"Wall street bailouts were a mistake. But there's far more to a story than that which Jon tried to present. Government regulations are more at fault than is bad management. Some banks failed because they were greedy. But they took advantage of the loose regulations given to them by the democrats. Fanny and Freddie failed because of direct government involvement in financial decision making. "

Big Brother speaks???

"The Wall Street Journal celebrated the agreement to end such restrictions with an editorial declaring that the banks had been unfairly scapegoated for the Great Depression. The headline of one Journal article detailing the impact of the proposed law declared, "Finally, 1929 Begins to Fade."

This comment underscores the greatest irony in the banking deregulation bill. Legislation first adopted to save American capitalism from the consequences of the 1929 Wall Street Crash is being abolished just at the point where the conditions are emerging for an even greater speculative financial collapse. The enormous volatility in the stock exchange in recent months has been accompanied by repeated warnings that stocks are grossly overvalued, with some computer and Internet stocks selling at prices 100 times earnings or even greater.

And there is a much more recent experience than 1929 to serve as a cautionary tale. A financial deregulation bill was passed in the early 1980s under the Reagan administration, lifting many restrictions on the activities of savings and loan associations, which had previously been limited primarily to the home-loan market. The result was an orgy of speculation, profiteering and outright plundering of assets, culminating in collapse and the biggest financial bailout in US history, costing the federal government more than $500 billion. The repetition of such events in the much larger banking and securities markets would be beyond the scope of any federal bailout."

History speaks???

.At first I thought this was funny ..... Then I realised the awful truth of it.



Tax his land, Tax his bed, Tax the table At which he's fed.



Tax his work, Tax his pay, He works for peanuts Anyway!



Tax his cow, Tax his goat, Tax his pants, Tax his coat.



Tax his tobacco, Tax his drink, Tax him if he Tries to think..



Tax his car, Tax his gas, Find other ways To tax his ass.



Tax all he has Then let him know That you won't be done Till he has no dough.



When he screams and hollers; Then tax him some more, Tax him till He's good and sore.



Then tax his coffin, Tax his grave, Tax the sod in Which he's laid.



When he's gone, Do not relax, It's time to apply The inheritance tax.



Accounts Receivable Tax

Airline surcharge tax

Airline Fuel Tax

Airport Maintenance Tax

Building Permit Tax

Cigarette Tax

Corporate Income Tax

Goods and Services Tax (GST)

Death Tax

Dog License Tax

Driving Permit Tax

Environmental Tax (Fee)

Excise Taxes

Federal Income Tax

Fishing License Tax

Petrol Tax (too much per litre)

Health Tax

Hunting License Tax

Interest Tax

Liquor Tax

Luxury Taxes

Marriage License Tax

Medicare Tax

Mortgage Tax

Personal Income Tax

Property Tax

Poverty Tax

Prescription Drug Tax

Real Estate Tax

Vehicle Tax

Retail Sales Tax

Service Charge Tax

School Tax

Vehicle License Registration Tax

Vehicle Sales Tax

Water Tax

Watercraft Registration Tax

Well Permit Tax

Workers Compensation Tax

ScarletRose: as usual...it doesnt relate to anything being said...so whats your point? is that directed at anyone in particular? or just your odd humor again?

Bwild:  I do believe I was expecting you to react on this post of mine.. since the subject line you are linking to refers to it..

ScarletRose: "has anyone ever died and witnessed personally God punishing a "______________" (fill in with what ever appropriate label for which you choose; exam. rapist, unibomber, wife beater)."


you might check with that Sodom and Gamorrah bunch.

Bwild:  reread it.. what did I actually say..

ScarletRose: whats your point?

ScarletRose:  It will be interesting to see if anyone answers yes. lol

has anyone ever died and witnessed personally God punishing a "______________" (fill in with what ever appropriate label for which you choose; exam. rapist, unibomber, wife beater).

Tuesday: … in your head

Übergeek 바둑이: Your last 2 posts are very well stated.  I agree with you.

DNA selection....

Welcome to a "Brave New World" and the Bokanovsky process.

Übergeek 바둑이: I agree with the "political correctness" issues being absurd in most cases.
its like these suicide bombers. easy to stop this activity. when someone attaches a bomb to their person...get their dna..trace their family tree...assassinate the entire family. I believe it would slow down that kind of activity immensely. but the liberals,tree huggers,dont step on bugs cause they have feelings too....would never allow it. mean time people keep dying.

Bwild:

> if I dont agree with homosexuals....dont call me a "homophobe"

I think the problem is that North American society is caught up in a search for political correctness. Everything we say has to be "politically correct".

There are people who disagree with homosexuality and will do so in a non-pathological manner. That is, they will express their opinion and avoid homosexuals without being destructive.

Then there are those who express almost a morbid fear of homosexuality. "If a gay man comes near my son, I will kill him." "God punishes homosexuals, just like he punishes murderers and rapists." There is a fear there, and homosexuality is equated with sin and crime. In some cases some of these men will go out and openly attack and even kill homosexuals.

In extreme cases, those who prosecute homosexuals are homosexuals themselves. Their "homophobia" is a veiled attempt at hiding their own ambiguous sexuality. The most famous case is J. Edgar Hoover, the founder of the FBI. For decades he kept secret files on the rich and powerful and documented their homosexuals relationships, while at the same time having a "brotherly" relationship with Clyde Tolson.

Culture is a big factor too. While North American society is more open, it is also deeply religious. Religious morality plays a role on how people see homosexuality. In some countries homosexuality is a crime under the law. Then is some societies homosexuality was acceptable and even encouraged (for example, ancient Greece, 15th century Florence).

One thing is certain. Our society lives in denial. It tries to hide homosexuality and refuses to accept homosexuality as a part of every society in the world going back for thousands of years. I do agree that political correctness can be taken too far. People should just lighten up on the whole issue. Let people live their lives as they see fit, without the state imposing its views of morality on human sexuality.

Übergeek 바둑이: imo...both are wrong. if two people of the same gender want to be together..oh well...just dont expect me to accept it. if a man or woman cheats on their spouse...dont expect me to agree with that either,and because I live in a free country...I can express my opinion on the matter.
I just saw a commercial on tv saying "dont say "thats gay". they need one that says"if I dont agree with homosexuals....dont call me a "homophobe".
why? 1...I'm not afraid of homosexuals
2...I'm not homosexual
3...I have a right to voice my opinion in an adult matter

Ferris Bueller: "Sexual orientation has no moral connection or equivelency to pedophilia or incest, which are non-consentual violations of children. "
non-consensual is rape. big difference.

Two homosexual men are married and live happily and faithfully for their entire lives. They never cheat on each other or harm one another or anyone outside their relationship.

A heterosexual man is married. He beats up on his wife. Then he goes on to have mistresses several times during his life. Is he better or worse than the two homosexuals in the example above?

A church pastor preaches against homosexuality. Every week he collects money from his congregation. After a while he becomes wealthy and starts using his money to have affairs with several women. Is he better or worse than the two homosexuals above?

Note that the examples I gave are not unknown or rare. The question is: does morality have anything to do with sexual orientation? What is worse? A faithful homosexual or a dishonest heterosexual?

Bwild: Sexual orientation has no moral connection or equivelency to pedophilia or incest, which are non-consentual violations of children.  Besides, most people who engage in those 2 practices are heterosexual.  Equating homosexuality with those things is an unfounded scare tactic that has been around for a long, long time.  MLK said that "no lie can live forever", but this one is very persistent and harmful.

Tuesday: “imo...lgbt is a morel issue...same as incest and pedophilia”

What book? Well, I don't see any reference to any book in his post.

Tuesday: I don't twist what you said. You said that adultery is mentioned more in a book than homosexuality. I say: SO WHAT?

Tuesday: So why are doing the same thing yourself? Do you need a book to tell you what is more “moral”?

Tuesday: … so you brought up a book.

Tuesday: However, homosexuality is mentioned more in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy than adultery.

Ferris Bueller: imo...lgbt is a morel issue...same as incest and pedophilia.

In the case of homophobia.. is it that the phobia is just regarding men being gay? Then is some of this 'phobia' just the basic "get a room"?

.... plus .. plain old simple traditional taking of the Bible via preachers to make it a morally right overreaction.

Use of homophobia, homophobic, and homophobe has been criticized as pejorative against those with differing value positions.

* In 1993, behavioral scientists William O'Donohue and Christine Caselles concluded that the usage of the term "as it is usually used, makes an illegitimately pejorative evaluation of certain open and debatable value positions, much like the former disease construct of homosexuality" itself, arguing that the term may be used as an ad hominem argument against those who advocate values or positions of which the speaker does not approve. The social construct of masculinity is not defined by attraction to females alone but also by negative attraction to males. The implication of a fear of something unmasculine, given the term's scientific etymology, may be used illegitimately to imply that anyone with a different opinion is unmasculine.[21]
* A group of psychologists from the University of Arkansas conducted research that showed that participants' responses were not fear-based but reflected a disapproval of homosexuality that was due to other factors, such as "disgust".[22]
* The National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality, an organization affiliated with the ex-gay movement, describes the term homophobia as being "often used inaccurately to describe any person who objects to homosexual behavior on either moral, psychological or medical grounds." They state that, "Technically, however, the terms actually denotes a person who has a phobia — or irrational fear — of homosexuality. Principled disagreement, therefore, cannot be labeled 'homophobia.'"[23]

because you dont believe in,nor are willing to accept homo's...doesnt automatically make you a "homophobe", and people who live in glass houses,shouldnt throw stones.

Rupert Murdoch has been given clearance to 'own' BskyB. One condition... he has to sell off Sky News. I don't think he's to fussed as it's losing money anyway.

(V):

rod03801: Right.. so it an assumption.

Gotcha!!

(V): Um. I said "I've seen".... and "apparently".. Nothing about "think" or "know"

rod03801: ?? You think or know??