Moderating a Debate About Size of Government, Amanpour Takes the Liberal Side
In her next to last week hosting This Week, ABC’s Christiane Amanpour moderated a show-long debate, touted as “The Great American Debates,” devoted to the proposition: “There’s Too Much Government.” George Will and Congressman Paul Ryan took up the affirmative case, squaring off against Robert Reich and Congressman Barney Frank. But Amanpour was hardly neutral.
She began by framing the debate around the “conundrum” that “people who oppose big government still want to collect their entitlements” and, without any matching ideological policy arguments presented to Reich and Frank, pressed Ryan and Will with liberal contentions, such as how “during the Great Depression the government did create big programs to get people back to work. Why shouldn’t they do that right now, why shouldn’t there be that kind of action?”
Later she laid out another liberal argument: “In 2007, the nation’s top one percent took home more after-tax pay than the total bottom 40 percent. And now, new reports show that at least one in fifteen Americans are living in extreme poverty. So the gap between rich and poor is widening. Shouldn’t the government do something to address that?”
When she did challenge Frank and Reich it was not to accept a conservative policy prescription but to address what she suggested was a public misperception. One example:
Let me ask you, Robert Reich, about the distrust and the fear of government, it’s at record highs right now. In a recent Gallup poll shows that about 64 percent of Americans, including 48 percent Democrats, feel that a big government is the biggest threat to the future of this country, as compared with only 26 percent thinking that big business is the biggest threat to the future of this country. Isn’t that your problem?
In returning from ad breaks, only once did the program run a video clip and that was a lengthy one of amateur video of a left-wing rant from months ago from Democratic Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren:
There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there, good for you. But I want to be clear, you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of paid to educate. Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea. God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.
Amanpour used that to segue into one of her liberal propositions:
Welcome back. And that is the essence of what we’re going to debate in this segment as our special edition continues here at the Knight studio at the Newseum. That, of course, was Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren, defending the role of government. The resolution on the table today: “There is too much government in my life.” The hot topic on the campaign trail and on Capitol Hill. Let me ask you, in 2007, the nation’s top one percent took home more after-tax pay than the total bottom 40 percent. And now, new reports show that at least one in fifteen Americans are living in extreme poverty. So the gap between rich and poor is widening. Shouldn’t the government do something to address that?
At the top of the hour, Amanpour outlined the premise of the program:
And welcome to this special edition of the program. Today, we delve into the fundamental question that's facing American democracy at this pivotal moment. Has the federal government become too big, too sprawling? Americans have always been wary of Washington. But this year, that anger seems to be at fever pitch, with poll after poll showing trust in government is at an all-time low. But is this because it’s too bloated or too broken? And what about this conundrum, people who oppose big government still want to collect their entitlements? So today we put all these issues to the test.
- Brent Baker's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
No, the real “conundrum” is...
Submitted by JohnMcGrew on Mon, 12/19/2011 - 7:49am.
...people who do not pay significant levels of taxes who still want to collect entitlements. Why not clamor for bigger government when you think that it will be someone else paying for it?
Agreed John
Submitted by Cappmann1962 on Mon, 12/19/2011 - 10:16am.
And I see a simple solution - eliminate some of these entitlements (and what makes people "entitled" to them anyway?) that are consistently being abused. Reduce many of the remainder. Then no one will be "clamoring" about reducing government and still wanting their entitlements. Which is a further point: Those making the most noise over THEIR entitlements aren't the ones wanting a smaller government.
Then we have this ditz Elizabeth Warren: There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there, good for you. But I want to be clear, you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of paid to educate. If I'm not mistaken, the greedy bastards opening new factories ALSO paid for those roads and education. It's called TAXES, of which those same greedy bastards paid a helluva lot more than the lower 40%, who BTW, are most likely the ones being hired for that new factory.
And finally, while it's diffucult to determine an exact figure, Elizabeth Warren herself is filthy rich. Why do liberal morons contunue to listen to the hypocrisy being spewed by these idiots?
Cappman
Submitted by ant on Mon, 12/19/2011 - 10:31am.
We live in days where lies, like those of Elizabeth Warren, are not countered and truth is not expected. I heard someone the other day make a joke about women in the TeaParties "asking to go back to the Founding Fathers days.....but not realizing women were not allowed to vote.." Now anybody with half a brain knows this to be disingenuous and a result of believing media lies. Tea Parties wanted Constitutional rule, women are allowed to vote in our Constitution as it stands in the present day, TeaParties did not mean they wanted to party like it's 1799. The left knows what was meant, they also know the country has strayed far from it's Constitutional principles on government and it's authority...but these facts get in the way of a good lie, just like Warren's half-assed thought process.
We expect no truth from these people...and it's just as well....because we get none.
Warren is filthy rich? She's
Submitted by AntiWingnut on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 3:12am.
Warren is filthy rich? She's definitely in the top 5%, probably the top 1%, but I doubt her actual net worth is outrageously high. The average Harvard Law professor makes $106k/yr (which doesn't go especially far in the Cambridge/Boston-metro area where real estate prices are still high). As a high profile professor, she made more (I think about $350k), but still far less than a former Harvard Law professor with political connections could make elsewhere. A firm such as Skadden Arps would give her well north of $500k (probably seven-figures) in a heartbeat. If you want to recruit talented people, you need to pay wages that have some basis outside of academia.
See here for details on her income - http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/64306.html
All of these financial questions will be answered once she locks up the nomination and discloses her financials.
Yes, she made decent money. Certainly not ridiculous amounts, especially by the standard of high powered lawyers or even by the standards of many Senate candidates.
When Elizabeth Warren was 12, her father (a janitor, so he understood the "dignity of work") suffered a heart attack. Her family, including 3 brothers, had serious financial troubles after this. Elizabeth, herself, worked as a waitress to help make ends meet. She then went to George Washington University, on a fully scholarship, at 16. She eventually completed law school while raising children. She was then a single mother of two, after splitting with her first husband. Does that sound like the biography of someone brought up with a silver spoon in their mouth?
Now, how does her professional success discredit the things she says? What is hypocritical about being successful and standing up for the middle class?
She wants to stand up for lower income people, families similar to the one in which she was raised. She wants other people to move up in the world like she did. What is wrong with that?
Of course, I don't expect to get a rational response.
And how much does Elizabeth Warren earn from Honoraria ...
Submitted by NL207 on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 9:42pm.
and other non-salary income? Have you seen her 1040? How do you know what her income is? She is married to Harvard Law Professor Bruce H. Mann. Both of them occupy endowed chairs at Harvard. If their joint gross income were lower than $500,000 I would be astonished. If it were greater than $1M, I would not be surprised.
I think you are just another leftist ignoramus speaking without basis in fact.
"She wants other people to move up in the world like she did." Sure she does. That is why she wants to destroy upward mobility in America by fundamentally altering the relationship between the Government and its Citizens.
I see elsewhere you have been spouting off about the lack of intellectual capacity here on NB. You need to learn some respect for your betters.
Them blue-collar millionaires.
Submitted by ant on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 7:15am.
Anti also forgot about the news that Warren made several hundred thousand working for the evil insurance industry, defending them from asbestos-related illness claims, thereby denying the 'working-class' she is allegedly a part of.
Debate?
Submitted by ferv888 on Mon, 12/19/2011 - 7:53am.
Someone I hope somehow kept track of the time the two LIBTARDS had vs Ryan/Will. Seemed to me those two were allowed un-equal time and were never challenged, something like 3 idiots to two sane people. how many times did lightshoes Frank use right wing?
The best of this was Ryan's bemused expression when Reish/Frank were off the rails.
Ferv888
Here's the Simple Fact Liberals Ignore
Submitted by Bourbeau on Mon, 12/19/2011 - 8:01am.
"With liberal contentions, such as how “during the Great Depression the government did create big programs to get people back to work. Why shouldn’t they do that right now, why shouldn’t there be that kind of action?”
I'm glad they asked, and have continued to ask this very simple question. Well, try this on for an answer. The reason why those programs worked back during the Great Depression is because there wasn't the choking liberal bureaucracy preventing projects like that from being done in a reasonble period of time. Ask any innovator today how long it would take to do any major infrastructure project from a bridge to a new road to a renovation of an existing structure on any public property. In a few words, years of planning and goverment reviews. Think the Big Dig in Boston, or similar projects. This comparison to the Great Depression is liberal noise; you couldn't replicate the effort in the 30s regardless of the numbers of jobs it would create.
Facts are facts: goverment does not create jobs quickly unless it's a bureaucrat to process more paper requiring more reviews and more approvals.
But those programs didn't really work.
Submitted by JohnMcGrew on Mon, 12/19/2011 - 8:25am.
The depression lingered until the advent of WWII, which created as near full employment as you're ever likely to get. I seriously doubt the Progressives would suggest another world war as the solution to our current economic malaise.
Yes they did.
Submitted by c5then on Mon, 12/19/2011 - 8:45am.
Not too long ago a NYT columnist (who's name escapes me right now) opined that what we need is for earth to be attacked by space aliens to get our global economy back on track again.
Oh, and another little issue... The Great Depression lasted for the entire decade of the 1930's BECAUSE of all the government intervention not in spite of it. There was a stock-market crash and economic slump just as large back in 1920 as there was in 1929. Why don't we all know about that? Two reasons...1) the conservative government at the time did the right thing and slashed tax rates and cut the Federal budget by over 40%. 2) the ensuing economic boom that is known as the "Roaring Twenties" is very inconvenient for the liberal educators so they choose to ignore it and suppress it.
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
I think it was the phyco
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 12/19/2011 - 9:35am.
Krugman
Just to add to the point, Companies have invested sometimes billions trying to breach this bureaucracy, only to be snubbed by the Fed. See Boeing, Oil industry, Coal, and many others.
So now they have given up, until sanity finally prevails in DC.
Depression era policies and their results
Submitted by mioilman on Mon, 12/19/2011 - 12:34pm.
When FDR ran for re-election in 1940 measured unemployment in this country was at 18%.
This was way worse than when the liberal dictator wannabe took office.
Liberals when pressed on this point concede but counter that this was only the case because FDR did not spend enough.
Sound familiar?
Wisdom is the benefit of being on earth long enough to witness the same mistakes repeated with the same results.
mioilman...I think you need to re-examine those statistics.
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 4:59am.
You must be holding the charts upside down.
Jer
According to this
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 4:39pm.
According to this website mioilman is pretty close. 1938 = 19.0, 1940 = 14.6. What did you think it was? 7?
Edit: Here is the Bureau of Labor website validating the link above. Still think he is holding the sheet upside down?
I sure do, Scuba. And I think you are, too.
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 5:01pm.
Now...do you want to read it correctly, or do I need to walk you through this?
Jer
You sure do what? Think it
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 5:36pm.
You sure do what? Think it is 7 or sheet upside down?
The latter, Scube. It was in response to the closing question
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 7:19pm.
in your previous post. The number 7 is irrelevant. But you knew that.
Jer
Good, now that we know where
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 8:53pm.
Good, now that we know where we need to concentrate, how does him getting the rate wrong by 3.4 make it look to you that he was looking at the charts upside down?
And if you didn't realize my mentioning the number 7 as being a sarcastic reply you may need to clean the monitor and your specs so as you can see the words better. :-p
Scuba...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 9:13pm.
The unemployment rate in 1933, the year FDR was first sworn into
office, was 24.9%. In 1940, the year he was elected to his third term, the rate was 14.6%--a difference of 10.3%.
[And, yes, I recognized the obvious sarcasm. So did my son's hamster.]
Jer
Jer, no where in mioilmans
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 9:57pm.
Jer, no where in mioilmans post was any other year other than 1940 mentioned.
So why are you bringing up 1933 through 1940?
Because, when President X "took office" ordinarily refers
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 10:02pm.
to when he was first sworn in, and in FDR's case that would be 1933. Why did you bring up 1938?
Jer
No, he said when he ran for
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 10:08pm.
No, he said when he ran for re-election in 1940. The person he was referring to taking office is President Downgrade.
Your failing Jer.
I considered that possibility, Scube,
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 2:14am.
but since he never mentioned Obama, nor had anyone in any previous post, and he specifically referred to FDR, it was only logical to assume that remark was also about Depression-era unemployment.
You still haven't explained your 1938 reference. I'll give you another chance before tagging you with the "Failed Miserably" label.
Jer
If you had bothered to look
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 9:50am.
If you had bothered to look at the first link I posted before I edited to include the Bureau of Labor website you would have noticed the website was skipping years and only mentioning the even years so I posted the year prior to 1940 as a comparison which happened to be 1938. Of course you will zero in on this to deflect since that is your MO.
Now to the first part, it just might be we are both correct since mioilman wrote a poorly structured sentence. He could be talking about FDR or he could be talking about Odumbo. I gravitate towards Odumbo since unemployment is higher than when he took office.
I'm sure it also probably
Submitted by ant on Mon, 12/19/2011 - 10:04am.
I'm sure it also probably helped that America in the 30's wasn't importing millions of illegal alien laborers and entitlement dependents.
Barney Frank at least had enough sense to...
Submitted by zenman1661 on Mon, 12/19/2011 - 8:58am.
concede he wasn't going to get anywhere against Will and Ryan on economic issues and mostly brought up social ones, Reich, a former Treasury Secretary, wasn't even that smart. I think now that even the liberals acknowledge that Krugman has completely gone around the bend, Reich has become the far lefts go to guy on economics.
Reich wasn't Treasury Secretary . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Mon, 12/19/2011 - 10:56am.
. . . He was Clinton's Secretary of Labor.
While he is often touted as an economics expert, he is actually trained as a lawyer. He had some education in public policy, including economics, at Oxford as a Rhode Scholar, but he's basically an attorney.
Regarding the New Deal solutions to the Great Depression, even Democratic-cheerleader Chris Matthews admitted on the air this year that the New Deal merely "kept things going" until WW2 came along to pull us oout of it.
The myth of the New Deal looms large among us Baby Boomers because we were taught by the elders who held FDR up as some kind of demigod, saving the US from destruction. But as economists look back on the Thirties, many concur that the New Deal delayed recovery rather than accelerate it. Price and wage controls were disasterous, especially for working-class poor black Americans in the South, and the various alphabet-programs -- WPA, CCC, PWA, NRA, et al -- were either deemed un-Constitutional, or ran at great expense to the Federal treasury. They did put people back to work, and in that sense, lifted natural morale and began to restore national self-confidence, but by 1940, the New Deal had run out of steam.
Reich
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 12/19/2011 - 11:02am.
And he wishes to welcome you to Munchkin Land
Thank you for correcting me on that.
Submitted by zenman1661 on Mon, 12/19/2011 - 8:04pm.
Of course, the question now becomes why is an ex-labor secretary considered to be such a great expert on the economy? Dept of Labor is such a lame trivial cabinet.
it was pretty humorous
Submitted by mom_rox on Mon, 12/19/2011 - 2:32pm.
when Frank kept bringing up "personal choice" issues. I wanted Ryan/Will to come back with light bulbs, health care purchase mandate, salt and/or transfats in foods, Happy Meals, etc.
At least Reich acknowledged that he agreed with some conservative ideas. I wanted to have a Taser on Frank every time he interrupted. That said, it was a good venue to hear the contrasts.
Switching away from
Submitted by AntiWingnut on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 3:36am.
Switching away from incandescent light bulbs can make a significant dent in the total power usage (and thus our dependence on coal and foreign/domestic oil). Do you want to keep us dependent on foreign oil? Is it not a patriotic exercise to make efforts to reduce our reliance on foreign oils and hydrocarbons? The legislation to push the switch over was sponsored by Joe Barton (R-TX).
The health care mandate is a Republican idea (Bob Dole, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, etc) -
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2011_01/027584.php
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/20/us/politics/gingrich-attacked-by-campa...
Salt and transfat foods, like the ban implemented by NYC under Bloomberg's Republican leadership?
Now that we've established that all of your examples are from Republican intrusion into lives, what about the points that Frank raised? The ones that Will and Ryan refused to address. Why does the self-proclaimed "small government" party constantly try to impose its will on adults? Why should the government have any say in the sexual practices of consenting adults? Why should the government dictate which adults can marry each other? Why should the government be deciding whether or not an adult woman can use birth control? And on and on and on...
Sorry, I should have said
Submitted by AntiWingnut on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 3:59am.
Sorry, I should have said that Joe Barton fought against pushing the country to switch to more efficient lighting. That's Joe Barton (R-TX), the man who apologized to BP for all the negative attention they received after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf. I am still waiting for him to be referred to properly in the news as Joe Barton (R-BP).
Salt and transfat foods, like
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 4:55pm.
Salt and transfat foods, like the ban implemented by NYC under Bloomberg's Republican leadership?
WRONG!!!
Bloomberg was originally a Democrat until he ran for Mayor of NYC back in 2001. He changed to a Republican to win the election. He then changed his affiliation to Independent back in June 2007.
I would say the trans fat ban was passed under the Opportunist leadership.
She will be missed
Submitted by TheHistorian on Mon, 12/19/2011 - 9:10am.
She will be missed, just like a dose of the clap or a bout of diarrhea. Unfortunately, they will replace her with another liberal who is as lousy at news reporting and keeps thinking that their biases are the only thing worth being reported. Glad she's leaving, even though I still won't watch the show.
Dennis Prager
What did you expect
Submitted by John21 on Mon, 12/19/2011 - 9:43am.
Ms. Amanpour has made her career as a far, far left liberal elitist why would you expect her to do anything other than support the far left position?
She has proven herself incapable of honest reporting for some time and has always be a liberal propaganda hack, the slant on every story she has ever covered no matter how assine has always been far left and anti conservative. Why are you reporting this like it is something new? The only place this person would be confortable and have any credibility would be The New York Times, MSNBC or The Huffington Post.
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. - Winston Churchill
She's never been a real journalist
Submitted by Galvanic on Mon, 12/19/2011 - 5:05pm.
She's always been an advocate. This includes her reporting from conflicts.
The governement failed the
Submitted by Edhenry on Mon, 12/19/2011 - 9:55am.
The governement failed the people during the long depression, press revisions aside.
"..during the Great
Submitted by ant on Mon, 12/19/2011 - 10:21am.
"..during the Great Depression the government did create big programs to get people back to work. Why shouldn't they do that right now, why shouldn't there be that kind of action?"
I can think of several answers off the top of my head;
1) Perhaps, besides the liberal revisionism concerning the success of those programs, those programs existence are, arguably, part of our National fiscal problems today. The snowball effect of increasing government.
2) Perhaps, Obama and his team are not quite smart enough or too corrupt to actually create success in that endeavor.
3) Maybe it's really hard for Amanpour to get a clear view from all the way up in that NY penthouse, but isn't creating big programs to get people back to work exactly what they've allegedly been doing for the past three years? Does she not see that it's not working? Does anybody in Washington see?
4) Amanpour can ease her worried mind, the genius Nancy Pelosi has just assured us (again) that Unemployment is going to create 600,000 new jobs!!! And the payroll tax cuts (from which Social Security is paid) is going to give millions of Americans an extra $1,500 a year. So we may be completely screwed tomorrow, but at least today I can afford to drink away the memory that our so-called "mandatory government retirement fund" is non-existent.
1.) Which programs are you
Submitted by AntiWingnut on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 3:57am.
1.) Which programs are you whining about? I assume it's Social Security and Medicare, not the FDIC, FCIC, SEC, FHA, TVA, etc. If we stopped exempting people with high incomes from Social Security, there would be no problem funding it for the foreseeable future. If we allowed younger, healthy participants to buy into Medicare (entirely by choice) the costs would drop significantly. Both of these things are fought against by conservatives.
Let's say we got rid of Social Security, who would take care of all the impoverished seniors? Let's say we got rid of Medicare, what insurance company is going to offer insurance to a 70 year old for an affordable rate (even with a dopey voucher to help offset the cost)? If seniors can not get insurance, who will pay for all their healthcare needs? How many families will be bankrupted by grandma's medical bills?
2.) Ad hominem nonsense.
3.) Name them. The stimulus was a watered down piece of garbage, larded up with tax cuts to appease economic terrorists (read: Republicans). As bad as it was, it reversed the trend in unemployment (it was rising rapidly when Obama inherited this disastrous economy). The stimulus was also a boon for scientific research, quite a few grants were authorized using those funds. Cash for Clunkers was very successful. What other major spending programs were there?
4.) I didn't go through the numbers on this, so I'll leave it alone. But, do you think that raising taxes on the poor and middle class is going to solve anything right now? Why raise taxes on the poor and middle class but not on those of us who can most afford it? I have no idea why the Republican party is so dead set on destroying our country with this idiotic class warfare that they've been conducting for decades.
Welcome to NewsBusters, comrade troll
Submitted by Dave. on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 4:13am.
BTW, it's you f'ing commies who are on the verge of destroying America, as your so-called 'War on Poverty" has now cost $16 Trillion, which is very close to what the "official" national debt numbers are hitting.
Of course, the total amount we owe is now above $132 trillion, mostly thanks to you Marxist pukes and your "unfunded mandates" and other such vote-buying BS.
When the whole damned thing soon implodes, what cave will you be hiding in, stoopid commie, as you had better believe that Americans who love freedom and liberty are going to be hunting the likes of you with dogs and guns.
And we are not going to be all that interested in taking prisoners, either.
Learn it, know it, and live it.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
First of all, your numbers
Submitted by AntiWingnut on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 4:15am.
First of all, your numbers are complete nonsense. I don't care what Rush Limbaugh has told you. Show me where you got those from. You can explain the numbers you claim, can't you? You wouldn't just be talking out of an orifice other than your mouth, would you?
The entire credit default swap market, which nearly destroyed our economy while Republicans were asleep at the wheel, was $64trillion. Are you mad about that? Where's your outrage over the real problem?
What about the $2.4trillion (by CBO estimates) to $3trillion+ (by economist Joseph Stiglitz's estimates) spent on Bush and Cheney's little play-date in the desert? You are furious about that, right?
Why aren't you upset that Bush took us from a surplus to a deficit with his tax cuts for the wealthy and unnecessary war?
I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh, you f'ing commie puke
Submitted by Dave. on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 4:45am.
As for the so-called Clinton "surplus," that is a complete lefty fabrication from the start.
The dot.com bubble was built on much of the same BS foundation as the housing bubble was.
The 'real' problem was government forcing banks to lend to unqualified borrowers, and the bill that got that BS started was signed by Jihad Jimmy, then later reinforced by Billy Jeff.
Like I said above, I was there for the whole ride, and watched it destroy my career.
This was one of the things that got the whole housing bubble started.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Ahh, yes, I know that
Submitted by AntiWingnut on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 4:55am.
Ahh, yes, I know that wingnuttery about the Clinton surplus. I'll leave that aside for the time being, so we don't veer too far off topic here. But, if you insist, we can revisit it.
Please, since you are apparently much more enlightened than me, tell me what specific bills forced banks to loan their money to people who were not going to pay it back. Links to the text of the bill(s) would be appreciated, but I can look them up myself, if you just give me the name, HR number, or something specific enough to find it.
You seem so sure of yourself, so it won't be any problem for you to direct me to the bill(s), right? There is legislation that says what you claim it does, right?
I will keep waiting for you to address the credit default swap market and the fraudulent ratings of securities, as well.
Well, you asked for it, comrade dumbass
Submitted by Dave. on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 5:06am.
Here and here.
Vote for the American in November
This guy's handle is
Submitted by killa37 on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 5:15am.
This guy's handle is 'antiWingnut'......and the first thing he does is complain about 'name-calling'???
killa,
Submitted by Dave. on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 5:36am.
I like name calling.
LOL - Sometimes, it can be fun. :-)
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Dave - apparantly ol'
Submitted by killa37 on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 10:08am.
Dave - apparantly ol' numbnuts knows MORE than you do about anything and everything - and especially the field of experience that you come from................although he hasn't said a damn thing about what his background is, or what he's done, or where he's been, or what credentials or 'gravitas' (great lib word!!!) he has.
I guess when you're a snot-nosed know-it-all, you don't really have to prove that you've learned anything - since you allready know everything.
I'm waiting for some Cleventine resume from this twerp ...............something fabricated to sound like he's actually done something besides sit in front of his computer and brainwash himself from all of the loony left whack-job sites...............guys like this make me understand why some animals eat their young - and it's NOT due to 'global warming', either!!!
Yes, that's what I expected
Submitted by AntiWingnut on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 5:38am.
Yes, that's what I expected you to cough up. Except, the CRA does not force banks to issue mortgages to unqualified borrowers. Try again.
Your own links explain that the CRA prohibited redlining (discriminating by neighborhood), but did not specify credit worthiness. On top of that, your own link also undermines your argument by pointing out that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac only underwrote $12trillion worth of mortgages, while the whole credit default swap house of cards was stacked up to $64trillion. Even if Fannie and Freddie were responsible, how can you assign any more than 20% of the blame to them? What about the other $52trillion?
Your own link also mentions a 2002 report, stating, "They also noted that CRA regulations, as then administered and carried out by Fannie Mae and Freddie MAC, did not penalize banks that engaged in these lending practices. They recommended that the federal agencies use the CRA to sanction behavior that either directly or indirectly increased predatory lending practices by lowering the CRA rating of any bank that facilitated in these lending practices." Whose administration was in charge in 2002? Why did the Bush administration not use the CRA as an oversight tool to tamp down predatory lending? The CRA was, in fact, a tool that could have been used to stop these dangerous practices, but the Bush administration (who had the responsibility for oversight) did not do its job. This was despite warnings given well in advance.
Kind of reminds you of that other warning that Bush failed to heed (ie. the Presidential Daily Briefing entitled "Bin Laden Determined To Attack Inside The United States"). Government did not fail the American people. Republican leadership failed the government. Responsible stewardship is a necessary ingredient for an effective capitalist democracy.
Back to the topic at hand, your own links state that by the time Obama took office 55% of commercial properties were underwater. The thing about that is, the CRA does not deal with commercial loans. So, even if the CRA forced banks to write bad residential loans (it didn't), why were the banks writing bad commercial loans?
From your own links, Randall Kroszner (member of Bush's Council of Economic Advisors and Bush appointee as Federal Reserve Governor in 2006) stated that, the claim that "the law pushed banking institutions to undertake high-risk mortgage lending" was contrary to their experience, and that no empirical evidence had been presented to support the claim.
Additionally (also covered in your links), the housing bust was a largely ex-urban event. That is to say, the hardest hit areas were not low-income communities. So, why would the myth that the CRA forced banks to make loans to unqualified, low income borrowers have any effect on unqualified, middle income borrowers?
To continue hammering on your own links, 50% of subprime loans were made by independent mortgage agencies, who were not governed by the CRA. Another 25%-30% came from only partially CRA-regulated bank subsidiaries and affiliates.
One final note from your own links (I could go on though), "A 2008 study by Traiger & Hinckley LLP, a law firm that counsels financial institutions on CRA compliance, found that CRA regulated institutions were less likely to make subprime loans, and when they did the interest rates were lower. CRA banks were also half as likely to resell the loans."
Clearly, you did not read your own links. I am a forgiving person. I am willing to forget that you ever made this mistake. Please, try again. What bill(s) forced banks to make risky loans which ultimately resulted in the financial collapse?
Also, I think it's time for you to address the credit default swap market. Please, explain why that was not a major factor in the financial collapse.
Thanks for the effort, so far.
Ask for a source, Wingnut---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 5:55am.
and then shoot it down because you aren't satisfied with it ---
More lib BS.
Behind all that posturing, you are basically just an insufferable prig with visions of grandeur.
Seen your pitiful attempt at cobbling together a put down act many times before.
Most unimpressive.
The act itself; and you.
MD
I did not shoot down his
Submitted by AntiWingnut on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 6:05am.
I did not shoot down his sources. His sources are, in general, correct. His sources contradict his own assertions. I quoted his own sources. I agree with his sources.
What part of this is a problem for you? He made an inaccurate claim, I asked for simple and specific proof of that claim, and he responded with links that back up my case.
It sounds like the problem here is that you are simply annoyed when facts are introduced, instead of right wing talking points.
If you're so smart, and agree with Dave, why don't you help him out and provide the reference to the bill(s) that forced banks to loan money to unqualified borrowers? If I made a claim about a specific piece of legislation, I wouldn't have a problem identifying the piece of legislation that I referenced.
What is unreasonable about asking for some specific information to back up a claim that contradicts all the known facts? Should I just take ridiculous claims at face value? Isn't it important to get at the truth when discussing public policy? If not facts, then on what should we base our decisions?
I am willing to help out. Give me any identifying information for the legislation in question and I will try to find it. Give me a name (of the bill or any of the sponsors), the bill's number, the year in which it was passed. Anything. Really, I am willing to work with you here.
I am even willing to forget we went down this road and let you concoct another explanation that doesn't lay the blame on Republican incompetence. Please, if I am wrong, explain what really happened.
I will accept any explanation, as long as it is based in reality. Do you have an explanation?
If you find yourself out of your depth here, feel free to back out. I won't insult you (again, right now) for spouting off when you have no idea what you are talking about. Just let me know that you do not understand what happened (it's okay, a lot of people don't) and we can forget this ever happened.
I am a very reasonable person. You have many options for how to proceed here. I am willing to work with you. Do what you need, in order to save face, and retain some dignity. Anyone stumbling upon this thread can clearly see the truth now.
A long post, Wingnut,---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 6:20am.
just to continually trumpet that you are right and everyone else is wrong.
You are a liberal bullshitter and likely an apologist for Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, et al, when not on the offensive attacking "Republican incompetence" as the cause for the housing mess.
You are nowhere near reasonable; you are, though, a real piece of work - blindly partisan and full of crap.
That tired BS about the blame falling anywhere and everywhere but where it truly belongs is patently a liberal theme.
MD
Yet another post from you, in
Submitted by AntiWingnut on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 6:26am.
Yet another post from you, in which you do not simply name the legislation that forced banks to issue massive quantities of subprime loans. Please, prove me to be indisputably wrong by naming said legislation.
How's that for short?
How about I repeat Dave's salutation,---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 6:58am.
you ignorant ass.
How's that for short?
Press on all you want about "said legislation"; because ignoring the politics behind the housing crisis by continually bringing up 'legislation' shows that you are using it as a shield or barrier rather than as an informative thrust.
That means you know the truth, but choose to equivocate.
One Trick Pony/Liberal Troll.
MD
Go ahead, explain the
Submitted by AntiWingnut on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 7:10am.
Go ahead, explain the "politics" then. I told you, I am open to you buffoons changing your stance here. You were wrong before (and you're going to be wrong again, until you admit the truth) and revising your explanation is exactly the right thing to do when you are wrong.
Also, if this is your new strategy, please, explain how the government forced private industry to do something like this without any legislation.
Finally, if the government did force banks to issue bad loans, please explain how it is not the fault of Republicans, when those bad loans were issued during the Bush administration (primarily after 2000 and peaking in 2006)?
What truth, exactly, Wingnut, are you---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 8:14am.
fishing for?
Legislation: The CRA was passed.
Politics: The LIb-Dims leaned on financial institutions to approve loans for those who should never have qualified for them.
The housing crisis took place.
Bush 43 was stymied by Dems when trying to get stronger oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Are you now going to deny that the Dems had anything to with that?
If so, you are a complete moron and a bigger 'buffoon' than Barney Frank.
Your liberal thick headedness and partisanship is in a class by itself- even after allowing for some of the epically stupid trolls that have slimed through here.
MD
Yes, the CRA passed, and as
Submitted by AntiWingnut on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 8:34am.
Yes, the CRA passed, and as Dave so helpfully demonstrated, it had nothing to do with the financial crisis.
Yes, there was some enforcement of the CRA, primarily backed by Democrats. The CRA, and the enforcement of it, encouraged loans in poor neighborhoods. It did not specifically encourage risky loans. In any case, that related to the financial crisis how? How did that force entities that were not under CRA oversight (who accounted for the majority of subprime lending) to write bad loans? If the CRA had no influence over the companies that wrote the initial loans, how did the CRA force or coerce them into doing so? Why did they not do it simply for the profit that came from fees while passing the risk off to investors through fraudulently rated securities?
Your own comrade-in-stupidity's link about the CRA explained that loans backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were not the cause of the financial crisis.
I know you've been fed this simple little narrative by the people who manipulate you, but it's still not what actually happened. Why do you refuse to address the credit default swap market and the fraudulent rating of mortgage backed securities? Do you even understand that previous sentence? Are you really that unaware of what happened in 2008?
Start reading - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-2000s_financial_crisis
There's lots of other sources you can look at, but that's a simple one to link to and it gives a reasonable overview. Try Andrew Ross Sorkin's "Too Big To Fail" to get a detailed accounting of the crisis itself. Try Sebastian Mallaby's "More Money Than God" for a good, and thorough, history of hedge funds, including during the 2008 crisis.
This is why people treat you like dumb children, because you don't have a clue. And the sad part is, it's entirely by choice.
Another long winded post, more lib---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 8:42am.
BS, with some more gratuitous partisan lib shots.
Keep talking the lib speak, Wingnut - it locks in your dementia as a lib troll, blaming all and sundry on Bush, Republicans, the Right, or conservatives, for all to see.
MD
Analyzing the structure of the posts, it's likely Clevie.
Submitted by drsamherman on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 12:58pm.
A few things jump out of Auntie's posts:
1) All of the references cited are open source (Wikipedia? That's about as preposterous as it gets) or liberal writers. I see no references cited from moderate or conservative authors, or worst yet (to Auntie) data from a neutral source such as a Federal Reserve Bank with no agenda to drive.
2) The narcissistic tone and tenor of the posts is a dead give-away. The references to Rush (who made him "head" of the conservatives in the US?), the disjointed insults pointing to low intelligence (a Clevie classic) in conservatives and the obsession with left wing talking points cross-matched to the compulsion to defend them at all costs all point to a new incarnation of the former troll now resurrected (likely behind a proxy site).
3) The final nail in the coffin, so to speak, is the same type of hyper-articulation that Clevie used. Look at the choice of words and the construction of the arguments in no small point is left dangling. Additionally, the answering of a question with a question indicates a high probability that Auntie and Clevie are one in the same or closely related in writing and rhetorical style.
Edited to add:
4) Per the post below, listing the same liberal reference sources for "misuse of the filibuster), the probability that Auntie is an incarnation (albeit an egotistical, narcisisstic and sociopathic version on steroids) of Clevie just increased by a factor of five.
I'm telling ya, Doc, you
Submitted by killa37 on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 2:00pm.
I'm telling ya, Doc, you gotta make me some kind of paid intern - because I nailed ol' Cleventine yesterday evening. Same approach, same agenda, same arrogance, same know-it-all attitude, same lame back-up to his statements, WHEN he decides to back them up. Auntie NumbNuts hasn't given us any background into her own experience or knowledge or background as to why or how he/she happens to be so intellectualy superior to anyone else............other than copy and paste whatever it is that he/she is writing, and expecting everyone to take it as 'truth'.................remember, Clevie-Poo thought he was the only one on the internet who REALLY knew the 'truth'.....................
That might be a sticky one.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 2:09pm.
nickname - AuntieNumbnut AntiWingnut AuntieNumbnut AntiWingnut.
Good fit Mr. Killa.
Auntie? Is that a reference
Submitted by AntiWingnut on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 3:20pm.
Auntie? Is that a reference to me?
1) I have cited sources such as The Brookings Institute and Politico (a.k.a. Cheney's stenographers) as well as the Federal Reserve, NY Times, the Social Security Administration,the Senate Historian, CBS News, the Economic Policy Institute and so on.
The main citation of Wikipedia was made by Dave, thus undermining his own point.
2) You dittohead wingnuts made Rush Limbaugh the head of conservatives in the US.
I don't have a compulsion to defend left wing talking points at all cost, I am compelled to defend the truth. It just so happens that facts have a liberal bias, which is why you hate them.
3) Sorry for being educated and understanding my native language well.
As I mentioned previously, this is my first time here. But, whatever. If it makes you feel good to think you "cracked the case", go right ahead. I understand, it's nice to feel smart. However, it feels even better when you're not lying to yourself about being smart.
So what have you done in your
Submitted by killa37 on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 3:32pm.
So what have you done in your life to get so smart, Mr. anti-Cleventine?? I mean, anyone as heavy and as intellectual as you claim to be, with such deep 'gravitas', MUST have a background that is worth knowing about. You must have a wide variety of college degrees, as well as extensive experience in the 'private sector', as well as the 'public sector', and also be very well-connected and well-traveled and, as you said, well-educated. I know a lot of us are waiting here on pins and needles to know the wonder of you, since you're here to enlighten us all and give us the 'truth'.
Actually, I think you've confused the definitions of 'smart' and 'delusional'...............although I know that our whole language has been undergoing the 're-definition' process for some time now, in order to comply with the 'truth has a liberal bias' requirement that you point out.
You've got a very similiar self-assessment as your Boy Barry, as far as I can tell. And his opinion of himself is a helluva lot higher than most other people's...................but we're just 'common folk', so what would we know???
Why yes, Auntie, we were talking about you.
Submitted by drsamherman on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 5:20pm.
1) Who called Politico "Cheney's Stenographer"? That wouldn't be a liberal, would it? The Brookings Institution is an admitted left wing think tank, at least as Time Magazine described in 1977. The New York Times is hardly non-partisan, nor is the Economic Policy Institute headed by a self-described Marxist. CBS News--either you are joking or your Lithium level shot above 1.6 into the toxicity range. Remember the names Dan Rather, Mary Mapes and the "Lucy Ramirez" fake TANG memos? The government sources you cite only contain general data, not policy positions or analyses of the effects of legislation and policy decisions.
2) A lot of us on this board don't have time or interest to listen to Rush Limbaugh. You are the one who keeps bringing him up, as if you have some kind of sexual obsession with him. Either you are attracted to him or you are lying about it. There is no head of the conservatives in the United States, because "conservative" is not a political organization. There are conservative Democrats, conservative Republicans, conservatives in the other parties, etc. As far as your claims that you do not have a compulsion, your behavior indicates quite otherwise. Your actions speak louder than your protests, Auntie. You have answered each and every post about you with the same level of vitriol, narcissism and self-parodying delusion that you could muster. You are not only obsessed with Rush, you are compelled to mention him at every turn that you can. Or were all of those posts made by someone else and this is all just a conspiracy to get you?
3) We don't even know what your education is, as you have not mentioned whether you have a degree in some area of academic endeavor or not. Your ability to use your native language well could be the result of having the right word processing and publishing/editing software, for all you have demonstrated.
I don't believe for a minute that this is your first time here. The structure, language and forensic analysis of your posts is all too familiar to those of us who post here regularly and to me as a psychiatrist in particular.
If you feel you are so much more intelligent than the rest of us and we just can't relate to your greatness, then I can add a narcissistic-dominant type B cluster personality disorder to your obsessive-compulsive primary. By all means, please do tell us how much better you are than all others on this board. It just strengthens these observations.
1) As I mentioned (and
Submitted by AntiWingnut on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 5:59pm.
1) As I mentioned (and linked) elsewhere in the thread, numerous center-left publications refer to Politico as "Cheney's stenographers". To make it easy for you, I am reproducing the links here -
http://www.salon.com/2010/01/05/politico_6/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/05/politico-editor-defends-t_n_412...
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201001050026
The Brookings Institution who opposed the New Deal, had a president who was Reagan's ambassador to the Philippines and was acting Secretary of State under GHW Bush, and has accepted large amounts of funding from Exxon Mobil and Bank of America. That Brookings Institution is an "admitted left wing think tank"? Really? You're really, hopelessly lost.
Yes, you hate CBS news or any "mainstream" (read: right wing corporate owned) news outlet. I get it, Dan Rather got duped by Republican operatives, so therefore CBS news is entirely invalid. Attack the messenger. Yet another typical attempt to avoid the issues and the facts. If you have a problem with the information in a link I provide, please, point out what is specifically wrong with it. I don't automatically dismiss your nonsensical right wing sources, even though I rightfully should, instead I explain where they are wrong in each particular case.
The New York Times, if anything, is right leaning. They have cheerleaded all kinds of right wing policy initiatives in the last decade, including the idiotic excursion into Iraq of which you are all so proud.
And yes, I cite a lot of sources (government and otherwise) who simply provide data, with no political agenda or analysis. You seem to be implying that this hurts my credibility. Since when is having accurate data a problem? Oh yeah, when the data contradicts your dumb ideology.
2) I brought up Rush Limbaugh exactly once. All other mentions have been in response to others invoking the pill-popping, sex tourist's name.
3) Again, my statements stand on their own. I don't need to make an argument from authority, by trying to impress people with my resume. You can't impress me with your resume. I know you want to attack me personally, because you can't attack my statements.
Oh, a psychiatrist... that explains it. The inferiority complex, from barely scraping through medical school, while being looked down upon by the neurosurgeons and even general practitioners. It makes more sense now. I bet you're short too, that would really round out the picture you have painted. Don't worry, I am sure you can make okay money, and just getting through medical school is still something of an accomplishment. I'm not particularly impressed, but I'm sure someone is.
Regardless of your career and education, you are wrong on policy. I don't care if you go on to win a Nobel Prize, you're still wrong on these issues. Not that pure psychiatrists ever win, people like Wagner-Juaregg and Kandel are far from being psychiatry-types despite appointments in psychiatry departments.
Oooh... the "structure, language and forensic analysis of [my] posts". I'm so impressed. Really, your intellect is staggering. I tremble in your immense shadow of investigative prowess. You're still wrong.
OH. MY. GOD... "The New York Times is right leaning"
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 6:12pm.
I know you've only been here a few days, but you are now the leading nominee for Dumbass Troll of the Year.
And the competition for that is pretty fierce here.
Ding-Ding-Ding*** - Auntie Wingnut says the---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 6:23pm.
New York Times, if anything, is right leaning.
Tis' True, That.
I mean, it is true Auntie W. said that - I saw it with my own eyes in the above post.
And, um, CBS is "right wing corporate owned".
And then, of course, ol' Auntie Wingie Nuttie has to get nastily supercilious with doc sam.
I would pet a porcupine, against the grain of it's quills, before crossing swords with the doc.
This lib troll is maximum loop-o nutso; and as most do, will go down in flames, spectacularly, from a self-imposed meltdown, or be unostentatiously banned by the mods.
Perfectly pictured parameters - predicting pitiful putz's passing.
MD
Nice try, snookums. You replied as predicted.
Submitted by drsamherman on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 6:32pm.
You cited left of center publications labeling Politico as being some kind of right-wing site. Unfortunately, being labeled right wing by the left wing hardly substantiates your case for that site being "Cheney's stenographer". As pointed out to you, their staff is primarily composed of left-leaning or overt liberal writers, editors and researchers. Grasping facts doesn't seem to be your strong suit, but your parroting of left-wing talking points is.
The New York Times leans right? Really? Despite being the news source of record that ran with naming CIA operatives despite being asked not to and and with such "conservative" luminaries as Paul Krugman and Frank Rich? That might come as a bit of shock to them, being that they supported larger stimulus spending and say Obama is wrong only because he did not spend enough in their opinion. As for their coverage of the OWS protesters and their fawning support for them, that stands on its own merits.
CBS News is hardly a right wing news organization, either. Steve Kroft's interview of Obama and the constant pounding of Republican candidates fails to support your contention. Or are you labeling the entire staff of "60 Minutes" as conservative shills? They would be rather surprised by that observation.
It was Time Magazine that called the Brookings Institution "the premier left-wing think tank in the US" in 1977. So, are you also saying Time is a right-wing news outfit?
Anything that points out flaws in the source material for your arguments you immediately label an "attack". Likewise, you label well-known liberal media outlets with a conservative label. Those are talking points that come directly out of the Democratic Underground, or whatever its newer version is now called. What's next? Threatening us with ATTAAAAACK WAAAATCH? The Senate data only talks about raw numbers, it makes no conclusion about the meaning or reasons behind a filibuster. Similarly, all of the other data from government sites you used are simple, raw data that would not reference the reasoning behind a policy decision or analysis of why that policy was created. You can't have it both ways.
I chose psychiatry, but then I am also board certified in neurology and in neurophysiology. Psychiatry is one of the oldest branches of medicine, and also one of the most competitive particularly in terms of non-surgical medical specialties. Of course, since you are not in the profession you would not understand its complexities. In neurology, we do a lot of cleanup from neurosurgeons, and in psychiatry we treat a lot of addicted anesthesiologists and other types of physicians, so your point is quite meaningless. As is your existence, but then again why bother pointing out your useless little life to you. You already know that.
And a big thank you for confirming what I had surmised. You responded with the standard rejection that is so garden-variety with mental patients. I predicted as much to a colleague, and you did not disappoint!
Sorry, you brought up Rush Limbaugh more than once. Seems the facts about yourself are quite inconvenient to you.
Now you can run back to DU, Kos or whoever else is giving you your marching orders and cry that the big meanies at the conservative website are pointing out that your arguments are as false as you are.
Yes, I cited left wing
Submitted by AntiWingnut on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 7:40pm.
Yes, I cited left wing opinions of Politico, to demonstrate that Politico is not accepted as anything less than a right wing outfit by the left. I made it very clear that I was specifically referencing the opinion of the left wing. Good for you, you were able to comprehend something you read. The charges of being Cheney's stenographer stem from them repeatedly reporting statements that Cheney made directly to them, without ever mentioning the fact that he was lying. It is the job of a journalist to report the truth, not just to act as the middle man in a game of "he said/she said". If a public figure lies, the journalist reporting the statement is supposed to point out the real facts.
You wingnuts love to label anything that doesn't agree with you as being "far left" (thank Bill O'Reilly for that rhetorical invention), with no regard for the truthfulness and accuracy of the actual reporting. You are perpetually sticking your empty heads into the sand.
The New York Times? Let's talk about Judy Miller (now with Newsmax, a wingnut haven), who actually did time in jail, to protect Cheney and his henchmen when they outed an active CIA agent and blew the cover of all her known associates, and she was eventually caught for having fabricated pieces - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller_(journalist)
Not to mention they employ David Brooks, a center right (at best) columnist. And then there's Andrew Ross Sorkin. It would be great if the media included more intelligent, progressive voices, such as Paul Krugman. Overall, despite their ideological tendencies, they do fairly solid reporting.
I know fact based reporting is a threat to you, so you must discredit it any way you can.
CBS, like all the major networks, is known to do right wing water carrying -
http://crooksandliars.com/2008/07/23/cbs-spokesman-distorts-standard-of-...
CBS' Mark Knoller Whitewashes Bush From 2009 Deficit - http://mediamatters.org/research/201108230001
CBS Combines Unrelated Reporting On Deficit, Obama Fundraising - http://mediamatters.org/blog/201107130028
http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/did-cbs-lie-us-about-tim-tebow-draw...
CBS Carries NRA's Water On Flawed Gallup Poll - http://mediamatters.org/blog/201110280006
http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/cbs-falsely-portrays-stanford-democra...
http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/cbs-publishes-phony-rumor-about-ele...
CBS Evening News Mainstreams Smears Against Planned Parenthood- http://mediamatters.org/blog/201102090036
GOP blocks 9/11 first responders bill; ABC, CBS, and NBC ignore the story - http://mediamatters.org/blog/201012100025
http://crooksandliars.com/2008/02/07/60-minutes-caves-to-pressure-from-w...
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/veiled-threat-mirrors-and-lot-smo...
60 Minutes' one-sided, GOP-friendly report on state budgets - http://mediamatters.org/blog/201012200012
http://crooksandliars.com/2008/03/10/scott-pelley-of-60-minutes-lets-mcc...
Time Magazine, like most corporate media, is center-right. And that comment about the Brookings Institution is from 1977, not long after their falling out with the Nixon Administration. Look at what they've been up to in the intervening 34 years.
You are the one who is consistently mislabeling the ideological bias of various news agencies, as most wingnuts tend to do. It's part of the Fox News strategy. It's why you're all so ignorant. It's why you ignore real news outlets, and are consistently found to be the most misinformed citizens in polls. It's gotten to the point that a wingnut who follows Fox News (and the related "news" outlets) is less informed than someone who does not follow the news at all.
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-11-22/news/30431182_1_fox-news-resu...
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/left-rejoices-as-poll-of-612-new-jerseyans-de...
Wow, you're still objecting to objective data in a policy discussion? You need it to be filtered through a right wing, partisan hack before you can figure out what it means?
You want to talk neurology/neurophysiology/neuroscience? Let's get it on. Synaptic plasticity, Ca2+ gradients, Fragile-X, dopamine circuits, EPSP currents, place fields, optogenetic techniques, FOXP2, Alzheimer's plaque formations, ion channels, synaptogenesis, fMRI studies, pharmacokinetics... But, maybe this is not the most appropriate forum for such a subject, don't you think? Let's stick to the topic of public policy and right wing stupidity.
Go ahead and search the thread for "Rush", you will find only one instance of me bringing him up, without it being a direct reply to someone else mentioning him first.
"Corporatist" media? You just jumped off the cliff!
Submitted by drsamherman on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 8:10pm.
All of the sources you mentioned are hardly right wing news outlets, if anything they are left of center. For every example you have of calling them "conservative" there are at least five to ten examples of where they are not. Objective data has a place in a policy discussion, but you used a Senate record of filibusters as somehow pointing out a reason why those filibusters took place. It does not. It is raw numbers. You can't seem to do anything but regurgitate whatever your onanistic political trips through DU and Kos let you parrot. Honestly, are you capable of any independent judgment? Doesn't appear so.
As you have quoted Media Matters, Crooks and Liars and other Soros-funded propaganda outlets, perhaps you can only think in the left dimension where the unicorns and rainbows come flying out on request, along with a stable Euro and a coherent North Korean leader. Don't forget to click your heels three times together and whisper, "I wish I was back with George Soros" before your next meth bender allows you to return to that socialist utopia.
Your knowledge of neuroscience more than likely comes from you being a patient picking up the terms while your competency hearing was discussed. You want to bring on a discussion? Just how many of the neuroscience terms you picked up have any real clinical significance? If you do want a discussion, then please tell me how you follow a cluster A case through a second-phase treatment pattern with concomitant mood disorder overlays? Or perhaps you have dosed metallic ion therapy for a Bipolar I acute episode?
Liberals like you are Pavlovian. All we have to do is mention a conservative name and you are drooling and spouting liberal claptrap like a deviant Manchurian candidate. But alas, I would need IRB approval to put you through anything more. Just like the rat in the maze, you went right for the bait and did not disappoint.
Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah, Auntie.
Since you can't read and
Submitted by AntiWingnut on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 9:01pm.
Since you can't read and comprehend on your own, let me help. A user named Blonde asked for what bills, specifically, were filibustered. Instead of taking the approach of an ignorant wingnut, I went straight to the source and got the list. Of course, you object to that, because it makes your type look bad, since you're not capable of looking up simple, verifiable facts. You need to be spoon fed talking points from your neocon overlords. Raw data was what was requested and it was what was presented. Presenting straightforward facts is how you make an idiot, such as yourself, look bad.
Who other than admittedly left wing sources are going to document the rightward leanings of your hated "mainstream media"? You may hate Crooks and Liars and Media Matters, but that doesn't mean they are wrong. Feel free to look at the individual links (like a responsible scientist would) and point out, specifically, where those articles are wrong. We both know you won't do that, because you are not only lazy, but you are incompetent, and you know you are wrong.
Come on, do you really think throwing around some synonyms for paranoid/schizoid disorders is going to rattle me? You're going to have to do better than that. I am seriously underwhelmed by your peacock-like display of mediocre, psychiatric vocabulary. Now, this is getting way off-topic. You tried to prove your intellectual superiority in some field, and you failed. I am sure the polysyllabic words impress many of the cro-magnons around here, so congratulations on that. I'll do you the favor of quickly diagnosing you as a cluster B case, due to your rigid ideological thinking and desperate need for approval from strangers about your career. I really do not see a valid course of treatment for you, however, as long as you choose to deny the facts around you.
Now, let's stick to the policy topics.
definition of Irony
Submitted by Free Stinker on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 9:15pm.
A bxtshxt insane troll telling Conservatives to stick to the topic.
Does your mom know you're using her computer?
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Ok A Nut*
Submitted by cajun2 on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 9:25pm.
Just because it is a right leaning website doesnt mean its not the truth. It just means that someone has to look at an issue factually without left leaning lies. and it is perfectly simple even for a cro-magnon left wing nut to understand
So in other words, you know nothing of neuroscience.
Submitted by drsamherman on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 9:40pm.
There was not even a hint of paranoid/schizophrenia disorders terms in my post. Sorry you failed on that one. Secondly, you failed on the cluster A/B question. Cluster B's are rarely, if ever, rigid in their thinking because their self-delusions evolve moment to moment and their thought process is around maintaining their self-grandeur. As for the metallic ion question, you didn't even bother with that one because you don't know what it is. It is Lithium pharmacokinetics, so that's a third instance where you failed. You burst your own bubble with the Wikipedia answers. Bad sourcing means bad answers means an incompetent researcher--and that means you.
You are hardly in the position to say what a responsible scientist would do, since you sourced biased materials and cherry picked your examples. That puts you at the same level as the British physician who published the anti-vaccination study later retracted by the Lancet. He lost his license for cooking his books--the same as you do with such outrageous statements as the NYT is a right-wing corporatist paper.
You are the one who said you were not here to attract attention, yet that is all you have done since you started posting a little over the last day. You have gone out of your way to insult posters who challenged you. Not only did you lie about what your intention here was, but you seem to be incapable of being anything but a naysayer to any point that is raised. Any logical person would have deduced long ago that this is a conservative forum that has no tolerance for self-appointed liberal messiahs like you. You failed on three very elementary questions in psychiatry after you said "bring it on". The combination of arrogance, narcissism and intellectual incapability on your part just makes us yawn. Engaging in this conversation with you has been illuminating on several levels, not the least of which is proving that yet another Kos or DU addict is now ensnared by whatever buzzwords are programmed into you that day.
Good luck convincing anyone on this board that you are anything but a rather bad impersonator of a parrot.
PULL THE PLUG!!!!
Submitted by MrShy on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 9:23pm.
Okay, Anti-Matter's wheels are totally coming off now. He's not even TRYING to pretend to be partisan or objective, or even just a normal liberal.
He's now full-guns-blazing with rapid fire links to Media Matters and Crooksandliars, two famous and blatantly left-wing-shilling, all-day/all-night GOP/conservative-bashing propaganda sites.
- shy on vinyl
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
Hey Shy: it's like a 50s scifi B movie:
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 9:34pm.
the robot always goes nutso in the end.
SoL
Submitted by MrShy on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 12:03am.
'LIKE' ... and LOL .... and LMAO .... and even ROFLMAO :)
- shy tracks
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
OK, this was the ONLY post
Submitted by amyshulk on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 7:07pm.
OK, this was the ONLY post you wrote I bothered to read in toto - the first screed I came upon was so delusional, I only read the rebuttals - but attacking a well respected NB poster is so NOT the way to get people to listen to you!
Ronald Reagan
You ignorant ass
Submitted by Dave. on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 6:07am.
I live in the Atlanta area, and from about 1978 to 2006 I had lunch on nearly a weekly basis with mortgage lenders, real estate agents, developers, and on some occasions with their attorneys in tow.
Government goons would show up at the lender's offices on a frequent basis and demand access to their loan portfolios.
If they didn't see a sufficient number of mortgages being granted to a certain class of people, the lenders were threatened with all kinds of fines, penalties, and other unpleasantness - such as restricting certain lenders from expanding into more lucrative areas, along with a host of other threats - like yanking their business licenses and such.
This was not something I read about or heard on the radio, it was something I saw first-hand.
Funny how lefty "do-gooder" idiots like you never consider the consequences of your actions.
Then again, most all of you are too stoopid to exist in a truly free society.
Sucks to be you, I guess.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Yes, yes, you are the sole
Submitted by AntiWingnut on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 6:23am.
Yes, yes, you are the sole witness to the events surrounding the financial meltdown. Considering the subprime market didn't take off until the 2000s (peaking in 2006), the vast majority of your experience is entirely irrelevant. On top of that, you are a self-identified partisan hack, so your anecdotal evidence (which is limited to one specific geographic region) is unreliable. Additionally, your own links show that loans which were made under CRA oversight were more stable than the subprime loans that lead to the crisis.
You said the government forced these loans to be made. Please, just name the bill that put requirements on issuance of loans. Specifically, a bill that required the issuance of subprime loans. What is so hard about that request?
You claimed it was the CRA, then provided links that showed it could not have been the CRA. If it wasn't the CRA, then what was it? Why did banks write loans that had no chance of being repaid?
And you still have not addressed the credit default swap scam, at all. Why do you keep ignoring the real cause of the financial meltdown?
Again, I am offering you the chance to back out of this line of argument. Feel free to take an entirely different tack.
Here's a suggestion, why don't you try to blame Democrats for the growth of the credit default swap market? Just a heads up, if you do so, I will point out that it was Republican bills (such as Graham-Leach-Bliley) and Republican oversight (the Bush administration) that lead to the insanity. But, to be fair, the Democrats were complicit. You would be wrong to go down this road, but less wrong than you currently are.
Nothing to back out of, or away from, Wingnut---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 6:40am.
as you are back to your usual - calling first hand information "unreliable".
You do your level best to ignore the pressures brought to bear by the politicos involved, both in the way of persona and procedure.
For all your vaunted intimations of knowing the ins and outs of the Community Reinvestment Act, you pointedly refuse to acknowledge the sheer volume of coercion laid on financial institutions by the likes of Frank and Dodd or their ilk.
While many of those establishments were not averse to grubbing money; overall you prove to be nothing more than a partisan liberal, and a phony; doing the typical troll act of stinking up and/or sliming your way through a thread on a conservative site.
MD
Actually, his information is
Submitted by AntiWingnut on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 7:19am.
Actually, his information is second hand. He said, "I live in the Atlanta area, and from about 1978 to 2006 I had lunch on nearly a weekly basis with mortgage lenders, real estate agents, developers, and on some occasions with their attorneys in tow." So, he had lunch (weekly) with the people who had the first hand experience.
Here we go, you're making ridiculous claims. Please, where is the evidence for the "sheer volume of coercion laid on financial institutions by the likes of Frank and Dodd or their ilk"? That's a pretty outrageous claim, you must have something to back that up. Are you now going to claim that you were sitting in on some secret meetings where Barney Frank was strong arming bankers into writing bad loans?
Additionally, as Dave's own links showed, the loans made under CRA oversight were more stable than the subprime loans that caused the problem. Given that, how can you continue to blame the CRA?
Wiggle and squirm all you want. You're just flat out wrong here. Call me names (as if "liberal" is an insult), dodge the issues, but you're still wrong.
So lemme get this straight,
Submitted by killa37 on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 2:24pm.
So lemme get this straight, Auntie NumbNuts - Dave is in the business, and probably was in it fulltime...........so I'm sure that he was up-to-date about the comings and goings of real estate. I know some realtors over here - if they're any good, they've GOT to know what's going on. And I remember talking to a couple of them back when this whole sub-prime crisis was starting to come to a head - and it took a while to get there - and they told me some of the background as to why it was happening, and it basically matches up with what Dave has written, along with others.
But somehow you think that, since Dave had lunch 'one a week' with various other participants, that his information is 'second hand'??? I guess you think that Dave just went back to his turnip truck for the rest of the week and played tiddlywinks until the next lunch meeting, so that he could go gather more 'second hand' information??? Jeez, Clevie - your status as an arrogant asshole hasn't diminished any since the last time you were here.
And, by the way - where's Chris Dodd??? He sure seemed to make an early exit, didn't he?? And Bawney??? Well, he's outta there too............and I'm guessing that the only reason he stuck around this long is that he's such a delusional hard-nosed liar, as well as being such a pathetic piece of crap, that he can't relate to having any other kind of life - and he's been able to bully, lie, and taunt his way through his Congressional 'career'................plus, he wants to keep racking up those benefits.
Let's see, now Dave has heard
Submitted by AntiWingnut on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 3:33pm.
Let's see, now Dave has heard it from someone else (thus a second hand source) and you have heard it from someone else (also a second hand source), so that means you are both experts on the inner workings of the banking industry?
Because a bunch of Georgia rednecks explained things to Dave, that must mean that I, and all the scholars and financial professionals, are completely wrong.
Since you are experts, please explain how the mortgage backed securities, fraudulent ratings, and credit default swaps worked. If they were not related to the crisis, explain to me what I have gotten wrong.
Stop claiming I don't know what I'm talking about and just correct me.
Barney Frank and Chris Dodd are both 65 or older. Are Democrats not allowed to retire?
OK, lemme try and get this
Submitted by killa37 on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 4:09pm.
OK, lemme try and get this straight again...........Dave WAS THERE -with other participants - but somehow it was 'second hand'??? I guess you're in a position to be the 'first hand' guy, huh anti-Clevie???
And now Dave's a 'redneck' too??? I'm sure he'll be around at some point today, so you can take this up with him. I've got to get to work, now that the rain has stopped...............I'm not in a position to sit in front of a computer all day and insult people.
'Are Democrats not allowed to retire'??? That's a good one, NumbNuts!!!! The Democrats invented the Congressional version of Jurrassic Park..........although I know there's been a few over the hill Republicans in there too. Obviously, you don't think Chris Dodd had any other reasons for 'getting out while the getting was good', huh?? And I stand by what I said about Fwank - he's a pathetic human being, and I can guaran-damn-tee you that he'd rather NOT be getting out of Congress, if he thought he could still hang around.
AntiStereotyper/Racist(NOT)
Submitted by MrShy on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 6:30pm.
Ahhh, after some "Rush/Hannity this-that" (when not one of us mentions these people) is thrown our way in bunches, we inevitably get the racist "redneck" labeling so he/she/it can discount first/second-hand sources.
And as for this idiot's constant pounding of the "it's a SECOND-hand source" and "so he has lunch with some rednecks", it just reminds me of my own liberal brother and his tactics.
I was arguing with him about Obamacare and private vs. public insurance, and vs. the marriage of the two. He also, naturally, argues that people today are not lazy and addicted to entitlements and programs like Medicare. I have a friend who, like David, is at ground-zero every. single. day. dealing with 20, 30, up to 50 people on gov't programs and the myriad of complications that arise between public programs, HMOs and private insurance... and relays the stories of how so many are spoiled on assistance but just complain. Again, every day, 5 days a week, hundreds of stories to report per week.
My brother just pulls a liberal Houdini act (or thinks he does) and dismisses it all, arguing that it's a "small fraction" of people. Um, no, it's a daily barrage of people, from around the country, almost all acting the same way.
- shy on vinyl
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
This other commenter, Dave,
Submitted by AntiWingnut on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 8:05pm.
This other commenter, Dave, made a point of mentioning he's from Atlanta, because he apparently thinks that adds credibility to his anecdote that he thinks proves the government forced the banks to issue the subprime loans that almost took down the economy. Despite many chances, he has yet to show what legislation was used to force these actions. He made an attempt at doing so, and when he was proven wrong, he switched to using a personal anecdote. In writing his anecdote, he very clearly stated that he has had regular lunches with people in the real estate industry. He made no mention of being in it himself. He also made no mention of being involved in the securities industry, where these mortgages were being bundled and sold off. Nor did he express any first (or second) hand knowledge of the credit rating agencies, which colluded with the banks by giving these collateralized debt obligations undeserved AAA ratings. Lastly, he has not said anything about having any intimate knowledge about the $64trillion credit default swap market, where the banks were betting on these securities to fail, and where AIG took on excessive exposure which resulted in their publicly financed bailout.
There are no rhetorical tricks here. The guy simply does not know what he's talking about and is too stupid to admit it, so he keeps digging his hole deeper. He also happens to be quite nasty, on a personal level, and does not deserve to be spoken to respectfully. I have been, in fact, way more respectful towards him than I should have been.
If we had a simplified, streamlined, Medicare-for-all system, there wouldn't be problems dealing with HMOs and private insurance, other than optional supplementary policies. The amount of bureaucratic waste would drop significantly. The executives wouldn't be taking home massive paychecks, while not personally providing any worthwhile service for the consumers.
Without knowing what your friend and this Dave character actually do (besides drag down the country's collective IQ), I can't really comment on the people they are dealing with. See? When I don't know what I'm talking about, I know enough to shut my mouth.
One thing has come to light here though. Dave claims to live in Atlanta and you claim he is at Ground Zero every day. How is that possible? Is someone running their mouth without knowing what they are talking about? Is someone lying? Or are you just stupid?
A.Nut*
Submitted by cajun2 on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 8:29pm.
Because you have been at NB less than 48 hours, you may want to hold off dissing this site as having no intellectuals. Get to know the posters. Dave is angry, yes, as many patriotic Americans who see commie/socialist taking over our country with the help of useful idiots like yourself.
You may be intelligent and educated, but you are still blind to truth. We have a number of professors, scientists, doctors, psychiatrists, military, and government experienced posters. We know the first thing a troll must do is to inform us of how smart the troll is and how stupid we are. Before that comes back to bite you, you may want to get to know the posters before you further embarrass yourself.
Anti(Brain)Matter
Submitted by MrShy on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 9:13pm.
"One thing has come to light here though. Dave claims to live in Atlanta and you claim he is at Ground Zero every day."
Huh??? I claimed no such thing. Show me where I made that claim. I did compare him to a friend of mine (which is not the same as claiming they are identical and both at some "Ground Zero") just because they do both possess the advantage of first (or second, which is pretty good) -hand experiences with not just two or three or a handful of anecdotes from American citizens, but many, and not over a day or a week but over a very extended period of time, reference the topic/issue being debated.
This is something neither you or I possess. Experiences which they share with us in the hope of shedding the kind of light on an issue that the fingers of some NY Times columnist or voice of a TV talking head simply are ill-equipped to shed. You should be grateful that there's someone like Dave to engage. But alas, of course you're not.
"Is someone running their mouth without knowing what they are talking about?"
HUH - huh?? What does this sentence even mean?
"Is someone lying?"
Is someone lying? Who? Me? Dave? My friend? The hundreds of people sharing their stories and anecdotes?Like..... wha???
"Or are you just stupid?"
Am I stupid? Are you okay?
Also, what you and my brother both do is dismiss these as "isolated anecdotes" that you and him "can not verify" (i.e., "I don't know these rednecks/[label goes here]"). It's the ultimate form of elitism, that reaction.
Again, you people twist and do back flips to discredit the real source and victim of an issue or policy: the people -- and when it's presented to you in not just isolated 2's or 3's or even chunks, but in truckloads... and with one truck after another making a delivery.
What both Dave and my friend are presenting to you/libs is a "quilt", so to speak -- a picture coming into focus -- from cumulative stories/anecdotes (many many many MANY) all with common denominators that, alas, paint a not-convenient picture for leftist ideologues like yourself who must stay on their plantation.
- shy on vinyl
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
I haven't noticed that you
Submitted by killa37 on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 9:46pm.
I haven't noticed that you 'know enough to shut your mouth', meat. I've been gone for quite a few hours, and it appears that you've been sitting in front of your computer the whole day, impressing yourself with your superior IQ and your all-knowingness.
Unfortunatly - for you at least - you're the only one here who shares that opinion.
Has the OWS bowel movement camped out in your front yard yet?? You say you're highly successful and well educated - sounds like a 1-percenter to me. And you certainly do have a lot of time on your hands.
Don't you have your own website?
Submitted by ant on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 7:58am.
Long BS posts, bringing up Rush at the first chance you get, name-calling, complete Socialists douche....hmmm....reminds me of another troll poster around here not too long ago. Well, I gotta go to work to pay for yet another of the Obama's vacations...so I'l just wait for the Vet to find you out.
Ad hominem attacks on the worst President evah? Such whining....seems like ad hominem attacks on the American people is one of Obummer's specialities.
Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly,
Submitted by AntiWingnut on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 8:11am.
Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and the rest of the right wing whackadoos are interchangeable. Listening to any one of them can only make you dumber.
Obama's vacations? Then you must have been really mad about George W Bush's 1,020 days of vacation (including the 27 days he took off in August 2001, just before allowing the most devastating terrorist attack on American soil in history). That's more days than JFK was even in office. Obama took 26 days of vacation in his first year, which was less than any of the last 3 Republican presidents.
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/01/president-obamas-vacation-days/
http://www.politicususa.com/en/obama-bush-christmas-vacation
Anyway, enough of your nonsense, how about addressing the points I made about your initial post? Or do you plan on dodging the issues like your compatriots?
You bring up nothing but liberal BS, ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 8:34am.
Wingnut.
Slamming conservatives, bad-mouthing the Right, and implying that Bush "allowed" the attack on the Twin Towers.
You are not only a lying assed lib troll, you are an egregious piece of crap.
Been posting how long now, a little over 24 hours?
You may well have set the record for the minimum amount of time necessary to establish yourself as an arse munching liberal fool and tool.
Since all you have is a raft of lib talking points, it is obvious you wouldn't know first hand information if it bit you.
MD
You accuse me of a lot of
Submitted by AntiWingnut on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 8:35am.
You accuse me of a lot of things, but you can't refute anything I say (because I speak the truth).
Why do you have this blind allegiance to a discredited ideology? What do you get out of it?
You first, Wingnut---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 8:53am.
What do you think you are accomplishing on a conservative site by posting drivel that has been pushed by your kind, and soundly rebutted; for several years now?
What do you get out of your misguided attempts to pass off liberal bullshit as truth?
Your asinine charges have been refuted over and over and over on threads here long before you arrived to spread your version of manure.
And you have the temerity and unmitigated gall to think you bring some righteous truth to light the way for us heathens?
Get outta town, you hoser.
MD
You keep claiming that you
Submitted by AntiWingnut on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 12:17pm.
You keep claiming that you wingnuts have successfully rebutted my arguments, before I got here. And yet, when I not only challenge you to rebut me, but also provide you a roadmap for doing so, you either will not or can not stand up for your ideology. Why is that? If it's so easy, and you're correct, why don't you just demonstrate to everyone here how you know what's really going on? What are you waiting for? Why do you keep ducking the issues?
Come on, win one for the Gipper.
Will no one give Auntie W. a straight answer?
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 12:24pm.
/s
AntiWingnut LIES.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 12:57pm.
I have proven you to be the LIAR you are 7 times. That you come here and post this new lie that you have not been proven to be the liar you are after you fail to respond to one single lie only proves you are a LYING partisan hack. And a coward.
I also don't refute the
Submitted by NC Cop on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 5:32pm.
I also don't refute the nutcase who stands at the street corner of our city shouting profanities and screaming that Nazis are perfroming abortions at Krispy Kreme. Why? Becuase he's a nutcase who stands at the street corner of our city shouting profanities and screaming that Nazis are performing abortions at Krispy Kreme.
Perhaps he's kin to you?
He's a crazy
Submitted by AntiWingnut on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 8:21pm.
He's a crazy anti-abortionist, he comes from your anti-reality tribe. Go buy him a donut, you two would probably hit it off. Eventually, we'll make it legal for you two to get gay-married in North Carolina, and you can live crazily ever after.
Hey Dr sam - is this what
Submitted by amyshulk on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 8:28pm.
Hey Dr sam - is this what deconstructing looks like? Or is that self destruction I mean???
Ronald Reagan
Auntie is deconstruction personified...and self-destruction too.
Submitted by drsamherman on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 8:45pm.
This is what deconstructing looks like. It is, if you will, a thorough disconnecting process of facts and logic to conclusions accepted by standard calculus. For example, the deductive and inductive processes are complementary to a certain conclusion. Criminal justice is primarily deductive, as evidence exists and then a pattern is placed based upon a preponderance of those individual pieces of data to conclude who the offender is. The commonly accepted axiom in the criminal justice process in a deductive sense is the rendering of a jury verdict through a trial process and the steps that go with it. Inductive reasoning, essentially proving case #X and case #X+1, is primarily the method of mathematics and some types of other scientific processes. Deductive is Sherlock Holmes, inductive is Albert Einstein, to put personalities with the concepts. Deconstruction in a psychiatric sense often means the patient refuses to accept what others have commonly adopted as the norm, for example a very depressed patient refuses to believe anyone can be happy and therefore concludes the world at large is unhappy or to extend it to a reductio ad absurdum, the world is incapable of happiness because that particular patient is not happy. Deconstruction usually leads to self-destruction, as these smaller worlds of thought and the unreality attached to them have a tendency to simultaneously contract into a cycle of despair and even further dissociation from the world at large.
drsamherman
Submitted by amyshulk on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 10:05pm.
As always, thank you for explaining so well!!!
So, I was *almost* right - right term, but wrong application on my part! That "He's a crazy anti-abortionist..." rant was *so* off putting, so out of the blue, I thought it was AntiWingnut in deconstruction mode! AntiWingnut has to have something wrong with him/her to think using charged partisan name calling is in any way productive and/or persuasive!
Ronald Reagan
drsamherman
Submitted by amyshulk on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 2:26am.
Did you read this about OWS?
OWS Anatomized
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/286255/ows-anatomized-charles-c-w...
I can't figure out if it's logical to me because I figured early on that if I was still in my teens/20's, I'd be all in for OWS *just* for the chance to connect with people, remembering how lonely I was then, or if they have the right of it?
Ronald Reagan
You used to vote for Lyndon LaRouche, right?
Submitted by drsamherman on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 8:29pm.
You sound just like one of his brainwashed minions. Or perhaps your hatred of psychiatrists is due to your love of Scientology. Say Hello to Xenu for us.
Heh Heh
Submitted by NC Cop on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 9:31am.
Actually, looking back, that crazy nutcase looks a whole lot more reasonable and intelligent after talking to you!
Well done!!
What part of 'I have to go to
Submitted by ant on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 7:03pm.
What part of 'I have to go to work' did you not get, genius? As far as addressing your 'issues', I'm not wasting my time for;
a) I do not address the heaping piles of dung that liberals leave on the floor and call 'information'.
b) It would be wasted on you, as you are not only an ignorant, talking-points spewing libtard, but your own deluded, arrogant belief in your alleged 'intelligence' would never allow you to accept truth from one of us 'knuckle-draggers', so, with all due respect, go f#@* yourself, I'm not about to waste time with you. Perhaps some other day,.... I would delight in kicking your empty head around like an Occupunks' hackey-sack. Not today.
c) I have been around long enough to know the issues/arguments revolving around 'conservative' and 'libtard/leftist' ideology will never come to a term or agreement. It is sad to say, we have been going on as a successful Nation for a long time, but the left has really turned their ideological corner at full throttle, and there will be no living together. IMO, we will not be able to share this Country together, it WILL come to a head. These are not simply debates anymore, there is hatred on both sides and issues we will NEVER agree with, truths and lies that will not be accepted by one side or another. I can honestly say I LOATHE & DESPISE leftists like you, and I'm not alone. The end will not be pretty.
a) You have an aversion to
Submitted by AntiWingnut on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 8:15pm.
a) You have an aversion to information. It's that typical conservative willful ignorance.
b) I would accept truth from anyone, provided it is actually true. Repeating a lie does not make it true, despite wingnut attempts at doing so. If you would crawl out of the right wing echo chamber for a little while, you might actually learn something.
c) Your own party has admitted to sabotaging the government because they are upset that there is a half-black man in the White House. You refuse to consider the facts in any situation where they might contradict the lies you have been fed by your chosen media (which has resulted in an entire class of news junkies who are less informed than people who avoid the news altogether).
You and everyone like you is part of the problem. Your rabid anti-intellectualism is showing in the extreme ignorance among your compatriots. Luckily, truth has a tendency to win out over time (see The Enlightenment, evolution, relativity, quantum theory). We just have to make sure you don't run this country (and the entire world) into the ground before your pitiful brand of ignorance dies out. As long as society can survive, your days are numbered.
Wingnut,--
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 9:26pm.
it took a while, but you finally pulled out the race card.
c) Your own party has admitted to sabotaging the government because they are upset that there is a half-black man in the White House.
Even allowing for off-the-wall liberal bullshit, you truly are a head case.
Your time here is likely to be numbered in hours rather than days.
MD
a) I think a lot of people
Submitted by killa37 on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 10:04pm.
a) I think a lot of people here have an aversion to false, misleading (which is Eric (with)Holder's description of telling a lie), or erroneous 'information'........but apparantly you're quite a huge fan of it. Oh, am I being racist by making a derogitory statement about another psuedo-'black' guy like (with)Holder??
b)You have accepted repeated lies as being truth...........and the only echo chamber that I'm hearing on this thread is you.
c)First of all, let's settle this crap about your Boy Barry being 'half-black'............he's not even CLOSE to being 'half-black', and the only part about him being an 'African-American' is the 'African' part - because this guy is NO AMERICAN!!! Now that you've busted yourself as being a racist (along with a whole sh*tload of other dubious and despicable traits), you've just added another characteristic that only serves to prove that you are the type of person that most people here think you are - and you're doing it all yourself - all we have to do is sit back and let you keep flapping your gums - which you claimed in another post that you don't do, unless you know you're right!!! Like I said - you must be right ALL THE TIME, because your mouth keeps moving while your brain is vacant.
YOU are the problem, meat - I know people like you........they're worthless and useless for anything but telling themselves, and everyone around them, how smart and great they are. And if YOU'RE an 'intellectual'........and I'm an 'anti-intellectual' - then I've made the right choice, because I'd NEVER want to try and get something done, or be caught in a tight spot, with a guy like you.
And anyway, who the hell every said that being an 'intellectual' made you any better than anyone else. I know all sorts of 'intellectuals'..........and a lot of them are pathetically laughable - including you.
You talk 'truth' a lot, NumbNuts.........but just like so many other words in our vocabulary - it's in the process of being re-defined, and you've given us ample evidence of that. And speaking of ruining (whoops, I meant 'running') the country - how's thing working out with your Boy Barry and the rest of the criminals??? Of course, you're probably living well as a result of that particular agenda, so you've got to protect yourself by blaming the rest of us for any threats to your lifestyle.
I'd say your days are numbered here - you'd be a lot more welcome at the other sites where you get your information........but I will lay down a bet and predict that you WILL be back again sometime in the future - with a new agenda and a new name, but you'll never be able to disguise your attitude, arrogance, self-agrandisement, or unwarrented ego.
"You and everyone like you is
Submitted by ant on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 3:44pm.
"You and everyone like you is part of the problem". No. You and everyone like you ARE part of the problem. Now a 'rabid anti-intellectual' has just corrected your 4th grade English mistake. Your welcome, genius.
AntiWingnutDenied
Submitted by MrShy on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 4:05pm.
Ant, "it" (the genius) was dealt with last night or this morning.
Not sure what the breaking point was, but I was more than happy to continue going at it with him, just to expose the smug twit layer by layer. I'm not alone here, I'm sure.
Oh well.
- shy on vinyl
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
A flourish, Wingnut,---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 5:21am.
of pure liberal talking points that don't even rise to the level of sophistry; that's all you have?
A request for specific bills thrown out there as though failure to jump through hoops for you automatically crowns you Mr. Insider in Government Finance?
This crap has been pushed before by you simple-minded deniers of what really transpired, and shows you to be just another liberal Democrat troll who worships at the feet of Obama.
I take back the singular descriptive, 'putz', as it pertains to you; you are a super putz.
MD
I am not trying to make him
Submitted by AntiWingnut on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 5:48am.
I am not trying to make him jump through hoops. I mentioned what caused the financial collapse of 2008. He countered, claiming that it was due to progressive legislation forcing banks to loan money to unworthy borrowers. I made it really easy for him to show me what a fool I apparently am. All he has to do is show me that legislation, and he wins the argument. If I am really as stupid as you like to claim, why not prove that? I have made it very simple to do.
I can not find the bill that does what he claims (because it doesn't exist), so what else can I do, besides ask one of you "superior" conservatives to help me learn the error of my ways?
I made a simple, falsifiable statement. Prove my statement to be false, and I am proven wrong.
What are you guys waiting for? Show the world how I am wrong. Why are you beating around the bush? Why are you calling me names, instead of truly showing how smart you are?
I made it really easy for you. Please, show me my mistakes.
You are too far gone, Wingnut,---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 6:00am.
as a lib, to accept the truth.
Ask for proof, and then deny it is proof.
La-la liberal land, indeed.
Hopeless, and useless - hell of a combination you got going there, fool
MD
If what he said was true, why
Submitted by AntiWingnut on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 6:11am.
If what he said was true, why can he not name the bill(s) that forced banks to make bad loans? Surely, it's not too much to ask for that level of specificity, is it?
Please, tell me the truth. Teach me. I have made it incredibly easy for you to prove that Dave's assertions are, in fact, the truth. Why do you refuse to prove what is true?
If I made a claim, and someone questioned its veracity, I would simply provide the accompanying information they have requested. Instead of throwing a tantrum about facts having a liberal bias, why don't you just show me I am wrong? It is very simple. A one sentence answer will suffice to name the legislation, and it would be 100% indisputable.
Wouldn't it be so much easier for you to just prove the conservative point of view, than to keep dancing around the heart of the issue? You don't see me avoiding the issues. Do you really think this is making you look good? You're acting like a guilty man, protesting his innocence, while refusing to submit to a simple DNA test.
Well of course you avoid the issue, Wingnut,---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 6:48am.
and you do so by ignoring the political pressures inherent in the cause of the housing crisis; by continuing to imply it should all be laid at the feet of conservatives, and by laughingly requiring proof or by calling for edification and then summarily refuting same out of hand.
You are a dork.
MD
If the government forced
Submitted by AntiWingnut on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 6:56am.
If the government forced banks to make subprime loans, surely there would be some legislation that put this into effect. What legislation was it?
Dave claimed it was the CRA, and provided links about it. The links that he provided explained that the CRA could not have been the cause. You can go read them for yourself if you do not believe me. Should I not refute something that is clearly wrong?
Let me get this straight. You expect me to let you numbskulls make outrageously false claims, and then when I point out that you are lying/ignorant, I should just accept any random explanation you give, even if your own sources contradict your claims? Is that how you handle it when your leaders lie to you? No wonder you are so easily manipulated.
And, yet again, you have dodged the issue. Keep running away, it only makes you look worse.
Stick around putz. I know
Submitted by ant on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 8:03am.
Stick around putz. I know you've got all day in your mommy's basement, collecting welfare, and swallowing DNC talking points while fantazing how great it would be to suck Obama's toes. But I'll have to come back later.
Day-um, ant---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 8:56am.
sure wish I had used some of those lines. :o)
MD
crisis by any name
Submitted by Agnostic on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 12:16pm.
It is hard to pin point policy to prove the government influence in the mortgage crisis and there is no doubt enough blame to lay at the feet of ethically challenged finance companies however if you are looking for absolute proof of how influence was used it would be easier to show the full route of how pressure is brought to bear. Namely the actions and threats of ACORN and other community organizing groups that threatened judicial action, community action and did so with the fiscal and moral support of legislative representatives.
If someone doesn't understand the influence that Fannie and Freddie have on the mortgage loan market, even in loans in which they do not have a direct hand in, they will never accept the premise that they are in part responsible for the atmosphere that created the collapse. Government influence on loan rates, penalties/fines for participation in pet projects and the establishment of policy and procedures are all part of how the disaster was precipitated by the government and then ignored by the watch dogs in the government. However, the catalyst was the lack of scruples in the finance industry - especially knowing they were too big to fail and would be bailed out.
You're reply to point #3
Submitted by ant on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 5:54pm.
You're reply to point #3 alone reveals you to be a raging libtard idiot. And you know what? I really ain't in the mood to play with some sh*theel libtard ignorant jackass today.
IMO this all stems from Pres.
Submitted by amyshulk on Mon, 12/19/2011 - 11:34am.
IMO this all stems from Pres. Bush not using 9/11 to appeal to our better natures, as during WW1/WW2.
But - IIRC, it was Hollywood who did the yeomans work with the USO and getting people to buy war bonds.
The msm/Hollywood invested all their chips in tearing down Pres. Bush {and by extension gov't.} then they are shocked - shocked! that we have so little faith in gov't.?
2 year cycles is as far as they can think it seems, and "unintended consequences' are rife when they run the show.
Their reign of terror/error is ending, and they will NOT accept graciously that we tried it their way and it's a dismal failure, now get out of the way and let the adults run things!!!
So Elizabeth Warren is both a product and a victim of this mentality, showing she too can't think past her own nose. What happens when we all run around demanding others pay higher taxes? You guessed it - special interests get their carve outs, the middle class gets squished, and more drop into poverty.
Ronald Reagan
All this talk about the Great
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Mon, 12/19/2011 - 11:36am.
All this talk about the Great Depression and the history books say FDR steered us out of it. We can tell these libs the real facts but then they bring out the records probably published by them.
Is It Actually a Revelation That Amanpour is a Liberal Dope?
Submitted by Motormouth KOS on Mon, 12/19/2011 - 1:38pm.
I had no idea this would be newsworthy.
She's always been a troll who blindly championed the LIBUTARD point of view.
Do the math...
You have to be pretty hideous to get run off of a major network these days when you're a card-carrying liberal. The problem with this weeping sycophant for the Left is that she isn't subtle enough for ABC-You-Later. She needed to be more sneaky about how she wove her twisted views into her alleged commentary.
Call it a failure of execution, not of philosophy.
The Obamination... A crisis leading to a catastrophe..(please donate to MRC)
Yes, and.....
Submitted by Model850 on Mon, 12/19/2011 - 3:22pm.
Amanpour: Let me ask you, in 2007, the nation’s top one percent took home more after-tax pay than the total bottom 40 percent. And now, new reports show that at least one in fifteen Americans are living in extreme poverty. So the gap between rich and poor is widening. Shouldn’t the government do something to address that?
Yes, and that has occurred under the economic policies of your messiah, hasn't it Christiane? Seems like the government has been doing something, dear. It's just been doing the wrong things.
Um, you do realize who was in
Submitted by AntiWingnut on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 4:06am.
Um, you do realize who was in the White House in 2007, right?
Republican policies created this mess. The right wing economic terrorists are continuing to sabotage the economy, by blocking anything that might aid in a recovery, in a misguided attempt to get the half-black man out of the White House. How terribly noble...
Let us be clear, we are only experiencing a small fraction of the economic policies of Barrack Obama. Even before the Republicans took control of the House, they were blocking any truly effective actions in the Senate. Obama has had to scratch and claw to get anything through this useless, obstructionist, do-nothing Congress that's out to ruin our great nation.
Why do conservatives hate America?
This mess was created by lefty government goons who forced
Submitted by Dave. on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 4:24am.
...banks to lend money to people who they knew could not pay it back.
If the banks didn't go along, they faced all sorts of penalties.
Just ask Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Maxine Waters, and UpChuck Shumer.
I worked in a related industry for thirty years, and saw it happen first-hand.
You are either a lying BS artist, or a pre-pubescent dumbass sitting in mommie's basement awaiting your next Hot Pocket delivery.
As for conservatives 'hating' America, I doubt your government-educated, barely literate ass even knows what America is.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Dave---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 4:35am.
I do believe the username says it all - "AntiWingnut"
Another lib troll has fallen out of the rafters.
An Obama lover who can't even spell his messiah's name correctly.
MD
MD,
Submitted by Dave. on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 5:32am.
I ain't sure he even knows who his daddy is. ;-^)
LOL - And his momma probably don't know either. :-D
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Dave; ol' Wingnut sounds like, what,---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 5:46am.
every other lib troll on the loose from his under-bridge haunt; or more like the Mommy's basement dweller who can actually find occasional access to a dictionary -? :o)
MD
I just call him/her "auntie".
Submitted by drsamherman on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 12:33pm.
Antiwingnut argues like some elderly woman who refuses to take her medications. So "auntie" is my choice for a nickname for this particular new troll.
Auntie NumbNuts.
Submitted by killa37 on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 2:01pm.
Auntie NumbNuts.
I have heard that right wing
Submitted by AntiWingnut on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 4:39am.
I have heard that right wing talking point before. But, no, it's just not true. As is typical among conservatives, you don't know what you're talking about.
The banks lent money to people who couldn't pay it back, because they found a "safe" way to make a profit by doing so. By packaging the debt and selling it off, they could pass off the risk of default. Because they were colluding with the ratings agencies to get undeservedly high ratings for these securities, institutional investors were happy to buy the debts. The banks were making money off of the fees they charged for writing the initial debt. To add to their profit margin, they took out bets against the loans being repaid (credit default swaps). They knew the debt would blow up, but they also knew it wouldn't happen while on their balance sheet. Or, so they thought. When the market began to crash, it happened faster than they anticipated, and they were caught like a deer in headlights.
If that sounds like outright fraud, congratulations, welcome to what the wiser parts of society knew years ago.
Please, don't tell me you've been in a "related industry" when you clearly do not even know what happened. Being ignorant is bad, but refusing to learn is far worse. Take this time to learn what actually happened in the financial collapse, then we can discuss it further, like grown-ups.
Let me guess, you were in real estate? Regardless of that, in whatever industry you were in, you apparently saw unqualified borrowers being issued mortgages. Now that I've explained it, you know why banks were willing to underwrite those mortgages. They didn't care if they got paid back, because they made their money and sold off the risk. The only people who don't know what happened are those who have zero interest and conservatives who are willfully ignorant. So, which category best describes you? Since you're arguing about it here, I would have to say you belong to the latter group, willfully ignorant.
I can see I've really gotten under your skin, hence the name calling. It's amazing how quickly you right wing loonies will give up talking about the merits of an argument. I guess that's what happens when your ideology is bankrupt. Not just metaphorically bankrupt, but literally, demonstrably bankrupt. Your ideology and unwillingness to consider facts and data has nearly bankrupted not only our country but most of the developed world. That's quite an impressive track record of incompetence.
Hey
Submitted by killa37 on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 4:49am.
Hey Cleventine............how's it going?? I guess you missed us too much,huh??? So you're back again - with a new name and a new set of interests??? But you still have the same old 'I know more than anybody else' attitude, I see.................
I'm counting the days that you'll be here, meat..................
I wasn't going to respond to
Submitted by AntiWingnut on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 4:59am.
I wasn't going to respond to this, because you obviously think you've figured something out here, and won't want to admit you were mistaken. But, this is my first time posting here, under any name. I do not know who Cleventine is, but I am not surprised that someone has already pointed out the rampant misinformation in the comments here.
Feel free to jump in and point out any factual errors on my part. There's currently a lively discussion about the causes of the financial crisis, and it seems that Dave/Dave./Dave--- needs some help finding the mythical legislation that forced banks to issue loans to high risk borrowers. I am sure he/they would appreciate some help.
Pretty good job of 'not
Submitted by killa37 on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 5:04am.
Pretty good job of 'not responding'..................and Dave doesn't need any help from me. And since you started posting, I've noticed a LOT of 'rampant misinformation'. And isn't is past your bedtime, Cleve??? Oh yeah - I remember now - you're ALWAYS online............you've got nothing else to do.
killa,
Submitted by Dave. on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 5:08am.
"you've got nothing else to do."
LOL - Oh yes he does. ;-)
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Congratulations, AntiWingnut---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 5:00am.
I've been a member here at NBs for a little over two years, and in that span of time I have seen pretty much the full gamut of liberal bullshit.
You managed to get almost all of the talking points into one post.
Your 'message' would be impressive - had it not been slogged through over and over and over again; each successive troll attempt more lame and dissolute than it's predecessor.
Nice touch with the accusation of 'name calling'; I believe that is rule #4 number in the troll handbook.
You hate Sean Penn.
Good for you.
You are still a lying liberal putz.
MD
I understand your anger. You
Submitted by AntiWingnut on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 5:12am.
I understand your anger. You have your worldview, and you don't like to see it disrupted.
I only point out the name calling as a way of addressing the vitriolic anger among conservatives towards all things factual. If you know what you're talking about, why not simply correct me? Why do people need to start hurling insults while avoiding the meat of the issue?
I do hate Sean Penn, so what? How is that relevant to this discussion?
If I'm lying, I welcome you to point out exactly where I am doing so. Are you not capable of pointing out my so called "lies"? If not, why not?
Go on, humor me, and "educate" me.
You will notice how I do not lose my temper, because I have the facts on my side. I may get tired/bored, but otherwise I can keep correcting your type forever. Your rage is a consequence of feeling the futility of trying to keep reality out of your brain. It is your choice to live that way. Personally, I wouldn't want to lie to myself.
I am honestly not out to cause trouble and anger you wingnuts. I am, of course, frustrated by the ignorance you all spew. That's why I am really here, to inject a little factual information. The sputtering anger is just an amusing bonus. I would much rather have you stop lying to yourselves, than to be amused by your irrationality and pre-menstrual-style irritability.
That whole post is BS,
Submitted by killa37 on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 5:19am.
That whole post is BS, meat...............and the last paragraph is a picture-perfect example of why you are full of crap. You put the 'moron' in 'oxymoron'.............although you seem to have been oxygen-deprived at some point in your pathetic life.
Now,let's have a little discussion about your whiny complaints of 'name-calling'..................
You should be the poster child for gubbermint "ejumikashion"
Submitted by Dave. on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 5:25am.
As you are clearly too stoopid to cross a street.
BTW: Shouldn't you be mourning the recent death of Kim Dung Hill?
Maybe you were too busy ordering your fourth set of Obama knee pads to notice his passing.
Kind of cool that he went Tango Uniform on a train, as you lefties get woodies over trains, don't you?
But we all know why that is, don't we, comrade?
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Not anger in any shape or form, Wingnut---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 5:39am.
just letting a lying liberal troll know in no uncertain terms what I think of his stale BS, his lame attempts to establish moral, mental, and intellectual superiority; and his unbelievably repetitive drooling.
Speaking of shape and form - pimping an inferior liberal product, while exhibiting a holier-than-thou attitude, is not a winner in any way, any shape, or any form, whatsoever.
No matter how cool and erudite you may think you are.
MD
p.s.
Stating you hate Sean Penn means you had a lucid thought.
-Once -
You're not smart enough to
Submitted by NC Cop on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 9:58am.
You're not smart enough to anger us, wingnut. It's quite amusing to watch trolls like you who come in here regurgitating liberal talking points and then get hammered with the truth.
We call it Newsbusters whack-a-troll.
Your very first post was smug, insulting and juvenile and then you claim to be just trying to educate or have a conversation?
Thanks for the laugh!
Easily one of the most ridiculous statements ever made on NB's
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 8:45am.
The banks lent money to people who couldn't pay it back, because they found a "safe" way to make a profit by doing so.
Is that you Krugman?
AntiWingnut, Yes "safe"... As assuaged by Government fiat.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 4:02pm.
The banks lent money to people who couldn't pay it back, because they found a "safe" way to make a profit by doing so.
Yes the all knowing government force the banks to make loans to folks who will never pay it back...No worries new freshly invented government economics will cover the bad loans.. until all money is worthless.
If you have savings maybe this will bug you, hay if you are in debt partie on.
You Didn't Build That.
Let's see some facts, Wingnut
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 10:12am.
Even before the Republicans took control of the House, they were blocking any truly effective actions in the Senate.
Exactly what bills? Obamacare?
List them, and the votes. You know, before the 2010 elections where the smart people swept the trash out of the House.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
For one, Republicans
Submitted by AntiWingnut on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 12:49pm.
For one, Republicans filibustered the Zadroga bill, which was to aid 9/11 first responders - http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-december-16-2010/9-11-first-respon...
They filibustered this bill because they are horrible people who hate America and American heroes. Please, tell me why 9/11 first responders should not be helped.
Here's a list of every cloture vote (to end discussion, as in, stop a filibuster) since 1917 - http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/clotureCounts...
Some of the other highlights include: The Middle Class Tax Relief Act, the DREAM Act, the Airport and Airway Extension Act, Food Safety Modernization Act, Promoting Natural Gas and Electric Vehicles Act, Small Business Jobs and Credit Act, Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act, American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act, Restoring American Financial Stability Act, DoD Appropriations, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations, Travel Promotion Act, Revolutionary War and War of 1812 Battlefield Protection Act, National Service Reauthorization Act, Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act, Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights Act, Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
More specifically, these are all the bills that were filibustered since Obama has been in office -
http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/111.htm
http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/112.htm
Here's some light reading on the recent abuse of the filibuster -
http://www.brookings.edu/testimony/2010/0623_filibuster_mann.aspx
http://www.democrats.com/node/18649
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2009/11/25/the-st...
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29826.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-6014772-503544.html
http://www.netrootsmass.net/selise/senate-filibuster-reference-list/
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/83059-senate-sitting-on-290-house-bills
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/f/filibuste...
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jan/22/joe-biden...
People like you will invariably see the record number of filibusters as "Republicans fighting the good fight", by blocking progressive legislation, even though they openly admit that they are doing this to sabotage the country in order to help their electoral chances in 2012.
The Senate, as an institution, is quite flawed. "Leaving party affiliation aside, it is now possible for the senators representing the 34 million people who live in the 21 least populous states — a little more than 11 percent of the nation’s population — to nullify the wishes of the representatives of the remaining 88 percent of Americans."
http://100days.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/01/filibusters-the-senates-self...
Now, that, ladies and gentlemen, is how you respond to someone challenging you on the facts.
Right off the top of my head,
Submitted by killa37 on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 2:10pm.
Right off the top of my head, I can see a lot of bills on your list that probably deserved to be opposed - either for their purported subject matter, or for whatever else might have been hidden inside of them.............and I'm not a 'Republican', by definition - although the last Democrat I could respect was Zell Miller, who was ex-communicated from the party.
The Obama Presidency, as an institution and a REGIME, has governed against the will of the American people - at least the responsible, dependable, producers and acheivers (unless you happen to be in the circle of 'chosen winners') - from the time he took office, and was plotting to do so long before that.
Don't go breaking your arm trying to pat yourself on the back, meat.............I don't think you're impressing anyone around here, just like you didn't impress anyone the last time you were here. But I"m sure you'll keep throwing down your BS, name-calling, arrogance, know-it-all attitude, and copycat plagurism until you get run out of here - again.
It's fine to disagree with
Submitted by AntiWingnut on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 2:22pm.
It's fine to disagree with bills. But, we are a majority rule nation, currently suffering from a tyranny of the minority. The Republicans have announced that they are sabotaging our government in order to hurt the administration's chances for re-election. Is that something a true patriot would do?
Speaking of being patriotic, I specifically brought up the Zadroga bill. Please, explain why that deserved to be filibustered. Why should we have turned our backs on 9/11 first responders?
You throw around a lot of names and zero facts. If the facts are on your side, you would think I would be inundated with responses showing how I am wrong. Why do I need to beg to be corrected? If you make a false statement to me, I will happily explain the fault. Since you can not show where I am wrong, it stands to reason that I may just happen to be correct.
You've actually swerved into
Submitted by killa37 on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 2:50pm.
You've actually swerved into a true statement, Auntie - so at least you've got one base hit so far- although I think it was an accidental swing that managed to eek it's was between the pitcher and the third baseman. We ARE 'currently suffering from a tyranny of the minority'..............need I say more?? Last I checked, this ISN'T a communist/socialist/racist/re-distributionist/moooooooooslem sympathizing nation - at least it wasn't founded as such, although I know the Dems and the libs have been working hard for the past few decades to make it that way - and they've finally got a guy in the White House who might be able to finish us off and 'fundamentally transform this country'.
And Boy Barry , with help from the weak-willed Democrats and his willing accomplices in the MSMS, IS 'sabotaging our government in order to ' WIN re-election...........and they've been doing it from day one. So don't go flapping your delusional gums to me about 'patriotism'...............personally, I think that most of the Republicans are too wimpy and gutless to pull of what you've just accused them of.
I remember when that Zadroga bill came up, and hearing some of the info about it, and why it wasn't passed. I can't remember off-hand, and I'm not going to sit here and try and come up with the reasons for it either - I've got to actually go out and work for a living, and it's a done deal allready. I'm sure that somebody here on the site might be able to answer that for you.
I looked at my posts - I can't find 'a lot of names' that I threw around - maybe you can help me on that one. I just deal with the real world over here...........I'm self-employed, I'm familiar with just abuot every damn government rule, regulation, edict, fatwa, penalty, interest, fine, threat, compliance, bla bla bla bla bla that only somebody who actually is trying to work for a living, hire people, hire subs, pay material houses, a myriad of insurance demands, and a multitude of layers of taxes............and STILL hope to have a little money (EVIL profit!!!!) in my own worn-out pocket. And I know a variety of people in a variety of businesses and lifestyles................I don't live under a turnip truck like Dave does..........so I do pay attention to what is going on. I CAN pass a current events exam and get a helluva lot highter grade than Boy Barry ever got.
So, what do you do??? What makes you such an expert on everything?? You come on here like the cover of a cesspool being opened up, and just stink the joint up with your attitude, your arrogance, your self-aggrandisment, and your know-it-all bluster.
You must have some kind of background or resume in order to be such a heavyweight, huh??? Maybe you can enlighten all of us commoners, so that we can regale in awe at the illustrious illumination that is Auntie NumbNuts..............kinda like how we're supposed to shield our eyes from the radiance of Barry Soetore Barack Hussein Obama.
What I do and my credentials
Submitted by AntiWingnut on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 3:44pm.
What I do and my credentials do not matter. I could give you my credentials, and yes, I'm probably more successful and educated than you. But, so what? Would you even believe me anyway? I am right and you are wrong. My statements stand on their own. Stop trying to dodge the issues and change the subject. I am not arguing from authority, I back up the things I say. You should do the same.
Buffoonery and demagoguery are not credentials.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 3:49pm.
And lookie, I made my point in only six words.
Pretty arrogant response,
Submitted by killa37 on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 3:56pm.
Pretty arrogant response, meat.................and you're 'right' and I'm 'wrong'?? Care to tell me when and where that happened??
All I'm seeing out of you is a lot of talk and a lot of repeating your story line................and as far as I can tell, we must have a boatload of idiots here on NB, since nobody else here seems to have opened their eyes, minds, and hearts to the glorious wonder of you.
Maybe you can define 'success' and 'educated' for me, since you've allready redifined 'smart'.
Allow me to define 'success' in this case, Killa:
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 4:16pm.
suc·cess: the freedom to spend all day at NB researching and posting multiple, redundant 5,000-word screeds. [synonym: unemployed]
Well, SoL, he DID say that he
Submitted by killa37 on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 4:45pm.
Well, SoL, he DID say that he was more successful AND educated than I am - but that's not hard to do, since I'm just a dumb-ass blue-collar country-boy from an outer island in Hawaii, and I only have a high-school edumacation, although I did go to the same private school as his Boy Barry (on a scholarship), and I can SHOW you my grades!!!
I'm thinkin' (Obamaspeak) that ol' Auntie NumbNuts works for the government, or has been involved in that end of the employment spectrum for his professional life - perhaps as a high-school or college teacher - and thus, is totally locked into that mindset, since he's never been outside of it.
Or, as you suggested..........unemployed, with lots of time on his hands.
Me?? I'm basically self-unemployed these days, but not by choice. And it looks like the rain may let up, so I've got to go to work.
Auntie Numbnuts
Submitted by Free Stinker on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 9:02pm.
So, you squeeked through some 3rd rate PhD program at a 4th rate school?
Guess how much Union Janitors make? More than you. Sucker!
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
"The Republicans have
Submitted by NC Cop on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 3:05pm.
"The Republicans have announced that they are sabotaging our government in order to hurt the administration's chances for re-election. Is that something a true patriot would do?"
You mean like the democrats exploited the Iraq war to hurt Bush's chance for re-election???
Something like that? Where was your self righteousness then?
You're quite a joke, wingnut. Please keep it up, we haven't laughed like this in a long time!!!
The Republicans are actively
Submitted by AntiWingnut on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 3:52pm.
The Republicans are actively sabotaging government in order to win an election.
The Democrats ran successful campaigns on the fact that a Republican administration lied us into an unnecessary war, costing us thousands of lives and trillions of dollars.
How are those two things comparable? Why should I be outraged about running a successful campaign against horrifically bad policy-making?
"The Democrats ran successful
Submitted by NC Cop on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 3:59pm.
"The Democrats ran successful campaigns on the fact that a Republican administration lied us into an unnecessary war, costing us thousands of lives and trillions of dollars."
Ding! Ding! Ding! Cajun is the winner!!! He called that this troll would bring up the "Bush lied" mantra! Tell him what he's won!!!
What a laughable and completely bogus lie. The dems exploited a war that THEY SUPPORTED, but when election time came, it was more important to save their owns asses.
The fact that you actually believe that bile that you spew is quiet pathetic. Seek help.
Hey nutwing
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 5:20pm.
Did you know you Obama Pelousy and Dingy Harry has spent more on the wars then Bush did. So if they cost so much, you are blaming the wrong party. Also, under Obama deaths when up, why are you not whining about his mismanaging of the wars. You know why, because your a useless ideologue
If I recall, wingut, the
Submitted by NC Cop on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 3:11pm.
If I recall, wingut, the reason the Republicans were against it was because it didn't do enough to counter fraud. Millions of dollars in previous monies that were allocated to the first responders disappeared and nobody could account for it.
Read more: http://articles.nydailynews.com/2010-12-12/news/27084100_1_health-bill-n...
"Congress has funded numerous programs to provide care and compensation to 9/11 victims, spending several billion dollars on extraordinary and unprecedented efforts. Congress will continue to support these individuals. However, current program administrators have failed to account for much of the previously allocated money."
The Repubicans wanted more safeguards against fraud so that millions of taxpayer dollars wouldn't be abused.
Naturally, the scumbag democrats, much like yourself, decided to try and get some political points off of it. Stay classy, dems!!!!
Sorry to burst your lying bubble with a dose of facts.
Anti
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 2:48pm.
Perhaps a more complete reading of the filibuster of Zadroga. A calculated and political move by Reid. Nothing more than republicans sticking by their guns.
The rest of your links deserve no consideration, as they are all simply left wing mouthpieces. It is funny, though, that filibusters are suddenly such dirty politics only after republicans start to use the tactic the way the democrats did when they were the minority. I seem to remember more than once, Bush nominees not being considered for a vote in the Senate.
Oh, and don't think we have forgotten how many times the democrats tried to undermine Senate rules by deeming O-care passed without a vote.
You are a hypocrite, and a boring one at that. Come in with new arguments, and not the same old talking points that have been smacked around many times before, or go home. I'm guessing the kosbots are also so tired of your unfounded comments and lack of understanding of basic facts*, that they kicked you out?
*You know, basic facts, like the CRA preceded CDS's, not the other way around as you contend above. Another FAIL on your part.
Boy those sure are some reputable sources you got there
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 2:51pm.
NOT
"Abuse of the filibuster"
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 8:18pm.
Riiight. In your liberal fever brain. Remember this. When the democrats lose control of the Senate, and the shoe is on the other foot, the rules work both ways. Then whine about filibuster/cloture votes. Dare you to.
And you cite Jon Stewart as a source?
You are dismissed. Go back to Soros land and collect your day's pay. You failed.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Whatever, moron. Why don't
Submitted by ant on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 5:58pm.
Whatever, moron. Why don't you piss off and resume your position of face-down in Obama's lap?
These simple questions ....
Submitted by NL207 on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 10:18pm.
What caused the economic collapse of 2008?
What governmental policies contributed to this cause?
Who instituted and defended these policies?
Hint : there isn't a Republican in sight on this one.
AntiWingnut LIES.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 9:19am.
As usual, we have yet another philotroll coming in and thinking he can LIE to us at will. Must be a new day at Nesbusters.
1. LIE LIE LIE - If we stopped exempting people with high incomes from Social Security, there would be no problem funding it for the foreseeable future. --- Fails to understand exactly what Social Security is. Lies about Social Security. Lies some more about Social Security
a. Social Security is historically not a tax. Your benefits are based upon a calculation that takes into account how much you have paid per year and how many years you paid in (top 30 years). Eliminating the cap altogether will not save Social Security. High income earners that paid more into Social Security would get more when they retired.
b. People with high incomes are not currently exempted. THAT IS A LIE. There is a limit on how much people pay in per year. All income is subject to SSI tax up to around $107,000 per year. Income above that level is not subject to the SSI tax. This is because, as I said in item a, there is a maximum the Social Security Admin pays out and that maximum is based on the highest income cap paid in.
c. It won't work.
Tax rates at these levels would almost surely harm the economy and the tax revenues that depend on it. Estimates from the Social Security Administration's Office of the Chief Actuary conclude that eliminating the payroll tax ceiling would reduce earnings subject to those increased taxes by around 6 percent, equivalent to the increase in the employer's share of the payroll tax.[15] This not only reduces the additional Social Security taxes that would be collected, but also lowers federal income tax and Medicare tax revenues. Under the high marginal tax rates on earned income envisioned by the administration, revenue losses due to a reduced tax base would be significant. The federal government could lose around twenty cents in non-Social Security revenues for each dollar of new taxes it raised through Social Security, thereby increasing the non-Social Security federal deficit by $300 to $400 billion over ten years. In addition, state governments would lose income tax revenues based on the reduced tax base.[
Is this what you were going for AntiWingnut? Ending up getting exposed for the liar you are? What else have you lied about?
Ah, we have a contender. Not
Submitted by AntiWingnut on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 2:15pm.
Ah, we have a contender. Not a good one, but someone who thinks they are smart (despite not knowing the definition of "lie") has stepped up.
a) No, it's not a "tax" in the strict sense. What does that have to do with anything? Don't be argumentative for no reason, stick to the issues.
Removing, or just lifting the cap, can result in solvency out to a long time horizon (75 years). Removing the cap completely will result in approximately 95% solvency, indefinitely. Throw in the Republican idea of means testing, and you've now got a surplus. Projections out beyond 75 years are not very meaningful, so there is little sense in debating exactly how to fund the program that far in the future. It's not a matter of kicking the can down the road, it's simply not possible to have an informed discussion about the economics in that time. Besides, if Republicans have their way, we will be a third world country by that time.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/06/research_desk_respon...
http://www.epi.org/publication/webfeatures_snapshots_20050217/
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/pgm/links_governance.htm
b) If you earn over $106,800, your higher income is exempted. That's the definition of the word "exemption". I know you're desperate to defend your bankrupt ideology, but let's not fight about the English language itself. If you want to be pedantic, which you clearly do, then at least do it right. The current cap is at $106,800. Like I already said, don't be unnecessarily argumentative, there's more than enough to discuss by sticking to the issues.
c) In the interest of brevity, I will only address the part of your linked article that you copied and pasted. I did look at your link, however, and it is quite flawed (not surprising, since it came from the AEI). We can get into it, if you want, but I think we have enough on our plate right now.
Let's start by looking at the citation in your quote. If you read the notes you would see "Author's calculations, based on Alice H. Wade and Chris Chaplain, "Estimated Long-Range OASDI Financial Effects of Eliminating the OASDI Contribution and Benefit Base" (memorandum, Social Security Administration, Office of the Chief Actuary, October 20, 2003)." See that? It says, "author's calculations". It was presented in the article as though it was a projection from the Office of the Chief Actuary, but it's not. The memorandum in question, in fact, claims that we could largely eliminate the deficit over the next 75 years by eliminating the cap. That's highly disingenuous on the part of your author, if not an outright lie.
The first clue about that being a fraudulent citation would be that the SSA is not in the business of predicting the connection between tax rates and the tax base. Specifically, they do not run around promoting trickle down economics. Professional bureaucrats generally do not stick their neck out for political talking points, they stick to their narrow domain, to protect their own reputation.
Given that your quote contains a fraudulent citation, do you want to continue with this, or should we just pretend you weren't gullible enough to fall for something so blatantly dishonest?
Why do you right wing liars have such a hard time checking your own sources?
In the interest of educating anyone who may be reading this thread, I will get to the rest of your nonsense as time permits.
11. LIE LIE LIE - If we
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 2:36pm.
11. LIE LIE LIE - If we stopped exempting people with high incomes from Social Security... --- Directly opposes a follow on statement --- If you earn over $106,800, your higher income is exempted.
a. The LIAR did not say higher income is exempted, he said people with high incomes. How are we to know he is stupid as well as a liar and writes sentences even he has to walk back.
Sorry for assuming you
Submitted by AntiWingnut on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 2:47pm.
Sorry for assuming you wingnuts understood how Social Security works. I didn't know I had to explain every little detail. I thought I could have a policy discussion, like a grown up. But, it seems you want to be treated like a 5 year old.
Nitpicky pendantry. That's the best you've got, huh? Why are you not debating the issues here?
You completely skipped over the part where you posted a fraudulent citation. Please address your extreme gullibility.
A. Nut*
Submitted by cajun2 on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 2:57pm.
First you insult posters here stating we are too stupid to debate issues. So, you spew your lib lies right off your sto' bought taking point memos. Then when someone actually provides factual documentation that disproves ALL of your lies, you then accuse of "nit picking". You have posted information from a distorted liberal view on issues that have already been revealed as lies years ago. When confronted with your lies, you then accuse that no one wants to debate.
Lib trolls all have the same persona. Liars, condescending snobs, blind ideologists, and too fearful to accept that all you believe is fantasy.
The only thing about you that is even worthy of a brief view is the fact that you have now met THE VET.
Now that is a treat.
Where did anyone dispute any
Submitted by AntiWingnut on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 3:25pm.
Where did anyone dispute any of my points? He argued with my not being specific enough in describing the exemption for higher income contributions to Social Security. Does that somehow defeat the merit of anything I said? No, it's a cheap rhetorical ploy to change the topic. And it clearly worked on you.
If he did not know what exemption I was referring to, how did he know exactly what to look up? If he does not believe it is an exemption, why has he himself called it an exemption in his reply to me?
Typical conservative, dodge-the-issue debate tactics. That's what you need to do when all you have are lies and empty rhetoric.
On top of that, the moron actual got conned by a fraudulent citation in his own quote, which he has not addressed (and probably never will).
This idiot is the best you've got? I am not impressed.
A.Nut*
Submitted by cajun2 on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 3:46pm.
Please complete your assigned task. You have yet to mention that Haliburton was the reason we went to War in Iraq. There was no WMD's, oh and the War was illegal.
Bush was hiding the fact that 9-11 was an inside job. The R's are responsible for the troubled economy even though you will admit that the D's have had a majority of both houses of Congress 44 of the last 56 years.
It was Bush's policies that led to the DeepWater Horizon accident. Obama has not been able to pass a budget for the last 3 yrs because of the Tea Party republicans even though they were not in office until Jan 2011.
Please continue with your warn out lib lies A. Nut.
Give him a minute, Cajun
Submitted by NC Cop on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 3:48pm.
he's over at Daily Kos getting his orders.
Um, there were no weapons of
Submitted by AntiWingnut on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 6:27pm.
Um, there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, are you asserting otherwise? Bush has admitted as much himself, as has Dick Cheney.
Don't try to lump me in with 9/11 truther conspiracy theory nuts. You're the one peddling freeper conspiracy theories, you loon.
Regardless of whoever controlled Congress in 44 out of the last 56 years, we didn't have a financial meltdown in 44 out of the last 56 years. We had one during a Republican administration, immediately following a long period of Republican control of Congress, and it is directly attributable to Republican policies and regulatory incompetence.
The MMS (now restructured as the BOEMRE), which was initially organized by James Watt (who was later indicted on 25 counts of felony perjury and obstruction of justice) at the behest of Reagan, has been plagued with scandals over the years. Particularly, in the latter portion of the last Bush administration, when the agency's employees were found to be accepting personal gifts from the industry they were supposed to be regulating (among other severe ethical/professional lapses of judgement).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/10/AR200809...
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/52243.html
http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/2008/09/10/18/Gordon-OIG-Cover-Lette...
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/investigative/documents/smith-080...
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/investigative/documents/mmsoil-08...
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/10/rik-ethics-rules
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/10/smith-cocaine
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/10/14/oil.whistleblower/index.html
So, yes, Bush had a fair bit to do with it.
Especially since the MMS knew about safety problems as early as 2004, but did nothing - http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/deepwaterhorizon/6996736.html
It was a running theme with the Bush administration, to ignore warnings and invite catastrophe.
In hindsight the incompetence of the Bush-era regulators was seen as a contributing factor to the accident - http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/ksfr/news.newsmain/article/0/0/1745366...
See elsehwere in this thread about extreme Republican obstructionism.
A.Nut*
Submitted by cajun2 on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 7:55pm.
This is what annoys me about lib liars. Distort the truth when you can.
First, there were WMD's in Iraq. The UN even complained about the US military moving them without UN permission. The greatest error regarding Iraq was our method of gathering intelligence. As Jer says, it depends on your source and as a result of this commission, Bush made significant changes to our intelligence gathering and sharing But of course people like you could never give Bush credit for even being able to come out the rain.
Control of Congress is a serious issue because both houses control money, spending, taxes and revenue gathering. Most of legislative actions are done without consideration for consequences since politicians have a way of kicking the can down the road. Take a good look at this graph, take your time, and you will see how the dems have influenced our economy. Please note the current POTUS and his effects on the deficit You can spin this information any way you can. But you cannot hide the fact that congress was controlled by R's only 12 years out of the last 50. And they never had control of both houses for more than 2 years. Spinning may begin.
No one is more aware of MMS corruption than those of us who live in Gulf Coast states. ( Did you notice the post name?)Corruption in federal agencies, not just MMS, has been present long before Bush was elected. As an example, please take the time to look up a Governor Edwin Edwards(D) who had a nice cozy relationship with BIG OIL.
MMS, during the Bush administration, watched the Deepwater Horizon very carefully from permit to drilling. It took about 6 yrs, from construction to drilling before the rig was approved. a number of personnel accidents and minor spills caused numerous suspensions til violations were corrected. The Coast Guard and MMS, after extensive review ruled the rig had completed all requirements in June of 2009.( let me repeat that June 2009) Drilling began in Oct 2009 due to a delay caused by Hurricane Ida. There was damage to the rig but the Coast Guard gave a go permit. After drilling began, a contractor found damage to the cut off mechanism and reported this to MMS. The problems with MMS and the Coast Guard that was found in review, was not corruption but inspectors lacked the engineering experience to recognize the potential risks. Imagine, inefficiency in the Federal Government, my my... In April of 2010 (thats Obama's people), they exempted the rig and drilling began. Two weeks later the explosion. Prior to the BP explosion, here is a list of all major oil spills around the world. Lets see how many you can blame on George Bush.
You can continue to call me a tin foil nut job, I have been called worse by trolls like you. The more you insult and spew vitriol tells me that my information has hit you where it hurts. Lies make conservatives angry, truth makes libs go nuts.
Trolling may now continue.
I said that??
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 8:06pm.
Pretty darn insightful of me. That just might be my new tag line.
Jer
Jer*
Submitted by cajun2 on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 8:16pm.
*snicker*
There were weapons of mass
Submitted by AntiWingnut on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 9:32pm.
There were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? You mean the old chemical weapons that the UN knew about and was actively monitoring, and were not listed among the reasons for invading Iraq? How quickly you conservative fools forget. Bush asserted that the Iraqis were trying to obtain fissile material. The specifically mentioned buying yellow cake uranium from Niger. When the former ambassador to Niger investigated and found those claims to be unfounded, the Bush administration outed his wife who was a covert CIA agent, thus ruining the cover of all agents working under Brewster Jennings as well as all foreign assets with whom she had contact. Not to mention the aluminum tubes that Bush and his cronies claimed were for a uranium enrichment centrifuge, despite objections from the CIA about this assertion. They stovepiped the intel. It wasn't bad intelligence, it was bad leadership. The CIA knew, and reported, that there were no weapons of mass destruction. The administration cooked up its own story and ran with it anyway. Bush couldn't even manage to capture/kill bin Laden, nevermind prevent him from taking down the towers.
I see a graph that shows massive debt increases under Reagan and Bush Jr. Yeah, that seems about right. Thanks for pointing out inept Republican leadership on the economy.
Corruption has existed in other places, so that absolves Bush's administration for their negligence when it came to the Deepwater Horizon platform? They knew in 2004 that the blowout preventer was unsafe, and they approved it anyway. Take a look at who ran the MMS. It was Bush people right through 2010. In case you hadn't noticed, the Republican obstructionists in the Senate held up as many of Obama's appointments as they could. The IG's report describes insane behavior from 2000-2008, which was somewhat curtailed after a crackdown on accepting personal gifts from oil companies. On behalf of the entire Bush administration, you're welcome, enjoy your cancer.
I will definitely lay some blame on Obama, because it happened on his watch, and he shouldn't have put up with the Republican obstructionism. He should've done a recess appointment for every open position, he should've held show trials for Republican officials (which would've secured a Democratic majority for decades to come), he should not have compromised on healthcare and the stimulus. He should've totally cleaned house, from top to bottom, instead of assuming that some of the career people installed under Bush were actual professionals.
It's funny that you claim I am the one going nuts here, have you seen the sputtering anger coming out of you idiotic conservatives? Right from my first messages people have been calling me names, using ad hominems, avoiding the facts of the issues, and so on. If I am lying, why does nobody point out the lies? Everytime one of you tries, you are shown to be incompetent. I have remained calm and composed, barely taking any jabs at you idiots, especially considering the numerous opportunities to do so.
Wignut, You ooze with hate
Submitted by Liberallies on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 9:54pm.
Wignut,
You ooze with hate for Republicans and Conservatives and now are claiming that it is everyon else?
the only thing you have shown is that you are good at believing all the lies of the Left and spewing ad hominems.
Wignut, your problem is that you are too much of an idot, just using your word, to realize how wrong you've been proven. Keep on using radical Left wing nut case sources.
Yes, Wignut, everything is the Republicans and Bush's fault. Yes, yes, you are right and everyone else is wrong. It is Bush's fault that Egypt is in complete chaos, it is Bush's fault that Putin stole the election, it is Bush's fault that the Japanese nuclear reactor exploded, it is Bush's fault that hurricanes come to shore and cause maheim and chaos, it is Bush's fault that you are not smart, it is Bush's fault that you believe all the propaganda from the Left, it is Bush's fault that Obama sat back and watched countless of Iranian college age kids slaughtered by the Iranian government, yes, it is Bush's fault that Obama supporterd a dictator want to be in Honduras, it is Bush's fault that Fast and Furios operation is about to bring down Holder, it is Bush's fault that Solyndra and other such companies are failing right and left, it is Bush's fault that the Chevy Volt's battery is defective and causing dangerouos fires, it is Bush's fault the huge snow storm, it is Bush's fault that it rain, it is Bush's fault that it is sunny, it is Bush's fault that you do not take showers, it is Bush's fault that.....
Do you think anyone is taking you seriously?
Get a life and open up a book and read something productive. It is not worth debating with crack pots like you since you are not here to have a meaningful, insightful, intelligent debate. All you want to do is feel superior to us, whom you believe are inferior human beings, Conservatives and Republicans.
Wingnut, thinkprogress.org?
Submitted by Liberallies on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 9:06pm.
Wingnut,
thinkprogress.org? Are you serious?! Are you honestly using that garbage of a site, funded by radical Left wing millionare, Soros? Only radical Left wing nut cases, Left wing lunatics will use thinkprogress.org as a source of reliable information.
it is well known amongst the educated class that thinkprogress.org is nothing, but a propaganda machine for the far and radical Left.
If it's so horribly wrong,
Submitted by AntiWingnut on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 9:35pm.
If it's so horribly wrong, why will none of you point out the factual errors?
Because, Wingnut---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 9:47pm.
speaking to a brick wall would be more productive than trying to ram any facts through your thick skull.
Your posts are nothing but errors; facts do not enter into any of them.
Trite, lame, and disingenuous liberal pap is all you have.
Your posts would be funny if they weren't so repetitive.
MD
Nutjob, if you knew how to
Submitted by Liberallies on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 9:50pm.
Nutjob,
if you knew how to read and comprehend, it would be worth taking the time to treat you like an adult. but you have proven with your insult riddle posts, oozing with hate for Republicand and Conservatives, you know us human beings whom you consider expendable roaches, that you are not worth the time.
Yes, yes, you won, you proved everyone wrong. Good for you.
Run, run go tell Yglesias at Thinkprogress.org how smart you are and how you destroyed all the Righties at a Conservative site!!
C'mon everyone, clap for this tool.
(sarcasm off)
It was Mom and Dads job to educate your
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 11:28pm.
Dumb a$$. You dont read anything but leftist BS. Folks here have spent to much time on you already.
AntiWingnut LIES.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 10:21pm.
12 LIE LIE LIE - It was presented in the article as though it was a projection from the Office of the Chief Actuary, but it's not. ... you posted a fraudulent citation. --- Fails to understand footnotes. Fails to read an article. Ad Hominem attack.
a. The article clearly had a footnote number. I copied the number in with the link. Anyone wanting further information is free to click on the article and see what the footnote was. This is normal behavior. NORMAL BEHAVIOR on the internet. Yet AntieNumbnut is trying to lay this off as some failing on my part.
b. The article clearly had a footnote number. Wow. Suddenly you have fraud when the author of a piece picks up a calculator and takes the estimates from another paper and divides 12 by 2 and adds 1.
AntiWingnut LIES.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 9:55am.
2. LIE LIE LIE --- If we allowed younger, healthy participants to buy into Medicare (entirely by choice) the costs would drop significantly. --- Fails to understand the nature of Medicare. Fails to understand what the young would do faced with a choice.
a. What is medicare? (www.medicare.gov)
Medicare is health insurance for the following
People 65 or older•
People under 65 with certain disabilities
People of any age with End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) (permanent kidney failure requiringdialysis or a kidney transplant)
Medicare is a federal program for the old and already sick. Allowing young healthy people would change the entire nature of the program. It would no longer be Medicare.
b. Young people already have the choice to entir insurance programs voluntarily. Many young people already voluntarily enter the health insurance market either individually or through their employers. Those that do not are largely willing to take a risk they will stay healthy and will likely not willingly enter the health care market given the choice.
a) Allowing more participants
Submitted by AntiWingnut on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 2:34pm.
a) Allowing more participants in Medicare does not make it something other than Medicare. Elligibility requirements have changed in the past and will change in the future. Replacing Medicare benefits with vouchers to by overpriced insurance on the open market would be replacing Medicare with something else. You "fiscal conservatives" love to give unnecessary middle men a cut of our tax dollars.
I see you like providing unrelated links in a futile attempt to make yourself seem smart.
b) Young people have the choice to buy insurance from companies that needlessly pay their executives huge sums while rationing care in order to increase shareholder value. Why not let them buy into a non-profit program run by a single administrative structure, that has a staff who earns 1/100th of what industry executives make, while simultaneously being able to negotiate favorable rates due to the size of the program? The buy-ins from younger people would offset the costs of care for the elderly. Nice and efficient, exactly the kind of thing conservatives hate.
When a young person rolls the dice and goes without insurance, we all currently pay the bill when that bet goes bad. That was the thinking behind the Republican individual mandate, it forces everyone to have skin in the game, no free rides.
AntiWingnut LIES.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 9:56am.
3. LIE LIE LIE The stimulus was a watered down piece of garbage, larded up with tax cuts to appease economic terrorists (read: Republicans). --- Fails to understand history as it happened only 2 years ago.
a. The Stimulus package of 2009 was passed with ZERO Republican votes in the House and 3 Republicans in the Senate. If Republicans were able to to lard up a spending bill with money set aside only for their interests, and then get a Democrat majority to vote for it in overwhelming numbers, the we need to vote Republicans in every single election. Not because the are such evil geniuses, but because the Democrats are a party of really stupid dupes.
The stimulus was passed with
Submitted by AntiWingnut on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 2:44pm.
The stimulus was passed with just 3 Republican votes, despite accepting numerous Republican amendments to the bill (the unhelpful tax cuts for the 1%). This is why the progressive base has been upset with Obama, because he has been so eager to work with Republicans that he keeps giving them what they want while they spit in his face. Of course, they love to do this when the bill is especially important, hence the economic terrorism. They were willing to let the country continue hemorrhaging jobs, just to make Obama look bad. They have repeatedly admitted as much.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/11/04/5407324-first-thoughts-m...
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0709/Health_reform_foes_plan_Obam...
You keep using the word "lie", but I do not think it means what you think it means A lie is a deliberate falsehood. Where is the supposed deliberate falsehood? You did not dispute the fact that the stimulus was packed full of items off of the Republican agenda. In fact, where is any falsehood at all? You made no specific claim of a falsehood.
Saying the stimulus was a
Submitted by NC Cop on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 3:14pm.
Saying the stimulus was a success is a lie, that's for sure.
AntiThinkingForMyself
Submitted by MrShy on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 4:31pm.
Anti, seriously? You counter The Vet's tireless attempts to educate you on a host of liberal-fed revisionist history you come on to NB peddling... with..... links to MSNBC and Politico??
Is that the same MSNBC who's primetime line-up of talking heads kick-back over coffee with Odumbo, discussing Dem/prog strategies and policies in the White House?
And the same Politico which *we all know* is a straight-up leftist think-tank site?
How much more of a useless idiot mouthpiece for Dems and the far-left can you be?
On top of this, you dismiss, again and again -- with so many NB'ers on this thread dismantling your rigid ideologue stance -- any notion that things like the 2008 crash are any more complicated than (R) = guilty culprit, (D) = no real hand in any of it.
But a serious question: How do you really see yourself? Please choose one of the following:
A) a true centrist -- a "no-labels" kinda guy
B) an open-minded, non-partisan liberal/left-leaner
C) a solid liberal progressive, and some might accuse me of being an ideologue
D) a radical, socialist left-wing ideologue (no doubt there)
- shy on vinyl
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
I did not exonerate
Submitted by AntiWingnut on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 4:37pm.
I did not exonerate Democrats. Bill Clinton signed Gramm-Leach-Bliley, even after having seen things like LTCM's crash. The bulk of the blame lays with Republicans (who controlled the House, Senate, and the White House) in the run up to the crisis (subprime lending peaked in '06).
Politico is a leftist think tank? You know, there's a reason they are often referred to as "Cheney's stenographers". They are a right wing organization. The center-left establishment does not like Politico.
http://www.salon.com/2010/01/05/politico_6/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/05/politico-editor-defends-t_n_412...
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201001050026
I would put myself in the B/C category. If you had the facts on your side, I would be with you. But, the reality is that your blind and willfully ignorant ideology has failed America.
"But, the reality is that
Submitted by NC Cop on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 4:43pm.
"But, the reality is that your blind and willfully ignorant ideology has failed America."
And judging from your posts, the American education system has failed you.
So you didn't come here to just attract attention?
Submitted by drsamherman on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 4:57pm.
You say you came here to tell us all the truth as you see it?
In psychiatric terms, your behavior thus far has painted a picture of you as a cluster B (narcissistic dominant/borderline subordinate) personality disorder along with a nice mendacious modifier. You also seem to be rather obsessive about your self-delusional superiority and messianic self-appointment. The compulsions are pretty clear in your case. Just keep demonstrating them. Nothing more I like than good textbook type materials for my next grand rounds for my first and second year psychiatry residents and my fourth year medical students.
You are coming close to dissociative features with your self-importance on this board. As has been said before, you trolls are fun to rattle because your responses are so predictable.
AntiAntiIdeologue
Submitted by MrShy on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 5:53pm.
Politico = a right wing organization?
I can't see your face, but you're really making this claim with a straight one?
I just perused wiki to really look into all the "parts" that make up Politico. Almost all of the editors, contributing writers, and even the founder, have Democrat/liberal connections and/or past posts/jobs, i.e., lots of ex-NYTimes/TIME and WaPost people, ex-Huffington Post'ers or contributers, authors/co-authors of fluffy Clinton and "take-back the W.H. in 2008" books (see: editor-in-chief John F. Harris) and so on... There were apparently some left-wing complainers in 2007 when it launched, but by all accounts it's pretty to-the-left of things currently.
"You know, there's a reason they are often referred to..."
Who's the "they" that drugged you into believing it's some Cheney-mouthpiece? Oh, wait, now I know...
Here it is: Your counter-argument is that "center-left" digital rags like Salon (um, center-left?), Huff Post (um, seriously? I mean, like, seriously?? center-left?) and mediamatters (rinse-repeat) did some write-ups where they perceive Politico as having slipped a bit on the radical leftist agenda/narrative.
This is just more evidence of how much of a shift to the left this country has gone, that we have the Anti's going around and calling out-and-out left-wing propaganda outfits "center-left". But, okay, throw every logical argument I just made out the window. I'm convinced. Politico is a right wing organization.
But even that aside, what's your excuse for even thinking of linking us to anything MSNBC, when this site exposes them daily for being a clear, overt loony-leftist, Obama-licking, propaganda machine for Dems and the liberal progressive movement?
And then your answer to my last question....
Somewhere between B-C, huh? So you have hints of B, do you? You crack me up. You swooped in on this thread with the most closed-minded, uber-partisan, "me/us (Dems/libs) vs. you (NB/conservies)" tripe we've ever seen, riddled with smug insults.
Open-minded and not all that partisan. Riiiiiiiight.
- shy @ 33 1/3
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
If you consider Salon and
Submitted by AntiWingnut on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 9:51pm.
If you consider Salon and Huffington Post radical leftist propaganda, what do you call actual radical leftist organizations? What do you call actual socialists (think left of Bernie Sanders)? What about communists? You idiots think anything that doesn't support your ignorant worldview is "leftist", so much so, that the word has no meaning anymore when you say it.
Seriously, if Huffington Post (which is just mediocre, anyway, but they make a good online source because they are so prolific) is radically left, then what term describes the actual left? I want to know. Enlighten me. Where on the spectrum is someone who advocates the dissolution of personal property rights? They can't be radically far left, because you have already used that term for people who want a public option for healthcare and regulations on the financial industry to prevent a repeat of Bush's economic disaster. Your hyperbole is undermining your cause.
As I keep saying, if you have a problem with a source, then point out the factual error(s). I could have just dismissed other people's links to places like the AEI (see The Vet's message), but I didn't. I went through and made a specific case for why that particular piece was wrong. He actually got suckered by a fraudulent citation, because he's a gullible, conservative fool. I can do this because I am correct. You can not do the same because you are wrong. So, your only hope to shore up your collapsing ideology is to use broad strokes to dismiss more than 75% of all journalism because they report facts that show you're wrong.
I love it when idiots like Bill O'Reilly (loofah!) complain about Media Matters, claiming they were taken out of context, when Media Matters posts the entire video/audio/transcript to specifically prevent such claims. Then the blowhards fall back on Media Matters getting money from George Soros (which did not happen until after Soros saw you fools saying he was funding them, at which point he figured he might as well make your dreams come true). And as a last resort they will call them a "far left smear merchant". As if pointing out inaccurate reporting and hipocrisy is somehow an ideological agenda. You're all pathetic.
I am open to being corrected. Go ahead, correct me. A few here have tried, only to end up looking foolish. But, maybe you'll be the one who is successful.
AntiDeodorant
Submitted by MrShy on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 10:45pm.
Okay, you are prone to rambling on with multiple paragraphs that are essentially a repetitive "look how wordy and smart and snarky I am" show, with some garden variety liberal twisting and dodging sprinkled in. I'll just address yawner (= paragraph) #1 -- although I read them all and don't feel any smarter for it:
"If you consider Salon and Huffington Post radical leftist propaganda, what do you call actual radical leftist organizations?"
That question is built on the brainwashed premise of yours that you and your average ilk are not radical. I very much think you and a vast majority of today's liberals are. And most sane people (very often right-leaning or full-on conservatives) agree with me. Exhibit A: only someone very radical and rabid in their ideology and immovable in their belief system would relish going at it in enemy territory, as you are doing now. You are stealth in being here and spreading your propaganda. That tells me you are an extremely radicalized soldier for the left. Do any of us hang out day and night at Huffington Post, taking all-comers with endless talking points and counter-arguments? No, none of us do.
Also, we've already peeled away at your onion, and all the same and very familiar layers are exposed -- that being, very radical ideas and paranoid views. From BCDS (Bush/Cheney Derangement Syndrome), to more than just hints of trutherism, to your WMD fixation and total dismissal of the far-more complex aspects of that war (as it is with any major global conflict/theater of war -- i.e., so many post-9/11 factors, geography, etc.), to your dumbed-down slogans like "oil and contracts for Bush/Cheney's buddies", and the list goes on.
"What do you call actual socialists (think left of Bernie Sanders)?"
I call them AntiWingnut, as well as the names of many of my once-friends, who are no longer because they are completely intolerant of non-nanny state believers like myself.... and people in my immediate family. Again, my own brother is an admitted socialist, peddling "Social Democracy". I am often invited to a friend's party, where one of his friends is an admitted socialist, and spends the whole night prosthelytizing -- while most people nod in passive agreement.
"What about communists?"
The idea of communism doesn't frighten you. I know this for a fact. Say it, "Yes, Mr. Shy, communism is scary". No, you have "real" things to be scared of, I'm sure. You're all just one step away from walking through the door completely.
"You idiots think anything that doesn't support your ignorant worldview is "leftist", so much so, that the word has no meaning anymore when you say it."
Give us one example of an average worldview of a conservative/NB'er that you believe is ignorant. Let's just use this group as an example, from stuff you've read.
- shy grooves
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
Excellent points, Mr. Shy.
Submitted by ant on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 7:39am.
Excellent points, Mr. Shy. It's true, only a radical idealogical loon would spend their whole day repeating talking points and insults over and over on a website dedicate to exposing their foolishness. I'm afraid though that the wisdom and facts that you and others have expressed here are pearls to swine with this troll Clevie-poo. As Matthew Dean has pointed out, it's like talking to a brick wall.
AntiAccessPermitted :p
Submitted by MrShy on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 4:15pm.
Hey ant, I'm putting plays on his name in the subject, to be sure he/she/it continues to get an education, even after being stipped of his NB "acces". But yes, they are all brick walls. Literally.
And thanks!!
- shy on vinyl
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
But Shy, brick walls serve a
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 4:17pm.
But Shy, brick walls serve a purpose. Trolls like AntiAccess, not so much. :-p
AntiWingnut LIES.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 10:20am.
4. LIE LIE LIE -The stimulus was also a boon for scientific research, quite a few grants were authorized using those funds. --- Fails to understand what went into the stimulus package of 2009. Fails to understand the fundamentals of scientific research in the United States.
a. Total funding for scientific research in the 2009 Stimulus - The stimulus legislation included about $18 billion for nondefense scientific research and development...
b. Scientific research in the United States runs somewhere around $400 Billion a year*. With the money split between the federal government, private industry, and universities themselves. Federal funding of research - a total federal R&D budget of an estimated $144.4 billion in FY 2011. A one time boost of $18 million compared to a minimum of $400 Billion comes out to around a boost of 4.5%. Hardly a boon.
* NSF.gov Academic performers are estimated to account for 55% off U.S. basic research ($69 billion), 31% of total (basic plus applied) research ($157 billion), and 13% of all R&D ($395 billion) estimated to have been conducted in
the United States in 2008.
So AntiWingnut, getting exposed in one lie after another was your entire point in signing up here? Strange reason to sign up.
a) $18billion can fund a lot
Submitted by AntiWingnut on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 3:59pm.
a) $18billion can fund a lot of labs. Many labs are run for something on the order of $1million/year (which covers part or all of the PI's salary/benefits, postdoc salary/benefits, equipment, consumables, and overhead). Hundreds, or even thousands, of labs were kept in operation thanks to this funding.
b) A 4.5% capital injection during an economic downturn is a significant outcome. I would have preferred the amount to be much higher, but there were millionaires who needed that extra $50,000.
Yep, you pulled some numbers from the NSF, for absolutely no reason. You really don't understand what you are saying, do you? Do you think that throwing in completely random facts as non-sequiturs somehow bolsters your arguments? Does this stuff impress the other wingnuts?
Clevenative/AntiWingnut LIES again.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 1:46am.
15. LIE LIE LIE - Yep, you pulled some numbers from the NSF, for absolutely no reason. --- Fails to comprehend English as written. Lies despite evidence on page before him.
a. It is called sourcing. Figures a pathetic 2 time lying troll would fail to comprehend this. The NFS numbers were to BACK UP this --- Scientific research...runs...around $400 Billion a year*. That splat is an asterisk, it is meant to call attention to the bottom of the page where a footnote resides. The asterisk is used to call out a footnote, especially when there is only one on the page. My footnote from the NSF shows indeed, I did not pull the numbers right out of my ass. ...13% of all R&D ($395 billion) .
Wow. the Retard can't understand sourcing, footnotes, or backing up what you say but it is me boys and girls. Yep, it is me. I got broad shoulders boys and girls. Put the blame on me.
You really don't understand what you are saying, do you? Do you think that throwing in completely random facts as non-sequiturs somehow bolsters your arguments? Does this stuff impress the other wingnuts?
Sorry boys and girls. It really is me after all with my silly sourcing and footnotes. It makes it so hard on the trolls.
AntiWingnut LIES.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 10:32am.
5. LIE LIE LIE - Cash for Clunkers was very successful. --- Fails to understand basic economics.
a. All it did was pull demand forward at the expense of the United States taxpayer.
Cash-for-clunkers simply pulled demand forward, by getting people who had aging cars, who were about to buy a new one, to speed up their purchases," writes Weisenthal. "Predictably, sales tanked once the program was over."
+
Business insider --- Cash-for-clunkers simply pulled demand forward, by getting people who had aging cars, who were about to buy a new one, to speed up their purchases. Predictably, sales tanked once the program was over.
+
Outside of July and August the program had negligible impact and when looking at the total number of new cars sold from June to December of 2009 the effect was close to zero
+
The Cash for Clunkers program turned out to be a complete waste of taxpayer money as it failed to create demand and simply moved it forward, creating a void in auto sales down the road when people would have normally purchased their vehicle as planned. It also destroyed thousands of perfectly good cars, reducing the used car inventory available to the public for purchase.
Edmunds has the dirt:
Car buyers on average paid $1,800 more for a used vehicle in July than they paid a year ago at this time, according to Edmunds.com data. That's a 10.3 percent increase
+
General Motors' sales plunged 36 percent in September compared with August. Ford plummeted 37 percent. Chrysler dove 33 percent.
Cash for Clunkers "was a one-time boost of sales followed by a crater," said Ben Herzon, an economist at Macroeconomic Advisers. The firm forecast that the program was likely to have no effect as a stimulant for national economic output.
Yes, it pulled demand
Submitted by AntiWingnut on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 4:05pm.
Yes, it pulled demand forward. You are exactly right. And pulling demand forward at a time when the US auto industry was about to collapse is a bad thing? You didn't even mention the knock-on effects, further up the supply chain, that came from clearing out the backlog of inventory. We not only still have an automobile industry in this country (or what's left of one, after the idiotic free trade agreements we have signed on to), but a thriving one, despite Republican attempts to torpedo it.
Wealth destruction, funded by me a taxpayer.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 4:25pm.
Why stop with cars, go for it and clear out all that backlog of inventory, EVERYWHERE
The Mayor Of Detroit’s Radical Plan To Bulldoze One Quarter Of The City
bet ya you have some working links to a perpetual motion machine.
You Didn't Build That.
AntiFreeThought
Submitted by MrShy on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 4:29pm.
"the US auto industry was about to collapse..."
"we were about to have a full-blown depression before Obama saved us...
"the poor and old people were about to be left on the street to die before we saved them all with the entitlement/nanny-state culture some 80 years ago..."
Liberal's pivot to their all-knowing crystal ball when they are out of ammunition.
- shy on vinyl
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
It also virtually removed the
Submitted by amyshulk on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 4:54pm.
It also virtually removed the secondary market, thereby hurting those on the lower end and forcing them to use public transportation.
So yeah, to the D's, it IS a win. To the rest of us? Nope. Creative destruction was {once again} warped by gov't. intervention.
Ronald Reagan
Do you have some
Submitted by AntiWingnut on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 5:21pm.
Do you have some documentation to back up the lie you just told? That's a commonly trotted out right-wing talking point, with zero data to back it up. The only way it would have had a significant impact on the secondary market is if the secondary market was already low on inventory at the time. There is quite a bit of capacitance in the secondary automobile market, you have an uphill battle trying to show any such problem. Where was this used car crunch that you claim?
You can't have it both ways. You can't say that Cash For Clunkers did nothing for the auto industry and then say that it had a strong effect on the secondary market.
You can, however, state that it time shifted demand, bolstering a flagging industry in its most fragile time, while the secondary market survived on existing inventory during the temporary surge in new vehicle sales. That is, in fact, what happened.
Thats funny, you calling someone a liar.
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 6:32pm.
If you bother reading, instead of typing nonsense, you would had seen an article above that clearly states that used auto were inflated an additional 1800.oo. Clearly that is a burden on those who are at the lower end of the economic scale. It is you that have lied countless time in the last 24hrs. Also since when do the taxpayers subsidizing any industry make good business sense, only if your a lib. In-fact it didnt help GM, because when the subsidies stopped, so did the sales, when the trade-ins were destroyed it artificial raised prices. Your an economic illiterate, and should leave policy to the adults.
And a 10% increase in the
Submitted by AntiWingnut on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 10:01pm.
And a 10% increase in the cost of a used car, when the market was artificially depressed by a supply glut from the top down, is akin to destroying the secondary market? You fools sure use a strange version of the English language.
If GM was not helped, why does GM still exist? They were going down in flames, fast. Just look at their spending on advertising (thus creating jobs in advertising, broadcasting, production, transportation, logistics, etc) - http://www.themobilists.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/emarketer.gif That is quite a reversal. I guess that's your idea of a failure though, since you were rooting against America, like the rest of the traitors around here.
I take it you are against a single payer and public option healthcare system, right? I bet you want to see Paul Ryan's "kill Medicare" plan passed too, right? Isn't that a case of taxpayers subsidizing industry? Giving a huge cut of our GDP to middle men who provide absolutely no service. No, it doesn't make sense, but it's what you conservatives want.
Why do the Republicans have us taxpayers subsidizing oil companies (while they make record profits in the tens of billions), and GE (while they make record profits in the tens of billions), and so on? I don't just mean we are giving them reduced tax rates, we literally hand them cash. Where are the calls to end those industry subsidies?
Why can't any of you stop contradicting yourselves?
Wingnut, Do you realize how
Submitted by Liberallies on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 10:22pm.
Wingnut,
Do you realize how ridiculously stupid you sound? sorry, rhetorical question, of course you don't.
We haven't had a lunatic spew so much hate for Republicans and Conservatives in a while.
Hey, by the way, has obama stopped the subsidizing of oil companies, has he? Did the Democrat controlled Congress do it during Obama's first two years?
and nice of you to stereotype. All of us Conservatives and Republicans believe that government should be subsidizing oil companies? really? where did you get this information from? Have you done a poll of every single Conservative and Republican to come up with your "factual" statement that all of us believe this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwWA2ehTOrk
I guess this traitor lied to us about Iraq's WMD, right? What does that say about Obama choosing her to be part of his administration, shoot that he is a traitor too. hahaha!!!
By the way, I remember Hillary Clinton screaming and yelling how it is wrong to call American traitors merely because we disagree in political ideology, oh wait, it is ok when you Left wing nut cases do it, right, nut?
ProIdiot
Submitted by MrShy on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 11:28pm.
"Why do the Republicans have us taxpayers subsidizing oil companies (while they make record profits in the tens of billions), and GE (while they make record profits in the tens of billions), and so on? I don't just mean we are giving them reduced tax rates, we literally hand them cash. Where are the calls to end those industry subsidies?"
Wow, what a circus-freak body-bending bit of equating you do. Well, heck, you're desperate...
You're now comparing us as taxpayers literally subsidizing government-run industry with us "subsidizing" those "fat cats" in the "Big Oil" industry, and their "record profits"?
[ btw, with everything you libs need to vilify, you have that wonderful go-to word, "record".... every year these evil oil people are breaking the previous year's profits, which we all know broke records.... I digress... ]
Hey dope. Any idea why the oil industry is such a profitable* one? (*and profit, by the way, is a GREAT word -- so stop vilifying it, ya' socialist.) And any idea why it's so darn big, hence dubbed "Big Oil" and not just "Oil"? Any idea why we are constantly "handing them [the oil industry] our cash"? Well? Useful idiot of the highest order and outed socialist, AntiEverything?
Here's the answer:
We all use oil. We all use LOTS of it. In our cars. Constantly. Cars need it, like I need food and water. In the buses we take to work. In the heat we have in our homes keeping us warm. In the trucks delivering us -- and elitist hipsters like you who would cringe at the idea of working on a farm, I'm sure -- meats and produce and furniture and appliances and clothes. It's THE primo, numero-uno resource that all of our lives depend on GREATLY. Mine, yours (ya' socialist), and everyone's.
Our demand is huge. Conversely, their supply is huge. Ya' know, like, "BIG", and raking in "profits".
You're an indoctrinated anti-capitalist and typical knee-jerk left-winger, with multiple derangement syndromes. And you seem to be incurable. And there are many of you out there, sadly.
- shy on vinyl
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
Like I said, you are an economic illiterate
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 11:42pm.
Saved GM? Really, well now their owned by us, the taxpayers and the uaw who is subsidized by us. Great eh, only if your Obama looking for votes, or dumb as dirt.
By your logic, we should just raise the price of everything by 20% or so. If only to give you commies a quicker avenue to bankruptcy. By the way, name me another country using these policies, (and there are many) who is producing and has a flourishing economy. I will save you the time, there arnt any. Oh, but you libtards are so much smarter then the "real" commies, right?
Hey shy*
Submitted by cajun2 on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 11:52pm.
This should help A.Nut understand why we buy oil
But of course, my glasses are just an excuse to funnel my hard earned money to those fat cat oil companies like a good republican./sarc
capacitance? As a former
Submitted by amyshulk on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 7:20pm.
capacitance? As a former electrician, I was struck by your usage - so now we have a built up electrical charge in the secondary auto market???
btw - I *never* said Cash for Clunkers did nothing, in fact I acknowledged that it did what it was INTENDED to do - decimate the used cars market to force us into the green vision of hybrid/electric cars.
I fear for our country when I see so called "smart" people who seriously lack the common sense that those of us who saw the "unintended consequences" possess.
Ronald Reagan
I know you're slow, so let me
Submitted by AntiWingnut on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 10:05pm.
I know you're slow, so let me know if you need help understanding what a metaphor is.
In this particular case, the metaphorical use of "capacitance" refers to the ability to smooth out ripples by storing and releasing the quantity of interest (in this case, cars instead of charge).
I could see if someone who didn't know electronics needed that explained, but what's your excuse?
Malapropism
Submitted by NL207 on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 10:12pm.
mal´a`prop`ism
n. 1. A grotesque misuse of a word; a word so used.
So, this is what it looks
Submitted by amyshulk on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 10:59pm.
So, this is what it looks like when worlds collide? Or should I say world views? I don't recall denigrating you for your *unique* word usage, yet you felt the need to denigrate me, why?
I was a Navy electrician. Never touched electronics. Knew/know better than to mess with a capacitor, since they hold a wicked charge.
You are stretching here.
Ronald Reagan
Oh yes! The Republicans that
Submitted by ant on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 6:07pm.
Oh yes! The Republicans that want us all to drive around in big gas-guzzling cars so they can rake in profits for big oil, and evil American Corporations while at the same time showing their contempt for humanity by making us all breathe dirty, noxious air ARE, at the same time, trying to destroy the auto industry...... Man, you libtards have got to be some of the stupidest people that have ever existed in all of history.
Their stated goal, over the
Submitted by AntiWingnut on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 10:09pm.
Their stated goal, over the short term, is to prevent Obama from winning re-election. They have shown they do not care what damage they do along the way.
They caused the country's credit rating to be downgraded (S&P specifically attributed the downgrade to the politically imposed possibility of defaulting on our debts), they have tried to prevent unemployment reduction, they have tried to stop infrastructure upgrades, and on and on. They even fought against a tax cut for lower and middle class citizens, in order to hurt Obama politically. It's sick and it's traitorous to put a political power grab in front of the good of the country.
Auntie Wingnut---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 10:19pm.
you just get more pathetic, yet oddly, funnier, with each succeeding post.
Clock be ticking on your pitiful liberal troll arse.
MD
Interesting. So the tacit
Submitted by amyshulk on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 11:01pm.
Interesting. So the tacit goal of *every* political party is to regain power, and you find that insidious? As to damage, proof?
Ronald Reagan
AntiWingnut LIES.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 10:50am.
6. LIE. SLUR - ...the Republican party is so dead set on destroying our country with this idiotic class warfare that they've been conducting for decades. --- Fails to understand what class warfare is. Fails to understand who is engaging in class warfare.
a. Republicans and Democrats alike have been lowering the tax rate on the lower and middle class for decades. To claim that either party is dead set on destroying the country, when doing so would put all politicians in all political parties out of a job, is a blatant LIE.
AntiWingnut LIES.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 1:12pm.
7. LIE LIE LIE - ...entire credit default swap market, which nearly destroyed our economy while Republicans were asleep at the wheel... --- Fails to understand the financial panic of 2008. Fails to understand the workings of the United States government.
a.
Had the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve really believed that Bear Stearns had to be rescued because the market was interconnected through credit-default swaps, they would never have allowed the failure of Lehman, which was a much bigger player in credit-default swaps than Bear. Moreover, while Lehman was a major dealer in credit default swaps--and a borrower on which many credit-default swaps had been written--when it failed, there was no discernible effect on its swap counterparties.
Within a month after its bankruptcy, the swaps in which Lehman was an intermediary dealer had been settled bilaterally, and the swaps written on Lehman itself ($72 billion, notionally) were settled by the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation (D.T.C.C.). The settlement was completed without incident, with a total cash exchange among all counterparties of $5.2 billion. There is no indication that the Lehman failure caused any systemic risk arising out of its CDS obligations--either as one of the major CDS dealers, or as a failed company on which $72 billion in notional credit-default swaps had been written.
The fact that A.I.G. was rescued almost immediately after Lehman's failure led once again to speculation that A.I.G. had written a lot of CDS protection on Lehman, and had to be bailed out for that reason. When the D.T.C.C.'s Lehman settlement was completed, however, A.I.G. had to pay only $6.2 million on its Lehman exposure--a rounding error for this huge company. A.I.G.'s failure was not due not to its exposure to Lehman through credit-default swaps, but to its use of a credit model that did not account for all the risks it was taking (O'Harrow and Dennis 2008).
The collapse of A.I.G., then, had nothing to do with credit-default swaps per se. The cause was the same as with the collapse of the financial system as a whole: the faulty evaluation of the risks of residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBSs) that contained subprime loans.
+
Robert P. Murphy - Government Interventions, Not Laissez Faire, Caused the Financial Crisis
+
Credit default swaps "didn't cause the problem, but they certainly exacerbated the financial crisis," said Leslie Rahl, president of Capital Market Risk Advisors, a consulting firm in New York.
b. Congressional commitee's are task with overseeing parts of the economy.
congressional committee is a legislative sub-organization in the United States Congress that handles a specific duty (rather than the general duties of Congress). Committee membership enables members to develop specialized knowledge of the matters under their jurisdiction.
+
Parties assign their members to specific committees. In the Senate, there is a limit to the number of committees on which one member may serve. While each committee may hire its own staff and appropriate resources as it sees fit, the majority party often controls those decisions.
Both parties are represented in congressional committees tasked with oversight over various parts of our economy.
a) So, you're on my side now?
Submitted by AntiWingnut on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 4:26pm.
a) So, you're on my side now? Did you read what you posted? It supports what I've been saying. It says that credit default swaps on (fraudulently rated) mortgage backed securities was the cause of the crisis. The first link exonerates credit default swaps as a general concept, but lays blame at their implementation in regards to mortgage backed securities, specifically in the context of excessive risk exposure. The second one jumps right to the point and says that credit default swaps were a significant factor in the crisis. Are you illiterate?
b) The regulation of securities is under the purview of the executive branch. Good luck with being ignorant.
Yes, Congress has committees. Thanks for that info? As is becoming a pattern with you, why is that relevant?
AntiWingnut LIES.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 1:11pm.
8. LIE LIE LIE - What about the $2.4trillion (by CBO estimates) to $3trillion+ (by economist Joseph Stiglitz's estimates) spent on Bush and Cheney's little play-date in the desert? --- Fails to understand the Constitution. Fails to understand how the United States government functions. Belittles a war in which over 4000 Fallen Heroes paid the ultimate price.
I dare you to belittle the war in front of the over 4000 Gold Star mothers and fathers. You lying coward. You prove you are not here to disprove jackshit with that cowardly statement.
a. Congress declares war. Congress funds war. Not the President. And the 107th Congress authorized the invasion of Iraq on October 16th, 2002. With 297 votes in the House, 82 of them Democrat. And 77 votes in the Senate, 29 of them Democrats. Clearly a bipartisan effort.
b. Congress funds war. Congress authorized the war and continued to fund it every single year right up to 2011 when we are leaving. It funded it when the Republicans were in the majority. It funded it after the Democrats gained a majority in both house in 2006. It funded it through the surge when Democrats were in the majority. It funded it after the 2008 election when Democrats gained supermajority states.
Take your play-date bull and shove it right up your rear you frelling coward. The war is over and you still sit here 8 years later and make cowardly statements. I dare you. I dare you, you coward, to say that to a gold star father. I pray there are no gold star mothers here to be hurt by your cowardice.
I dare you to tell one of
Submitted by AntiWingnut on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 4:09pm.
I dare you to tell one of those parents how you feel their child's life was worth throwing away over falsified intelligence and Bush/Cheney's hopes to enrich their friends in the oil and contracting industries.
You have no honor, whatsoever.
I dare you to tell
Submitted by NC Cop on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 4:15pm.
the truth, wingnut. You're a mantra spewing, lying dem whore, nothing more. The dems tried throughout Bush's presidency to get him thrown out. The whole "Bush lied" thing was investigated and disproven, sorry to disappoint you.
Don't come here with your self-righteuous indignation routine. You're a pathetic troll, and a poor one even by troll standards.
You have no honor, integrity, honesty, dignity, pride or intelligence.
see folks*
Submitted by cajun2 on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 4:33pm.
Told ya' wing nut would come out with an old lie.
Let's talk about enriching ones friends A. Nut.
In June of 2009, Haliburton and other drilling contractors reported to MMSA in NO that the Cut Off mechanism on the Deepwater Horizon was defective. Not malfunctioning but defective. Drilling was suspended for "investigation". In August of 2009 George Soros sold all his stock in BP and bought stock in PetroBras. Two weeks before the explosion, Obama reversed the MM's decision and BP continued drilling. All of BP's engineers started leaving the platform without telling the crew why. Eleven crew men died in that explosion.
Obama changed the agencies name in order to avoid FOIA requests. He then three times, refused to resume issuing permits against a Federal Judges orders. In the meantime, back at the White House, Obama then gives $2B to PetroBras for an experimental well drilling job at 15,000 feet. Three times the depth of the DeepWater Horizon. Then Soros sells his stock in PetroBras with a nice hefty profit of $1.2 Billion dollars. Then, after 8 months of NO drilling in the Gulf, loss of thousands of jobs, loss of billions in revenue to majority republican Gulf states, Obama gives $2B to Mexico to drill in the Gulf.
Tell me again about apologizing to the families of the eleven dead crewmen and enriching ones friends.
You are a brainwashed idiot. And that was a nice description since it is Christmas.
All right, who let the
Submitted by AntiWingnut on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 5:10pm.
All right, who let the freeper in here? This is why we can't have nice things.
I am aware of this ridiculous conspiracy theory. The $2billion in question was loaned by the Bush appointed Ex-Im board. Obama had not appointed anyone to the board, yet. The loan was to ostensibly promote the export of American goods and services. But, even if you insist on thinking it was some kind of grand conspiracy to benefit George Soros, the blame must lie with the Bush administration, since it was W's appointees that approved the loan.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2011/03/21/how-the-wall-street-jou...
http://mediamatters.org/research/201103240035
Is your tinfoil hat on too tight, kool-aid drinker? Where did you get this nonsense? Was it Glenn Beck or The Free Republic? Or, did it trickle down onto you, through Neil Cavuto? Silly wingnut.
A.Nut*
Submitted by cajun2 on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 5:40pm.
So when faced with the truth, libs must distort. The Obama admins admitted that the loan to PetroBras was to assist Brazil in drilling an experimental deep water well, not anything to do with Bush, distributing American goods. So if I produce actual testimony, documents that call you a liar, then I am a wingnut.
The thing you missed was my post name. Get the picture? Not Glenn Beck, Rush, or anyone else. I dont watch Fox News, in fact, rarely watch any news channel. Government exposed documents from a Federal Court hearing and testimony is more accurate information. Can't handle that can you?
How many coincidences does it take before it is no longer a "theory"?
You are not interested in debate. Like drsam says, you are only interested in posting your long rants filled with lib lies to offset the negative polls of your messiah, He spends $4 million on a vacation at tax payers expense while tax payers cant even afford to buy groceries. So the drones come out to conservative sites and repeat long exposed lies, insult, and appear to be superior intellect. It doesnt matter your level of education. It is clear to others that you are a blind kool aid drinking ideologists. You cannot afford to acknowledge factual information because then your house of cards would come tumbling down. Hide in your little ivory tower A. Nut. It is obvious you cannot handle the truth.
I could post dozens of documents from official government websites. Since I was once a government employee, I know which closet they hide the goods. But I have already exposed your rancid aged lib lies dozens of times with other trolls just like you. You are boring since you have nothing new, and not willing to debate.
Au revoir coullion.
You wingnut idiots keep
Submitted by AntiWingnut on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 10:18pm.
You wingnut idiots keep claiming you can prove this or that. Stop talking and do it already. You can post dozens of documents that backup what you say? They are not just articles full of hot air from your idiot brethren? Then what are you waiting for?
Do I hesitate to post the information that proves you morons wrong? No. So, why do you? You talk a big game, but you can't back it up. You're pathetic. You are weak. You are a coward. You are a liar.
So far, all you've done is post a link to a right wing conspiracy theory site. Where are these documents? If you could post supporting material, you would. You don't because you're a wormy little liar.
You are making empty threats, because you have an empty head.
Hey meat..............what
Submitted by killa37 on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 10:24pm.
Hey meat..............what was it that we were supposed to prove??? Maybe you can remind us??? And, more importantly - do you have the mental capacity to accept anything beyond what is inside your delusional addled brain???
The champion Wingnut, Auntie by name, ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 10:26pm.
is slipping; soon will be sliding, ever faster down the slope to troll oblivion.
Go, Wingnut, go!
I love it when you talk dirty; it represents the hastening of your demise.
MD
Nice to see my gut was right
Submitted by amyshulk on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 7:24pm.
Nice to see my gut was right - I thought it was just too coincidental to be an accident!!!
Next thing you know, we'll hear about how the great crash was engineered to get Pres. Obama elected!!!
Ronald Reagan
Prove it liar
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 6:40pm.
Link or slink, liar!
Wingnut, You mean falsified
Submitted by Liberallies on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 7:36pm.
Wingnut,
You mean falsified intelligence from back when Clinton was in power? Geez, I did not know that Bush/Cheney had such power to influence the military and intelligence community of the USA while Clinton was in power.
Your Leftists you, always telling us how stupid Bush was, but men in order for him to have done what you claim, geez, he was a genius!
http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm
http://spectator.org/archives/2005/11/15/in-their-own-words/
If Bush lied, so did every single member of Clinton's team during his Presidency.
Everyone knew he wanted
Submitted by AntiWingnut on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 10:29pm.
Everyone knew he wanted nuclear weapons, there has never been any debate about that. He was not successfully pursuing them, however. That is something that was also well known. Bush lied about Saddam buying uranium from Niger and lied about the purpose of aluminum tubes. That was his "smoking gun" evidence presented to the UN to justify the invasion. The CIA warned them that this evidence was garbage. Cheney and his henchmen then put the lives of our covert operatives and foreign intelligence assets at risk to exact revenge on someone for speaking up against the lies. At a minimum, they destroyed a number of channels for intel, at worst they got people killed, we'll never know how much damage they really did.
In the end, how did all of that lying work out? No weapons were found, no programs for developing weapons were found, trillions of dollars were spent, thousands of Americans were killed, many more innocent Iraqis were killed, a wave of sectarian violence was unleashed, a new haven for extremists was created, and a potential ally of Iran was set loose.
Nice work. That's really a record of which to be proud.
Just like you wingnuts, who keep threatening to prove me wrong but never follow through, Saddam talked a big game. When it came down to it, just like you, he was unable to back up his big mouth.
Your main problem, Wingnut---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 10:40pm.
and you certainly have a multitude of them; is that you continue to insist that no one here "backs up" what they contend; and then deny that there is any possibility whatsoever that anyone other than you has provided, or even is capable of providing, reasonable responses to your outrageous claims.
Even aside from being totally out of line with respect to debate parameters, you are flat out of your maggot infested mind.
MD
Wingnut case,
Submitted by Liberallies on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 10:57pm.
Wingnut case,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwWA2ehTOrk
Geez, you mean this traitor lied to us about Iraq's WMDs and Saddam Hussein's support of terrorists? Really?! No, please tell me it is not so. Oh man...really? This person is a traitor too? Wow...what has this world come to.
And Obama chose this individual to be part of his administration!! How dare Obama hire a traitor to his administration. How dare he?!!! Oh, wait, wait we know why because Bush made Obama do it. HAHAHAHA!!!!
Why didn't this individual listen to the CIA? Oh, I know, I know because Cheney and his henchmen told this individual, you either say Iraq has WMDs and supports terrorist or else your days are numbered. Wha tdo you say Wingnut? Nah, I think Bush made this individual do it.
Bush controlled one of the most powerful political figures of the Left, no doubt. Yeap, you keep confirming, Bush is a genius.
No doubt, Wingnut that Obama can't be re-elected since he appointed a traitor to one of the highest positions in his administration.
Wingnut, I am laughing at how you honestly believe that you are smarter than us "sub-human" Conservatives.
BetweenBandC
Submitted by MrShy on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 11:40pm.
"Saddam talked a big game. When it came down to it, just like you, he was unable to back up his big mouth."
Yes, and he was summarily removed from tyrannical power and subsequently caught and killed, along with his evil sons who were prepared to follow their tyrant dad in his footsteps.
Iraq -- smack-dab in the middle of the Middle East -- in a very dangerous post-9/11 world was being hoarded over by a vicious, deeply unstable, unpredictable mass-killer and dictator. Now the country has a constitution and people voting for the first time in their lives.
Not to mention, with the endless infiltration of Jihadists entering the country and blowing themselves, Iraqi's and U.S./coalition soldiers up in the early years of the war, when the ugly dust of a major conflict settled we lost 4,000 patriots. Yep, that's all, if you go look at past major conflicts.
But right, WMDs WMDs WMDs Bush lied, blah blah blah. Want to give him any kudos, you open-minded, not-that-partisan (between B and C) erm, socialist?
- shy on vinyl
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
double
Submitted by MrShy on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 11:41pm.
post
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
AntiWingnut LIES.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 2:24pm.
9. LIE LIE LIE - I will keep waiting for you to address ...the fraudulent ratings of securities... --- Fails to understand how people communicate.
a. This is the first mention of fraudulent ratings of securities. Gonna be a long wait when people have not heard the conversation that went on only in your head.
It's not even close to the
Submitted by AntiWingnut on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 4:17pm.
It's not even close to the first mention, you're just uninformed (no surprise there).
http://www.thestreet.com/story/11082535/1/sp-moodys-inflated-mbs-ratings...
http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2011/08/31/supbrime-mortgage-backed-secu...
Those links are from right wing sources, by the way. Not that it should matter, the truth is the truth.
Here's a layman's explanation for you - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_rating_agencies_and_the_subprime_crisis
The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission reported in January 2011 that: "The three credit rating agencies were key enablers of the financial meltdown. The mortgage-related securities at the heart of the crisis could not have been marketed and sold without their seal of approval. Investors relied on them, often blindly. In some cases, they were obligated to use them, or regulatory capital standards were hinged on them. This crisis could not have happened without the rating agencies. Their ratings helped the market soar and their downgrades through 2007 and 2008 wreaked havoc across markets and firms."
Some more reading for you - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis
16. LIE LIE LIE - It's not
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 2:36am.
16. LIE LIE LIE - It's not even close to the first mention --- Fails to comprehend English as written. Fails to understand time stamps on posts.
a. A quick look at Time stamps on this page easily dispels this lie. The first mention of credit ratings of agencies was his whine that he was waiting for Dave to respond to something only the voices in his head heard.
First mention of the his using the word ratings on this page - Tue, 12/20/2011 - 3:55am. - I will keep waiting for you to address the credit default swap market and the fraudulent ratings of securities. Second mention - 12/20/2011 - 7:34am. Third mention - 12/20/2011 - 2:33pm. Fourth mention - 12/20/2011 - 7:05pm. Fifth mention - 12/20/2011 - 3:39am
How sad is this troll. He lies when the evidence is right here on this page.
Anytime AuntieNumbnut.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 2:24pm.
Why do I get the feeling you are a retread? Question is... Which one? Who was that retread that was way too verbose, continually lied, plagiarized, and then went on his website to whine after the ban hammer came down? Hmmmmm.
Let's see what kind of resume
Submitted by killa37 on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 3:02pm.
Let's see what kind of resume ol' Clevie-Poo will give us this time - if he gives us anything. Anybody as smart as he is has GOT to have some seriously heavy background - you can't know as much as he does by just sitting around in front of your computer.
Thanks, killa
Submitted by ant on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 6:19pm.
I couldn't remember his name 'til you mentioned it, this punk troll sure sounds a lot like Clevie-poo.
Killa, I do believe you're right.
Submitted by UpNorth on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 8:35pm.
I do believe that one of Clevie-Poo's favorite terms was "wingnut", and he had a proclivity for citing thinkprogress, PuffHo's, mediamatters and the rest of the fetid swamp that passes for leftwing knowledge.
And, he was a legend in his own mind, for being able to turn a simple response into a band-width wasting, long-winded, verbose statement of all that he considered sacrosanct in the swamp that passes for left wing thought.
I'm telling you guys, this IS
Submitted by killa37 on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 9:35pm.
I'm telling you guys, this IS either Clevie-Poo, or his bastard twin from hell, and I saw it as plain as day yesterday when I started to notice his posts...........and in fact about it, this guy has gone beyond how Clevie-Poo acted with regards to self-importance, delusions of grandeur, and arrogance - and that's sayin' sumpin, because Cleventine was the biggest asshole I've personally ever seen on this website.
It appears that he went back into his hole, and found a new topic - which appears to be the financial/banking/housing crisis - and pumped as many lib talkng points, myths, half-truths, and exagerations as he possible could..........and tried to make sure that he wasn't plagurizing anything too obviously........and then re-registered on NB so that he could jump back in and create more mayhem and chaos, and insult anyone and everyone that he possibly could. This is exactly how he acted before - although he was spouting off on some different topics..........but the rest of the act is the same.
I'd give him another day or two - by then he will have insulted everyone possible, without engaging in any positive dialogue - and the powers that be will give him the axe.
I distinctly said - when Cleventine was banned - that he WOULD be back!!! You can look it up!!!
And killa35 gets his wings.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 10:50pm.
Welcome to the ranks of trolljegeren. Pick up your qualta blade from matthewdean, the armory master. Yes. clevenative spoke of hate constantly. I have a forum with his concentrated insults and lies in Internal affairs. You can look there and compare ---
Troll Alert - Clevenative - insulting bigoted rant troll
Look at my bolded instances of his using his favorite word hate.
Then look here. - Why do conservatives hate America? ...they are horrible people who hate America and American heroes. ... Nice and efficient, exactly the kind of thing conservatives hate. ... Yes, you hate CBS news or any "mainstream...
Good catch killa. Don't forget to use those powers for good.
Ahhh hell, Vet - the guy is a
Submitted by killa37 on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 11:28pm.
Ahhh hell, Vet - the guy is a clown. Busting him was like sitting on a batting practice fastball - straight and right down the middle. And I'm just an American-hating idiot, and I could see through this phony after about 3 of his posts. For all his 'intellectual prowress' and bombastic bluster, he sure doesn't have much to show for it, does he??? But, you know he only came here to impress himself in our presence...........that's his whole game, plain and simple. He wasn't interested in anything beyond trying to make a scene and be the center of attention - so I guess he WAS successful on that level.
The good DOC uses some kind of phrase that has the word 'cluster' in it...............well, my Navy SEAL son has a similiar sounding phrase that goes like this - 'clusterf**k'.................and I think that's a perfect description of ol' Auntie NumbNuts.
No buddy.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 12:52am.
It ain't easy looking at a post, stepping back, viewing it like a painted picture, and saying "Man, I have seen those brush strokes before". BZ. You nailed it.
AntiWingnut LIES.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 2:18pm.
10. LIE LIE LIE - Bush failed to heed (ie. the Presidential Daily Briefing entitled "Bin Laden Determined To Attack Inside The United States"... Fail to understand the nature of the intelligence operations in the United States. Fails to keep current on events.
a. White House releases bin Laden memo.
The declassified intelligence report said the FBI had detected "patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings."
Patterns of suspicious activity. Wow. Better not ignore that.
We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a [redacted] service in 1998 saying that bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to secure the release of 'Blind Sheikh' Omar Abdel Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists," the memo says in part.
1998. Wha.....? But that undermines the hack argument that it was all BushMcHitlerMonkey.
The White House said the presidential daily briefing, or PDB, was requested by Bush, who sought information about the possibility of an al Qaeda attack in the United States.
But But But how can BushMcHitlerMonkey being ignoring things HE REQUESTED?
The PDB article did not warn of the 9/11 attacks," the White House said in a statement released Saturday night. "Although the PDB referred to the possibility of hijackings, it did not discuss the possible use of planes as weapons."
The memo, titled "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the U.S.," had been described by the White House as a largely historical document with scant information about domestic al Qaeda threats.
The memo includes intelligence on al Qaeda threats as recent as three months before the attacks.
Highlights of the report include:
• An intelligence report received in May 2001 indicating that al Qaeda was trying to send operatives to the United States through Canada to carry out an attack using explosives. That information had been passed on to intelligence and law enforcement agencies.
• An allegation that al Qaeda had been considering ways to hijack American planes to win the release of operatives who had been arrested in 1998 and 1999.
• An allegation that bin Laden was set on striking the United States as early as 1997 and through early 2001.
• Intelligence suggesting that suspected al Qaeda operatives were traveling to and from the United States, were U.S. citizens, and may have had a support network in the country.
But But But BushMcHitlerMonkey was not President in 1998 or 1997 or up through early 2001.
Frelling partisan hack liar. KEEP UP TO DATE. OR google something before you bring a 10 year old whine.
b. An allegation that bin Laden was set on striking the United States as early as 1997 and through early 2001.
There you have it boys and girls. Bin Laden was set on striking in the United States BEFORE BUSH BECAME PRESIDENT.
SET ON STRIKING IN UNITED STATES
BEFORE
BUSH
BECAME PRESIDENT.
I WILL REPEAT THAT.
B.E.F.O.R.E. B.U.S.H. B.E.C.A.M.E. P.R.E.S.I.D.E.N.T
Got that Troll? Or do I have to repeat it again
Vicious LIE: Bush failed to heed (ie. the Presidential Daily Briefing entitled "Bin Laden Determined To Attack Inside The United States"..
...bin Laden was set on striking the United States as early as 1997 and through early 2001...
1997 through early 2001.
Say anyone, when did President Bush take office?
That is not the proper use of time travel boys and girls.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 2:30pm.
The President went back in time and then failed to heed Bin Laden's determinations on striking the United States from 1997 to EARLY 2001.
You know time travel is expensive boys and girls. Please write your congressman on this blatant violation of time travel on government's dime.
Everyone knew bin Laden
Submitted by AntiWingnut on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 10:47pm.
Everyone knew bin Laden wanted to take down the World Trade Center, going back to 1993 when it was first bombed. So, yes, it was known before Bush was president. He then received a warning in the weeks leading up to the attack, a warning that specifically referenced the possibility of hijackings. And yet, with all these warnings, Bush did absolutely nothing to step up security. For a piece of FBI intelligence to percolate all the way up to the level of a presidential daily briefing, it had to be considered extremely important. And yet, Bush did nothing.
So, the PDB mentioned hijackings, but not the possibility of using the planes as weapons? Oh, well, in that case, hijack away, right? I mean, who cares if they're just standard hijackings, those are just fine and dandy. Bush is totally absolved of all responsibility.
He knew before he became president. He got a very specific and urgent warning in the weeks before the attack, and he did nothing. He. Did. Nothing.
It seems like you have a reputation among some people here as being some kind of intellectual heavyweight, and yet you can't even understand the information you post. You're just a copy and paste monkey, with no comprehension. That might impress the cockroaches around here, but I can see right through you. I've got you figured out.
Thanks for helping me to make my case, yet again, by pointing out more of the warnings that Bush ignored.
Good job, you dope.
Hey meat - we're really a
Submitted by killa37 on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 10:53pm.
Hey meat - we're really a bunch of nasty evil 'name-callers' here, aren't we??? We should all aspire to be as classy as you are.
Everyone knew eh?
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 11:52pm.
Except Bill the dimwit Clinton that is. I am stunned your still here. You must have no dignity what-so-ever
At some point,---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 12:05am.
someone, is going to smoke this liberal troll fool.
Keying up AntiWingnut will cause the words "ACCESS DENIED" to magically appear.
And I shall smile.
And hunker down to await it's reemergence - under a different account name, but carrying the same stench.
MD
Tiss a pretty good exercise in
Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 12:16am.
Libtard futility, of the wordy dumb as dirt species
Look doofus
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 12:12am.
The report referred to possible hijackings to win the release of AQ operatives, not to use as missiles. Certainly did not give a date and time.
The problem is Clinton DID NOTHING. Then left Bush precious little to go on. You remember "the wall" right, the one that guaranteed the dots would not be connected?
Your pious attitude, put downs, and faux intelligence may impress your idiot friends, you little brother, maybe even your mom, though my guess is she gives a comforting smile then hides and weeps for what she has wrought on the thinking minds of the world.
You just can't keep up junior.
That's an issue which will be debated for the next thousand
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 2:48am.
years. There is no one true answer. And both sides have plenty of ammunition.
Jer
Really Jer?
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 3:18am.
I'm not sure that his mom's embarrassment of him is worthy of thousands of years of debate.
It was really just conjecture on my part. :)
In the spirit of Christmas and Joy to the World feel-goodness,
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 3:30am.
I'm going to cut it back to 500 years.
Jer
The issue is a retread troll.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 3:27am.
A retread troll that claims President Bush failed to heed the August 2011 titled Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US.
In fact, the briefing was requested by the President himself on Al Qaeda, and was declassified and released in 2004. In fact, the briefing shows the determination to strike was for the period between 1997 and early 2001. Almost all of it before the President's administration started. Kinda hard to fail to heed that which you did not have information on. And finally, the memo notes there were 70 full field investigations throughout the U.S. Again, kinda hard to say the President was ignoring Al Qaeda.
But thanks for giving the troll some emotional support by claiming no one has the true answer when it comes to President Bush. And thanks for giving the troll emotional support by claiming there is ammuntion on the Bush side to support what the troll said. Might wanna ask for that thank you pretty quick though. Retreads have a short lifespan here.
Vet, do you really think my comment is going to make a
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 3:31am.
damn bit of difference to the fate of the retread troll?
Jer
Dd not say that.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 3:55am.
I said it will give him emotional support. I said to get your thank you quick.
I wasn't fishing for thanks..
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 4:06am.
In fact, I didn't even know to whom Restless had addressed his comment. I was just making a general--and comparatively mild--observation.
Jer
It's all cool.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 4:34am.
4000+ Fallen Heroes died for nothing, a war for oil, a play-date etc.... You don't have to look at all. Just pop in cuz you saw suntin sumwar that caught your fancy.
On gold star mothers and fathers ---
Clevenative/AntiWingnut - I dare you to tell one of those parents how you feel their child's life was worth throwing away over falsified intelligence and Bush/Cheney's hopes to enrich their friends in the oil and contracting industries.
War is over. President is retired. Let's keep that pain going anyway just to get in a partisan hit.
Yeah, don't worry about it. You don't have to have any knowledge of the trolls you and you only are giving emotional support.
Back off, Vet...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 5:02am.
It was a harmless remark addressed to Restless. I'm not going to read each and every comment of a nearly 300-post thread to make sure I don't inadvertently insert an opinion that can possibly be construed as vaguely supportive of an argument made by someone who has been brawling with you and a whole bunch of other NBers.
Jer
Wow. I already said it's all cool.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 5:10am.
He is saying the same things here, only 5 comments there. Same exact thing. Get refuted in one place, hey no problem, every blog is a chance to start over by saying the same exact debunked crap. It is the troll way. See you there.
PS: Wasn't harmless. Restless1's post started "The report..." Might have been a clue that a specific issue was beeing addressed, not some general Bush v. Clinton gameshow.
And you should have stopped at "it's all cool"...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 5:44am.
I know what the issue is, and I also know that the assignment of blame and who should bear the greater portion of the blame is a topic that has been hotly debated for the past ten years. And it will continue to be debated for years to come. That was the point I was making with Restless. It was a simple observation posted without any intent to provide emotional support for anyone.
Jer
But it was not being debated.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 5:57am.
We have a troll making pronouncements on a retired President that he wilfully allowed 9//11 to happen by neglecting to heed a memo. He was not debating the issue. He was assigning fault.
You are a big weenie-head. Nothing to debate there. You can say, "oh, I'm not." But you clearly are just disputing the truth. See?
You might be a dirtbag. So I've heard. Ah, now there is something to debate there. You can say, "oh, I'm not." And I am obliged to listen to your reasoning. See?
As I said, it is all cool baby. There is a difference. I do try and see exactly what and where in the argument I am jumping. Kinda goes with the territory when you do most of your stuff at night.
Not being debated?
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 4:21pm.
Restless made the pronouncement that it was all or mostly Clinton's fault (Clinton DID NOTHING!). That is HIS opinion. I merely stated my opinion that there is no one single "truth" [in determining fault and placing blame for 9/11] and that the issue will continue to be debated for years.
That was the point I addressed, and would have addressed regardless of what anyone else may have posted earlier in the thread.
Jer
Ya know
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 4:51pm.
looking back upon this thread, I do notice how you managed to dodge taking the liberal to task for saying "Bush. Did. Nothing." After all, there is "plenty of ammunition on both sides", right? Notwithstanding that we have eight years of Clinton doing nothing, versus nine months of Bush catching up, to compare.
RESTLESS...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 5:13pm.
I wasn't dodging anything. As I said, I didn't know to whom your post was addressed, much less what his or her comment was. That was immaterial to me. I was ONLY addressing YOUR remark. [It would have been different if I had wanted to aggressively argue the point and defend Antiwingnut: "No Restless, YOU'RE the doofus and Antiwingnut is absolutely right. It was all Bush's fault, yada, yada, yada.]
But that was not my intent and not what I did. I simply said it is an issue which will be debated for years.
Jer
Precious Jer
Submitted by MrShy on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 6:55pm.
"As I said, I didn't know to whom your post was addressed, much less what his or her comment was."
And I'm wearing a diamond-studded polyester suit right now, and 8-inch platform shoes.
Just believe me, I am.
This from the guy that we all know combs every thread and doesn't leave any post unturned when it comes to him, and on a now-3-day long, 300+ post-riddled thread all whipped up by one liberal idiot who just got banned.
Jer had no idea what was going on here and never even heard of Anti....Who?
Okey dokie.
- shy on vinyl
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
That's right, Shy. As usual
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 7:14pm.
I was lying through my teeth.
As far as your outfit, I believe you. And I bet you look marvelous!
Jer
Just had too interject yourself
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 12/22/2011 - 2:03am.
How pitiful you must be.
Oh I defend the libtard, but not really, but I am now offended.
As if we expect any less from you Jer. Thanks
Well whaddaya know. More Boudin inanity.
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 12/22/2011 - 2:24am.
But, then, why would I expect anything different.
You know, Boudin, I spent some time recently responding to a couple of your questions that were at least a slight departure from your customary 'when did you stop beating your wife' taunts.
Unsurprisingly, you didn't bother to reply, but instead promptly disappeared without comment--proving that you have no real interest in constructive dialogue. Only snarky nonsense--at which you excel.
Jer
I see you refuse to address the issue
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 12/22/2011 - 2:46am.
But you did not resist calling me a woman beater and a liar. Neither of these accusations can you prove. Your obviously a high quality person we should all takes serous
Least, if we fear to be falsely accused by a shyster
Will someone PLEASE try to help poor Boudin...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 12/22/2011 - 2:54am.
I give up.
Jer
The Vet
Submitted by MrShy on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 4:29pm.
"4000+ Fallen Heroes died for nothing, a war for oil, a play-date etc.... You don't have to look at all. Just pop in cuz you saw suntin sumwar that caught your fancy."
Yep. Jer really is dishonest, to our faces.
Hey, he just popped in, didn't know who Rest1 was addressing, it was all "innocuous" (as he frames it) and didn't mean to rile anyone up.....
Phoniness on every level.
Liberals, arg.
- shy on vinyl
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
You're being dishonest, Shy...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 4:36pm.
But what else is new? It's your stock in trade.
I addressed Restless concerning a statement made by Restless. Read my comment again very slowly and explain to us exactly how it was so provocative. And see if you can manage to do so without dragging in birther arguments this time.
Jer
The Broken Record
Submitted by MrShy on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 4:51pm.
"I addressed Restless concerning a statement made by Restless."
Oh, you PM'ed him? So it's between you two, and hundreds or thousands of others didn't see that you're giving ammunition to a fellow liberal who's got it all wrong?
"Read my comment again very slowly and explain to us exactly how it was so provocative."
See my answer right above and let it sink in.
"And see if you can manage to do so without dragging in birther arguments this time."
See? You kicked up a storm with the Vet, and now doing it with me, opening new doors. And the song remains the same.
How does Obama taste, btw? No, never mind.
- shy's vinyl record
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
Gentlemen*
Submitted by cajun2 on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 5:17pm.
I can understand that A.Nut was very annoying for a troll liar. I even went after him myself however, since some posters came to this thread kinda late, it serves no purpose for NBers to go after EACH OTHER.
Antiwingnut is access denied and tis the Christmas season to be jolly for our brief but generous gift.
Well my Beb,
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 12/22/2011 - 2:19am.
I have very little Sympathy for these devils, even though they rock! Er
Shy, the fact that I responded directly to Restless should
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 5:23pm.
have been a huge clue--even to someone as dense and crude as you-- that my reply was a reflection on HIS comment and that your PM reference is sheer nonsense.
Jer
It's Semantics Time
Submitted by MrShy on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 6:45pm.
"Shy, the fact that I responded *directly* to Restless should..."
di·rect·ly (d-rktl, d-)
adv.
1. In a direct line or manner; straight: The road runs directly north.
2. Without anyone or anything intervening: directly responsible.
3. Exactly or totally: directly opposite.
4. At once; instantly: Leave directly.
5. Candidly; frankly: answered very directly.
6. Chiefly Southern U.S. In a little while; shortly: He'll be coming directly.
conj. Chiefly British
As soon as.
When you post PUBLICLY on a blog thread, regardless of addressing it to one member, we are all here to see it and absorb it, non? You expose yourself to us "intervening" as we are free to take you to task on it having all read it, do you not?
I can flash myself right now, in my own room, and no biggie. If I go outside onto the sidewalk and flash myself, it's going to be a problem.
Next time, it would be wise to address Rest1 by PM if you truly intend for it to be directly at him, so as we don't pipe in. Logical, huh? It's not rocket science.
But, again, as a liberal, you need this place and it's public threads of mostly conservatives for who-knows-why, since you don't change a wink.
And with the upmost respect to cajun, Jer's a liberal on a conservative site.
- shy on vinyl
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
AntiObjectivity
Submitted by MrShy on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 12:25am.
You're so dumb, Dumb is offended and demands an apology from all of us.
In reality, you're not as much dumb as you are a liberal hack and a pre-programmed Bush-hater and shiller for the left at all costs (and your honor be damned.)
"He then received a warning in the weeks leading up to the attack, a warning that specifically referenced the possibility of hijackings. And yet, with all these warnings..."
"All these warnings" ..... beeeeeing??? What? ...... Bush's administration one day being briefed on a warning that there was the possibility of planes being hijacked in the not-too-distant future? We don't know where, when, or much else. That, and, let's see...... eight years earlier there was a bombing on our soil. That's Anti's "all these" warnings? And I'm sure Anti, back in August of 2001, would be screaming for Bush to do something -- strip us of our rights and tighten domestic security because, well..... Islamists might hijack a plane (there's a first :p) some time soon......
"Bush did absolutely nothing to step up security."
Yep, I was right. Anti is an amazing Monday Morning QB, and he's sure he'd be screaming for Bush/Cheney to DO SOMETHING back in the summer of 2001. ***THERE WAS A WARNING OF A POSSIBLE PLANE HIJACKING SOMEWHERE, SOME TIME, PRETTY SOON*** on his desk. DO SOMETHING !!!!!!!!
"For a piece of FBI intelligence to percolate all the way up to the level of a presidential daily briefing, it had to be considered extremely important. And yet, Bush did nothing."
Idi-freaking-it. You seriously think Presidents don't get daily breifings on FBI intelligence of this sort? Cluestick: they do. This was, certainly, not the first "warning" or some kind of intel to reach his or his predecessor's desk. If you can prove it was, great.
Keep the BDS coming, AntiBushCheneyCondiskeezaHalliburton.
- shy on vinyl
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
One thing for sure Shy
Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 12:29am.
This CiC does not take daily briefings, him and Holder are above all that stuff. Just ask em.
Well, heck, the Obumbler
Submitted by ant on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 8:08am.
Well, heck, the Obumbler doesn't start his day until 10:30 am. Between the morning toke and smoke and some fund-raising, there's no time for briefings.
Yeah, these whiny libs (and
Submitted by killa37 on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 9:24am.
Yeah, these whiny libs (and Auntie NumbNuts) get all up in arms about vacations.........and how Bush took more than Barry, and how Barry deserves them ( to say nothing of Moooooooooochelle - hey, Clevie-Poo, why didn't you say anything about Mooooooooooochelle, who has spent a lot of YOUR tax dollars, Mr. Big Government Very Successful and Highly Educated??), but until someone can show me the evidence of COSTS of vacations, and travel expense, mileage, entourage, inconvenience to local people living at the vacations sites, etc. - I'm not going to believe a word of it.
Bush quite often went to his ranch, which is out in the boonies, and is a stable place for him - and you KNOW he was alwayson call and working, if he had to. Barry and Moooooooooochie go ANYWHERE but their own homes or Camp David, and it's ALWAYS expensive and always causes a scene, whereever they are. C'mon, meat - tell me I'm wrong - I've BEEN in Kailua when Barry and Mooooooooooochie were there, and it was hideous!!!
But, ant, to your point - even when Boy BlahBlah is in DC and the White House - he doesn't appear to do very much, and I'd say that a big percentage of his schedule is campaigning..........which often involves traveling around on OUR dollars so that he can try and get re-elected so that he can extort, confiscate, and steal MORE of our dollars, as well as our freedoms and liberties.
Exactly, killa
Submitted by ant on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 3:25pm.
I've had this same argument with libtards before, and they cannot comprehend the fact that when Bush went to his ranch or any other Pres. went to Camp David it costs the taxpayers a lot less money as those places were already set-up as 'secondary' offices. Obama's excursions are not as simply laid out and of certainly not of minimum expense, especially as these luxuries are abused by the First Wookie, probably more than any other First Lady in recent history. And that doesn't even count getting her hands on tons of money for her BS pet projects.
Anti really had me losing my patience, between his brick wall ignorance, lies, and arrogance, plus some other libtard idiots, such as Wisconsin Freedom from Religion telling Texas they need to move a Nativity for example (saw the interview of the hate-ful shmuck), and Nancy Pelosi make the rounds on her usual 'Demented Liar Tour', I've really had about enough of leftist cr*p, so I hope you and other NBers forgive my crassness on this thread.
Crass my ass, ant!!! You're
Submitted by killa37 on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 10:55pm.
Crass my ass, ant!!! You're just being yourself.........which is all anybody would expect from you. Now, when a guy like Auntie NumbNuts finally ditches the false act and starts 'being himself', then it's real easy to see where he's coming from. And with regards to liberal idiots - I know a lot of them, and Michael Savage nailed it when he said 'liberalism is a mental disorder'. I don't know how else it can be described. I'm pretty easy going and open-minded - around here I have to be - but I NEVER try and hide, or make excuses for, who I am and what I believe.............I'd venture to say that the libs I've had discussions with have gotten more from me than I have from them - and I can say that I allready know a number of them who have told me that I was 'right', and how did I know whatever it was that I knew. My answer is simple - I'm no genius..........I'm just a blue-collar country-boy surfer guy who pays attention to what is going on, and I seem to have a pretty good BS meter built into my DNA.........so I just try and make my decisions and choices from what I can find out about whatever it is that I am trying to learn or attempting to know more about.
I'll never be as 'intellectual' as ol' NumbNuts, or a lot of these other know-it-all types...........but I'd rather take my chances by being myself than trust ANYTHING that they purport to believe in.
Boudin
Submitted by MrShy on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 4:39pm.
Yep, the Charlatan in Chief, and his (actual) cronies.
The myth constructed about Bush and his generally upstanding, solid administration (that tried to do what's right) and how they were all cronies after oil and money and didn't listen or look at briefings, yada.....
And yet, here we are, with a REAL administration that is precisely all of that. In REALITY, not in the figments of our imagination.
- shy on vinyl
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
Clevenative/AntiWingnut LIES again.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 1:15am.
13. LIES LIES LIES - ...then received a warning in the weeks leading up to the attack, a warning that specifically referenced the possibility of hijackings.... He got a very specific and urgent warning in the weeks before the attack, and he did nothing. He. Did. Nothing. --- Fails to read the post he was replying to. Continues to LIE on the very subject that was debunked.
a. The threat of hijackings were were taken seriously. But one would know that if they read the actual briefing that was DECLASSIFIED and RELEASED.
The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it considers Bin Ladin-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group of Bin Ladin supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives.
Yes. 70 FULL field investigations now count as nothing on Planet Stupid AKA Clevenative/AntiWingnut.
Lying 2 time sock puppet troll: He. Did. Nothing.
Nothing like a King Beclowner popping off his ass and using it for a hat over and over.
Clevenative/AntiWingnut LIES again.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 1:14am.
14. LIE LIE LIE - He knew before he became president. --- Fails to remember his own LIES. Blatantly creates new LIES.
a. Forgot his own original lie - That President Bush ignored a memo in August 2011 that said Bin Laden was determined to strike in U.S. Now claims that memo was given to President Bush BEFORE he became President..