Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>
>>> Robatoy wrote:
>>>> On Nov 4, 12:19 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> When His Holiness, Our
>>>>> Savior And Lord, Comrade Obama ..........
>>>>>
>>>> That's getting stale, Daneliuk.
>>>>
>>>>
... snip
>>
>> Tim, much as I agree with your positions, you still helped support this
>> marxist's ascension to power. In another post, you indicated you voted
>> for
>> neither Obama nor McCain. So, you did not support the one candidate with
>> even a hope of turning back the marxist. You will protest that you could
>> not support McCain on ideological grounds. While that may be the case
>> and your conscience is clear, you and others who did so have helped
>> assure your enslavement to this statist.
>>
>
> I live in a state where my vote made no difference (electorally speaking).
> I voted to show my disgust with the Republicans. The outcome was not
> remotely in question.
>
In that case, I apologize. If it didn't matter, then sending a message
isn't a bad thing. I would just hate to see someone when by a few votes
when those votes could have been matched by people just sitting things out.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Robatoy wrote:
> On Nov 6, 8:18 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> , but *my* views were not rejected on
>> Tuesday: there was no candidate on the ballot who represented them.
>
> My you'd have better luck if you moved to North Korea?
NOW I know where I've seen you before. You're the dude with the
Elvis hairpiece and platform shoes that runs N. Korea, right?
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> writes:
>Larry Blanchard wrote:
>> On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 18:41:11 -0500, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>
>>>> Sure, there are many people who took on more debt than they could pay
>>>> back. However, a responsible banker should say "no, you can't have that
>>>> loan since the odds are that you won't be able to repay it".
>>> "Should" would be the operative word there Chris. The problem is that's
>>> exactly what they did do. Then Congress stepped in and decried that those
>>> mean bankers couldn't do that. They had to issue mortgages to people with
>>> no means to pay.
>>
>> That tale is going to live longer than Iraqi WMD did, even though it's
>> been repeatedly debunked.
>>
>> The law you're referencing prevented banks et al from "redlining",
>> refusing to make loans to people based on their zip code. The banks were
>> allowed to refuse any loan that did not meet "sound banking practices".
>>
>>
>
>So your (and all the other libs) position is this: Banks are run by
>such incompetent fools that they willingly, without duress, wrote
>loans for people whose sole income was welfare or the equivalent.
Strawman much? I believe that greed was sufficient motivation for
brokers and bankers to make iffy loans. Add the unregulated financial
vehicles such as collateralized debt obligations where the shakey loans
were packaged and resold as insurance (and the demand for CDO's from
the rich feed right back into a feedback loop).
>
>It's absurd on its face. No bank would do this unless they were forced
>to or had an iron clad guarantee that they'd be made whole if the loan
>went bad.
You really don't know much, do you?
I guess I should, as suggested, treat you as B.A.D. was.
If you really think you're smarter than the majority of Americans
who disagree with pretty much every position you take you've another
think coming.
I respect immigrants such as yourself, however you must also respect
your new fellow citizens, even if you don't necessarily agree with them.
scott
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Actually, you did.
> You wrote, quote, Certainly another lie on your part, end quote.
You're right, I did say it, but it was mitigated in the same comment, next
paragraph. Take the time to read a bit.
> More personal attacks...
Why not, you're an easy target and according to Tim, I'm evil and lazy for
letting the Canadian government do all my stealing for me. I guess it just
comes naturally. :)
> It's sad that you are unable to debate the issue on its merits, and have
only
> personal attacks to fall back on.
How else am I going to have any fun? You wouldn't take that away from me
would you Doug?
> I'll go out on a limb here, and predict that your response to this will be
> even more personal attacks. Any takers?
Sure, I'll bet you $5 that I'll make many more personal attacks. Any takers?
On Nov 3, 8:49=A0pm, Richard Evans <[email protected]> wrote:
> "cm" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and sh=
ould
> >do for themselves.
> >Abraham Lincoln
>
> So you are saying the government shouldn't be helping the big
> corporations with tax breaks and bailouts?
Oh that cm... he's been asking. So: Give him a break!
On Nov 3, 8:30=A0pm, "cm" <[email protected]> wrote:
> You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and sho=
uld
> do for themselves.
> Abraham Lincoln
>
> cm
Life is going to be great - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DP36x8rTb3jI
Chris Friesen wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>> This is nonsense. The "people to blame" are the big spending politicians
>> and their mooching constituents who all wanted what they could not
>> afford. The bankers - while not blameless - are the *last* place the
>> problem was born. You want to punish someone? How about millions
>> of Western/US citizens that bought stuff/houses/cars/boats they could not
>> actually afford and then whined that they couldn't make the payments.
>
> Sure, there are many people who took on more debt than they could pay
> back. However, a responsible banker should say "no, you can't have that
> loan since the odds are that you won't be able to repay it".
Since when are people not responsible for themselves? The borrowers
were big boys and girls. The idea that they were somehow coerced into
borrowing is absurd on its face - it takes a LOT of paperwork and signing
to finish up a loan. The fact is that people got greedy and now want
to lay off their responsibility on the eeeeeeeevil bankers.
>
> If the loan officers had been doing their jobs, people would never have
> been able to get the loans to buy all that stuff. Instead, the banks
Not true. The Federal weasels forced the bankers to give loans to
people whose only "income" was welfare via the foolish lending
guidelines jammed down Freddie/Fannie. This was *government mandated*
not initiated via the banks.
> were coming up with exotic mortgages to try and entice people to borrow
> more money. (I bought a house 2 years ago, and my bank was perfectly
> willing to give me a mortgage almost twice as big as what I was prepared
> to take on--and that's in Canada where the industry is more tightly
> regulated.)
Both borrower and lender are adults of sound mind. Why do I have to pay
to bail out either party of their respective stupidity?
>
> The Fed made it so cheap (1% interest!) for large institutions to borrow
> money that it was extremely tempting for organizations to leverage
> themselves to the hilt in order to borrow from the Fed so they could
> turn around and lend it out at higher rates.
Exactly. Now ask yourself *why* the Fed did this? Cheap money makes
servicing the existing debt less expensive. This means political
vermin can go into MORE debt to buy votes to get/stay elected. How
else is the ultimate political weasel, Obama, going to make good on
his many promises, for instance. More debt. Beyond that, artificially
reducing the interest rate has the effect of devaluing the dollar, at
least indirectly. This means that we get to pay off the old debt with
much less valuable dollars - another common ploy of the political weasels.
This works in the short term, but in the longer term, it corrupts the
economic foundations of the nation so badly, it comes back to haunt all of
us.
In short, the US economic has been destroyed not by that eeeeeeevil George
Bush, or the eeeeeeeeeevil oil companies, or the eeeeeeeeevil bankers. It
has been destroyed by *its people*. The mooching, lazy, something-for-nothing
losers who want what they want whether they've earned it or can afford it.
The political classes (all of 'em, left, right and center) and bankers were
just accessories to the murder perpetrated by the greedy, foul, and
malignant larger population.
>
> Chris
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Miller vouching for Daneliuk. Imagine my surprise. I wonder if Tim
> asked for that endorsement. I doubt that Tim is aware of Miller's
> track record as a 'debater' and what he's just hooked his wagon onto.
Actually, I suspect that a good measure of Doug's 'Tim Support' was promoted
by his dislike for me. I really don't know why anyone would dislike me, but
there you go. The few times I've conversed with Doug haven't alway been on
the most cordial terms. However, if Doug wants to butt sniff Daneliuk,
that's his business.
Oh, I'm sorry, is that too crude and vulgar for you Tim?
> But having said that, I think I will take LRod's advice and shut-the-
> fuck up. <G>
Yeah, but look at all the fun you'd be missing. <G>
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> newsgroup, I discovered that my prediction had already come to pass:
Upscale
> called him a liar.
Actually, I didn't call him a liar, but I did say I doubted it was a real
post. Big difference for you reading comprehension challenged people. But
then, it's you I'm talking about so it's not so surprising.
However, in case you were unable to fully understand the rest of the message
, I did say that even the worst dregs of society have had their supporters
so it's not surprising that Tim has a few and even less surprising that
you're one of them.
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> to have this pointed out in public because it exposes you - and those
> who hold similar views - for the intellectual and moral frauds you
> are. You call vice a virtue. So ... you start screaming and foaming
Exposes me to what Tim? Why would I object to people knowing that I've
received publicly funded medical assistance? I as well as millions of others
receive it all the time up here in Canada. It's our constitutional right.
I'm proud of my country and what our health programs do. We all contribute
and we all benefit. Certainly, our health programs not perfect, but they're
a hell of a lot better than what you've got in the US.
> they do. I know this because of the out-of-band emails I get, thanking
> me for saying what I do and standing up to schoolyard bullies like you.
Certainly another lie on your part. You keep making similar claims that are
impossible for anyone to verify and expect people to take them on your word
only. That's not going to happen. In fact, every comment you make seems to
be an unverifiable comment of some sort. You think most people are pretty
gullible don't you Tim? Turns out you're not as smart as I once suggested.
My mistake.
However you want to dance around these topics, it all comes down to the same
thing. You think it's going to cost you money somewhere along the line and
you freak out again.
As I've stated repeatedly. You're greedy, selfish and entirely self
motivated. Sad little world you live in. If I'm a bully for saying it, then
so be it. But if that's the case, then I'm a proud bully for pointing out
your glaring deficiencies. :)
"Chris Friesen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Sure, there are many people who took on more debt than they could pay
> back. However, a responsible banker should say "no, you can't have that
> loan since the odds are that you won't be able to repay it".
"Should" would be the operative word there Chris. The problem is that's
exactly what they did do. Then Congress stepped in and decried that those
mean bankers couldn't do that. They had to issue mortgages to people with
no means to pay.
>
> If the loan officers had been doing their jobs, people would never have
> been able to get the loans to buy all that stuff. Instead, the banks were
> coming up with exotic mortgages to try and entice people to borrow more
> money. (I bought a house 2 years ago, and my bank was perfectly willing
> to give me a mortgage almost twice as big as what I was prepared to take
> on--and that's in Canada where the industry is more tightly regulated.)
In Canada, the fault may lie more with the banks. In the US it began with
Congress and progressed downhill from there as the finance wizzards figured
out ways to move money around like a shell game, after that.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
J. Clarke wrote:
> So "the big corporations" should be allowed to go out of business?
> Then where will their former employees work?
Why should a big corporation go out of business? Why should /any/
corporation go out business?
Maintaining a corporate shell with tax revenues in order to deliver
paychecks sounds a lot like escalation of welfare to include
white-collar workers and executives...
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>Larry Blanchard wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 18:41:11 -0500, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>
>>>> Sure, there are many people who took on more debt than they could pay
>>>> back. However, a responsible banker should say "no, you can't have that
>>>> loan since the odds are that you won't be able to repay it".
>>>
>>> "Should" would be the operative word there Chris. The problem is that's
>>> exactly what they did do. Then Congress stepped in and decried that
>>> those
>>> mean bankers couldn't do that. They had to issue mortgages to people
>>> with no means to pay.
>>
>> That tale is going to live longer than Iraqi WMD did, even though it's
>> been repeatedly debunked.
>>
>
> Repeatedly been debunked, or just repeatedly been denied by vigorous
>assertion? The fact is that Carter's Community Reinvestment Act required
>banks to make loans in the districts in which they did business.
And what part of that act *forced* the banks to make loans that were
totally unsound?
> This was
>further reinforced during the Clinton years. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
>came up with increasingly lowered standards for who could obtain mortgages
>to the point that the requirements became quite ridiculous.
And where were the banks *forced* to make loans that were totally
unsound?
>
>
>> The law you're referencing prevented banks et al from "redlining",
>> refusing to make loans to people based on their zip code. The banks were
>> allowed to refuse any loan that did not meet "sound banking practices".
J. Clarke wrote:
> Morris Dovey wrote:
>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>>> So "the big corporations" should be allowed to go out of business?
>>> Then where will their former employees work?
>> Why should a big corporation go out of business? Why should /any/
>> corporation go out business?
>
> Because it was in financial trouble and nobody bailed it out?
I think that's pretty superficial. Corporations encounter financial
trouble when they adopt non-viable business strategies, mismanage
finances, elect incompetent boards who hire/retain top execs who make
bad business decisions, attempt to end-run the legal system, or alienate
their marketplace.
You might find it interesting that I gave notice and left a former
employer of yours when I saw some of those same behaviors become
acceptable within that corporate culture. I'm disinclined to be sympathetic.
>> Maintaining a corporate shell with tax revenues in order to deliver
>> paychecks sounds a lot like escalation of welfare to include
>> white-collar workers and executives...
>
> Same argument was raised against the Chrysler bail out, which it
> turned out never cost the taxpayer a single cent.
Saved by the K car, indeed. I wish I could say /that/ never cost /this/
taxpayer a single cent. My bad, because I made the purchase decision -
but I have some first-hand experience how that loan was paid back - and
I resolved (and /kept/ that resolution!) to never buy another Chrysler
product. For me, your example is unconvincing.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
J. Clarke wrote:
> Morris Dovey wrote:
>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>> Morris Dovey wrote:
>>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So "the big corporations" should be allowed to go out of
>>>>> business?
>>>>> Then where will their former employees work?
>>>> Why should a big corporation go out of business? Why should /any/
>>>> corporation go out business?
>>> Because it was in financial trouble and nobody bailed it out?
>> I think that's pretty superficial. Corporations encounter financial
>> trouble when they adopt non-viable business strategies, mismanage
>> finances, elect incompetent boards who hire/retain top execs who
>> make
>> bad business decisions, attempt to end-run the legal system, or
>> alienate their marketplace.
>>
>> You might find it interesting that I gave notice and left a former
>> employer of yours when I saw some of those same behaviors become
>> acceptable within that corporate culture. I'm disinclined to be
>> sympathetic.
>
> The reason the company went under is irrelevant to the person who is
> out of work with bills to pay.
Then let's be honest and smart enough to make the welfare payments to
that person instead of those who've already demonstrated that they can't
manage money.
>>>> Maintaining a corporate shell with tax revenues in order to
>>>> deliver
>>>> paychecks sounds a lot like escalation of welfare to include
>>>> white-collar workers and executives...
>>> Same argument was raised against the Chrysler bail out, which it
>>> turned out never cost the taxpayer a single cent.
>> Saved by the K car, indeed. I wish I could say /that/ never cost
>> /this/ taxpayer a single cent. My bad, because I made the purchase
>> decision -
>> but I have some first-hand experience how that loan was paid back -
>> and
>> I resolved (and /kept/ that resolution!) to never buy another
>> Chrysler
>> product. For me, your example is unconvincing.
>
> So you didn't like the product. So what?
So our taxes paid for a bailout loan that was repaid by foisting cheap
crap on people who expected reasonable value for their money. If that's
acceptable to you, then you got what you paid for. It isn't acceptable
to me because I didn't get the value I paid for.
Ah! I get it - your sympathy doesn't extend to those who get stiffed to
make the bailouts work. Strikes me as a bit parochial...
...but as you said - so what?
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Chris Friesen wrote:
> Because of this, I'm currently in the "reluctantly bail them out and
> then try hard to make sure it can't happen again" camp.
I'm really, really hoping that you're still in that camp a year from now...
...I worry that we might be trying to put out a fire by smothering it
with petrol.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Chris Friesen wrote:
> Whoever thought that a developed nation (Iceland) could basically go
> bankrupt? It's crazy, but it happened.
Well, clearly, they hadn't gone far /enough/ into debt. :-b
I'm off to the polls to exorcise my frustrations.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > Debate? What debate would that be Tim? This is a woodworking newsgroup,
so
> > the debate should be about woodworking don't you think? Where exactly
have
> > you contributed to the debate?
> Yes, your many deep contributions here are noted.
Feeble attempt at a reversal. Do a google search and show everybody your
last five woodworking related messages here Tim. You can't because they
don't exist. None of your red herring comments or change of subject bull.
Prove me wrong. SHOW ME five woodworking related comments you've made here
in the LAST YEAR.
That should be pretty easy, a whole year to work with, right? Until you do
that, it's just you as usual, posting your off topic crap.
PROVE ME WRONG.
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Deranged huh ... hmmm ... you are vulgar, snide, call for violence against
> people with whom you disagree, have no real ideas of your own to
contribute
> to the debate. IOW, you're the perfect Obama supporter.
Debate? What debate would that be Tim? This is a woodworking newsgroup, so
the debate should be about woodworking don't you think? Where exactly have
you contributed to the debate?
Much as you want to think this newsgroup is a "debate about everything
except woodworking" forum, the truth is that you're 100% wrong.
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Both borrower and lender are adults of sound mind. Why do I have to pay
> to bail out either party of their respective stupidity?
Same old bullshit eh Tim? As usual, it's all about you.
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 10:34:56 -0600, Chris Friesen wrote:
>
>> It sticks in my craw that there don't seem to be any effective penalties
>> for the industry people involved. Sure, a lot of people took on much
>> higher mortgages than they could reasonably pay off, but their bankers
>> led them on, or at least didn't dissuade them.
>
> Just remember that roughly one third of the US mortgages in default, at
> least from what I've read, were held by owners who never lived in the
> house, i.e. speculators. They got no or low down loans and just walked
> away when the market declined.
>
> I know that for the last several years, I was surprised by the number of
> "for rent" signs on brand new houses.
>
And thus, we the taxpayers, are offsetting the losses of gamblers. I
have no objection to other people gambling/speculating. I have an
objection to paying for their bad choices (as I do anyone else's bad
choices). More interesting is that the actual mortgage default rate is
still pretty low, it's just not as low as it has been historically.
Why on earth we should bail out the dummies behind all this (the
borrowers or the lenders) is still beyond me. Let the credit markets
seize up and thereby clean out the crud from the financial system. In
relatively short order (a few years) the system would be back to
healthy operations. All we've done with the bailout is further
collectivize the economy and delay a true, healthy recovery. Then
again, it won't make much difference anyway. When His Holiness, Our
Savior And Lord, Comrade Obama gets done with the US economy, there's
not going to be much worth saving.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Robatoy wrote:
> On Nov 4, 12:19 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> When His Holiness, Our
>> Savior And Lord, Comrade Obama ..........
>>
>
> That's getting stale, Daneliuk.
>
>
It is truer than ever Robbie Baby. After he presides over the raping of
the wealthy, economic reality is *still* going to hit this political
gasbag (assuming he's elected). No amount of stealing (as his entire
platform demands) can replace the consequent loss of productivity that
will ensue. He's busy selling himself as the Sheeple's Messiah without
the remotest clue of how very badly his ideas will further undermine
the US, and thus all of Western, economic foundations. This weasel is
going to make Carter look like a genius. Hold on to your private parts
ladies and gentlement, we are about to see lots of unemployment (far
beyond what we see now), negative growth, stagnation, and ultimately
inflation. Meanwhile, the wealthy, the engine of new investment and
capital growth, will still be wealthy - it will just be denominated
in other currencies and stored in other nations.
Let Obama Communism begin - the people deserve it.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Scott Lurndal wrote:
> [email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
>> In article <[email protected]>, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Upscale wrote:
>>>> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> [snip]
>>>>> they do. I know this because of the out-of-band emails I get, thanking
>>>>> me for saying what I do and standing up to schoolyard bullies like you.
>>>> Certainly another lie on your part. You keep making similar claims that are
>>> Here is a quote from tonight's private mail. The author will be happy to
>>> confirm its authenticity:
>>>
>>> "Upscale will now call you a liar, claiming that you never receive any
>>> such emails. So I'm giving you proof right here: Thank you for saying
>>> what you do, and standing up to those [like him] who don't have the
>>> stones to do their stealing themselves. I agree with your viewpoints
>>> pretty nearly 100%, but generally refrain from participating in these
>>> threads once you have joined in because you make the same points I
>>> would, but more articulately and thoroughly than I have the patience
>>> to do. I do not jump in to defend you from attacks because it seems to
>>> me that you are more than capable of defending yourself, without my
>>> help -- but if you want it, you need only ask. You have my permission
>>> to publish this entire message, or portions of it, in any way you see
>>> fit. And if -- as I expect -- you are accused of fabricating it, I
>>> shall confirm its authenticity."
>> What the heck. I'm not even going to wait for someone to publicly accuse Tim
>> of fabricating that before I confirm it to be an exact copy-and-paste of an
>> email I sent him shortly after reading his post.
>
> This shouldn't surprise anyone. You're so far from the mainstream that
> you and Tim sharing opinions in common is expected. Just because
> Tim can point to one other right-wing nut that believes some of the same stupid
> shit he does, means absolutely zero in the real America, which pretty much
> roundly rejected you and yours on tuesday.
>
> scott
Scott -
You may call me many things - Upscale has covered the Junior High vocabulary
in that regard. But please do not call me right-wing. I am no such thing.
I am very far away from the right on a good many issues. Both the right-
and left as expressed in Western politics are deeply flawed and are designed
to preserve power for the few over the many. I adhere to the founding
ideas of this nation first expressed by Locke and later Jefferson, Adams
(both of them), Madison, Franklin, Paine, et al. They - the whole lot of
them - would be disgusted with both the left and right as they exist today.
Upscale's juvenile cursing is irrelvant. Calling me right wing is just
plain mean.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Since when are people not responsible for themselves? The borrowers
>> were big boys and girls. The idea that they were somehow coerced into
>> borrowing is absurd on its face - it takes a LOT of paperwork and signing
>> to finish up a loan. The fact is that people got greedy and now want
>> to lay off their responsibility on the eeeeeeeevil bankers.
>>
>
> How about the eeeeeeeeeeeevil middlemen at the mortgage companies? I know
> of a couple of cases where the facts submitted for approval were not quite
> "precise" as reported. There are many people involved in this deal and I'd
> not be surprised if a couple end up in jail for fraud.
>
>
When/if there is a demonstration of fraud, those people should be
appropriately dealt with by the law. Personally, I like to start
with the government vermin that were the root of this problem in
the first place. There is no greater fraud than a politician
acting "in the public interest."
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 15:01:54 -0500, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Business taxes sole purpose is to trick dumb asses into thinking
>someone else is paying taxes for them
Yeah, those businesses are no burden on the infrastructure at all. No
reason for them to pay taxes.
>and to get the bottom half of society to actually pay something.
Damn bottom feeders. Spend what little they have on food and clothing
and then don't pay taxes. Bastards!
--
LRod
Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
http://www.woodbutcher.net
http://www.normstools.com
Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997
email addy de-spam-ified due to 1,000 spams per month.
If you can't figure out how to use it, I probably wouldn't
care to correspond with you anyway.
In article <[email protected]>, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> newsgroup, I discovered that my prediction had already come to pass:
>Upscale
>> called him a liar.
>
>Actually, I didn't call him a liar,
Actually, you did.
>but I did say I doubted it was a real
>post.
You wrote, quote, Certainly another lie on your part, end quote.
> Big difference for you reading comprehension challenged people.
Most folks don't see much difference between calling a statement a lie, and
calling the author of that statement a liar. YMMV -- and apparently does.
>But then, it's you I'm talking about so it's not so surprising.
More personal attacks...
>However, in case you were unable to fully understand the rest of the message
>, I did say that even the worst dregs of society have had their supporters
Ummm... no, actually, you *didn't* say that. Not in that post, anyway.
>so it's not surprising that Tim has a few and even less surprising that
>you're one of them.
It's sad that you are unable to debate the issue on its merits, and have only
personal attacks to fall back on.
I'll go out on a limb here, and predict that your response to this will be
even more personal attacks. Any takers?
LRod wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 15:01:54 -0500, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Business taxes sole purpose is to trick dumb asses into thinking
>> someone else is paying taxes for them
>
> Yeah, those businesses are no burden on the infrastructure at all. No
> reason for them to pay taxes.
I think his point was that businesses don't generally pay the cost of
taxes out of their pocket, instead they pass it on to customers.
Increase the business tax, and the prices of the product will generally
go up at least as much (or else quality/quantity decreases). This
doesn't really get any more money out of the businesses, but it does
shift additional cost onto those people that are purchasing products
made by those businesses.
Chris
Chris Friesen wrote:
> Morris Dovey wrote:
>> Chris Friesen wrote:
>>
>>> Because of this, I'm currently in the "reluctantly bail them out and
>>> then try hard to make sure it can't happen again" camp.
>>
>> I'm really, really hoping that you're still in that camp a year from
>> now...
>
> You and me both. :)
>
> It sticks in my craw that there don't seem to be any effective penalties
> for the industry people involved. Sure, a lot of people took on much
> higher mortgages than they could reasonably pay off, but their bankers
> led them on, or at least didn't dissuade them.
>
How about some penalties for those responsible for pushing the banks to
make those loans through threat of legal action: Those in Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac: Jamie Gorelic, Franklin Rains, etc. The legislators who
resisted with every ounce of their being additional oversight to stop those
irresponsible loan policies: Barnie Frank, Chris Dodd, Chuck-U Schumer,
etc. Of course not, they're going to get put in charge of more of the
nation's wealth.
>> ...I worry that we might be trying to put out a fire by smothering it
>> with petrol.
>
> That is the risk. However, the alternative seems to be that a
> significant portion of the global banking system implodes because it was
> overextended.
>
> Whoever thought that a developed nation (Iceland) could basically go
> bankrupt? It's crazy, but it happened.
>
> Chris
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Elrond Hubbard wrote:
> Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> cm wrote:
>>
>>> You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and
>>> should do for themselves.
>>> Abraham Lincoln
>>>
>>> cm
>>
>> Given The One's history of taking care of his relatives, it is apparent
>> that his philosophy is: "I'm my brother's keeper and I'm going to tax the
>> crap out *you* to help my brother with what was your money".
>
> -
> If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
>
>
> Mark and/or Juanita, you are tougher than boiled owl.
Well, since you have descended to insults, the stupidity appears to be on
your end. Barack's brother lives in a HUT on less than $20 per year in
Kenya. Has BHO ever sent his brother $20 to double his income? His
treasured Aunt Zuituni lives as an illegal immigrant in a slum in Boston;
she illegally sent $260 to BHO's campaign. His campaign returned it after
the news leaked out (via British newspapers). He returned exactly $260,
not one penny more. TO HIS AUNT, FEATURED IN HIS BOOK AS A TREASURED
RELATIVE -- WHO LIVES IN A SLUM! Yet he has the hubris to proclaim, "I am
my brother's keeper".
BS, his real attitude is: "YOU are MY brother's keeper"
So, please explain, given these facts how it is that I am the dumb one
here.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> So "the big corporations" should be allowed to go out of business?
> Then where will their former employees work?
>
At the places that will be taking over their business more efficiently and
profitably. Same thing that has been going on for generations as companies
are bought, sold, and closed. Some people fare better, others not so good.
BTDT
Businesses are not for the government to support in a capitalistic society.
If we help the big guys, why not help the medium sized businesses? Why not
the small ones? Why not the incompetent ones? Oh, they ARE the one we are
bailing out.
Oh come on Jack Don't throw good old common sense into this discussion. ;-}
lukeluck
"Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>> Chris Friesen wrote:
>
>>> It sticks in my craw that there don't seem to be any effective penalties
>>> for the industry people involved. Sure, a lot of people took on much
>>> higher mortgages than they could reasonably pay off, but their bankers
>>> led them on, or at least didn't dissuade them.
>
>> This is nonsense.
>
> I agree with Chris. The "industry" should be penalized by going out of
> business, or whatever happens to them as the result of making bad business
> decisions.
>
> The "people to blame" are the big spending politicians
>> and their mooching constituents who all wanted what they could not
>> afford. The bankers - while not blameless - are the *last* place the
>> problem was born. You want to punish someone? How about millions
>> of Western/US citizens that bought stuff/houses/cars/boats they could not
>> actually afford and then whined that they couldn't make the payments.
>
> Of course they should be punished. They should lose whatever it is they
> bought and didn't pay for and their credit rating should suck, and what
> ever else naturally happens when someone makes poor borrowing decisions.
> I, nor anyone in my family has ever welched on a loan, stuck anyone for
> money duly owed, and never intend to do so.
>
> I remember when I was shopping for my first house in 1975 the realtor told
> me what amount of money the bank would lend me based on my income. I
> thought it was stupid, as I sure didn't think I could live on what was
> left after paying my taxes and mortgage. Not being totally stupid, I
> borrowed what *I* thought I could afford, not what anyone else was willing
> to lend me. My next house was even worse, around 1985 the realtor told me
> what I could borrow and it was insane. I can only imagine what people
> were borrowing in 2000+? I think you would have to be insane, stupid or
> trying to rip someone off from the get go to borrow huge sums of money
> that you had no real way of paying off. My guess is most of the loans
> went to dumb asses buying second houses and flipping them quickly for fast
> "easy" money. Nothing wrong with that but if you want to gamble big,
> with big potential returns, you are taking a big risk, if you lose, you
> lose, if the banks willing participate lose, they lose. No way should
> anyone else be asked to bail them out. You win, good, you lose, tough
> cookies.
>
> --
> Jack
> Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
> http://jbstein.com
In article <[email protected]>, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Miller vouching for Daneliuk. Imagine my surprise. I wonder if Tim
>> asked for that endorsement.
No.
> I doubt that Tim is aware of Miller's
>> track record as a 'debater' and what he's just hooked his wagon onto.
>
>Actually, I suspect that a good measure of Doug's 'Tim Support' was promoted
>by his dislike for me.
It was prompted by my dislike for seeing an honest man accused of lying.
> I really don't know why anyone would dislike me, but
Let's see... you're vulgar, ill-mannered, and can't debate with anyone who
disagrees with you without resorting to vicious personal attacks. Naaaah, that
couldn't have anything to do with it.
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 18:41:11 -0500, Mike Marlow wrote:
>
>>> Sure, there are many people who took on more debt than they could pay
>>> back. However, a responsible banker should say "no, you can't have that
>>> loan since the odds are that you won't be able to repay it".
>>
>> "Should" would be the operative word there Chris. The problem is that's
>> exactly what they did do. Then Congress stepped in and decried that
>> those
>> mean bankers couldn't do that. They had to issue mortgages to people
>> with no means to pay.
>
> That tale is going to live longer than Iraqi WMD did, even though it's
> been repeatedly debunked.
>
Repeatedly been debunked, or just repeatedly been denied by vigorous
assertion? The fact is that Carter's Community Reinvestment Act required
banks to make loans in the districts in which they did business. This was
further reinforced during the Clinton years. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
came up with increasingly lowered standards for who could obtain mortgages
to the point that the requirements became quite ridiculous.
> The law you're referencing prevented banks et al from "redlining",
> refusing to make loans to people based on their zip code. The banks were
> allowed to refuse any loan that did not meet "sound banking practices".
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
>> On Nov 4, 12:19 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> When His Holiness, Our
>>> Savior And Lord, Comrade Obama ..........
>>>
>>
>> That's getting stale, Daneliuk.
>>
>>
>
> It is truer than ever Robbie Baby. After he presides over the raping of
> the wealthy, economic reality is *still* going to hit this political
> gasbag (assuming he's elected). No amount of stealing (as his entire
> platform demands) can replace the consequent loss of productivity that
> will ensue. He's busy selling himself as the Sheeple's Messiah without
> the remotest clue of how very badly his ideas will further undermine
> the US, and thus all of Western, economic foundations. This weasel is
> going to make Carter look like a genius. Hold on to your private parts
> ladies and gentlement, we are about to see lots of unemployment (far
> beyond what we see now), negative growth, stagnation, and ultimately
> inflation. Meanwhile, the wealthy, the engine of new investment and
> capital growth, will still be wealthy - it will just be denominated
> in other currencies and stored in other nations.
>
> Let Obama Communism begin - the people deserve it.
>
Tim, much as I agree with your positions, you still helped support this
marxist's ascension to power. In another post, you indicated you voted for
neither Obama nor McCain. So, you did not support the one candidate with
even a hope of turning back the marxist. You will protest that you could
not support McCain on ideological grounds. While that may be the case and
your conscience is clear, you and others who did so have helped assure your
enslavement to this statist.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>This shouldn't surprise anyone. You're so far from the mainstream that
>you and Tim sharing opinions in common is expected. Just because
>Tim can point to one other right-wing nut that believes some of the same stupid
>shit he does, means absolutely zero in the real America, which pretty much
>roundly rejected you and yours on tuesday.
Not at all. I can't speak for Tim, but *my* views were not rejected on
Tuesday: there was no candidate on the ballot who represented them.
>
> The workers will find jobs with whomever fills the void left when
> their company folded. If they were doing anything that was of value to
> anybody, there will arise a new company or companies to do what the
> old company was doing. Any idea how many automobile companies have
> come and gone in the U.S. since 1900?
How many automobile companies since the 1900s had to pay Obama's tax rate?
lukeluck
>
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> Since when are people not responsible for themselves? The borrowers
> were big boys and girls. The idea that they were somehow coerced into
> borrowing is absurd on its face - it takes a LOT of paperwork and signing
> to finish up a loan. The fact is that people got greedy and now want
> to lay off their responsibility on the eeeeeeeevil bankers.
>
How about the eeeeeeeeeeeevil middlemen at the mortgage companies? I know
of a couple of cases where the facts submitted for approval were not quite
"precise" as reported. There are many people involved in this deal and I'd
not be surprised if a couple end up in jail for fraud.
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 21:06:04 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
>> Reader's Digest Version:
>> 1) The update to the CRA *did* force banks to make loans to people who
>> they
>> knew would not be able to pay them back. The penalty would be inability
>> to merge with other banks, open other branches, and have their CRA rating
>> degraded. This act was using the force of law to coerce banks into making
>> loans that they otherwise would not have made.
>
> The URL you gave got me a 404. I even went to the home page and tried
> their search - no joy. But if what you quote and they said is true, then
> that's certainly part of the cause - I stand corrected.
>
I just tried it again, it worked:
<http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_1_the_trillion_dollar.html>
> But the lack of regulation for those exotic derivatives also bears much of
> the blame. Gramm had a lot to do with that. And don't forget that up to
> 30% of the mortgages in default are from "flippers" who got low or no down
> loans and simply walked away when they got underwater.
>
Certainly agree that the "flippers" were partly to blame. They were also
taking advantage of the low and no-down terms.
> I suspect economists will be arguing for some times about the various
> reasons for the meltdown and which of them bears what percent of the
> blame.
>
> I did do a google on the CRA and read a few of the articles. One which
> I'd like to call to your attention is:
>
> http://mediamatters.org/items/200810100022
>
I will point out that mediamatters.org is not by any stretch of the
imagination a non-partisan organization being heavily funded by George
Soros.
> Here's a couple of quotes:
>
> "A study released earlier this year by a law firm specializing in CRA
> compliance estimated that in the 15 most populous metropolitan areas, 84.3
> percent of subprime loans in 2006 were made by financial institutions not
> governed by the CRA."
>
That may be the case, but were they using Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as
their supporting backup?
> "More than half of subprime loans were made by independent mortgage
> companies not subject to comprehensive federal supervision; another 30
> percent of such originations were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts,
> which are not subject to routine examination or supervision, and the
> remaining 20 percent were made by banks and thrifts."
>
Does Countrywide fall into that category? If so, then they were certainly
part of the Fannie Mae fiasco. They were making the loans, then bundling
them and selling them as F Mae/F Mac backed.
> Obviously neither you or I have the time to fully investigate either your
> references or mine. At some point we have to estimate the weight of the
> testimonies and the credibility of the testifiers. So far the weight
> and credibility seems to me to be on the side of those who claim greed and
> lack of regulation were the primary culprits.
From what I've read, the motivation and increasingly loose lending
standards set by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were a significant contributor
to the problem. As far as lack of regulation, back as far as 2003 and again
in 2005, the administration attempted to sponsor legislation calling for
tighter regulation of F. Mae and F Mac. The administration was
resoundingly rebuffed by members of congress (Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer,
Chuck Dodd) who all loudly proclaimed that those two institutions were
sound and in no way in trouble, then accused the administration of racism
and being mean to the poor, a charge that was amplified by the media such
that the administration dropped the plans for the legislation. Should the
administration have pushed harder? Probably so, but after daily
accusations of being evil only second to the devil himself, it's not
surprising that the administration picked its battles.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> Morris Dovey wrote:
>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>>> So "the big corporations" should be allowed to go out of business?
>>> Then where will their former employees work?
>> Why should a big corporation go out of business? Why should /any/
>> corporation go out business?
>>
>> Maintaining a corporate shell with tax revenues in order to deliver
>> paychecks sounds a lot like escalation of welfare to include
>> white-collar workers and executives...
>>
>
> Exactly. For this reason neither the corporations, banks, OR the
> individuals who spent money they did not have should be bailed out
> by the rest of us who live within our means and/or by jacking up
> the Federal debt to even more stratospheric levels.
First...while I'm not from the US, I'm still impacted by the issue.
I'm generally in favour of letting the impacted businesses collapse
under the weight of their own collective stupidity/greed. However, I
think there's probably a kernel of truth to the "too big to fail"
sentiment. (Of course, as one economist put it, that just means that
they were "too big".)
Hypothetically suppose the US government (and all the other world
governments) did let the impacted corporations collapse. It seems quite
possible that domino effects would throw basically the entire developed
world into a recession.
I'm Canadian and arguably our banking system has been one of the least
impacted in the G8 due to stricter regulation. Even so, if the US and
Europe were to have major problems, we'd be screwed as well because
we're primarily an export nation.
Because of this, I'm currently in the "reluctantly bail them out and
then try hard to make sure it can't happen again" camp.
Of course the downside of the bailout is that the next time the bankers
see an opportunity for a quick buck via a risky move, all they have to
do is make sure they're "too big to fail" and they've got an instant
security blanket.
Chris
Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Richard Evans wrote:
>> "cm" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could
>>> and should do for themselves.
>>> Abraham Lincoln
>>
>> So you are saying the government shouldn't be helping the big
>> corporations with tax breaks and bailouts?
>
> That's correct. They should not.
>
Finally something we can agree on.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> cm wrote:
>
>> You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and
>> should do for themselves.
>> Abraham Lincoln
>>
>> cm
>
> Given The One's history of taking care of his relatives, it is apparent
> that his philosophy is: "I'm my brother's keeper and I'm going to tax the
> crap out *you* to help my brother with what was your money".
-
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Mark and/or Juanita, you are tougher than boiled owl.
Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>> -
>> If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
>>
>>
>> Mark and/or Juanita, you are tougher than boiled owl.
<snip of rabid blather>
> So, please explain, given these facts how it is that I am the dumb
> one
> here.
>
I didn't say you were dumb - I said you were tougher than boiled owl.
Projecting a bit, aren't you?
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>
>> This shouldn't surprise anyone. You're so far from the mainstream that
>> you and Tim sharing opinions in common is expected. Just because
>> Tim can point to one other right-wing nut that believes some of the same stupid
>> shit he does, means absolutely zero in the real America, which pretty much
>> roundly rejected you and yours on tuesday.
>
> Not at all. I can't speak for Tim, but *my* views were not rejected on
> Tuesday: there was no candidate on the ballot who represented them.
+1
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Tue, 4 Nov 2008 12:54:44 -0700, "lukeluck" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>>
>> The workers will find jobs with whomever fills the void left when
>> their company folded. If they were doing anything that was of value to
>> anybody, there will arise a new company or companies to do what the
>> old company was doing. Any idea how many automobile companies have
>> come and gone in the U.S. since 1900?
>
>How many automobile companies since the 1900s had to pay Obama's tax rate?
>
>lukeluck
>>
>
???
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > Same old bullshit eh Tim? As usual, it's all about you.
> >
> No, it's all about people unwilling to take personal responsibility.
Actually, it is and always has been repeatedly about you. It always comes
back to you. You don't give a rat's ass about personal responsibility just
as long as you feel that it's not going to cost you anything.
>> Why do I have to pay to bail out either party of their respective
stupidity?
Add onto that your absolute refusal to admit that society has contributed in
a major way to your status quo and your ending comment that's always the
same ~ "why do I have to pay?" Your insistence that everything you have in
life was obtained solely by your own effort is a complete crock because it
just isn't true. 99% of the benefits our society enjoys were provided by the
people who came before us, people who worked, contributed and gave. That's
certainly not you, because it always come down to the same thing with you.
"why do I have to pay?" They're your words, repeated a large number of
times. You have absolutely no concern for anyone except yourself. That's
what it's like to be greedy, selfish and all consuming. Pitiful little world
you live in.
You call me a thief for receiving publicly funded assistance so I can stay
healthy enough to contribute back to society. I call you a liar, selfish and
greedy to the extreme.
You take anything and everything you can legally get from society without
giving back or stopping to wonder if you should be doing it in the first
place. It's obvious who is the real thief here.
In article <[email protected]>, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>Upscale wrote:
>> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
[snip]
>>> they do. I know this because of the out-of-band emails I get, thanking
>>> me for saying what I do and standing up to schoolyard bullies like you.
>>
>> Certainly another lie on your part. You keep making similar claims that are
>
>Here is a quote from tonight's private mail. The author will be happy to
>confirm its authenticity:
>
> "Upscale will now call you a liar, claiming that you never receive any
> such emails. So I'm giving you proof right here: Thank you for saying
> what you do, and standing up to those [like him] who don't have the
> stones to do their stealing themselves. I agree with your viewpoints
> pretty nearly 100%, but generally refrain from participating in these
> threads once you have joined in because you make the same points I
> would, but more articulately and thoroughly than I have the patience
> to do. I do not jump in to defend you from attacks because it seems to
> me that you are more than capable of defending yourself, without my
> help -- but if you want it, you need only ask. You have my permission
> to publish this entire message, or portions of it, in any way you see
> fit. And if -- as I expect -- you are accused of fabricating it, I
> shall confirm its authenticity."
What the heck. I'm not even going to wait for someone to publicly accuse Tim
of fabricating that before I confirm it to be an exact copy-and-paste of an
email I sent him shortly after reading his post. Then, on returning to the
newsgroup, I discovered that my prediction had already come to pass: Upscale
called him a liar. Imagine my surprise. [Actually, I was a bit surprised that
it happened so quickly. But not that it happened.]
>
>I am not a liar as you conveniently and repeatedly assert. I have
>never told a lie here (and generally refrain from doing so in my private
>life as well). You owe me an apology which it unlikely to appear as
>your rudeness is already well established here.
You can always hope...
On Nov 6, 6:06=A0pm, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > newsgroup, I discovered that my prediction had already come to pass:
> Upscale
> > called him a liar.
>
> Actually, I didn't call him a liar, but I did say I doubted it was a real
> post. Big difference for you reading comprehension challenged people. But
> then, it's you I'm talking about so it's not so surprising.
>
> However, in case you were unable to fully understand the rest of the mess=
age
> , I did say that even the worst dregs of society have had their supporter=
s
> so it's not surprising that Tim has a few and even less surprising that
> you're one of them.
Miller vouching for Daneliuk. Imagine my surprise. I wonder if Tim
asked for that endorsement. I doubt that Tim is aware of Miller's
track record as a 'debater' and what he's just hooked his wagon onto.
But having said that, I think I will take LRod's advice and shut-the-
fuck up. <G>
Upscale wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> to have this pointed out in public because it exposes you - and those
>> who hold similar views - for the intellectual and moral frauds you
>> are. You call vice a virtue. So ... you start screaming and foaming
>
> Exposes me to what Tim? Why would I object to people knowing that I've
> received publicly funded medical assistance? I as well as millions of others
So you steal from others to get what you want... well, you don't have
the guts to do that. You have your government do the stealing for you
and howl loudly if the victims complain about the theft.
> receive it all the time up here in Canada. It's our constitutional right.
Theft as a natural right. A remarkable bit of intellectual sophistry.
> I'm proud of my country and what our health programs do. We all contribute
> and we all benefit. Certainly, our health programs not perfect, but they're
> a hell of a lot better than what you've got in the US.
>
>> they do. I know this because of the out-of-band emails I get, thanking
>> me for saying what I do and standing up to schoolyard bullies like you.
>
> Certainly another lie on your part. You keep making similar claims that are
Here is a quote from tonight's private mail. The author will be happy to
confirm its authenticity:
"Upscale will now call you a liar, claiming that you never receive any
such emails. So I'm giving you proof right here: Thank you for saying
what you do, and standing up to those [like him] who don't have the
stones to do their stealing themselves. I agree with your viewpoints
pretty nearly 100%, but generally refrain from participating in these
threads once you have joined in because you make the same points I
would, but more articulately and thoroughly than I have the patience
to do. I do not jump in to defend you from attacks because it seems to
me that you are more than capable of defending yourself, without my
help -- but if you want it, you need only ask. You have my permission
to publish this entire message, or portions of it, in any way you see
fit. And if -- as I expect -- you are accused of fabricating it, I
shall confirm its authenticity."
I am not a liar as you conveniently and repeatedly assert. I have
never told a lie here (and generally refrain from doing so in my private
life as well). You owe me an apology which it unlikely to appear as
your rudeness is already well established here.
> However you want to dance around these topics, it all comes down to the same
> thing. You think it's going to cost you money somewhere along the line and
> you freak out again.
>
> As I've stated repeatedly. You're greedy, selfish and entirely self
> motivated. Sad little world you live in. If I'm a bully for saying it, then
> so be it. But if that's the case, then I'm a proud bully for pointing out
> your glaring deficiencies. :)
You are not only a bully, but a fundamentally irrational and dishonest
one. You have others steal for you and call it virtue. (Dishonest).
You attack anyone who objects to the thieving as being selfish and greedy.
(Irrational) Then, to add salt to the wound, you're actually arrogant
(proud) about your irrational dishonesty. Well done.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Nov 6, 8:18=A0pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> , but *my* views were not rejected on
> Tuesday: there was no candidate on the ballot who represented them.
My you'd have better luck if you moved to North Korea?
On Nov 3, 9:26=A0pm, "Dave - Parkville, MD" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Nov 3, 8:30=A0pm, "cm" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and s=
hould
> > do for themselves.
> > Abraham Lincoln
>
> > cm
>
> Life is going to be great =A0-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DP36x8rTb3j=
I
I'm John McCain, and I approved that message.
On Nov 6, 6:21=A0pm, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > ...I think I will take LRod's advice and shut-the-fuck up. <G>
>
> <smirk>
>
> --
> Morris Dovey
> DeSoto Solar
> DeSoto, Iowa USAhttp://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Mmmmmmmmppffffmmmmmmpphhh!!!!
(btw...what are the difficulties the Dems are having with that
turncoat Lieberman?)
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Check back in a few years with Comrade Obama has demonstrated his
willingness to
> go back on all- anything he's ever said in his quest to enslave you.
Praise the Lord! Here's hoping he comes to enslave you first. Deranged twits
like you should be the first ones put into servitude.
On Nov 4, 12:19=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> When His Holiness, Our
> Savior And Lord, Comrade Obama ..........
>
That's getting stale, Daneliuk.
Richard Evans wrote:
> "cm" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should
>> do for themselves.
>> Abraham Lincoln
>
> So you are saying the government shouldn't be helping the big
> corporations with tax breaks and bailouts?
That's correct. They should not.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Should" would be the operative word there Chris. The problem is that's
>exactly what they did do. Then Congress stepped in and decried that those
>mean bankers couldn't do that. They had to issue mortgages to people with
>no means to pay.
I sure wish someone would point me to the actual legislation that said
banks *had* to do so. I wouldn't be surprised to see legislation that
prohibited things like redlining, thus making some groups eligible for
mortgages, but I really doubt any laws said banks *had* to issue
mortgages that applicants were clearly unqualified for.
Han wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Richard Evans wrote:
>>> "cm" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could
>>>> and should do for themselves.
>>>> Abraham Lincoln
>>>
>>> So you are saying the government shouldn't be helping the big
>>> corporations with tax breaks and bailouts?
>>
>> That's correct. They should not.
>>
> Finally something we can agree on.
So "the big corporations" should be allowed to go out of business?
Then where will their former employees work?
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Morris Dovey wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> So "the big corporations" should be allowed to go out of business?
>> Then where will their former employees work?
>
> Why should a big corporation go out of business? Why should /any/
> corporation go out business?
Because it was in financial trouble and nobody bailed it out?
> Maintaining a corporate shell with tax revenues in order to deliver
> paychecks sounds a lot like escalation of welfare to include
> white-collar workers and executives...
Same argument was raised against the Chrysler bail out, which it
turned out never cost the taxpayer a single cent.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Morris Dovey wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>> Morris Dovey wrote:
>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>
>>>> So "the big corporations" should be allowed to go out of
>>>> business?
>>>> Then where will their former employees work?
>>> Why should a big corporation go out of business? Why should /any/
>>> corporation go out business?
>>
>> Because it was in financial trouble and nobody bailed it out?
>
> I think that's pretty superficial. Corporations encounter financial
> trouble when they adopt non-viable business strategies, mismanage
> finances, elect incompetent boards who hire/retain top execs who
> make
> bad business decisions, attempt to end-run the legal system, or
> alienate their marketplace.
>
> You might find it interesting that I gave notice and left a former
> employer of yours when I saw some of those same behaviors become
> acceptable within that corporate culture. I'm disinclined to be
> sympathetic.
The reason the company went under is irrelevant to the person who is
out of work with bills to pay.
>>> Maintaining a corporate shell with tax revenues in order to
>>> deliver
>>> paychecks sounds a lot like escalation of welfare to include
>>> white-collar workers and executives...
>>
>> Same argument was raised against the Chrysler bail out, which it
>> turned out never cost the taxpayer a single cent.
>
> Saved by the K car, indeed. I wish I could say /that/ never cost
> /this/ taxpayer a single cent. My bad, because I made the purchase
> decision -
> but I have some first-hand experience how that loan was paid back -
> and
> I resolved (and /kept/ that resolution!) to never buy another
> Chrysler
> product. For me, your example is unconvincing.
So you didn't like the product. So what?
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> So you are saying the government shouldn't be helping the big
>>>> corporations with tax breaks and bailouts?
>>> That's correct. They should not.
>>>
>> Finally something we can agree on.
> So "the big corporations" should be allowed to go out of business?
> Then where will their former employees work?
For the company that put them out of business, or the new company that
replaces the company that didn't know how to run the business, or, for a
company that sells something people actually want.
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com
Richard Evans wrote:
> So you are saying the government shouldn't be helping the big
> corporations with tax breaks and bailouts?
Bailouts no, tax breaks on the other hand can be good. Corporations and
business never pay taxes, you give them the money, unless they have a
printing press in the basement. Business taxes sole purpose is to trick
dumb asses into thinking someone else is paying taxes for them and to
get the bottom half of society to actually pay something.
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> Chris Friesen wrote:
>> It sticks in my craw that there don't seem to be any effective penalties
>> for the industry people involved. Sure, a lot of people took on much
>> higher mortgages than they could reasonably pay off, but their bankers
>> led them on, or at least didn't dissuade them.
> This is nonsense.
I agree with Chris. The "industry" should be penalized by going out of
business, or whatever happens to them as the result of making bad
business decisions.
The "people to blame" are the big spending politicians
> and their mooching constituents who all wanted what they could not
> afford. The bankers - while not blameless - are the *last* place the
> problem was born. You want to punish someone? How about millions
> of Western/US citizens that bought stuff/houses/cars/boats they could not
> actually afford and then whined that they couldn't make the payments.
Of course they should be punished. They should lose whatever it is they
bought and didn't pay for and their credit rating should suck, and what
ever else naturally happens when someone makes poor borrowing decisions.
I, nor anyone in my family has ever welched on a loan, stuck anyone for
money duly owed, and never intend to do so.
I remember when I was shopping for my first house in 1975 the realtor
told me what amount of money the bank would lend me based on my income.
I thought it was stupid, as I sure didn't think I could live on what
was left after paying my taxes and mortgage. Not being totally stupid,
I borrowed what *I* thought I could afford, not what anyone else was
willing to lend me. My next house was even worse, around 1985 the
realtor told me what I could borrow and it was insane. I can only
imagine what people were borrowing in 2000+? I think you would have to
be insane, stupid or trying to rip someone off from the get go to borrow
huge sums of money that you had no real way of paying off. My guess is
most of the loans went to dumb asses buying second houses and flipping
them quickly for fast "easy" money. Nothing wrong with that but if
you want to gamble big, with big potential returns, you are taking a big
risk, if you lose, you lose, if the banks willing participate lose, they
lose. No way should anyone else be asked to bail them out. You win,
good, you lose, tough cookies.
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> So "the big corporations" should be allowed to go out of business?
>> Then where will their former employees work?
>>
>
> At the places that will be taking over their business more
> efficiently and profitably.
You mean that they will move to China?
> Same thing that has been going on for
> generations as companies are bought, sold, and closed. Some people
> fare better, others not so good. BTDT
Uh huh.
> Businesses are not for the government to support in a capitalistic
> society. If we help the big guys, why not help the medium sized
> businesses? Why not the small ones? Why not the incompetent ones?
> Oh, they ARE the one we are bailing out.
Bingo.
Ever wonder where your kids' next meal is coming from?
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
: Larry Blanchard wrote:
:>
:> That tale is going to live longer than Iraqi WMD did, even though it's
:> been repeatedly debunked.
:>
: Repeatedly been debunked, or just repeatedly been denied by vigorous
: assertion?
Repeatedly been debunked.
-- Andy Barss
Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
: Robatoy wrote:
:> On Nov 4, 12:19 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
:>
:>
:>> When His Holiness, Our
:>> Savior And Lord, Comrade Obama ..........
:>>
:>
:> That's getting stale, Daneliuk.
:>
:>
: It is truer than ever Robbie Baby. After he presides over the raping of
: the wealthy
Here's an analysis, with real numbers and facts and everything for you,
on the alleged massive tax increases that Obama's plan has over that offered
by McCain (hint: they're not very different):
http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2008/10/21/taxes/index.html
and here's another, detailing McCain's legacy of socialist hero worship:
http://www.slate.com/id/2202950/
Feel free to read them anytime you come back to planet earth.
-- Andy Barss
Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
:>
:> http://www.slate.com/id/2202950/
:>
:>
:> Feel free to read them anytime you come back to planet earth.
:>
:>
:> -- Andy Barss
: Check back in a few years with Comrade Obama has demonstrated his willingness to
: go back on all- anything he's ever said in his quest to enslave you.
You're deranged.
-- Andy Barss
> As far as lack of regulation, back as far as 2003 and again
> in 2005, the administration attempted to sponsor legislation
> calling for tighter regulation of F. Mae and F Mac.
> The administration was resoundingly rebuffed by members
> of congress (Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer, Chuck Dodd)
>
All of whom were in bed with (one literally) both companies.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
Upscale wrote:
> "Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Actually, you did.
>
>> You wrote, quote, Certainly another lie on your part, end quote.
>
> You're right, I did say it, but it was mitigated in the same comment, next
> paragraph. Take the time to read a bit.
>
>> More personal attacks...
>
> Why not, you're an easy target and according to Tim, I'm evil and lazy for
> letting the Canadian government do all my stealing for me. I guess it just
> comes naturally. :)
You are not evil for taking what you are forced to pay for. You
exhibit evil for defending that system based on theft. Big difference.
I do not believe should not avail yourself of what comes out of your
and your fellow citizens' wallets. But to constantly defend a system
built on stealing is immoral. Even small children are taught that
stealing is wrong.
Unlike you, I have no particular opinion about you personally as a
debating partner, other than the fact that you've demonstrated a deep
willingness for cheap personal assault whenever you are cornered
logically. You may well be the salt of the earth as a human being
otherwise, I dunno. But you embrace truly awful and very dangerous
ideas in the face of the evidence presented the last 100 years or so
about what the inevitable end game of central government control of
wealth does. At the very least, this calls both your judgment and
morality into question.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Upscale wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Check back in a few years with Comrade Obama has demonstrated his
> willingness to
>> go back on all- anything he's ever said in his quest to enslave you.
>
> Praise the Lord! Here's hoping he comes to enslave you first. Deranged twits
> like you should be the first ones put into servitude.
>
>
Deranged huh ... hmmm ... you are vulgar, snide, call for violence against
people with whom you disagree, have no real ideas of your own to contribute
to the debate. IOW, you're the perfect Obama supporter.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Morris Dovey wrote:
> Chris Friesen wrote:
>
>> Because of this, I'm currently in the "reluctantly bail them out and
>> then try hard to make sure it can't happen again" camp.
>
> I'm really, really hoping that you're still in that camp a year from now...
You and me both. :)
It sticks in my craw that there don't seem to be any effective penalties
for the industry people involved. Sure, a lot of people took on much
higher mortgages than they could reasonably pay off, but their bankers
led them on, or at least didn't dissuade them.
> ...I worry that we might be trying to put out a fire by smothering it
> with petrol.
That is the risk. However, the alternative seems to be that a
significant portion of the global banking system implodes because it was
overextended.
Whoever thought that a developed nation (Iceland) could basically go
bankrupt? It's crazy, but it happened.
Chris
[email protected] wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Nov 2008 16:45:42 -0500, "Upscale" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> Deranged huh ... hmmm ... you are vulgar, snide, call for violence against
>>> people with whom you disagree, have no real ideas of your own to
>> contribute
>>> to the debate. IOW, you're the perfect Obama supporter.
>> Debate? What debate would that be Tim? This is a woodworking newsgroup, so
>> the debate should be about woodworking don't you think? Where exactly have
>> you contributed to the debate?
>>
>> Much as you want to think this newsgroup is a "debate about everything
>> except woodworking" forum, the truth is that you're 100% wrong.
>>
>
> He's funny looking, too!
Are you my neighbor by any chance???
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Wed, 5 Nov 2008 16:45:42 -0500, "Upscale" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Deranged huh ... hmmm ... you are vulgar, snide, call for violence against
>> people with whom you disagree, have no real ideas of your own to
>contribute
>> to the debate. IOW, you're the perfect Obama supporter.
>
>Debate? What debate would that be Tim? This is a woodworking newsgroup, so
>the debate should be about woodworking don't you think? Where exactly have
>you contributed to the debate?
>
>Much as you want to think this newsgroup is a "debate about everything
>except woodworking" forum, the truth is that you're 100% wrong.
>
He's funny looking, too!
Andrew Barss wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> : Robatoy wrote:
> :> On Nov 4, 12:19 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> :>
> :>
> :>> When His Holiness, Our
> :>> Savior And Lord, Comrade Obama ..........
> :>>
> :>
> :> That's getting stale, Daneliuk.
> :>
> :>
>
> : It is truer than ever Robbie Baby. After he presides over the raping of
> : the wealthy
>
> Here's an analysis, with real numbers and facts and everything for you,
> on the alleged massive tax increases that Obama's plan has over that offered
> by McCain (hint: they're not very different):
>
> http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2008/10/21/taxes/index.html
>
> and here's another, detailing McCain's legacy of socialist hero worship:
>
> http://www.slate.com/id/2202950/
>
>
> Feel free to read them anytime you come back to planet earth.
>
>
> -- Andy Barss
Check back in a few years with Comrade Obama has demonstrated his willingness to
go back on all- anything he's ever said in his quest to enslave you.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Chris Friesen wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>> Morris Dovey wrote:
>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>
>>>> So "the big corporations" should be allowed to go out of business?
>>>> Then where will their former employees work?
>>> Why should a big corporation go out of business? Why should /any/
>>> corporation go out business?
>>>
>>> Maintaining a corporate shell with tax revenues in order to deliver
>>> paychecks sounds a lot like escalation of welfare to include
>>> white-collar workers and executives...
>>>
>>
>> Exactly. For this reason neither the corporations, banks, OR the
>> individuals who spent money they did not have should be bailed out
>> by the rest of us who live within our means and/or by jacking up
>> the Federal debt to even more stratospheric levels.
>
> First...while I'm not from the US, I'm still impacted by the issue.
>
> I'm generally in favour of letting the impacted businesses collapse
> under the weight of their own collective stupidity/greed. However, I
> think there's probably a kernel of truth to the "too big to fail"
> sentiment. (Of course, as one economist put it, that just means that
> they were "too big".)
>
> Hypothetically suppose the US government (and all the other world
> governments) did let the impacted corporations collapse. It seems quite
> possible that domino effects would throw basically the entire developed
> world into a recession.
>
> I'm Canadian and arguably our banking system has been one of the least
> impacted in the G8 due to stricter regulation. Even so, if the US and
> Europe were to have major problems, we'd be screwed as well because
> we're primarily an export nation.
>
> Because of this, I'm currently in the "reluctantly bail them out and
> then try hard to make sure it can't happen again" camp.
>
> Of course the downside of the bailout is that the next time the bankers
> see an opportunity for a quick buck via a risky move, all they have to
> do is make sure they're "too big to fail" and they've got an instant
> security blanket.
>
> Chris
One point: This was NOT "caused" by the bankers ... or at least not
primarily. The banks are just the place where the problem finally
showed up. This was caused by generations of deficit spending by an
overweening and growing government. At some point, that government had
a debt it could not service easily and thus dropped interest rates,
thereby reducing the cost of the debt AND devaluing the currency to
pay off old debts with new, less valuable money. In the mean time,
that same government - in the true spirit of communism - forced banks
to extend mortgages to people that had no business owning a house. The
banks - guaranteed that they would never lose money thereby - jumped
in enthusiastically and then went to the next level: If the government
is making money cheap, why not start lending to ALL risky borrowers.
Like I said, the banks are not blameless here, but the larger
population and its government, both of whom spent madly with money
they could not repay, bear the bulk of the blame.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Tue, 4 Nov 2008 07:05:32 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Han wrote:
>> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> Richard Evans wrote:
>>>> "cm" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could
>>>>> and should do for themselves.
>>>>> Abraham Lincoln
>>>>
>>>> So you are saying the government shouldn't be helping the big
>>>> corporations with tax breaks and bailouts?
>>>
>>> That's correct. They should not.
>>>
>> Finally something we can agree on.
>
>So "the big corporations" should be allowed to go out of business?
>Then where will their former employees work?
>
>--
The workers will find jobs with whomever fills the void left when
their company folded. If they were doing anything that was of value to
anybody, there will arise a new company or companies to do what the
old company was doing. Any idea how many automobile companies have
come and gone in the U.S. since 1900?
Andrew Barss wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> :>
> :> http://www.slate.com/id/2202950/
> :>
> :>
> :> Feel free to read them anytime you come back to planet earth.
> :>
> :>
> :> -- Andy Barss
>
> : Check back in a few years with Comrade Obama has demonstrated his willingness to
> : go back on all- anything he's ever said in his quest to enslave you.
>
>
> You're deranged.
>
> -- Andy Barss
I've seen the ascent of tin-pot socialists before. He's no different
other than he wears better suits.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Upscale wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Deranged huh ... hmmm ... you are vulgar, snide, call for violence against
>> people with whom you disagree, have no real ideas of your own to
> contribute
>> to the debate. IOW, you're the perfect Obama supporter.
>
> Debate? What debate would that be Tim? This is a woodworking newsgroup, so
> the debate should be about woodworking don't you think? Where exactly have
> you contributed to the debate?
>
> Much as you want to think this newsgroup is a "debate about everything
> except woodworking" forum, the truth is that you're 100% wrong.
>
>
Yes, your many deep contributions here are noted.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
In article <[email protected]>, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> veracity of (or lack thereof) your statements one iota!
>
>Doesn't much matter at this point anyway since the "discussion" is winding
>down. I've filtered Tim's name so he can attempt to troll a reply from me
>all he wants, I won't see it.
>
>Of course, he may have enlisted Doug to assist him, but I believe Doug is
>considerably smarter than that.
I think I already said that he has not asked.
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:UIVQk.4970
> >initiated the name calling by labelling me as evil and a thief for using
it.
>
> Not true; he has explicitly stated that his complaint is not with your
*using*
> that system, but with your *advocating* it.
He does now, but earlier message distinctly label me evil and a thief. In
fact he said it a number of times. Anyway, I *DO* advocate the system, so
according to Tim and his screwed up selfish ways, I am evil and a thief.
And what does it have to do with you? Are you suddenly Tims ardent
supporter? It seems you do have your nose up his butt. This too, is not a
great surprise.
On Nov 8, 9:18=A0am, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > veracity of (or lack thereof) your statements one iota!
>
> Doesn't much matter at this point anyway since the "discussion" is windin=
g
> down. I've filtered Tim's name so he can attempt to troll a reply from me
> all he wants, I won't see it.
>
> Of course, he may have enlisted Doug to assist him,
> but I believe Doug is
> considerably smarter than that.
Uhh, no.
In article <[email protected]>, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> If you don't wish to be considered vulgar, ill-mannered, and incapable of
>> debate without resorting to personal abuse, then you shouldn't call people
>> things like "asshole" and "lying piece of decrepit shit" when they
>disagree
>> with you.
>
>I don't really care if someone considers me vulgar or ill-mannered Doug. In
>the midst of a perfectly cordial discussion about public health care, Tim
>initiated the name calling by labelling me as evil and a thief for using it.
Not true; he has explicitly stated that his complaint is not with your *using*
that system, but with your *advocating* it.
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Uhh, no.
Guess I'll find out. In any event, Doug has contributed considerable
woodworking knowledge to this group, whereas Tim has contribute zip or very
close to it.
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> If you don't wish to be considered vulgar, ill-mannered, and incapable of
> debate without resorting to personal abuse, then you shouldn't call people
> things like "asshole" and "lying piece of decrepit shit" when they
disagree
> with you.
I don't really care if someone considers me vulgar or ill-mannered Doug. In
the midst of a perfectly cordial discussion about public health care, Tim
initiated the name calling by labelling me as evil and a thief for using it.
I took Tim's comments (and still do) as an assault on my integrity. As a
proud Canadian, I also took his comments as derogatory insults against my
country. You and many others seem to think that the USA is the only country
with patriots, which is a very self-centred point of view. Anyway, I
responded in kind and as I saw fit. Whether the names used are vulgar and
insulting or run of the mill insults, it adds up to the same thing as far as
I'm concerned.
If Tim (or you) can't deal with the name calling, whatever it's form, then
he shouldn't be tossing out insults in the first place without expecting a
response. Especially so, since he doesn't know me personally and has never
previously had any dealings with me.
Tim is exactly what I've said he is. It seems I'm not the only one who
thinks so.
There, are you happy now? I haven't used one vulgar word.
On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 23:43:36 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
wrote:
>> I really don't know why anyone would dislike me, but
>Let's see... you're vulgar, ill-mannered, and can't debate with anyone who
>disagrees with you without resorting to vicious personal attacks. Naaaah, that
>couldn't have anything to do with it.
I'm having trouble with my Outlook so I've switched to Agent:
Most reading my comment above would see it as humorous which is what
it was intended to be. Guess you seem to be devoid of it Doug. Not
really surprising.
It also seems like you're just as capable of personal attacks as
anyone. Perhaps as well as adding my name to the filter program you
hand out, you should be adding your own.
Anyway if you want to play moderator by using your personal dislike of
me to moderate my messages for the rest of the readers here, then you
go ahead. It demonstrates a complete lack of ethics and integrity, but
coming from you, that's not surprising at all.
The people who know me will contact me when they want to and that you
can't stop despite any attempted moderation on your part.
You have a good day now Doug.
"Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> veracity of (or lack thereof) your statements one iota!
Doesn't much matter at this point anyway since the "discussion" is winding
down. I've filtered Tim's name so he can attempt to troll a reply from me
all he wants, I won't see it.
Of course, he may have enlisted Doug to assist him, but I believe Doug is
considerably smarter than that.
Upscale wrote:
> Tim is exactly what I've said he is. It seems I'm not the only one who
> thinks so.
What you say stands alone. Doesn't matter who agrees with you or
doesn't agree with you, or Tim. Everyone that reads this stuff is smart
enough to read, so should be smart enough to figure out which one of you
is an empty bag of air, and who speaks with substance and reason.
If everyone except you agreed with Tim 100%, it would not change the
veracity of (or lack thereof) your statements one iota!
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com
Upscale wrote:
> "Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> If you don't wish to be considered vulgar, ill-mannered, and incapable of
>> debate without resorting to personal abuse, then you shouldn't call people
>> things like "asshole" and "lying piece of decrepit shit" when they
> disagree
>> with you.
>
> I don't really care if someone considers me vulgar or ill-mannered Doug. In
> the midst of a perfectly cordial discussion about public health care, Tim
> initiated the name calling by labelling me as evil and a thief for using it.
> I took Tim's comments (and still do) as an assault on my integrity. As a
> proud Canadian, I also took his comments as derogatory insults against my
> country. You and many others seem to think that the USA is the only country
> with patriots, which is a very self-centred point of view. Anyway, I
> responded in kind and as I saw fit. Whether the names used are vulgar and
> insulting or run of the mill insults, it adds up to the same thing as far as
> I'm concerned.
You're not a thief for taking what you already paid for. You're dishonest
for supporting the thievery as a virtue and promoting it prospectively
for the future. Stealing is evil. Defending it is similarly evil.
This is not name calling, it is definitional ... unless you decide to
explain how stealing is suddenly not a moral foul.
>
> If Tim (or you) can't deal with the name calling, whatever it's form, then
> he shouldn't be tossing out insults in the first place without expecting a
> response. Especially so, since he doesn't know me personally and has never
> previously had any dealings with me.
I know you promote theft as a virtue.
>
> Tim is exactly what I've said he is. It seems I'm not the only one who
> thinks so.
>
> There, are you happy now? I haven't used one vulgar word.
You must be exhausted.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 23:43:36 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>wrote:
>
>>> I really don't know why anyone would dislike me, but
>
>>Let's see... you're vulgar, ill-mannered, and can't debate with anyone who
>>disagrees with you without resorting to vicious personal attacks. Naaaah, that
>>couldn't have anything to do with it.
>
>I'm having trouble with my Outlook so I've switched to Agent:
>
>Most reading my comment above would see it as humorous which is what
>it was intended to be. Guess you seem to be devoid of it Doug.
Having a sarcasm-impaired day, are you?
> Not
>really surprising.
You just can't help yourself, can you?
>
>It also seems like you're just as capable of personal attacks as
>anyone. Perhaps as well as adding my name to the filter program you
>hand out, you should be adding your own.
Apparently, you consider it a personal attack when someone points out the
truth about you.
If you don't wish to be considered vulgar, ill-mannered, and incapable of
debate without resorting to personal abuse, then you shouldn't call people
things like "asshole" and "lying piece of decrepit shit" when they disagree
with you.
>
>Anyway if you want to play moderator by using your personal dislike of
>me to moderate my messages for the rest of the readers here, then you
>go ahead. It demonstrates a complete lack of ethics and integrity, but
>coming from you, that's not surprising at all.
Speaking of being devoid of a sense of humor... Lighten up, huh?
>
>The people who know me will contact me when they want to and that you
>can't stop despite any attempted moderation on your part.
You need more fiber in your diet. Try oatmeal.
>
>You have a good day now Doug.
Thanks. Same to you.
Upscale wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> Debate? What debate would that be Tim? This is a woodworking newsgroup,
> so
>>> the debate should be about woodworking don't you think? Where exactly
> have
>>> you contributed to the debate?
>
>> Yes, your many deep contributions here are noted.
>
> Feeble attempt at a reversal. Do a google search and show everybody your
> last five woodworking related messages here Tim. You can't because they
> don't exist. None of your red herring comments or change of subject bull.
> Prove me wrong. SHOW ME five woodworking related comments you've made here
> in the LAST YEAR.
>
> That should be pretty easy, a whole year to work with, right? Until you do
> that, it's just you as usual, posting your off topic crap.
>
> PROVE ME WRONG.
>
>
Nope, I mostly don't post on topic, because I am nowhere near the
expert that other here are. I read what is posted and learn from it. I
do occasionally post on-topic if I feel I can add real value.
I also do not START off-topic threads. I join them already well in
progress. If I sang along with all the other Obama Fanboyz you'd never
say a word. You just don't like the fact that I don't worship at your
altar of screwing some people to benefit others to buy votes. You call
this "charity" or "caring for others" when it is really nothing more
than simple theft for political purposes and raw power over other
people. You believe in stealing, you just don't have the guts to do it
yourself - you need thugs like Obama to do it for you. It annoys you
to have this pointed out in public because it exposes you - and those
who hold similar views - for the intellectual and moral frauds you
are. You call vice a virtue. So ... you start screaming and foaming
personal insults in a vain hope no one will notice this fraud. But
they do. I know this because of the out-of-band emails I get, thanking
me for saying what I do and standing up to schoolyard bullies like
you.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Chris Friesen wrote:
> Morris Dovey wrote:
>> Chris Friesen wrote:
>>
>>> Because of this, I'm currently in the "reluctantly bail them out and
>>> then try hard to make sure it can't happen again" camp.
>>
>> I'm really, really hoping that you're still in that camp a year from
>> now...
>
> You and me both. :)
>
> It sticks in my craw that there don't seem to be any effective penalties
> for the industry people involved. Sure, a lot of people took on much
> higher mortgages than they could reasonably pay off, but their bankers
> led them on, or at least didn't dissuade them.
This is nonsense. The "people to blame" are the big spending politicians
and their mooching constituents who all wanted what they could not
afford. The bankers - while not blameless - are the *last* place the
problem was born. You want to punish someone? How about millions
of Western/US citizens that bought stuff/houses/cars/boats they could not
actually afford and then whined that they couldn't make the payments.
>
>> ...I worry that we might be trying to put out a fire by smothering it
>> with petrol.
>
> That is the risk. However, the alternative seems to be that a
> significant portion of the global banking system implodes because it was
> overextended.
>
> Whoever thought that a developed nation (Iceland) could basically go
> bankrupt? It's crazy, but it happened.
>
> Chris
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 10:34:56 -0600, Chris Friesen wrote:
> It sticks in my craw that there don't seem to be any effective penalties
> for the industry people involved. Sure, a lot of people took on much
> higher mortgages than they could reasonably pay off, but their bankers
> led them on, or at least didn't dissuade them.
Just remember that roughly one third of the US mortgages in default, at
least from what I've read, were held by owners who never lived in the
house, i.e. speculators. They got no or low down loans and just walked
away when the market declined.
I know that for the last several years, I was surprised by the number of
"for rent" signs on brand new houses.
On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 17:15:26 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
<[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Wed, 5 Nov 2008 16:45:42 -0500, "Upscale" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> Deranged huh ... hmmm ... you are vulgar, snide, call for violence against
>>>> people with whom you disagree, have no real ideas of your own to
>>> contribute
>>>> to the debate. IOW, you're the perfect Obama supporter.
>>> Debate? What debate would that be Tim? This is a woodworking newsgroup, so
>>> the debate should be about woodworking don't you think? Where exactly have
>>> you contributed to the debate?
>>>
>>> Much as you want to think this newsgroup is a "debate about everything
>>> except woodworking" forum, the truth is that you're 100% wrong.
>>>
>>
>> He's funny looking, too!
>
>Are you my neighbor by any chance???
I can't see any neighbor houses from here.
On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 18:41:11 -0500, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Sure, there are many people who took on more debt than they could pay
>> back. However, a responsible banker should say "no, you can't have that
>> loan since the odds are that you won't be able to repay it".
>
> "Should" would be the operative word there Chris. The problem is that's
> exactly what they did do. Then Congress stepped in and decried that those
> mean bankers couldn't do that. They had to issue mortgages to people with
> no means to pay.
That tale is going to live longer than Iraqi WMD did, even though it's
been repeatedly debunked.
The law you're referencing prevented banks et al from "redlining",
refusing to make loans to people based on their zip code. The banks were
allowed to refuse any loan that did not meet "sound banking practices".
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 21:06:04 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:
> Reader's Digest Version:
> 1) The update to the CRA *did* force banks to make loans to people who they
> knew would not be able to pay them back. The penalty would be inability to
> merge with other banks, open other branches, and have their CRA rating
> degraded. This act was using the force of law to coerce banks into making
> loans that they otherwise would not have made.
The URL you gave got me a 404. I even went to the home page and tried
their search - no joy. But if what you quote and they said is true, then
that's certainly part of the cause - I stand corrected.
But the lack of regulation for those exotic derivatives also bears much of
the blame. Gramm had a lot to do with that. And don't forget that up to
30% of the mortgages in default are from "flippers" who got low or no down
loans and simply walked away when they got underwater.
I suspect economists will be arguing for some times about the various
reasons for the meltdown and which of them bears what percent of the blame.
I did do a google on the CRA and read a few of the articles. One which
I'd like to call to your attention is:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200810100022
Here's a couple of quotes:
"A study released earlier this year by a law firm specializing in CRA
compliance estimated that in the 15 most populous metropolitan areas, 84.3
percent of subprime loans in 2006 were made by financial institutions not
governed by the CRA."
"More than half of subprime loans were made by independent mortgage
companies not subject to comprehensive federal supervision; another 30
percent of such originations were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts,
which are not subject to routine examination or supervision, and the
remaining 20 percent were made by banks and thrifts."
Obviously neither you or I have the time to fully investigate either your
references or mine. At some point we have to estimate the weight of the
testimonies and the credibility of the testifiers. So far the weight
and credibility seems to me to be on the side of those who claim greed and
lack of regulation were the primary culprits.
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 19:43:40 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:
> I just tried it again, it worked:
> <http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_1_the_trillion_dollar.html>
OK, it worked for me after taking off the "http://" - I guess Firefox is a
little fussy :-).
>> http://mediamatters.org/items/200810100022
>>
>
> I will point out that mediamatters.org is not by any stretch of the
> imagination a non-partisan organization being heavily funded by George
> Soros.
>
And the Manhattan Institute is not exactly non-partisan either :-).
>
> From what I've read, the motivation and increasingly loose lending
> standards set by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were a significant contributor
> to the problem.
Phil Gramm inserted an amendment forbidding regulation of those strange
derivatives. You don't think that had anything to do with it?
As I said, we'll just have to pick the "expert" we believe.
I've had my say and so have you. Neither of us has changed the others
opinion. As far as I'm concerned, that's the end of it unless you can
come up with a refutation of the statistics I quoted.
Morris Dovey wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> So "the big corporations" should be allowed to go out of business?
>> Then where will their former employees work?
>
> Why should a big corporation go out of business? Why should /any/
> corporation go out business?
>
> Maintaining a corporate shell with tax revenues in order to deliver
> paychecks sounds a lot like escalation of welfare to include
> white-collar workers and executives...
>
Exactly. For this reason neither the corporations, banks, OR the
individuals who spent money they did not have should be bailed out
by the rest of us who live within our means and/or by jacking up
the Federal debt to even more stratospheric levels.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
cm wrote:
> You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and
> should do for themselves.
> Abraham Lincoln
>
> cm
Given The One's history of taking care of his relatives, it is apparent
that his philosophy is: "I'm my brother's keeper and I'm going to tax the
crap out *you* to help my brother with what was your money".
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> This is nonsense. The "people to blame" are the big spending politicians
> and their mooching constituents who all wanted what they could not
> afford. The bankers - while not blameless - are the *last* place the
> problem was born. You want to punish someone? How about millions
> of Western/US citizens that bought stuff/houses/cars/boats they could not
> actually afford and then whined that they couldn't make the payments.
Sure, there are many people who took on more debt than they could pay
back. However, a responsible banker should say "no, you can't have that
loan since the odds are that you won't be able to repay it".
If the loan officers had been doing their jobs, people would never have
been able to get the loans to buy all that stuff. Instead, the banks
were coming up with exotic mortgages to try and entice people to borrow
more money. (I bought a house 2 years ago, and my bank was perfectly
willing to give me a mortgage almost twice as big as what I was prepared
to take on--and that's in Canada where the industry is more tightly
regulated.)
The Fed made it so cheap (1% interest!) for large institutions to borrow
money that it was extremely tempting for organizations to leverage
themselves to the hilt in order to borrow from the Fed so they could
turn around and lend it out at higher rates.
Chris
Upscale wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Both borrower and lender are adults of sound mind. Why do I have to pay
>> to bail out either party of their respective stupidity?
>
> Same old bullshit eh Tim? As usual, it's all about you.
>
>
No, it's all about people unwilling to take personal responsibility.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> So your (and all the other libs) position is this: Banks are run by
> such incompetent fools that they willingly, without duress, wrote
> loans for people whose sole income was welfare or the equivalent.
You forgot, "and then they turned around and sold those mortgages mixed
in with lower-risk ones to other banks, who didn't fully investigate the
extent of the bad debt involved because the profits were so high".
Chris
"cm" <[email protected]> wrote:
>You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should
>do for themselves.
>Abraham Lincoln
So you are saying the government shouldn't be helping the big
corporations with tax breaks and bailouts?
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 18:41:11 -0500, Mike Marlow wrote:
>
>>> Sure, there are many people who took on more debt than they could pay
>>> back. However, a responsible banker should say "no, you can't have that
>>> loan since the odds are that you won't be able to repay it".
>> "Should" would be the operative word there Chris. The problem is that's
>> exactly what they did do. Then Congress stepped in and decried that those
>> mean bankers couldn't do that. They had to issue mortgages to people with
>> no means to pay.
>
> That tale is going to live longer than Iraqi WMD did, even though it's
> been repeatedly debunked.
>
> The law you're referencing prevented banks et al from "redlining",
> refusing to make loans to people based on their zip code. The banks were
> allowed to refuse any loan that did not meet "sound banking practices".
>
>
So your (and all the other libs) position is this: Banks are run by
such incompetent fools that they willingly, without duress, wrote
loans for people whose sole income was welfare or the equivalent.
It's absurd on its face. No bank would do this unless they were forced
to or had an iron clad guarantee that they'd be made whole if the loan
went bad.
It was *your* people's do gooding that was one of (but not the sole) cause of the
mortgage meltdown. That bit of political sewage, Barney Frank, was warned
by McCain that there was a brewing storm in this regard, but ignored it and
now you see the results.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 18:41:11 -0500, Mike Marlow wrote:
>
>>> Sure, there are many people who took on more debt than they could pay
>>> back. However, a responsible banker should say "no, you can't have that
>>> loan since the odds are that you won't be able to repay it".
>>
>> "Should" would be the operative word there Chris. The problem is that's
>> exactly what they did do. Then Congress stepped in and decried that
>> those
>> mean bankers couldn't do that. They had to issue mortgages to people
>> with no means to pay.
>
> That tale is going to live longer than Iraqi WMD did, even though it's
> been repeatedly debunked.
>
> The law you're referencing prevented banks et al from "redlining",
> refusing to make loans to people based on their zip code. The banks were
> allowed to refuse any loan that did not meet "sound banking practices".
Sorry to resurrect this thread, but just to provide some de-bunking for
the so-called de-bunking mentioned above, just ran across the following:
<http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_1_the_trillion_dollar.html>
Note the date, this is from 2000, after Clinton had signed into law more
teeth for the CRA and is remarkably prescient regarding what was going to
happen when banks were *forced* to make loans to people they knew would not
be able to pay it back.
Reader's Digest Version:
1) The update to the CRA *did* force banks to make loans to people who they
knew would not be able to pay them back. The penalty would be inability to
merge with other banks, open other branches, and have their CRA rating
degraded. This act was using the force of law to coerce banks into making
loans that they otherwise would not have made.
2) The update to the CRA empowered local activist organizations (like ACORN)
to bully banks into making such loans
3) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac played a role in defining borrower
requirements
4) The end result predicted (in 2000) was a high rate of loan defaults when
economic conditions declined.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>> Robatoy wrote:
>>> On Nov 4, 12:19 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> When His Holiness, Our
>>>> Savior And Lord, Comrade Obama ..........
>>>>
>>> That's getting stale, Daneliuk.
>>>
>>>
>> It is truer than ever Robbie Baby. After he presides over the raping of
>> the wealthy, economic reality is *still* going to hit this political
>> gasbag (assuming he's elected). No amount of stealing (as his entire
>> platform demands) can replace the consequent loss of productivity that
>> will ensue. He's busy selling himself as the Sheeple's Messiah without
>> the remotest clue of how very badly his ideas will further undermine
>> the US, and thus all of Western, economic foundations. This weasel is
>> going to make Carter look like a genius. Hold on to your private parts
>> ladies and gentlement, we are about to see lots of unemployment (far
>> beyond what we see now), negative growth, stagnation, and ultimately
>> inflation. Meanwhile, the wealthy, the engine of new investment and
>> capital growth, will still be wealthy - it will just be denominated
>> in other currencies and stored in other nations.
>>
>> Let Obama Communism begin - the people deserve it.
>>
>
> Tim, much as I agree with your positions, you still helped support this
> marxist's ascension to power. In another post, you indicated you voted for
> neither Obama nor McCain. So, you did not support the one candidate with
> even a hope of turning back the marxist. You will protest that you could
> not support McCain on ideological grounds. While that may be the case and
> your conscience is clear, you and others who did so have helped assure your
> enslavement to this statist.
>
I live in a state where my vote made no difference (electorally speaking).
I voted to show my disgust with the Republicans. The outcome was not
remotely in question.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> writes:
>> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>> On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 18:41:11 -0500, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Sure, there are many people who took on more debt than they could pay
>>>>> back. However, a responsible banker should say "no, you can't have that
>>>>> loan since the odds are that you won't be able to repay it".
>>>> "Should" would be the operative word there Chris. The problem is that's
>>>> exactly what they did do. Then Congress stepped in and decried that those
>>>> mean bankers couldn't do that. They had to issue mortgages to people with
>>>> no means to pay.
>>> That tale is going to live longer than Iraqi WMD did, even though it's
>>> been repeatedly debunked.
>>>
>>> The law you're referencing prevented banks et al from "redlining",
>>> refusing to make loans to people based on their zip code. The banks were
>>> allowed to refuse any loan that did not meet "sound banking practices".
>>>
>>>
>> So your (and all the other libs) position is this: Banks are run by
>> such incompetent fools that they willingly, without duress, wrote
>> loans for people whose sole income was welfare or the equivalent.
>
> Strawman much? I believe that greed was sufficient motivation for
> brokers and bankers to make iffy loans. Add the unregulated financial
> vehicles such as collateralized debt obligations where the shakey loans
> were packaged and resold as insurance (and the demand for CDO's from
> the rich feed right back into a feedback loop).
There is no question that the banks acted badly. But they did so
with both pressure from the government and the assurance that such
very risky loans would be covered by the government in the future.
>
>> It's absurd on its face. No bank would do this unless they were forced
>> to or had an iron clad guarantee that they'd be made whole if the loan
>> went bad.
>
> You really don't know much, do you?
I know that bankers - however greedy - do not knowingly sign up
to lose money. They have to have some belief they will make
money and/or made whole. This idea that the banks engineered
the economic conditions today is silly. It was caused by
primarily by the deficit spending of the US government and
all that followed it. The banks were just the last one
holding the hot potato and ended up being the proximate bad
guys. Were their actions stupid? Sure, in some cases.
But even perfect behavior by the banks would not have remotely
prevented the current mess. The fundamentals go way deeper
than some Wall St. exec making "too much money" or "taking too
much risk."
>
> I guess I should, as suggested, treat you as B.A.D. was.
It's interesting. I've been careful for the most part to avoid
personal attacks upon anyone who has debated me here (with one
exception of the individual who insists on swearing and making
every debate about the individual). I have been unrepentantly
vigorous in attacking *ideas* that I think are wrong. I've done
so in threads that I never started, and were well underway when
I joined to a large degree. The response? "Let's put our fingers
in our ears because we can neither argue an opposing position
coherently, nor get him to concede we're right." It's the mark
of an intellectually frail argument.
>
> If you really think you're smarter than the majority of Americans
> who disagree with pretty much every position you take you've another
> think coming.
You are anointing yourself representative of a whole lot of that
American population that does NOT agree with you and - more to
the point - does agree with some or most of what I hold: That
individual responsibility comes with individual freedom. That
using government force to move wealth from one person to another
is morally wrong, and so forth. Take a good look at Tuesday election
results for some sense of how tenuous your "majority" really.
American doesn't have a lot of distinct majorities. It has a lot
of pluralism - many small islands of ideation joined by people of
common culture, politics, experiences, and aspirations. Most of
the first generation immigrant class, young and old, I've met
fully agree with me. So do a good many people here for much longer.
The "majority" you claim to see it your way, simply does not exist.
>
> I respect immigrants such as yourself, however you must also respect
> your new fellow citizens, even if you don't necessarily agree with them.
>
> scott
Consensus is hardly the hallmark of truth. My fellow citizens, new-
and old are entirely within their legal rights to vote in a
socialist/Marxist. They're similarly free to blame the banks for what
was - at its core - a failing of a huge, debt ridden central
government spending its way to death. While both actions on these
citizens' part are *legal*, it doesn't make them wise or right. It
will not be people like me that will find Obama's policies (if he
actually enacts his promises) an abomination - we already know where
these lead. It will be the hyperventilating Obama groupies that
elected him that will be tremendously disappointed as the seeds he
plants lead to the inevitable fruit that is borne: A loss of liberty,
an infection that harms innovation and growth, and a further
diminishing of America's stature and place in the world.
I do not, for the record, think I am smarter than everyone else, I've
just seen parts of the movie the US citizenry signed up to watch. It
ends very badly.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
"Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> J. Clarke wrote:
>> Morris Dovey wrote:
>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>
>>>> So "the big corporations" should be allowed to go out of business?
>>>> Then where will their former employees work?
>>> Why should a big corporation go out of business? Why should /any/
>>> corporation go out business?
>>
>> Because it was in financial trouble and nobody bailed it out?
>
> I think that's pretty superficial. Corporations encounter financial
> trouble when they adopt non-viable business strategies, mismanage
> finances, elect incompetent boards who hire/retain top execs who make bad
> business decisions, attempt to end-run the legal system, or alienate their
> marketplace.
Precisely, a company that refuses to change its strategy is doomed.
[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
>In article <[email protected]>, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Upscale wrote:
>>> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>[snip]
>>>> they do. I know this because of the out-of-band emails I get, thanking
>>>> me for saying what I do and standing up to schoolyard bullies like you.
>>>
>>> Certainly another lie on your part. You keep making similar claims that are
>>
>>Here is a quote from tonight's private mail. The author will be happy to
>>confirm its authenticity:
>>
>> "Upscale will now call you a liar, claiming that you never receive any
>> such emails. So I'm giving you proof right here: Thank you for saying
>> what you do, and standing up to those [like him] who don't have the
>> stones to do their stealing themselves. I agree with your viewpoints
>> pretty nearly 100%, but generally refrain from participating in these
>> threads once you have joined in because you make the same points I
>> would, but more articulately and thoroughly than I have the patience
>> to do. I do not jump in to defend you from attacks because it seems to
>> me that you are more than capable of defending yourself, without my
>> help -- but if you want it, you need only ask. You have my permission
>> to publish this entire message, or portions of it, in any way you see
>> fit. And if -- as I expect -- you are accused of fabricating it, I
>> shall confirm its authenticity."
>
>What the heck. I'm not even going to wait for someone to publicly accuse Tim
>of fabricating that before I confirm it to be an exact copy-and-paste of an
>email I sent him shortly after reading his post.
This shouldn't surprise anyone. You're so far from the mainstream that
you and Tim sharing opinions in common is expected. Just because
Tim can point to one other right-wing nut that believes some of the same stupid
shit he does, means absolutely zero in the real America, which pretty much
roundly rejected you and yours on tuesday.
scott