Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucky
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
As far as libertarianism being an unrealistic ethos, I think it's just a tad better than totalitarianism don't you? We've seen that 1 play out over and over again, but never a true libertarianesque government that I can think of
|
Look into the early days of the U.S. with the articles of confederation. That way failed almost directly after the revolutionary war. It just isn't stable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucky
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
All those same big banks backed Obama in 2008. In fact, Goldman Sachs was his 2nd largest donor. He still owes them all favors. They're just putting their chips on Romney this time, so they have all bases covered no matter the outcome.
Like I said, 2 masks 1 face. |
This is still staying with a conspiratorial mentality and I refute it again. Although Obama did bail all those big banks out (let's be honest, letting them fail would have been a bigger disaster than more deficit spending), but he proposed a lot of new legislature that pretty much made the business model of Goldman Sachs illegal and so they would no longer be federally insured if they wanted to continue. Dat sauce:
http://www.slate.com/articles/busine...dman_plan.html
Because of this, it would be only rational to conclude that Goldman Sachs switched to backing Romney since such legislation threatens the majority of their business model which should have been criminal in the first place.