I'm not sure I understand this.

Christian Graus

I don't disagree with what you're saying, at all, but I think the issue you have, is that when a country's wealth is based on capitalism, and when the political will does not exist to exert any sort of control over this system, it's inevitable that self interest and greed can lead to situations like the one we are in. Once this happens, does the country protect it's own interests, or continue to let the market guide their future ? The system as a whole is the issue.

Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.

Stan Shannon

Oakman wrote:

Someone pointed out, I can't remember who, that most of the Presidents hailed as great saviors, broke it big time.

In defense of the country as commander in chief - not as Marxist overlords. But I don't blame Obama (even though he is an ignorant socialist fuckwad) or any president for getting away with as much as they can. It is the constitutional repsonsibility of congress to keep them in check. The problem is congress, not the president.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

Oakman

Christian Graus wrote:

The system as a whole is the issue

Perhaps it is, but destroying the underpinning of contract law to fix it is like renovating a skyscraper by dynamiting the lobby. The irony is that even the concept of contract law makes people yawn and their eyes glaze over. They won't notice, and the media sure won't tell them, that the building's coming down until the 50th floor is in the sub-basement.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Stan Shannon

Christian Graus wrote:

it's inevitable that self interest and greed can lead to situations like the one we are in. Once this happens, does the country protect it's own interests, or continue to let the market guide their future ?

Yes it is inevitable, but it cannot get to this level without the overt assistance of government. Those who get too greedy will fail naturally long before they have the ability to take out an entire economy. A society that does not have well established and strongly respected social standards of morality and honesty simply cannot be a free market society. There must be a balance. That is precisely why the left attacks moral and religious traditions first - everything else cumbles as that dies.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

Oakman

Stan Shannon wrote:

In defense of the country as commander in chief - not as Marxist overlords.

Every President who has ever violated the Constitution, from Jefferson to Bush2, has done it only with the highest of motives. Obeying the law, especially the Constitution is not something one does only when it is convenient.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Christian Graus

Oakman wrote:

Perhaps it is, but destroying the underpinning of contract law to fix it is like renovating a skyscraper by dynamiting the lobby.

Probably. Like I said, the issue is the whole 'free market capitalism' thing that Stan likes to froth at the mouth over. The market doesn't take care of individuals, and it doesn't even take care of nations. Not anymore. So, either some general control is needed, or times will come where drastic steps seem like the only solution.

Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.

Stan Shannon

Obviously, I agree. But I actually think all of this is nothing more than another distraction from what is really going on with AIG. They have no intention of actually breaking these contracts - hell, most of these guys getting the bonuses are probably big donors to democrats.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

Stan Shannon

Oakman wrote:

Obeying the law, especially the Constitution is not something one does only when it is convenient.

No, only when it is necessary to do otherwise. The executive was intended to be a constitutionally co-equal branch of government. The entire point of haveing a president is to have one person in our society who can, when needed, take extreme measures to defend the country. If everything had to be referred to the judicial branch, there would be no need to even have a presidnet or a congress, except of course to nominate and confirm judges, than go home and let the judges run everything. That is far closer to a dictatorship than is a president, who is answerable to congress, thumbing his nose at some inane law to do what needs to be done.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

Christian Graus

Stan Shannon wrote:

A society that does not have well established and strongly respected social standards of morality and honesty simply cannot be a free market society.

Why do you keep advocating it then ? :P

Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.

Christian Graus

Yeah, I'd say that business lining the pockets of politicians is probably 9/10 of the issue.

Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.

Stan Shannon

Christian Graus wrote:

Why do you keep advocating it then ?

Because the only alternative is collectivism, socialism, fascism and finally communism. The centralization of power ultimately cannot be controlled, democracy or no democracy. That is why I believe the only thing that will save human civilization now is a complete collapse of the entire economic system so that it can be rebuilt from the ground up. People of faith and integrity will be the only ones capable of surviving such a calamity and they will be the ones who will inherit the future.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

Oakman

Stan Shannon wrote:

No, only when it is necessary to do otherwise.

So said every two bit strong man who ever took power in a one bit country. So said Stalin, and Mao, and all the arch criminals who ever murdered thousands of their own countrymen. So says Chavez and Kim Jong-Il and Ahmadinejad. And so say you. The way I hear tell, situational ethics is supposed to be the strong suit of liberals and the atheists. Justifying oath-breaking isn't supposed to be the strong suit for the conservatives.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Christian Graus

Stan Shannon wrote:

Because the only alternative is collectivism, socialism, fascism and finally communism

Interesting that you see this as a single straight line.

Stan Shannon wrote:

The centralization of power ultimately cannot be controlled, democracy or no democracy.

The only way to avoid a centralisation of power, is anarchy. The proponents of anarchy envisage the same sort of benign world where everyone cares for everyone, that you seem to.\

Stan Shannon wrote:

People of faith and integrity will be the only ones capable of surviving such a calamity and they will be the ones who will inherit the future.

No, the people far from civilisation, who have the means to feed themselves, and the defend their food, are the ones who will survive. Faith and integrity have nothing to do with it.

Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.

Oakman

Christian Graus wrote:

Yeah, I'd say that business lining the pockets of politicians is probably 9/10 of the issue.

I heard three separate congress critters say today that their intention was to tax the bonuses at 100% unless those who received them "did the right thing as Americans" and turned them back. Not one of the talking heads that was giving them air-time ever thought to ask these noble men and women (of both parties, by the way) why, last week, when the issue of accepting or returning their automatic pay raise, both the House and the Senate voted overwhelmingly in favor of keeping the money.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

John Carson

Rob Graham wrote:

And then of course there is just blatant hypocrisy like Sen. Dodd, one of the loudest complainers, who actually introduced the amendment to the bailout bill that allowed AIG to pay those bonuses (and may prevent any recovery). I suppose it was just co-incidental that that same senator received over 100K in campaign contributions from AIG...

Your claim appears to be Administration spin. The truth is the opposite. Dodd attempted to limit bonuses. Geitner in particular, and perhaps Summers as well, has been advocating a softly softly approach to the banks from the start, and Obama has been backing their judgement. http://firedoglake.com/2009/03/17/treasury-attempts-to-blame-dodd-for-aig-bonuses/[^] http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/03/17/dodd/[^]

John Carson

modified on Tuesday, March 17, 2009 7:58 PM

Christian Graus

yeah. that sounds about right.

Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.

Ilion

Stan Shannon wrote:

The problem is congress, not the president.

And it's the States ... and The People ... who are to keep Congress in line (the Supreme Court doesn't even enter the picture). But we don't, because far too many of us have been bought-out.

Oakman

Christian Graus wrote:

No, the people far from civilisation, who have the means to feed themselves, and the defend their food, are the ones who will survive.

It is true, I think, that people who can band together to form a mutual aid society AND who have the means to feed themselves and defend their food, will survive better than those who are far from civilization because they cannot get along with other men. So integrity and possibly faith (as a unifying force) might end up having something to do with it, don't you think? I have read, more'n once that all of our big cities, across the globe, are three days from starvation.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Christian Graus

Oakman wrote:

So integrity and possibly faith (as a unifying force) might end up having something to do with it, don't you think?

I think perhaps integrity would be a factor. I'd think that if something did happen, the biggest issue me and my neighbors would have, is the city folks 10 minutes drive away. Beyond that, I am sure we'd pool together, and be able to grow all our own food. I doubt that our varying faiths would be a factor.

Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.

Oakman · modified on Tuesday, March 17, 2009 7:58 PM

John Carson wrote:

Your claim appears to be Administration spin.

:omg: They're going after Dodd now?

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface