Palin bandwagoneers

[retro-man]

Spare us all the "fair is fair" BS, because we all know that when it comes to the American media fair is not fair. If not for Fox News and conservative talk radio there would be nothing but the extremely biased left wing bullshit that constitutes the rest of the media in this country. They are never going to really dig and try to find Obama's skeletons, or Bidens, because they are in the tank for them. They are liberal Democrat party mouth pieces. Sarah Palin scares the crap out of you liberals because she appeals to rank an file citizens unlike the two stuffed suit crooked elitists that you have on your ticket. The longer this goes on, the more the country gets a first hand look at how very biased the vast majority of the media in this country really is. The longer it goes on the more the country sees how liberals look down their nose at most poeple and especially how liberal politicians look down their nose at everyone.

The idea of "the liberal media" is one of the biggest lies that has been perpetrated by the conservative movement. Believe it or not, the media used to be regarded as impartial and relied upon for information. That was in the days before the big lie, and before the internet enabled every nut job to find his or her own community where they could engage in a myopic circle-jerk with others of their own kind all day long. The American "liberal" media was dead silent when the Bush Administration led us into Iraq. Not a peep of questioning or protest - even though much of the American population and almost the entire rest of the world (not to mention a brutally silenced portion of the defense and intelligence establishment) had deep misgivings. They were dead silent when the administration outlawed photographing of coffins of dead soldiers being unloaded "out of concern for the privacy of the families" (please explain that one to me: "Say, isn't that Edna's kid over there in the 4th box from the left, 15th row back?") and when they ensured that all reporters would be embedded - not operating freely. How many of the 320,000 or so injured veterans (1% of our population) struggling to adjust to life on a military pension with with no legs or arms or eyes have you seen featured on the American "liberal" media? I have seen exactly one: Ty Ziegel. The Iraq war was by far the most censored war in my lifetime. Total snow job. And I remember Vietnam. The American "liberal" media, which covered day after day after week after week of Clinton's blowjob scandal (I've got Ken Starr's comically knit brow burned into my retina) has let the Valery Plame affair drop like a rock. The American "liberal media" that buried the 9/11 report and the Downing Street memo - was there any editorial examination of the findings of fraud? No. The American "liberal media" that has been stone silent on episode after episode of kickbacks and bid rigging involving Halliburton and KBR. You should be angry at the "conservative" media for blinding you to all that.

 

Once you get the ability to simply write off everyone you don't agree with with a convenient label instead of confronting the issues, it's all lost. The conservative movement and its dirty tricks is the end of democracy and the beginning of Idiocracy. And you, BlackHore, with the economy tanking (thanks to decades of letting the fox mind the henhouse), the utter hollowness of the supply-side boom (which, as I pointed out in a different thread, has produced growth of 14 - 15% less than the New Deal and Great Society booms that preceded it) and with the luster coming off of your own media darling Palin, you are just getting shriller and shriller. I think it is you who are having the crap scared out of you this time. The walls are closing in and you may actually have to examine your long-held beliefs. Ah, but that would be asking too much. Bush's popularity is at a historic low, and all you can do is trot out the same old crap that they've been feeding you for 25 years. Learn to think man. It is absolutely unfathomable to me that the country can be in the shape its in, and so many people like you can't see the writing on the wall. Check back this time next year if you still have an internet connection by then - because the shit has only just begun to hit the fan.

Edited September 18, 2008 by retro-man

[RaZor]

I'm sorry, how many times did Bill Clinton's administration mail out a multi-hundred dollar check that wasn't your tax return to everyone? Oh yeah never. The Bush Administration has done it twice.

Please riddle me this: if the Bush tax cuts are designed to stimulate the economy . . . why did he mail out checks to the middle class?

. . . This is happening because of policies implemented by Bill Clintons Administration. Just as the fantastic economy of the 90's was nothing but the result of policies put in place by Reagan in the 80's this is nothing more than the failure of policies in the early 21st centry that were enacted by Clinton in the last years of the 20th centry.

BlackHorse, as per usual, you are again truly clueless. I think you right wingers need to go and read about the Glass-Steagall Act . . . it was enacted in midst of the Great Depression basically to prevent another depression.

Phil Gramm and John McCain are directly responsible for the passage of a law (the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act)...which repealed portions of Glass-Steagall and led to a disastrous deregulation of the banking industry in 1999. Sen. Phil Gramm (Tex.) sponsored the bill (that's why his name is in the title) and with great support from McCain who had joined with (all) other Republicans to push through landmark legislation. And what has Gramm been to the McCain campaign? Oh yes, he has been an economic adviser to McCain's campaign. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act aimed to make the country's financial institutions competitive by removing the Depression-era walls between banking, investment and insurance companies.

 

That bill allowed AIG to participate in the gold rush of a rapidly expanding global banking and investment market. But the legislation also helped pave the way for companies such as AIG and Lehman Brothers to become behemoths laden with bad loans and investments.

 

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) who went to the Senate floor on Monday and said this about John McCain and his philosophical twin, George W. Bush:

"One does try to get a handle on understanding what world Senator McCain and President Bush are living in when they would suggest that ``the fundamentals of our economy are strong.' Clearly, they have not been talking to working families around the United States of America.

 

"My perception of the economy is if you get off of the country club circuit, you stop talking to the millionaires and the billionaires and the large campaign contributors, and you talk to ordinary working people, people who own small businesses, what you find, in fact, is that the middle class in our country is under more assault than has been the case since before the Great Depression."

[Mark B. Morrow]

The idea of "the liberal media" is one of the biggest lies that has been perpetrated by the conservative movement. Believe it or not, the media used to be regarded as impartial and relied upon for information. That was in the days before the big lie, and before the internet enabled every nut job to find his or her own community where they could engage in a myopic circle-jerk with others of their own kind all day long. The American "liberal" media was dead silent when the Bush Administration led us into Iraq. Not a peep of questioning or protest - even though much of the American population and almost the entire rest of the world (not to mention a brutally silenced portion of the defense and intelligence establishment) had deep misgivings. They were dead silent when the administration outlawed photographing of coffins of dead soldiers being unloaded "out of concern for the privacy of the families" (please explain that one to me: "Say, isn't that Edna's kid over there in the 4th box from the left, 15th row back?") and when they ensured that all reporters would be embedded - not operating freely. How many of the 320,000 or so injured veterans (1% of our population) struggling to adjust to life on a military pension with with no legs or arms or eyes have you seen featured on the American "liberal" media? I have seen exactly one: Ty Ziegel. The Iraq war was by far the most censored war in my lifetime. Total snow job. And I remember Vietnam. The American "liberal" media, which covered day after day after week after week of Clinton's blowjob scandal (I've got Ken Starr's comically knit brow burned into my retina) has let the Valery Plame affair drop like a rock. The American "liberal media" that buried the 9/11 report and the Downing Street memo - was there any editorial examination of the findings of fraud? No. The American "liberal media" that has been stone silent on episode after episode of kickbacks and bid rigging involving Halliburton and KBR. You should be angry at the "conservative" media for blinding you to all that.

 

Once you get the ability to simply write off everyone you don't agree with with a convenient label instead of confronting the issues, it's all lost. The conservative movement and its dirty tricks is the end of democracy and the beginning of Idiocracy. And you, BlackHore, with the economy tanking (thanks to decades of letting the fox mind the henhouse), the utter hollowness of the supply-side boom (which, as I pointed out in a different thread, has produced growth of 14 - 15% less than the New Deal and Great Society booms that preceded it) and with the luster coming off of your own media darling Palin, you are just getting shriller and shriller. I think it is you who are having the crap scared out of you this time. The walls are closing in and you may actually have to examine your long-held beliefs. Ah, but that would be asking too much. Bush's popularity is at a historic low, and all you can do is trot out the same old crap that they've been feeding you for 25 years. Learn to think man. It is absolutely unfathomable to me that the country can be in the shape its in, and so many people like you can't see the writing on the wall. Check back this time next year if you still have an internet connection by then - because the shit has only just begun to hit the fan.

 

 

Well said Retroman, I'm sick and tired of the right wing camplaining that they are victims of the "Liberal Media" when they have no shortage of outlets for their opinions including talk radio which they overwhelmingly control. They have had total control of the government for 6 out of the last 8 years including the times when the Democratic minority actually tried to act bi-partisan after 9/11. Since 2006 the Democrats have had a bare majority in the Senate kept by Lieberman's vote. The right wingers who want to say the Democrats controll congress conveniently forget all the Republican filibusters that have kept anything from getting done.

 

BlackHorse, it seems that the best you can do when defending your candidate is to try to shift the focus to something else. That is not a defense it is a distraction.

[Ron W.]

That is not a defense it is a distraction.

 

Seems to be working for the candidates, both sides.

[Edstock]

and all you can do is trot out the same old crap that they've been feeding you for 25 years. Learn to think man. It is absolutely unfathomable to me that the country can be in the shape its in, and so many people like you can't see the writing on the wall. Check back this time next year if you still have an internet connection by then - because the shit has only just begun to hit the fan.

Thank-you. Retro, thank-you. Well said.

 

Here's an interesting take on the Gopper mind-set:

 

WHAT MAKES PEOPLE VOTE REPUBLICAN?

 

http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge256.html#haidt

 

Worth the read.

[Hemiman]

Not sure we need Fox or CNN to see how flawed many liberal policies are.

 

One only needs to look out their window. Living in NYS all of my life, I can use NYC as a classic example of how years of liberal leadership, (if you can call it that), nearly destroyed the city. It took a consrvative Mayor to dig that city out of the septic tank created by liberal social policy.

 

Even my Uncle, (a diehard liberal publisher in NYC. Guess what paper he used to work for) admits to this day that it was CONSERVATIVE policies that saved that city.

 

A look at my city, (Rochester NY) paints the same picture. Steady state of decline due to liberal Mayors and policies. Current Mayor, A Democrat, ran and won on a conservative anti crime platform. Guess what, in two years time, crime, while still bad, is down and declining, urban construction is up, even better it's being driven by the private sector. Rochester has a long way to go, per capita crime and poverty are among the worst in the State. However there is light at the end of the tunnel, we just have to stay the conservative course like NYC did.

 

Are all liberal ideas bad? No.

 

Since you liberal are so full of great NEW ideas, why not throw away the 1960's play book of failure and come up with some solutions that work.

 

As an engineering manager, I may favor the "old way of doing things" that I know will get the job done. However, when one of my engineer's comes up with a new, well thought out, solution to a problem I jump on it. By the same token, once we realize a new solution doesn't work, we don't keep sending it out to the field expecting a different result.

 

What was Einstein's definition of insanity?

Edited September 18, 2008 by Hemiman

[BlackHorse]

Please riddle me this: if the Bush tax cuts are designed to stimulate the economy . . . why did he mail out checks to the middle class?

 

BlackHorse, as per usual, you are again truly clueless. I think you right wingers need to go and read about the Glass-Steagall Act . . . it was enacted in midst of the Great Depression basically to prevent another depression.

Phil Gramm and John McCain are directly responsible for the passage of a law (the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act)...which repealed portions of Glass-Steagall and led to a disastrous deregulation of the banking industry in 1999. Sen. Phil Gramm (Tex.) sponsored the bill (that's why his name is in the title) and with great support from McCain who had joined with (all) other Republicans to push through landmark legislation. And what has Gramm been to the McCain campaign? Oh yes, he has been an economic adviser to McCain's campaign. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act aimed to make the country's financial institutions competitive by removing the Depression-era walls between banking, investment and insurance companies.

 

That bill allowed AIG to participate in the gold rush of a rapidly expanding global banking and investment market. But the legislation also helped pave the way for companies such as AIG and Lehman Brothers to become behemoths laden with bad loans and investments.

 

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) who went to the Senate floor on Monday and said this about John McCain and his philosophical twin, George W. Bush:

"One does try to get a handle on understanding what world Senator McCain and President Bush are living in when they would suggest that ``the fundamentals of our economy are strong.' Clearly, they have not been talking to working families around the United States of America.

 

"My perception of the economy is if you get off of the country club circuit, you stop talking to the millionaires and the billionaires and the large campaign contributors, and you talk to ordinary working people, people who own small businesses, what you find, in fact, is that the middle class in our country is under more assault than has been the case since before the Great Depression."

 

Wow! I'm clueless? If I'm clueless there has got to be a whole other word to describe how out there you are pal LOL AIG is not in trouble because of taking advantage of some rapidly expanding global banking market. AIG is in trouble because they insured high risk mortgages from Fannie and Freddie and when a bunch of those loans defaulted they started hemoraging money. Fannie and Freddie are owned by the government now because good old Bill Clinton and the gang enforced regulations that actually punished those corporations for not extending high risk ARM loans to high risk individuals. Bill's chickeeeennssss, are comin home to roost! As with most things one need only follow the money. Barrack Obama was the second largest recipient of money from Fannie and Freddie, right behind another big Lib, Chris Dodson. Barrack Obama was the second largest recipient of money from Lehman Brothers right behind another big lib, Hillary Clinton.

 

Now, I'm not saying that the Republicans are blameless in this affair. Certainly some Republicans were on board with these carppy ideas that have resulted in the virtual melt down of the world markets. But by far, the majority of those that orchestrated this mess are the guys and gals with the little (D) after their name. Yet another failed liberal policy. One of many. It's not that you guys are bad or have bad ideas. Your hearts in the right place and all that. You just have no idea how to execute them.

[BlackHorse]

The idea of "the liberal media" is one of the biggest lies that has been perpetrated by the conservative movement.

 

LMAO

 

 

 

 

There are no American tanks in Iraq.

 

Oh and there is no liberal bias in the media.

 

 

 

Seriously I got to the end of your first sentence and didn't even bother to read on. If you can't even recognize that there is a big liberal bias on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, LA Times, The Seattle Times, on and on to a list that's too long to bother with then you are not worth my time. You have to at least live in a place called the real world before you can be at the same table with me son.

[Imawhosure]

Hemi man, other conservatives, and independents,

 

Please read what I am about to post, and if I err, please fix it as I do not want to be accused of lieing to convince anyone to vote against the way they think. I draw conclusions and show parrallels from most of these peoples own occupation; auto worker.

 

So then-------->

 

Socialism has failed economically, everytime it has been tried. If socialism was a panacea, the USSR would still be with us and stronger than ever, Cuba would be a powerhouse, and China never would have become more capitalistic to succeed. In fact, one of the MAIN reasons America was so much more of an economic power as compared to these countrys in the past was; America was dealing with real socialists, and they had to deal with us, real capitalists. They got their butts handed to them, and history is full of examples that prove this fact.

 

But then, about 40 years ago, LIBERALS decided we weren't nice enough, didn't have enough programs, life wasn't fair, and so it started. While all of us are more than willing to say that some of these changes were needed, LIBERALS weren't satisfied, and kept pushing for more programs, more this, more that, it is not fair, etc, etc. In increments they moved us, slowly but surely along the trail, except for 8 years of Ronald Reagan when liberals were temporarily kept under control. We have now arrived at this place, and they want to push us further with Barack!

 

On the other hand, the powers that were socialist that have been extremely successful as of late, what are they doing? Well, moving AWAY from socialism!!! We are going one way, they are going the other, lolol.

 

And so, how do we know that capitalism beats socialism in the workplace?

 

Well, quite easily really, let us just look at AUTOWORKERS!!!! Most of the big 3 (now 2) workers belong to a union called the UAW. This union was born from the theorys of Socialism, and its founder Walter Reuther admitted it. It was NOT at the start of the union that socialistic tendencies were implemented, but they appeared within the unions youth, when contracts were negotiated for the protection of the weakest worker, at the expense of the best, or the strongest. Before the union was 30 years old, taking care of many of the weakest became taking care of anyone who could devise a way to use the system, and the strongest became anyone willing to work.

 

At first glance, you would believe that this system was highly competitive, as each of the big 3 grew and prospered. But what nobody really took into account was----------->Gm, Ford, and Chrysler were like the industrys inside the Soviet Union. They were protected because no other carmaker had the money, technology, or no how to build such vehicles, thus they through their own success were isolated from competition.

 

Then started the problems!!!!!!!! Offshore companys decided when their technology got good enough, to build plants in the USA. While most of these automakers had their own unions at home, they quickly decided to do everything possible to keep these SOCIALISTIC agencys that add layer, upon layer of non value added work to vehicles, to keep employment levels high for the union, thus their dues!

 

In fact, the braintrusts of the UAW largely ignored these new invaders for almost a decade, in fact, laughed at them to boot.

 

Well, the offshore automakers who were FREE from socialistic poisoning started pounding on domestic automakers who were saddled with rules, regulations, deadbeats, to much cost over run, etc. The domestic automakers closely resembled the now defunct Soviet Unions industrys when glasnost was introduced to the USSR, and their industrys were forced to face the wrath of Americas industrys, and trading partners. They collapsed in the Soviet Union, but thankfully for the domestic automakers, they were capitalists and at least had an idea how to save themselves.

 

But here we see AUTOWORKERS still haven't learned the lesson. Since their companys have finally started pushing their union AWAY from socialism to survive, some of these people have now decided I guess that "since we can't have a fully socialist UAW that fails, why not make America socialist!" We NEED more programs!!!! We need SOCIALISM!!!!! We NEED BARRY!!!!!

 

Also, let me ask you this--------------->who do you suppose SOCIALISTS would ALWAYS support, capitalists, or other SOCIALISTS?

 

Then why is ANYONE surprised when the UAW only support democrats???????? You can NOT be free, or how can you be a SOCIALIST?

 

Finally--------->Have you heard all the whineing from union members about how unions are shrinking? Have you heard CERTAIN SUSPECTS on here claim it is because of some Republican dirty trick, lolol.

 

You who work for Ford-------->has any republican dirty trick FORCED you to quit your union? Are you still a member? Then if all the members are still members, why are they shrinking so much?

 

ANSWER--------->Because companys WITHOUT a socialistic union to deal with, are putting those that DO HAVE THEM, OUT of business!!!!! Therefore, the numbers shrink quickly.

 

Imagine, one company without a union that has 3 jobs, and 3 people do them. Now imagine another company that is under the control of SOCIALISTS that has 3 jobs, and 6 people man it!!!!! Oh yeah, 3 of ya do the job, you got two assigned to it that AVOID WORK AT ALL COSTS, and the 6th one is the UNION STEWARD who walks around, and takes care of mostly the two who won't work, lolol.

 

How you gonna win?

 

Are you SURE you want to help turn the USA towards MORE SOCIALISM????????? If so, all of our industry will either leave, or fail. I never thought it was possible, but Mexico will eat our lunch for sure, and we will eat theirs which would be......a constant diet of rice and beans.

 

Hey, you wanna blame the republicans for spiriting away your jobs, so be it. But then, don't go look for any sale. You see, the free market rewards those who can build for less, with quality. People will buy it. That means, for all intensive purposes, BLUE COLLAR SOCIALISM IS DEAD, in this country anyway.

 

Win or die!!!! Barry ain't savin nobody!!!!!

Edited September 18, 2008 by Imawhosure

[Ford-150]

We could do this all day. She's just a barbaric, ignorant hick.

http://www.salon.com/env/feature/2008/09/0...h_palin_wolves/

who is the ignorant one?

[retro-man]

I got to the end of your first sentence and didn't even bother to read on.

 

You said the same exact thing in response to another post recently. It's obvious from every post you make that your mind is completely closed to opposing viewpoints. You have no mental expansiveness, no mental flexibility, no response to anything in my post but to loudly proclaim your willful ignorance; nay to wallow in it. Yes, your problem is obvious.

[Mark B. Morrow]

You said the same exact thing in response to another post recently. It's obvious from every post you make that your mind is completely closed to opposing viewpoints. You have no mental expansiveness, no mental flexibility, no response to anything in my post but to loudly proclaim your willful ignorance; nay to wallow in it. Yes, your problem is obvious.

 

[retro-man]

Thank-you. Retro, thank-you. Well said.

 

Here's an interesting take on the Gopper mind-set:

 

WHAT MAKES PEOPLE VOTE REPUBLICAN?

 

http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge256.html#haidt

 

Worth the read.

Fascinating read. I was not especially surprised that I share many of the beliefs that Haidt attributes to the conservative mindset (let's face it, this whole "Retro-man" thing is nothing if not conservative). I liked this quote:

 

"...the second rule of moral psychology is that morality is not just about how we treat each other (as most liberals think); it is also about binding groups together, supporting essential institutions, and living in a sanctified and noble way."

 

It opened my mind a bit - and I recommend it to those on both sides - or more specifically, those of us who may, in this arena, occasionally forget that we are actually somewhere in the middle. Thanks for the link.

Edited September 19, 2008 by retro-man

[BlackHorse]

You said the same exact thing in response to another post recently. It's obvious from every post you make that your mind is completely closed to opposing viewpoints. You have no mental expansiveness, no mental flexibility, no response to anything in my post but to loudly proclaim your willful ignorance; nay to wallow in it. Yes, your problem is obvious.

 

I may have said the exact same thing. You'd think you'd learn after awhile. If you're going to sit there and tell me there is no liberal bias in a great part of both the print and TV media and expect me to take anything else you have to say seriously you're a fool. You can use all the twenty five cent words you can look up to try and convince me that the problem is "I just won't listen" but it's a waste of time once again. No I'm not listening to some fool who claims there is no liberal bias in the media. Get serious already. When you learn to accept reality then we can talk and I'll be as "expansive" and "flexible" as I can ok? Ok, bu bye now.

[BlackHorse]

It opened my mind a bit -

 

Really doubt that.

[BlackHorse]

One other thing, do you Libs know how to post any pictures that aren't tasteless and disgusting. I mean I realize you're a bunch of no taste, no class neophytes but between guys with there head up their ass and Sarah Palin holding a bloody statue of liberty you libs are really showing your true colors around here.

[RaZor]

I got to the end of your first sentence and didn't even bother to read on.

You said the same exact thing in response to another post recently. It's obvious from every post you make that your mind is completely closed to opposing viewpoints. You have no mental expansiveness, no mental flexibility, no response to anything in my post but to loudly proclaim your willful ignorance; nay to wallow in it. Yes, your problem is obvious.

You are right Retro, he HAS said this before (more than once IIRC) and it is indicative of his mindset. . . refuse to open his mind to information/opinion other than that which is a confirmation of his beliefs. It is a manifestation of narrow-mindedness: a lacking of tolerance. It can easily said about this subject that there exists more than one type of narrow-mindedness (1) in that a person must maintain his/her own perspective of the nature of truth and, (2) that there may exist a psychological rejection or unwillingness to even consider any other view than his/her own view (contrary to their own).

 

There appears to be large differences in outlook between Democrats and Republicans, between red state voters and blue state voters, and between religious voters and secular voters. These divisions are not confined to a small minority of activists—they involve a large segment of the public and the deepest divisions are found among the most interested, <quasi->informed, and active citizens. Personally, I believe that this polarization is manifested by the media because it serves them well to increase their profits. All "news" programs are dependent upon revenue because they are part of a business and they MUST find a way to increase their viewer ship (and in-turn their ratings and then their advertising revenue). It really is not important anymore to be impartial and to really present the 'news' as it happens. . . what is really important is to increase profitability (job security/income).

 

There is an underlying emotional need in this disenfranchised world, where the world is changing so fast that it is dizzying – that many cling to what they have known with a refusal to consider anything that does not 'fit' in their version of the world. So they define the 'truth' in their own terms (and for gawd's sake do NOT try and introduce ANYTHING that will contradict what I have already concluded to – as the 'truth').

 

Of course, this is really what it is all about - the concept of 'truth', isn't it? However, if we were to remove that variable (who can really prove what IS the 'truth' and what is NOT the 'truth'), we are left with the interaction (as in the case of BON and other public forums) with other human beings. . . and it brings us back to what I consider is the more important division between Americans – tolerance. "What we have here . . . is a failure to communicate" pretty much sums it up, and when one considers the character who uttered those words on the silver screen, it gives an inside look at that mindset. In short, when one is not willing to even 'read' the comments/opinions of others (i.e., whether one is 'tolerant' of the views of others), especially when that person is a not-captured participant – but is here of his/her own volition, then what has been exposed, and what we are really witnessing, is intolerance. That is the clue it seems to me, not that we have different opinions, but that there are some/many that just plain have no tolerance to others - and therein lies the danger to our way of life - not that we have different political (red/blue) views.

 

 

Personally, we Americans face some very daunting problems and this really is not a time when we can afford the division amongst our populace. It would seem to be a time that we all might want to consider that we all open our minds and assimilate information from many sources (not just those that provide further confirmation of the views that we have already determined as the 'truth' – even though the chances of that are very slim) before we form a hard-fast position. Life is about utilizing all the "things" we've learned to date. However, unless one continues to learn and increase knowledge, the "things" become stagnant – we become stagnant. Learning (expanding one's knowledge/understanding) is not compulsory…but then again, neither is survival (especially mental survival in this ever changing/stressful/impersonal world).

 

A good place to start may be with reading what others post (and reading with comprehension - in an attempt to understand what the poster is saying - instead of automatically discarding it). And I might add, if you expect others to read what YOU post, you might try doing it yourself.

[Deanh]

One other thing, do you Libs know how to post any pictures that aren't tasteless and disgusting. I mean I realize you're a bunch of no taste, no class neophytes but between guys with there head up their ass and Sarah Palin holding a bloody statue of liberty you libs are really showing your true colors around here.

oh for Christs sake toughen the F up...........

[fmccap]

Are you SURE you want to help turn the USA towards MORE SOCIALISM?????????

They don't seem to have a problem doing it by themselves considering everything going on lately.

[RaZor]

Wow! I'm clueless? If I'm clueless there has got to be a whole other word to describe how out there you are pal LOL AIG is not in trouble because of taking advantage of some rapidly expanding global banking market. AIG is in trouble because they insured high risk mortgages from Fannie and Freddie and when a bunch of those loans defaulted they started hemorhaging money.

You might want to try and read for comprehension. Yes, they are insolvent -- because they violated the basis of insurance principles and good business by allowing their greed to overwhelm their responsibility as an insurance/risk management/investment company by placing too many eggs in one basket.

 

Every time an insurance company gets into trouble it is because of the greed of their executives, who in search of greater premiums/investment income, and forget the principles of the industry. It happens when a property insurance company sells too many policies in a specific area and then that area gets slammed with huge losses. A good example is the dozen or so ins. companies that were severely injured (financially) when hurricane Andrew hit So Fla back in the early nineties. All of them had sold far too many policies in that area – and therefore, did not spread (control) their insured risk.

 

Before that time a couple of the biggest ins. companies had been in an under-bidding war to obtain a greater number of policies by undercutting the premiums of each other to gain greater control of the market (and increase profits). Bang! Along comes mother nature – and they got caught and experienced huge losses because they violated the principles of the industry.

 

Then, of course, an insurance company must purchase investments that provide return and safety as they owe it to ALL of their policy holders to remain prudent and liquid. This is where AIG failed miserably - they not only bought too many of these bad mortgages, they insured a lot of them. Bad investing and bad risk management - because of greed.

Fannie and Freddie are owned by the government now because good old Bill Clinton and the gang enforced regulations that actually punished those corporations for not extending high risk ARM loans to high risk individuals. Bill's chickeeeennssss, are comin home to roost! As with most things one need only follow the money. Barrack Obama was the second largest recipient of money from Fannie and Freddie, right behind another big Lib, Chris Dodson. Barrack Obama was the second largest recipient of money from Lehman Brothers right behind another big lib, Hillary Clinton.

Like many government programs, Fannie and Freddie's objective was a noble one, but at the same time it was very inappropriate for government to undertake.

 

F&F were set up as a curious hybrid as privately traded corporations sponsored by the U.S. government. As long as the companies were making money, executives and shareholders got rich. When they lost money, the American taxpayer had to rescue them (privatize profits – socialize losses).

 

Even though F&F were originally set up as government sponsored enterprises (GSE), Presidents Johnson and Nixon made them publicly traded companies with authority to sell shares of stock. The problem is that in a GSE, the shareholders of F&F enjoy huge advantages over their competitors with a guaranteed line of credit with the US Treasury, cheaper borrowing costs, lower capital requirements, and an implicit federal guarantee against failure.

 

According to most analysts of the history of F&F, there were not any significant changes to them during the nineties. However, in 2003, after a massive accounting scandal forced the resignation of F&F execs, there was a call on Congress to address the problem of their structural lack of accountability. Former Fed Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan was among many warning that F&F were growing dangerously overextended. However, to understand Greenspan's complicity in the whole scenario, one must understand what was happening with the economy back then and why the housing market needed to be pushed toward the sub-prime risk. IF you want to gain an understanding of the underlying reasons why we are where we are at, I suggest that you obtain a copy of the book "Greenspan's Fraud: How Two Decades of His Polices Have Undermined the Global Economy" (I know that you probably won't as you, so far, do not seem to be one who desires to expand your understanding of what has happened that - is not presented by the media – but there it is anyway just in case you want to.)

 

Why didn't Congress act? In a word, politics. While they both took part, remind me here, which party controlled Congress and the executive branch during that period (2003)?

 

F&F were loaded with well-connected lobbyists on Capitol Hill, who spent $170 million over the last decade coercing Congress and fending off further Congressional oversight. Both parties covered themselves with the excuse that to question these loose-money policies was to deny the American dream to working people. Hell, the housing market (with the addition market of sub-prime) was the dot.com happening during that period as Americans were pushed to spend, spend, spend to bolster up the economy. The manufacturing base stateside was disappearing - so there needed to be another focus/vehicle to crank up the economy. And for one moment do not think that there wasn't a tremendous amount of money made by banks, mortgage brokers, title companies, etc - all of them were pushing selling of houses without credit worthiness/income and laughing all the way to their bank depositing their commission checks.

 

Meanwhile, F&F CEOs took home tens of millions of dollars in personal income as they were driving the companies off a cliff.

 

I noticed that you (conveniently) omitted that F&F have, for some time now, used taxpayer money to lobby for perks and privileges not afforded to their private sector competitors, such as exemptions from paying local and state taxes. If that is not bad enough, F&F lobbyists have infiltrated this year's presidential campaign.

 

Yes, you have pointed out contributions to one set of campaigns, however, you failed to include that twenty or more of John McCain's fundraisers have lobbied on behalf of F&F. His campaign manager, Rick Davis, served as president of an advocacy group led by F&F that lobbied for the duo against regulation. Perhaps these contacts explain McCain's recent remarks and his zeal for using taxpayer money, no matter what the cost, to keep F&F from failure. I'll bet that Fox (or BillO, SeanH, GlennB, or RushL, or JoeS) didn't report on that, did they? I know that ABC (Fox-lite as they are know in the industry), CBS (splice & edit McCain's answers to an interview so that he doesn't look like a total baffoon), NBC (Bryan W is self-confessed staunch conservative and so is the company that owns NBC) have not reported it so far.

 

The real problem with F&F is that they are probably unconstitutional, and that the government really should not be involved in this kind of business at all and sooner or later, they should really be sold off and completely privatized – without the government backing. But the reasons for their existence were noble – but as is often the case in corporations, they fell to corruption and greed. And as was the case with ENRON and other examples of corporate greed,

When the history is written on the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, it will go down in the annals of corporate scandals as one of the greatest accounting scams committed in broad daylight.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...id=aB5s3oci5VH8

 

 

Just another example, that corporate greed – not liberal policies (as you allege) – is the basis of these financial crises. Nice try though, to blame it on Clinton (your usual whipping boy). Of course, if you can provide some proof by unbiased sources (I have a dozen or more links waiting), I will be happy to review it. It is apparent that you feel compelled to blame everything that goes wrong in this world on the libs & dems, but, as a moderate, I suspect that you have it backwards – while both parties are complicit, there is little doubt as to which party has dominated the political (and financial) scene in our country for the last twenty-eight years.

 

Now, I'm not saying that the Republicans are blameless in this affair. Certainly some Republicans were on board with these carppy ideas that have resulted in the virtual melt down of the world markets. But by far, the majority of those that orchestrated this mess are the guys and gals with the little (D) after their name. Yet another failed liberal policy. One of many. It's not that you guys are bad or have bad ideas. Your hearts in the right place and all that. You just have no idea how to execute them.

 

You know, I noticed in some of your other posts, that you kinda like to point out spelling/typo errors of others. I suggest that you cease that as a significant number of your posts contain same – as the momentary elevation of your ego probably isn't worth it.

 

Ralph, if I am way off base with any of the above, please feel free to straighten me out.

[Ron W.]

(privatize profits – socialize losses).

 

 

A very nice way of saying the people of America are going to have to cover the debt created by other peoples bad choices. :whipped:

[Deanh]

A very nice way of saying the people of America are going to have to cover the debt created by other peoples bad choices. :whipped:

story of life as a whole really...a feww ruin it for a majority..........

[BlackHorse]

You are right Retro, he HAS said this before (more than once IIRC) and it is indicative of his mindset. . . refuse to open his mind to information/opinion other than that which is a confirmation of his beliefs.

 

I don't need to further explore or understand the mindset of a liberal "progressive" person Razor. I'm pretty familiar with it and frankly there's nothing interesting or redeeming about it. It's the liberal mindset that tells everyone "You must be closed minded if you don't believe as we liberals do." Or "You must not be a smart person if you don't believe as we liberals do." If you don't tote the liberal party line people tell you that you don't have an "expansive" mind or that you are not "flexible". Frankly I've heard all your high and mighty bullshit until I'm sick to death with it. You have nothing of value to offer to the human condition. Liberalism is the path to oppression and darkness not the enlightened utopia you guys try to make it out to be. I know this, it's a shame that you don't.

 

So when some liberal (in this case retro-man) tells me that there is no liberal bias in the media what so ever, that it's all a conservative myth how exactly is it that I'm the one with the close mind? Even I can admit that Fox News leans right and so does conservative talk radio but apparently retro man can't even accept the reality that CNN, MSNBC and the vast majority of the rest of the media lean left, in some cases waaaay left. But I'm the one with the closed mind? LOL Obviously not and I'm through entertaining the notion that I have to listen to what people like retro, or you, have to say. He's a fool. The very basis and foundation of his post, that with which he started his comment was that the liberal media is a myth, that it doesn't exist. There is nothing I can do with that can't kind of blind naivety and foolsihness when that's how he opens his line of thought. It is close minded. Frankly if you want to get behind that then you're just a fool too.

 

 

Now with respect to Fannie, Freddie, AIG, Lehman and the whole rest of the big taxpayer funded bailout of the American economy. Yes there is plenty of blame to go around. Yes some of these companies made bad decisions based on greed and with t he knowledge that if it all fell apart good old uncle sam would come along and hand out our money so they could remain solvent. I'm not happy about it, not at all and frankly I have to wonder if just letting them fail might not have been the better choice. I also know that to some extent the government meddling in the market was responsible for some of the failure here. Forcing Fannie and Freddie to hand out high risk loans under the "noble" idea that everyone should have a house is a perfect example of why the government is staffed by some pretty stupid people at many levels. I know that some republicans are wrapped up in this, but I also know that a great many democrats are too. I know that Barrack was the second largest recipient of donations from Fannie, Freddie and Lehman and the top recipients were also democrats. So spare the BS about how it's all George Bush's fault. Try to be objective for once in your life.

Edited September 19, 2008 by BlackHorse

[Deanh]

no its not all bushies fault...just a majority....check his closet for WMD's, theres intelligence that states such, but regardless, in his position he MUST be held accountable....youre very forgiving Blackie.....do admire the loyalty though....

[RaZor]

So spare the BS about how it's all George Bush's fault. Try to be objective for once in your life.

 

Where did I say that it was all Geo W's fault? Please highlight the line.

 

BlackHorse, don't get me wrong, although it may seem that I am attacking you - I am not. But you do put out a great deal of miss-truths and almost verbatim repeats from those that I identified above. They are just doing their jobs - they get paid an awful amount of money to put their spin for the RNC on things. IF it ever gets announced that off-shore trusts will be heavily taxed/etc, RushL will freak-the-f**k-out. But if you for one instance think that what they say is accurate - it rarely is - or at the very least, it "isn't the whole story".

 

Without the rest of the story, you cannot really be objective (yourself). Try ordering that book from Amazon and for $17 + s/h you will get a good deal of the rest of the story. Not all of it. There really isn't all seeing- end of information - it's on on-going process. Once we stop learning, or closing off our minds, we become like a stagnant pond of water - polluted with algae (with ever decreasing oxygen and life). We need to absorb as much as we can - from all sources, if we want to even be close to having a clue whats going on. It (the book) won't make you want to commit suicide and/or transform yourself overnight into one of the gawd-awful liberals, but you will have a greater understanding of things.

 

Well, at least your list of networks that are allegedly "liberal biased" has dropped to two. . . so maybe this exchange is worth something.

 

Now let me tell you about CNN. . . . (just kidding)

 

Personally, I think that CNN is rapidly closing in on Fox with the hot babes. My favorite babe was Heidi, but now there's Robin, Kyra, Abbi . . .