Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: geode00 who wrote (146559)	11/8/2008 8:29:28 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 173976

There is an implicit guarantee for other financial institutions which didn't work very well for Lehman. Maybe now there is, in fact it might even be considered explicit, but there was no obvious implicit guarantee before recently. And your ignoring the bigger issue of the company being set up by and run for government purposes. And I don't mean like a government contractor, which could change businesses if it wanted to, but really having its business model and areas of activity set by the government. There are plenty of limits on money. For example, unless you are Elliot Spitzer, it is usually illegal to purchase sex. 1 - It shouldn't be 2 - It isn't illegal to use money in the pursuit of sex, or to get money from others that you think will help you buy a gift or arrange a situation that you think will lead to sex. If we treated money for sex like we treat campaign finance, or lobbying laws, you couldn't borrow money from your friend to go out to some club, or to buy a gift for someone you want to get sexually involved with, without reporting the money to a federal commission. 3 - While we have a natural right to be generally free, including free to have sex, we don't have a direct constitutional right to sex. Free speech, and even specifically the right to lobby government, is not only a natural right but also a constitutional right. And explicitly so, not part of the "emminations of the penumbra" of some part of the constitution. Your chicken statement is still loopy. You haven't given any reason to believe the bailout isn't.