If you could go back to 2000 who would you vote for?

[Hosakawa Tito]

1. George Bush

2. Al Gore

3. Pat Paulson

4. I wouldn't vote

A choice between Tweedle Dum, Tweedle Dee, a dead guy, and an abstention. I'd probably go with door number 2, but I'd probably despise him too.

[Reverend Joe]

:laugh4:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Where's the third party option?

[CrossLOPER]

Where's the unelectable party option?

[Ice]

Gore... I mean I'd be interested to see how things would look now... it couldn't be worse than Bush.

[KarlXII]

Was too young to vote back then :laugh4:

[LittleGrizzly]

I think Gore would have done a better job...

[CountArach]

Nader. So I guess I'll put myself down as Bush.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I'd vote for Bush and then tell the administration exactly what was going to happen.

[Big_John]

Nader. So I guess I'll put myself down as Bush.lol

[Hosakawa Tito]

I guess I should have added Nader & Buchanan, but I thought even a dead Pat Paulson would garner more votes. Sorry about that.:shame:

[Lemur]

I was very excited about McCain in 2000, but that kinda went nowhere. So yeah, it's very hard to imagine how Al Gore could have been a worse President.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

If there's no third party option, there at least has to be a suicide/leave the country option. As the poll stands, I'd vote for Bush. Frankly, Gore scares me.

[KukriKhan]

Pretty sure I went for Browne that year. If I had it to do over again, I might give the nod to Hagelin, of the Natural Law Party.

[seireikhaan]

McCain.

[Gregoshi]

I voted for Bush but we got Nadir.

I can't see myself voting for Bush again (I couldn't do it in 2004). I'd not be happy about voting for Gore, but it would be quite interesting to see how he'd have handled the September 11th attacks and where we'd be today. I also wonder how a Bush presidency would have unfolded had September 11th not turned it on its head.

[Martok]

Well I already voted for Gore back in 2000, so the point is rather moot in my case. I'd already seen through Bush's facade as the "idiot in wolf's clothing" that he is, so I opted for the lesser of two evils. :gah2:



I was very excited about McCain in 2000, but that kinda went nowhere.
Yeah, me too. I was extremely disappointed when he didn't get the nomination -- he's one of the relatively few Republicans I've always respected/admired. If he'd had gotten his party's nod, I think things would've been dramatically better than they currently are.

[JR-]

Bush.

Al Gore is an idiot savant and i have no idea who pat paulson is.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Bush.

Al Gore is an idiot savant and i have no idea who pat paulson is.

As opposed to being a plain idiot like Bush? :inquisitive:

[KukriKhan]

Bush.

Al Gore is an idiot savant and i have no idea who pat paulson is.

Paulson was a dead-pan comedian and expert at 'double-talk' who ran faux-campaigns, and nevertheless garnered a few protest votes, from the late 60's into the 90's. He once said:


"All the problems we face in the United States today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian." :laugh4:

[Husar]

With Al Gore, America would be plastered with solar and wind power plants, the industry would be obliged to filter their emissions, leading to industrial collapse and an even bigger banking debacle due to lack of investments, Afghanistan and Iraq would make a terrorist attack in the US every week and China would also note that the US president is a green wuss and invade, IT WOULD BE THE END OF THE WORLD!!!

[JR-]

As opposed to being a plain idiot like Bush? :inquisitive:
i would take Bush over Gore any and every day of the week, in perpetuity!

[Gregoshi]

With Al Gore, America would be ... IT WOULD BE THE END OF THE WORLD!!!
And Al is a poor Tipper to boot!

[Uesugi Kenshin]

If I could have voted I'd have gone for Gore, especially in hindsight, even though not being from a swing-state my vote would hardly matter and the Supreme Court would take over where the electorate "failed" anyway.

[drone]

I didn't vote in 2000, and I likely wouldn't vote again for either Bush or Gore. I voted Bednarik in 2004 because I felt the same way with Bush/Kerry. There is something inherently wrong with the party nomination process, neither party seems capable of giving us an electable candidate, and the 2 year campaign is not helping one bit.

[yesdachi]

Gore was a moron, Kerry was an even bigger moron and Obama has the potential to be an even bigger moron. If the republicans suck so bad why is it that the Dems can’t find anyone who can put a slam-dunk win against them. I don’t know if there has ever been a worse case of the lesser evil than 00, 04 and 08.

[Hosakawa Tito]

I voted for Bush despite my anger at my home State of New York for it's machinations in keeping McCain off the Republican nomination ballot. I preferred McCain, but voted Bush due to Clinton fatigue and the fact I believed, and still do, that Gore is a moron.

For those that don't know Pat Paulsen (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDmvhQ-aZEE&feature=related) <<<clicky

[Ronin]

Gore was a moron, Kerry was an even bigger moron and Obama has the potential to be an even bigger moron. If the republicans suck so bad why is it that the Dems can’t find anyone who can put a slam-dunk win against them. I don’t know if there has ever been a worse case of the lesser evil than 00, 04 and 08.

if there is one thing that Republicans are clearly better than Democrats at it´s campaigning.....the Republican party as an organization (not every single member mind you but as an organization) has absolutely no scruples...and that comes in very handy during an election campaign.

[Vladimir]

And Al is a poor Tipper to boot!

Wow. :sad:

:laugh4:

Yea, I'd vote for the idiot who knows he's an idiot vs. the idiot who thinks he's a genius.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I guess some people don't like admitting they were wrong :tongue3:

[yesdachi]

if there is one thing that Republicans are clearly better than Democrats at it´s campaigning.....the Republican party as an organization (not every single member mind you but as an organization) has absolutely no scruples...and that comes in very handy during an election campaign.

Both sides are lacking scruples but with the media bias, celebrity endorsements and the dismal past 8 years the dems would be able to crush the GOP with a decent candidate.

[CrossLOPER]

ITT people are unable to cope with the fact that their choice sucked.

[Vladimir]

I guess some people don't like admitting they were wrong :tongue3:

Sheesh. Tell me what the right answer was.

(Everyone should say theirs is.)

[PanzerJaeger]

I was too young, but I supported Bush against Gore and I still would.

You should have thrown McCain in there... that would be more conflicting for me. :laugh4:

[Caius]

IT WOULD BE THE END OF THE WORLD!!!
... as we know it. We would be breathing fresh air, and drinking potable water. I would had voted Al Gore, if I were US citizen and had the age.

[Devastatin Dave]

I voted for Bush but we got Nadir.

.

:laugh4:

I second that...

[Lemur]

Both sides are lacking scruples but with the media bias, celebrity endorsements and the dismal past 8 years the dems would be able to crush the GOP with a decent candidate.
'Cause the average American really appreciates being told what to think by Tom Cruise or Kanye West. That works out really well. Celeb endorsements are, at best, a two-edges blade. If you're counting them as part of the reason the dems should "crush" this year, please recalculate.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

As the poll stands, I'd vote Bush. Bush has been bad enough, but I firmly believe he's the lesser of two evils.

[OverKnight]

Anyone who does a decent guest spot on Futurama gets my vote. :2thumbsup:

[CountArach]

Anyone who does a decent guest spot on Futurama gets my vote. :2thumbsup:
"I'm a level ten Vice President."

[Don Corleone]

One thing is very clear... the 2000 election was doomed at the primaries. Either Bill Bradley or John McCain would have been head and shoulders over the choice and the result we got in November. I still think that Al Gore would have had a weak response on September 12th, would have asked the Taliban to forgive us and apologized, and that would have opened the door to more attacks. So:

1) John McCain (the 2000 version, not the current one)
2) Bill Bradley
3) John McCain (the current version, assuming he's just let his hair down and has always been like this behind the curtain)
4) George Bush
5) Al Gore

So, I suppose my vote on November 5th, 2000 would have remained unchanged, though I STILL would have held my nose and forced my hand to the page.

[Ronin]

Both sides are lacking scruples but with the media bias, celebrity endorsements and the dismal past 8 years the dems would be able to crush the GOP with a decent candidate.

both sides might lack scruples...but when it comes to highly hypocritical moves like say....trying to bury the opposing candidate on his war record when your own candidate is a draft dodger (or the moral equivalent...) ....now that takes some serious lack of scruples...that´s like the kung-fo of no scruples...:laugh4:

as for the media bias....from what I see of american news services from across the Atlantic, aside from Faux News I don´t really see any serious media bias.

[LittleGrizzly]

I still think that Al Gore would have had a week response on September 12th, would have asked the Taliban to forgive us and apologized, and that would have opened the door to more attacks

I honestly can't imagine any US politician not attacking Afghanastan after 9/11 (after the refusal to hand over Bin Laden) I don't think a president could have got away without attacking Afghanastan without seriously altering the evidence or the public perception of it...

[Spino]

I am somewhat proud to say I did not vote in 2000. I was rooting for McCain in 2000 and was rather peeved and dumbfounded when he lost to the bumbling GW Bush in the primaries. I viewed Gorebot as four more years of the Clintonistas so I wasn't having any of that crap. Had I managed to drag my lazy arse to the voting booth in 2000 I probably would have voted for an independent candidate for President and Libertarians, Conservatives or Republicans for all other elections.

Just to give you some perspective I voted for Clinton in 1992 and positively hated myself for it a few years later (whaddya want, I was straight out of college and clueless). I wholeheartedly voted for the crippled but doddering WW2 hero of the last decent generation in 1996 (that was Senator Bob Dole to the uninitiated). Moving past 2000 in 2004 I ran into the loving arms of Badnarik, if for no other reason than to file a protest vote against the 20th century Democrat tribute band that took over the Republican party (i.e. the NEO-CONs). Did I seriously consider voting for Kerry? LMAO!

[Lemur]

I honestly can't imagine any US politician not attacking Afghanastan after 9/11 (after the refusal to hand over Bin Laden).
As one comic put it, "Come on, Nader would have gone into Afghanistan ..."

[Koga No Goshi]

I guess some people don't like admitting they were wrong :tongue3:

Bush has a 19% approval rating and yeah... you still have people insisting he was the better choice, twice. Amazing intellectual disconnect there. I simply do not believe both Gore and Kerry were worse than probably the worst President in American history, with the 2nd lowest approval rating.

[TevashSzat]

as for the media bias....from what I see of american news services from across the Atlantic, aside from Faux News I don´t really see any serious media bias.

Well, I assume you're assuming to Fox News right?

MSNBC now is like becoming the left counter to Fox so of the three major cable news channel (Fox, MSNBC, CNN) I suppose CNN would be the most unbiased of the three, but thats not saying much....

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Bush has a 19% approval rating and yeah... you still have people insisting he was the better choice, twice. Amazing intellectual disconnect there.

The better choice doesn't mean he was good, just a seemingly better alternative than his two opponents.


I simply do not believe both Gore and Kerry were worse than probably the worst President in American history, with the 2nd lowest approval rating.

There's no way Bush was the worst. As for Gore and Kerry? I'm not a fan of Bush, but given those options, I'd vote for him over either of those two any day.

[Lemur]

There's no way Bush was the worst. As for Gore and Kerry? I'm not a fan of Bush, but given those options, I'd vote for him over either of those two any day.
Hey, there are (semi) serious people who argue that Bush 43 has been a great president, possibly one of the greatest. Example (http://www.politico.com/arena/bio/steven_g_calabresi.html):


This Administration deserves to be trusted because it has kept us safe from terrorist attack since 9/11, has fought and won two wars, has presided over eight years of economic growth, has appointed two stellar justices to the Supreme Court, and has even learned how to do Louisiana’s job of protecting that state from hurricanes. The day will come, and not before long, when Americans will wish that George Bush was still president.

Personally I think such people are as crazy as a sack of rabid weasels, but here's no accounting for taste.

[Koga No Goshi]

The better choice doesn't mean he was good, just a seemingly better alternative than his two opponents.



There's no way Bush was the worst. As for Gore and Kerry? I'm not a fan of Bush, but given those options, I'd vote for him over either of those two any day.

That's the problem both with the GOP tactics and with the mindset of their voters. Both campaigns were run as a style over substance combined with smearing character assasinations built out of falsehoods which succeeded. The Palin pick is the latest incarnation of this campaign strategy of style over substance. The fact that you might have found Kerry or Gore unexciting, or unelectable, compared to the absolute moron you "would have picked any day" who managed to preside over some of the biggest man-exacerbated disasters in our country's recent history and make most of them worse, is to me more of a commentary on the superficial and totally lacking in critical thought nature of the American mainstream mindset. It's not a point against Gore or Kerry. People voted for Bush, twice, because "he's the sort of guy you can BBQ and have a beer with", despite the fact that he's an elite white guy from Kennebunkport and had his homestyle Texas ranch constructed by a company that creates movie sets for Hollywood. This same total lack of attention to detail and willingness to get enamored with a brand name image without worrying about anything deeper than that which resonates and succeeds in garnering support from America's right-wing explains the big Palin boost (she's like the type of mom you could talk to and have lunch with!) in large part, since no other rational reason does unless you are the hardest core of far-right ideologue on the issues of abortion or gun rights.

People who would STILL, in light of recent events, defend the picking of Bush twice over the alternatives (even within the vaccuum-sealed "context" of "well AT THE TIME, between the two candidates"), display a strange obtuseness and refusal to admit being so embarrassingly wrong on a judgment call that I begin to see why these people identify more with someone like Bush than with a Gore, Kerry or Obama.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

The fact that you might have found Kerry or Gore unexciting

It's not the unexciting, or necessarily unelectable - I just firmly believe that they would have been worse.

[Koga No Goshi]

It's not the unexciting, or necessarily unelectable - I just firmly believe that they would have been worse.

How could they possibly be worse?! Honestly, how paranoid and fearful do you need to be in order to believe that someone much smarter than George W. Bush would have mass disabled our security or helped terrorists get nukes or whatever other fantastical doomsday scenario the right-wing has convinced itself will happen if one of those "smart, elitist" Democrats got into office?

Can you give any specific REASON you believe they would have been much worse? I honestly don't even see how that's possible short of starting WWIII.

[Strike For The South]

That's the problem both with the GOP tactics and with the mindset of their voters. Both campaigns were run as a style over substance combined with smearing character assasinations built out of falsehoods which succeeded. The Palin pick is the latest incarnation of this campaign strategy of style over substance. The fact that you might have found Kerry or Gore unexciting, or unelectable, compared to the absolute moron you "would have picked any day" who managed to preside over some of the biggest man-exacerbated disasters in our country's recent history and make most of them worse, is to me more of a commentary on the superficial and totally lacking in critical thought nature of the American mainstream mindset. It's not a point against Gore or Kerry. People voted for Bush, twice, because "he's the sort of guy you can BBQ and have a beer with", despite the fact that he's an elite white guy from Kennebunkport and had his homestyle Texas ranch constructed by a company that creates movie sets for Hollywood. This same total lack of attention to detail and willingness to get enamored with a brand name image without worrying about anything deeper than that which resonates and succeeds in garnering support from America's right-wing explains the big Palin boost (she's like the type of mom you could talk to and have lunch with!) in large part, since no other rational reason does unless you are the hardest core of far-right ideologue on the issues of abortion or gun rights.
.

Style over substance is American politics. Have you been following Barracks campaign about "finding himself" What a crock or what about McCain running on the fact that he was a POW. The system is broken blaming one party is only halfway their.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

How could they possibly be worse?! Honestly, how paranoid and fearful do you need to be in order to believe that someone much smarter than George W. Bush would have mass disabled our security or helped terrorists get nukes or whatever other fantastical doomsday scenario the right-wing has convinced itself will happen if one of those "smart, elitist" Democrats got into office?

Kerry was as much or more of a moron as Bush, and I plain out don't trust Al Gore. The George Bush Presidency didn't exactly do much bad in my part of the world.

[Koga No Goshi]

Kerry was as much or more of a moron as Bush, and I plain out don't trust Al Gore. The George Bush Presidency didn't exactly do much bad in my part of the world.

Translation, you didn't like them. I still don't see any specifics as to why you believe they would have been worse Presidents.

[Koga No Goshi]

Style over substance is American politics. Have you been following Barracks campaign about "finding himself" What a crock or what about McCain running on the fact that he was a POW. The system is broken blaming one party is only halfway their.

Once you get over the style aspect of it there is still substance. Saying that most people are stupid and just pay attention to the style aspect of it is the reason we are in the mess we are in. "Well, they're both the same, they're both just as bad, they're both politicians, so I will pick the marginally less evil of two evils" is an apathetic and naive attitude that helped run this country into the ground. The insistent belief, based upon hypotheticals, that a Democrat would have been worse so let's feel better about supporting Bush twice, is apologism for one of the worst Presidencies in our history. And people who don't care, and actually like, that the system is based off superficial, noncritically thinking factors like whether or not someone fakes the appearance of being a hillbilly (despite their multimillion or billion dollar status) are the people who benefit from it-- the GOP and their strategists. The fewer people show up to vote, the better Republicans tend to perform in elections, which is the motivation behind the largescale voter registration purges especially in swing states. This isn't "Shrug, that's how the American people are." This is carefully cultivated ignorance for a specific political end. And no, it's not two parties doing it the same way. The only people who ever make that excuse for their own party's behavior are Republicans.

[LittleGrizzly]

I too can't comprehend how people would still pick Bush over Gore and Kerry, not a criticism i was just a bit surprised by the amount of people who would still have voted Bush...

Firstly Iraq and Gauntanamo bay and the pr disastier for america it caused all over the world, not forgetting also the wide increase in support for terrorism from both of these

I think Kerry or Gore may not have gone into Iraq, its kind of hard to be sure but i think they would have seen the sense in leaving a secularist country alone in a war against fundamentalist Islam, Im fairly sure it was some republican goverment members that pushed for an iraq war rather than goverment agencys

Gauntanamo i don't think would have happened under Kerry or Gore, even if they wanted it with republican control of congress and the senate and with opposition from the republicans lead by McCain (i imagine) it would be hard to justify and possibly not even be attempted, possibly a more scaled back version gauntanamo...

Bush's harsh rhetoric was never paticularly good for relations with most countrys, again kerry or gore im sure would steer clear of this

Secondly the economy, i now gore and kerry were idiots who would have made every attempt to destroy the economy and done ten times the damage bush managed (being the most liberal ever at the time of thier potential election) but with a republican controlled senate and congress they would have no choice but to balance the budget...

Thats just scratching the surface of the improvments of Gore or Kerry over Bush

[Koga No Goshi]

Ahem, it's been what... pushing 30, 35 years now that Republicans can point back to their party being the ones who ever balanced the budget? The only thing consistent about Republicans for the last 30 some odd years is "cut taxes, especially for the richest." If you want a balanced budget, vote Democrat. People still vote on the "ideology" that conservativism is about fiscal responsibility, despite the fact that, in practice, no Republican since before Reagan has done anything but wrack up appallingly huge deficits.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

It's not the unexciting, or necessarily unelectable - I just firmly believe that they would have been worse.

Doooon't stop, belieeevin, just hold on to that fee-ee-eelin... :thrasher:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Doooon't stop, belieeevin, just hold on to that fee-ee-eelin... :thrasher:

If you gave me the choice, I wouldn't vote for any of the three. Third party all the way.

[Koga No Goshi]

If you gave me the choice, I wouldn't vote for any of the three. Third party all the way.

Why did you just waste like five posts defending Bush as the best choice then? Sigh.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Why did you just waste like five posts defending Bush as the best choice then? Sigh.

I didn't say he was the best choice - I thought he would be a better choice than Gore or Kerry. I've already stated numerous times in this thread that a third party would be best.

[Koga No Goshi]

I didn't say he was the best choice - I thought he would be a better choice than Gore or Kerry. I've already stated numerous times in this thread that a third party would be best.

Well you are entitled to your opinion naturally but I still feel you have completely avoided giving any specific reason why you assert that.

[Strike For The South]

Once you get over the style aspect of it there is still substance. Saying that most people are stupid and just pay attention to the style aspect of it is the reason we are in the mess we are in. "Well, they're both the same, they're both just as bad, they're both politicians, so I will pick the marginally less evil of two evils" is an apathetic and naive attitude that helped run this country into the ground. The insistent belief, based upon hypotheticals, that a Democrat would have been worse so let's feel better about supporting Bush twice, is apologism for one of the worst Presidencies in our history. And people who don't care, and actually like, that the system is based off superficial, noncritically thinking factors like whether or not someone fakes the appearance of being a hillbilly (despite their multimillion or billion dollar status) are the people who benefit from it-- the GOP and their strategists. The fewer people show up to vote, the better Republicans tend to perform in elections, which is the motivation behind the largescale voter registration purges especially in swing states. This isn't "Shrug, that's how the American people are." This is carefully cultivated ignorance for a specific political end. And no, it's not two parties doing it the same way. The only people who ever make that excuse for their own party's behavior are Republicans.
if you honestly and truly believe the democrats will do any better you are being naive, Bush and Clinton enacted legislation which ran contrary to their parties platforms. All the government has been doing for the last thirty years is grow and erode our rights no matter whose in power. This country is in the pocket of big business and populism. Obama, Biden and McCain all make more money than many Americans could ever dream of making ( I still cant believe out of 300 million people Sarah "I can see Russia" Palin is the best we could come up with) To put it simply same boss is the same as the old boss.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

So you're a nihilist?

[Koga No Goshi]

if you honestly and truly believe the democrats will do any better you are being naive, Bush and Clinton enacted legislation which ran contrary to their parties platforms. All the government has been doing for the last thirty years is grow and erode our rights no matter whose in power. This country is in the pocket of big business and populism. Obama, Biden and McCain all make more money than many Americans could ever dream of making ( I still cant believe out of 300 million people Sarah "I can see Russia" Palin is the best we could come up with) To put it simply same boss is the same as the old boss.

If you don't believe that you can make informed decisions based off of facts, information and past experience, then what exactly DO you make decisions on?

There is absolutely no basis whatsoever to believe that a Democrat would have performed as badly to an equal or greater extent on every issue as George W. Bush's administration has. If there is such precedent and evidence please present it. On the war alone you have no case. FDR won WWII in less time than we've been fighting an insurgency in one country. On the budget you have no case. George W. Bush has created a larger deficit than all other Presidents combined, and before him Reagan made the second largest. Clinton had an extremely competent FEMA organization because he appointed qualified people. George W. Bush appointed a race horse trader who contributed to his campaign and told people to stop interrupting his dinner while Katrina was going on.

This tit = tat = Republican = Democrat = same = same = all would do the same thing = all are just as bad argument does not hold water based on any factual yardstick or past precedent.

[Strike For The South]

So you're a nihilist?

No.

[Strike For The South]

If you don't believe that you can make informed decisions based off of facts, information and past experience, then what exactly DO you make decisions on?

There is absolutely no basis whatsoever to believe that a Democrat would have performed as badly to an equal or greater extent on every issue as George W. Bush's administration has. If there is such precedent and evidence please present it. On the war alone you have no case. FDR won WWII in less time than we've been fighting an insurgency in one country. On the budget you have no case. George W. Bush has created a larger deficit than all other Presidents combined, and before him Reagan made the second largest.

This tit = tat = Republican = Democrat = same = same = all would do the same thing = all are just as bad argument does not hold water based on any factual yardstick or past precedent.

I never said Bush would be better than Gore. Comparing WWII to the present quagmire where doesn't hold water either, two completely different situations. The president has very little control over the economy Has Bush hurt the economy? yes but to say we wouldn't be where we are now if we had elected Gore is asinine considering these are private companies in a private market. All I know is every year the government gets more invasive and every year they piss my money away. All that time stocking canned peas and these ol'boys cant even spend my money right.

[Koga No Goshi]

I never said Bush would be better than Gore. Comparing WWII to the present quagmire where doesn't hold water either, two completely different situations.

Completely agreed, but I am not the one who made that comparison. The Bush Administration did, so it's fair to judge them by it, isn't it?


The president has very little control over the economy Has Bush hurt the economy? yes but to say we wouldn't be where we are now if we had elected Gore is asinine considering these are private companies in a private market. All I know is every year the government gets more invasive and every year they piss my money away. All that time stocking canned peas and these ol'boys cant even spend my money right.

Deregulation has been the hellbent obsession of the GOP since Reagan. Talk to miners. Remember those high profile mining collapses taht trapped and killed miners in the last few years? A lot of the mining team foremen and such say that multiple complaints were ignored. Under Clinton (their words) when a complaint about safety was made, government inspectors came out, fines were issued, and safety regulations were required to be complied with before work resumed. Under Bush multiple safety complaints went without notice, simply wasn't a high priority. The fact that this was, as you say, private companies in a private market is BECAUSE of Republican policies and deregulation. To say that everything would be the same if we'd had 8 years of Gore or 4 years of Kerry is what's asinine.

[Strike For The South]

Completely agreed, but I am not the one who made that comparison. The Bush Administration did, so it's fair to judge them by it, isn't it?



Deregulation has been the hellbent obsession of the GOP since Reagan. Talk to miners. Remember those high profile mining collapses taht trapped and killed miners in the last few years? A lot of the mining team foremen and such say that multiple complaints were ignored. Under Clinton (their words) when a complaint about safety was made, government inspectors came out, fines were issued, and safety regulations were required to be complied with before work resumed. Under Bush multiple safety complaints went without notice, simply wasn't a high priority. The fact that this was, as you say, private companies in a private market is BECAUSE of Republican policies and deregulation. To say that everything would be the same if we'd had 8 years of Gore or 4 years of Kerry is what's asinine.

I was talking about the present sub-prime/banking/stock market thing that seems to be killing us all very slowly. I remember the mining incidents but I dont know enough about that backstory to argue with you....yet. I believe Lehman bros and Fanny mea and Freddie mac and all those others companies were private before Bush got in office :smile:

[Koga No Goshi]

I was talking about the present sub-prime/banking/stock market thing that seems to be killing us all very slowly. I remember the mining incidents but I dont know enough about that backstory to argue with you....yet. I believe Lehman bros and Fanny mea and Freddie mac and all those others companies were private before Bush got in office :smile:


It was not an issue of them being private. It's not like they would have been nationalized under Gore. That's not what I was saying. It's not that they were private, it's that they were UNREGULATED and paid BIG MONEY to REPUBLICANS to lobby to stay unregulated. And McCain has been a big crusader for Deregulation. Bush too. Private is not the problem, unregulated is the problem. Same thing with immigration laws and illlegal immigrants. If current laws were enforced, as they were in 1999, employers would have to submit new employee SS#'s to the government for verification as matching the name and such. If it bounced, the government would give the employer x amount of time to resubmit it. The very first thing the Chamber of Commerce requested of the Bush Admin when it took office was to cease enforcement of this law, and it was granted. So now it's that much easier for seemingly "legitimate" employers to have illegal immigrant employees with little or no risk of being caught unless they are reported.

So yes, who is President, and what his economic and political ideology is pertaining to regulation and the market, has a big effect. Saying that a Democrat would have done all the same things as Bush is simply untrue, and way too kind to the Republican side of responsibility in this mess IMHO.

[PanzerJaeger]

Translation, you didn't like them. I still don't see any specifics as to why you believe they would have been worse Presidents.

LoL - SFTS wins again.

An ardent supporter of Barack Obama is arguing that the Republicans put style over substance! :laugh4:

I'm not sure if you've been paying attention during the last 8 years, but GWB is hardly the epitome of style or charisma.


As for specifics, Al Gore was virtually non-existent in the Clinton White House and had far less governing experience than GWB. His "leadership" during the Global Warming debate(his only noteworthy position since 2000), including his rush to embrace now defunct pseudoscience to prop up his points and the massively hypocrytical energy use, has since shown his competence. Why should anyone think he would have been any more able as president?

Kerry is really easy. Iraq. Enough said.

Whether McCain was the better pick in 2000 is definitely debatable, but I am confident Bush was the right pick in 2004. Kerry was convinced we were defeated and would have had us retreat at one of the most critical times of the war. No General Betrayus and no Surge. ~;)

[Koga No Goshi]

Right, because Bush and all his experienced administration have done such a wonderful job in Iraq. Rumsfeldt is so experienced that I think he took part in the siege of Troy. It didn't help the war go much more smoothly, did it? "Experience" by virtue of being parts of powerful families that could connect and place you well which speaks to virtually every single member of the Bush Admin doesn't imply an ounce of common sense or any connection to reality, as we have seen for the last 8 years.

Keep drinking the koolaid though, things are SO much better than even the best case scenarios under any Democrat. Yeah. Good one. You know what-- SERIOUSLY, I can't even believe that you believe this. I can't. You guys seem to live in so much fear of what if's... there is a constant barrage of theoreticals and what you are utterly convinced would have happened (and, conveniently, it always would have been worse than even the monumental failures of the Bush Administration) under a Democrat. If that's what you need to continue supporting that two terms of Bush was what was ideal for the country given the choices, you go for it. Just don't blame a liberal media bias when polls and stats increasingly show you as the out of touch minority in this country. What, 60% of Americans now believe the war was a mistake? Not that it was a good idea, badly managed. A mistake. As in we should have never been in there. And more than two-thirds want us out, regardless of the merits of going in. Bush has a 19% approval ratings, one of the lowest ever in U.S. history. You guys have practically sealed him away in Cheney's bunker since before the convention, to avoid hurting McCain's chances by at all sending out the psychological message that McCain and Bush are connected in any way.

Yet, he was the right choice. Twice. Who do you think you are fooling?

[PanzerJaeger]

Right, because Bush and all his experienced administration have done such a wonderful job in Iraq. Rumsfeldt is so experienced that I think he took part in the siege of Troy. It didn't help the war go much more smoothly, did it? "Experience" by virtue of being parts of powerful families that could connect and place you well which speaks to virtually every single member of the Bush Admin doesn't imply an ounce of common sense or any connection to reality, as we have seen for the last 8 years.

Can we tone down the bitter? No one said he has been great. You're hounding people for specifics as to why he would have been better than Gore and Kerry. They were provided. :bow:




Keep drinking the koolaid though, things are SO much better than even the best case scenarios under any Democrat. Yeah. Good one. You know what-- SERIOUSLY, I can't even believe that you believe this. I can't. You guys seem to live in so much fear of what if's... there is a constant barrage of theoreticals and what you are utterly convinced would have happened (and, conveniently, it always would have been worse than even the monumental failures of the Bush Administration) under a Democrat. .

Geez. Did a conservative eat your baby?

No one is living off of any fear of what-ifs bud. You have essentially posed a question that can only be answered with what-ifs. Neither Al Gore nor John Kerry were elected, so we can only make educated guesses as to how they would have lead. What do expect us to say?




Yet, he was the right choice. Twice. Who do you think you are fooling?

Sadly, he probably was. Well, he definitely was against Kerry.

[Koga No Goshi]

Can we tone down the bitter? No one said he has been great. You're hounding people for specifics as to why he would have been better than Gore and Kerry. They were provided. :bow:

Kerry... Iraq is not exactly a compelling argument. "I think Kerry's plan would have been worse" is an opinion based on theoreticals. I am not sure what more exactly would need to go wrong before you guys would say "um yeah... it's probable this wasn't the best of all choices." The world to end, apparently. Even then you'd probably say under Gore it would have ended 3 days sooner. And been the fault of the Democrats.


Geez. Did a conservative eat your baby?

Conservatives are destroying my country. So in a way I guess?


No one is living off of any fear of what-ifs bud. You have essentially posed a question that can only be answered with what-ifs. Neither Al Gore nor John Kerry were elected, so we can only make educated guesses as to how they would have lead. What do expect us to say?

Oh please. Every other defense of Bush is "well if we didn't have Bush we would have been attacked again." What kind of half-arsed argument is that as a castiron bit of proof Bush's fantabulously horrendous Presidency is better than a Democrat would have done?

We have not been attacked in SPITE of the Bush Presidency, not because of it. We have a big bureaucratic ineffective airport security system, but still none of the practical security measures recommended by the 9/11 commission which would have in any way inconvenienced or cost any profit to the private sector in shipping, harbors, or cargo. But if a suitcase nuke slips in on a cargo freight ship from another country, I am sure somehow it will have been a bigger suitcase nuke if Kerry had been in office right?

You guys have no leg to stand on. You just keep insisting over and over that something almost laughably impossible is the truth. "It would have been worse!!!"

[PanzerJaeger]

Kerry... Iraq is not exactly a compelling argument. "I think Kerry's plan would have been worse" is an opinion based on theoreticals.

Excuse my ignorance, but what kind of answer are you looking for? Opinion based on theoreticals is pretty much all that can be given in this instance, unless you can take us to an altered dimension where those men were actually elected.

And in the case of Kerry and Iraq, there is actually very little question as to what he was planning to do and what that would have left us with, as he said it quite frequently on the stump.



Conservatives are destroying my country. So in a way I guess?

The horror!



Oh please. Every other defense of Bush is "well if we didn't have Bush we would have been attacked again." What kind of half-arsed argument is that as a castiron bit of proof Bush's fantabulously horrendous Presidency is better than a Democrat would have done?

I'm not sure who you're attributing this argument to, but I will say its just as half-arsed as saying Al Gore or John Kerry would have been good presidents without any reasoning other than the fact that neither is George W. Bush. :shrug:



We have not been attacked in SPITE of the Bush Presidency, not because of it.

Thats just as speculative as saying we have not been attacked because of GWB. You'll find purely partisan thinking comes full circle occasionally.



You guys have no leg to stand on. You just keep insisting over and over that something almost laughably impossible is the truth. "It would have been worse!!!"

Where is your leg again? You keep insisting "It would have been better!!!" with no way of verifying such a claim.

Like I said, Gore imo was not a good choice and his actions since 2000 have backed that up in my eyes. Thats entirely debatable and simply my opinion.

What is not debatable is that a Kerry presidency would have resulted in a lost war and all that would have come with it. Despite all your rantings and ravings, and possibly even despite Bush's own failures in leadership, he stuck with it in Iraq and eventually found a team that worked. You can debate the decision to go to war all you want, but I think the current situation is certainly preferable to a 2004 cut and run.

[LittleGrizzly]

I'm not sure who you're attributing this argument to, but I will say its just as half-arsed as saying Al Gore or John Kerry would have been good presidents without any reasoning other than the fact that neither is George W. Bush.

I have heard this argument presented quite a few times in this very forum, it is a very irritating argument, you may as well chalk up another point for bush as we haven't had a world war during his terms either (despite his best efforts ;) )

One thing i don't think anyone can dispute is the fact the gore or kerry would have been working with a republican controlled senate and congress, i have heard many times from people from both democrats and republicans on here that the govement causes a lot less trouble when the powers are split between the parts rather than concentrated into the hands of one party

The most obvious advantadge being the republicans would have never let a democrat president get away with such insane levels of spending (whilst dropping tax!) i think this fact is really indisputable and considering the economy is usually a big consideration for republicans im surprised no one has considered the idea or mentioned it

Disastiers like Iraq and Gauntanamo would have possibly been avioded as well, with republicans actually questioning the prudence of such moves rather than automatic branding of disagreement as unpatriotic, both messes may have been handled better or avoided all together...

Even if you think Gore and Kerry were the stupidest evilist most liberal people ever they simply couldn't have caused as much harm as Bush anyway due to republican control of congress and the senate, whereas Bush was in charge of a republican party ruling all 3 that just followed Bush blindly into a myriad of disastiers they would never have let a democrat get away with...

[Don Corleone]

How could they possibly be worse?! Honestly, how paranoid and fearful do you need to be in order to believe that someone much smarter than George W. Bush would have mass disabled our security or helped terrorists get nukes or whatever other fantastical doomsday scenario the right-wing has convinced itself will happen if one of those "smart, elitist" Democrats got into office?

Can you give any specific REASON you believe they would have been much worse? I honestly don't even see how that's possible short of starting WWIII.

Al Gore was part on an administration that is on record as believing the dissemnation of all our more advanced weaponry to China, India, Russia and other potential adverseries would in fact lead to an easing of tensions... The theory was "if we don't have a way to defend ourselves, they won't consider us a threat". Al Gore was a strong advocate of this policy.

John Kerry was a poll-watcher. He reminds me of the the fellow at the Roulette table who after the ball stops, says "But I really wanted Red, not black... so I win". Time, time and time again, he contradicted himself, changed positions, and claimed credit for positions that in fact he never held. And I'm not talking about slowly evolving positions over time, I'm talking about within weeks or months.

I think George W. Bush has had an abysmal presidency. He has done some few things rather well, and many, many many others horribly. I think history will judge him rather harshly. But he did in fact provide the exact sort of leadership we needed on September 12th, 2001. Al Gore was on television within hours saying "Clearly, we've made forces in the world angry with us. We should seek out what we've done to provoke them and try to make ammends". Really? Really? How much placating did we do after the African embassy bombings, the bombing of the USS Cole, and the bombing of the Khobe towers? Where did that get us?

I gave you one example of a Democrat I would much rather have voted for in 2000. I can give you 4 that I would have preferred in 2004. Don't call me a partisan and a victim of style over substance because your Democratic party insists on selecting candidates that are inept.

[Strike For The South]

It was not an issue of them being private. It's not like they would have been nationalized under Gore. That's not what I was saying. It's not that they were private, it's that they were UNREGULATED and paid BIG MONEY to REPUBLICANS to lobby to stay unregulated. And McCain has been a big crusader for Deregulation. Bush too. Private is not the problem, unregulated is the problem. Same thing with immigration laws and illlegal immigrants. If current laws were enforced, as they were in 1999, employers would have to submit new employee SS#'s to the government for verification as matching the name and such. If it bounced, the government would give the employer x amount of time to resubmit it. The very first thing the Chamber of Commerce requested of the Bush Admin when it took office was to cease enforcement of this law, and it was granted. So now it's that much easier for seemingly "legitimate" employers to have illegal immigrant employees with little or no risk of being caught unless they are reported.

So yes, who is President, and what his economic and political ideology is pertaining to regulation and the market, has a big effect. Saying that a Democrat would have done all the same things as Bush is simply untrue, and way too kind to the Republican side of responsibility in this mess IMHO.

Hehe what flavor is your kool aid? You keep changing subjects . Im talking about the sub-prime crisis not illegals thats a wholenother argument. Do you ever wonder why these banks had so many bad loans out? Its not because they were "to big" or "capitalist greed". Im going to take you back to the Carter administration. Carter and his boys pass the community reinvestment act which enables people to afford these loans they normally couldn't (because everyone deserves a house even if they dont have the means right?) This act was greatly expanded under Clinton. Of course the blame doesn't fall solely on the demos as Clinton needed his GOP congress to back him. Oh and did I mention a populace that seems enamored by populism and the quick fix they needed them to. You reap what you sow big guy. There is your socialism for you

[Koga No Goshi]

Al Gore was part on an administration that is on record as believing the dissemnation of all our more advanced weaponry to China, India, Russia and other potential adverseries would in fact lead to an easing of tensions... The theory was "if we don't have a way to defend ourselves, they won't consider us a threat". Al Gore was a strong advocate of this policy.

And Bush and his entire admin are Reagan hand-me-downs who during their careers armed Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and Iraq, countries we are ACTUALLY in some level of hostilities with. So your argument just fell apart.



John Kerry was a poll-watcher. He reminds me of the the fellow at the Roulette table who after the ball stops, says "But I really wanted Red, not black... so I win". Time, time and time again, he contradicted himself, changed positions, and claimed credit for positions that in fact he never held. And I'm not talking about slowly evolving positions over time, I'm talking about within weeks or months.

No. When the numbers didn't look confident for Kerry he was advised by the Clintons to make the political move of coming out hard with an anti-gay stance. Kerry refused.


I think George W. Bush has had an abysmal presidency. He has done some few things rather well, and many, many many others horribly. I think history will judge him rather harshly. But he did in fact provide the exact sort of leadership we needed on September 12th, 2001. Al Gore was on television within hours saying "Clearly, we've made forces in the world angry with us. We should seek out what we've done to provoke them and try to make ammends". Really? Really? How much placating did we do after the African embassy bombings, the bombing of the USS Cole, and the bombing of the Khobe towers? Where did that get us?

Rational people given two choices and having the one they chose be monumentally, historic-level bad, would wonder if maybe their conviction that it was the best choice wasn't very wise in retrospect. There is an almost total lack of that with these posts defending Bush as the best choice, twice. Especially since almost all of the things that are wrecking our country at the moment resulted from things Republicans ideologically hardline in support of doing and Democrats at least moderately oppose. (Tax cuts during war, tax cuts for the rich, huge increases in spending off the books without paying for it as you go, deregulation, going into war halfcocked without reasonable evidence, among others.)


I gave you one example of a Democrat I would much rather have voted for in 2000. I can give you 4 that I would have preferred in 2004. Don't call me a partisan and a victim of style over substance because your Democratic party insists on selecting candidates that are inept.

You are inept, because you gave us two terms of Bush. You fail as a responsible voter. The election now, for instance. I do not know exactly how much BETTER a Democrat needs to be in almost every possible regard than his Republican opponent before you Republicans posing as neutral centrists would even say they were "equal", let alone how BAD the Republican candidate is. Every major criticism of Obama that floats around here is a style issue. He's egomaniacal. He's elitist. He's nothing but a charisma package. A ton of projection and a long litany of style attacks which would much, much more aptly be redirected back at the Republicans. Projection is nothing new when it comes to Republicans. Republicans are typically so bad, their policies so awful and so out of step with what would be in the best interests for the big majority of Americans who aren't uber-rich, that they really stand no chance if they don't run a whole campaign and spin machine based on lying and insisting that everything which is most true about themselves is actually more true of the Democrats.

[Koga No Goshi]

Hehe what flavor is your kool aid? You keep changing subjects . Im talking about the sub-prime crisis not illegals thats a wholenother argument.

IF you can't grasp that this was giving you an example of how a President's political ideology has a real effect on the PRIVATE MARKETPLACE, then I don't know what to say. Your argument was basically that these companies were private, so whoever was President wouldn't have made a difference in the current crisis. That is, frankly, very dumb.


Do you ever wonder why these banks had so many bad loans out? Its not because they were "to big" or "capitalist greed". Im going to take you back to the Carter administration. Carter and his boys pass the community reinvestment act which enables people to afford these loans they normally couldn't (because everyone deserves a house even if they dont have the means right?) This act was greatly expanded under Clinton. Of course the blame doesn't fall solely on the demos as Clinton needed his GOP congress to back him. Oh and did I mention a populace that seems enamored by populism and the quick fix they needed them to. You reap what you sow big guy. There is your socialism for you

Wait, are you now arguing these banks were "forced" to give out loans they knew were uncollectable, and then pawn off the liability onto the taxpayer? I know you're not arguing that. ;)

[Strike For The South]

IF you can't grasp that this was giving you an example of how a President's political ideology has a real effect on the PRIVATE MARKETPLACE, then I don't know what to say. Your argument was basically that these companies were private, so whoever was President wouldn't have made a difference in the current crisis. That is, frankly, very dumb.

I misread your post sorry. I dont think you should have to give up your SS# to get a job however if the company wants it and you need the money you should submit it. Also the American people like the cheap goods that illegals provide so yea. I am actually for the loosening of certain restrictions on illegals before we decide what to do. Growing up in South Texas does that to a boy :)



[/quote], are you now arguing these banks were "forced" to give out loans they knew were uncollectable, and then pawn off the liability onto the taxpayer? I know you're not arguing that. ;)[/QUOTE]

This articulates the situation better than I ever could. These banks wernt forced however it was only when the government began subsidizing these things that the banks started to give out these loans (because they were now profitable!!!). A free market would have no allowed such subsidization :)


The financial meltdown the economists of the Austrian School predicted has arrived.

We are in this crisis because of an excess of artificially created credit at the hands of the Federal Reserve System. The solution being proposed? More artificial credit by the Federal Reserve. No liquidation of bad debt and malinvestment is to be allowed. By doing more of the same, we will only continue and intensify the distortions in our economy - all the capital misallocation, all the malinvestment - and prevent the market's attempt to re-establish rational pricing of houses and other assets.

Last night the president addressed the nation about the financial crisis. There is no point in going through his remarks line by line, since I'd only be repeating what I've been saying over and over - not just for the past several days, but for years and even decades.

Still, at least a few observations are necessary.

The president assures us that his administration "is working with Congress to address the root cause behind much of the instability in our markets." Care to take a guess at whether the Federal Reserve and its money creation spree were even mentioned?

We are told that "low interest rates" led to excessive borrowing, but we are not told how these low interest rates came about. They were a deliberate policy of the Federal Reserve. As always, artificially low interest rates distort the market. Entrepreneurs engage in malinvestments - investments that do not make sense in light of current resource availability, that occur in more temporally remote stages of the capital structure than the pattern of consumer demand can support, and that would not have been made at all if the interest rate had been permitted to tell the truth instead of being toyed with by the Fed.

Not a word about any of that, of course, because Americans might then discover how the great wise men in Washington caused this great debacle. Better to keep scapegoating the mortgage industry or "wildcat capitalism" (as if we actually have a pure free market!).

Speaking about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the president said: "Because these companies were chartered by Congress, many believed they were guaranteed by the federal government. This allowed them to borrow enormous sums of money, fuel the market for questionable investments, and put our financial system at risk."

Doesn't that prove the foolishness of chartering Fannie and Freddie in the first place? Doesn't that suggest that maybe, just maybe, government may have contributed to this mess? And of course, by bailing out Fannie and Freddie, hasn't the federal government shown that the "many" who "believed they were guaranteed by the federal government" were in fact correct?

Then come the scare tactics. If we don't give dictatorial powers to the Treasury Secretary "the stock market would drop even more, which would reduce the value of your retirement account. The value of your home could plummet." Left unsaid, naturally, is that with the bailout and all the money and credit that must be produced out of thin air to fund it, the value of your retirement account will drop anyway, because the value of the dollar will suffer a precipitous decline. As for home prices, they are obviously much too high, and supply and demand cannot equilibrate if government insists on propping them up.

It's the same destructive strategy that government tried during the Great Depression: prop up prices at all costs. The Depression went on for over a decade. On the other hand, when liquidation was allowed to occur in the equally devastating downturn of 1921, the economy recovered within less than a year.

The president also tells us that Senators McCain and Obama will join him at the White House today in order to figure out how to get the bipartisan bailout passed. The two senators would do their country much more good if they stayed on the campaign trail debating who the bigger celebrity is, or whatever it is that occupies their attention these days.

F.A. Hayek won the Nobel Prize for showing how central banks' manipulation of interest rates creates the boom-bust cycle with which we are sadly familiar. In 1932, in the depths of the Great Depression, he described the foolish policies being pursued in his day - and which are being proposed, just as destructively, in our own:

Instead of furthering the inevitable liquidation of the maladjustments brought about by the boom during the last three years, all conceivable means have been used to prevent that readjustment from taking place; and one of these means, which has been repeatedly tried though without success, from the earliest to the most recent stages of depression, has been this deliberate policy of credit expansion.

To combat the depression by a forced credit expansion is to attempt to cure the evil by the very means which brought it about; because we are suffering from a misdirection of production, we want to create further misdirection - a procedure that can only lead to a much more severe crisis as soon as the credit expansion comes to an end... It is probably to this experiment, together with the attempts to prevent liquidation once the crisis had come, that we owe the exceptional severity and duration of the depression.

The only thing we learn from history, I am afraid, is that we do not learn from history.

The very people who have spent the past several years assuring us that the economy is fundamentally sound, and who themselves foolishly cheered the extension of all these novel kinds of mortgages, are the ones who now claim to be the experts who will restore prosperity! Just how spectacularly wrong, how utterly without a clue, does someone have to be before his expert status is called into question?

Oh, and did you notice that the bailout is now being called a "rescue plan"? I guess "bailout" wasn't sitting too well with the American people.

The very people who with somber faces tell us of their deep concern for the spread of democracy around the world are the ones most insistent on forcing a bill through Congress that the American people overwhelmingly oppose. The very fact that some of you seem to think you're supposed to have a voice in all this actually seems to annoy them.

I continue to urge you to contact your representatives and give them a piece of your mind. I myself am doing everything I can to promote the correct point of view on the crisis. Be sure also to educate yourselves on these subjects - the Campaign for Liberty blog is an excellent place to start. Read the posts, ask questions in the comment section, and learn.

H.G. Wells once said that civilization was in a race between education and catastrophe. Let us learn the truth and spread it as far and wide as our circumstances allow. For the truth is the greatest weapon we have.

In liberty,



Ron Paul

[Koga No Goshi]

I misread your post sorry. I dont think you should have to give up your SS# to get a job however if the company wants it and you need the money you should submit it. Also the American people like the cheap goods that illegals provide so yea. I am actually for the loosening of certain restrictions on illegals before we decide what to do. Growing up in South Texas does that to a boy :)

You don't "give it up", your employer NEEDS your social security number to report your W-2 and also since they are collecting it anyway, cross-referencing it with the government lets them see if five different people in five different states are using the same social security number, or if the name and social security number don't match. This is a way to catch illegally hired workers. So why do you think employers should not ask for your social security number? What these companies requested, and the request was GRANTED by the Bush Admin, was for them NOT TO ENFORCE checks on the social security number. So right now, 27 illegal immigrants can be working "legitimately" using your social security number and no one has any clue it's going on.


This articulates the situation better than I ever could. These banks wernt forced however it was only when the government began subsidizing these things that the banks started to give out these loans (because they were now profitable!!!). A free market would have no allowed such subsidization :)

Nevertheless if the banks had to collect on the bad loans they made, they wouldn't have given out bad loans in the first place. They were in it ONLY for the commission fees that banks receive at the moment a loan is signed, and then they pawned off the mortgage on a big debt holder like Freddie and Fannie. And Freddie and Fannie in turn bought the bad loans because they knew uncollectable ones would be covered by the taxpayer.

I get the impression you don't know quite how BAD this thing was, South. The same goes for everyone at all acting like this was more the fault of individuals and such. The banks weren't even CHECKING people's reported income. I work in an accounting office and I know this because people told their accountants, "Wow, I didn't think I would get that loan, I exaggerated my income and they didn't even check!" Yes, I hate that individual people did that. But it was the BANKS who gave the loan, KNOWING IT WAS BAD, and KNOWING THAT THE TAXPAYER WOULD HAVE TO COVER IT! So who's the real crook? Those people who took the bad loans are now walking away in foreclosure and lost a ton of money. And they never thought taxpayers would cover them, because what they figured would happen was they would keep paying on the house just for six months, and then sell it at a profit because housing prices were going up so fast. They're going to live minimum 7 years with the credit repercussions of their greed plus whatever they lost out of pocket. Wall Street and the banks are walking away with the huge commission fees they earned and bonus packages they ALREADY handed out, before the crash.

[Strike For The South]

You don't "give it up", your employer NEEDS your social security number to report your W-2 and also since they are collecting it anyway, cross-referencing it with the government lets them see if five different people in five different states are using the same social security number, or if the name and social security number don't match. This is a way to catch illegally hired workers. So why do you think employers should not ask for your social security number? What these companies requested, and the request was GRANTED by the Bush Admin, was for them NOT TO ENFORCE checks on the social security number. So right now, 27 illegal immigrants can be working "legitimately" using your social security number and no one has any clue it's going on.



Nevertheless if the banks had to collect on the bad loans they made, they wouldn't have given out bad loans in the first place. They were in it ONLY for the commission fees that banks receive at the moment a loan is signed, and then they pawned off the mortgage on a big debt holder like Freddie and Fannie. And Freddie and Fannie in turn bought the bad loans because they knew uncollectable ones would be covered by the taxpayer.

I get the impression you don't know quite how BAD this thing was, South. The same goes for everyone at all acting like this was more the fault of individuals and such. The banks weren't even CHECKING people's reported income. I work in an accounting office and I know this because people told their accountants, "Wow, I didn't think I would get that loan, I exaggerated my income and they didn't even check!" Yes, I hate that individual people did that. But it was the BANKS who gave the loan, KNOWING IT WAS BAD, and KNOWING THAT THE TAXPAYER WOULD HAVE TO COVER IT! So who's the real crook? Those people who took the bad loans are now walking away in foreclosure and lost a ton of money. Wall Street and the banks are walking away with the huge commission fees they earned and bonus packages they ALREADY handed out, before the crash.


I understand. It was everyones fault the bank and the people for being so shortsighted. From the CEO to the little guy and I'm just as angry as you that these fat cats now get a severance package for :daisy: up. Things need to get worse before they get better and covering debt money with more debt money isnt helping. Dont spend money you dont have

I would love to argue about the illegal debate with in another thread. Unless you've already grown tired of the non-sense I spew. lol

[Koga No Goshi]

I understand. It was everyones fault the bank and the people for being so shortsighted. From the CEO to the little guy and I'm just as angry as you that these fat cats now get a severance package for :daisy: up. Things need to get worse before they get better and covering debt money with more debt money isnt helping. Dont spend money you dont have

I would love to argue about the illegal debate with in another thread. Unless you've already grown tired of the non-sense I spew. lol

Nah you seem pretty cool. ;)

[Don Corleone]

Blah blah blah I'm so smart and you're so dumb... blah blah blah

Word to the wise, scorn derision and condescension aren't going to win you any converts. I thought you were somebody worth speaking to, clearly I was mistaken. I'll now exit and allow you to continue to wax on about how brilliant you are and how clearly stupid anyone who disagrees with you must be.

[Koga No Goshi]

Word to the wise, scorn derision and condescension aren't going to win you any converts. I thought you were somebody worth speaking to, clearly I was mistaken. I'll now exit and allow you to continue to wax on about how brilliant you are and how clearly stupid anyone who disagrees with you must be.

What are you talking about? That is a false quote, I never typed that.

And as a post-script; yes, if you come in and draw a hard ideological battle line and then you aren't even familiar with the basic facts of a situation, I will point it out. If that's at the cost of you or someone else calling me scornful and condescending so be it but if the point here is for everyone to just sorta spew out their vague feeling on the situation and walk away with fuzzy feelings, then I fail to see why we are even discussing something so serious.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

What are you talking about? That is a false quote, I never typed that.

I believe he was referring to a general attitude and not a specific quote. :bow:

[Koga No Goshi]

I believe he was referring to a general attitude and not a specific quote. :bow:

Shrug, I do not know what to say if I am expected to not point out when someone is making an argument based off lack of knowledge of a situation. If that is a problem for someone feel free NOT to quote-paste-respond to me.

[Don Corleone]

First and foremost, I'm intricately aware of the politics in both the 2000 and the 2004 election.

Second, no, you didn't make any direct quotes which is why I didn't make any quote marks. I can understand why an intelligent person might be a Chavez supporter, let alone Al Gore or George Bush. I don't feel a need to resort to insults and derision to express why I believe they're wrong. You apparently lack that, which is why I felt that the need to continue the discussion is over.

If you truly believe I was attempting to falsely attribute a direct quote to you, I apologize. I was employing a device known as paraphrasing.

[Koga No Goshi]

First and foremost, I'm intricately aware of the politics in both the 2000 and the 2004 election.

Second, no, you didn't make any direct quotes which is why I didn't make any quote marks. I can understand why an intelligent person might be a Chavez supporter, let alone Al Gore or George Bush. I don't feel a need to resort to insults and derision to express why I believe they're wrong. You apparently lack that, which is why I felt that the need to continue the discussion is over.

If you truly believe I was attempting to falsely attribute a direct quote to you, I apologize. I was employing a device known as paraphrasing.

1) Have not insulted anybody. Though I have called specific arguments or lines of thought "dumb" or "naive", and usually quoted them or discussed them specifically.

2) If this is a personal problem with my style PM'ming me instead of making a public snipe would be appreciated.

3) If anyone thinks I have personally insulted them there was no intention to do so on my part.

4) If you start a topic about real-life politics but then say you have to research this, look into that, or haven't heard about this, then don't draw hard ideological battle lines and insist something is definitely this or you're certain of that.

5) Sorry for sounding hostile but I felt called out and misrepresented by Corleone's "paraphrase" of me.

[Divinus Arma]

Manbearpig.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Koga, did you change your location from Berkeley to L.A.?

[Koga No Goshi]

Koga, did you change your location from Berkeley to L.A.?

Yes. I just recently returned to the org forums, and I haven't lived in Berkeley in almost five years.

[PanzerJaeger]

You are inept, because you gave us two terms of Bush. You fail as a responsible voter.

As Aretha would say... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respect)

[Azi Tohak]

John McCain. I wanted him to beat G.Dub in the primaries, and I am so sad he couldn't quite do it ):

I piss on Al Gore.

Azi

[CountArach]

I piss on Al Gore.

Azi
Once again the quality of debate in the Backroom goes through the roof...

[Gregoshi]

Once again the quality of debate in the Backroom goes through the roof...
:laugh4: It takes a Wiz...