Brdavs

of course, you are not only incapable of finding any post of mine which supports your theory, indicating you either made it up or just can't generate a valid argument, you lob an insult claiming some sort of superiority. hehe, you are funny, brdavs. and hypocritical. at least i'm consistent and not a hypocrite. i guess you have some IQ-ometer measuring device, btw? you and hildegard? what did i say before... oh yeah, **** envy. taks Where was I insulting again? Seriosly, where? All I did here today was point out the irony of a right wingers (afraid of what most people would classify as absurd) labeling people of opposing political persuasion as gullable sheep of liberal leaders that are hell bent on totalitarism (dunno when bush went leftie with his beefing up of the executive branch, but ffs get the commies out the white house for some good old conservatives!). If thats not friggin ironic I don`t know what is. After that I proceeded to satirize a misshap by the McCain campaign in a simmilar way right wingers at the highes level did (and do) about Obamas "terror links". Then, get this, I get branded an idiot, and not even for being of a different persuasion (as it is custome for right wingers I suppose) but for apparently not comprehending the situation with the Russians fully, cos I "cant read" lol. Oh and I`m apparently super insulting and elitist when pointing out that while you`re not the best at detecting satire&sarcasm you`re infact superslow since you generalize about lefties and insult people, yet dont like it when the boot is on the other foot. Whos the hypocrit again, I cant read, I lost track of what I was articulating.

So many jokes in there... its not even funny ;P Btw, havent you heard, McCain is on the payroll of "ze russkies". Still voting him? Wait. Is that before or after they turned him down? Or did you miss the tiny detail of the story that they got a mass mailing and comedically refused to support him. Since when do details matter in this race? Obama is a terrorist and McCain is a commrade. Nuff said. And by calling me an idiot for that comment task, you just proved the case for right wingers generally being of low IQ.

So many jokes in there... its not even funny ;P Btw, havent you heard, McCain is on the payroll of "ze russkies". Still voting him?

Where is the "any" option? The way it looks to be shaping up, you have to be thankfull for any and all platform it would ever hit lol...

It prolly depends on the portfolio of the respective company... if it produces utilities but invested a good portion into bonds that have (now nonexisting) coverage in US mortages you`re still pritty much fecked. That`s the beauty of the thing. Take a mortage and cos your debt got resod like 20 times you`re not only carrying the weight of your debt but that of like a dozen banks\companies\funds\investors etc. And noone is safe :drama: Lession to be learned here gentlemen. If you mess up, mess up big time.

Perhaps it is in the best interest of your country to stick to the non proliferation and other deals and not to atagonize players like Russia and China that have considerably more bite and leverage than the taliban do? Or co-develope the shield with the russians and place it in azarbedjan, the somewhat logical location for it to intercept the dreaded "Iranian threath", instead of the friggin Polish-Russian border lol. I mean seriosuly, hands up who buys the whole "only rogue states" story? And that new developments in russian balistic missles that are now most/only vonulabre after launch has nothing to do about slapping&developing ABM installations on their borders heh? Perhaps Obama just thinks the likes of Russia are a greather possible threath than Iran ever could be. Heck the ammount of trouble given (and that could still be given) to US by Russia without even getting directly involved is staggering. Cost, risk & effect ratio? ;P As far as the regulation/deregulation being the core cause... you`ll be very hard pressed to convince me bankers lent money only coss of the government gun to their heads. This was THE thing to do to make good money (the prime directive) and a driving force of the economy. Twas the personification of the amarican dream upto the burst of the housing bubble. Note that more than 50% of the subprime loans were made by banks NOT regulated by CRA and the majority of the rest by banks only partialy regulated. Over the thumb, 3 out of four subprime mortages were given out by institutions NOT regulated lol. And on top of that a recent study concluded that quote: "CRA regulated institutions were less likely to make subprime loans, and when they did the interest rates were lower. CRA banks were also half as likely to resell the loans." Pesky detail dat eh... what can you do, peer pressure? Poor FM&FM. But feel free to pound at the government regulation being there as the main cause. It`s much simpler that way. Fact is that most economst over the globe recognise deregulation and poor regulation (on the back of a regulation fobia) as major contributors to the problem. From france to japan, they be sayin your particular model apparently failed. But feel free not to learn a lession. Best joke so far. Never in history has in my knowledge your constitution been so "raped" for the conveniance of the executive branch than in this past 2 terms. Phear the dems thoe.

Oddly enough, I do feel a redneck joke coming up heh... It has it all... BEing attacked on values, the delusion one can have and furthermore atm has a good measure of independance from the big bad state which ofc. needs to be protected, an all out laissez-faire approach to economy whilst that particular approach is going boobies up in RL. Oh, and the ever so important russo/chineese threat to safeguard the poor nation from. Did I miss something or did russa allready stood up to bush heh? And you can hardly call his policies perception of weakness inducing. Christ, he`s the scurge of god, mark 2 lol. Fact is that the way the world is going, powers like Russia and China will be standing up to the US meddling in their interests, nommater who the president. So pick one less "redneckish" that`ll be able to deal with it and wont possibly start a war over the fall from the throne thing would be my advcie. As far as the SC goes, after Scalia, you can hardly go very wrong heh. On a sidenote, watch McCain win, appoint his justices and change the tune about "legislating from the bench" lol.

No sweat, It`s been divolged that Obama associates with terrorists. The redneck vote ftMcw. Btw, has there been any comment by either of the candidates on the statements made by the brigadier in charge of UK forces in Afghanistan that concluded military victory is not fiesable and that they should possibly even consider negotiations with the Taliban? Cos I`m thinking that if the oldest and most loyal ally with experience in matters of occupation of the same region is having second thoughts one might possibly start to think the "surge will save the day" strategy might not be the definitve answer to all the problems afterall heh...

that's disingenuous on its face. a free market economic system is actually cyclical, but not to the same extremes as one that is controlled. a chaotic system does not necessarily require one that booms or busts. taks The irony of that bold statement being that government intervention and regulation is precisely what alleviates\averts the downturn of the so called free market sytem when it (inevitably?) occurs. Free while it works market shall we call it heh. If there were no government interventions in this case or in 29 the faith in the financial system could very well eventually be gone. And once all the people dash to withdraw their savings to save them you dont have a financial system anymore.

When you said you thought there was some kind of ironic similarity between Nazi Germany and Israel. Some yes. The devil, as allways, is in the details. Despite the infusion of military in the society you really cant call Israel a fascist state as far as its de iure structure goes. But one can note the irony of the perpetual targets of discrimination in nationalistic countries running a "jewish state" and discriminating themselves. Of them going from being the segregated to doing the segregation. From being behind walls to building the walls. From being thrown out to thorowing out. From being executed to executioners. Surely? Oh, an like Nazi Germany, they also build highways.

In my view defending the demonized and pointing out its not all rainbows on the other end is not taking sides. Did I anywhere point out Iranians are a bunch of angels? Problem is some (majority here) percieve *not* demonizing the arabs as a priori demonizing Israel. What, it cant be pointed out all the numerous things wrong with Israel without the alibi of "ye arabs are crazy mofos deserving it" in the same post? Or that the Iranian strategical situation beggs for nuclear arsenal? Or that there are way less Izraelis (pending implementation of some sick and morbid plan) that need dying for the secural of peace than there are Arabs. Where did I attribute fascism to Israel again? And so the bad treatemnd of african americans in the US justifies bad treatment of arabs in Israel? I would have thought the "enlightened" stance would be that both are unacceptable. It surely is a pronouncement of a state's abject failure. In both states.

You sure? I could have sworn you werent As far as 20% of the arab population in Izrael... plenty of "funny" stuff to be said about the state of that. Dont buy it, google it

Did I mention any conspiracy? did I miss the concrete walls going down around gaza and essencials being periodically shut off as a form of (political) pressure on elected enteties we dont recognise as "legitimate" since theyre not our cup of tea anyways ? And zionism is a factual politacal (nationalistic) movement that comes in many niances, including ones just as fundamental as the Islamism does. The fact it only gets associated with "jews r taking ovah the US" conspiracies in your mind is solly the problem of your uneducated mind. I`m just using the cold hard logic of the would be nukers. And as far as pasports having wight in the scales of life, last time I checked 4k US citizens departing this world led to dead and displaced in the millions. So again, 7mil:100mil. Who would your nonbiggoted oppinion consider nuking over the others? So lemme rephraze that for ya: Thought so. Wah wah Israel wah wah fascism wah communism is the answer wah wah wah Muslims are dreamy but Zionist plot wah Hitler thus Western pity thus therefore Q.E.D. Doode, you`re just making a fool out of yourself. If you ran out of things passable as inteliggent in unintelligent circles to say about the matter just move on. Thought so. P.S. I`d agree with Nick_i_am about some historical ironies but that`d surely be "wah wah"ing.

Did I mention any conspiracy? did I miss the concrete walls going down around gaza and essencials being periodically shut off as a form of (political) pressure on elected enteties we dont recognise as "legitimate" since theyre not our cup of tea anyways ? And zionism is a factual politacal (nationalistic) movement that comes in many niances, including ones just as fundamental as the Islamism does. The fact it only gets associated with "jews r taking ovah the US" conspiracies in your mind is solly the problem of your uneducated mind. I`m just using the cold hard logic of the would be nukers. And as far as pasports having wight in the scales of life, last time I checked 4k US citizens departing this world led to dead and displaced in the millions. So again, 7mil:100mil. Who would your nonbiggoted oppinion consider nuking over the others? So lemme rephraze that for ya: Thought so.

Sure, nuke the most democratic countries in the Middle East, why not. No, nuke the generator of friction in the area and terorism across the globe. I wont even debate the democracy of a zionistic country infused with military that runs the Gaza strip concentration camp. The pure math is simple... There are 7mil izraelis. There are 70mil people in Iran ALONE. Nuke Izrael, problem solved, fewer cost in human lives. Simple arithmitics. Unless you`re trying to say a Israeli life is worth more than the others are lol? Nvm answering, twas a rethorical question. Ofcourse the value of life differs in accordance to the passport it holds, thats no secret. And if democracy was a criteria you should nuke Saudi Arabia waaaaay before Iran or Syria. But they be on our side you say, eh? Like I said, Iranis would be friggin nutjubs not to go for nukes. All the cooks of this "lets nuke ME and be done with it" caliber (if pallin can run one of em has good chances of gettin into office) and all the hardware certain champions of "peacefull resolutions without threaths" of conflicts (think Gerogia cermons to Russia) have stockpiled on the borders\shores.

Sure thing, as long as we start with Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. Discussion like this reminds me of a comment I once read... "Iran is not crazy to want nuclear weapons (if it so does), given the situation Iran would be crazy not to want nuclear weapons."

The loans increased in risk once the realestate bubble burst. + I`m not sure how you can make the claim that the regulation in question was the main reason in the prectices that lended great profits and fueled the countries growth for a decade. Afterall, turning a profit is the first commandment. Y You sir are a bit out of touch with Chinese reality I`m afraid. + gain exposing your inability to see niances. The fact post communist states no longer regulate 100% does not imply they do not regulate anything at all. China for instance repeatetly blew off calls from professionals now in big trouble to speed up to total deregulation. Tis is not a debate of capitalism vs socialism regulation. Its a debate about certain types of capitalism - or at best between pure (theoretical) capitalism and mixed economies. Growth and home ownership now exposed to be on very flimsy foundations. You cant claim credit the positive effects of a practice and disown the negative ones or an eventual collapse, surely. That`d be immoral lol. You can make morality an issue but you must not that it is dependant on the induvidual societies/induviduals perspective. And you must apply it across the field not just specific case when its use suits you. For instance, for me it is surely immoral that lets say children have radicaly different opportunities in life, dependant only on the size of the silver spoon layed in their cradle. And thats the hallmark of a social democracy. And the hallmark of that is state owned or subsidized programs of education, healthcare, child care and related services for all citizens. Regulation. Lenin also viewed 90% of wealth concentrated with 10% of the population "immoral". What of it heh?

Well actually, at this very moment, tis the laissez-faire capitalism that`s failing. And not the banks of say China wich has ironically been shrugging off western advice for the past 20 years... Funny how an equally utopian ideology succeded the fall of communism, only in the other extreme heh. I think the issue here is the inability to see anything but the extreme poles heh. "partial regulation" must be the word I`m looking for. Saying regulation does not work cos USSR failed is a mockery to intelligence tbh. Plenty of examples today of regulation to varied degrees. Plenty more examples of them than examples of completley free markets tbh. And its not them failing. Morality surely also requires that rights of a person are not ignored simply cos of his economic disadvantage, doesnt it? Morality is a very slippery slope that has precious little to do with issues at hand. Basically by evocing morality you degrade the argument on the level of lets say advocating the other extreme (communism). It both boils down to this: laissez-faire capitalism apparently failed in practice. Both dinamite on paper but they somehow hit a snag with practical implementation. Period. What more is there to say, honestly? Regulation of practically no regulation is stil regulation ergo deregulation is still the way to go argument? Thats just sad. Edit: Anyhow, this just got funny: Bailout rejected, markets plummit.

Well taks ,if this is all the result of socialist politicians meddling in, it`s kinda proof that socialism *can* indeed work well... since the (socialist forced) subprime mortages were a substantional driving force for the US wellbeing in the past decade and some heh. Or is it super awsome capitalism when it works and stupind red socialism when it has a hickup?

But hey, she has international experience. The eyes of Putin are just across the chukchi sea. And the sad thing is some people actually mean that seriously lol. Tis allso funny to see McCain ditching the "experience" for "change" heh.

Twas a typical American post, that? I kid, I kid, hehe. Honest mistake. Not as if spanish is the globes 2nd most spoken language by native speakers, even if you happen to miss the "johannesburg" tip.

CB? OUTRAGEEEE! ? Not this time, georgians apparently used them. Page 3, bottom right corner. Anyone surprised? lol

Well the vague SCO statement is being spinned like crazy by media for their seperate agendas. Western ones tend to focus on the part where SCO doesnt explicitly back Russia as Russias "failure" and other media seem to focus on the part in wich the leaders of China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan said they "support the active role of Russia in assisting peace and cooperation in the region." as a victory for Russia. The only obvious thing in that statement is that its deliberatly vague to not take concrete sides heh. Let the press take over and satisfy their respective publics. China for instance isnt about to forget its anti seperatist stance but its not looking favorably on western Tibet stance in the light of theri support for Georgia either lol. In other news OSCE is being cirtical towards Georgia for their planned invasion into ossetia before the Russian response and is investigating possibilities of war crimes in ordering a night attack on a city. lol. 5$ says that dont make many headlines. Its supposedly being published in Der Spiegel weekly on monday. Should be a "different" read to what we`re used to heh. P.S. Interesting article about the military aspects of the conflict: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=140546

Semi related to the superiority of approach argument: http ://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?News...ghan&Cr1=? Tis a good thing our troops aint subject to international law eh? lol. Good guys ftw.

Well as long as we`re not oversimplifying things so that we can more easily vilify... I thought England was the 51st state lol? Anyhow, with the current president Georgia allready is a de facto union state. Our reasoning for an intervention on the balkans was the complicated situation after the collapse of Yugoslavia. Guess what, after the collapse of USSR Caucasus was and is ten times as messed up. Now I understand the politicians and their agendas for the region but how can an average "freedom loving" american joe after 2 decades of ruthless ethnic conflicts take a nations independance from a political entity they never ever wanted to be part of (nor de facto was) as a bad thing... Whats with all the hopping around? Nations right to selfdetermination, lets have a teaparty! Preserve the union! Preserve Yugoslavia! Kosovo right to selfdetermination! Preserve Georgia! I`m lost, what`s our current stance now? Oh, being selfish. Gotcha. I thought we were the "good guys"? Why do we want to hog independance day? What reasonable and well informed argument can anyone give, other than the looming "red threat" that needs opposition and slapping down lol?