Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I guess someone should have checked whether it was a good name with any 14 year old internet user then. Would've gotten set straight in no time flat.
I would say that you have no idea what the purpose of the Boston Tea Party was. Right? I thought they picked a great name in that they were trying to show their dissatisfaction with with the taxation we had been promised wouldn't happen. Your comment about the average 14 year old tells me too much about how your mind twists and turns and which direction it is whirling.
No, you are wrong. I understand what the Boston Tea Party was...and why people gravitated towards that name. But the people behind the Tea Party Movement should have realized that it's not going to be just an isolated event (hopefully), they will be projecting that name and image across the country and they failed to choose wisely what other people might think of that name. Any 14 year old with access to the internet could've told you what 65% of America would be thinking when they heard about 'tea bagging' government officials...that's all I'm saying.
The fact that you went right for the personal insults, though, when confronted with a valid point shows the weakness of your argument.
Seriously.
I didn't personally insult you...why do you feel the need to lash out at me?
Think about it.
The first time in my old life that I ever saw the term Teabaggers was from a lefty trying to make the Tea Party movement look ridiculous. I never had any idea about the sexual part of that term until lefties threw it around. Nope, some of us just don't know a lot of those things and it is obvious why the term was applied to the movement.
When black americans self identify as 'n*ggers' they're doing it to themselves, correct?
Tea party made a cartoon of themselves (much to delight of the left), not just by adopting a hack name, or being oblivious to the very historic basis they were referencing, but in their conduct on the streets. I would have loved to support a cause when salient points were on the table, because ordinary citizens have a very real beef for decades. But... as per usual, egos prevailed and the message got lost in a sea of BS. I've said the exact same thing to peacenik idiots resorting to violence at a peace march, knowing in my gut it was wrong to be in Iraq. They left me no choice but to tell them to sit down.
How can I defend anyone from their own stupidity? Talk about mission impossible.
Becasue the companies aren't doing anything illegal. They aren't killing people, they aren't raping people. Profit is not, and should not be, illegal. Using salary to attract and incentivize top talent is not illegal. Risking corporate capital, risking shareholder money, is not illegal. Nor should it be. So long as the goals and policies of the company are disclosed to the shareholders, and the shareholders have the choice of whether to own the stock or not, corporations shouldn't have to answer to anyone else about their business decisions. A company wants to take chances, wwing for the fences? Let them. And if they should miss the ball, and strike out, you sned them to the bench. Better luck next time. Now the federal government has mucked up that policy by bailing out these failing companies, essentially excusing them from paying for the chances they took. Ohh, it's ok, take another swing, this is a friendly game. What a lousy idea.
I don't agree with that view at all. The behavior of many of those managers who caused the crisis may not be officially a crime, but it should be. There were times when raping one's wife was not illegal, either, now it is.
And need I mention that probably the vast majority already thinks of those people as 'moral offenders'. As long as most Americans (same goes for Germans etc.) were at the receiving end of radical capitalism, they did not mind its consequences (typical human trait, egoism), but more and more people are suffering from it and waking up.
If your economy had collapsed, it would have hit masses of normal employees, not the ones who would have deserved it most. Americans are already lamenting and complaining how bad things are, and they are not nearly as bad as they would have been without your government intervening.
The problem in my view is size. If it were small companies one could let them go down the drain, but with those giant corporations one cannot do that anymore. I think corporations should be split into smaller, absolutely independent companies as soon as they achieve a certain turnaround.
I do not believe that the market will solve the problems created by it, that old mantra has not worked in the past, either. The world is not a board of monopoly where losing does not matter.
You say that you are not a liberal and then come on saying things like that that indicate you read only progressive talking points. You are one of those progs, like it or not.
I read all sorts of things, but naturally I think some of it makes more sense than the rest. I am free to think what I want. I am the one evaluating what I read, see, hear etc. It is not the other way round, I don't just call myself an x and thus feel obliged to buy into everything x stands for.
You just stepped in that mass of manure that is progressive speak when you said that about regulation of business and compared it to that of criminal performance. You are talking socialist words even though you don't want me to think you are one of them.
Do you know who said, "From each, according to his abilities, to each, according to his needs"? Today I heard about a test that only 19% of those Americas who took it answered correctly. Lets give you a chance at the question by providing the possible answers. A. George Washington; (B) Barack Obama; (C) Karl Marx; (D) George W. Bush; (D) none of the above. I will help you out by telling you that one of those is not right since one of them did say those words.
Read my answer to Bill Keegan a few posts ago (#114).
Apart from that, I don't call myself a socialist, nor a communist, nor a capitalist etc. However, of course I do agree with individual positions and approaches of various ideologies, but not to the extent that I could call myself an adherent of any of them. Thus I have no problem at all backing regulation, even if it is considered typical of socialism or even communism.
I don't know or care who your little quote is from. Nor do I think it is correct, especially the second half of it, because if someone has extreme needs, it does not mean they should be met as that might happen at the expense of the the rest with moderate needs.
NPR is a warm pile of cow dung. Another ******* organization exposed for what it is, hypocrites and liars like the rest of the left leaning *******s. Dims are so stupid and pee their pants when they see this type of stuff. Not surprising, considering the single mindset mentality of the Dims. Just one more ******* organization exposed! The dims are falling like dominoes! Thanks roy!
See, that's the problem, left wingers are so sensitive and lovey-dovey. "Oh, I hurt your feelings, I am sooooo sorry." The foaming at the mouth right wing crackpots on the other hand never apologize about anything no matter how destructive, insane or scurrilous. Have the right wing kooks apologized for lying us into Iraq? Have they apologized for their TRILLION DOLLAR tax payer checks to the military for invading the wrong country and butchering a million innocent people who did nothing to us? Have they apologized for segregation? Have they apologized for oppression of women? Lefties, just shut the hell up and stop apologizing. The right wing kooks only understand belligerent, arrogance and anger. You have to hit em where they live.
I agree completely.
I'd like to have a left wing version of W. in the White House. Then the right could really know how it feels to get an agenda forced down your throat.
I listened to NPR just yesterday again and they were doing an interview with a financial expert criticizing the current monetary policies regarding the deficit, thus indirectly Obama. I wonder who of all those people here lashing out at NPR actually listen to it regularly so as to be able to form an educated opinion
The problem in my view is size. If it were small companies one could let them go down the drain, but with those giant corporations one cannot do that anymore. I think corporations should be split into smaller, absolutely independent companies as soon as they achieve a certain turnaround.
I do not believe that the market will solve the problems created by it, that old mantra has not worked in the past, either. The world is not a board of monopoly where losing does not matter.
While I respect your opinion, and inderstand why you may have come to it, I disagree with it. Your belief that companies have gotten to big to fail was the same belief held up as justification by those who were in favor of those bailouts. I say no company is too big to fail. Let the biggest fail, and the others around it will understand that none are immune to market forces. Perhaps they'll be more careful.
As to the market not solving the problem; we'll never know, as the market was not allowed to function the way it should. We (our government) intervened with good intentions that disrupted the natural process.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
