|
|
Post by MrNice on Sept 30, 2008 9:22:08 GMT -5
Here is how a bank makes money: you deposit $100 into the bank the bank then lends out $90, for example as a mortage now, if the person that borrowed $90 goes into forclosure, the bank is not getting your $90 a bank run happens when you find out the bank is in trouble and want your $100 back if forclosure happens, the bank gets back the house, and the bank still has your downpayment and all the money you have already payed - so theoretically the bank can sell the house and most of your $100 should be covered here is the problem however - the houses are way over priced - so the house is worth a lot less then previously thought another problem is that a lot of loans were made with no down payment Inflation / Deflation: when the bank lends out $90 out of your $100 there is now $190 in the system. that $90 ends up in the bank anyway because we keep the money in the bank. Then the bank takes the $90 and lends out $81. Repeat. There is now about 10x money in the system. Based on the initial $100 there is now $1000 dollars in the system, most of which is just debt owed to the bank. This was inflation. Next comes deflation. Various people are starting to default, $1000 dollars disppears. So the bank is now in the hole for $1000 while there is only $100 of real money in the system - there is only one thing the bank honestly do at this point - go bankrupt. All the 'complex securities' in questions that the banks are holding is really just money owed to the banks - money that people can not pay back. With the bailout, government wants to pay back the debt to the banks with taxpayer money, while not admitting the fundamental problem, and letting the banks off the hook. here is how sweden solved a similar crisis: www.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/business/worldbusiness/23krona.html?emthe track we are on right now is more like japan's handling of a similar crisis Japan has been in recession for 20 years |
|
|
|
Post by Farouche on Sept 30, 2008 9:51:42 GMT -5
Here is how a bank makes money: [...]
here is how sweden solved a similar crisis:
www.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/business/worldbusiness/23krona.html?em
the track we are on right now is more like japan's handling of a similar crisis
Japan has been in recession for 20 years I get the gist of what the banks have been up to, but thanks for breaking it down. As to Sweden's solution to the problem, it makes a huge amount of sense for the government to get equity in any corporation it bails out. I'll echo that article in saying that it's unclear why our government would even consider doing it any other way.  |
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Sept 30, 2008 10:32:55 GMT -5
I thought it was weird how McCain could keep going on about a "victory" in Iraq at the debates. I thoroughly understand our obligation, but what does "victory" even mean, at this point? Stabilization of the country and that means no more al-Qaeda, or other extremist, attacks in Iraq. If USA gets out too quiclky Iran will be eager to move in there and then who knows what might happen. There's already a strong tention between Israel and Iran and getting out too early will strenghten Iran as they, or at least the terrorist groups, will take over Iraq and then you have a worse situation then before the war even started. And they will be very much eager to whipe out the Jew country that is Israel because they, or at least their president, hates them so much. However, I'm puzzled by the fact that USA is paying for a lot of this rebuilding of Iraq while Iraqi government has a surplus but doesn't pay for much. Hopefully they'll get them to pay more and take some responsibility. |
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Sept 30, 2008 10:37:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Farouche on Sept 30, 2008 12:26:30 GMT -5
[...] Iraq [...] And that is "victory." That is "winning." I'm talking about the use of the word victory and this concept of "winning" versus "losing" this convoluted war, like it's some kind of big game. |
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Sept 30, 2008 12:54:45 GMT -5
[...] Iraq [...] And that is "victory." That is "winning." I'm talking about the use of the word victory and this concept of "winning" versus "losing" this convoluted war, like it's some kind of big game. Of course it's a game, especialy for McCain a prisoner of war for 5 years. Come on now. ThinkProgress.org . yeah, a GOP smear-website. Real nice. |
|
|
|
Post by Farouche on Sept 30, 2008 13:48:26 GMT -5
Of course it's a game, especialy for McCain a prisoner of war for 5 years. Come on now. Yawn. Just more hot air and empty rhetoric. You didn't have a leg to stand on with regard to Sarah Palin, and you don't have one now. ThinkProgress.org . yeah, a GOP smear-website. Real nice. Give it up already. I read on a news site that McCain took Obama to task for not using the word "victory" with regard to Iraq, and when I googled to see if that was the case, that's the first site I clicked on that had the actual quote. If you have a problem with the facts, say so. Don't whine that you don't like the messenger. |
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Sept 30, 2008 14:14:25 GMT -5
Yawn. Just more hot air and empty rhetoric. You didn't have a leg to stand on with regard to Sarah Palin, and you don't have one now. Yeah right Right. Well at least they got the quote correct! |
|
|
|
Post by Farouche on Sept 30, 2008 17:22:57 GMT -5
“I don't mind that he's a Christian and that doesn't make him far right. If you have any evidence that he is far right then come forth.” Evidence?? I’ll just pop a DVD of “The O’Reilly Factor” in my chromatograph of truth and send you the results, shall I? In the meantime, you can work on trying to “prove” that O’Reilly is not far right.  O’Reilly is widely acknowledged to be a far right talk show host, and Olbermann a far left one, in relation to American politics. Accept it and sit down. “I accept your opinion and point out that you then proceed to gather all your anti-Palin news sources, or videos that you interpet as such.” Huh? Are you going to sit here and tell me that you wouldn’t even watch the YouTube videos I linked to of Palin herself giving interviews, and you refuse to respond to them at all?? Your ignorance is willful, and astonishing.
“haha.. uh, no!
You brought out our good friend, Jack Cafferty! A liberal anti-bush rambler. Of course you agree with him.”
“No?” Uh, yes! I posted a link that articulated the viewpoint I have been trying to illuminate for you, the viewpoint you claim is 100% baseless and malicious, because apparently I haven’t been able to do that on my own, AND I explained that I posted the clip because it articulated the way I subjectively feel and interpret the subject matter. And your response is that I shouldn’t try explain my thinking using links to people whose personal opinions agree with me? Duh-wha? “Of course it matters where you get your information from! The media with which you sourround yourself is like a parent telling you what's true and what's not. Of course we all think we surround ourselfs with the media that's true and has integrity.” So, the media is like a mommy to you?? That actually explains a lot, Nap. I’m just surprised you said it aloud. Personally, I take everything I view or hear on TV or online with a grain of salt, including most quotations unless I can actually see the footage or hear it in context for myself, and even then I do my own analysis of what is being said. And now that I’m a big girl, I’m able to apply the same standards to the things my parents tell me.  “I belive Bill O'Reilly is a good guy, America is a great country, religion is a good moderate influence, and Bush is a man of integrity doing the best that he possibly can with the information he has. That's my downside for you  ” I believe the very fact that Bush's performance is “the best he possibly can do” is exactly why people think he’s a bit of an idiot. “I was under that impression because of your earlier statment [...]
You made having no experience sound bad, and then you backtrack and say "I don't care about political experience". You can't have it both ways, aye.” I never backtracked. Let me rephrase this in a different way: "the difference between Sarah Palin and a ditzy beauty queen is that Palin has been elected to public office." Are we clear yet, or do you want to ask me again why I hate Palin for her inexperience? “Both Palin and Obama have little experience and we'll see what comes of it.” I DON’T CARE. I. do. not. care. about. experience. I don’t care. “I was very interested to see you adress this. You cannot do whatever you want or teach your kids whatever you want, because there are certian expectations and rules in a society. But since we probably agree that criminalism and such should be sanctioned.. we're fine.” As the saying goes, “your right to swing your arms ends at the tip of someone else’s nose.” Yes, “liberals” believe in crime and punishment. “Some of the so called liberals believe you can say whatever you want about whoever you want because of free speech. In the same breath, they try to limit creationists and conservatives of their free speech. Some of them at least. For example they call republicans, especially G.W.Bush all kinds of names, but then when someone says something critical about Obama, they're viciously attacked or even called racist. Blows my mind.” All irrelevant. How is it limiting your free speech to use my right to free speech to say you’re wrong? You can stand on a street corner and talk all day about how great and true creationism is, but you cannot redefine the word “science” and teach creationism in the classroom. Does that make sense to you? Would you let an atheist come into a public school classroom and tell the children that scientific evidence indicates that God does not exist? Would that be free speech, protected by the Bill of Rights? Atheists do not want to teach children in public schools that God does not exist, and atheists don’t want Christians teaching public school children that God created the world in 6 days a few thousand years ago. There is no double standard here. Teaching anything about religion, whether to say that religion is right or wrong, belongs in the home or almost anywhere except in public school. Period. And what is this talk about how SOME people call Dubya names, and SOME people get upset when Obama gets criticized? Some conservatives call Obama names and get bent out of shape when someone something nasty about Bush. All of it is protected speech, and doesn't tell us anything at all about the relative merits of "liberal" and "conservative" perspectives. “Here's a little something about those kinds of liberals:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=eY7e_3GlSes” Nope. In the spirit of your ungenerous appraisal of my links, there is no way I’m going to subject myself to some kind of rant about evil liberals. “They want to eliminate God from everything. I don't think that's such a good idea because America was founded and Judeo-Christian philosophy, maybe even spiritual.” Americans remain unconcerned that you personally feel it’s a good idea. A, You’re not an American, and you don’t get a say in this, and B, the founders thought eliminating religion from the government was a great idea, and that’s why we have a little thing called the “separation of church and state.” And if you don’t believe in that, you don’t believe in the values of our founding fathers. “And a lot of people are benefited by religion, if nothing else there's a community of people there. And since people are generally happier when they're in a community and have friends, why not? To boot it teaches good principles and has absolutes like 10 commandmants which are a positive thing.” Completely, 100% irrelevant, and it’s sad that you would even feel a need to write that paragraph. Atheists have no intention of taking church, religion, or god away from anybody, ever. Atheists just want the freedom not to believe in god, and for the government to respect their right to not teach give their children a religious upbringing. That means no official religious endorsements by the government (politicians can still dissus their individual religious views), and no religion in the science classroom. Nobody wants to take God away from you or anyone else. And before you bring this up, nobody needs to read the ten commandments to know they shouldn't kill other people. “All the atheists I know are good people. George Soros and co. are not. Especially atheists who try to push atheism onto others. Where's the liberalism here? Where has the open mindness gone?” If all the atheists you know are good people, why did you even bring up the fact that Olbermann and Soros and Franken are atheists? You clearly implied that it’s a negative attribute. You have an extremely peculiar definition of “open-mindedness” and “liberal” if you think that trying to convince others that your opinion is correct is “not open-minded” or “liberal.” Just like Jehova’s witnesses are free to go door to door trying to pass out leaflets and turn people on to the word of Christ, atheists are allowed to argue publically and privately that there is no god. Both groups are free to ignore each other, but nobody can pass a law to stop either Jehova’s Witnesses or atheists from talking about what they believe. “Yeah well some of their ideas are really out there. For example some of them think that the earth is 6000 years old and somehow they find supporting evidence for that.” And all their “evidence” is easily refuted by real scientific inquiry, not to worry. |
|
|
|
Post by Sweet Pea on Sept 30, 2008 17:55:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Sept 30, 2008 20:01:54 GMT -5
Farouche wrote: Evidence?? I’ll just pop a DVD of “The O’Reilly Factor” in my chromatograph of truth and send you the results, shall I? In the meantime, you can work on trying to “prove” that O’Reilly is not far right. It is my opinion that he would not be the 'king of cable' [ratings], if he were far-right like, say, Michel Savage. Look, O'Reilly has liberals and conservatives on his show, often at the same time, and there's healthy debate, usually. Then you look at Countdown with Keith Olbermann and he basiclly has no debate as such because he only invites liberals and far-left loons that are on the same level as Keith. There's no opposite viewpoints to give word to the other side so a kid watching it would be indoctrinated to think that Bush is somehow evil and whatever else Keith accompliches with half-truths. Furthermore O'Reilly has not endorsed, is being fair, and had both candidates on his show to ask them tough questions, that voters wanna know. He even had Ms. Clinton on his show. Olbermann? Only Obama. To do what? To play 'softball' and attack Ms. Palin. He was in the tank for Obama all along and still is. I don't know how many times McCain has been awarded the so called 'Worst person in the world' award by Keith, but it's definitely been a few times. Even his wife, Cindy, has been awarded one. For what? YouTube it, if you want to find out, but I'm not going to even put his videos up here. Silly trivial things.. For crying out loud I don't think there's been a terrorist who's been labeled 'the worst person in the world'! That's kind of sad, but it's the way it is. Now, maybe I need to backtrack a bit on Olbermann and as much as it pains me to say this, I don't think he's a bad guy and I don't think his intention is to hurt the country. But he is, in my opinion, doing exactly that and doesn't even realize it. Farouche wrote: “Are you going to sit here and tell me that you wouldn’t even watch the YouTube videos I linked to of Palin herself giving interviews, and you refuse to respond to them at all?? Your ignorance is willful, and astonishing. ” Look I've seen the anwser that you find so controversial and I didn't feel like I needed to adress it again as I've stated before that I think she's done great as a media rookie. She's new to this intense scrutiny that you get into if you fumble one of your anwsers. She'll learn, she's in good hands. She'll get history lessons and stuff which; this is nothing new in politics. I'll give her the benefit of doubt unlike Jack Cafferty who was gonna vote for Obama anyway, is very biased and just loves to ramble about what the current Bush administration is doing, in his opinion, wrong. As far as I've seen of Jack he's very eager to critisize anything conservative so I'm not suprised. To be fair though, I don't think McCain knows too much about economy, but the good thing is that he'll cut taxes. As for Obama: the health care plan was just a dream. Taxing the rich too much is also poor economy. And he'd probably increase spending with his entitelments programs, like democrats do, although Bush has probably outspend the previous Clinton administration in that department, but for a good cause and in a very different post 9/11-times. Wait, I think I just discovered something. Because most media [in USA, 2008], is leaning left, with NBC being the worst then it's no wonder that, a so called 'traditionalist', an indipendent voter like Bill O'Reilly, who represent the values of half the country is labeled far- right. Of course! That all makes sense now. Another mistery solved. If you excuse me, I have to go and maybe continue this reply in some other post. |
|
|
|
Post by MrNice on Oct 1, 2008 8:54:47 GMT -5
a look at any o'reilly video clip and its obvious that he is far right
he is somewhat skilled at debate (though his tactics are dirty) and won't say some of the wacko things like some of the preachers do, but he is far right
on top of that he is a bully - he will insult people, accuse them of things and not let them defend themselves. And when someone reverses the table on him he starts crying about how unfair he is being treated. Ridiculous.
As for Sarah Palin - McCain really shot himself in the foot with that one
I am also getting the impression that
he shot himself in the arm by his behavior during the bailout fiasco
|
|
|
|
Post by Farouche on Oct 1, 2008 15:21:30 GMT -5
Naptaq ----------
It is my opinion that he would not be the 'king of cable' [ratings], if he were far-right like, say, Michel Savage. [...]
Wait, I think I just discovered something. Because most media [in USA, 2008], is leaning left, with NBC being the worst then it's no wonder that, a so called 'traditionalist', an indipendent voter like Bill O'Reilly, who represent the values of half the country is labeled far- right. Of course! That all makes sense now.
Another mistery solved. Your opinion is wrong. He's far right. The word "traditionalist" should clue you in. "Traditionalist" means conservative. He is a far right conservative. You are a far right conservative. I myself am unapologetically left-leaning. You are getting all your news and opinions from an extremely biased source. Just accept it. If you don't want to be subjected to a strong bias (and you can wean yourself off Bill O'Reilly's fatherly pronouncements) and you don't want to have to do a lot of critical thinking about your source, watch the BBC for what is widely regarded as some of the least biased reporting available today. I think CNN (not the opinion segments) is regarded as slightly left-leaning but reasonably balanced, and MSNBC is considered to be strongly left-leaning. Naptaq ----------
Look I've seen the anwser that you find so controversial and I didn't feel like I needed to adress it again as I've stated before that I think she's done great as a media rookie. She's new to this intense scrutiny that you get into if you fumble one of your anwsers. She'll learn, she's in good hands. She'll get history lessons and stuff which; this is nothing new in politics. Forgive me, but "she will learn?" That is not a sane proposition. There is no acceptable reason why the vice president of the United States should have difficulty making logical sense when discussing some of the most important issues of our time. That response of hers about what the bailout will accomplish is not a slip of the tongue; it is incoherent babbling. There is no argument for nominating to high office a person who is that ill-informed that we have to hope she will hopefully learn about world politics in time. We do not elect national leaders for their personal enrichment! The vice presidency is not a college internship. She is a 44-year-old politician, Naptaq. There are no excuses for her ignorance. None. Especially since she claims to read all the papers. That's right, all of 'em, any of 'em. Naptaq ----------
To be fair though, I don't think McCain knows too much about economy The economy issue is pretty relevant this year, don't you think? "It's the economy, stupid."Naptaq ----------
but the good thing is that he'll cut taxes. ...for the wealthiest ten to fifteen percent, who need that money least of all. Naptaq ----------
Taxing the rich too much is also poor economy. Explain, in your own words, exactly why it is "poor economy" to have the rich pay the same percentage of their gargantuan incomes as the middle class pays of theirs. Naptaq ----------
And he'd probably increase spending with his entitelments programs, like democrats do "Entitlements programs--" that would be the far right, Bill O'Reilly euphemism for social assistance programs that benefit the less fortunate, wouldn't it? The implication, I assume, being that the poor feel falsely "entitled" to having basic needs met, like food, shelter, and affordable healthcare. The system is undoubtedly abused by many people who could help themselves out of the hole if they were forced to do so, but in my opinion it means that we need to revise the system, not revile it. Naptaq ----------
although Bush has probably outspend the previous Clinton administration in that department, but for a good cause and in a very different post 9/11-times. He started a war under false pretexts, whether you want to call that "lying" or just "one of the most expensive and deadly mistakes of this century." We are pouring millions upon billions into a war that should never have been initiated, and that is not in any sense of the word a "good cause." Let me end by drawing your attention back to this post by Mr. Nice, who as you'll remember, is voting for McCain--so try not to dismiss him as a frothing liberal who's just "in the tank" for Obama: Mr. Nice ----------
a look at any o'reilly video clip and its obvious that he is far right
he is somewhat skilled at debate (though his tactics are dirty) and won't say some of the wacko things like some of the preachers do, but he is far right
on top of that he is a bully - he will insult people, accuse them of things and not let them defend themselves. And when someone reverses the table on him he starts crying about how unfair he is being treated. Ridiculous.As for Sarah Palin - McCain really shot himself in the foot with that one |
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Oct 1, 2008 17:26:11 GMT -5
Farouche, in green, wrote:
So, the media is like a mommy to you?? That actually explains a lot, Nap. I’m just surprised you said it aloud.
Personally, I take everything I view or hear on TV or online with a grain of salt, including most quotations unless I can actually see the footage or hear it in context for myself, and even then I do my own analysis of what is being said. And now that I’m a big girl, I’m able to apply the same standards to the things my parents tell me. Well without the media we wouldn't know what's going on. Even for the "research" we do, we go online, or read a book about the subject, magazine, listen to radio, watch TV.. It's all media. Different kinds of media, but still media. My point is not that we belive everything that is said by the media, which is certianly not true for me, for you or for anyone else for that matter. But when something is repeated long enough it becomes 'true', or 'common knowlege', even if it's not. That's where the corruption of the media comes in (e.g biased reporters) and it's danger. For example, you may reject some piece of fallacious news when it first comes out at first, consciously, but days, weeks, months or even years later, when it's repeated so long and so often not just by the media, but by people you encounter, or people in your circle, you find yourself agreeing with the news more and more. This all happens very gradualy and sublty. This fallacious meme then propagades faster and faster because of the shear number of people being programmed by it. Like a rolling snowball this malignant cancer spreads. I belive the media being the parent analogy is an appropriete one, because, it tells us everything. To the "child" within us, the media has become the parent. "This happened so and so" "This guy is bad" "This is wrong" Being as there are so many different opinions in the media it very much matters which 'Foster Parent' you trust. It is my personal opinion that Bill O'Reilly is awesome for the shear fact that he calls out corruption when it happens and he has a knack for seeing it. I believe such a counterforce is needed and is very benificial. I believe the very fact that Bush's performance is “the best he possibly can do” is exactly why people think he’s a bit of an idiot. That's their problem. They wouldn't last 10 days as president. “I DON’T CARE. I. do. not. care. about. experience. I don’t care. Ok, fine. but you cannot redefine the word “science” and teach creationism in the classroom. Does that make sense to you? I'm not interested in a creation vs. evolution debate. To me, there's obviously some intelligent design behind all of this and evolution is taking place as science has proven. Nope. In the spirit of your ungenerous appraisal of my links, there is no way I’m going to subject myself to some kind of rant about evil liberals. Not even now? It's fine either way, you'll probably find it offensive if you do watch it. we have a little thing called the “separation of church and state.” And if you don’t believe in that, you don’t believe in the values of our founding fathers. Could you enlighten me as to where in the the US Constitution is this seperation? If you mean this part of the 1st amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" I don't see it, because there is no seperation. Congress just doesn't have anything to do with religion whatsoever. And that's a good thing. Atheists have no intention of taking church, religion, or god away from anybody, ever. Some seem like they do want to take religion and God out of everything, but that's not you Ms. Ferret and I'm sorry if I implied that. Atheists just want the freedom not to believe in god, and for the government to respect their right to not teach give their children a religious upbringing. You can already do this. I apologise for Jehovah's Witnesses and pushy Christians as I know some atheists are upset with them. That means no official religious endorsements by the government Yes, this is already accomplished by "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.." And before you bring this up, nobody needs to read the ten commandments to know they shouldn't kill other people. Well killers, suicide bombers and people of that nature would be well served if they did read and take to heart 'Thou Shalt Not Kill'. And for the record, war is a different context. USA is killing terorrists in order to prevent somebody from killing you and people closest to you. Even me. Waiting to be nuked ain't no wise choise. And, you know, they haven't attacked America since 9-11 and that's no accident. If all the atheists you know are good people, why did you even bring up the fact that Olbermann and Soros and Franken are atheists? You clearly implied that it’s a negative attribute. I did, because in those cases it is. As was in Hitler's case. Now I'm not comparing them, just stating a fact. |
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Oct 1, 2008 17:54:46 GMT -5
haha.. there is no liberal bias??? You have got to be kidding me. No, you really believe that.. Ok. |
|
”
