[Blue Lion]

Yea you're not making it clear. Are they keeping them from being prosecuted for crimes or allowing them to continue doing the same practices?

[peterv]

Yea you're not making it clear. Are they keeping them from being prosecuted for crimes or allowing them to continue doing the same practices?

From the previous Wiki's quote: "With strident language Roosevelt in 1938 took credit for dethroning the bankers he alleged had caused the debacle".

Unless that i' missing something, nothing similar to this happened in US in the present crisis. And certainly not to EU. Only a few heads "dropped", and even then:  http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23653190-details/Government+under+pressure+over+Sir+Fred+Goodwin's+pension/article.do

By "protecting" i don't mean "keeping them from being prosecuted for crimes or allowing them to continue doing the same practices". Allowing them to keep their jobs, is protection enough (or paying them millions to leave them).

And don't take me wrong, this has nothing to do with revenge. It has to do with common sense: By leaving these people practically unpunished, any recovery plan, as brilliant as it may be, will never gain the full support of the rest of the people, the majority, a suffering majority.

Roosevelt had that common sense, our leaders don't seem to.

And, to my humble logic, this is definitely beyond common sense: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_F._Geithner

Would you seriously trust this guy to solve the problem in US?

[Blue Lion]

He doesn't solve the problem? Doesn't all this have to run through Congress?

[peterv]

So far: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher/obamas-aig-comments-raise_b_175444.html

[Kosh]

And yet communism practiced by the USSR and PROC, North Korea, and a slew of other nations combined that mandate state-enforced atheism mass-murdered something like 100 million people in under a century.

Communism in those states ended up turning into a religion of its own. All of these states had huge personality cults, especially north korea. Rigid adherence to doctrine, blindly following the great leader's word to the letter, intolerance towards anyone who disagrees with said doctrine. All the hallmarks of a religious cult.

I can easily argue that lack of religion is bad.

Lack of any sort of religion or cults has never happened in the history of the world until now. Look at Sweden, they are the least religious country in the world and yet they are the free-est, most satisfied, and one of the most prosperous in the world. 

The Communist Manifesto dicates state-enforced atheism is a primary tenet.

And the reason for this was because when it was written in the 19th century religion was still being used as a tool to keep exploited people in line.

Not at all. If someone converts to Christianity through their own choice, then its their own.

What about if it is based on major misunderstandings and scare tactics?

I could also argue that Atheism is arrogant in that it claims that because there is no God, there is no Absolute Truth,

And I could refute that. By removing god it allows us to find our own answers to how things work. God did it is a total cop-out. I don't see anything about quarks or leptons in the bible, do you? Besides, there are many parts of the bible that are not followed, such as the part about selling your daughter into slavery. The bible is supposed to be "the word of god" and therefore infallible, so that also makes it the "absolute truth"?

and thus it is all man-made nonsense, to which man decides what is right and what is wrong, and thus standards of morality are subjective to one's point of view. 

Not really. Things that hurt other people are wrong, full stop. Things that hurt yourself are things you shouldn't do, but it is your choice.

Oh, I won't deny that I think Christianity is superior to atheism

No doubt.

This allows man to make himself as God and decide what is moral and what is not(after all, man is a reasonable and rational creature and thus knows best!)

Based on the mythos in the bible god is no better. "Worship me OR ELSE", yeah, real mature.

[Janos]

Except we aren't a pure capitalistic system. No one is.

But i would like to know what exactly are we.
For the last years we were something like globalization-free market-neoliberalism crap. Mainly "Sosialist's" were those who brought this situation on Europe and on US were the democrats. And the consevatives took advandage of it and pushed it to the limits.

Are you saying that the socialists pushed forward the neoliberal agenda? Because although I find that statement kinda hilarious, there's a sad truth to it: social democrats and other left-wing parties were - USA notwithstanding, they are a two-party corporatist country where the right-wing has had de facto control of state economy since 1994 - crucial in tearing down the very structures that are currently proposed as an answer to this... "disaster capitalism".

Of course, that completely misses the point that the political scene of all of the Western World has been heavily corporatist and right-wing for the last 30 years, especially in 2000s. They have had the control, and the leftists have been either left on a shore or have sheepisly followed the butchers. Socialists are a fun bunch: usually they disagree with each other and then with everyone else and get nothing done, but many have viewed the neoliberal attitude with disgust. And party heads have marched on, leaving the real socialist alternative marginalized and toothless.

What i see happening now is the extention of this failure whith the use of public money (regardless the US debt to Cnina  )

No, what you are seeing now is what happens when there are no regulations and when market has a free reign and sovereignity over state actors! This, combined with extremely wasteful spending in USA. "Hmmm our system is ancient and relies on debt and hot air we better rise our deficit into stellar amounts and hope for the best!" what

And as a response, Americans start to feel that socialism could be a better system (which socialism by the way?) and Europeans do the same, turning to the "left" parties, the very same who created this mess in the first place.

Well they didn't create it, they just didn't oppose all kinds of neoliberal **** enough. I haven't liked social democrats since the early 1990s, because here in Europe they just turned into slightly pinkish right wing party.

So what are we? (Yes, i know, we are idiots and speak for yourself peterv)

USA is big business. It's stuck on its system - two extremely powerful parties which are, of course, targets for extremely intensive lobbying. As a home for really, really lots of money the owners of that capital do wield more than enough power to stop all developement that could threaten their state. USA is held hostage by the same system that, at one period of time, allowed it to rise from nothing to world-class power.

What do we have? Too little regulation and everything goes to ****? The obivous solution is to scrap all regulation! What do we have, private companies instead of state monopolies? The obvious solution is to break them hard and watch the cities burn! What do we have, attempts to to put public money to long-term use such as infrastructure projects? The obvious solution is to stop this and watch everything go to ****!

[Janos]

Atheism can be oppressive and imperialistic (Soviet Union sent all the clergy to Siberia and the churches became "musuems"; after all, 50+million dead Russians can't be wrong, can they?).

That was Stalinism.

No that was a violent assault by a socialist/communist organization bent on obtaining power.  Yes I recognize there is a difference in socialism and communism.  Socialism is an economic system.  Communism is the enforcement of that system on a populace, usually with force.

The anger you see in the demonstrations in the USA today is an example, not of partisan politics or socialism vs. capitalism, it's anger about how large government has gotten.  About how much power it's accumulated over our lives.

They just kinda... forgot about that for the last few decades? Are these the same people who idolize Reagan, and let me guess, these people were definitely NOT on the streets during the last 8 years!

I don't dislike socialism for what it is, on paper it sounds like a fine idea.  I dislike socialism for what it brings along with it, things like a sense of entitlement on the part of the people who don't produce things

buh?
Who produces and what? People are granted rights and humanity, even if they don't fit your extremely narrow and inherently dangerous criteria of what gives right to entitlement! A writer produces words. A child produces nothing. A clerck shuffles papers.

, which leads to ever more oppressive government, which in turn leads to a denial of the freedoms that are inherent in all people.

Prove that freedoms are inherent to people. And prove how Nordic states, which have since time immemorial enacted socialist policies are somehow less free than the nations which... do not...

Wait. Define socialist policies! This should clear this one out.

Liberal Socialists, not Democrats, run around claiming how much they love they're fellow man by giving them "free" stuff.

This is... this is just so rich. Are you trying to purposefully muddy the waters by taking a method of keeping people alive and then make it the goal? Because it surely reads as such!

Conservatism, not Republicans, love they're fellow man so much that we'll give them a hand up, not a hand out, into providing for themselves instead of relying on someone else to give them something.

bootstraps

a child can bootstrap his way out of the life in a municipal dump

BOOTSTRAPS

"**** you I got mine" in more eloquent manner.

Capitalism, by it's nature, inherently benefits mankind AS A SPECIES over the long term because it allows ANY member of the species to provide as much or as little as they want for THEMSELVES without having to be ruled over by someone "with your best interests at heart".

Again: **** you I got mine.

That's difference, Socialist are inherently the Ruled.  Capitalist inherently Rule.

Yes I obviously see that right now. That's why private companies are screaming for money... from the government.

I'm sure you'll take that out of context, but whatever.  The idea scares you on some level or you wouldn't yell so loudly or long about it.

BTW, you can't spend your way out of a recession, President Roosevelt tried it in '34, the Depression lasted until the War Footing on the part of American industry got going in 42-43.

oh for christ's sake are you now circulating this talking point. Somehow these guys pop up every now and then.

Actually that depression's worst parts were over in 1933, then GDP rose until another recession hit at 1937. Then it rose back to normal by late 1938.

Tell me who stopped the recession in 1993, 1998 and 2002. Who was it! And who caused all those recessions! In the United States, by the way.

[Blue Lion]

You thought the last bit was a little too over the top? I liked it 

[Kosh]

We had a recession in '98?

[Androgeos Exeunt]

I thought that was Asia.

[Kosh]

I recall Russia had a major meltdown that year, Asia did the year before that but from what I recall the US was doing very well. After all we were in the middle of the tech bubble at the time.

[Liberator]

Prove that freedoms are inherent to people.

This is what the argument is truly about.

You, and people like you and who pander to you and so forth, believe that a person's right devolve from the state.  That all people are inherently serfs or sheep or whatever, that prefer to led and cared for like children by some big powerful leader or group of leaders.

I, and people like me and who pander to my group and so forth, believe that a persons rights devolve from nothing, but that they are inherent in them from conception and governments exist to limit or deny these rights.

Now, so you can take that out context in your next post, government exists as part of the social contract to provide order for a society.  This does not imply that the government is the source of your rights and freedom.

Also

And I could refute that. By removing god it allows us to find our own answers to how things work. God did it is a total cop-out. I don't see anything about quarks or leptons in the bible, do you? Besides, there are many parts of the bible that are not followed, such as the part about selling your daughter into slavery. The bible is supposed to be "the word of god" and therefore infallible, so that also makes it the "absolute truth"?

This gets me in trouble with my folks cause they are more traditional than I am.  I believe the universe, in all it's complexity and beauty, exists to glorify it's creator.  And by studying the universe, and learning how perfect this complexity is, we glorify Him.  Every star, every planet, every lepton is proof that God exists to me.  Every new discovery isn't some new piece of knowledge that didn't exist, it was already there, waiting to be revealed.

As you have repeatedly gone on ad hominem about, the Bible was written by a man.  When Genesis was put to papyrus or whatever, did mankind at that time have an understanding of cosmology or particle physics?  Did they have a point of reference or understanding of the physical forces involved in how a star functions or why the sun sets or anything we take for granted in our ever more enlightened culture?  Not really, no.  So why would you expect a 10,000 page dissertation about such things?  It was a record of what until that time had been passed down as an oral history.  Oral histories have a remarkable habit of remaining the same over passing generations.

[Kosh]

As you have repeatedly gone on ad hominem about, the Bible was written by a man.

Correction, it was written by many men, who later got together in a committee to decide what should go in it and what shouldn't. However a great many in christianity believe it was the word of god.

When Genesis was put to papyrus or whatever, did mankind at that time have an understanding of cosmology or particle physics?  Did they have a point of reference or understanding of the physical forces involved in how a star functions or why the sun sets or anything we take for granted in our ever more enlightened culture?

No, so they invented things like god(s) and miracles to explain it because at the time it was beyond their understandings. That doesn't mean any of it is the reality though.

[Liberator]

Lemme tell you a story.

I was traveling with my family to my Grandmother's for Christmas some years ago.  A retired gentleman over estimated the space he had for his RV to make it across into the northbound side of the highway and impacted the car I was riding in.  It caved in the entire passenger side of the car.  The window on the door I was nearest, which I had been resting my head on as I had been sleeping, exploded inward. 

By rights, by face should've been shredded and I should have had some other trauma as well.

I walked away from the wreck with only a scratch behind my right ear. 

That proves to me that there is someone, or something, that is out there and it cares about my well being.  It's faith.
Science can explain the how of everything, I believe that with all my heart.  But it can't tell us why.  That's faith.

You can't prove faith.  There's no way to quantify the existence of an afterlife or angels or God. 

[Kosh]

That's called probability. Whenever something happens theres always a certain chance that one outcome or another will happen. Even if the odds of something are one in a billion, it can still happen at least once however unlikely.

[karajorma]

That proves to me that there is someone, or something, that is out there and it cares about my well being. 

But yet didn't give a toss about people who did die in accidents?

Furthermore if you're claiming that miracle saves are due to God then what causes freak accidents? God being a bastard and deciding to kill someone?

[Blue Lion]

I, and people like me and who pander to my group and so forth, believe that a persons rights devolve from nothing, but that they are inherent in them from conception and governments exist to limit or deny these rights.

Now, so you can take that out context in your next post, government exists as part of the social contract to provide order for a society.  This does not imply that the government is the source of your rights and freedom.

Without government, I decide I would really enjoy eating you for lunch. Where is the right to life at that moment?

Your stuff looks really pretty. No cops to stop me, looks like they're mine. What right to property?

[Herra Tohtori]

It's funny how the idea about helping other people seems to originate from (and be preferred by) godless atheist scum whereas the ideal society of good Christians [generalization warning] seems to be a model where the state only has the most rudimentary functions (safety, jurisdiction) and everyone basically has to get along on their own or perish.

Just an observation of mine. Don't be flamed (I might've worded it a bit provocatively) but think about it for a while. What kind of a society would Jesus want to live in, a capitalist one or one with some socialist features?

[Grizzly]

A society where social security would not be needed because all the people are nice to each other. So that would be a capatalist one.

I think he would support socialism, though, for the reason that atleast the goverment is nice to its people for a change (the last goverment he lived in nailed him to a cross).

[Androgeos Exeunt]

Actually, I thought it should be "any society that promotes goodwill, respect towards everyone and 100% worship to God".

This, of course, would mean no Television shows like American Idol and Top Gear.