T1B

Cuda wrote:

Felix wrote:Attorney Generals are obligated to investigate unlawful events....that's their job

I guess we'll be seeing the announcement of a RICO investigation of ACORN any day now, right?

Voter Fraud in KC
Voter Fraud in Nevada
Voter Fraud in Missouri
Voter Intimidation in Philadelphia
Aiding & Abbeting Tax Fraud, & Underaged Prostitution in Maryland & Washington DC

Yep, indictments coming down any day now

Yep...probably the day after the indictments for Walden O'Dell come down.

Cuda wrote:

Felix wrote:Attorney Generals are obligated to investigate unlawful events....that's their job

I guess we'll be seeing the announcement of a RICO investigation of ACORN any day now, right?

Voter Fraud in KC
Voter Fraud in Nevada
Voter Fraud in Missouri
Voter Intimidation in Philadelphia
Aiding & Abbeting Tax Fraud, & Underaged Prostitution in Maryland & Washington DC

Yep, indictments coming down any day now

don't know, that's up to the attorney general's office, but it may fall under the purview of the state where it occurred....and should whichever respective jurisdiction opt to pursue charges, those would be against the individual violators and not against ACORN.....

you do realize that it was ACORN who turned those fraudulent registrations/registrars into the election fraud commission don't you?

but I understand-you're shuddering in sheer terror at another boogey man propagated by the wingnut faction of the right....

It's a clear pattern of interstate organized crime, feeldix- That makes it a federal matter. Not to mention the fact that all the individual crimes are federal crimes.

but I understand-you're shuddering in sheer terror at another boogey man propagated by the wingnut faction of the right....

No, actually, I'm laughing at the Lunatic-Left Mainstream.

Cuda wrote:It's a clear pattern of interstate organized crime

good times

That ghetto tripe should have been immediately accosted by the fashion police.

Cuda wrote:
No, actually, I'm laughing at the Lunatic-Left Mainstream.

no you aren't...I know you want to believe that a group like ACORN is of no threat to you, but like I say, it's necessary for the lunatic fringe do develop "threats to freedom" and Acorn fits the bill-never mind there's any proof that non of the false registrations ever resulted in an actual vote, it's the fear factor you have to understand.....

if they can't make their "constituents" afraid of the big bad ACORN grould, then thinking people, you know, the ones with more than four firing neurons would recognize these type movements for what the are....scare tactics, trying to frighten you into believing their coming for your gus, plan on locking you in internment camps, indoctriante you to a socialist agenda, and send you forth to multiply and bring forth more radical socialists.....seriously, don't you find the whole thing just a little preposterous?

Feelsdix wrote:indoctriante you to a socialist agenda,

The agenda B.O. and the Washington establishment are, and have been, "indoctrinating" us to is UNDENIABLY socialist.

government banks
government car companies
"bailouts"
cap and trade
government-run health care
etc...

You may pull your head out of your ass anytime, your incredible dipshit.

The policies of the republican over the previous 30 years are undoubtedly feudalism. Your point?

Diego in Seattle wrote:The policies of the republican over the previous 30 years are undoubtedly feudalism. Your point?

Why are you so interested in this thread, pedo?

Having "school age kids" in the title draws him in every time

poptart wrote: government banks
government car companies
"bailouts"
cap and trade
government-run health care
etc...

Yeah, the banks, the car companies, health care were all flush with money and running like clockwork before Obama got to town.....

damn, who'd of thought that a single person could do so much damage in so little time?

mvscal wrote:
What the fuck does that have to do with Ochimpy guaranteeing private sector losses with public money?

so you'd have preferred to have all of the employees of said car companies, banks, etc. (along with all of the ancillary employees of all of the related businesses) sitting on the unemployment doles right now?

Diego in Seattle wrote:The policies of the republican over the previous 30 years are undoubtedly feudalism. Your point?

I'm not a republican.

This is the third time now I've said that in this thread, and each time as those defending Obama's lunatic policies try to divert attention toward something ... republican.

I've also said that I'm not a republican repeatedly on this board when these kind of political discussions are going on.

I'm not a republican.

Got it ... finally?

Feelsdix wrote:Yeah, the banks, the car companies, health care were all flush with money and running like clockwork before Obama got to town.....

damn, who'd of thought that a single person could do so much damage in so little time?

And this has exactly what to do with your denial of the obvious fact that Obama and the Washington establishment has pushed forward socialist policies?

Get a grip, guy.

poptart wrote:
And this has exactly what to do with your denial of the obvious fact that Obama and the Washington establishment has pushed forward socialist policies?

Get a grip, guy.

look hoss, there were really only two choices here...either bail them out or let them fail......if Chrysler and GM had failed, what would be your guess on the costs for unemployment? Of course we'd (we being American's and not expatriates in Korea) be footing the bill on that...so either way, we're (we're being us not you) fucked....

Before we move on, let's make sure we agree on something.
Something that is obvious to any objective observer of current America.

Obama and the current Washington power base is pushing forward a socialist agenda.

Agree?



You let 'em fail, of course.

Any "cost" to citizens in having them fail is minimal compared to the LONG TERM cost of pushing us further into debt.

But more importantly, on what Constitutional basis is the government authorized to fleece the taxpayer to bail out a private company?


Yeah, just pull some shit out of the air.

... or your @ss.

poptart wrote:Before we move on, let's make sure we agree on something.
Something that is obvious to any objective observer of current America.

Obama and the current Washington power base is pushing forward a socialist agenda.

Agree?

Disagree.

But first, we need to get beyond name-calling, and come up with a working definition of socialism. This one seems to work for me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Socialism refers to various theories of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with an egalitarian method of compensation.It could also be a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done. Contrary to popular belief, socialism is not a political system; it is an economic system distinct from capitalism.

Say what you will, but we are not in a system consistent with that first sentence, nor are we even moving closer toward that. As for the second sentence, there are elements of that system toward which we are moving. But I think there's also a qualifier there: this would have to be a transitional stage between capitalism and communism. It's an even bigger reach to say that Obama is moving us toward communism than it is to say that he's moving us toward socialism, so there lies, I think, the reason that the second sentence doesn't fit the current situation either.

Moreover, many of Obama's erstwhile supporters are abandoning him. Of course, by and large, the reason for that is not that he's gone too far, but that he hasn't gone far enough, fast enough. Certainly, Obama is moving at a snail's pace compared to, say, FDR.

Felix wrote:

mvscal wrote:
What the fuck does that have to do with Ochimpy guaranteeing private sector losses with public money?

so you'd have preferred to have all of the employees of said car companies, banks, etc. (along with all of the ancillary employees of all of the related businesses) sitting on the unemployment doles right now?

Yes, moron, though it's debatable that all of those employees end up on unemployment or that all of those firms completely disappear. I know it was that fearmongering that got the stimulus passed, but it wasn't a legitimate argument.

Nonetheless, yes, you let them fail or pick themselves up. What you don't do is let one fail and then bail out the rest. That sets the market off in a panic and it creates a moral hazard problem where risk becomes guaranteed by the government. Obama and company effectively told large MNC's that if you whine to us that you're failing we will cover you...with public dollars...that we don't have. So, rather than effectively douse the risk-taking that you people believe drew us into this economic mess, you're actually incentivizing it with government dollars. It's the same things as federal aid for homes and businesses in flood plains and on the coasts. preople keep building in these areas because we keep bailing them out when they're homes and businesses get knocked out by yet another hurricane or another week of rain.

JMak wrote:
Yes, moron, though it's debatable that all of those employees end up on unemployment or that all of those firms completely disappear. I know it was that fearmongering that got the stimulus passed, but it wasn't a legitimate argument.

GM and Chrysler would have been broken up and sold for their components and the workers from those companies would have been pounding sand....which of course would have increased the unemployment numbers substantially, and you would have been here raggin on the job loss under Obama....it's a no win situation either way you slice it

Nonetheless, yes, you let them fail or pick themselves up. What you don't do is let one fail and then bail out the rest. That sets the market off in a panic and it creates a moral hazard problem where risk becomes guaranteed by the government. Obama and company effectively told large MNC's that if you whine to us that you're failing we will cover you...with public dollars...that we don't have. So, rather than effectively douse the risk-taking that you people believe drew us into this economic mess, you're actually incentivizing it with government dollars. It's the same things as federal aid for homes and businesses in flood plains and on the coasts. preople keep building in these areas because we keep bailing them out when they're homes and businesses get knocked out by yet another hurricane or another week of rain.

of course in your world I guess that's the way things work....you let them fail and not only do they take themselves down, but all of the associated companies with them and the unemployment numbers skyrocket....then you'd be in here saying "look at what Obama did to the unemployment".....of course, the auto industry crisis was well under way when Obama took office, but Bush decided it was best to leave that mess for the next guy

Felix wrote:GM and Chrysler would have been broken up and sold for their components and the workers from those companies would have been pounding sand....which of course would have increased the unemployment numbers substantially, and you would have been here raggin on the job loss under Obama....it's a no win situation either way you slice it

Numbnuts, unemployment was already skyrocketing regardless of what these two companies did. But look at you...fearmongering. GM and Chrysler shed jobs even after receiving federal bailouts. So, at best, unemployment would have marginally increased without bailouts. But I love how you rely on a prediction of my response toward Obama as a legit reason to bailout GM, Chrysler, etc.

of course in your world I guess that's the way things work....you let them fail and not only do they take themselves down, but all of the associated companies with them and the unemployment numbers skyrocket....then you'd be in here saying "look at what Obama did to the unemployment".....of course, the auto industry crisis was well under way when Obama took office, but Bush decided it was best to leave that mess for the next guy

Dick, the numbers were already skyrocketing. GM and Chrysler were not failing because of a temporary lack of cash. They were broken companies and federal dollars doesn't fix that fact. Look, no bailout was needed. The bailout gave Obama his hook to say he was doing something and to hand the company over to the UAW.

mvscal wrote:
Says who?

economic experts

Felix wrote:

mvscal wrote:
Says who?

economic experts

My goodness that is weak. An appeal to an unknown and completely uncited consensus of experts? That's what you're hanging your hat on?

Economic experts say all sorts of things. Rarely are they accurate.

JMak wrote:

Felix wrote:

mvscal wrote:
Says who?

economic experts

My goodness that is weak. An appeal to an unknown and completely uncited consensus of experts? That's what you're hanging your hat on?
.

Hey, it worked for global warming-for a while anyway

JMak wrote:
My goodness that is weak. An appeal to an unknown and completely uncited consensus of experts? That's what you're hanging your hat on?

I'm not "hanging my hat" on anything, I'm simply iterating what I read about the pros and cons of a governement bailout as opposed to GM and Chrysler filing Chapter 11 bankruptcy.....

but no doubt we'll see them back with their hands out wanting more money....the bailout is simply postponing the inevitable-unless they significantly change they way they do business both companies are going to go under.....however, with a vested interest in both companies, the unions may be a little more pliable when it comes to wages and benefits

So that's a "no" to the workers finally controlling the means of production?

I've tried. Lord knows I've tried.

Nothing seems to work around here :(