tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5099635.post6543954590666917541..comments2023-12-21T04:41:43.537-05:00Comments on Jesus' General: So Many Must Sacrifice for So FewUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5099635.post-34130887973406139632009-05-07T23:08:00.000-04:002009-05-07T23:08:00.000-04:00First of all, letting these companies fail would h...First of all, letting these companies fail would have prevented any of these problems. Government intervention, with Obama mediating some "deal," not only goes against what our structure of law determines to be the proper course of action (bankruptcy), it creates problems such as these. Now the government is put in the situation of choosing the "winner" and the "loser". And, not surprisingly, Obama has chosen an unpopular group (investors) to demonize from his bully pulpit since he's not been able to dictate who the "winner" will be. <br /><br />Aside from the obvious statism here, this is demagougery 101. This is what these people do, and Obama does it well. Now people really believe that it is because of some "greedy hedgefund" that Chrysler is in bankruptcy. It couldn't possibly be because the company failed. It couldn't possibly be that the company would have been in bankruptcy had the government (Bush at the time) not bailed them out. No.<br /><br />Obama, after continuing to prop them up, is able to once again draw upon the populist anger in the country by demonizing "big business".<br /><br />Why would the hedgefund accept what the President wants to dictate to them when they're protected by bankruptcy law? They were under the assumption that their contract was valid when they invested. Should a President be able to undermine that? Regardless of what supposed support Obama grants to the concept of the "rule of law" since Souter declared his retirement, this entire orchestration has undermined the very concept itself.<br /><br />However we shouldn't be surprized at what Obama has done here. This is just a display of his "community organizer" skills. Manipulating people's anger to further his agenda. What can I say though, he is cunning.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5099635.post-83486235208727990842009-05-04T00:07:00.000-04:002009-05-04T00:07:00.000-04:00Cline, I challenge you to show me anywhere in The ...Cline, I challenge you to show me anywhere in The Holy Bible where Jesus said anything about helping the little guy! Of course, this is an empty rhetorical challenge on my part, because I know you're a damned-by-God atheist, so what do YOU know about The Bible?<br /><br />Those of us who are rich, or at least hope to be, know it's a central part of our Faith that God bestows fortune on the worthy. Likewise, He withholds fortune from the unworthy and punishes the wicked. It might not be obvious why this happens, because sometimes the rich guys seem to be right bastards, and the people who get cancer or live in shacks don't seem to deserve that.<br /><br />But God must have His reasons. He <B>HAS</B> to! Because if God didn't reward/punish, then that would mean there is not an Invisible Hand up there in the Sky, stroking some and smashing others. It would mean that things happen by random chance, not under the guidance of an Omnipotent, All-Seeing Wise Guy with a White Beard. It would mean that 2,000 years of pious faith -- even longer if you count those wily Jews -- were a bunch of foolishness! What a crazy thing that would be. So of course it must be incorrect.<br /><br />Nope, Cline, the principle that the greed are blessed by God is central to religion. It would mean that basically every faith is based on ideas that are ludicrous. You'll have plenty of time to ponder that when you are swimming in a lake of fire being poked with pitchforks by red imps with little horns on their head, for all of eternity. However long that is.Bukko Boomerangerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02424677168216647964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5099635.post-27774859422022189962009-05-03T15:16:00.000-04:002009-05-03T15:16:00.000-04:00It's easy to make a case that agressively going af...It's easy to make a case that agressively going after whatever gimmes and loopholes (independent of the spirit or intent of the policy) is moral. I think that there is a moral belief that exploitation of these "opportunities" will more rapidly lead to a libertarian universe of real freedom, as these systems are forced to fail under their own weight.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07810110916503252581noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5099635.post-70835280819847510822009-05-03T12:02:00.000-04:002009-05-03T12:02:00.000-04:00Okay, so, aside from saying “Obama is as bad as Bu...Okay, so, aside from saying “Obama is as bad as Bush,” what, precisely, would Austin Cline do?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5099635.post-57320572003070642532009-05-03T11:32:00.000-04:002009-05-03T11:32:00.000-04:00I think there is also an assumption that if really...I think there is also an assumption that if really important people like bankster execs "fail" something really bad will happen. It is the natural order of things for 6 million people to lose their jobs or millions of people to lose their houses.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16487881659099930783noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5099635.post-46245931529147743792009-05-03T11:01:00.000-04:002009-05-03T11:01:00.000-04:00There's also this latent assumption that money dis...There's also this latent assumption that money distributed by the federal government doesn't really belong to anyone. It's a resource to be exploited like gold in a hillside and every organization that can contrive a way to get at it will do so.Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15126750605069711353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5099635.post-46643604688169319142009-05-03T09:45:00.000-04:002009-05-03T09:45:00.000-04:00So once again, why is the Obama administration cod...<EM>So once again, why is the Obama administration coddling the delusions of these people by rewarding their failures?</EM>You just answered your own question, of course (as you probably know): They are the "owners." Or, if they do not actually hold the titles to all property, they--the banksters, er al--intimately serve the interests of the owners (having developed a taste for shit, they expertly tongue-lave the prostates of their bosses). <br /><br />The "owners" don't 'fail.' Everything is arranged so that they can never be blamed for anything. I mean, you can blame 'em, and throw rhetorical brickbats, and rail at the wind, but the pure, unavoidable facts of the case are that the "owners" are the only ones who matter, the government serves them, and the rest of us are as expendable as a dropped cookie on the floor...Woody (Tokin Librul/Rogue Scholar/ Helluvafella!)https://www.blogger.com/profile/09205896988142798901noreply@blogger.com