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 (146614)	11/10/2008 11:36:16 AM
From: TimF	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

So you think that Fannie and Freddie should have a mandate to shrink the housing market? Where do you get these bizarre questions? Intentionally trying to shrink the housing markets would also be intervention in the markets. I don't think they should exist in the form that they did. Do you think they should get into the business of making cars or knitting sweaters? They probably shouldn't exist at all, but if they can make a profit making cars, or buying mortgages, than fine. But there should be no government mandate that they perform any particular activity, nor should there be any explicit or implicit guarantee of their activities, unless perhaps they decided to become ordinary banks, in which case they would be connected to deposit insurance. Again, you keep ignoring the fact that other PRIVATE companies got into the same trouble as Fannie and Freddie. Not ignoring it at all, just saying that Fannie and Freddie added to the problem. OK, so how about I pay you to go pretend there's a bomb on a plane. Is that illegal? Again with the bizarre irrelevant questions. Of course its illegal. Its illegal to threaten others with deadly harm (and saying you have a bomb on a plane is implying a threat), and its illegal to conspire with others (whether or not you pay them) to commit a crime, such as making a deadly threat (without justification, I'm not talking about a potential self defense situation) There is nothing in the Constitution about professional Lobbyists. There is the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. That's lobbying. More generally just free speech, even without that specific clause, would support the right to lobby. So you must agree that Bush has repeatedly violated the 1st amendment by limiting free speech away from his podium and sequestering it a couple of miles away in designated 'free speech' zones. That's a borderline case. Its trying to restrict the time, place, and manner of speech to prevent disruption. Allowing disruption limits the free speech of others, but I think that both the setting and the enforcement of such limits in this case has been too heavy handed. Then it is also unconstitutional for the government to limit individual and corporate contributions to campaigns. Another borderline case, but I don't like pushing the borders on restricting free speech. Why is yelling fire in a crowded building NOT abridging the freedom of speech? Do you mean "why is forbidding someone from yelling fire in a crowded building NOT abridging the freedom of speech?" Because its forbidding a dangerous fraud. Even non dangerous fraud can be forbidden without violating freedom of speech in general, let alone the actual 1st amendment.