[justme]

[quote=Ex-SD]Frankly, I don’t care if Obama is pink, purple, red, orange, black or white. What I DO care about is the fact that he has shown himself to be extremely liberal which means he would throw billions of dollars at new social programs rather than attempting to fix what’s wrong with the present myriad of social programs. Furthermore, he has shown that he will associate himself with radicals like Rev Wright for over 20 years and then claim that he didn’t know Wright was so radical. To me, this proves that Obama is a huge liar. Bush has been lying to us for years……………….Do we need a another big tax & spender (and liar) in the White House?[/quote]

Duh. Now you’re saying that because the current REPUBLICAN in the White House is a congenital liar that spends more money on killing people than any president since Richard Nixon (also a republican, not a coincidence), we should NOT vote for Obama ?!?

This is the kind of contorted “logic” that got us into war in the first place. Double duh.

[justme]

[quote=sdduuuude]”unfettered capitalism”

You gotta be kidding me. It’s been as fettered as it gets, led by the fed.

This is the trick played on everyone.

We have an overly regulated system, but we foolishly call it “capitalism” so when the overly regulated system fails, we say “capitalism fails” and therefore need more government intervention.

Stupid as it gets.[/quote]

I don’t understand where the meme is coming from that bailout==regulation. Bailout is the socialization of loss, after having privatized all the profits. Bailout is the polar opposite of regulation.

Bailouts led by the fed is a sign of regulatory failure, or insufficient or weak/errant regulation. It is not a sign of excess regulation. It is a sign of corporate welfare or pseudo-capitalist welfare.

What is needed is STRICT and HONEST regulation, not the fake stuff that we have.

[justme]

[quote=sdduuuude]”unfettered capitalism”

You gotta be kidding me. It’s been as fettered as it gets, led by the fed.

This is the trick played on everyone.

We have an overly regulated system, but we foolishly call it “capitalism” so when the overly regulated system fails, we say “capitalism fails” and therefore need more government intervention.

Stupid as it gets.[/quote]

I don’t understand where the meme is coming from that bailout==regulation. Bailout is the socialization of loss, after having privatized all the profits. Bailout is the polar opposite of regulation.

Bailouts led by the fed is a sign of regulatory failure, or insufficient or weak/errant regulation. It is not a sign of excess regulation. It is a sign of corporate welfare or pseudo-capitalist welfare.

What is needed is STRICT and HONEST regulation, not the fake stuff that we have.

[justme]

[quote=sdduuuude]”unfettered capitalism”

You gotta be kidding me. It’s been as fettered as it gets, led by the fed.

This is the trick played on everyone.

We have an overly regulated system, but we foolishly call it “capitalism” so when the overly regulated system fails, we say “capitalism fails” and therefore need more government intervention.

Stupid as it gets.[/quote]

I don’t understand where the meme is coming from that bailout==regulation. Bailout is the socialization of loss, after having privatized all the profits. Bailout is the polar opposite of regulation.

Bailouts led by the fed is a sign of regulatory failure, or insufficient or weak/errant regulation. It is not a sign of excess regulation. It is a sign of corporate welfare or pseudo-capitalist welfare.

What is needed is STRICT and HONEST regulation, not the fake stuff that we have.

[justme]

[quote=sdduuuude]”unfettered capitalism”

You gotta be kidding me. It’s been as fettered as it gets, led by the fed.

This is the trick played on everyone.

We have an overly regulated system, but we foolishly call it “capitalism” so when the overly regulated system fails, we say “capitalism fails” and therefore need more government intervention.

Stupid as it gets.[/quote]

I don’t understand where the meme is coming from that bailout==regulation. Bailout is the socialization of loss, after having privatized all the profits. Bailout is the polar opposite of regulation.

Bailouts led by the fed is a sign of regulatory failure, or insufficient or weak/errant regulation. It is not a sign of excess regulation. It is a sign of corporate welfare or pseudo-capitalist welfare.

What is needed is STRICT and HONEST regulation, not the fake stuff that we have.

[justme]

[quote=sdduuuude]”unfettered capitalism”

You gotta be kidding me. It’s been as fettered as it gets, led by the fed.

This is the trick played on everyone.

We have an overly regulated system, but we foolishly call it “capitalism” so when the overly regulated system fails, we say “capitalism fails” and therefore need more government intervention.

Stupid as it gets.[/quote]

I don’t understand where the meme is coming from that bailout==regulation. Bailout is the socialization of loss, after having privatized all the profits. Bailout is the polar opposite of regulation.

Bailouts led by the fed is a sign of regulatory failure, or insufficient or weak/errant regulation. It is not a sign of excess regulation. It is a sign of corporate welfare or pseudo-capitalist welfare.

What is needed is STRICT and HONEST regulation, not the fake stuff that we have.

[justme]

Golfgal, I agree with you.

I usually like to sum the problem up like this:

Women want to be equal to men, but at the same time they want the men (or rather, their own mates) to be better than them.

There’s of course no general solution to finding a mate when such a double standard is applied.

[justme]

Golfgal, I agree with you.

I usually like to sum the problem up like this:

Women want to be equal to men, but at the same time they want the men (or rather, their own mates) to be better than them.

There’s of course no general solution to finding a mate when such a double standard is applied.

[justme]

Golfgal, I agree with you.

I usually like to sum the problem up like this:

Women want to be equal to men, but at the same time they want the men (or rather, their own mates) to be better than them.

There’s of course no general solution to finding a mate when such a double standard is applied.

[justme]

Golfgal, I agree with you.

I usually like to sum the problem up like this:

Women want to be equal to men, but at the same time they want the men (or rather, their own mates) to be better than them.

There’s of course no general solution to finding a mate when such a double standard is applied.

[justme]

Golfgal, I agree with you.

I usually like to sum the problem up like this:

Women want to be equal to men, but at the same time they want the men (or rather, their own mates) to be better than them.

There’s of course no general solution to finding a mate when such a double standard is applied.

[justme]

This thread is one of the best and most informative in a long time. I knew that it couldn’t possibly be just I that had these problems with difficult agents.

Here’s a twist I’d like to hear everyone’s opinion of: In the boom days, the only way to “get” a house was to enlist the listing agent as a dual agent, or to hire their buddy-from-the-same-office that was babysitting the open house.

This predictably compounded the problem with getting lowball offers written and presented.

How is this situation looking right now?

[justme]

This thread is one of the best and most informative in a long time. I knew that it couldn’t possibly be just I that had these problems with difficult agents.

Here’s a twist I’d like to hear everyone’s opinion of: In the boom days, the only way to “get” a house was to enlist the listing agent as a dual agent, or to hire their buddy-from-the-same-office that was babysitting the open house.

This predictably compounded the problem with getting lowball offers written and presented.

How is this situation looking right now?

[justme]

This thread is one of the best and most informative in a long time. I knew that it couldn’t possibly be just I that had these problems with difficult agents.

Here’s a twist I’d like to hear everyone’s opinion of: In the boom days, the only way to “get” a house was to enlist the listing agent as a dual agent, or to hire their buddy-from-the-same-office that was babysitting the open house.

This predictably compounded the problem with getting lowball offers written and presented.

How is this situation looking right now?

[justme]

This thread is one of the best and most informative in a long time. I knew that it couldn’t possibly be just I that had these problems with difficult agents.

Here’s a twist I’d like to hear everyone’s opinion of: In the boom days, the only way to “get” a house was to enlist the listing agent as a dual agent, or to hire their buddy-from-the-same-office that was babysitting the open house.

This predictably compounded the problem with getting lowball offers written and presented.

How is this situation looking right now?

[Author]

Posts