The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

JSPB22 wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:You can't call State-corporatism "private." Italy under Mussolini was not "private." If you go by the book definition—the one written by the government—what Italy had was a 'mostly private with some public oversight' system. But it's far better to call a spade a spade.

OK, OK, the fed is a fascist organization. Is that better?

Lol. I think of it more of sort of how the Chinese run their steel industry...

It will only get worse before
It gets any better for the Dow.
Looks like Obama will be President.
As he will be looked upon to fix the economy like asap!

JeanPassepartout1974 wrote:Looks like Obama will be President.
As he will be looked upon to fix the economy like asap!

Which is exactly the problem. The government produces NOTHING. They spend money. You cannot "fix" the economy when you can only destroy value, not create value. The best thing to do in that case is nothing. The only thing we won't get from Comrade Obama. Thanks for being so pathetic, Republicans.

KazooSkinsFan wrote: Thanks for being so pathetic, Republicans.

Thank y'all dirty LIBERALS!!!

Redskin in Canada wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote: Thanks for being so pathetic, Republicans.

Thank y'all dirty LIBERALS!!!

Liberals believe lawyers who become politicians and create massive government agencies full of bureaucrats can run our lives better then we can. Obama's a a preachy, condescending know it all. A guy who tells us how he has all the answers and yet hasn't managed to run or accomplish anything in his entire life. For a guy who knows all the answers, he's kept them to himself well. He should be a gag candidate, and yet the American people are about to elect him President. Anyway, laugh all you want about liberals who believe

- Charity's not their job, it's governments even when it's done in a way that's at best wasted and generally harms the poor
- Appeasement is the path to peace.
- Abortion should be legal because a woman's body is her own, though the same argument doesn't apply to drugs, prostitution or working for less then minimum wage
- You can have cheap gas while opposing every meaningful energy policy and it's the government's job to provide it
- We can reduce gas consumption and greenhouse emissions while maintaining cheap gas
- Lawyers understand economics and finance effectively control the economy better then free markets
- When the government sells stock in government agencies like Freddie and Fannie and they fail it's capitalism that's failed.
- The Fed is effectively controlling interest rates to the benefit of the economy.
- When government issues Social Security bonds to itself and doesn't recognize them as deficit spending there is still a social security "trust fund."
- It makes sense to tax money companies earn overseas and try to bring home even though they don't because it would be taxed.
- You can stimulate the economy by giving poor people money they didn't earn to buy beer and cigarettes.
- It's fair for 90% of the country to dump their bills on the other 10% by leveraging "democracy."
- Free speech doesn't apply to the radio if it's dominated by Republicans

You can ignore the dead moose on the table if you want. Socialism has been nothing but a scourge to humanity. But as long as intellectually challenged and physically lazy liberals are easy prey for power hungry lawyers who tell them what they want to hear, the prosperity and liberty of the opportunity to do for yourself is going to be crucified by "democracy." Democracy, justification for the masses to parasite themselves on the achievers. Welcome, President Obama. Leader of the leaches.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:laugh all you want about liberals who believe

- Charity's not their job, it's governments even when it's done in a way that's at best wasted and generally harms the poor
- Appeasement is the path to peace.
- Abortion should be legal because a woman's body is her own, though the same argument doesn't apply to drugs, prostitution or working for less then minimum wage
- You can have cheap gas while opposing every meaningful energy policy and it's the government's job to provide it
- We can reduce gas consumption and greenhouse emissions while maintaining cheap gas
- Lawyers understand economics and finance effectively control the economy better then free markets
- When the government sells stock in government agencies like Freddie and Fannie and they fail it's capitalism that's failed.
- The Fed is effectively controlling interest rates to the benefit of the economy.
- When government issues Social Security bonds to itself and doesn't recognize them as deficit spending there is still a social security "trust fund."
- It makes sense to tax money companies earn overseas and try to bring home even though they don't because it would be taxed.
- You can stimulate the economy by giving poor people money they didn't earn to buy beer and cigarettes.
- It's fair for 90% of the country to dump their bills on the other 10% by leveraging "democracy."
- Free speech doesn't apply to the radio if it's dominated by Republicans

OK, I'll laugh at liberals who believe all of that... if I can find any.

I'm especially enjoying Obama's declaration that my desire to determine how I spend my own money is "selfish"...

Much as his partner's declaration that I should demonstrate my patriotism by giving more of MY money to the government... (hmmm... and I thought I had done that by dedicating 32 years of my life to national service... show's what I know...)

JSPB22 wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:laugh all you want about liberals who believe

- Charity's not their job, it's governments even when it's done in a way that's at best wasted and generally harms the poor
- Appeasement is the path to peace.
- Abortion should be legal because a woman's body is her own, though the same argument doesn't apply to drugs, prostitution or working for less then minimum wage
- You can have cheap gas while opposing every meaningful energy policy and it's the government's job to provide it
- We can reduce gas consumption and greenhouse emissions while maintaining cheap gas
- Lawyers understand economics and finance effectively control the economy better then free markets
- When the government sells stock in government agencies like Freddie and Fannie and they fail it's capitalism that's failed.
- The Fed is effectively controlling interest rates to the benefit of the economy.
- When government issues Social Security bonds to itself and doesn't recognize them as deficit spending there is still a social security "trust fund."
- It makes sense to tax money companies earn overseas and try to bring home even though they don't because it would be taxed.
- You can stimulate the economy by giving poor people money they didn't earn to buy beer and cigarettes.
- It's fair for 90% of the country to dump their bills on the other 10% by leveraging "democracy."
- Free speech doesn't apply to the radio if it's dominated by Republicans

OK, I'll laugh at liberals who believe all of that... if I can find any.

You are of course referring to liberals incredible ability to say and do different things, a power they grant to no one else. Show me where I'm wrong through POLICY. Which is my point, which was actually pretty obvious.

Countertrey wrote:I'm especially enjoying Obama's declaration that my desire to determine how I spend my own money is "selfish"...

Much as his partner's declaration that I should demonstrate my patriotism by giving more of MY money to the government... (hmmm... and I thought I had done that by dedicating 32 years of my life to national service... show's what I know...)

That only proves you are a hate filled war criminal who terrorizes innocent citizens in foreign countries. Obama and the left want to glorify you by helping terrorists murder you. Or since you personally left your comrades who remained. They want to pull them out of Iraq so it can be a base of operations for the terrorists to attack them across the rest of the Middle East where they will remain to provide us with the oil they oppose our military providing.

Glad I could clarify that for you.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Countertrey wrote:I'm especially enjoying Obama's declaration that my desire to determine how I spend my own money is "selfish"...

Much as his partner's declaration that I should demonstrate my patriotism by giving more of MY money to the government... (hmmm... and I thought I had done that by dedicating 32 years of my life to national service... show's what I know...)

That only proves you are a hate filled war criminal who terrorizes innocent citizens in foreign countries. Obama and the left want to glorify you by helping terrorists murder you. Or since you personally left your comrades who remained. They want to pull them out of Iraq so it can be a base of operations for the terrorists to attack them across the rest of the Middle East where they will remain to provide us with the oil they oppose our military providing.

Glad I could clarify that for you.

Thanks. It's refreshing to be enlightened, at last.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:You can ignore the dead moose on the table if you want.

Talking about the dead moose:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politi ... .palin.cnn
Those nasty Canadian LIBERALS

KazooSkinsFan wrote:But as long as intellectually challenged and physically lazy liberals are easy prey for power hungry lawyers who tell them what they want to hear, the prosperity and liberty of the opportunity to do for yourself is going to be crucified by "democracy." Democracy, justification for the masses to parasite themselves on the achievers.

THOSE are the TWO main problems of humankind:

THE RULE OF LAW (which breeds lawyers among other nasty things) and DEMOCRACY (because people cannot be trusted to think for themselves).

Why did we all not come up with these bright conclusions???

Very persuasive rant. Can you trust yourself to think for yourself?

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:laugh all you want about liberals who believe

- Charity's not their job, it's governments even when it's done in a way that's at best wasted and generally harms the poor
- Appeasement is the path to peace.
- Abortion should be legal because a woman's body is her own, though the same argument doesn't apply to drugs, prostitution or working for less then minimum wage
- You can have cheap gas while opposing every meaningful energy policy and it's the government's job to provide it
- We can reduce gas consumption and greenhouse emissions while maintaining cheap gas
- Lawyers understand economics and finance effectively control the economy better then free markets
- When the government sells stock in government agencies like Freddie and Fannie and they fail it's capitalism that's failed.
- The Fed is effectively controlling interest rates to the benefit of the economy.
- When government issues Social Security bonds to itself and doesn't recognize them as deficit spending there is still a social security "trust fund."
- It makes sense to tax money companies earn overseas and try to bring home even though they don't because it would be taxed.
- You can stimulate the economy by giving poor people money they didn't earn to buy beer and cigarettes.
- It's fair for 90% of the country to dump their bills on the other 10% by leveraging "democracy."
- Free speech doesn't apply to the radio if it's dominated by Republicans

OK, I'll laugh at liberals who believe all of that... if I can find any.

You are of course referring to liberals incredible ability to say and do different things, a power they grant to no one else. Show me where I'm wrong through POLICY. Which is my point, which was actually pretty obvious.

If any one of those bullet points had any truth to it, I might agree with you about politicians of the Democratic party. But since you don't make any distinction between liberals and Democratic politicians, why should I waste my time refuting each one? Most of them are laughable on their face, though I can see where you might attribute some of those to politicians of the Democratic persuasion.

JSPB22 wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:laugh all you want about liberals who believe

- Charity's not their job, it's governments even when it's done in a way that's at best wasted and generally harms the poor
- Appeasement is the path to peace.
- Abortion should be legal because a woman's body is her own, though the same argument doesn't apply to drugs, prostitution or working for less then minimum wage
- You can have cheap gas while opposing every meaningful energy policy and it's the government's job to provide it
- We can reduce gas consumption and greenhouse emissions while maintaining cheap gas
- Lawyers understand economics and finance effectively control the economy better then free markets
- When the government sells stock in government agencies like Freddie and Fannie and they fail it's capitalism that's failed.
- The Fed is effectively controlling interest rates to the benefit of the economy.
- When government issues Social Security bonds to itself and doesn't recognize them as deficit spending there is still a social security "trust fund."
- It makes sense to tax money companies earn overseas and try to bring home even though they don't because it would be taxed.
- You can stimulate the economy by giving poor people money they didn't earn to buy beer and cigarettes.
- It's fair for 90% of the country to dump their bills on the other 10% by leveraging "democracy."
- Free speech doesn't apply to the radio if it's dominated by Republicans

OK, I'll laugh at liberals who believe all of that... if I can find any.

You are of course referring to liberals incredible ability to say and do different things, a power they grant to no one else. Show me where I'm wrong through POLICY. Which is my point, which was actually pretty obvious.

If any one of those bullet points had any truth to it, I might agree with you about politicians of the Democratic party. But since you don't make any distinction between liberals and Democratic politicians, why should I waste my time refuting each one? Most of them are laughable on their face, though I can see where you might attribute some of those to politicians of the Democratic persuasion.

Agreed, that list is incredibly dumb

JSPB22 wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:laugh all you want about liberals who believe

- Charity's not their job, it's governments even when it's done in a way that's at best wasted and generally harms the poor
- Appeasement is the path to peace.
- Abortion should be legal because a woman's body is her own, though the same argument doesn't apply to drugs, prostitution or working for less then minimum wage
- You can have cheap gas while opposing every meaningful energy policy and it's the government's job to provide it
- We can reduce gas consumption and greenhouse emissions while maintaining cheap gas
- Lawyers understand economics and finance effectively control the economy better then free markets
- When the government sells stock in government agencies like Freddie and Fannie and they fail it's capitalism that's failed.
- The Fed is effectively controlling interest rates to the benefit of the economy.
- When government issues Social Security bonds to itself and doesn't recognize them as deficit spending there is still a social security "trust fund."
- It makes sense to tax money companies earn overseas and try to bring home even though they don't because it would be taxed.
- You can stimulate the economy by giving poor people money they didn't earn to buy beer and cigarettes.
- It's fair for 90% of the country to dump their bills on the other 10% by leveraging "democracy."
- Free speech doesn't apply to the radio if it's dominated by Republicans

OK, I'll laugh at liberals who believe all of that... if I can find any.

You are of course referring to liberals incredible ability to say and do different things, a power they grant to no one else. Show me where I'm wrong through POLICY. Which is my point, which was actually pretty obvious.

If any one of those bullet points had any truth to it, I might agree with you about politicians of the Democratic party. But since you don't make any distinction between liberals and Democratic politicians, why should I waste my time refuting each one? Most of them are laughable on their face, though I can see where you might attribute some of those to politicians of the Democratic persuasion.

Well, you make no case that liberals are not Democrats either other then saying the words that Democrats are not liberals. So I'm in good company.

Fios wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:laugh all you want about liberals who believe

- Charity's not their job, it's governments even when it's done in a way that's at best wasted and generally harms the poor
- Appeasement is the path to peace.
- Abortion should be legal because a woman's body is her own, though the same argument doesn't apply to drugs, prostitution or working for less then minimum wage
- You can have cheap gas while opposing every meaningful energy policy and it's the government's job to provide it
- We can reduce gas consumption and greenhouse emissions while maintaining cheap gas
- Lawyers understand economics and finance effectively control the economy better then free markets
- When the government sells stock in government agencies like Freddie and Fannie and they fail it's capitalism that's failed.
- The Fed is effectively controlling interest rates to the benefit of the economy.
- When government issues Social Security bonds to itself and doesn't recognize them as deficit spending there is still a social security "trust fund."
- It makes sense to tax money companies earn overseas and try to bring home even though they don't because it would be taxed.
- You can stimulate the economy by giving poor people money they didn't earn to buy beer and cigarettes.
- It's fair for 90% of the country to dump their bills on the other 10% by leveraging "democracy."
- Free speech doesn't apply to the radio if it's dominated by Republicans

OK, I'll laugh at liberals who believe all of that... if I can find any.

Agreed, that list is incredibly dumb

This is exactly my point about liberalism and the intellectually lazy lack of personal responsibility that goes with it.

Liberal politicians: Here are some easy cop out answers that make liberals feel better because they can lame out that they "helped" the poor by voting for us to do it for them. Bonus, we can market to the poor why they should vote for us and since our policies don't work they never stop being poor and therefore keep voting for us. We have a win-win money machine list where liberals keep voting for us to feel better about themselves and the poor keep voting for us for a few bucks.

Kaz: Here are the REALITIES of American liberal/socialist/Democratic/Marxist policies...

Liberals...that's not WHY we did it so it really doesn't matter what the actual dffects of our policies are and saying that is "dumb" because it isn't what we wanted and whether we accomplished our goals isn't our responsibility. We voted for people who promised it, which makes us Liberals and them Democrats.

Don't worry, I know liberals aren't getting this. If they could, they would actually care what the effects of their policies are and one thing liberals consistently demonstrate is they don't.

The original thread is intended to address the ever growing financial and economic crises. It was meant as a serious effort to engage in discussions relating to their magnitude and potential negative effects in our lives.

The thread was not intended to spark issuing adjectives at one another. It was not intended to allow anybody to insult anybody else. Please remember that for "intelligent exchanges" containing arguments such as you are THIS and your Mama is worse, you can go to the Smack Forum.

If anybody is truly motivated to call anybody or everybody else in this board a liberal / conservative / agnostic / fanatic / dumb, please do us all a favour and take it to Smack. It won't be smart but at least it -can- be funny. It gets tired to hear name calling, particularly political name calling, as a reason to object or support untenable positions through rational arguments.

I started this thread and I kindly ask you not to hijack it. Thank you very much for your kind cooperation.

Redskin in Canada wrote:The original thread is intended to address the ever growing financial and economic crises. It was meant as a serious effort to engage in discussions relating to their magnitude and potential negative effects in our lives.

The thread was not intended to spark issuing adjectives at one another. It was not intended to allow anybody to insult anybody else. Please remember that for "intelligent exchanges" containing arguments such as you are THIS and your Mama is worse, you can go to the Smack Forum.

If anybody is truly motivated to call anybody or everybody else in this board a liberal / conservative / agnostic / fanatic / dumb, please do us all a favour and take it to Smack. It won't be smart but at least it -can- be funny. It gets tired to hear name calling, particularly political name calling, as a reason to object or support untenable positions through rational arguments.

I started this thread and I kindly ask you not to hijack it. Thank you very much for your kind cooperation.

Everything I've said is about "liberalism." I haven't differentiated any liberal from another and all my points were about what liberalism as an ideology accomplishes, which is NEVER the objective. My points are completely on target for the topic of the thread, that the reality of liberalism doesn't match the marketing. READ the topic title.

Bailout bill fails; Dow plunges

In other words

Socialism doesn't work, Dow plunges

I am AGREEING with your topic title. My point, liberalism doesn't work because the REALITY doesn't match the MARKETING. BAM, that's the topic.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Fios wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:laugh all you want about liberals who believe

- Charity's not their job, it's governments even when it's done in a way that's at best wasted and generally harms the poor
- Appeasement is the path to peace.
- Abortion should be legal because a woman's body is her own, though the same argument doesn't apply to drugs, prostitution or working for less then minimum wage
- You can have cheap gas while opposing every meaningful energy policy and it's the government's job to provide it
- We can reduce gas consumption and greenhouse emissions while maintaining cheap gas
- Lawyers understand economics and finance effectively control the economy better then free markets
- When the government sells stock in government agencies like Freddie and Fannie and they fail it's capitalism that's failed.
- The Fed is effectively controlling interest rates to the benefit of the economy.
- When government issues Social Security bonds to itself and doesn't recognize them as deficit spending there is still a social security "trust fund."
- It makes sense to tax money companies earn overseas and try to bring home even though they don't because it would be taxed.
- You can stimulate the economy by giving poor people money they didn't earn to buy beer and cigarettes.
- It's fair for 90% of the country to dump their bills on the other 10% by leveraging "democracy."
- Free speech doesn't apply to the radio if it's dominated by Republicans

OK, I'll laugh at liberals who believe all of that... if I can find any.

You are of course referring to liberals incredible ability to say and do different things, a power they grant to no one else. Show me where I'm wrong through POLICY. Which is my point, which was actually pretty obvious.

If any one of those bullet points had any truth to it, I might agree with you about politicians of the Democratic party. But since you don't make any distinction between liberals and Democratic politicians, why should I waste my time refuting each one? Most of them are laughable on their face, though I can see where you might attribute some of those to politicians of the Democratic persuasion.

Agreed, that list is incredibly dumb

This is exactly my point about liberalism and the intellectually lazy lack of personal responsibility that goes with it.

Liberal politicians: Here are some easy cop out answers that make liberals feel better because they can lame out that they "helped" the poor by voting for us to do it for them. Bonus, we can market to the poor why they should vote for us and since our policies don't work they never stop being poor and therefore keep voting for us. We have a win-win money machine list where liberals keep voting for us to feel better about themselves and the poor keep voting for us for a few bucks.

Kaz: Here are the REALITIES of American liberal/socialist/Democratic/Marxist policies...

Liberals...that's not WHY we did it so it really doesn't matter what the actual dffects of our policies are and saying that is "dumb" because it isn't what we wanted and whether we accomplished our goals isn't our responsibility. We voted for people who promised it, which makes us Liberals and them Democrats.

Don't worry, I know liberals aren't getting this. If they could, they would actually care what the effects of their policies are and one thing liberals consistently demonstrate is they don't.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:I haven't differentiated any liberal from another ...

THAT is the problem. Name-calling to everything and everyone -is- the problem.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:My point, liberalism doesn't work because the REALITY doesn't match the MARKETING. BAM, that's the topic.

As marketing goes, the frustration shown in your rhetoric, the alienated argumentative style, the absurd over-simplified generalisations, and your lack of basic information about the philosophy of capitalism, and its most important thinkers, have failed to produce any support for your views in this thread. Proof that an MBA, like any other small amount of information, can be a dangerous thing.

Shout your slogans all you want and as loud as you can. It is actually counterproductive to your political cause. The oversimplification of policy in slogans leaves NOTHING on the table to discuss.

Your mother in law and your wife are RIGHT in their assessment of your frustrated and alienated views. Please tell them that I agree with them. They are nice people, I will give you that.

Now, coming back to the topic of the thread:

Let's see how the international financial markets react to the result of the election!

Asia is first and Europe second before the Dow and NASDAQ have a chance.

Let's see how the international financial markets react to the result of the election!

Asia is first and Europe second before the Dow and NASDAQ have a chance.

Does it matter? Regardless the response of the "international markets", it will be the response of the Dow and NASDAQ that count. I anticipate a major hit if Obama wins, as folks who's stocks are still worth more than when they were purchased, start dumping to avoid anticipated future cap.gains taxes.

Yes... people do stupid things.

Redskin in Canada wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:I haven't differentiated any liberal from another ...

THAT is the problem. Name-calling to everything and everyone -is- the problem.

I like it. You claim my attacks are personal and when I point out they aren't I'm talking about liberalism which you all follow and haven't said anything personal about any of you you say THAT'S the problem. Make up your mind. "Name calling" of course to liberals is when liberalism is called out for what it is. When liberals, the experts in the field of name calling, do it we hear crickets from Quebec.

But the bottom line is you talk about liberals, Democrats, Americans, Quebecits and still you can't tell me anything that's different about any of you in the various Left forms other then high level generalizations. Just like Fios, cleg, welch, and JSPB22 decline to do. You're not the same because you shout it loudly, then everything you say serves one political side only. And then you complain when I say you're the same even though you yourselves can't tell me the difference. I guess liberals and Democrats are like male and female dung beetles, they look the same if you're not one but they obviously can tell each other apart.

Countertrey wrote:

Let's see how the international financial markets react to the result of the election!

Asia is first and Europe second before the Dow and NASDAQ have a chance.

Does it matter? Regardless the response of the "international markets", it will be the response of the Dow and NASDAQ that count. I anticipate a major hit if Obama wins, as folks who's stocks are still worth more than when they were purchased, start dumping to avoid anticipated future cap.gains taxes.

Yes... people do stupid things.

Keep in mind that financial markets are fully aware of the news and the polls. Known information is already priced into the stock. A change will come due to the election only if something unexpected happens either way.

It is a fact that the market dropped as it became increasingly clear Obama would win. Though that's still not "proof" that Obama caused it because you would have to know what WOULD have happened if it appeared McCain would win. It could be the market would have dropped more due to other news and in fact had less drop because of Obama. I doubt it, but it's logically possible.

People make that mistake a lot with the markets, thinking the market is unaware of what's going on and misinterpreting the results because they think it'll react to things like an election as if they don't know the results and interpreting a single cause to trends when there are many.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:When liberals, the experts in the field of name calling, do it we hear crickets from Quebec ...

But the bottom line is you talk about ... Quebecits ...

What are those?

KazooSkinsFan wrote:... and still you can't tell me anything that's different about any of you in the various Left forms other then high level generalizations. Just like Fios, cleg, welch, and JSPB22 decline to do.

They are wise enough not to even try to explain shades of gray. You might be an avid Skins fan but when it comes to policy issues, your views are nothing but manifestations of alienation and frustration.

Redskin in Canada wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:When liberals, the experts in the field of name calling, do it we hear crickets from Quebec ...

But the bottom line is you talk about ... Quebecits ...

What are those?

KazooSkinsFan wrote:... and still you can't tell me anything that's different about any of you in the various Left forms other then high level generalizations. Just like Fios, cleg, welch, and JSPB22 decline to do.

They are wise enough not to even try to explain shades of gray. You might be an avid Skins fan but when it comes to policy issues, your views are nothing but manifestations of alienation and frustration.

Kazoo might be suprised to learn he actually believes, apparently, in the doctrine of Neo-liberalism propagated by Reagan and Thatcher. The recent economic crises was perpetuated by the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act in 1999 under Clinton, something the banking industry had been trying to do since the 1980's. No banking oversight leads to what we are seeing now. Henry Paulson=crook.

This_Heat wrote:

Redskin in Canada wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:When liberals, the experts in the field of name calling, do it we hear crickets from Quebec ...

But the bottom line is you talk about ... Quebecits ...

What are those?

KazooSkinsFan wrote:... and still you can't tell me anything that's different about any of you in the various Left forms other then high level generalizations. Just like Fios, cleg, welch, and JSPB22 decline to do.

They are wise enough not to even try to explain shades of gray. You might be an avid Skins fan but when it comes to policy issues, your views are nothing but manifestations of alienation and frustration.

Kazoo might be suprised to learn he actually believes, apparently, in the doctrine of Neo-liberalism propagated by Reagan and Thatcher. The recent economic crises was perpetuated by the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act in 1999 under Clinton, something the banking industry had been trying to do since the 1980's. No banking oversight leads to what we are seeing now. Henry Paulson=crook.

And we can ignore that the Government underwrote 90% of mortgages, 55% of which were unsellable on the open market because of the low credit standards used for political reasons and then when these government agencies cause a market meltdown because the politically motivated loans through government agencies weren't repaid it was a failure of "deregulation." Got it. Now I understand.