Chrisisall's Economics 101

POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Saturday, March 18, 2023 14:58
VIEWED: 8355
PAGE 2 of 2

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, October 2, 2008 2:23 PM

He has a point...tossing out the "racist" or "anti-semetic" card is a last ditch effort when you can't win.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, October 2, 2008 2:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
He has a point...tossing out the "racist" or "anti-semetic" card is a last ditch effort when you can't win.

But, you can't win against CRAppy- anything you say or cite is dismissable with his all-powerful "Try again", it is a God-like power, that.

Jealousisall

AURAPTOR

Thursday, October 2, 2008 2:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
But, you can't win against Rappy- anything you say or cite is dismissable with his all-powerful "Try again", it is a God-like power, that.

Jealousisall

FINALLY you're beginning to see the light!

Sheesh, took ya long enough!

OmniRaptorisall

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

AURAPTOR

Thursday, October 2, 2008 2:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Here's a novel idea Chrissy..... why don't you support your claim by presenting some actual quotes by McCain. Speaking of having to take the learned opinions of someone..... .show me the quote!!!

Here's something else, CRAppy, Sarah Palin's favourite political magazine (she subscribes):
http://slog.thestranger.com/files/2008/10/palinreadingmaterial.jpeg

Biped moron.

isall

Chrissy, you BUN tyen-shung duh ee-DWAY-RO. . Stop changing the topic. You made a claim against McCain. If you can't back it up, just SAY SO. But don't go arbitrarily grabing the most inane , silly made up things about Palin now to cover your arse. Surely you're not that Suo-SHEEl, are you ?

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

SIGNYM

Thursday, October 2, 2008 2:50 PM

Wulf, if you think that Rapo engages in actual conversation then you haven't been paying attention. His tactic is to throw out right-wing talking points, disappear when he's been conclusively proven wrong, then re-appear with his same-old crap in another thread.

He claimed, for example, that the UN "authorized use of force" in Iraq. The LAST resolution dealing with Iraq, the one that set the UN response to Iraq's entire history and all previous UN resolutions, said NOTHING about "use of force". The resolution was quoted extensively and cited. And just for comparison, I posted other resolutions which DID authorize "Use of force", and their intent was very clear, so when the UN means to use force there is no misunderstanding!

Rapo's response? After calling us all liars he basically said "That's not what they meant."

Similarly, he's been saying for quite some time that the economy's "on fire", then quoting statistics not adjusted for inflation. When one indicator tanked he'd shift to another, and another, and another, then finally bailed out of the thread altogether. He has absolutely ZERO interest in understanding what's actually happening "out there". His sole interest is finding some way to twist facts around until they "fit" into his ideology.

My point is, facts don't work on Rapo. He's immune to basic, observable events. He lives in a right-wing fantasy-land, where Saddam posed an imminent threat, and the economy is doing great (and when it doesn't it's all the Democrat's fault!), and only Democrats lie, cheat, and steal. When someone is so wrapped up in a worldview that it blocks real-world events it's called a DELUSION. Rapo is deluded.

I agree it's not nice to point and laugh. I think we should just extend the same tolerance to Rapo that we do to PN, or to any other mentally/ emotionally-damaged person. But sometimes he's just too damn funnny...

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

AURAPTOR

Thursday, October 2, 2008 3:19 PM

Wrong Sig, all you do is take a quote and then misapply it weeks , months, years later. That's the only way you can claim victory in anything. If I say it was sunny one Saturday 2 yrs ago, and then a hurricane hits on a Saturday this week, you take my dated remarks utterly out of context and claim I don't know what I'm talking about, or that I'm some how " lying ".

Sorry, you can't blame it on my politcal agenda, or my 'right wing fantasy-land' views. It's just plain facts.

FACT - The U.N. sanctioned the ' use of force by any member nation' should Iraq not live up to it's obligations relevant to the 17 U.N. Resolutins passed. The U.S.A, being a member nation, carried out its right to do so. As did dozens of other nations as well.

That you don't LIKE it or approve is of NOT CONSEQUENCE. YOU HAVE NO CASE.

Never did Bush say Saddam was an imminent threat, but you continue , as I notice, to promote that lie , even today. What was said was that we should act BEFORE Saddam's threat becomes imminent, and there's no time to act. Fucking amazing how you simply won't let go your delusions and lies.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

RUE

Thursday, October 2, 2008 3:24 PM

Rap

Ahem ...

I remember a VERY long discussion over several threads where you insisted the economy was on FIRE ! - but when pressed for facts you shifted between low interest rates, consumer confidence, the DOW and several other factors, depending whichever one was up (or down) at the time. Talk about cherry picking to support your delusions ...

I'm afraid your stuck with the 'on fire' economy just like you're stuck with 'massive stockpiles of WMDs' around Baghdad, and other completely deficient (and deluded) statements.

***************************************************************

Don't make me go and search the threads to link them and provide quotes. B/c I can, and I will, and it will make you look like a liar as well, but it's a lot of work just to make you look bad.

AURAPTOR

Thursday, October 2, 2008 3:36 PM

Never said massive stockpiles of WMD. The comments of a strong economy, which it was at the time, was to contrast the dire lies which the Left were spreading, and has been since Bush was elected.

Ever as the unemployment was dropping after the last recession, big market indicators like factory orders and the like were going up and up, the Dems kept trying to talk the economy down. After 7 yrs and the mortgage crisis they bungled, it's finally taken its toll.

I stand by my original statements, when they were made, and won't be held accountable for your attempted smears and taking my remarks out of context. That's a strike against you, not me.

Threaten all you want, but I know you can't back up your claims that I some how 'lied'. Thats reserved for folks on the Left.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

ANTHONYT

Thursday, October 2, 2008 3:45 PM

"Never did Bush say Saddam was an imminent threat"

Hello,

I've done a bit of reading, and I have to say that I support this statement. I can't find where Bush said that Iraq was an imminent threat.

Quote:

"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."
• President Bush, 9/26/02

September: Bush says Iraq is a "Much Graver Threat." He does not say imminent threat. It's important not to confuse the words Bush speaks with the words that the people around him speak. For instance, his people were talking about imminent threats in September, but he wasn't.

Here is an example:

Quote:

"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02

"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02

So we have the secretary of state talking about Iraq's Imminence, but not his boss. His boss is just saying 'Grave.'

Now, let's move on to October. Here is another series of quotes that might confuse you:

Quote:

"There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists."
• President Bush, 10/7/02

"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

Now, here Bush says Iraq is a threat of 'unique urgency.' He also says that Iraq could decide to arm our enemies 'on any given day.'

But look - he doesn't use the word 'imminent.' He says it's urgent and unique, but not imminent. The administration went through the trouble of buying a Thesaurus to make sure the president didn't use that word, and I think we need to give them credit for that.

I'm on your side for this one, Rap.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, October 2, 2008 3:46 PM

Interesting article from CNN...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/01/beck.future/index.html

AURAPTOR

Thursday, October 2, 2008 3:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Interesting article from CNN...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/01/beck.future/index.html

I'm ok w/ Glenn Beck. Not a huge fan, but he's ok. What I dislike about him is that he tends to be a bit of a sensationalist. He's quick w/ the superlatives, and often slips into Chicken Little mode....more often than not.

Not saying he's wrong on this, just not a fan of his style.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

CITIZEN

Thursday, October 2, 2008 4:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
It was over with you tossing out the 'racist' card, marking that you had nothing left. I don't waste my time or witty retorts on those who are so intellectually bankrupt as to try to win debates / arguments/ discussions by falsely painting others as racist.

You do know the story of the boy who cried 'wolf!' too many times, right ?

It was over long before that, marking you had nothing to begin with. I don't waste my time trying to be polite to racists, who have proven themselves racist with their own comments regardless of what they later lie, nor do I waste my time discussing things with those so stupid, so closed minded and immoral as to try to win debates/arguments/discussions by lying, insulting and cry foul when they're treated the same way.

Yes I do know the story. It's about some dumbarse that kept lying and lying and lying until no one took anything he had to say seriously anymore. Basically its about you.

CITIZEN

Thursday, October 2, 2008 4:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
He has a point...tossing out the "racist" or "anti-semetic" card is a last ditch effort when you can't win.

Actually, AURaptor is a racist. It's documented through out these pages. Racism isn't something leveled solely at black people you know. Besides, its more said to laugh at him, considering he's lost already.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, October 2, 2008 5:16 PM

3 years ago, if someone here (in America) were to say that Blacks have/contract a disproportionately high amount of HIV/AIDS, that person would have been labeled a "racist" by the socialist elite.

However, it has been proven that this is true.

Today, if someone were to say that black people, BY THEIR OWN ACTIONS, continue to spread and contract this disease in a disproportionately high way...well, that someone would also be called a racist.

However, truth is truth.

Denying truth because it makes you feel uncomfortable does not change inherant truthfullness of the thing.

Its only when you acknowledge the truth of things, that you can work to correct them.

Racism DOES exist, I know that. However, its not in when someone points out cultural flaws.

Its when a person no longer sees another as human. Then, and only then, are they racist.

Also, using the term racist for every single thing has made it lose much of its stigma.

Just because I like plain milk, instead of chocolate, does not make me a racist.

CITIZEN

Thursday, October 2, 2008 5:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
3 years ago, if someone here (in America) were to say that Blacks have/contract a disproportionately high amount of HIV/AIDS, that person would have been labeled a "racist" by the socialist elite.

However, it has been proven that this is true.

Today, if someone were to say that black people, BY THEIR OWN ACTIONS, continue to spread and contract this disease in a disproportionately high way...well, that someone would also be called a racist.

However, truth is truth.

Denying truth because it makes you feel uncomfortable does not change inherant truthfullness of the thing.

Its only when you acknowledge the truth of things, that you can work to correct them.

Racism DOES exist, I know that. However, its not in when someone points out cultural flaws.

Its when a person no longer sees another as human. Then, and only then, are they racist.

Also, using the term racist for every single thing has made it lose much of its stigma.

Just because I like plain milk, instead of chocolate, does not make me a racist.

I agree entirely. So Auraptors insistence that nearly all Muslims are terrorists, not human and deserve to be tortured is racism, right?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, October 2, 2008 5:31 PM

If and only IF he said that (Muslims are not human), then I believe it to be racist.

But I doubt he said that.

CITIZEN

Thursday, October 2, 2008 5:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
IF he stated that Muslims are not human, then that is correct.

If and only IF he said that, then I believe it to be racist.

But I doubt he said that.

I forget if he stated it, but he certainly implied it. Besides there's more to racism than simple dehumanisation. Saying levels of criminality amongst blacks isn't racism, saying you won't employ a black man because they're all thieves is.

Racism is as much about stereotyping as anything else.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, October 2, 2008 5:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
IF he stated that Muslims are not human, then that is correct.

If and only IF he said that, then I believe it to be racist.

But I doubt he said that.

I forget if he stated it, but he certainly implied it. Besides there's more to racism than simple dehumanisation. Saying levels of criminality amongst blacks isn't racism, saying you won't employ a black man because they're all thieves is.

Racism is as much about stereotyping as anything else.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

If he never said it, in those (or damn near close) words, then it is not the truth.

It is just your interpretation of what you THINK he MAY have meant..

What you think is implied, could be misinterpreted by someone else to imply an entirely new thing.

SIGNYM

Thursday, October 2, 2008 5:58 PM

RAPO

Quote:
was to contrast the dire lies which the Left were spreading, and has been since Bush was elected.

Funny how those "dire lies" turned out to be true, huh?

Quote:
After 7 yrs and the mortgage crisis they bungled, it's finally taken its toll.

The DEMS bungled??? Who, for god's sake, was in control of the Senate, the House, and the White House for most of those years?

AFA the UN resolution to authorize the "use of force", shall I re-post the last resolution, again??? The one where that VERY QUESTION was decided? And can you now find the quote that you couldn't find last time? From the site that YOU YOURSELF linked as justification? www.un.org/Docs/scres/2002/sc2002.htm

Please, go look for yourselves. Find me the resolution that authorizes use of force. Or STFU. (And I mean that in the nicest possible way.)

AFA "imminent threat"...

Quote:
White House spokesman Scott McClellan lashed out at critics saying "Some in the media have chosen to use the word 'imminent'. Those were not words we used." But a closer look at the record shows that McClellan himself and others did use the phrase "imminent threat" – while also using the synonymous phrases "mortal threat," "urgent threat," "immediate threat", "serious and mounting threat", "unique threat," and claiming that Iraq was actively seeking to "strike the United States with weapons of mass destruction"

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/kfiles/b24970.html

For god's sakes, you right-wingers, there ARE such things as videos!!! Will you PLEASE let go of that moronic talking point?

Rapo, since you're so resistant to recognizing even the most obvious events, I will simply not respond to any more of your posts. You can stand in the corner and crow "I WIN!! I WIN!! I WIN!! until you die, but the fact is that unlike PN you have nothing interesting to say and you're wrong so often you're not worth my time.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

CITIZEN

Thursday, October 2, 2008 5:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
If he never said it, in those (or damn near close) words, then it is not the truth.

It is just your interpretation of what you THINK he MAY have meant..

What you think is implied, could be misinterpreted by someone else to imply an entirely new thing.

That's only if we accept that your rather extreme and limited definition of racism is correct. Which isn't the case.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, October 2, 2008 6:08 PM

Citizen,

You are right. Its just easier to label everyone a racist (Except brown people of course).

Sort of like how feminists call consenting sex between a man and a woman, rape.

CITIZEN

Thursday, October 2, 2008 6:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Citizen,

You are right. Its just easier to label everyone a racist (Except brown people of course).

Sort of like how feminists call consenting sex between a man and a woman, rape.

No Wulfenstar, you are right. It's better not to call a spade a spade. We shouldn't call any one racist (unless they're not White Republicans of course).

Sort of like how we shouldn't use certain other words that might offend people who should be offended, more PC that way. Thanks for opening my eyes to far right political correctness, can't be calling racists racists, we might hurt their feelings.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, October 2, 2008 6:17 PM

Oh, give me a fucking break....

Nevermind. Its not worth the argument.

CITIZEN

Thursday, October 2, 2008 6:30 PM

I know, this far right PC bullshit is crazy.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

SIGNYM

Thursday, October 2, 2008 6:31 PM

WULF- please read my post to Rapo. It explains his history in detail. I'll bet you dollars to donuts he can't, or won't, come up with cogent answers to ANY of my questions.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, October 2, 2008 6:42 PM

Meh, I don't play semantics, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck...

Damned well imma assume it's a freakin duck till proven otherwise!

If someone comes off as a racist, sexist, or other general malingerer I call em on it, and they're completely welcome to challenge that and show otherwise or not at their own discretion.

Kinda funny cause some shitheel earlier today tried to pass off a blame-the-minorities fiction to me earlier today, and tried pretty hard to obscure the source, which failed - and come to find the damned thing was penned by David Duke.

AND it happens to have virtually identical word choice and phrasing to some of the blame-the-minorties commentary I've heard around here, which leads me to believe some folks culled talking points from it.

That don't make em necessarily racist, just fuckin stupid, and lazy for not properly vetting their sources.

That being said, I do not believe Raps issue is racial although that may indeed be some part of it, however small.

He's shown time and time again that his primary prejudice and unreasoning hatred is in fact theological in nature, with the added irony of being both wholly ignorant of the beliefs he is slamming, and every single bit the wild eyed zealot that he claims the other guys are.

It's times like this I wonder if he's actually on the side he claims, cause his actions so fully and perfectly poison the well for any conservative argument around there, that one might suspect deliberate strawmanning of that position.

Me, I think he's just an ignorant zealot, the ultimate end product of a society and educational system fully intended to produce exactly that.

I have my own prejudices, to be honest - and one of them is that if no rational thought seems to occur, if all there seems to be is knee jerk reflex trained response...

Then I no longer consider the being in question to be human, or a person, and thus unworthy of that level of regard or respect.

So in my eyes, they're just one more bullet in tyranny's gun, a brain dead chunk of meat.

In essence, a living, breathing pop-up target without any more emotional value than a piece of plastic when it comes right down to it.

Immoral ? sure it is, that's the very essence of dehumanising someone in one's own mind and not a very nice act any way you wanna slice it.

And so, what then does it say about them, to have dehumanised themselves by selling their own humanity in exchange from a pat on the head from a political ideology that sees them as no more than resources to be used and wasted as necessary to achieve the aims of the elite ?

Whenever ANYONE wishes to influence your actions, by word, deed or force, you should be pondering why that is, what they wish to happen by that influence, what it's purpose to them is, and whether you're actually in agreement with that purpose and it's end goals before you act, because to do otherwise is to harm yourself and damage your own humanity without even realizing it... until you don't have any left.

And then you wind up like Rap, here...

Let that be a damn object lesson to you.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, October 2, 2008 6:44 PM

No Citizen,

You are just as intolerant of other ideas/opinions/facts as any right-wing Bible-banger.

Point of fact, you are a hypocrite.

The nonsense you spout is the same gibberish as right wing nut jobs, just on the other end of the spectrum.

Same shit, different color.

Its not worth my time trying to show you that the truth is somewhere in the middle. You can't see it. Even if you could, you wouldn't believe it.

So, I'm not going to waste anymore energy with you.

CITIZEN

Thursday, October 2, 2008 6:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
No Citizen,

You are just as intolerant of other ideas/opinions/facts as any right-wing Bible-banger.

Point of fact, you are a hypocrite.

The nonsense you spout is the same gibberish as right wing nut jobs, just on the other end of the spectrum.

Same shit, different color.

Its not worth my time trying to show you that the truth is somewhere in the middle. You can't see it. Even if you could, you wouldn't believe it.

So, I'm not going to waste anymore energy with you.

Nope, you just don't know what I'm saying. You don't know what I'm saying, because you are the one that can't tolerate divergent opinions. You hate them so much you'll throw massive tempertantrums over them and start entire threads in spite. I don't do that, but you keep painting me with your brush, it'll save you from having to tolerate other peoples opinions for once.

I don't sound like a right wing nutjob at all, you just have to say that because you ARE a right wing nut job, and lying so you can push your extremist agenda doesn't make ME a hypocrite, yanno.

Deep down you know it, but you'll never admit it. You'd have to think for yourself first, and lets face it, that's real unlikely. I suggest you go back to your chosen far right propaganda organ and flip to the next page of "my struggle", don't go challenging those preconceptions, you know how upset it makes you

.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

RUE

Thursday, October 2, 2008 7:00 PM

" ... I wonder if he's actually on the side he claims, cause his actions so fully and perfectly poison the well for any conservative argument ... "

I read, listen to, and watch the sources that Rap is channeling. He really IS on the side he claims to be on. Their message is his message.

His mistake is that he brings the mindless preaching meant for the choir that already believes - and he thinks it will be enough to convince the people here who don't. His mistake is that he says what conservatives really mean when they don't guard their words.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, October 2, 2008 7:09 PM

All these words to say one thing...

CRAppy is a punk.
And he has a club.

The He-man Constitution Haters Society.

Seditious bovine bipedsisall

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, October 2, 2008 7:11 PM

Rue,

Hows the saying go?

"I disapprove/disagree of what you say, sir, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

We need a little more of that around here...

CITIZEN

Thursday, October 2, 2008 7:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Rue,

Hows the saying go?

"I disapprove/disagree of what you say, sir, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

We need a little more of that around here...

Indeed. Any time you want to start we're waiting for you to join us.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

RUE

Thursday, October 2, 2008 7:15 PM

Wulfie

Never said Rap shouldn't post. But if he throws up easy targets, he should expect them to be shot down. If he didn't figure that out by now, then he got fair warning.

BTW, I place Rap pretty close to PN. He's extremely deluded but also very sincere. In my mind that puts him in a vulnerable state. His puts his ego on the line every time he puts his delusions on-line. He HAS to defend them.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, October 2, 2008 7:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

Never said Rap shouldn't post.

Indeed, we need to see the extent to which some Americans will kiss their Constitutional rights goodbye in lieu of phony national security, insincere patriotism, & the pursuit of the Allmighty Dollar.
Best to see the moral rot out in the open, than let it fester in the shadows, unknown.

Chrisisall

SIGNYM

Thursday, October 2, 2008 7:37 PM

Rapo is a true believer and he revels in contention; it just amps up the dopamine "reward" that he gives himself whenever he defends his belief system.

Treat him as you would your "special" relative or your alcoholic friend. Smile and nod. But don't expect rationality and don't get emotionally involved. He's addicted.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

RUE

Thursday, October 2, 2008 8:30 PM

There is that. There is that neurochemical reward from true belief.

***************************************************************

Would it be blasphemous to call him Saint Rap ? After all, he seems to like martyrdom in the name of Bush's economics ... and wars, and fatherland security.

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, October 2, 2008 9:30 PM

Quote:
"I disapprove/disagree of what you say, sir, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

Ayep, and then I say *MY* piece, which can indeed often be the verbal equivalent of a crowbar to the cojones, sure.

But if one desires open and free speech, one must also be willing to recieve it, even if it's painful.

Me, I stand up even for the rights of those I despise, cause if a right isn't completely universal, then it's just a tool of oppression.

But remember what I said above, the price for that defense is often being on the recieving end of less than nice folk exercising the same right, and in your direction.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

AURAPTOR

Thursday, October 2, 2008 10:10 PM

citizen - not only have I never lied on here, I've never shown any approval of those who who are racist. Calling me a racist is as stupid as is calling me a liar. You have zero evidence for either, yet you try to brand me as both.

Why? Simple. You can't honestly, maturely or coherently respond to my post. In short, you've got no case.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

AURAPTOR

Thursday, October 2, 2008 10:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
All these words to say one thing...

RAppy is a stud.
And he has a club.

The He-man Constitution Protectors Society.

Seditious bovine bipedsisall

Fixed that for ya, Chrissy.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

AURAPTOR

Thursday, October 2, 2008 10:29 PM

Sig -

Yes, the DEMOCRATS bungled, and if you need to figure out how, just read my post, or go here - http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/wrecks_lies_and_barney_frank.ht
ml

Use of force:

Quote:
Over the weekend I sat down and read a few documents that you might find interesting. United Nations resolutions. More particularly, UN Resolution Numbers 678, 687 and 1441. Just click on the resolution number and you can read them for yourself if you like. Maybe you ought to just go ahead and do that right now so that you can be sure I'm not lying to you. You know how us "neocons" will lie about something like this, don't you? But ... If you're not so inclined, you can just listen to my show today and I'll give you a quick rundown on what you'll find in these UN Resolutions.

Sadly, there are a few folks out there who read the Nuze every day who can't hear the show. For you, this briefest of explanations:

Resolution 687, passed in 1991, is the centerpiece here. This is the resolution passed after the United States had liberated Kuwait and while our troops were poised to advance to Baghdad to take care of business with Saddam. Saddam agreed to a plan whereby he would surrender or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, and all implements, machinery and whatnot associated with those weapons programs, forthwith. Saddam's first obligation under Resolution 687 was to provide the UN with a "declaration on the locations, amounts and types of all (WMDs) and agree to urgent, on-site inspection(s)" as specified in the resolution.

Saddam's deadline under 687 was fifteen days. He didn't make it. In fact, in 2002 ... about 4000 days past his 15-day deadline, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1441 putting Saddam on super-secret probation and giving him one last chance to do what he was supposed to do eleven years earlier.

Wait! I forgot Resolution 678! Forgive me! Resolution 678, you see, is specifically incorporated into both Resolutions 687 and 1441 by reference. Resolution 678 was passed in 1990, after Saddam invaded Kuwait. This resolution told Saddam to get the hell out, and authorized "Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait ... to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area." (Resolution 660 merely demanded that Iraq withdraw from Kuwait. Iraq didn't. George H.W. Bush made him.) So ... even if you went to a government school; hell, even if you vote for Democrats you can see that under Resolution 678 the United States, a Member State of the United Nations, has the authority under that resolution, and under 687 and 1441 to kick Saddam to the curb.

http://boortz.com/nuze/200401/01122004.html

Just because it's not in the LAST resolution, doesn't mean there's not wording in earlier resolutions which grant the use of force in Iraq for it's failure to comply. You're thinking like a child. Grow up a bit and then we can discuss.

Also ,Bush never said " imminent threat " . Get over it.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

CITIZEN

Thursday, October 2, 2008 10:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
citizen - not only have I never lied on here, I've never shown any approval of those who who are racist. Calling me a racist is as stupid as is calling me a liar. You have zero evidence for either, yet you try to brand me as both.

Why? Simple. You can't honestly, maturely or coherently respond to my post. In short, you've got no case.

I've already shown that you have lied by putting your comments together. So that's at least two lies right there. Further you've made racist comments on numerous occasions, you just defend your racism by denying its racist unless aimed at black people, in and of itself a racist comment.

I've shown evidence for all these things, either now or before. I have plenty of evidence for both. You on the other hand have no evidence for anything you ever say.

Why? Simple. You are the most dishonest person on this site, and even when you try really hard to discuss maturely without resorting to personal insults, you just can't manage it. In short you never have a case, no one takes you seriously, and we're all laughing at you and your deluded red neck conspiracy theories.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

AURAPTOR

Thursday, October 2, 2008 10:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I've already shown that you have lied by putting your comments together. So that's at least two lies right there.

No, that's one BIG lie on your part. You're delusional , invisible examples might convince the voices in your noggin, but none of us out here , in the real world

Quote:
Further you've made racist comments on numerous occasions, you just defend your racism by denying its racist unless aimed at black people, in and of itself a racist comment.

I've shown evidence for all these things, either now or before. I have plenty of evidence for both. You on the other hand have no evidence for anything you ever say.

Right....you have all the evidence in the world, only you can't produce any of it.

That's gorram funny.

And I own the deed to Buckingham Palace. I just don't have it WITH ME right now.

As for MY evidence, one needs only to look up in this thread, where I've referenced or linked the sources I use, whether you want to accept them or not. My evidence is there for the viewing, yours is ...well, left wanting.

Quote:
Why? Simple. You are the most dishonest person on this site,

.... a lie, or possibly you're VERY very wrong. Pick one.

Quote:
...and even when you try really hard to discuss maturely without resorting to personal insults, you just can't manage it.

Hypocrisy, thy name is CITIZEN

Quote:
In short you never have a case, no one takes you seriously, and we're all laughing at you and your deluded red neck conspiracy theories.

My neck is quite tan, since I use 50 SPF. I am not one for conspiracies, so I have no such theories. I deal in facts, and if it's facts you hate to face, it doesn't make those facts any less true.

Citizen, there comes a time in your life when you're going to have to put away childish ideas and grow up. Now is as good a time as any.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

CITIZEN

Thursday, October 2, 2008 10:56 PM

Still showing no evidence for any of your claims Awwwliar, as usual. My evidence is there for the viewing, I've already proven you a liar. Scroll up, you'll see it. You've shown no evidence, save for a few lies by other delusional red necks...

You have no worth while contribution, that's why no one listens to your drivel, and just about everyone here is laughing at you.

Dance my delusional little clown, dance.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

KWICKO

Friday, October 3, 2008 12:12 AM

Quote:
Orginally posted by AuRaptor:

Wrong Sig, all you do is take a quote and then misapply it weeks , months, years later. That's the only way you can claim victory in anything. If I say it was sunny one Saturday 2 yrs ago, and then a hurricane hits on a Saturday this week, you take my dated remarks utterly out of context and claim I don't know what I'm talking about, or that I'm some how " lying ".

Wait a minute. Wasn't there SOMEONE on this board just this week throwing out old quotes and applying them to today?

Who WAS that that was doing that? I can't seem to remember...

Mike

This world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel.

Trolls Against McCain!

SIGNYM

Friday, October 3, 2008 1:11 AM

RAPO. I know I'm gonn hate myself, but here goes...

Did you ever READ Resolution 1441?

Simple answer- Yes or no?

------------

Now, to your other point. Fannie and Freddie are not at the heart of the mortgage crisis.

First of all, by definition "subprime" loans are those that do not meet Freddei/Fannie standards. Analyses of subprime loans, and loans in general, consistently show that subprime loans are more often given to women and minorities EVEN WHEN THEIR INCOMES ARE THE SAME AS WHITE MALES. That means that these people paid higher interest, and had other "toxic" features (interest-only, adjustable rates, prepayment penalties, exhorbitant fees, hidden features, etc.) embedded in their loans EVEN WHEN THEY QUALIFIED FOR STANDARD LOANS.

Both Frem and Kwicko have pointed out how HARD the banks pushed sub-prime loans on them, even tho they qualified for standard loans. Anthony has told you in no uncertain terms that lending was NOT made on the basis of race. Middle- and upper-income borrowers accounted for more than two-thirds of high-rate mortgages issued in 2006. Sub-prime loand were a huge money-maker for the banks. It's THAT simple.

http://activerain.com/blogsview/667186/Women-minorities-subprime-lendi
ng
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D02EED61E3FF93AA35757C
0A9669C8B63

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

SIGNYM

Friday, October 3, 2008 4:14 AM

It's all due to greed on Wall Street.

SARAH PALIN SAID SO, SO IT MUST BE TRUE!

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

KWICKO

Friday, October 3, 2008 4:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
It's all due to greed on Wall Street.

SARAH PALIN SAID SO, SO IT MUST BE TRUE!

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

And we all know Republicans never, ever lie! Rappy said it, so it must be true!

This world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel.

Trolls Against McCain!

AURAPTOR

Friday, October 3, 2008 4:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

Now, to your other point. Fannie and Freddie are not at the heart of the mortgage crisis.

My word Marcia, that might be THE dumbest thing ever posted on this here message board.

I mean..really...THE dumbest.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

SIGNYM

Friday, October 3, 2008 4:55 AM

Fannie and Freddie are NOT at the heart of the mortgage crisis. Even AFTER the Fannie/Freddie bailout, the crisis continued to spiral out of control. Let me put it in terms you might understand: If you've plugged one hole in the dike but the water keeps rising faster and faster, obviously you haven't plugged the BIG hole. Yes, Fannie and Freddie were a problem. But they weren't the sole problem, and not even the biggest problem.

Interestingly though, I found this on a business website (Bloomberg) while researching Fannie/Freddie's role.

Quote:
The companies {Fannie and Freddie} said they were urged to increase purchases of subprime debt by the Bush administration. The Department of Housing and Urban Development said in 2005 that Fannie and Freddie should increase financing for low-income areas or moderate-income regions with high minority populations to 37 percent of new business from 34 percent in 2001 through 2004. That rose to 39 percent last year.

Also

Quote:
Ameriquest paid $295 million to consumers in 2006 to settle charges by states of predatory lending.New Century, now the biggest subprime lender in bankruptcy, produced 24 percent. It created a security for Fannie and Freddie in August 2006. About 75 percent of the loans had interest rates set to adjust to as high as 20 percent, mostly after two years, from an average of 8.3 percent. Countrywide... faces investigations for fraudulent lending practices, supplied about 23 percent of Fannie's and Freddie's total loan volume in 2007, according to Credit Suisse.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

AURAPTOR

Friday, October 3, 2008 5:03 AM

Not the end of the problem by a long shot, but Fannie and Freddie hold the most mortgages by a country mile.

Never said this would be the end of it all, in fact most say it's just the start of putting things back in order.

Lots left to do, and one is thing is to make sure this shit doesn't happen again.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

KWICKO

Friday, October 3, 2008 5:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Fannie and Freddie are NOT at the heart of the mortgage crisis. Even AFTER the Fannie/Freddie bailout, the crisis continued to spiral out of control. Let me put it in terms you might understand: If you've plugged one hole in the dike but the water keeps rising faster and faster, obviously you haven't plugged the BIG hole. Yes, Fannie and Freddie were a problem. But they weren't the sole problem, and not even the biggest problem.

Interestingly though, I found this on a business website (Bloomberg) while researching Fannie/Freddie's role.
Quote:
The companies {Fannie and Freddie} said they were urged to increase purchases of subprime debt by the Bush administration. The Department of Housing and Urban Development said in 2005 that Fannie and Freddie should increase financing for low-income areas or moderate-income regions with high minority populations to 37 percent of new business from 34 percent in 2001 through 2004. That rose to 39 percent last year.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

So, while Barney Frank (NOT the Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee in 2003, as Rapo has claimed) said that at that time Fannie and Freddie weren't facing an impending crisis, Bush and Friends decided to prove him wrong by CREATING such a crisis...

This world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel.

Trolls Against McCain!

KWICKO

Friday, October 3, 2008 5:08 AM

Quote:

My word Marcia, that might be THE dumbest thing ever posted on this here message board.

Or that might be...

This world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel.

Trolls Against McCain!

KWICKO

Friday, October 3, 2008 5:11 AM

Rappy, I notice you skipped right over this one:

Quote:
Quote:
Orginally posted by AuRaptor:

Wrong Sig, all you do is take a quote and then misapply it weeks , months, years later. That's the only way you can claim victory in anything. If I say it was sunny one Saturday 2 yrs ago, and then a hurricane hits on a Saturday this week, you take my dated remarks utterly out of context and claim I don't know what I'm talking about, or that I'm some how " lying ".

Wait a minute. Wasn't there SOMEONE on this board just this week throwing out old quotes and applying them to today?

Who WAS that that was doing that? I can't seem to remember...

Seems all you did was take a quote from Barney Frank and misapply it years later. That's the only way you can claim to have a fucking clue what you're talking about.

Mike

This world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel.

Trolls Against McCain!

KWICKO

Friday, October 3, 2008 5:13 AM

Quote:
Lots left to do, and one is thing is to make sure this shit doesn't happen again.

How?

PIRATENEWS

Friday, October 3, 2008 6:53 AM

Don't forget the Carbon Tax, or we'll all die in horrific natual disasters.

Thank god the Senate saved our planet with its $800-billion bailout bill yesterday:

Quote:
SEC. 117. CARBON AUDIT OF THE TAX CODE.

(a) STUDY.—The Secretary of the Treasury shall enter into an agreement with the National Academy of Sciences to undertake a comprehensive review of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to identify the types of and specific tax provisions that have the largest effects on carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions and to estimate the magnitude of those effects.

www.infowars.com/?p=5044

The sooner we bulldoze all plant life the sooner we can cut those poisonous carbon dioxide emissions.

SIGNYM

Friday, October 3, 2008 2:03 PM

So anyways, Freddie and Fannie... yes, they bought up some alt-A and subprimes. Best I can figure, those represented about 0.03% of their portfolio, because they usually bought the safest tranches.

But what Fannie and Freddie DIDN'T do was sell those to other institutions. All of that re-packaging and re-re-selling of "toxic" mortgages and SIVs and CDOs... why, that went on outside of the Fannie/ Freddie realm. It was purely "Wall Street". And THAT is how the poison spread so far and so deeply.

BTW Rapo, you haven't answered my question:

Have you actually READ Resolution 1441? Yes or no?

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

CHRISISALL

Friday, October 3, 2008 3:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
So ... even if you went to a government school; hell, even if you vote for Democrats you can see that under Resolution 678 the United States, a Member State of the United Nations, has the authority under that resolution, and under 687 and 1441 to kick Saddam to the curb.

You stupid, stupid little child.
Governments the world over have the 'right' to do all manner of things.
Saddam had the 'right' to gas Kurds.

Right doesn't make right....er, well you know what I mean.

Actually, no you don't.

Effueisall

SIGNYM

Friday, October 3, 2008 3:37 PM

So Rapo, have you READ Resolution 1440? Or are you just taking Bortz' word for what it says?

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

SIGNYM

Friday, October 3, 2008 3:54 PM

Rapo, let me state UN Resolution 1441 in terms you might understand:

----------------
UN RESOLUTION 1441

Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions {661, 678, 686, 687, 707, 715, 986, 1284, 1382 and all of the sh*t that we meant to do with those}

Recognizing {that Saddam is a deplorable bastard who terrorizes his people and has consistently obstructed full implementation of UN Resolutions}

Recalling that {UNMOVIC and the IAEA are important successors to UNMOVIC}

We now decide...

1. that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA,
and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687
(1991);
2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;

etc etc.
---------------

UN Resolution 1441 references previous resolutions to PREVENT indepedent action on those previous resolutions. They were simply tying up loose ends. Capice?

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

SIGNYM

Friday, October 3, 2008 6:14 PM

Mmm, okay RAPO. I see you skedaddled out of this thread as fast as your hundred little legs could carry you.

Does that mean you've given up on your endless talking points about UN Resolution 1141 and what it "really" meant? Or that Barney Frank all by himself masterminded the fall of the entire Western financial system? Or that Bush and his administration never said "imminent threat" and equivalent?

Of course not.

You'll go crawling back under the woodpile, only to emerge later with the same brainless tripe.

I'm not doing this to convince YOU. You're beyond rationality. I'm just making a prediction for Wulf and others who think that you're salvageable.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

WULFENSTAR

Friday, October 3, 2008 6:17 PM

Why are we still talking about this?

The House passed the Bill.

No offense, but we've got bigger things to worry about.

FUCK. THIS. SHIT.

Its time to fight.

SIGNYM

Friday, October 3, 2008 6:37 PM

Wulf... What you do is keep on. Keep the pressure up. But the problem is that the more folks "don't get it" the farther off the solution will be.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

CHRISISALL

Friday, October 3, 2008 7:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

You'll go crawling back under the woodpile, only to emerge later with the same brainless tripe.

Fact-laden, brainless tripe, Signy.

Chrisisall

CITIZEN

Friday, October 3, 2008 7:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Farce-laden, brainless tripe, Signy.

There, fixed that for you.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

CHRISISALL

Friday, October 3, 2008 8:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

There, fixed that for you.

I wuz bein' whatcha call, ironical.

isall

RUE

Friday, October 3, 2008 8:33 PM

You bet'cha.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

CITIZEN

Friday, October 3, 2008 10:24 PM

I-Ron-Ical? Is that a terrorist?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

AURAPTOR

Saturday, October 4, 2008 12:25 AM

wtf is 'fictionalizing' wealth?

I have $120 million dollars in my bank account.....REALLY!

Chrissy, you're an idiot when it comes to economics.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

KWICKO

Saturday, October 4, 2008 12:53 AM

Quote:

wtf is 'fictionalizing' wealth?

I have $120 million dollars in my bank account.....REALLY!

Chrissy, you're an idiot when it comes to economics.

Look up "Enron" when you get a chance. I even spelled it out for you. That's one classic example of fictionalizing wealth. And yes, they essentially DID say "I have $120 million dollars [sic] in my bank account... REALLY!"

Apparently, when it comes to economics, you're even more of an idiot than your candidate.

This world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel.

Trolls Against McCain!

AURAPTOR

Saturday, October 4, 2008 1:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

wtf is 'fictionalizing' wealth?

I have $120 million dollars in my bank account.....REALLY!

Chrissy, you're an idiot when it comes to economics.

Look up "Enron" when you get a chance. I even spelled it out for you. That's one classic example of fictionalizing wealth. And yes, they essentially DID say "I have $120 million dollars [sic] in my bank account... REALLY!"

Apparently, when it comes to economics, you're even more of an idiot than your candidate.

This world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel.

Trolls Against McCain!

Chrissy says those are the ONLY ways to get rich. That's horse hockey. And you know it.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

SIGNYM

Saturday, October 4, 2008 4:25 PM

So RAPO just to round out the number of replies:

Did you look into Resolution 1441 and read it?

Have you finally figured out that the Bush spokespeople DID use the term "imminent threat", and Bush and his staff repeatedly used synonyms for that term? That said that Iraq was intending to to use WMD on the USA? (Remember, there are such things as videos!)

Now, AFA the economic metldown, here is one more piece to the puzzle

Agency’s ’04 Rule Let Banks Pile Up New Debt
By STEPHEN LABATON

Quote:
“We have a good deal of comfort about the capital cushions at these firms at the moment.” — Christopher Cox, chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, March 11, 2008.

As rumors swirled that Bear Stearns faced imminent collapse in early March, Christopher Cox was told by his staff that Bear Stearns had $17 billion in cash and other assets — more than enough to weather the storm. Drained of most of its cash three days later, Bear Stearns was forced into a hastily arranged marriage with JPMorgan Chase — backed by a $29 billion taxpayer dowry. Within six months, other lions of Wall Street would also either disappear or transform themselves to survive the financial maelstrom — Merrill Lynch sold itself to Bank of America, Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy protection, and Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley converted to commercial banks.

How could Mr. Cox have been so wrong?

Many events in Washington, on Wall Street and elsewhere around the country have led to what has been called the most serious financial crisis since the 1930s. But decisions made at a brief meeting on April 28, 2004, explain why the problems could spin out of control. The agency’s failure to follow through on those decisions also explains why Washington regulators did not see what was coming.

On that bright spring afternoon, the five members of the Securities and Exchange Commission met in a basement hearing room to consider an urgent plea by the big investment banks. They wanted an exemption for their brokerage units from an old regulation that limited the amount of debt they could take on. The exemption would unshackle billions of dollars held in reserve as a cushion against losses on their investments. Those funds could then flow up to the parent company, enabling it to invest in the fast-growing but opaque world of mortgage-backed securities; credit derivatives, a form of insurance for bond holders; and other exotic instruments.

The five investment banks led the charge, including Goldman Sachs, which was headed by Henry M. Paulson Jr. Two years later, he left to become Treasury secretary. A lone dissenter — a software consultant and expert on risk management — weighed in from Indiana with a two-page letter to warn the commission that the move was a grave mistake. He never heard back from Washington. One commissioner, Harvey J. Goldschmid, questioned the staff about the consequences of the proposed exemption. It would only be available for the largest firms, he was reassuringly told — those with assets greater than $5 billion.

“We’ve said these are the big guys,” Mr. Goldschmid said, provoking nervous laughter, “but that means if anything goes wrong, it’s going to be an awfully big mess.”

Link split
www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/business/03sec.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slog
in&ref=business&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=
1223136796-x9irBJj1oEFr/5YQTYGncg

Now, there is much blame to go around. I can point to this decision, deregulation bills pushed by Phil Gramm (now VP for United Bank of Switzerland, the most exposed firm next to Lehman). But I can also point to Barney Frank, and the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act (introduced by Phil Gramm and approved by Republicans - but Clinton should have vetoed it.)

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

CHRISISALL

Saturday, October 4, 2008 8:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Chrissy, you're an idiot when it comes to economics.

Better'n being an idiot when it comes to 'fictionalized facts', I conjure.

My initial post was exaggerated somewhat to push my idea that new wealth in America, by and large, is based on a 'make the money and run' mentality- shrewd folk shoot the fish in the barrel, not carin' if they destroy the barrel in the process, and know that the government has been allowin' it.

Your 'roaring economy' was a dream, CRAppy, and the alarm clock just went off.

BTW, dish washing soap helps with the getting your head out of your ass thing, I mean, like, if you should ever WANT to, that is.

Chrisisall

RIVERLOVE

Saturday, October 4, 2008 11:10 PM

The bottom line to a lot of this is just which politicians got the stolen money generated from Fannie, Freddie and all the others. Whether they got it personally as in the case of Obama financial advisor and party friend Franklin Raines ($ 90 million), or in political contributions, with Dodd & Obama coming in at numbers 1 and 2 in receiving Fannie Mae dirty money. Biden's mortgage deals and campaign donations from Countrywide are very interesting too.

ELVISCHRIST

Saturday, October 4, 2008 11:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Riverlove:
The bottom line to a lot of this is just which politicians got the stolen money generated from Fannie, Freddie and all the others. Whether they got it personally as in the case of Obama financial advisor and party friend Franklin Raines ($ 90 million), or in political contributions, with Dodd & Obama coming in at numbers 1 and 2 in receiving Fannie Mae dirty money. Biden's mortgage deals and campaign donations from Countrywide are very interesting too.

How many Fannie lobbyists are there on McCain's staff?

And how much bailout money will Phil Gramm, McCain's economic advisor, be pocketing when UBS gets its share of the money?

CHRISISALL

Sunday, October 5, 2008 12:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by ElvisChrist:

How many Fannie lobbyists are there on McCain's staff?

And how much bailout money will Phil Gramm, McCain's economic advisor, be pocketing when UBS gets its share of the money?

Yo, EC, you're interrupting Riverlove's partisan rant!

Chrisisall

RIVERLOVE

Sunday, October 5, 2008 12:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by ElvisChrist:

How many Fannie lobbyists are there on McCain's staff?

And how much bailout money will Phil Gramm, McCain's economic advisor, be pocketing when UBS gets its share of the money?

Yo, EC, you're interrupting Riverlove's partisan rant

Chrisisall

Hey Chrisall, you're usually best with one of your "shut ups". A pleasure to see you can offer other things, especially a gentle, but cowardly deflection to another to make a personal comment on me. Obama & Biden are running and deeply involed, the others around McCain didn't get a fraction of what the Dems got, and it doesnt matter anyhow. McCain and Palin didnt get a cent, and that fact will stick in the Dem Dynamic Dummy Duo nominees craws when they flame out in a few weeks. And I can be a silly little pseudo-bully too when I'm feelin' all impish just like you, so here's a Bush Doctrine pre-empted shut up to you.

CHRISISALL

Sunday, October 5, 2008 12:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Riverlove:
And I can be a silly little pseudo-bully too when I'm feelin' all impish just like you, so here's a Bush Doctrine pre-empted shut up to you.

I bow to your creative and amusing smack down, RL.

Yeah, I can't deny that the Dems got their palms greased better on that mess, but nothing, NOTHING, can make me vote for a ticket that includes the brainless likes of Palin.

Sorryisall

RIVERLOVE

Sunday, October 5, 2008 1:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Riverlove:
And I can be a silly little pseudo-bully too when I'm feelin' all impish just like you, so here's a Bush Doctrine pre-empted shut up to you.

I bow to your creative and amusing smack down, RL.

Yeah, I can't deny that the Dems got their palms greased better on that mess, but nothing, NOTHING, can make me vote for a ticket that includes the brainless likes of Palin.

Sorryisall

Make no mistake, I recognize and highly respect your enormous contributions to the history and fun of these boards, and despite many differences between us, I like everything you write. You have the gift.

KHYRON

Sunday, October 5, 2008 1:08 AM

WHAT!? You two reconciled already!? Can't you go back to fighting? That was a lot more entertaining.

------------------------------

Trolls against McCain, you betcha!

RIVERLOVE

Sunday, October 5, 2008 1:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Riverlove:
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Riverlove:
And I can be a silly little pseudo-bully too when I'm feelin' all impish just like you, so here's a Bush Doctrine pre-empted shut up to you.

I bow to your creative and amusing smack down, RL.

Yeah, I can't deny that the Dems got their palms greased better on that mess, but nothing, NOTHING, can make me vote for a ticket that includes the brainless likes of Palin.

Sorryisall

Make no mistake, I recognize and highly respect your enormous contributions to the history and fun of these boards, and despite many differences between us, I like everything you write. You have the gift.

Another thing, you run a grave risk of pissing off alot of people here for being civil and all to me. Thanks, and watch your back.

RIVERLOVE

Sunday, October 5, 2008 1:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
WHAT!? You two reconciled already!? Can't you go back to fighting? That was a lot more entertaining.

------------------------------

Trolls against McCain, you betcha!

C'mon man, are you trying to flame a flamer? I aim to flame, and it's so much more fun to do it without any of those silly and boring "cites". Yanno what I mean?

SIGNYM

Sunday, October 5, 2008 2:12 AM

Riverlove, you're an idiot. What can I say?

When you want to deal in facts, let me know.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

RIVERLOVE

Sunday, October 5, 2008 2:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Riverlove, you're an idiot. What can I say?

When you want to deal in facts, let me know.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

Well aren't you all uppity and such! It was only a matter of time before one of the stoic guardians of posting appropriateness reared their ugly fat head tonite. Ta Ta sweetie. Ignore me, please. I have nothing for you. It's better that way.

JAYNEZTOWN

Saturday, March 18, 2023 2:58 PM

Trump blasts Biden as a 'disaster for the economy' amid bank failures

https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/trump-blasts-biden-disaster-ec
onomy-amid-bank-failures

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2