The Treasury officially confirms the $700b number was pulled out of their ass

Well, myke, perhaps you'd like to take a stab at Freddie and Fannie's role in government sponsored, government guaranteed mortgages then? How exactly are these instruments of government reflective of capitalism whatsoever?

Then maybe you'd like to tackle the reason for relaxing of lending standards at FNMA by Mr. Franklin Raines during the Clinton administration and why the former budget director and FNMA ceo was forced to "retire"

[quote name='the wiki']Civil charges were filed against Raines and two other former executives by the OFHEO in which the OFHEO sought $110 million in penalties and $115 million in returned bonuses from the three accused.[7] On April 18, 2008, the government announced a settlement with Raines together with J. Timothy Howard, Fannie's former chief financial officer, and Leanne G. Spencer, Fannie's former controller. The three executives agreed to pay fines totaling about $3 million, which will be paid by Fannie's insurance policies. Raines also agreed to donate the proceeds from the sale of $1.8 million of his Fannie stock and to give up stock options. The stock options however have no value. Raines also gave up an estimated $5.3 million of "other benefits" said to be related to his pension and forgone bonuses.

An editorial in The Wall Street Journal called it a "paltry settlement" which allowed Raines and the other two executives to "keep the bulk of their riches." [9] In 2003 alone, Raines's compensation was over $20 million[/QUOTE]

This is political cronyism at work here, not capitalism. Not by a longshot.
 
Boy, this just gets easier.

Follow the links from one to the next and you always find strange bedfellows.
James Johnson, a "bundler", contributor, and organizer for the Obama campaign is a board member for Goldman-Sachs AND:

He is also a board member at Goldman Sachs, Gannett Company, Inc., a media holding group, KB Home, a home construction firm, Target Corporation, Temple-Inland, and UnitedHealth Group.

Johnson has also served as chairman of both the Kennedy Center for the Arts (1996-2004) and the Brookings Institution (1994-2003). He is also a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Friends of Bilderberg, the Council on Foreign Relations, and the Trilateral Commission.

[quote name='the wiki']On May 22, 2008, Democratic Party officials confidentially divulged that Obama had asked Johnson "to lead the process" for selecting Obama's running mate.[4] On June 4, 2008, Obama announced the formation of a three-person committee to vet vice presidential candidates, including Johnson.[5] However, Johnson soon became a source of controversy when it was reported that he had received loans directly from Angelo Mozilo, the CEO of Countrywide Financial, a company implicated in the U.S. subprime mortgage crisis.[6] Although he was not accused of any wrongdoing and was initially defended by Obama on the grounds that he was simply an unpaid volunteer, Johnson announced he would step down from the vice-presidential vetting position on June 11, 2008, in order to avoid being a distraction to Obama's campaign.[/QUOTE]


Not incriminating you say? But wait, there's more:

From 1991 to 1998, he served as chairman and chief executive officer of the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), the quasi-public organization that guarantees mortgages for millions of American homeowners. Previously, he was vice chairman of Fannie Mae (1990-1991) and a managing director with Lehman Brothers (1985-1990). An Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) report[1] from September 2004 found that, during Johnson's tenure as CEO, Fannie Mae had improperly deferred $200 million in expenses. This enabled top executives, including Johnson and his successor, Franklin Raines, to receive substantial bonuses in 1998.[2] A 2006 OFHEO report[3] found that Fannie Mae had substantially under-reported Johnson's compensation. Originally reported as $6-7 million, Johnson actually received approximately $21 million.

Yes, this is the kind of CHANGE we need. It does not resemble capitalism in the slightest, it reeks of favoritism. I suppose you're going to break with your candidate because he'll be in favor of the blank check to the financial industry? Keep telling yourself Barak's the Democrat savior. You'll have to repeat it a couple million times before you'll start believing that lie.
 
[quote name='bmulligan'] You'll have to repeat it a couple million times before you'll start believing that lie.[/QUOTE]

Or, after the dollar has crashed, why not just put that slogan on our new currency?
 
So now relaxing standards = government interference in the free market?

Jeeeeezus, boyo. You're trying to have it both ways now, such that government interference in IMPOSING or REMOVING regulations is chopping down your Adam Smith hard-on.

Can't wait to figure out how you'd ever get to your free-market dream, seeing as how the government sure couldn't decide to deregulate itself. That would be a monstrous nightmare in your eyes!

I thought you were a grown-up, man. I'm sorry that I was clearly wrong.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']So now relaxing standards = government interference in the free market?

Jeeeeezus, boyo. You're trying to have it both ways now, such that government interference in IMPOSING or REMOVING regulations is chopping down your Adam Smith hard-on.

Can't wait to figure out how you'd ever get to your free-market dream, seeing as how the government sure couldn't decide to deregulate itself. That would be a monstrous nightmare in your eyes!

I thought you were a grown-up, man. I'm sorry that I was clearly wrong.[/QUOTE]


Unfortunately, you're confusing relaxation of restrictions on private enterprise with relaxation of a restriction on government. You are too intelligent to not understand this and are being purposefully obtuse. Restriction on a bad policy or bad government behavior is a good thing, and removing the restriction to allow more bad behavior by government isn't.

Restricting the fountain of money government has been doling out for bad mortgages is a good thing, opening the floodgates is a bad thing. At least, it's why the financial crisis exists today. It has nothing to do with capitalism, it's primary cause is government's intervention into the market, creation of an artificial market and it's control thereof- also known as...... what ?

I'll assume you're still reconciling your support for Barak's impending bid to rescue his friends and backers in the financial industry as the reason you couldn't come up with a better retort than an Adam Smith hard on. Your hate for capitalism isn't in question, but your chosen savior is.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Unfortunately, you're confusing relaxation of restrictions on private enterprise with relaxation of a restriction on government. You are too intelligent to not understand this and are being purposefully obtuse. Restriction on a bad policy or bad government behavior is a good thing, and removing the restriction to allow more bad behavior by government isn't.

Restricting the fountain of money government has been doling out for bad mortgages is a good thing, opening the floodgates is a bad thing. At least, it's why the financial crisis exists today. It has nothing to do with capitalism, it's primary cause is government's intervention into the market, creation of an artificial market and it's control thereof- also known as...... what ?

I'll assume you're still reconciling your support for Barak's impending bid to rescue his friends and backers in the financial industry as the reason you couldn't come up with a better retort than an Adam Smith hard on. Your hate for capitalism isn't in question, but your chosen savior is.[/quote]

Seems to me your position is that a marketplace without restrictions is the perfect system. Any forum of business that falls a hair short of this is inherently flawed. Therefore because your ideology has never been implemented it follows that your ideology has never been disproved.

However now that a market similar to your brand of cowboy capitalism has failed, you're feeling the heat - what better way to deflect criticism then to make dubious claims of conspiracies for which you have not provided any solid evidence. By citing Obama's relationship with Johnson I assume you're insinuating that Obama, who would have been a Senator for Illinois at the time, was able to setup cherry terms for Fannie Mae. How would he have done this, do you really believe he had that much influence? Really now, who is the one being purposefully obtuse?
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I finally found an elected official that seems to actually get it
[/quote]

So close. Caitlyn was whining. So, I may have missed some of this.

Criminalizing activity from 15 years ago? Only if it was illegal 15 years ago.

An independent commission? Christ, why don't we put Detective TrashCan on the case? A commission is a good way to take 10 years to figure something out and to publish the results.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']So close. Caitlyn was whining. So, I may have missed some of this.

Criminalizing activity from 15 years ago? Only if it was illegal 15 years ago.

An independent commission? Christ, why don't we put Detective TrashCan on the case? A commission is a good way to take 10 years to figure something out and to publish the results.[/QUOTE]

I agree with you. But I'm far more interested in bringing greedy criminals to justice rather than rewarding them and/or letting them off the hook to do it again.
 
[quote name='camoor']Seems to me your position is that a marketplace without restrictions is the perfect system. Any forum of business that falls a hair short of this is inherently flawed. Therefore because your ideology has never been implemented it follows that your ideology has never been disproved.[/quote]

Which was the basis behind the whole "Communism has never been proven faulty because the USSR/China/Cuba/whatever aren't REAL Communist nations" comparison.

IOW, the whole philosophy is "until things work absolutely, 100% perfectly and according to plan, they won't."

However now that a market similar to your brand of cowboy capitalism has failed, you're feeling the heat - what better way to deflect criticism then to make dubious claims of conspiracies for which you have not provided any solid evidence. By citing Obama's relationship with Johnson I assume you're insinuating that Obama, who would have been a Senator for Illinois at the time, was able to setup cherry terms for Fannie Mae. How would he have done this, do you really believe he had that much influence? Really now, who is the one being purposefully obtuse?

Quick! Deflection by insinuation! Hey! Look over here! Let's change the subject!

That's what's going on. Mention Obama's ties to Fannie/Freddie, and ignore Rick Davis - just for the sole purpose of raising ire and deflecting the heat that his ideology is inherently flawed, full of post-hoc protection, and tautologically fantastic.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']

That's what's going on. Mention Obama's ties to Fannie/Freddie, and ignore Rick Davis - just for the sole purpose of raising ire and deflecting the heat that his ideology is inherently flawed, full of post-hoc protection, and tautologically fantastic.[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't ignore Rick Davis, OR Wayne Berman, OR John Greene, or the rest of the dirty laundry list. The problem with your faux argument here is that pointing out that McCain has ties to the architects of the financial crisis doesn't negate the fact that Obama draws from the same pool for position, leverage, advice, and money. His ideology, apart from being inherently flawed, is an outright lie.

The other problem with your line of reasoning is that I'm not a McCain supporter. I don't have a partisan firewall preventing me from seeing reality, and don't have to justify my candidate's ties to "washington insiders" by claiming the other side has them too. You can't refute that Obama is simply the latest poster boy for the unseen members of the 'Good-ol-boy' network. He couldn't be farther from representing "real change" so your only option is to attack the other side as more unscrupulous. How plebeian of you.
 
You continue to dodge my points that you're tautological view of the "free market" allows you to be never disproven by virtue of the impossibly idealistic view of what constitutes the "free market" in your eyes.

So I'm going to pisstake by taking the perspective that only outright communism would be the absolute answer to all of our social woes. Once we have a REAL Communist system in place, then you'll see just how ideal it really is.

Oh boy. Better get out my Marx/Engels reader. This ain't gonna be easy, but it sure is going to be fun.
 
I can only really address points that make sense, myke. I didn't realize we were trying to pry out my beliefs in free market capitalism so that you could disprove them. I was arguing the financial crisis was brought on mostly because of a social engineering effort of the federal government and subsequent government sponsorship of known bad "securities", or debt, or notes, or mortgages, or whatever you want to call them. Without these instruments, policies and protections of the federal government, no profit motivated capitalist would have bet his future earnings on sub-prime mortgage bundles, period. Nor would they have been allowed to launder their value through unscrupulous accounting.

I'd never argue that all government controls are unnecessary - just most of them. The writers of our supreme law of the land, obviously more knowledgeable than I, knew well that regulating interstate commerce was a valid power to grant to government. Especially in circumstances such as this, it would be hard to argue that the existence of an entity like the SEC is a bad idea, only that it's use as a political entity is helping a small group of insiders become wealthy at the expense of the typical indebted citizen, and remain wealthy at the expense of the taxpayer.

Government exists primarily to protect people from one another, not to artificially help one person over another. Unfortunately that's what has occurred here.
 
Monday, September 29th, 2008
The Rich Are Staging a Coup This Morning ...a message from Michael Moore

Friends,

Let me cut to the chase. The biggest robbery in the history of this country is taking place as you read this. Though no guns are being used, 300 million hostages are being taken. Make no mistake about it: After stealing a half trillion dollars to line the pockets of their war-profiteering backers for the past five years, after lining the pockets of their fellow oilmen to the tune of over a hundred billion dollars in just the last two years, Bush and his cronies -- who must soon vacate the White House -- are looting the U.S. Treasury of every dollar they can grab. They are swiping as much of the silverware as they can on their way out the door.

No matter what they say, no matter how many scare words they use, they are up to their old tricks of creating fear and confusion in order to make and keep themselves and the upper one percent filthy rich. Just read the first four paragraphs of the lead story in last Monday's New York Times and you can see what the real deal is:

"Even as policy makers worked on details of a $700 billion bailout of the financial industry, Wall Street began looking for ways to profit from it.

"Financial firms were lobbying to have all manner of troubled investments covered, not just those related to mortgages.

"At the same time, investment firms were jockeying to oversee all the assets that Treasury plans to take off the books of financial institutions, a role that could earn them hundreds of millions of dollars a year in fees.

"Nobody wants to be left out of Treasury's proposal to buy up bad assets of financial institutions."

Unbelievable. Wall Street and its backers created this mess and now they are going to clean up like bandits. Even Rudy Giuliani is lobbying for his firm to be hired (and paid) to "consult" in the bailout.

The problem is, nobody truly knows what this "collapse" is all about. Even Treasury Secretary Paulson admitted he doesn't know the exact amount that is needed (he just picked the $700 billion number out of his head!). The head of the congressional budget office said he can't figure it out nor can he explain it to anyone.

And yet, they are screeching about how the end is near! Panic! Recession! The Great Depression! Y2K! Bird flu! Killer bees! We must pass the bailout bill today!! The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

Falling for whom? NOTHING in this "bailout" package will lower the price of the gas you have to put in your car to get to work. NOTHING in this bill will protect you from losing your home. NOTHING in this bill will give you health insurance.

Health insurance? Mike, why are you bringing this up? What's this got to do with the Wall Street collapse?

It has everything to do with it. This so-called "collapse" was triggered by the massive defaulting and foreclosures going on with people's home mortgages. Do you know why so many Americans are losing their homes? To hear the Republicans describe it, it's because too many working class idiots were given mortgages that they really couldn't afford. Here's the truth: The number one cause of people declaring bankruptcy is because of medical bills. Let me state this simply: If we had had universal health coverage, this mortgage "crisis" may never have happened.

This bailout's mission is to protect the obscene amount of wealth that has been accumulated in the last eight years. It's to protect the top shareholders who own and control corporate America. It's to make sure their yachts and mansions and "way of life" go uninterrupted while the rest of America suffers and struggles to pay the bills. Let the rich suffer for once. Let them pay for the bailout. We are spending 400 million dollars a day on the war in Iraq. Let them end the war immediately and save us all another half-trillion dollars!

I have to stop writing this and you have to stop reading it. They are staging a financial coup this morning in our country. They are hoping Congress will act fast before they stop to think, before we have a chance to stop them ourselves. So stop reading this and do something -- NOW! Here's what you can do immediately:

1. Call or e-mail Senator Obama. Tell him he does not need to be sitting there trying to help prop up Bush and Cheney and the mess they've made. Tell him we know he has the smarts to slow this thing down and figure out what's the best route to take. Tell him the rich have to pay for whatever help is offered. Use the leverage we have now to insist on a moratorium on home foreclosures, to insist on a move to universal health coverage, and tell him that we the people need to be in charge of the economic decisions that affect our lives, not the barons of Wall Street.

2. Take to the streets. Participate in one of the hundreds of quickly-called demonstrations that are taking place all over the country (especially those near Wall Street and DC).

3. Call your Representative in Congress and your Senators. (click here to find their phone numbers). Tell them what you told Senator Obama.

When you screw up in life, there is hell to pay. Each and every one of you reading this knows that basic lesson and has paid the consequences of your actions at some point. In this great democracy, we cannot let there be one set of rules for the vast majority of hard-working citizens, and another set of rules for the elite, who, when they screw up, are handed one more gift on a silver platter. No more! Not again!

Yours,
Michael Moore
[email protected]
MichaelMoore.com

P.S. Having read further the details of this bailout bill, you need to know you are being lied to. They talk about how they will prevent golden parachutes. It says NOTHING about what these executives and fat cats will make in SALARY. According to Rep. Brad Sherman of California, these top managers will continue to receive million-dollar-a-month paychecks under this new bill. There is no direct ownership given to the American people for the money being handed over. Foreign banks and investors will be allowed to receive billion-dollar handouts. A large chunk of this $700 billion is going to be given directly to Chinese and Middle Eastern banks. There is NO guarantee of ever seeing that money again.

P.P.S. From talking to people I know in DC, they say the reason so many Dems are behind this is because Wall Street this weekend put a gun to their heads and said either turn over the $700 billion or the first thing we'll start blowing up are the pension funds and 401(k)s of your middle class constituents. The Dems are scared they may make good on their threat. But this is not the time to back down or act like the typical Democrat we have witnessed for the last eight years. The Dems handed a stolen election over to Bush. The Dems gave Bush the votes he needed to invade a sovereign country. Once they took over Congress in 2007, they refused to pull the plug on the war. And now they have been cowered into being accomplices in the crime of the century. You have to call them now and say "NO!" If we let them do this, just imagine how hard it will be to get anything good done when President Obama is in the White House. THESE DEMOCRATS ARE ONLY AS STRONG AS THE BACKBONE WE GIVE THEM. CALL CONGRESS NOW.
 
I think what Michael Moore is saying is more or less true.

Unfortunately Wall Street is going to get what they want or they will make us all pay. It's like being mugged at gunpoint - better to give the guy your money and escape with your life.

And believe me, Wall Street elite will make out like bandits on this deal. This is going to be the "Big Dig" of financial bailouts. Hell it might not be a bad move to goto NYC and setup your own financial institution rescue consulting service.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']I don't know about lack of universal health care causing all of this, he seems to be reaching just a little.[/QUOTE]

The abysmal healthcare system in this country certainly did not help.

IMHO part of the reason for the rush to sign over the 700 Billion NOW NOW NOW!!! was to basically fend off any sort of healthcare reforms.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']looks like the bailout just got shot down in the house... wonder how the market will react.[/QUOTE]

Already plunging. This whole thing is just so fucked up and comical.
 
This will go down as a historical event.

I'm not sure I can recall another piece of legislation of this magnitude that was so unpopular to the American people.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']This will go down as a historical event.

I'm not sure I can recall another piece of legislation of this magnitude that was so unpopular to the American people.[/quote]

If anybody had read them, the Patriot Act or the teleco amnesty bill.
 
[quote name='level1online']Here's the truth: The number one cause of people declaring bankruptcy is because of medical bills. Let me state this simply: If we had had universal health coverage, this mortgage "crisis" may never have happened.[/quote]

Medical bills? You're fucking kidding me. No, the monthly payments on homes that are killing people hardly have anything to do with medical bills. Perhaps Moore should talk to some real people instead of the ones in his head.
 
[quote name='DarkSageRK']Medical bills? You're fucking kidding me. No, the monthly payments on homes that are killing people hardly have anything to do with medical bills. Perhaps Moore should talk to some real people instead of the ones in his head.[/QUOTE]

Or maybe the American people should stop buying houses they cant fucking afford. Iv seen people like lilboo ask how and what this whole thing is about and the simplest answer is that while there are many reasons one central thing is at the heart of this. Every fucking American from bankers to wall street investors to congress to the 300 million Americans have forgotten how to fucking save money and have spent like Cindy fucking McCain in a Gucci store.
 
That's because our entire economy is set up with no backing other than debt. Debt is the engine that drives the modern economy and that's not good, and will cycle through failure every so often because of it.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']That's because our entire economy is set up with no backing other than debt. Debt is the engine that drives the modern economy and that's not good, and will cycle through failure every so often because of it.[/QUOTE]

This isnt failure though its a meltdown
 
[quote name='DarkSageRK']Medical bills? You're fucking kidding me. No, the monthly payments on homes that are killing people hardly have anything to do with medical bills. Perhaps Moore should talk to some real people instead of the ones in his head.[/QUOTE]

...but medical bills are the number one reason for bankrupcy...

the thing about the mortgage crisis is people are just as responsible for it as banks are.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']This isnt failure though its a meltdown[/QUOTE]

Same thing, sorta. But my point is, it's programmed into the system to happen. Any system relying on limitless debt is.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']I don't know about lack of universal health care causing all of this, he seems to be reaching just a little.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I agree. Maybe if he keeps standing on his tippy-toes, he can reach the stars.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']...but medical bills are the number one reason for bankrupcy...

the thing about the mortgage crisis is people are just as responsible for it as banks are.[/QUOTE]

It's kind of confounded though. Unexpected, and uncovered, medical expenses are just the straw that breaks the camel's back in many cases. People are already overextended in debt with student loans, a bigger mortgage than they can afford, car payments etc. and thus they can't handle unexpected costs as they don't have enough savings.

Of course, some times medical bills are gigantic and would bankrupt even people with very little debt. Medical bills are a huge problem in this country, but it's a stretch to say they're behind the current crisis.

That's on people for taking mortgages they can't afford and on the banks for giving people loan's that are beyond their means.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']It's kind of confounded though. Unexpected, and uncovered, medical expenses are just the straw that breaks the camel's back in many cases. People are already overextended in debt with student loans, a bigger mortgage than they can afford, car payments etc. and thus they can't handle unexpected costs as they don't have enough savings.

[/QUOTE]

true enough.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']It's kind of confounded though. Unexpected, and uncovered, medical expenses are just the straw that breaks the camel's back in many cases. People are already overextended in debt with student loans, a bigger mortgage than they can afford, car payments etc. and thus they can't handle unexpected costs as they don't have enough savings.

Of course, some times medical bills are gigantic and would bankrupt even people with very little debt. Medical bills are a huge problem in this country, but it's a stretch to say they're behind the current crisis.

That's on people for taking mortgages they can't afford and on the banks for giving people loan's that are beyond their means.[/quote]

I also agree. MM overstates the their importance, but our healthcare "system" is a drain and a national embarrassment.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']...but medical bills are the number one reason for bankrupcy...

the thing about the mortgage crisis is people are just as responsible for it as banks are.[/QUOTE]

No.
 
[quote name='Msut77']It was all that was needed.[/QUOTE]

not really. i mean, besides being wrong you provide nothing to back up your one word answer. plus you dont seem to know what sarcasm is.
 
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/bankruptcy_study.html

Medical Bills Leading Cause of Bankruptcy, Harvard Study Finds

February 3, 2005

Illness and medical bills caused half of the 1,458,000 personal bankruptcies in 2001, according to a study published by the journal Health Affairs.

.......

Not sure if it holds true still today, but a simple "no" if that's what that pointless one word reply was to, is pretty misplaced on this issue...
 
Ahem, redirecting back to Mike Moore, I can't believe I actually agree with something that came out of fatboy's mouth. I thought it impossible for him to speak words that are truthy. Although he's not quite right about pinning this on the last eight years, this has been going on since 1995 when congress allowed these sub-prime bundles to be securitized, and guaranteed.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Not sure if it holds true still today[/QUOTE]

More or less my immediate reaction as well.

Funny thing about that study was the bankruptcy "abuse and protection act" that Bush signed into law in April of 2005. The one that increased a person's liability for their outstanding debts if they filed bankruptcy.

You remember the bill; it was passed within weeks of another bill that eliminated United Airlines' liability to pay out employee pension benefits, setting a precedent for any future company to avoid compensating its employees for work they did over the years.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

I mean, you have to laugh at bills like that - and the fact that the Republicans have done what they've done and *still* stand a chance at winning the election this year.

It's so far beyond pathetic that it simply can't be anything but funny.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
I mean, you have to laugh at bills like that - and the fact that the Republicans have done what they've done and *still* stand a chance at winning the election this year.

It's so far beyond pathetic that it simply can't be anything but funny.[/QUOTE]

Republicans will always stand a chance at winning the election as long as Democrats continue to represent and fight for many of the platforms they do.

No matter how bad Republicans screw up, the ideology of the Democrats is still too scary for many Americans.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']

It's so far beyond pathetic that it simply can't be anything but funny.[/QUOTE]

I'm starting to think if the mccain wins the white house and the replublicans steal seats from the democrats in congress that you might actually snap. youll only be able to post 1 hour a day during your rec time at the looney bin ;)
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']not really. i mean, besides being wrong you provide nothing to back up your one word answer. plus you dont seem to know what sarcasm is.[/QUOTE]

Do things really have to explained to you at a thrustbucket level?
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']I'm starting to think if the mccain wins the white house and the replublicans steal seats from the democrats in congress that you might actually snap. youll only be able to post 1 hour a day during your rec time at the looney bin ;)[/QUOTE]

Ha!

I actually promised my wife that I'd give up politics altogether if McCain wins.

Now, that's like a junkie saying he's gonna kick starting tomorrow, I know.

But, seriously, if McCain wins, I'm going to try really damned hard to give up politics.

If only because there's no longer any sense in trying to engage intellectually in a realm dominated by the Machiavellian mechanisms of brand and image manipulation over issues.

But I stress *try* because it would be foolishly incorrect of me to *promise.*

So, you know - get out the vote for McCain. Shut me up.

;)
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']you said one word![/QUOTE]

Again that is all that has to be said.

You are blind moron if you ignore how the combination of deregulation, lax enforcement of oversight laws and the fucking straight up scams run by those bundling mortgages lead to this clusterfuck. Instead you blame normal albeit naive people who were the target and used as shills by these companies.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Again that is all that has to be said.

You are blind moron if you ignore how the combination of deregulation, lax enforcement of oversight laws and the fucking straight up scams run by those bundling mortgages lead to this clusterfuck. Instead you blame normal albeit naive people who were the target and used as shills by these companies.[/QUOTE]

so because people are naive it excuses their responsibility for the mortgage crisis?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
So, you know - get out the vote for McCain. Shut me up.

;)[/QUOTE]

I'm afraid I can't do that. Plus, you are too much fun to shut you up.

[quote name='RAMSTORIA']so because people are naive it excuses their responsibility for the mortgage crisis?[/QUOTE]


Don't you get it yet? You have to admit that any problem at hand is caused 100% by Republicans and/or Bush, in order to appease the intellectual complexity that is Msut77.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Ha!

I actually promised my wife that I'd give up politics altogether if McCain wins.

Now, that's like a junkie saying he's gonna kick starting tomorrow, I know.

But, seriously, if McCain wins, I'm going to try really damned hard to give up politics.

If only because there's no longer any sense in trying to engage intellectually in a realm dominated by the Machiavellian mechanisms of brand and image manipulation over issues.

But I stress *try* because it would be foolishly incorrect of me to *promise.*

So, you know - get out the vote for McCain. Shut me up.

;)[/quote]

You see, I'm hoping this will play out the other way around if McCain wins.

I'm hoping that as a result of a McCain victory, the Liberals will turn up the heat on the Conservatives instead of retreating back into their turtle shells or leaving the country.

Continued political activism & keeping a vigilante watchful eye on the new administration will guarantee a deadlock for the next four years. Deadlock might actually be the best thing for this country right now, because i don't see things turning around anytime soon, only getting worse.

Under a Democratic administration, the worst thing that can happen is a catastrophe occurring right under our noses because we assumed, "hey! relax! a democrat is charge, party time!"

As long as Democrats promise to remain politically active under an Obama presidency, then yeah, I could actually see myself voting for the guy.

and btw, myke, Chris Benoit is dead, it's time to take down the posters eh? ;)
 
[quote name='level1online']Under a Democratic administration, the worst thing that can happen is a catastrophe occurring right under our noses because we assumed, "hey! relax! a democrat is charge, party time!"[/QUOTE]

Yeah, because the 90's just sucked economically and otherwise.

I mean, button-fly jeans and "EMF" sucked, sure - but other than that (and Technotronic too) the 90's were fuckin' fan-tas-tic.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Yeah, because the 90's just sucked economically and otherwise.

I mean, button-fly jeans and "EMF" sucked, sure - but other than that (and Technotronic too) the 90's were fuckin' fan-tas-tic.[/QUOTE]


i blame the democrats and their open door policies for ace of base
 
bread's done
Back
Top