OOTT://In case it is important to you.

Page 8 of 9  
t wrote:

It was people with money deciding just which people who wanted to borrow that money suited them. Hardly a moral foul.

An entirely reasonable position given that depressed areas are less stable than others and even a good borrower could see their property value tumble due to the surrounding context. Does this trouble your sensitive soul? Fine. Create a great big pile of cash and lend *your* money to higher risk recipients and/or communities and quit whining about how other people ought to dispose of *their* wealth. Like all do-gooders you don't have the personal character to do what you "believe" so deeply, but you're happy to force other people to do it at no risk to you. You're a petty tyrant.

You demonstrate a troubling penchant for dictating how other people should spend their money. No one should be forced to lend money to anyone else, regardless of the borrower's capacity to pay, but *especially* when they clearly cannot afford the loan. Either you believe that private property (money) is, um, private, or you think the mob of the general public should be able to dictate its uses. Clearly, you support the latter. Methinks you're the Facist here.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
National Rasmussen Tracking Obama 50, McCain 45 Obama +5
National Reuters/C-Span/Zogby Tracking Obama 49, McCain 43 Obama +6
National Hotline/FD Tracking Obama 48, McCain 42 Obama +6
National Gallup Tracking (Traditional)* Obama 51, McCain 45 Obama +6
National Gallup Tracking (Expanded)* Obama 53, McCain 43 Obama +10
National LA Times/Bloomberg Obama 50, McCain 41 Obama +9
National CBS News/NY Times Obama 53, McCain 39 Obama +14
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
t wrote:

In a confrontation between the irrational and the rational, the irrational, the irrational always wins.
- Ayn Rand (paraphrased)
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
t wrote:

Gee, you left off Zogby
Given the full court press for Obama by the press, is this any surprise? Also, how much of this is attempting to shape opinion vs. measure it.
If the polls are right, your side is going to win, we are all going to get to watch as the nation goes socialist. Hope that in 5 years you are all happy with that which you have supported.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark & Juanita wrote:

Mark -
I often agree with you, but I think you may have missed the elephant in the room here. The nation itself is already "socialist". In an elected Democracy, the politicians ultimately really *are* a reflection of the people. The core problem here is not Obama. It is that he is the canary in the coalmine signaling the death of liberty. It is the people that have decided they can vote away personal responsibility, personal integrity, honesty, and ethical behavior. You yourself have noted that some of the posters here have flatly defended outright barbaric practices like watching children die. No, the problem is not Obama. It is a culture in complete decay. Obama is merely the symbol.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Haven't missed that elephant, and I don't disagree that we have too great a degree of socialism already present. What I see though with this coming election and choices is an exponential increase in that degree of socialism to the point that it will take generations to undo the damage about to be done. Look at how hard it is to shake the entitlement mentality wrought over the past 40 years; getting more people dependent on government redistribution is going to make it that much harder.

Yep, that is what is most frustrating. So many appear to be saying to the government, "I can't do for myself, I want you to have other peoples' money support me".

Don't disagree with that, maybe that is why I have probably been a bit too vocal in expressing my opinion -- I don't want to see our country continue to embrace that decay but it appears that too many others not only embrace it but are actively advocating to accelerate it.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 00:24:52 -0500, Tim Daneliuk

If, "In an elected Democracy, the politicians ultimately really are a reflection of the people", why would you have a problem with that? You have chosen to live in the United States of America and the will of the people is what it is, today.
It may be different tomorrow. It was certainly different eight and four years ago. Although, four years ago there was a glimmering of what was to come.
I really don't see this trend as any more than the traditional American, "Let's throw the bums out", mentality that is enshrined in all of the movements of the political pendulum from time immemorial.
New pigs will be at the trough and after they have fed long enough we will throw them out.
You are a student of History and therefore a student of Hegel: Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis.
You and I are not young men. We have seen this all before.
We will not become any more Socialist (although I do hate to use an undefined term in an argument, albeit informal) than we became Anti-Socialist under the current regime.
Checks and balances do work. They may work slowly and the timing may not be what one would like - but the State will stand.
It is interesting to me how the will of the people plays out in national politics. It does not always play out to the advantage of my core beliefs but I still believe in the process and the wisdom of consensus.
I wish that we, in this country, had more of a sense of The Loyal Opposition, rather than the strident, nonproductive argumentation that usually occurs.
I won't move to Canada if McCain is elected - too much of my wardrobe is invested in Hawaiian shirts.
I would hope that you would not move to Canada either, since Robatoy would hunt you down like a dog - get you drunk - and make you sing, "I am a lumberjack and I'm OK...".
tom watson
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
t wrote:

They've done so illegally by abrogating the limitations of power imposed on the Federal government by the Constitution. You know, that document I actually had to read and study and most native born citizens barely have glanced at.

The problem is that it may take too long this time. THere are real pressures on liberty today from the outside world and those coupled with the inside pressures may just be too much to overcome.

On this we agree. Then again, the more the knuckleheads in government argue, the less they do, which IMHO is a net very good thing.

I plan to be buried in one ... and a thong. My wishes have been made clear to my likely surviors. They shuddered at the horror of the visual image.

Robbo couldn't catch me. Besides, my cousin is a Mountie and would probably take my side. Well .... maybe not...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 19:27:00 -0500, Tim Daneliuk

By, "They", I must assume you to mean the politicians, and yet, you have described them as fulfilling the will of the people. If they truly express the will of the people, how can they be wrong?

This is an unfortunate reference and I am totally of a mind with your potential decedents. "The horror...the horror...".

You best watch out. The counter revolutionaries are deeply into the mounties.
(silly)
tom watson
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
t wrote:

Neither the people nor their elected leaders have limited themselves to the powers enumerated to the Federal government in the Constitution. This means we are less and less a nation of laws (a republic) and increasingly a nation of sheer majority will (a mob).

I herewith apologize for the damage done to your mind's eye. Speaking of Canada, they make a soothing balm from rye than can expedite your recovery.

I think it is clear that there is no nation more subversive than Canada except, perhaps, for those pesky Lichtensteinians...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You mean gov't bailing out your banks?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That sounds like it could be a mighty big stick!
Can't help but wonder: "evaluated" by whom, against what criteria, and what penalties accrue if those evaluators decide the institution falls short of the criteria. I can well imagine institution officers being intimidated by that. Perhaps being intimidated even to the point of making risky loans.
Tom Veatch Wichita, KS USA
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I got to see this first hand when we refinanced our home five years ago. Without going into great detail, the bank suggested we should sell our home and buy one that was worth three times the one we are in. (going off there appraisal at the time) Our bank sold our loan immediately to WaMu. Now MAYBE, (big maybe!), I could afford to pay the loan, but I know I could not afford to do anything else until the note was paid off! I wonder how many people got sucked into this fiasco, apparently quite a few! Greg
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Greg O wrote:

But you didn't. And I didn't (having much the same experience as you describe). In fact most everyone I know didn't. Yet, somehow, this whole fiasco is being sold as the "banks' problem". It is nonsense. Each of us are adults and should reasonably be expected to be responsible for our own selves and financial decisions. The current mentality in this country is analogous to blaming the bartender that your uncle's a drunk...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Still picking on the poor eh Tim? As representatives of the stockholders, they *are* responsible for investing the stockholder's money responsibly. If the banks are too greedy for trying to maximize their profits by not being a little more careful who they lend money to, then at the very least they share equal blame for losing it. When it comes to survival, what do you think is going to happen? People will borrow money wherever they can get it. You'd do it if you were broke. You might even do it under the delusion that you *would* pay it back. Deluding oneself if one of the easiest things to do, obviously for banks tool. Hell, if the money institutions think someone is responsible enough to be a credit risk, then the blame is there's for handing it out to anyone and everyone.
Yeah, yeah, let's here your diatribe.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Upscale wrote:

No. I am defending property rights for those who actually earned said property.

Ordinarily you would be entirely right. And even in this circumstance, there is no question the banks bear some culpability. But tell me, when a bank is *forced - by law* to make lousy loans so that you and yours can feel good about Very Noble Do-Gooding (with Other People's Money, it goes without saying), how can you begin to blame the bank? It's pure hypocrisy.

I've been broke - well at least very, very poor. Not once did I resort to lying, cheating, and stealing (the three pillars of progressive/liberal politics) to remediate that condition. I just got a job - several at a time in some cases.

I want *everyone* to be held accountable for their actions, you want to excuse the people you feel sorry for and place a disproportionate amount of the blame on the people you don't like.
You think poverty is a prima facia "Get Out Of Moral Responsibility Free" card. I think poverty is no excuse for unethical behavior.
You think it's OK for the poor to take what is not theirs, but it's not OK for those of means to make more money. I think they should both be held to a common standard.
IOW, I defend decency, honesty, and integrity. You defend theft, fraud, and class war.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Your problem is that you wouldn't know what's ethical if it came up and bit you on the ass after introducing itself to you.

And the sentence above backs up you not understanding what's ethical and what's not.

You defend what it's like to be a braggart without backing it up. Not once in all your ranting have you ever proved any of your claims. Your constant response is that you don't have to.
Yup. In your opinion I'm a thieving, conniving, con artist. But if that's so, then it absolutely thrills me that my collectivist activities are taking *your* money. If there's anybody that deserves to be cheated, defrauded or stepped on it's you. Enjoy it because I'm laughing all the way to the beer store, (oops, I meant the bank).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Upscale wrote:

Another well-reasoned collectivist response heard from ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 09:46:17 -0500, Tim Daneliuk

So, your are in favor of an Oligarchy?
The country that you are currently living in has rejected that as a philosophical concept.
tom watson
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
t wrote:

I (unlike you evidently) am opposed to theft, force, threat and their various close relatives. Anyone willing to use force to *make* others dispose of their legitimately obtained property and/or assets against their will is a scoundrel. You can doll up your arguments with as much obscure literary reference and high minded sanctimony as you like, but this is not complicated: Either people have the right to dispose of their property as they wish (absent fraud, force, or threat) or someone - in part or in whole - can force them to do something other than what the owner wishes. The latter appears to be what you're defending. It's a moral abyss and shameful.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.