Thread: Lamentations

Originally Posted by Ausinus

I agree Kerry wasnt that strong of a candidate - however saying Obama will be bad is unfair since I know for a fact you cant see into the future and you are pretty much biased against the federal government.

I can see the future.

Obama's advisors include the people that profited enormously from preventing the government from reining in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and Obama voted their wishes.

Add in his links to the Nation of Islam, his desire to be a global citizen, his continued persistence to believe that the US president should sit down to talks with Iran and other terrorists with no preconditions, and all the other indicators of his lack of experience, and we're looking at another JFK or Carter, ie, a disaster we can only hope we'll survive.

Of course, to have that crystal ball you have to drop the socialist agenda and start seeing things objectively, like I do.

Originally Posted by Nerv14

same, socialism as an idea is great.

No, it's retarded. I don't work to support a thousand other people, let'em starve.

Originally Posted by Nerv14

I don't give a shit about taking wealth away from people who have "earned it" from an advantaged upbringing.

Neither does the common thief.

Originally Posted by Nerv14

Those people aren't any better then anyone else who was poor so they didn't have the same shot to make it rich.

Life is a bitch, ain't it? It's not a matter of being "better", it's a matter of it ain't your money, so when you take it from them, you make them better because you've become a common thief, and thus worse.

Originally Posted by Nerv14

But... when it comes to economics and the history of the world you need to give those people "economic liberties" to help everyone.

You don't need to give them economic liberties, you merely have to stop taking what they already have, which is freedom.

Originally Posted by Nerv14

I've got a heart and goals of a liberal, but more libertarianism is important because of economics.

Then perhaps you'll grow up someday.

Originally Posted by Ausinus

Sorry, I'm not a libertarian :laughing:

We wouldn't have you in the club. It's an elite group, after all, and the first pre-requisite is the maturity to discard socialism.

Originally Posted by Freedom for All

You need to recognize that the philosophy that the government had to take action to enable poor people to buy houses they couldn't afford was the problem, and the rest descended from that.

That's the tumor. The bill passed Friday is the bandaid on the zit, and the politicians refuse to admit there's a tumor.

I agree with you... I believe I said specifically that the government was the cause of the problem. please read my post instead of being lazy and just assume that I wrote some specific thing.

Originally Posted by Ausinus

They need healthcare, shelter, food and water at the very least. That much we cannot deny them.

No, because if we supply high quality versions of that to everyone then it will just harm economic growth and cause the types of problems that got us into this housing mess.

But I do support some of that, but only form certain states, not the federal government. That way, if the programs go too far then people and companies can just move to other states, and that would cause those programs to be reduced.

I do support some unemployment insurance, and that is to give people some of all of that untill they can get a new job. So I suppose I agree with giving people some nescessities of life.

Originally Posted by Ausinus

They need healthcare, shelter, food and water at the very least. That much we cannot deny them.

If they need it, they need to get their lazy asses out and get the skills to work the jobs that will pay them enough to buy them.

If you feel any individual needs something they haven't earned, you can use your own money to help them. We do not deny you the freedom to waste your own money as you please. You deny that you need machine guns to waste my money as you please.

Any political philosophy that requires the use of machine guns to compel compliance with that philosophy's moral ideals is totally fucked up.

Originally Posted by Nerv14

I agree with you... I believe I said specifically that the government was the cause of the problem. please read my post instead of being lazy and just assume that I wrote some specific thing.

Then you said that more government regulation was needed, which is not true.

Don't assume I'm being lazy merely because I address the root of your error.

Originally Posted by Freedom for All

Then you said that more government regulation was needed, which is not true.

Don't assume I'm being lazy merely because I address the root of your error.

Some new regulations would help the situation. but the main problem is still too many of other types of regulations. I am agreeing you with on the root of the problem, but it isn't true to say that "the only reason we have a problem is because of too many regulations."

A band-aid regulation would stop the "tumor" from harming us right now, but I agree that it wouldn't remove the root of the problem.


Is it so hard to say that some regulations would have prevented the housing bubble from popping right now??? I am not even saying that new regulations would have even stopped the housing bubble from forming in the first place.

Originally Posted by Nerv14

Some new regulations would help the situation. but the main problem is still too many of other types of regulations. I am agreeing you with on the root of the problem, but it isn't true to say that "the only reason we have a problem is because of too many regulations."

A band-aid regulation would stop the "tumor" from harming us right now, but I agree that it wouldn't remove the root of the problem.


Is it so hard to say that some regulations would have prevented the housing bubble from popping right now??? I am not even saying that new regulations would have even stopped the housing bubble from forming in the first place.

The correct thing to say is tha tif the government had not violated the Constitution it couldn't have been possible for any aspect of the fiasco to have happened.

If someone is showing signs of dying from heavy metal poison, clearly the first step should be to stop eating the heavy metal.

For the US government, that means stop violating the Constitution.

The band-aid McCain co-sponsored and Obama voted against may have delayed the meltdown, but by 2005 there were already millions of stupid loans out there that were going to turn Britney Spears into a pizza-face, no matter what was done. The problem could have been prevented in 2003, but the Democrats stopped that one, too.

No, band-aids were looked at, but not taken out of the wrapper, and would have been of limited use regardless, when the core assumption that the government was obligated to order how banks should lend their money.

Originally Posted by Freedom for All

The band-aid McCain co-sponsored and Obama voted against may have delayed the meltdown

Exactly, a lack of regulations harmed us now. I am glad that you agreed on the benefits of some regulations. That is the only thing that I am saying, I know what started the problem.