Seeking Alpha

The Europeans are nowhere near a debt solution because they lack "cohesion and courage,"...

The Europeans are nowhere near a debt solution because they lack "cohesion and courage," observes Steven Rattner. It was just another kick the can down the road moment last week, and they're still nowhere near solving any of their problems. With an almost a 1:1 correlation between the euro and the S&P 500, Rattner says he's actually surprised there hasn't been a bigger selloff. (video)
Comments (54)
  • Bouchart
    , contributor
    Comments (793) | Send Message
     
    Europe is nowhere near a debt solution because they lack money.
    14 Dec 2011, 08:13 PM Reply Like
  • EMS
    , contributor
    Comments (582) | Send Message
     
    just wait...
    14 Dec 2011, 08:17 PM Reply Like
  • DettoTheSecond
    , contributor
    Comments (32) | Send Message
     
    END OF WORLD IN 2012 IS OVER-HYPED! NOTHING BAD WILL HAPPEN! BE OPTIMISTIC! BUY STOCKS FOR THE MOST AMAZING BULL RUN OF ALL TIME!
    14 Dec 2011, 11:18 PM Reply Like
  • WMARKW
    , contributor
    Comments (10649) | Send Message
     
    Detto, here's a thumbs down to your bot comment.

     

    ------V--------
    14 Dec 2011, 11:22 PM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3181) | Send Message
     
    SA, you should implement a policy that refrains from printing anything finance related from those that "neither confirm nor deny" but pay millions in penalties. These pieces of horse manure are a big part of the problem in America today.

     

    Steve Rattner bribed government officials to give his fund money to manage at 2/20 and then paid a small percentage of his gain instead of going to prison where he belongs.

     

    When the people rise up its folks like Rattner that will be found at the end of a rope.
    14 Dec 2011, 08:35 PM Reply Like
  • anonymous#12
    , contributor
    Comments (552) | Send Message
     
    "Europeans are nowhere near a debt solution".....

     

    A debt solution for what? To rescue the banking oligarchs like always? To reward the fraud, corruption, and punish the abididing citizens?

     

    Protecting the banking oligarchy, extending and pretending is not a solution, everyone with common sense knows it.
    14 Dec 2011, 08:46 PM Reply Like
  • Dr. V
    , contributor
    Comments (1179) | Send Message
     
    Banking oligarchs?

     

    What about the shareholders? (the de facto owners)

     

    What, they get a pass? No guilt for them?

     

    Banks get run into the ground, and the shareholders should have to suffer, not the taxpayers.

     

    This should force the shareholders to take control of the banks they own stock in and fight the way the bank is being run, it's a shareholders responsibility to attend all shareholders meetings, those who can't have no business owning stock.

     

    Who's system is it?

     

    Nobody forces shareholders to buy stock, losing your ass on the market is one of the inherent risks of the game.

     

    A debt solution being mentioned is very important.

     

    First the cause of the debt has to be cut out, like a tumor, like Germany, driving the periphery into the indebtedness they find themselves in now.

     

    Germany's upside over the last 10+ years was pretty cushy, all at the cost of the periphery, who have suffered from Germany's export boom.

     

    And again, Germany gets a pass. It's a simple balance of payments problem that can easily be handled with policy and regulatory control being implemented by the European Commission.

     

    Less sovereignty, more Europe. This was their mantra, so why don't they call for a referendum?

     

    85% Majority is necessary to get it passed through, should be easy enough.

     

    They (EU) are stalling for a reason.
    15 Dec 2011, 03:03 AM Reply Like
  • anonymous#12
    , contributor
    Comments (552) | Send Message
     
    Who the hell is talking about the shareholders having a pass??

     

    Please, learn to read before posting inane comments directed at another person. That's why the world is like ...
    15 Dec 2011, 06:19 AM Reply Like
  • Dr. V
    , contributor
    Comments (1179) | Send Message
     
    Smarten up.

     

    I was talking about shareholders, you were blaming the banking oligarchs. They are not to blame.

     

    Shareholders are to blame.

     

    If you knew anything about Monetary Policy, you would know what's happening here and why, it has nothing to do with any banking oligarchs, they are nothing.

     

    We, the Policy Administrators of the EC/EU/BCBS/ECB/EBA, ARE the National Supervisory Authority, and WE write those policies you can't even begin to comprehend.

     

    Pick your battles.
    15 Dec 2011, 07:34 AM Reply Like
  • pokalolo
    , contributor
    Comments (580) | Send Message
     
    Ratner is an Obama stooge an a group of selfish people want to destroy our childrens future so they don't have to pay for the reality they have created by spending astronomical amounts.

     

    Thank goodness the ECB can't do anything without a real treaty an Merkal stands between insanity an destruction ! STOP it !
    14 Dec 2011, 09:00 PM Reply Like
  • wolverine27
    , contributor
    Comments (412) | Send Message
     
    so ratner and obama want to destroy our future ?

     

    you were comfortable with cheney and bush ?
    14 Dec 2011, 09:20 PM Reply Like
  • pokalolo
    , contributor
    Comments (580) | Send Message
     
    Talking to me ? I gave up after George Washington !
    14 Dec 2011, 09:22 PM Reply Like
  • mP1
    , contributor
    Comments (386) | Send Message
     
    GW was an oligarth criminal as well. The only reason he helped organise the revolution is because he wanted to be at the top instead of subserviant to King George III. In the end he didnt give a shit about the common folk, take a look at his slavery policy.
    14 Dec 2011, 11:17 PM Reply Like
  • WMARKW
    , contributor
    Comments (10649) | Send Message
     
    mp1,
    BS....
    14 Dec 2011, 11:25 PM Reply Like
  • mP1
    , contributor
    Comments (386) | Send Message
     
    @WMW

     

    Im sorry rich people and GW was damn rich back then, only care about #1. Just like Kings sent other suckers sorry patriot subjects to die for them GW was the same.
    14 Dec 2011, 11:35 PM Reply Like
  • bkpark
    , contributor
    Comments (325) | Send Message
     
    And of course, that's why he refused to run for a third term, even though he'd have run unopposed. It's his dastardly plan to retain his oligarchic power by giving up being the president.

     

    There are some who are simply created in tho mold of Cincinnatus (I have to confess I don't think I'm one of them).
    14 Dec 2011, 11:49 PM Reply Like
  • WMARKW
    , contributor
    Comments (10649) | Send Message
     
    Geeze....I guess all those pictures of him leading the troops were fiction? And his reluctance to be the President?
    15 Dec 2011, 03:29 AM Reply Like
  • mP1
    , contributor
    Comments (386) | Send Message
     
    Those paintings are propaganda, only a fool would believe they actually placed them anywhere near harms way. A bigger would fool would further believe that GW actually cared for the lower classes. Im sorry its much easier and truer to accept the simple fact that he and his comrads were businessman who had a greedy motivation with high and might words that were all hot air.

     

    All men are created equal - sure they are except if your black, yellow, red etc.
    15 Dec 2011, 03:37 AM Reply Like
  • mP1
    , contributor
    Comments (386) | Send Message
     
    He was an old man, third term or not does not prove he was a saint. Very few leaders in past history as today are anything but saints or honourable people.
    15 Dec 2011, 03:38 AM Reply Like
  • Dr. V
    , contributor
    Comments (1179) | Send Message
     
    Better than the current POTUS.

     

    Thinks he actually ended the war in Iraq, doesn't realize it has simply run it's course.

     

    That's like taking credit for the sun coming up.

     

    The duh factor cannot be measured with existing technology.
    15 Dec 2011, 08:30 AM Reply Like
  • bkpark
    , contributor
    Comments (325) | Send Message
     
    Read up on George Washington if your anti-Americanism would permit you to. *After* he declined to run for third consecutive term, he wasn't too old to serve as the senior officer of the army.

     

    There are indeed very few honorable people in history---America is just lucky to have had one of them in its founding history, starting the nation on the right foot.
    15 Dec 2011, 11:28 AM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3181) | Send Message
     
    MP1 you better run and hide if your trying to drag down George Washington.

     

    To say Washington and other revolutionary leaders were far from harms way is simply incorrect.

     

    And read a little bit about the forming of the constitution and you'll find there was much disagreement about slavery. Saying everyone was created equal was a huge step forward considering that in Europe landowners were the ones with the rights.

     

    There are a lot of crappy politicians to write bad things about. George Washington isn't one of them.
    15 Dec 2011, 01:55 PM Reply Like
  • mP1
    , contributor
    Comments (386) | Send Message
     
    @bkpark

     

    You conveniently ignore his weak stance on slavery. How many thousands of slaves could have been freed earlier on if he had some fortitude ? If Wilberforce could will the English parliament and he was a lone member, then there is less excuse for Washington who was leader.

     

    Just because i dont idolise GW has nothing to do with being pro or anti American - stop labelling me with your straw man arguments. Address the facts.
    15 Dec 2011, 04:03 PM Reply Like
  • bkpark
    , contributor
    Comments (325) | Send Message
     
    Er, do you know *anything* about history at all? At the time U.S. Constitution was written and ratified, slavery was *legal* in most of the world (including the Western world).

     

    U.S. Constitution was remarkably progressive in discouraging and banning the slave trade (in 20 years' time; I will grant that by the time of Civil War, U.S. had fallen behind other Western countries in banning slavery altogether).

     

    You clearly have no perspective other than myopic self-aggrandization (mostly by demeaning others). 'Might as well, since some people just can't learn---either from others or on their own.
    15 Dec 2011, 04:26 PM Reply Like
  • mP1
    , contributor
    Comments (386) | Send Message
     
    @bkpark

     

    Why do you state the obvious about slavery being common practive everywhere around the globe. You claim the US consitution was somehow progressive and yet you fail to give a simple example or two of this. Wonderful claims require wonderful evidence so please tell.

     

    Firstly the end of the slave trade and slavery itself was imposed by the British Empire. Other modern progressive ideas such as womens rights and voting also came first in NZ and Australia way before the US. I know the later country has a dispicable record regarding its aboriginies and im not making grand claims but it did change.

     

    The two matters i have raised are major accomplishments in defining people of today with their new outlook on kindness compared to lesser cruel traditions like those found in other places. Notice that none of these originated in the US but rather in other places in the British Commonwealth. Anyone can make high spirited words like some of those found in the US Constitution, the fact is others actually initiated and gave the world real modern kindess.

     

    Instead of insulting me, talk in facts, which seems to be the best you can do, no historical facts or anything.
    15 Dec 2011, 11:23 PM Reply Like
  • bkpark
    , contributor
    Comments (325) | Send Message
     
    "Why do you state the obvious about slavery being common practive everywhere around the globe. You claim the US consitution was somehow progressive and yet you fail to give a simple example or two of this. Wonderful claims require wonderful evidence so please tell."

     

    I didn't want to insult you further by providing an example that's clear to any school child, but since you ask, here it is:

     

    Article 1, Section 9: "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."

     

    (And lest you think this wasn't tantamount to banning slave trade 1808, U.S. Congress did ban slave trade precisely on January 1st, 1808.)

     

    Further debates on the matter of slavery is in Federalist 38 and 54, but if you can't be bothered to read U.S. Constitution, which is a fairly short document, I doubt you can read commentaries on it, which are much longer.

     

    No nation paid more dearly to abolish slavery than U.S. did (U.S.'s bloodiest war in history was fought precisely to abolish slavery). Whatever our past sins regarding the peculiar institution may have been, surely it's been paid many times over.

     

    Moreover, in a struggle toward progress, what matters most isn't who set down the first landmark (although U.S. does have a fair claim on that, as I demonstrated above), it's what sort of opposition one had to overcome---and, going back to your uneducated assertion, George Washington was integral to setting up the structure of U.S. government that eventually led to total abolition of slavery in North America
    16 Dec 2011, 12:07 AM Reply Like
  • mP1
    , contributor
    Comments (386) | Send Message
     
    Wow talk about moral priorities, slavery vs a $10 tax. Is that really the best you can come up with against my clearly more humane examples.

     

    Your comments about the civil war are bollox. Lincoln himself only made slavery an issue because he knew it would cause England to isolate the south. It was never a moral issue but purely a political tool. Lincoln himself was a racist who may have not liked slavery but he still thought of blacks as animals.

     

    http://bit.ly/uI45lS
    Lincoln's father-in-law was based in Lexington, Kentucky; he and others of the Todd family were either slave owners or slave traders. Lincoln was close to the Todds, and he and his family occasionally visited the Todd estate in Lexington.[39] He was an affectionate, though often absent, husband and father of four children.

     

    By the late 1960s liberals[who?] were having second thoughts, especially regarding Lincoln's views on racial issues.[266][267] Black historian Lerone Bennett won wide attention when he called Lincoln a white supremacist in 1968.[268] Critics[who?] complained that Lincoln used ethnic slurs, told jokes that ridiculed blacks, insisted he opposed social equality, and proposed sending freed slaves to another country. Defenders[who?] retorted that he was not as bad as most politicians;[269] and that he was a "moral visionary" who deftly advanced the abolitionist cause, as fast as politically possible.[270] The emphasis shifted away from Lincoln-the-emancipator to an argument that blacks had freed themselves from slavery, or at least were responsible for pressuring the government on emancipation
    16 Dec 2011, 12:18 AM Reply Like
  • bkpark
    , contributor
    Comments (325) | Send Message
     
    "Your comments about the civil war are bollox. Lincoln himself only made slavery an issue because he knew it would cause England to isolate the south. It was never a moral issue but purely a political tool. Lincoln himself was a racist who may have not liked slavery but he still thought of blacks as animals."

     

    I wasn't talking about Lincoln. Lincoln's sole purpose was to maintain the union. As he himself said, If Lincoln could maintain the union by maintaining the institution of slavery, he would. If he could maintain the union by abolishing slavery, he would. If he could maintain the union by abolishing slavery in some places and not others, he would (and it's the last option that he took with the Emancipation proclamation).

     

    I was talking about the Southern states. Read their rationale for the secession. They were *wonderfully* clear why they were seceding---slavery (no abstract states' rights nonsense). Whatever threat they perceived in election of Lincoln, slavery was their motivation for secession, which they *knew* would lead to Civil War---and northern states were willing to shed blood to abolish slavery in all the states---which would be accomplished by keeping the union together.

     

    You should really stop paying too much attention to revisionist historians (if you pay attention to any people at all), who have their own post-modern-colored agenda and do not represent facts as they are.
    16 Dec 2011, 12:35 AM Reply Like
  • mP1
    , contributor
    Comments (386) | Send Message
     
    I notice you skipped my challenge and have still failed to find something to paint that makes the US Constitution note worthy.

     

    I am trying to be honest about the past, something you fail to appreciate. You dishonestly mention half the facts in order to paint certain people and artifacts. All your rebuttals have been apologies while i have tried to demonstrate those people were just ordinary people in extra ordinary positions of power. Washington was not a moral person he was just another power monger.

     

    I took the initiative to mention Lincoln as yet another example of someone who is painted as being anti slavery when the truth was he was just a politician taking advantage of the current affairs.

     

    Please stop the petty insults - im simply reading the facts even if they are inconvenient to people like yourself who only want to remember praise worthy news and allegories. Stick to the facts, i am not rewriting history, i am however being faithful to the facts.
    16 Dec 2011, 12:41 AM Reply Like
  • bkpark
    , contributor
    Comments (325) | Send Message
     
    "I notice you skipped my challenge and have still failed to find something to paint that makes the US Constitution note worthy."

     

    I can only do so much for those who fail reading comprehension---at least in online forum; perhaps if I were able to help you in person, I can educate you better.

     

    You (either deliberately or ignorantly) misinterpreted Article 1, Sec. 9 as simply imposing an importation tax (also, you fail to convert the $10 to 2010 dollars)---it opened a path to *banning* slave trade altogether, even in states where there would never have been popular support for banning of slave trade; like most radical social changes, it simply allowed this radical change to take place in 20 years' time.

     

    Anyways. I can only teach the willing, not the willfully ignorant.
    16 Dec 2011, 12:45 AM Reply Like
  • mP1
    , contributor
    Comments (386) | Send Message
     
    Sorry, your tax commentary is poor and utter nonsense, as slavery managed to exist for over 50 years after that passage was written. Again action talks bullshit walks, England actually did something about slavery, America with its progressive consitution did nothing. If anything it can be said they were forced to change rather than changing voluntarily.

     

    Wow your argument must be strong, it seems you spend more words attacking me than actually pointing to facts. Do we really need to get petty and highlight that $10 was a lot of money back then.

     

    Again you have demonstrated numerous times the weakness of your argument, knowledge by your continued petty childish insults. Grow up.
    16 Dec 2011, 12:56 AM Reply Like
  • mP1
    , contributor
    Comments (386) | Send Message
     
    You state many times you state the constitution is progressive but the results are what matter, and on two big issues of the past slavery and womens rights, the British Commonwealth comes up trumps. Notice your law is after this act.

     

    Im sure if i was to dig into British law i could find other laws that highlight thoughts about abolishing slavery but that does not count, especially if your a slave. Being free however is the moment of truth.

     

    http://bit.ly/v0C7dp
    ----------------------...

     

    One of the first protests against the enslavement of Africans came from German and Dutch Quakers in Pennsylvania in 1688. One of the most significant milestones in the campaign to abolish slavery throughout the world occurred in England in 1772, with British judge Lord Mansfield, whose opinion in Somersett's Case was widely taken to have held that slavery was illegal in England. This judgement also laid down the principle that slavery contracted in other jurisdictions (such as the American colonies) could not be enforced in England.[173] In 1777, Vermont became the first portion of what would become the United States to abolish slavery (at the time Vermont was an independent nation). In 1794, under the Jacobins, Revolutionary France abolished slavery.[174] There were celebrations in 2007 to commemorate the 200th anniversary of the Abolition of the slave trade in the United Kingdom through the work of the British Anti-Slavery Society.

     

    William Wilberforce received much of the credit although the groundwork was an anti-slavery essay by Thomas Clarkson. Wilberforce was also urged by his close friend, Prime Minister William Pitt the Younger, to make the issue his own, and was also given support by reformed Evangelical John Newton. The Slave Trade Act was passed by the British Parliament on 25 March 1807, making the slave trade illegal throughout the British Empire, Wilberforce also campaigned for abolition of slavery in the British Empire, which he lived to see in the Slavery Abolition Act 1833. After the 1807 act abolishing the slave trade was passed, these campaigners switched to encouraging other countries to follow suit, notably France and the British colonies. In 1839, the world's oldest international human rights organization, Anti-Slavery International, was formed in Britain by Joseph Sturge, which campaigned to outlaw slavery in other countries.[175]

     

    Thats right slavery was illegal in England 100 years before America.

     

    Most firsts in this modern western world are actually British not American. Im sure if i was to try i could find many more worthy causes that are the initative of England and her commonwealth and not America's constitution.
    16 Dec 2011, 12:59 AM Reply Like
  • Dr. V
    , contributor
    Comments (1179) | Send Message
     
    USA USA USA USA USA USA USA
    19 Dec 2011, 02:22 AM Reply Like
  • Dr. V
    , contributor
    Comments (1179) | Send Message
     
    If you really feel cheated on this, call the White House and ask them to send you a check.

     

    But stop with the anti-American sentiment, move to Russia if you don't like it.
    19 Dec 2011, 02:25 AM Reply Like
  • Dr. V
    , contributor
    Comments (1179) | Send Message
     
    You dare to use a passage that German and Dutch Quakers were anti slavery?

     

    Germany and the Netherlands, have together killed more Africans on this planet than any other countries combined. The systematic exterminations in South Africa and Namibia, can only be judged on par with the atrocities committed by Germany between 1939-45.

     

    The German official military report on the campaign lauded the tactics:
    This bold enterprise shows up in the most brilliant light the ruthless energy of the German command in pursuing their beaten enemy. No pains, no sacrifices were spared in eliminating the last remnants of enemy resistance. Like a wounded beast the enemy was tracked down from one water-hole to the next, until finally he became the victim of his own environment. The arid Omaheke [desert] was to complete what the German army had begun: the extermination of the Herero nation.
    —Bley, 1971: 162
    19 Dec 2011, 02:38 AM Reply Like
  • ajsmithjr11088
    , contributor
    Comments (156) | Send Message
     
    this is no time to joke... 2012 approaches.
    14 Dec 2011, 09:57 PM Reply Like
  • torahislife
    , contributor
    Comments (400) | Send Message
     
    Painful austerity is the solution. Germany and NL are ready to sober up, while Euro-PIIGs and USA prefer being wasted on hopium.
    14 Dec 2011, 09:59 PM Reply Like
  • WMARKW
    , contributor
    Comments (10649) | Send Message
     
    Painful austerity = full blown depression.
    14 Dec 2011, 11:26 PM Reply Like
  • gebertx
    , contributor
    Comments (3) | Send Message
     
    Europe is a mess .... best to consider where you want to be with a bank failure and a delayed Country payment ... expect alot of fancy narrative and another "fix" ... the "just wait" comment is right-on ... the really stuff is getting ready to hit the fan !!
    14 Dec 2011, 11:24 PM Reply Like
  • pokalolo
    , contributor
    Comments (580) | Send Message
     
    WMARK's equation is 110% correct,but, it is the only way out to save our future. It is a simple as no pain no gain !

     

    Yes, it will be REAL pain,but, the insanity must stop. If I could afford to send OWS to attack the Fed an destroy it I would and I hate OWS.
    15 Dec 2011, 03:18 AM Reply Like
  • WMARKW
    , contributor
    Comments (10649) | Send Message
     
    pokalolo....I think we are pretty much on the same page.
    15 Dec 2011, 03:31 AM Reply Like
  • pokalolo
    , contributor
    Comments (580) | Send Message
     
    Don't listen to that MP jerk ! GW wanted to be left alone an he could have been king. He is America ! Or what it was ! aloha
    15 Dec 2011, 03:39 AM Reply Like
  • mP1
    , contributor
    Comments (386) | Send Message
     
    Yeah he was such a nice guy he had slaves, go figure, if he did the same today he would be a criminal. Please dont tell me, they were different times, because that does not wash.
    15 Dec 2011, 03:41 AM Reply Like
  • pokalolo
    , contributor
    Comments (580) | Send Message
     
    He set them all free. Some ended up in Congress an one was the first SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTRATIVES

     

    Learn US history before the progressive democrat communist scum rewrote it !
    15 Dec 2011, 03:45 AM Reply Like
  • mP1
    , contributor
    Comments (386) | Send Message
     
    While he did eventually free them in his will that's not quite the same after working them for a lifetime for free. There is quite a difference.

     

    A true noble person would have banned slavery from the beginning. If you were unlucky enough to be caught in that system you would have noticed the difference.
    15 Dec 2011, 03:50 AM Reply Like
  • Dr. V
    , contributor
    Comments (1179) | Send Message
     
    Put the race card down, eh?

     

    It's a financial site, hardly the platform for a racial battle.

     

    No, I am not a WASP either.
    15 Dec 2011, 08:35 AM Reply Like
  • Dr. V
    , contributor
    Comments (1179) | Send Message
     
    What did you have for breakfast? Some "I F*cking hate America Flakes"?

     

    GW = LEGEND
    15 Dec 2011, 08:45 AM Reply Like
  • mP1
    , contributor
    Comments (386) | Send Message
     
    @DrV - not idolising GW has nothing to do with hating America. In case you didnt realise they are separate entities. Too bad you cannot rationally address my points instead of attacking my person.
    15 Dec 2011, 04:04 PM Reply Like
  • Dr. V
    , contributor
    Comments (1179) | Send Message
     
    Young man, I was rationally addressing points regarding Constitutional Law of the United States before you were even born.

     

    As far as attacking your person, you have established precedence by painting a target on yourself, as anti - GW, who stands for the ideal/principals of the Office of the President of the United States, the Office and what it represents, is different from the man keeping the chair warm.

     

    Had you studied CONLAW or if you were involved in USG or served the last 6 Administrations like some, you wouldn't let yourself be drawn into such a discussion, where the nation's founding father, has become your target of "comments disloyal to the United States", and could actually land you on the list of persons seen as dangerous to the US and it's Policy, and/or ideals (see Patriot Act). Tact, is applicable here.

     

    Your lack of knowledge on the subject is evident through the absence of logical form in your argument. Inductive argument can be neither valid nor invalid, its premises give only a limited degree of probability, to its conclusion.

     

    None of us were there, so we don't know.

     

    However, commonly accepted fact, and written, recorded history show the facts to be overwhelmingly different than those you have chosen to foist upon us.
    16 Dec 2011, 04:45 AM Reply Like
  • pokalolo
    , contributor
    Comments (580) | Send Message
     
    MP1 your quite warped an obviously have no clue about his workers an there feelings towards him. I'm sure your one of Obama's new slaves as you seem to have his grasp of history. So, please same something stupid in response to my insult ,so, you can have the last word. Time for me to call it a night. I can recommend some real books for you,but, I am sure you've read the revisionist new US history books. ......................... (^#*)! To you sir. pok
    15 Dec 2011, 04:01 AM Reply Like
  • mP1
    , contributor
    Comments (386) | Send Message
     
    I think your focusing too much on the person and ignoring the result of his selfishness. If GW was relatively kind, by not standing firm, he allowed others with lesser principals to do evil on their slaves. Again if you were a slave back then you would notice a big difference if he had used his power for good instead of taking the easy option and going with the status quo.

     

    I have no idea why you are a GW fanboi, and i have no idea why you ignore my simple challenge. I have not made any historical errors, you on the other hand are ignoring the evils of slavery that he as a leader could have improved or abolished. We can argue about figures and other incidentals but the ugly fact remains.
    15 Dec 2011, 04:04 AM Reply Like
  • Dr. V
    , contributor
    Comments (1179) | Send Message
     
    Somehow you keep conceding, " ignoring the evils of slavery he could have improved or abolished?"

     

    Could have improved?

     

    You therefore, by your own words, condone slavery, as long as it's orderly and fair?
    15 Dec 2011, 08:50 AM Reply Like
  • mP1
    , contributor
    Comments (386) | Send Message
     
    @DrV

     

    I hate slavery I should not have included an unqualified "improved". What i originally meant by improved but did not include was something along the lines of setting the boat on course to kill slavery. But hey at least im honest about the stain called slavery and do not brainwashingly excuse Washington uncritically.
    15 Dec 2011, 04:06 PM Reply Like
  • Dr. V
    , contributor
    Comments (1179) | Send Message
     
    Washington may have had "indentured servants", and no one is arguing that fact. However, an "indentured servant" is not a "slave", by way of definition, Indentured servitude refers to the historical practice of contracting to work for a fixed period of time, typically three to seven years, in exchange for transportation, food, clothing, lodging and other necessities during the term of indenture.

     

    But then, theoretically, you could call me an "indentured servant" due to the fact that I have served in the US Military, and subsequently in Public Administration, making me actual, physical "property of the USG".
    16 Dec 2011, 04:56 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Hub
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs