The true story of Wall Street and the Governments role in the Banking Crash
of 2008. I'm not one that toots any horns for PBS but this story has to be
seen!
Explains, Over the counter derivatives, the Black Box, Bankers Trust and
lawsuit brought on by Procter and Gamble in 1999 that started it all, and
Greenspan, Rubin and Sommers role in the whole mess.
http://www.dat-e-baseonline.com/front/a.asp?arg=8F7D995F927B7C656472797B628B73798C6A756E7E7B71
http://alturl.com/poi2
--
"You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"
Running Mandriva release 2008.0 free-i586 using KDE on i586
Website Address http://rentmyhusband.biz/
"Robatoy" wrote:
----------------------------------------
Classy, Tim, really classy. Got something against lesbians? Homophobic
are you? Does that go hand-in-hand with that dominating phobia of
yours that the whole world wants to take away your marbles?
--------------------------------------------
As my mother often reminded me, "Son, if you are going to mess with
chicken crap, you are bound to get some on you."
Lew
Robatoy wrote:
> On Oct 29, 7:50 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Robatoy wrote:
>>> On Oct 29, 6:31 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> If I am more vehement in Obama's case it's only because
>>>> the magnitude of his Constitutional abuses is so much higher and the rate
>>>> so much faster.
>>> How many people has Obama sent off to die so his friends could line
>>> their pockets?
>> None - just like Bush before him did not do this.
>>
>> --
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -
>> Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
>> PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
>
> That answer clearly disqualifies you from any further debate as you
> see what you want to see and you ignore those realities that don't
> suit your ideology.
It may disqualify me from *your* version of "debate" or "reality"
both of which correspond to their real equivalents the way
Rosie O'Donnell is a supermodel.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Oct 25, 5:55=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Angela Sekeris wrote:
> > On Oct 25, 2:59 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> notbob wrote:
> >>> On 2009-10-25, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> You're missing my point. =A0
> >>> I doubt it. =A0
> >>> Let's face it, there will never be a totally unbiased view of anthing=
,
> >>> ever. =A0You say Frontline has a biased liberal view. =A0Probably. =
=A0OTOH,
> >>> I don't see the conservative right exposing this stuff. =A0Or did I m=
iss
> >>> that one, too. =A0;)
> >>> nb
> >> I agree that once you get beyond mere reporting of fact, any kind
> >> of analysis always has some degree of bias in it. =A0It just annoys
> >> me that people like Frank - who were fundamentally responsible for
> >> creating the insane regulatory environment - get a pass while
> >> everyone else gets blamed.
>
> >> And yes, there has been some reporting of the lefty's insanities by
> >> the right-bent press. =A0However - and again, let's be fair - there
> >> are far, far more mainstream news sources (+NPR, +PBS) that bend
> >> to the left, than the single successful right-bent news outlet of
> >> Fox. =A0Why else do you think Fox is so very successful? =A0The entire
> >> community of rightwingers have more-or-less only one network to
> >> consume, while the lefties (who are overall smaller in number) are
> >> divided across CBS, NBC, PMS-NBC, ABC, CNN, PBS, and NPR.
>
> >> I assure you that I am not choosing sides on this one. =A0Both sides
> >> acted *horribly*. =A0I just wish people would figure out that governme=
nt
> >> itself was instrumental in this mess - it enabled it, it ignored it,
> >> it made things worse, and now government is in bed with the same
> >> bozos that were part of it in the private sector. =A0When folks wake u=
p
> >> to this, perhaps they won't be so quick to sign up for "more governmen=
t
> >> is the answer".
>
> >> --
> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------=
----- -
> >> Tim Daneliuk =A0 =A0 [email protected]
> >> PGP Key: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
>
> > It takes CBS, NBC, PMS-NBC, ABC, CNN, PBS, and NPR. et al to act as a
> > counterweight to the insanity of Faux news' fabrications.
> > Glen Beck has yet to deny that raped and killed a girl in 1990.
>
> You're certifiable. =A0Seek help and/or meds as needed.
>
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-- -
> Tim Daneliuk =A0 =A0 [email protected]
> PGP Key: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Then Beck is certifiable as well, as that is one of his/Faux News'
tactics. After all, Obama hasn't denied being a commie fag alien
junkie, has he?
Just for shits and giggles, plug Beck's rape charge into Google and
see what happens.
On Oct 29, 10:33=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On Oct 29, 9:25 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Robatoy wrote:
> >>> On Oct 29, 7:50 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> Robatoy wrote:
> >>>>> On Oct 29, 6:31 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>> =A0 If I am more vehement in Obama's case it's only because
> >>>>>> the magnitude of his Constitutional abuses is so much higher and t=
he rate
> >>>>>> so much faster.
> >>>>> How many people has Obama sent off to die so his friends could line
> >>>>> their pockets?
> >>>> None - just like Bush before him did not do this.
> >>>> --
> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------=
------- -
> >>>> Tim Daneliuk =A0 =A0 [email protected]
> >>>> PGP Key: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
> >>> That answer clearly disqualifies you from any further debate as you
> >>> see what you want to see and you ignore those realities that don't
> >>> suit your ideology.
> >> It may disqualify me from *your* version of "debate" or "reality"
> >> both of which correspond to their real equivalents the way
> >> Rosie O'Donnell is a supermodel.
> >> --
> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------=
----- -
> >> Tim Daneliuk =A0 =A0 [email protected]
> >> PGP Key: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
>
> > Classy, Tim, really classy. Got something against lesbians? Homophobic
> > are you? Does that go hand-in-hand with that dominating phobia of
>
> Not in the slightest. =A0But Rosie is demonstrably not a supermodel and
> you are demonstrably disconnected from Reality. =A0A simple - and apt -
> comparison. =A0It is, however, interesting to hear your argue as if you
> believed in tolerance of people different than yourself given your
> repeated screechings here against a particular group of people. =A0Isn't
> that, after all, really why you hate W - because he supported those same
> people?
>
> > yours that the whole world wants to take away your marbles?
>
> My marbles are quite intact, thank you for asking. =A0See, I'm not
> homophobic in any way...
"Yawn"....you still here?
On Oct 29, 9:56=A0pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" wrote:
>
> ----------------------------------------
> Classy, Tim, really classy. Got something against lesbians? Homophobic
> are you? Does that go hand-in-hand with that dominating phobia of
> yours that the whole world wants to take away your marbles?
> --------------------------------------------
>
> As my mother often reminded me, "Son, if you are going to mess with
> chicken crap, you are bound to get some on you."
>
> Lew
I just can't help it. When I see a clown, I have to beep its nose.
David Nebenzahl wrote:
> On 10/25/2009 10:17 AM Tim Daneliuk spake thus:
>
>> notbob wrote:
>>
>>> On 2009-10-25, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Curiously though, it only shows behaviors of denial and stupidity by
>>>> the political right.
>>>
>>> You must have seen a different program. The one I saw showed the
>>> Clinton administration following the same program as both Bush admins.
>>> Who's biased?
>>
>> You're missing my point. The program shows stuff going on during the
>> Clinton administration - both in his immediate circle of advisors
>> and in the legislature. However it only shows Repuglican legislators
>> in denial.
>
> No.
>
> How about the fact that it was Clinton who got rid of Glass-Steagall,
> the firewall between banking and the stock market that had been in place
> since the New Deal? This was undertaken by *Democrats*.
Yes, that's true. But if you think the Dems are mostly/solely
responsible for this, you're kidding yourself. (And I am NO fan of the
Dems or the left at all). Where were both Clinton and GWB when it came
time to enforce the *existing* laws concerning naked short selling?
(Which has been illegal for a very long time and which was going on
regularly during both administrations.) See, I fail to see how more
regulation is going to change much when the government can't be
bothered to enforce the laws already on the books. And THAT, ain't a
partisan thing. Both parties have behaved very badly in this regard.
In truth, Greenspan was more right than wrong even regarding how
markets would punish fraud. Fraud is not sustainable unless you use
force because fraud - sooner or later - collapses. But the government
swine made sure that no collapse was possible: They bailed out the
banks that took insane risk. They bailed out the greedy pigs that took
out more mortgage than they could afford. They bailed out the lazy
union slobs that demanded far more for putting bolts in the bottom of
a transmission than they ever were worth. In short, there's little
point in having market transparency and honesty if every time someone
is about to lose, the government steps in, prints funny funny and
"saves them" from themselves. Markets DO work - efficiently and
mercilessly. They cannot, however, overcome the overweening force of
government when it is applied to thieves, morons, and whiners
respectively.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
DGDevin wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>> Perhaps not - I do not recall all the particulars as I prefer not to
>> swim in sewers. Nonetheless, the whole meme got a lot of traction on
>> Reddit if it didn't actually originate there and my larger point
>> stands: Beck gets heat because the people who oppose him are
>> politically illiterate, incapable of any sophisticated counterpoint,
>> and generally intellectually unkempt children. Do I mostly agree
>> with Beck? No. Do I think he is light years smarter and of higher
>> integrity than his critics? Yes.
>
> Would this be the Glenn Beck who admits he was stoned every day for fifteen
> years on a combination of alcohol, weed, cocaine and prescription drugs?
Yes. Still better than his political opponents at this time.
> The Glenn Beck who once taunted the wife of a rival radio DJ *on the air*
> after she suffered a miscarriage? The Glenn Beck who once described himself
> as a borderline schizophrenic? The Glenn Beck whose reputation includes
> firing employees who displeased him in public as sadistically as he could?
Yes. Still better than his political opponents at this time.
> That Glenn Beck, he's the one whose intelligence and integrity have
> impressed you?
Yes.
>
> It's a long, three-part story, but you might learn some things about Mr.
> Beck you didn't know:
>
> http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/09/21/glenn_beck/
>
>
What lovely "tolerance" you exhibit. A person's failings decades ago
disqualify him from political commentary today. Oh, I forgot. "Tolerance"
only applies to people with whom the wretched political chattering classes
on the left agree.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Oct 29, 9:25=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On Oct 29, 7:50 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Robatoy wrote:
> >>> On Oct 29, 6:31 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> =A0 If I am more vehement in Obama's case it's only because
> >>>> the magnitude of his Constitutional abuses is so much higher and the=
rate
> >>>> so much faster.
> >>> How many people has Obama sent off to die so his friends could line
> >>> their pockets?
> >> None - just like Bush before him did not do this.
>
> >> --
> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------=
----- -
> >> Tim Daneliuk =A0 =A0 [email protected]
> >> PGP Key: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
>
> > That answer clearly disqualifies you from any further debate as you
> > see what you want to see and you ignore those realities that don't
> > suit your ideology.
>
> It may disqualify me from *your* version of "debate" or "reality"
> both of which correspond to their real equivalents the way
> Rosie O'Donnell is a supermodel.
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-- -
> Tim Daneliuk =A0 =A0 [email protected]
> PGP Key: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Classy, Tim, really classy. Got something against lesbians? Homophobic
are you? Does that go hand-in-hand with that dominating phobia of
yours that the whole world wants to take away your marbles?
DGDevin wrote:
> television. That video of Greenspan at the end, admitting before Congress
> that he'd got it wrong all those years, that the market doesn't police
He said no such thing. He said (effectively) that he was overconfident
in the power of markets to correct fraud not that "he'd got it wrong
all those years." In point of fact Greenspan oversaw decades of
stable, non-inflationary growth before this last bit happened. Even with
that last bit factored in, the economic growth of the country during the
Greenspan era has been remarkable. (There is, however, a fair discussion
to be had about whether even having something like the Fed makes sense.)
Had both GWB and the Obamanation actually understood the power of markets -
instead of being Marxist-lite - they would have allowed them *TO* correct
the fraud by permitting the bad actors to go bankrupt. Markets cannot
work when the government prints phony money to save the stupid from their
own bad decisions. So now, instead of a depression for a couple of years
that would have ended with much healthier companies and markets in place -
we've signed up for decades of debt, inflation, stagnation, and devalued
currency. I emphasize that I am not being partisan here. Both GWB and
the Obamanation are up to their ears in this monstrosity.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
DGDevin wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>> Fair enough. No where is the parallel outrage for the financial
>> horrors perpetrated by the little political weasel, Barney Frank and
>> Co.? Why is no one out of their minds with irritation that the
>> Obamananation installed the same jackasses (well, the assistant
>> jackasses) that were in charge of the system during W's time? This
>> is a goose-gander problem. The leftie biased media does a hush
>> coverup anytime their Dear Leader might be embarassed. From where I
>> sit, the Obamanation is not only not better than his predecessor, he
>> seems absolutely worse than W on most issues.
>
> Your determination to see only what you want to see is astonishing. The
I see Reality.
> supposedly leftist media gave massive coverage to the Tea Party protests,
Which attendance they routinely under-reported.
> they give Republican talking heads equal time with the Dem counterparts,
2 minutes for either side hardly constitutes "good coverage."
> they have used oceans of ink and/or electrons detailing every misstep of the
> Obama administration (and there have been plenty), some have even objected
Oh yawn. From the beginning, they only went through the motions. If the
equivalent of a Wright, Pfleger, Ayers had existed for any R candidate
they would have been *skewered*. Look at the abuse Palin got *for her
unwed daughter's pregnancy*.
> to the administration slamming Fox, they're all over rising unemployment and
A few have objected (good for them), most have not.
> Obama's falling poll numbers and so on so forth. And yet you croak that the
> media is doing a cover-up for Obama, and of course you can't resist "Dear
It's under-reporting him, providing just enough coverage to make it look
like they're doing their jobs. Why else does he survive praising
Grayson the same week Grayson made his infamous "K Street whore" comment,
for example?
> Leader" for someone who just won an election fair and square, you can't even
> admit that much. But you're not a hopeless ideologue, no way, you're a
He won fair and square, with this I have no dispute. He's just a wretched
President having:
- Outspent 8 years of Bush in just 8 MONTHS.
- Worked to collectivize banking, finance, and manufacturing.
- Conceded oodles of ground to dictatorial states in the Islamic
workd, notably Iran.
- Conceded oodles of ground to the Russians symbolically by abandoning
the new democracies in the former Soviet Bloc by yanking the missile
shield.
- Dithered and dallied on the Afghani question - remember Vietnam? - when
what is needed is *leadership*: Increase manpower and win or just get out.
Anything else is a loser.
- Regularly supported political rectal passages like Grayson that ought to
be abandoned by *everyone* regardless of their political bent.
Oh, and if you think the MSM has remotely covered him with the scrutiny
and venom of every previous President (note I am stipulating BOTH parties here -
this was never a partisan thing for me) you are higher than Alec Baldwin
at 8am. The fact is that the media fell in love with Dear
Leader and are just now starting to regret it in some small degree. They
are discovering what happens when a corrupt Chicago machine is installed
instead of decent leadership. I never much liked the Clitonistas, but I'd
take either Bill or Hillary over this guy in a heartbeat. Ditto GWB/Cheney.
Ditto Bush I.
> libertarian, everybody gets a fair shake from you. What a joke.
>
>
Fair has nothing to do with it. Principles do. I objected to Bush spending
money unconstitutionally. I object that much more to Dear Leader doing it
because he's doing it at a much faster pace. I objected to Bush pushing
through Faith Based Charities. I object to Dear Leader's support-until-
they-got-caught for Acorn. I didn't like Bush's cozy relationship with
the oil producers. I don't like Dear Leader's similar cozy relationship
with all the political vermin poised to make money of Cap And Trade and other
energy fantasies. If I am more vehement in Obama's case it's only because
the magnitude of his Constitutional abuses is so much higher and the rate
so much faster.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
<[email protected]> wrote:
>>Lew suggested some soap..Maybe we best bring some Lysol? :-{
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Nah! Only chance of getting rid of a rodent like Daneliuk is a heavy
> dose of Contrac Bloc Rodenticide. It's the top rat and mouse bait
> block in the industry.
Haven't you two ever heard of "Shunning"?
So simple, so effective.
Lew
On Oct 30, 1:11=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 20:22:55 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Lew suggested some soap..Maybe we best bring some Lysol? :-{
>
> Nah! Only chance of getting rid of a rodent like Daneliuk is a heavy
> dose of Contrac Bloc Rodenticide. It's the top rat and mouse bait
> block in the industry.
He might thrive on that stuff.
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 20:22:55 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Lew suggested some soap..Maybe we best bring some Lysol? :-{
Nah! Only chance of getting rid of a rodent like Daneliuk is a heavy
dose of Contrac Bloc Rodenticide. It's the top rat and mouse bait
block in the industry.
Angela Sekeris wrote:
> On Oct 25, 2:59 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> notbob wrote:
>>> On 2009-10-25, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> You're missing my point.
>>> I doubt it.
>>> Let's face it, there will never be a totally unbiased view of anthing,
>>> ever. You say Frontline has a biased liberal view. Probably. OTOH,
>>> I don't see the conservative right exposing this stuff. Or did I miss
>>> that one, too. ;)
>>> nb
>> I agree that once you get beyond mere reporting of fact, any kind
>> of analysis always has some degree of bias in it. It just annoys
>> me that people like Frank - who were fundamentally responsible for
>> creating the insane regulatory environment - get a pass while
>> everyone else gets blamed.
>>
>> And yes, there has been some reporting of the lefty's insanities by
>> the right-bent press. However - and again, let's be fair - there
>> are far, far more mainstream news sources (+NPR, +PBS) that bend
>> to the left, than the single successful right-bent news outlet of
>> Fox. Why else do you think Fox is so very successful? The entire
>> community of rightwingers have more-or-less only one network to
>> consume, while the lefties (who are overall smaller in number) are
>> divided across CBS, NBC, PMS-NBC, ABC, CNN, PBS, and NPR.
>>
>> I assure you that I am not choosing sides on this one. Both sides
>> acted *horribly*. I just wish people would figure out that government
>> itself was instrumental in this mess - it enabled it, it ignored it,
>> it made things worse, and now government is in bed with the same
>> bozos that were part of it in the private sector. When folks wake up
>> to this, perhaps they won't be so quick to sign up for "more government
>> is the answer".
>>
>> --
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -
>> Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
>> PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
>
> It takes CBS, NBC, PMS-NBC, ABC, CNN, PBS, and NPR. et al to act as a
> counterweight to the insanity of Faux news' fabrications.
> Glen Beck has yet to deny that raped and killed a girl in 1990.
You're certifiable. Seek help and/or meds as needed.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:01:43 -0500, "Dave in Houston" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> There's only one thing about Beck I find surprising, and that's how many
>> people can watch his transparently phony antics without laughing out loud.
>> He's the worst actor on the planet, and yet millions of people think his
>> tears are real, that he actually is sounding the alarm against a commie
>> takeover of America rather than satisfying his own lust for wealth and
>> fame. It's kind of depressing to know how many such truly stupid people
>> are out there.
>
> It's the same group that loved Dubbya.
What's the different, one group love Dubbya and the other love Messiah?
I really don't see any different and change, but the same old craps!
>
>Dave in Houston
>
On 10/23/2009 7:41 PM evodawg spake thus:
> The true story of Wall Street and the Governments role in the Banking Crash
> of 2008. I'm not one that toots any horns for PBS but this story has to be
> seen!
>
> Explains, Over the counter derivatives, the Black Box, Bankers Trust and
> lawsuit brought on by Procter and Gamble in 1999 that started it all, and
> Greenspan, Rubin and Sommers role in the whole mess.
Good. Now go see Michael Moore's new movie "Capitalism: A Love Story",
which picks up where Frontline stops.
(And it's not just Greenspan, Rubin and Summers, but Geithner, Paulson,
and a whole raft of other sons of bitches.)
(And you get to learn fun new terms like "dead peasants" and "plutonomy".)
--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism
On 10/24/2009 6:56 AM tom spake thus:
> On Oct 24, 1:17 am, notbob <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 2009-10-24, DGDevin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Yup, Frontline is doing the best investigative documentaries on American
>>> television.
>>
>> Yep ....and they have been for 20+ years. Check out the episodes on
>> credit cards and poison water. They exposed the dot com crash a
>> decade ago. The problem with Frontline is, if you watch too many of
>> them at once, yer liable to slit your wrists.
>
> I used to say "If you're not depressed, you're not paying attention".
> I've since changed "depressed" to "angry". We are all on the same
> heading as before. Nothing has changed yet. Tom
Got you beat by a decade at least. My old car's bumper sticker read "If
you're not outraged, you're paying attention".
(Of course, my friends read that back to me as saying "If you're not
outraged by the way I drive, you're not paying attention".)
And yes, concerning the new boss vs. the old boss, I say that Obama
should change his slogan to "Continuity we can believe in".
--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism
On 10/25/2009 4:17 AM Maxwell Lol spake thus:
> David Nebenzahl <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Got you beat by a decade at least. My old car's bumper sticker read
>> "If you're not outraged, you're paying attention".
>
> I've seen the opposite.
Dang! Of course you have: how did I forget to type "not" there?
--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism
On 10/25/2009 10:17 AM Tim Daneliuk spake thus:
> notbob wrote:
>
>> On 2009-10-25, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Curiously though, it only shows behaviors of denial and stupidity by
>>> the political right.
>>
>> You must have seen a different program. The one I saw showed the
>> Clinton administration following the same program as both Bush admins.
>> Who's biased?
>
> You're missing my point. The program shows stuff going on during the
> Clinton administration - both in his immediate circle of advisors
> and in the legislature. However it only shows Repuglican legislators
> in denial.
No.
How about the fact that it was Clinton who got rid of Glass-Steagall,
the firewall between banking and the stock market that had been in place
since the New Deal? This was undertaken by *Democrats*.
--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism
On 10/25/2009 1:29 PM Tim Daneliuk spake thus:
> David Nebenzahl wrote:
>> On 10/25/2009 10:17 AM Tim Daneliuk spake thus:
>>
>>> notbob wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2009-10-25, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Curiously though, it only shows behaviors of denial and stupidity by
>>>>> the political right.
>>>>
>>>> You must have seen a different program. The one I saw showed the
>>>> Clinton administration following the same program as both Bush admins.
>>>> Who's biased?
>>>
>>> You're missing my point. The program shows stuff going on during the
>>> Clinton administration - both in his immediate circle of advisors
>>> and in the legislature. However it only shows Repuglican legislators
>>> in denial.
>>
>> No.
>>
>> How about the fact that it was Clinton who got rid of Glass-Steagall,
>> the firewall between banking and the stock market that had been in place
>> since the New Deal? This was undertaken by *Democrats*.
>
> Yes, that's true. But if you think the Dems are mostly/solely
> responsible for this, you're kidding yourself. (And I am NO fan of the
> Dems or the left at all). Where were both Clinton and GWB when it came
> time to enforce the *existing* laws concerning naked short selling?
> (Which has been illegal for a very long time and which was going on
> regularly during both administrations.) See, I fail to see how more
> regulation is going to change much when the government can't be
> bothered to enforce the laws already on the books. And THAT, ain't a
> partisan thing. Both parties have behaved very badly in this regard.
You're playing something of a semantic game here. Regulation doesn't
mean just having laws on the books: it also means enforcing them. Plenty
of administrations have flouted regulations which were in force either
by underfunding the agency responsible for enforcement, or by ordering
the agency not to enforce. (Bush II with the EPA, Clinton with the SEC
and other fiduciary regulator bodies.)
--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism
Buck Turgidson wrote:
> I don't know if it is the inability for critical thought, or what, on
> the part of Bush supporters. I am glad we have a president who
> "dithers". Bush certainly didn't when he let Cheney talk him into
> invading a country on trumped up intelligence.
>
> I wish that we didn't "dither" in Tora Bora, while a tall man with a
> turban was allowed to stroll into Pakistan because we didn't want to
> shed American blood.
Sigh. Killing or capturing Osama was never a goal of the United States. Only
in the alternative reality of those who opposed the war was such a thing a
strategy. The legal mindset of the left insists that evil-doers be brought
before the bar. The national integrity impetus of the right says that the
enemy must be vanquished or at least neutralized.
>
> Then we needlessly kill 5k Americans in a country who is no threat to
> us.
So say you. Ask the 100,000 military personnel still in Iraq if it was worth
it.
>
> Simply breathtaking is the fact that Bush can so screw things up, and
> his supporters turn around and blame the man who steps up to clean up
> his mess.
> Breathtaking.....
>
Yep, under Bush we had 24 consecutive quarters of economic growth, negligble
inflation, and unemployment as low as four percent. While Bush did run up
the national debt during his eight years by some $800 billion, Obama doubled
that in his first month and is on his way to quadrupling the eight-year $800
billion before his first year is out.
HOPE is not a strategy
On Oct 30, 6:38=A0pm, "Perry Aynum" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Yep, as I said: =A0 simply breathtaking.
>
They will never get it. They can't. They're programmed that way.
Robatoy wrote:
> On Oct 29, 6:31 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> If I am more vehement in Obama's case it's only because
>> the magnitude of his Constitutional abuses is so much higher and the rate
>> so much faster.
>
> How many people has Obama sent off to die so his friends could line
> their pockets?
>
None - just like Bush before him did not do this.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>
> Yes, that's true. But if you think the Dems are mostly/solely
> responsible for this, you're kidding yourself. (And I am NO fan of the
> Dems or the left at all). Where were both Clinton and GWB when it came
> time to enforce the *existing* laws concerning naked short selling?
> (Which has been illegal for a very long time and which was going on
> regularly during both administrations.) See, I fail to see how more
> regulation is going to change much when the government can't be
> bothered to enforce the laws already on the books. And THAT, ain't a
> partisan thing. Both parties have behaved very badly in this regard.
>
> In truth, Greenspan was more right than wrong even regarding how
> markets would punish fraud. Fraud is not sustainable unless you use
> force because fraud - sooner or later - collapses. But the government
> swine made sure that no collapse was possible: They bailed out the
> banks that took insane risk. They bailed out the greedy pigs that took
> out more mortgage than they could afford. They bailed out the lazy
> union slobs that demanded far more for putting bolts in the bottom of
> a transmission than they ever were worth. In short, there's little
> point in having market transparency and honesty if every time someone
> is about to lose, the government steps in, prints funny funny and
> "saves them" from themselves. Markets DO work - efficiently and
> mercilessly. They cannot, however, overcome the overweening force of
> government when it is applied to thieves, morons, and whiners
> respectively.
It was the Clinton administration that required banks et al to make
unsustainable loans. When the financial institutions balked - and
demonstrated imminent financial collapse if the new regulations were
followed - the administration came up with an "insurance plan." They allowed
Fannie and Freddie to bundle this commercial paper and take the risks away
from the banks.
When the "balloon payments" of these zero-interest loans came due, the
homeowners simply refinanced their homes at the newer, higher, valuation.
This scheme worked as long as there was a demand for housing (and sufficient
poor people who could be talked into signing papers they couldn't even
read). Eventually everybody in the country owned a house - demand for
housing vanished.
The Ponzi scheme then collapsed back on itself.
DGDevin wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>>> Would this be the Glenn Beck who admits he was stoned every day for
>>> fifteen years on a combination of alcohol, weed, cocaine and
>>> prescription drugs?
>> Yes. Still better than his political opponents at this time.
>>
>>> The Glenn Beck who once taunted the wife of a rival radio DJ *on the
>>> air* after she suffered a miscarriage? The Glenn Beck who once
>>> described himself as a borderline schizophrenic? The Glenn Beck
>>> whose reputation includes firing employees who displeased him in
>>> public as sadistically as he could?
>> Yes. Still better than his political opponents at this time.
>>
>>> That Glenn Beck, he's the one whose intelligence and integrity have
>>> impressed you?
>> Yes.
>>
>>> It's a long, three-part story, but you might learn some things about
>>> Mr. Beck you didn't know:
>>>
>>> http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/09/21/glenn_beck/
>>>
>>>
>>
>> What lovely "tolerance" you exhibit. A person's failings decades ago
>> disqualify him from political commentary today.
>
> No, everyone has the right to speak their mind, but when Beck (the
> self-described "rodeo clown") makes statements that are plainly dishonest
> and driven purely by his thirst for fame and wealth then the rest of the
> world has the right to criticize him for that. If you read the article then
> you know that is Beck's history, a willingness to do anything no matter how
> nasty so long as it got him ratings--that has remained constant over the
> decades.
>
>> Oh, I forgot.
>> "Tolerance" only applies to people with whom the wretched political
>> chattering classes on the left agree.
>
> Ha! You are worth a laugh now and then, I'll give you that.
>
> If Beck were a leftie is there the slightest doubt the miles of slack you're
> prepared to cut him now would not exist? Beck thinks relief carvings on the
> Rockefeller Center are signs that the people who paid for it were secretly
> communists and/or fascists on the grounds that a figure representing
> Agriculture is holding a sickle and a figure of Industry is leaning on a
> hammer (although it's actually a shovel), and you know whose flag had a
> hammer and sickle on it! Another relief panel is supposed to glorify
> Mussolini according to Beck, the evidence of that being so faint and so
> distant as to be absurd. And you take this clown seriously? Oh wait, it
> isn't that you take Beck seriously, you just prefer him to people who point
> out when he utters moronic stupidity, which appears to be just about every
> time he goes on the air.
>
> You should think about patent or copyright protection on this combination of
> pomposity and absurdity you specialize in, it's so identified with you that
> you might as well be able to put your name on it.
>
>
And you should learn to read with comprehension - something most of us managed
by grade 7 or so. Did I say I agreed with Beck? No. Did I say I thought he
was insightful, thoughtful, important, or life-changing? No. I merely said -
and I stand by this - that whatever his afflictions, he is light years better
than his debating opponents.
P.S. It is not prima facia evidence of "pomposity" to use words you have to
look up.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
David Nebenzahl <[email protected]> writes:
> Got you beat by a decade at least. My old car's bumper sticker read
> "If you're not outraged, you're paying attention".
I've seen the opposite.
evodawg <[email protected]> writes:
> The true story of Wall Street and the Governments role in the Banking Crash
> of 2008. I'm not one that toots any horns for PBS but this story has to be
> seen!
>
>
> Explains, Over the counter derivatives, the Black Box, Bankers Trust and
> lawsuit brought on by Procter and Gamble in 1999 that started it all, and
> Greenspan, Rubin and Sommers role in the whole mess.
>
> http://www.dat-e-baseonline.com/front/a.asp?arg=8F7D995F927B7C656472797B628B73798C6A756E7E7B71
>
> http://alturl.com/poi2
Both of these links point to
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/video/flv/generic.html?s=frol02pc11
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> Fair enough. No where is the parallel outrage for the financial
> horrors perpetrated by the little political weasel, Barney Frank and
> Co.? Why is no one out of their minds with irritation that the
> Obamananation installed the same jackasses (well, the assistant
> jackasses) that were in charge of the system during W's time? This
> is a goose-gander problem. The leftie biased media does a hush
> coverup anytime their Dear Leader might be embarassed. From where I
> sit, the Obamanation is not only not better than his predecessor, he
> seems absolutely worse than W on most issues.
Your determination to see only what you want to see is astonishing. The
supposedly leftist media gave massive coverage to the Tea Party protests,
they give Republican talking heads equal time with the Dem counterparts,
they have used oceans of ink and/or electrons detailing every misstep of the
Obama administration (and there have been plenty), some have even objected
to the administration slamming Fox, they're all over rising unemployment and
Obama's falling poll numbers and so on so forth. And yet you croak that the
media is doing a cover-up for Obama, and of course you can't resist "Dear
Leader" for someone who just won an election fair and square, you can't even
admit that much. But you're not a hopeless ideologue, no way, you're a
libertarian, everybody gets a fair shake from you. What a joke.
On Oct 29, 6:31=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
=A0If I am more vehement in Obama's case it's only because
> the magnitude of his Constitutional abuses is so much higher and the rate
> so much faster.
How many people has Obama sent off to die so his friends could line
their pockets?
On Oct 29, 7:50=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On Oct 29, 6:31 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> > =A0 If I am more vehement in Obama's case it's only because
> >> the magnitude of his Constitutional abuses is so much higher and the r=
ate
> >> so much faster.
>
> > How many people has Obama sent off to die so his friends could line
> > their pockets?
>
> None - just like Bush before him did not do this.
>
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-- -
> Tim Daneliuk =A0 =A0 [email protected]
> PGP Key: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
That answer clearly disqualifies you from any further debate as you
see what you want to see and you ignore those realities that don't
suit your ideology.
notbob wrote:
> On 2009-10-25, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> You're missing my point.
>
> I doubt it.
>
> Let's face it, there will never be a totally unbiased view of anthing,
> ever. You say Frontline has a biased liberal view. Probably. OTOH,
> I don't see the conservative right exposing this stuff. Or did I miss
> that one, too. ;)
>
> nb
I agree that once you get beyond mere reporting of fact, any kind
of analysis always has some degree of bias in it. It just annoys
me that people like Frank - who were fundamentally responsible for
creating the insane regulatory environment - get a pass while
everyone else gets blamed.
And yes, there has been some reporting of the lefty's insanities by
the right-bent press. However - and again, let's be fair - there
are far, far more mainstream news sources (+NPR, +PBS) that bend
to the left, than the single successful right-bent news outlet of
Fox. Why else do you think Fox is so very successful? The entire
community of rightwingers have more-or-less only one network to
consume, while the lefties (who are overall smaller in number) are
divided across CBS, NBC, PMS-NBC, ABC, CNN, PBS, and NPR.
I assure you that I am not choosing sides on this one. Both sides
acted *horribly*. I just wish people would figure out that government
itself was instrumental in this mess - it enabled it, it ignored it,
it made things worse, and now government is in bed with the same
bozos that were part of it in the private sector. When folks wake up
to this, perhaps they won't be so quick to sign up for "more government
is the answer".
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Oct 26, 2:06=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:36:43 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> What lovely "tolerance" you exhibit. =A0A person's failings decades ag=
o
> >> disqualify him from political commentary today. =A0Oh, I forgot. =A0"T=
olerance"
> >> only applies to people with whom the wretched political chattering cla=
sses
> >> on the left agree.
>
> > Daneliuk, you're so full of shit it's stagnating. Your tolerance is
> > limited to whining constantly about what something is going to cost
> > you. That's the *only* constant in your life.
>
> I dunno what you're so upset about. =A0American politics don't threaten
> *your* mooching off your neighbors. =A0You already have your collectivist
> paradise, so quit whining...
>
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-- -
> Tim Daneliuk =A0 =A0 [email protected]
> PGP Key: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/cuckoo.jpg
[email protected] wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:36:43 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> What lovely "tolerance" you exhibit. A person's failings decades ago
>> disqualify him from political commentary today. Oh, I forgot. "Tolerance"
>> only applies to people with whom the wretched political chattering classes
>> on the left agree.
>
> Daneliuk, you're so full of shit it's stagnating. Your tolerance is
> limited to whining constantly about what something is going to cost
> you. That's the *only* constant in your life.
I dunno what you're so upset about. American politics don't threaten
*your* mooching off your neighbors. You already have your collectivist
paradise, so quit whining...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:36:43 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
<[email protected]> wrote:
>What lovely "tolerance" you exhibit. A person's failings decades ago
>disqualify him from political commentary today. Oh, I forgot. "Tolerance"
>only applies to people with whom the wretched political chattering classes
>on the left agree.
Daneliuk, you're so full of shit it's stagnating. Your tolerance is
limited to whining constantly about what something is going to cost
you. That's the *only* constant in your life.
Steve Turner wrote:
> Gee, it almost sounds like you are implying that people can't turn
> their lives around, that people who once did bad things can no longer
> do good, or even that a criminal can't be reformed? That sounds so,
> so... "un-liberal-like" to me. What if Mr. Beck had been so far down
> in the dumps as you describe, then turned his life around (like he
> obviously *has*) and was now preaching the *liberal* agenda? Would
> you still be chastising him as though he were the root of all evil? Of
> course not.
Gee, it almost sounds like you should listen to what people actually say and
respond to that instead of making up something they didn't express and
arguing against that. First, I'm a liberal like you're a ballet dancer. Or
do you believe that everyone has been reduced to tribalism, that anyone who
criticizes Glenn Beck *must* therefore be a liberal? I can't stand Michael
Moore either, how does that fit in the instant-judgment formula?
Second, Beck's history as a morning zoo radio jock and his newfound role of
political pundit/"rodeo clown" (his words) have common threads, and one of
them is his willingness to do whatever it takes to grab ratings no matter
how nasty he has to get. He's proven time and again that there is no line
he won't cross, from taunting a woman who just had a miscarriage to claiming
Obama hates white people. So don't tell me he's reformed, all that has
changed is he is now apparently sober, but he's the same shameless
attention-whore DJ he always was.
There's only one thing about Beck I find surprising, and that's how many
people can watch his transparently phony antics without laughing out loud.
He's the worst actor on the planet, and yet millions of people think his
tears are real, that he actually is sounding the alarm against a commie
takeover of America rather than satisfying his own lust for wealth and fame.
It's kind of depressing to know how many such truly stupid people are out
there.
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>> Would this be the Glenn Beck who admits he was stoned every day for
>> fifteen years on a combination of alcohol, weed, cocaine and
>> prescription drugs?
>
> Yes. Still better than his political opponents at this time.
>
>> The Glenn Beck who once taunted the wife of a rival radio DJ *on the
>> air* after she suffered a miscarriage? The Glenn Beck who once
>> described himself as a borderline schizophrenic? The Glenn Beck
>> whose reputation includes firing employees who displeased him in
>> public as sadistically as he could?
>
> Yes. Still better than his political opponents at this time.
>
>> That Glenn Beck, he's the one whose intelligence and integrity have
>> impressed you?
>
> Yes.
>
>>
>> It's a long, three-part story, but you might learn some things about
>> Mr. Beck you didn't know:
>>
>> http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/09/21/glenn_beck/
>>
>>
>
>
> What lovely "tolerance" you exhibit. A person's failings decades ago
> disqualify him from political commentary today.
No, everyone has the right to speak their mind, but when Beck (the
self-described "rodeo clown") makes statements that are plainly dishonest
and driven purely by his thirst for fame and wealth then the rest of the
world has the right to criticize him for that. If you read the article then
you know that is Beck's history, a willingness to do anything no matter how
nasty so long as it got him ratings--that has remained constant over the
decades.
> Oh, I forgot.
> "Tolerance" only applies to people with whom the wretched political
> chattering classes on the left agree.
Ha! You are worth a laugh now and then, I'll give you that.
If Beck were a leftie is there the slightest doubt the miles of slack you're
prepared to cut him now would not exist? Beck thinks relief carvings on the
Rockefeller Center are signs that the people who paid for it were secretly
communists and/or fascists on the grounds that a figure representing
Agriculture is holding a sickle and a figure of Industry is leaning on a
hammer (although it's actually a shovel), and you know whose flag had a
hammer and sickle on it! Another relief panel is supposed to glorify
Mussolini according to Beck, the evidence of that being so faint and so
distant as to be absurd. And you take this clown seriously? Oh wait, it
isn't that you take Beck seriously, you just prefer him to people who point
out when he utters moronic stupidity, which appears to be just about every
time he goes on the air.
You should think about patent or copyright protection on this combination of
pomposity and absurdity you specialize in, it's so identified with you that
you might as well be able to put your name on it.
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 19:48:31 -0700, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Robatoy" wrote:
>
>
>> I just can't help it. When I see a clown, I have to beep its nose.
>
> Then keep some soap, water and towels handy.
>
> Lew
I haven't seen a post from Tim in ages - why don't the rest of you do the
same? If no one responds to his posts, he'll eventually give up.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
In article <dd846c3e-f194-434b-a68c-b428ca73ae35
@h40g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, [email protected] says...
> On Oct 24, 8:20 am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> > There are smarter ones than can make it right. Too bad the previous
> > batch couldn't be trusted.
>
> I admire your optimism. Tom
The alternative is despair and inaction...
Neither is cost effective.
evodawg wrote:
> The true story of Wall Street and the Governments role in the Banking
> Crash of 2008. I'm not one that toots any horns for PBS but this
> story has to be seen!
>
>
> Explains, Over the counter derivatives, the Black Box, Bankers Trust
> and lawsuit brought on by Procter and Gamble in 1999 that started it
> all, and Greenspan, Rubin and Sommers role in the whole mess.
>
> http://www.dat-e-baseonline.com/front/a.asp?arg=8F7D995F927B7C656472797B628B73798C6A756E7E7B71
Yup, Frontline is doing the best investigative documentaries on American
television. That video of Greenspan at the end, admitting before Congress
that he'd got it wrong all those years, that the market doesn't police
itself, that was something to see. To think that a guy who didn't believe
the govt. has a role in regulating the market even when there is outright
fraud involved was the person steering policy all those years--no wonder we
ended up with a bubble that took down the whole economy when it burst.
And where is L. Summers these days (the guy who once proposed dumping toxic
waste in "under-polluted" nations in Africa, the guy who lost a billion
dollars of Harvard's money investing in derivatives, the guy who was being
paid millions by companies recently bailed out by the taxpayer and whose
executive salaries he is still trying to protect)? Why he's Director of the
National Economic Council, advising Pres. Obama on economic policy. Meet
the new boss, same as the old boss.
Robatoy wrote:
> On Oct 29, 6:31 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> If I am more vehement in Obama's case it's only because
>> the magnitude of his Constitutional abuses is so much higher and the
>> rate so much faster.
>
> How many people has Obama sent off to die so his friends could line
> their pockets?
None. Every single soldier, sailor, airman, or marine in Iraq is a
volunteer. When they signed up, they knew the risks of death or serious
bodily injury - not unlike a sky-diver, mountain climber, NASCAR driver, or
anyone who marries a Texas woman.
They willingly accepted those risks for the opportunity to kill people and
blow things up.
An astonishing 85% of military personnel who served in Iraq or Afghanistan
have re-enlisted at every opportunity. The remaining 15% have retired,
invalided out, or married harridans. The 1st Infantry Division, parts of
which have served FOUR tours in Iraq, consistently meets its annual
re-enlistment goal after only eight months into each fiscal year.
It's what they trained to do, its what they want to do, it's what they NEED
to do.
---
Interesting factoid: The 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, parts of which
occupied Baghdad, advanced farther from the ocean (385 miles) than any
Marine unit in history.
"DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> There's only one thing about Beck I find surprising, and that's how many
> people can watch his transparently phony antics without laughing out loud.
> He's the worst actor on the planet, and yet millions of people think his
> tears are real, that he actually is sounding the alarm against a commie
> takeover of America rather than satisfying his own lust for wealth and
> fame. It's kind of depressing to know how many such truly stupid people
> are out there.
It's the same group that loved Dubbya.
Dave in Houston
Steve Turner wrote:
> DGDevin wrote:
>> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>
>>> Perhaps not - I do not recall all the particulars as I prefer not to
>>> swim in sewers. Nonetheless, the whole meme got a lot of traction on
>>> Reddit if it didn't actually originate there and my larger point
>>> stands: Beck gets heat because the people who oppose him are
>>> politically illiterate, incapable of any sophisticated counterpoint,
>>> and generally intellectually unkempt children. Do I mostly agree
>>> with Beck? No. Do I think he is light years smarter and of higher
>>> integrity than his critics? Yes.
>>
>> Would this be the Glenn Beck who admits he was stoned every day for
>> fifteen years on a combination of alcohol, weed, cocaine and
>> prescription drugs? The Glenn Beck who once taunted the wife of a
>> rival radio DJ *on the air* after she suffered a miscarriage? The
>> Glenn Beck who once described himself as a borderline schizophrenic?
>> The Glenn Beck whose reputation includes firing employees who
>> displeased him in public as sadistically as he could? That Glenn Beck,
>> he's the one whose intelligence and integrity have impressed you?
>>
>> It's a long, three-part story, but you might learn some things about
>> Mr. Beck you didn't know:
>>
>> http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/09/21/glenn_beck/
>
> Gee, it almost sounds like you are implying that people can't turn their
> lives around, that people who once did bad things can no longer do good,
> or even that a criminal can't be reformed? That sounds so, so...
> "un-liberal-like" to me. What if Mr. Beck had been so far down in the
> dumps as you describe, then turned his life around (like he obviously
> *has*) and was now preaching the *liberal* agenda? Would you still be
> chastising him as though he were the root of all evil? Of course not.
>
Shhhhhhhhhhh. You're about to get pilloried for pointing out that the lib
emperor has no clothes ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Oct 25, 2:59=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> notbob wrote:
> > On 2009-10-25, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> You're missing my point. =A0
>
> > I doubt it. =A0
>
> > Let's face it, there will never be a totally unbiased view of anthing,
> > ever. =A0You say Frontline has a biased liberal view. =A0Probably. =A0O=
TOH,
> > I don't see the conservative right exposing this stuff. =A0Or did I mis=
s
> > that one, too. =A0;)
>
> > nb
>
> I agree that once you get beyond mere reporting of fact, any kind
> of analysis always has some degree of bias in it. =A0It just annoys
> me that people like Frank - who were fundamentally responsible for
> creating the insane regulatory environment - get a pass while
> everyone else gets blamed.
>
> And yes, there has been some reporting of the lefty's insanities by
> the right-bent press. =A0However - and again, let's be fair - there
> are far, far more mainstream news sources (+NPR, +PBS) that bend
> to the left, than the single successful right-bent news outlet of
> Fox. =A0Why else do you think Fox is so very successful? =A0The entire
> community of rightwingers have more-or-less only one network to
> consume, while the lefties (who are overall smaller in number) are
> divided across CBS, NBC, PMS-NBC, ABC, CNN, PBS, and NPR.
>
> I assure you that I am not choosing sides on this one. =A0Both sides
> acted *horribly*. =A0I just wish people would figure out that government
> itself was instrumental in this mess - it enabled it, it ignored it,
> it made things worse, and now government is in bed with the same
> bozos that were part of it in the private sector. =A0When folks wake up
> to this, perhaps they won't be so quick to sign up for "more government
> is the answer".
>
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-- -
> Tim Daneliuk =A0 =A0 [email protected]
> PGP Key: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
It takes CBS, NBC, PMS-NBC, ABC, CNN, PBS, and NPR. et al to act as a
counterweight to the insanity of Faux news' fabrications.
Glen Beck has yet to deny that raped and killed a girl in 1990.
On Oct 24, 1:17 am, notbob <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2009-10-24, DGDevin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Yup, Frontline is doing the best investigative documentaries on American
> > television.
>
> Yep ....and they have been for 20+ years. Check out the episodes on
> credit cards and poison water. They exposed the dot com crash a
> decade ago. The problem with Frontline is, if you watch too many of
> them at once, yer liable to slit your wrists.
>
> nb
I used to say "If you're not depressed, you're not paying attention".
I've since changed "depressed" to "angry". We are all on the same
heading as before. Nothing has changed yet. Tom
On Oct 25, 10:38=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On Oct 25, 10:03 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> Buttercup, I was there when it was invented on Reddit by sniveling lit=
tle
> >> moron lefties that cannot handle anyone disagreeing with them. =A0What=
ever
> >> Beck is- or isn't, he isn't remotely as offensive as the half-wit chim=
ps
> >> that infest the social networking sites and left wing "media" culture.=
..
>
> > It did not originate on Reddit.... and yet you claim you were there
> > when it did...
> > .
> > .
> > hmmmmmm
>
> Perhaps not - I do not recall all the particulars as I prefer not to swim
> in sewers. =A0Nonetheless, the whole meme got a lot of traction on Reddit
> if it didn't actually originate there and my larger point stands: =A0Beck
> gets heat because the people who oppose him are politically illiterate,
> incapable of any sophisticated counterpoint, and generally intellectually
> unkempt children. =A0Do I mostly agree with Beck? No. =A0Do I think he is
> light years smarter and of higher integrity than his critics? =A0Yes.
>
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-- -
> Tim Daneliuk =A0 =A0 [email protected]
> PGP Key: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Higher integrity? Beck? Ohhhhkay.....*smirk* (You do know that Beck,
like GWB, is a dry drunk?)
Now.. about getting that help and those meds....was that a cry for
help, Tim?
DGDevin wrote:
> David Nebenzahl wrote:
>
>>> You're missing my point. The program shows stuff going on during the
>>> Clinton administration - both in his immediate circle of advisors
>>> and in the legislature. However it only shows Repuglican legislators
>>> in denial.
>> No.
>>
>> How about the fact that it was Clinton who got rid of Glass-Steagall,
>> the firewall between banking and the stock market that had been in
>> place since the New Deal? This was undertaken by *Democrats*.
>
> The legislation was actually written by Republicans, although Clinton signed
> it and defends doing so to this day.
>
> http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_40/b4102000409948.htm
>
> "MARIA BARTIROMO
> Mr. President, in 1999 you signed a bill essentially rolling back
> Glass-Steagall and deregulating banking. In light of what has gone on, do
> you regret that decision?
>
> FORMER PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON
> No, because it wasn't a complete deregulation at all. We still have heavy
> regulations and insurance on bank deposits, requirements on banks for
> capital and for disclosure. I thought at the time that it might lead to more
> stable investments and a reduced pressure on Wall Street to produce
> quarterly profits that were always bigger than the previous quarter. But I
> have really thought about this a lot. I don't see that signing that bill had
> anything to do with the current crisis. Indeed, one of the things that has
> helped stabilize the current situation as much as it has is the purchase of
> Merrill Lynch (MER) by Bank of America (BAC), which was much smoother than
> it would have been if I hadn't signed that bill.
>
>
> [MB] Phil Gramm, who was then the head of the Senate Banking Committee and
> until
> recently a close economic adviser of Senator McCain, was a fierce proponent
> of banking deregulation. Did he sell you a bill of goods?
>
>
> [BC] Not on this bill I don't think he did. You know, Phil Gramm and I
> disagreed
> on a lot of things, but he can't possibly be wrong about everything. On the
> Glass-Steagall thing, like I said, if you could demonstrate to me that it
> was a mistake, I'd be glad to look at the evidence. But I can't blame [the
> Republicans]. This wasn't something they forced me into. I really believed
> that given the level of oversight of banks and their ability to have more
> patient capital, if you made it possible for [commercial banks] to go into
> the investment banking business as Continental European investment banks
> could always do, that it might give us a more stable source of long-term
> investment."
>
>
Fair enough. No where is the parallel outrage for the financial horrors
perpetrated by the little political weasel, Barney Frank and Co.? Why is
no one out of their minds with irritation that the Obamananation installed
the same jackasses (well, the assistant jackasses) that were in charge of
the system during W's time? This is a goose-gander problem. The leftie
biased media does a hush coverup anytime their Dear Leader might be
embarassed. From where I sit, the Obamanation is not only not better
than his predecessor, he seems absolutely worse than W on most issues.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Oct 30, 12:14=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 21:33:02 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >My marbles are quite intact, thank you for asking. =A0See, I'm not
> >homophobic in any way...
>
> What marbles? Any semblance of reality marbles that you may have had
> at one time rolled away a long, long time ago. Now, you're viewed
> simply as the newsgroup clown.
>
> We've all come to accept that you have absolutely nothing to
> contribute in woodworking conversation to this newsgroup , but if
> you're going to talk about something else entirely unrelated, at least
> attempt to make some sense on occasion will you?
Lew suggested some soap..Maybe we best bring some Lysol? :-{
On Oct 29, 11:39=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On Oct 30, 12:14 am, [email protected] wrote:
> >> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 21:33:02 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
>
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> My marbles are quite intact, thank you for asking. =A0See, I'm not
> >>> homophobic in any way...
> >> What marbles? Any semblance of reality marbles that you may have had
> >> at one time rolled away a long, long time ago. Now, you're viewed
> >> simply as the newsgroup clown.
>
> >> We've all come to accept that you have absolutely nothing to
> >> contribute in woodworking conversation to this newsgroup , but if
> >> you're going to talk about something else entirely unrelated, at least
> >> attempt to make some sense on occasion will you?
>
> > Lew suggested some soap..Maybe we best bring some Lysol? :-{
>
> You guys showering together again?
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-- -
> Tim Daneliuk =A0 =A0 [email protected]
> PGP Key: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
I'm sure that Upscale, like me, is thrilled to know we are in your
sexual fantasies.
You sick bastard.
Robatoy wrote:
> On Oct 30, 12:14 am, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 21:33:02 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> My marbles are quite intact, thank you for asking. See, I'm not
>>> homophobic in any way...
>> What marbles? Any semblance of reality marbles that you may have had
>> at one time rolled away a long, long time ago. Now, you're viewed
>> simply as the newsgroup clown.
>>
>> We've all come to accept that you have absolutely nothing to
>> contribute in woodworking conversation to this newsgroup , but if
>> you're going to talk about something else entirely unrelated, at least
>> attempt to make some sense on occasion will you?
>
> Lew suggested some soap..Maybe we best bring some Lysol? :-{
You guys showering together again?
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 21:33:02 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
<[email protected]> wrote:
>My marbles are quite intact, thank you for asking. See, I'm not
>homophobic in any way...
What marbles? Any semblance of reality marbles that you may have had
at one time rolled away a long, long time ago. Now, you're viewed
simply as the newsgroup clown.
We've all come to accept that you have absolutely nothing to
contribute in woodworking conversation to this newsgroup , but if
you're going to talk about something else entirely unrelated, at least
attempt to make some sense on occasion will you?
David Nebenzahl wrote:
>> You're missing my point. The program shows stuff going on during the
>> Clinton administration - both in his immediate circle of advisors
>> and in the legislature. However it only shows Repuglican legislators
>> in denial.
>
> No.
>
> How about the fact that it was Clinton who got rid of Glass-Steagall,
> the firewall between banking and the stock market that had been in
> place since the New Deal? This was undertaken by *Democrats*.
The legislation was actually written by Republicans, although Clinton signed
it and defends doing so to this day.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_40/b4102000409948.htm
"MARIA BARTIROMO
Mr. President, in 1999 you signed a bill essentially rolling back
Glass-Steagall and deregulating banking. In light of what has gone on, do
you regret that decision?
FORMER PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON
No, because it wasn't a complete deregulation at all. We still have heavy
regulations and insurance on bank deposits, requirements on banks for
capital and for disclosure. I thought at the time that it might lead to more
stable investments and a reduced pressure on Wall Street to produce
quarterly profits that were always bigger than the previous quarter. But I
have really thought about this a lot. I don't see that signing that bill had
anything to do with the current crisis. Indeed, one of the things that has
helped stabilize the current situation as much as it has is the purchase of
Merrill Lynch (MER) by Bank of America (BAC), which was much smoother than
it would have been if I hadn't signed that bill.
[MB] Phil Gramm, who was then the head of the Senate Banking Committee and
until
recently a close economic adviser of Senator McCain, was a fierce proponent
of banking deregulation. Did he sell you a bill of goods?
[BC] Not on this bill I don't think he did. You know, Phil Gramm and I
disagreed
on a lot of things, but he can't possibly be wrong about everything. On the
Glass-Steagall thing, like I said, if you could demonstrate to me that it
was a mistake, I'd be glad to look at the evidence. But I can't blame [the
Republicans]. This wasn't something they forced me into. I really believed
that given the level of oversight of banks and their ability to have more
patient capital, if you made it possible for [commercial banks] to go into
the investment banking business as Continental European investment banks
could always do, that it might give us a more stable source of long-term
investment."
On Oct 26, 12:37=A0am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On Oct 25, 10:38 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Robatoy wrote:
> >>> On Oct 25, 10:03 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> Buttercup, I was there when it was invented on Reddit by sniveling l=
ittle
> >>>> moron lefties that cannot handle anyone disagreeing with them. =A0Wh=
atever
> >>>> Beck is- or isn't, he isn't remotely as offensive as the half-wit ch=
imps
> >>>> that infest the social networking sites and left wing "media" cultur=
e...
> >>> It did not originate on Reddit.... and yet you claim you were there
> >>> when it did...
> >>> .
> >>> .
> >>> hmmmmmm
> >> Perhaps not - I do not recall all the particulars as I prefer not to s=
wim
> >> in sewers. =A0Nonetheless, the whole meme got a lot of traction on Red=
dit
> >> if it didn't actually originate there and my larger point stands: =A0B=
eck
> >> gets heat because the people who oppose him are politically illiterate=
,
> >> incapable of any sophisticated counterpoint, and generally intellectua=
lly
> >> unkempt children. =A0Do I mostly agree with Beck? No. =A0Do I think he=
is
> >> light years smarter and of higher integrity than his critics? =A0Yes.
>
> >> --
> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------=
----- -
> >> Tim Daneliuk =A0 =A0 [email protected]
> >> PGP Key: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
>
> > Higher integrity? Beck? Ohhhhkay.....*smirk* (You do know that Beck,
> > like GWB, is a dry drunk?)
> > Now.. about getting that help and those meds....was that a cry for
> > help, Tim?
>
> At least they're dry. =A0You might try a 12 step program yourself ...
> instead of your more usual two-step.
>
You always seem so quick on the trigger with a smart-ass answer, that
'glib' thing you do.
The "at least they're dry" remark makes it quite clear you have
neither a clue about 'dry drunk syndrome' nor the effects it has/had
on people in position where this can lead to very bad decisions, or
total lunacy.
Let me help you a little:
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
"Dry Drunk" has been described as "A condition of returning to one's
old alcoholic thinking and behavior without actually having taken a
drink." Or as one wise old drunk put it, if a horse thief goes into
A.A. what you can end up with is a sober horse thief. Or a personal
favorite: you can take the rum out of the fruit cake, but you've still
got a fruit cake!
Those who quit drinking but are still angry about it, wind up living
miserable lives and usually make everyone else around them miserable
too. If it has been said once in an Al-Anon meeting, it has been
whispered thousands of times, "I almost wish he would go back to
drinking."
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
You may want to read up on this a little before shooting your mouth
off....again.
On Oct 24, 8:20 am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> There are smarter ones than can make it right. Too bad the previous
> batch couldn't be trusted.
I admire your optimism. Tom
On Oct 25, 10:03=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Buttercup, I was there when it was invented on Reddit by sniveling little
> moron lefties that cannot handle anyone disagreeing with them. =A0Whateve=
r
> Beck is- or isn't, he isn't remotely as offensive as the half-wit chimps
> that infest the social networking sites and left wing "media" culture...
>
It did not originate on Reddit.... and yet you claim you were there
when it did...
.
.
hmmmmmm
On Oct 24, 11:10=A0am, evodawg <[email protected]> wrote:
> DGDevin wrote:
> > Yup, Frontline is doing the best investigative documentaries on America=
n
> > television. =A0That video of Greenspan at the end, admitting before Con=
gress
> > that he'd got it wrong all those years, that the market doesn't police
> > itself, that was something to see. =A0To think that a guy who didn't be=
lieve
> > the govt. has a role in regulating the market even when there is outrig=
ht
> > fraud involved was the person steering policy all those years--no wonde=
r
> > we ended up with a bubble that took down the whole economy when it burs=
t.
>
> > And where is L. Summers these days (the guy who once proposed dumping
> > toxic waste in "under-polluted" nations in Africa, the guy who lost a
> > billion dollars of Harvard's money investing in derivatives, the guy wh=
o
> > was being paid millions by companies recently bailed out by the taxpaye=
r
> > and whose
> > executive salaries he is still trying to protect)? =A0Why he's Director=
of
> > the
> > National Economic Council, advising Pres. Obama on economic policy. =A0=
Meet
> > the new boss, same as the old boss.
>
> And what cracks me up, "these are the Smartest Guys in the World". The on=
ly
> ones that can make it right, yeah right!!!
There are smarter ones than can make it right. Too bad the previous
batch couldn't be trusted.
On Oct 26, 9:37=A0am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On Oct 26, 12:37 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Robatoy wrote:
> >>> On Oct 25, 10:38 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> Robatoy wrote:
> >>>>> On Oct 25, 10:03 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>> Buttercup, I was there when it was invented on Reddit by sniveling=
little
> >>>>>> moron lefties that cannot handle anyone disagreeing with them. =A0=
Whatever
> >>>>>> Beck is- or isn't, he isn't remotely as offensive as the half-wit =
chimps
> >>>>>> that infest the social networking sites and left wing "media" cult=
ure...
> >>>>> It did not originate on Reddit.... and yet you claim you were there
> >>>>> when it did...
> >>>>> .
> >>>>> .
> >>>>> hmmmmmm
> >>>> Perhaps not - I do not recall all the particulars as I prefer not to=
swim
> >>>> in sewers. =A0Nonetheless, the whole meme got a lot of traction on R=
eddit
> >>>> if it didn't actually originate there and my larger point stands: =
=A0Beck
> >>>> gets heat because the people who oppose him are politically illitera=
te,
> >>>> incapable of any sophisticated counterpoint, and generally intellect=
ually
> >>>> unkempt children. =A0Do I mostly agree with Beck? No. =A0Do I think =
he is
> >>>> light years smarter and of higher integrity than his critics? =A0Yes=
.
> >>>> --
> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------=
------- -
> >>>> Tim Daneliuk =A0 =A0 [email protected]
> >>>> PGP Key: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
> >>> Higher integrity? Beck? Ohhhhkay.....*smirk* (You do know that Beck,
> >>> like GWB, is a dry drunk?)
> >>> Now.. about getting that help and those meds....was that a cry for
> >>> help, Tim?
> >> At least they're dry. =A0You might try a 12 step program yourself ...
> >> instead of your more usual two-step.
>
> > You always seem so quick on the trigger with a smart-ass answer, that
> > 'glib' thing you do.
> > The "at least they're dry" remark makes it quite clear you have
> > neither a clue about 'dry drunk syndrome' nor the effects it has/had
> > on people in position where this can lead to very bad decisions, or
> > total lunacy.
>
> > Let me help you a little:
>
> > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> > "Dry Drunk" has been described as "A condition of returning to one's
> > old alcoholic thinking and behavior without actually having taken a
> > drink." Or as one wise old drunk put it, if a horse thief goes into
> > A.A. what you can end up with is a sober horse thief. Or a personal
> > favorite: you can take the rum out of the fruit cake, but you've still
> > got a fruit cake!
>
> > Those who quit drinking but are still angry about it, wind up living
> > miserable lives and usually make everyone else around them miserable
> > too. If it has been said once in an Al-Anon meeting, it has been
> > whispered thousands of times, "I almost wish he would go back to
> > drinking."
> > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
> > You may want to read up on this a little before shooting your mouth
> > off....again.
>
> I'd be happy to suggest a place for you to get the necessary help.
>
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-- -
> Tim Daneliuk =A0 =A0 [email protected]
> PGP Key: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
I'm fine. You are the one who needs that optic nerve severed from your
anus.
notbob wrote:
>> Yup, Frontline is doing the best investigative documentaries on
>> American television.
>
> Yep ....and they have been for 20+ years. Check out the episodes on
> credit cards and poison water. They exposed the dot com crash a
> decade ago. The problem with Frontline is, if you watch too many of
> them at once, yer liable to slit your wrists.
>
> nb
I saw the one on credit cards years ago, it's remarkable. Somehow they got
an interview with the guy who persuaded the banks they were doing credit
cards all wrong, and they needed to drop their minimum monthly payment and
increase interest rates, fees and penalties. Credit cards were originally
for people with good credit, those the banks could trust to pay up promptly.
But this guy had figured out the ideal credit card customer was someone who
managed money badly and thus would *never* pay off their balance, they'd
make far more in interest and fees on someone like that than a customer who
paid in full every month. Ironically the card industry's name for someone
who pays their balance off every month is "deadbeat."
notbob wrote:
> On 2009-10-24, DGDevin <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Yup, Frontline is doing the best investigative documentaries on American
>> television.
>
> Yep ....and they have been for 20+ years. Check out the episodes on
> credit cards and poison water. They exposed the dot com crash a
> decade ago. The problem with Frontline is, if you watch too many of
> them at once, yer liable to slit your wrists.
>
> nb
The other problem is that they only telly you the part of the story that
suits their subtle, but evident, biases. This particular piece is excellent.
Curiously though, it only shows behaviors of denial and stupidity by
the political right. To actually tell the story fairly, they should
have spent time on the post-Clinton era, for example, and show the
GWB administration *repeatedly* requesting reregulation of some aspects
of the lending industry. Who said "No, everything is fine"? Why,
good old Barney Frank - a far leftie lunatic. Like I said, it's curious
and this end of the idiot spectrum often gets a pass from Publicly Funded
Whiner TV.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
evodawg wrote:
> The true story of Wall Street and the Governments role in the Banking Crash
> of 2008. I'm not one that toots any horns for PBS but this story has to be
> seen!
>
>
> Explains, Over the counter derivatives, the Black Box, Bankers Trust and
> lawsuit brought on by Procter and Gamble in 1999 that started it all, and
> Greenspan, Rubin and Sommers role in the whole mess.
>
> http://www.dat-e-baseonline.com/front/a.asp?arg=8F7D995F927B7C656472797B628B73798C6A756E7E7B71
>
> http://alturl.com/poi2
I saw that; it was very interesting.
--
See Nad. See Nad go. Go Nad!
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/
DGDevin wrote:
> Yup, Frontline is doing the best investigative documentaries on American
> television. That video of Greenspan at the end, admitting before Congress
> that he'd got it wrong all those years, that the market doesn't police
> itself, that was something to see. To think that a guy who didn't believe
> the govt. has a role in regulating the market even when there is outright
> fraud involved was the person steering policy all those years--no wonder
> we ended up with a bubble that took down the whole economy when it burst.
>
> And where is L. Summers these days (the guy who once proposed dumping
> toxic waste in "under-polluted" nations in Africa, the guy who lost a
> billion dollars of Harvard's money investing in derivatives, the guy who
> was being paid millions by companies recently bailed out by the taxpayer
> and whose
> executive salaries he is still trying to protect)? Why he's Director of
> the
> National Economic Council, advising Pres. Obama on economic policy. Meet
> the new boss, same as the old boss.
And what cracks me up, "these are the Smartest Guys in the World". The only
ones that can make it right, yeah right!!!
--
"You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"
Running Mandriva release 2008.0 free-i586 using KDE on i586
Website Address http://rentmyhusband.biz/
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> notbob wrote:
>> On 2009-10-25, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> You're missing my point.
>>
>> I doubt it.
>>
>> Let's face it, there will never be a totally unbiased view of anthing,
>> ever. You say Frontline has a biased liberal view. Probably. OTOH,
>> I don't see the conservative right exposing this stuff. Or did I miss
>> that one, too. ;)
>>
>> nb
>
> I agree that once you get beyond mere reporting of fact, any kind
> of analysis always has some degree of bias in it. It just annoys
> me that people like Frank - who were fundamentally responsible for
> creating the insane regulatory environment - get a pass while
> everyone else gets blamed.
>
> And yes, there has been some reporting of the lefty's insanities by
> the right-bent press. However - and again, let's be fair - there
> are far, far more mainstream news sources (+NPR, +PBS) that bend
> to the left, than the single successful right-bent news outlet of
> Fox. Why else do you think Fox is so very successful? The entire
> community of rightwingers have more-or-less only one network to
> consume, while the lefties (who are overall smaller in number) are
> divided across CBS, NBC, PMS-NBC, ABC, CNN, PBS, and NPR.
>
> I assure you that I am not choosing sides on this one. Both sides
> acted *horribly*. I just wish people would figure out that government
> itself was instrumental in this mess - it enabled it, it ignored it,
> it made things worse, and now government is in bed with the same
> bozos that were part of it in the private sector. When folks wake up
> to this, perhaps they won't be so quick to sign up for "more government
> is the answer".
>
Agree with most of what's been written in this POST. All are to blame. The
sad fact, we are still pawns in a much bigger game that make us expendable
to the rest of the chess board. OBTW this is change we can believe in?
--
"You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"
Running Mandriva release 2008.0 free-i586 using KDE on i586
Website Address http://rentmyhusband.biz/
DGDevin wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>> Perhaps not - I do not recall all the particulars as I prefer not to
>> swim in sewers. Nonetheless, the whole meme got a lot of traction on
>> Reddit if it didn't actually originate there and my larger point
>> stands: Beck gets heat because the people who oppose him are
>> politically illiterate, incapable of any sophisticated counterpoint,
>> and generally intellectually unkempt children. Do I mostly agree
>> with Beck? No. Do I think he is light years smarter and of higher
>> integrity than his critics? Yes.
>
> Would this be the Glenn Beck who admits he was stoned every day for fifteen
> years on a combination of alcohol, weed, cocaine and prescription drugs?
> The Glenn Beck who once taunted the wife of a rival radio DJ *on the air*
> after she suffered a miscarriage? The Glenn Beck who once described himself
> as a borderline schizophrenic? The Glenn Beck whose reputation includes
> firing employees who displeased him in public as sadistically as he could?
> That Glenn Beck, he's the one whose intelligence and integrity have
> impressed you?
>
> It's a long, three-part story, but you might learn some things about Mr.
> Beck you didn't know:
>
> http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/09/21/glenn_beck/
Gee, it almost sounds like you are implying that people can't turn their lives around, that
people who once did bad things can no longer do good, or even that a criminal can't be
reformed? That sounds so, so... "un-liberal-like" to me. What if Mr. Beck had been so far
down in the dumps as you describe, then turned his life around (like he obviously *has*) and
was now preaching the *liberal* agenda? Would you still be chastising him as though he were
the root of all evil? Of course not.
--
Free bad advice available here.
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/
Steve Turner wrote:
> DGDevin wrote:
>> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>
>>> Perhaps not - I do not recall all the particulars as I prefer not to
>>> swim in sewers. Nonetheless, the whole meme got a lot of traction on
>>> Reddit if it didn't actually originate there and my larger point
>>> stands: Beck gets heat because the people who oppose him are
>>> politically illiterate, incapable of any sophisticated counterpoint,
>>> and generally intellectually unkempt children. Do I mostly agree
>>> with Beck? No. Do I think he is light years smarter and of higher
>>> integrity than his critics? Yes.
>>
>> Would this be the Glenn Beck who admits he was stoned every day for
>> fifteen years on a combination of alcohol, weed, cocaine and prescription
>> drugs? The Glenn Beck who once taunted the wife of a rival radio DJ *on
>> the air*
>> after she suffered a miscarriage? The Glenn Beck who once described
>> himself
>> as a borderline schizophrenic? The Glenn Beck whose reputation includes
>> firing employees who displeased him in public as sadistically as he
>> could? That Glenn Beck, he's the one whose intelligence and integrity
>> have impressed you?
>>
>> It's a long, three-part story, but you might learn some things about Mr.
>> Beck you didn't know:
>>
>> http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/09/21/glenn_beck/
>
> Gee, it almost sounds like you are implying that people can't turn their
> lives around, that people who once did bad things can no longer do good,
> or even that a criminal can't be
> reformed? That sounds so, so... "un-liberal-like" to me. What if Mr.
> Beck had been so far down in the dumps as you describe, then turned his
> life around (like he obviously *has*) and
> was now preaching the *liberal* agenda? Would you still be chastising him
> as though he were
> the root of all evil? Of course not.
>
Oh and lets not forget, If salon.com wrote it it must be true. The right arm
of george soros and the daily kos and moveon.com. Give me a break!!!
--
"You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"
Running Mandriva release 2008.0 free-i586 using KDE on i586
Website Address http://rentmyhusband.biz/
I don't know if it is the inability for critical thought, or what, on the
part of Bush supporters. I am glad we have a president who "dithers". Bush
certainly didn't when he let Cheney talk him into invading a country on
trumped up intelligence.
I wish that we didn't "dither" in Tora Bora, while a tall man with a turban
was allowed to stroll into Pakistan because we didn't want to shed American
blood.
Then we needlessly kill 5k Americans in a country who is no threat to us.
Simply breathtaking is the fact that Bush can so screw things up, and his
supporters turn around and blame the man who steps up to clean up his mess.
Breathtaking.....
He won fair and square, with this I have no dispute. He's just a wretched
President having:
- Outspent 8 years of Bush in just 8 MONTHS.
- Worked to collectivize banking, finance, and manufacturing.
- Conceded oodles of ground to dictatorial states in the Islamic
workd, notably Iran.
- Conceded oodles of ground to the Russians symbolically by abandoning
the new democracies in the former Soviet Bloc by yanking the missile
shield.
- Dithered and dallied on the Afghani question - remember Vietnam? - when
what is needed is *leadership*: Increase manpower and win or just get out.
Anything else is a loser.
- Regularly supported political rectal passages like Grayson that ought to
be abandoned by *everyone* regardless of their political bent.
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> DGDevin wrote:
>> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>
>>> Fair enough. No where is the parallel outrage for the financial
>>> horrors perpetrated by the little political weasel, Barney Frank and
>>> Co.? Why is no one out of their minds with irritation that the
>>> Obamananation installed the same jackasses (well, the assistant
>>> jackasses) that were in charge of the system during W's time? This
>>> is a goose-gander problem. The leftie biased media does a hush
>>> coverup anytime their Dear Leader might be embarassed. From where I
>>> sit, the Obamanation is not only not better than his predecessor, he
>>> seems absolutely worse than W on most issues.
>>
>> Your determination to see only what you want to see is astonishing. The
>
> I see Reality.
>
>> supposedly leftist media gave massive coverage to the Tea Party protests,
>
> Which attendance they routinely under-reported.
>
>> they give Republican talking heads equal time with the Dem counterparts,
>
> 2 minutes for either side hardly constitutes "good coverage."
>
>> they have used oceans of ink and/or electrons detailing every misstep of
>> the
>> Obama administration (and there have been plenty), some have even
>> objected
>
> Oh yawn. From the beginning, they only went through the motions. If the
> equivalent of a Wright, Pfleger, Ayers had existed for any R candidate
> they would have been *skewered*. Look at the abuse Palin got *for her
> unwed daughter's pregnancy*.
>
>> to the administration slamming Fox, they're all over rising unemployment
>> and
>
> A few have objected (good for them), most have not.
>
>> Obama's falling poll numbers and so on so forth. And yet you croak that
>> the
>> media is doing a cover-up for Obama, and of course you can't resist "Dear
>
> It's under-reporting him, providing just enough coverage to make it look
> like they're doing their jobs. Why else does he survive praising
> Grayson the same week Grayson made his infamous "K Street whore" comment,
> for example?
>
>> Leader" for someone who just won an election fair and square, you can't
>> even
>> admit that much. But you're not a hopeless ideologue, no way, you're a
>
> He won fair and square, with this I have no dispute. He's just a wretched
> President having:
>
> - Outspent 8 years of Bush in just 8 MONTHS.
>
> - Worked to collectivize banking, finance, and manufacturing.
>
> - Conceded oodles of ground to dictatorial states in the Islamic
> workd, notably Iran.
>
> - Conceded oodles of ground to the Russians symbolically by abandoning
> the new democracies in the former Soviet Bloc by yanking the missile
> shield.
>
> - Dithered and dallied on the Afghani question - remember Vietnam? - when
> what is needed is *leadership*: Increase manpower and win or just get
> out.
> Anything else is a loser.
>
> - Regularly supported political rectal passages like Grayson that ought to
> be abandoned by *everyone* regardless of their political bent.
>
> Oh, and if you think the MSM has remotely covered him with the scrutiny
> and venom of every previous President (note I am stipulating BOTH parties
> here -
> this was never a partisan thing for me) you are higher than Alec Baldwin
> at 8am. The fact is that the media fell in love with Dear
> Leader and are just now starting to regret it in some small degree. They
> are discovering what happens when a corrupt Chicago machine is installed
> instead of decent leadership. I never much liked the Clitonistas, but I'd
> take either Bill or Hillary over this guy in a heartbeat. Ditto
> GWB/Cheney.
> Ditto Bush I.
>
>> libertarian, everybody gets a fair shake from you. What a joke.
>>
>>
>
> Fair has nothing to do with it. Principles do. I objected to Bush
> spending
> money unconstitutionally. I object that much more to Dear Leader doing it
> because he's doing it at a much faster pace. I objected to Bush pushing
> through Faith Based Charities. I object to Dear Leader's support-until-
> they-got-caught for Acorn. I didn't like Bush's cozy relationship with
> the oil producers. I don't like Dear Leader's similar cozy relationship
> with all the political vermin poised to make money of Cap And Trade and
> other
> energy fantasies. If I am more vehement in Obama's case it's only because
> the magnitude of his Constitutional abuses is so much higher and the rate
> so much faster.
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
> PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> Perhaps not - I do not recall all the particulars as I prefer not to
> swim in sewers. Nonetheless, the whole meme got a lot of traction on
> Reddit if it didn't actually originate there and my larger point
> stands: Beck gets heat because the people who oppose him are
> politically illiterate, incapable of any sophisticated counterpoint,
> and generally intellectually unkempt children. Do I mostly agree
> with Beck? No. Do I think he is light years smarter and of higher
> integrity than his critics? Yes.
Would this be the Glenn Beck who admits he was stoned every day for fifteen
years on a combination of alcohol, weed, cocaine and prescription drugs?
The Glenn Beck who once taunted the wife of a rival radio DJ *on the air*
after she suffered a miscarriage? The Glenn Beck who once described himself
as a borderline schizophrenic? The Glenn Beck whose reputation includes
firing employees who displeased him in public as sadistically as he could?
That Glenn Beck, he's the one whose intelligence and integrity have
impressed you?
It's a long, three-part story, but you might learn some things about Mr.
Beck you didn't know:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/09/21/glenn_beck/
Robatoy wrote:
> On Oct 25, 10:03 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Buttercup, I was there when it was invented on Reddit by sniveling little
>> moron lefties that cannot handle anyone disagreeing with them. Whatever
>> Beck is- or isn't, he isn't remotely as offensive as the half-wit chimps
>> that infest the social networking sites and left wing "media" culture...
>>
>
> It did not originate on Reddit.... and yet you claim you were there
> when it did...
> .
> .
> hmmmmmm
>
Perhaps not - I do not recall all the particulars as I prefer not to swim
in sewers. Nonetheless, the whole meme got a lot of traction on Reddit
if it didn't actually originate there and my larger point stands: Beck
gets heat because the people who oppose him are politically illiterate,
incapable of any sophisticated counterpoint, and generally intellectually
unkempt children. Do I mostly agree with Beck? No. Do I think he is
light years smarter and of higher integrity than his critics? Yes.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
DGDevin wrote:
> It's a long, three-part story, but you might learn some things about Mr.
> Beck you didn't know:
>
> http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/09/21/glenn_beck/
Sheeeeesssh! Further proof that those incapable of independent thought
need to be VERY careful of their sources/references!
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
Yep, as I said: simply breathtaking.
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Buck Turgidson wrote:
>> I don't know if it is the inability for critical thought, or what, on
>> the part of Bush supporters. I am glad we have a president who
>> "dithers". Bush certainly didn't when he let Cheney talk him into
>> invading a country on trumped up intelligence.
>>
>> I wish that we didn't "dither" in Tora Bora, while a tall man with a
>> turban was allowed to stroll into Pakistan because we didn't want to
>> shed American blood.
>
> Sigh. Killing or capturing Osama was never a goal of the United States.
> Only in the alternative reality of those who opposed the war was such a
> thing a strategy. The legal mindset of the left insists that evil-doers be
> brought before the bar. The national integrity impetus of the right says
> that the enemy must be vanquished or at least neutralized.
>
>
>>
>> Then we needlessly kill 5k Americans in a country who is no threat to
>> us.
>
> So say you. Ask the 100,000 military personnel still in Iraq if it was
> worth it.
>
>>
>> Simply breathtaking is the fact that Bush can so screw things up, and
>> his supporters turn around and blame the man who steps up to clean up
>> his mess.
>> Breathtaking.....
>>
>
> Yep, under Bush we had 24 consecutive quarters of economic growth,
> negligble inflation, and unemployment as low as four percent. While Bush
> did run up the national debt during his eight years by some $800 billion,
> Obama doubled that in his first month and is on his way to quadrupling the
> eight-year $800 billion before his first year is out.
>
> HOPE is not a strategy
>
Robatoy wrote:
> On Oct 25, 5:55 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Angela Sekeris wrote:
>>> On Oct 25, 2:59 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> notbob wrote:
>>>>> On 2009-10-25, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> You're missing my point.
>>>>> I doubt it.
>>>>> Let's face it, there will never be a totally unbiased view of anthing,
>>>>> ever. You say Frontline has a biased liberal view. Probably. OTOH,
>>>>> I don't see the conservative right exposing this stuff. Or did I miss
>>>>> that one, too. ;)
>>>>> nb
>>>> I agree that once you get beyond mere reporting of fact, any kind
>>>> of analysis always has some degree of bias in it. It just annoys
>>>> me that people like Frank - who were fundamentally responsible for
>>>> creating the insane regulatory environment - get a pass while
>>>> everyone else gets blamed.
>>>> And yes, there has been some reporting of the lefty's insanities by
>>>> the right-bent press. However - and again, let's be fair - there
>>>> are far, far more mainstream news sources (+NPR, +PBS) that bend
>>>> to the left, than the single successful right-bent news outlet of
>>>> Fox. Why else do you think Fox is so very successful? The entire
>>>> community of rightwingers have more-or-less only one network to
>>>> consume, while the lefties (who are overall smaller in number) are
>>>> divided across CBS, NBC, PMS-NBC, ABC, CNN, PBS, and NPR.
>>>> I assure you that I am not choosing sides on this one. Both sides
>>>> acted *horribly*. I just wish people would figure out that government
>>>> itself was instrumental in this mess - it enabled it, it ignored it,
>>>> it made things worse, and now government is in bed with the same
>>>> bozos that were part of it in the private sector. When folks wake up
>>>> to this, perhaps they won't be so quick to sign up for "more government
>>>> is the answer".
>>>> --
>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -
>>>> Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
>>>> PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
>>> It takes CBS, NBC, PMS-NBC, ABC, CNN, PBS, and NPR. et al to act as a
>>> counterweight to the insanity of Faux news' fabrications.
>>> Glen Beck has yet to deny that raped and killed a girl in 1990.
>> You're certifiable. Seek help and/or meds as needed.
>>
>> --
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -
>> Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
>> PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
>
> Then Beck is certifiable as well, as that is one of his/Faux News'
> tactics. After all, Obama hasn't denied being a commie fag alien
> junkie, has he?
>
> Just for shits and giggles, plug Beck's rape charge into Google and
> see what happens.
Buttercup, I was there when it was invented on Reddit by sniveling little
moron lefties that cannot handle anyone disagreeing with them. Whatever
Beck is- or isn't, he isn't remotely as offensive as the half-wit chimps
that infest the social networking sites and left wing "media" culture...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
notbob wrote:
> On 2009-10-25, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Curiously though, it only shows behaviors of denial and stupidity by
>> the political right.
>
> You must have seen a different program. The one I saw showed the
> Clinton administration following the same program as both Bush admins.
> Who's biased?
>
> nb
You're missing my point. The program shows stuff going on during the
Clinton administration - both in his immediate circle of advisors
and in the legislature. However it only shows Repuglican legislators
in denial. What is does NOT show is:
- The GWB administration thereafter repeatedly warning that some
reregulation was necessary and getting shut down by the Dem-controlled
congress.
- Far *left* congress critters like Barney "There Is No Problem With
Freddie and Fannie" Frank.
I'm not picking on the Left particularly here, but an unbiased presentation
of this topic would fully show the following:
- The banks behaved badly
- The hedge funds acted stupidly
- The *government* - BOTH SIDES - acted to create a regulatory environment
that encouraged idiot banking policies and unreasonable risk taking
by borrowers.
- The *public* was greedy, expecting markets and real estate would go up
forever.
- The government poured gasoline onto the fire by insisting that the very people
that were instrumental in these disasters got bailed out because "they were too
big to fail". This is code from political classes for "We want government to be
in charge because it makes us all so very important."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Robatoy wrote:
> On Oct 26, 12:37 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Robatoy wrote:
>>> On Oct 25, 10:38 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Robatoy wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 25, 10:03 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> Buttercup, I was there when it was invented on Reddit by sniveling little
>>>>>> moron lefties that cannot handle anyone disagreeing with them. Whatever
>>>>>> Beck is- or isn't, he isn't remotely as offensive as the half-wit chimps
>>>>>> that infest the social networking sites and left wing "media" culture...
>>>>> It did not originate on Reddit.... and yet you claim you were there
>>>>> when it did...
>>>>> .
>>>>> .
>>>>> hmmmmmm
>>>> Perhaps not - I do not recall all the particulars as I prefer not to swim
>>>> in sewers. Nonetheless, the whole meme got a lot of traction on Reddit
>>>> if it didn't actually originate there and my larger point stands: Beck
>>>> gets heat because the people who oppose him are politically illiterate,
>>>> incapable of any sophisticated counterpoint, and generally intellectually
>>>> unkempt children. Do I mostly agree with Beck? No. Do I think he is
>>>> light years smarter and of higher integrity than his critics? Yes.
>>>> --
>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -
>>>> Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
>>>> PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
>>> Higher integrity? Beck? Ohhhhkay.....*smirk* (You do know that Beck,
>>> like GWB, is a dry drunk?)
>>> Now.. about getting that help and those meds....was that a cry for
>>> help, Tim?
>> At least they're dry. You might try a 12 step program yourself ...
>> instead of your more usual two-step.
>>
>
> You always seem so quick on the trigger with a smart-ass answer, that
> 'glib' thing you do.
> The "at least they're dry" remark makes it quite clear you have
> neither a clue about 'dry drunk syndrome' nor the effects it has/had
> on people in position where this can lead to very bad decisions, or
> total lunacy.
>
> Let me help you a little:
>
> ========
> "Dry Drunk" has been described as "A condition of returning to one's
> old alcoholic thinking and behavior without actually having taken a
> drink." Or as one wise old drunk put it, if a horse thief goes into
> A.A. what you can end up with is a sober horse thief. Or a personal
> favorite: you can take the rum out of the fruit cake, but you've still
> got a fruit cake!
>
> Those who quit drinking but are still angry about it, wind up living
> miserable lives and usually make everyone else around them miserable
> too. If it has been said once in an Al-Anon meeting, it has been
> whispered thousands of times, "I almost wish he would go back to
> drinking."
> =========
>
> You may want to read up on this a little before shooting your mouth
> off....again.
I'd be happy to suggest a place for you to get the necessary help.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On 2009-10-24, DGDevin <[email protected]> wrote:
> Yup, Frontline is doing the best investigative documentaries on American
> television.
Yep ....and they have been for 20+ years. Check out the episodes on
credit cards and poison water. They exposed the dot com crash a
decade ago. The problem with Frontline is, if you watch too many of
them at once, yer liable to slit your wrists.
nb
On 2009-10-25, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Curiously though, it only shows behaviors of denial and stupidity by
> the political right.
You must have seen a different program. The one I saw showed the
Clinton administration following the same program as both Bush admins.
Who's biased?
nb
On 2009-10-25, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> You're missing my point.
I doubt it.
Let's face it, there will never be a totally unbiased view of anthing,
ever. You say Frontline has a biased liberal view. Probably. OTOH,
I don't see the conservative right exposing this stuff. Or did I miss
that one, too. ;)
nb
On 2009-10-25, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> to the left, than the single successful right-bent news outlet of
> Fox. Why else do you think Fox is so very successful? The entire
> community of rightwingers have more-or-less only one network to
> consume, while the lefties (who are overall smaller in number) are
> divided across CBS, NBC, PMS-NBC, ABC, CNN, PBS, and NPR.
Absurd on the face of it.
> I assure you that I am not choosing sides on this one. Both sides
> acted *horribly*. I just wish people would figure out that government
> itself was instrumental in this mess - it enabled it, it ignored it,
There can be no doubt. Anyone who thinks pure capitalism does not
require regulation is adled.
> it made things worse, and now government is in bed with the same
> bozos that were part of it in the private sector.
They've ALWAYS been in bed. Do you honestly believe $$$ has never
influenced politics?
> When folks wake up to this, perhaps they won't be so quick to sign
> up for "more government is the answer".
Well, that's pretty much the crux of it, isn't it. When people wake
up! Like you said, the people who expected real estate to continue to
rise indefinitely, are just as much at fault. Bingo! Greed will out.
nb
Robatoy wrote:
> On Oct 25, 10:38 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Robatoy wrote:
>>> On Oct 25, 10:03 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Buttercup, I was there when it was invented on Reddit by sniveling little
>>>> moron lefties that cannot handle anyone disagreeing with them. Whatever
>>>> Beck is- or isn't, he isn't remotely as offensive as the half-wit chimps
>>>> that infest the social networking sites and left wing "media" culture...
>>> It did not originate on Reddit.... and yet you claim you were there
>>> when it did...
>>> .
>>> .
>>> hmmmmmm
>> Perhaps not - I do not recall all the particulars as I prefer not to swim
>> in sewers. Nonetheless, the whole meme got a lot of traction on Reddit
>> if it didn't actually originate there and my larger point stands: Beck
>> gets heat because the people who oppose him are politically illiterate,
>> incapable of any sophisticated counterpoint, and generally intellectually
>> unkempt children. Do I mostly agree with Beck? No. Do I think he is
>> light years smarter and of higher integrity than his critics? Yes.
>>
>> --
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -
>> Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
>> PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
>
> Higher integrity? Beck? Ohhhhkay.....*smirk* (You do know that Beck,
> like GWB, is a dry drunk?)
> Now.. about getting that help and those meds....was that a cry for
> help, Tim?
At least they're dry. You might try a 12 step program yourself ...
instead of your more usual two-step.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Robatoy wrote:
> On Oct 29, 9:25 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Robatoy wrote:
>>> On Oct 29, 7:50 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Robatoy wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 29, 6:31 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> If I am more vehement in Obama's case it's only because
>>>>>> the magnitude of his Constitutional abuses is so much higher and the rate
>>>>>> so much faster.
>>>>> How many people has Obama sent off to die so his friends could line
>>>>> their pockets?
>>>> None - just like Bush before him did not do this.
>>>> --
>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -
>>>> Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
>>>> PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
>>> That answer clearly disqualifies you from any further debate as you
>>> see what you want to see and you ignore those realities that don't
>>> suit your ideology.
>> It may disqualify me from *your* version of "debate" or "reality"
>> both of which correspond to their real equivalents the way
>> Rosie O'Donnell is a supermodel.
>> --
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -
>> Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
>> PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
>
> Classy, Tim, really classy. Got something against lesbians? Homophobic
> are you? Does that go hand-in-hand with that dominating phobia of
Not in the slightest. But Rosie is demonstrably not a supermodel and
you are demonstrably disconnected from Reality. A simple - and apt -
comparison. It is, however, interesting to hear your argue as if you
believed in tolerance of people different than yourself given your
repeated screechings here against a particular group of people. Isn't
that, after all, really why you hate W - because he supported those same
people?
> yours that the whole world wants to take away your marbles?
My marbles are quite intact, thank you for asking. See, I'm not
homophobic in any way...