Thank you for a list of undisputed socialism and upcoming tyranny.

Pansies are going to post that it stops when government controls >90% of the economy/your life, giving it sufficient power to play God and make Earth into a perfect Eden. Because that's who politicians really are, deep down: benevolent, omniscient beings. If they only had more power, they could make everything right.

If you are going to post skeptical of Einstein's skeptical view, please, I ask of you, do give us your idea of what's reasonable. And don't shy away from giving us this basic summation if it seems ridiculous to you what you just wrote; just imagine how ridiculous it seems to us that you can vote!

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were allowed to write their own ticket on the theory they were NOT government entities; presuming that the federal government would bail them out, they both issued incredibly cheap, below market loans, AND bought up tons of other mortgages.  They became the largest mortgage companies in America.  They led to the mortgage bubble; other banks knew they could "originate" shit mortgages, loan unemployed people $400,000 for a 30-year mortgage, and once the property was transferred, sell the mortgage for the full repayment price--or at least, get their $400,000 + costs + modest profit, back from Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac.  Once FHMA/FMAC went belly up, the same Congressmen who slapped aside federal regulators on the grounds that FHMA/FMAC were private entitiesi--chief among them Barney Frank, current chairman of the House Banking Committee--declared the US government was obliged to takeover 100% of their debts.  Now totally assured of federal bailout, they continue to swallow the mortgage industry.   They underwrite or directly own 96.5% of the mortgages in America.  Their total insolvency is somewhere in excess of $600 billion.

People talk about the "social value" of corporations and mention jobs and benefits.  Another social value is compartmentalization of failure.  Left to fall, in a PROPER capitalist system, FHMA/FMAC would have been destroyed, and major investors would have been punished.  No honest homeowner would have been hurt if they could meet their loan terms of a specific payment over 360 months-- you can't call a mortgage due early in any state.  Instead they continue to wreck the housing market and jeopardize the dollar.   Another claim against "capitalists" who oppose bailouts is that we only offer "ideology".  The notion the US dollar is worth goods and services is "ideology" and if the Treasury has to bail out every white collar thief in America, it ain't worth shit.

Student loans were nationalized this spring in the same week Obamacare passed.  The federal government issues loans now.

We have 3 remaining "American" auto companies, Ford, Chrysler, and General Motors; the Obama administration "loaned" Chrysler money in return for an equity share, and did the same to General Motors, to the extent that the US government owns over 60% of GM.

The FCC regulation of the Internet, and the discretionary power of the Treasury Secretary to seize companies, which, in the opinion of the Secretary, aren't doing well enough, is in the "wall street reform bill" coming through the senate.  to have an informed opinion the Secretary is to be allowed total access to everybody's financial records, by way of the banks.

Monopoly is never "good".  And especially not government monopolies, which do not have to function efficiently, or please most customers, or even avoid insolvency.

yes your government is taking over every aspect of you life einstein be very afraid.

and yes it's probably all obama's doing( this is the sarcasm bit)

come on. those things are going on wa ylonger then obama has been president you fool. this must be one of your weakest plots to blame everything on obama.

I bet you would not post this info if bush was still president. then it would be casually overlooked.

so yeah perhaps obama should change the policy here and if he doesn't he's also in fault in my eyes. but no way in hell is it all his doing. he can continue the trend but he sure as hell isn't the one who started it.

your gov has been getting bigger and bigger tastes of the power of control. bush sure as hell proved that when he decided to bend the rules conserning the convention of geneva involving human rights.

I'm guessing watergate schandal can be blamed towards obama's forfathers? and the assasination of nixon good god.
I see it's all a plot. for the past generations obama's family and forfathers have strived for this momen. einstein you're a genius for discovering this and you will probably be assasinated soon. so nice knowing you( again bit of sarcasm)

> Einstein wrote:

> I jumped on Bush for some of his stuff including the bail outs.

This was a situation where if you summed up control of US under Bush it was 5%, under Obama it is racing to 90%

so shipping ppl to cuba in order to be able to violate their rights based almost purely on the reason that they are muslim and remained in contact with family in iraq/afghanistan/iran is only trying to control ppl( in this case manipulating them into a confession) 5% but buying a few stockshares and giving donations is evil?

sure there prob are alterior motives but come on. blaming all this on obama is just rediculous and very shortsighted.

obama is the president yes but you're a fool if you think beign the president of us puts you in an all powerfull seat. those times have passed ever since the foundign fathers.

fbi/cia/ spec ops, espionnage. etc have all been in use long before you could even talke about there ever being a black president or a female president. don't go blaming obama for those just cause you don't like he won the elections fair and sqaure till stated otherwhise. which off course will never happen.

Actually if you were a Somali pirate you can be hung until you were dead dead dead.  It's still on the laws of the high seas books in many nations.

>>so shipping ppl to cuba in order to be able to violate their rights<<

What rights? They're not US citizens. Most of their countries of origins they would be tortured if returned to (so presumably that's even less rights than being held captive). I know you're appreciative of the values of the US in not sending them back to be tortured. Please do inform us what rights you are referring to. And they do not meet the requirements to get any rights out of Geneva, so don't claim that's it. Please advise.

>> based almost purely on the reason that they are muslim and remained in contact with family in iraq/afghanistan/iran<<

Please substantiate this claim. There are many Muslims in this country who keep in touch with family abroad. We only detain the ones who want to kill us.

>>Are you suggesting that the United States, land of freedom, opportunity and protector of the weak should base it's justice and human rights policies on those of Syria, North Korea, China and Sudan?<<

He's pointing out that the US alone ties its own hands in dealing with trash that wants to murder US civilians. Why did you only mention those 4 nations? Why not forget those 4, and respond to the other nations which the US goes above and beyond tying its own hands in comparison to? Point too well made?

Wrong entirely.

The point is simple:

Only the United States, ONLY THE UNITED STATES, treats foriegners who commit terrorist acts, and/or piracy, as if that person enjoys the full rights of civilians of the nation who captured them.

ONLY THE UNITED STATES accepts illegal aliens living in it's nation, all due of course to Democrats.

This is NOT to be purposely mistaken with LEGAL IMMIGRANTS!

This is NOT to be purposely mistaken with LEGAL COMBATANTS.

This is NOT to be mistaken purposely with giving no rights.

I say we accept the standard of ANY OTHER NATION ON EARTH before we accept the standards the Democrats have foisted upon us. Even the draconian nations have better policies regarding illegal aliens and terrorists than we do!

uniformed regular of a recognized national state, and that's it

United Nations may have recognized China by then, if not, not

and Iran army would be; Republican Guard might not, because they're not "regulars"

we recongize the Islamic Republic, we just don't have formal relations

although last two PResidents have been wimpy

I can't really comment, because what I would say depends on the credibility of the facts. And right now, I am not convinced of their truth.

But I will say that I want to live next to civilized, educated people with professional degrees or small business owners. This can be guaranteed by the housing prices of my neighborhood. Likewise, living nearby poor people can be guaranteed by the low prices of ghetto neighborhoods. I like it this way, and the idea of diversifying neighborhoods makes me feel uneasy, and is clearly actually driven by profit.

I think War Honor should be two sided. If you both agree to minimize the negative effects of war, then great. But if not, anything goes.