[Allan from Fallbrook]

patientrenter: With the ill-informed buffoons we have running the MSM at present, you ought to feel fortunate they knew the right century. So they were a decade off. Mere details.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

patientrenter: With the ill-informed buffoons we have running the MSM at present, you ought to feel fortunate they knew the right century. So they were a decade off. Mere details.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

patientrenter: With the ill-informed buffoons we have running the MSM at present, you ought to feel fortunate they knew the right century. So they were a decade off. Mere details.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

patientrenter: With the ill-informed buffoons we have running the MSM at present, you ought to feel fortunate they knew the right century. So they were a decade off. Mere details.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

marion: So let me see if I have this straight. First off, you are opposed to letting people have too much power, but are completely comfortable dictating what should or should not happen, depending on your particular views on the subject.

Second, you are advocating an IQ test for gun ownership? How about an IQ test for the right to vote? Or an IQ test to have a child (you seem pretty concerned about children’s rights)?

You have indeed made your views on guns strongly felt. Those views, combined with more than a whiff of authoritarianism, make it abundantly clear that you are less concerned with representative democracy, and more concerned with “what is right”.

There is only one slight problem: What you consider right, and what many others consider right, may not square with each other. What then? While the “tyranny of the majority” might frustrate you, it does exist for a reason, as do those pesky checks and balances the founding fathers saw fit to put in place.

And while you might not like guns, they and the power they represent, have done exactly what Jefferson, Adams and Paine forecasted: Prevented despotism. As Chairman Mao opined: “Power springs from the barrel of a gun”.

The 2nd Amendment protects the 1st Amendment.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

marion: So let me see if I have this straight. First off, you are opposed to letting people have too much power, but are completely comfortable dictating what should or should not happen, depending on your particular views on the subject.

Second, you are advocating an IQ test for gun ownership? How about an IQ test for the right to vote? Or an IQ test to have a child (you seem pretty concerned about children’s rights)?

You have indeed made your views on guns strongly felt. Those views, combined with more than a whiff of authoritarianism, make it abundantly clear that you are less concerned with representative democracy, and more concerned with “what is right”.

There is only one slight problem: What you consider right, and what many others consider right, may not square with each other. What then? While the “tyranny of the majority” might frustrate you, it does exist for a reason, as do those pesky checks and balances the founding fathers saw fit to put in place.

And while you might not like guns, they and the power they represent, have done exactly what Jefferson, Adams and Paine forecasted: Prevented despotism. As Chairman Mao opined: “Power springs from the barrel of a gun”.

The 2nd Amendment protects the 1st Amendment.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

marion: So let me see if I have this straight. First off, you are opposed to letting people have too much power, but are completely comfortable dictating what should or should not happen, depending on your particular views on the subject.

Second, you are advocating an IQ test for gun ownership? How about an IQ test for the right to vote? Or an IQ test to have a child (you seem pretty concerned about children’s rights)?

You have indeed made your views on guns strongly felt. Those views, combined with more than a whiff of authoritarianism, make it abundantly clear that you are less concerned with representative democracy, and more concerned with “what is right”.

There is only one slight problem: What you consider right, and what many others consider right, may not square with each other. What then? While the “tyranny of the majority” might frustrate you, it does exist for a reason, as do those pesky checks and balances the founding fathers saw fit to put in place.

And while you might not like guns, they and the power they represent, have done exactly what Jefferson, Adams and Paine forecasted: Prevented despotism. As Chairman Mao opined: “Power springs from the barrel of a gun”.

The 2nd Amendment protects the 1st Amendment.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

marion: So let me see if I have this straight. First off, you are opposed to letting people have too much power, but are completely comfortable dictating what should or should not happen, depending on your particular views on the subject.

Second, you are advocating an IQ test for gun ownership? How about an IQ test for the right to vote? Or an IQ test to have a child (you seem pretty concerned about children’s rights)?

You have indeed made your views on guns strongly felt. Those views, combined with more than a whiff of authoritarianism, make it abundantly clear that you are less concerned with representative democracy, and more concerned with “what is right”.

There is only one slight problem: What you consider right, and what many others consider right, may not square with each other. What then? While the “tyranny of the majority” might frustrate you, it does exist for a reason, as do those pesky checks and balances the founding fathers saw fit to put in place.

And while you might not like guns, they and the power they represent, have done exactly what Jefferson, Adams and Paine forecasted: Prevented despotism. As Chairman Mao opined: “Power springs from the barrel of a gun”.

The 2nd Amendment protects the 1st Amendment.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

marion: So let me see if I have this straight. First off, you are opposed to letting people have too much power, but are completely comfortable dictating what should or should not happen, depending on your particular views on the subject.

Second, you are advocating an IQ test for gun ownership? How about an IQ test for the right to vote? Or an IQ test to have a child (you seem pretty concerned about children’s rights)?

You have indeed made your views on guns strongly felt. Those views, combined with more than a whiff of authoritarianism, make it abundantly clear that you are less concerned with representative democracy, and more concerned with “what is right”.

There is only one slight problem: What you consider right, and what many others consider right, may not square with each other. What then? While the “tyranny of the majority” might frustrate you, it does exist for a reason, as do those pesky checks and balances the founding fathers saw fit to put in place.

And while you might not like guns, they and the power they represent, have done exactly what Jefferson, Adams and Paine forecasted: Prevented despotism. As Chairman Mao opined: “Power springs from the barrel of a gun”.

The 2nd Amendment protects the 1st Amendment.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Ex-SD: I think when you step back and look at the picture in it’s totality, it becomes almost terrifying. Taking individually, the situation is somewhat manageable, in that we can sustain certain losses in certain industries and the size and strength of the US economy will carry us through.

But when you look at Citi being bailed out, Merrill being bailed out, Bear Stearns taking the first loss in their history, MBIA and Ambac getting crucified, share prices of major homebuilders tumbling, the government and the FED throwing everything at the wall (and none of it working), Fannie and Freddie bleeding, etc, etc, etc and realize that we are only about 20% of the way through… Jesus.

I read that article about the RE/MAX office in Arizona, too. There was another one about the largest, most successful Realtor in Las Vegas going under.

This is not confined solely to the RE market, and it is spreading to the entire economy, as well as hitting Europe. The ECB pumped $500BN into their system, and it had nearly no effect.

As far as what Greenspan is saying: I think you and I both know what his prognostications are worth. That and a quarter won’t get you a cup of coffee, as the old man used to say.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Ex-SD: I think when you step back and look at the picture in it’s totality, it becomes almost terrifying. Taking individually, the situation is somewhat manageable, in that we can sustain certain losses in certain industries and the size and strength of the US economy will carry us through.

But when you look at Citi being bailed out, Merrill being bailed out, Bear Stearns taking the first loss in their history, MBIA and Ambac getting crucified, share prices of major homebuilders tumbling, the government and the FED throwing everything at the wall (and none of it working), Fannie and Freddie bleeding, etc, etc, etc and realize that we are only about 20% of the way through… Jesus.

I read that article about the RE/MAX office in Arizona, too. There was another one about the largest, most successful Realtor in Las Vegas going under.

This is not confined solely to the RE market, and it is spreading to the entire economy, as well as hitting Europe. The ECB pumped $500BN into their system, and it had nearly no effect.

As far as what Greenspan is saying: I think you and I both know what his prognostications are worth. That and a quarter won’t get you a cup of coffee, as the old man used to say.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Ex-SD: I think when you step back and look at the picture in it’s totality, it becomes almost terrifying. Taking individually, the situation is somewhat manageable, in that we can sustain certain losses in certain industries and the size and strength of the US economy will carry us through.

But when you look at Citi being bailed out, Merrill being bailed out, Bear Stearns taking the first loss in their history, MBIA and Ambac getting crucified, share prices of major homebuilders tumbling, the government and the FED throwing everything at the wall (and none of it working), Fannie and Freddie bleeding, etc, etc, etc and realize that we are only about 20% of the way through… Jesus.

I read that article about the RE/MAX office in Arizona, too. There was another one about the largest, most successful Realtor in Las Vegas going under.

This is not confined solely to the RE market, and it is spreading to the entire economy, as well as hitting Europe. The ECB pumped $500BN into their system, and it had nearly no effect.

As far as what Greenspan is saying: I think you and I both know what his prognostications are worth. That and a quarter won’t get you a cup of coffee, as the old man used to say.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Ex-SD: I think when you step back and look at the picture in it’s totality, it becomes almost terrifying. Taking individually, the situation is somewhat manageable, in that we can sustain certain losses in certain industries and the size and strength of the US economy will carry us through.

But when you look at Citi being bailed out, Merrill being bailed out, Bear Stearns taking the first loss in their history, MBIA and Ambac getting crucified, share prices of major homebuilders tumbling, the government and the FED throwing everything at the wall (and none of it working), Fannie and Freddie bleeding, etc, etc, etc and realize that we are only about 20% of the way through… Jesus.

I read that article about the RE/MAX office in Arizona, too. There was another one about the largest, most successful Realtor in Las Vegas going under.

This is not confined solely to the RE market, and it is spreading to the entire economy, as well as hitting Europe. The ECB pumped $500BN into their system, and it had nearly no effect.

As far as what Greenspan is saying: I think you and I both know what his prognostications are worth. That and a quarter won’t get you a cup of coffee, as the old man used to say.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Ex-SD: I think when you step back and look at the picture in it’s totality, it becomes almost terrifying. Taking individually, the situation is somewhat manageable, in that we can sustain certain losses in certain industries and the size and strength of the US economy will carry us through.

But when you look at Citi being bailed out, Merrill being bailed out, Bear Stearns taking the first loss in their history, MBIA and Ambac getting crucified, share prices of major homebuilders tumbling, the government and the FED throwing everything at the wall (and none of it working), Fannie and Freddie bleeding, etc, etc, etc and realize that we are only about 20% of the way through… Jesus.

I read that article about the RE/MAX office in Arizona, too. There was another one about the largest, most successful Realtor in Las Vegas going under.

This is not confined solely to the RE market, and it is spreading to the entire economy, as well as hitting Europe. The ECB pumped $500BN into their system, and it had nearly no effect.

As far as what Greenspan is saying: I think you and I both know what his prognostications are worth. That and a quarter won’t get you a cup of coffee, as the old man used to say.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Ex-SD: Nice nod to President Hoover there with the “chicken in every pot” reference. And Hillary or Obama, or Rudy or Mitt, will undoubtedly be just as successful as Hoover was in fixing this problem.

I remember my great aunt in Wisconsin telling me a story about the Great Depression when I was a kid. She told me that the attorney who worked in their neighborhood, which was rural/farming, took eggs, chickens, vegetables, etc in exchange for his services.

I bring that up both in reference to Hoover and the Great Depression, as well as wondering just how bad it will get.

[Author]

Posts