I laugh at your depression. Turn that frown upside down!
Just think of all the opportunities for irrational and hate-laced rants you'll have under the Obama administration, Cj. It's like a gift for you.
Cycloptichorn
You're a first class idiot cyclops and anyone with a clue knows that.
So STFU and go play on a slackline you slacker loser.
See, cyclo? He's bucking up already!
Did someone fart? I smell soulless food.
Do you believe that angry words and insults give anyone the impression that you are either a) in control, or b) somehow coming out ahead in a conversation?
You are correct in your assessment, though; there is no Conservative choice in this election. Even if McCain were to somehow win, he'd be the Democratic party's bitch, and you know it.
Cycloptichorn
So how do you feel that benefits the country, when since we've elected the Democraps to congress, everything has gone to hell?
You're an idiot cyclops. Just admit it and moveon and join the idiots over at that site.
cjhsa wrote:So how do you feel that benefits the country, when since we've elected the Democraps to congress, everything has gone to hell?
You're an idiot cyclops. Just admit it and moveon and join the idiots over at that site.
Everything had already 'gone to hell' previously, Cj. You are seeing the effects of decisions which were made LONG before 2006; it isn't as if the Dems invented sub-prime mortgages, or that they gutted the SEC and other regulatory committees that could have caught our problems before they blew up.
I fully realize that there's nothing that I could write which would get you to face reality; you are so convinced that blaming the Dems for problems is the right way to go, you aren't even interested in facts. Or, maybe you can tell me: what was it the Dems did, that made things go to hell? If it's as obvious as you state, you should be able to easily point it out.
Cycloptichorn
Hell CI. I cant pronounce his name. Ill bet not one american in ten can.
cjhsa wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:
Or, maybe you can tell me: what was it the Dems did, that made things go to hell? If it's as obvious as you state, you should be able to easily point it out.
Cycloptichorn
Sure. They were elected.
A pat answer, but deep down you understand that your arguments have been shown to have been without merit.
Cycloptichorn
Not. What's without merit is your douchebag SOTH. Between her and your two senators, you've managed to populate our congress with the most meritless femi-nazis ever to come down the pike.
From CNN's Larry King show:
PELOSI: I would not. It depends how the drilling is put forth. But I don't - that is not excluded, let me say it that way. It depends how that is proposed, if the safeguards are there. Now, mind you, 68 million acres �- 10 million more acres in Alaska where they can drill. But if there's �- if we can get some great things, in terms of renewable energy resources; a renewable electricity standard; wind, solar, biofuels and the rest in that context, because if you make a decision only to go with the offshore drilling, you are increasing our dependence on fossil fuels and you will never free yourself of that addiction unless you invest in the renewable energy resources that are good for the environment, cheaper for the consumer and will reverse global warming.
And the consumer is our first responsibility. The American taxpayer owns this oil offshore, by the way. Let me make this one final point. This oil is owned by the American taxpayers. The oil companies drill. We give them money to drill there. But we get very little in return.
So I think as we have this debate, which is a very healthy one to have and I welcome it, we have to review and realign the relationship between our oil, big oil's profits and what it means to the consumer and the taxpayer.
Yeah. She means realigning
with Big Wind!
14 percent and plunging faster.
Know your failure, Nan.
Cyclo,
You do realize that the repubs didnt invent the subprime loans either.
Quote:In Orange County, CA in about 1990 an investment banker, William Komperda, came up with an idea for raising money by floating bonds backed by mortgages. The idea was not really new since it had always been done by hard money lenders. The difference was Mr. Komperda's efforts got these sub-prime loans securitized by Wall Street. What's important is he pursuaded insurers and bond rating firms to accept and whole heartedly approve this new Wall Street bound security vehicle with a much needed AAA rating. It became a funding bonanza in 1990 when Wall Street adopted and promoted this new investment security. All based on loans to risky borrowers ill equipped to borrow
hence the new term "Sub-Prime". Reference my previous article "Collective Intelligence vs Bush's rescue plan".
Mr. Kamperda's client at the time [circa 1990], Long Beach Savings, was pursuaded and agreed to float a $70m bond issue backed by home loans. This new security helped Long Beach Savings raise lots and lots of cash and eventually allowed them to help start Ameriquest Mortgage Corp. Ameriquest Mortgage grew and became the largest supplier of sub-prime loans in the U.S. In 1999 Ameriquest Mortgage was purchased by Washington Mutual for $350m and became WAMU's sub-prime lending division. Ameriquest Mortgage was in the news often after the acquisition by MAMU when in 2006 Ameriquest agreed to pay a $325m fine without admitting guilt for "predatory lending practices" in 49 states. In 2005, the peak of the sub-prime loans, Wall Street sold $508B dollars worth of loans
in 2007 the bubble burst.
In 2007 financial firms have taken over $80B dollars in write downs. This past Thursday, Goldman Sachs Group Inc.analyst doubled its forecast for fourth-quarter writedowns at Citigroup Inc., Merrill Lynch & Co. and J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.to $33.6 billion. Forecasters say there is more to come in 08.
Joe Parsons
http://realestateraves.com/blog/2007/12/31/so-how-did-this-sub-prime-mess-start-anyway/
So like I have said before, both parties and politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle bear responsibility.
real life wrote:Diest TKO wrote:real life wrote:Diest TKO wrote:real life wrote:I'm just wondering, if Obama appoints terrorist and Pentagon bomber Bill Ayers to fill a slot in his administration, will liberals object? And on what grounds?
If Obama appoints racebaiter and retired minister of TUCC Jeremiah Wright to fill a slot, will liberals object? And on what grounds?
First of all, neither of these will happen. The fact that you think that they could illustrates your ignorance.
I can tell you numerous reasons why I'd object, but you haven't even began to tell me what specific positions your imagination has them in. Don't bother telling me now, I'll go ahead and tell you the two reasons I'd object.
1) There's somebody better for the job. E.g. - What position would a Reverend fit into? There are so many people in line to fill these spots.
2) Even if they did a good job, they'd be constantly under fire by the media and the republicans. It would be a struggle to get anything done.
I'll say it again, you're just trying to meme Obama out of the White House. Your catch-phrase-fear-mongering-memes are a laughable waste of time.
But you're just following suit. Even McCain had tire gauges made labeled "Obama's Energy Plan." The next day, he said that we should put a littl more air in our tires.
You're losing the fight, and you're not ding it with any grace.
T
K
O
What position would a Reverend fit into when there's so many others better qualified?
Well we see that:
Quote:Democratic convention chief wants reparations for blacks
Shares controversial 'liberation' theology with Obama's ex-pastor Jeremiah Wright
Posted: August 11, 2008
The leader anointed by the Democratic Party to assemble the coronation of a 2008 presidential candidate in Denver in two weeks espouses the same black liberation theology pursue by Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whose church presumptive nominee Barack Obama was forced to leave because of its controversies.
Those included Wright's condemnation of America, a vicious attack on Hillary Clinton from the pulpit and others, and WND reported when, finally, the Obama campaign announced he was resigning his 20-year membership in the controversial organization.
Now a profile in the New York Times has revealed that Rev. Daughtry, whose father, Herbert Daughtry, who served prison time during his 20s for armed robbery and bad checks, also runs a church, shares popular "black liberation theology" beliefs such as the "debt" the United States "owes" all blacks as reparations for the existence of slavery two centuries back.
In a description of the church where family members have preached for decades, the Times said, "Below the sanctuary, in the fellowship hall, a banner for slavery reparations proclaimed, 'They Owe Us.'........
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=72149
Rev Daughtry has been appointed to head the convention. I think that's an indication that Obama will not be shy about appointing Wright clones to positions within his administration.
You don't keep up with headlines do you. A few weeks back some knucklehead trotted into the Obama thread talking about how Obama was going to lose black votes because he doesn't support the idea of reparations.
A little research will tell you that Obama would prefer that money go to fixing schools, hiring police in troubled communities and other social investments that would truly be a better gift than some check would ever do, and all people, not just blacks would benefit from it.
Basically, you miss. But if you haven't figured it out yet, you're always going to miss Obama, by aiming at the people next to him, or in the room with him, or the same town as him...
T
K
O
Then why is Obama allowing a banner waving reparations advocate to head up his convention?
Obama doesn't have to agree with everyone or police their ideas. This is a dumb question.
T
K
O
Exactly. He isn't going to cast about for who is not a "banner waving" proponent of gun rights, or a "banner waving" supporter of gay marriage", or a "banner waving" anything else, to make a roster of Obama supporters and/or convention speakers.
The concept is idiotic - and completely consistent for the bug who posted it.
Well would you all admit that if it meant he could gather 1 million votes by doing a 180 degree reversal on some important stance he took, he would because he is a politician.
Might Obama do something strictly out of political expediency? Yeah.
Is part of the reason I like him because I think he's not hardwired to do that as his first option? Yeah.
Snood
The man has made as many reversals as Mccann. I don't trust either of them any father than I could throw a mountian. Once again I will have to vote for someone I don't trust or like. I hope I am wrong but this has happened too many times in the past for me to believe that I am.
my appeal.
cross the streets and go to the politiong station and be sure that YOUR VOTE is invalid and thereby teach the corporate controlled candidates a lesson.
rabel22 wrote:Snood
The man has made as many reversals as Mccann.
1) How do you figure?
2) How are changes in views bad? They certainly can be, but they aren't inherently bad, unless you can articulate how.
T
K
O
