• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Adam Carolla: OWS Movement "Self-entitled monsters"

that's true, there were Commies in the CRM... and they sucked then too.
Meh, I wouldn't say that W.E.B. DuBois or Angela Davis "sucked", but even if they did, the point still remains that a movement does not become less legitimate simply because communists are involved.
 
Meh, I wouldn't say that W.E.B. DuBois or Angela Davis "sucked", but even if they did, the point still remains that a movement does not become less legitimate simply because communists are involved.

to some folks it doesn't become less legitimate... to others, it does.
 
to some folks it doesn't become less legitimate... to others, it does.
So do you think it's valid opinion that Civil Rights movement was illegitimate because communists were a part of it?
 
to some folks it doesn't become less legitimate... to others, it does.

Let's put it this way. Just because you have communists in your movement doesn't make your cause any less just or legitimate. If people think OWS or the civil rights movement don't have a legitimate message, that's on them. Just like the Tea Party's message about government spending and waste isn't irrelevant just because there's some idiots with racist signs at tea party rallies.
 
#38 still skipped and ignored by Cons.
 
I wouldn't wait for a rational response to this post from conservatives/libertarians. It ain't gonna happen.

Oh yeah? Well, I'm rubber and you're glue.... :2razz:

#38 still skipped and ignored by Cons.

There, I've replied to post 38 with all the seriousness and contemplation that post warranted.
 
Last edited:
Also my post at #41. I wish I'd put some money on that.

Let's see how long they can ignore the obvious...


Some people think they are entitled to...

...a living.

...a do-over.

...a living after they f-up losing other peoples money.

...a hand-out.

....a bail-out.

Ayn Rand argued that certain types of charity were damaging to the individual receiving the charity. Was she talking about moral hazard?
 
So do you think it's valid opinion that Civil Rights movement was illegitimate because communists were a part of it?

not necessarily... as part of the civil rights movement and a then-supporter of the movement, I wasn't swayed by the presence of Commies..I chose to ignore them for the most part.. some who were belligerently vocal about Communism got beat down..... but most weren't up front about it either, most hid their leanings as to not take away from the goals of the movement.

nowadays, I wouldn't associate myself, in a political movement, with any people I don't align with.. even if we share similar stances on whatever issue it is...
hell, i don't even have a problem dissociating myself with undesirables that I do align with :lol:
 
Oh yeah? Well, I'm rubber and you're glue.... :2razz:



There, I've replied to post 38 with all the seriousness and comtemplation as that post warranted.

So, you're okay with moral hazard, bailing out failed business institutions, but people who think their entitled to a bail-out..excuse me, hand-out...are garbage?
 
Let's put it this way. Just because you have communists in your movement doesn't make your cause any less just or legitimate. If people think OWS or the civil rights movement don't have a legitimate message, that's on them. Just like the Tea Party's message about government spending and waste isn't irrelevant just because there's some idiots with racist signs at tea party rallies.

it's a personal decision whether or not to assign more or less legitimacy to a movement based on it's participants... people have every right to decide for themselves whether commies in the midst cheapen the movement... or even Conservatives in the midst.. or whatever.

FWIW, I don't associate myself with the Tea Party or the OWS... primarily because of their participants... i think they are both chock full of people I can only describe as .. nucking futs.
populist emotions don't move me.
 
it's a personal decision whether or not to assign more or less legitimacy to a movement based on it's participants... people have every right to decide for themselves whether commies in the midst cheapen the movement... or even Conservatives in the midst.. or whatever.

FWIW, I don't associate myself with the Tea Party or the OWS... primarily because of their participants... i think they are both chock full of people I can only describe as .. nucking futs.
populist emotions don't move me.

Sure, it's a personal decision. But saying "That movement's message is full of **** because they have commies in their midst" isn't a sound argument, is the point.
 
So, you're okay with moral hazard, bailing out failed business institutions, but people who think their entitled to a bail-out..excuse me, hand-out...are garbage?

Go back and look at post 38 (I quoted it in my post) and tell me what about it specifically should be answered. I didn't call anyone 'garbage' but I do think people should work to advance themselves rather than count on the government. I also believe that businesses that cannot compete should fail, like Solyndra for example. ;)
 
Sure, it's a personal decision. But saying "That movement's message is full of **** because they have commies in their midst" isn't a sound argument, is the point.

the world isn't run on sound arguments...just sayin'

there are few, if any, politically minded people who do not dismiss movements based on the politics of the participants of said movement.
i've yet to see a liberal who lent any credibility to the Tea party, for instance.... even those whom are now telling us that Communists in the midst shouldn't count against the OWS.
it's the nature of the political mind, nobody is immune.
 
Go back and look at post 38 (I quoted it in my post) and tell me what about it specifically should be answered. I didn't call anyone 'garbage' but I do think people should work to advance themselves rather than count on the government. I also believe that businesses that cannot compete should fail, like Solyndra for example. ;)

To dodge with a snide remark is not to answer.

You did not answer. You avoided and hid from the post like many in this thread.

What about business that over leverage themselves and then can't pay their debts?

Should they be allowed to fail?
 
Wait, wait, wait... Hold it AC.

It would seem some people think the country owes them a bail-out.

The winners, the job-creators, ran the system into the ground and then blackmailed the treasury into giving them money to pay off bad debts $1:1.

Too big to fail? Please tell me the ultra-conservative memory isn't that short....

Those really successful people at AIG, Leman Bros, GM, Chrysler...

I'm thinking you are confused.

OWS Argument: I deserve a Bailout
Conservative Argument: No One deserves a Bailout.
 
Post #37

Wait, wait, wait... Hold it AC.

It would seem some people think the country owes them a bail-out.

The winners, the job-creators, ran the system into the ground and then blackmailed the treasury into giving them money to pay off bad debts $1:1.

Too big to fail? Please tell me the ultra-conservative memory isn't that short....

Those really successful people at AIG, Leman Bros, GM, Chrysler...


We just found out the treasury has secretly continued giving banks loans at 0.01%...

Post #38
I wouldn't wait for a rational response to this post from conservatives/libertarians. It ain't gonna happen.

#38 still skipped and ignored by Cons.

I don't get it...#38 was not your post???? There was no question in #38. And further what is the question in #37? Too big to fail? If so what year did this bank bail-out occur?...2008? Who writes the checks? Congress? And which party held the majority in Congress in that year?
 
Wait, wait, wait... Hold it AC.

It would seem some people think the country owes them a bail-out.

Who exactly? People with underwater mortgages? Students with $100k in debt? Please be more clear on who thinks the country owes them a bail-out.

The winners, the job-creators, ran the system into the ground and then blackmailed the treasury into giving them money to pay off bad debts $1:1.

Gross oversimplification. Plenty of "winners, job-creators" who had nothing to do with the 2008 financial crisis. Blackmailed the treasury? Banks were forced to take TARP funds even though many of them opposed it.

Too big to fail? Please tell me the ultra-conservative memory isn't that short....

Non-sequitur? You're losing coherence fast.

Those really successful people at AIG, Leman Bros, GM, Chrysler...

Sure, plenty of successful people at all of those companies. Plenty of incompetent people as well.

We just found out the treasury has secretly continued giving banks loans at 0.01%...

Treasury had nothing to do with these loans. It's call the Federal Reserve. Kind of a big difference.
 
Last edited:
I don't get it...#38 was not your post???? There was no question in #38. And further what is the question in #37? Too big to fail? If so what year did this bank bail-out occur?...2008? Who writes the checks? Congress? And which party held the majority in Congress in that year?

You are correct in everything that you have said. Including my referring to post 38 when I meant 37. Thank you.

But consider this...

A ton of money-wealth was transferred upward so that over-leveraged businesses could pay off debt. Transfer of wealth. People who ran those over-leveraged companies gave themselves bonuses. As did the firms who held the debt. The firms who invested in over-leverged, loaning them money while hedging their bets with credit default swaps, a thing they invented. They received huge bonus compensation for failing (AIG) and inflating the bubble while betting on the No Pass Line. (Morgan Stanley) Because they felt they were entitled to it. Self-centered monsters?

2010, who took over the house? The new folks in congress want to repeal the watered down Dodd-Frank and 'free up' the banks and investment firms to what? After we bailed them out, they continue to make huge profits. And God forbid we raise capital gains tax, or tax wealthy people, because they're the job creators...who are still benefitting from the Bush tax cuts but not 'creating' too many jobs. Because rolling back taxes to Clinton era rates (you know, when we had tremendous growth) would hurt small businesses??

The bulk of the 2010 New Kids economic platform has been debunked and deboned by economists, fact-checkers, and the CBO. But they still persist. The wealthiest 1% is still untouchable.

Those who paid themselves bonus compensation from Treasury funds. The hedge funds, investment houses, and banks that continue to prosper, after the U.S. Gov stopped the meltdown that wold have ended them, are, according to the GOP position, being unfairly demonized.

The OWS protestor who wants a lot of the same things the Tea Party protestor wants -- accountability, no bail-outs, no moral hazard, no free lunches... Why are the OWS protestors the monsters?
 
I'm thinking you are confused.

OWS Argument: I deserve a Bailout
Conservative Argument: No One deserves a Bailout.

:lol:

That may be the ideal conservative argument, but there are plenty of people who call themselves conservatives and otherwise support conservative agendas who have no problem with bailing out their favorite banks, etc.
 
To dodge with a snide remark is not to answer.

You did not answer. You avoided and hid from the post like many in this thread.
Hazlnut, a two legged retarded turtle is quicker than you. I've been trying get you to figure out that post 38 is not the one you think it is. I believe it's post 37 that you think is your masterpiece.

What about business that over leverage themselves and then can't pay their debts?

Should they be allowed to fail?

Yes, they should, as long as the government has had no roll in their failure.
 
Who exactly? People with underwater mortgages? Students with $100k in debt? Please be more clear on who thinks the country owes them a bail-out.

AIG, GM, Chrysler...

Not to mention the companies that held all the bad debt on Lemans and AIG. They wanted the bail out so they could get paid and pay themselves. But they knew the debt was bad. They knew the paper was crap. They had placed bets against it--hedged their bets.



Gross oversimplification. Plenty of "winners, job-creators" who had nothing to do with the 2008 financial crisis. Blackmailed the treasury? Banks were forced to take TARP funds even though many of them opposed it.

Wells Fargo is the bank (singular) that you're talking about. Citigroup and BofA had to take it as they were sitting on a ton of bad paper and bad debt.

The winners, job-creators that we talk about are the 1% -- highly invested in the markets. You know the ones that would have collapsed had we no bailed out AIG.

Non-sequitur? You're losing coherence fast.

You missed the connection. That's okay, it seems many in the thread have forgotten who has taken the biggest hand-outs.



Sure, plenty of successful people at all of those companies. Plenty of incompetent people as well.

Keep in mind, corporations are people. So were not talking about the individuals that worked in the successful divisions of AIG or GM. We're talking about AIG and GM. You know, the people-Corps who failed. The people-corps who should have been put out on the street like a failed person who overindulges and can't make his credit card payment. But we propped them up, gave them a few weeks and rehab, refilled their coffers, and let them continue.



Treasury had nothing to do with these loans. It's call the Federal Reserve. Kind of a big difference.

You are correct. I mispoke in the wee hours and thank your for correcting me.

Since the secret Fed loans have been made public, where is the outrage from the right. If we were secretly loaning money to students at 0.01%, then buying it back from them at a loss, Fox would be all over that story.
 
Last edited:
A ton of money-wealth was transferred upward so that over-leveraged businesses could pay off debt. Self-centered monsters?

First, I do not support the principal of bailouts but given the specific situation I have not come up with a more plausible idea. Allowing the financial system to fail does not seem to be ‘moving forward’. The auto industry is a whole different issue. Too often many fail to realize that the ‘bailouts’ were significantly paid back, with interest, hence not affecting tax payers much. Self-centered monster? Maybe but that judgment is a personal opinion on one’s character and not specifically helpful in solving the problem.

2010, who took over the house?... After we bailed them out, they continue to make huge profits… Because rolling back taxes to Clinton era rates (you know, when we had tremendous growth) would hurt small businesses??

True, the GOP did take the House back but since Congress is divided, not in 2008, we are back into gridlock which is not necessarily a bad thing. Again, we did bail them out and they paid the majority of it back. The BTCs cut taxes on ALL brackets what logic is it to raise only one portion of payers? The growth during the Clinton years was built on the dotcom bubble as he admitted in the 2009 GDI forum. Clinton also pontificated on the basis of growth in the ‘00’s being housing, personal and public debt the three of which are not sustainable and highly volatile, which I agree with. We can raise taxes now but on what basis? What is the basis of our economic growth now? Green energy?...Really?

The bulk of the 2010 New Kids economic platform has been debunked and deboned by economists, fact-checkers, and the CBO. But they still persist. The wealthiest 1% is still untouchable.

Why just the 1% untouchable? Why not either the 100% untouchable or 100% touchable?

Those who paid themselves bonus compensation from Treasury funds.
Again, the funds were mostly paid back with interest.
The OWS protestor who wants a lot of the same things the Tea Party protestor wants -- accountability, no bail-outs, no moral hazard, no free lunches... Why are the OWS protestors the monsters?

I personally don’t demonize the OWS protestors wholly only the few that hold extreme positions and participate extreme actions. I wish they had a better message in HOW they plan to execute their demands legitimately.
 
Back
Top Bottom