Sure, you fly him up to Toronto. While ideologically, Tim is an , you're nothing more than a cut rate flim-flam artist. You suggesting Tim while thinking that I'd turn him down shows that you have no intention whatsoever to take me up on my challenge. A simple picture with me and Tim is all it would take to validate the truth. Hell, I might even get along with the guy if I met him in person.
Ok, you're right. I did call you a liar. I had forgotten; it didn't seem all that important. Obviously my opinions of you are much more important to you, than your opinions of me are to me. You might ask yourself why that is.
Uh-huh. That sarcastic response was intended to be *serious*? Riiiiiiiight.
Feeble attempt at changing the topic. Sarcastic response or not, you said you offered me an alternative which I rejected. That was a FLAT OUT LIE.
I proved you're a liar TWICE. You can't be trusted with anything you have to say. You are a PROVEN LIAR and that's something you can't refute. Criticise me all you want Miller, I'd much rather be accused of using foul language on occasion than being an untrustworthy liar.
You'll lie and twist the truth in your feeble attempts to sway others, but you can't do that anymore now because all can see that you'll lie at a moment's notice if it will help your argument.
It's quite obvious why that is: The plain truth is that you don't have any ethics or moral integrity.
I'm on here late, but as far as I can tell, almost no wood is too soft or too hard but what some woodworker can't use it for something, even if it's firewood in the stove. I've got bits of an old Chinese chestnut here that are good for turning, eventually, and two friends who are good turners.
Check around locally for people you know who are woodworkers. If you can't find any, check the shop teachers at your local HS for some names.
You see, in the mind of those on the left, if one holds conservative values it cannot be because the conservative has looked at history and observed what has worked, looked at how this nation has prospered because of economic freedom and the ability to keep much of the fruits of one's labors, or observed how, in every place it has been tried, the socialist agenda being promoted has always produced more poverty, more misery, and left its people lacking for even basic necessities. No, in the mind of the left, if one holds conservative values, it is because you are a mindless drone who has been brainwashed by someone such as Rush.
The funny thing is, this is simple projection -- for the most part, the left doesn't *think*, it *feels*. Decisions are made with emotions. You see people who are poor? Of course it just *feels* right that money should be taken from those considered rich and given to the poor. The fact that trillions of dollars have been spent this way since the 60's and those in poor areas are worse off now than before doesn't matter. It *felt* like the right thing to do and the people who did so should be judged by their intentions, not the results and unintended consequences. The ones being led are those on the left who are pushed by the media and their leaders to
*feel* the problems pointed out and to use those *feelings* to support those in power who want to continue the failed policies of the past, or to implement policies that have been shown not to work all over the world -- only this time, their chosen, caring leaders are going to do it better, and it's going to work *this* time.
You really have the nerve to claim that given the current economic crisis? And you say liberals are illogical?
Unregulated free markets work great when everybody involved has the common good as a goal. That's about as likely as the communist dogma that man could be perfected :-).
Well Mark, I am certainly glad that you cleared this up for me. Any time a member of the conservative bloc finds the time and inclination to rise up on his hind legs and clarify the world situation, it is indeed a red letter day.
That said, this was an incredible collection of absolute drivel. The only thing more incredible than your astounding ignorance is your inability to rid yourself of it.
You really have the nerve to say that the crisis we are currently in is the result of a free, unregulated market? Yeah, liberals are definitely illogical (and don't have any sense of history either).
When lending money was unregulated, the insurance of same was also unregulated, the fox ate the chicken. (Eskimo fable) You cannot trust greedy people who use money to keep score of their 'success'.=A0
I tend to see and subscribe to the ideological side of what used to be called conservatism. That, however, is miles removed from having one's head in the clouds and insisting that "if left alone, they will regulate themselves." Well, Mark, they WERE left alone and the just couldn't help them selves from helping themselves. The fox ate the chicken. YOUR version of conservatism refuses to overlook the fact that you cannot trust greedy foxes. Just because YOU are a trustworthy, upright man with a solid Christian ethic does NOT mean that those crazies at AIG et al, are like you. To think there is an honesty component in that crowd....is naive.
Let the record show that you refuse to admit that history makes it really clear that banks, insurance companies, and gamblers cannot stop themselves from screwing whoever they can....even after their so- called demise, they still manage to screw the serfs.
I am not defending the Left, as they are clearly on the same path as the previous bunch, but I can't stand it when the Right is being defended as 'self-regulators'.. because that is just plain incorrect...please DO check history, Mark. Your version is revisionist. You'd do well as a Legacy Adjuster for your hero, W.
Sorry, but you are dead wrong about several things in this paragraph:
1) Money lending is not unregulated. Banking is a fairly regulated industry throughout most of the West anyway.
2) Ditto insurance - also a regulated industry, in the US it is done primarily by the States.
What went wrong here was multiple course of *government* intervention of the worst kind:
1) The U.S. government - in the form of its political rectal warts like Carter, Clinton, Frank, and Dodd - *distorted* market behavior by insisting that banks lend to borrowers who absolutely could not qualify under normal rules. They did this by promising the bankers they could keep the upside of such lending, but that "the government" would protect them from the downside when such borrowers defaulted. This created a perverse incentive for the banks (and AIG as their mortgage default insurance company) to take lots of risk knowing they'd never have to eat the downside. IOW, the very *regulation* that required banks to set lending standards when qualifying borrowers was *thwarted by the repulsive leftwing social justice idiots in government.* It was not a *lack* of regulation that caused it. It was the banks being *forced to ignore the regulation* by their own government that caused the problem.
2) When the silliness of the banks became evident, the *government* stepped in to try and save them from their bad decisions on the grounds that they were "too big too fail." Evidently, neither Bush nor the Obamessiah actually believe in market economies and could/can not comprehend that letting the banks/AIG fail is *exactly* what is needed here to clear all those toxic assets off their books in a bankruptcy proceeding.
The banks/AIG acted foolishly and should have been left to their own recovery.
W acted stupidly and prematurely and is properly condemned for his ridiculous bailout spending.
Obamessiah is acting *purposely* and with great malice toward market economies so as to install his socialist idiocy. He has managed to sell this as the bank's fault to the sheeple (as have his communist-lite fellow travelers around the world) while managing to keep most of the spotlight off the evil little trolls like Carter and Frank who actually precipitated the root causes of this whole mess.
The good news is that money and economies are neither neocon nor drooling-idiot liberal institutions. Economies happily ignore the ideological stupidities of either group. The Obamessiah's spending binge is a self-limiting problem that - while it is likely to result in vast destruction of Western wealth and American prestige - may have the salutary effect of reminding a new generation - the same silly children that voted for the Hopechangey Administration - just why their elders fought the cold war in opposition to the socialist/collectivist/communist regimes of the 20th century. Perhaps a few hundred million starving in the Western world will serve to teach them never to entrust their freedom and future to political offal like the current POTUS.
P.S. Don't forget to turn ON every light in your house at 8:30pm local time tonight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com PGP Key:
Not as regards to this issue, as best as I understand it. Gramm-Leach-Bliley allowed commercial and investment banks to merge which does not directly bear on the government forcing retail mortgage banks to give Wanda The Welfare Queen a mortgage for a home she could in no way actually afford.
Note that I am NOT defending the banks or insurance companies here. They acted stupidly and placed their faith blindly in a quant model that they never really shook out thoroughly. See:
formatting link
there is a simple way to solve the bad banking decisions: Let them go under and let a healthier bank buy the assets at a discount in bankruptcy court. This is an orderly and well understood process we've used for a very long time to cleanup messes of this sort. First W, and now - in a hugely bigger way - Obamessiah are just delaying this kind of healthful market correction by their incessant market meddling and wasting all of our money. Unlike W, however, Obamessiah is doing this *intentionally* which makes him doubly scary...
I know you won't believe this, Tim, but the majority of defaulted loans were made by mortgage brokers thru non-bank finance companies. I don't recall the exact numbers, but I posted them here once before.
The banks problems were that they bough up the securitized mortgages believing the housing market would go up forever.
And then there's the speculators who simply walked away when the bubble started leaking. Or haven't you read about all the renters that are being evicted because their landlord bailed out?
Trying to blame the CRA just won't fly. It's been debunked too often. Can you show me language in that or any other law that requires lending to unqualified individuals.
And it wasn't the government that invented "liar loans" either.
HomeOwnersHub website 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.