j_b Posted March 21, 2008 Posted March 21, 2008 And you haven't answered the question "Why do you want Bush running the economy?" As head of the executive branch of the gov't, that would be his responsibility. I never said I wanted Bush to run the economy; however, you probably voted for Bush twice so why are you now invoking his incompetence? Quote
tomtom Posted March 21, 2008 Posted March 21, 2008 I guess we disagree here. I'd argue modifying the rules that govern mortgage lending, the securitization process, [..] estate market, and whether the said changes will increase or decrease the risks to public finances. I didn't claim any expertise but I don't need any to know that you are trying to spin the facts: the housing bubble is just another layer to the crisis. It is in fact a gigantic castle of cards that is teetering after decades of rampant speculation and growing debt, all enabled by lack of transparency, and government credit policy. You're suggesting price controls on the sale of private property? Quote
j_b Posted March 21, 2008 Posted March 21, 2008 (edited) You're suggesting price controls on the sale of private property? You're suggesting we eat babies for breakfast with ketchup? Wow ... Edited March 21, 2008 by j_b Quote
tomtom Posted March 21, 2008 Posted March 21, 2008 And you haven't answered the question "Why do you want Bush running the economy?" As head of the executive branch of the gov't, that would be his responsibility. I never said I wanted Bush to run the economy; however, you probably voted for Bush twice so why are you now invoking his incompetence? It's quite simple. You keep saying that there needs to be more gov't control of the economy. Bush, as President, is in charge of the executive branch of gov't. So more gov't control means more power for Bush over the economy. Also, your speculation on my voting record is just that. You have no facts. Quote
tomtom Posted March 21, 2008 Posted March 21, 2008 You're suggesting price controls on the sale of private property? You're suggesting we eat babbies for breakfast with ketchup? Wow ... No. One way to look at the problems in the housing market is that people bid too much for their houses and had to borrow in excess to pay for it. If they could have been forced to pay less, through gov't price controls, then this crisis could have been averted. What do 'babbies' have to do with this? Quote
StevenSeagal Posted March 21, 2008 Posted March 21, 2008 You're suggesting price controls on the sale of private property? You're suggesting we eat babbies for breakfast with ketchup? Wow ... No. Mw7CSkbpOp8 Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted March 21, 2008 Posted March 21, 2008 And you haven't answered the question "Why do you want Bush running the economy?" As head of the executive branch of the gov't, that would be his responsibility. I never said I wanted Bush to run the economy; however, you probably voted for Bush twice so why are you now invoking his incompetence? You, like Prole, are clearly a Statist, whose solution to every problem is a bigger, more intrusive government. Currently the executive is headed by someone you despise and consider incompetent, corrupt, etc. etc. etc. So, it is quite ironic to say the least that you (and you ilk) continually push big government solutions, when, there is currently an administration with whom you profoundly disagree and consider incompetent, who will wield the power you are desirous of granting them. I think this point is clear to everyone, or are you that addled in your thought process not to see it? Quote
j_b Posted March 21, 2008 Posted March 21, 2008 It's quite simple. You keep saying that there needs to be more gov't control of the economy. Bush, as President, is in charge of the executive branch of gov't. So more gov't control means more power for Bush over the economy. what if it was Gengis Khan? huh? huh? any government with as much power in the executive branch as bush wants would be a failure. Also, your speculation on my voting record is just that. You have no facts. I note that you didn't deny it and I recall you as being pretty far to the right. Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted March 21, 2008 Posted March 21, 2008 What do 'babbies' have to do with this? He's the second lefty I've ever heard use this term to describe "conservatives". The other is Chuckie. It must be a part of their secret language that they use to talk amongst themselves in left-wing circle jerks. See, you, as someone who has dared to disagree with them, must be a "Bush voter" and a conservative. It then follows that you hate old people, and want children and the homeless to starve or die of illnesses that they are not treated for. Such a heartless person is clearly a monster, an "eater of babies". Now, STFU, while your liberal attacker goes to harvest some stem-cells from aborted fetuses, you baby eater, you. Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted March 21, 2008 Posted March 21, 2008 Also, your speculation on my voting record is just that. You have no facts. I note that you didn't deny it and I recall you as being pretty far to the right. An independent moderate looks far to the right to someone as far out in left field as yourself. Quote
j_b Posted March 21, 2008 Posted March 21, 2008 Also, your speculation on my voting record is just that. You have no facts. I note that you didn't deny it and I recall you as being pretty far to the right. An independent moderate looks far to the right to someone as far out in left field as yourself. If you took off your hood, KKK, you'd certainly see better. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted March 21, 2008 Posted March 21, 2008 I subscribe to 11 dimensional politics that will someday converge into a singularity of eternal oneness. Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted March 21, 2008 Posted March 21, 2008 If you took off your hood, KKK, you'd certainly see better. Go fuck yourself, asshole. Quote
j_b Posted March 21, 2008 Posted March 21, 2008 You keep saying that there needs to be more gov't control of the economy. BTW, you'll have to explain how to obtain greater government control on the economy than when the fed pumps trillions of dollars toward the militari-industrial complex and implements record setting debt/credit policy to keep consumption going, and ends up pumping 100's of billions of public dollars into financial markets? How come you guys always accuse others of what you are precisely doing? Quote
StevenSeagal Posted March 21, 2008 Posted March 21, 2008 Countdown to the "Pot.Kettle.Black." post 5....4....3... Quote
j_b Posted March 21, 2008 Posted March 21, 2008 The free-marketeers don't want less government control on the economy, on the contrary they want government to set economic policy that will enable them to make a buck even if it isn't in the interest of the country and its people. Quote
olyclimber Posted March 21, 2008 Posted March 21, 2008 well j_b...it might be that there are some idealists who think that the concept of a freemarket is bullet proof...these people aren't out to "make a buck"...they are true believers (just like some idealists believe that the concept of communism can work). i don't think either people are "evil" or out to crush the will of the people or make a buck at the peoples expense. they just believe in that particular system. then you have the actual implementers of either system. there are a lot of good people, but in the end both system have boiled up some pretty bad apples. it seems that ugliness has ensued in either case...though one could argue that one system is less ugly than the other. Quote
tomtom Posted March 21, 2008 Posted March 21, 2008 Also, your speculation on my voting record is just that. You have no facts. I note that you didn't deny it and I recall you as being pretty far to the right. An independent moderate looks far to the right to someone as far out in left field as yourself. I won't deny that. Quote
olyclimber Posted March 21, 2008 Posted March 21, 2008 then again, that is your own label. it all depends on how you've defined the scale you're using. Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted March 21, 2008 Posted March 21, 2008 then again, that is your own label. it all depends on how you've defined the scale you're using. actually, it's pretty obvious what constitutes a moderate versus a hard leftie or rightie, but hey whatever floats your boat Quote
kevbone Posted March 21, 2008 Posted March 21, 2008 actually, it's pretty obvious what constitutes a moderate versus a hard leftie or rightie I agree....hard left is good hard right is bad. Quote
olyclimber Posted March 21, 2008 Posted March 21, 2008 then again, that is your own label. it all depends on how you've defined the scale you're using. actually, it's pretty obvious what constitutes a moderate versus a hard leftie or rightie, but hey whatever floats your boat no. i'm talking about where on the spectrum you really fit when you describe yourself as a "moderate". are you the center of the universe? Quote
olyclimber Posted March 21, 2008 Posted March 21, 2008 actually, it's pretty obvious what constitutes a moderate versus a hard leftie or rightie I agree....hard left is good hard right is bad. well thats a ringing endorsement! Quote
olyclimber Posted March 21, 2008 Posted March 21, 2008 exactly the point there minx you go hard left, then you take a hard right, and you end up in the center! must be a moderate! Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.