> Justinian I wrote:

> Einstein and Kemp are both nuts to some degree. Einstein, for example, is committed to the importance of religion in public life, and well Kemp is arrogant, abrasive, and does not care that some ideas (like rights) aren't empirically testable. In the case of Kemp, there's a mixture of admirable, reasonable, and crazy nut. He's an enigmatic one haha.

But in this case they are both right

Watch this documentary. It's very accurate. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx4pN-aiofw

ah, makes me glad i went to private schools.

"Fundamentally it's based on their insecurity stemming from their relative incompetence as human beings. "

it also has to do with their immorality. they have no qualms robbing people of their money, they have a desire for money and power and they have no problem taking it by force.

when i think old in relation to ic, i think of like pompiedomp. or whatever it was.
now that i think of it, i think i remember two different people dieing, and the older one being quite awhile ago; maybe you're right.

wasnt that long ago. or maybe im thinking of alcholics; i dont know, i dont remember names too well, i just remember someone dieing awhile ago but not that long ago.

"but you somehow think the economic conditions start at the fault of politics and end there too, specifically democratic politics."

ok, you blame greed for the collapse, right? im saying that the system that politicians put in place, damn well should of thought of people being greedy. its in human nature; the politics is flawed fundamentally if they dont account for greed. its like forcing communism and when it doesnt work, saying, oh, its not our fault it didnt work, greed caused it not to work, lets do it again, after we blame a scapegoat for being greedy, so that they wont be greedy again.

what you said happened doesnt go against what i say is happen, except you dont blame Clinton and Bush and all of Congress for not seeing the disaster ahead of time, i do. i say how can you not think greed will happen? how can you take away the fear of bankruptcy and have little public responsibility and expect them to work their asses off for not whats best for them, but for the country?

what you said didnt contradict what i said; also you dodged one of my questions "you said you agreed witht the beginning of my post; does that mean you disagree with Obama?!" because Obama has said

"my statement stands lol...and are you saying no matter waht oboma does the economy will recoveR? Then whats the problem?"

im saying it may take 6 months, it may take 60 years. and thats what the problem is. he is lengthening and worsening the problem.

"no, what i meant was the goverment needs to spend money in order for the economy to work and make money. Economys dont manage themselves, never have. "

umm, yeah, economy's can manage themselves. and although some government intervention is probably ideal, the government spending usually does more harm then good and certainly isnt a requirment for the economy to work.

"dont blame oboma for doing his job"

if someone is a thief, they are still responsible for the damage they do. he's a lawyer, he did his job, he's still responsible for what he does.

"so i was wrong? Bush didnt havve office for 8 years as the economy become like this? please tell me how they distorted that fact."

Bush was in office, but guess who has control over spending? the legislative branch, who had control over the legislative branch? Democrats. who drove us into this recession? Democrats. also, you claimed Bush AND the republicans were in power, so you werent just talking about Bush being president.

"
i beg to differ, cutting taxes makes it easier on people, but the taxes cover lots of things people NEED, im not going to list them all again"

taxes cover alot of things, but if taxes were cut, the programs wouldnt disappear, the national debt would increase.

"im really confused...oboma personally screwed over tha banks? but he wasnt in goverment when this started happening"

Obama was a lawyer that sued banks in order to force them to give bad mortgages to people of lower income.

"Also, the goverment needs to spend money to make money"

the government doesnt make money....

".so it was in fact bush and the republicans that did this"

the republicans werent in power, the democrats had the majority in congress, nice attempt distorting facts you son of a bitch.

"you cant stimulate the economy without spending money"

ummm, yeah you can.  cutting taxes stimulates the economy, doesnt spend money. also, giving forbearance to certain banks wouldnt cost money. two ways to stimulate the economy without spending money, that took 5 secs tot hink of. also, im not against some spending, but if you looked at the package, instead of blindly beleiving in Obama because he's a good public speaker; you would see how little is being spent to actually improve the economy. its 800 billion dollars of pork.

"And if the economy is so bad..did you think it would be cheap?"

have you seen what the "stimlus package" consists of? you could claim maybe 10% of the 850 billion (very generous percent) is being spent to improve the economy, the rest is being spent for the sake of spending, and Japan has clearly shown that that doesnt work.

"and also, i dont see any facts behind your accustaion avogadro, about the removal of capitalist motivations and coruptness"

government officials from both parties have said some of the banks are too big to fail. if thats true, then they dont have to worry about bankruptcy which is what motivates companies in a capitalist system. and officials from both parties have blamed the crisis on greed or corruption.... i dont see why you have a problem with my statments.

"Fact. If obomas plans work, then im coming back and reviving this topic to be all "i told you so"  ...if  not, feel free to do the same to me."

what do you mean by work? if the US economy some day recovers fromt he recession? no one doubts that. alot of economists have the economy recovering before the majority of Obama's stimuls package being spent, simply because the economy tends to recover from these types of things; that doesnt mean that Obama isnt passing 800+ billion dollars of debt to our children so that he can pass some pork.

what really happened; government removed the motivation that capitalism provides banks that makes them strive to thrive. they have grown corrupt and dont fear bankruptcy because they are too large for the government to allow them to go bankrupt. they have no incentive to make good investments. now they lack the money to lend to businesses which is forcing companies to lay off workers and dramatically increase the recession. the banks were the worst of capitalism and communism, they werent motivated and they werent responsible to the people. im a libertarian, yet i prefer a national bank to the way banks are currently handled.

and i was merely using the housing market as an example how the government failed and created this crisis. greed was not the cause of this, socialists were the cause of it.

and im happy you agreed with me on all the parts of my post that were relevant to the topic, lets not hijack this thread.

you cant have a successful economy without having successful banks. Japan spent so much money, their national debt is around 200% of their GDP, and they didnt bother to fix their banking system and they didnt stimulate the growth they were trying to. simply spending money wont fix the economy. you fix the banks, and the economy will fix itself, you [blorg!] the banks over, which is what the government did and Obama personally did, forcing them to give mortgages to people of lower income, and no matter how much money you give in tax breaks, people wont get loans and growth wont happen.

[mind the language!!]

genetics, bullshit. how tall you will be is almost entirely diet. hums height has changed dramatically in the last couple thousand years; a much too short time span to be explaned by evolution, but can only be explained by changes in diet.