TheHaze Posted April 1, 2009 Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 This. I am disgusted by our government and out population. How can there be no outrage over this? How can we allow of government to continue to move in the direction it is? I'm right there with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hal Posted April 1, 2009 Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 History says otherwise. Change that widespread is forced not diplomatic. I gotta say that. If snoop dog was still talking about gun play like he was 18 , either he would bring it back or he would sound old. He said your forced to change or get run over. I'll say this dude , when you find out the anwser you tell us. What history you're looking at can change things quite a bit. Plenty of diplomatic solutions have happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 614Streets Posted April 1, 2009 Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 Well lets not forget our own people sunk tea ships to start this country. Dumped tea Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGRE Posted April 1, 2009 Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 I agree, but it became his business when they were given the opprotunities to grab for our money. it's not the governments job to bail out badly run companies no matter how big they are, they should have been allowed to go through bankrupcy like they had before. But the government scared every to believing the sky was falling and something had to be done quick to fix things, there is NO quick fix. Capitalism fixes it's self it may be painfull but it works. when gov. puts it's nose into the situation it always blows up in thier face, people blam fanny and freddy for the housing collapse . . . why does no one blame the Gov. for coaxing them to do it, promising to back them if they screwed up. The "everyone deserves a home" doctrine caused this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V8 Beast Posted April 1, 2009 Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 I see change lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SPLN SUX Posted April 1, 2009 Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 This made me laugh....why was Carter a one term Pres if everything was fine when he left. Read a book. Well Carter was the one in office during the huge gas shortage in 79/80 and is also who killed the muscle car era by passing emissions laws. He was not a very popular man. He too was very much into PREVENTING an energy crisis that no one really saw a plausible. So he got the boot. carter had the right idea, and 30yrs ago, if he'd gone a second term, perhaps things could have been set in motion and we wouldn't be in the shit were in now. Carter in a nutshell... this speech: he had this shit figured out... then Regan halted everything Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyjs3589 Posted April 1, 2009 Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 it's not the governments job to bail out badly run companies no matter how big they are, they should have been allowed to go through bankrupcy like they had before. But the government scared every to believing the sky was falling and something had to be done quick to fix things, there is NO quick fix. Capitalism fixes it's self it may be painfull but it works. when gov. puts it's nose into the situation it always blows up in thier face, people blam fanny and freddy for the housing collapse . . . why does no one blame the Gov. for coaxing them to do it, promising to back them if they screwed up. The "everyone deserves a home" doctrine caused this. Exactly, forever the banks would lend money to who they saw fit to pay it back, then the government(Carter and Clinton) got involved and said that everyone should have a home. They coerced these lending institutions into lending money to people who had no real chance of ever paying it back. Peter Schiff predicted that we were going to be in a recession and people just laughed at him and called him a liar: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw Also, one more thing to consider: The financial and automotive industries are two of the most heavily regulated sectors in the U.S. Those are the two sectors that are failing....THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD STAY OUT OF THE PRIVATE SECTORS BUSINESS! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokin5s Posted April 2, 2009 Report Share Posted April 2, 2009 here ya go dude, I honestly tried to read this... but I can't seem to stop looking at the cans in your avitar instead... you sir are a lucky man Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSUGT Posted April 2, 2009 Report Share Posted April 2, 2009 Well Carter was the one in office during the huge gas shortage in 79/80 and is also who killed the muscle car era by passing emissions laws. He was not a very popular man. He too was very much into PREVENTING an energy crisis that no one really saw a plausible. So he got the boot. carter had the right idea, and 30yrs ago, if he'd gone a second term, perhaps things could have been set in motion and we wouldn't be in the shit were in now. Carter in a nutshell... this speech: he had this shit figured out... then Regan halted everything Carter was a peanut farmer....but he probably had more experience than a community organizer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TA In Progress Posted April 2, 2009 Report Share Posted April 2, 2009 It's very easy to say "fuck the auto companies", and "let them go out of business" when it's not your job on the line. People want to be mad at the people who fucked up the auto industry, forgetting that there are thousands and thousands of auto industry employees who had nothing to do with the fucking up of the auto industry (besides being overpaid, but seriously, nobody ever says, "I'm being paid too much, here's some back"). Imagine if you were at risk of losing your job because of missteps by upper management that were out of your control. I will be the first one to say that people should not make $80,000 a year to put bumpers on cars in a factory, but at the same time, if these companies just go away, imagine how many more jobs will be lost above and beyond those already gone. And the damage would extend farther than GM and Chrysler employees. They need to lose the unions (and shitty management) and pay their employees reasonable, not extravagant wages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TA In Progress Posted April 2, 2009 Report Share Posted April 2, 2009 Also, one more thing to consider: The financial and automotive industries are two of the most heavily regulated sectors in the U.S. Those are the two sectors that are failing....THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD STAY OUT OF THE PRIVATE SECTORS BUSINESS! Since aviation was deregulated in 1978, 165 airlines have either collapsed, merged, or are in Chapter 11. Between 1938 and 1978 (airline regulation) only six airlines MERGED with other airlines, service was good, and they actually made money. I would say your statement, while not entirely out of the question, isn't always the best idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T Rex Posted April 2, 2009 Report Share Posted April 2, 2009 Exactly, forever the banks would lend money to who they saw fit to pay it back, then the government(Carter and Clinton) got involved and said that everyone should have a home. They coerced these lending institutions into lending money to people who had no real chance of ever paying it back. Peter Schiff predicted that we were going to be in a recession and people just laughed at him and called him a liar: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw Also, one more thing to consider: The financial and automotive industries are two of the most heavily regulated sectors in the U.S. Those are the two sectors that are failing....THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD STAY OUT OF THE PRIVATE SECTORS BUSINESS! Bush was the one who deregulated the majority of bank loans... his administraion allowed sub-prime lenders to leverage 1000 dollars in equity to 300000 lent out... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zuht Posted April 2, 2009 Report Share Posted April 2, 2009 PS - Why do all of these atricles, and reporters in general, keep referring to Obama as "Mr. Obama" and not "President Obama"? I do not recall W being called "Mr. Bush"... Those publications all have style guides to follow. You'll notice that the first reference is President Barack Obama, and further references are Mr. Obama. It's pretty typical, really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KillJoy Posted April 2, 2009 Report Share Posted April 2, 2009 Those publications all have style guides to follow. You'll notice that the first reference is President Barack Obama, and further references are Mr. Obama. It's pretty typical, really. Not so much. It happens on National Newscasts as well. One person will always refer to him as Mr. and another as President. KillJoy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.