By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - DNC: Anyone watching? Thoughts? (Please keep it civil)

Mr Khan on 08 September 2012
mrstickball said:
Why oh why can't more people get onboard with the Libertarian party?

They have the only sane man running, yet the RNC is doing its darndest to get him removed from major states.

I really hope they don't. Gary Johnson's drag on the right will help get four more years of Obama which, while not optimal, is better than the alternative.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Around the Network
badgenome on 08 September 2012
Mr Khan said:

I mean in terms of lumping so many of the riskier loans into securities in this nebulous derivitives market (the market that is the proof that fiat money has no purpose and that the money men can literally make value from nothing). They knew they were playing with fire and got off scot-free while the economy tumbled. Was it right for them to be forced to make loans under such circumstances? Probably not. Was it right for them to decide to work some sort of financial voodoo on those same iffy loans in an attempt to make a profit and maximize the risk to the entire planet? Definitely yes.

I take it you meant "definitely no".

While it might not have been "right" for them to do that, it was inevitable that they would when the government created the market for bad loans in the first place. You might be too young to remember, but there was a time when this was seen as a good thing.



Mr Khan on 08 September 2012
badgenome said:
Mr Khan said:

I mean in terms of lumping so many of the riskier loans into securities in this nebulous derivitives market (the market that is the proof that fiat money has no purpose and that the money men can literally make value from nothing). They knew they were playing with fire and got off scot-free while the economy tumbled. Was it right for them to be forced to make loans under such circumstances? Probably not. Was it right for them to decide to work some sort of financial voodoo on those same iffy loans in an attempt to make a profit and maximize the risk to the entire planet? Definitely yes.

I take it you meant "definitely no".

While it might not have been "right" for them to do that, it was inevitable that they would when the government created the market for bad loans in the first place. You might be too young to remember, but there was a time when this was seen as a good thing.

I did. I forgot whether i was asking "was it right" or "was it wrong?" midway through writing my own thought.

All i remember paying attention to during the Clinton years was being really pissed off that the Impeachment proceedings were taking over airtime on PBS afternoons, so i missed my Bill Nye and Wishbone for some boring crap i didn't understand.

Also rooted for Ross Perot in '96, but only because my best friend at the time's name was Ross.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

SamuelRSmith on 09 September 2012
Mr Khan said:

Also rooted for Ross Perot in '96, but only because my best friend at the time's name was Ross.


The sad thing is... there are a lot of voters out there who actually will make their decisions based on stuff like this.

I was reading Time the other day (don't ask, I was in an office in China, and it was either Time or one of those state-controlled papers, but I repeat myself), and they were talking about the choice of Paul Ryan help swaying voters who were turned off by Romney because he didn't hunt, or some shit like that.



richardhutnik on 09 September 2012
Mr Khan said:
badgenome said:
Kasz216 said:

It's like your old friend telling you you should hang out with his buddy because all those times you had drinking together were way more fun then all those times you spent alone with a hangover.

That's the perfect analogy. The good old Clinton days were the result of a bubble economy, and the recession is nothing more than a very painful correction. As convenient as it is to blame it all on Bush it's just dosn't hold up to any sort of real scrutiny - although Bush's ownership society initiatives didn't help, but that was really just a continuation of what started way back when with the Community Reinvestment Act. It's just a pitiful nostalgia trip, more worthy of VH1 than a serious political party.

It's pretty rich to watch the Democrats spend decades blaming the inability of poor minorities to get loans they can't ever afford to pay back on racism, and then when they force the banks to make those loans and the whole thing blows up in everyone's face, they rail on the banks' "predatory lending" policies. Because debt slavery is bad, you know, unless it's done at the national level.

See, i blame it on the banks who took what they knew were risky loans and decided to infect the whole system with it. The slowdown would have been much less painful if it weren't for banker greed.

And debt slavery is a bad thing on a national level, but you'll never here America complaining, as it reaps the benefits of such slaves as Argentina

It is one thing to end up saying the government forced you to do it.  It is another when you leverage to the hilt on such demands.  At that point, you go from being a hostage, to getting a bad case of Stockholm Syndrome.  

As for the having Clinton speak, thinks have gone downhill since 2000, so having Clinton there is a reminder.  In my case I am certainly not better off since I was in 2000.  Heck, I am not even better off since I was in 2003-2004.