I just don't understand?

[N80]

Please take political debates to a web site where such discussions do not violate the Terms of Service. Thanks.

So you can enter a politcal debate and then tell the rest of it to take it elsewhere?

Merry Christmas

 

[MikePA]

So you can enter a politcal debate and then tell the rest of it to take it elsewhere?

Merry Christmas

Definitions are not political, whereas diatribes about what the govt should be doing, or should not be doing, is.

 

[rback33]

Definitions are not political, whereas diatribes about what the govt should be doing, or should not be doing, is.

I have to agree with Mike here. I have said it before and I'll say it again, politics does not belong here. I love political debates, I'll admit it. I sometimes even wish they would add a separate forum, but then I remember all the threads that get out of hand just talking about colors, and how often people forget the just because I (or anyone) have(has) an opinion that you don't like does not make me wrong. I can only imagine what would happen the first time I said Bill Clinton is a snake or George W. Bush is a moron. I can tell you I believe in one, none or both of those statements. PM me and I might tell which.

Back to tractors though.. what was the question?

 

[N80]

Definitions are not political, whereas diatribes about what the govt should be doing, or should not be doing, is.

Correcting someone's political comment is most certainly entering a political discussion. Denying so smacks of intolerable smugness. Hiding behind the term 'definitions' hardly keeps your hands clean especially when the 'definitions' appear to be far closer to opinion than any concrete terminology.

And labeling anyone's comments a 'diatribe' is no more in keeping with the spirit of this site than political comments.

I will gladly refrain from any further political comments. Will you?

 

[MikePA]

I am not going to get into a semantics debate with you. I defined 2 phrases, plain and simple. Find another site to debate politics.

 

[N80]

I am not going to get into a semantics debate with you.

But that is exactly what you just did:

I defined 2 phrases, plain and simple.

Find another site to debate politics.

It was not a "debate" it was a "diatribe". Remeber? You said so yourself. Doggone semantics getting in the way again?

 

[3RRL]

I also agree politics should not be dragged into this discussion.
So this is intended to be a non-political statement.
rback33,
What you said here, may offend a bunch of snakes.
I can only imagine what would happen the first time I said Bill Clinton is a snake ....

 

[john_bud]

What on earth is the difference? The US Govt has no more right or business to be in the banking business than they do in the farming business. (I'm not saying that can't do it or don't do it, I'm saying they shouldn't) If they guaranteed a loan, then they guaranteed it with taxpayer money. So I don't understand why you make a distinction. If they are bailing out, supporting or otherwise guaranteeing private business with my money or yours, even if it is for the 'greater good', then that is socialism in a nutshell. We've gotten used to a lot of it already, but that doesn't make it right or healthy.

The problem such 'deals' cause is really very simple. A corporation (and I'm only talking about corporations here) gets so big and so vital to the economy (or is at least perceived that way) that the government gets invested in the welfare of that corporation for 'economic reasons' that rise almost to the level of national security. When these corporations are preceived this way, then the corporation is free to have undue enfluence on the government which gets into the business of guaranteeing the security of corporations, not citizens. Before long, given the nature of the lobby system, campaign finance and even simple graft, it becomes impossible to tell the corporation from the government. They have a mutuallly beneficial relationship that does _nothing_ to enhance the governments only real job, which is protecting the liberty and security of its non-corporate citizens. Subsequently corporations enjoy liberty's and protections not enjoyed by the citizens. And that is wrong. Period. But we're pretty used to the idea now.

I may be wrong here, but aren't most home mortgages backed by the government? Fannie Mae, Sally Mae? Who backs your savings account? What's the cost of millions of unemployed people at a time when home mortgage rates were 18%?

Now if you were to propose legislation that any senator or representitive that adds an "ear mark" is horse whipped (every $10 ear mark is one whack) -- Then I'm with ya!

I'd move to a different country if any were better, they ain't. Vote out the bums! Red, blue all colors.
jb

 

[N80]

I may be wrong here, but aren't most home mortgages backed by the government? Fannie Mae, Sally Mae? Who backs your savings account?

 

[rback33]

What I don't understand is why we have not locked this thread and moved on....