But your right, your disagreement to my analogy which was a small part of my post was a good enough reason to call me a moron and not support the claim...

See, I try to watch each side of the fence, and while I am thinking about some of the things Reps. say about Obama and stuff, they come off as if they've got a conspiracy theory to tell and we've got to beware, Although Dem.s do it too. GOP supporters just seem to get really defensive too much.


So, yeah.....

Thraxle, the government is indeed to blame for the situation we are all in now. Sure, the idiots who took out loans above their means, and the much bigger idiots who approved those people for loans in the first place caused the problem, but the government is still at fault. If a baby eats a toy soldier and chokes to death while their parents are in the other room, it is not the babies fault, it is the parents. The baby cannot be expected to know not to try to eat the toy soldier, just as people cannot be expected not to make bad choices. We should not, and cannot in the future, allow our national economic well-being depend on the average American's economic intelligence, which is what regulation is for. We need to be the parent who eliminates as many of these small toys as we can, and watches our baby intently. Whereas the government of the past few years, helped along by John McCain, has been the parent who starves their baby for 3 days, puts it in a small room, fills the room with toy soldiers, and goes on vacation. How long do you think it would take that baby to try and eat one? How long do you think it would be before the parents come back? Now that the parents are finally home they are stuck with the corpse of a dead baby, who instead of simply being resuscitated, must now be brought back from the dead.



unfortunately the economy of any free market is highly reliant on the average joe investors and homeowner loans. I would say that its not the government's job to say no you cant afford to buy that new house. I mean come on take a little bit of responsibility for your own actions, live within your own economic means not your ideal. If you happen to have worked hard enough to be able to live up to your ideal then good for you. Also a large amount of the problem we are in right now can be blamed on vague laws concerning bankruptcy and job outsourcing. It should never be beneficial from an economic stand point for an individual or corporation to declare bankruptcy. And im sure if one where to look at the amount of money the U.S. economy losses due to outsourced jobs and corporations building factories in other countries, he or she would be astonished

Whats the point of being abusive, uglygolfball?

Skrum put forward a current affairs issue for debate, and up until your contribution it was being done politely and with respect to anothers persons point of view.

Then you came along, and without offering much of a point of view at all at that point, you called Pat a moron, which you appear to have continued to do. What are you adding to this discussion by doing that,apart from making yourself look like a bit of a narrow minded and abusive person, not at all open to listening to another persons pointof view?

heh...at least your honest.

I did say that you hadn't offered much of a point of view "at that point".

You have after.

I think the point I'm trying to make (and its a bugbear of mine) is that being abusive might actually stop people from contributing. Not everyone wants to be called a moron for having a point of view. I have a similar problem with players who call other players nazi's for being German,or niggers for being black. You do that as well do you? Its just abusive and bullying and might stop the other person from playing.

But,if thats what you get off on, then its upto you.

My analogy is simplistic but your responding to my page and a half long thread with "you are a moron" isn't? interesting... at least your not a hypocrite on top of being an asshole.

My analogy describes the absolute root of the problem, where it went from there is irrelevant to its truth because it was just what made the problem worse. If the original problem was prevented in the first place, those things would never have happened.

I like to respond to a post i disagree with by addressing each part of the post. Apparently intelligent debate doesn't appeal to you though. I must say, you make it very difficult for anyone to respect your point of view.

I appreciate the responses that this thread has generated. More interest here than any thread I have done on the TAPL!

I think that the baby analogy could be enriched if we think of older children that can interact with each other. Children, when left to themselves, are fun to watch because they bounce off each other in a sort of Brownian motion and they develop their own games and rules and stuff. But when parents or other persons of authority are on hand, the dynamic changes. The children now try to manipulate their elders. Not fun to watch.

there are other ways to get sick than drinking alcohol... the second ones true, and you definitely don't need money to be greedy.

You still have not put forward an argument which could be considered any more than pathetic.

Yes skrum i agree, the analogy was simply establishing the fact that babies aren't responsible for their own actions, their parents are. If you leave them alone they will most likely harm themselves or others, so you must watch them, and keep them safe. We could definitely elaborate on it making it more specific, i just didn't think i needed to in order to put across the point i was making. Some people however, find the need to pick on an irrelevant point to draw away from the incompetence of their overall argument.

"that may have been the first trigger" . . . EXACTLY, if that was prevented the entire situation would not exist.

The fact that you are able to extrapolate that from my analogy means it served its purpose. And you are referring to what the government HAS been not what it SHOULD be as i am.

I ask you to answer one question: If these lenders had been regulated and the people who took these foolish loans weren't aloud to do so, would we be in this situation? (the answer is no) Therefore my analogy is perfectly fit for the situation.

I am still trying to figure out if you are seriously justifying calling me a moron simply because of an analogy which you have just admitted had merit in its principles, or if you think there is any other part of my argument that deserves this insult. I am also still trying to figure out where you yourself stand on the issue, because so far it seems to me like your just trying to back-step to explain your unexplainably belligerent remarks, and the only part of what i have said that you disagree with is that my analogy makes sense.