The fed. reserve funded terrorism.

[jimmick]

Capitalists are terrorists, and the federal reserve has funded them, they are CROOKS.

Before you hit reply to that alarmist and attention whoring title, hear me out, please.

I'm not some super high tech political analyst, I'm just a scummy little 15 year old with no grasp of economics, so I'm going to stick to the things I get.

If a big corporate superbusiness is making billions upon billions of dollars, and won't share their profits, how is the govornment (or the tax payers, to be precise) responsible for their losses?

When I was little, the kid that didn't share his toys played alone when their tonka truck broke, so why the hell did you, me and everyone else on the country that's paid their share to lend you yanks money picking up the tab?

Now I'm reading stories (I love reddit) about fatcat CEOs taking $50bn life boats out to their private islands on MY MONEY. What the FUCK, is the Bush administration stupid or were they seriously dropped on their heads!

They were blackmailed, and for all of their "WE'RE BIG PATRIOT TYPES WE DON'T NEGOTIATE WITH TERRORISTS" bullshit they didn't think to call these capitalist pig's bluff and let them die cold and lonely.

Wall street and the entirety of "BIG BUSINESS" threatened your country, and effectively EVERYONE THAT RESIDES IN IT, with the loss of your jobs, homes and financial security, and made outlandish demands to keep themselves afloat.

We were all being held hostage, and they won, right down to their cold, cold pockets.

Thanks for hearing me out, please be nice pointing out my mistakes as I'm not one to step into politics but in my limited mind this is a no brainer.

[Tancrisism]

Terrorism is usually defined as attacking civilian people for the goal of making a political and/or military point. So there's your first mistake.

Also, not all capitalists are like that. You'll learn about the Fed in the next year or two, or perhaps someone will explain it to you. For me it's 3:14 in the bloody morning and I can't be arsed to

[jimmick]

At 10/27/08 06:14 AM, Tancrisism wrote: Terrorism is usually defined as attacking civilian people for the goal of making a political and/or military point. So there's your first mistake.

Also, not all capitalists are like that. You'll learn about the Fed in the next year or two, or perhaps someone will explain it to you. For me it's 3:14 in the bloody morning and I can't be arsed to

They didn't necessarily attack, but we were threatened. And we were taken hostage.
They made it seem as if the state of things was out of their control.
They made demands and they were met.
If that's not terrorism I don't know what is!

[Tancrisism]

At 10/27/08 06:23 AM, jimmick wrote: They didn't necessarily attack, but we were threatened. And we were taken hostage.
They made it seem as if the state of things was out of their control.
They made demands and they were met.
If that's not terrorism I don't know what is!

Well, let's do the good old Terrorism checklist!

1. Did acts of violence occur?

No.

2. If yes, were these acts towards civilians?

Not Applicable.

3. If yes to both, were these acts intentional to forward a military/political message?

Not Applicable.

Well, I'm still not convinced, maybe you're right.

[jimmick]

At 10/27/08 06:32 AM, Tancrisism wrote: Well, let's do the good old Terrorism checklist!

1. Did acts of violence occur?

No.

2. If yes, were these acts towards civilians?

Not Applicable.

3. If yes to both, were these acts intentional to forward a military/political message?

Not Applicable.

Well, I'm still not convinced, maybe you're right.

Agressive political action has been construed as terrorism in the past!

Taking an entire economy hostage may not cause death as quickly as a gun, but poverty kills more people than gun violence and terrorism combined.

But yes, the definition of terrorism is a debate for another time, if this needs discussion we shall take this to another thread, eh?

[Tancrisism]

Terrorism point aside, I'm not sure where you got the conclusion that the Federal Reserve is to blame. I'd blame the Democrats in Congress as well as George Bush, as they both headed the bailout bill.

[Al6200]

To some extent we are going to nationalize the banks, so they probably will end up sharing their profits in the future.

[Sajberhippien]

At 10/27/08 06:14 AM, Tancrisism wrote: Terrorism is usually defined as attacking civilian people for the goal of making a political and/or military point. So there's your first mistake.

Usually it's defined as attacking or THREATENING to attack. Just a note.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/t errorism

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 10/27/08 06:06 AM, jimmick wrote:

I'm not some super high tech political analyst, I'm just a scummy little 15 year old with no grasp of economics, so I'm going to stick to the things I get.

I think this is the best statement that you made.

You don't pay taxes, you have no money in the government.
Even if you did have a paper route, you don't make enough to pay taxes.

You can't vote, your opinion is almost pointless, your use of nouns (like terrorist) is completely seperated from thier implied meaning (like the definition of terrorist)

So please, as your original statement implies, stick to things you have and talk about Dragonball Z or whatever you children play with now.

[ForkRobotik]

At 10/27/08 08:08 AM, Al6200 wrote: To some extent we are going to nationalize the banks, so they probably will end up sharing their profits in the future.

No because they are purchasing them above market value and are going to sell them off as the financial sector recovers which probably means a net loss for taxpayers. Did you know that George W Bush signed into law that the day NASA can turn a profit it will be privatized?

[Der-Lowe]

At 10/27/08 06:44 AM, Tancrisism wrote: Terrorism point aside, I'm not sure where you got the conclusion that the Federal Reserve is to blame. I'd blame the Democrats in Congress as well as George Bush, as they both headed the bailout bill.

Yeah, I don't get why the Executive Branch has to pay for this, it's the Fed's responsibility to provide the system with stability, and it has the dollar-making machine.

[JudgeDredd]

At 10/27/08 01:36 PM, ForkRobotik wrote: Did you know that George W Bush signed into law that the day NASA can turn a profit it will be privatized?

The irony is that (so far) Russia is leading the space tourism race at $30M for a ticket to ride.

.

ps. they are also (so far) proving to be a much safer option than the US Shuttle fleet, which is pretty important considering the clientele ..I mean your average Billionaire wouldn't fly the shuttle for free.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 10/27/08 06:06 AM, jimmick wrote:

If a big corporate superbusiness is making billions upon billions of dollars, and won't share their profits, how is the govornment (or the tax payers, to be precise) responsible for their losses?

Because that government pesters them with useless regulations and restrictions and prevents them from doing things they should be able to do.

When I was little, the kid that didn't share his toys played alone when their tonka truck broke, so why the hell did you, me and everyone else on the country that's paid their share to lend you yanks money picking up the tab?

Yeah, socialism sure as hell sucks. If only we had been capitalists and had the government stay out of it and let them fail.

Now I'm reading stories (I love reddit) about fatcat CEOs taking $50bn life boats out to their private islands on MY MONEY. What the FUCK, is the Bush administration stupid or were they seriously dropped on their heads!

Those CEO's where given that money to help their businesses. YOU don't have to approve their spending because YOU aren't paid millions a year to be a genius businessman. What the investers think is what matters.

They were blackmailed, and for all of their "WE'RE BIG PATRIOT TYPES WE DON'T NEGOTIATE WITH TERRORISTS" bullshit they didn't think to call these capitalist pig's bluff and let them die cold and lonely.
Wall street and the entirety of "BIG BUSINESS" threatened your country, and effectively EVERYONE THAT RESIDES IN IT, with the loss of your jobs, homes and financial security, and made outlandish demands to keep themselves afloat.

Your an idiot. If your sitting there dangling a baby over a 20 story window and I go "Hey... be careful, if you drop it, it's gonna die...", I didn't just threaten you. At all. Similarly, saying "Hey... if our company goes out of business, all our employees will be jobless" is being realistic. Would you prefer all those company's had shared your idiotic sense of affairs and gone "No, its ok, if we go out of business all our employees will still have jobs somehow!".

We were all being held hostage, and they won, right down to their cold, cold pockets.

The millions of people who where kept employed also won.

Thanks for hearing me out, please be nice pointing out my mistakes as I'm not one to step into politics but in my limited mind this is a no brainer.

And I'm sure in your mind, picking the Raiders to win the Super Bowl this year is a no brainer too.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 10/27/08 06:23 AM, jimmick wrote:

If that's not terrorism I don't know what is!

Exactly.

You REALLY don't know what is.

[slipknotfan591]

Can you complain about something other than big business?