The End of Liberalism

[NYcarbineer]

All of them. The Clinton Administration, through Janet Reno and the Treasury department demanded "no redlining" of housing loans even though the people were known to have no ability to pay off the mortgage. Those loans were made knowing full well they'd blow up in their faces, and so they were forced to go to derivatives to protect their assets and make what is now laughingly being called 'predatory loans'.



Pretty much. That's the other side of the coin. Damned if you do... damned if you don't. So cut a slice out of the middle and protect your ass as best you can. That's why we're in the straits we're in financially on housing.

I'll repeat the question:

Name one bank that was forced to give loans to borrowers who were not qualified. And the evidence to support that.

Forced? None. Coerced? All of them. You'd have to know a little bit about banking regulation to understand how it works. All banks are regulated. If you don't give out enough loans to low-income Americans, you get a lower rating. A lower rating from the government hurts your business.

Someone once posted a thread about the percentage of overall loans given to people with low incomes and said, "Lookie here! The percentage is so small, it could not have had an effect on the crash!" WRONG! (That's obvious, right?)

First of all, 'low income people' did not cause the real estate bubble and meltdown.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Taxation in the fifties was much higher and the American citizen was not enslaved.

Where do these loonies believe they can get off making these wild accusations and not expect them to be butt rammed with their stupidities?

 

[Big Fitz]

I'll repeat the question:

Name one bank that was forced to give loans to borrowers who were not qualified. And the evidence to support that.

Forced? None. Coerced? All of them. You'd have to know a little bit about banking regulation to understand how it works. All banks are regulated. If you don't give out enough loans to low-income Americans, you get a lower rating. A lower rating from the government hurts your business.

Someone once posted a thread about the percentage of overall loans given to people with low incomes and said, "Lookie here! The percentage is so small, it could not have had an effect on the crash!" WRONG! (That's obvious, right?)

First of all, 'low income people' did not cause the real estate bubble and meltdown.

Cause? No. Be complicit and help along yes.

The ones to blame were the ones that made it possible for the poor to get houses they could not afford. Then there are those that profiteered off them and made the collapse come all the faster for their own personal greed.

The poor who got into this mess are only ignorant, but not innocent of their part. Their greed was in agreeing the bullshit that they were entitled a house. They are one part victim one part conspirator.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

No they did not have the legal right to leave. The supremacy clause of the Constitution makes it illegal to secede.

1)It does not. It means they are bound by that law- which includes no restriction on secession anywhere in it and therefore, through the 10th Amendment protects their right to secede

2)Fuck off you Statist piece of shit. Perhaps you value law and the authority of the State more than rights, self-determination, and the will of the People, but we who put values and principles before blind obedience and the desire to be ruled over have gun, too

 

[NYcarbineer]

No they did not have the legal right to leave. The supremacy clause of the Constitution makes it illegal to secede.

1)It does not. It means they are bound by that law- which includes no restriction on secession anywhere in it and therefore, through the 10th Amendment protects their right to secede

2)Fuck off you Statist piece of shit. Perhaps you value law and the authority of the State more than rights, self-determination, and the will of the People, but we who put values and principles before blind obedience and the desire to be ruled over have gun, too

The Supremacy clause prevents the states from making laws that conflict with federal law. The mere act of secession accomplishes that.

Your rights are protected by the State. Have your rights violated and see where you go for redress.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Anyone else here not know the meaning of 'corporatism'? Other than P chic?

Clean your spec, old timer.

I gave the definition in the post your quoted.

No, you gave a definition. Try again.

And Political chiclet has left the building.

 

[Big Fitz]

Clean your spec, old timer.

I gave the definition in the post your quoted.

No, you gave a definition. Try again.

And Political chiclet has left the building.

I'm curious now as to your own definition of Corporatism.

 

[geauxtohell]

Clean your spec, old timer.

I gave the definition in the post your quoted.

No, you gave a definition. Try again.

And Political chiclet has left the building.

Funny, that.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No, you gave a definition. Try again.

And Political chiclet has left the building.

I'm curious now as to your own definition of Corporatism.

This page sums it up far better than I could.

Corporatism - Definition

Note the opening:

The term corporatism has different meanings in different contexts. Most notably, the historical usage of the term is not the same as its modern usage.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

No they did not have the legal right to leave. The supremacy clause of the Constitution makes it illegal to secede.

1)It does not. It means they are bound by that law- which includes no restriction on secession anywhere in it and therefore, through the 10th Amendment protects their right to secede

2)Fuck off you Statist piece of shit. Perhaps you value law and the authority of the State more than rights, self-determination, and the will of the People, but we who put values and principles before blind obedience and the desire to be ruled over have gun, too

The Supremacy clause prevents the states from making laws that conflict with federal law. The mere act of secession accomplishes that.

Your rights are protected by the State. Have your rights violated and see where you go for redress.

Secession contradicts to no federal laws, as the state becomes no longer a part of the union and is not subject to the Union's laws. You're pretty much stating that every law Congress passes today is illegal because it ontradicts those passed by the British parliment.

 

[Bfgrn]

I have as one of my hobbies, reading. You must try it some time.

Why don't you try reading to LEARN some time...you read to feed your dogma and find support for your far right wing stupidity. You are the embodiment of active ignorance...

You have absolutely NO understanding of human nature or personality types...like authoritarian personalities. Stalin was not a liberal, he attended Georgian Orthodox seminary and was raised in a society whose traditions and orthodoxy were the antithesis of western traditions, economic beliefs and culture. He was a staunch conservative. Your parochial indoctrination is the root of your stupidity...

Communism is what happens to socialism when authoritarian conservatives gain power. When the power of the many becomes the power of the few, or the one.

While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer

Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone

 

[geauxtohell]

1)It does not. It means they are bound by that law- which includes no restriction on secession anywhere in it and therefore, through the 10th Amendment protects their right to secede

2)Fuck off you Statist piece of shit. Perhaps you value law and the authority of the State more than rights, self-determination, and the will of the People, but we who put values and principles before blind obedience and the desire to be ruled over have gun, too

The Supremacy clause prevents the states from making laws that conflict with federal law. The mere act of secession accomplishes that.

Your rights are protected by the State. Have your rights violated and see where you go for redress.

Secession contradicts to no federal laws, as the state becomes no longer a part of the union and is not subject to the Union's laws. You're pretty much stating that every law Congress passes today is illegal because it ontradicts those passed by the British parliment.

I love the "esoteric legal" debate behind this issue. It's all an intellectual circle jerk. Any state that secedes from the union will face the wrath of the federal Army. There is the pragmatic answer to your philosophical question.

The south concerned itself with the "legality" of the issue in 1861. It didn't matter in the end.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

So, once again the right wingers' answer is that he with the biggest gun is correct


Nice to know you have principles

 

[geauxtohell]

So, once again the right wingers' answer is that he with the biggest gun is correct


Nice to know you have principles

Yes. Just as it has always been the answer throughout history.

Pragmatism>Principles.

Then again, I wouldn't exactly call treason a principled stance.

Thanks for labeling me a right-winger, btw. I suppose there is a first time for everything.

 

[NYcarbineer]

1)It does not. It means they are bound by that law- which includes no restriction on secession anywhere in it and therefore, through the 10th Amendment protects their right to secede

2)Fuck off you Statist piece of shit. Perhaps you value law and the authority of the State more than rights, self-determination, and the will of the People, but we who put values and principles before blind obedience and the desire to be ruled over have gun, too

The Supremacy clause prevents the states from making laws that conflict with federal law. The mere act of secession accomplishes that.

Your rights are protected by the State. Have your rights violated and see where you go for redress.

Secession contradicts to no federal laws, as the state becomes no longer a part of the union and is not subject to the Union's laws. You're pretty much stating that every law Congress passes today is illegal because it ontradicts those passed by the British parliment.

You're stupid. To leave the union, and consequently stop complying with federal and constitutional law is in fact a contradiction. The states entered into a binding agreement when they signed the constitution. Oh, and btw, with few exceptions, states were U.S. POSSESSIONS before they became states.

And in case you missed it, the British were defeated and left.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

I'm still waiting for you to show me where the constitution denies the people or the member states the right to self-determination or the power to exercise it.

Now the Rebels are right and legal if they win but not if they lose? Once again we establish that your people have no values or principles and simply believe in the virtue of the biggest gun.

 

[ihopehefails]

Proletarian, never think to speak for me. You have enough trouble speaking for yourself. I have stated often the primary cause of the war was slavery. All other causes were secondary and motivated by the issue of slavery -- sectionalism, states' rights, economic differences, tariff, white economic opportunity, the territories, so forth and so on, can be reduced to slavery. Two nations, one in the South and one in the North, developed, one anti-slavery and racist, one pro-slavery and racist.

We know that the south wanted to leave so they can retain their right to create laws that would allow them to own slaves. This was wrong but that does not change the fact that they had the legal right to leave if they wanted to.

Its like saying that the "freedom of speech" is about porn and passing out racist propoganda. These are clearly wrong in the eyes of many but that does not negate someone's legal right to do those things. The same goes with southern succession. It was wrong to own slaves but that did not negate their legal right to depart from the union.

No they did not have the legal right to leave. The supremacy clause of the Constitution makes it illegal to secede.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The supremacy clause does give the federal government the right to enforce all laws that it creates but since it only has a few limited powers the range of laws it can created are limited by section 8 and a few other amendments. The rest are left to the legal authority of each state because that is stated in the tenth amendment that any power not delegated to the federal government remain in the hands of each state government.

Further the supremacy clause itself says that federal law is only supreme when that law is within the scope of the constitution; "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof"; which is why it says in "pursuance of" which is like saying in accordance with.

But lets say that I am wrong and you are right that any federal law is supreme; where is the law that says "a state can't leave"? There isn't one and there isn't a single provisions in the constitution that says that either so why is it illegal to leave the union?

 

[ihopehefails]

And Political chiclet has left the building.

I'm curious now as to your own definition of Corporatism.

This page sums it up far better than I could.

Corporatism - Definition

Note the opening:

The term corporatism has different meanings in different contexts. Most notably, the historical usage of the term is not the same as its modern usage.

I can't really find in any fascist or national socialist text that believed that businesses should be allowed to run the state but I can find where they said they should be allowed to run businesses for the purpose and benefit of the community. You have it backwards and so does this website.

 

[ihopehefails]

The Supremacy clause prevents the states from making laws that conflict with federal law. The mere act of secession accomplishes that.

Your rights are protected by the State. Have your rights violated and see where you go for redress.

Secession contradicts to no federal laws, as the state becomes no longer a part of the union and is not subject to the Union's laws. You're pretty much stating that every law Congress passes today is illegal because it ontradicts those passed by the British parliment.

You're stupid. To leave the union, and consequently stop complying with federal and constitutional law is in fact a contradiction. The states entered into a binding agreement when they signed the constitution. Oh, and btw, with few exceptions, states were U.S. POSSESSIONS before they became states.

And in case you missed it, the British were defeated and left.

I would like to see where it says "this is a binding agreement" because most contracts I sign usually say that and spells out conditions in which I can break the agreement. There is no provision in the constitution that says and since states have free will to do whatever they want as long as it does not interfere with a federal power that means they retain the power to leave the union if they wish.

 

[ihopehefails]

So, once again the right wingers' answer is that he with the biggest gun is correct


Nice to know you have principles

It would be nice if human nature was good enough that we did not need guns but that isn't the case and that wasn't the case with the civil war. In that war, it did not matter if the north or south was right but who had the biggest gun.