Fiery_penguin_of_doom Posts

The egalitarian policies of government through such legislation as the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 "persuaded" lenders, Mafioso style, to lend to low-income borrowers, against their better judgment. Government lawyers made it clear that the consequences of failing to meet politically imposed targets and quotas could be dire. Then we have government-sponsored entities like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac subsidized mortgages for people who, under more-prudent rules of borrowing, would never have qualified for a loan from a conservative banking institution. Congressman Barney Frank in 2003 stated in a moment of candor,

""

Well he certainly did, at the same time accepting with gratitude campaign contributions from Fannie and Freddie.



The whole system is corrupt from top to bottom. Everyone from the Government, to the Banks to the people are at fault. It was a massive cluster fuck. Quit ignoring the fact that more than just the banks were at fault. Government isn't perfect so please stop insulting us by acting like it is. People in America aren't brainwashed to worship government as some infallible entity.



1: Government forced a change in loaning practice through the community reinvestment act to "help" the poor get into home ownership. What this caused was a distortion in the market and gave incentive to predatory lending practices. Wall Street further complicated matters by lobbying against regulations in the 80's leading to a free for all.

Banks are guilty of fraud and the Government is guilty of failing to protect the American people.

2: By mandating unhealthy business practices (Community reinvestment act) and placing incentives for businesses to commit crimes. Government is guilty of providing the incentive and the banks are guilty of pursuing those crimes. It's called being an accomplice to a crime.



If you weren't so stubborn and actually listened to others you'd realize that nobody except for the NeoCons are trying to say that corporations are not accountable. The original T.E.A. Party formed because they were against the bailouts and wanted the banks to fail, the Occupy Wallstreet crowds (and off shoot branches) want the banks to be held accountable for their actions and want caps on insurance company profits. What, amongst any of that leads you to believe that Americans think companies should not be accountable?


I have a request flaser. I'm curious if you are capable of saying that government isn't perfect. Just type "The Government is capable of mistakes". Go on, type it. I believe in you.

Your grasping for straws. I did not calling anyone an idiot nor did I use the word idiotic. Stop being so sensitive.





Infrastructure had to be up before the first cell phone was sold. Same way the road has to be paved before a toll can be charged to use the road.



Government backed the monopoly. The Government protected AT&T as it was considered a "public utility". Same way the Electric or water companies operate nowadays. They are government backed monopolies.




Please explain how a government is even remotely accountable. You mean, elections? Yeah, really accountable. We can't even prove that the people winning elections actually won the damned things. I.E George Bush vs Al Gore. At least with a corporation I can spend my money somewhere else and they can be held in check with regulation. Government doesn't have to obey the laws it creates. I can cite thousands of cases where the Government broke it's own laws or simply ignored the centerpiece of our Republic simply because there was nobody there to hold the government accountable. Sure, we can protest, if the rule elite grant us permission but, as soon as the permit time runs up we better scurry back to our holes otherwise face the brutality of overzealous police.



You're assuming I'm with the Libertarians. I don't know how many times I have to say it but, I'm not a Libertarian I'm a goddamned libertarian there is a difference. I personally want to shift power to the hands of the states and local communities and leaving the Feds to deal with anything that deals with multiple states (Corporations, National Defense, etc). I want the feds to

Protect consumers (FDA) but reform the human trials language
Protect workers (OSHA) but, don't guarantee employment
Protect citizens from National threats without infringing on liberties. (I.E. Fuck off patriot act and pat downs)

Shift power to the states. The ruling elite are corrupt and disconnected with the average citizen.



Why are we arguing here?!? That's exactly how I feel! The only difference is where we want the power concentrated.

At least zeroniv_legend provides an argument rather than repeating "You are wrong" without offering any counter evidence. If you can not doing anything more substantial then cease to wasting my time.

Also I wish to direct you to Allah's opinion on Fuhsha.



Since we're arguing over religious text, we'll obviously have two different interpretations. I see more violent verses than peaceful verses therefore Islam appears to promote violence.



The Quran.com version is

[quote="Surat At- Tawbah"O you who have believed, fight those adjacent to you of the disbelievers and let them find in you harshness. And know that Allah is with the righteous.[/quote]

Then we also have [quote="Surat Al- 'Anfal""It is not fitting for a prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he hath thoroughly subdued the land".[/quote]

Quran.com version



What leads me to the more violent interpretations of the Quran is the actions of those who supposedly follow the Quran. Honor Killings, oppression of women and the hundreds of other violations of human rights that are committed in the name of Allah. While your interpretation may be one of non-violence and self defense, doesn't mean that is the same conclusion someone else will come to. Hence why you claim it's a religion of peace and some are using the Quran as justification for mass killings and suicide bombings.

I wish to stress that I don't think Islam is outright violent but, it promotes prejudice and oppression of women. I think it is draconian along with other Abraham religions and does not work with western liberties.

As for ib and random I am not sure how the rule is applied but, in SD Necrobumping is acceptable if you actually add something to the conversation. Even if it was not explicitly stated it's been the general unspoken rule.

I believe the rule if not already like this should be changed to allow necrobumping if the necro post was contributing in a meaningful way rather than add "I agree"

I say let them believe. I couldn't care less what your personal religion is so long as it remains personal and the restrictions or tenets of your religion remain within your group.

If your religion requires you to pray 4 times a day in a bathtub full of strawberry shake mix while listening to Elvis records backwards then I don't care. Keep it to yourself and keep it peaceful.

Even for the L.D.S polygamy cults I don't care if you want to live in a walled compound and marry 3+ wives or husbands. So long as the people involved are not being forced into the marriage and no children are being married off to older men.

Once the religious start imposing their tenets and beliefs on us through Government or simply intimidating us into following their religion, then I'm busting out the torches and pitchforks.

Where did I call anybody a name? Where did I even insult someone? Was it when I said some demands are bullshit or is it when I used the word absurd?



Their property paid for the infrastructure you use to communicate. Their money, their infrastructure, their towers, their property. Property owners maintain sole control over their property.



Same question can be applied to Government. I believe we'll both agree that monopolies are bad but, I can't understand why you want to form a monopoly where the "company" has the guns.

Forgive me for being jumpy at the concept of the Feds controlling our communications. It's not like we had the fairness doctrine imposed on us in the past or that the Feds want to control the internet. The Government also wants a license to use the internet.

The U.S government is corrupt and filled to bursting with greedy politicians and special interest groups only concerned with obtaining ever more power and control over the American people. Handing over our communication infrastructure is a sure way to hand over our society to these criminals.

I would much prefer the right to not have my access blocked arbitrarily such as the Syrian and Iranian Governments did during the Arab spring but, the concept of handing over more money for corporate bought politicians to control our ability to communicate is insanity.

As far as having a Government monopoly. Visit a U.S Department of Motor Vehicles and you'll get an idea of how poor our government actually runs things. The last time I was at the DMV was to update the address on my license, it took me two hours to change 2 lines of text on my license.

The last time we had a monopoly in Communications was the Government backed monopoly of AT&T. Back then,

1: Prices were high
2: Plans were limited
3: Customer service was terrible
4: Overall service was terrible
5: You only had a few options for phone designs of color
6: Innovation was stagnant.
7: Put a book cover on your phone book without being fined or sentenced to jail

Then when the Government backed monopoly was broken up we suddenly had a treasure trove of innovations including new home phones, the cell phone, and prices came down, a lot.

I could also reference record of the billions of dollars in waste the U.S government has because it has no incentive to lower prices. Why? because you don't have any other options. If you are dissatisfied with the way the government system works you can "protest" which will do nothing but drop another coin in the political circus machine. It'll light up, the little plastic representations of politicians will stiffen and go about dancing to their mechanical tunes. The Democrats will attack the Republicans for not caring about the middle class. The Republicans will complain about taxes, government waste and abuse. The whole event is merely a show. A show to convince you that more taxes on the American people are needed. After it's all said and done, more power and wealth is transferred to the U.S government and the politicians pocket the extra tax money because they honestly don't care about you

You're not from American and I can certainly understand how difficult it is for you to understand all of this but, it is a fact that the American people have no real control over the Federal Government. Our protests are impotent, our elections are rigged by the media, our government spies on us and treats us like criminals in our own country. The American Government does not fear the people because the American people pose no real threat to the sovereignty of the ruling elite.

I oppose any proposition that hands more of my beloved country over to the banksters and their puppets in Washington.

tl:dr

The U.S government is corrupt, and can not be trusted.

You are mistaken. It is not Surat Al-Baqarah 2: 191. You meant Surat Al-Baqarah 2:190.

Al-Baqarah 2:191 is



Now, I wish to direct you to Surat At-Tawbah 9:11-12





Those two quotes reference the killing of polytheists who convert away from Islam.

Explain.

Since I failed to actually answer the topic with my original post.

I'm sympathetic to the protestors but, some of their demands are absurd.

Cell phones being a right? That's utter bullshit. Someone else has to mine the materials, process the raw materials, transport said materials, manufacture the cell phone, transport the cell phones. Then others have to mine the material for the cell towers, process that material, transport that material, build the cell towers, maintain the cell towers, repair the cell towers.

Other people are working so you can have a cell phone. If a cell phone becomes a right, what happens to the people who put in all that work to support the manufacturing of cell phones? Do they stop getting paid? If not, where does the money come to pay those workers? I believe in public access to internet through Libraries and other methods but Christ, making it free? You don't have the right to force another person to work to maintain your right.

What's the next demand? A right to a laptop with wi-fi capabilities and a 360gb hard drive?

I'm honestly scared of what is occurring in this country. The ruling elite have orchestrated the largest shift of wealth in this country's history and in order to "counter" that shifting of wealth. The victims of the ruling elite's crimes are handing more control, power and overall influence to the very people who screwed them in the first place.



Do you even watch or read American news? The T.E.A party are labeled as terrorists, racists, homophobic bigots and every other slur the Democrat party can think of. Media does not openly support the T.E.A party. Occupy Wall Street gets the victim treatment in the news of innocent protestors being harassed by overzealous police and politicians.

You are right though, the current T.E.A party is manipulated by the Koch brothers. Not all T.E.A party activists are "Astroturf" but, some are. There are a few legitimate believers who simply are not privy to the knowledge the more politically aware have.

The initial T.E.A. party was founded on the rage people felt over the bailouts and government incompetence but, it was soon hijacked by the Koch brothers. Initially, I supported the T.E.A party, I was outraged by the bailouts. I hated the concept of the people who fucked over the American people were now getting more of our money from the Government. I hated the blatant corruption between the banks and the political elite. Then the Koch brothers and the religious wing-nuts got on board. Afterwards I abandoned ship and watched the train wreck in slow motion. Now, that the T.E.A party is in Koch brothers hands. I can only imagine the havoc Koch and the ruling elite can cause to the middle class when we sign over everything to them through the O.W.S protests.

Quran.com

Please direct me to the location of such an order within the Quran.

Actually, I have read the book. Along with the bible but, I have not read the torah.



Only ignorance here is yours. Read the Quran and enlighten yourself.




I have two Muslism friends. 5 if you count online acquaintances.



I didn't go to the linked site. In fact I went to Quran.com Which provides an english translation and the original language. Which I am unable to identify but, I assume is Arabic.

Edit: I took note of these passages as I read through the Quran the first time. I also took down an equal number of "good" passages if you wish for me to post them as well.

You have clearly never read the Quran. Allow me to pull some quotes from it. I'll even list the pages so there is no debate.



Fitna:is an Arabic word with connotations of secession, upheaval and chaos.











Need me to go on or are you just going to state that you were wrong? I'll let you know, I've got a couple a dozen more quotes about killing non-believers.

Overwhelming evidence? Where? You did not post any evidence that shows Muslims are any more violent than Christian Fundamentalists but, you also did not post that showed they are more peaceful than Christian Fundamentalists.

First you must understand something: American's don't hate Muslims because their Muslims. Americans are nervous because they can't tell the Radicals from the Moderates. The methods of the Radicals put Americans further on edge since you'll only know the moderate was actually a radical when the bomb goes off. Also you can't really blame Americans for being skittish, we've been attacked by Radical Muslims since the 1980's. From the 1983 Beirut Barracks bombing to the 1993 world trade center bombing to the failed bombing at times square. Then you have bombings around the world from Israel, Pakistan, Somalia, India to England.

I do believe the prejudice has gone a bit far but, it's not completely unfounded.

#1 Correct. I have no idea why people thought it'd "trickle down

#2 Partially true. The term "Rich" is rarely defined in definite terms. According to the U.S Government "Rich" is anyone who makes more than 250,000/yr. This is complicated by the tax code that effectively pushes sole proprietorships and other small businesses to file taxes as personal income rather than as a company. which The Chipotle restaurant down the road from my apartment makes 4,000 per day.

In order for your business to not be considered "rich" you'd have to make less than $700 a day in total sales. You Tax those smaller businesses more and you'll see them close shop since they can't soak the extra costs like a corporation can.



At least he was standing up when he pulled that "statistic" out of his ass. Small business can't absorb higher costs like a large corporation.

Considering how little he spoke on the topic. He ignores a lot of facts about why our economy was so strong from the 40's to the 70's. One example was our strong manufacturing sector.

#3. Immediately runs to the teachers, firefights and police as if they are the only people employed by the federal Government. It is infuriating the way people like him treat the government.

People who want smaller government want to cut bureaucrats, reduce waste, reduce redundancy, reduce overhead, privatize some industries, reduce corporate welfare, etc. No more $16 muffins!

#4 True. We need the economy to rebound but, spending ourselves further into debt isn't the answer. Keynesian economics are more voodoo than Reaganomics

#5 Debatable. Depending on whose models you believe, medicare and social security can grow to be 20% of the Federal budget in 2050 to as much as 60% of the Federal Budget in 2050. Social security is already spending more than it is taking in revenue which wouldn't be bad if politicians hadn't spent the money that was supposed to be saved in the "lock box" for social security.

#6 True. Ponzi schemes like the ones run by Charles Ponzi and Bernard Madoff can work only if their operators keep investors in the dark about the source of their alleged magical returns. The Social Security Administration is scrupulously honest. Not only does the administration mail citizens reports detailing their expected contributions and receipts from Social Security, but it also publishes annual reports indicating future shortfalls.

#7 "Fairness" is a subjective term and isn't a valid subject for a debate. I think it's "unfair' that I pay more taxes than most people and yet, I receive fewer if no benefits for my higher taxes when things go bad. Not like I could have used that four grand the feds wanted, to possibly replace my work vehicle that was wrecked in 2010.

I believe no man should pay anymore than another man by simply being alive. If that person uses more resources than another man, then they should pay more for using those resources. I'd prefer to move away from the progressive income tax system and focus on a consumption tax.

Use more, pay more.

Indeed. Theft is theft regardless of motivations. If the U.S Government switched to a consumption tax then I would be perfectly fine with taxes. It'd save me every April from worrying about how I'm going to come up with another 4 grand for Uncle Sam to squander.



The problem with Democracy, at least in large scale, is your vote doesn't actually matter unless it's the majority vote. As the saying goes



I'd prefer if the decisions and preferences of others weren't forced upon me. I would likewise reciprocate by not forcing anything onto others.

It is not free. You are paying for the healthcare as you go.

I don't think there is a conspiracy but, there are elements within the movement who don't really give a damn about the environment and are just using it to gain money and influence in the political sphere.

GE and many other corporations along with certain politically active organizations had heavy investments in the potential carbon offset market that Cap & Trade would have created. Those investments would have made tens of millions if not more for those groups.

The green movement isn't a conspiracy but, there is a conspiracy hiding within the movement.

Seems to me you posted the reply in the wrong thread. Biglundi's logic threads are
hereand here.

Please come back when you can reply to the arguments about the healthcare system and not undermine other libertarians such as myself.

The money is yours. You sold your time/work in exchange for pay.

In other terms, you sold property (your time) for the property of another person (the Xbox and games). The dollar bill or whatever currency you used to make that purchase is simply an enabler due to the complications of a barter system.

It's your property and as long as you are not harming someone else who is not consenting then you can do what you want with it. My advice, tell them to be quiet and remind them you don't dictate how they spend their money so they should reciprocate.

Preference is irrelevant. I prefer mint chocolate chip over vanilla. Does that demean vanilla? No, it's a subjective opinion. Argue with solid facts like efficiency, waiting times, survivability rates, etc.

For example: There was a study a couple years ago I posted once (unfortunately I no longer have the study or a link) that compared the survivability rates of the NHS vs the American system. The findings stated the U.S system had increased survivability of 3% for some cancers and up to 3X the survivability for other cancers

Edit: You could also mention the key performance differences between the two systems. The American system spends more money per patient because of various factors raising the cost HMO's , insurance company bureaucrats, (arguably) government intervention/regulation. Not to mention that the Universal system concentrates on the ounce of prevention to our pound of cure.

Factors are driving up the cost, if we can isolate and remedy those factors the American system would be on par with any universal system if not better.



I'm not following this. Please restate it in coherent English.



Gotta agree here. Consent is a major factor in classic liberal and all libertarian schools of thought. If someone does not consent to an action then you are illegally and immorally applying force to that person. Doesn't matter if I break into your house (or mug you) and use that money to buy you healthcare. Point of the matter is, I still stole money from you.



I could ask you the same and I could include if you know the difference between a libertarian and a Libertarian.

Pardon me for sounding like a hipster but, I was a libertarian on Fakku before it was cool.

You good sir or madam need to spend more time reading what Communism and Capitalism really are. Your statement leads me to believe you are truly ignorant of either system.

To start you off (taken from wiki)






The "rich get rich/poor get poorer" is a symptom of Corporatism, not capitalism.




The CIA did fund and train the Mujahideen but, it is debated amongst scholars that we helped "Afghan Arabs" during operation cyclone.



He turned on the U.S because he was a Jihadist. Osama planned on carrying armed Jihad to other areas around the world. The Saudi Arabia bit was more of a slap in the face than the actual motivation.



It's called Non-interventionism and it's an unpopular foreign policy because American's think we need to stick our noses into the business of other countries. Either because of humanitarian reasons (Lybia), because we think someone needs their asses kicked (Afghanistan) or because someone in power points and says "They're bad men" (Iraq). Good to know there is another Non-interventionist around.