That's why he should be president.

Yeah, A Ron Paul thread!

/Haven't seen one of them fer a while.

This oughta get interesting.

Did anyone think that Ron was actually gonna be okay with this bailout/scam?

Anyone?

Be Well.

WHAAAA!

And not reward the very same Folks who gladly handed themselves 80 billion in bonus's last year!

Shenanigans! The US tax Payer Owes Them some Gratitude for everything they have done for US!

Sincerely
The Market can do no Wrong "conservative" Socialights

This guy is a kook. We prefer the mainstream Dems/Repubs and MSM tell us what we should do. We don't want to understand or address the root of the problem. Fix it now government.

Signed,

The Masses of Koolaid Drinkers.

P.S. We aren't going to read this article from this kook. Afterall our teams have been correct for so long now.

if we dont bail out wall st and wall street collapses, what would that do to the american people, economy?

I love the guy, but hey, he's feeling a little bitter towards those Masters of the Universe and their general sabotaging of his campaign. Wall St. types didn't donate a whole lot to his effort (whereas US soldiers gave Paul more money than all other repube candidates combined).

Ron Paul is a REAL Republican and a REAL capitalist, not like the socialist who are now the majority in our government. The GOP is basically a Democratic Light Party mixed with religious fanatics.

Corporate India is in shock after a mob of sacked workers bludgeoned to death the chief executive who had dismissed them from a factory in a suburb of Delhi.

Lalit Kishore Choudhary, 47, the head of the Indian operations of Graziano Transmissioni, an Italian-headquartered manufacturer of car parts, died of severe head wounds on Monday afternoon after being attacked by scores of laid-off employees, police said.

Sometime 3rd word counties get it right...(just kidding, but you get the idea...).

Truthie - Wall St WILL collapse, and sooner than later. Start stocking up on cans of tuna, is my advice.

How much is $1T?

word=world. Sometimes spell check doesn't cut it...

"Lalit Kishore Choudhary, 47, the head of the Indian operations of Graziano Transmissioni, an Italian-headquartered manufacturer of car parts, died of severe head wounds on Monday afternoon after being attacked by scores of laid-off employees, police said."

All I can say is TA TA, Lalit :-)

Where is BetelG, Alexandrite, NULLandVOID, etc. to condemn the words fo Sagmain? Hmmmm?

He is right and has been for a long time. The marked was designed to do well away from government intervention...hence FREE MARKET, free from government. Just look back and you will see the problems beginning with government meddling. He may be kooky on some things but he is right.

Paul is the ultimate no regulations, free market, gub'mint is Evil guy, the same attitude that got us into this mess.

Probably at work, Ride On.

He's right. The people who got us into this financial mess are suckling at the government teat like Trig on a moose, or RedNeckVille for that matter.

Paul is the ultimate no regulations, free market, gub'mint is Evil guy, the same attitude that got us into this mess.

#15 | Posted by Corky at 2008-09-23 12:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

Slurppppp. Turn that firehose of koolaid up even more for me. Cause I loves it.

Signed,

Corky

What Ron Paul says is of as little interest as what Ralph Nader says.

When you have absolutely nothing to say, say with a Ride On post.

say it

What Ron Paul says is of as little interest as what Ralph Nader says.
#19 | POSTED BY SITDOWN
--------

The general public agrees with you. That's why we're all screwed.

"Paul is the ultimate no regulations, free market, gub'mint is Evil guy, the same attitude that got us into this mess."

#15 | Posted by Corky

Gub'mint IS evil, Dorky. That's why they're bailing out corrupt banking institutions at the expense of tax payers. Bush leading the charge, the Dems bobble heading in agreement with only minor dissent.

What Ron Paul says is of as little interest as what Ralph Nader says.
#19 | POSTED BY SITDOWN
--------

The general public agrees with you. That's why we're all screwed.

#22 | Posted by the_nether at 2008-09-23 12:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

We also agree with you....we should never had been the vocal and dedicated minority of people in America that lead the revolution against King George........

Signed,

All of us dedicated (and spirited) revolutionaries.

Or, you could join Sitdown and champion that old mantra....LONG LIVE THE KING.

What Ron Paul says is of as little interest as what Ralph Nader says.
#19 | POSTED BY SITDOWN

YEP, very true (for you) because you are compelled to LOCKSTEP, LOCKSTEP, LOCKSTEP...........

"The general public agrees with you. That's why we're all screwed."

Amen to that, Sister!

But lest we forget, we're being spoon fed "reality" by the media everyday.

Corky's post was valid ride_on. Dereglution is part of the problem and Paul is a big deregulation advocate, and completely free-market proponent - hence the no bail out proposal. I guess RP doesn't care about those older workers who stand to lose their retirement if there isn't a bail out.

Paultards Unite!

But lest we forget, we're being spoon fed "reality" by the media everyday.

#26 | Posted by sagmain at 2008-09-23 12:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

That's it....you hit the nail on the head. Until the media gets Rush off the air....until the government mandates "equal time and messages", we are all doomed. Because if the government doesn't do that for us....I take no responsibility for any of this....can't educate myself ya' know (cause it's mostly the medias fault).

YEP,

The Danni Principled Approach

What Ron Paul says is of as little interest as what Ralph Nader says.
#19 | POSTED BY SITDOWN
--------

The general public agrees with you. That's why we're all screwed.

#22 | Posted by the_nether at 2008-09-23 12:41 PM | Reply

Yup. Screwed.

-Gub'mint IS evil, Dorky

No, 007 reject, in America, government is of, by, and for the people.

Now, if you think that that isn't true on a practical level, you need to work to make it true.

Or maybe you just confuse government with bureaucracy.

The GOP brainwashing that such is true aside, the government exists either as a tool of the corporate elite or as a representative tool of the people.

To weaken government is to weaken the will of the people, which is why the image of government is so abused politically.

The marked was designed to do well away from government intervention...hence FREE MARKET, free from government. Just look back and you will see the problems beginning with government meddling.

~Babysheepndels

Are you fucking nuts?

Lack of regulation is predominantly the cause of the last global depression and the subsequent mad dash to deregulate over the last decade or so is largely responsible fer this fuck up too.

Spud been saying fer a while now that FREE MARKETS COST TOO MUCH.

Now you got a 700 Billion dollar bill and yer still trying to advocate that shit?!

WTF?!

You sir, are quite simply delusional beyond recall.

Seek help.

Be Well.

Corky's post was valid ride_on.

Corky's post was invalid taxman.

To weaken government is to weaken the will of the people, which is why the image of government is so abused politically.

#30 | Posted by Corky at 2008-09-23 12:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

To strengthen the people and get government off of our back and lower their excessive spending and regulation is to benefit the PEOPLE. "To weaken government is to weaken the will of the people..." You're f'in retarded.

"Corporate India is in shock after a mob of sacked workers bludgeoned to death the chief executive who had dismissed them from a factory in a suburb of Delhi.

Lalit Kishore Choudhary, 47, the head of the Indian operations of Graziano Transmissioni, an Italian-headquartered manufacturer of car parts, died of severe head wounds on Monday afternoon after being attacked by scores of laid-off employees, police said."

I've long thought it says a lot for the peace-loving nature of Americans that this hasn't happened here.

To weaken government is to weaken the will of the people
#30 | POSTED BY CORKY
--------

Interesting that the polls suggest less than 10% of the population agrees with a bailout, but government is still going to do it. Do you consider that "the will of the people"?

Paul is the ultimate no regulations, free market, gub'mint is Evil guy, the same attitude that got us into this mess.

#15 | Posted by Corky

Corky, Paul believes in no regulation, however he also believes in no bailouts because the threat of failure without government rescue is the harshest regulation possible. If we bailout these loser now, they will find a way around the regulations and we will have to bail them again and again.

This is economic terrorism. These people set the bomb and now they are asking for money or else the bomb goes off. You can not negotiate with terrorists, that has always been the policy of the United States, why change it now?

"When you have absolutely nothing to say, say with a Ride On post."

That's true. The only intelligent post Rideon ever made was this one:

"

Posted by ride_on "

Gub'mint IS evil

The difference between gub'mint and corporateworld is that BigGov at least has a mandate to do the will of the people and corporations only mandate is to increase the bottom line.

Anyone who thinks that empowering corporations and disempowering governments is the answer is full on deluded.

Governments can only get as big as the land they sit on, corporations are now global enterprises. It's getting harder and harder fer governments to keep the corporate world in line and yet there are still some slugs who suggest that removing governmental oversight, control, accountability and transparency from the corporate path is the route to success.

Spud calls these people MORONS.

Be Well.

This is economic terrorism. These people set the bomb and now they are asking for money or else the bomb goes off. You can not negotiate with terrorists, that has always been the policy of the United States, why change it now?

~Member.

Analogy of the Day Award!

Be Well.

#37 post. Confirmation of why your name is NULLandVOID (aka Billy'O'Crap'O')

"No, 007 reject, in America, government is of, by, and for the people."

You are confusing what should be with reality. Our government can give a fuck about 99% of us.

Spud.
Corporations are huge, but government takes my money without my consent, and spends it without my approval. Corporations only get my money if I choose to give it to them... unless my worthless government takes my money and gives it to them.

~Member.

Analogy of the Day Award!

Be Well.

#39 | Posted by dethspud

Is this supposed to be a good thing or a bad thing? You never know here at the DR.

Ride On, slow down on the caffeine there, Bro!

It doesn't matter which media we want to talk about - Rush, NYTimes, Fox, NBC - they ALL ignored Paul, for one thing. He's the third way; the way that isn't about the establishment - right or left - pretending to have an argument with itself.

I don't believe for a second, even though the media tells me differently, that there's really much difference between the candidates when it comes right down to the practicalities of running the country. They see eye to eye on the Middle East, on continuing the war, though you wouldn't know it by the general tone of things.

(Other than the fact that one has Alzhiemer's, and I don't mean the black one.)

Governments can only get as big as the land they sit on

#38 | Posted by dethspud at 2008-09-23 12:57 PM | Reply

It depends upon what you meand by "the land they sit on." The U.S. government, through its military, sits on a lot more land (and water, for that matter) than simply the land contained within the territorial limits of the United States.

That is one of the primary reasons we are going broke.

"No, 007 reject, in America, government is of, by, and for the people.

Now, if you think that that isn't true on a practical level, you need to work to make it true.

Or maybe you just confuse government with bureaucracy.

The GOP brainwashing that such is true aside, the government exists either as a tool of the corporate elite or as a representative tool of the people.

To weaken government is to weaken the will of the people, which is why the image of government is so abused politically."

#30 | Posted by Corky

Government will always be a tool of corporations, and other such power hungry entities. But keep on deluding yourself.

Sag, I wasn't even directing the MSM thing to you. That's why I signed it with the name of the DR poster that always expouses "if we could only control the media", then we'd all be ok and this crap would stop.

You're cool. My post contained too much tongue in cheek language to be followed. Yep, you were correct about the caffeine though.....

The part about letting the corporations go under is correct. The rest of pauls speach is complete bullshit.

Free Market = no police/firemen/roads/etc i.e. anarchy.

Paul and other fascists like him don't want a free market. They just want a market without the federal reserve.

If you really want freedom: abolish the corporate person.

it would certainly separate the wheat from the chaff so to speak. might be a good thing in the long run. the last depression brought people back together for a time. perhaps we should look forward to another few decades of "the good old days"?

"perhaps we should look forward to another few decades of "the good old days"?"

Or, perhaps not. I'm a sprinter. I'm not that interested in the "long run".

I love the guy, but hey, he's feeling a little bitter towards those Masters of the Universe and their general sabotaging of his campaign.

His biggest donors are national real estate folks. Funny that...

Is anybody doing research explaining what exactly would happen if there was no bailout? Giant asteroids hitting Poukipsee or just the chi-coms and ayrabs buting everything in sight for pennies on the dollar?

Shawn, Shawn, Shawn.....who pays for your local roads, police and firemen? Uh, your local taxes. The portion of that money that does come from the feds gets taken by the feds and doled back disproportionately. Paul is for lowering Federal spending. Yes, the Federal Reserve should be abolished...it's the ultimate criminal ripoff.

Oh Shawn....who are we going to replace the corporate person with? Let's see....Stalin? Mao? You pick your next poison.

Paul was on Wolfie's show on Sunday and does make a lot of sense.

It would be painful during the time the market adjusted and these companies would reorganize.

But they would come back.

This method of a bailout is doing nothing but kicking the can down the road for it to happen in the future.

He also mentioned the gov't could do some things short of a bailout to ease the pain--but the bailout was not going to solve anything.

Paul always makes a lot of sense Murphy only problem is he always challenges the basic asumptions of people so it so easy to just blow him off as a kook. I mean if everyone says regulation is good and Paul says it's bad don't bother looking at why he says it's bad clearly he is just a kook.

sticking his nose into so many pussies must be what made Ron Paul so smart

...even if it didn't have the smart result, it would still be quite worthwhile.

No, 007 reject, in America, government is of, by, and for the people.

HA HA HA HA, smile and thank your great government as they pound you in your ass.

The Economist is saying this bailout may be a mistake and it looks like Barenaked is still working his ass off to keep the CEOS bulletproof and gold plated.

BEN STEIN:

The crisis occurred (to greatly oversimplify) because the financial system allowed entities to place bets on whether or not those mortgages would ever be paid. You didn't have to own a mortgage to make the bets. These bets, called Credit Default Swaps, are complex. But in a nutshell, they allow someone to profit immensely - staggeringly - if large numbers of subprime mortgages are not paid off and go into default.

The profit can be wildly out of proportion to the real amount of defaults, because speculators can push down the price of instruments tied to the subprime mortgages far beyond what the real rates of loss have been. As I said, the profits here can be beyond imagining. (In fact, they can be so large that one might well wonder if the whole subprime fiasco was not set up just to allow speculators to profit wildly on its collapse...)

These Credit Default Swaps have been written (as insurance is written) as private contracts. There is nil government regulation of them. Who writes these policies? Banks. Investment banks. Insurance companies. They now owe the buyers of these Credit Default Swaps on junk mortgage debt trillions of dollars. It is this liability that is the bottomless pit of liability for the financial institutions of America.

Free Market = no police/firemen/roads/etc i.e. anarchy.

Paul and other fascists like him don't want a free market. They just want a market without the federal reserve.

You are retarded on an epic scale. What does smaller federal government have to do with no policeman or fireman? Oh that's right...absolutely nothing.

Do you even know what Fascism is?

Funny how many people have given up on American government being of, by, and for the people.

Of course, they have been sold the bill of goods that that concept is just some unattainable fantasy.

And who sold them this idea? Why, the GOP front men for the corporate elite, that's who.

There is no power vacuum when the people don't vote, don't know who their reps are, and who have become cynical corporate chattel, the power just lies happily with the money.

Ron Paul: The government's preferred solution to the financial crisis is the very thing that got us into this mess in the first place: government intervention. The solution to the problem is to end government meddling in the market.

I like Congressman Paul but have found his ideas to be way too over the top and radical for me.
However, I believe Paul to be sincere and patriotic and not a fraudulent schemer like those who make up the Bush Administration.

That said, doesn't Ron Paul realize that "no government meddling in the market" is exactly what got us to where we are now -- the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression?

What does Paul think "deregulation" means anyway?

The aim of "deregulation" is to avoid any and all government oversight. Deregulation -- just a fancy word meaning the corporations want no federal rules or regulations to get in the way of them making billions by fraud and corruption.

If there is anything we need now it's government intervention in the way of more banking and finance regulators who were suppose to be the taxpayers' watchdog and not allow this to happen in the first place. Bush and his cronies made sure there were very few regulators and the few we did have were regulators willing to turn a blind eye to the massive corruption and dirty dealings in the financial institutions.

If I remember correctly, wasn't it Ron Paul who hated the Social Security program and also wanted to privatize it? If Bush had privatized Social Security like he and the Republicans have been bitching about doing for years and after the stock market swings of the last few weeks you all would be having your grannies and great-grannies now living in your guest bedroom because they would be broke and with no roof over their head.

Good post, CalC!

CC, the ultimate regulation is the fear of going out of business.

Republicans have been bitching about doing for years and after the stock market swings of the last few weeks you all would be having your grannies and great-grannies now living in your guest bedroom because they would be broke and with no roof over their head.

Guess where they are going to be when their fixed incomes are inflated into thin air?

CC, start with reading the article. Then read Ron Paul, A Manifesto and you will begin to educate yourself.

Corky. The federal government has been taking my money without my permission since I was 14 years old. They spend it without my consent, and no matter who I vote for... the money keeps flowing into washington. Now they want to spend billions on a bailout for irresponsible businesses and a full 93% of the population is against the bailout. Will the government listen to the people? Of course not! If you really think this government is of, by and for the people, you are retarded beyond reckoning. This government runs with or without your vote and could care less which side of the aisle you vote with. They have an agenda and that is, get as much taxpayer money as possible without starting a revolt, and then spend 50 times that sum. Plain and simple.

"To weaken government is to weaken the will of the people"

But, Corky wrote what is in quotes above. So NETHER, the Corkster is so f'd up and brainwashed/brain dead that you're wasting your time on her.

Bush and his cronies made sure there were very few regulators
#62 | POSTED BY CALIFCHRIS
------

Don't forget the other head of the monster Chris. The dems are just as responsible for this. Both parties are to blame, and both need to be dissolved.

-Plain and simple

Self-description, eh? Well, whatever works for you.

Maybe you'll become edumacated like Ride On. You too, can be dimmer than a black hole.

If the vast majority of citizens took responsibility and voted their beliefs instead of cynically abstaining and feeling sorry for themselves, like you, then American government could be what it was created to be.

Until then, you can just be a good little consumer and eat up all the shit you are fed.

I know Ride_On. Just hard to let it go I guess.
Corky is a perfect example of the idiot rubes who's vote counts the same as mine and yours. And they outnumber us about a million to one. Hence, we're doomed.

Sure corky. Picking the lesser of two evils for the next 60 years of my life will really get things moving in this country.

Keep living that dream.

Yep, you only need to remember the following Corky quote to understand how f'd up someone can be. Sounds impossible, but he actually wrote it and apparently believes it. PATHETIC.

"To weaken government is to weaken the will of the people"

Voting for yourself or Mickey Mouse (same thing?) is a much better option, eh?

Fence-sitters. It must be the hemorrhoids that make them graduate to become post turtles.

If the vast majority of citizens took responsibility and voted their beliefs instead of cynically abstaining and feeling sorry for themselves, like you, then American government could be what it was created to be.

Until then, you can just be a good little consumer and eat up all the shit you are fed.

He did, he voted for Ron Paul.

When you vote for Obama, Corky the Shillary supporter, what will be your excuse?

He has a lot better idea of what the American government was created to be than you do.

Ride must be one of them thar Nazi or Commie fellers what don't b'lieve in the will of the people.

He prefers being ass-rode by corporations rather than to stand up on his own two (or more) hooves, er, feet, and demand that the precepts of a government of, by, and for the people be upheld, even in the face of corporate control.

IF you truly want freedom abolish fiat currency that's backed by nothing.
Abolish the debt incurred at the hands of the fiat currency, and the unpayable interest due the centralist banker robber barons who profit from this pyramid scheme.

Also, require Americans to pass a test on the US Government, proving they have the knowledge necessary to handle the responsibility of voting.

Most will fail.

They could pass an NFL, or a American Idol test, but fail one that counts.

"He prefers being ass-rode by corporations..."
#75 | Posted by Corky

Says the one who wants more government (which is and always will be controlled by corporations).

I'm not sure what you said, Japanese Creamface, but I'm pretty sure neither do you.

Numbers for consideration concerning the financial crisis:

Corky, if I write in a no-chance, Ron Paul type every election for the next 60 years because I'm "taking responsibility and voting my beliefs", what good does that do this country? My vote matters not. He can't even get into a debate!

Or are you saying I should just pick one of the two clowns the two party system crapped out this year because we all need to go with the flow?

(which is and always will be controlled by corporations).

Heavy applause!

signed
Corporate Amerika

Another one bites the dust.

Ride must be one of them thar Nazi or Commie fellers what don't b'lieve in the will of the people.

He prefers being ass-rode by corporations rather than to stand up on his own two (or more) hooves, er, feet, and demand that the precepts of a government of, by, and for the people be upheld, even in the face of corporate control.

#75 | Posted by Corky at 2008-09-23 03:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

Wow, just wow. 7% of the people support this bailout and on a thread about the topic you post...and I quote: "To weaken government is to weaken the will of the people"

You are simply beyond thick headed and pathetic.

Good link Bobotto. Corky could learn a thing or two about the will of the people from that article.

-My vote matters not

More heavy applause!!

signed
Corporate Amerika

Still feeling sorry for yourself, eh?

I love the detractors here. Their points come down to.

Detractor points:
A) Ron Paul is a kook. (Even though he called this, go watch the Republican presidential debates again.)

B) There were not enough regulations and this is the results of a free market. (even tough the housing market stopped being a free market and has been regulated since the 1930's.)

People look for a solution when then don't understand the problem:
Everyone out there now is wondering why this is going on and who to point fingers at.. the Democrats or the Republicans when the true problem is government control of the economy on a whole.

It just doesn't work:
Government can not control the economy, it doesn't work. There are millions of factors in play and millions of thinking people just like you and me in it. Politicians are just incapable of doing it so what you get is an endless stream of them saying "Our *new* regulations are better than our old ones.". If all the smart people in the Soviet Union couldn't figure out how to run their economy.. what makes us think we can?

The all powerful market:
Their is nothing in the free market that creates the business cycle, aka "the boom and bust cycle" Government created this boom by lowering the federal interest rates to 1% to give a boost to the economy after 9/11, that is the source of the malinvestment, and this is the resulting bust. The market as an abstraction always responds better to what the people want, it is indirect but responsive to demands. The alternative to more regulations and Government bailouts is to allow the market to adjust itself naturally, this *WILL* cause a recession, (not a depression as depression is the result of deflation, our problem is inflation.) bad business who shouldn't be in business anyway will fail, but it will be shot term, and when the bad business are gone it frees up the market for new business to take their place. Once that happens our economy will be healthy again. Really, if a business sold a product nobody wanted to buy, should the government force you to buy it? Absurd right? ..But that is analogous to what is happening now. We know its wrong, so lets stop it.

What to do now?
7% of people support the bailout as Government attempts to "just do something quick". The people, if you really do run this country better figure out whats going on. (Reading Ron's article is a good start) then you better get your congress critter to stop this madness.

You pikers can give up on the American form of government by the people, surrendering power to the corporations, all you want.

They have already beaten you.

I know not what others may choose but, as for me, give me liberty or give me death.
Patrick Henry

Still feeling sorry for yourself, eh?
#84 | POSTED BY CORKY
----------

I mostly feel sorry for people who are ignorant enough to believe that this country still works the way it did 150 years ago. Wake up moron. In a two party system, no ones vote matters.

Nether must be running for President of Corporate America.

He has all their slogans down pat.

You really are a lost cause Corky.

Your wonderful government is about to bow down to the corporate cock, against the will of the people, and you carry on about liberty like you have the faintest idea what it means. I really feel embarrassed for you.

What? Corporate America loves the two party system. They only have to put money into two pockets because they know one has to win!

Time to put down that paper sack of model glue. You're loosing gray matter.

Corky, keep making ridiculous non-points. I'm going to leave you to it. It was fun entertaining a lobotomy patient for a while but my community service time is up.

Later

Losers and quiters. Whiners and escapists.

Unfortunately, we get the kind of government we deserve when the quality of people it represents are these.

....LOL, the WhineCork's posts are beginning to read like he is NULLandVOID. ROFLMAO.

Once more Corky says: "To weaken government is to weaken the will of the people"

When government is by the people, as it should be, and can be, then weakening government, as the GOP and Rode desire, weakens the people.

But then, weak minds succumb easily to corporate GOP brainwashing. In Rode's case, of course, it only took a single rinse.

Losers and quiters. Whiners and escapists.

Unfortunately, we get the kind of government we deserve when the quality of people it represents are these.

Yes, more bailouts, more government, more stealing from the people, more inflation, more government, more bailouts and more scratching your head when you can't figure out why its going into the shitter.

Keep stealing from the American people! Never give up the fight! FREEEEEEEEDOM!!!!!

Corky, it's not that the government isn't controlling the system the right way.. it's that the entire system itself created by the government is bad.

Great. Cartoon philosophy.

More to the point.....

"Libertarianism in One Lesson

Introduction

One of the most attractive features of libertarianism is that it is basically a very simple ideology. Maybe even simpler than Marxism, since you don't have to learn foreign words like "proletariat".

This brief outline will give you most of the tools you need to hit the ground running as a freshly indoctrinated libertarian ideologue. Go forth and proselytize!

Philosophy

In the beginning, man dwelt in a state of Nature, until the serpent Government tempted man into Initial Coercion.

Government is the Great Satan. All Evil comes from Government, and all Good from the Market, according to the Ayatollah Rand.

We must worship the Horatio Alger fantasy that the meritorious few will just happen to have the lucky breaks that make them rich. Libertarians happen to be the meritorious few by ideological correctness. The rest can go hang.

Government cannot own things because only individuals can own things. Except for corporations, partnerships, joint ownership, marriage, and anything else we except but government.

Parrot these arguments, and you too will be a singular, creative, reasoning individualist.

Parents cannot choose a government for their children any more than they can choose language, residence, school, or religion.

Taxation is theft because we have a right to squat in the US and benefit from defense, infrastructure, police, courts, etc. without obligation.

Magic incantations can overturn society and bring about libertopia. Sovereign citizenry! The 16th Amendment is invalid! States rights!

Objectivist/Neo-Tech Advantage #69i : The true measure of fully integrated honesty is whether the sucker has opened his wallet. Thus sayeth the Profit Wallace. Zonpower Rules Nerdspace!

The great Zen riddle of libertarianism: minimal government is necessary and unnecessary. The answer is only to be found by individuals."

much more

All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.

-Adam Smith, An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations

How noble libertarianism, in its majestic equality, that both rich and poor are equally prohibited from peeing in the privately owned streets (without paying), sleeping under the privately owned bridges (without paying), and coercing bread from its rightful owners!

-Mike Huben, paraphrasing Anatole France

Wasn't Ayn Rand a pseudonym of L. Ron Hubbard?
Mike Huben

'Libertarian UberMensch smites devolved, parasitic, running-dog, statist lackies that want our women!' Atlas Shrugged in a nutshell.
Mike Huben

Now, the Libertarian Party, is a *capitalist* party. It's in favor of what *I* would regard a *particular form* of authoritarian control. Namely, the kind that comes through private ownership and control, which is an *extremely* rigid system of domination -- people have to... people can survive, by renting themselves to it, and basically in no other way... I do disagree with them *very* sharply, and I think that they are not..understanding the *fundamental* doctrine, that you should be free from domination and control, including the control of the manager and the owner.

-Noam Chomsky

There isn't much point arguing about the word "libertarian." It would make about as much sense to argue with an unreconstructed Stalinist about the word "democracy" -- recall that they called what they'd constructed "peoples' democracies." The weird offshoot of ultra-right individualist anarchism that is called "libertarian" here happens to amount to advocacy of perhaps the worst kind of imaginable tyranny, namely unaccountable private tyranny. If they want to call that "libertarian," fine; after all, Stalin called his system "democratic." But why bother arguing about it?

-Noam Chomsky

"world.std.com"

Excellent website, Corky. I've posted a number of articles from there.

Here's one yuo might like, Bill.

Libertarianism Makes You Stupid

However, I regard the Libertarianism as a kind of business-worshiping cultish religion, which churns out annoying flamers who resemble nothing so much as street-preachers on the Information Sidewalk.

"you" lofl

"world.std.com"

"Excellent website, Corky. I've posted a number of articles from there."

Dorky and Null Set, having a circle jerk over "STD".com. Big shocker there.

"The weird offshoot of ultra-right individualist anarchism that is called "libertarian" here"

speaking of Joe....

""The weird offshoot of ultra-right individualist anarchism that is called "libertarian" here"

speaking of Joe."

Or Ray.

There's not enough Chomsky referenced here on the DR.

#96 That is pretty sad Corky..

Although your mocking, your not as smart as you think you are and you actually don't really know what your talking about. You clearly do not understand libertarianism or the underlying philosophy of liberty because some of the points your using to attack it.. are not even in it.

For instance a "corporation" is just legal fiction, or in practical terms government protection provided to rich business men to conduct actions they could not do otherwise. There are no corporations in a truly free market.

In truth the philosophy of liberty is based on the Lockean theory of rights, that rights exist in a negative aspect.

The reason you have rights is because you own your body, you own your life and you own your liberty. No other person can claim ownership over you, just as you can not claim ownership over other peoples lives. Rights are supreme authority over some piece of property and they can not be given or taken away, they can be infringed upon, but are never lost.

The opposite of a right is a privilege. This is where someone with supreme authority over something allows or grants you an ability to use it.

So the distinction between rights and privileges is important. Privileges mean you have to ask someone of higher authority, rights means asking a higher authority is not necessary because there is no higher authority. Privileges are granted bu the higher authority to someone else, rights can not be granted at all.

People in government can not grant or remove rights from you because they are merely other people.. To think that rights come from the government is the big folly of people today. For how can any King, who is just a person, claim to be of higher authority than those around him? Is he to smack someone with his royal scepter and like magic they have the ability to do something that they did not before? No, thats absurd. Then why is it that people today believe that a group of simple men in Washington DC can touch pen to paper and magically somehow declare what your rights are? It's impossible, they do not have the authority to do such a thing.

What they do have is force however. They have lots and lots of guns and thugs who wear badges that will make you comply or else they will grab you and throw you in a cage, and if you dare to resist they will shoot you.

The Libertarian philosophy believes that people own themselves and should be able to strive for ones own ideas of what life should be. Libertarians believe using force against others is wrong, and that the only tool government has is force.

The Conservative philosophy in turn believes that people are inherently immoral and that force of government needs to be used against people otherwise perversion and corruption will destroy society.

The Liberal philosophy believes that people are inherently greedy and force of government must be used against people to prevent the rich and powerful from impoverishing the world.

The trouble with both Conservative and Liberal philosophy's is that, they both advocate force. So if men are immoral.. and if men are greedy.. then why is it that we allow immoral and greedy men to rule over others with force?

The instigation of force on someone else or a group of people is the source of all war, murder, rape, theft and slavery thought the ages of human kind. Be it a government using force against another government (US vs Iraq) or be it one person using force against another, by mugging or rape, force is ALWAYS WRONG.

..but I can see Corky you suffer from some sort of dictator complex and believe you have all the right ideas for everyone, trust me.. this is not a unique world view to have. That is fine.. you can believe that way if you want, but you will be no diffrent than a barbaric thug if you attempt to use your ideas of force on your neighbor.

Thanks for the recitation of standard libertarian talking points. Yawn.

Lessee, should we make fun of Libertarians some more, or just let JD live in his objectivist fantasy world.... oh, wait.. JD is the one who likes cartoons.....

Libertarian Man 1, revisited

"The reason you have rights is because you own your body"

In that case, there's no rational reason to object to the right to sell yourself into slavery.

"To think that rights come from the government is the big folly of people today."

And yet, it is reality-based. If the govt doesn't support your "rights", you won't have them.

And that is the prime problem which people who look at libertarianism have with it, that it tries to force a political theory into a reality which doesn't support it. And where it would cause anarchy and disaster.

Libertarian Man 9, Revisited

A banking system in crisis after the collapse of a housing bubble. An economy hemorrhaging jobs. A market-oriented government struggling to stem the panic. Sound familiar? It does to Sweden.

The country was so far in the hole in 1992 after years of imprudent regulation, short-sighted economic policy and the end of its property boom that its banking system was, for all practical purposes, insolvent.

But Sweden took a different course than the one now being proposed by the United States Treasury. And Swedish officials say there are lessons from their own nightmare that Washington may be missing.

Sweden did not just bail out its financial institutions by having the government take over the bad debts. It extracted pounds of flesh from bank shareholders before writing checks. Banks had to write down losses and issue warrants to the government.

That strategy held banks responsible and turned the government into an owner. When distressed assets were sold, the profits flowed to taxpayers, and the government was able to recoup more money later by selling its shares in the companies as well.

"If I go into a bank," said Bo Lundgren, who was Sweden's finance minister at the time, "I'd rather get equity so that there is some upside for the taxpayer."

Sweden spent 4 percent of its gross domestic product, or 65 billion kronor, the equivalent of $11.7 billion at the time, or $18.3 billion in today's dollars, to rescue ailing banks. That is slightly less, proportionate to the national economy, than the $700 billion, or roughly 5 percent of gross domestic product, that the Bush administration estimates its own move will cost in the United States.

But the final cost to Sweden ended up being less than 2 percent of its G.D.P. Some officials say they believe it was closer to zero, depending on how certain rates of return are calculated.

I have lost so much the past 2 years. Fired while out on medical leave, dad died 5 days later.
I got a job for a company which product was cutting off the fingers of there customers employee and when I found out the cause (poor quality of material run on the machine) my employer told me not to tell the customer and there wasn't a problem. Osha didn't protect me when I reported this to them. I was denigned unemployment comp.
My eTrade account dissapeared last Nov when eTrades stock crashed and by the time the I was able to transfer my account too another company not involved with subprime I had lost 30% of its value. The after I filled a complaint with SEC I got a letter from eTrade that based on there customer contract they can dissapear your account for cause or no cause.
I have now been unemployed 21 months out of 24, broke, living off a credit line on my house which I bought 23 yrs ago.
My origonal $185K in IRAs are now at -$80K

I think we should follow the BIG money and who benefited the most from this Stock meltdown. Provide the $700 bin NOW! Congress follow and review the money used.. We need a financial leader at this time, not a dragon (Congress) with a hundred heads to stabilize the market. Congress can oversee and make sure transparency. There will be opertunity too punish those who deserve it and learn what we need to modernize.

Nice eye, TC.

I understand the banks will be offered 25 cents on the dollar, and equity will be required. Hope it's true.

"In that case, there's no rational reason to object to the right to sell yourself into slavery."

What is your objection to it? If someone wants to be a slave, who are you to tell them they shouldn't be a slave?

"What is your objection to it? If someone wants to be a slave, who are you to tell them they shouldn't be a slave?"

So in you're in favor of voluntary slavery, right?

Sweden did not just bail out its financial institutions by having the government take over the bad debts. It extracted pounds of flesh from bank shareholders before writing checks. Banks had to write down losses and issue warrants to the government.

That strategy held banks responsible and turned the government into an owner...

~#112 T&C.

Post o' the Day.

Good eye, T&C.

Be Well.

I have a modest proposal-those who support this bail-out, including Administration appointees and elected officials should put all their possessions, retirement packages and savings up as collateral, to minimize the shock to the taxpayer.

"So in you're in favor of voluntary slavery, right?"

Way to not answer my question. State your argument and open it up to criticism just like everyone else has to do. Who are you to tell someone what they can and cannot do with their own private life?

So you won't have answer the question, eh, Joe? Fine. I'll put you down as in favor of voluntary slavery.

I'm in favor of freedom of contract and freedom to make your own choices. You know - those pesky things granted to Americans by the Constitution. I'm sorry you're afraid to explain any of your positions and open yourself up to criticism. You should run for president.

"I'm in favor of freedom of contract and freedom to make your own choices. "

So, you're in favor of voluntary slavery, right?

" You know - those pesky things granted to Americans by the Constitution. "

Slavery is one of those "rights" guaranteed by the Constitution? Who knew!

"Slavery is one of those "rights" guaranteed by the Constitution?"

Learn to read. I said freedom of contract is guaranteed by the Constitution. You, on the other hand, are apparently incapable of saying anything.

#117 "The reason you have rights is because you own your body"

In that case, there's no rational reason to object to the right to sell yourself into slavery.
---

Not very many people would want to do that but you could do that if you like now.

If you work your job and turn all or most of that income of that job over to a "master" then are you not a slave?

However.. if you turn 50% of your income over to that master are you part slave? At what percentage is slavery? You pay your taxes right?

---

The cartoon in #96 for Corky actually describes the economic system we have now.. and proposes not a libertarian but a socialist solution. I agree with the description the movie presents but not the solution. I mentioned it only so he could understand why his arguments about the economic problems today are unsound.

"You, on the other hand, are apparently incapable of saying anything."

You, apparently are incapable of answering a straightforward question that most people would have no problem with. Are you in favor of voluntary slavery or not?

Your question is poorly worded. I am not "in favor" of voluntary slavery since it's a choice I'd hate to see anyone make. But just because someone else's choices make me sad doesn't mean I am right and they are wrong. Maybe some people like being slaves.

To draw a parallel, it also upsets me to think about someone choosing to have their late-term fetus pulled from their body, and the brains vaccuumed out of the fetus' head. Nonetheless, I support someone's right to make that choice.

Nullifidian wants to make the argument that you don't own your body. Now I'm not going to tell you what to think.. you can believe that if you want, but I would like to ask you who you think it is who does own it if not you?

When you say you do not own your body, what you are saying is someone or something else has a higher clam on your life then you do. Who would that person or entity be Nullifidian?

"Nullifidian wants to make the argument that you don't own your body. "

You talk as if one's body was a piece of property disconnected from one's self. That's just weird.

But that's what libertarians do: turn everything, including human beings, into commodities, i.e., property, which enables them to claim property rights are the basis of all rights. It's horseshit.

Now answer the question I put to Joe: are you in favor of voluntary slavery?

"Maybe some people like being slaves."

Just ask some sado-masicists at any New York night club. II bet they have a "fun" opinion on the subject.

Why should Jaydee answer your poorly worded question? Apparently when someone answers it in a way you are incapable of criticizing, the conversation is over.

But that's what libertarians do: turn everything, including human beings, into commodities, i.e., property, which enables them to claim property rights are the basis of all rights.

#131 | Posted by nullifidian

That's deep philosophical insight there. Sounds like our economic system to me.

#130 But that's what libertarians do: turn everything, including human beings, into commodities, i.e., property, which enables them to claim property rights are the basis of all rights. It's horseshit.

Now answer the question I put to Joe: are you in favor of voluntary slavery?

----------

Well, you want me to answer your question. (something I have no problem with, and in fact already did in part #125) but you won't answer mine simply saying "It's horseshit".

What is? Help me understand.. If you don't like the term "property" I can rephrase it. Who or what has absolute authority over your body and your body's actions?

Now to re-answer again the question you pose, first I'd like to mention that anti-libertarian arguments always go to the extreme, people have to get "way out there" to find holes in the philosophy. ;) I think it is not likely anyone would, nor is it possible is it really possible for government to actually stop something from becoming a voluntary slave. The answer is yes but the question itself is somewhat of an oxymoron as the act of being the slave is the forceful act of removing liberty from a person this can't voluntary happen unless the person being a slave wants the slavery to continue thus being his choice. If the person singed a contract to become one.. and later changed his mind a slave master couldn't forcefully keep that person a slave, that would be wrong as it is using force, but instead the slave master would have to argue that the individual broke contract, then could sue for the value of that contract.

"something I have no problem with, and in fact already did in part #125) "

That wasn't an answer at all. People do not have the legal right to sell themselves into slavery.

"If the person singed a contract to become one.. and later changed his mind a slave master couldn't forcefully keep that person a slave, that would be wrong as it is using force, but instead the slave master would have to argue that the individual broke contract, then could sue for the value of that contract."

The stuff you libertarians come up with is just bizarre. You twaddle on about how you're in favor of liberty and end up defending a form of slavery.

"The stuff you libertarians come up with is just bizarre. You twaddle on about how you're in favor of liberty and end up defending a form of slavery."

It's not at all.

Look at it this way. If you contract to build a house and you don't what happens? Can the person you contracted with force you to build a house? No. The contract is is broken and either a judge or arbiter will decide what the amount of damages should be.

You have the right to sign a slavery contract, but the person you contract with has no right to make you a slave.

#135 That wasn't an answer at all. People do not have the legal right to sell themselves into slavery.

----

Besides that, there is no such thing as a "legal" right. That would make the assumption that law creates rights, that's illogical. (see post #106)

I disagree with you there. I think that while some rights are "human rights" or "natural rights," there are other rights that definitely are created by our government. The government is free to create a law that says "you have a right to sue your employer in a court of law if they fire you for telling on them." That is not a human right. That is a right that was given to you by the government, and is clearly distinguishable from the right to, say, "choose what to do with your body."

It's not a right if its created, it's a permission.

Rights negative, they have to come from with in you, they only affect you, and can not make demands of others. Nobody provides you a right, a "provided right" is like saying you have a "round square".

A higher authority is the only one that can grant something to someone else. With a right, there is no higher authority. It's the trump card so to speak.

You don't actually have the right to a job.. the business man owns his job that he contracts to you.. however.. you can bring suit if you feel this is what you want to do.

("you have a right to sue your employer in a court of law if they fire you for telling on them.")

In your example above you are citing a right you already had before government granted the needless law and gave you a permission for something you could already do. You do not need government permission to bring suit against your employer especially not for the reason as limited as "telling on them".

..if that were the case and you did not possess the right to sue for when you are the victim of what you feel is an unjust loss, then there would have to be laws on the book for every single reason man could possibly think of.

It would be like trying to refine a simple traffic law like"Drive in a safe and prudent manner" to thousands of various laws including things like "You may not build a camp fire on the passenger seat wile driving".

"It's not a right if its created, it's a permission."

What a log of hogwash. Where do all these mystical "rights" come from? So called "natural rights" or "natural law" are just bunk, figments of the human imagination.

All rights come from people, fact.

"In your example above you are citing a right you already had before government granted the needless law and gave you a permission for something you could already do. You do not need government permission to bring suit against your employer especially not for the reason as limited as "telling on them".

Yes you do. Courts of law are created by the government. Therefore you do not have the right to sue anyone for anything within them unless the court or a judge (who works for the government) says that you do.

And I used the term "telling on them" for the sake of brevity. The example still stands and is a valid one.

#141 "It's not a right if its created, it's a permission."

What a log of hogwash. Where do all these mystical "rights" come from? So called "natural rights" or "natural law" are just bunk, figments of the human imagination.

--

Well.. you can create any theory you like in your mind but I can tell you exactly where the correct theory of rights comes from.

The correct interpretation of rights comes from John Locke's 16th century theory on rights. To sum up the theory in a phrase it would be (and this is deep): "You have a right to be left alone from my actions, and I have a right to be left alone from your actions." So much so is our concept of rights based on it that there is actually direct reference to Two Treatises in the Declaration of Independence.

Not to to say the Declaration is of legal ramification of any kind or grants anything, in fact The Constitution as a whole grants the people nothing at all, but instead limits only government.

If you read the Federalist Papers No. 84 you will read an argument by Hamilton (of all people) against the Bill of Rights. So was Hamilton against "giving" people rights? No, not at all.. even he understood that people already had them, the reason he argued against it, is because he was afraid that the Bill of Rights would turn into a list of the only rights people had.

Former Bill's of Rights, were given from Kings to their subjects.

..but this is not about law, or the founding documents, we are talking about philosophy and the concept of rights.

If you believe that a Monocracy or any other form of government "grants" rights to the people, could they also take those rights away? If they can, is "right" the correct word for "a granted temporary authority"? No, a right is "supreme authority" therefore "permission" is the correct word to use for this. Also, where did the government get the authority to grant this?

I know! From nowhere, because they don't have it. Rights are not granted, and never "lost" they can only be infringed upon.

If you believe rights are granted by government, then you must believe that people with different forms of government have different rights than you? How is this possible? How does the place of birth, or nation of allegiance change how much authority one has over their life and their body?

Are rights solely human? They are our own philosophical concept true, however they exist in nature to some extent. A bear does not necessarily understand property rights very well.. but it does exert ownership over its den and it will defend it.

#143 - Government Courts.. yeah, that topic is for another day I'm afraid.

Ride on is another fascist imbecile. His sole real argument is that the only alternative to fascist merchantilism is national socialism. In fact those two systems are the same with different public relations.

Another right wing inbred dumbass motherfucker.

BTW, Technically I'm not a Libertarian, I'm a Voluntarist.

The concepts and philosophy are similar but I simply don't believe government can work and I believe that instigating force upon another person is always wrong under every circumstance. I've taken the "small government idea" so far that I just don't believe it works on any level at all anymore. Or even that government actually exists as anything more than an abstraction, or perhaps a.. religion would be the best word to use..

I will however argue and attempt to educate other on a path towards a liberty mindset and even libertarianism as I think a small government is better than our current obsessively large government.. and currently we are so far away from either, that me arguing against libertarianism is of little point.

This compounded with the fact that nobody knows what exactly a libertarian is anymore when you have people like Glenn Beck and Bob Barr calling themselves "libertarian". What a joke that is.

"I believe that instigating force upon another person is always wrong under every circumstance."

Uh huh. Another libertarian cliche. Only you get to define "initiation of force," which, according to libertarians, is only done by government, and never by private parties.

It can be done by anyone, and its always wrong.

TELL EM... DON'T RAID THE TREASURY!!!!

Section 8 of the the bailout package!

"Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency."

What is that the dictator clause?!

Better call that congress critter NOW.

Null, in your 147, I'm asking you to expand on the following:

"Only you get to define "initiation of force," which, according to libertarians, is only done by government, and never by private parties."

An example of your meaning here would be appreciated.

(And unfortunately I'm en route to work at this point, so I may not be able to respond until much later.)

Section 8 of the the bailout package!

"Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency."

What is that the dictator clause?!

Better call that congress critter NOW.

Posted by JayDee

If I was a senator questioning Hank, my question would be, "Are you fucking kidding me?"

Section 8, huh? Now where have I heard Section 8 before? Lemme think.

"Government Courts.. yeah, that topic is for another day I'm afraid."

And yet, you proceeded to post for another 5 hours. Sounds like a cop-out to me.

I agree DO NOT BAIL OUT THE BANKS.

Bail out the American People!

I'm against the $85,000,000,000.00 bailout of AIG.

You know, the "small" bailout now PAST, not the big one(s) coming up.
Instead, I'm in favor of giving $85,000,000,000 to America in
a We Deserve It Dividend.

To make the math simple, let's assume there are 200,000,000
bonafide U.S. Citizens 18+.

Our population is about 301,000,000 +/- counting every man, woman
and child. So 200,000,000 might be a fair stab at adults 18 and up..

So divide 200 million adults 18+ into $85 billon that equals $425,000.00.

My plan is to give $425,000 to every person 18+ as a
We Deserve It Dividend.

Of course, it would NOT be tax free.
So let's assume a tax rate of 30%.

Every individual 18+ has to pay $127,500.00 in taxes.
That sends $25,500,000,000 right back to Uncle Sam.

But it means that every adult 18+ has $297,500.00 in their pocket.
A husband and wife have $595,000.00.

What would you do with $297,500.00 to $595,000.00 in your family?
Pay off your mortgage housing crisis solved.
Repay college loans what a great boost to new grads
Put away money for college it'll be there
Save in a bank create money to loan to entrepreneurs.
Buy a new car create jobs
Invest in the market capital drives growth
Pay for your parent's medical insurance health care improves
Enable Deadbeat Dads to come clean or else

Remember this is for every adult U S Citizen 18+ including the folks
who lost their jobs at Lehman Brothers and every other company
that is cutting back. And of course, for those serving in our Armed Forces.

THIS IS NOT MY IDEA BUT I REALLY LIKE IT!

PASS IT ALONG!

Paul is the ultimate no regulations, free market, gub'mint is Evil guy, the same attitude that got us into this mess.

#15 | Posted by Corky

Not even close bub.

RP is a pro regulation man, he just isnt for regulation that promotes govt favored monopolies that inhibits free market competition. He is for regulation that promotes free market competition.

But it is a slightly complex topic that would actually require you to read and understand what he says.

So as usual, your way off the mark.

THIS IS NOT MY IDEA BUT I REALLY LIKE IT!
#155 | Posted by donnerboy at 2008-09-24 12:44 PM

RiR checked the math on this...it seems to be off a few zeros!

I agree.. This is classic asset class deflation versus currency devaluation.

The Paulson's and other uber wealthy tools want the currency devaluation over the asset class deflation which hurts them the MOST.

If you inject 700 billion of liquidity from the taxpayer you essentially spread the debt of a few over all and essentially keep the bubble inflated.
This will cause massive inflation in the coming years which is why we saw commodity prices spike last week with anticipation of the bill passing.

If you let the whole debt bubble unwind you essentially revalue all goods and products and service at a much lower price. This is healthier and affects those that benefited MOST from the asset bubble.

I say let the whole thing unwind..propping up the debt bubble is just a giant kick the can down the road scenario. Its going to happen why not now?

Fuck wall street..you can paper your walls with the money you earned.

155# Donner, some retard that can't do math wrote
your cut and paste, the figure is $425 not $425,000

Paul is not part of the solution, he is part of the problem. TERM LIMITS--this is the only thing that will fix the systemic issues we have with the country. It starts with Congress and most of these people have been there TOO DAMN LONG.

I believe the following:

a. Democratic leadership and obviously Republican leadership at the very least knew about these problems months ago;
b. They INTENTIONALLY waited until this point to expose the problem, fully knowing that if you still believed in your party in general no matter what party affiliation you had, it would be TOO LATE at this point to change candidates within the party. They knew this issues would cause a massive push back among the Americans. However they also knew tha your only choice at this point would be to vote for the other party. Which for most people is unthinkable for many reasons.

WE NEED TERM LIMITS AND THAT'S HOW WE NEED TO CHANNEL OUR ANGER. Yet we are focused on the symptoms once again, rather than the problem.

this may shock some of you but I pretty much agree with RP and his supporters here.
and someone earlier here or on another thread kept on about republicans causing all of this and that kind of shit

well CONSERVATIVES DIDNT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT

and before some of you have a hernia to write something.........I mean conservatives who really ARE conservatives and not just republicans......

NONE of this is a part of the tenants or belief of conservatives and it wouldnt have happened under a strict conservative 'watch'.........but alas.....that wasnt the case then was it........

The problem isn't government involvement, the problem here is (and everyone knows it) lackadaisical government involvement and deregulation.

It was deregulation that allowed all the repackaging of loans that never should have been approved as an instrument on the market. This should never have been allowed, for reasons that are obvious now.

Yes, let's get rid of the laws made after the market crashed and we had the great depression. It's not like they new why we had the great depression. Talk about not learning from history.

Strict government oversight and regulation is obviously needed, we deregulate and wall street and the banks get stupid. There is a direct cause and effect, only people who are blinded by ideology don't get it.

Funny how many people have given up on American government being of, by, and for the people.

I didn't have to give up the notion. The notion was never there. Government hasn't been for or by the people in a long fucking time. You're either living under a rock or willfully ignorant.

you all would be having your grannies and great-grannies now living in your guest bedroom because they would be broke and with no roof over their head.

As it should be. I wouldn't want my granny or great granny to be living with me because she's broke. I would want her living with me because I beleive that family is one of the most important parts of life. There is a wealth of knowledge to be gained from the older generations.

As a culture, Americans have a habit of housing their grannies and great grannies in old folks homes. Ever spend any time in one? Their waiting rooms for appointments with death. The quality of life in those places sucks ass.

Bring granny home. When my mother retires, I've already told her that she's more than welcome to live with me. Rent free. If I have kids, she's the baby sitter. Not the fucking tv or some asshole down the street who could give two shits about my children.

If the vast majority of citizens took responsibility and voted their beliefs instead of cynically abstaining and feeling sorry for themselves, like you, then American government could be what it was created to be.

Speak for yourself. The only reason that you'll be voting for Obama this election is because the one person you vehemently support isn't being given the opportunity. Why didn't she declare herself an independant candidate?

Paul is the ultimate no regulations, free market, gub'mint is Evil guy, the same attitude that got us into this mess.

#15 | Posted by Corky

you mean the mess that was caused by the uber rich urging Congress to do it their way?

How did the "free market" get us into this mess? Can you please explain?

Washington Mutual (WM) just blew up
Feds took it over JP Morgan will aquire it
after hours trading at $.45 yes 45 cents