RE: AIG Bits the hand that feeds it.

RE: AIG Bits the hand that feeds it. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

tazzygirl -> RE: AIG Bits the hand that feeds it. (1/9/2013 5:03:43 PM)
quote: But will respond to your post. I don't agree with the auto industry bailout. I don't feel it was the same thing at all, and I don't feel the government should have spent the money to keep the industry afloat - I feel it is a dying industry badly in need of restructuring. I also don't agree with the Lehman bailout. Lehman wasnt bailed out... they went bankrupt. As did Bear Sterns... both as a result of the same problems AIG had. quote: Should the government have done more for the mortgage market? Perhaps. But that doesn't change whether they should have bailed out AIG. I really don't think we had a choice with that one. I think almost every American would have been affected, and the international markets, too. That puts it at a level completely different from the foreclosure crisis. My position may not have been clear. As a result of two failing financial houses, AIG was next in line. The market was skittish, I feel the government also had to go in and finally do something. Its the attitude of those companies who were helped... like with this potential lawsuit.. along with the attitudes of so many in this country demanding "personal responsibility" of some, and yet not others.... hypocrisy at its finest. So, yes, seeing a bunch of people post that AIG was "cheated"? How would those same stock holders have felt had AIG went the way of Lehman's and they ended up with worthless stock?

LookieNoNookie -> RE: AIG Bits the hand that feeds it. (1/9/2013 5:22:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie quote: ORIGINAL: RacerJim Truth be told AIG is not suing the the government for bailing them out per se but, rather, because the terms of the government bailout violated legacy government loan guarantee terms and, therefore, the authority/power granted to the government under the U.S. Constitution. From the FOX News article: "The complaint, filed in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, asserts that the government didn't provide shareholders fair compensation when it took a nearly 80 percent stake in the insurer as part of its bailout. As a result, the government violated the Constitution, Starr claims." The government did the same thing with the GM bailout...illegally screwed GM stockholders while rewarding the UAW. YAAAAAY!!!! Someone who actually reads!!!! (But will be excoriated by those who don't). They certainly didnt give a damn about the terms when this was going on.... Less than a week after the federal government offered an $85 billion bailout to insurance giant AIG, the company held a week-long retreat for its executives at the luxury St. Regis Resort in Monarch Beach, Calif., running up a tab of $440,000, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) said today at the the opening of a House committee hearing about the near-failure of the insurance giant. Showing a photograph of the resort, Waxman said the executives spent $200,000 for rooms, $150,000 for meals and $23,000 for the spa. "Less than a week after the taxpayers rescued AIG, company executives could be found wining and dining at one of the most exclusive resorts in the nation," Waxman said. "We will ask whether any of this makes sense. " http://voices.washingtonpost.com/livecoverage/2008/10/after_bailout_aig_executives_h.html Sounds to me like a whole lot of waiters and waitresses (and busboys, and linen suppliers, and coca cola suppliers) were pretty pleased about the jobs that were "saved or created" as Obama ran on in 2008.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: AIG Bits the hand that feeds it. (1/9/2013 5:26:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: But will respond to your post. I don't agree with the auto industry bailout. I don't feel it was the same thing at all, and I don't feel the government should have spent the money to keep the industry afloat - I feel it is a dying industry badly in need of restructuring. I also don't agree with the Lehman bailout. Lehman wasnt bailed out... they went bankrupt. As did Bear Sterns... both as a result of the same problems AIG had. quote: Should the government have done more for the mortgage market? Perhaps. But that doesn't change whether they should have bailed out AIG. I really don't think we had a choice with that one. I think almost every American would have been affected, and the international markets, too. That puts it at a level completely different from the foreclosure crisis. My position may not have been clear. As a result of two failing financial houses, AIG was next in line. The market was skittish, I feel the government also had to go in and finally do something. Its the attitude of those companies who were helped... like with this potential lawsuit.. along with the attitudes of so many in this country demanding "personal responsibility" of some, and yet not others.... hypocrisy at its finest. So, yes, seeing a bunch of people post that AIG was "cheated"? How would those same stock holders have felt had AIG went the way of Lehman's and they ended up with worthless stock? You mean like....GM shareholders?

LookieNoNookie -> RE: AIG Bits the hand that feeds it. (1/9/2013 5:29:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl So, if I am understanding that correctly, the only decision is if AIG actually wants to be a part of the suit... not if the suit itself will be made? The lawsuit is already in progress. Anyone, even those unrelated to same, can legally join a lawsuit...they simply have to find a legal mechanism for "tying". I can join a lawsuit against Chrysler for faulty air bags between a manufacturer (the producer of airbags) and the agent of assembly (Chrysler)...I simply need to prove that I had fear for my life having once owned a Chrysler.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: AIG Bits the hand that feeds it. (1/9/2013 5:31:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro Well, AIG as well as the other companies involved in the bail out, went to the government, the government did not go to them. There was no gun put to their heads to sign and they have alot lawyers reviewing the documents, if they did not like the terms, then they should not have signed. Caveat emptor...Let the Buyer beware In fact, the government not only did go to AIG (AIG publicly at the time having said "we don't need any money"), they demanded that AIG take the money.

fucktoyprincess -> RE: AIG Bits the hand that feeds it. (1/9/2013 5:48:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: But will respond to your post. I don't agree with the auto industry bailout. I don't feel it was the same thing at all, and I don't feel the government should have spent the money to keep the industry afloat - I feel it is a dying industry badly in need of restructuring. I also don't agree with the Lehman bailout. Lehman wasnt bailed out... they went bankrupt. As did Bear Sterns... both as a result of the same problems AIG had. quote: Should the government have done more for the mortgage market? Perhaps. But that doesn't change whether they should have bailed out AIG. I really don't think we had a choice with that one. I think almost every American would have been affected, and the international markets, too. That puts it at a level completely different from the foreclosure crisis. My position may not have been clear. As a result of two failing financial houses, AIG was next in line. The market was skittish, I feel the government also had to go in and finally do something. Its the attitude of those companies who were helped... like with this potential lawsuit.. along with the attitudes of so many in this country demanding "personal responsibility" of some, and yet not others.... hypocrisy at its finest. So, yes, seeing a bunch of people post that AIG was "cheated"? How would those same stock holders have felt had AIG went the way of Lehman's and they ended up with worthless stock? In that post I am only talking about whether AIG should have been bailed out or not. AIG is no longer participating in Greenberg's lawsuit. And as for the lawsuit it does not argue that government help was not needed. It contends that the onerous nature of the rescue — the taking of what became a 92 percent stake in the company, the deal’s high interest rates and the funneling of billions to the insurer’s Wall Street clients — deprived shareholders of tens of billions of dollars and violated the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits the taking of private property for “public use, without just compensation". In other words the government gave them the money in exchange for a high stake in the company (which is why the government will likely see profit), and then forced them to give most of the money to the company's clients in order to protect the American public. In other words the government gave the money with the explicit intention of propping up the clients i.e., the mutual funds, life insurance, pension funds, etc. in order to protect people like you and me. I actually agree from a policy perspective with how the government structured the deal. It wasn't designed to help the shareholders - it was designed to prevent the domino effect collapse by channeling money directly to those funds/entities in order to help the American people. I think the shareholders will lose this case because eminent domain does not really cover this kind of case. The government did not seize AIG for public use. I don't really see that case going very far (and I think it has already lost in lower court). Sorry about Lehman statement - was confused about Federal Reserve Bank money that went to Lehman, but that was not bailout money as we would conventionally think of it.

DesideriScuri -> RE: AIG Bits the hand that feeds it. (1/9/2013 6:15:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Its the attitude of those companies who were helped... like with this potential lawsuit.. along with the attitudes of so many in this country demanding "personal responsibility" of some, and yet not others.... hypocrisy at its finest. So, yes, seeing a bunch of people post that AIG was "cheated"? How would those same stock holders have felt had AIG went the way of Lehman's and they ended up with worthless stock? There were some of us screaming against the financial bailouts (companies using bailout funds to buy other companies is beyond ludicrous), calling for them to accept the consequences of their risky actions. Most of those same people were screaming that Chrysler and GM should have been allowed to fold, for the very same reason. And, once they went through a "structured bankruptcy," there were plenty of us screaming that the bondholders, who, according to law, are the first ones to get paid, were getting the shaft, by Obama & Co. Plenty of us screamed personal responsibility at homebuyers who made risky leaps and failed, at the financial institutions that made risky loans and screwed with other financial parlor games and failed, and at failed auto management practices. I'm predicting this lawsuit will not win and the bondholders will still be left short. In takings law, I am under the impression that Government is allowed to determine "just compensation" for property taken. Bondholders were holding bonds to a company that was going to fold, lowering the value of those bonds. I believe there is an eminent domain case where the SCOTUS ruled in favor of Government, even though "just compensation" was some trifling amount. This is all anecdotal as my info came from a fellow HS alum who is an attorney, and our conversation was several years back. It just hit me that I may have "archived" the email on Facebook, so I may be able to update it all. [:)] Yes, there are some of us out here that call for personal responsibility on all counts, and called for even more penalties on the companies that were found to have illegally taken advantage of borrowers (and leniency for those taken advantage of).

tazzygirl -> RE: AIG Bits the hand that feeds it. (1/9/2013 7:04:10 PM)
quote: Yes, there are some of us out here that call for personal responsibility on all counts, and called for even more penalties on the companies that were found to have illegally taken advantage of borrowers (and leniency for those taken advantage of). And, with the exception of Paul, how many politicians and people in positions of power were screaming with you?

DesideriScuri -> RE: AIG Bits the hand that feeds it. (1/9/2013 9:57:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: Yes, there are some of us out here that call for personal responsibility on all counts, and called for even more penalties on the companies that were found to have illegally taken advantage of borrowers (and leniency for those taken advantage of). And, with the exception of Paul, how many politicians and people in positions of power were screaming with you? Nowhere near enough, sadly.

tazzygirl -> RE: AIG Bits the hand that feeds it. (1/9/2013 10:12:44 PM)
And yet how many were demanding people accept personal responsibility for the mess they found themselves into... including mortgage and being out of work.. as a result of the practices of these corporations? This is why its all so hypocritical.

DesideriScuri -> RE: AIG Bits the hand that feeds it. (1/10/2013 5:50:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl And yet how many were demanding people accept personal responsibility for the mess they found themselves into... including mortgage and being out of work.. as a result of the practices of these corporations? This is why its all so hypocritical. Well, here we're going to have divergent thoughts. The predatory lenders need(ed) to be charged, tried and punished, and those that were the prey need to have some sort of punishment for their choices, but that punishment also needs to take into account the illegal activities of the lenders. There has to be some sort of understanding that when you sign a contract, you have to abide by the stipulations set out in that contract, and, you have to have some sort of clue whether or not you can satisfy your end of the deal. Even with the illegal activities of the lenders, at some point in time, you have to be held at least somewhat accountable for your choices. All that means is that, in the cases of predatory lending, the prey needs to understand what they did was wrong, have some sort of wrist slap for it, and then the brunt of the punishment be meted out on those lenders. In cases where it wasn't predatory lending, the lenders need to suffer the consequences of the loan being written, and the borrowers need to suffer the consequences of their acceptance of the loans. Since none of the Corporations owe anyone a job, in good times or in bad, I have a far less supportive viewpoint of the unemployed due to the stupid actions of the Corporations. Think about it this way, if you were a CPA at Bear Stearns, AIG, Lehman, Countrywide, etc., even if those companies go under, wouldn't you have the opportunity to be snatched up by one of their competitors, provided you were competent enough at your job? Just because one company goes under in a particular market or sector doesn't necessarily mean that sector or in that market, there will be nothing. This is akin to my biggest complaint of OWS'ers. Simply graduating with some degree does not guarantee you a job. Congrats. You graduated. Why should you be hired, other than meeting the qualifications of the position?

tazzygirl -> RE: AIG Bits the hand that feeds it. (1/10/2013 6:16:07 AM)
quote: Sounds to me like a whole lot of waiters and waitresses (and busboys, and linen suppliers, and coca cola suppliers) were pretty pleased about the jobs that were "saved or created" as Obama ran on in 2008. There were as the money ran into these corporations who didnt lay off locals immediately, who were able to still go to such restaurants in their local communities. Hmmm... funny how that works. But, by October, more and more were laid off, more small businesses closed.......... oh wait.... silly me... you only meant at the resorts?

tazzygirl -> RE: AIG Bits the hand that feeds it. (1/10/2013 6:26:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl And yet how many were demanding people accept personal responsibility for the mess they found themselves into... including mortgage and being out of work.. as a result of the practices of these corporations? This is why its all so hypocritical. Well, here we're going to have divergent thoughts. The predatory lenders need(ed) to be charged, tried and punished, and those that were the prey need to have some sort of punishment for their choices, but that punishment also needs to take into account the illegal activities of the lenders. There has to be some sort of understanding that when you sign a contract, you have to abide by the stipulations set out in that contract, and, you have to have some sort of clue whether or not you can satisfy your end of the deal. Even with the illegal activities of the lenders, at some point in time, you have to be held at least somewhat accountable for your choices. All that means is that, in the cases of predatory lending, the prey needs to understand what they did was wrong, have some sort of wrist slap for it, and then the brunt of the punishment be meted out on those lenders. In cases where it wasn't predatory lending, the lenders need to suffer the consequences of the loan being written, and the borrowers need to suffer the consequences of their acceptance of the loans. And yet some were deliberately lied too. Its an older thread, but I posted about that a while back. People were asking, and they were lied too. quote: Since none of the Corporations owe anyone a job, in good times or in bad, I have a far less supportive viewpoint of the unemployed due to the stupid actions of the Corporations. Think about it this way, if you were a CPA at Bear Stearns, AIG, Lehman, Countrywide, etc., even if those companies go under, wouldn't you have the opportunity to be snatched up by one of their competitors, provided you were competent enough at your job? Just because one company goes under in a particular market or sector doesn't necessarily mean that sector or in that market, there will be nothing. This is akin to my biggest complaint of OWS'ers. Simply graduating with some degree does not guarantee you a job. Congrats. You graduated. Why should you be hired, other than meeting the qualifications of the position? No one said they owed anyone a job. You are sorta stuck on that mantra. Im not talking about specifics. Im not debating who has the best skills, who will be immediately snatched up. I am speaking of the corporations lack of fiscal responsibility.. Mass layoffs have a trickle down effect... perhaps the only trickle down proven that works. Someone... I think it was willbe... used to toss out the stats on small businesses. They do the majority of hiring and firing. But they are extremely dependent on the local market. Loss of jobs in a local market will lead to small businesses closing as money taps out or people move away. Yes, its the natural order of things. Its just the hypocrisy of many who told college students to be more responsible about their loans.... homeowners to be more responsible for their mortages and credit cards... welfare recipients to be more responsible and shop more wisely... We have become a country that believes you only DESERVE help if you are rich.

DesideriScuri -> RE: AIG Bits the hand that feeds it. (1/10/2013 7:12:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl And yet how many were demanding people accept personal responsibility for the mess they found themselves into... including mortgage and being out of work.. as a result of the practices of these corporations? This is why its all so hypocritical. Well, here we're going to have divergent thoughts. The predatory lenders need(ed) to be charged, tried and punished, and those that were the prey need to have some sort of punishment for their choices, but that punishment also needs to take into account the illegal activities of the lenders. There has to be some sort of understanding that when you sign a contract, you have to abide by the stipulations set out in that contract, and, you have to have some sort of clue whether or not you can satisfy your end of the deal. Even with the illegal activities of the lenders, at some point in time, you have to be held at least somewhat accountable for your choices. All that means is that, in the cases of predatory lending, the prey needs to understand what they did was wrong, have some sort of wrist slap for it, and then the brunt of the punishment be meted out on those lenders. In cases where it wasn't predatory lending, the lenders need to suffer the consequences of the loan being written, and the borrowers need to suffer the consequences of their acceptance of the loans. And yet some were deliberately lied too. Its an older thread, but I posted about that a while back. People were asking, and they were lied too. I know some were lied to. And, the liars need harsher punishment, and those that bought the lies need lighter sentences (note the "smack on the wrist" highlighted above) quote: quote: Since none of the Corporations owe anyone a job, in good times or in bad, I have a far less supportive viewpoint of the unemployed due to the stupid actions of the Corporations. Think about it this way, if you were a CPA at Bear Stearns, AIG, Lehman, Countrywide, etc., even if those companies go under, wouldn't you have the opportunity to be snatched up by one of their competitors, provided you were competent enough at your job? Just because one company goes under in a particular market or sector doesn't necessarily mean that sector or in that market, there will be nothing. This is akin to my biggest complaint of OWS'ers. Simply graduating with some degree does not guarantee you a job. Congrats. You graduated. Why should you be hired, other than meeting the qualifications of the position? No one said they owed anyone a job. You are sorta stuck on that mantra. Im not talking about specifics. Im not debating who has the best skills, who will be immediately snatched up. I am speaking of the corporations lack of fiscal responsibility.. Mass layoffs have a trickle down effect... perhaps the only trickle down proven that works. How do you solve that, though? By not bailing them out? Absolutely, IMO. That sucks for those at the end of the trickle, but that's life. Government shouldn't be going along and making it worse by allowing the fiscally irresponsible Corporations to continue on with their businesses. It's almost like rewarding their bad behavior. quote: Someone... I think it was willbe... used to toss out the stats on small businesses. They do the majority of hiring and firing. But they are extremely dependent on the local market. Loss of jobs in a local market will lead to small businesses closing as money taps out or people move away. Yes, its the natural order of things. Its just the hypocrisy of many who told college students to be more responsible about their loans.... homeowners to be more responsible for their mortages and credit cards... welfare recipients to be more responsible and shop more wisely... We have become a country that believes you only DESERVE help if you are rich. Your last statement is wrong. We are becoming a nation that believes we deserve everything.

thishereboi -> RE: AIG Bits the hand that feeds it. (1/10/2013 7:20:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro AIG the company that claimed to be "Too big to fail" and got $182 million dollar bail out is now thinking of sueing the government for bailing them out. The bail out money that was to keep the company from going bankrupt, known for it lavish corperate excutive spending, bonus, trips, etc, in fact some if not most of the bail money was spent that way, some of the money was never accounted for, they claimed it was no one business what they did with taxpayers money, is now thinking of sueing the government for bailing them out and they are not the only company who benifited from the bail out. The reason for sueing they claim the terms were unfair....the poor things....[sm=Groaner.gif] http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/09/lawmakers-outraged-after-aig-announces-it-is-weighing-joining-suit-against-us/ I would think they would have know about this before they decided to accept the money. If there was a problem why did they take it in the first place? quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead You're not the poster I had in mind with that specific leading question, old boy, but thanks for that. Where you going to actually comment on the op or is this just more bait and troll bullshit?

tazzygirl -> RE: AIG Bits the hand that feeds it. (1/10/2013 7:24:34 AM)
quote: How do you solve that, though? By not bailing them out? Absolutely, IMO. That sucks for those at the end of the trickle, but that's life. Government shouldn't be going along and making it worse by allowing the fiscally irresponsible Corporations to continue on with their businesses. It's almost like rewarding their bad behavior. We did reward their bad behavior... now they are suing because they were punished. I dont think we could afford to allow another financial institution go under at that time. On the heels of Lehman and Bear, this would have been too much. AIG got the help they wanted because they were... literally... to big to fail in that market.. had the market been different, Im all for letting it go under. quote: Your last statement is wrong. We are becoming a nation that believes we deserve everything. No, only the top feels truly entitled.. the rest are harassed.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: AIG Bits the hand that feeds it. (1/13/2013 3:39:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: Sounds to me like a whole lot of waiters and waitresses (and busboys, and linen suppliers, and coca cola suppliers) were pretty pleased about the jobs that were "saved or created" as Obama ran on in 2008. There were as the money ran into these corporations who didnt lay off locals immediately, who were able to still go to such restaurants in their local communities. Hmmm... funny how that works. But, by October, more and more were laid off, more small businesses closed.......... oh wait.... silly me... you only meant at the resorts? I think what I meant was....you (we) can't have it both ways. People bitched and moaned about the bailouts, but had they not occurred (albeit with fiat money), millions more would have been out of work and a tailspin of epic proportions would have ensued. Everyone that wants the government to quit bailing out the insurance companies, banks, car companies, solar power companies, etc., thinks it's just "those guys"....and...."I didn't get anything, so why should they?" In fact, you (we) did. We got an economy that didn't fall 40% in 6 months. We also got unprecedented debt in that same deal. You can't have it both ways. Personally, I wish they'd have let them all fail. Some company/companies would have come in and filled the gap (as they always do) and, our pain would have been as unprecedented, as our debt now is. But...very few people could have withstood the financial pain of it...which is why they did what they did.

tazzygirl -> RE: AIG Bits the hand that feeds it. (1/13/2013 3:51:13 PM)
quote: People bitched and moaned about the bailouts, but had they not occurred (albeit with fiat money), millions more would have been out of work and a tailspin of epic proportions would have ensued. Its one of those... do it for all or none at all... they started it, they had to see it through. I agree that millions more would have been out of work. Which is also my point. quote: Everyone that wants the government to quit bailing out the insurance companies, banks, car companies, solar power companies, etc., thinks it's just "those guys"....and...."I didn't get anything, so why should they?" In fact, you (we) did. We got an economy that didn't fall 40% in 6 months. Gee.. imagine that! You are actually supporting Obama and reinforcing what I knew about his policy all along... that it worked. quote: We also got unprecedented debt in that same deal. You can't have it both ways. You seem to mistake me as someone who is constantly bitching about the debt. I dont. I realize its a necessary occurrence. quote: Personally, I wish they'd have let them all fail. Some company/companies would have come in and filled the gap (as they always do) and, our pain would have been as unprecedented, as our debt now is. Something I have said as well. But once started.... quote: But...very few people could have withstood the financial pain of it...which is why they did what they did. Careful, they will come after your conservative card next.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: AIG Bits the hand that feeds it. (1/13/2013 5:28:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Gee.. imagine that! You are actually supporting Obama and reinforcing what I knew about his policy all along... that it worked. If I did support Obama's plan, I wouldn't have said: "Personally, I wish they'd have let them all fail. Some company/companies would have come in and filled the gap (as they always do) and, our pain would have been as unprecedented, as our debt now is. "

DesideriScuri -> RE: AIG Bits the hand that feeds it. (1/13/2013 5:41:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: How do you solve that, though? By not bailing them out? Absolutely, IMO. That sucks for those at the end of the trickle, but that's life. Government shouldn't be going along and making it worse by allowing the fiscally irresponsible Corporations to continue on with their businesses. It's almost like rewarding their bad behavior. We did reward their bad behavior... now they are suing because they were punished. We did reward their bad behavior, and their whiny asses aren't being punished. Think of how much fucking money those asshats have made with our tax dollars. The issue I have is the "toxic assets" are still toxic, and still int he system. If they were toxic then, how are they better now? And, not only did W piss me off signing TARP, but then when they - like 2 fucking days later - switched it from Toxic Assets to pretty much just paying the banks off, I was even more pissed. quote: I dont think we could afford to allow another financial institution go under at that time. On the heels of Lehman and Bear, this would have been too much. AIG got the help they wanted because they were... literally... to big to fail in that market.. had the market been different, Im all for letting it go under. And, what have we gotten for it? I still maintain that we'd have been better off now had we let them go under. We'd have hit the bottom and rebuilt. There would have been a lot of shit to wade through, like who owned what, etc. and the smaller banks that hadn't taken the massive risks the big guys took would have been able to come in and get sweetheart deals on all those failing bank assets. Now, that would have been rewarding those banks for their good behavior. quote: quote: Your last statement is wrong. We are becoming a nation that believes we deserve everything. No, only the top feels truly entitled.. the rest are harassed. Harassed?!? LMAO!! The only thing anyone should feel entitled to is the freedom to choose their own life, and to make the most of their life as they see fit, using their personal property the way they choose, so long as it isn't infringing on another's same rights.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.140625