Sarah Palin Interview

[Jason1]

Originally Posted by Professor S

Jason, any opinion on the info about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that I posted above?

Well it does sound like those companies were using some extremely unethical practices. Maybe Mcain was on to something, that being said, this dosent change my opinion that the terrible performance of the economy is the fault of the Republicans.

And any comment on that political map I just posted?

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Jason1

Well it does sound like those companies were using some extremely unethical practices. Maybe Mcain was on to something, that being said, this dosent change my opinion that the terrible performance of the economy is the fault of the Republicans.

Really? What about the fact that the top three recipients of Fannie and Freddie contributions were all democratic presidential nominees, including Barack Obama? Still all the Republicans fault? Even so, doesn't that show McCain as an individual who is a lot more qualified to recognize economic crisis than Barack?

And any comment on that political map I just posted?

Sure, I was aware. I'm also aware thet the electoral maps can change as well as the polls can. Its just a different kind of polling. Your biggest concern should be the historical fact that a considerable percentage of voters who poll for African American candidates do not vote for them. I think Obama needs a 5-10% lead to win.

[Jason1]

Originally Posted by Professor S

Sure, I was aware. I'm also aware thet the electoral maps can change as well as the polls can. Its just a different kind of polling. Your biggest concern should be the historical fact that a considerable percentage of voters who poll for African American candidates do not vote for them. I think Obama needs a 5-10% lead to win.

This arguement holds no relevance because we have never had a legitimate black candidate for president. Nobody voted for Al Sharpton because they knew he had no chance. This election is different, all bets are off.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Jason1

This arguement holds no relevance because we have never had a legitimate black candidate for president. Nobody voted for Al Sharpton because they knew he had no chance. This election is different, all bets are off.

I was talking about elections in general. Even Republican candiates like Michael Steel had the same thing happen. And all bets are never off, especially when it comes to elections. Historical trends always play a part.

BTW, what about my first question in that post you quoted? And if the bad economy is solely the responsibility of the Republicans, then I guess they're also solely responsible fo the 410 point gain in the stock market today?

[Jason1]

a 410 point gain dosent make up for years and years of a bad economy. Its a start, but it could drop 400 points tomorrow...

[Seth]

I don't see how you can blame the republican party for the current economic downturn. It's an inevitable outcome that has been ignored for over half a century. It's a shame that the feds are using tax dollars to bail out wallstreet, cuz it's only postponing the harsh truth of our situation. Now is the time to stock up(out of practical precaution) on some delicious non-perishables cuz winter ain't kind when combined with a condemned currency.
got a question for you professor S
What good is a relative rebound in the market if it's only creating false security for a short time?

yo read this

another interesting article

This is the economic tonkin bay. justification for a federal takeover and set future of economic enslavement never before seen in the western world. yeeha

[Professor S]

Seth, you mistook my argument. I never said a short term upswing was an answer to the crisis, I was commenting on how foolish it is to think that only one party is responsible for it.

As for the root of the issue, I believe it is because of the overturn of previous regulation that separated wallstreet from the mortgage industry. Mortagge debt should never have been treated like stocks, but always more like bonds, which are much more stable and not prone to the types of speculation that takes place in the market.

But in the end, every level is at fault for this from the buyer all the way to the Fed who should have raised interest rates YEARS ago to stabalize the dollar and make money more expensive to borrow. Increased risk is the best regulation against leveraging one's self to the point of bankruptcy.

It needed be a consipracy, Seth. Wallstreet got greedy and got in the pockets of enough legislators to repeal regulations that helped stabalize housing.

And Jason, you still ignore my points and have fabricated your own. You say the economy has been terrible for the last eight years? That ignores the last eight years. You cannot replace our reality for one that fits with your talking points.

And by the way, your still not responding to large chunks of my posts where I directly ask you questions.

[Seth]

you say conspiracy. ok. Why didn't the feds take action sooner? Are you saying that these turn of events were unpredictable? Was this outcome the only possible scenario for those legislator's in Washington? There's power consolidation happening because of this, and I don't believe that it wasn't at least hoped for. Do you agree with the bailout prof?

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Seth

you say conspiracy. ok. Why didn't the feds take action sooner? Are you saying that these turn of events were unpredictable? Was this outcome the only possible scenario for those legislator's in Washington? There's power consolidation happening because of this, and I don't believe that it wasn't at least hoped for. Do you agree with the bailout prof?

Not in the least. Leaning toward free markets, I believe that businesses should be free to succeed and free to fail. But also, there is a lot of retirement and pension money holed up in these investment organizations, so allowing them to fail would hurt a lot of people. Its a double edged sword.

The bottom line is that the deregulation that allowed this to happen took place in the 70's and events over multiple administrations and cultural time periods spanning decades.

Just because something is predictable does not make it intentional. Weather is predictable, but there is no weather machine controlled by the Freemasons that created Katrina. Greedy people over time and the betterment of their own pocket created this situation because they needed to cook books to keep their jobs or even worse, justify bonuses. To say that this has been planned over the last few decades honestly gives governing bodies far too much credit. It also begs the question of why more malicious action wasn't done sooner by these muysterious forces during the OPEC oil crisis, the new Deal or the recession of the early 90's. Why now and not then? This attitude assume that all capitalist and socialist events are completely under the control of forces so banal we cannot ever fully realize or be consumed by wild, sulferous flame.

[Professor S]

I don;t know whats funnier: The look on Clinton's face used for this pick, or that the pic came from a "legitimate" news source...

[TheGame]

I knew she looked fami..err.. *cough* Which news source was that from? lol

[Professor S]

Why, FoxNews of course...

[TheGame]

Lol, I could have suspected it was Fox. They try to be "Neutral" on things, but end up always sounding extremely biased one way or the other.

[TheGame]

[Jason1]

hah, I just think its funny that 9 times out of 10 these girls that are all into god and religious and shit are always the sluts. Palin preaches abstinence and all that and her own 16 year old daughter goes and gets pregnat. Maybe if you told your daughter about safe sex this wouldnt have happened? I mean obviously a child like that is a bastard child in most cases, but oh not if its Palin's daughter. Its obviously a blessing from god!!!!