Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 491022)

Why increase the ranks of hungry people? The super rich wouldn't go hungry. The whole middle class would.

It would have been nice if the electorate was smart enough to understand what happened and decided to completely redo our financial system by electing people who would carry that out. But that wouldn't be fair. What if they were the rich ones?

TM

Originally Posted by taxwonk (Post 491021)

I don't think the argument was or is about saying that there are some Muslims doing bad shit and teaching others that it's okay to do bad shit in the name of Allah. That is crystal clear and undisputable. What I was picking up in the discourse, and if I was misinterpreting, I'm sorry and I'll take it all back, was the suggestion that there was something inherent in Islam, unique to any other religious following, that was encouraging or nurturing that teaching.

Again, if I was reading too much into what anyone said, I'm sorry.

Originally Posted by taxwonk (Post 491024)

I may be wrong, but I think if the banking system had collapsed, it would have been the super rich that would have been fucked. The Fed could have come in the day after the collapse, picked up the good pieces, pulled them together, and sold that off to someone else, subject to a lot more supervision.

I don't know too many middle class folks who were over-invested in CDOs and credit default swaps. I don't think most of them would have felt a thing. But that's easy for me to say, because it didn't happen. I acknowledge that.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 491011)

I was thinking about short term prejudice, like in reaction to some event, and whether a blurted out statement is forgivable or, ignorable maybe-

October 2001 I saw David Sedaris reading stories. He was living in Paris at the time and talking about how on edge he felt in a city with a large Islamic population as the US was gearing up to do war. He said "Frankly, I think we should turn the entire Middle East into a parking lot." If you don't know his work, this was not in keeping with his normal views.

A few years I saw him read again and by then he had dropped his original position and was hating on W for keeping wars going. This was much more in line with what I'd have expected from him.

And on one level, after 9/11 you might forgive, or understand, an extremely nasty statement as not indicative of a person's feelings. But on another level even fantasizing about mass genocide of entire populations seems to evidence a basic hate that might be normally kept hidden.

I still read his books. Should I?

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 491010)

Today, and in recent years, violent extremists that find their inspiration and justification in religion are largely Muslim.

Originally Posted by taxwonk (Post 491020)

Well, as long as you realize it, that's what's important, Bubbelleh.

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 491027)

I don't think that's how it would work. If the next bank fails, there's a run on banks. If multiple banks fail, the money is gone, not just the CDOs and credit default swaps. The banks used your money to gamble on those products. And the FDIC wasn't created to insure every person's money from every single bank. And if the US system goes down, the world system goes down.

TM

Originally Posted by taxwonk (Post 491024)

I may be wrong, but I think if the banking system had collapsed, it would have been the super rich that would have been fucked. The Fed could have come in the day after the collapse, picked up the good pieces, pulled them together, and sold that off to someone else, subject to a lot more supervision.

I don't know too many middle class folks who were over-invested in CDOs and credit default swaps. I don't think most of them would have felt a thing. But that's easy for me to say, because it didn't happen. I acknowledge that.

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 491030)

I truly hope and will assume that was a jest. I fear it wasn't, but such is life.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 491033)

It's not the first order effects, its the shockwaves it causes. When Uncle Wayne's Hardware closes shop because it no longer line of credit and can't pay suppliers and employees, that's not going to hurt the super rich.

Those with a cushion would be fine. Those on the margins lose jobs and homes.

Originally Posted by taxwonk (Post 491016)

Gang rapes and mutilation are as much a part of the ISIS arsenal as anyone else's. They are practicing savagery on a massive scale and that is a big component of their strategy. They are inhuman savages undeserving of any quarter, much as they offer none to their opponents.

Don't let a good point get dragged down by offering any sort of support for those assholes.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 491037)

I offer no support to ISIS of course and you know that.

What do you think of Assad? He's a secularist, of course, but there are many people right now stuck between Assad and ISIS, with a choice of where to seek safety.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 491029)

Statements like this lead to all the counterexamples. See above.

Originally Posted by taxwonk (Post 491039)

It's easy for me to say, because I am thousands of miles away, and will stay safe, but between the two, I'd choose Assad for now. Once ISIS is dealt with, there will be a chance to take care of Assad. If they make the other choice, they will never dislodge ISIS.