No, that's not a made-up headline. The foreclosed and/or evicted homeowners that have played such a role in the current economic meltdown - are they irresponsible borrowers that lived beyond their means or are victims that got swindled? Michael Moore is clear on where he thinks they fall.
Moore matched up with Fox News and conservative talk radio host Sean Hannity on Hannity's Oct. 6 program and Hannity attempted to have Moore explain why he didn't think there was a personal responsibility angle to the home foreclosure crisis.
Here's how it unfolded (emphasis added):
HANNITY: If you put your name on the dotted line in a legal document, don't you bear responsibility?
MOORE: These people have been deceived and they've been exploited. You know, this is like - this is like ...
HANNITY: No responsibility at all for them?
MOORE: No, this is like asking a woman how short was your skirt after she's been raped.HANNITY: Aw, that's not ...Story Continues Below Ad ↓
MOORE: That's not, that's not - you wouldn't, you wouldn't blame the victim for that.
HANNITY: Come on, Michael.
MOORE: Why were you walking on that side a town?
HANNITY: So they shouldn't - if there were balloon payments they shouldn't have read it? They shouldn't have hired a lawyer to read it for them?
MOORE: A poor person?
Hannity explained you weren't necessarily poor if you were buying a house and that not everyone is entitled to a house:
HANNITY: You're not that poor if you're buying a house, Michael!
MOORE: You don't understand what's going on here. This is ...
HANNITY: I was poor in my life. I lived in apartments. I couldn't even afford to pay my rent. And I would paint the apartments for my landlord.
"Sean, there have always been people who have lived beyond their means," Moore added. "We all know who they are. And there's probably one in every one of our families, or friends, or neighbors or whatever."
And Moore argued they didn't have the means individually to cause this crash, but it was the collective nature of home lenders enabled by Wall Street, trading derivatives not many people understood.
"No, but they've never caused a crash of this proportion before," he said. "That's because they can't. They don't have the assets and the money to be able to cause the crash that was caused by the people downtown here who were moving money around, taking bets out on money, derivatives, credit defaults, swaps insurance on the debt, then a bet on the insurance. That's why we ended up in the situation here."
Some estimates have one-third of all mortgages underwater, meaning the mortgage holder owes more on the home than the home is worth - partly from the collapse in home prices, but exacerbated by those who got into a mortgage with terms they couldn't handle in the long run.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
MOoore
October 7, 2009 - 09:34 ET by east tennessee johnHe cites the derivatives and credit swaps. Does this fu****g moron know what the underlying investments were? Might they've been mortgages that were done under reduced underwriting standards? Just might they? What's Mr. Anti-capitalist doing with the proceeds of his film? Bailing these folks out? Jerk-off.
Yeah but is it rape or is it
October 7, 2009 - 09:49 ET by notonmywatchYeah but is it rape or is it rape-rape?
Apparently rape’s no big deal in the Brave New World.
Rape’s just a mortgage, or it’s not the same for hollywood girls, & etc. Basically rape’s no biggy.
I suppose this is because OBAMA’S BROTHER WAS DENIED ENTRY TO THE UK for molesting an underage British girl. They’re preparing the ground in advance maybe..
___________________________________________________________
Graphical conservative commentary - animations & pictures for posting on forums: http://ubama.org/chu...
what proceeds?
October 7, 2009 - 22:47 ET by LoosMooseWhat gave you the impression that the film was making a profit???
BOMBS AWAY..... it's a bust-a-roo....
Is that a "rape-rape," Mikey?
October 7, 2009 - 09:42 ET by CobraManIs that a "rape-rape," Mikey? Gee, I wonder why Mikey used the term "rape?"
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
Moore asks...
October 7, 2009 - 09:44 ET by JPR1"A poor person?"
This is because he doesn't have the courage to possibly offend his fans by accurately describing them as ignorant.
If they are victims
October 7, 2009 - 09:45 ET by ChattychitoThen it was ACORN, other advocacy groups and the Democratic Party who are the perpetrators. the Dems passed all those bills that forced banks to give loans to people that couldn't afford them. the Banks didn't want to give them the loans but ACORN made such a stink saying they were racist by rejecting loans to people who couldn't afford them and it just so happened that many of them were ethnic. So rather than suffer the banks ok'ed the loans knowing many would default.
"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effect of folly is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer's "State Tamperings with Money Banks"
So, Moore thinks that poor
October 7, 2009 - 09:46 ET by TenebrousSo, Moore thinks that poor people and/or potential homeowners are STUPID. Stay classy, there.
-----
Random-jumbled-thoughts.blogspot.com
Liberal logic on display
October 7, 2009 - 09:49 ET by CobraManHANNITY: So they shouldn't - if there were balloon payments they
shouldn't have read it? They shouldn't have hired a lawyer to read it
for them?
MOORE: A poor person?
Hay, Mikey, if they're so poor that they can't afford to have a lawyer review the mortgage prior to closing, how can they afford the closing fees themselves? A legal review fee is small fee when compared to the closing fees., let alone any down payment that is required.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
Yes, he's a prize, that MM
October 7, 2009 - 09:51 ET by WhoIsJohnGaltI forget where it was that I saw a short clip of an interview with him last week where the interviewer asked him about capitalism and how it benefited him and his movies, and he went on to whine about how capitalism did nothing for him and how he was turned down for financing on various projects because of the ubiquitous "hidden forces" plotting against him in order to protect themselves.
I guess in his worldview, capitalism is only acceptable if every obstacle in his way lays down in subservience to whatever he wants to do. He has no concept that in a free market, every person/entity that works against you, either actively or passively is actually part of the filtering process that keeps the markets in balance. Otherwise we'd have endless trash (in the case of his chosen vocation, film making) emanating from every idiot left wing loser "artist" in Hollywood, destined to lose money at the box office and...wait a minute...we already do, don't we?
Well...outside of Hollywood anyway, the above applies!
Hannity never should have
October 7, 2009 - 09:54 ET by mattmHannity never should have let this idiot on his show.
I wonder how Moore would feel if I borrowed $500,000 from him and didn't pay it back.
If anyone's a victim here it's the banks who don't get paid back by the borrowers and all the people who DO pay their bills.
Yeah, I was feeling like a
October 7, 2009 - 10:03 ET by HockeyKidYeah, I was feeling like a sucker for paying my bills and doing things right while people around me lived large on massive credit. Right up until the housing market dumped.
Believe me when I tell you that buying a short sale property for half of what it cost 2 years ago definitely made me feel rewarded for waiting and staying honest. Now my wife has her dream house and I can afford the 30-year fixed note just fine. Stick with your principles, folks--they serve you well in the long run.
Now if only I could recover the damage to my 401(k)...
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
Moore's going to be the
October 7, 2009 - 09:55 ET by HockeyKidMoore's going to be the first signatory on the class action suit that claims McDonald's made him fat.
Hey, Michael, I was offered a mortgage two years ago that would have taken 80% of my take home pay to make the payments. I didn't accept it. Know why? I READ THE DAMNED CONTRACT, YOU LOON! Instead of doing something I knew I couldn't afford, I waited to find something that fit my means. Two years later, I bought a MUCH better house after the prices and interest rates came down--unlike those scammers who worked with ACORN to get a nice house, never intending to make so much as the first payment.
It ain't rocket science (though it is obviously a bit more than your feeble brain can handle).
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
It's not the poor people that caused this problem.
October 7, 2009 - 10:09 ET by EddieWalkerI think Moore and Hanity don't get it. While there will always be who qualify for a house and then cannot make the payments, they are a small majority. This has been going on forever. There are also those who lose their jobs or suffer an injury, and are unable to make their payments, who lose their homes. This has also been going on forever.
What caused this crisis is those who kept refinancing their homes to get cash out of them. In part, it's what created Clintons economic bubble. People were cashing in on the equity of their homes to go shopping and take vacations. Very quickly, their mortgages went up to a level that they couldn't afford them anymore. Allot of them then either refinanced, or took out another loan to help make their payments, or pay off other debt like credit cards and car loans. This kept going on all through the 90's and into this decade until it got to the point that they couldn't borrow against their equity any more. When this happend, home values dropped and those who were maxed out on what they could pay, now had a house worth less then they owed on it. They just walked away from the house and quite paying the mortgage.
The blame for this is on those who did this, and those who passed laws to allow this. Nobody that I know was making more money to afford those payments, but because their homes were worth so much more money, the loans were issued based on appraisal value of the home. As long as the value went up, they were able to get a new loan. Some did this every year!!!
They are not victims, they are stupid and greedy. Those who lose their homes due to a job loss or injury deserve our sympathy. They are a very small percentage of the crisis. Those who lost their homes because they kept borrowing against their homes deserve to lose their homes and to repay the loans that they took out. It should be a lifetime commitment to repay a loan. They are criminals in my opinion and should never be allowed to borrow again until they have met their commitment to the business who loaned them the money. Only that business should be able to decide to forgive the loan, lower it or seek payment for that money. The government should enforce this.
Until we become responsible for our actions, nothing will get better.
Eddie, you're partially correct!
October 7, 2009 - 11:47 ET by Secret ConservativeEddie, you are correct that a lot of the people who are currently being foreclosed on are people who borrowed and borrowed against their homes to support a lifestyle that they couldn't afford. And you are correct that they did so willingly and knowingly. I happen to live in a neighborhood of homes that USED to sell for $600K and up, and now have foreclosures selling for $325K or less. Not because "innocent" people were too naive to understand the loan documents they were signing.
That said, as someone who worked in that industry, I also feel compelled to point out that there were also a lot of "poor" people who really ARE too stupid to understand the terms of their loans, who had a history of not paying their bills, who willingly got in debt way over what they could EVER hope to repay. But NOT because the banks and other lenders are greedy or venal. It's because the GOVERNMENT REQUIRED us to create loan products and programs SPECIFICALLY for the purpose of lending to people who had no business buying houses in the first place.
Bad credit, no credit? NO PROBLEM!!! Because Barney Frank and Bill and Hillary Clinton think that no matter how irresponsible you may be financially, you DESERVE to own your own home.
No job? No Problem! Because the libs in Congress believe that EVERYONE should have the same amount of STUFF! So no matter what choices you have made in your life that may prevent you from being able to accumulate stuff on your own, the government will intervene to make it possible for you to have more STUFF!
The really ridiculous thing now is that, even though we have had this HUGE financial collapse brought about by stupid liberal policies (i.e., subprime lending), the Dems are pushing THE SAME loan programs into the FHA!
And, by the way, Eddie, the middle and upper-class people who lost their homes by overspending will find it extremely difficult to do this again. Because THEY will have to get future loans through normal lending channels, which have tightened their underwriting criteria significantly. The other idiots will be able to get their loans through the FHA.
CRA II Coming!
October 7, 2009 - 12:16 ET by slickwillie2001Well said; and also to note, the democratics seem so happy with the Community Reinvestment Act that they are going to come out with a revised version, CRA II, which will extend the original requirements to include credit unions, mortgage lenders and insurance companies, under the oversight of 'community organizations'.
Because the first CRA worked so well I suppose.
A Poisonous Cocktail: http://www.forbes.com
"As we try to shake off the financial crisis, here's a bright idea. Take a law that has led to the writing of an enormous amount of bad mortgages and expand it. Then take enforcement away from bank examiners and give it to housing activists."
and let us not forget
October 7, 2009 - 12:36 ET by ohiochilithe house flippers who bought multiple houses on interest-only loans. in my job in loss mitigation with a major bank, i worked with many people who had $ in their eyes when they had as many as 5 mortgages on properties they were trying to flip and were stuck with. i wondered what planet those lenders were on and how they could possibly lend money on the 2nd house when the borrower's income was around $70,000, let alone make a 3rd. admittedly, only one guy called for help with the 5 house thing, but most flippers had 2. you are right...banks were forced to make loans to people who could not afford what they were buying. many had no idea what an arm was. when i asked people why they were 3 payments late on their mortgages, the majority of reasons were as follows: the furnace went out, we had to put on a new roof, we had to buy a new car, we have 2 kids in college, we spent too much on christmas.... if you can't afford to put a roof on your house, then you can't afford that house. i did talk to many folks who were in trouble due to illness and job loss, but they were far in the minority...the bank worked with these folks a lot longer than the ones who overspent on christmas.
Yes Michael, they were rape-raped by HUD-HUD
October 7, 2009 - 10:18 ET by Gary HallIf only Hannity would have flashed this little government regulation in front of you.
Enter Wall Street:
Read: "It was Wall Street's fault."
It was government, government regulations, that caused the housing bubble - and right in the middle of the dot.com economic crash, and a recession.
Fannie Mae already had a strategic marketing alliance with Countrywide Financial - and they set to work to put millions of otherwise unqualified new homebuyers into properties they could not afford. One cannot discount the effect that such stimulus had on the price of real estate. As demand for properties soared, values headed for the moon. Fed's lowering of interest rates, thru 2002, added much more fuel to the frenzied demand, driving values up even further, opening the door further to a historic and dangerous economic and credit crisis.
And Andrew Cuomo has his sights set on the New York Governship? Andrew Cuomo and Fannie and Freddie - How the youngest Housing and Urban Development secretary in history gave birth to the mortgage crisis
Simple common sense.
(;~/ gary
Your right Gary
October 7, 2009 - 15:28 ET by general companyHannity always seems to miss the heart of the problem. Dont know why, but he seems to grab 1 line and hang onto it.
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
GC..
October 7, 2009 - 15:56 ET by Gary HallWell, Hannity led with what many lead with -- ".. it was all caused by Jimmy Carter's Community Reinvestment Act, CRA. Well gee, it was all caused because man invented stones and mortar. I mean, that's a bit far back in time to get ones attenion on such a matter. On the other hand, the HUD regulations, I noted, during the last few months of the Clinton administration, resulted in immediate cause and effect.
Take a look at this presentation - it's the standard - the one that Michael Moore absorbed:
Anatomy of a Crisis- How did we get here? The Washington Post's Frank Ahrens looks back and breaks down the forces that led to the financial market meltdown.
Frank Ahrens, says .. the opening lines:
Look, at least Ahren's is putting the birth of this monster back where it belongs, in the Clinton era, but he's leaving the stimulus, HUD (the CRA) out of the story, entirely. Why? So that the blame is shifted entirely to the lenders, to Wall Street and to Bush.
(;~/ gary
Yep, very good
October 7, 2009 - 18:27 ET by general companySad thing is, we will never get it corrected until folks start being honest about the unintended consequences these type of feel good policies have? Drives me nuts.
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Interesting choice of
October 7, 2009 - 10:23 ET by dscottInteresting choice of victims... If you will remember the previews of his latest crap movie, he stands in front of a bank with an empty money sack asking for the billions back. HEY you moron Moore, the sack is empty because the people for whom you advocate defaulted on their loans. Banks LOAN money that was aggregated from Depositors for home mortgages. You should be taking your sack to all the people who defaulted on their loans and ask them for OUR money back.
Of course Moore who is either clueless to what derivates are or ACTS intentially obtuse that these financial instruments ARE the aggregated home mortgage loans which your friends defaulted when they didn't make their mortgage payments.
All of us who lost value on our 401ks and IRAs can directly blame those who defaulted on their home mortgage loans. It's is no accident that the defaulting loans were concentrated in areas where ACORN helped people who couldn't afford their loans to obtain them. With liberals as friends, the poor don't need anymore enemies. Michael Moore is nothing more than an apologist for ACORN, Barney Frank (and the rest of the corrupt politicians) and financial irresponsibility. He has the nerve to blame us whose retirement accounts financed the home mortgages as the villain? I'll tell you what Moore, screw you. If I refuse to invest any more money in the general economy by not contributing to my 401k then I'm taking you down with me by going Galt.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
WAKE UP
October 7, 2009 - 18:13 ET by sajc05our own gov'ts investigation says that only 10% of defaulting home loans are responsible for this collapse. but according to you and your awesome independent analysis it was all the poor people fault for this mess??
read something else beside hannity's talking points and wake up.
you ever hear of a credit default swap genius? where in the CRA are credit default swaps mandatory???
WAKE UP!!!
So you admit that
October 8, 2009 - 08:20 ET by dscottSo you admit that defaulting home loans ARE responsible for the problem? Whether it is 10% or 50% of the total, the operational cause IS defaulting on home loans. And no, I don't listen to Hannity at all, just as I don't listen much to Limbaugh, even though both of them at times have a salient point to make. But thanks for acknowledging my independence.
Yes, I have heard of credit default swaps, you obviously don't understand what they are which is why you are throwing around the term. They are an insurance instrument of companies like AIG that guaranteed the purchaser if they bought the policy insuring against default (of home mortgage tranches) that they would be financially compensated for their loss. A prudent business move under normal circumstances. Now why did AIG issue credit default swaps? To make a profit on accepting the risk of a default, that's the purpose of insurance, the transfer of risk for a price, just like life and property insurance. Companies like AIG set their premiums of credit default swaps on the amount of risk they believed existed based on the bond rating agencies like Standard & Poors. The problem came about that they were misled by Rahm Emanuel & Franklin Raines of Fannie and Freddie infamy. These two criminals lied to the bond rating agencies saying all the mortgages by Fannie and Freddie had the full faith and backing of the US government when in fact they did NOT. Remember, it was the FMs that set the rules under which they would buy loans from the banks to collateralize and the banks sold them accordlingly.
On a side note. Notice that Raines got sued and Emanual did not and was rewarded for his criminality to be Obama's right hand man. Obama didn't have Raines in his administration because he got caught and was forced to distance himself from him just like Jeremiah Wright.
Once a significant amount of mortgages started going belly up, that started a chain reaction leading to the blow up of credit default swaps. Since there was no way AIG and Bears Sterns EVER conceived that all those obligations (insurance policies) would called in at once they couldn't pay. Under normal circumstances such an event would never happen and therefore AIG could easily pay on any default. This is no different than what happened to the property insurance companies in Florida when hurricane Andrew wiped out Homestead, there were too many claims at once which swamped the fianancial ability of insurance companies to pay in a timely fashion.
So now we come full circle to your ignorant remark about only 10% of problem was home loans defaulting. Had all these people not defaulted at once, the financial system was well prepared to handle the losses. The core of the problem was the lying by your buddies Frank Raines and Rahm Emanuel at the FMs. Had they not lied, those who were given mortgages would have been paying a higher interest rate to reflect their risk and in all probablity NEVER would have taken on the loan. Additionally, the bond rating agencies would have assigned a lower rating thus causing AIG and the other insurance companies to charge much more for the credit default swap.
Your buddies Obama, Raines, Emanuel, Frank, Schumer and others set the stage for this disaster. Who is responsible for the feeding frenzy? The one who chums the water with bloody meat or the sharks who are nature's clean up committee? You may not like sharks but they perform an important function without which nature becomes toxic. In this case your buddies threw the poor and economically challenged families as chum into the water and nature took it's course. Now all these families have had their credit ratings ruined by foreclosures. Ruined credit means high interest rates on cars, credit cards and high insurance rates. With friends like your buddies Obama and liberals in general, the poor don't need any enemies.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
Or
October 7, 2009 - 10:32 ET by MES41067blaming a chesse burger for making him fat.
(Lenin called them "useful idiots" I for one have no use for them.)
I've got the DVD cover
October 7, 2009 - 10:36 ET by BKeyserI've got the DVD cover art...
Capitalist Pig
October 7, 2009 - 10:52 ET by slickwillie2001This is also the interview where he denied being rich. He is extremely uncomfortable with the topic of his own wealth, beyond any reason. He often mentions that he lives in a 'cabin' in the country, but it's a $1.2 million waterfront 'cabin' on a 10-acre lot, at Torch Lake, Michigan, which is to Michigan as the Hamptons are to New York City.
the left is so innocent
October 7, 2009 - 11:03 ET by rowdygirlHe's like every other left radical... they are responsible for NOTHING. It always has to be someone else's fault if they make a mistake since they're perfect.
I'm not a rape victim, but I would be very offended by his comments. To equate these two situations is ridiculous and just proves his insanity.
the left is so innocent
October 7, 2009 - 11:03 ET by rowdygirlHe's like every other left radical... they are responsible for NOTHING. It always has to be someone else's fault if they make a mistake since they're perfect.
I'm not a rape victim, but I would be very offended by his comments. To equate these two situations is ridiculous and just proves his insanity.
It's certainly nice to see
October 7, 2009 - 11:31 ET by Another Dead KennedyIt's certainly nice to see that the planets have realigned, and we're back to hating Michael Moore after last week's slip up.
xoxo - Ted
Teddy! Hate is such a
October 7, 2009 - 11:50 ET by Sonia HTeddy!
Hate is such a strong word. I prefer to say I strongly dislike him.
Sonia in Las Vegas
It's neither hatered nor
October 7, 2009 - 13:13 ET by mattmIt's neither hatered nor dislike - it's pure loathing of his idiotic beliefs and his utter hypocrisy. Just like Ted Kennedy....
: )
mattm.....
October 7, 2009 - 15:14 ET by Timothy HI wouldn't say just like Ted Kennedy. That's a bit unfair to Ted. Like his ideology or not, Ted Kennedy believed in what he supported. I will not take that away from him. I believe he was wrong, but I think he was actually standing for what he really believed.
Moore, on the other hand, is in it for the money. Even those that he claimed to be on the side of felt that way, i.e. union activists in Flint.
Like him or not, Kennedy deserves better than to be lumped in with this windbag.
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe. - Albert Einstein
Nice to see the stars have
October 7, 2009 - 14:15 ET by ckc1227Nice to see the planets have re-aligned, and libs are back to misrepresenting reality again.
Care to explain? xoxo -
October 7, 2009 - 14:28 ET by Another Dead KennedyCare to explain?
xoxo - Ted
Just out of curiosity, Ted
October 7, 2009 - 14:34 ET by FeynmanFanIs your role at NB to have conservatives justify every comment they make here?
"Reason and persuasion are the only practical instruments against error. To make way for these, free inquiry must be indulged" - Thomas Jefferson
When someone makes a snarky
October 7, 2009 - 14:36 ET by Another Dead KennedyWhen someone makes a snarky comment, Yes, I will question them on it. Is that not allowed?
xoxo - Ted
Hmmmm.....Teddy...
October 7, 2009 - 14:38 ET by Timothy HCare to explain?
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe. - Albert Einstein
~Stop that
October 7, 2009 - 14:39 ET by choselife3xNot allowed.
;-)
Kossacks hate me. And yes, it does feel good.
Ted, I was being nice to you
October 7, 2009 - 14:47 ET by FeynmanFan"Is that not allowed?" is a snarky comment, isn't it? You could have ended your response with saying that you will question them on it and made your point.
What's your objective in questioning people on their comments? Do you expect to change their thinking and have them admit to you that you were right?
"Reason and persuasion are the only practical instruments against error. To make way for these, free inquiry must be indulged" - Thomas Jefferson
See, here's what's going on.
October 7, 2009 - 15:03 ET by Another Dead KennedySee, here's what's going on. I make a simple statement tying an article from last week into this one, and a response is this:
libs are back to misrepresenting reality again.
So I ask for the poster to explain his comments, and all of a sudden several more individuals need to chime in, and turn what was an already rude comment against me. Makes no difference to me if you can't see what's happening here, but I'm not going to ignore it either.
xoxo - Ted
Teddy.....
October 7, 2009 - 15:10 ET by Timothy HWhile that sounds all nice and innocent, my friend, the original comment you made was a strike out at all those who felt Moore did something right and identified it. How could you not expect a reaction? And the return comment seemed to me, and I guess I could be wrong, as if it was a shot at Moore returning to form.
Your initial post was "snarky" in tone. Some people reponded in kind. Not exactly a hard to follow chain of events, nor was it hard to predict.
And, I'm not attacking you. Just simply making a point.
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe. - Albert Einstein
How was my comment snarky?
October 7, 2009 - 15:13 ET by Another Dead KennedyHow was my comment snarky? Last week when Moore called out Dodd on MSNBC, there were several members who took a time out from hating Moore to commend him on his comments. Today, as he's back in the news, the time out is over and we're back to hating him again. What seems to be the new rule here at NB is that anytime I post, someone needs to respond immediately, no matter the relevance to the topic at hand. Just look at this thread now - there's a dozen new posts that have nothing to do with Moore.
xoxo - Ted
Teddy.....
October 7, 2009 - 15:24 ET by Timothy HTo be fair, your post had little to do with the current post, did it? How was last week's post relevant to this one? Seems like the point of your post was to take a poke at those that were willing to admit that even Moore can be right sometimes. And that has nothing to do with this thread, does it? If I am wrong, than please explain the actual purpose of your comment, and it's relevance to the thread it is posted on.
And BTW, I don't think that anyone here said anything more about Moore than that even a blind squirrel can find a nut once in a while. Are you saying that when someone does something that we think is good, we should ignore it instead of admitting it?
Honestly, your initial comment seems like a baited post. What was the response you expected. What am I missing? It seems like you made a swipe at people who were trying to be fair to Moore last week (If you remember there were plenty in the "don't care, he's a d'bag" camp), and then fained victimization when they responded. If I'm wrong, then please explain.
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe. - Albert Einstein
What was the relevance of
October 7, 2009 - 15:26 ET by Another Dead KennedyWhat was the relevance of this comment:
blaming a chesse burger for making him fat.
Or this:
I've got the DVD cover art...
Why are there 2 sets of rules here?
xoxo - Ted
Teddy....
October 7, 2009 - 15:31 ET by Timothy HFirst, I don't get the reference. Apparently I missed something.
Second, you chose to avoid my question. Rather than answering my question, you posed another that was not relevant to the question I asked. You questioned relevance, and thus brought the relevance of your own comments into the field of play.
Third, there aren't two sets of rules. You seem to be the one who brought up relevance. I only responded within your rules. I personally don't care if it was relevant or not. But you obviously did care, or you wouldn't have brought it up, making relevant the fact that your first point wasn't relevant.
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe. - Albert Einstein
Like Obama, you're just overly popular, apparently
October 7, 2009 - 15:21 ET by SickofLibsLike Obama, you're just overly popular, apparently
Ted
October 7, 2009 - 15:50 ET by MrShyTed posts:
"It's certainly nice to see that the planets have realigned, and we're back to hating Michael Moore after last week's slip up."
Not sarcastic (snarky) at all and posted on a right-leaning site solely to share his view and hoping and praying no one will be sarcastic back at him?
Uhhh... negative on all points.
Ted, you are truly an insufferable and all-to-predictable liberal in the way you act. You're feigned hurt/victim schtick is just that, a schtick. Sadly, I do actually believe you genuinely get madder and more emotional the more you hang out here, but it's subconsciously, on your part, still a schtick and you can't help it. If you don't want to get emotional and upset anymore, try this: stop hanging out here.
Otherwise, fine, stay and take it with as much fun as you dish it out.
Pathetic. xoxo - Ted
October 7, 2009 - 15:51 ET by Another Dead KennedyPathetic.
xoxo - Ted
Blonde
October 7, 2009 - 15:55 ET by MrShyI've had enough of this pooper scooper.
No-life guy literally has his hand at his holster, waiting for red meat. He replied within 10 seconds on this one.
We need a better class of troll, here. © ® ™
Shy, Ted is both tyro and
October 7, 2009 - 16:01 ET by bassndudeShy, Ted is both tyro and dull.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
bass
October 7, 2009 - 16:06 ET by MrShyWell, he entertains us (and all the while pretends he's not entertained but always very serious with his droppings) but certainly his brain is dull when it comes to social and political issues.
Tyro?
Shy, tyro(s) would be like
October 7, 2009 - 16:11 ET by bassndudeShy, tyro(s) would be like amateurish, or a beginner...like starting kindergarden...
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Like your music career,
October 7, 2009 - 16:21 ET by Another Dead KennedyLike your music career, Shy.
xoxo - Ted
Ted
October 7, 2009 - 16:25 ET by MrShyDon't hate me because I tirelessly expose your liberal tendencies. Jer hates me at times for the same thing, but at least he's not a troll.
I don't hate you. In fact,
October 7, 2009 - 16:32 ET by Another Dead KennedyI don't hate you. In fact, you, your website, your music and videos have been entertaining me and my friends for days now. I find you quite amusing in fact. And I'm glad I have a new stalker, now that my last stalker has moved on.
xoxo - Ted
Ted
October 7, 2009 - 21:26 ET by MrShyThanks, regarding my music and sites.
As for repeating this mantra that I'm stalking you, that sounds like when I hit on a girl one time and she calls me "creepy" or a "stalker"... it's called flattering themselves. Yes, I have been called creepy, and no, I'm not creepy. She was flattering herself. :)
We are tying up this thread, btw.
Ted
October 7, 2009 - 21:39 ET by MightyMouthNot defending MrShy here per say.But... I guess I will..he is a good guy. Lay off or stop dissing the man. If not his friend MM will jump in all your posts to him and rattle you. (with Mr Shy permission). see ya pal!
"The bureaucracy is growing to meet the needs of the growing bureaucracy"
~*
October 7, 2009 - 16:32 ET by choselife3xKossacks hate me. And yes, it does feel good.
MrShy...Thanks
October 7, 2009 - 16:57 ET by JerThanks for the "not a troll" part. But, I don't hate you because of your misguided politics, I hate you because you're beautiful, man. ;-)
Jer
Jer & Ted
October 7, 2009 - 21:23 ET by MrShyListen, chose is right about me regarding having a low tolerance for liberals, having to deal with them in real life (NB is NOT real life.... I repeat.... that goes out to everyone ;)) Both of you (especially Jer) remind me too much of the antagonistic-but-oh-no-moi? kind. :p
You just have to keep
October 7, 2009 - 22:02 ET by JerYou just have to keep taking potshots, don't you Shy? Give it a rest. Please.
Jer
Oh Ted....like you knew
October 7, 2009 - 16:30 ET by bassndudeOh Ted....like you knew what it meant....please.....
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Oh, did you coin that word?
October 7, 2009 - 16:34 ET by Another Dead KennedyOh, did you coin that word? Realize this: you may not agree with my politics, but I am educated. And I would hope that most people here know what tyro means.
xoxo - Ted
~Is that not allowed?
October 7, 2009 - 16:24 ET by choselife3xShould he have waited half an hour? Or perhaps 4 minutes, like you did?
There's a reason Blonde didn't use that line on him, and your use of it probably won't go over well, in this instance.
We need a better class of conservative, here. ©
Kossacks hate me. And yes, it does feel good.
chose
October 7, 2009 - 16:38 ET by MrShyDuly noted. You're no big fan of Mr. Shy (yes, I said that in the third person, I have my issues :p) for whatever personal thing you continue to carry around.
I've got class and plenty DO like me. So THERE. :) Ted pokes at us and then feigns being hurt. Believe me, I'm not alone in seeing his game and getting annoyed by it.
~Believe me
October 7, 2009 - 16:41 ET by choselife3xI'm not alone in seeing your game and getting annoyed by it.
Kossacks hate me. And yes, it does feel good.
Mr. Shy's got game. :)
October 7, 2009 - 21:18 ET by MrShyMr. Shy's got game. :)
To misquote(?) a Founding Father
October 7, 2009 - 21:22 ET by Free Stinker"The enemy is out there! (points outside window). I tell you, the enemy is out there!" --Cesar Rodney
Free
October 7, 2009 - 21:32 ET by MrShyI shall take the 5th. :)
~You should try that
October 7, 2009 - 21:47 ET by choselife3xMore often.
Kossacks hate me. And yes, it does feel good.
Talk about
October 7, 2009 - 15:54 ET by bassndudeTalk about pathetic...
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Tedward
October 7, 2009 - 15:17 ET by FeynmanFanI have to agree with what Tim said. Your first comment was snarky. I was one of the onces who complimented MM last week when I thought he deserved it, and your comment was clearly a shot at that compliment.
It looks like you said something to provoke people, got the response you were looking for and then challenged the responder to justify himself. What's the point in doing that? Is it to pick an argument? Do you really expect that someone is going to respond to your request for "proof" and have an ephipany because of it? Would anyone be able to provide you with an answer that caused you to agree with them?
I just want to understand what you're looking for when you demand proof because I find it hard to believe that either the other poster or you is going to change your minds because of it.
"Reason and persuasion are the only practical instruments against error. To make way for these, free inquiry must be indulged" - Thomas Jefferson
And the statement "libs
October 7, 2009 - 15:24 ET by Another Dead KennedyAnd the statement "libs are back to misrepresenting reality again" wasn't intended to provoke me? No, this was a blatant insult directed at me. And when I question it, I get a slough of comments making me the bad guy...again. Then, I get all of the token parental figures condescendingly explaining the rules of the game to me. You think that statement wasn't intended to provoke me? To get another comment out of me, and get the group together to gang up? BS. You got what you wanted.
xoxo - Ted
Teddy....Libs Misrepresenting..
October 7, 2009 - 15:26 ET by Timothy HNo, I don't think it was. I think it was a "Moore's back to his old tricks" statement as an answer for the behavior you questioned.
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe. - Albert Einstein
Well, Tim, I disagree.
October 7, 2009 - 15:28 ET by Another Dead KennedyWell, Tim, I disagree. Let's leave it at that.
xoxo - Ted
Teddy....
October 7, 2009 - 15:33 ET by Timothy HI can accept that, as the person who posted the remark has not chosen to clarify, yet. It's simply your interpretation vs mine.
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe. - Albert Einstein
Say, Ted...
October 7, 2009 - 15:32 ET by FeynmanFanIt occurs to me, then, that you made a statement to provoke some people and they gave a response that provoked you, and now you're all huffy about it.
Why is a general statement about libs a direct insult to you? Why do you feel that the statements people make to you are more condescending than your statements to other people?
Dude, my honest opinion is that you're picking a fight and then getting mad when you get the worst of it. If you have a point to make, why can't you just make your point and offer some of the same kind of proof you demand of other people and move on?
You'll drive yourself nuts if you continue to take this stuff so personally.
Just my opinions, of course, and I'm not trying to be a token parent. I would just like to see more constructive discussions around here.
"Reason and persuasion are the only practical instruments against error. To make way for these, free inquiry must be indulged" - Thomas Jefferson
Perhaps you should start
October 7, 2009 - 14:45 ET by ckc1227Perhaps you should start with yourself before moving on to others.
The better answer is:
October 7, 2009 - 15:01 ET by dscottThe better answer is: Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, they however ARE NOT entitled to their own facts.
An opinion was stated, Ted is not entitled to an answer. If the person chooses not to respond it indicates only that the opinion was not up for discussion, it has no bearing on it's accuracy. It does not indicate the opinion was not reasonable if it was either an exaggeration for dramatic effect or interpretration of anecdotal observations.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
You're a smart guy(aren't
October 7, 2009 - 14:42 ET by ckc1227You're a smart guy(aren't all libs?), I'm sure you can figure it out.
Put up or shut up
October 7, 2009 - 11:49 ET by AJBHey TUBBY... how many foreclosures are YOU helping to prevent with your evil rotten capitalistic money derived from your propaganda films? How much? Thought so.
Moore v. Hannity
October 7, 2009 - 11:52 ET by lotrI am no Michael Moore fan. Among other things, like many pop-liberals, he is hypocritical. The only reason we are even blogging about him here is because of capitalism (hmm, perhaps he has a point about its evils...)
That said, I give him credit for appearing on Hannity's program, thereby demonstrating that he does have something of a backbone. Unlike liberals, conservatives respect people with backbones.
That also said, I have to say that I actually agreed with him on a number of things that he said (as well as what Hannity was saying). In a sense, they were both right. I've voted on several of these NB surveys about who was to blame, and I usually ended up checking the "all of the above." Yes, there was irresponsible homebuying. But there was also unethical lending practices, with banks operating massive Ponzi schemes and getting filthy rich off of it. "The best way to rob a bank is to own one."
However, where Moore goes wrong is his proposed solution that big-brother government is our savior. Wrong. All the evils of capitalism that we are now facing are all the result of one thing: The loss of Christianity in our culture. I'm not talking about nominal church attendance, I'm talking about real honest interior faith in the Almighty, All-Seeing Judge that people used have. The Old Testament Law, a collection of external rules and regulations, does not work in the end. The Law must be written on our hearts. And that is what we have collectively lost.
"Steady." -- Keith Olbermann to Chris Matthews
Another area that Moore,
October 7, 2009 - 11:59 ET by BKeyserAnother area that Moore, and progressives in general, perpetually lie to the general public, is that its only conservatives making money in banks and on wall street. We hear over and over again the capitalist pig mantra shoved onto the likes of Rupurt Murdoch and phantom republicans, but never to Warren Buffet or George Soros.
And while they continue to demonize conservatives as the party of the rich and increasing the wealth gap, the simple fact that democrats are finding it so difficult to effectively "tax the rich" to fund their social engineering agenda is because the majority of their large donors don't want their fortunes diseminated amongst the poor.
The Fed caused the problem...
October 7, 2009 - 12:03 ET by MightyMouth..by keeping interest rates artifically low the Fed flooded the market with cheap money to lend. This meant there was way too much money, chasing too few assests, causing the assests to inflate in value rapidly. Lenders make money by turning loans. When these loans have basically zero risk they tend to sell as many as they can especially when the gooberment is arm twisting them to sell "affordable housing loans". The fault stands four-square with the gooberment and the Fed. period.
"The bureaucracy is growing to meet the needs of the growing bureaucracy"
well said. exactly. they
October 7, 2009 - 13:11 ET by sajc05well said. exactly. they created an artificial bubble of free money. the fed has to be regulated not like some people here that say there too much regulation. I lost a lot of money because these wall street guys and the big banks were getting into things they should not have been allowed to do. Buying up the smaller banks consolidating the money supply and creating themselves into entities that are "too big to fail" ...none sense, i hope they go to jail and rot for their greed.
Can't say I disagree.
October 7, 2009 - 18:38 ET by lotrCan't say I disagree. That's pretty much the point I was trying to make -- that there were a lot of scoundrels involved in this mess, and I think I do have to agree that the federal government is most to blame -- it's their duty to look out for the country and its citizens, after all. However, I also believe that there have been some real scumbags at the top who got filthy rich for unethical lending practices, for example, cooking the books to get highly risky loans the AAA rating. I'm not an expert in all this crap, but I tell you, I've learned a lot in the past couple years. In the end, I still contend that our ecomonic woes are the direct result of the loss of Faith in this country. And I am most disappointed (that's putting it lightly) with the Obama Adminstration's exacerbation of the problem
"Steady." -- Keith Olbermann to Chris Matthews
I dont know
October 7, 2009 - 15:47 ET by general companyI give him credit for appearing on Hannity's program, thereby demonstrating that he does have something of a backbone.
If you were tying to sell a movie, wouldnt you want to appear on a highly watched show. Moore has been on Fox many times, it does proove that he has far more courage then Obama and a bunch of other liberals
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
all true
October 7, 2009 - 18:29 ET by lotrExactly.
"Steady." -- Keith Olbermann to Chris Matthews
Hannity isn't particularly smart is he
October 7, 2009 - 13:04 ET by sajc05He actually contradicts the FACT that banks and wall st were more responsible for this crash then some poor person taking out a loan and not being able to pay it back.
Did the gov't or the poor make these guys get into credit default swaps? did CRA make these guys gamble with other people's money on risky mortgage backed securities? did the CRA make Moodies give absurd ratings of AAA to these garbage, worthless securities in order that they could be sold and passed up the risk ladder?
I guess i missed the part in the CRA bill where it told these wall street guys to do all of that and gamble on worthless securities in order to make a quick buck.
How is hannity allowed to be on the air if he's going to be so obtuse? just keep blaming the poor and all their capital for trillions of loses. makes sense to me.
Hannity's Clock Cleaned
October 7, 2009 - 13:30 ET by AbraxosI watched the Michael Moore interview last night. I'm not a fan of Moore, and think he's wrong on some issues. He suffers from selective perception as does Hannity.
But objectively speaking, I think Michael Moore cleaned Hannity's clock in that interview. Almost from the start, Hannity was put on the defensive and Moore quite skillfully drew out some of Hannity's biases, hypocricies, and partisan fixations.
Hannity kept harping on how much money Moore has, presumably trying to prove that Moore has greatly benefitted from the Capitalism he derides in his new film. But Hannity didn't make his point because Moore successfully refuted that he had nearly as much money as Hannity claimed. No one makes more money than Hannity these days.
When Hannity tried to nail Moore on being rich with a presumed lack of charitable giving, Moore surprised him with evidence that he does give back. Moore also snared Hannity's showy church-going when Sean couldn't remember anything that was said in his church two days prior. Sean quickly changed the subject.
Although I disagree with Michael Moore on issues, I have to give him credit for handling Hannity's brow-beating with skill. I was wrong about Moore's intelligence, sincerity, and walking his talk.
Liberals who debate issues with vile insults and evasive generalizations deserve no respect, but when an opponent beats you on the issues, and scores clean, direct punches, ya gotta tip your hat. Moore scored a win on the home team's turf.
Moore mendacity
October 7, 2009 - 13:41 ET by Jack BauerHow did he do that considering Moore was the Writer, Director and Producer of: Fahrenheit 9/11.
Which cost: $6,000,000 (estimated)
Worldwide Latest gross: $220,078,393
USA Latest gross: $119,078,393 (1 October 2004)
Now he didn't take all the BO, but he took a major chunk. Super rich? Yes.
Moore is clearly a more brazen liar than I thought.
By the way, lots of people earn more than Hannity. Letterman, for starters.
I'm wondering how Moore
October 7, 2009 - 14:03 ET by Radical1979I'm wondering how Moore proved his giving to charities. From what I've read Moore gives very little to anyone but himself.
He is a notoriously mean
October 7, 2009 - 14:12 ET by Jack BauerHe is a notoriously mean basta+d, as reported from his vartious crews. Especially over in the UK, when they went on strike and walked out in protest.
I never saw the show, but I would laugh out loud at any charity giving claims.
"But Hannity didn't make
October 7, 2009 - 14:34 ET by ckc1227"But Hannity didn't make his point because Moore successfully refuted
that he had nearly as much money as Hannity claimed"
Lying about your wealth doesn't refute a point.
"No one makes more
money than Hannity these days."
You might want to research a guy named Rush Limbaugh. He's not very well known, but I hear he makes pretty good money.
"I was wrong about Moore's intelligence, sincerity, and walking his talk."
Moore isn't especially intelligent, he's just more intelligent than those who buy into his crap....you know, people like you. I guess you also believe Moore was sincerely walking the walk when it was discovered he owned stock in one of his favorite targets, Haliburton, the evil war profiteer.
Only liberal men are
October 7, 2009 - 14:01 ET by Radical1979Only liberal men are ignorant enough to compare things to being raped. That implies something was done by an act of force against another person. Not even a close comparison.
The Rape Analogy
October 7, 2009 - 14:02 ET by average-danMoore's rape anology is off the mark. It's not like asking a girl how short her skirt was or where she was walking after she had been assaulted. It's more like asking a girl, "Was it consensual?"
"Well, yeah, I agreed to it. I even signed my name to a piece of paper saying I was okay with it."
"Did you understand the consequences of having sexual relations with this man, and did you agree to those consequences as well?"
"Well, I don't know that I understood the consequences, but I agreed to them anyway. Is it my fault if I sign my name to something I don't understand?"
"Yes, actually, it is."
--------------------------
We're not only back to taxation without representation in this country, they've now added a new twist - representation without taxation.
Nice analogy Dan. Too bad
October 7, 2009 - 14:04 ET by Another Dead KennedyNice analogy Dan. Too bad Letterman's flings didn't sign that agreement.
xoxo - Ted
Why is Moore whining about
October 7, 2009 - 14:48 ET by ckc1227Why is Moore whining about rape anyway.....I thought rape was ok now?
Fidel Forgiven
October 7, 2009 - 15:37 ET by slickwillie2001Another story emerging on the Moore interview, Moore admits that Fidel Castro murdered many of his opponents and dissidents, "but that was forty years ago." Like Polanski and Ayers, liberals are to be forgiven their crimes after a few decades, but Catholic Priests, not so much.
Michael Moore: Sure Castro Murdered: http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com
More to come
October 7, 2009 - 15:41 ET by slickwillie2001Bu the way, Hannity mentioned on his radio program that he has more of the Moore interview to be aired tonight and I believe tomorrow night as well. He promises much more good stuff to come.
A local low pressure atmospheric event at a resturant???
October 7, 2009 - 17:44 ET by LibertydudeREPORTED BY one customer..."it's like a friggen black hole by that table."
Customer was asked, "who was at the table?"
Ans.-"Michael Moore...."
What are you, a wise guy - Curley, the three stooges
Close to home
October 7, 2009 - 17:45 ET by jkbDespite how some characterize the people being foreclosed on, not all were living beyond their means. Some (like myself) got caught in a perfect storm. Bought a house in 2004, wife lost her job reducing our income by 50%, her ex-husband decided to not support his kids any more so I wound up supporting the lot, and my company decided to cut salaries across the board. At this point selling the house cannot be done as I would still owe more than I could make from it.
That said, this is the price of life. If they foreclose, oh well. People have to look at it as 'rent paid to the bank' rather than a landlord. This is not the 'end of days'. This is not a situation that needs the government rushing in to screw up the day. At the end of it all, I don't buy a house for 7 years but I now have the mobility to move someplace else to work for a better salary. The bank has a property that they cannot sell either. There are no winners...there are no losers...it's just life.
There aren't debtors prisons...nobody is getting violated or executed. People can just pick up and move. And if their economic situation is dire enough that they cannot afford their house, the last thing they want is to buy another one.
What a show. The two most
October 7, 2009 - 18:03 ET by JasonCWhat a show. The two most brain-dead logic-impaired doofuses in punditry face off. We're lucky the exchange didn't just end with the two of them drooling and grunting.
So which brain-dead logic-impared doofus did you agree with?
October 7, 2009 - 19:51 ET by MightyMouth"The bureaucracy is growing to meet the needs of the growing bureaucracy"
Neither. They're both
October 7, 2009 - 22:08 ET by JasonCNeither. They're both idiots who simplify complex issues within an inch of their (the issues') lives.
Leave the housing market
October 7, 2009 - 20:30 ET by RR GOPLeave the housing market out of your fantasies, Mikey.
One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 86% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory.
Moore may be right. *ducks*
October 7, 2009 - 23:04 ET by RESTLESS 1These people were raped - by the public education system. If our public schools would teach important things, you know, like personal finance, basic contract law, even basics of investing, instead the newest obama song, many may have avoided the mess they are in now.
I mean, really, how long could it take to teach the meaning of "adjustable" in Adjustable Rate Mortgage?
"If the man, with the power, can't keep it under control...some heads are gonna roll." -Judas Priest