Well ... they voted it down ...

B

bongrippinbob

Well-Known Member
Well I am about done arguing about this. But I'll go ahead and defend myself.

I need to move out of my mom's basement and get off the computer? How about you move INTO your mom's basement so you can afford to live? When my mother was laid off from her job, I moved 100miles from my home to help her with bills. Now she is back on her feet, and she no longer lives with me. But good guess on me living with her still.

What is someone so brilliant doing on a pot board? Do intelligent people not like to enjoy the herb as well? Do you have to be stupid to appreciate what this plant does for the human race? I didn't realize you had to be a dumb ass to be a stoner. That is the reason stoners have such a bad rep and weed is still illegal. Everyone thinks that stoners are dumb, lazy people. Which is not always the case. At least not in mine, I can't speak for you, because as you said, I don't know you.

I would go back to my well paying job, but as stated, I hated it. Now I am using my 3 college degrees in order to open my own business. But you would have no idea about this with your low paying job and working for some asshole.

You haven't given me any facts. Well you have, but just ones that prove my point. Like you have a low paying job and are in a crap hole of a town. I told you to move, get an education, and get a better job. There is federal financial aid that will put you through school, and leave you with like $600 a month of spending money if you can pull off the grades. Get in school, move to a different town, and you will not be in situation any longer.
 
GrowRebel

GrowRebel

Well-Known Member
I bet your mom pays for your internet connecting too ... man ... what kind of son are you? ... You can't at least pay that ... do you even help the poor woman around the house? ... I bet you are just like that guy in the movie "Men in Black" ... the first one not the second ... the guy with the bald head and glasses on the computer all day in his mom's basement ... pretending he's a real important guy ... that's this guy with the IQ of 135 ... lol ... yeah right! ... now that's too funny ...
 
GrowRebel

GrowRebel

Well-Known Member
Sorry for the side step folks ... it won't happen again ... I knew this shit was going to happen when they went back for another vote ... they no longer listen to the people ... only their corporate masters ... :fire:

A few of the headlines on this issue ...

http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/2008/10/house-bows-to-blackmail-passes.htmlHouse Bows to Blackmail, Passes Unconstitutional Bailout
The bailout bill is unconstitutional but passed the House under the Bush administration's threat of martial law!
The House rejected the original bill on Monday, sending stocks tumbling around the world. But lawmakers approved the rescue package, backed by U.S. President George W. Bush and Treasury chiefs, Friday after the U.S. Senate passed it by a large majority on Wednesday. Congress voted 263 to 171 in favor of the bailout bill, which will now go to President Bush to be signed.


​
http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/03/news/economy/house_friday_bailout/index.htmHouse passes bailout
"I applaud the action taken by the Congress," said Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke. "The legislation is a critical step toward stabilizing our financial markets and ensuring an uninterrupted flow of credit to households and businesses."

http://www.infowars.net/articles/october2008/031008Sherman.htmDemocratic Congressman: Representatives Were Threatened With Martial Law In America Over Bailout Bill
A Democratic Congressman has warned that a panic atmosphere is being intentionally created in order to get the financial bailout billed passed, further stating that several members of Congress were told before Monday's vote that martial law will be instigated in America if the legislation fails.


The corruption wreaks ... no matter how many people called, and wrote ... this was going to happen ... congress no longer listens to we the people ... no surprises here ... :wall:



 
tipsgnob

tipsgnob

New Member
Treasury’s Eight-Point Plan - for Failure

In plain English, here’s what’s wrong with the proposed plan and what alternatives should be immediately vetted and constituted into a new plan.
The Treasury plan was originally predicated on buying $700 billion of collateralized residential mortgage-backed securities that banks could not unload. The idea was that the banks would get the money, which they could then turn around and lend to keep the credit markets open and credit flowing throughout the economy. In the meantime, the Treasury Department would sit on the securities until it is able to sell them, hopefully at a profit. The idea, from a theoretical standpoint,isn’t stupid. It is, however, impossible to implement to any degree that will result in its intended effect.
Here’s why:
  1. There are more than $1 trillion worth of subprime collateralized mortgage-backed securities out there - and that’s just one type of problematic derivative security. The bottom line: $700 billion isn’t enough. Period.
  1. The purchase plan is not limited to just residential mortgage-backed securities. Surprise! What else will Treasury buy?
  1. Who’s going to fight off the lobbying groups out to influence the managers that the Treasury Department hires to direct money to their masters? Did we mention that $700 billion wasn’t enough?
  1. The government plan is even more under-funded than people realize, for it doesn’t authorize the full $700 billion: Indeed, it starts with only $350 billion, leaving an even greater shortfall. Did we mention that $700 billion wasn’t enough?
  1. Treasury is going to hire banking-industry managers to manage the process. Those managers are going to serve themselves - just as they served themselves to get us into the crisis.
  1. There is no defined mechanism to determine what price the Treasury Department will pay for what it buys. For argument’s sake, even if Treasury were to only buy the problem securities its leadership speaks of in public - residential mortgage-backed securities - there are problems if it prices them too low: If that happens, some holders won’t sell them, taking the chance that if they hold them long enough they will be worth more than Treasury is willing to pay. How will those financial institutions regain liquidity if they won’t sell the securities needed to make this happen?
  1. Since Treasury can’t buy all the problem securities, if it prices what it’s going to buy too low, all remaining holders will have to mark down their holdings and take more write-downs and losses. How will that create confidence and facilitate "liquidity"?
  1. However, if the Treasury Department prices the securities too high, several problems quickly emerge: Hedge funds will rush to sell their current holdings, and may very well speculate by buying up more securities to sell them at a higher price (profit) to Treasury, meaning that the Treasury Department plan won’t necessarily be helping banks directly. What’s more, if those securities are priced too high, and the market for them continues to fall, taxpayers will eat the losses - a reality that likely will lead to an end to further program funding.
 
GrowRebel

GrowRebel

Well-Known Member
... and were the hell is the money coming from to pay for all this ... there can't be enough taxpayer to cover the illegal occupations ... the US debt ... and all the bailouts ...
 
tipsgnob

tipsgnob

New Member
treasury is going to run this program and they are hiring ex-banking managers to run it...the very people that fucked it up...we are so screwed...
 
medicineman

medicineman

New Member
Ah yes, my first choice for president, Dennis Kucinich. There was/is a man with a plan, but not electable in todays phony marketplace. Even Ron Paul with whom I agreed on about 75% of his agenda could not get elected in this marketplace. The current candidates are offering promises that they know damn well they can't keep, electionspeak is winning. The dems want free medical, Who doesn't, and the republicans want lower taxes, neither things will come to fruition, take that to the bank.
 
undertheice

undertheice

Well-Known Member
medicineman said:
The current candidates are offering promises that they know damn well they can't keep, electionspeak is winning. The dems want free medical, Who doesn't, and the republicans want lower taxes, neither things will come to fruition, take that to the bank.
Click to expand...
though we seldom agree, on this we are in complete concurrence. no matter who wins this fiasco, the people will be the ones to suffer. if one is to choose, it should be a choice based on the philosophies behind the lies.
 
GrowRebel

GrowRebel

Well-Known Member
VTXDave said:
Kucinich and Paul voted against the bill while Obama and McCain voted for it.
Click to expand...
Yeah Kucinich was/is my candidate ... he's a good indicator for what's the best interest of the people ... now ... you weren't surprise that the two corporatist selected by the corporations voted that way ... are you?:neutral:
 
medicineman

medicineman

New Member
People can call me an asshole all they want, but I am speaking the truth. It is nobody's fault someone is not successful but themself. If they didn't make it in life, don't be mad at the gov, at the successful people, or anyone else. Be angry with yourself.[/quote

I usually don't disagree with you but on this point I must. I tried many different ways to be a "success"/"rich" and failed them all. I do believe it is the rich assholes fault for making the rules so fucked up as to be actually closed to anyone that doesn't have sufficient backing. I found this out the hard way, by losing my hard earned cash 2 out of three times in business adventures. Maybe I wasn't "smart" enough to pull it off, but funny how it always boiled down to a lack of funds. Start-ups have an 85% failure rate, why is that? It's because the rules are tainted by the rich to keep you out. competition is just a figment of some libertarians imagination.
 
B

bongrippinbob

Well-Known Member
When talking about 85% of startups having a failure rate, that is simply the 80/20 rule in effect. It is valid not only in business, but in life as well.

If you don't know what the 80/20 rule is, it means that 80% of your business will come from 20% of your customers.

This is the way life works as well. 20% of the people will have "80%" of the success. It is just a fact of life. Just like when you are at a job, doesn't it seem like 20% of the people do 80% of the work? Or if you were a teacher, 20% of your students would cause 80% of your problems.

This is a well known "rule", and it is useful in many cases. It is not the fact that the rich make it so hard to have a successful business, it is the fact that there is so much competition and people have so many choices. If you were the only person selling shoes, you would make a killing, but because even in a small town people can choose from like 20 different shoe stores, it is tough to make it.
 
B

Bongulator

Well-Known Member
The 80/20 rule is valid, but it exposes a deep ideological difference between Republicans and Democrats: Republicans who are in the 20% don't do much at all to help the other 80%. Democrats have more compassion. Not everyone is in the 80% because they're welfare queens. Most are there simply because life sucks sometimes, and they deserve compassion. Selflessness is a better attribute than selfishness, basically. Or at least I think so.
 
B

bongrippinbob

Well-Known Member
Life does suck sometimes, but when people are in that situation for their entire lifetime, you can't go saying they need compassion. It is their own fault. Would you be compassionate toward someone who ate glass and now their stomach is bleeding? No because they brought it on themself. It was their choice to eat that glass, and now they must live with the consequences. Same with life. If they chose not to go to school, if they chose to have 9 kids, if they chose to live in crappy little town, it is their own choices that bring on their horrible life. It wasn't anybody else's fault.

Why do the people who have the money, or time or whatever it may be, have to help the people with out it? Just because someone has what we would consider "extra" doesn't mean they have to give it away. If this were the case, no one would try and be successful or try and make any money. It is survival of the fittest, and if you can't hang, that sucks for you. You don't see animals helping out the sick, the weak, etc. They prey on them, leave them for dead, etc. We are animals as well, so why should we act any different?
 
TheBrutalTruth

TheBrutalTruth

Well-Known Member
bongrippinbob said:
We are animals as well, so why should we act any different?
Click to expand...
We are not animals, we are human beings. Animals do not have the ability to reason, to think, or to truly express themselves.

Do you see animals running around building cities, designing machines, or discussing politics? (actually the lack of the last probably makes them smarter than us, no politicians.)
 
medicineman

medicineman

New Member
bongrippinbob said:
Life does suck sometimes, but when people are in that situation for their entire lifetime, you can't go saying they need compassion. It is their own fault. Would you be compassionate toward someone who ate glass and now their stomach is bleeding? No because they brought it on themself. It was their choice to eat that glass, and now they must live with the consequences. Same with life. If they chose not to go to school, if they chose to have 9 kids, if they chose to live in crappy little town, it is their own choices that bring on their horrible life. It wasn't anybody else's fault.

Why do the people who have the money, or time or whatever it may be, have to help the people with out it? Just because someone has what we would consider "extra" doesn't mean they have to give it away. If this were the case, no one would try and be successful or try and make any money. It is survival of the fittest, and if you can't hang, that sucks for you. You don't see animals helping out the sick, the weak, etc. They prey on them, leave them for dead, etc. We are animals as well, so why should we act any different?
Click to expand...
That is the one difference we have from Animals, the ability to reason. The problem is selfishness and greed, what I call the football mentality. It is taught here in the USA from kindergarten on. I guess it may be that I never had the desire to play football that separates me from the crowd. I never had the desire to beat up on other people. My physical confrontations were strictly defensive moves, and I was quite successful at that, Amazing what fear can do. The motivation to step on everyone to get to the top just never gelled with me. I saw other people as people, not adversaries. I was not competetive at all. That may be part of the reason I didn't become wealthy, but I still believe the Rich have rigged the game. Believe me when I say I gave it everything I had in my business endeavors. When you run out of funds, it's time to close the store. Too Bad they don't play by the same rules for banks and wall street. I sure could have used a bailout at one time or another.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top