| HappySqurriel said: Just as a question, why can major news networks follow around a small group of ACORN paid protestors as they travel to AIG executive's houses in order to protest the bonuses without having the motivations of the networks, protestors or ACORN mentioned or questioned but it is a major problem when (often non-partisan) conservative commentators support a series of protests with entirely voluntary protestors you question their motives? The fact is that there is a ton of people in the USA (and the world) who are upset with the number and scale of bailouts that have occured and the complete loss of fiscal restraint by their government, and it doesn't take much to motivate them to get out to protest. Certainly, Fox news and their commentators have exploited this situation to increase their profile and Repubilcan party members have tried to capatalize on the outrage ... but is this any different from the "Global Warming" or "G20" protests you see on TV all the time? |
Ok, what's wrong with demanding the money back from AIG. In my opinion, that is the best for both the country and the government. How that could even be construed as partisan is twisted.
"(often non-partisan)"- so you would say that those people I listed are non-partisan?
The bailout was a necessary step. The country would have collapsed in on itself without a bailout. Letting all those companies fail, would have had HUGE repercussions. The best way to solve this crisis is to keep them afloat while we disentangle the giant ball of thread that connects all these corps to each other. A company should be able to fail without taking out many others. This is not reality at the moment. Things have gotten out of control because of corporate loopholes and a bottom line mentality over ethicality.
You have no proof that Global warming does not exist. Global warming may not exist, but the fact is that if something is not done about it, there will also be HUGE repercussions, regardless if man-made or not. Measures need to be taken to ensure that the north pole doesn't dissolve completely.
I don't see anything wrong with the G20. It's comprised of the top financial leaders in the world and try to keep the world economy afloat. In my view it is the exact same with the bailout. We are completely tied into the finances of other countries. Therefore, to maintain the best interests of ourselves, it is a necessary group. If you want to complain about the rights of smaller countries being impugned, every member gets to act as head of the G-20. This includes both 1st owrld and 3rd world countries.
