OMG!!! Enough is enough

bang guy

bang guy

Moderator
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2966015
I've seen many "republicans" complaining about the first package for the banks just like a large number of Democrats supported it.
I think floating the banks was probably needed to a point as far as commercial banking but the investment banks I think should have been allowed to go belly up. There damn sure should have been more strings attached.
Floating the banks may or may not have been necessary. If it actually had to be done wouldn't it have made more sense to prop up the banks that were doing well instead of donating money to banks that screwed up? I mean, they screwed up, right? It just seems to me that corporate evolution would dictate that the money should have been given to banks that were not failing.
 
nwdyr

nwdyr

Active Member
Well......Where are all the "change" people???? Obama had these same bad ideas 1yr ago but he was still voted in
I wonder what could have colored peoples view about change? The country voted for a black man not for the best man. So now we got what we got , this guy was a GREAT lawyer and a GREAT speaker...that's it! we will all pay for America's need for a black Pres. well now you got it so shut up and live with it!` A few months ago all i saw here was "Obama the GREAT!!" how wonderful he was and how smart he was , same thing on T.V. now everyone has turned on him , what a bunch of Hippocrates's! Kinda like Roland Burris here in Chicago , he was put in congress because he was black , not my opinion , that was his supporters said. They stood up and said " he MUST be allowed in because we need more African Americans in congress" 30days later they find out he is a idiot who lied and now they are calling for him to resign. My point? STOP VOTING FOR COLOR ( A.K.A "change") and vote for who is the best for the job. If that person is African American or hey how about Italian American? that's great So now for all you "change" people.....SHUT UP AND SUFFER
 
mgatdog

mgatdog

Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2966102
2 things.
1. The administration did not force them to buy the house (obviously they were fine just renting before that) and neither did they tell them to buy a 200,000 dollar home.
2. unemployment is not at it's worst in 30 years. Did you just make up that figure?
1. Nobody forced them, but they made the guide lines to the banks that loaned the money easier. G.B said it on the news one day last summer that" more Americans owning homes than ever before in his term of office." 2. Maybe it was the highest it has been in the last 26 years .
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by mgatdog
http:///forum/post/2965884
What about the last 3 months of 2008 when unemployment went to a all time high.He went from the best in 30 years to the worst in 3 months.
Are you really that ignorant? No wonder you vote dummycrat.
Before you vote again. Go do some research on the unemployment rate. And go read some thing milton friedman wrote.
 
mgatdog

mgatdog

Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2966155
Are you really that ignorant? No wonder you vote dummycrat.
Before you vote again. Go do some research on the unemployment rate. And go read some thing milton friedman wrote.
Ha glad to hear your words of Wisdumb Stdreb. Mr Know it all.
You fit right in with the dummycrats.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by mgatdog
http:///forum/post/2966160
Ha glad to hear your words of Wisdumb Stdreb. Mr Know it all.
You fit right in with the dummycrats.
Look no offense, but you don't know the first thing about unemployment. So before you make yourself look like a complete fool, go back and do some research. Because a 7% unemployment rate, isn't the worst unemployment rate we've ever had. You'd have to more than triple that to get to the great depression rates. But hey never mind the fact. They've never stood in the way of democrats.
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by mgatdog
http:///forum/post/2966146
1. Nobody forced them, but they made the guide lines to the banks that loaned the money easier. G.B said it on the news one day last summer that" more Americans owning homes than ever before in his term of office." 2. Maybe it was the highest it has been in the last 26 years .
Actually the guidelines were loosened under clinton and just got easier. But this is the classic problem in your logic and many others. Bush made it easier, fine. But he did NOT tell you you had to still go out and get a 200,000 dollar home. The consumer chose that. Tell me at which point Bush put the gun to the consumer's head and told them they HAD to buy the house and agree to the loan. There is one person at fault for these

[hr]
problems, the person that signed the paperwork.
It is true more people owned homes during his terms. and even with the mortgages foreclosed on and in default this figure is still true. But his claim was not a lie. And it was factual. Is it his fault the person can't pay what they agreed to?
1992 was 26 years ago? Would you please stop pulling numbers from anywhere you can think of, and actually research something before you try to pass it off as facts?
 
turningtim

turningtim

Active Member
Excuse me Darth. I went a bit over board and got carried away. My Bad! Seriously.
Darth, Reb I just spent a bit of time on a couple of sites (NYSE) looking at some history. With the exaggeration of now vs. the 30's is it really fair to compare the two? ie circuit breaker law, SEC ETC ETC.
There have been bigger point loses and double digit falls but it would seem with the laws and agencies put it place I just think its apples and oranges.....
 
turningtim

turningtim

Active Member
Originally Posted by wattsupdoc
http:///forum/post/2965405
The whole debate over whether anyone else should enjoy our constitutional right is ridiculous Tim. You know that. Why should we allow someone who is not a citizen vote here. I mean come on. Is that what we are going to do?
My brother in law attended law school for several years, he didn't finish. Moved from school to school and eventually dropped it. Why? There are so many who want to interpret the constitution to death. They want a definitive answer when it is to their favor. Most have lost the spirit of what our fore fathers wanted and want to strictly twist it for their profit. Not all, but many. The statement from you "where does it say that" is a very liberal approach. Additionally the whole process of citizenship is what allows them to possess our rights. Now , save basic human rights that is. As well some degree of being treated with dignity for those that are on our soil. But nothing at all for those that aren't, save basic human rights that is.
In WW2 Japnaese American citizens were held in prison camps all over the US.
Just throwing that out there.

So what we did in WWII was right?
Doc I do understand what you are saying really I do. But when it comes to our laws and constitution there is no or very little room for exceptions.
So a foreign nation who is in our country legally (student maybe) gets a DUI. They are not protected by our laws?(trail, defense etc etc)
really? An attorney with a client in Germany who is being sued in this country doesn't have an expectation of privacy on the phone or by internet? Really?
And those of you that do not support Pres Obama now want him to have the power of the Patriot act and the others? After all the precedence has been set.
There's no going back....
Right?
Sorry Bang... My bad......
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
A foreign national, in our country legally, who commits a crime is not protected by the Constitution. They should be kicked out of the country immediately.
Has anyone bothered to look at the economy under President Carter??? We're heading that way again with this crazy tax and spend nonsense we're about to try.
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by TurningTim
http:///forum/post/2966234
Excuse me Darth. I went a bit over board and got carried away. My Bad! Seriously.
Darth, Reb I just spent a bit of time on a couple of sites (NYSE) looking at some history. With the exaggeration of now vs. the 30's is it really fair to compare the two? ie circuit breaker law, SEC ETC ETC.
There have been bigger point loses and double digit falls but it would seem with the laws and agencies put it place I just think its apples and oranges.....
No worries. I do it occasionally as well. It is never meant seriously and most of the time when I do it I am dong it in a joking man-ribbing manner. So I take it the same way.
It is fair to compare the two I believe. But not in manner many do. We are no where near what happened during the depression and this is my biggest problem with this "crisis". The do or die mentality and the doomsday mentality.
Compare this with 9/11 and the aftermath of that time. I changed nothing then and I am changing nothing now. I still went out shopping then, I still do now. I still bought things then and do so now. I do it with in my means as I have always done so. If people would stop with the panic and just take a moment to approach it logically they would see things will be fine if they continue to do all the things they did before without fear. Fear is a driving force and it seems to rule the landscape.
Now with that said here is why I will NEVER agree this is as bad as the Depression. During the depression a good MAJORITY of people lost everything in the stock crash. Today people are saying they have lost 50% of their retirement due to the economic crisis and stock market. BUT that 50% loss is only if the pull out now and quit. Also most people that do 401K the 50% they lost was not any of their money, but money they made through gains or matched by whomever the work for. Therefore are they really out anything?
This is why I don't see it as that bad..........yet.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by TurningTim
http:///forum/post/2966267
Site and source maybe?
How bout this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Woodward
Historically in a time of war, (and it was supported by the courts) any dissent was dealt with very harshly. FDR locked up the Japs, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, heck he had a senator arrested for dissenting. (and these were Americans)
I'm not saying it was right or wrong.
But (this is key) while democrats including Obama were screaming bloody murder for stuff like the wire tapping terrorist phone calls. They are leaving those protective measures in place.
 
turningtim

turningtim

Active Member
Thanks Darth. And couldn't you take that fear thought and kinda mash it in with the Gov/media terrorist fear. Its all like a perfect storm.
Reb, As of now its really hasn't been challenged in the high court. So that is a big for now. As of that interview I posted there hasn't been an arrest born from the Pat act. I know it has been ruled on in lesser courts but not sure where.
Hey wire tap all you want show probable cause and get a warrant from a Fedral Judge. Is that to much to ask?
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/2966124
Floating the banks may or may not have been necessary. If it actually had to be done wouldn't it have made more sense to prop up the banks that were doing well instead of donating money to banks that screwed up? I mean, they screwed up, right? It just seems to me that corporate evolution would dictate that the money should have been given to banks that were not failing.
Dunno, I mean could you have just let Citibank go under without causing serious problems with the economy? In the long haul it may be cheaper to bail them than to let them fail and have the FDIC make good on the accounts.
If the government could hit its arse with both hands I would say they should have provided the loans to accommodate a takeover by one of the banks that is doing good.
I think at this point the government needs to decide if it makes more sense to bail out GM and Chrysler and maybe Ford later on or step back and let the cards fall wherever. If one of those co's tips over doesn't that make it more likely that Ford and the other survivor returns to profitability sooner? I think one of the manufacturers going under would have less effect on the economy that one of the major banks failing. Maybe not.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by TurningTim
http:///forum/post/2966306
Reb, As of now its really hasn't been challenged in the high court. So that is a big for now. As of that interview I posted there hasn't been an arrest born from the Pat act. I know it has been ruled on in lesser courts but not sure where.
I wasn't talking about any of the disputed practices today, I was talking about the various civil liberties suspended in the past, that were challenged in court.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by TurningTim
http:///forum/post/2966403
I got it!

Right or not, historically, there is legal precident for a suspension of civil liberties in times of war. That have been supported in the courts when people have challenged their rulings. There is a very legitimate argument. I agree it is a SLIPPERY slope, on one side if you don't, your country may not survive, other the other hand if it does survive, and these rules are not repealed. Then you've lost what you're fighting for.
However, I really feel that our treatment of terrorists captured on a battle field, vs interning the Japanese, is a complete apples or oranges argument. There is more of an argument when it comes to wiretapping a conversation between a terrorist overseas and him calling an American on US soil, but not really much better of an argument. Nor do I think that the libs opposition to the disputed measures, lie on the basis of defense of our civil liberties, but in their quest for power.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top