Guard Dog

@Calax, pay attention to this, I'm covering some points you made too. Following the '29 crash the Glass-Stengal act was passed that protected deposit banking from the fluctuations and risks of investment banking. It regulated interest rates and for fifty years and several rececssions prevented the financnial meltdown we are told we just avoided. I find it curious that the Democrats are screaming for banking in regulation when they are the ones who undid Glass-Stengal. In 1980 under Carter the Depository Deregulation Act, and under Clinton the Gramm-Leach-Biely Act effectively repealed Glass-Stengal and ALLOWED the banks to do the very things were are now told caused the crisis. Add to that the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter-Clinton-Bush that REQUIRED banks to write the same high risk mortgages that by and large went into default and there is your mess that Obama stammers about. Now, no matter what your political persuasion is, there is one fact that is beyond debate. The US Government CAUSED this current mess by meddling. Now they tell you they can solve it by meddling. None of the "reforms" I've heard about resembles Glass-Stengal. All of them involve raising fees and taxes on banks and investments and barring banks from certain types of investing. All of those fees and taxes will be paid by CONSUMERS!!!!! Yes, that is how the world works kiddies. When Obama sticks his nose in the air and promises to go after "fat-cat" bankers in his cynical attempt to rouse populist anger, just remember, he is placing fees on YOU. Raising taxes on YOU. No matter what he hits the banks with, they will pass it on to you and you cannot stop him, or them. The only way to avoid it is to cash in your investmets, cash out your bank accounts and bury your money in the backyard. Which is probably not a bad plan anyway with his like in power. And for those of you who are complaining about the banks holding the TARP money, I assure that was by design. No matter what Obama said in speeches, the last thing in the world he wanted was for TARP money to be used as loan fodder. Unless he is a fool, and I devoutly hope he is not. Think about this, TARP just about doubled the amount of dollars in circulation. So by mid 2009 there was twice the capital chasing the same amount of assets as in 2008. Does anyone else see a serious problem with that? Now since the TARP money was repaid and not loaned out, at least by the big banks, no harm was done. The smaller banks that could not pay have been closed for the most part. Again, that was by design no matter what they tell you in speeches.

Even you must admit, there hasn't been much to like about Obama's administration or the 114th Congress. As for his ignorace on economics, take for example his comment about raising fees on banks that "pay their CEOs million dollar bonuses". He either does not realize (then he's ignorant) or dosen't care (then he's heartless) about who actually PAYS fees and taxes the government levies on banks, companies etc. It really is not hard to think the worst of people when that is all you recieve from them. From my perspective, I want small, limited, and non intrusive government at the federal level. The government with the most influence over me should be in Nashville, not Washington. Because that is the government I have the most influence over. That is NOT what Obama and the left is serving up. Far, far from it.

Do you have any proof of that? I don't think the government ever took any interest in our guns. Also, he did call those events terrorism, and I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that he didn't. I've seen more who are against this thing calling Obama a nazi, than the other way around http://www.uspoliticalnonsense.com/2009/04...ing-extremists/ http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/04/16/po...ry4949431.shtml Napolitano:Right Wing Greater Threat Than Al-Qaeida http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/a...icals-on-right/ I can easily post hundreds of more links.

Yep I concur. 2012 is an eternity away politically speaking. And on the other side the Republican party has done nothing, zilch, nada, to deserve anyones votes other than not being Democrats. Plus the libertarian wing of the Republicans (the "Tea Party" and "9-12" coalitions) has risen so far that they are now drowning out the neo-cons, rockafellers, and buckley Republicans which threatens Republican unity because there is no strong leader (like Reagan) to unify them all. Romney is the most likely to get the nod because it is his turn. Thats the way they work. But you can bet the Tea Partiers and 9-12ers will not have him. The Democrats on the other hand have managed to piss off everyone because they are catagoricaly opposed to any kind of freedom, social or economic and so far their solution to everything is to seize it and let the government take over. Obama has been petty, arrogant, condescending and downright insulting to eveyday Americans. The department of homeland security has been paying special attention gun-owners, veterans, small governments advocates (i.e. Republicans) as potential terrorists meanwhile real terrorists are sneaking bombs on planes and Obama will not even call that terrorisim. Congress has been ramming through a health care bill that does nothing to address health care costs aside from throwing people in jail who do not wish to purchase their garbage plan. In the absolute height of arrogance and hubris they have done all of this with exactly 0 input from opponents and insulting their constituents as "Nazis" when the voice their opposition. They are absolutely heedless of the fact that 61% of the country is against them and their only response is "we know whats best for you". I talk to people all the time who are sick to the point of disgust with both of them (Repubs & Dems). There has never been a better time for a 3rd party to rise to power but there just is not one that has the wherwithal to do so, and no political leaders to galvanize two or three of them together into one powerful one. I'm hopin Obama will get a strong primary challenge. I can think of at least five democrats I'd rather have than him, I can think of dozens of Repubs. I have a Labrador Retriever that I know has a better command of economics than Obama has and he is never nasty, condescending or insulting. Maybe he should run. Cosmo for President!

That was really cheap and low class for Obama to call out the SCOTUS during his State of the Union speech. And that jackass Schumer in a fit of petulence and childishness claps right in Alitos ear. It amazes of me how small and petty men of such low character can be elected to such a high office. Maybe the good citizens of New York will do the whole country a favor and vote Schumer out of office in 2012. Small chance of that. Obama is looking more and more like a dead duck in 2012. God I hope so. I'd trade Obama for Hillary Clinton right now if I could.

I guess now that he's gone the movie studios will finally get their wish and do a screen adaptation. I thought Catcher was just ok. My favorite work of his was a short story called A Boy in France.

I'm suprised they waited so long. They wanted me up and walking 10 days after surgery. Not much but still. Congrats, I remember how good that felt.

Well, I maxed out my Visa today buying tools, a winch, and other accessroies. I also found a 1971 Corvette in a scrap yard in Birmingham with an L-48 small block 350 engine. I'm going down to see if it is in as good shape as I've been led to believe, it is that engine is mine! I also bought a Rochester 4 brl Carb and a rebuild kit for the transmission. It's been a long time since I've done any serious automotive work, not since I was a teenager. But I gotta tell you, I am loving this. I haven't been this jazzed up about anything in years. I spent two hours today moving it into the barn and removing the front end and radiator.

I bought a car today. It's a 1969 Camaro RS. It's in pretty bad shape. Engine and transmission are shot, interior looks like hell but the body and drivetrain are in great shape. This is going to be so cool once it restored. I had to tow it here, but I'm so excited I can hardly sit still.

No they still seize all of your assets, even in amounts greater than you actually owe first, then determine you actual debt later. You have to fight them in court or arbitration to get them back. I danced with them back in 1998. I'd rather owe money to the mafia.

It's an Obamanation! So, Canada is getting uppity again huh? Well, looks like we might just have to take away another one of you hockey teams!

*Edit* Never mind. I said some unkind things about some of you in this posts original text. But it was just the whisky talking (or typing).

Oh for Gods sake... There are 196 recognized nation states on earth. Cuba is free to trade with 194 of them. But it's the US that wrecking their economy huh? Give me a break.

They hurt more as we get older don't they. Today I started to do some more work on the barn and garden but after two hours and three cups of coffee I'm still at my computer.

Ramza, political parties receiving money from lobbyists has nothing what-so-ever to do with this ruling, or the case. It was not even part of the discussion. There ARE limits on how much money any group can donate to any campaign and requirements for candidates to disclose where they get donations from. This ruling is all about a private group called Citizens United that made a movie, using their own money, distributed with their own money, not done in coordination with any one else, politician or otherwise. The movie painted Hillary Clinton in an unfavorble way and called on voters to not support her. It did not advocate anyone else. The FEC banned their movie and prevented them from showing it. This was the power granted to it by McCain Feingold. Had they been a Union, or PAC, they could have done it. But private citizens were not allowed to express political opinions in this way under MC/Fe. The SCOTUS determined that it was unconstitutional for one group to be allowed to express themselves but not another. Now it is true this ruling allows anyone with the money and desire to run an ad advocating a candidate or issue to do so, including corporations, it DOES NOT put one penny in any candidates pocket. Frankly, I am a little surprised everyone is so worked up about this. I thought freedom was good. This is not some landmark ruling that shook the foundations of the country. It just removed one part of a fairly recent law that limited the ability of private citizens and anyone else to run their own issue ads.

Since I keep having to remind you all of basic, fundamental precepts of socialism, such as the fact that everybody is not supposed to be totally equal, I guess so! You can't even answer that question without getting back into socialisim. You are like some highly interactive Bot. By the way, you never did answer my question a few weeks back, just how long did you manage to last on Free Republic? I'd bet large you are a frequent poster on DU. Anyway, go ahead and talk communisim until you are red in the face ( ), you are not changing anyone's mind. Just my $.02.

shut the **** up Don't like sarcasm?

Are you even capable of discussing anything else? I mean anything? Music, alchohol, women, pets, hobbies, I mean c'mon. Do you really want another 30+ page thread where we all say the same things? You've already got two! Don't you have ANY other interests?

Individuals do, corporations are not individuals. Make things equal and tax them like individuals perhaps? And why won't you let corporations run for office? Discrimination! The constitution makes no distinctions between companies and individuals on this matter.

This makes a heck of a lot of sense to me. It is never a good thing to restrict freedom, opinion, and information. It is always a good thing to disclose where it is coming from. This does both. Good call, too bad you are not in Congress. But then again, this idea would never fly there. On my last post I was not ensorsing Scott Brown as a candidate or a Senator. Although, I was VERY happy to see the Democrat super majority in the Senate end. Total veto-proof, filibuster proof, ethics proof, control over the government by any political party is something to be feared and vigorously opposed no matter what side of the political spectrum you are on. I was only pointing out that despite conventional wisdom, Obama and half of Hollywood, and millions uopn millions of dollars in advertising the voters in MA did what they thought was right, not what was expected of them. OT here but have you ever considered running for office? You have the education, location, and you are already "inside" the machine. You have to at least thought about it. Not that I'm suggesting you should. I would not wish that on anyone.

I know there is a whole lot of business=bad, coporation=evil sentiment going on here but if I could get you guys to dial down the Marx for just a moment. Prior to this ruling, Labor Unions and Political Action Comittees (not for profit advocacy groups) were able to run any kind of advertisement they wished without worrying about the FEC coming down on them. A private citizen did not even enjoy that freedom under McCain Feingold. A corporation certainly could not. During oral arguments Justice Roberts asked the lawyer for the FEC straight out if a book was published (remember this case was about a privately produced and funded movie that was banned) that could be construed as taking a political position on a candidate, could that book be banned. The answer was yes. Dosen't that strike any of you as a bad thing? The soundbites for these campaign finance laws sound great but you really need to look at what they do. And even more important, who was exempted from them. Freedom of speech has to apply equally to everyone. These campaign finance laws gave the government the power to decide who was able to speak freely and who was not. I think Andrew Napolitano put it best, they are incumbent protection acts. The Citizens United v FEC defanged a really bad part of a bad law (most of McCain Feingold is still in effect) that should never have been enacted. You guys really should invest some time in actually reading what Justice Kenndy wrote before you bitch and moan about how unfair it all is. You might be surprised at how unfair it was before. I'd like to point out one more thing. Corportions do not get a vote. Voters are the one who decide who gets elected. If you think they are incapable of making an intelligent and informed decision that runs contrary to a swarm of advertisement and high powered influence I'd like to direct your attention to the Special Election for US Senate that just took place this week in MA.

How's the leg doing?

Disregard of Stare Decisis is not judicial activisim. Disregarding the founders words or intent is, as I understand it anyway. True but not relevant when it comes to applying the law in terms of free speech. I'd only point out that coporations are run, owned, and represent the interests of people. But it is an area I do not know much about admittedly. I'm going to have to do some reading on this.

Better for us than most teams including the Bucs You wound me sir! How ironic is it that on the 30th anniversary of the Jets Colts Superbowl (Namath's guarantee) the Jets and Colts will play to see who goes to the Superbowl, which incidently is once again in Miami! This time though, the Colts are going to win. I'm looking for an upset in the Big Easy. I'm taking the Vikings to stun the Saints.

Fling a few rocks at him, problem solved! I spent the day building a new fence around an area I'm prepping for a garden. This spring i'm going to try my hand at growing veggies. Now I'm going to make a Lynchberg Lemonade and go sit by the creek.