman of committees which investigated public officials and devastated them without evidence, and carried out all sorts of horrors against free society, like banning books.

Frankly, it's abhorrent he should be rehabilitated. Particularly by the sorts of authors who normally rage about historical revisionism when it stands up for the left wing. But some people don't let hypocrisy get in the way.

It's a disgrace that people like Ann Coulter talk about liberals as "traitors". There can be nothing more narrow-minded, intolerant and socially divisive than to suggest people with differing political views are betraying the state. That is support for authoritarian rule, virtually indistinguishable from the sorts of things the Nazi and Soviet regimes did.

If that is what is acceptable policy for Republicans, then the party should be damned worldwide as a hotbed of fascism and unfit to exert any power in the free world. Thankfully though, I believe most Republicans find it as horrific and unacceptable as most of the rest of us.

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

This kind of distorted, lop-sided "comparison" is one of the reasons I hate political arguments.

It's not fair look at Palin's entire life for qualifications, but only look at Obama's past three years.

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

Che Guevara's tactics were those of armed revolution. Have you any hard evidence that Obama is planning to arm the common workers to militarily overthrow the bourgeoisie and exploitative ruling classes?

Please also bear in mind that the US mainstream left-wing Democrats are more right-wing than your average Western European mainstream right-wing, such as the British Conservative party or the French UMP. Positioning the Democrats as "socialist" or "communist" denies such statements of credibility, as Western Europe is clearly not in the grip of Marxism.

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

True.
And if it would be, would that necessarily be that bad a thing?
I keed, I keed... :p

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

Current debate tactics in america consist of setting up straw men and knocking them down. There are so many logical fallacies in the political discussion, america should be ashamed of itself.

Take this Rev. Wright issue. Yes, he said evil things about about america. Things I consider treason. But on the other side, how many fundamentalist neo cons are calling for the deaths of athiest americans or the expulsion of everyone non-white. Hell, Pat Robertson even called for nuclear strikes on Washington DC a few years back.

See my point.

if not, how about this

"...and the pot called the kettle black..."


The point is, US politics have devolved into a 3rd grade playground pissing contest.

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

Because the people who own our economy find it easier to conduct their business, when the populace are deluded into petting infighting and irrational anger.

Oh and I finally watched the VP debate last night, what a show. I'm amused by Palin's overuse of her cute little "heckuvalot", I wonder how many people are voting the McCain ticket because of her personality. What was the term? Down to earth? I guess that is neo-con speak for "un-intellectual". We all know the intellectuals will ruin the earth - what with their heretical scientific beliefs and all.

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

True. However it is only fair to point out that Palin is being forced to show ALL of her qualifications while Senator Obama isn't. It is lop sided. But by now we all know who we are going to support so all of this is really just cheap entertainment for us now. I am going to sit back and laugh at all the crap both sides is going to start flinging. Should be fun.

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

The biggest problem with all of you intellectuals is that you think too damned much. :)

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

Tell me about it. It made me bald. :shock:


Also, I very much dislike the time limit for edits..... I'd like to change my odd typo of 'petting' to 'petty' as it was supposed to be. Spellcheck doesn't get these things. :doh:

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

There's a reason why there are so many sheep references in politics and religion.

A large part of this election is a final verdict on Washington itself. Obama's rise to fame wasn't for any reason other than many liberals and moderates out-right rejecting the last 8 years of washington DC politics. A lot of people are fed up, tired, hurting, and broke as a result of the incompetence in DC. They see several hundred entrenched career politicians and lobbiest and pundits doing nothing along with media outlets from Fox News and CNN acting more like tabloids than news outlets.

But they also see problems rising up let right and center and nothing being done to fix it except piles of money being chucked at it in the hopes we can bury it with debt.

So when someone new steps up and starts talking to them about things that matter, that someone is suddenly heard.



See, I've concluded American political affiliations really don't matter at this point. We all want someone to hear our plight and help us before we have to start wearing Hoover Hats once again.

And thanks to Bush-O-Nomics, it won't matter who wins the presidency as the next president MUST raise taxes.

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

This is sort of true and also sort of not true. His general experience is of a similar level to Palin's, and their capabilities as a statesmen and leaders, that may occur in decisions behind closed doors, is not clear.

However. Obama is a force. I don't live in the US, and I've known about him for several years as a major up-and-coming politician. In 3-4 years he's made a big impression. He campaigned so well he beat Clinton, who was a massively strong candidate, not just with pretty speeches but with solid organisation. Consequently, Obama has already proved he has leadership qualities, charisma, and can work in politics on a national and international level.

In contrast, Palin was completely obscure outside her home state, and it's a very low-population state. She had made little or no impact in the US never mind anywhere else, and was plucked out of nowhere for VP candidate.

That's really the difference. Obama has already been through the wringer and performed decently throughout, which means he has been tested. Palin has only just started to face tests, and she's already stumbled (such as her pretty incompetent Couric interview).

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

Because what happens when we are low on money? The "Federal Reserve" prints more, and "loans" it to us. Where do they get it? It's paper. Who are they? The heads of the largest banks in the world.

Eventually we will owe the Federal Reserve so much money, that they could declare the nation bankrupt, and attempt to seize the "hard assets" of the nation, in order to recoup their "losses" (of "paper" that they "loaned" us). We already gave them Fort Knox to "hold onto".

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

I thought almost by definition that "left wing" referred to the former. and "right wing" referred to the latter.

*takes cover*

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

That was actually a naughtily provocative post by me, but it does bring up the issue of the fundamental differences between the left and right wings.

My understanding was something like this. The left wing believe everyone should be as equal as possible. Hence they try to help those who are not fortunate enough to look after themselves, improve public services and so on. This seems very laudable.

The right wing would argue that laudable as it might be, such socialism is flawed and doomed to misery. People will always sponge off a welfare state, and most people who are poor are poor through their own lack of enterprise. Better to encourage business and entrepreneurship to produce money which will ultimately make the whole country richer, as well as providing jobs. By making things easier for the very rich, you end up helping everyone. Also by encouraging enterprise people have an enhanced sense of freedom and opportunity.

Would people say this is a roughly correct view of things?

As far as Americans are concerned by the way, I'm inclined to the left-wing side of things. But I think you wouldn't guess that from the way I wrote the above.

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

My own take on left wing/right wing:

A right winger is opposed to any and all change unless he himself (or those close to him) profits from the change.

A left winger will accept change where he himself does not gain any benefit as long as someone less fortunate gains.

(Guess which way I lean.)

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

I don't subscribe to world bank conspiracies. Our current economic crisis is a direct result of the federal reserve authorizing banks to issue money that it didn't have (credit means new money printed) without securing a means to recoup that money. High gas prices and rising prices in general are a direct result of the inflation this has created.

Now one of the things that really irked me was McCain saying the gov't would buy up all the bad mortgages at the loan's value, then sell it at current market prices. In many cases the gov't will be dumping this property at a loss.

And mind you, the government would then hold all public lands in the mean time..

Welcome to the Soviet America.

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

I don't think it can be summarized to something so easy as that. Money is actually not as easy as most people think, since as you already understand it has no real value in itself, it only has a value attributed to it. How and why money works, and what to make of it, that's a science on itself I'd say.

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

Azelendor,

I agree entirely. But I do not think Marx would be very proud of us. I believe that he intended for the working man to reap some benefit. The G. Bush version has privitized profit and socialized the risk and burden.

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

Until the creation of the Federal Reserve, all US currency was backed and valued with hard assets - gold and silver. The US government was the only body who could print more currency, and I would agree that I am mystified by what process they determined the value of gold and silver, and how much money could circulate based on that.

However, what I am not so confused about, is the creation of the Federal Reserve. It is a private organization, that was handed the right and responsibility of printing all US currency. They also have the right and responsibility to alter interest rates, and other economic factors - with the express purpose of NOT allowing this sort of thing to happen. But you know what? 16 years after the creation of the Fed, in 1929, we entered the darkest financial times in our nation's history - the precise situation that the creation of the Fed was supposed to preclude.

I am no conspiracy theorist. But, it doesn't take a lot of imagination to guess that if some people knew there was about to be a horrible economic downturn, they could liquify their assets, and gobble up enormous amounts of property when the market crashed.

I am not saying that happened - all I am saying is that with humanity's penchant for greed and thirst for power, it is entirely unreasonable and irresponsible to give this sort of power to the richest people in the world, without 100% transparency and oversight. But, they meet in private, and do not release any of their discussions to the public - only their conclusions and economic manipulations.

Also, I may not fully understand all of the ins and outs of our current corporate financial juggernaut - but I do know that we will always be better off with currency being based on something real and tangible, rather than an arbitrary currency that is manipulated by private hands, behind closed doors.


Possibly a $trillion bailout occurring right now. How many people have actually read the text of the bailout plan? How many people have any idea what it will actually accomplish - WHERE all of that money will end up? You see, high finance is a lot like the shell game. Once things start moving around, and things are rapidly changing hands, and there's a $trillion being tossed around - who is going to account for where that money ultimately goes?

If we can unload $13billion in unmarked, untraceable US currency on a forklift in Iraq and then lose track of it, then I would have to sadly say that we are in a position to make some disgustingly wealthy people even more money right now - just because they can slide those shells around the table so deftly.

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

And horse-drawn carriages were still a common sight on the streets. Just saying. Pssst, when I was talking about "no real value", that included things like gold and silver, too. Or pebbles or shells or whatever else you use for your monetary system.

Which only shows the complexity of the system, to me. I have confidence that the people that print money are doing their job correctly of making some sense out of this and provide some working system for us. Which I considered extremely difficult after thinking about it for a while. Nowadays, all the money you have is just some data blip on some bank server. Not that it's to be expected, but ever considered what it would mean and what would happen if some disaster would take out all of these records? Only regarding monetary values, not any kind of chaos that might start, I mean. You seem to be under the impression that money is something that is real and can just be counted.

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

Here's something for you all to chew on.

http://www.prolognet.qc.ca/clyde/illumin.htm

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

:crazy:

I assume that was a joke.

I didn't read anything on that page because it was displayed in an unreadable way. I force-forwarded through http://www.prolognet.qc.ca/clyde/money.htm instead but it was already quite obvious that the site was built by lunatics.

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

OK maybe this then.

http://www.rense.com/general83/ilum.htm

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

I like that crazy emote. :p

Again, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I just feel that the current system IS far too open to exploitation by people with more power than wisdom, and that many events have very much appeared to be at least minor exploitation of the system by those in control of it.


Horse drawn carriages can't perform the tasks necessary for the efficient execution of modern life. But while it is easy to see the glaring difference between legs and wheels, I do not see the same difference in transferring the currency of our monetary system from something tangible, to something intangible. Furthermore, even if we could magically agree that at the time it made sense, and that it ultimately helped our economy become what it is today (crumbling?), it is obviously not sufficient to deal with our current modern situation. It seems to me readily apparent that we have to attach our currency to something real again, so that we are not at the mercy of 7 untouchable bankers who could suddenly stumble on accident, or on purpose.

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

Well, how real do you want your money to become again? Back to exchanging real goods and resources? Those three eggs and the hen in your purse could become a bit unhandy. Money has always been just a token. The simple principle is that you can give it to somebody and he gives you something in return, a good or a service. The wonder is that he actually does accept that you give him just that mere token. That only works because of trust. Trust, that this token is worth something. That's the principle on how labor can be traded. Banks only work on trust, too. No bank is able to pay back all the money of its customers if they'd all come, because that money is inaccessible, it's been given out in loans that run for years, lots of years, thirty years or more. The problem is partly because the banks started trading those debts, yes, but on the other hand it's because people were living way over what they were possibly able to pay back, too. The fun thing to consider: what we see right now is only the beginning.

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

Just a quick show of hands.

How many of you were for this bail out rescue bill? I was against it. Felt it wouldn't do anything to help the economy but convince people that our economy is weak. Whenever you need the government, by extension us, to bail a market out of trouble, your stating that that market is weak. Rapid sell off shall ensue.

Those fat cat rat bastards on wall street took our 401k funds, money we invested, and retired on it laughing all the way to the bank to cash their 20 million plus dollar bonus checks, then leave their company to cry wolf and beg for government help.

This bail out bill was just some scam to rip us off even more so that fat cats from AIG could go on some half a billion dollar retreat after being bailed out. WTF?? I say again, WTF!!!

HEADS NEED TO ROLL!

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

Again, in case you missed my earlier post, my family belongs to the segment of the population affected by "distressed loans". Though we were first lied to, and our original mortgage was about 30% higher than our agent quoted us, it was within our means so we went through with it. We carried that loan for 5 years, and though it may have been a bit of a burden, it was worth it, and we paid it. Over a 6 month period, our payments got hiked by another 30%, due to being tricked into an Adjustable Rate Mortgage. So you see, we could pay the loan that we took, we just couldn't pay 30% more still, as they thought they could milk from us, due to a cleverly worded loan, and their reassurances that with our payment history, the rate would most likely slightly decline, lowering our payments.

These lenders were incredibly predatory, and shifting the blame to the buyers completely ignores not only the lending practices that bordered on usury, but also the devious methods that agents (like car salesmen) use to get you into the largest home you can possibly afford.


And no, I do not wish to see us go back to the barter system. However, our currency needs to at least represent something more tangible than "trust", because I'll tell you one thing, no bank has ever shown me a shred of trust, and they get none back from me. Apparently that makes my money worth nothing, unfortunately my lack of trust does not void the cruelly exhorbitant loan that I am defaulting on.



And Atrocities, I am in full and complete agreement with your last post. I'm glad, that we can find some mutual ground to stand on.

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

Now we're talking.

Something we are just starting to see discussion of in the news is trust. Specifically, the betrayal of consumer trust. The law has a specific section of code dealing with that, called Fraud.

Whoever the next president is, they need to open public investigations into each and every one of these organizations and get back every last penny that was conned out of the government and public trust.

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

I was against that because it hasn't changed anything. We all knew it wouldn't before they passed it. Somebody(s) made out like a bandit. Did you see how joyful the president looked as it showed him signing that bill? Personally ,I've never seen him so happy.
It failed the first vote probably because at the last minute,they needed more golden parachutes. So a revised package was in order.

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

I have become very angry about spreading the onus of the mortgage crisis between the lenders and borrowers.

1. If a person is not qualified for a standard loan/mortgage there is an insignificent probability that they are capable of accurately assessing their financial situation vis-a-vis a substantial debt obligation.
2. If unqualified borowers are assured by someone in a white shirt and tie that their debt obligation is free of risk, they are probably easily convinced that everything is okay.
3. Twenty five years ago, if you did not qualify for a loan froma financial instituion, you could knock on every single door and still not obtain a loan. Thus all the power was, and still is, in the hands of the lenders. On rare ocasions people were able to obtain loans when there was substantial risk, but the lender made a conscious decision to grant the loan for some defined and/or quantifiable reason.

Thus, blaming greedy borrowers has little or no logical foundation. Sure there are billions who desire something for nothing, but why should they have been able to get that loan unless the lenders had motivations that transcended reality?

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

You can't get anything done in DC without greasing it up with some pork.

Why don't they just classify that sort of crap as bribes?

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

Hum. "My plan is to spread the wealth around." - Obama
Obama's Own Comments

"“It’s not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody that is behind you, that they have a chance for success too.” - Obama

Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth into a small section of society who control capital, and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

The Democrats are now saying that they are working with the Obama camp to call a lame duck session in order to pass a new stimulus package. They are attempting to buy the election. If you re-elect us, we will give you money,.

Voter fraud directly tied back to Obama, and now this, buying votes. Its bad enough that the main stream media is in the Obama camp, now we have Congress working with Obama to try and buy our votes, along with stealing them. What a shameful betrayal of democracy.

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

I want to clarify that I do not believe Obama is behind any thing like voter fraud or illegal. I do however worry about the fact that these people are doing these things for him and he hasn't done much to denounce them or discourage their activities.

I do not believe that congress or Obama are attempting to buy votes per say. However, I believe they are simply waving a carrot in our faces leaving us to draw an inference as to their intentions. Those being "re-elect us and elect Obama and we'll give you money.

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

Nationalizing banks and large corporations is also socialism.

As for acorn, every election cycle they get caught cheating but oddly enough, its because they follow the rules by submitting all the ballots they collect to local election authorities (as mandated by law). I do feel the organization needs a good investigation into voter fraud.

As I also feel that local neocon (I won't call them conservatives because the current political party that claims that road left the conservatives behind long ago) political branches and groups should be investigated for using foreclosure lists to purge voter lists knowing fully well areas hardest hit by the foreclosures are largely democratic voting blocks in urban areas.

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

Hahaha, oh wow! :happy: