The true story of Wall Street and the Governments role in the Banking Crash
of 2008. I'm not one that toots any horns for PBS but this story has to be
seen!


Explains, Over the counter derivatives, the Black Box, Bankers Trust and
lawsuit brought on by Procter and Gamble in 1999 that started it all, and
Greenspan, Rubin and Sommers role in the whole mess.

http://www.dat-e-baseonline.com/fron...6A756E 7E7B71

http://alturl.com/poi2
--
"You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"
Running Mandriva release 2008.0 free-i586 using KDE on i586
Website Address http://rentmyhusband.biz/

evodawg wrote:
The true story of Wall Street and the Governments role in the Banking Crash
of 2008. I'm not one that toots any horns for PBS but this story has to be
seen!


Explains, Over the counter derivatives, the Black Box, Bankers Trust and
lawsuit brought on by Procter and Gamble in 1999 that started it all, and
Greenspan, Rubin and Sommers role in the whole mess.

http://www.dat-e-baseonline.com/fron...6A756E 7E7B71

http://alturl.com/poi2

I saw that; it was very interesting.

--
See Nad. See Nad go. Go Nad!
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

On 10/23/2009 7:41 PM evodawg spake thus:

The true story of Wall Street and the Governments role in the Banking Crash
of 2008. I'm not one that toots any horns for PBS but this story has to be
seen!

Explains, Over the counter derivatives, the Black Box, Bankers Trust and
lawsuit brought on by Procter and Gamble in 1999 that started it all, and
Greenspan, Rubin and Sommers role in the whole mess.

Good. Now go see Michael Moore's new movie "Capitalism: A Love Story",
which picks up where Frontline stops.

(And it's not just Greenspan, Rubin and Summers, but Geithner, Paulson,
and a whole raft of other sons of bitches.)

(And you get to learn fun new terms like "dead peasants" and "plutonomy".)


--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

evodawg wrote:

The true story of Wall Street and the Governments role in the Banking
Crash of 2008. I'm not one that toots any horns for PBS but this
story has to be seen!


Explains, Over the counter derivatives, the Black Box, Bankers Trust
and lawsuit brought on by Procter and Gamble in 1999 that started it
all, and Greenspan, Rubin and Sommers role in the whole mess.

http://www.dat-e-baseonline.com/fron...6A756E 7E7B71

Yup, Frontline is doing the best investigative documentaries on American
television. That video of Greenspan at the end, admitting before Congress
that he'd got it wrong all those years, that the market doesn't police
itself, that was something to see. To think that a guy who didn't believe
the govt. has a role in regulating the market even when there is outright
fraud involved was the person steering policy all those years--no wonder we
ended up with a bubble that took down the whole economy when it burst.

And where is L. Summers these days (the guy who once proposed dumping toxic
waste in "under-polluted" nations in Africa, the guy who lost a billion
dollars of Harvard's money investing in derivatives, the guy who was being
paid millions by companies recently bailed out by the taxpayer and whose
executive salaries he is still trying to protect)? Why he's Director of the
National Economic Council, advising Pres. Obama on economic policy. Meet
the new boss, same as the old boss.

On 2009-10-24, DGDevin wrote:
Yup, Frontline is doing the best investigative documentaries on American
television.

Yep ....and they have been for 20+ years. Check out the episodes on
credit cards and poison water. They exposed the dot com crash a
decade ago. The problem with Frontline is, if you watch too many of
them at once, yer liable to slit your wrists.

nb

On Oct 24, 1:17 am, notbob wrote:
On 2009-10-24, DGDevin wrote:

Yup, Frontline is doing the best investigative documentaries on American
television.

Yep ....and they have been for 20+ years. Check out the episodes on
credit cards and poison water. They exposed the dot com crash a
decade ago. The problem with Frontline is, if you watch too many of
them at once, yer liable to slit your wrists.

nb

I used to say "If you're not depressed, you're not paying attention".
I've since changed "depressed" to "angry". We are all on the same
heading as before. Nothing has changed yet. Tom

DGDevin wrote:

Yup, Frontline is doing the best investigative documentaries on American
television. That video of Greenspan at the end, admitting before Congress
that he'd got it wrong all those years, that the market doesn't police
itself, that was something to see. To think that a guy who didn't believe
the govt. has a role in regulating the market even when there is outright
fraud involved was the person steering policy all those years--no wonder
we ended up with a bubble that took down the whole economy when it burst.

And where is L. Summers these days (the guy who once proposed dumping
toxic waste in "under-polluted" nations in Africa, the guy who lost a
billion dollars of Harvard's money investing in derivatives, the guy who
was being paid millions by companies recently bailed out by the taxpayer
and whose
executive salaries he is still trying to protect)? Why he's Director of
the
National Economic Council, advising Pres. Obama on economic policy. Meet
the new boss, same as the old boss.
And what cracks me up, "these are the Smartest Guys in the World". The only
ones that can make it right, yeah right!!!
--
"You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"
Running Mandriva release 2008.0 free-i586 using KDE on i586
Website Address http://rentmyhusband.biz/

On Oct 24, 11:10*am, evodawg wrote:
DGDevin wrote:
Yup, Frontline is doing the best investigative documentaries on American
television. *That video of Greenspan at the end, admitting before Congress
that he'd got it wrong all those years, that the market doesn't police
itself, that was something to see. *To think that a guy who didn't believe
the govt. has a role in regulating the market even when there is outright
fraud involved was the person steering policy all those years--no wonder
we ended up with a bubble that took down the whole economy when it burst.

On Oct 24, 8:20 am, Robatoy wrote:


There are smarter ones than can make it right. Too bad the previous
batch couldn't be trusted.

I admire your optimism. Tom

On 10/24/2009 6:56 AM tom spake thus:

On Oct 24, 1:17 am, notbob wrote:
On 2009-10-24, DGDevin wrote:

Yup, Frontline is doing the best investigative documentaries on American
television.

Yep ....and they have been for 20+ years. Check out the episodes on
credit cards and poison water. They exposed the dot com crash a
decade ago. The problem with Frontline is, if you watch too many of
them at once, yer liable to slit your wrists.

I used to say "If you're not depressed, you're not paying attention".
I've since changed "depressed" to "angry". We are all on the same
heading as before. Nothing has changed yet. Tom

Got you beat by a decade at least. My old car's bumper sticker read "If
you're not outraged, you're paying attention".

(Of course, my friends read that back to me as saying "If you're not
outraged by the way I drive, you're not paying attention".)

And yes, concerning the new boss vs. the old boss, I say that Obama
should change his slogan to "Continuity we can believe in".


--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

notbob wrote:

Yup, Frontline is doing the best investigative documentaries on
American television.

Yep ....and they have been for 20+ years. Check out the episodes on
credit cards and poison water. They exposed the dot com crash a
decade ago. The problem with Frontline is, if you watch too many of
them at once, yer liable to slit your wrists.

nb

I saw the one on credit cards years ago, it's remarkable. Somehow they got
an interview with the guy who persuaded the banks they were doing credit
cards all wrong, and they needed to drop their minimum monthly payment and
increase interest rates, fees and penalties. Credit cards were originally
for people with good credit, those the banks could trust to pay up promptly.
But this guy had figured out the ideal credit card customer was someone who
managed money badly and thus would *never* pay off their balance, they'd
make far more in interest and fees on someone like that than a customer who
paid in full every month. Ironically the card industry's name for someone
who pays their balance off every month is "deadbeat."

evodawg writes:

The true story of Wall Street and the Governments role in the Banking Crash
of 2008. I'm not one that toots any horns for PBS but this story has to be
seen!


Explains, Over the counter derivatives, the Black Box, Bankers Trust and
lawsuit brought on by Procter and Gamble in 1999 that started it all, and
Greenspan, Rubin and Sommers role in the whole mess.

http://www.dat-e-baseonline.com/fron...6A756E 7E7B71

http://alturl.com/poi2

Both of these links point to

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...l?s=frol02pc11

David Nebenzahl writes:

Got you beat by a decade at least. My old car's bumper sticker read
"If you're not outraged, you're paying attention".

I've seen the opposite.

On 2009-10-25, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Curiously though, it only shows behaviors of denial and stupidity by
the political right.

You must have seen a different program. The one I saw showed the
Clinton administration following the same program as both Bush admins.
Who's biased?

nb

On 2009-10-25, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

You're missing my point.

I doubt it.

Let's face it, there will never be a totally unbiased view of anthing,
ever. You say Frontline has a biased liberal view. Probably. OTOH,
I don't see the conservative right exposing this stuff. Or did I miss
that one, too.

nb

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

notbob wrote:
On 2009-10-25, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

You're missing my point.

I doubt it.

Let's face it, there will never be a totally unbiased view of anthing,
ever. You say Frontline has a biased liberal view. Probably. OTOH,
I don't see the conservative right exposing this stuff. Or did I miss
that one, too.

nb

I agree that once you get beyond mere reporting of fact, any kind
of analysis always has some degree of bias in it. It just annoys
me that people like Frank - who were fundamentally responsible for
creating the insane regulatory environment - get a pass while
everyone else gets blamed.

And yes, there has been some reporting of the lefty's insanities by
the right-bent press. However - and again, let's be fair - there
are far, far more mainstream news sources (+NPR, +PBS) that bend
to the left, than the single successful right-bent news outlet of
Fox. Why else do you think Fox is so very successful? The entire
community of rightwingers have more-or-less only one network to
consume, while the lefties (who are overall smaller in number) are
divided across CBS, NBC, PMS-NBC, ABC, CNN, PBS, and NPR.

I assure you that I am not choosing sides on this one. Both sides
acted *horribly*. I just wish people would figure out that government
itself was instrumental in this mess - it enabled it, it ignored it,
it made things worse, and now government is in bed with the same
bozos that were part of it in the private sector. When folks wake up
to this, perhaps they won't be so quick to sign up for "more government
is the answer".

Agree with most of what's been written in this POST. All are to blame. The
sad fact, we are still pawns in a much bigger game that make us expendable
to the rest of the chess board. OBTW this is change we can believe in?
--
"You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"
Running Mandriva release 2008.0 free-i586 using KDE on i586
Website Address http://rentmyhusband.biz/

On 2009-10-25, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

to the left, than the single successful right-bent news outlet of
Fox. Why else do you think Fox is so very successful? The entire
community of rightwingers have more-or-less only one network to
consume, while the lefties (who are overall smaller in number) are
divided across CBS, NBC, PMS-NBC, ABC, CNN, PBS, and NPR.

Absurd on the face of it.

I assure you that I am not choosing sides on this one. Both sides
acted *horribly*. I just wish people would figure out that government
itself was instrumental in this mess - it enabled it, it ignored it,

There can be no doubt. Anyone who thinks pure capitalism does not
require regulation is adled.

it made things worse, and now government is in bed with the same
bozos that were part of it in the private sector.

They've ALWAYS been in bed. Do you honestly believe $$$ has never
influenced politics?

When folks wake up to this, perhaps they won't be so quick to sign
up for "more government is the answer".

Well, that's pretty much the crux of it, isn't it. When people wake
up! Like you said, the people who expected real estate to continue to
rise indefinitely, are just as much at fault. Bingo! Greed will out.

nb

On 10/25/2009 4:17 AM Maxwell Lol spake thus:

David Nebenzahl writes:

Got you beat by a decade at least. My old car's bumper sticker read
"If you're not outraged, you're paying attention".

I've seen the opposite.

Dang! Of course you have: how did I forget to type "not" there?


--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

On 10/25/2009 10:17 AM Tim Daneliuk spake thus:

notbob wrote:

On 2009-10-25, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Curiously though, it only shows behaviors of denial and stupidity by
the political right.

You must have seen a different program. The one I saw showed the
Clinton administration following the same program as both Bush admins.
Who's biased?

You're missing my point. The program shows stuff going on during the
Clinton administration - both in his immediate circle of advisors
and in the legislature. However it only shows Repuglican legislators
in denial.

No.

How about the fact that it was Clinton who got rid of Glass-Steagall,
the firewall between banking and the stock market that had been in place
since the New Deal? This was undertaken by *Democrats*.


--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

On 10/25/2009 1:29 PM Tim Daneliuk spake thus:

David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 10/25/2009 10:17 AM Tim Daneliuk spake thus:

notbob wrote:

On 2009-10-25, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Curiously though, it only shows behaviors of denial and stupidity by
the political right.

You must have seen a different program. The one I saw showed the
Clinton administration following the same program as both Bush admins.
Who's biased?

You're missing my point. The program shows stuff going on during the
Clinton administration - both in his immediate circle of advisors
and in the legislature. However it only shows Repuglican legislators
in denial.

No.

How about the fact that it was Clinton who got rid of Glass-Steagall,
the firewall between banking and the stock market that had been in place
since the New Deal? This was undertaken by *Democrats*.

Yes, that's true. But if you think the Dems are mostly/solely
responsible for this, you're kidding yourself. (And I am NO fan of the
Dems or the left at all). Where were both Clinton and GWB when it came
time to enforce the *existing* laws concerning naked short selling?
(Which has been illegal for a very long time and which was going on
regularly during both administrations.) See, I fail to see how more
regulation is going to change much when the government can't be
bothered to enforce the laws already on the books. And THAT, ain't a
partisan thing. Both parties have behaved very badly in this regard.

You're playing something of a semantic game here. Regulation doesn't
mean just having laws on the books: it also means enforcing them. Plenty
of administrations have flouted regulations which were in force either
by underfunding the agency responsible for enforcement, or by ordering
the agency not to enforce. (Bush II with the EPA, Clinton with the SEC
and other fiduciary regulator bodies.)


--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

On Oct 25, 10:03*pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:


Buttercup, I was there when it was invented on Reddit by sniveling little
moron lefties that cannot handle anyone disagreeing with them. *Whatever
Beck is- or isn't, he isn't remotely as offensive as the half-wit chimps
that infest the social networking sites and left wing "media" culture...


It did not originate on Reddit.... and yet you claim you were there
when it did...
..
..
hmmmmmm

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Perhaps not - I do not recall all the particulars as I prefer not to
swim in sewers. Nonetheless, the whole meme got a lot of traction on
Reddit if it didn't actually originate there and my larger point
stands: Beck gets heat because the people who oppose him are
politically illiterate, incapable of any sophisticated counterpoint,
and generally intellectually unkempt children. Do I mostly agree
with Beck? No. Do I think he is light years smarter and of higher
integrity than his critics? Yes.

Would this be the Glenn Beck who admits he was stoned every day for fifteen
years on a combination of alcohol, weed, cocaine and prescription drugs?
The Glenn Beck who once taunted the wife of a rival radio DJ *on the air*
after she suffered a miscarriage? The Glenn Beck who once described himself
as a borderline schizophrenic? The Glenn Beck whose reputation includes
firing employees who displeased him in public as sadistically as he could?
That Glenn Beck, he's the one whose intelligence and integrity have
impressed you?

It's a long, three-part story, but you might learn some things about Mr.
Beck you didn't know:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...21/glenn_beck/

DGDevin wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Perhaps not - I do not recall all the particulars as I prefer not to
swim in sewers. Nonetheless, the whole meme got a lot of traction on
Reddit if it didn't actually originate there and my larger point
stands: Beck gets heat because the people who oppose him are
politically illiterate, incapable of any sophisticated counterpoint,
and generally intellectually unkempt children. Do I mostly agree
with Beck? No. Do I think he is light years smarter and of higher
integrity than his critics? Yes.

Would this be the Glenn Beck who admits he was stoned every day for fifteen
years on a combination of alcohol, weed, cocaine and prescription drugs?
The Glenn Beck who once taunted the wife of a rival radio DJ *on the air*
after she suffered a miscarriage? The Glenn Beck who once described himself
as a borderline schizophrenic? The Glenn Beck whose reputation includes
firing employees who displeased him in public as sadistically as he could?
That Glenn Beck, he's the one whose intelligence and integrity have
impressed you?

It's a long, three-part story, but you might learn some things about Mr.
Beck you didn't know:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...21/glenn_beck/

Gee, it almost sounds like you are implying that people can't turn their lives around, that
people who once did bad things can no longer do good, or even that a criminal can't be
reformed? That sounds so, so... "un-liberal-like" to me. What if Mr. Beck had been so far
down in the dumps as you describe, then turned his life around (like he obviously *has*) and
was now preaching the *liberal* agenda? Would you still be chastising him as though he were
the root of all evil? Of course not.

--
Free bad advice available here.
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

In article dd846c3e-f194-434b-a68c-b428ca73ae35
@h40g2000prf.googlegroups.com, says...
On Oct 24, 8:20 am, Robatoy wrote:


There are smarter ones than can make it right. Too bad the previous
batch couldn't be trusted.

I admire your optimism. Tom

The alternative is despair and inaction...

Neither is cost effective.

Steve Turner wrote:

DGDevin wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Perhaps not - I do not recall all the particulars as I prefer not to
swim in sewers. Nonetheless, the whole meme got a lot of traction on
Reddit if it didn't actually originate there and my larger point
stands: Beck gets heat because the people who oppose him are
politically illiterate, incapable of any sophisticated counterpoint,
and generally intellectually unkempt children. Do I mostly agree
with Beck? No. Do I think he is light years smarter and of higher
integrity than his critics? Yes.

Would this be the Glenn Beck who admits he was stoned every day for
fifteen years on a combination of alcohol, weed, cocaine and prescription
drugs? The Glenn Beck who once taunted the wife of a rival radio DJ *on
the air*
after she suffered a miscarriage? The Glenn Beck who once described
himself
as a borderline schizophrenic? The Glenn Beck whose reputation includes
firing employees who displeased him in public as sadistically as he
could? That Glenn Beck, he's the one whose intelligence and integrity
have impressed you?

It's a long, three-part story, but you might learn some things about Mr.
Beck you didn't know:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...21/glenn_beck/

Gee, it almost sounds like you are implying that people can't turn their
lives around, that people who once did bad things can no longer do good,
or even that a criminal can't be
reformed? That sounds so, so... "un-liberal-like" to me. What if Mr.
Beck had been so far down in the dumps as you describe, then turned his
life around (like he obviously *has*) and
was now preaching the *liberal* agenda? Would you still be chastising him
as though he were
the root of all evil? Of course not.

Oh and lets not forget, If salon.com wrote it it must be true. The right arm
of george soros and the daily kos and moveon.com. Give me a break!!!
--
"You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"
Running Mandriva release 2008.0 free-i586 using KDE on i586
Website Address http://rentmyhusband.biz/

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:36:43 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

What lovely "tolerance" you exhibit. A person's failings decades ago
disqualify him from political commentary today. Oh, I forgot. "Tolerance"
only applies to people with whom the wretched political chattering classes
on the left agree.

Daneliuk, you're so full of **** it's stagnating. Your tolerance is
limited to whining constantly about what something is going to cost
you. That's the *only* constant in your life.

DGDevin wrote:

It's a long, three-part story, but you might learn some things about Mr.
Beck you didn't know:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...21/glenn_beck/

Sheeeeesssh! Further proof that those incapable of independent thought
need to be VERY careful of their sources/references!

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Tim Daneliuk wrote:


Yes, that's true. But if you think the Dems are mostly/solely
responsible for this, you're kidding yourself. (And I am NO fan of the
Dems or the left at all). Where were both Clinton and GWB when it came
time to enforce the *existing* laws concerning naked short selling?
(Which has been illegal for a very long time and which was going on
regularly during both administrations.) See, I fail to see how more
regulation is going to change much when the government can't be
bothered to enforce the laws already on the books. And THAT, ain't a
partisan thing. Both parties have behaved very badly in this regard.

In truth, Greenspan was more right than wrong even regarding how
markets would punish fraud. Fraud is not sustainable unless you use
force because fraud - sooner or later - collapses. But the government
swine made sure that no collapse was possible: They bailed out the
banks that took insane risk. They bailed out the greedy pigs that took
out more mortgage than they could afford. They bailed out the lazy
union slobs that demanded far more for putting bolts in the bottom of
a transmission than they ever were worth. In short, there's little
point in having market transparency and honesty if every time someone
is about to lose, the government steps in, prints funny funny and
"saves them" from themselves. Markets DO work - efficiently and
mercilessly. They cannot, however, overcome the overweening force of
government when it is applied to thieves, morons, and whiners
respectively.

It was the Clinton administration that required banks et al to make
unsustainable loans. When the financial institutions balked - and
demonstrated imminent financial collapse if the new regulations were
followed - the administration came up with an "insurance plan." They allowed
Fannie and Freddie to bundle this commercial paper and take the risks away
from the banks.

When the "balloon payments" of these zero-interest loans came due, the
homeowners simply refinanced their homes at the newer, higher, valuation.
This scheme worked as long as there was a demand for housing (and sufficient
poor people who could be talked into signing papers they couldn't even
read). Eventually everybody in the country owned a house - demand for
housing vanished.

The Ponzi scheme then collapsed back on itself.

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Would this be the Glenn Beck who admits he was stoned every day for
fifteen years on a combination of alcohol, weed, cocaine and
prescription drugs?

Yes. Still better than his political opponents at this time.

The Glenn Beck who once taunted the wife of a rival radio DJ *on the
air* after she suffered a miscarriage? The Glenn Beck who once
described himself as a borderline schizophrenic? The Glenn Beck
whose reputation includes firing employees who displeased him in
public as sadistically as he could?

Yes. Still better than his political opponents at this time.

That Glenn Beck, he's the one whose intelligence and integrity have
impressed you?

Yes.


It's a long, three-part story, but you might learn some things about
Mr. Beck you didn't know:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...21/glenn_beck/




What lovely "tolerance" you exhibit. A person's failings decades ago
disqualify him from political commentary today.

No, everyone has the right to speak their mind, but when Beck (the
self-described "rodeo clown") makes statements that are plainly dishonest
and driven purely by his thirst for fame and wealth then the rest of the
world has the right to criticize him for that. If you read the article then
you know that is Beck's history, a willingness to do anything no matter how
nasty so long as it got him ratings--that has remained constant over the
decades.

Oh, I forgot.
"Tolerance" only applies to people with whom the wretched political
chattering classes on the left agree.

Ha! You are worth a laugh now and then, I'll give you that.

If Beck were a leftie is there the slightest doubt the miles of slack you're
prepared to cut him now would not exist? Beck thinks relief carvings on the
Rockefeller Center are signs that the people who paid for it were secretly
communists and/or fascists on the grounds that a figure representing
Agriculture is holding a sickle and a figure of Industry is leaning on a
hammer (although it's actually a shovel), and you know whose flag had a
hammer and sickle on it! Another relief panel is supposed to glorify
Mussolini according to Beck, the evidence of that being so faint and so
distant as to be absurd. And you take this clown seriously? Oh wait, it
isn't that you take Beck seriously, you just prefer him to people who point
out when he utters moronic stupidity, which appears to be just about every
time he goes on the air.

You should think about patent or copyright protection on this combination of
pomposity and absurdity you specialize in, it's so identified with you that
you might as well be able to put your name on it.

Steve Turner wrote:

Gee, it almost sounds like you are implying that people can't turn
their lives around, that people who once did bad things can no longer
do good, or even that a criminal can't be reformed? That sounds so,
so... "un-liberal-like" to me. What if Mr. Beck had been so far down
in the dumps as you describe, then turned his life around (like he
obviously *has*) and was now preaching the *liberal* agenda? Would
you still be chastising him as though he were the root of all evil? Of
course not.

Gee, it almost sounds like you should listen to what people actually say and
respond to that instead of making up something they didn't express and
arguing against that. First, I'm a liberal like you're a ballet dancer. Or
do you believe that everyone has been reduced to tribalism, that anyone who
criticizes Glenn Beck *must* therefore be a liberal? I can't stand Michael
Moore either, how does that fit in the instant-judgment formula?

Second, Beck's history as a morning zoo radio jock and his newfound role of
political pundit/"rodeo clown" (his words) have common threads, and one of
them is his willingness to do whatever it takes to grab ratings no matter
how nasty he has to get. He's proven time and again that there is no line
he won't cross, from taunting a woman who just had a miscarriage to claiming
Obama hates white people. So don't tell me he's reformed, all that has
changed is he is now apparently sober, but he's the same shameless
attention-whore DJ he always was.

There's only one thing about Beck I find surprising, and that's how many
people can watch his transparently phony antics without laughing out loud.
He's the worst actor on the planet, and yet millions of people think his
tears are real, that he actually is sounding the alarm against a commie
takeover of America rather than satisfying his own lust for wealth and fame.
It's kind of depressing to know how many such truly stupid people are out
there.

evodawg wrote:

Oh and lets not forget, If salon.com wrote it it must be true. The
right arm of george soros and the daily kos and moveon.com. Give me a
break!!!

Dang, every time I install a new Irony Meter along comes a post like this
and zap, it's time to wire in a new meter.

David Nebenzahl wrote:

You're missing my point. The program shows stuff going on during the
Clinton administration - both in his immediate circle of advisors
and in the legislature. However it only shows Repuglican legislators
in denial.

No.

How about the fact that it was Clinton who got rid of Glass-Steagall,
the firewall between banking and the stock market that had been in
place since the New Deal? This was undertaken by *Democrats*.

The legislation was actually written by Republicans, although Clinton signed
it and defends doing so to this day.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...2000409948.htm

"MARIA BARTIROMO
Mr. President, in 1999 you signed a bill essentially rolling back
Glass-Steagall and deregulating banking. In light of what has gone on, do
you regret that decision?

FORMER PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON
No, because it wasn't a complete deregulation at all. We still have heavy
regulations and insurance on bank deposits, requirements on banks for
capital and for disclosure. I thought at the time that it might lead to more
stable investments and a reduced pressure on Wall Street to produce
quarterly profits that were always bigger than the previous quarter. But I
have really thought about this a lot. I don't see that signing that bill had
anything to do with the current crisis. Indeed, one of the things that has
helped stabilize the current situation as much as it has is the purchase of
Merrill Lynch (MER) by Bank of America (BAC), which was much smoother than
it would have been if I hadn't signed that bill.


[MB] Phil Gramm, who was then the head of the Senate Banking Committee and
until
recently a close economic adviser of Senator McCain, was a fierce proponent
of banking deregulation. Did he sell you a bill of goods?


[BC] Not on this bill I don't think he did. You know, Phil Gramm and I
disagreed
on a lot of things, but he can't possibly be wrong about everything. On the
Glass-Steagall thing, like I said, if you could demonstrate to me that it
was a mistake, I'd be glad to look at the evidence. But I can't blame [the
Republicans]. This wasn't something they forced me into. I really believed
that given the level of oversight of banks and their ability to have more
patient capital, if you made it possible for [commercial banks] to go into
the investment banking business as Continental European investment banks
could always do, that it might give us a more stable source of long-term
investment."

"DGDevin" wrote in message
news
There's only one thing about Beck I find surprising, and that's how many
people can watch his transparently phony antics without laughing out loud.
He's the worst actor on the planet, and yet millions of people think his
tears are real, that he actually is sounding the alarm against a commie
takeover of America rather than satisfying his own lust for wealth and
fame. It's kind of depressing to know how many such truly stupid people
are out there.

It's the same group that loved Dubbya.

Dave in Houston

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Fair enough. No where is the parallel outrage for the financial
horrors perpetrated by the little political weasel, Barney Frank and
Co.? Why is no one out of their minds with irritation that the
Obamananation installed the same jackasses (well, the assistant
jackasses) that were in charge of the system during W's time? This
is a goose-gander problem. The leftie biased media does a hush
coverup anytime their Dear Leader might be embarassed. From where I
sit, the Obamanation is not only not better than his predecessor, he
seems absolutely worse than W on most issues.

Your determination to see only what you want to see is astonishing. The
supposedly leftist media gave massive coverage to the Tea Party protests,
they give Republican talking heads equal time with the Dem counterparts,
they have used oceans of ink and/or electrons detailing every misstep of the
Obama administration (and there have been plenty), some have even objected
to the administration slamming Fox, they're all over rising unemployment and
Obama's falling poll numbers and so on so forth. And yet you croak that the
media is doing a cover-up for Obama, and of course you can't resist "Dear
Leader" for someone who just won an election fair and square, you can't even
admit that much. But you're not a hopeless ideologue, no way, you're a
libertarian, everybody gets a fair shake from you. What a joke.

DGDevin wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Fair enough. No where is the parallel outrage for the financial
horrors perpetrated by the little political weasel, Barney Frank and
Co.? Why is no one out of their minds with irritation that the
Obamananation installed the same jackasses (well, the assistant
jackasses) that were in charge of the system during W's time? This
is a goose-gander problem. The leftie biased media does a hush
coverup anytime their Dear Leader might be embarassed. From where I
sit, the Obamanation is not only not better than his predecessor, he
seems absolutely worse than W on most issues.

Your determination to see only what you want to see is astonishing. The

I see Reality.

supposedly leftist media gave massive coverage to the Tea Party protests,

Which attendance they routinely under-reported.

they give Republican talking heads equal time with the Dem counterparts,

2 minutes for either side hardly constitutes "good coverage."

they have used oceans of ink and/or electrons detailing every misstep of the
Obama administration (and there have been plenty), some have even objected

Oh yawn. From the beginning, they only went through the motions. If the
equivalent of a Wright, Pfleger, Ayers had existed for any R candidate
they would have been *skewered*. Look at the abuse Palin got *for her
unwed daughter's pregnancy*.

to the administration slamming Fox, they're all over rising unemployment and

A few have objected (good for them), most have not.

Obama's falling poll numbers and so on so forth. And yet you croak that the
media is doing a cover-up for Obama, and of course you can't resist "Dear

It's under-reporting him, providing just enough coverage to make it look
like they're doing their jobs. Why else does he survive praising
Grayson the same week Grayson made his infamous "K Street whore" comment,
for example?

Leader" for someone who just won an election fair and square, you can't even
admit that much. But you're not a hopeless ideologue, no way, you're a

He won fair and square, with this I have no dispute. He's just a wretched
President having:

- Outspent 8 years of Bush in just 8 MONTHS.

- Worked to collectivize banking, finance, and manufacturing.

- Conceded oodles of ground to dictatorial states in the Islamic
workd, notably Iran.

- Conceded oodles of ground to the Russians symbolically by abandoning
the new democracies in the former Soviet Bloc by yanking the missile
shield.

- Dithered and dallied on the Afghani question - remember Vietnam? - when
what is needed is *leadership*: Increase manpower and win or just get out.
Anything else is a loser.

- Regularly supported political rectal passages like Grayson that ought to
be abandoned by *everyone* regardless of their political bent.

Oh, and if you think the MSM has remotely covered him with the scrutiny
and venom of every previous President (note I am stipulating BOTH parties here -
this was never a partisan thing for me) you are higher than Alec Baldwin
at 8am. The fact is that the media fell in love with Dear
Leader and are just now starting to regret it in some small degree. They
are discovering what happens when a corrupt Chicago machine is installed
instead of decent leadership. I never much liked the Clitonistas, but I'd
take either Bill or Hillary over this guy in a heartbeat. Ditto GWB/Cheney.
Ditto Bush I.

libertarian, everybody gets a fair shake from you. What a joke.



Fair has nothing to do with it. Principles do. I objected to Bush spending
money unconstitutionally. I object that much more to Dear Leader doing it
because he's doing it at a much faster pace. I objected to Bush pushing
through Faith Based Charities. I object to Dear Leader's support-until-
they-got-caught for Acorn. I didn't like Bush's cozy relationship with
the oil producers. I don't like Dear Leader's similar cozy relationship
with all the political vermin poised to make money of Cap And Trade and other
energy fantasies. If I am more vehement in Obama's case it's only because
the magnitude of his Constitutional abuses is so much higher and the rate
so much faster.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Oct 29, 6:31*pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
*If I am more vehement in Obama's case it's only because
the magnitude of his Constitutional abuses is so much higher and the rate
so much faster.

How many people has Obama sent off to die so his friends could line
their pockets?

Robatoy wrote:
On Oct 29, 6:31 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
If I am more vehement in Obama's case it's only because
the magnitude of his Constitutional abuses is so much higher and the rate
so much faster.

How many people has Obama sent off to die so his friends could line
their pockets?


None - just like Bush before him did not do this.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Oct 29, 7:50*pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Oct 29, 6:31 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
* If I am more vehement in Obama's case it's only because
the magnitude of his Constitutional abuses is so much higher and the rate
so much faster.

How many people has Obama sent off to die so his friends could line
their pockets?

None - just like Bush before him did not do this.

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -
Tim Daneliuk * *
PGP Key: * * * *http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

That answer clearly disqualifies you from any further debate as you
see what you want to see and you ignore those realities that don't
suit your ideology.

Robatoy wrote:
On Oct 29, 7:50 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Oct 29, 6:31 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
If I am more vehement in Obama's case it's only because
the magnitude of his Constitutional abuses is so much higher and the rate
so much faster.
How many people has Obama sent off to die so his friends could line
their pockets?
None - just like Bush before him did not do this.

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

That answer clearly disqualifies you from any further debate as you
see what you want to see and you ignore those realities that don't
suit your ideology.

It may disqualify me from *your* version of "debate" or "reality"
both of which correspond to their real equivalents the way
Rosie O'Donnell is a supermodel.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Oct 29, 9:25*pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Oct 29, 7:50 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Oct 29, 6:31 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
* If I am more vehement in Obama's case it's only because
the magnitude of his Constitutional abuses is so much higher and the rate
so much faster.
How many people has Obama sent off to die so his friends could line
their pockets?
None - just like Bush before him did not do this.

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -
Tim Daneliuk * *
PGP Key: * * * *http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

That answer clearly disqualifies you from any further debate as you
see what you want to see and you ignore those realities that don't
suit your ideology.

It may disqualify me from *your* version of "debate" or "reality"
both of which correspond to their real equivalents the way
Rosie O'Donnell is a supermodel.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -
Tim Daneliuk * *
PGP Key: * * * *http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Classy, Tim, really classy. Got something against lesbians? Homophobic
are you? Does that go hand-in-hand with that dominating phobia of
yours that the whole world wants to take away your marbles?