"Firefly is gonna be totally unlike anything you've seen before in the spaceship genre. Very western, as I'm sure you've heard, but with Whedon-esque trademark character and dialogue. And something about a crew made up entirely of pigs." - Drew Z. Greenberg
I want you guys to think about this...If the government owns the free market, it owns you. Its not a joke, or even remotely funny. The U.S. government will now control much of Wall Street, and most of of the housing market.
National Socialism anyone? Thats EXACTLY what this is.
And, where the fuck are we going to get this money? Borrowing from China? or Iraq?
"There are a great many individuals today, both in government and in the think-tanks and foundations that constitute their intellectual bodyguard, who look down on you and me and our families as livestock. The only thing they want from us is silent, compliant labor, so that they can take whatever we earn away from us and use it as they desire. Some of it they use against us in various ways to keep us silent and compliant.
Listen to them closely and you'll hear that we might as well be different species. They are an elite -- near demigods who are above everything, including the law. We are less than nothing, of no concern to them except for the tasks we perform and the wealth we create for them to steal. If some of us can play the violin, create beautiful paintings or sculptures, or bring audiences to tears with our singing or acting, those are just "stupid pet tricks" without real value or significance."
Isn't it funny how folks all so willing to stand up and fight back when others speak of confiscating their weapons, are so unwilling to stand up and fight back when others speak of confiscating their money ?
I think it's high time we applied the same damn principle behind our weapons, to our wallets.
MOLON LABE ! (Means: Come and TAKE it/them from me, for thems not familiar with the term.)
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
CITIZEN He who arrives at a conclusion by faith cannot be moved by reason
Saturday, September 20, 2008 - 15:58
Quote: Originally posted by chrisisall: But, ummm, Bush is doing this, isn't he, like, your guy, Wulf?
Bush is far right wing.
The Nazi's were far right wing.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes! No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
I want you guys to think about this...If the government owns the free market, it owns you. Its not a joke, or even remotely funny. The U.S. government will now control much of Wall Street, and most of of the housing market.
National Socialism anyone? Thats EXACTLY what this is.
And, where the fuck are we going to get this money? Borrowing from China? or Iraq?
THIS HAS GOT TO STOP
First this is not national socialism – making retarded statements like that does nothing but bring out the lunatic-fringe. Now you're going to have idiots pull the stupid Hitler comparison – oh, too late.
I haven’t looked at Bush’s bailout plane, but my initial judgment is that I’m not real psyched about it. I don’t think we want to reward bad investors or create an institution of speculating against the government or unnecessarily widen government intrusion. Which is kind of what I think this does.
First of all, we shouldn’t be propping up failing enterprises, but rather the government should step in to provide an orderly and judicious system to their acquisition or restructuring.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
CITIZEN He who arrives at a conclusion by faith cannot be moved by reason
Saturday, September 20, 2008 - 16:31
Hey I only said it because it winds up the real idiots around here, makes them start calling people names, trying to hide the fact that they really are stupid...
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes! No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
Why? He IS the cause of all this, AND he's the one "fixing" it. Why should we ignore him? So he can get a free pass on his horrific policies?
You really should stop enabling him.
--------------------------------- Any idea, no matter how much you may agree with it, can be radicalized and employed as an excuse for violence. There is no such thing as a righteous or untouchable philosophy, and when you start thinking that there is, you have become an extremist.- Finn Mac Cumhal
KWICKO
Officially the Angriest Man on the Internet™.
Saturday, September 20, 2008 - 17:10
Quote: And, where the fuck are we going to get this money? Borrowing from China? or Iraq?
Sadly, we're going to print it. I actually heard one of the Federal Reserve officials say in an interview, when asked if the government might run out of money to bail out these failing corporations, "The government isn't going to run out of money. We have the Federal Reserve, and the mints, and we own the printing presses."
He said it serioiusly, too. His grasp of the situation ranks him right up there with a typical 16-year-old saying, "I can't be out of money; I still have checks in my checkbook!"
I fear for my country's future...
Mike
This world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel.
CITIZEN He who arrives at a conclusion by faith cannot be moved by reason
Saturday, September 20, 2008 - 17:10
Quote: Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal: And that's even stupider.
Now that's really stupid!
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes! No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
BTW, what Bush is doing is technically closer to fascism than national socialism. Have you looked up the definition of fascism lately?
Quote: Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism,
check
Quote: militarism
check
Quote: totalitarianism
getting there
Quote: dictatorship
two stolen elections
Quote: class collaboration
check
Quote: populism
the phony kind
Quote: collectivism
not yet
Quote: statism
check
Quote: social interventionism
religion in government, check,
Quote: economic planning
getting there
Quote: Fascist governments nationalized key industries, made massive state investments, and partially abolished property rights and markets. They also introduced price controls and other types of economic planning measures. Fascists promoted their ideology as a "third way" between capitalism and Marxian socialism.
Although fascism used a kind of faux populism, in fact the class that benefited most from fascism was the elite.
--------------------------------- Any idea, no matter how much you may agree with it, can be radicalized and employed as an excuse for violence. There is no such thing as a righteous or untouchable philosophy, and when you start thinking that there is, you have become an extremist.- Finn Mac Cumhal
PIRATENEWS John Lee, executive producer
Pirate News TV, PirateNews.org
Saturday, September 20, 2008 - 17:12
$700-Billion bailout is multiplied by 100 = $70-Trillion bailout of foreign derivatives.
Counterfeiting $70-trillion in funny money will guarantee hyper inflation.
This proves that insurance annuity "pensions" are NOT insured. Though AIG annuities got damn lucky at our expense. Until the next crash.
Get ready to say byebye to the private Federal Reserve Debt Note (so-called "US dollar"), hello to the Mexican-Canadian Amerodollar.
Note the Fascist fasci (bundle of sticks)
Quote: The Death of Three Nations
2006
Corporate Greed…
First, let’s take a look at the wage gap between CEOs and non-management employees. In 1980, the average pay for a corporate executive officer was 42 times that of the average employee compensation (42:1). In 2004, the ratio was 431:1. In other words, the gap had widened by slightly over a thousand percent. This was actually a drop from a high of 531:1 in 1999. A one hundred point drop is significant, but the gap remains far too wide.
CEOs generally hold considerable sway over corporate board members, and therefore exercise a tremendous amount of control over their own compensation. In 2004, Yahoo’s Chief Executive Terry Semel raked in $230.6 million dollars in total compensation. That works out to $631,780.83 per day. How many of you reading this earn 600 G’s per day? Per year? Per decade?
I’m not singling Terry out of a crowd. But this is a good example of the extravagance of corporate pay packages. Let’s say some CEO earns $100 million per year. That’s $273,972.60 per day. If we cut his pay to “only” $50 million per year, that’s still one hundred thirty-six thousand dollars per day. One would think that he could scrape by on that amount, although he might be forced to keep his old yacht an extra year before trading it in. Oh… the hardship!
The other $50 million could be pumped into the company’s retirement fund, paid out in dividends to shareholders, or maybe even (gasp!) used to finance a pay raise for employees. Assuming this theoretical company has 5000 employees, that’d be a ten thousand dollar a year pay increase for each of them.
Jew Warren Buffet, owner of GEICO Govt Employee Insurance Corp (CIA) paid himself a $30-Billion personal salary, tax free, in one year, as reward for his part in the $90-billion 9/11 insurance fraud conspiracy. On 9/11 Buffet was "coincidentally" playing golf with all the CEOs of World Trade Center at Strategic Air Command HQ, in his snuff kiddie porn capital of Omaha Nebraska (The Franklin Coverup), then Jr Bush flew to meet Buffet at SAC HQ, before flying to the White House on the night of 9/11. Buffet's NetJet was stalking a robotic Flight 93 when USAF mutiny shot it down on 9/11. So Buffet paid himself a personal income of $82-MILLION PER DAY that year, tax-free.
Quote: Originally posted by citizen: Hey I only said it because it winds up the real idiots around here, makes them start calling people names, trying to hide the fact that they really are stupid...
Yes, I know that’s why you do it. That’s also why chris and Signym fixate on Bush. You’re all always trying to start a fight. But you have to devote a lot of energy to a fight, and I don't have that kind of energy right now.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
Finn, when it comes to Bush's most disasterous policies, you haven't said "boo!". Starting with tax cuts and "trickle down" economics, moving right along with massive deregulation, an expensive and useless war, and frantic government borrowing... all set the stage for the current crisis. Where were YOU when this was all going on? As I recall, you were rationalizing and making excuses, mostly.
Maybe I'm unfairly tarring your opinion on Bush's economic policies with your opinion on the Iraq war (which has been blind followership, as far as I can tell). If so, let me know what your real opinions were on the above policies and I'll apologize.
--------------------------------- Any idea, no matter how much you may agree with it, can be radicalized and employed as an excuse for violence. There is no such thing as a righteous or untouchable philosophy, and when you start thinking that there is, you have become an extremist.- Finn Mac Cumhal
Quote: Originally posted by Kwicko: He said it serioiusly, too. His grasp of the situation ranks him right up there with a typical 16-year-old saying, "I can't be out of money; I still have checks in my checkbook!"
Not really. Printing more money is on option for solving these kinds of problems. It gets you out of little jams like this; it’s just not something you want to do a lot.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
CITIZEN He who arrives at a conclusion by faith cannot be moved by reason
Saturday, September 20, 2008 - 17:27
Quote: Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal: Yes, I know that’s why you do it. That’s also why chris and Signym fixate on Bush. You’re all always trying to start a fight. But you have to devote a lot of energy to a fight, and I don't have that kind of energy right now.
Now this is exceedingly stupid, but:
Quote: Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal: Not really. Printing more money is on option for solving these kinds of problems. It gets you out of little jams like this; it’s just not something you want to do a lot.
Stupid doesn't even cover this...
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes! No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
Much as folks ain't gonna give credit cause of carrying grudges from other threads in here, I do believe Wulfie has a point.
But the key here, Wulf, is there is more than one brand of that Kool-aid, you see.
While I file many policies of the Democratic party under National Socialism, and in fact closer to the actual MEANING of the term than Adolphs little pack of lip-service goons ever was, it basically encompasses the ideal of the State being held forth as superior to the individual, which is in opposition to the American Concept of self-liberty.
This is not so much an example of that kind of policy, remember, more than one flavor, right ?
This kind of thing is the other end of the Fascist spectrum, as are many Republican party policies, as embodied in Mussolinis ideal of the marriage of Corporate and State power into a single, unified whole. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_fascism
I don't have much truck with either one, nor the bloody handed flavor of Rivera and Franco either, especially since my spiritual ancestors fell against them while the good ole US of A was supporting the bastards because the Socialists, Communists, Anarchists and Trade Unions scared the American money elite pissless, and the Fascists were hacking them off at the knees.
Only at the very end were they thrown any kind of support, and even then less than five years later McCarthy and company started hounding them some more.
That's not to say I think any of those systems would work in practice any better than what we have now, *IF* we were to stick to the principles it's based on, which we have not for a very long time.
I just wanted to clarify that yes, this is a somewhat Fascist thing to do, it's not the same flavor of such a thing as National Socialism, but much closer to ole Benito's style.
Don't let the Fascist tendancies of one party blind you to the Fascist tendancies of the other, cause right now we got the Dems wanting to play Adolph, and the Reps wanting to play Benito, and to *ME* - not a dimes worth of difference between the two other than the fact that the Dems aren't really all that good at it.
History is both a fascinating and extremely useful subject concerning things like this, which is why I use the sigline that I do.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
ELVISCHRIST "Hey! What do you suppose a mountain goat is doing way up here in a cloud bank?"
Saturday, September 20, 2008 - 17:35
Quote: Not really. Printing more money is on option for solving these kinds of problems. It gets you out of little jams like this; it’s just not something you want to do a lot.
Yes, because when Canadians are referring to our currency as "American pesos", and the dollar has lost 30% or more of it value in the last few years as we wildly overprinted and overspent, what you really want to do is print up another quick trillion or so to flood the market and further devalue your currency. After all, if we're already spending close to a trillion to bail out failing companies, what's another trillion on top of that to shore up their further losses when we devalue the dollar even more?
EC
If the prefix "pro-" means "for" or "in favor of", and "con" is its opposite, and if "progress" means "pushing forward" or "improving"... then what the hell does "Congress" mean?
CITIZEN He who arrives at a conclusion by faith cannot be moved by reason
Saturday, September 20, 2008 - 17:45
Quote: Originally posted by Fremdfirma: But yes, that is indeed the fasci, and in fact the exact same design of one as the flag flown by Mussolinis government, only without the axe.
Actually they're the Fasces lictoriae and they come from Ancient Rome, and were the symbol of the Roman Republic. I imagine the US uses them because the American Republic was based on the Roman one, while Mussolini used it because his plan was to rebuild the Roman empire. It's not a fascist symbol at all, neither was the Swastika actually.
There's a lot of Roman symbolism in the US, the Eagle for instance.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes! No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
Finn, when it comes to Bush's most disastrous policies, you haven't said "boo!". Starting with tax cuts and "trickle down" economics, moving right along with massive deregulation, an expensive and useless war, and frantic government borrowing... all set the stage for the current crisis. Where were YOU when this was all going on? As I recall, you were rationalizing and making excuses, mostly. Maybe I'm unfairly tarring your opinion on Bush's economic policies with your opinion on the Iraq war (which has been blind followership, as far as I can tell). If so, let me know what your real opinions were on the above policies and I'll apologize.-Signy
So, am I wrong?
--------------------------------- Any idea, no matter how much you may agree with it, can be radicalized and employed as an excuse for violence. There is no such thing as a righteous or untouchable philosophy, and when you start thinking that there is, you have become an extremist.- Finn Mac Cumhal
CITIZEN He who arrives at a conclusion by faith cannot be moved by reason
Saturday, September 20, 2008 - 18:46
Quote: Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote: Originally posted by SignyM: So, am I wrong?
Probably, but why do you insist upon making this discussion about me?
This is fairly dumb
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes! No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
Quote: Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal: I haven’t looked at Bush’s bailout plane, but my initial judgment is that I’m not real psyched about it. I don’t think we want to reward bad investors or create an institution of speculating against the government or unnecessarily widen government intrusion. Which is kind of what I think this does.
First of all, we shouldn’t be propping up failing enterprises, but rather the government should step in to provide an orderly and judicious system to their acquisition or restructuring.
I completely agree with you, and I'm sure Bush does also. I think Bernanke and Paulson convinced him that the the erosion of confidence in the financial system after a few money market funds announced their funds were only worth 97cents on the dollar forced his hand. We can be sure that both this plan and the Freddi/Fannie plan will result in these entities disappearing entirely in not to many years. The plan is to have the Fed take over these companies and mortgage securities and dissolve them as soon as the free market will allow. That's why it's now more important than ever to keep the Dems out of power. If Obama wins, these government entities will be perpetuated forever and result in what Wulfenstar fears most, the socialization of another 10% of our economy.
Quote: Probably, but why do you insist upon making this discussion about me?
Because you're bright and worth talking to. So show me how I'm wrong.
--------------------------------- Any idea, no matter how much you may agree with it, can be radicalized and employed as an excuse for violence. There is no such thing as a righteous or untouchable philosophy, and when you start thinking that there is, you have become an extremist.- Finn Mac Cumhal
Because usually they do the big stuff on the weekends... bailing out Freddie and Fannie, Lehman declaring bankruptcy etc.
The financial institutions are only 5-10% capitalized. NONE of them could w/stand a run.
--------------------------------- Any idea, no matter how much you may agree with it, can be radicalized and employed as an excuse for violence. There is no such thing as a righteous or untouchable philosophy, and when you start thinking that there is, you have become an extremist.- Finn Mac Cumhal
Quote: Originally posted by SignyM: Kirk... you really don't get it, do you?
The system was within ONE DAY of panic.
How do I know???
Because usually they do the big stuff on the weekends... bailing out Freddie and Fannie, Lehman declaring bankruptcy etc.
The financial institutions are only 5-10% capitalized. NONE of them could w/stand a run.
---------------------------------
I agree with you completely. I don't think there's anything in what I said that suggests anything different. When I referred to the problem in money market funds I was suggesting that a run on the banks could have been imminent.
CHRISISALL "The wise man listens whilst the fool chatters."
"Whatever. Blah blah blah."
Saturday, September 20, 2008 - 19:57
Quote: Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote: Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote: Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I haven’t looked at Bush’s bailout plan, but my initial judgment is that I’m not real psyched about it.
You need to stop fixating on Bush. It’s like you have some sort of repressed gay-love for him.
That's pretty stupid, even for you.
Your last few posts were stupid, especially for you. You say I fixate on Bush, and your very next post is ABOUT BUSH. Amazing how peeps allow only for themselves in a conversation.
You've been in a meltdown for days now- you used to make a great deal of sense & argue logically. I look forward to the return of the old Finn; this new one vexes me.
CHRISISALL "The wise man listens whilst the fool chatters."
"Whatever. Blah blah blah."
Saturday, September 20, 2008 - 19:59
Quote: Originally posted by Fremdfirma: Much as folks ain't gonna give credit cause of carrying grudges from other threads in here, I do believe Wulfie has a point.
Quote: Originally posted by chrisisall: Your last few posts were stupid, especially for you. You say I fixate on Bush, and your very next post is ABOUT BUSH. Amazing how peeps allow only for themselves in a conversation.
My next post wasn’t about Bush. It was about the issue of the bail out. That's what I mean by fixating on Bush. That's all you think about. You see the word "Bush" and you fixate on it to the detriment of everything else. That is not healthy, dude. That is sad.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
I want you guys to think about this...If the government owns the free market, it owns you. Its not a joke, or even remotely funny. The U.S. government will now control much of Wall Street, and most of of the housing market.
National Socialism anyone? Thats EXACTLY what this is.
And, where the fuck are we going to get this money? Borrowing from China? or Iraq?
THIS HAS GOT TO STOP
I agree.
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
CHRISISALL "The wise man listens whilst the fool chatters."
"Whatever. Blah blah blah."
Saturday, September 20, 2008 - 20:43
Quote: Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal: My next post wasn’t about Bush.
"I haven’t looked at Bush’s bailout plane, but my initial judgment is that I’m not real psyched about it."
It was about BUSH'S bailout, and hey- it's not really even HIS plan, some other folk came up with it, he's just pushing it, so in effect YOU are obsessing more than I am over the dude...that is sad.
Quote: Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal: My next post wasn’t about Bush.
"I haven’t looked at Bush’s bailout plane, but my initial judgment is that I’m not real psyched about it."
It was about BUSH'S bailout, and hey- it's not really even HIS plan, some other folk came up with it, he's just pushing it, so in effect YOU are obsessing more than I am over the dude...that is sad.
Like I said, you see the word “Bush” and nothing else gets through to you. You could have commented on why I don’t like the current solution concerning bailing out failed enterprises. You could have commented on my view of what I think should be done about it. All of which would have contributed to the debate or at least been on topic. But instead you insist up on forcing the issue to be about your hatred of Bush. That’s not healthy. It just makes you uninteresting. I don’t know why you can’t see that.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
ELVISCHRIST "Hey! What do you suppose a mountain goat is doing way up here in a cloud bank?"
Saturday, September 20, 2008 - 23:26
Or you could have commented on what kind of plane it is that Bush is supposed to be bailing out of.
His dad had a fondness for the old Grumman Avenger torpedo bomber, and bailed out of one of those one time. Bush the Younger seems to be looking for the ejector seat in Air Force One. He knows it's there, because he saw it in the movie!
WULFENSTAR Bringing hope to the universe... or, at least trying to.
Sunday, September 21, 2008 - 00:14
Fred,
Im looking at setting up a table/booth on election day. Something to remind people that there is more than the 2 party choice. (Go Ron Paul!)
I'm in V.A. Do you happen to know what the rules are in something like this? I mean, every voting season I see Nader or laRouche people there so it can't be that hard...
I know it isn't much...but I've got to do something.
KWICKO
Officially the Angriest Man on the Internet™.
Sunday, September 21, 2008 - 02:00
I'm pretty much writing off any 3rd-party candidates this time around, but I'm going to start supporting them at the local and state levels - Anarchist, Libertarian, Green - whatever; maybe getting a few more in the smaller offices can help us stir shit up a bit at the higher levels!
Mike
This world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel.
Quote: Originally posted by Kwicko: I'm pretty much writing off any 3rd-party candidates this time around, Mike
I think you're right Kwicko. I made the mistake of voting for Ross Perot as a protest vote and regret it to this day. Not because Clinton was elected, but because I feel like I threw away my vote when it could have made a difference. Bush Sr. is a good man and he deserved my vote, but I thought he had it locked up so I voted for Perot. I vote for Libertarian candidates in local elections whenever I get a chance and hope someday there will be a viable Libertarian running for President.
KWICKO
Officially the Angriest Man on the Internet™.
Sunday, September 21, 2008 - 02:22
Funny, I voted for Perot, too. People have this image of me as a dead-dog democrat, which I find greatly amusing - especially because I never voted for Clinton. Either of them.
So you tend to lean to the right, I tend to lean to the left (okay, FAR left), and we still manage to find some common ground.
Sounds like the beginnings of a movement to me.
Let's get going right now - Libertarians 2012!! I've got a feeling we're going to need them then more than ever. And we're going to need all the help we can get.
Who's in?
Mike
This world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel.
Quote: Originally posted by Kwicko: So you tend to lean to the right, I tend to lean to the left (okay, FAR left), and we still manage to find some common ground.
Mike
That's the great thing about the Libertarian Party, I can be pro-life and you can be pro-choice, but as long as we both agree it's none of the Government's business we all get along great.
HKCAVALIER "Could you...not do that while we're--ever?"
Sunday, September 21, 2008 - 02:43
Quote: Originally posted by Kirkules: That's the great thing about the Libertarian Party, I can be pro-life and you can be pro-choice, but as long as we both agree it's none of the Government's business we all get along great.
Kirk, you just made my night! America the beautiful!
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
Quote: I'm in V.A. Do you happen to know what the rules are in something like this?
Wulf, unfortunately this presumes they would respect the rules as well, and after Miami, after the RNC - do you really expect that they will ?
If yer gonna do it, contact just about any voters rights group and they can give you the specifics, although a lot of those laws are written in such a vague fashion they can be re-interpreted on the spot - and make damn sure to have audio and visual recording the whole time, preferably relay-porting it to something they cannot physically take from you and destroy or "lose" should they decide to kick over your table and assault you.
Might be worth a shot to contact Bev Harris's folk too down at Black Box Voting, cause they're pretty sharp on the related laws and whatnot.
My advice, don't do it unless you're willing to be arrested, beaten, and harrassed for a while after - cause it's all too likely that'll happen, and make your peace with being put on a "list" too.
Quote: That's the great thing about the Libertarian Party, I can be pro-life and you can be pro-choice, but as long as we both agree it's none of the Government's business we all get along great.
Amen!
Although Barr isn't exactly what I would consider a sterling example of the Libertarian ideal, alas...
I honestly think the Libertarians can do better than him for a front man, any suggestions on that front ?
I'd suggest L. Neil Smith, but to tell ya the truth, the man is far closer to an Anarchist than a Libertarian.
I'd vote for him though (provided he had a running mate with substantial experience), that oughta tell ya something.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
I would guess that this has to be one of the biggest peacetime transfers of power from Congress to the Administration in history. (Anyone know?). Certainly one of the most concise.
The Treasury Secretary can buy broadly defined assets, on any terms he wants, he can hire anyone he wants to do it and can appoint private sector companies as financial deputies of the US government. And he can write whatever regulation he thinks are needed.
I understand that they wanted freedom to respond and an ability to move quickly, but to designate the Treasury Secretary full power to oversee the, uh, Treasury Secretary's decisions seems unusual. Especially given that Congress only gets a report twice a year:
Within three months of the first exercise of the authority granted in section 2(a), and semiannually thereafter, the Secretary shall report to the Committees on the Budget, Financial Services, and Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the Committees on the Budget, Finance, and Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate with respect to the authorities exercised under this Act and the considerations required by section 3.
This graph really stands out:
Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.
Whoa.
So, for the next three months, and then an additional six months after that, the Treasury Secretary can do anything he deems appropriate without anybody anywhere looking it over.
That seems like an awful lot of absolute power. Am I wrong? Is this typical bureaucratic langauge? Or is this as strange as it seems?
edit: I should point out that everything under the underlined title is from the article, and not me talking. Though I agree with the sentiment.
Quote: Originally posted by swish: Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.
Whoa.
So, for the next three months, and then an additional six months after that, the Treasury Secretary can do anything he deems appropriate without anybody anywhere looking it over.
That seems like an awful lot of absolute power. Am I wrong? Is this typical bureaucratic langauge? Or is this as strange as it seems?
Normally this type of language would be a deal breaker in any legislation, but Hank Paulson is highly respected on both sides of the isle and in the financial community. He is also friends with the Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee (D)Barney Frank. Paulson has been in charge of a lot more money than this as Chief Executive Officer at Goldman Sachs and proved himself honest and capable.
SERGEANTX "It's not work that sucks, it's working to build the dreams of others while yours fester and die."
Sunday, September 21, 2008 - 14:35
This smacks of "temporary" emergency measures that will be anything but temporary. Why?
Response from the original article:
Quote: Question: Is it possible to use this disaster as a step toward solving the larger issue of the vast discrepanacy between rich and poor? I do not want to see my taxes used to sustain or re-establish the grossly inequitable status quo ante. Some proportionality should be observed; let those most responsible for the disaster bear the biggest share of the tax burden to fix it.
People are already beginning to realize the vast transfer of power that's going on - and making plans for how to use it.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
Quote: Originally posted by Kirkules: Normally this type of language would be a deal breaker in any legislation, but Hank Paulson is highly respected on both sides of the isle and in the financial community. He is also friends with the Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee (D)Barney Frank. Paulson has been in charge of a lot more money than this as Chief Executive Officer at Goldman Sachs and proved himself honest and capable.
One of the fundamental tenets of law-making, as I understand it, is to never ever justify laws based on a single personality. Do you really not see the danger in that?
As Sergeant says, this may not stay a temporary measure. (How about those "emergency acts" after 9/11? How much of those erosions in our freedom have gone away?) And please note - this bill gives power to the office of the "Treasury Secretary", not to "Hank Paulson". That office might be filled by god-knows-who someday. Do you really want to risk that? Even if this is allowed to expire, do you really want to set this kind of precedent, of giving dictatorial power, a complete free pass, to one individual?
I do not like the transfer of unreviewable power to any department.
On the other hand, I would not like the transfer of power to any individual, either.
Can you imagine how you would feel if a law was passed that gave X power to "George Bush" instead of "the President?" We can always impeach the Pres, ya know? I'm sure we could replace the Treasury Secretary, too. But the only way to get rid of 'person Y' is to hire a hitman.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
Quote: Originally posted by AnthonyT: I do not like the transfer of unreviewable power to any department.
On the other hand, I would not like the transfer of power to any individual, either.
Can you imagine how you would feel if a law was passed that gave X power to "George Bush" instead of "the President?" We can always impeach the Pres, ya know? I'm sure we could replace the Treasury Secretary, too. But the only way to get rid of 'person Y' is to hire a hitman.
(I may be misunderstanding you, but...) I disagree in the sense that a governmental position is more permanent than a person. ie, the position of POTUS has been around for over 2 centuries and (barring disaster) isn't likely to go anywhere. On the other hand, if a particular president got evil and took all governmental power onto his/her personal self, he/she would likely be alive for 40 years tops and then things could reset.
In any case, I wasn't at all advocating that any kind of powers ever be given to a person, since I take it as obvious that that would be... well, stupid. I was just pointing out a weakness to KR's idea that this bill is okay because Paulson is a good guy. Laws should never based on one person, but allow for all those who may come after, good and bad.
Is my understanding anyway. I'm no political scholar. Just raised to believe that the Constitution is pretty cool.
Swish beat me to it. This legislation is worth throwing out for this reason alone "Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency."
If Paulson happens to get replaced for some reason, do you really think they'd change this law for the replacement? Nope. So, I'm 100% on the page Swish has detailed.
== Having been gone for a few months, it's nice to see that some things never change. Finn's 'gay love' comment above would have amused me if I were not so utterly appalled at the situation we find ourselves in.
Quote: Originally posted by Kirkules: Normally this type of language would be a deal breaker in any legislation, but Hank Paulson is highly respected on both sides of the isle and in the financial community. He is also friends with the Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee (D)Barney Frank. Paulson has been in charge of a lot more money than this as Chief Executive Officer at Goldman Sachs and proved himself honest and capable.
One of the fundamental tenets of law-making, as I understand it, is to never ever justify laws based on a single personality. Do you really not see the danger in that?
As Sergeant says, this may not stay a temporary measure. (How about those "emergency acts" after 9/11? How much of those erosions in our freedom have gone away?) And please note - this bill gives power to the office of the "Treasury Secretary", not to "Hank Paulson". That office might be filled by god-knows-who someday. Do you really want to risk that? Even if this is allowed to expire, do you really want to set this kind of precedent, of giving dictatorial power, a complete free pass, to one individual?
Seems to me like every one here agrees that this is not a good thing, but if the alternative is a melt down of the financial system we really don't have much choice. As I was saying earlier, when it comes to the point that Money Market Funds become temporarily worth 97 cents on the dollar, a run on the banks is the almost inevitable next step. All the banks and brokerage houses could have gone under and that might not have forced the Feds hand, but when an investment that all believe to be entirely safe turns out not to be, people begin to panic. This is going to happen now no matter what, I'm just saying if it has to happen Paulson's the one you want in charge. If anyone alive can make this turn out positive for the taxpayers he's the man. Hopefully the legislation will be designed to sunset without super-majority approve every 6 month or so. If the Dems get the White House and hold congress you can be sure that they will try to perpetuate the program indefinitely.
But we are told that we need not fear; because those in power, being our representatives, will not abuse the powers we put in their hands. I am not well versed in history, but I will submit to your recollection, whether liberty has been destroyed most often by the licentiousness of the people, or by the tyranny of rulers. I imagine, sir, you will find the balance on the side of tyranny. Happy will you be if you miss the fate of those nations, who, omitting to resist their oppressors, or negligently suffering their liberty to be wrested from them, have groaned under intolerable despotism!
The honorable gentleman who presides told us that, to prevent abuses in our government, we will assemble in Convention, recall our delegated powers, and punish our servants for abusing the trust reposed in them. O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone; and you have no longer an aristocratical, no longer a democratical spirit. Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all? You read of a riot act in a country which is called one of the freest in the world, where a few neighbors cannot assemble without the risk of being shot by a hired soldiery, the engines of despotism. We may see such an act in America.
In this scheme of energetic government, the people will find two sets of tax-gatherers — the state and the federal sheriffs. This, it seems to me, will produce such dreadful oppression as the people cannot possibly bear. The federal sheriff may commit what oppression, make what distresses, he pleases, and ruin you with impunity; for how are you to tie his hands? Have you any sufficiently decided means of preventing him from sucking your blood by speculations, commissions, and fees? Thus thousands of your people will be most shamefully robbed: our state sheriffs, those unfeeling blood-suckers have, under the watchful eye of our legislature, committed the most horrid and barbarous ravages on our people. It has required the most constant vigilance of the legislature to keep them from totally ruining the people; a repeated succession of laws has been made to suppress their iniquitous speculations and cruel extortions; and as often has their nefarious ingenuity devised methods of evading the force of those laws: in the struggle they have generally triumphed over the legislature.
Where I thought there was a possibility of such mischiefs, I would grant power with a niggardly hand; and here there is a strong probability that these oppressions shall actually happen. I may be told that it is safe to err on that side, because such regulations may be made by Congress as shall restrain these officers, and because laws are made by our representatives, and judged by righteous judges: but, sir, as these regulations may be made, so they may not; and many reasons there are to induce a belief that they will not. I shall therefore be an infidel on that point till the day of my death.
It is on a supposition that your American governors shall be honest, that all the good qualities of this government are founded; but its defective and imperfect construction puts it in their power to perpetrate the worst of mischiefs, should they be bad men; and, sir, would not all the world, from the eastern to the western hemisphere, blame our distracted folly in resting our rights upon the contingency of our rulers being good or bad? Show me that age and country where the rights and liberties of the people were placed on the sole chance of their rulers being good men, without a consequent loss of liberty! I say that the loss of that dearest privilege has ever followed, with absolute certainty, every such mad attempt. ==========================================
And so the chickens come home to roost..
Like Mr Henry, I too have little faith in the supposition that elected officials with limitless power will not abuse it, and also will remain, as he did "an infidel on that point".
It was this that convinced me to vote against Perot - simply the fact that he would have needed near-dictatorial power to carry out his admittedly very good plan, and I would *NOT* give that to him or anyone else under any circumstances for very good historical reasons.
It's why in spite of his good qualities I consider Hugo Chavez an idiot, cause he's given no thought to the fact that if whoever comes into power after him chooses to abuse the powers his office has usurped, it will not only undo the progess he has made, it could destroy them utterly as a nation and a people.
It's also by any stripe unamerican, not how we do business, and de-facto kingmaking, we haven't had a king for over 200 years and be damned if I will have one now, even a petty one in charge of a single operation although an important one, not on my watch.
And such "emergency measures" wind up all too permanent, just look at how long it took us to kill off the telephone line tax, an "emergency" tax thrown up in 1898.
And I recall stating much the same thing about the Patriot Act, and being laughed off as a doomsayer for it, too.
And I say to you now - reject this, on your life, reject it, no matter how good a man is, he is not THAT good, and cannot be trusted with power infinate.
Nobody can... nobody.
And just for reference, what shithead proposed this unamerican monstrosity anyways, cause I damn sure wanna know who the would-be kingmakers are so I can properly vent my ire and dump some sand in their political gearboxes besides as a preventative measure.
The idea that an american member of congress would even PROPOSE such a thing is genuinely offensive to me in ways I really can't put into words...
-Frem
*Patrick Henry's speech is damning indeed, 200+ years down the line and almost every single one of his predictions of how things would go down has been realized, often far beyond even his own worst case assessments.
He's prolly spinnin in his grave hard enough to power the eastern seaboard if you hooked a generator up to both ends, by now.
KR - you're offering a false choice. We might indeed be facing a complete economic crisis, but does that mean we must take such a drastic and foolish step? Why not just include oversight?
This is pretty much exactly like what happened after 9/11 - in a time of crisis, extreme legislation was forced through by a mob, and soon we had no habeus corpus. A pillar of what makes western society great, gone.
And now I see the same thing brewing - the White House will say: but you must pass exactly this, NOW, or you risk ruin for all Americans! Which is the same choice you're speaking of, KR, and it's BS. It would be so easy and should be absolutely mandatory that any official of the government have some accountability and that the process be transparent. Especially in a job this big and important!
My god, after the past 8 years, how you possibly not be demanding accountability?
SERGEANTX "It's not work that sucks, it's working to build the dreams of others while yours fester and die."
Monday, September 22, 2008 - 13:32
Quote: Originally posted by swish: This is pretty much exactly like what happened after 9/11 - in a time of crisis, extreme legislation was forced through by a mob, and soon we had no habeus corpus. A pillar of what makes western society great, gone.
And now I see the same thing brewing - the White House will say: but you must pass exactly this, NOW, or you risk ruin for all Americans! Which is the same choice you're speaking of, KR, and it's BS.
That's the way we're governed now. The media have become little more than a propaganda ministry, in charge of keeping us frightened and desperate. So scared, in fact, that we'll let the motherfuckers who created this mess push it off on us.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
Sarge, it's come to my mind of late that we damn well oughta start applying the school of thought we defend our weapons with... to our wallets as well, long past time for it, you ask me.
MOLON LABE! (Come and Take them/it from me!)
We stop meekly handing it over, we could grind them to a halt in pretty short order, although I've almost no faith in the will of the people to do that, just yet.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
WULFENSTAR Bringing hope to the universe... or, at least trying to.
Monday, September 22, 2008 - 14:01
Fred, et all.
So what the fuck do we do about it?
At this point, Im ready to fight back.
B/c right now they are going to have the taxpayers paying for it.
So in essesnce, they will be garnishering my wages so that I can pay for them bailing out the idiots who bought a McMansion. And I'm helping them take over the Free market.
Wulfie, that depends on how much personal risk you are willing to assume.
Ed Brown, for example, wanted to make a statement, and he did indeed make it, at great personal risk to himself - but the media tried their damndest to quash it, and he paid dearly for it in the end. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_and_Elaine_Brown
Protestors are quite regularly beaten, subjected to hostility, illegal surveillance, having crap planted by cop-agents, etc.
I'm not so much trying to dissuade you, as making you VERY aware of the realities of what you will have to face - the nail that sticks out, begs for the hammer, you understand.
In the end, you've only got like four choices.
Play it by the book, aboveboard and legal, take the card sharpers marked deck and play at his table by his rules...
Or join an organisation and pray it isn't actually run by folks who just wanna collect resisters in one place for easy surveillence and pacification...
Or go hog wild and end up like Ed Brown...
Or play rough, play dirty - go underground and dig in so damn deep that you don't even remember the last time you used your own name, commit yourself to a lifetime of smoke and mirrors and manipulating others like some demented puppeteer, burning up your own humanity to the point where you begin to actively despise the very people you're trying to help, who if they ever knew of your existance would probably hate you thanks to the vilification of anything outside the status quo by the mass-mainstream-media...
Or some useful combination of the above, like playing by the rules by manipulating them against the sharper every chance you get, for example.
I would say, for you, for most... is to start out small, get some boot all in the ass of your local politicians, straighten them out and make them tremble in your very presence, this is especially helpful if you can drum up any kind of community support at all - the offhand, halfass support of a hundred folk is better than the rabid support of ten, when it comes to politics, since most folk are so damned apathetic anymore to begin with, you'll not have any opposition initially, and they might even be somewhat "Friendly" to you playing the "So nice you're taking an interest" game...
And then when they realize you're not just shlepping for a pat on the head and a quick bribe, and you're NOT going to get bored and go away, it'll turn... nasty, their kids will key up your car, slash your tires, their buddies will try to convince your boss to fire you - if you're smart, you'll be ready, turn that against them and then use anything and everything you've quitely collected to bury the fuckers.
And then you keep the iron fist on the rest of em, if you're so inclined, run for it yourself, especially if you live in a town small enough that no one much cares who runs it anyway.
And you play it hard, and straight, and be prepared to devote much of your life to it, cause once you have solidified your position and prepared a successor (preferably several) who shares your ideals, you take it the next step up, again and again, as far as you're willing and capable of going.
Sadly, there's no quick fix, no easy way, and you will need other people - your primary task is to learn, and fully develop, the ability to gather, motivate and lead them, or at least pull the strings of someone who can.
That's about the limit of any advice I would share, and I apologize for that, but the nature of the times makes it self explanatory why I would not, and will be no more specific than I already have.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
Stocks closed sharply lower Monday as investors strained to asses the impact of a massive financial-rescue plan.
Crude oil nailed its largest one-day price spike since it began trading on the Nymex in 1984. Bond prices toppled to multidecade lows. The dollar slumped for a fourth session vs. other key currencies. Gold spired 5% higher to settle above $900 an ounce for the first time in seven weeks.
The Nasdaq composite plunged 3.6% on heavy losses by Apple (AAPL), Cisco (CSCO) and Google (GOOG). The NYSE composite and Dow both hacked off 3.3%, and the S&P 500 surrendered 3.8%.
Midcaps took the day's worst pummeling, sending the S&P 400 down 4.6%.
The NYSE financial index toppled 6.8% as the sector led losses.
But preliminary figures showed that NYSE and Nasdaq trading was sharply below Friday's elevated levels.
Declining issues led advancers by more than 4-to-1 on the NYSE and by nearly 3-to-1 on the Nasdaq. Only 11 of the 197 industry groups tracked by IBD gained on the session.
Despite the day's slaughterhouse feeling, most leading stocks avoided significant damage.
One exception was IBD 100 firm Buckle (BKE), which fell 5.22 to 56.33 on a downgrade. JPMorgan Securities cut the teen apparel retailer to neutral from overweight. The move erased last week's gains, putting shares just below their Sept. 12 close and 16% below the high notched on Friday.
Some leaders did manage to stake out gains.
DXP Enterprises (DXPE) leapt 2.54 to 66.81. A Houston-based maintenance equipment supplier, it is one of the few stocks running against the market to nail new highs in strong volume. DXP's leading clients are in the Gulf Coast energy industry, which is working to rebuild after Hurricanes Gustav and Ike.
Open Text (OTEX) stepped up 1.40 to 36.70. The business software developer rose steeply Thursday and Friday. Shares are working to haul themselves out of a four-month correction.
3:15 p.m. Update: Losses Deepen As Crude Spikes Higher
By VINCENT MAO
Stocks gave up more ground late Monday, after crude oil spiked higher.
At 2:45 p.m. EDT, the Nasdaq shed 2.6%, S&P 500 2.3%, Dow 2% and NYSE composite 1.9%.
October crude oil ended at $120.92 a barrel, up $16.37, or 16%, on the general belief that the government's rescue plan would boost the economy and increase demand. The contract, which expired today, was up 24% at session highs.
Oil's surge hurt airline issues.
UAL Corp. (UAUA) tumbled 2.09, or 16%, to 11.15. AMR Corp. (AMR) dropped 1.83, or 14%, to 11.10. Continental Airlines (CAL) shed 1.76, or 7%, to 16.64.
6IXSTRINGJACK In a closed society where everybody’s guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008 - 12:45
I'll tell you what...
If the Dems finally show they have a backbone and are actually serious about stopping this travesty from happening, I'll vote for the asshole on the left. If not, I'm writing in my brother for president because he said the most profound thing I've heard in the last few months about how to fix America's economy. He don't even know what a genius he is.
It is pretty scary times when the Demons are acting more fiscally responsible than the Rethugs.
CITIZEN He who arrives at a conclusion by faith cannot be moved by reason
Tuesday, September 23, 2008 - 13:27
Quote: Originally posted by 6ixStringJack: If not, I'm writing in my brother for president because he said the most profound thing I've heard in the last few months about how to fix America's economy.
Which was?
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes! No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
6IXSTRINGJACK In a closed society where everybody’s guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008 - 13:46
I'm sure you wouldn't like it (or maybe you would if you would like to see America go away from it's worldwide imperialism.... (cough) I mean, liberation.... But since you're my boy Cit, you got sanctuary over here if things ever got really hairy over there. Just hitch a ride with my bro next D-Con and I'll even let you sleep on my couch.
Really though. It's too good to ruin the surprise in case any future "renegade" administration has goes through with it. I know my brother is a (humble) genius, but I'm sure there are greater minds who have thought similar things before. I don't see how it couldn't work.
KWICKO
Officially the Angriest Man on the Internet™.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008 - 18:05
Quote: I want you guys to think about this...If the government owns the free market, it owns you. Its not a joke, or even remotely funny. The U.S. government will now control much of Wall Street, and most of of the housing market.
National Socialism anyone? Thats EXACTLY what this is.
Two words come to mind:
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!
Mike
This world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel.
All FIREFLY related
graphics and photos on this page are copyright 2002-2009 Mutant Enemy, Inc.,
Universal Pictures, and 20th
Century Fox.
All other graphics and texts are copyright of the contributors to this website.
This website IS NOT
affiliated with the Official Firefly Site, Mutant Enemy, Inc., or 20th Century Fox. FIREFLYFANS.NET is part of the SHINY UNIVERSE NETWORK
isall
Chrisisall
Officially the Angriest Man on the Internet™.
Chrisisall
"Freedom"
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned."