Personal responsibility only functions in a society where education is valued and predatory lending practices are effectively curtailed.
Bankers and corrupt politicians LOVE that you think this is solely a personal responsibility issue. There's quite a parallel to rape victim blaming, here.
PS our economy is still crashed. Could it be that a majority of the population is still over-leveraged? Gosh, I wonder what a solution might have been.
Oh, and FYI, Nishikawa v. Dulles ruled that fighting in a foreign armed service would result in forfeiture of your US citizenship. While I agree that we could argue as to whether fighting alongside the Taliban/Al Qaeda/etc. counts as fighting in a foreign armed service, but assuming it does, anyone who fights with them is no longer a US citizen and therefore killing them with a drone attack does not count as killing a US citizen with a drone.
Am I misreading that, or is it only an upholding of the previous decision, where the person is only deprived of their citizenship if it is a voluntary conscription? Not arguing your point here, because I think that does fit what we're looking at. Kind of.
Regardless, don't you think we should have another court case looking at that decision in the context of a "war on terror" rather than a war against a fixed country with a standing army? What exactly constitutes coercion in this context, and what constitutes voluntary?
Which is why I also stated that people marketing these gimmick mortgages should be investigated and probably prosecuted for fraud. It may also be a good idea to institute regulations banning some of these sorts of gimmick mortgages. Frankly, the only mortgage type I can think of that makes sense is the 30-year fixed type of mortgage, if only because you shouldn't be buying a house unless you're willing to make a relatively long-term commitment to living in that area. However, a 5-10 year ARM isn't too bad either as I've heard some people may want to purchase a home but, for whatever reason, plan to sell it in 5 to 10 years as it's just a "starter home" or whatever.
@Cremlian - I think I just found the same article about "I won". Thinking back to 2009 I don't recall hearing it in that context. My impression was that Republicans met with Obama and were told that what they wanted didn't matter because Obama won. Thanks for the context (which has caused me to reevaluate much of the last 4 years re: Republicans.)
You (the forum) should watch this documentary. There is something called "third culture" -- it describes people like me.. who grew up experiencing multiple primarily-international cultures, some in stark contrast to the others. Third culture people tend to be pragmatists, try to bridge between people of differing world-view, and are sometimes hard to detect as they blend well into their current cultural surroundings. In my view, this explains Obama's "centrism" completely..
You should watch this documentary. There is something called "third culture" -- it describes people like me.. who grew up experiencing multiple primarily-international cultures, some in stark contrast to the others. Third culture people tend to be pragmatists, try to bridge between people of differing world-view, and are sometimes hard to detect as they blend well into their current cultural surroundings. In my view, this explains Obama's "centrism" completely..
Interesting. I'll watch it when I get time, but my initial reaction is that I think you're being optimistic about Obama's enlightenment. He's a privileged dude with a privileged viewpoint, and yes, American culture IS big on entitlement and jealousy but that doesn't excuse the wealth disparity, Wall St corruption, etc etc etc even if it explains why some people are outraged about it for the wrong reasons.
Right, and the scandal/collapse happened largely due to a preponderance of gimmicky mortgages.
Yep, which is why those gimmicky mortgage brokers seriously need to be investigated and regulations probably should be passed to limit the ability to sell gimmicky mortgages. However, since they weren't illegal at the time, if the gimmicky mortgage brokers were fully up front about the caveats associated with the gimmicky mortgages and didn't try to hide the risks, you also bear some responsibility for buying into them. Cutting a break with help in refinancing them, I can understand. Outright forgiveness though is probably way too much.
Also, one thing you're neglecting here is that the vast majority of the mortgages were sold by FDIC insured banks. If those banks were to go under, then odds are the bills the government would have to pay to all the depositors in those banks would've been far, far greater than what TARP cost. It was an imperfect situation. However, I do think the bonuses/salaries/etc. of the bank executives should've been severely curtailed if they accepted TARP funds.
Oh, and FYI, Nishikawa v. Dulles ruled that fighting in a foreign armed service would result in forfeiture of your US citizenship. While I agree that we could argue as to whether fighting alongside the Taliban/Al Qaeda/etc. counts as fighting in a foreign armed service, but assuming it does, anyone who fights with them is no longer a US citizen and therefore killing them with a drone attack does not count as killing a US citizen with a drone.
Am I misreading that, or is it only an upholding of the previous decision, where the person is only deprived of their citizenship if it is a voluntary conscription? Not arguing your point here, because I think that does fit what we're looking at. Kind of.
Regardless, don't you think we should have another court case looking at that decision in the context of a "war on terror" rather than a war against a fixed country with a standing army? What exactly constitutes coercion in this context, and what constitutes voluntary?
Hmm, yeah, there are gray areas -- you need to be voluntarily part of a foreign armed service fighting against the US. The State Department actually does a good job in explaining all the ways you can lose citizenship:
Voluntary service in the armed forces of a state engaged in hostilities against the United States could be viewed as indicative of an intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship.
Treason can also result in forfeiting citizenship, but I believe treason has to be found in a court of law.
I do think there should be a court ruling as to whether or not someone fighting in the "war on terror" as part of a paramilitary organization like the Taliban/al Qaeda/Cobra/whatever falls under the terms of "fighting in a foreign armed service against the United States," but until that ruling is actually made, I can see no problem with someone ruling either way on the issue.
I'm going to take back the "walk out" charge because I can't find a source for it. HoweveriI have found multiple sources for Democrats wanting to hold off on hearings until after the election. As well as multiple sources of Democrats claiming the hearings are completely partisan driven.
Might have been a reporting and/or listening mistake.
Steve, you've made my day with your posts, that's twice you've done things no other right leaning person has done in conversations on these topics... ^_^
Thinking back the reporter might have mentioned a walkout as an option or something Democrats were talking about even though they did not walk out. Part of my brain probably latched onto the use of walkout and assumed the worst.
I know my biases and I also know better than to continue with an argument on this forum when I can't back it up with unbiased sources.
Same with "I won". The initial reporting I read never mentioned the specific context of what was being discussed. It was presented to me in a much harsher context and in subsequent discussions no one ever challenged me to look harder at the context of the quote. Because of that I assumed my interpretation of the events to be correct, now I know otherwise.
Thinking back the reporter might have mentioned a walkout as an option or something Democrats were talking about even though they did not walk out. Part of my brain probably latched onto the use of walkout and assumed the worst.
I know my biases and I also know better than to continue with an argument on this forum when I can't back it up with unbiased sources.
Same with "I won". The initial reporting I read never mentioned the specific context of what was being discussed. It was presented to me in a much harsher context and in subsequent discussions no one ever challenged me to look harder at the context of the quote. Because of that I assumed my interpretation of the events to be correct, now I know otherwise.
That's why I like you being around and poking us. Also you don't take things personal, which is always a good thing on the Internet.
I'm not on his back, it's a perfectly valid statement.
I try pretty hard not to believe things that are bullshit. There's nothing unreasonable in advocating for that. I'm not singling him out, just responding to his comment.
If anything, you folks sound a little condescending. "Good conservative! You conceded a point! We're so proud of you!"
If anything, you folks sound a little condescending. "Good conservative! You conceded a point! We're so proud of you!"
I've had a rough few days of constant arguing with people here, in person, at work and all over. It's been so rare to see anyone give even an ounce of ground and do so publicly.
And he did it without doing a "Well you are right, but still this changes nothing blah blah blah" That is the most likely statement after that from anyone liberal or conservative or moronic :-p
If anything, you folks sound a little condescending. "Good conservative! You conceded a point! We're so proud of you!"
I've had a rough few days of constant arguing with people here, and in person, at work and all over. It's been so rare to see anyone give even an ounce of ground and do so publicly.
It gets better when you give up on everything you hold dear.
Obama is as far left as is even remotely possible in modern America. That's the best reason to vote for him. Trying to vote further left is literally throwing away your vote. Not voting for him is giving the far right carte blanche to fuck everything up.
Obama is as far left as is even remotely possible in modern America. That's the best reason to vote for him. Trying to vote further left is literally throwing away your vote. Not voting for him is giving the far right carte blanche to fuck everything up.
Comments
Bankers and corrupt politicians LOVE that you think this is solely a personal responsibility issue. There's quite a parallel to rape victim blaming, here.
Regardless, don't you think we should have another court case looking at that decision in the context of a "war on terror" rather than a war against a fixed country with a standing army? What exactly constitutes coercion in this context, and what constitutes voluntary? Good point.
Also, one thing you're neglecting here is that the vast majority of the mortgages were sold by FDIC insured banks. If those banks were to go under, then odds are the bills the government would have to pay to all the depositors in those banks would've been far, far greater than what TARP cost. It was an imperfect situation. However, I do think the bonuses/salaries/etc. of the bank executives should've been severely curtailed if they accepted TARP funds. Hmm, yeah, there are gray areas -- you need to be voluntarily part of a foreign armed service fighting against the US. The State Department actually does a good job in explaining all the ways you can lose citizenship: Treason can also result in forfeiting citizenship, but I believe treason has to be found in a court of law.
I do think there should be a court ruling as to whether or not someone fighting in the "war on terror" as part of a paramilitary organization like the Taliban/al Qaeda/Cobra/whatever falls under the terms of "fighting in a foreign armed service against the United States," but until that ruling is actually made, I can see no problem with someone ruling either way on the issue.
Might have been a reporting and/or listening mistake.
I know my biases and I also know better than to continue with an argument on this forum when I can't back it up with unbiased sources.
Same with "I won". The initial reporting I read never mentioned the specific context of what was being discussed. It was presented to me in a much harsher context and in subsequent discussions no one ever challenged me to look harder at the context of the quote. Because of that I assumed my interpretation of the events to be correct, now I know otherwise.
Muppet, get off his back.
I try pretty hard not to believe things that are bullshit. There's nothing unreasonable in advocating for that. I'm not singling him out, just responding to his comment.
If anything, you folks sound a little condescending. "Good conservative! You conceded a point! We're so proud of you!"
And he did it without doing a "Well you are right, but still this changes nothing blah blah blah" That is the most likely statement after that from anyone liberal or conservative or moronic :-p