Barack Obama

[CCC]

Originally Posted by jimnaseum

I remember during Iraq War II I would hear Tony Blair say something, and it would sound beautiful, then I would hear Bush II say the EXACT SAME THING and it would sound like horseshit!!! A reasonable person might say I was guilty of being unfairly prejudiced against Bush, until a reasonable person figured out Bush was full of shit!!! While he read his prepared speeches, written by highly paid academic speechwriters, truckloads of cash ran nightly from the pockets of hard working Americans straight to the vaults of the Military Industrial Complex. So while Bush and Cheney were definately HORRID leaders, they sure were smooth businessmen!!!
Bush and Obama are servants to the exact same Constitution. Word for Word. You can stand poised to pounce on everything Obama says if you want to, but in seven years, the fruits of his actions will be evident. The truckloads of cash will be running all night, but in the opposite direction. Back to the people who work for a living. Hey, Obama, show 'em what you can do! You Watch!!!

WOW You are wacked out !!!! 7 YEARS? No way in the world will he be pres for 7 years. He'll be lucky to finish 1. There's truck loads of cash traveling every night right from the treasury printing presses to every Democrat whore willing to take it.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by jimnaseum

Tracy Darling, fly over to Germany for a couple weeks (if you can afford it) The Seniors there get two free weeks in Health Spas. The minimum wage is like twenty bucks an hour or something.

<link>

In the last 10 years, according to a survey by the Institut Arbeit und Qualifikation, the percentage of low-income earners in Germany has increased from 15 to 22 %. That is around 6.5 millions of employees. That puts Germany on a top rank within Europe.

That unpleasant development, according to some experts, is fostered by the German legislation?s dropping of the compulsory minimum wage.
...
A minimum wage is supposed to guarantee employees a secure livelihood. This would mean that a full time worker no longer needs compensative government support, but instead can live on their earned money. What is being discussed is a minimum 1 hour?s wage of 5.00 to 8.00 Euros.

That's $7 - $11.50USD, but currently there is no required minimum wage there. Thanks for playing. Try again.

Originally Posted by jimnaseum

During WWII, we spent ONE THIRD of our gross national product on the development of the Atom Bomb. ONE THIRD! While at War!

More like 1/10. It cost $2 billion, or $22 billion in today's dollars. Not all that much to bring an early end to WWII and save the lives of about 1 million Americans that would have died in an invasion of Japan than never had to happen. I see I'm going to have to double check all your facts for you.

How much did Germany's genocide of the Jews cost? Hmmm, maybe not that much since the Germans are efficient engineers and reused some body parts of the Jews for manufacturing of other goods. Sorry, but you did bring up Germany and WWII lol.

Originally Posted by jimnaseum

What are we going to have to pay back from the Bush years? How about that trillion we still owe China so we wouldn't have to raise taxes!

Awww, you didn't keep BO's one month $2.7 trillion spending spree in mind as you talked about Bush's overspending. Remember that's 2.5 times what Bush & congress overspent during his 8 years. See, now we're all still wondering how the money will be flowing back to hard working Americans since BO is doing so much WORSE than Bush.

[jimnaseum]

Man, you delete my post for crude language on a tranny-porn site?

[smc]

Originally Posted by jimnaseum

Man, you delete my post for crude language on a tranny-porn site?

This post is my personal opinion as a general Forum member, and does not necessarily reflect the views of any other Moderator.

It is unfortunate that jimnaseum chose to post this rather than respond to the PM he received. The moderators are considering whether there should be a new rule for the Forum regarding the use of certain terms that go beyond what here is called "crude language." Of course, people on the Forum use -- and are free to use -- all sorts of terms of a sexual nature that may be considered "crude" in so-called "polite society." But there is another class of language, which includes specific words that are widely considered racist or anti-gay.

Forum Rule #3 states, in part: "We strive to make this a friendly place." It cannot be a friendly place if the use of particular terms is allowed, in my opinion.

This is not about being politically correct. Were PC the motivation, imagine the issues we'd be dealing with simply over the use of terms to describe various states of transgenderism!

[TracyCoxx]

Today's uproar in Washington is about Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's comments about Obama that came out in a book called Game Change coming out this week.

He [Reid] was wowed by Obama's oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama -- a 'light-skinned' African American 'with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,'

Reid is now undergoing all kinds of damage control today and the talk shows are all buzzing about it. He says "I deeply regret using such a poor choice of words. I sincerely apologize for offending any and all Americans, especially African-Americans for my improper comments." Michael Steel is of course calling for Reid's resignation. He does correctly bring up the hypocrisy, but I think comes up with the wrong conclusion.

Why? I don't get the problem, and I'm not just trying to be funny. Isn't he just stating a fact? The American public obviously was ready to embrace a black candidate, and I think he's correct in saying that Americans were more ready to accept a 'light-skinned' African American 'with no Negro dialect. And I don't think it's a secret that Obama brought out some of his ebonics when speaking to a black audience.

We're all adults here. Voters are technically adults. The people in the government are adults. Can't someone say what's on their mind, especially if it's fact without all the feigned outrage? American's attitude of freedom of speech was summed up with the quote "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." I'm sad to say this kind of freedom of speech is long dead, thanks to political correct bullshit.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Today's uproar in Washington is about Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's comments about Obama that came out in a book called Game Change coming out this week.



Reid is now undergoing all kinds of damage control today and the talk shows are all buzzing about it. He says "I deeply regret using such a poor choice of words. I sincerely apologize for offending any and all Americans, especially African-Americans for my improper comments." Michael Steel is of course calling for Reid's resignation. He does correctly bring up the hypocrisy, but I think comes up with the wrong conclusion.

Why? I don't get the problem, and I'm not just trying to be funny. Isn't he just stating a fact? The American public obviously was ready to embrace a black candidate, and I think he's correct in saying that Americans were more ready to accept a 'light-skinned' African American 'with no Negro dialect. And I don't think it's a secret that Obama brought out some of his ebonics when speaking to a black audience.

We're all adults here. Voters are technically adults. The people in the government are adults. Can't someone say what's on their mind, especially if it's fact without all the feigned outrage? American's attitude of freedom of speech was summed up with the quote "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." I'm sad to say this kind of freedom of speech is long dead, thanks to political correct bullshit.

Right on! This media "oh my" show is totaly ridiculous.

[TracyCoxx]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=662R2awSwPQ

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=662R2awSwPQ

Yes, I viewed the video and yes the concerns are real. However, it is full of distorted rhetoric lies and nonsense. The Democrats are heading for a catastrophe next election. A return of Republicans? They are no more competent than the Democrats. California has failed and the Federal government is very close. So, what do we have to look forward to? Failed governments often lead to Fascism, is it just around the corner? Immersed in perpetual war the country would eventually go the way of all fascist countries. Our beautiful prosperous country is on the verge.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Yes, I viewed the video and yes the concerns are real. However, it is full of distorted rhetoric lies and nonsense. The Democrats are heading for a catastrophe next election. A return of Republicans? They are no more competent than the Democrats. California has failed and the Federal government is very close. So, what do we have to look forward to? Failed governments often lead to Fascism, is it just around the corner? Immersed in perpetual war the country would eventually go the way of all fascist countries. Our beautiful prosperous country is on the verge.

Failed governments can lead to anything, depending on why it failed and what's left over. Republicans have not given this country perpetual war. If you're whining that we were engaged in war after the 9/11 attacks I would tell you to get real. That is the obvious result after an attack like 9/11. If Bill Clinton was in office, we'd have the same war. I'd hate to see how BO would have handled it though. Hopefully we don't have to find out. Republicans are more likely to stand their ground rather than going around groveling, kissing hands and apologizing for anything and everything. This is a good thing. If a country shows weakness, other countries will be happy to trample over you. Now I am not advocating going to extremes and becoming a militaristic fascist state. There are ways to stand your ground via the moral highground, economically, diplomatically, and yes, a big stick (wasn't that a democrat who said that?).

I hope the republicans return to power after BO's BS. Competent or not they will be much better. I'm hoping for competence though because it can be a lot better, and this country can be put on the right track. What we need are real conservatives, not RINOS. We need replublicans who aren't afraid to stand their ground when their opposition is a black person. We need republicans who will deal with the illegal immigration problem - and not by making them US citizens. And among these awesome republicans, we need a leader who can connect with the American people. The problem is, I don't see those qualities in the republicans we have now. Maybe the teabaggers will find some, I don't know. But even a RINO is better than the dems we have now - a fact that would have saved this country if voters realized that last election.

BTW, the so called liberals in power now, are not really liberals. Liberal is closer to libertarian. The "liberals" we have now are the progressives (from the early 1900s) that have hijacked the party.

[randolph]

Hey Tracy, the Teabaggers are having a conference!

From Washington Monthly;

THE POWER OF STRANGE PEOPLE IN A LARGE GROUP.... After a series of bizarre, and often offensive, rallies in D.C., the Teabaggers are apparently going to get together in about a month for a convention.

The Tea Party Nation is gearing up for its first ever convention, to be held at the famed Opryland Hotel in Nashville next month. It's a confab designed to help the tea parties from across the country organize, with an agenda that sounds a lot like an attempt to form an official third party.

Organizers ask for local groups to "select their best to meet with their peers from across the nation" and who "have the most desire to move this process of organizing to the next level."

They'll have a workshop about "the importance of becoming Precinct Committee Chairs."

"Please join us, make and form strong bonds, network, and make plans for action. We are doing what we could not do alone, to preserve that which we value," organizers write.

The three-day event scheduled for the first weekend in February is already rubbing some conservative activists the wrong way -- the Tea Party Nation gathering is charging $549 per person. That's significantly more expensive than tickets to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) -- traditionally the biggest right-wing event of the year -- which will be held two weeks later just outside D.C.

Of course, one explanation for the steep costs is Sarah Palin -- the former half-term governor will reportedly receive as much as $100,000 to speak to Tea Party Nation, while CPAC does not pay any of its speakers. (Palin was invited to appear at CPAC, but declined, perhaps because there was no money in it.)

And speaking of Palin, the guest list for Tea Party Nation is what drives home just how radical a group we're talking about here.

In addition to Palin, attendees will hear from, among others:

* World Net Daily's Joseph Farah

* Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.)

* Former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore

* Religious right leader Rick Scarborough

This is not a group of mainstream Americans. Farah's conspiracy-driven website has taken the lead in peddling Birther nonsense; Bachmann is mad as a hatter; Moore is a theocrat who doesn't believe the Bill of Rights applies to the states and was removed from office for ignoring federal court orders he didn't like; and Scarborough is a radical preacher best known for being a Jerry Falwell acolyte, writing a book called Liberalism Kills Kids, and trying to establish his own mini-theocracy in Texas several years ago.

Sounds like a bunch of real winners.
So would you like these characters running the country?

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by randolph

California has failed and the Federal government is very close. So, what do we have to look forward to? Failed governments often lead to Fascism, is it just around the corner? Immersed in perpetual war the country would eventually go the way of all fascist countries. Our beautiful prosperous country is on the verge.

America will disappear without a sound. Far too long the mentality of "Let someone else do it" and the notion of avoiding conflict have created a weak society that has become dependent on others rather than self sufficient. Our laziness and ungrateful attitudes as a whole is why Americans have thrown away their legacy and liberties so that they can take the easy way out in damn near every aspect of their lives.

[The Conquistador]

5 Myths About The Great Depression.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122576077569495545.html

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Sounds like a bunch of real winners.
So would you like these characters running the country?

Sarah Palin, and Rick Scarborough... Hell no. Don't really know about the others. But sounds like the republicans that are driving the teabaggers to want to create their own party.

btw, the teabaggers take offense to the term teabaggers. I think they should embrace it. Like the yankees did. That was a derogatory term from the brits, but the yankees embraced it and it became a source of pride.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Sarah Palin, and Rick Scarborough... Hell no. Don't really know about the others. But sounds like the republicans that are driving the teabaggers to want to create their own party.

btw, the teabaggers take offense to the term teabaggers. I think they should embrace it. Like the yankees did. That was a derogatory term from the brits, but the yankees embraced it and it became a source of pride.

In order to have some balance in this country, we need a "good" Republican party. The likes of Ike, Earl warren and even Nixon(sort of) were good traditional Republicans. There adjenda was not to destroy the "new deal" but to make it better. Warren's "pay as you go" policy when he was governor of California was the best of times for the state. Ike's warning about the military/industrial complex are even more true today. Nixon's support of the EPA was a breakthrough policy.
Nowadays its who can be Californicated next.
Its our country, we need to take it back.

[TracyCoxx]

Oh lovely. Our wonderful president has exempted union workers from paying tax for national health care. The rest of us will take up their share. You gotta hand it to him. He always remembers those who put him in office.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Oh lovely. Our wonderful president has exempted union workers from paying tax for national health care. The rest of us will take up their share. You gotta hand it to him. He always remembers those who put him in office.

The fate of politicians is to pander to their base. Nothing new there.

[randolph]

enough is enough!

NEW YORK (The Borowitz Report) - In the wake of his comments about the earthquake in Haiti, televangelist Pat Robertson has become a "public relations nightmare" and a "gynormous embarrassment to me, personally," God said today.

In a rare press conference at the Grand Hyatt in New York City, the usually reclusive Almighty said that He was taking the unusual step of airing His feelings in public because "enough is enough."

"I pray that his TV show would just go away, but of course, when you're me there's no one to pray to," God said, to the laughter of the packed room of reporters.

While God held out no hope that Rev. Robertson's "700 Club" would be cancelled any time soon, He did say, somewhat ruefully, "If Pat Robertson were on NBC he'd be replaced by Jay Leno by now."

.

[randolph]

From LA Times.

CNN's determination to stick with the news stands in stark contrast to its competitors, particularly Fox News, that in prime time have increasingly been committed to building their brands with political commentary over straight reporting.

When critics accuse Fox of being a tool of the conservative political movement, the company's executives counter that they deliver serious news during much of the day.

But its prime-time headliners expose the values of the entire operation, and this week they've given abysmally short shrift to the biggest crisis in the world.

Why dwell on one of our closest hemispheric neighbors in its hour of dire need, when -- like both Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck -- you can conduct prolonged, frothy promotional interviews with Fox's newest contributor, Sarah Palin?

Why focus on all that misery, if, like Hannity on Wednesday, you can engage conservative virago Michelle Malkin in a soaring conversation about the Obama administration's "culture of corruption."

Bill O'Reilly played his no-Haiti card too, managing a gripping discussion Wednesday with Bo Derek about the threat to the West's wild horses. Not to mention those whales being hunted by the Japanese in the Southern Ocean

.

Pathetic

[randolph]

Beyond stupid!

by Mark Silva, Washington tribune

Maybe radio's Rush Limbaugh was trying to provide the Rev. Pat Robertson with a little cover, when he suggested on-air that people don't need to contribute money to Haitian earthquake relief.

It was Robertson who first suggested that the people of Haiti are paying for "a pact with the devil'' made centuries ago.

But it was Limbaugh -- at a time when the president is asking Americans to contribute money to earthquake relief and directing them to the White House Website to learn where they can help, as the State Department reports more than $3 million in $10 donations for the Red Cross through its text-messaging network -- who told a caller that all helping out will do is get someone on Obama's campaign email list.

"We've already donated to Haiti,'' Limbaugh told the caller on his radio show (here it below) "It's called the U.S. income tax."

President Barack Obama today announced $100 million in direct aid to Haiti for earthquake relief.

And the president's press secretary, who already had commented on the ''stupid'' remarks that Robertson had made, was asked what he has to say about Limbaugh saying Americans shouldn't donate money.

"Again, I think in times of great crisis there are always people that say really stupid things,'' said Robert Gibbs, the press secretary, at today's press briefing.

"I don't know how anybody could sit where he does, having enjoyed the success that he has, and not feel some measure of sorrow for what has happened in Haiti. I think to use the power of your pulpit to try to convince those not to help their brothers and sisters is sad. My sense is that most people, though, because they understand we're part of an amazing world, won't listen, and instead will seek to help those that they know, because through no fault of their own, have suffered an unspeakable tragedy.''

Robertson is insane and Limbaugh is the biggest asshole in the world.

[randolph]

From Associated News

A Look at Some of the More "ugly" Quotes from the "voice" of the Republican Party

With the recent near-collapse of free-market capitalism and the departure of a very unpopular president, the GOP has been struggling the last few weeks to find relevancy and a leader. After CNN host, D.L. Hughley referred to Rush Limbaugh as that
leader, RNC Chair Michael Steele, decried that idea and called Rush merely and "entertainer" and referred to his show as "incendiary" and "ugly." Comments like these did not go unnoticed by Rush Limbaugh, and with 20 million listeners it's best not to make him angry if you're Michael Steele. As a consequence, Michael Steele apologized, most like in fear of alienating Rush's conservative listeners in such a doubtful time for the GOP. But why apologize when it's clear he was right? Let's take a look at some of the more "incendiary" and "ugly" comments made by Rush Limbaugh.

Let's start with the racist ones:

"Take that bone out of your nose and call me back." (to a female, African-American caller)

"They're 12 percent of the population. Who the hell cares?"

"You know who deserves a posthumous Medal of Honor? James Earl Ray [the confessed assassin of Martin Luther King]. We miss you, James. Godspeed."

"I mean, let's face it, we didn't have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I'm not saying we should bring it back; I'm just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark."

Now, some misogynistic ones:

"Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream."

"She comes to me when she wants to be fed. And after I feed her -- guess what -- she's off to wherever she wants to be in the house, until the next time she gets hungry. She's smart enough to know she can't feed herself. She's actually a very smart cat. She gets loved. She gets adoration. She gets petted. She gets fed. And she doesn't have to do anything for it, which is why I say this cat's taught me more about women, than anything my whole life." --on his cat

This one is just ignorant and mean:

I wonder what he would have to say about transsexuals?

[CCC]

Try to remember this when thinking about the bashing of conservatives--they are the ones that are the owners of all these small companies that employ all the liberals that haven't found a job with the goverment or are on the dole. Those darm conservatives are also the ones that donate a shit load of money to all kinds of charities-not the democrat liberals-just check the record of your local democrat politicians-cheap bastards. Yeah Limbaugh can say some crazy things but most of it is really the truth. Alot of what he says is just sarcasim trying to make a point. And he does that well--by far the number 1 radio show. Now I have to sign off cause I have only worked 14 hours so far today in my own business--need to work more to provide for all the libs living off me. BYE

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

From LA Times.

Pathetic

You've seen Michelle Malkin right? What's the mystery?

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Beyond stupid!

by Mark Silva, Washington tribune

Robertson is insane and Limbaugh is the biggest asshole in the world.

Roberts is insane, no doubt. It's unbelievable that a civilized person in 2010 in the US would seriously say what he says.

But what Rush was saying is that if you want to help out Haiti, donate to them directly. And that BO has really made the choice to help them out for you by using your tax dollars to help them. So in effect we already are donating money to help them out.

I do support BO's aid to Haiti though. People donating on their own would not get naval ships to Haiti within days to help out.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

From Associated News

A Look at Some of the More "ugly" Quotes from the "voice" of the Republican Party


I wonder what he would have to say about transsexuals?

Most of these quotes are urban legend. Snopes says for most of them there is no source. Rather than trying to dig up some obscure quote that Rush may or may not have said, or 2nd hand left-wing journalists versions of what Rush said, just listen to him. He's on every day, and usually says exactly what he says

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by CCC

Now I have to sign off cause I have only worked 14 hours so far today in my own business--need to work more to provide for all the libs living off me. BYE

Score one for CCC. Well said.

[TracyCoxx]

When are those rich guys going to start pulling their weight and paying taxes?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtTbdHytlAc

[CCC]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

When are those rich guys going to start pulling their weight and paying taxes?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtTbdHytlAc

And that is why Obama is coming to Boston tomorrow afternoon to help Coakley. They need to draw out the bottom dwellers. All the urban welfare people who have that protected pie. Now people don't pic on me for being racist-far far from it- BUT they also need to get the black vote, the mulato vote, the spanish vote, the asian vote, etc You see the race is made up of two white people and Oakley being lilly white, blond and with no lips is a stark contrast from the vast majority of Boston's city dwellers. Here's hoping there are enough independant voters that can see thru all this BS. We are talking about the 41st seat-the regime breaker-the Obama nightmare--they are pulling out all the stops.

Vicky Kennedy came out to beg for you to vote for "Teddy's seat"--"don't let all of his life's work go for nothing". Brown says it is "the peoples seat" it belongs to no individual. Enough thinkers started saying-hey that isn't Teddy's -it does belong to me-the people. NOW Vicky is saying "vote for Oakley for the peoples seat". They can't even pump independantly.

Brown beat the tar out of her in the debate so immediately after the show-before midnight-the Dems started all thier prepared dirty commercials. Brown is staying clean .

Absentee voting is up 4-6 times what it was in the primaries. People covering themselves in case we get one of our bad new England N'oreasters.

Remember that little itty piece of pie-the one that the bottom 50% of tax payers that only pay 3%---yeah well the 3%'ers have 50% or more of the votes. That is what Obama is going after- the less educated- the dependers of the dole.

Here's hoping he fails at this like he failed with the Olympics.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by CCC

Here's hoping he fails at this like he failed with the Olympics.

To Obama's Failures!

[randolph]

From Washington Monthly

The president's 53% approval rating is up a few points from December, and his personal qualities still remain relatively strong -- 57% believe Obama understands the problems of people like them, and 63% consider him a strong leader. A 58% majority have a favorable view of the president personally. Notwithstanding the assumptions of Dowd, Gerson, and other Villagers, 55% approve of the president's handling of the terrorist threat, and 62% approve of his handling of the failed Christmas-day terror plot. Looks like the Cheneys' efforts to undermine the administration fell flat.

For the White House, that's the good news. The bad news is the public remains in a deeply sour mood, and has grown increasingly impatient. Obama's numbers have dropped below the 50% threshold on the economy and health care, and the number of Americans who believe the country is on the right track is lower than it's been since February. Ouch.

But in keeping with the year-long trend, Republicans are simply not the beneficiary (pdf) of public discontent. Only 24% of the public has confidence in congressional Republicans "to make the right decisions for the country's future." The number for congressional Democrats is at least a little better at 32%, while the president's number is nearly double that of the GOP at 47%.

What's more, "when it comes to assigning blame for the nation's economic woes, about twice as many fault the George W. Bush administration as do Obama's."

Most people haven't forgotten that the mess we are in was caused by the lax regulation during the Bush administration.

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by randolph

Most people haven't forgotten that the mess we are in was caused by the lax regulation during the Bush administration.

While the Bush Administration did obviously nothing to help out the economic situation, alot of this stuff was set into motion way before he got into office. Also, Zero's spending of 2 trillion dollars while there is a massive deficit is counterproductive.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

While the Bush Administration did obviously nothing to help out the economic situation, alot of this stuff was set into motion way before he got into office. Also, Zero's spending of 2 trillion dollars while there is a massive deficit is counterproductive.

Most people would agree that we had to save the big banks. If we didn't, full economic collapse would have made the great depression look like a minor recession. Of course, many "conservatives" seem to think economic collapse with millions of people starving and dying might be a good thing, that the rich would survive without all those workers. Well, that kind of BS didn't quite work out that way in the French revolution and it wouldn't be that way here, heads would roll.
Actually, the real rich are far smarter than the so called "conservatives". They knew they were at risk and so did Obama and Congress, that's why the government bailed them out.

[CCC]

Randolph-Randolph -Randolph------I really feel for you if you thing that your data is accurate. Dems and Republicans are both politicians wich means they are liars, crocks and thieves BUT seeing that is what we have to run the goverment we are stuck with picking hopefully the lesser of two evils. In the present case the biggest crooks by far are the Dems headed by the all mighty hologram known as Obama. There is a great revolution starting in the this country. Republicans have wonin bluse staes of Virginia and New Jersey. In upper state NY and independant came within a few percentage points of beating the combines dem-republican candidate. And now in Massachusetts- I know how to spell it whereas Coakley doesn't.

Yesterday in Hyannis--Teddy's home town-Scott Brown had thousands of people show up at a rally at Tommy Doyle's Pub and surrounding area. Today Miss Screwed Up Coakley arrived at the same location (no originality at all) at 10 A.M. and no one was there to greet her--no one. You see the rally was scheduled for 11:30--so she waited at the bar. The rally had less than 100 people--they lined up to shake her hand and give her thier condolences just like family and friends at a wake. Literally many, many shook her hand while they told her that they were voting for Scott Brown because of her lies and her negative campaigning.

Did anyone see the article in the B oston Globe today about her highness? They originally backed her--now they can see the hand writing on the wall. The Blue Sate of Massachusetts will be changing to the color Brown.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Most people haven't forgotten that the mess we are in was caused by the lax regulation during the Bush administration.

Bullshit. Quit spreading the lies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp...eature=related

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by randolph

Most people would agree that we had to save the big banks. If we didn't, full economic collapse would have made the great depression look like a minor recession.

Alot of the banks failures was due to government intervention and the formation of things like the Community Reinvestment Act which forced banks to give out loans to people with spotty credit history and could not pay back the money. That was instituted when Carter was in office and the cumulative effects of that legislation have just recently emerged.

Alot of these types of problems can be traced back to big government rather than big business.

[parr]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Oh lovely. Our wonderful president has exempted union workers from paying tax for national health care. The rest of us will take up their share. You gotta hand it to him. He always remembers those who put him in office.

If Brown get's in all these dirty deeds will pass.

[CCC]

Originally Posted by parr

If Brown get's in all these dirty deeds will pass.

Hey Parr--I think you have it ass backwards. If Brown gets in -- it stops the health care package in it's tracks because they lose the 60-40 vote needed to ream it up our asses.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

Alot of the banks failures was due to government intervention and the formation of things like the Community Reinvestment Act which forced banks to give out loans to people with spotty credit history and could not pay back the money. That was instituted when Carter was in office and the cumulative effects of that legislation have just recently emerged.

Alot of these types of problems can be traced back to big government rather than big business.

From Businessweek.

Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with subprime crisis

Posted by: Aaron Pressman on September 29

Fresh off the false and politicized attack on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, today we?re hearing the know-nothings blame the subprime crisis on the Community Reinvestment Act ? a 30-year-old law that was actually weakened by the Bush administration just as the worst lending wave began. This is even more ridiculous than blaming Freddie and Fannie.

The Community Reinvestment Act, passed in 1977, requires banks to lend in the low-income neighborhoods where they take deposits. Just the idea that a lending crisis created from 2004 to 2007 was caused by a 1977 law is silly. But it?s even more ridiculous when you consider that most subprime loans were made by firms that aren?t subject to the CRA. University of Michigan law professor Michael Barr testified back in February before the House Committee on Financial Services that 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject comprehensive federal supervision and another 30% were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations. As former Fed Governor Ned Gramlich said in an August, 2007, speech shortly before he passed away: ?In the subprime market where we badly need supervision, a majority of loans are made with very little supervision. It is like a city with a murder law, but no cops on the beat.?

Lack of supervision fostered by the Bush administration was a major factor in the meltdown.

[TracyCoxx]

Polls show Brown ahead of Coakley 51% to 46%. I'm getting a

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Polls show Brown ahead of Coakley 51% to 46%. I'm getting a

Careful sweety, you might cum too soon.

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by randolph

Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with subprime crisis

Lack of supervision fostered by the Bush administration was a major factor in the meltdown.

Haha! Good luck believing that!

http://mises.org/story/2963

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=94031

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

Haha! Good luck believing that!

http://mises.org/story/2963

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=94031

It is the mission of the Mises Institute to place human choice at the center of economic theory, to encourage a revival of critical historical research, and to advance the Misesian tradition of thought through the defense of the market economy, private property, sound money, and peaceful international relations, while opposing government intervention as economically and socially destructive.

Looks like they have a biased adjenda. The meltdown demonstrates conclusively that government intervention is necessary to regulate capitalism.

Who's Behind WorldNetDaily?
WND's board of directors has been mostly comprised of California conservatives -- plus a man on the lam for tax evasion.

By Terry Krepel
Posted 3/1/2007
Updated 3/2/2007, 7/12/2008

WorldNetDaily has been notoriously close-lipped about who its backers are. Back in 2002, ConWebWatch asked WND founder and editor Joseph Farah who owns his company and who put up the $4.5 million in startup money for it; he answered the first question (he and the Western Journalism Center he co-founded own a majority of it) but not the second.

In the face of Farah and WND refusing to offer a straight answer, we set off to find one. A ConWebWatch investigation of Delaware corporate records (WND is registered as a Delaware corporation) shows that the members of WND's board of directors -- many of whom have presumably kicked in money for the operation -- are, in contrast to Richard Mellon Scaife's backing of NewsMax, not household names; they are mostly California-based activists who quietly support conservative causes.
Related articles on ConWebWatch:
The 'O' Word
Update: Black Vox
NewsMax By the Numbers
The Masters of WorldNetDaily


The exception to those quiet, California-based traits is Robert Beale, a Minnesota-based technology firm owner who sat on the WND board of directors from 2000 to 2002. As ConWebWatch has noted, the only mentions of Beale by WND came in an April 2002 column by Farah thanking him (and many others) by name as Farah prepared to move from Oregon to the Washington area "to become more visible," and in a June 2003 article by Art Moore detailing Beale's complaint that Minnesota officials seized his $3 million, 30-room house for back taxes. Beale insisted he was not a Minnesota resident at the time and doesn't owe the taxes, but he refused to fight the seizure in state tax court because he denies its legitimacy. The end of the article states: "By way of disclosure, Robert Beale is a board member and stockholder in WorldNetDaily.com."

Beale, at one point, had a website (now defunct) that promoted Beale's case, designed by his son, Theodore Beale, who's better known to WND readers as columnist Vox Day.

Robert Beale's tax problems came to a head in August 2006, when he failed to appear for his trial on federal tax-evasion charges. He hasn't been heard from since.

So does this outfit have more credibility than Businessweek?

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by randolph

From Washington Monthly...

Actually, the Washington Monthly article is a typical puff piece that plays the numbers to reach an end conclusion that they WANTED to reach versus discussing an actual truth.

For example, the article initially states this (bold accent is mine): 55% approve of the president's handling of the terrorist threat, and 62% approve of his handling of the failed Christmas-day terror plot. Looks like the Cheneys' efforts to undermine the administration fell flat.

Yet then it turns around and states this: The bad news is the public remains in a deeply sour mood, and has grown increasingly impatient. Obama's numbers have dropped below the 50% threshold on the economy and health care, and the number of Americans who believe the country is on the right track is lower than it's been since February. Ouch.

Well, that's a perfect example of an illogical connection. The truth is that people like the Cheneys -- as well as many other commentators -- continually harping on Obama obviously HAS had an undermining effect and DIDN'T fall flat, hence his falling approval numbers.

And that's the problem here. The article is cherry picking its words and numbers VERY tightly, because if you actually read between the lines what the numbers DO reveal is that (1) people are willing to say they like Obama personally, in other words they basically think he'd be an "okay guy" if he was your neighbor...

...But that said, (2) they ALSO show that more and more people feel he's a shitty President and they'll be glad when he's out of office and IS only a neighbor who is out mowing his law, and NOT someone in office that has any kind of say over your life.

In fact, as of today, Obama's approval rating stands at 50%. Which means that literally HALF of the country thinks he's doing okay and HALF of the country wishes we had a election today or a do-over for November to boot his ass out.

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by randolph

From Washington Monthly...

Most people haven't forgotten that the mess we are in was caused by the lax regulation during the Bush administration.

Actually, here's another thing that makes me laugh about the news article you cited. It also states: But in keeping with the year-long trend, Republicans are simply not the beneficiary of public discontent. Only 24% of the public has confidence in congressional Republicans "to make the right decisions for the country's future." The number for congressional Democrats is at least a little better at 32%, while the president's number is nearly double that of the GOP at 47%.

See, there's a major problem with that. First of all, depending on which poll you look at, the Republican confidence number is actually higher -- in fact in most polls its only a mere point or so different than the Democrats. So the Washington Monthly... again to try and reach a predetermined conclusion about the Republicans... apparently decided to go with a low number.

That said, the far far far MORE TELLING thing that they DON'T bring up is that the Tea Party movement actually has a HIGHER approval rating than BOTH parties. So that's certainly not good news for the Dems or Obama. So, it was rather convenient of the Washington Monthly to leave THAT statistic out, basically because it wanted to run a few numbers to say "See! See! Obama has numbers twice as high as the Republicans!"

Which is only the more laughable when you consider that Sarah Palin now has an approval rating TIED with Obama, but I notice they conveniently left that number out TOO.

And finally, I find it hysterical that the article reached the conclusion that: when it comes to assigning blame for the nation's economic woes, about twice as many fault the George W. Bush administration as do Obama's...

...When in fact a poll taken at the start of the New Year ACTUALLY found that an EQUAL number of Americans right now (roughly 47%) would rather have BUSH back in office again, to guide the economy back, as opposed to trusting Obama with handling it anymore.

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by randolph

The meltdown demonstrates conclusively that government intervention is necessary to regulate capitalism.

The meltdown was a result of government intervention, not capitalism. Using beauracracy to fix the mistakes brought on by the exact same bureaucracy is a losing strategy.


http://article.nationalreview.com/pr...zYwNzkzYjc1NDI

http://townhall.com/columnists/Thoma...down_economics

[The Conquistador]

If you're a lender you risk losing FDIC and other government services if you don't lend in a way "serves the convenience and needs" of the broke-ass, low income people in "the community that you're chartered to do business."

Clinton's big change was that he opened the gates for Fannie and Freddie to buy mortgage backed securities. Originate the loan and sell it to a private investor or if the MBS is too shitty, Fannie or Freddie would have bought it. Read up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governm..._in_the_crisis

Can you really blame the banks for doing something that was profitable and given a gold stamp of approval by Uncle Sam? It became like a game of musical chairs, you knew it was going to all come crashing down at some point, but you always hoped it would be someone else who took the fall.

SEC. 802. (a) The Congress finds that--
(1) regulated financial institutions are required by law to demonstrate that their deposit facilities serve the convenience and needs of the communities in which they are chartered to do business;
(2) the convenience and needs of communities include the need for credit services as well as deposit services; and
(3) regulated financial institutions have continuing and affirmative obligation to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered.
(b) It is the purpose of this title to require each appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency to use its authority when examining financial institutions, to encourage such institutions to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions.

Are the banks blameless?...Hell no, but the government holds more blame than any bank. Where did all of this start? Fannie and Freddie, the two most fucked "banks" there have ever been.

[The Conquistador]

Oh yeah. Pageflip!

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by randolph

From Businessweek:
Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with subprime crisis

The Wall Street Journal would beg to differ with them...

Many monumental errors and misjudgments contributed to the acute financial turmoil in which we now find ourselves. Nevertheless, the vast accumulation of toxic mortgage debt that poisoned the global financial system was driven by the aggressive buying of subprime and Alt-A mortgages, and mortgage-backed securities, by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The poor choices of these two government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) -- and their sponsors in Washington -- are largely to blame for our current mess.

How did we get here?
Let's review:

In order to curry congressional support after their accounting scandals in 2003 and 004, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac committed to increased financing of "affordable housing." They became the largest buyers of subprime and Alt-A mortgages between 2004 and 2007, with total exposure eventually exceeding $1 trillion.

In doing so, they stimulated the growth of the subpar mortgage market and substantially magnified the costs of its collapse.

It is important to understand that, as GSEs, Fannie and Freddie were viewed in the capital markets as government-backed buyers (a belief that has now been reduced to fact). Thus they were able to borrow as much as they wanted for the purpose of buying mortgages and mortgage-backed securities. Their buying patterns and interests were followed closely in the markets. If Fannie and Freddie wanted subprime or Alt-A loans, the mortgage markets would produce them.

By late 2004, Fannie and Freddie very much wanted subprime and Alt-A loans. However, their accounting had just been revealed as fraudulent, and they were under pressure from Congress to demonstrate that they deserved their considerable privileges. Among other problems, economists at the Federal Reserve and Congressional Budget Office had begun to study them in detail, and found that -- despite their subsidized borrowing rates -- they did not significantly reduce mortgage interest rates.

In the wake of Freddie's 2003 accounting scandal, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan became a powerful opponent, and began to call for stricter regulation of the GSEs and limitations on the growth of their highly profitable, but risky, retained portfolios.

If they were not making mortgages cheaper and were creating risks for the taxpayers and the economy, what value were they providing?

The answer was their affordable-housing mission...

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by randolph

From Businessweek.
Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with subprime crisis

Lack of supervision fostered by the Bush administration was a major factor in the meltdown.

And a lack of supervision by the Obama administration -- or rather a willingness to look the other way, so these same bullshit low income ACORN type housing loans can continue -- is already poised to fuck the markets up even more, if not cause a complete repeat of history and set us up for yet another financial meldown, as once again Obama plays partisan politics and uses his power to inflate government and its role in home buying.

From the Wall Street Journal as well...

The government's move to ease the limits on the securities holdings of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac has ignited a debate among analysts about what the companies will do with their longer leash.

When the Treasury Department took over Fannie and Freddie last year, one of the requirements set for the companies required them to begin shrinking their portfolios of mortgages and related investments, which total a combined $1.5 trillion.

The idea was to rein in the companies' size and growth.

But last Thursday, the Obama Treasury Department quietly eased that restriction, meaning the companies now won't be forced to sell mortgages next year and instead can buy mortgages on the market, thus doing exactly the opposite of what they had been required to do. The Treasury also suspended for the next three years the $400 billion cap on the bailout subsidy that the government will offer. That could give them more flexibility to modify mortgages without worrying about taking losses.

Mahesh Swaminathan, senior mortgage analyst at Credit Suisse, said the firms could use their increased capacity to purchase delinquent loans from pools of mortgage-backed securities that they guarantee. Fannie and Freddie already purchase defaulted loans as they modify them under the administration's loan-modification program, but the additional breathing room means it is now a "slam-dunk for them to speed up" purchases of delinquent loans, Mr. Swaminathan said. New accounting rules that take effect next year also could make it more cost-effective for the companies to buy out bad loans and keep them in their investment portfolios.

"It's created a government-purchasing facility other than the Fed," said Karen Shaw Petrou, managing partner of Federal Financial Analytics, a research firm in Washington.

Meanwhile, a Freddie spokesman said the company will continue to use its investment portfolio as "an important tool" to "keep order in the housing and housing-finance markets." A Fannie spokesman declined to comment.

A Treasury official said the more generous portfolio limits were offered to avoid forcing the companies to actively sell their holdings, and they didn't intend for Fannie and Freddie to be active buyers of mortgages.

Ms. Petrou said that the recent moves "make sense in a short-term way because you avoid market volatility, but the prospect of limitless aid will make it harder to extricate Fannie and Freddie from the government."

"In a long-term way, it promotes nationalization of U.S. mortgage finance. We have increasingly gigantic, increasingly federal agencies eating up every mortgage out there," she said.

[jimnaseum]

Putting Republicans back in charge is like giving Leno back the Tonight Show. There's no accounting for taste.

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by jimnaseum

Putting Republicans back in charge is like giving Leno back the Tonight Show. There's no accounting for taste.

Republicans and Democrats are just two different sides of the same shit mountain.


[Insert Barf Icon Here]