Say Anything Blog

Ouch!

I’d like to think that something like this would make a difference, but odds are the MSM won’t touch it. 

Of course, there’s always a possibility.....

Heh. A little humor there.

The future ain’t what it used to be.....

That’s a good picture of him.  Say free cheese!

Zsa Zsa,

Say free cheese!

Ha!!!! Made me laugh out loud.

The future ain’t what it used to be.....

That’s a good picture of him.  Say free cheese!

Yeah, you got that right....I have never seen that many poor starving, skinny, employed socialist.

Get a job and get off the productive people’s ass.

Will Obama be asked for associating with socialists?  An ideology that has resulted in the oppression, slaughter and starvation of hundreds of millions of people across the globe?  Or will he be allowed to sweep these associations under the rug like he did with Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, Bernadette Dohrn and Tony Rezko?

He’ll be allowed to sweep it under the rug.

It doesn’t say anything about a socialist organization in that photo.  It only talks about Democrat primary winners.

Combating Republican dirty tricks since 2002!

Example: Republican Dirty Trick

So we can a “Commie” to his resume, now…

Just Organizin’ the Comunity, I reckon..

It doesn’t say anything about a socialist organization in that photo.  It only talks about Democrat primary winners.

Wouldn’t matter, you guys would twist and spin till it was the republican’s party fault anyway. It will never get out to main street anyway. Also, new party is splinter group of dsa, sorry, guilt by association!

He’s a “Commie”..

It doesn’t say anything about a socialist organization in that photo.

And the witless child Hannitized can’t figure out anything that isn’t spoon fed to him! Pity!

Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

Han, it says he is NP endorsed.

It should be no surprise that Obama rolled with the socialists, if we consider that one of his election pledges is socialised healthcare. This story is so close to being a non-story I’m not sure I can be bothered to finish ty

Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

Obama is a socialist, but notice the direction his left arm is pointing and the size of his tie. Obama may be that much bigger and lighter toned than everything else in the picture, but his tie isn’t.

Commie!....

The New Party was founded in the early 1990s by Daniel Cantor, a former staffer for Jesse Jackson’s 1988 presidential campaign, and by sociology and law professor Joel Rogers as an effort to break with the largely unsuccessful history of left-leaning third parties in the United States. Wikipedia

Oh my god, is that Obama standing next to a US Congressman. The New Party was not a socialist organization, in fact it was against left leaning third parties like the green party.

Now let’s look at the Alaskan Independence Party, the party of the Palins.

The Alaskan Independence Party is a political party in the U.S. state of Alaska that advocates a state vote which includes several options, including increased state autonomy, territorial status, becoming a separate nation or commonwealth state, and, failing that, nationhood

At other times, party members have also proposed that the state explore the possibility of joining Canada. Other members have expressed opposition to joining Canada in its present form but are open to the possibility of joining an independent Western Canadian state comprising the Yukon and Northwest Territories

In 1973 Joe Vogler began arguing about the validity of the Alaskan statehood vote. Early in that year, he began circulating a petition seeking support for secession of Alaska from the United States

The party quotes Vogler as stating “I’m an Alaskan, not an American. I’ve got no use for America or her damned institutions

Palin has expressed support for the AIP, telling AIP members, “Keep up the good work” [. . .] “And God bless you.” AIP chair, Lynette Clark told is quoted to have said of Palin, “She’s Alaskan to the bone ... she sounds just like Joe Vogler

I find it strange that someone like Palin would accuse Obama of “Paling around with terrorist”, when her and her husband is so closly affiliated with an organization that hates america so much. She is a fraud and all you neo-conservatives have been fooled again.

Care to prove the Palins are closely associated with the Independence Party? Or ar you simply going to claim that being a registered Independent is the same as being in the Independence Party?

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

First of all,I am also a registered independent, second her husband was a registered member of AIP until I believe from 1996 to 2004. There is video of her when she became governor giving the AIP her support. Everything that I blogged came from Wikipidia, which is not a left wing pub. There are interviews with AIP memebers on Salon.com, but I didn’t print those because Salon.com is a far left pub. I really don’t care what party she belongs to, but it seems kind of strange to me for her to be saying the things that she says about Obama when her and her husband is connected to a party who’s founder say’s that he hates the USA government. In my opinion anyone that believe that Obama is a terrorist either 1) Want to scare the general unimformed public to vote GOP, 2) To lazy to find out the truth or 3) Don’t want him to win becauuse of his race. It’s fine to differ about who should win, but it’s criminal to tell lies and half truths in order to smear someones character. Our country have some very serious problems, I want to know what the next president is gonna do for not only me, but for our society as a whole. I could care less who someone hung out with 20 years ago. Everything I printed can be proved with facts, look it up for yourself.

Everything that I blogged came from Wikipidia, which is not a left wing pub

Woody: I’ve got a bridge I can sell you if you’ve got the cash!
Wasn’t wiki the one that refused to allow anyone to update John Edward’s bio with details of his affair and supposed love child while not showing similar restraint to rumors involving Republicans?

Plus, wiki can be edited by nearly anyone. The bias of any piece could reflect the bias of the last “editor”.  Hence, at any given time, portions of wiki are very much left wing pubs!

Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

And I got some Kool-aid for ya to drink. I’m tired of all these smear tactics. All I know is this; I don’t know anyone that is better off now than they were 7 years ago. The GOP can spin it anyway they want to but the fact is, they were in charge of both houses of congress and the executive branch for the majority of that time. Don’t tell me about the Dems and Fanny and Freddie, because we all know both parties had their hands in the cookie jar. The american public was lied to about WMD’s in Iraq, the national debt is more than double, oh, did I mention that we still haven’t caught Bin Laden. You can call me uninformed, misslead, neive, or anything else you want but I’m not gonna reward the GOP for messing up this country. I don’t care about left wing, right wing, neo-con, or any of that political garbage, I care about America! Did I also mention that I am a US Marine. All this garbage about Obama being a terrorist is just another scare tactic and it pisses me off that they are more concerned with putting garbage out like that instead of telling hard working americans that are loosing their homes and busineses, due to no fault of their own, how they are gonna help them. I felt so sorry for that ol lady at Mccains rally that thought Obama was an arab. Maybe you should try and sell that bridge of yours to her. It’s scary to think someone that will cast such an important vote could be so misinformed. Personally, I’m sick of all the spin from both sides, but like I said, I’m not gonna reward someone for doing a crappy job.

All I know is this; I don’t know anyone that is better off now than they were 7 years ago.

Then you know a bunch of losers.

Don’t tell me about the Dems and Fanny and Freddie, because we all know both parties had their hands in the cookie jar.

Translation: you do not want to hear the truth, you will just make it up as you go along.

The american public was lied to about WMD’s in Iraq...

No, it wasn’t.

You can call me uninformed, misslead, neive, or anything else you want but I’m not gonna reward the GOP for messing up this country.

Sure. What are you going to do?

All this garbage about Obama being a terrorist is just another scare tactic and it pisses me off that they are more concerned with putting garbage out like that instead of telling hard working americans that are loosing their homes and busineses, due to no fault of their own, how they are gonna help them.

Wait a minute! Since when is it the federal government’s job to “help them”?

Oh, wait. You’re a guy who is looking for a President that’s “gonna do” something for you. But you “care about America!” Really! You do! After you figure out what the Pres is going to do for you.

OK dude, you got all the answers just like the experts on Wall Street. It’s simple, if you are doing better finacially now than you were 7 years ago, vote Mccain. If not vote Obama. Like I said, call me what you want, but I’m not drinking the Kool-Aid that the GOP is serving. I only wish that I was as informed as you and not such a looser. It is my life dream to someday be half the man that you are.

woody: It’s “loser”, not “looser”, dude!
The problem with your “analysis” is that under a socialist like Obama, we are pretty likely to be worse off financially(note spelling) than we are now.  For the majority of the Bush administration, the economy has been very good, despite all the lying propaganda from the MSM.  It’s only the recent losses from thirty years of social engineering home loan mandates by the Dems that is causing the present situation; it has nothing to do with Bush administration economic policy, but has a lot to do with the ‘06 Dem Congress policies, including the obstruction of energy development, despite high fuel costs.
Educate yourself.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

woody - It’s simple, if you are doing better finacially now than you were 7 years ago, vote Mccain. If not vote Obama.

That’s just simplistic.

Like I said, call me what you want, but I’m not drinking the Kool-Aid that the GOP is serving. I only wish that I was as informed as you and not such a looser. It is my life dream to someday be half the man that you are.

Who are you even talking to here? Is someone hurting your feelings by calling you names? What are they calling you?

you seem to think that you have all the answers, which is one of the problems. As far as calling names, it was you that said if someone is not doing better than they were 7 years ago that they are losers. That is a typical GOP answer, I guess it’s the Demo’s fault for the massive spending. The economy did better inspite of Bush’s policies, not because of them and I don’t see how you could even try to defend him. As far as WMD’s in Iraq, that was just a lie. When I was on active duty in the Marines, my job was a Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Specialist. The european inspectors told us that Iraq had no WMD’s, of course Bush did not listen to them. When I was on active duty over 75% of my instructors were from europe because they knew more about the subject due to their experience with Germany during WW1 and WW2. In my opinion if those inspectors said there was no WMD’s then there was no WMD’s. Just a fact, in order to deploy chemical, nuke, or bio weapons you need a “means of delivery”, in other words planes, choppers, missles, or someway to deploy them. During the Iran-Iraq war, Iraq deployed these weapons by chopper by putting them in large barrels and having their soldiers pour them on the troops and people on the ground. This method worked against the Iranians because they did not have air superiority but wouldn’t stand a chance against US forces. The US at the time had a “No Fly Zone” over most of Iraq and the life span of a chopper taking off was about 20 seconds, so there was little to no threat to our troops. As far as Nukes, the US have over 9000 nuke weapons deployed by air, sea and ground. Isreal is estimated to have over 300, even if Iraq had one or ten, what make you think that they would be so suicidal to launch any of them even if they somehow developed a means of delivery.  Saddam knew he could never win an exchange like that. Now Bush keep talking about Iran having Nukes, they don’t even have missles that will reach Isreal, so how could they be a threat to us. We are pissing off Russia by putting up Missles defense systems that may or may not work and using Iran as the excuse, it’s madness and with Mccain it will be the same. Meanwhile the real terroirist are and always have been in Afganistan and Pakistan. Iraq has been an unnecessary strain on our economy and we have lost alot of influence around the world because of it. But there are people like yourself that will argue that there is or was WMD’s in Iraq.

But you do realize BUSH isn’t running this time around, right?  The question of WMDs has been dissected so many times.  Must we go there again?  Really?

woody - you seem to think that you have all the answers, which is one of the problems.

No, not at all woody. I have just been responding to some of your bullshit. That’s all.

As far as calling names, it was you that said if someone is not doing better than they were 7 years ago that they are losers.

Uh, no, I didn’t say that at all.

If you don’t know “anybody” better off today than they were seven years ago, then you know a bunch of losers.

People go up and down in life. It’s the nature of life. Over the course of seven years, some will be better off while others worse off. But to say that you don’t know anybody who is better off strongly suggests that you know a bunch of losers.

*shrugs*

The definition fits, but it’s a minor point. Just pointing out your crowd.

That is a typical GOP answer, I guess it’s the Demo’s fault for the massive spending.

That’s it. Set up those straw men!

The economy did better inspite of Bush’s policies, not because of them and I don’t see how you could even try to defend him.

Defend him against what? You’re very unspecific, and besides - if you actually knew of the conservative position around here, you wouldn’t even bother going down this road. An economic conservative George Bush is not.

As far as WMD’s in Iraq, that was just a lie.

That almost all of the major intelligence organizations believed.

You presume too much, woody. Are you really going to sit there and say for certainty that any WMDs that could have existed couldn’t have been moved out in the 14 month “rush to war”? What’s in Syria? How did they get all of those WMDs? *shrugs* Who cares, right? Let’s just call it a lie. Yeah, that’s the ticket. Trust in Saddam.

Go ahead and break out that Marine badge again if you think that it plugs the massive holes in your logic.

...even if Iraq had one or ten, what make you think that they would be so suicidal to launch any of them even if they somehow developed a means of delivery.

As if hating the Jews was ever stopped by suicidal death.

Now Bush keep talking about Iran having Nukes, they don’t even have missles that will reach Isreal, so how could they be a threat to us.

Hey, let’s just wait for those little buggers to arm themselves. Let’s also ignore the Iranian history and their contemporary rhetoric, not to mention that “peaceful” nuclear program they’re working on right now.

O-kay, then.

We are pissing off Russia by putting up Missles defense systems...

Haha! Of course are enemies are pissed that we are willing to defend ourselves. But of course!

Meanwhile the real terroirist are and always have been in Afganistan and Pakistan.

The entire Middle East is filled with them. They’re like roaches in sugar.

Iraq has been an unnecessary strain on our economy and we have lost alot of influence around the world because of it. But there are people like yourself that will argue that there is or was WMD’s in Iraq.

I heard this in the 1980’s about Reagan and the USSR.

I didn’t buy it then and I don’t buy it now.

You and the GOP have all the answers and that’s why most of them will be out of jobs in Washington come January.

“If you don’t know “anybody” better off today than they were seven years ago, then you know a bunch of losers.”

Do you know anyone with a 401k retirement fund, I guess they are doing better, how about someone that own a business? Most all my friends are business owners and all had to lay people off because of the economy as have I. You make fun of a very serious economic situation that is not funny at all.

“You presume too much, woody. Are you really going to sit there and say for certainty that any WMDs that could have existed couldn’t have been moved out in the 14 month “rush to war”? What’s in Syria? How did they get all of those WMDs? *shrugs* Who cares, right? Let’s just call it a lie. Yeah, that’s the ticket. Trust in Saddam”

Talk about me presuming, they got the WMD’s from the Regan Admin. during the Iran and Iraq war. We stood by and said nothing when he used them against the Iranians then his own people.

“Let’s also ignore the Iranian history and their contemporary rhetoric, not to mention that “peaceful” nuclear program they’re working on right now.”

What do you know about Iranian history pre-1970. If you did you wouldn’t be so afraid of them. You probally believe that one nuke will destroy most of the US or that you can put a nuke in the back of a pick-up truck and drive it down town NYC without detection. Only in Hollywood can that happen. Your blind faith in the GOP is disturbing, it shows a lack of thinking for yourself. I voted for Nixon and Reagan. Not because they were GOP but because they were the best choice. I voted for Clinton for the same reason. Save your Conservative rhetoric and your smart ass remarks because most of america and myself could care less.

woody, honest to gawd, I don’t know where to start with you.

Jeebus save us all.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

woody - You and the GOP have all the answers...

Goodness. With this again? It’s like talking to a wall.

Do you know anyone with a 401k retirement fund...

“Don’t tell me about the Dems and Fanny and Freddie” you say.

You’ve already shut down any discussion of what led to the credit crunch.

Talk about me presuming, they got the WMD’s from the Regan Admin.

What a minute! A moment ago you said, “As far as WMD’s in Iraq, that was just a lie.” Now you’re saying they got them from the “Regan” administration?

You’re all over the freakin’ place!

What do you know about Iranian history pre-1970.

Who said “pre-1970”? We have been at war with Iran since the 444 days. The history that matters today started in that time frame. Now you can examine and we can have a discussion about what led to the 444 days, and by all means there is a story there, but the history that matters today with regards to Iranian/U.S. relations came about from that time.

If you did you wouldn’t be so afraid of them.

Who said that I am “afraid” of them? You do a lot of assuming woody, all of it wrong.

You probally believe that one nuke will destroy most of the US or that you can put a nuke in the back of a pick-up truck and drive it down town NYC without detection.

Oh yeah? Well, you probably believe…

That’s stupid, woody. I’m not going to play your silly game.

Your blind faith in the GOP is disturbing...

Another assumption from woody. He’s full of them.

Save your Conservative rhetoric and your smart ass remarks because most of america and myself could care less.

Then get the fuck on out of here!

I have to wonder about people who say, “I don’t care what you say” while continuing on.

“Don’t tell me about the Dems and Fanny and Freddie” you say.

You’ve already shut down any discussion of what led to the credit crunch.

Of course, it was all the Dems fault. Nothing to do with Reagan/Thatcher era deregulation, incompetent financial regulators and unscrupulous, short-sighted speculators. Just blame the Dems, because the US economy is the only one that has any impact on the global stage.

Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

Nothing to do with Reagan/Thatcher era deregulation...

Can you be specific?

Just blame the Dems, because the US economy is the only one that has any impact on the global stage.

Oh, great. Another one who has a problem with making straw men.

ManofFireandLight, about the current credit crunch, this may be an interesting read for you.

George W. Bush will be remembered for...the bailout of a financial industry gone hog wild during the Reagan-initiated Era of Deregulation. Joe Klein

In the pro-deregulation ethos that dominated Washington over past two decades, there was little appetite for adding powers to an agency like the SEC: In 1998, when the Commodity Futures Trading Commission proposed regulating the burgeoning derivatives market, the banking lobby, with some help from hedge funds and investment banks, quickly thwarted the measure.
Barbara Kiviat

But when the subprime lending binge really took off from 2003 to 2006, financial institutions subject to CRA weren’t the ones leading the way. Neither were government-sponsored behemoths Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

No, starting in 2003, as a long boom in house prices and mortgage lending that had at least some foundation in economic reality (lower interest rates, higher incomes) gave way to an orgy of ever-sharper price increases fueled by ever-dodgier loans, the folks in the drivers’ seat were the mortgage brokers that made the loans and the Wall Street investment banks that packaged them into private-label mortgage-backed securities.

And these people were barely regulated at all, at least not in the sense that bankers are regulated. “You had a regulatory mechanism that was targeted very narrowly to prudential regulation of the banking industry,” says Gene Ludwig, who as Comptroller of the Currency oversaw the nation’s big banks from 1993 to 1998. What that did, Ludwig explains, was to motivate banking companies to move activities to their less-regulated affiliates, and give a leg up to competitors (stand-alone investment firms, hedge funds, mortgage brokers, you name it) that weren’t being watched by banking regulators at all.
Justin Fox

Two fundamentally American ideas have dominated global thinking since the early 1980s, when Ronald Reagan was President. The first was a vision of capitalism which argued that low taxes, light regulation and a pared-back government would be the engine for economic growth. The second was America as a promoter of liberal democracy around the world.

It’s hard to fathom just how badly these features of the American brand have been discredited. Between 2002 and 2007, as the world was enjoying unprecedented growth, it was easy to ignore those who denounced the US economic model as “cowboy capitalism”, but now the American economy threatens to drag the rest of the world down with it. Under the mantra of less government, Washington has failed to regulate adequately the financial sector. Francis Fukuyama

Fraser believes it is this era, begun by Reagan and perpetuated by Bill Clinton, that led to the unprecedented criminality seen in corporate America today. “There has never been such an extended period of felonious behaviour on Wall Street,” he says. “Enron happened in 2001, and more than four years later and every week some new crime is uncovered.”James Doran

And if you still believe in Reagonomics, read The Sad Legacy of Ronald Reagan, which was published in 1988 and poo-poos the idea that his policies led to saving money.

Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

And if you really believe that the banks’ lack of confidence is due to the sub-prime derivatives market, check out Credit Derivatives

Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

likwidshoe

First of all, “the 444 days” started on Nov 4, 1979, but that’s not when our troubles with Iran started. Your assumption that “The history that matters today started in that time frame”, is short sighted. The Carter Admin could have avoided that whole situation by not supporting the Shah, who was put in power by the CIA and British MI6 in 1953 by overthrowing Irans elected government.

What a minute! A moment ago you said, “As far as WMD’s in Iraq, that was just a lie.” Now you’re saying they got them from the “Regan” administration

They used them against the Iranians and Kurds during the Iran Irag war in 1988. The Reagan Admin gave them Chemical Weapons and tech to use against the Iranians.

likwidshoe when you say “Then get the fuck on out of here”,

Are you talking about this blog or the USA. Either way, it’s little piss ants like you that send our troops to die because you don’t have the courage to do it yourself. You wave the flag and pretend like you are so patriotic and anyone that disagree with you, in your opinion is either stupid or should “get the fuck on out of here”. Before you try to “shoot down” what I’m saying have some facts or life experience to back up what you are saying.

Your assumption that “The history that matters today started in that time frame”, is short sighted. The Carter Admin could have avoided that whole situation by not supporting the Shah, who was put in power by the CIA and British MI6 in 1953 by overthrowing Irans elected government.

Okay. If you want to go back to what precipitated the 444 days, then that makes sense.

But it is still what matters today.

They used them against the Iranians and Kurds during the Iran Irag war in 1988. The Reagan Admin gave them Chemical Weapons and tech to use against the Iranians.

I’ve often heard that, usually along the lines of “chemical precursors”, but never do get proof.

Are you talking about this blog or the USA.

The blog. If you “could care less”, or if you meant to say ‘could not care less’, then there is no point in you reading or responding to any of this. You don’t care, remember?

Either way, it’s little piss ants like you that send our troops to die because you don’t have the courage to do it yourself. You wave the flag and pretend like you are so patriotic and anyone that disagree with you...

Oh, goody. More assumptions from the giant ass.

Before you try to “shoot down” what I’m saying have some facts or life experience to back up what you are saying.

I have plenty of life experience in dealing with assholes such as yourself.

Nice attempt at obfuscating, though.

Saddam Hussein was the WMD! That is no lie.

woodhead, I’ll type this real slow, so you can understand it. Iraq acquired its chemical, biological, and nuclear technologies from Russia, Germany, France, and China. Much of it camouflaged as pharmaceutical, pesticide, and medical industries.

America sold Iraq TOW missile systems and counterbattery artillery radar systems, we also supplied them photorecon data on Iranian troop movements and concentrations.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

"Iraq acquired its chemical, biological, and nuclear technologies from Russia, Germany, France, and China. Much of it camouflaged as pharmaceutical, pesticide, and medical industries.”

In the late 1980s, Reagan dispatched a very special envoy to the Middle East, one Donald Rumsfeld, wined and dined Saddam even as the dictator was gasing the Kurds.

U.S. companies were recruited and encouraged, both covertly and overtly, to ship poisonous chemicals and biological agents to Iraq, by the administrations of both Reagan and George Bush Sr., according to the Washington Post and numerous other reports. The CIA also followed up on these efforts with various military and intelligence assists.

The U.S. care packages to Saddam included sample strains of anthrax and bubonic plague, which must have seemed like a really f@@king great idea to someone at the time. With U.S. assistance and on its own initiative, Iraq also reportedly developed new and improved toxins, such as ricin and sarin gas.

I don’t know what those countries roll was in Iraq acquiring WMD’s but I do know the US’s role. There are pics of Rumsfeld during the meeting with Saddam.

ManofFireandLight - But when the subprime lending binge really took off from 2003 to 2006, financial institutions subject to CRA weren’t the ones leading the way. Neither were government-sponsored behemoths Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Uh, yes they were:

Fannie and Freddie began purchasing subprime securities in 1995.  By 2003, the two were buying $81 billion in subprime securities a year. In 2004, they purchased $175 billion subprime securities — 44 % of the market.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac didn’t make loans. They bought them. This in turn freed up the lender market to make more loans. You can witness what happened next: with the lender market freed from the downward pressure of the market thanks to two government entities who didn’t have to play by the same rules, prices spiraled upwards, more risky loans were made by lenders, more of those risky loans were secured by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and an ever increasing feedback loop was established. We consequently had a housing bubble.

Now that the bubble has burst and the house of cards have crashed, we have a situation of people asking for “more government regulations!” to a problem almost entirely caused by government regulations.

Now you can blame this situation on deregulation and Reaganism if you wish, but know that those pat answers do not pass the smell test.

By the way 2hotel9, there is no record of the US ever supplying Iraq with Tow missles. During the Iran-Contra scandal according to the New York Times the US supplied Iran with the following;

Aug 20,1985 96 TOW anti tank missles
Sep 14,1985 408 TOWS
Nov 24,1985 18 Hawk anti aircraft missles
Feb 17 and 24, 1985 500 TOWS EACH SHIPMENT
May 24, 1986 508 TOWS, AND 240 HAWK SPARE PARTS
Aug 4, 1986 More Hawk spare parts
Oct 28, 1986 500 TOWS

Minor problem 2hotel , you just got your country and most of the weapons systems wrong. I made sure I wrote this really slow for ya, make sure you take notes.

Keep to the rewritten history, woodhead, it is the best your public education can do for you.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

First off I didn’t go to a public school, second why don’t you check it or at the least produce some pub that backs up your “facts”. Don’t just post something and call me names because you’re to damn lazy or dumb to reasearch it. What’s wrong, you can’t find it on Hannity or Billo the clown.

Lik, if it makes you happy, blame the Dems for their actions in forcing the issue on the sub-prime mortgage market. However, you will be missing issues that far outweigh the financial crisis attributed to sup-prime, that in fact are bigger than the entire world economy and were caused by banking deregulation.

Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

Lik, if it makes you happy, blame the Dems for their actions in forcing the issue on the sub-prime mortgage market. However, you will be missing issues that far outweigh the financial crisis attributed to sup-prime, that in fact
are bigger than the entire world economy and were caused by banking deregulation.

You’re missing the point entirely, Man.  Mandating bad loans for social engineering purposes doesn’t make anyone happy.  You can blame “banking deregulation” if that makes you happy, but it’s not the root of the problem.  When regulations, like the affirmative action home loan mandates, distort the market in the first place, they spawn the necessity for more regulations to try to fix the damage done by the initial regulations, and so on.  You can’t “deregulate” part of it without removing the root regulation that spawned the other regulations in the first place.
We don’t need any more partisan bullshit here; we need to remove the initial distortion and let the market heal itself.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

ManofFireandLight - However, you will be missing issues that far outweigh the financial crisis attributed to sup-prime, that in fact are bigger than the entire world economy and were caused by banking deregulation.

You keep saying that, but with two government entities the ones holding the bag for nearly half of that sup-prime market, you’ve really got little reason to say that.

What deregulation? Where? All we can see is regulation and the sticky hand of government!

Don’t worry about it Lik, Flamer hasn’t had a clue about any issue yet.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Don’t worry about it Lik, Flamer hasn’t had a clue about any issue yet.

But he (I think it is a he) generally can discuss and advance these issues without many of the theatrics. And besides, just discussing these issues advances my own understandings of the issue.

Woodhead, not only did America sell Iraq TOWs, we tried to pawn off 1st phase Copperheads on them. The Iraqi Army, having had members in training at Ft Hood, Ft Bliss, and Ft Sill during the period in which Copperhead proved to be a laughable failure, they said no thanks.

Who built the pharmaceutical industry in Iraq?

Who built the petro-chemical industry in Iraq?

Who built the agchem/pesticide industry in Iraq?

Who supplied the vast majority of the orders for military equipment, vehicles and subsidiary systems and supplies/munitions to Iraq from 1962 to 2003?

Come on, Mr Authority. Tell us what happened in Iraq in the 1920s,’30s,’40s,’50s, and ‘60s. Let’s us hear it.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Let me get this straight…

The Dems introduced a mandate requiring banks to give mortgages to low-income families, even if it appeared they couldn’t afford to pay them. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac then took on these bad loans, which left the banks able to take on more bad mortgages and the whole little cycle continued.  I see that. I don’t dispute that.
It was obviously a stupid thing to do, because at some point some hiccup would come along to derail the whole kit and caboodle and hey-presto - sup-prime crisis.

Now Robert, are you suggesting that removing this mandate would make the whole thing go away and the banks and financial markets would settle down as a result?

I just get the impression that we’re talking at cross-purposes.
I don’t dispute that the commonly given reason for the current economic crisis is given above. The difference is that I am maintaining that there is a lot more than the sup-prime derivatives market which is affecting confidence within the money markets and that this other stuff is caused by deregulation of the financial markets. I just don’t understand why none of you guys seem willing to discuss anything other than the sub-prime thingamybob.

Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

I hope I’m a he. I was last time I checked.

Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

The difference is that I am maintaining that there is a lot more than the sup-prime derivatives market which is affecting confidence within the money markets and that this other stuff is caused by deregulation of the financial markets.

Maybe you could explain what the “lot more” actually is rather than just hint about which makes me think that you don’t really know what you’re talking about.  (Although Lik’s point was valid.)

While you’re at it you can tell us exactly what deregulation and how it’s causing these problems.

Or would you rather just stick to politicians’ bumper sticker line that “it’s deregulation.”

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

...even if it appeared they couldn’t afford to pay them.

Even when they knew they couldn’t afford to pay them.  Or, as I have said countless times, when they couldn’t meet basic requirements for home financing, like a good credit score, sufficient income, minimal debt liability, employment record and down payment.

Now Robert, are you suggesting that removing this mandate would make the whole thing go away and the banks and financial markets would settle down as a result?

First, I’m not “suggesting” anything; I’m saying right out, again and again, that the root cause must be removed.  It’s not a magic bullet, but it will restore faith in our financial system(which so far the bailout boondoggle has failed miserably to do), and allow the properly managed firms to buy up the assets of the badly managed firms at a discount, thus restoring the flow of credit.  It will take time, but that first step must be taken.  Of course, taking Fannie and Freddie off the govt teat must also be done.  The only loan guarantee should be proper business practices, free of affirmative action mandates of any kind.

Generally speaking, bad regulations spawn more bad regulations to try to “fix” the problems caused by the original bad regulations, so removing all those regulations would be beneficial.  That doesn’t mean all regulations should be removed; just the bad ones.  Generally speaking, in a free economy, proper regulations regulate fiscal behavior, not financial outcomes.  If one is doing business honestly, one should be able to obtain the best possible economic outcome.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

FFS! How many times do I have to repeat this?

CREDIT DERIVATIVES

or the source for that piece

CREDIT DERIVATIVES RISK-PRIMER

If you can’t be bothered to click the links and read (yes, I know it’s complicated - it took me two read throughs to get the gist of it), then I really can’t be bothered to elaborate for you.

What do I mean by “deregulation”, I mean that government and the financial regulators or ombudsmen (or whatever you guys have) operated a largely hands-off policy with these credit derivatives, allowing riskier and riskier policies to be underwritten by companies only out to make a fast buck on the assumption that an economic downturn would never materialise. So I use the word “deregulation” in the sense that the regulators were not regulating as much as perhaps they should have, often due to a relaxing of oversight.

I will concede that there was not a huge amount of governmental deregulation (i.e. the changing of laws) under either the Reps or the Dems during the 80s and 90s and I am perhaps a little guilty of climbing onto the bandwagon with all the nutbags. I am no longer on the bandwagon.

This does not however change the fact that Rep and Dem administrations have encouraged more of a hands-off approach to the financial markets than perhaps they should have.

Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

...I mean that government and the financial regulators or ombudsmen (or whatever you guys have) operated a largely hands-off policy with these credit derivatives, allowing riskier and riskier policies to be underwritten by companies only out to make a fast buck on the assumption that an economic downturn would never materialise.

The original reason for the derivatives and the lack of oversight was to accomodate the blizzard of bad paper that was produced by the affirmative action mandates.  An entire market was created there, and it had to operate outside of good business practices, or it wouldn’t have supported the blizzard of bad paper.  When you derange a market with such a practice, you do two things: one, you produce a false demand signal, which artificially drives up prices(the “bubble"), and two, you attract unscrupulous operators who couldn’t survive in a market under good business practices.
It was a double whammy, so to speak.  If not for the mandates, none of the rest would have occurred.
IMO, if we don’t eliminate the root cause, we will simply be called upon to do more “bailouts” in the future.
You can’t cure cancer with an aspirin.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

You can’t cure cancer with an aspirin.

So it’s invasive surgery and/or chemotherapy for the markets? What would you propose?

Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

I thought I covered this already a million times, but here it is again: remove the tumor of the affirmative action loan mandates, use chemo on Fannie and Freddie, and let the immune system(the well managed firms) buy up the cancerous growths(the badly managed firms).  The bad paper will have to be redeemed at some fraction of face value, people who can’t afford their own places should go back to renting, the rental market will surge, and the housing market will find its market level.
Others will have to live within their means, which will be difficult at first, but honest dealing is its own reward.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

Thank you

Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.