Total posts: 28,020
-->
@Savant
"Stop the steal"
It would be serendipitous to have a twice elected....what's the word Hillary used? Twice illegitimate president.
Created:
Government sponsorship is Corporate welfare. As Frank, FDR, and Mussolini supported.
Created:
And the GSEs are not corporate welfare because they are not corporations.
That's a lie.
Yes, Fannie Mae (Federal National Mortgage Association) is a corporation. It was originally created as a government agency in 1938 during the Great Depression as part of the Fascist New Deal. However, in 1968, Fannie Mae was transformed into a government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) and became a shareholder-owned company.
As a GSE, Fannie Mae operates as a publicly traded corporation, but with a unique relationship to the government. While it is a private company with its own shareholders, Fannie Mae benefits from certain privileges and support from the government, including access to lower borrowing costs and implicit government guarantees on its mortgage-backed securities. This special status allows Fannie Mae to play a crucial role in the housing finance system by providing liquidity to the mortgage market and promoting homeownership.
I think you need to do some reading before continuing this conversation.
What kind of books are you reading these days...fanfiction?
Created:
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/feb/12/inside-beltway-donald-trump-counter-democrats-ball/
Elections these days is about who cheats harder.
Created:
Government sponsorship is Corporate welfare. As Frank, FDR, and Mussolini supported.
Created:
Frank isn’t the idiot. He never suggested getting rid of Fannie and Freddie
One of the notable initiatives that Barney Frank supported was the affordable housing goals of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, government-sponsored enterprises that play a significant role in the housing market.
Government sponsorship is Corporate welfare. As Frank, FDR, and Mussolini supported.
Created:
There is much evidence to suggest that some executives in the financial industry were aware of the possibility of government intervention or bailouts if their institutions faced significant financial distress. The expectation of potential government support, commonly referred to as "too big to fail," a phrase coined after the fact to describe the bailout assurances the government provided to the banks before the crash, created a moral hazard where executives may have taken on excessive risks, assuming that they would be rescued by taxpayers in the event of failure. This perception of implicit government backing likely influenced decision-making and risk-taking behavior within financial institutions.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Actually, looking at the BBB bill, Biden actually about quadrupled the corporate giveaways. 245 Billion for the banks through TARP vs the 1.2 trillion, much of which was scattered to the private sector through corporate subsidies and corporate welfare, especially in the green energy sector.
Edit, I forgot to add all the smaller Tarp bailouts.
Ok, guess both bills were pretty close as far as corporate giveaways go.
Created:
The banks came up with the idea to loan to people who couldn’t afford it.
Not before Barney Frank.
but were forced into it by idiots ..
Calling Barney Frank an idiot isn't productive to a constructive dialogue.
One of the notable initiatives that Barney Frank supported was the affordable housing goals of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, government-sponsored enterprises that play a significant role in the housing market. These goals required Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase their purchases of affordable and subprime mortgages, with the intention of promoting homeownership among low-income individuals. The affordable housing goals were part of broader efforts to expand homeownership opportunities.
TARP isn't a "conservative alternative fact"
It's a matter of historical record as being one of the largest corporate welfare type legislations passed by a bi-partisan Congress rivaling even the massive BBB corporate welfare.
Without the assurances of TARP, none of those banks would have dared to engage in risky loans that they would have to eat.
Government sponsorship and corporate welfare are also forms of economic regulation, supported by Frank, FDR, and Mussolini.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
Fanchick still trying to sniff your laundry?
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Sex harassment caused 41 percent of female victims to leave their jobs.
So the other 59% of harassed females lived in Blue States where there were no job options? Good catch FLRW.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
“When you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.”
Lol, no, I will just say, thanks for invoking Godwin's law FLRW. We can rely on you to joke about serious topics like dementia.
Created:
Created:
California is financially sound.
Source?
Created:
Quitting job you dislike and getting a job you like more is what makes workers happy. So yeah, if there are no job options, that doesnt mean worker is happy with his job. It just means he has no choice.
Agreed.
Created:
After the great Bush Recession...
You mean the recession triggered by the overregulation of the housing loan industry by Barney Frank, using central "experts" to direct banks to loan out to people who couldn't afford the loans by underwriting the loans with the Federal Government? Banks who would never on their own in a free market take on those risky loans? And the same "experts" then provided billions in corporate welfare through TARP? Great example there fanchick.
Barney Frank, cut from the same cloth as FDR and Mussolini.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
And how did they determine which job is unsuitable for a person?
Most totalitarian countries have low job churn precisely because there are no job options or upward mobility opportunities. That makes blue states indistinguishable.
Created:
The term "expert" in case you did not know is highly subjective, as it depends on various factors such as context, criteria, and individual perspectives. The subjectivity of the word "expert" arises from the fact that expertise is often domain-specific and can vary depending on the field or discipline being discussed. Different criteria may be used to determine expertise in different areas. For example, expertise in a scientific field might be based on advanced education, years of research experience, publication record, and peer recognition. In contrast, expertise in a practical skill like carpentry might be based on years of hands-on experience, successful projects, and recommendations from satisfied clients. Not to go off on a tangent, but skilled tradesmen are often cited as "uneducated" despite the high labor value they provide to society.
Political bias also taints the word "expert." People may be more inclined to consider someone an expert if they align with their own beliefs or if the person has a reputation or credentials that are highly regarded within a particular community or social context. Evaluating the quality of evidence presented, and seeking a range of perspectives without relying on pre-existing political biases should help mitigate the subjectivity associated with the term "expert," but won't eliminate it.
Milton Friedman, was notably critical of the notion that "experts" possess superior knowledge and should have significant decision-making power. Friedman argued that relying solely on experts could lead to a concentration of power and limit individual freedom. Friedman also believed in the power of decentralized decision-making and the importance of considering a wide range of perspectives and variables. According to Friedman, large population consensus, reflected through the mechanisms of the market or democratic processes, is a more effective way to account for a multitude of factors and produce desirable outcomes. He emphasized the importance of competition, free markets, free occupation choices, and the feedback provided by individuals' choices as a means to aggregate and process information dispersed among many actors.
Friedman argued that individuals possess local knowledge about their own needs, preferences, and circumstances, which cannot be fully captured by centralized experts. He believed that allowing individuals to make choices based on their own assessments and engaging in voluntary interactions in markets or through democratic processes would lead to better outcomes and societal progress. Basically, Friedman claimed that large populations are much better able to adapt to the multiple variables of any problem than an "Expert" who specializes on only one subset of variables.
This is why he advocated for limiting the role of experts in decision-making and promoting the benefits of individual freedom, competition, and the collective wisdom of the people. (Unlike fascist FDR and Mussolini.)
Created:
But you are more likely to attach a clip of Dan Bongino
never heard of him, but since you watch him, it's pretty safe to say he is a component of corporate media since since you have a history of citing corporate media as "expert" sources...
Watching corporate media in a fascist country isn't usually productive, as corporate media is designed to be self-serving, especially when covering for the malfeasance of their government partners.
Created:
If you cite a bogus source...
Not necessarily. If you are citing a source for context rather than for "expert" authority, you won't fall into the trap of logical fallacies.
Qualifying all content written by "non-Experts" as bogus would also nullify every post you have ever made on this site. The fallacy is a 2-edged sword.
Again, you are stating the opposite of what experts would tell you
The "experts" that Wapo regularly censors due to partisan principle such as Noble laureate Milton Friedman would disagree with your chosen "experts."
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Thank ya, Thank ya very mucsh! Uh, huh!
Dementia is a serious condition. Nobody should be laughing.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
We can always count on you to invoke Godwin's law and attempt to censor opposing viewpoints by making it a "Trump" issue like forcing a round peg into a square hole. Not everyone believes the world revolves around Trump.
And it only took 22 posts this time.
Biden states are smart states
It's hard to take any sentence seriously that has the word Smart and Biden so close together considering Biden's documented dementia medical condition...
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
So you agree with what I said? That free competition, options, and choices lead to better outcomes?
Created:
You get the government you deserve.
Sound advice when discussing bailing out California's monumental and growing state debt.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
When you have alternatives, its easier to find jobs suitable for you.
Diverse choices is key. If the only job you can get is from a large corporation facilitated with fascist regulatory policies and corporate welfare, there are not many options.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Bingo.
Sometimes when you pull the scab back, you won't want to admit what is there.
Created:
As a substitute teacher for a shitty high school, are you really qualified to make these assertions?you’re a dummy who lacks critical thinking skills
When engaging in discussions or debates, you should focus on the content of the argument I made rather than resorting to personal attacks or questioning someone's qualifications. It would be more constructive to address the specific points I made rather than dismissing them based on a job or experiences. What you wrote is clearly an example of the ad hominem fallacy, specifically an appeal to personal circumstances. This classical fallacy occurs when someone attacks the person making an argument rather than addressing the argument itself. When you bring up any person's job, not just a substitute teacher, in a negative light, you are attempting to discredit their statements without directly addressing the content of their argument. This is your continued appeal to authority fallacy in action. A more productive approach would be to critically analyze the points being made and respond with well-reasoned counterarguments or requests for evidence to support my assertions. If somehow you were to focus on the substance of the discussion and avoiding fallacious reasoning, you will foster a more constructive and meaningful exchange of ideas.
When engaging in discussions or debates, it is important to remain focused on the content of the argument and avoid making personal attacks or questioning someone's qualifications. You may feel inclined as demonstrated often on this site to discredit others based on your own fears or insecurities regarding your credibility or job status. In the end, this projection does not actually address the validity of the arguments being presented. Engaging in discussions should be driven by the merits of the ideas being exchanged rather than personal anxieties or delusions. You should engage in conversations with an open mind, evaluating the evidence, logic, and reasoning behind each position. Dismissing someone's viewpoints based on personal fears or assumptions about their credibility can hinder constructive dialogue and prevent meaningful engagement with different perspectives. if you focus instead on the substance of the discussion and maintain a respectful and open-minded approach, we can all enjoy more productive conversations that contribute to a deeper understanding of the topics at hand.
You should remember that everyone has different perspectives, experiences, and knowledge bases, and making assumptions about someone's abilities without proper evidence or understanding is unfair. Engaging in projection, where one projects their own insecurities or fears onto others with childish name calling will hinder productive communication, create a hostile environment, and prevent a genuine exchange of ideas.
Created:
In Mussolini's vision, businesses would be privately owned, but they would operate under the control and direction of the state. The state would coordinate economic activities, determine wages and prices, and establish regulations to ensure social harmony and economic stability. Mussolini argued that this form of regulated capitalism would harmonize the interests of all social classes and avoid class struggle. He believed that through state intervention, the economy could be effectively managed and directed towards the collective well-being of the nation.
WAPO is not the authority, they are interviewing the authority for the article.
They are also responsible for censoring opposing viewpoints. That makes them the authority and arbitrators of wrongthink as described in Orwells 1984.
Created:
That’s not what the experts in the article think.
Source? Since it's obvious that you are diving straight into the appeal to authority fallacy with the use of the word "Experts"
instead chose capitalism with regulation
So did Mussolini. If you want to open any business, you have to jump through fascist loopholes and red tape.
the authority is bogus.
Lol, Wapo. Might as just as well have cited Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum.
Created:
Or it could be there's more opportunity than the fascist authoritarian Blue States with job killing labor cartels.
By Fascist I mean the government gets involved in the economy by deciding if a person can work freely or not.
While accusations of Fascism are often thrown around in American politics, the New Deal, implemented by Franklin D. Roosevelt, is an overlooked example of overtly fascist economic policies. Fascism, as defined by Mussolini, emphasized state direction of the economy, with business owners producing goods and services according to state dictates (regulations). FDR's regulatory structure and transfer of decision-making power to unelected bureaucrats mirror fascist principles. This stifles creativity, favors large corporations over small businesses, and leads to regulatory capture by industry insiders (career DC lobbyists). Those concerned about fascism should focus on repealing the New Deal and promoting a free market.
It's worth noting that the large union AFT under Randi Weingarten was directly responsible for killing school choice and also directly responsible for shuttering schools during the scamdemic, despite parent's objections.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
On what planet is that how the Internet works?
Did you like the video I linked to you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
Yeah, there are multiple ways to show this.
Your way is less formal and much easier to understand.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Cohen recalls...reportedly ...
Thank you for your hearsay contributions. A few points to note here:
When considering the use of hearsay evidence, it's important to acknowledge its limitations and potential risks. Hearsay evidence relies on information obtained from someone who heard about an event or statement from another person, making it secondhand information that may lack reliability. Hearsay evidence can be prone to distortion, misinterpretation, or bias as it passes through multiple individuals. Furthermore, when hearsay evidence comes from a convicted felon, it's necessary to critically assess the credibility of the source. Convicted felons may have a history of dishonesty or personal motives that can cast doubt on the accuracy of their claims. It becomes essential to corroborate their statements with reliable sources or evidence to ensure accuracy. Relying solely on hearsay, especially from an unreliable or biased source, carries the risk of spreading misinformation or unfounded rumors. It is also important to note that hearsay evidence may have limitations in legal settings, as courts often require firsthand testimony or direct evidence to establish facts. Therefore, when encountering hearsay evidence, particularly from a convicted felon, it is advisable to approach it with skepticism and seek additional verification to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the information.
Also, regarding your Orangemanbad condition:
it's important to encourage the practice of critical thinking. This involves developing the habit of questioning information, seeking multiple perspectives, and looking for credible sources to validate claims. By cultivating a mindset of skepticism and curiosity, TDS afflicted people can better evaluate the accuracy and reliability of the information they encounter. Generally speaking, diversifying information sources is a crucial aspect to critical thinking. I would encourage you to broaden your exposure to different viewpoints and news outlets and not rely on singular sources like MSNBC or the word of a convicted felon. By seeking out diverse perspectives, you will gain a more well-rounded understanding of complex issues and you will be able to challenge your own biases. Relying on a single source or echo chamber like MSNBC can perpetuate confirmation bias and hinder the ability to see the full picture.
Promoting media literacy skills are always beneficial. You should critically analyze the sources that you typically rely on, and fact-check information before accepting it as true, and be aware of common tactics used to spread misinformation or manipulate narratives. Fostering open and respectful dialogue is essential. By actively listening to opposing perspectives and engaging in constructive conversations, you will eventually broaden yourr understanding, challenge your own biases, and build empathy. It's important that you approach this process with patience and empathy, as changing deeply held beliefs takes time and personal reflection. I encourage you to maintain an open mind and a commitment to seeking truth and accuracy, rather than solely reinforcing pre-existing biases.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
BLM at this point is not even trying to "help black people" anymore I think, they are just labeling themselves as liberal and left and woke so their fanbase could give them more money. You can't just expect an organization to not care about money, I guess.
Racial grifting will be around as long as racists are around.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
The statement you made contains several inaccuracies. BLDM isn't a real organization. Additionally, Spreading false information can hinder constructive dialogue. It's essential to verify facts before making claims that may negatively impact individuals or perpetuate baseless rumors. Considering the concept of projection—attributing negative motivations or actions to others such as Trump without evidence.... projection can cloud productive conversations and prevent a fair examination of different valid perspectives. It also leaves you vulnerable to misunderstandings about your own intentions and trustworthiness. Instead, Let's focus on discussing verified information and engaging in respectful dialogue to foster a better understanding of the topics at hand. Constructive conversations rooted in facts and empathy can contribute to a more meaningful exchange of ideas.
Created:
Posted in:
Engaging in respectful and constructive discussions is crucial, even when expressing disagreements or concerns. If you have legitimate concerns or questions about someone's career choice, it is better to approach the topic with empathy and respect. A better way to phrase what I think you want to say is: "So, you chose to become a teacher. I'm curious about the motivations behind your career choice and the qualifications required for the role. Could you please share more about your experiences and what led you to pursue this path?" By rephrasing your statement in a more respectful and inquisitive manner, you can encourage a meaningful conversation while avoiding unnecessary negativity or harm. it's important to recognize that projecting negative intentions onto others without evidence can stem from personal insecurities and assumptions. Instead, let's focus on having an open dialogue about career choices, the qualifications required, and any concerns or questions you may have. This way, we can foster understanding and address any legitimate concerns while promoting a respectful and constructive conversation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
appealing to authority.
Weak minds are dependent on trusting authority. Such as children.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
It's a picture of a kid getting groomed.
Created:
Posted in:
From the fact you’re an idiot, lol.
Wouldn't that make me a partisan? doesn't matter what the letter is.
I know for a fact you have falsely called Biden smart many times.
And regarding the OP, you talk as though you personally donated to one of those mansions.
There's no shame in admitting you screwed up and trusted the wrong people.
Created:
This is the 3rd time you praised Republicans for doing the right thing. Are you ok?
Created:
In a free market, government wouldn't be able to hold the economy hostage.
Created:
Posted in:
Lol... what ever gave you the idea that I was a Republican?
Admittedly there is a resistance among certain individuals in red states (it would be more accurate to define them as "redneck culture" states as Dr. Sowell contends) to embrace the teaching of history, particularly when it comes to the history of systematic and systemic racism in this country, but as I said before, you should avoid blanket statements especially in light of the significant proportion of the population that is either interracial or assimilated immigrants with their unique perspectives far removed from redneck culture.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Slainte
Since you have to include the caveat that (a-b) cannot equal zero (division by zero error) then the proof fails.
Maybe use different numbers?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
Let's denote x = 1.999... and multiply both sides of the equation by 10: (you can actually pick any number)
10x = 19.999...
Now, subtract x from both sides:10x - x = 19.999... - 1.999...9x = 18
Divide both sides by 9:x = 2
So, mathematically, we can conclude that 1.999... is equal to 2.
Created:
money is a precious commodity.
So is gratitude. There is also poverty of the spirit.
Created:
Created:
Posted in:
It is crucial to recognize that not all white individuals bear personal responsibility for the actions of previous generations or systemic issues. Many whites (and blacks) are assimilated foreigners far removed from the systemic racism codified before1965. Skin shaming is neither productive or constructive in addressing these complex issues. Instead, we should focus on educating ourselves about history, listening to marginalized voices, engaging in constructive conversations, supporting initiatives for systemic equality, and promoting positive changes for all.
Created:
It's important to provide accurate information in a respectful manner. I want to inform you that your blanket statement about Paxton's impeachment is incorrect. It's crucial to verify facts about all Republicans before making such claims to ensure the accuracy of your statements. I would like to point out the fallacy in your generalization about Republicans. Making sweeping generalizations about an entire political party or group of people is unfair and unsupported. It's important to recognize that individuals within any party can have varying beliefs, values, and actions. It's crucial to evaluate each person's individual merits rather than making broad assumptions. I encourage you to engage in critical thinking and to evaluate your statements more carefully. Political discourse benefits from open-mindedness, respectful dialogue, and a willingness to examine different perspectives. I would suggest considering potential biases and inaccuracies in your claims to ensure a more accurate representation of the diverse range of views within any political party. Let's promote respectful discussion by focusing on specific actions, policies, or behaviors rather than making sweeping judgments. It would be helpful to discuss specific cases or examples that support your viewpoint and be open to listening to counterarguments. By understanding diverse viewpoints and engaging in respectful conversations, we can foster empathy and better understanding of complex issues.
I would also encourage you to seek reliable sources of information when forming opinions or making claims. Relying on reputable sources and consulting multiple sources can help you gain a balanced understanding of complex issues. Evidence-based reasoning is essential, and it's important to avoid relying solely on biased or unreliable information. I encourage you to lead by example in your own responses. Model respectful and informed behavior, engaging in conversations that promote understanding, evidence-based reasoning, and respectful engagement. By setting a positive example, we can all contribute to more constructive and meaningful discussions. I hope this advice helps you in reconsidering your statements and promoting a more accurate and respectful approach to political discussions. Remember, approaching these conversations with empathy, patience, and a genuine willingness to engage in dialogue will contribute to a more productive exchange of ideas.
I would also encourage you to seek reliable sources of information when forming opinions or making claims. Relying on reputable sources and consulting multiple sources can help you gain a balanced understanding of complex issues. Evidence-based reasoning is essential, and it's important to avoid relying solely on biased or unreliable information. I encourage you to lead by example in your own responses. Model respectful and informed behavior, engaging in conversations that promote understanding, evidence-based reasoning, and respectful engagement. By setting a positive example, we can all contribute to more constructive and meaningful discussions. I hope this advice helps you in reconsidering your statements and promoting a more accurate and respectful approach to political discussions. Remember, approaching these conversations with empathy, patience, and a genuine willingness to engage in dialogue will contribute to a more productive exchange of ideas.
Created: