The pilfering of American taxpayers?

Would you ask your congressman to vote for or against the deal?

  • For

    Votes: 7 12.5%

  • Against

    Votes: 49 87.5%
  • Total voters
    56
Quote from PocketAces:

Future earnings of any bank that gets bailed out should be taxed so heavily as to cover this bullshit. Why should I pay for their transgressions? They can stay in business but they are MY bitch! :cool: :eek::D
More...

LOL

No, you are THEIR bitch. YOU pay the bills for their fun. You have NO choice. Shut up and pay your taxes, to go up 50% after Hussein wins in Novermber. Bet me.
 
Quote from Ivanovich:

Did you mean Iraq instead of Georgia? Because you didn't even mention Iraq, and I'm not sure you can lay Georgia at the foot of Bush.
More...

I read the following on Wikipedia apparently from
http://www.gmu.edu/academic/ijps/vol8_1/David and Ramel.htm


The International Journal of Peace Studies 2003 article ''The Bush administration's image of Europe: From ambivalence to rigidity'' states

The Republican Party's platform in the 2000 presidential elections set the administration's tone on this issue. It called for a dramatic expansion of NATO not only in Eastern Europe (with the Baltic States, Rumania, Bulgaria and Albania) but also, and most significantly, in the Middle East, the Caucasus and Central Asia. The purpose is to develop closer cooperation within NATO in dealing with geopolitical problems from the Middle East to Eurasia. The program therefore takes a broad and rather fuzzy view of Europe.

It would be premature at this stage to say that the US administration has had a fundamental change of heart and shed its long-ingrained reflexes in dealing with Russia.

When it comes to the future of Europe, Americans and Europeans differ on key issues. The differences seem to point toward three fundamental values which underpin the Bush administration's image of Europe. The first is unilateralism, of which the missile shield is a particularly telling example. The American position flies in the face of the European approach, which is based on ABM talks and multilateralism. An opposition is taking shape here between the leading European capitals, which want to deal with the matter by judicial means, and the Americans, who want to push ahead and create a fait accompli.


You should read the stuff on www.anglospherechallenge.com and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_History about the "Heartland"

There is more on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine , apparently the defenders of the doctrine still claim the importance of the Heartland theories which are old... and the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Managerial_state .
It looks pretty aggressive to me... and I see from a systems perspective about the coming into power by the Neocons that it was the culmination of a tendency, allowed by the "old money" to allow aggressive "reclaiming" and "reshaping" of what was emerging abroad - especially with the Internet transformation and bolstering of much of the economies, communication etc.

Rumsfeld addressed this emerging "war of ideas" emerging from the Internet in 2006:
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=1206 .


Also, conspiracy theories happens when there is the perception that "something is wrong". The problem with the conspiracy theories is that they apply reductionist thinking to WHY something has happened, and tries to follow a "lead" through events. This is in line with Occam's razor and being reductionist - but simply does not cut it - since it's close to impossible to show the shear number of actions that DO contribute to a situation emerging - it IS a chaos and very complex pattern. E.g you can't simply apply the "principle of bivalence" and "propositional logic" to everything in the universe - it's not a sufficient system - see "degree of truth" and Gödel's incompleteness theorem.

If you instead - just look at the situation, the directly involved parties - you can describe what is actually the situation. How it emerged is more complex, since it would involve various systems interacting - which happens of course. A "system" can also be applied to describing a situation, an event, and the involved parties etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_intelligence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_thinking
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_philosophy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_adaptive_system

This is a relatively new interdisciplinary field - but gaining a LOT of traction - as it applies quickly to so many fields of science - every field in fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_bivalence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degree_of_truth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism
 
Quote from Gringinho:

I read the following on Wikipedia apparently from
http://www.gmu.edu/academic/ijps/vol8_1/David and Ramel.htm


The International Journal of Peace Studies 2003 article ''The Bush administration's image of Europe: From ambivalence to rigidity'' states

The Republican Party's platform in the 2000 presidential elections set the administration's tone on this issue. It called for a dramatic expansion of NATO not only in Eastern Europe (with the Baltic States, Rumania, Bulgaria and Albania) but also, and most significantly, in the Middle East, the Caucasus and Central Asia. The purpose is to develop closer cooperation within NATO in dealing with geopolitical problems from the Middle East to Eurasia. The program therefore takes a broad and rather fuzzy view of Europe.

It would be premature at this stage to say that the US administration has had a fundamental change of heart and shed its long-ingrained reflexes in dealing with Russia.

When it comes to the future of Europe, Americans and Europeans differ on key issues. The differences seem to point toward three fundamental values which underpin the Bush administration's image of Europe. The first is unilateralism, of which the missile shield is a particularly telling example. The American position flies in the face of the European approach, which is based on ABM talks and multilateralism. An opposition is taking shape here between the leading European capitals, which want to deal with the matter by judicial means, and the Americans, who want to push ahead and create a fait accompli.


You should read the stuff on www.anglospherechallenge.com and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_History about the "Heartland"

There is more on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine , apparently the defenders of the doctrine still claim the importance of the Heartland theories which are old... and the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Managerial_state .
It looks pretty aggressive to me... and I see from a systems perspective about the coming into power by the Neocons that it was the culmination of a tendency, allowed by the "old money" to allow aggressive "reclaiming" and "reshaping" of what was emerging abroad - especially with the Internet transformation and bolstering of much of the economies, communication etc.

Rumsfeld addressed this emerging "war of ideas" emerging from the Internet in 2006:
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=1206 .


Also, conspiracy theories happens when there is the perception that "something is wrong". The problem with the conspiracy theories is that they apply reductionist thinking to WHY something has happened, and tries to follow a "lead" through events. This is in line with Occam's razor and being reductionist - but simply does not cut it - since it's close to impossible to show the shear number of actions that DO contribute to a situation emerging - it IS a chaos and very complex pattern. E.g you can't simply apply propositional logic to everything in the universe - it's not a sufficient system - see Gödel's incompleteness theorem.

If you instead - just look at the situation, the directly involved parties - you can describe what is actually the situation. How it emerged is more complex, since it would involve various systems interacting - which happens of course. A "system" can also be applied to describing a situation, an event, and the involved parties etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_intelligence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_thinking
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_philosophy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_adaptive_system

This is a relatively new interdisciplinary field - but gaining a LOT of traction - as it applies quickly to so many fields of science - every field in fact.
More...



Only if someone would show this to Sarah Palin.
 
Quote from jficquette:

I say fuck the government. We should just refuse to pay taxes.
More...

I am sure you would prefer sharing a 6x9 cell without a toilet seat with an oversized bear named bubba. You first...
 
Quote from GermanTrader:

Your assumption that evolution is science is quite laughable. Try logic, it's a good study!
More...


This deserves to be quoted in full, with no response.
 
Krugman nails it - if the assets to be bought are undervalued, why can't the market buy them? If the assets are overvalued, then it's a direct theft from taxpayers to shareholders and CEOs/top employees of financial institutions.

The only way this could be just is if the government also then steals money by force from the CEOs/employees of the bailed out institutions. Now that would be amusing and probably quite popular on Main Street :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top