Bailout Alternative???

[Tom Lowe]

I don't see how voting for a third-party candidate could be seen as a waste. This corrupt, failed two-party system is at least partially responsible for our current mess. When it comes to policies, the two parties are basically in cahoots. The only debate is, "Should we drive the national debt up $500 billion dollars this year, or $550 billion? She we occupy Musilm Nation #1, or Muslim Nation #4? Should we station our military in 120 countries overseas, or 125? Should we use the US Constitution to light our cigars with, or to wipe our asses?"

 

[Alex Coelho]

I hope you aren't wasting your vote in one of the swing states.

Every 4 years we vote for the same 2 parties and nothing changes. I will not continue this tradition.

 

[Andrew Walker]

I don't see how voting for a third-party candidate could be seen as a waste. This corrupt, failed two-party system is at least partially responsible for our current mess. When it comes to policies, the two parties are basically in cahoots. The only debate is, "Should we drive the national debt up $500 billion dollars this year, or $550 billion? She we occupy Musilm Nation #1, or Muslim Nation #4? Should we station our military in 120 countries overseas, or 125? Should we use the US Constitution to light our cigars with, or to wipe our asses?"

Some good points there Tom. The last part is dead on. These people could care less about our rights. They are just looking at ways to protect themselves and line their own pockets. Because if they want to do something them of course everyone else wants to follow their lead...what a joke.

 

[Priyesh P.]

Just read an article about an auction in the middle east for mobile phone numbers. A woman paid 500 K for hers. And I thought 250 K for a kitchen or the same amount for loudspeakers were insane amounts.
What must have gone wrong in the minds of those rich scumbags to spend money they have pressed out of normal people for such brainsick things?

 

[Curran Giddens]

Every 4 years we vote for the same 2 parties and nothing changes. I will not continue this tradition.

I hear you. I voted for Nader in 2000, but this country just isn't ready to give him a chance. If he doesn't have a chance, then voting for him is a waste. I wish this wasn't the case. We need a critical mass of people willing to vote outside of the two-party system. Until then, I feel it is better to vote for the lesser of two evils.

The fact is, if the people who voted for Nader would have voted for Gore (at least in the swing states), Bush would never have won.

 

[Leo Ticheli]

Every 4 years we vote for the same 2 parties and nothing changes. I will not continue this tradition.

That is one of the most egregiously mistaken comments I've read.

There are profound differences, notably in the economy, control of Federal Agencies, and the courts.

Under President Clinton, we enjoyed relative peace, economic prosperity with budget surpluses, respect of the world, and a rational court.

After two terms of President George W. Bush and Republican hegemony in Congress, we find ourselves mired in two wars, facing the collapse of our economy, we are vilified in the eyes of the world, and our court is tilted to the right.

No difference?

What metric are you using?

Best regards,

Leo

 

[Priyesh P.]

Under President Clinton, we enjoyed relative peace, economic prosperity with budget surpluses, respect of the world, and a rational court.

I can only agree. The U.S. had a great reputation here (Germany) and elsewhere with Clinton in command...how things have changed...

 

[number6]

That is one of the most egregiously mistaken comments I've read.

There are profound differences, notably in the economy, control of Federal Agencies, and the courts.

Under President Clinton, we enjoyed relative peace, economic prosperity with budget surpluses, respect of the world, and a rational court.

After two terms of President George W. Bush and Republican hegemony in Congress, we find ourselves mired in two wars, facing the collapse of our economy, we are vilified in the eyes of the world, and our court is tilted to the right.

No difference?

What metric are you using?

Best regards,

Leo

Hey Leo! Decided to join in on the side of noise in the S/N ratio? And to think... you once were anti-noise.:biggrin:

 

[Alex Coelho]

That is one of the most egregiously mistaken comments I've read.

There are profound differences, notably in the economy, control of Federal Agencies, and the courts.

Under President Clinton, we enjoyed relative peace, economic prosperity with budget surpluses, respect of the world, and a rational court.

After two terms of President George W. Bush and Republican hegemony in Congress, we find ourselves mired in two wars, facing the collapse of our economy, we are vilified in the eyes of the world, and our court is tilted to the right.

No difference?

What metric are you using?

Best regards,

Leo

My metric system Sir is the corporatization of the Democratic party for which Bill Clinton started.

The WTO
NAFTA
Financial Services Modernization Act 1999
Telecommunication Act 1996

These are only a few items during the Clinton era that destroyed local economies, curbed public discourse, undermines are democracy and has put this country on the brink of being bankrupt. All received the stamp of approval from a Democratic President and Republican Congress.

Now you have a Republican President and Democratic Congress bailing out their friends in Wall Street. Wall Street has given 21 million to Obama and 19 million to McCain this election cycle. If they were really concerned about those mortgage securities, they would put a freeze on foreclosures and force banks to renegoiate loans or give bankruptcy judges authority to restructure loans but they dont, why... because the two-party system has failed to work for the people they represent. You allow these bandits to take advantage of you by continuing to vote for them and I will not be sheep.

 

[jpp]

Both Republicans and Democrats may be wholly-owned subsidiaries of corporate America, but after 8 years of Bush/Cheney, who in his right mind could say that it doesn't matter who gets elected?

One glaring example, to return to the actual subject of this thread: even when the current crisis hit the boiling point, it took nearly a month before Hank Paulson and George Bush recognized that a "free market" solution wouldn't work. Only in the last 2 days, of a crisis which has been going over for over a year, have they finally accepted that government, i.e., the taxpayer, is going to have to take an equity stake in these failing institutions if it wants to save them. So opposed to this power were Paulson/Bush a week ago, that they actually fought against having it put into $700 billion bailout bill. Now, it's apparently the spearhead of the plan.

Why the resistance to the one course of action which has a hope of succeeding, and which has succeeded in the past? Because this plutocratic Republican crowd so hates the idea that the taxpayer, rather than big investors, would eventually benefit, that they refused to even consider it. Besides, this capital infusion is called "nationalization", which is something only Commies do. Excepting, of course, the U.S. in the 1930s, and again in the late 80s (the S&L crisis), and again in the mid-1990s and Sweden a few years ago, and Britain, two days ago. This time, it took a 40% drop in the Dow, and a freeze in the commercial paper market, to turn them into socialists.

Sure, Robert Rubin under Clinton came from the same Wall Street culture as Paulson and served the same masters, he was hardly the savior of Joe Sixpack. But Rubin/Clinton were not ideologues. They weren't so infatuated with their crackpot theories that they didn't see reality.

Elect McCain/Palin, and we'll see lots more very bad ideas held far too long.... Enough to bury all of us alive.

 

[Esteban Sosnitsky]

I sincerely hope you guys in the US elect Obama, even though it would be no good for our country, in the long term I think it will. I miss the Clinton times were the news were about his oval mishap, and his saxophone playing in Cartagena with a local hat and shirt; and not about the Wall street fall while the chief in command is hunting ducks in his ranch in texas.

 

[Andrew Walker]

Both Republicans and Democrats may be wholly-owned subsidiaries of corporate America, but after 8 years of Bush/Cheney, who in his right mind could say that it doesn't matter who gets elected?

One glaring example, to return to the actual subject of this thread: even when the current crisis hit the boiling point, it took nearly a month before Hank Paulson and George Bush recognized that a "free market" solution wouldn't work. Only in the last 2 days, of a crisis which has been going over for over a year, have they finally accepted that government, i.e., the taxpayer, is going to have to take an equity stake in these failing institutions if it wants to save them. So opposed to this power were Paulson/Bush a week ago, that they actually fought against having it put into $700 billion bailout bill. Now, it's apparently the spearhead of the plan.

Why the resistance to the one course of action which has a hope of succeeding, and which has succeeded in the past? Because this plutocratic Republican crowd so hates the idea that the taxpayer, rather than big investors, would eventually benefit, that they refused to even consider it. Besides, this capital infusion is called "nationalization", which is something only Commies do. Excepting, of course, the U.S. in the 1930s, and again in the late 80s (the S&L crisis), and again in the mid-1990s and Sweden a few years ago, and Britain, two days ago. This time, it took a 40% drop in the Dow, and a freeze in the commercial paper market, to turn them into socialists.

Sure, Robert Rubin under Clinton came from the same Wall Street culture as Paulson and served the same masters, he was hardly the savior of Joe Sixpack. But Rubin/Clinton were not ideologues. They weren't so infatuated with their crackpot theories that they didn't see reality.

Elect McCain/Palin, and we'll see lots more very bad ideas held far too long.... Enough to bury all of us alive.

To try and blame everything leading up to this bailout on the Bush Admin is very small minded. I'll spell it out for you FEDERAL RESERVE, this is who has created this entire mess. To say that it was anyone else is just a finger pointing competition.

And as for McCain/Palin burying us alive, your joking right. It doesn't matter who gets in there, we are just going to be screwed in different ways faster or slower. Personally I would rather see someone in office that isn't going to try and take my 2nd Amendment right away. The 2nd Amendment was put in place so not only could we defend ourselves from criminals but from the government. During the Clinton Admin they created the assault weapons ban, which did nothing for 10 years. Other than make a lot of law abiding people have to suffer through it. Why created a ban on weapons that are involved in less that 6% of all gun related crimes, how much sense does that make. Biden was the idiot that helped write that bill in the first place. I just love how retarded these gun haters are, they can be protected by people armed with M-16s but responsible gun owners shouldn't be allowed to have them.

 

[jpp]

Personally I would rather see someone in office that isn't going to try and take my 2nd Amendment right away.

I think I get it now. The financial crisis, global warming, matters of habeas corpus, war and peace, foreign policy, torture, government and institutional criminality, social and economic policies, etc. are all matters of small concern, compared to your presumed right to own an M16, which evil Bill Clinton tried to take away from you.

However, you're not troubled by losing other rights (such as freedom from being imprisoned and tortured without charges, on the president's say-so), so it's fine to vote Republican.

Thank you for making that perfectly clear.

 

[R. Schorman]

I think I get it now. The financial crisis, global warming, matters of habeas corpus, war and peace, foreign policy, torture, government and institutional criminality, social and economic policies, etc. are all matters of small concern, compared to your presumed right to own an M16, which evil Bill Clinton tried to take away from you.

However, you're not troubled by losing other rights (such as freedom from being imprisoned and tortured without charges, on the president's say-so), so it's fine to vote Republican.

Thank you for making that perfectly clear.

Amen!

 

[Andrew Walker]

I think I get it now. The financial crisis, global warming, matters of habeas corpus, war and peace, foreign policy, torture, government and institutional criminality, social and economic policies, etc. are all matters of small concern, compared to your presumed right to own an M16, which evil Bill Clinton tried to take away from you.

However, you're not troubled by losing other rights (such as freedom from being imprisoned and tortured without charges, on the president's say-so), so it's fine to vote Republican.

Thank you for making that perfectly clear.

Yep the ability to defend myself is very important to me. The preservation of my life and that of my family's life is second to none. The whole thing with the POTUS being able to imprison people with out charges is something that I don't like either. I also see it as something very wrong and a preview of things to come. So with that in mind I would rather be able to put up a fight than to go quietly.

Its not just the Republicans that want this power to do whatever they want. Both sides want that power and if they say they don't they are lying. The last remaining ideas of freedom will be stripped away through the sale of fear.

 

[jpp]

Yep the ability to defend myself is very important to me. The preservation of my life and that of my family's life is second to none. The whole thing with the POTUS being able to imprison people with out charges is something that I don't like either. I also see it as something very wrong and a preview of things to come. So with that in mind I would rather be able to put up a fight than to go quietly.

Its not just the Republicans that want this power to do whatever they want. Both sides want that power and if they say they don't they are lying. The last remaining ideas of freedom will be stripped away through the sale of fear.

I marvel that you think you can defend yourself with an M16, in Burbank, California. Short of owning a nuclear deterrent, the state will crush you, your family and anyone else it wants, in short order.

The only protections any of us have in the end are the protections of law, and the current administration has effectively voided the Constitution, which means none of us has any protections. And yet you seem to want that reign to continue, in order to own a gun which will never do you any good.

You have a choice: either vote for the candidate who will almost certainly perpetuate those abuses, and who promises to nominate judges who subscribe to the "unitary" theory of presidential power, which includes the power to arbitrarily imprison and torture, or vote Democratic, because Democrats are at least somewhat susceptible to pressure from non-corporate power centers, and don't embrace dangerous dictatorial theories of presidential power.

It is, admittedly, a miserable choice. Obama, far from being leftist or even a liberal, is a center-right candidate, full of the usual cant and triumphalist nonsense. And his policies will be formed by the same center-right hacks who ran the Clinton administration. But that's still far, far better than the last 8 years.

 

[number6]

Yep the ability to defend myself is very important to me. The preservation of my life and that of my family's life is second to none. The whole thing with the POTUS being able to imprison people with out charges is something that I don't like either. I also see it as something very wrong and a preview of things to come. So with that in mind I would rather be able to put up a fight than to go quietly.

Its not just the Republicans that want this power to do whatever they want. Both sides want that power and if they say they don't they are lying. The last remaining ideas of freedom will be stripped away through the sale of fear.

Drew 599, Can't comment here

(I'm under a self-imposed gag rule because of a deal I made with the :devil: err... I meant to say jpp. I tried to play game theory for the best possible outcome by exteneding him unilateral release from his agreement to not post imflammatory comments. He did not reciprocate so I have to refrain from commenting. Might be a lesson in there that someone should not engage in game theory with a member of the Cult of Obama. They will zero sum you!)

But I think I am within my rights to say that you make a lohhhhhhhta sense!

 

[Andrew Walker]

I marvel that you think you can defend yourself with an M16, in Burbank, California. Short of owning a nuclear deterrent, the state will crush you, your family and anyone else it wants, in short order.

The only protections any of us have in the end are the protections of law, and the current administration has effectively voided the Constitution, which means none of us has any protections. And yet you seem to want that reign to continue, in order to own a gun which will never do you any good.

You have a choice: either vote for the candidate who will almost certainly perpetuate those abuses, and who promises to nominate judges who subscribe to the "unitary" theory of presidential power, which includes the power to arbitrarily imprison and torture, or vote Democratic, because Democrats are at least somewhat susceptible to pressure from non-corporate power centers, and don't embrace dangerous dictatorial theories of presidential power.

It is, admittedly, a miserable choice. Obama, far from being leftist or even a liberal, is a center-right candidate, full of the usual cant and triumphalist nonsense. And his policies will be formed by the same center-right hacks who ran the Clinton administration. But that's still far, far better than the last 8 years.

Really, you marvel at me being able to defend myself with a weapon in Burbank. During the LA riots the Korean shop owners were defending their businesses with handguns and AK47s and guess what, their businesses didn't get burned down or looted. I do see the government as a huge threat to the freedoms that we all like. But the other thing to think about is when things fail and break down you have to watch out for the opportunist that come rolling through the neighborhood.

I know that the government isn't a bunch of unorganized looters, they are just really well organized looters that have almost unlimited resources. But of course this only works well if I'm alone and vastly out numbered. But if people banned together it would be a much different story.

I'll try not to post anything else here because there is no forward movement in this conversation. But its still entertaining at least.

 

[PatrickW]

Really, you marvel at me being able to defend myself with a weapon in Burbank. During the LA riots the Korean shop owners were defending their businesses with handguns and AK47s and guess what, their businesses didn't get burned down or looted. I do see the government as a huge threat to the freedoms that we all like. But the other thing to think about is when things fail and break down you have to watch out for the opportunist that come rolling through the neighborhood.

I know that the government isn't a bunch of unorganized looters, they are just really well organized looters that have almost unlimited resources. But of course this only works well if I'm alone and vastly out numbered. But if people banned together it would be a much different story.

I'll try not to post anything else here because there is no forward movement in this conversation. But its still entertaining at least.

I think the notion of defending oneself, or family, with a M-16 against the government was questioned. They have like helicopters and tanks and snipers and stuff.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

They have like helicopters and tanks and snipers and stuff.

So do I. :gun: