Medical, health and wellness news

Home

Psychology &
Psychiatry

Research

Medications

Cancer

Genetics

HIV &
AIDS

Diseases

Other

Health

Neuroscience

Cardiology

Breaking rules makes you seem powerful
May 20, 2011

article

comments
(157)

text-to-speech

loading ...

Download mp3

iTunes podcast

Latest
podcasts

About

share

Tweet

Share
to facebook

Reddit

Google

Delicious

Slashdot

Yahoo!
bookmarks

Windows
Live

RSS

When people have power, they act the part. Powerful
people smile less, interrupt others, and speak in a louder voice. When people do
not respect the basic rules of social behavior, they lead others to believe that
they have power, according to a study in the current Social Psychological and
Personality Science.

People with power have a very different experience of the world than people
without it. The powerful have fewer rules to follow, and they live in
environments of money, knowledge and support. People without power live with
threats of punishment and firm limits according to the research team lead by
Gerben Van Kleef of the University of Amsterdam. Because the powerful are freer
to break the rules—does breaking the rules seem more powerful?

People read about a visitor to an office who took a cup of employee coffee
without asking or about a bookkeeper that bent accounting rules. The rule
breakers were seen as more in control, and powerful compared to people who
didn't steal the coffee, or didn't break bookkeeping rules.

Acting rudely also leads people to see power. People who saw a video of a man
at a sidewalk café put his feet on another chair, drop cigarette ashes on the
ground and order a meal brusquely thought the man was more likely to "get to
make decisions" and able to "get people to listen to what he says" than the
people who saw a video of the same man behaving politely.

What happens when people interact with a rule breaker? Van Kleef and
colleagues had people come to the lab, and interact with a rule follower and a
rule breaker. The rule follower was polite and acted normally, while the rule
breaker arrived late, threw down his bag on a table and put up his feet. After
the interaction, people thought the rule breaker had more power and was more
likely to "get others to do what he wants."

"Norm violators are perceived as having the capacity to act as they please"
write the researchers. Power may be corrupting, but showing the outward signs of
corruption makes people think you're powerful.

More information: The article "Breaking the Rules to Rise to Power:
How Norm Violators Gain Power in the Eyes of Others" in Social Psychological and
Personality Science is available free for a limited time at: http://spp.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/01/20/1948550611398416.full.pdf+html

Provided by SAGE Publications

Tweet

view
popular send feedback to
editors
4.6 /5 (8 votes)

1

2

3

4

5

Filter
FilterOff

Move the slider to adjust rank threshold, so that you can hide some of the
comments.

Display comments: newest first

freethinking
May
20, 2011

Rank: 1 / 5
(11)

That explains progressives.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

ryggesogn2
May 20,
2011

Rank: 3.3 / 5
(9)

Those with real power control themselves and follow
rules of civilized behavior.
Jesus was feared by the Romans and Jewish state
for his power.
Jesus did break from the Law but not in an aggressive
manner.
Some rules need to be disobeyed. The power is in how to disobey and
what rules don't merit obeying.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

ryggesogn2
May 20,
2011

Rank: 1.4 / 5
(9)

That explains progressives.

Like John Edwards,
Arnold, the former IMF charman, Bill Clinton, the Kennedy's, .....Charlie Sheen,
...

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

emsquared
May 20,
2011

Rank: 5 / 5
(3)

So this pretty much explains why some girls go for
the "bad-boy" too, right?

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

chthonic
May 20,
2011

Rank: 5 / 5
(3)

Jeez, there's a whole sub-field of psychoanalysis
devoted to people with disorders of narcissism. The study's authors speak as if
they've never heard of it--and certainly don't approach the subject with any
subtlety of mind. Talk about ignoring (or not giving credit to) nearly 100 years
of research and thought: (Freud wrote "On Narcissism" in 1914).

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

axemaster
May 20,
2011

Rank: 5 / 5
(6)

That explains progressives.

Oh yes, because
conservatives haven't been horrible at all...

Let's just agree:
politicians of all stripes are a$$holes.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

bewertow
May 20,
2011

Rank: 4.3 / 5
(8)

Those with real power control themselves and follow rules of
civilized behavior.
Jesus was feared by the Romans and Jewish state for his
power.
Jesus did break from the Law but not in an aggressive
manner.
Some rules need to be disobeyed. The power is in how to disobey and
what rules don't merit obeying.

Jesus is fictional.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

ryggesogn2
May 20,
2011

Rank: 2.3 / 5
(10)

Those with real power control themselves and follow rules of
civilized behavior.
Jesus was feared by the Romans and Jewish state for
his power.
Jesus did break from the Law but not in an aggressive
manner.
Some rules need to be disobeyed. The power is in how to disobey
and what rules don't merit obeying.

Jesus is fictional.

People who believe and follow the example set by Jesus are not
fictional.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

hush1

May 20, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5
(1)

Help yourselves. Stop posting if you believe
posting is an "outward sign" of posting power.*

*(Spammers not
included)

This post brought to you by the Club of Fiction.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

TAz00

May 21, 2011

Rank: 4 / 5
(4)

People who believe and follow the example set by Jesus are not
fictional.

Unfortunately not fictional, you mean.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

ryggesogn2
May 21,
2011

Rank: 2 / 5
(4)

People who believe and follow the example set by Jesus are
not fictional.

Unfortunately not fictional, you mean.

No.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

ryggesogn2
May 21,
2011

Rank: 2 / 5
(4)

"Whatever the head of the IMF did or didn't do, the
reaction of the French elites is most instructive. "We and the Americans do not
belong to the same civilization," sniffed Jean Daniel, editor of Le Nouvel
Observateur, insisting that the police should have known that Strauss-Kahn was
"not like other men" and wondering why "this chambermaid was regarded as worthy
and beyond any suspicion.""
http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/-301346--.html
"How did
Jesus look at weak, frail people? He did not despise them. Jesus, among the
weak, despised or outcasts, showed patience and sympathy. He identified with
them, treated them with respect and lifted them to a higher plane. "
http://www.thebiblewayonline.com/Active/Life%20of%20Christ-Meek.html
Fortunately,
many follow the example set by Jesus.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

FrankHerbert
May
21, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5
(1)

Unfortunately, many claim to follow the example
supposedly set by Jesus, but fall so far short I can't even say they
tried.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

ryggesogn2
May 21,
2011

Rank: 2.3 / 5
(6)

It's better to aim high and fall short than to aim
low and succeed.
One reason Christianity has been so successful is that WHEN
people fall short of the example set by Jesus, they are forgiven and encouraged
to keep trying.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

FrankHerbert
May
21, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5
(2)

It's not that they aim low. They don't aim at all.
They just claim to.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

ryggesogn2
May 21,
2011

Rank: 2.3 / 5
(3)

It's not that they aim low. They don't aim at all. They just claim
to.

How do you know the hearts and souls of hundreds of
millions of Christians?

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

FrankHerbert
May
21, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5
(2)

I see what they do versus what they claim to
believe.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

Skeptic_Heretic

May 21, 2011

Rank: 3.7 /
5 (3)

It's not that they aim low. They don't aim at all. They just
claim to.

How do you know the hearts and souls of hundreds of
millions of Christians?

Christians are anything but Christ-like
in most cases.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

ryggesogn2
May 21,
2011

Rank: 2 / 5
(4)

It's not that they aim low. They don't aim at all. They just
claim to.

How do you know the hearts and souls of hundreds
of millions of Christians?

Christians are anything but
Christ-like in most cases.

How do you know the hearts and souls
of hundreds of millions of Christians?

"Those on the left proclaimed
their moral superiority in the 18th century and they continue to proclaim it in
the 21st century. What is remarkable is how long it took for anyone to put that
belief to the test -- and how completely it failed that test."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/11/who_really_cares.html

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

that_guy
May 21,
2011

Rank: 5 / 5
(2)

@rygg - While I believe you are right about people
who are striving to be true christians, and have taken the message to heart -
Frank is venting his frustration about the many 'christians' who wear their
religion like a badge, acting pious when being watched, but truly stoop to the
lowest levels when your back is turned. Pharisees if you will. There are many in
any age.

It's unfortunate that just like politicians, the loudest
christians are usually the most disgusting ones, and they overshadow the
peaceful, meek, honest, true christians.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

Skeptic_Heretic

May 21, 2011

Rank: 4.2 /
5 (5)

How do you know the hearts and souls of hundreds of millions of
Christians?
By their actions and words.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

ryggesogn2
May 22,
2011

Rank: 2 / 5
(4)

acting pious when being watched, but truly stoop to the lowest
levels when your back is turned.

And people like Frank and SH
accept this behavior in their socialist political 'leaders'.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

Skeptic_Heretic

May 22, 2011

Rank: 4 / 5
(4)

And people like Frank and SH accept this behavior in their
socialist political 'leaders'.
No, it's unacceptable in any leader,
regardless of their preferred resource distribution ideology. Speaking of pious,
how'd that rapture work out for you Mr. e-fellowship?

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

ryggesogn2
May 22,
2011

Rank: 1.8 / 5
(5)

No, it's unacceptable in any leader,

Don't hear
many complaints from SH about hypocritical, lying politicians. But then, they
run his Regulatory State.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

tjcoop3
May 22, 2011

Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)

Those with real power control themselves and follow rules of
civilized behavior.
Jesus was feared by the Romans and Jewish state for his
power.
Jesus did break from the Law but not in an aggressive
manner.
Some rules need to be disobeyed. The power is in how to disobey and
what rules don't merit obeying.

Jesus never broke the Law
he broke with the traditions of men that were an addition to the Law.

I
do agree that knowing which rules to break is important. Breaking a boss' rules
involves a contract you have made that is made null when you break the rules of
the contract.

Society's rules are more problematic and government laws
even more so. The real issues is how I perceive myself. If I believe I have
power in my person that is projected to others. It is all about perceptions.

No one has power over me unless I inwardly believe they do. Jesus knew
that all power belongs to His God so no one and no system could have power over
Him including death and the grave.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

Birger

May 23, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5
(3)

Lyndon Johnson was a real S.O.B. to people around
him. And senior company executives are not known for being nice.

"Norm
violators are perceived as having the capacity to act as they please" which is
why gangsters are often perceived as role models for marginalised people, such
as teenagers growing up in decaying urban areas.

As a European I care
little for the American Republican/Democrats debate except as an example of
"selective perception". The own team is always best, and any accusations of
wrongdoing are by definition false and slanderous...
I am told that a
presidential contender who views himself as a guardian of morals once divorced
his cancer-sick wife. And his fellow partisans do not speak out. You do not want
to go against an alpha male in the pack, morals be damned.

Finally:
Religious people tend to interpret their icons as having the same views as
themselves on issues. And if Jesus agrees with me I have no reason to be
ashamed. "Gott mit uns" as the Germans said

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

ryggesogn2
May 23,
2011

Rank: 1.8 / 5
(5)

"Clearly, if you have friends at the White House
and pay your dues, you, too, can be exempt from Obamacare's rules.

This
is crony capitalism at its worst as people and companies seek special favors to
escape the destructive 2,800-page law.

Read more at the Washington
Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/2011/05/obamacare-repeal-means-waivers-everybody#ixzz1NCD0eBVh
"
This
is a fine example of the 'progressive' Regulatory State which is well supported
by many here.
The govt has the power and one must pay to gain
favor.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

Skeptic_Heretic

May 23, 2011

Rank: 3.7 /
5 (3)

No, it's unacceptable in any leader,

Don't hear
many complaints from SH about hypocritical, lying politicians. But then, they
run his Regulatory State.

You must not be paying attention,
especially considering you're a lying hypocritical politician.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

ryggesogn2
May 23,
2011

Rank: 2 / 5
(4)

No, it's unacceptable in any leader,

Don't hear
many complaints from SH about hypocritical, lying politicians. But then,
they run his Regulatory State.

You must not be paying
attention, especially considering you're a lying hypocritical politician.

I don't stalk you like you do me so I don't follow your every
word. You defend the govt and attack those who try to limit its power every
chance you get.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

ryggesogn2
May 23,
2011

Rank: 2 / 5
(4)

SH's tactics are like other 'progressives'.

Here are the details:
"Other Interests:

Marjon alternate
Screennames: Bigjon, ryggesogn2

Contact Information:

Physorg
League of Christian Misology(beware their idiocy): mabarker, kevinrtrs, quantum
conundrum, getgoa, freethinking, marjon, jjoensuu, RIL, Twitch"
http://www.physorg.com/profile/user/Skeptic_Heretic

And,
like other 'progressives', frequently lies and misrepresents facts. So it it no
surprise 'skeptical heretic' is not very skeptical nor much of a heretic.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

that_guy
May 24,
2011

Rank: 3 / 5
(2)

No, it's unacceptable in any leader,

Don't
hear many complaints from SH about hypocritical, lying politicians. But
then, they run his Regulatory State.

You must not be paying
attention, especially considering you're a lying hypocritical politician.

I don't stalk you like you do me so I don't follow your every
word. You defend the govt and attack those who try to limit its power every
chance you get.

I can't say i would honestly know if SH
stalks around you to counterpoint your arguments, but what I can say is that I
get bored at work so I try to comment every interesting article out there...and
you comment with the same tune on almost every article on physorg. Long story
short - how can you tell if someone is putting that much effort to stalk you,
instead of responding every time they see one of your self righteous religious
tea party views on everything they read?

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

ryggesogn2
May 24,
2011

Rank: 2 / 5
(4)

how can you tell if someone is putting that much effort to stalk
you

It is stated publicly, see above, and he has made personal
threats.
What is self righteous about supporting limited govt power
and
responding to attacks on religion from atheists?

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

freethinking
May
24, 2011

Rank: 1 / 5
(4)

That Guy are you a sock puppet for SH? If not I
apologize, however, you sure sounds like one kissing up to SH like you
do.

BTW, SH has threatened to find me as well. I told him, if threaten,
I'll follow up with appropriate and legal action, which stopped his threats
against me.

However SH is following the Progressives template of using
lies, threats and violence when they cant win an argument. Problem that
progressives now face is that conservatives no longer fall for Progressives
distorting the truth and conservatives are now more than ever willing to stand
up for what they believe.

A conservative said to me that Obama being
elected is the best thing that could have happened for America because Obama
will show how corrupt progressives are, how destructive progressive thought and
policy is, and how biased the main stream media is. Obama will be thanked in
2012 for ushering in the largest conservative majority ever elected. With Obamas
pol numbers, I think my friend was correct.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

that_guy
May 24,
2011

Rank: 4.2 / 5
(5)

how can you tell if someone is putting that much effort to stalk
you

It is stated publicly, see above, and he has made
personal threats.
What is self righteous about supporting limited govt
power
and responding to attacks on religion from atheists?

I'll admit to it if I'm wrong...but where did SH say he was
following rygg? All I see is where rygg said SH was stalking him. Not any proof
or admission. So my question still stands.

And yes self righteous. Rygg
has one view on anything and sees no reason to modify it based on facts. He
believes that his one view is superior to every other view. No one is right 100%
of the time, expecially when they aren't interested in reality.

and free,
you are a hypocrite at best. I never see you in civil logical discourse.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

freethinking
May
24, 2011

Rank: 1 / 5
(4)

That guy, are you a sock puppet for
SH?

Progressives like you and SH complain that conservatives don't have
civil discourse, are hypocritical, intolerant, etc. Have you ever heard the
phrase if you live in a glass house don't throw stones.

Progressives say
conservatives should use civil discourse, (ie. conservatives shouldn't say
targeting districts, or I'll hammer my opponent or any other rhetorical speech)
yet it is perfectly ok for a progressive to say (rhetorically of course) if they
bring a knife, we'll bring a gun.

BTW I've stayed away from making fun
of Obama when he banged his head, got locked out of the Whitehouse, put the
wrong year on a visitor log, or said he visited all 57 states. Why? Because
everyone slips up. Did Progressives let any mistake Bush did go or did they
ridicule him, what about Palin?

Progressives like SH are the hypocrites
and are the ones not rooted in logic.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

Skeptic_Heretic

May 25, 2011

Rank: 4 / 5
(4)

I don't stalk you like you do me so I don't follow your every
word.
Your comments certainly do on this site.

You defend the govt and attack those who try to limit its power
every chance you get.
No, that's your perception. It's difficult to
hear an accurate statement with your head that far up your ass.

Progressives like you and SH complain that conservatives don't
have civil discourse, are hypocritical, intolerant, etc.
No, I
complain that YOU don't have civil discourse. You are not representative of all
conservatives. You and your little buddy Jon are fundamentalist wackos.

Obama will be thanked in 2012 for ushering in the largest
conservative majority ever elected.
Want to put some cash on
it?

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

Skeptic_Heretic

May 25, 2011

Rank: 4.2 /
5 (5)

I think the best part of you two jokers is how
quickly you just toe the party line.

I remember watching you two spaz
over the medicare cuts for the democrat healthcare bill. Now you're supporting
people who want to whole cloth eliminate medicare. You two must have failing
memories, the rest of us don't.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

ryggesogn2
May 25,
2011

Rank: 2 / 5
(4)

No, that's your perception. It's difficult to hear an accurate
statement with your head that far up your ass.

SH has stated he
is a populists and does not beleive that human rights are inherent and
inalienable. Which means he believes that govt is the giver and taker of rights,
not the protector of rights.
Have I mispercieved your position?

I remember watching you two spaz over the medicare cuts for the
democrat healthcare bill.

No me. I oppose Obama care and
Medicare as they are failing and they encourage the rising cost of health
care.

I never see you in civil logical discourse.

But
everyone else here engages in civil discourse? So it is civil discourse to
accuse you of having your head up your arse?

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

ryggesogn2
May 25,
2011

Rank: 1.8 / 5
(5)

This demonstrates the failure of Obamacare and a
corrupt govt:
"If Obamacare is so great, why do so many people want to get
out from under it?
More specifically, why are more than half of those
3,095,593 in plans run by labor unions, which were among Obamacare's biggest
political supporters? Union members are only 12 percent of all employees but
have gotten 50.3 percent of Obamacare waivers.

On its website HHS pledges
that the waiver process will be transparent. But it doesn't list those whose
requests for waivers have been denied.
One basic principle of the rule of law
is that laws apply to everybody. If the sign says "No Parking," you're not
supposed to park there even if you're a pal of the alderman.

Another
principle of the rule of law is that government can't make up new rules to help
its cronies and hurt its adversaries except through due process, such as getting
a legislature to pass a new law."
http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/05/obama-skirts-rule-law-reward-pals-

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

freethinking
May
25, 2011

Rank: 1 / 5
(4)

Progressive definition of civil discourse. Agree
with everything progressives say and think and call anyone who disagrees with
progressive thought, racist, homophob, hater, stupid, lier, religious nut, (SH
what else do you call people who disagree with you). After insulting them if
they don't toe the line or shutup threaten them, harrass them. If that doesn't
work the next set is real violence.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

Skeptic_Heretic

May 25, 2011

Rank: 4 / 5
(4)

Have I mispercieved your position?

As usual, yes.

After insulting them if they don't toe the line or shutup threaten
them, harrass them. If that doesn't work the next set is real violence.

Just watch what FOX has been doing to Newt Gingrich and blame it on
progressives eh?

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

ryggesogn2
May 25,
2011

Rank: 2.6 / 5
(5)

As usual, yes

Once again, SH provides no supporting
data.
He is on record as being a populist, denying the inherent rights of
humans and lying.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

freethinking
May
25, 2011

Rank: 1 / 5
(4)

Progressives :)
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/msnbc-suspends-ed-shultz-over-his-right-wing-slut-remark/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/8528327/Cannes-2011-Peter-Fonda-encourages-his-grandchildren-to-take-up-arms-against-President-Barack-Obama.html

First
come name calling, then come threats.... If a conservative made that threat,
they would be in jail (rightfully so)

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

Skeptic_Heretic

May 26, 2011

Rank: 4 / 5
(4)

Progressives :) ...First come name calling, then come threats....

I think it was you two gents who cast the first stone here. Perhaps
you two should go back and work on your scripts again.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

ryggesogn2
May 26,
2011

Rank: 1.8 / 5
(5)

If anyone knows how to search historical posts we
can demonstrate SH's threats and vulgar language.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

Ethelred
May 27,
2011

Rank: 3 / 5
(2)

If anyone knows how to search historical post
Not being
an idiot I know how. So who does your searches for you since that question shows
you as clearly way too inept to have hunted down those wacked out papers from
Brasil you have posted?

Ethelred

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

ryggesogn2
May 27,
2011

Rank: 2 / 5
(4)

Prove it.

Show everyone how 'smart' you
are.

BTW, Ethel is another fine example of a 'progressive'.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

GSwift7
May 27, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5 (2)

Powerful people smile less, interrupt others, and speak in a
louder voice. When people do not respect the basic rules of social behavior,
they lead others to believe that they have power

There's a
similar effect when a person has impaired hearing. They tend to not hear what
people say, so they talk less and don't laugh at jokes, leaving people to
believe they are more serious and wise.

An aged appearance and a large
physical appearance project power and wisdom as well.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

Ethelred
May 27,
2011

Rank: 3 / 5
(2)

Show everyone how 'smart' you are.
Very well.

No
I am NOT stupid enough to tell you how to do things I have done on this site.
Such as track down posts by Oliver or myself from over a year ago. Without using
bookmarks. I do have bookmarks for Oliver. You are not worth that sort of
effort. Keep in mind that hitting CONTROL D isn't much effort.

And that
refusal to teach you how to cause trouble is ample evidence that I am smarter
than you.

Progressive is only a bad thing to idiots like you. The very
use of progressive as a pejorative proves you are an idiot.

Oh yes. When
are you moving to Somalia to take part in that wonderful AnnRandFantasyLand you
want so desperately? I eagerly await your posts from
Paradise.

Ethelred

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

ryggesogn2
May 27,
2011

Rank: 2 / 5
(4)

No I am NOT stupid enough to tell you how to do things I have done
on this site.

Science is about supporting your theories with
data. If there is no data to support the theory it remains an
assertion.

It is amusing how the 'progressives' need to keep changing
their name as people discover what they want to 'progress' to.
Stand up, be
proud of being a socialist. Don't hide behind propaganda.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

GSwift7
May 27, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5 (2)

Progressive is only a bad thing to idiots like you. The very use
of progressive as a pejorative proves you are an idiot

That
prompted me to look up the history of the term 'progressive'. Interesting
reading. I didn't know the US Progressive Party was formed from a split in the
Republican Party. The term has a lot of different contextual meanings in
different places around the world and at different times.

from
wiki:

In the United States there have been several periods where
progressive political parties have developed

I didn't know
that.

The modern day US progressive political leaders are basically the
complete list of the most extreme left leaning politicians in Washington. They
even oppose centrist democrats according to the wiki article.

That would
explain why a person on the far right would think of them as
'bad'.

Personally, I think it's bad to be an extremist on either side.
Most people are in the middle and don't care that much.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

Ethelred
May 27,
2011

Rank: 3 / 5
(2)

If there is no data to support the theory it remains an assertion

The data is on the site. You want it you can look for it. Just like
I did. Not my fault you cant do it. I do it several times a month at least. Just
did it in another thread.

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-05-physicists-lifetime-carbon-.html

And
telling lies isn't going to get me to tell how I do it. Some idiots learn. You
don't seem to be one of them but surprises happen.

It is amusing how the 'progressives' need to keep changing their
name as people discover what they want to 'progress' to.
It is
amazing the way you lie about things.

Stand up, be proud of being a socialist. Don't hide behind
propaganda.
You want labels OK. You think Somalia has a great
economy. You tried to justify piracy. You post stuff you modified and pretended
it was the real thing. You were stupid enough you could get away with it. More
than once. That qualifies as an idiot.

Ethelred

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

ryggesogn2
May 27,
2011

Rank: 2 / 5
(4)

Ethel, still an assertion.
Come on, defend your
support for socialism. Why lie about that?

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

ryggesogn2
May 27,
2011

Rank: 2 / 5
(4)

Personally, I think it's bad to be an extremist on either side.
Most people are in the middle and don't care that much.

Those
in the middle of a road are likely to be run over.
So how much evil will you
tolerate Swifty?
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And
moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.
Barry
Goldwater

Read more: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/b/barrygoldw145889.html#ixzz1NZamE1FD
"
Not
caring is what 'progressives' count on.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

Skeptic_Heretic

May 27, 2011

Rank: 3.7 /
5 (3)

Ethel, still an assertion.
Come on, defend your support for
socialism. Why lie about that?

You support socialism. Everyone
is a socialist in one shape or another, the only other option is anarchy.

Progressives :) ...First come name calling, then come
threats....
I think it was you two gents who cast the first stone
here. Perhaps you two should go back and work on your scripts again.

It is amusing how the 'progressives' need to keep changing their
name as people discover what they want to 'progress' to.
Stand up, be proud
of being a socialist. Don't hide behind propaganda.
Just keep
proving yourself a hypocrite. We'll stand back and watch.

Cue the 40
posts that are direct copy paste rips from blogs.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

ryggesogn2
May 27,
2011

Rank: 1 / 5
(4)

Everyone is a socialist in one shape or another

Speak for yourself.

What's wrong with anarchy? It's much
better that the tyranny of the Regulatory State.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

GSwift7
May 27, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5 (2)

Those in the middle of a road are likely to be run over.
So how
much evil will you tolerate Swifty?

You are driving on the
sidewalk. I will be safe here in the middle of the road.

define evil. I'm
not a very religious person.

What's wrong with anarchy?

Move to Somalia or
Darfur and find out.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

freethinking
May
27, 2011

Rank: 2.3 / 5
(3)

I disagree with ryq (gasp I know)... anarchy is
worse than even the worst of a dictatorship. After the great progressive leader
Hitler was defeated, a democracy was established on the western side of Germany.
The Eastern side had to wait for democracy till the Progressive Government of
Russia fell.

Afgahastan - is a anarchy and will take a very long time
before it will ever move to a democracy.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

that_guy
May 27,
2011

Rank: 5 / 5
(2)

Everyone is a socialist in one shape or another

Speak for yourself.

What's wrong with anarchy? It's
much better that the tyranny of the Regulatory State.

You would
want to live in somalia??

oh...damn I see swift beat me to that
one.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

ryggesogn2
May 27,
2011

Rank: 2.3 / 5
(3)

Afgahastan - is a anarchy and will take a very long time before it
will ever move to a democracy.

No, it is not. It has a
tribal govt.

Somalia is/was not in anarchy either. They have a tribal
govt system that has been in use for generations.

The problems in many
regions have been the result of the imposition of nation-states the local people
don't want.

BTW, the piracy problem in Somalia is partly the fault of the
world govts that do not allow commercial ships to be armed.
When people are
not prevented by govts from protecting their lives and property, crime is no
longer profitable.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

that_guy
May 27,
2011

Rank: 3.7 / 5
(3)

Afgahastan - is a anarchy and will take a very long time before
it will ever move to a democracy.

Somalia is/was not in
anarchy either. They have a tribal govt system that has been in use for
generations.

BTW, the piracy problem in Somalia is partly the fault of
the world govts that do not allow commercial ships to be armed.
When people
are not prevented by govts from protecting their lives and property, crime is
no longer profitable.

The piracy problem is because there is no
government to reign the pirates in. Ships are allowed to be armed to a degree,
but shipping companies prefer not to take on the liability or expense and
insurance.

Somalia is the most dysfunctional country in the world, and it
is the closest thing to anarchy. There is some tribal rule, but that is because
humans need to organize in some fashion to be able to work together.
period.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

ryggesogn2
May 27,
2011

Rank: 2 / 5
(4)

How many artificial states have either violently or
peacefully dissolved since the 'progressives' started creating
nation-states?
Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Timor, India/Pakistan/Bangledesh,
Trans Jordan, ....

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

Ethelred
May 27,
2011

Rank: 3 / 5
(2)

Ethel, still an assertion.
Lying like that isn't going
to make me give you what you need. I gave a link that had the evidence. That is
all you get.

Come on, defend your support for socialism. Why lie about that?

Straw man straw man
lying all the time
No body cares what the
straw man says

Please massa tell us more stories about the wonders of
Somalia.
Our families were so downtrodden by evil Swedes before the wonderful
pirates on the good ship Atlas Jerked sold us to the salt mines in
Timbuktu.

It's much better that the tyranny of the Regulatory State.

If that was so you would be a pirate in Somalia instead of a
politician in New England.

Ethelred

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

ryggesogn2
May 27,
2011

Rank: 1 / 5
(2)

Somalia is the most dysfunctional country in the world, and it is
the closest thing to anarchy.

Do some research, you may find
they are no worse, and in some ways better off than their stated
neighbors.
http://www.peterleeson.com/better_off_stateless.pdf

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

freethinking
May
27, 2011

Rank: 1 / 5
(1)

Thanks ryqq, I'll read the article when I have
time.

One thing came to mind as I was skimming over the article. Contrary
to what people are led to believe, Africa has the fewest guns to population of
the world. Problem is, only the bad guys have guns in Africa.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

ryggesogn2
May 28,
2011

Rank: 1 / 5
(2)

"Most ports severely restrict vessels from having
weapons on board, and changing those regulations in each country would be
difficult, Mr. Flynn said. The United States Coast Guard has been especially
wary, fearing that the weapons could be used for terrorist attacks."
"Poor
fishermen know now that hijacking ships is far more lucrative than hauling up a
half-empty fishing net, Mr. Burnett said in a telephone interview from Zurich.
The Internet, he said, has ensured that word of the success of some pirates in
collecting large ransoms has spread to the entire fishing community, whose
livelihood has already been threatened by overfishing. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/world/13shipping.html
I
recall it was Chinese ships that were overfishing.
How does an 'anarchy' have
the internet?

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

Skeptic_Heretic

May 28, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5
(1)

How many artificial states have either violently or peacefully
dissolved since the 'progressives' started creating
nation-states?
Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Timor,
India/Pakistan/Bangledesh, Trans Jordan, ....

Typically due to
fundamentalist religion and economic failures brought on by rigid adherance to
"Constitutional Provisions"

Your prefered method of governance destroys
countries and makes then into third world dictatorships. No surprise there.

Everyone is a socialist in one shape or another
Speak
for yourself.
So we should disband the military and the court
systems in your opinion?

Socialism is merely the thought that some
aspects of society should be run by the government. That includes having an
army. Are you telling us you want to be a citizen of Reebok, or Pepsi?

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

ryggesogn2
May 28,
2011

Rank: 1 / 5
(3)

Are you telling us you want to be a citizen of Reebok, or Pepsi?

A sovereign individual is not a citizen of any state. No state
monopoly on force is required.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

ryggesogn2
May 28,
2011

Rank: 1 / 5
(3)

"The hyper-regulatory state is unrepublican. It
strikes at one of the most basic pillars of free society: equality before the
law. When you replace "law" with "regulation," equality before it is one of the
first casualties. In such a world, there is no law, only a hierarchy of
privilege more suited to a sultan's court than a self-governing republic. If you
don't want to be subject to "tooth-level surveillance," you better know who to
call in Washington. Teamsters Local 522 did, and the United Federation of
Teachers, and the Chicago Plastering Institute. And as a result they've all been
"granted" ObamaCare "waivers." Rule, Obama! Obama, waive the rules! If only for
his cronies. Americans are being transferred remorselessly from the rule of law
to rule by an unaccountable bureaucracy of micro-regulatory preferences,
subsidies, entitlements and incentives that determine which of the multiple
categories of Unequal-Before-The-Law Second-Class (or Third-Class, or
Fourth-Class) Citizenship yo

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

ryggesogn2
May 28,
2011

Rank: 1 / 5
(3)

"the regulatory state sucks up about a
quarter-trillion dollars more than the entire GDP of India. As fast as India's
growing its economy, we're growing our regulations faster. Oh, well, you shrug,
it would be unreasonable to expect the bloated, somnolent hyperpower to match
those wiry little fellows back at the call center in Bangalore. Okay. It's also
about a quarter-trillion dollars more than the GDP of Canada. Every year we're
dumping the equivalent of a G7 economy into ever more ludicrous and wasteful
regulation."
http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/regulatory-302259-milk-sunstein.html
SH's
Regulatory State is so much better.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

FrankHerbert
May
28, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5
(2)

A sovereign individual is not a citizen of any state. No state
monopoly on force is required.

Holy shit, you're a
sovereign citizen. I should have guessed, but damn that's crazy. You're nuts
man. I can see the headline now. "After gunning down two officers in a routine
traffic stop, Mr. Swenson was found in his truck muttering incoherently about
gold bullion and socialists."

The hyper-regulatory state

It fascinates me how we
can have such different interpretations of reality. Hyper-regulatory, lol.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

Ethelred
May 28,
2011

Rank: 5 / 5
(2)

Marjon, who hates California, is quoting one of the
lunatics that has a column in the Orange Country(California)Regiser. A newspaper
so insane that it was against George Bush SENIOR for being too liberal. The
paper is the reason Orange County has so many lunatic RightWingNuts.

They
once had an IDIOT on the editorial board that wanted to write to an opinion that
was too loony for the OFFICIAL editorials so it was printed on the op-ed page.
It actually pretended that the ENTIRE Democratic was PERFECTLY represented by
two idiots that were as radical left as he was right. It would be like
pretending Marjon represented the Republicans and even most Libertarians must
find him insane.

The fun part is Reagan the god of idiots like that
created record numbers of regulations.

And before the Idiot starts lying
about me no I don't care for Obama extending the Patriot Act. He has been a poor
President so far except in comparison to President Dumbass who created the evil
thing.

Ethelred

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

ryggesogn2
May 28,
2011

Rank: 1 / 5
(2)

Instead of defending the Regulatory State, Ethel
attacks a news paper and a writer who lives in NH.

And for Frank,
"In
The Sovereign Individual, Davidson and Rees-Mogg explore the greatest economic
and political transition in centuries -- the shift from an industrial to an
information-based society. This transition, which they have termed "the fourth
stage of human society," will liberate individuals as never before, irrevocably
altering the power of government. This outstanding book will replace false hopes
and fictions with new understanding and clarified values."
http://www.sovereignlife.com/sovereign-individual.html
The
authors note that nation-states will likely be opposed to losing power and will
impose more tyranny on their people.

But maybe Frank is one of those who
like to control people as Heinlein noted.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

blob

May 28, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5
(1)

Hm... there are so many aspect not even mentioned
in this article. And there are so many of you not even considering them... Let's
leave out religion for now, because people who gain power usually follow a
different set of rules.

Powerful people smile less: True. Reason? They
have seen too many things that they probably never thought of seeing before
/frauds, thefts, ... too many situations/... therefore it's rather logical that
their personality would change (I've seen a person change from being absolutely
altruistic to /seemingly/ cold bastard. Tbh... I understand him. If all of my
so-called friends tried to take advantage of my hard work, I'd tell them off as
well.

Powerful people bend/break more rules and more frequently:
Simple... they know from experience how to break the rules. And honestly, each
and every one of you would do the same with their knowledge and experience.

Also... rule breaking/bending can't be too obvious or public /only to a
certain degree/

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

blob

May 28, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5
(2)

As for religious people: I'm personally catholic...
/or I used to be (?) / And I can tell you this:
1. What you learned about
Jesus is mostly bullcrap. He had to have siblings /They were a jewish family
ffs. Learn about old customs/
- He was sort of a nobleman /King David's
family... Jews always sticked to traditions... And I'm pretty sure that 2000
years ago it had to be even more strict/
- He had to have been engaged.
Whether he got married is difficult to say /to my knowledge/
- He was a
bloody rebel, a punk. He went against the traditions in so many ways, he was
lucky not to have been stoned to death. And I mean LUCKY.

2. Most
Christians have a real problem understanding what god actually CAN be. And I'm
rather sure that should ever anyone prove that God exists /And I mean a real
proof/ the christians would be the first trying to kill the person, because they
believe differently and it's insulting their faith.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

blob

May 28, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5
(3)

... ending:
3. Let's admit for a second that
we're God's creation /humans/... we are so messed up in so many ways. So
defective, ineficient compared to other species it's almost better to complain
about God instead of worshipping him /just a sidenote btw/

And finaly :)
if you believe in theory of creationism, fine... It actually is possible
according to a certain theory :) just the dates don't match; the hypothesis says
that Homo Sapiens Sapiens is a result of genetic manipulation. Funny thing...
this theory actually corresponds with christianity as such quite a
lot.

And if any of religious people still insist on the no-evolution
theory, here's a newsflash: The cold virus mutates / EVOLVES / a few times every
YEAR. Now if that isn't a real-life proof of evolution for you, I do suggest you
give up your right to vote and move into an asylum.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

ryggesogn2
May 28,
2011

Rank: 1 / 5
(2)

Frank, the leaders of several sovereign states are
attacking the leader of another sovereign state, Libya. How many individuals
have be indiscriminately killed in the process? Who will be brought to justice
for such killings?
Instead of sovereign states those leaders were sovereign
individuals? They could not force others to kill or die for them as they can
now.
Can sovereign states attack each other without consequence? Why do you
think sovereign individuals could attack each other without
consequence?

Blob, people create computer programs that evolve.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

Skeptic_Heretic

May 29, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5
(2)

A sovereign individual is not a citizen of any state. No state
monopoly on force is required.
Yeah good luck with that.
Considering your proximity to Lowell I'm sure you'd rather have a socialist
police force, as you have now, rather than having to hire your own private
security.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

ryggesogn2
May 29,
2011

Rank: 1 / 5
(2)

The govt (SCOTUS) states that police are not
obligated to protect anyone.
I guess that's why the Chelmsford Chief of
Police readily signs off on class A firearms permits. The Lowell chief does not.
Maybe that is why crime is more a problem in Lowell.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

Skeptic_Heretic

May 29, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5
(2)

The govt (SCOTUS) states that police are not obligated to protect
anyone.
Go right ahead and give us a source for that statement.

I guess that's why the Chelmsford Chief of Police readily signs
off on class A firearms permits. The Lowell chief does not. Maybe that is why
crime is more a problem in Lowell.
Nah, it's probably because
people in Lowell got laid off by the people in Chelmsford. Jobs reduce crime.
Education increases jobs, tax revenue pays for public education.

Let's
increase taxes on the rich, like you, to address the problem.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

ryggesogn2
May 29,
2011

Rank: 1 / 5
(1)

"By a vote of 7-to-2, the Supreme Court ruled that
Gonzales has no right to sue her local police department for failing to protect
her and her children from her estranged husband."
"In 1856, the U.S. Supreme
Court (South v. Maryland) found that law enforcement officers had no affirmative
duty to provide such protection. In 1982 (Bowers v. DeVito), the Court of
Appeals, Seventh Circuit held, "...there is no Constitutional right to be
protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or
madmen."

Later court decisions have concurred."
http://www.allsafedefense.com/news/CopsDontProtect.htm

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

Skeptic_Heretic

May 29, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5
(3)

What a brutal misread of the judgements. It could
only come from an ill-informed opinion piece.

South v Maryland- states
there is no TORT liability for non-malicious failure to enforce law.

Bowers v DeVito- establishes that police do not have the right to
apprehend someone on suspicion of future crime.

What's the docket for
the first case (Gonzales)

So do you want people to be able to sue the
police for not establishing a police state in your house a la South
vMaryland?
Would you prefer that the police can arrest you because someone
thinks you might commit a crime a la Bowers v DeVito?

Idiot, you're
arguing for a chinese style police state.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

ryggesogn2
May 29,
2011

Rank: 1 / 5
(3)

If I hire a security company to protect me, and
they fail, I can sue.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

Skeptic_Heretic

May 29, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5
(1)

If I hire a security company to protect me, and they fail, I can
sue.

Can't sue if you're dead.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

ryggesogn2
May 29,
2011

Rank: 1 / 5
(1)

If I hire a security company to protect me, and they fail, I can
sue.

Can't sue if you're dead.

Family
can.
Your life insurance company can.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

Skeptic_Heretic

May 29, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5
(2)

If I hire a security company to protect me, and they fail, I
can sue.

Can't sue if you're dead.

Family
can.
Your life insurance company can.

Because that's what we
need to do, give banks another way to profit of the death of their customers. If
you want to live in feudal Europe, good for you. There's a glut of countries in
Africa that satisfy your wills and wants.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

ryggesogn2
May 29,
2011

Rank: 1 / 5
(2)

When your Regulatory State lets someone murder you,
you can't sue your state. And since your are dead, who will change your
Regulatory State?

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

Skeptic_Heretic

May 29, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5
(2)

When your Regulatory State lets someone murder you, you can't sue
your state.
The state isn't "letting someone murder you". To make
this statement is merely an appeal to emotion, and somewhat psychopathic and
paranoid.

And since your dead, who will change your Regulatory State?

Well the banks wouldn't if they're making profit off your death. If
anything you're giving them a reason to have you murdered.

You should
probably sit down and have a think on the rammifications of your proposed
changes before you continue posting. You'll be able to construct a better
argument and this conversation might actually become enjoyable.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

ryggesogn2
May 29,
2011

Rank: 1 / 5
(2)

The state isn't "letting someone murder you". To make this
statement is merely an appeal to emotion, and somewhat psychopathic and
paranoid.

The Regulatory State has no legal obligation to
prevent anyone from murdering you. That's is the law, not emotion.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

ryggesogn2
May 29,
2011

Rank: 1 / 5
(2)

SH:

Jobs reduce crime.

"When the FBI announced last
week that violent crime in the U.S. had reached a 40-year low in 2010, many
criminologists were perplexed. It had been a dismal year economically, and the
standard view in the field, echoed for decades by the media, is that
unemployment and poverty are strongly linked to crime"
"But there have long
been difficulties with the notion that unemployment causes crime." {Doesn't
bother SH, though}
"At the deepest level, many of these shifts, taken
together, suggest that crime in the United States is falling even through the
greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression because of a big
improvement in the culture."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304066504576345553135009870.html?mod=WSJ_WSJ_US_News_6
Don't
bother SH with facts that don't fit his world view.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

FrankHerbert
May
29, 2011

Rank: 3 / 5
(2)

Kind of like how you believe the French Revolution
influenced the US Constitution even though this is temporally impossible?

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

ryggesogn2
May 29,
2011

Rank: 1 / 5
(2)

I can acknowledge I made an error recalling
something I read about the French Revolution. What is correct is the French
Revolution spawned socialism and direct democracy leads to tyranny.
Will
Frank defend his support of socialism?

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

Skeptic_Heretic

May 30, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5
(2)

"But there have long been difficulties with the notion that
unemployment causes crime."
Unemployment doesn't necessarily cause
crime, however, employment does reduce crime. If you don't understand how direct
and indirect relationships work, you're too uneducated to understand the
majority of what I said.

The Regulatory State has no legal obligation to prevent anyone
from murdering you. That's is the law, not emotion.
If you can
prove a significant danger, you will receive police assistance. As I said,
you're an idiot, and you're supporting a police state. You're a fascist.

What is correct is the French Revolution spawned socialism and
direct democracy leads to tyranny.

Far from correct.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

ryggesogn2
May 30,
2011

Rank: 1 / 5
(2)

The 'Rights of Man' is not the same as the rights
of men.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

Skeptic_Heretic

May 30, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5
(2)

The 'Rights of Man' is not the same as the rights of
men.

Correct, one is a book title, the other is an aspect of the
western world society.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

ryggesogn2
May 30,
2011

Rank: 1 / 5
(2)

The 'Rights of Man' is not the same as the rights of
men.

Correct, one is a book title, the other is an aspect of
the western world society.

I am not surprised SH wouldn't
understand inherent individual rights.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

Skeptic_Heretic

May 30, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5
(1)

I am not surprised SH wouldn't understand inherent individual
rights.
They don't exist.

Hey, why don't you tell us that
you want to restrict the vote again. That's always good for a laugh, especially
when you start talking about rights.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

ryggesogn2
May 30,
2011

Rank: 1 / 5
(2)

Which means SH does not accept the Declaration of
Independence. By not acknowledging inherent rights SH can then believe in his
socialist Regulatory State.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

ryggesogn2
May 30,
2011

Rank: 1 / 5
(2)

Only 5 people get to vote on controlling the
internet in the USA for hundreds of millions of people. Those hundred of
millions of people don't get to vote for the FCC commissioners or get to vote to
kick them off.
A fine example of SH's Regulatory State.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

ryggesogn2
May 30,
2011

Rank: 1 / 5
(2)

The US restricts the vote to citizens 18 and older.
Except in some 'progressives' areas, the dead can vote, non-citizens can vote
and some can vote more than once.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

ryggesogn2
May 30,
2011

Rank: 1 / 5
(2)

Does SH believe in axioms in science?

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

Skeptic_Heretic

May 30, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5
(2)

Which means SH does not accept the Declaration of Independence. By
not acknowledging inherent rights SH can then believe in his socialist
Regulatory State.
The Declaration of Independence establishes a
socialist state, moron. Try reading it.

Except in some 'progressives' areas, the dead can vote,
non-citizens can vote and some can vote more than once.
Go right
ahead and show us a law allowing the dead to vote. More Marjon lies.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

freethinking
May
30, 2011

Rank: 1 / 5
(2)

SH, in Washington State it is well known that the
dead, criminals, criminal aliens, vote more for the democrats than any other
party. Also in Washington state, If the democrats don't have enough votes to win
an election, they keep finding them till they do.

SH are you as stupid as
you sound, or are you on the payroll of the DNC and you repeat their talking
point to perfection.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

hush1

May 30, 2011

Rank: 3 / 5
(2)

showing the outward signs of corruption makes people think you're
powerful.

Birth control:
Showing the meek to "bring it
on".

Sincerely,
your pious Elite

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

Ethelred
May 31,
2011

Rank: 5 / 5
(1)

The 'Rights of Man' is not the same as the rights of men.

Nor can either be protected without laws and governments to enforce
them.

Ethelred

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

IMRight
May 31, 2011

Rank: not rated yet

Breaking wind does make you more powerfull. This
fact filled post proves it.

I love to read the Bible in the
morning
That wonderful section on how to treat slaves
And the part the
tells me when it is OK to murder everyone in a village
Its a wonderful
education on how I will act in Somalia
On the pirate ship Atlas
Jerked
Right after I quit being a socialist politician
And move to Somalia
to live on my goverment pension

Marjon the
Troll
From

ttp://blog.catoasylum.so/marjon/truthfortheday.html

A
great site for all the truth all the time. Never an opinion, only facts written
by briliant psychop.. economists who never eat peoples liver. No realy they
never do. Those cuts are always sold on the open market at the Ann Rand Farmers
Market in downtown RandsBurg where laws never get in the way of a good
deal.

With Kind Regards
I. M. [email-masked]

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

ryggesogn2
May 31,
2011

Rank: 1 / 5
(1)

The 'Rights of Man' is not the same as the rights of men.

Nor can either be protected without laws and governments to
enforce them.

Ethelred

What kind of laws? Laws that
legalize plunder or laws that prevent injustice by protecting everyone's
individual property rights?

Go right ahead and show us a law allowing the dead to vote.

Why do 'progressives' need laws? When their power is
threatened, laws just get in the way.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

FrankHerbert
May
31, 2011

Rank: not rated yet

Atlas Jerked, LMAO! I'm going to start using that
one! Thanks!

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

ryggesogn2
May 31,
2011

Rank: 1 / 5
(2)

Still, no defense of socialism from Frank or
SH.
They must agree it IS indefensible.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

FrankHerbert
May
31, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5
(1)

Well sure we could show you examples of how it has
worked but you'll just plug your ears and scream "USSR, STALIN, MAO" ad
infinitum. How many times has the French Republic failed? IIRC, the United
States is on its second government.

Where would we be today had we spent
the last century eliminating poverty instead of concentrating wealth in the
hands of the few?

Socialism has been a boogeyman used by the right-wing
to scare "children" since the end of WW2. The power of the USSR was vastly
overstated. When the Cuban Missile Crisis happened, do you know how many ICBMs
USSR had capable of reaching the US? Four. That's it. That's why they were
putting the missiles in Cuba in the first place. It was the only way they could
retaliate in case of nuclear war.

The fact is Socialism can't succeed
currently because Capitalism won't allow it to and anyone with a cursory
knowledge of Marxist literature knows this. Capitalism has to fail first, and we
are quickly approaching this impasse.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

Skeptic_Heretic

Jun 07, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5
(2)

Still, no defense of socialism from Frank or SH.
They must
agree it IS indefensible.

Why would I have to defend the
priciple that some functions of society shouldn't be run for profit? If you
require a defense of it, perhaps it is you who needs to take a look at the
society in which you live. Do you think the court system should be privatized?
The military? The police?

When you dissolve the state, you dissolve the
only protectorate of your rights. Don't think so? Join a Housing Community
Association and tell me how free you feel when you want to paint your
house.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

ryggesogn2
Jun 07,
2011

Rank: 1 / 5
(3)

Join a Housing Community Association and tell me how free you feel
when you want to paint your house.

I don't feel free, but it
would be my choice to join.

eliminating poverty

When did the war on poverty
end?

do you know how many ICBMs USSR had capable of reaching the US?

I don't believe you, but if true, ONE 500 megaton nuclear
explosion could ruin your day.
Capitalism hasn't failed. It is the only way
socialism is being propped up. The failure in the real estate markets was CAUSED
by socialist policies.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

Skeptic_Heretic

Jun 07, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5
(1)

Capitalism hasn't failed. It is the only way socialism is being
propped up. The failure in the real estate markets was CAUSED by socialist
policies.
Go ahead and tell us which policies those would be. There
was nothing socialist about the housing crash. It was purely profit driven,
that's capitalism.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

ryggesogn2
Jun 07,
2011

Rank: 1 / 5
(3)

nothing socialist about the housing crash.

It is
when the govt is guaranteeing and buying bad mortgages.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

Skeptic_Heretic

Jun 07, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5
(1)

nothing socialist about the housing crash.

It is
when the govt is guaranteeing and buying bad mortgages.
That was an
act of investment in sub-prime mortgages, it was a profit driven decision. A bad
decision, but still profit driven. That would make it capitalist.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

ryggesogn2
Jun 07,
2011

Rank: 1 / 5
(3)

Govt purchases and guarantees of mortgages were not
profit motivated. They were politically motivated by the Community Reinvestment
Act forcing banks to lend to bad credit risks.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

Skeptic_Heretic

Jun 07, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5
(1)

Govt purchases and guarantees of mortgages were not profit
motivated. They were politically motivated by the Community Reinvestment Act
forcing banks to lend to bad credit risks.

No, the investment by
Fannie and Fredie into sub-primes was driven by the imaginary profits recorded
and implied by the banking industry.

If you're going to try to debate a
topic, you might want to actually know about it. Or in this case, pay attention
to the very things you, yourself, have said on the topic.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

ryggesogn2
Jun 07,
2011

Rank: 1 / 5
(3)

"RESEARCH SHOWED that the turning point came in
1992, with the enactment by Congress of what were called "affordable housing
goals" for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."
"From the beginning, Fannie and
Freddie's congressional charters required them to buy only mortgages that would
be acceptable to institutional investors -- in other words, prime mortgages."
{Not very free}
"The 1992 affordable housing goals required that, of all
mortgages Fannie and Freddie bought in any year, at least 30 percent had to be
loans made to borrowers who were at or below the median income in the places
where they lived. Over succeeding years, the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) increased this requirement, first to 42 percent in 1995, to 50
percent in 2000, and finally to 55 percent in 2007. "

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/05/13/the-true-story-of-the-financia/1

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

ryggesogn2
Jun 07,
2011

Rank: 1 / 5
(3)

"But this was not by any means the full extent of
the problem. HUD took Congress's enactment of the affordable housing goals as an
expression of a congressional policy to reduce underwriting standards so that
low-income borrowers would have greater access to mortgage credit. As outlined
in my dissent, by tightening the affordable housing goals, HUD put Fannie and
Freddie into competition with the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), a
government agency with an explicit mission to provide credit to low-income
borrowers, and with subprime lenders such as Countrywide, that had pledged to
reduce underwriting standards in order to make more mortgage credit available to
low-income borrowers. Moreover, all these organizations were joined by insured
banks and S&Ls, which as noted above were required under the CRA to make
mortgage credit available to borrowers who are at or below 80 percent of the
median income in the areas where they live."
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/05/13/the-true-st

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

ryggesogn2
Jun 07,
2011

Rank: 1 / 5
(3)

"CHARLOTTE - First Union Capital Markets Corp. and
Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. have priced a $384.6 million offering of securities
backed by Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) loans - marking the industry's first
public securitization of CRA loans."
"CRA loans are loans targeted to low and
moderate income borrowers and neighborhoods under the Community Reinvestment Act
of 1977.

""First Union is committed to promoting home ownership in
traditionally underserved markets through a comprehensive line of competitive
and flexible affordable mortgage products. This transaction enables us to
continue to aggressively serve those markets."

The $384.6 million in
senior certificates are guaranteed by Freddie Mac and have an implied "AAA"
rating."
https://www.wachovia.com/foundation/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=dde12e3d3471f110VgnVCM200000627d6fa2RCRD&vgnextfmt=default&key_guid=52e84a86591eb110VgnVCM100000ca0d1872RCRD

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

Skeptic_Heretic

Jun 08, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5
(2)

And? All of your little snippets there are showing
profit incentive, ie: capitalism.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

ryggesogn2
Jun 08,
2011

Rank: 1 / 5
(3)

What profit?
Fannie and Freddie are REQUIRED to
buy certain mortgages by Congress.
Maybe that's why they have LOST billions
had have bailed out by taxpayers.
The only way banks could make any profit
was to securitize the mortgages and sell them off. But banks were forced by CRA
to make the mortgage in the first place.
Trying make a profit by responding
to govt mandates is not capitalistic.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

Skeptic_Heretic

Jun 08, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5
(2)

What profit?
Fannie and Freddie are REQUIRED to buy certain
mortgages by Congress.
Go ahead and give us the section and line
that casts this regulation. It doesn't exist, you're listening to idiots on the
radio again.

Maybe that's why they have LOST billions had have bailed out by
taxpayers.
No, that'd be about as far from accurate as can be.

The only way banks could make any profit was to securitize the
mortgages and sell them off.
Right, and since they'd take the docs
on at a cost, then inflate it and pass it to another bank, the Capitalist system
created fake money.

But banks were forced by CRA to make the mortgage in the first
place.
No they weren't. They were forced to make a certain
percentage of loans to local communities. If they didn't want to take on the
risk, they could do less loan business.

Trying make a profit by responding to govt mandates is not
capitalistic.
Trying to make a profit by subverting mandates is.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

ryggesogn2
Jun 08,
2011

Rank: 1 / 5
(3)

"Notwithstanding any other provision of this
section, during the 2-year period beginning on January 1, 1993, the annual
target under this section for low- and moderate-income mortgage purchases for
each enterprise shall be 30 percent of the total number of dwelling units
financed by mortgage purchases of the enterprise."
"The special affordable
housing goals established under paragraphs (1) and (2) shall provide that, of
mortgages on single family housing that are purchased and contribute to the
achievement of such goals

(i) 45 percent shall be mortgages of low-income
families who live in census tracts in which the median income does not exceed 80
percent of the area median income; and
(ii) 55 percent shall be mortgages of
very low-income families. "
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Housing_and_Community_Development_Act_of_1992/Title_XIII/Subtitle_A/Part_2/Subpart_B#Subpart_B

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

Skeptic_Heretic

Jun 08, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5
(1)

The entire act you cite depends on percentage of
total business.

Let's say I run Physorg bank, and I want to make home
loans.

This bill, that you cite, states that if I make 10 million dollars
in loans, 30% of that amount must be to the local community to prevent the
creation of underserved districts.

So if I make 10 million in loans, 3
million must be to "underserved" demographics.

If I want to do 100
million in loans, to make greater profit, I must assume an equally large risk by
extending 30 million in loans to underserved demographics.

So If I'm a
greedy cunt, I'll bankrupt my organization.

Guess what happened, Mr.
Capitalist, the bankers proved themselves to be a bunch of greedy cunts.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

Ethelred
Jun 08,
2011

Rank: 5 / 5
(1)

So If I'm a greedy cunt, I'll bankrupt my organization.

I think that remark counts as sexist. Greedy bastards is
not sexist. Shits is also not
sexist.

Idiots
Marjons
Morons
Retards
Dumbfucks
Assholes
Bleeding
vile rapacious antihuman monsters

None of those are
sexist.

Prick
Dick
Cunt
Snatch
Boob
Breast
Bristol yes
bristol
Bitch
and for those that know what the words actually
mean
Putz
Schmuck and hordes of other Yiddish words

Those are
sexists as only one of the usual two sexes is equipped with them.

Barring
guys that have screwed up genetics. I am not aware of any XX women with a penis
but there are XY people that haven't got the normal set. Even then the above
words would still be sexually based and thus potentially sexist.

This is
not a suggestion that you should never be other than PC but may I recommend
using gender neutral non PC insults such as I listed above.

Despite that
I am not going to give up Putz and Schmuck as the implied meanings are
useful.

Ethelred

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

ryggesogn2
Jun 09,
2011

Rank: 1 / 5
(3)

"Democratic power brokers stoked the housing bubble
and turned a blind eye to the increasingly rampant corruption and incompetence
at Fannie Mae and the associated predatory lenders who sheltered under its
umbrella; core Democratic ideas may well be at fault."
"What is especially
shocking in this story is that the higher up and more powerful people are
usually the most venal and corrupt. Low level researchers and bureaucrats are
constantly raising questions and preparing devastating reports that expose the
flawed premises behind Fannie Maes policies. They are being constantly slapped
down by the well connected and the well paid. The American establishment does
not have the necessary moral strength and intellectual acuity to run the affairs
of this country;"
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/06/07/fanniegate-gamechanger-for-the-gop/

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

Skeptic_Heretic

Jun 09, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5
(3)

When your source link starts with "blogs...." it
can easily be ignored. Get yourself some actual data, rather than some idiot's
opinion that matches your own.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

ryggesogn2
Jun 09,
2011

Rank: 1 / 5
(3)

When govt fails its most basic job, security,
others step up.
"The Guardian Angels will be doing what Chicago Police
Superintendent Garry McCarthy is not doing; stepping up patrols in the Gold
Coast and Streeterville neighborhoods following an increase in mob
attacks."
http://wlsam.com/Article.asp?id=2207732&spid=
And don't
forget all the non-federal govt activity to secure the US-Mexican
border.

SH, why don't you provide ANY support for your Regulatory State.
And don't forget to follow your own strict standards and provide sources.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

ryggesogn2
Jun 09,
2011

Rank: 1 / 5
(3)

When your source link starts with "blogs...." it can easily be
ignored. Get yourself some actual data, rather than some idiot's opinion that
matches your own.

When the source is SH it is quite easy to
ignore as it is just some idiot's opinion.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

Skeptic_Heretic

Jun 09, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5
(3)

SH, why don't you provide ANY support for your Regulatory State

I pay my taxes.

And don't forget to follow your own strict standards and provide
sources.
You want a copy of my tax return? What are you looking for
proof of? That public police departments exist? That public firemen show up to
fires? That mail gets delivered?

When the source is SH it is quite easy to ignore as it is just
some idiot's opinion.
How does it feel to continually lose
arguments to someone you consider an idiot?

When govt fails its most basic job, security, others step
up.

You're the one against socialism, police, fire, and military
are exact representations of socialism.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

ryggesogn2
Jun 09,
2011

Rank: 1 / 5
(3)

What does SH expect from a Regulatory State,
individual prosperity or communal mediocrity?

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

Skeptic_Heretic

Jun 09, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5
(3)

What does SH expect from a Regulatory State, individual prosperity
or communal mediocrity?

Neither. I expect a fair market
place based on meritocracy and compliance to necessary regulations for the
protection of the public. Not exactly a wild proposition.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

ryggesogn2
Jun 09,
2011

Rank: 1 / 5
(3)

What does SH expect from a Regulatory State, individual
prosperity or communal mediocrity?

Neither. I expect a
fair market place based on meritocracy and compliance to necessary regulations
for the protection of the public. Not exactly a wild proposition.

That's not what you are getting now, because of the Regulatory
State, yet you continue to support and defend the Regulatory State.
So once
again, SH must be lying.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

Skeptic_Heretic

Jun 09, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5
(3)

That's not what you are getting now, because of the Regulatory
State,
No, that would be due to the machinations of corporate
tampering with the regulations through proxy voting and buying politicians.

yet you continue to support and defend the Regulatory State.

The politicians aren't the state, one would expect you of all
people to understand that.

So once again, SH must be lying.
Exactly what is the
imaginary lie you're claiming now?

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

ryggesogn2
Jun 09,
2011

Rank: 1 / 5
(3)

No, that would be due to the machinations of corporate tampering
with the regulations through proxy voting and buying politicians.

This is a consequence of your Regulatory State.
If the
Regulatory State had limited power, limited authority, say the RS couldn't
coerce banks to loan money to bad credit risks, all businesses associated with
housing and mortgages could not buy influence with any politician because the
govt would not have the authority.
The socialists response is the RS would
work IFF you had 'good/perfect' people in charge of the state.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

Skeptic_Heretic

Jun 09, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5
(2)

This is a consequence of your Regulatory State.
If the
Regulatory State had limited power, limited authority, say the RS couldn't
coerce banks to loan money to bad credit risks, all businesses associated with
housing and mortgages could not buy influence with any politician because the
govt would not have the authority.
The socialists response is the RS would
work IFF you had 'good/perfect' people in charge of the state.
You
seem to forget, the state is the enforcer of all contracts. If you limit their
power over corporations, contracts become invalid, creating a new form of
monarchy based on marketting.

So what's you're defense of a stateless
plutocracy, ryggesogn?

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

ryggesogn2
Jun 10,
2011

Rank: 1 / 5
(3)

You seem to forget, the state is the enforcer of all contracts

The state can be the enforcer of contracts. It is not a
requirement.
However, enforcing contracts, protecting private property, IS a
legitimate function of govt as I have stated often.
In SH's Regulatory State
all property belongs to the state, including the subjects/serfs.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

ryggesogn2
Jun 10,
2011

Rank: 1 / 5
(3)

Under the current Obama regime, the govt is
refusing to enforce contracts.
Banks are restricted from foreclosing on
properties.

A free market process for enforcing contracts is the credit
score.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

Ethelred
Jun 10,
2011

Rank: 5 / 5
(3)

The state can be the enforcer of contracts. It is not a
requirement.
Of course Tr. Marjon prefers a full starboard
broadside from the Somali Pirate Ship Atlas Jerked SPS. Full freedom to ignore
or accept contracts based on who had the bigger guns. No vile commie nazi
progressive fascist pinko RATIONALIST gummint is going to tell the Capt. of the
Atlas Jerked SPS how contracts should be handled.

'If you don't shoot one
your business partners now and then people will think you are weak' Said Capt.
Marjon as he cleaned his wheelock pistol. 'Without useless commie gummints
butting in we Capitalist Captains can contract to do any damn thing we please as
contracts are all that Manly Men need amongst each other.'

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

Ethelred
Jun 10,
2011

Rank: 5 / 5
(3)

Capt. Marjon continued 'Of course a contract and
gun will get you more than just a contract. Some silly pencil necked idiots came
to sign a contract without being fully armed like Manly Men should so we have
them down in the hold and will be selling them at a fair market price tomorrow
at the AnnRand Slave dock in downtown AnnRandFantasyLand Somalia.'

Fair
and true reporting of actual facts from
http://blogs.the-somalia-accountasea.com/wanker/2011/06/07/truth-for-the-rightwingnutretainerclips/

Ethelred

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

Skeptic_Heretic

Jun 10, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5
(2)

You seem to forget, the state is the enforcer of all contracts

The state can be the enforcer of contracts. It is not a
requirement.
If the state does not do it, then you have no
unilateral enforcement. You effectively open the doors to enforcement for hire,
creating a society in which those without a majority control of force do not
receive their property. You've defiled your own ideals.

However, enforcing contracts, protecting private property, IS a
legitimate function of govt as I have stated often.
That would be
socialism. Defend your socialism.

In SH's Regulatory State all property belongs to the state,
including the subjects/serfs.
No, and if you'd like to create an
interesting argument I'd be happy to hear it, but as so far you've done nothing
but slander and lie.

A free market process for enforcing contracts is the credit score.

LOL, no it isn't, idiot.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

ryggesogn2
Jun 10,
2011

Rank: 1 / 5
(3)

If the state does not do it, then you have no unilateral
enforcement.

Some people still practice what is called
self-govt. They shake hands on a deal and their word is enough. The contract is
self enforced.
That is done because they want to have a good reputation in
'society'.
Somalia is ridiculed here but they enforce contracts and justice
with their clans. If members of two clans are in dispute and mutually agreed to
third clan is selected as arbiters. Verdicts are enforced within clans.

You effectively open the doors to enforcement for hire,

The current regime is doing that by failing to do their job of
protecting the border and invalidating contracts. FDR did this as
well.
Socialism is state control of property. Respecting and protecting
private property is NOT socialism.
SH supports the govt control (ownership)
of the internet.
A bad credit score limits your opportunities to obtain
another contract to borrow money.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

Skeptic_Heretic

Jun 10, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5
(2)

Some people still practice what is called self-govt. They shake
hands on a deal and their word is enough. The contract is self enforced.

The would be a lack of enforcement due to a lack of need of
enforcement. You don't need the government to enforce a contract when all
parties adhere to it, you need it when they don't, idiot.

That is done because they want to have a good reputation in
'society'.

Yeah, why don't you tell us what percentage of the
population follows the golden rule, after all, you refuse to do it.

Somalia is ridiculed here but they enforce contracts and justice
with their clans. If members of two clans are in dispute and mutually agreed
to third clan is selected as arbiters. Verdicts are enforced within
clans.

Uh no, they shoot the shit out of each other most of the
time.

Socialism is state control of property.
No it isn't. Go
read a book.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

ryggesogn2
Jun 11,
2011

Rank: 1 / 5
(3)

Now the govt is abrogating contracts, not enforcing
them.

Following the Golden Rule doesn't matter to Experian. Maintaining
your contracts does.

Read a book about Somalia.
Read Socialism by von
Mises, The Road to Serfdom, The Law, all define socialism quite
well.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

Skeptic_Heretic

Jun 11, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5
(2)

Now the govt is abrogating contracts, not enforcing them.

What, by forcing the banks to adhere to the paperwork
requirements of their contracts? Why do you side with companies that are
performing actions contrary to their contracts with citizens?

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

ryggesogn2
Jun 11,
2011

Rank: 1 / 5
(3)

"Many foreclosed homes lack a marketable title. In
other words, nobody knows for certain who owns them. It's a by-product of
massive securitization, with now-collapsed secondary mortgage giants Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac serving as conduits between lenders and investors. Court
documents in a number of states show that much of the paperwork transferring
ownership of individual mortgages to investor-controlled financial pools has
been lost, ignored or even forged. "
"If the basic principles of property law
have been violated here...it may be extremely difficult to fix,"
"a
foreclosure ban effectively would sever legal obligations between borrower and
lender, providing distressed borrowers with the equivalent of amnesty. "
"A
mortgage, in the end, is a contract. Eliminating liability for upholding a
contract is the antithesis of sound law and sound economics."
http://nlpc.org/stories/2010/10/20/why-government-shouldnt-block-home-foreclosures

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

ryggesogn2
Jun 11,
2011

Rank: 1 / 5
(3)

So the govt created the mess with securitized
mortgages and CRA and now prevents contracts from being enforced.
What a fine
product of SH's Regulatory State!
Another fine example of socialist planning
are the unintended consequences brought about by the incomplete knowledge of the
planners.
I liken it to the squeezing of a balloon. Govt squeezes with
regulations and a different part of the balloon is distorted.
What a tangled
web the 'progressives' weave....

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

ryggesogn2
Jun 11,
2011

Rank: 1 / 5
(3)

"Despite aggressive homeownership promotion by
Washington, the housing market remains in recession. Mortgage applications have
reached their lowest point in more than a dozen years despite fixed-rate,
30-year mortgage interest rates now having dropped below 4.5 percent. Home
occupancy costs have fallen from around 25 percent to 15 percent of family
income. Median existing home price nationwide fell from $217,900 to $166,400
during 2007 through First Quarter 2010."
"The ongoing mortgage industry
rescue, whether focused on the supply or the demand side, reflects a lack of
understanding of the natural reality that eliminating the consequences of risky
behavior unwittingly encourages similar behavior. "
http://nlpc.org/stories/2010/10/04/obama-mortgage-modification-bailout-distorts-housing-market

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

ryggesogn2
Jun 11,
2011

Rank: 1 / 5
(3)

"By 2007 HUD stipulated that at least 55 percent of
loans acquired by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had to meet low- and
moderate-income affordability standards. The two GSEs complied rather than lose
advantages contained in their respective congressional charters, such as
exemption from state and local taxes and a $2.25 billion credit line from the
Treasury Department. In addition, Congress and OFHEO (superseded in 2008 by the
Federal Housing Finance Agency) allowed them to be undercapitalized. The GSE
figure averaged about $1 in capital for every $20 in assets, whereas the
commercial bank standard was $1 per $12. Safety and soundness took a back seat
to raising the homeownership rate among minorities to the level of "Anglos." And
if the risk of failure was higher, the unwritten rule of "too big to fail" still
applied. Washington would come to the rescue in a pinch."
http://nlpc.org/stories/2010/05/27/data-show-federal-policy-triggered-mortgage-meltdown

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

ryggesogn2
Jun 11,
2011

Rank: 1 / 5
(3)

"Crony capitalists love to take foolish risks,
dependent as they are on government's rigged markets, often to the point that
they would not be able to cope with free markets if they do." This rigging
inevitably moves credit allocation away from risk-based approval criteria,
making future bailouts likely.
http://nlpc.org/stories/2010/05/27/data-show-federal-policy-triggered-mortgage-meltdown
So
many here say they are opposed to crony 'capitalism' and blame the corporation
not the govt that enables it.
Why?
I suspect is ultimately comes down to
the arrogance and hubris of those who believe they can control.
AGWites must
believe humans cause GCC so they can empower themselves to 'save' the world and
be powerful.
Most religions teach humility and I suspect this is what
motivates many to be atheists. These atheists feel empowered, banishing
humility.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

ryggesogn2
Jun 11,
2011

Rank: 1 / 5
(3)

A book to read:

"Perhaps the most harmful
misconception ever held is that of legal positivism, that rulers must conceive
and enforce laws. Michael Van Notten, a Dutch lawyer who married into the
Samaron clan, living with them for the last twelve years of his life, demolishes
this position at the same time offering a positive prescription on how to
achieve economic development under a system of customary law while still living
in a statist world. In his book, Law of the Somalis, Van Notten first describes
how customary law operates in Somalia. Then he contrasts it with natural law.
Finally, he describes how economic development could occur within current legal
environment in Somalia."
http://athousandnations.com/2011/04/21/the-law-of-the-somalis/

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

Skeptic_Heretic

Jun 11, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5
(2)

So the govt created the mess with securitized mortgages and CRA
and now prevents contracts from being enforced.

You can simply
scroll up to see the prior refutation of the CRA being involved. Once again,
you're supporting banks, which are the architects of the current economic
crisis. One would think that you of all people would have a hard time seeing the
merit of organizations that can promise to protect your money, then turn around
and tell you that you can't have it on withdrawl.

Beyond that, on the
Somalia topic: Are you really going to suggest we adopt laws that codify honor
killing?

Seriously, how far off the reservation can you roam?

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

FrankHerbert
Jun
11, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5
(2)

Wow holy quote bombs batman! I guess I know how the
Iraqis felt when we dropped all those pamphlets on them.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

ryggesogn2
Jun 11,
2011

Rank: 1 / 5
(3)

"Jamie Dimon, chairman and chief executive officer
of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM), said the bank probably wont keep mortgages on
its books under a plan requiring the largest lenders to hold extra
capital.

The proposal will distort U.S. markets, what consumers pay for
credit and the types of risk banks would be willing to retain on their balance
sheets, Dimon said today at a Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. investor conference
in New York.

Its got consequences that I dont think theyve really thought
about, Dimon said of regulators. "
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-02/dimon-to-shun-mortgage-ownership-under-proposed-capital-rules.html
Another
consequence of the Regulatory State.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

ryggesogn2
Jun 11,
2011

Rank: 1 / 5
(3)

"As detailed below, beginning in the late
1980s--but particularly during the Clinton administration--the CRA was used to
pressure banks into making loans they would not otherwise have made and to adopt
looser lending standards that would make mortgage loans possible for individuals
who could not meet the down payment and other standards that had previously been
applied routinely by banks and other housing lenders. The same pressures were
brought to bear on the GSEs, which adapted their underwriting standards so they
could accept the loans made under the CRA"
http://www.aei.org/outlook/29015

"I hope
by next year we'll have abolished Fannie and Freddie," he said. Remarkable. And
he went on to say that "it was a great mistake to push lower-income people into
housing they couldn't afford and couldn't really handle once they had it." He
then added, "I had been too sanguine about Fannie and Freddie." Barney
Frank
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/08/21/barney_frank_comes_home_t

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

Skeptic_Heretic

Jun 12, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5
(2)

As detailed below, beginning in the late 1980s--but particularly
during the Clinton administration
Read: during Republican
congresses.

The same pressures were brought to bear on the GSEs

When republicans attempted to privatize them.

You're a
dolt.

report
abuse

Current rank

1

2

3

4

5

print

email

save as
pdf

add to
blog

bookmark

send
feedback

font
size

Rank :

1

2

3

4

5

4.6 /5 (8 votes)

Tags

social behavior, personality, smile, people, power

Related Stories

Partners who had
powerful faces in college lead profitable law firms Oct 22,
2010 | not
rated yet | 0

Facial features
predictor of future success, says researcher Dec 01,
2010 | not
rated yet | 0

EU tightens rules for
chemical industry Oct 11,
2006 | not
rated yet | 0

Judge not lest ye be
judged? Researchers explore 'moral hypocrisy' in powerful people Dec 29,
2009 | not
rated yet | 0

Briefs: India reviews rule
on telecom expatriates Jan 17,
2006 | not
rated yet | 0

Featured

Video

Last comments

Popular

Most shared

Partners

Green
tea reduces cholesterol risk 4 hours
ago | not
rated yet | 0

Is living
forever in the future? Jul 06,
2011 | 4.4 / 5 (13) | 53

True
love acts as a painkiller: study Jul 05, 2011 | 4 / 5 (4) | 0

No
link found between cured meat and pancreatic cancer Jul 05,
2011 | 1 / 5 (1) | 0

Talk
softly but carry a tiny stick: Stroke prevention and recovery with
nanotube-delivered siRNA Jul 05,
2011 | 4.5 / 5 (2) | 0

more news

More news stories

Children's
personalities linked to their chemical response to stress

Is your kid a "dove" – cautious and submissive when confronting new
environments, or perhaps you have a "hawk" – bold and assertive in unfamiliar
settings?

Psychology &
Psychiatry 8 hours
ago | 5 / 5 (4) | 0 |

Sexual
orientation and gender conforming traits in women are genetic

Sexual orientation and 'gender conformity' in women are both genetic traits,
according to new research from Queen Mary, University of London.

Psychology &
Psychiatry 18 hours
ago | 5 / 5 (5) | 3 |

Children
who seldom smile, laugh or hug a parent might be at risk for
depression

(Medical Xpress) -- A new study from the University of Michigan and the
University of Pittsburgh shows that even if a child isn't crying, frowning or
displaying other negative emotions on a consistent basis, ...

Psychology &
Psychiatry 3 hours
ago | not rated
yet | 0 |

Teaching the
neurons to meditate

In the late 1990s, Jane Anderson was working as a landscape architect. That
meant she didn't work much in the winter, and she struggled with seasonal
affective disorder in the dreary Minnesota winter months. ...

Psychology &
Psychiatry 18 hours
ago | 5 / 5 (10) | 1 |

The
brain co-opts the body to promote pro-social behavior

The human brain may simulate physical sensations to prompt introspection,
capitalizing on moments of high emotion to promote moral behavior, according to
a USC researcher.

Psychology &
Psychiatry Jul 07,
2011 | 3.8 / 5 (5) | 1 |

How memory is read out in the brain: MB-V2 nerve cells enable the
read-out of associative memories

What happens if you cannot recall your memory correctly? You are able to
associate and store the name and face of a person, yet you might be unable to
remember them when you meet that person. In this example, ...

Neuroscience
26 minutes
ago | not rated
yet | 0 |

Federal report shows drop in adolescent birth rate

(Medical Xpress) -- The adolescent birth rate declined for the second
consecutive year, preterm births declined for the third consecutive year,
adolescent injury deaths declined, and fewer 12th graders binge drank, according
...

Health
23 minutes
ago | not rated
yet | 0 |

The Medical Minute: July is eye injury prevention month

Summer is here and from lawn care and household projects to summer sports,
there are plenty of things we find to keep ourselves busy during these hot
months. And the best thing about July … the fireworks! ...

Health
31 minutes
ago | not rated
yet | 0

Heart disease and stroke tied to national income

(Medical Xpress) -- An analysis of heart disease and stroke statistics
collected in 192 countries by the World Health Organization (WHO) shows that the
relative burden of the two diseases varies widely from ...

Health
32 minutes
ago | not rated
yet | 0

Researchers closing in on safe treatment for parasitic
diseases

With the help of another $2 million in funding from the Bill & Melinda
Gates Foundation, researchers are moving closer to setting up human clinical
trials for a reformulated drug that could be the linchpin ...

Diseases
53 minutes
ago | not rated
yet | 0

Researchers, clinicians seek progress on vasospasm

(Medical Xpress) -- The commonly heard phrase "complications from stroke” can
cover a wide variety of medical issues, including seizures and swelling of the
brain.

Diseases
23 minutes
ago | not rated
yet | 0

top

Home

Search

Help

About
us

PhysOrg Account

Sponsored Account

Newsletter

RSS feeds

© Medical Xpress 2011 powered by PHYSorg.com     Privacy Policy | Terms of Use

>