PDA

View Full Version : Munger: Blame Democrats, Sleazy Bankers for This Mess


tony hipchest
05-13-2009, 11:17 AM
http://moneynews.newsmax.com/financenews/munger_blame_democrats/2009/05/12/213429.html

Buffett sidekick and Berkshire Vice Chairman Charlie Munger tells investors that a confluence of factors, what he calls a "lallopalooza effect," were behind the global financial market meltdown last year.


The causes include misguided government social policy, and reckless, nearly criminal behavior by some banks.


Munger spoke more freely to investors at the weekend during a meeting of shareholders in Wesco Financial, where he is chairman.

"Free from the overwhelming spotlight cast on Buffett, Munger spends a few hours every year sharing his thoughts and opinions," writes Morgan Housel on MotleyFool.com, the investment Web site.

Three factors led the economy to where it is now, Munger told Wesco attendees.


• Overzealous social programs:


"Democrats wanted to give things to poor people, thinking it was pro-social activity. They urged Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make really dumb loans. Some of it was just ghastly," said Munger.


• Dumb decisions by banking executives:


"Banks did things because their competitors were doing them and wanted to keep up. This is crazy," said Munger. "There are times when you should let your competition do things and not want to follow. A lot of consumer lending was venal. It was bad morality that led to a horrible mess in due cause."


• Lack of ethics by some on Wall Street:


"Wall Street found every which way to make money short of robbery. A lot of it was a bunch of sleazy crooks, but if it worked, no one cares," said Munger.


"People really thought that giving a predatory class of people the ability to do whatever they wanted was free market enterprise. It wasn't. It was legalized armed robbery. And it was incredibly stupid."


When will the world see a significant economic upturn, and will President Obama's massive deficit spending ignite inflation, which will eat into economic growth and consumer spending power?


The lost decade of Japan is illustrative in answering this question, Munger says.


"Japan provides a very interesting and threatening example of this type [of] problem," said Munger.


"Japan cut interest rates to zero and pumped in all kinds of stimulus through deficit spending, and the result was stasis for 10 years. If that happened in America, it would be terrible. Whether it will happen or not, I don't know. It would be very awkward to go 10 years with zero economic growth."


The United States does risk a Japan-style lost decade if more is not done soon, economist Paul Krugman warns.


"We're doing half-measures that help the economy limp along without fully recovering, and we're having measures that help the banks survive without really thriving," Krugman said.


"We're doing what the Japanese did in the nineties," he told a small group of reporters during a visit to Beijing.
being that charlie munger's business is textbook macroeconomics, i gotta take his word over a few internet MB economic savants who myopically just wanna blame obama. :noidea:

revefsreleets
05-13-2009, 11:39 AM
The mess was created before him...started in '93 with Clinton.

But Obama ain't helping. What he's proposing to is akin to trying to clean up a massive oil spill by lighting it on fire.

Also, the highlighted section, that's not saying what you think it is. He's not saying that free market enterprise is bad, he's saying letting people ABUSE the free market enterprise system is bad. There's a HUGE difference.

GBMelBlount
05-13-2009, 01:45 PM
http://moneynews.newsmax.com/financenews/munger_blame_democrats/2009/05/12/213429.html

being that charlie munger's business is textbook macroeconomics, i gotta take his word over a few internet MB economic savants who myopically just wanna blame obama. :noidea:

Who is myopically just blaming Obama for the meltdown?

Of course there are lots of causes in addition to the "misguided government social policy" he lists first.

Just because you appear to be extremely liberal, it's no reason to flame bait. :thumbsup:

tony hipchest
05-13-2009, 02:09 PM
Also, the highlighted section, that's not saying what you think it is. He's not saying that free market enterprise is bad, he's saying letting people ABUSE the free market enterprise system is bad. There's a HUGE difference.


:uhh: no shit, sherlock.

are you really interpreting articles for me? :toofunny: youre a real piece of work. i understood EXACTLY what he was saying... im the one who put it in freakling bold incase you forgot. you really lost it on this one.

lets try this again... what he was saying was "People [gbmelblount is a prime example] really thought that giving a predatory class of people the ability to do whatever they wanted was free market enterprise.
before you fall to far behind, let me explain that the sentence in bold surmises that, in addition to democratic social policies, the two other contributing factors to this market collapse was 1) Dumb decisions by banking executives that were not only "crazy" but showed "bad morality" and 2) Lack of ethics by some on Wall Street. it was a bunch of sleazy crooks who found every which way to make money, "short of robbery".

dumb decisions
banking executives
crazy
bad morality
lack of ethics
some on wall street
sleazy crooks

these are all either people or traits of people, yet you thought, that I THOUGHT munger was talking about the free market system? :busted: :rofl:

Bravo! :applaudit:

word to the wise... dont listen to everything gbmel says. sometimes you get so caught up in defending someone elses crazy assertions to attack one of my own, that you get caught up in the absurdity.

this is a perfect example. you are so far out in left field it is almost not funny. just almost, though.

GBMelBlount
05-13-2009, 02:18 PM
:

lets try this again... what he was saying was "People [gbmelblount is a prime example] really thought that giving a predatory class of people the ability to do whatever they wanted was free market enterprise.


I never said there should be no laws to protect people.

I feel terrible for you that you have to flame bait like this...but I understand.....you are being so badly beaten and embarrassed on the core issues of simple conservative beliefs vs. your more enlightened, complex and hard to explain..."liberal" values......:chuckle:

By the way, did you ever answer my question when I asked you if you were in favor of socialized health care in the U.S.?

I_Bleed_Black_And_Gold
05-13-2009, 02:20 PM
The mess was created before him...started in '93 with Clinton.


Actually it was way before Clinton too. In 1977, Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act, signed by President Carter, with the goal of extending home ownership to more Americans, and aggressive government requirements for fairness in lending weakened standards previously used for loan approval (forgetting the common sense rule that if you can't afford a mortgage and a down payment, you are a renter).

Next to blame would be the "Maestro," Alan Greenspan, who created the ensuing credit orgy and ocean of money printed out of thin air, and the bubbles were on.

Blaming Obama for all this mess is the same as blaming Bush for it. Neither one caused it, but both contributed/are contributing to it. Only time will tell how much.

tony hipchest
05-13-2009, 02:34 PM
http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q23/shortyshane_2006/movie_i_see_dead_people.jpg

I see flame baiting...

mel, just cause you wind up getting burnt doesnt mean anybody is flaming.

this article is about as close to the truth as ive seen on this board.

its pertinent, although may lose some meaning when mixed in with all the lies.

revefsreleets
05-13-2009, 02:44 PM
:uhh: no shit, sherlock.

are you really interpreting articles for me? :toofunny: youre a real piece of work. i understood EXACTLY what he was saying... im the one who put it in freakling bold incase you forgot. you really lost it on this one.

lets try this again... what he was saying was "People [gbmelblount is a prime example] really thought that giving a predatory class of people the ability to do whatever they wanted was free market enterprise.
before you fall to far behind, let me explain that the sentence in bold surmises that, in addition to democratic social policies, the two other contributing factors to this market collapse was 1) Dumb decisions by banking executives that were not only "crazy" but showed "bad morality" and 2) Lack of ethics by some on Wall Street. it was a bunch of sleazy crooks who found every which way to make money, "short of robbery".

dumb decisions
banking executives
crazy
bad morality
lack of ethics
some on wall street
sleazy crooks

these are all either people or traits of people, yet you thought, that I THOUGHT munger was talking about the free market system? :busted: :rofl:

Bravo! :applaudit:

word to the wise... dont listen to everything gbmel says. sometimes you get so caught up in defending someone elses crazy assertions to attack one of my own, that you get caught up in the absurdity.

this is a perfect example. you are so far out in left field it is almost not funny. just almost, though.

Please. Your posts meander all over the place. There's little rhyme and hardly ever any reason. You keep touting how "logical" you are, then proceed to dish a smorgasbord of nonsensical cyclical garbage. You deflect and divert, and dance around central issues. When people shut you down, you just yell louder, as if holding your hands over your ears and yelling "Blah blah blah I'm right I'm right I'm right" actually changes the fact that you are often wrong, NEVER admit it, never back down, never change your view, and refuse to ever see the other side of an argument. It was a little better when Atlanta Dan was pumping info to you and propping you up, but it's horrifyingly awful to watch you flop around aimlessly trying to put up a defense for the indefensible when he leaves you to your own very modest devices.

What's funniest is that you highlighted the least relevant part of the article!

Krugman is also a fool. He actually espouses dumping MORE money on the problem. So we'd have Obama lighting the oil spill, and Krugman pouring gas on ithe blaze and you blindly cheering them on...

Here's the relevant part...right from your article:

"Japan cut interest rates to zero and pumped in all kinds of stimulus through deficit spending, and the result was stasis for 10 years. If that happened in America, it would be terrible. Whether it will happen or not, I don't know. It would be very awkward to go 10 years with zero economic growth."

He just outlined exactly what we are doing wrong, and it apparently whooshed right over your head, then you tried to lecture ME about it! Utterly ridiculous! Government intervention will not be our savior. Obama is NOT fixing our problems. The market needs to correct itself after we purge some of the toxicity.

tony hipchest
05-13-2009, 02:51 PM
youre meandering all over the place now revs. youre attempted deflection is pathetic as was your attempt to school me on what i thought i read.

this thread was sponsored by left wing blogs. atlanta dan approves this message.

:point:
that's not saying what you think it is

:rofl:


:point:
it apparently whooshed right over your head,

in case you forgot....

IM THE ONE WHO POSTED THE ARTICLE! :rofl:

youre losing it, dude.

revefsreleets
05-13-2009, 02:55 PM
It'd be best if, in the future, you actually read and understood what you were being fed to post here.

Utilitarian Hegemony? Are you KIDDING ME? In a thousand years you and the term Utilitarian Hegemony don't combine. That was WAY "above your paygrade".

As I said, Hey Dan!

revefsreleets
05-13-2009, 02:58 PM
Someone else will have to continue this with you and Dan. It's just become too much for me...I mean really....

Utilitarian Hegemony?

Ha!

GBMelBlount
05-13-2009, 03:06 PM
tony hipchest

mel, just cause you wind up getting burnt doesnt mean anybody is flaming.

You're being beaten badly on the core arguments of conservative versus liberal principles.

tony hipchest
this article is about as close to the truth as ive seen on this board.

I thought it was an interesting article . I did not say there was anything I disagreed with.

tony hipchest
its pertinent, although may lose some meaning when mixed in with all the lies.

It is pertinent. Thanks for posting it. :drink: So why don't you intelligently discuss what you post instead of using it to intentionaly flame bait?

My beliefs and points are simple and direct.

Please focus and stop flailing. You're all over the place. :chuckle:

tony hipchest
05-13-2009, 03:08 PM
It'd be best if, in the future, you actually read and understood what you were being fed to post here.

Utilitarian Hegemony? Are you KIDDING ME? In a thousand years you and the term Utilitarian Hegemony don't combine. That was WAY "above your paygrade".

As I said, Hey Dan!what, you think youre the only one who went to college and use big words?

like i said, hello LITP. (you are becoming that which you despised)

oh, im sorry was that word and phrasing too big for you to allow someone in my "paygrade" to use.

my bad, teach. u r becomming whut u hated.

tony hipchest
05-13-2009, 03:36 PM
Someone else will have to continue this with you and Dan. It's just become too much for me...I mean really....

Utilitarian Hegemony?

Ha!you got me. i had read j.s. mills essay ON LIBERY earlier and browsed his theory of utilitarianism. i mustve had it on the brain. my phrase for gb is the imperialistic hegemon. just ask him.

utilitarian hegemony doent even make sense, and definitely not something dan wouldve said.

GBMelBlount
05-13-2009, 04:48 PM
my phrase for gb is the imperialistic hegemon. just ask him.

utilitarian hegemony doent even make sense, and definitely not something dan wouldve said.

Yes, I think you refer to me as a "hegemonic Imperialist". :chuckle:

Dino 6 Rings
05-13-2009, 04:52 PM
I'm actually about to blame my neighbor...yes the same neighbor that keeps throwing sticks into my yard. I know its him...I just know the mortgage mess is his freaking fault too.

revefsreleets
05-14-2009, 08:14 AM
you got me. i had read j.s. mills essay ON LIBERY earlier and browsed his theory of utilitarianism. i mustve had it on the brain. my phrase for gb is the imperialistic hegemon. just ask him.

utilitarian hegemony doent even make sense, and definitely not something dan wouldve said.

Again, caught not actually having a clue what you are actually saying.

Utilitarian Hegemony certainly has meaning...simply put, it means that a segment of society that controls society believes in "The greatest good for the greatest amount of people".

That's actually very "Star Trek II", when Spock says "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". I would think Utilitarian Hegemony would be a good thing.

But it sure doens't make ANY sense in the context you used it in.

tony hipchest
05-14-2009, 01:47 PM
is that your gig now? you just re-state what i said and pretend you said it first? laughable.

you take an article i post and pretend you posted it, and then make believe that i am arguing against you? LOL

you were the one shown to have no clue what you were talking about.

i rightfully called you on it, and you have done nothing but hijack this thread and deflect and divert attention away from the fact that you were called out. to make it worse youve even taken it to 2 other threads.

enough of the spin and diversion.

"bu...bu...but...dan"??? are you kidding me? "star treck"? wtf.

lets reel this back in.

munger, a life long republican and fiscal conservative whose view i appreciate, outlined 3 factors in the collapse.

since the democratic blame is just 1/3 of the equation (and theres already enough of that on this board) im more interrested in what needs to be done with the crooks and robbers on wall street?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/business/14regs.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Obama Proposes a First Overhaul of Finance Rules


WASHINGTON — In its first detailed effort to overhaul financial regulations, the Obama administration on Wednesday sought new authority over the complex financial instruments, known as derivatives, that were a major cause of the financial crisis and have gone largely unregulated for decades.

The administration asked Congress to move quickly on legislation that would allow federal oversight of many kinds of exotic instruments, including credit-default swaps, the insurance contracts that caused the near-collapse of the American International Group.

The Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, said the measure should require swaps and other types of derivatives to be traded on exchanges or clearinghouses and backed by capital reserves, much like the capital cushions that banks must set aside in case a borrower defaults on a loan. Taken together, the rules would probably make it more expensive for issuers, dealers and buyers alike to participate in the derivatives markets.

The proposal will probably force many types of derivatives into the open, reducing the role of the so-called shadow banking system that has arisen around them.

“This financial crisis was caused in large part by significant gaps in the oversight of the markets,” Mr. Geithner said in a briefing. He said the proposal was intended to make the trading of derivatives more transparent and give regulators the ability to limit the amount of derivatives that any company can sell, or that any institution can hold.

The initiative was well received by senior Democrats in Congress with jurisdiction over the issue. The proposal had been expected, but some lawmakers, impatient with the pace of the new administration’s efforts, had begun moving ahead themselves.

Hinting at a lobbying campaign to come, Robert Pickel, the chief executive of the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, a trade group, said his organization “looked forward to working with policy makers to ensure these reforms help preserve the widespread availability of swaps and other important risk management tools.”

But some in the financial industry say that regulation is inevitable. “Nobody is in a ‘just say no’ mode,” said Steven A. Elmendorf, a former aide to the House Democratic leadership who represents several major financial institutions and groups. “Everybody understands that we’ve been through a financial crisis and that change has to happen. And the only question is how the change happens.”

The administration is seeking the repeal of major portions of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, a law adopted in December 2000 that made sure that derivative instruments would remain largely unregulated.

The law came about after heavy lobbying from Wall Street and the financial industry, and was pushed hard by Democrats and Republicans alike. It was endorsed at the time by the Treasury secretary, Lawrence H. Summers, who is now President Obama’s top economic adviser.

At the time, the derivatives market was relatively small. But it soon exploded, and the face value of all derivatives contracts across the world — a measure that counts the value of a derivative’s underlying assets — outstanding at the end of last year totaled more than $680 trillion, according to the Bank for International Settlements in Switzerland. The market for credit-default swaps — a form of insurance that protects debtholders against default — stood around $38 trillion, according to the international swaps group. That represents the total amount of insurance that has been written on various kinds of debt, but the amount that would have to be paid out if the debt went into default is considerably less.

As the credit crisis has unfolded, trading in credit-default swaps has cooled, market participants said. The collapse of A.I.G. took a huge player out of the market and banks, hobbled by losses, have curbed their activities in the market. Still, derivatives trading desks have been profit centers at major banks recently.

The biggest banks and brokerage firms, including JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup and Goldman Sachs, as well as major insurers, are all major players in derivatives.

Derivatives are hard to value. They are virtually hidden from investors, analysts and regulators, even though they are one of Wall Street’s biggest profit engines. They do not trade openly on public exchanges, and financial services firms disclose few details about them. The new rules are meant to change most, but not all, of that opacity.

Used properly, they can reduce or transfer risk, limit the damage from market uncertainty and make global trade easier. Airlines, food companies, insurers, exporters and many other companies use derivatives to protect themselves from sudden and unpredictable changes in financial markets like interest rate or currency movements. Used poorly, derivatives can backfire and spread risk rather than contain it.



*click link for page 2*

"more than $680 trillion". wow. thats alot of "value". i dont even know if you can call it money.

now, gbmel, in almost an imperialistic manner has approached just about every democratic voter on this board and practically demanded justification for their vote of obama.

in an almost hegemonic manner he has suggested the the republican way is the only way, and anything else is socialist.

i have clearly explained to him that these financial regulations were a big ticket item that helped earn obama my vote, to which i was labeled a socialist, anti-capitalism, anti-liberty, anti-freedom (anti-FREEDOM?!?!?! like the freedom to rob people blind like munger, the fiscal conservative, uber-capitalist republican says needs to be fixed) and you bought it hook, line, and sinker.

again, i called you out on it, and you dont like it because it would mean admitting you were wrong about my thoughts and intentions, and we all know that isnt your MO.

whats most amusing about this (besides the strange dan obsession and paranoia) is i could post a republican plan that would cure cancer and you you would find some reason to argue it. thats cool though... its entertaining.

revefsreleets
05-14-2009, 02:19 PM
Dude, you barely even know what the things you are posting mean. It's sad and pitiful to see you scrape and claw and try to pin this back on me...

But, by all means, carry on. You dig yourself a deeper hole with every post.

GBMelBlount
05-14-2009, 02:30 PM
tony hipchest

since the democratic blame is just 1/3 of the equation (and theres already enough of that on this board) im more interrested in what needs to be done with the crooks and robbers on wall street?

Tony, I realize you are a history major and I don't mean to embarrass you.....but has it ever occurred to you that if 3 reasons are cited as causal factors it does NOT implicitly mean they are all weighted with equal importance? :chuckle:

Unless that is not what you are implying.

The crooks and robbers on wall street should be punished......now what do you propose we do with all the crooks and robbers in Washington who are equally if not more corrupt?

Do you propose we give them more power and control...that is generally what liberals believe, isn't it?

tony hipchest
05-14-2009, 02:32 PM
more deflection, more spin, more diversion.

:coffee:

you barely even know what the things you are posting mean

:toofunny: what a pathetic cop out.

tony hipchest
05-14-2009, 02:46 PM
Tony, I realize you are a history major and I don't mean to embarrass you.....but has it ever occurred to you that if 3 reasons are cited as causal factors it does NOT implicitly mean they are all weighted with equal importance? :chuckle:

i'll let you do the math

Unless that is not what you are implying.

The crooks and robbers on wall street should be punished......now what do you propose we do with all the crooks and robbers in Washington?well, therin lies the rub. as citizens we atleast have control over the crooks and robbers we elect to washington. unfortunately, those crooks and robbers are the ones, making the laws for the crooks and robbers on wall street to get away with what they did.

i would propose you vote for somebody who is for transparency and the needed regulation as opposed to people who are for pulling the wall street wool over the publics eye.

and im not pointing the finger at any single party.

as the article states, both had their hands in the cookie jar-

The administration is seeking the repeal of major portions of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, a law adopted in December 2000 that made sure that derivative instruments would remain largely unregulated.

The law came about after heavy lobbying from Wall Street and the financial industry, and was pushed hard by Democrats and Republicans alike. It was endorsed at the time by the Treasury secretary, Lawrence H. Summers, who is now President Obama’s top economic adviser.

revefsreleets
05-14-2009, 02:48 PM
Let's take the term "Utilitarian Hegemony".

You tossed it out there. And you don't have a CLUE what it means.

1st you tried to use it in a slanderous fashion against GB. Fail. It actually is a fine thing, a segment of society controlling that society with the ruling philosophy of what's best for the many is best for the few. So you got caught on that one. (Was even the Star Trek reference too high-minded for you? Should I use Barney the Dinosaur next time?)

Then you tried to say that Dan would never say that because it made no sense. More proof that you have NO CLUE what you discussing. Fail again. It makes sense, as I just explained.

Then you try to flip this on me because I ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT IT MEANS with some kind of bullshit attack on my vocabulary. Fail again.

Then in the most pathetic and transparent attempt to twist this around, you try this concoction of horseshit:

is that your gig now? you just re-state what i said and pretend you said it first? laughable.
you take an article i post and pretend you posted it, and then make believe that i am arguing against you? LOL
you were the one shown to have no clue what you were talking about.
i rightfully called you on it, and you have done nothing but hijack this thread and deflect and divert attention away from the fact that you were called out. to make it worse youve even taken it to 2 other threads.
enough of the spin and diversion.
"bu...bu...but...dan"??? are you kidding me? "star treck"? wtf.


I mean, what does that even mean? Do you know?

Here's the bottom line. You posted an article that blasted your own guy directly and indirectly and you didn't even know it. You highlighted all the wrong parts of the article (and, to be fair, the article is mostly filled with obvious garbage that we've been through a hundred times). When confronted with this, you attack ME as if you not knowing what the Hell you're talking about is MY fault. Then you've spend the rest of this thread trying to find some way to recover, mostly by twisting things as far out of whack and trying to put as much of the attention on me as you can.

Fail, fail, fail and fail.

You're caught. Read what you post before you post it. Make sure whoever is sending it to you explains it carefully if you don't. And expect to be exposed if it's clear that you don't.

GBMelBlount
05-14-2009, 03:03 PM
tony hipchest
as citizens we at least have control over the crooks and robbers we elect to washington. unfortunately, those crooks and robbers are the ones, making the laws for the crooks and robbers on wall street to get away with what they did.

I agree.

And although we probably won't agree on this part, I feel that enough people are now on the "receiving end" of the government that they will continue to vote based on what is best for THEIR own situations.

One reason I vote for lower taxes because I personally feel that it benefits me (& my family) the most right now. Others will vote based on what they feel will personally benefit them....in some cases that is more government.

i would propose you vote for somebody who is for transparency and the needed regulation as opposed to people who are for pulling the wall street wool over the publics eye.


I would tend to agree. And the government wool as well.

as the article states, both had their hands in the cookie jar

Again, I am in agreement

tony hipchest
05-14-2009, 03:47 PM
Let's take the term "Utilitarian Hegemony".

You tossed it out there. And you don't have a CLUE what it means.

1st you tried to use it in a slanderous fashion against GB. Fail. It actually is a fine thing, a segment of society controlling that society with the ruling philosophy of what's best for the many is best for the few. So you got caught on that one. (Was even the Star Trek reference too high-minded for you? Should I use Barney the Dinosaur next time?)

Then you tried to say that Dan would never say that because it made no sense. More proof that you have NO CLUE what you discussing. Fail again. It makes sense, as I just explained.

Then you try to flip this on me because I ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT IT MEANS with some kind of bullshit attack on my vocabulary. Fail again.

Then in the most pathetic and transparent attempt to twist this around, you try this concoction of horseshit:

is that your gig now? you just re-state what i said and pretend you said it first? laughable.
you take an article i post and pretend you posted it, and then make believe that i am arguing against you? LOL
you were the one shown to have no clue what you were talking about.
i rightfully called you on it, and you have done nothing but hijack this thread and deflect and divert attention away from the fact that you were called out. to make it worse youve even taken it to 2 other threads.
enough of the spin and diversion.
"bu...bu...but...dan"??? are you kidding me? "star treck"? wtf.


I mean, what does that even mean? Do you know?

Here's the bottom line. You posted an article that blasted your own guy directly and indirectly and you didn't even know it. You highlighted all the wrong parts of the article (and, to be fair, the article is mostly filled with obvious garbage that we've been through a hundred times). When confronted with this, you attack ME as if you not knowing what the Hell you're talking about is MY fault. Then you've spend the rest of this thread trying to find some way to recover, mostly by twisting things as far out of whack and trying to put as much of the attention on me as you can.

Fail, fail, fail and fail.

You're caught. Read what you post before you post it. Make sure whoever is sending it to you explains it carefully if you don't. And expect to be exposed if it's clear that you don't.what a hypocrite you are. you cry all day and all night that nobody who voted for obama would actually be objective and discuss an article that wasnt slanted towards him.

your perception is not reality. munger is much more grounded in reality than you, and people much smarter than you know theres much more blame to go around. you are the ultimate blame king on this board. but i get it. you are still sore about bush being blamed for the war in iraq and the media hate he had to shoulder as a result of it. its practically in your steelersfever manifesto to redeem him. i get that.

now, i am the one who said that utilitarian hegemony didnt make sense [in the context that it was used in reference to mel]. i didnt think i needed to explain that i was talking about the context and not the phrase itself to you, but youre not very perceptive and when you try to be youre WAY off.

see, sometimes i say or type the wrong thing. i have no problem admitting it. you should try it sometime. however you run hogwild with it like you have sunk my battleship or something. very very immature and childish. (see how quick i can get you to sink to my level?). now you have abandonned all tact in favor of name calling and completely making shit up. bravo, once again.

believe me, i know all about marxism, capitalism, communism, utilitarianism, imperialism, fascism, totalitarianism, monocracy. its all pretty basic general stuff, not the rocket science that only you could wrap your big mind around, that you make it out to be.

i could talk about the monocratic approach of you posting on this board if youd like. :chuckle:

you think youre the only person to ever pick up a book? get over yourself.

tony hipchest
05-14-2009, 08:21 PM
I agree.

And although we probably won't agree on this part, I feel that enough people are now on the "receiving end" of the government that they will continue to vote based on what is best for THEIR own situations.


One reason I vote for lower taxes because I personally feel that it benefits me (& my family) the most right now. Others will vote based on what they feel will personally benefit them....in some cases that is more government.
and then others will go the utilitarian route and vote for what is best as a whole, regardless of how it impacts them personally. (just like in Spaceballs and Armageddon) :chuckle:



I thought it was an interesting article . I did not say there was anything I disagreed with.

I never said there should be no laws to protect people.

enough with the double talk.

so are you just saying a bunch of nothing.... or are you not saying much of anything.... :noidea: ....or do you agree with munger, and agree that there should be laws to protect people?

GBMelBlount
05-14-2009, 08:34 PM
Tony, please stop flailing and focus.

Why are you accusing me of double talk? Please be clear and make sense so I can respond. I can't see anything I've said that is contradictory.

tony hipchest
05-14-2009, 08:42 PM
Why are you accusing me of double talk? Please be clear and make sense so I can respond. I can't see anything I've said that is contradictory.


Originally Posted by GBMelBlount
I thought it was an interesting article . I did not say there was anything I disagreed with.

I never said there should be no laws to protect people. now you focus and be clear. what is it you are actually saying?

do you agree with munger, and agree that there should be laws to protect people?

and just to make things clear to our resident "big word" savant, double talk and contradictory have 2 completely different meanings.

and to make things clear to you-

Double talk- 1 : language that appears to be earnest and meaningful but in fact is a mixture of sense and nonsense 2 : inflated, involved, and often deliberately ambiguous language

GBMelBlount
05-14-2009, 08:51 PM
I believe there should be laws to protect people and their property. The concern of course is that the people who make laws are generally as corrupt as those they are ostensibly protecting us from.....

Do you feel that it is right for the government to take what belongs to one group or person and give it to another?

tony hipchest
05-14-2009, 09:00 PM
Do you feel that it is right for the government to take what belongs to one group or person and give it to another?i believe in God. some people dont. i really dont care [bad phrasing- im really not asking...] what you believe in.

i asked if you agreed with munger and that laws should be made to protect people.

your response is nothing but deflection and diversion that has nothing to do with the thread or question being asked of you in regards to the topic of the thread.

if you dont really wanna discuss the topic, then perhaps you shouldnt post in it. :hunch:

oh, and just for grins, i'll answer your nonsensical question. i believe its right that the government collect taxes ("give unto ceasar what is ceasar's"), and at that point it is no longer my money, it is the governments. all taxes eventually "trickle down", right?

GBMelBlount
05-14-2009, 10:24 PM
i asked if you agreed with munger and that laws should be made to protect people.

your response is nothing but deflection and diversion that has nothing to do with the thread or question being asked of you in regards to the topic of the thread.

if you dont really wanna discuss the topic, then perhaps you shouldnt post in it. :hunch:



Tony, Please stop flailing and focus. This is what I said:

I believe there should be laws to protect people and their property.

If that wasn't satisfactory you could ask another question or ask for additional clarification instead of flailing and trying to make this personal. It is a poor reflection on you....

I will respond to the rest of your "intellectual" comments" tomorrow. :chuckle:

tony hipchest
05-14-2009, 10:35 PM
so in other words you need revs to tell you what to post.

get with him via pm and i will await you's guys response.

chop chop!

GBMelBlount
05-15-2009, 07:33 AM
so in other words you need revs to tell you what to post.

get with him via pm and i will await you's guys response.

chop chop!

Usually the only time you come up in my discussions w/ Revs is when we are pointing out how funny that is that you can't seem to focus and "flail" as you do.

It is not difficult for intelligent people to articulate their points simply and clearly...........yet it seems very difficult for you for some reason....... :chuckle:

Again, I will try to reply to your "intellectual" comments when I have time later. :drink:

GBMelBlount
05-15-2009, 08:12 AM
tony hipchest

i believe in God.

I think it's great that you believe in God Tony. :drink:

Now my question is simply this:

Since you believe in God, do you also believe in his commandment “Thou shalt not steal?”

This is a simple "yes" or "no" question for most people so I am hoping you can keep your answer simple......

tony hipchest
05-15-2009, 09:24 AM
Again, I will try to reply to your "intellectual" comments when I have time later. :drink:
i see. you need to confer with revs before you give a simple answer to a simple question. i dont know what good it will do you as he hasnt fared to well himself.

so you just wanna play the diversion game until then? ok. i guess its good for killing 30 seconds...


Since you believe in God, do you also believe in his commandment “Thou shalt not steal?”

...... of course i do. thats why i rarely vote republican. (see how easy that was?)

i dont know if you believe in God, but i have yet another simple "yes or no" question for you. do you believe in the commandment "thou shalt not kill"?

...get back with me when your told whether or not you agree with munger. :drink:

GBMelBlount
05-15-2009, 11:09 AM
GBMelBlount

Since you believe in God, do you also believe in his commandment “Thou shalt not steal


tony hipchest]

of course i do.

Great! So we both are in agreement that stealing is wrong and that there should be laws to protect the individual and their property, right?.... :drink:

So if laws are then created by the government to forcibly take from one person what belongs to them, and gives it to persons whom it does not belong (which an individual can't do without committing a crime)......is that not legalizing stealing and not a double standard?

revefsreleets
05-15-2009, 11:55 AM
what a hypocrite you are. you cry all day and all night that nobody who voted for obama would actually be objective and discuss an article that wasnt slanted towards him.

your perception is not reality. munger is much more grounded in reality than you, and people much smarter than you know theres much more blame to go around. you are the ultimate blame king on this board. but i get it. you are still sore about bush being blamed for the war in iraq and the media hate he had to shoulder as a result of it. its practically in your steelersfever manifesto to redeem him. i get that.

now, i am the one who said that utilitarian hegemony didnt make sense [in the context that it was used in reference to mel]. i didnt think i needed to explain that i was talking about the context and not the phrase itself to you, but youre not very perceptive and when you try to be youre WAY off.

see, sometimes i say or type the wrong thing. i have no problem admitting it. you should try it sometime. however you run hogwild with it like you have sunk my battleship or something. very very immature and childish. (see how quick i can get you to sink to my level?). now you have abandonned all tact in favor of name calling and completely making shit up. bravo, once again.

believe me, i know all about marxism, capitalism, communism, utilitarianism, imperialism, fascism, totalitarianism, monocracy. its all pretty basic general stuff, not the rocket science that only you could wrap your big mind around, that you make it out to be.

i could talk about the monocratic approach of you posting on this board if youd like. :chuckle:

you think youre the only person to ever pick up a book? get over yourself.

I'm not disagreeing with Munger. But 90% of what he said has already been gone over a thousand times by a million other people. It's old news. The article really was no great shakes, nothing original for the most part, but your COMMENTARY on it was interesting.

Fact is, I don't really care about the article at all. Like I said, old news. But when I clarified some points of it, your girdle got all bunched up, and you started calling people names and tossing out terms that make no sense (coming from you). So I called you on it...

You've spend the rest of your posts to me trying to slither out of it. Fine. Whatever. But it's time to face FACTS, Tony. You're a damned good FOOTBALL poster. You know you're stuff and can back it up. In fact you're a really good poster in just about any forum, but, sorry dude, you're a B list political poster, strictly second string (and that has nothing to do with your political affiliation, but everything to do with your insistence on seeing everything in black and white and having almost NO mitigating or moderating views once your opinion is etched in HTML). You're too fiery and one-sided to be a good political analyst. You also mistake your own opinion for fact. Take out toe-the-line party politics and the ad hominem attack from your arsenal and most of your posts would be empty.

As for me, it's fine if you attack me. It doesn't bother me. I can be a little acerbic and abrasive, and I know that. But that doens't do anything to change the fact that you just aren't anything near as good at this as you THINK you are. Sorry, dude, but that's the harsh reality.

And standing there thumping your chest cheering your pyhrric "victories" over me rings about as true as the black knight threatening to bite King Arthur's legs off. Time to let this go...

tony hipchest
05-15-2009, 06:56 PM
sorry dude, you're a B list political poster, strictly second string (and that has nothing to do with your political affiliation, but everything to do with your insistence on seeing everything in black and white and having almost NO mitigating or moderating views once your opinion is etched in HTML). You're too fiery and one-sided to be a good political analyst. You also mistake your own opinion for fact. Take out toe-the-line party politics and the ad hominem attack from your arsenal and most of your posts would be empty.

...that doens't do anything to change the fact that you just aren't anything near as good at this as you THINK you are. Sorry, dude, but that's the harsh reality.

.thank you for your approval. :rolleyes:

what is most ironic is you just served up a bunch of opinions and labeled them as fact.

almost as ironic, is that you just about described every poster on this forum as far as politics go. it IS a fiery subject.

in addition to second stringers, we definitely have some practice squad guys, too. are they still allowed to post, or is it time for them to "let this go"?

i dont know if you consider yourself the self appointed "coach" but you know what? i am off the bench and in the game and wont be needing a water break or blow anytime soon.

just call me the lou gehrig in the SF political forum's wally pipp story. i dont need a pinch hitter. thanks anyways. :hatsoff:

i'll be around.

tony hipchest
05-15-2009, 07:56 PM
Great! So we both are in agreement that stealing is wrong and that there should be laws to protect the individual and their property, right?.... :drink:

So if laws are then created by the government to forcibly take from one person what belongs to them, and gives it to persons whom it does not belong (which an individual can't do without committing a crime)......is that not legalizing stealing and not a double standard?

to put it simply.... no. you are being delusional, and living in the land of make believe and utopia.

wow. it took you 2 hours to edit your post? what are you trying to hide, mel?
i see you are still clinging to deflection as a life preserver, but your attempts to derail this thread will not work. you can either address it, or simply move on to another.

are you really trying to convince me taxes are like the legalized theft that munger speaks of?

:rofl: even the founding fathers are laughing at you. :point:

"In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes."
- B. Franklin

"Friends and neighbors complain that taxes are indeed very heavy, and if those laid on by the government were the only ones we had to pay, we might the more easily discharge them; but we have many others, and much more grievous to some of us. We are taxed twice as much by our idleness, three times as much by our pride, and four times as much by our folly."

- B. Franklin

get back to me when you have something a little more relevant to bring to this thread other than crying about paying taxes, and instead of playing your "simple" little word games and responding to you double talk, why dont you get back at me after a little bit of research on the commodity futures modernization act which is actually relevant to this thread.

oh, i like the da vinci quote by the way. :thumbsup: too bad you probably dont get that he was one of the most complex intellects of all time.

GBMelBlount
05-15-2009, 08:13 PM
Let's remove all the flailing from your post and that leaves us with only one word that I can see-----"no"

So you believe that when the government takes from one individual, what belongs to that individual, and gives it to someone to whom it does not belong, it is ethical?

tony hipchest
05-15-2009, 08:24 PM
:toofunny: more deflection.

GBMelBlount
05-15-2009, 08:30 PM
Checkmate.......Again.

tony hipchest
05-15-2009, 08:42 PM
:rofl: feel free to address the topic of the thread at anytime.

ive had you in check from the neck up, mate.

:shout: DIVERSION!!!!

do you agree with munger or not?

simple question, no?

tony hipchest
05-15-2009, 09:35 PM
hey COACH!

your reliever is doing nothing but tossing salad. the time in the bullpen has done him no good, and im thinking that sending him back down to AAA may be LONG overdue.

what he thinks is a curveball is in the dirt 3 feet before it even reaches the plate. :doh:

im not gonna complain about constantly taking him yard or nuthin, but even when i give him a grounder to field he is going out like chuck knoblock.

im beginning to feel bad for him. atleast a trip to the mound, maybe?

:hunch:

GBMelBlount
05-15-2009, 10:12 PM
GBMelBlount

So if laws are then created by the government to forcibly take from one person what belongs to them, and gives it to persons whom it does not belong (which an individual can't do without committing a crime)......is that not legalizing stealing and not a double standard?

tony hipchest

no.

I doubt there is a communist or socialist in the world that wouldn't agree with you.

Tony 101......If an individual steals it's a crime, when the government steals, it's O.K. :thumbsup:

tony hipchest
05-15-2009, 10:17 PM
i see i made a fatal error in assuming mel would know who benjamin franklin was....

GBMelBlount
05-16-2009, 06:44 AM
tony hipchest

"People [gbmelblount is a prime example] really thought that giving a predatory class of people the ability to do whatever they wanted was free market enterprise.

I approve of laws that protect an individuals freedom, liberty and property.

I am against the government taking individual property from one group of people and handing to others what does not belong to them......something you believe should be a crime if an individual does it, but not when the government does it....

No communist, socialist....or you, have a problem with this even though it goes completely against liberty and freedom, the principles on which this great country was founded.

You're are twisting and flailing but STILL being badly beaten.

GBMelBlount
05-16-2009, 07:04 AM
tony hipchest

dumb decisions
banking executives
crazy
bad morality
lack of ethics
some on wall street
sleazy crooks

these are all either people or traits of people

I agree Tony,

Bad Morality
Lack of Ethics
Sleazy crooks

These are traits of ALL people, especially those in government who use "fairness" as an excuse to take what belongs to one group and give it to another.....while lining their pockets along the way.

...yet you apparently embrace this.

Our founding fathers fought and many gave their lives to become free from a tyrannical government like what ours is becoming, and from people like you who believe the government has the right to take individuals property and give it to others at their (immoral, unethical and sleazy crooked) discretion.

revefsreleets
05-17-2009, 07:31 AM
Tony doesn't lose arguments...he just keeps posting how badly he's beaten you (ostensibly simply by saying he's beaten you) until you get tired of typing and move on...

tony hipchest
05-17-2009, 12:49 PM
anyone who doesnt know the difference between paying taxes and illegal criminal activity has lost from the get go.

trim all the deflection and labeling me as a fool and communist out of this thread and what you are left with is how i have nicely set up to show obama is living up to a campaign promise and providing the type of "change we can believe in".

plans to repeal 'major portions" of the commodity futures modernization act (especially the 200+ page "poison pill" phil gramm back doored america with) are hopefully going to undo one of the republicans greatest "failed policies" of all time.

this is great for america, and should help ensure that wall street and the stock market doesnt literally turn into a global casino.

as we have seen, letting people run wall street w/o regulation, will turn out about as good as letting the mob run las vegas.

so when people offer cries in the night, asking where all this change is, when it is happening right beneath their noses, i get that their refusal to acknowlege it is just a reflection of it not suiting their agenda.

the response, (or lack thereof) in this thread is typical and expected, as this topic is the huge white elephant in the room that no republicans want exposed.

really the only response for them is "bu..bu..but democratic social problems" or to blame fannie mae and freddie mac, which is really only the tip of the iceberg.

anyone who continues the diversion tactics and tries to say they dont know what the hell im talking about or that I dont know what im talking about, only shows their own ignorance and does nothing to diminish the validity of this post.

insert weak assed "atlanta dan" remarks below.... :rolleyes:

SteelersinCA
05-17-2009, 02:01 PM
You guys really need to keep a sticky who Atlanta Dan, Nigel and LITP are somewhere in the top of the locker room forum. I've heard these names thrown out a lot recently and have no clue who they are. I assume they are some sort of insult but the impact is lost when the reader doesn't know who they are.

tony hipchest
05-17-2009, 02:21 PM
atlanta dan was a damn good poster but he had 2 major "flaws".

1) he was a lawyer. 2) he didnt support bush.

some delusional factions believe he has been ghostwriting my posts ever since he left.

Nigel aka LITP aka NM aka Wanker Brit, was a bandwaggon hopping, wanna be football savant, patfan who was appointed mod duties here on SF.

thankfully he was convinced to resign those duties, quickly banned, and HTG was finally given the help she so much deserved.

*if you can read this post, thank a mod* :cheers:

-off topic but her and fansince really do do a great job.

heh, i said "do do....".

fansince'76
05-17-2009, 02:46 PM
atlanta dan was a damn good poster but he had 2 major "flaws".

1) he was a lawyer. 2) he didnt support bush.

Make that 3: he also continually harrassed certain parties via Email and PM who did support Bush and didn't worship at the altar of Obama. If you're gonna tell a story, please tell the WHOLE story.

tony hipchest
05-17-2009, 03:38 PM
Make that 3: he also continually harrassed certain parties via Email and PM who did support Bush and didn't worship at the altar of Obama. If you're gonna tell a story, please tell the WHOLE story.thanks for revealing the rest of the story.

contrary to popular belief, i am not aware of his PM or Email habits, and frankly could care less. hes gone just like many good posters before him. other good posters move in and life goes on.

when it comes to telling the WHOLE story, i can only speak of that which i know. :noidea:

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
05-17-2009, 08:15 PM
The mess was created before him...started in '93 with Clinton.

But Obama ain't helping. .

its so funny....There have been 2 Democrats as presidents in the past how many years and you can not find it in your self to admit that the republicans may have something to do with this........

LOL:rofl:

X-Terminator
05-17-2009, 11:42 PM
its so funny....There have been 2 Democrats as presidents in the past how many years and you can not find it in your self to admit that the republicans may have something to do with this........

LOL:rofl:

Of course they did.

Blaming this mess on one party is foolish - they BOTH had a major hand in it, and have had a hand in it for the past 30 years.

SteelersinCA
05-18-2009, 01:44 AM
I think it's funny we continue to blame the executive. I, for one, think Congress is the one that is f'ed up and the President has really very little to do with the economy or anything else. He just does what he's told by people he trusts to make decisions for him. Why does everyone blame Bush and Obama? I blame the retards we elect to represent us. I wish there was a box for "I relinquish my right to representation because not being represented would cause me less harm than being 'represented.'"

revefsreleets
05-18-2009, 08:17 AM
LITP- Wow, what a turd that guy was. His name was Nigel McKenna or something like that. He engaged in all kinds of arguments, and, like Tony, never lost a single one (at least according to him). His greatest "achievement" was becoming so trusted by some of the less savvy here that he was promoted to mod, and made commish of one of the flagship fantasy football leagues here. He had a meltdown, got kicked off mod duties, then proceeded to destroy the fantasy league, which caused me and Crushzilla about 100 hours of work trying to manually plug in all the yahoo data into an AOL fantasy system in the middle of the season.

Atlanta Dan was a really good poster, and a decent guy (in spite of being a lawyer...and he was always fairly decent to me at least...can't speak for others). Unfortunately he got frustrated with some of the partisan politics here and kind of backed way off. He feeds info (mostly in the form of articles and op/ed pieces) to Tony on occasion (although Tony vehemently denies it, we pretty much all know it to be true). We can usually recognize AD's hand when Tony starts making a whole lot of sense in the political forum.

As far as blaming Presidents, well, for about the last 3 years pretty much all we heard from the left here was how evil and awful Bush was, and he caused every problem in this country, from the stock market to Hurricane Katrina to the baseball streoid scandal to the price of oil. Name something bad, and five will get you ten that somehow the root cause of it was Bush.

Fair's fair, so Obama is going to get some scrutiny as well.

SteelersinCA
05-18-2009, 10:43 AM
Yeah, I understand fair is fair and attorneys are people too!:angel:

lamberts-lost-tooth
05-18-2009, 11:42 AM
I think it's funny we continue to blame the executive. I, for one, think Congress is the one that is f'ed up and the President has really very little to do with the economy or anything else. He just does what he's told by people he trusts to make decisions for him. Why does everyone blame Bush and Obama? I blame the retards we elect to represent us. I wish there was a box for "I relinquish my right to representation because not being represented would cause me less harm than being 'represented.'"

Totally agree...

In 2003 during the a Financial Services Committee hearing following an initiative to regulate the housing industry...Barney Frank declared: "The more people exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness (at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae), the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury which I do not see. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially."

It was the lovely Maxine Walters who said congress was wasting time on regulating Freddie and Fannie.....She said "There were nearly a dozen hearings where we were trying to fix something that wasn't broke. Mr Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac and particularly at Fannie Mae under the outstanding leadership of Mr Franklin Raines."

SteelersinCA
05-18-2009, 12:39 PM
Wanna bet Barney Frank wins his re-election? I wish Presidents weren't so beholden to their party. Imagine if Obama came out and said, "Mr. Frank, you screwed this up! You're constituents and the people of America deserve better." I could get behind that.

lamberts-lost-tooth
05-18-2009, 02:08 PM
Wanna bet Barney Frank wins his re-election? I wish Presidents weren't so beholden to their party. Imagine if Obama came out and said, "Mr. Frank, you screwed this up! You're constituents and the people of America deserve better." I could get behind that.

I cant talk...these are the people that my state kept electing...

Gov. Milorad "Rod" R. Blagojevich (D-Ill) was arrested on federal corruption charges December 9, 2008. The charges involved conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and solicitation of bribery

Gov. George Ryan, (R-Ill) who is currently serving a 6 1/2-year stretch in federal prison for racketeering and fraud.

Gov. Otto Kerner, (D-Ill) convicted in 1973 on 17 counts of bribery, conspiracy, perjury and other charges before being sentenced to three years in the pen.

Gov. Dan Walker (D-Ill) convicted in 1987 -- years after leaving office -- of bank fraud.

Rep. Mel Reynolds (D-Ill.) ran unopposed in 1994, despite (eventually proven) charges of criminal sexual assault and child pornography. In 1995, he got a five-year sentence. In 1997, he was convicted of lying on loan and campaign finance statements and got 78 more months.

Rep. Dan Rostenkowski (D-Ill.) was indicted in 1994 on 17 felony charges, including the embezzlement of $695,000 in taxpayer and campaign funds. He plea-bargained his way down to two counts of mail fraud and served 17 months in a Wisconsin minimum-security prison.

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
05-21-2009, 05:06 PM
Fair's fair, so Obama is going to get some scrutiny as well.

No problem with scrutiny but give the guy a chance.... See what his ideas are and how things go......Dont just disagree with everything he said simply because you are not of the same party and feel that everything a democratic president does is wrong and needs to be srutinized.

revefsreleets
05-21-2009, 05:17 PM
No problem with scrutiny but give the guy a chance.... See what his ideas are and how things go......Dont just disagree with everything he said simply because you are not of the same party and feel that everything a democratic president does is wrong and needs to be srutinized.

I agree with quite a bit of his policy, actually, and if you'd read what I've written, you'd know that.

Fortunately (or UNfortunately, depending upon your perspective), most of the policy I agree with is recycled Bush policy, the very same policy he campaigned as being completely and utterly opposed to. See the dilemma? Where is the change? What about the pandering? the hypocrisy?

Obama is turning into a sham right before our very eyes, but people are still so enamored by the original message they fail to realize that nothing has changed at all, in fact, things may end up being far, far worse.

HometownGal
05-21-2009, 06:37 PM
Fortunately (or UNfortunately, depending upon your perspective), most of the policy I agree with is recycled Bush policy, the very same policy he campaigned as being completely and utterly opposed to. See the dilemma? Where is the change? What about the pandering? the hypocrisy?

Obama is turning into a sham right before our very eyes, but people are still so enamored by the original message they fail to realize that nothing has changed at all, in fact, things may end up being far, far worse.

Very well stated, revs. You took the words right out of my mouth.

I haven't seen any change and no original ideas out of this administration. Only more hypocrisy.

revefsreleets
05-22-2009, 08:02 AM
The new iseas I've seen proposed are mostly really super horribly BAD ideas, too...

Texasteel
05-22-2009, 08:11 AM
Very well stated, revs. You took the words right out of my mouth.

I haven't seen any change and no original ideas out of this administration. Only more hypocrisy.

The big change so far has been, we get the same policies and a higher price, much higher.

xfl2001fan
05-22-2009, 09:46 AM
The big change so far has been, we get the same policies and a higher price, much higher.

This ^^^^

BBFW, I am beginning to wonder if you went to a liberal college (most of them seem to be).

There are a lot of great ideas...but implementation of them has to be factored in. "Free" Healthcare is never free. It costs someone something. If you're not wililng to pay the prace for your own healthcare...why should I pick up the tab?

Donating money to foreign countries is a "nice" thought...but when you are Trillions in debt...it's a bad idea. It was a bad idea when Bush donated 500M to the PA. It's a bad idea when/if Obama doantes 900M to the PA. (It's worse actually...because of the larger dollar value.)

If we're going to fix the world, let the world pay some price for our involvement. If the world doesn't want us to fix their problems, then why should we bother? It's better to help those who are willing to help themselves. (That whole, give a man a fish/teach a man to fish philosophy.)

The price for your freedom is extremely high. The founding father's knew this when they created the baseline for our nation. The price for "free" healthcare is beyond what we can afford to pay.

Expanding government "for the purpose of oversight" is a bad idea. Nearly everything the Feds touch, they flub. It's worse for politicians. They seem to act like they have Midas touch or something (and I'm sure you know how well that worked out for Midas.)

I_Bleed_Black_And_Gold
05-22-2009, 03:40 PM
http://groovydeals.com/images/Trust%20the%20Midas%20Touch.JPG

No wonder my exhaust system is gold now!

SunshineMan21
05-22-2009, 05:09 PM
I agree with quite a bit of his policy, actually, and if you'd read what I've written, you'd know that.

Fortunately (or UNfortunately, depending upon your perspective), most of the policy I agree with is recycled Bush policy, the very same policy he campaigned as being completely and utterly opposed to. See the dilemma? Where is the change? What about the pandering? the hypocrisy?

Obama is turning into a sham right before our very eyes, but people are still so enamored by the original message they fail to realize that nothing has changed at all, in fact, things may end up being far, far worse.

Care to elaborate?

When it comes to the economy, simply saying that "because Obama is expanding the federal budget even more than Bush did, he's extending his policies" is asinine.

I don't agree with everything in Obama's stimulus package--Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi did their best to pork it up as much as possible--but the macroeconomic principles behind a massive spending bill in the midst of a recession are extremely basic.

Nobody questions that some type of economic intervention was needed--the only question is what kind. Obama has actually cut taxes thus far, and he's shifted spending from now-obsolete defense spending (which Republican Secretary of Defense Robert Gates suggested) into investments in infrastructure and education.

All dollars spent are not created equal, and it has been documented by numerous economists that the value of investing in society as a whole far outweighs the risk of a temporary deficit. The marginal impact of Obama's economic policies is exponentially higher than that of Bush's--it's basic economic law that the marginal propensity to consume (MPC) increases as spending is channeled toward lower segments of the population (i.e. social spending), leading to enhanced Keynesian multipliers.

Basically, if you cut a millionaire a $1,000 check (which is what Bush's tax cuts effectively did) it's unlikely to radically change his spending habits, which is what we need to revitalize the economy. On the other hand, if you cut a family living off the mean American salary (somewhere in the ballpark of $40,000) a $1,000 check, it has a much larger impact.

The economic policy is basically a 180 degree reversal from Bush's macroeconomic policy, which begs the question . . . what are you talking about?

xfl2001fan
05-22-2009, 05:16 PM
Where is this 1000 dollar check coming from though? You can't lower taxes and increase spending at the same time. It's a simple matter of Obama is continuing to bargain with the future with the hope that his beautiful vision will come true. Hope in one hand...

Bush's spending was bad for the economy. Obama's spending is good? Sorry, but I don't buy it. What little he's cut doesn't come close to what he's spending. Eventually, something has to give...and it sure as heck won't be the politicians. It's your wallet (and mine) that's in danger here.

The US (as a whole) needs to get out of this "credit craze" that we've gone into, spending money we can't come close to paying off...and looking for someone else to give us a break/pay our way out.

tony hipchest
05-22-2009, 05:37 PM
The US (as a whole) needs to get out of this "credit craze" that we've gone into, spending money we can't come close to paying off...and looking for someone else to give us a break/pay our way out.how come none of the resident obama bashers have commented on the credit card co. reform bill obama just signed to help squash some of their predatory biat and switch practices that have made them so rich?

oh, thats right...

while its a step in the right direction it doesnt fit the bashers agenda to comment on such matters.

while i dont even pay 9% on the dollar for "credit", it was change i can believe in. im seriously thinking of switching over to a debit card altogether, because the credit card companies answer is to charge me interrest up front for any purchase i make.

screw the bastards. i'd love to see them fail (just because it wouldnt affect me one bit).

SteelersinCA
05-22-2009, 06:15 PM
I see it as a non issue, they can still raise rates with a 45 day notice. Let's be honest it's the people who are irresponsible with their credit that cause those who aren't to suffer. So the company can still raise their rates for failure to pay bills. So for me it buys me 15 days longer notice before they raise my rates? I carry a zero balance anyway, once you have a house you shouldn't need a credit card.

To steal a line from your Tony...:shout: big deal!

GBMelBlount
05-22-2009, 07:20 PM
All dollars spent are not created equal, and it has been documented by numerous economists that the value of investing in society as a whole far outweighs the risk of a temporary deficit. The marginal impact of Obama's economic policies is exponentially higher than that of Bush's--it's basic economic law that the marginal propensity to consume (MPC) increases as spending is channeled toward lower segments of the population (i.e. social spending), leading to enhanced Keynesian multipliers.


It can be argued that the LONG TERM adverse effects of trillion dollar deficit spending by a bankrupt government (which will likely be paid by our children and grandchildren) will far outweigh the short term benefits of increased consumption by the middle class.

GBMelBlount
05-22-2009, 07:22 PM
how come none of the resident obama bashers have commented on the credit card co. reform bill obama just signed to help squash some of their predatory biat and switch practices that have made them so rich?

oh, thats right...

while its a step in the right direction it doesn't fit the bashers agenda to comment on such matters.



What would we disagree with?

If he is protecting people from having others lie and cheat and steal their money, then I think that is good.

If he is making laws that supercede liberty, free markets and capitalism, like saying it is illegal to lend above a certain interest rate, period....then not necessarily so good.

Wooohooo! Obama 2012! Yippeee! :chuckle:

tony hipchest
05-22-2009, 07:45 PM
i never meant to imply a step in the right direction was a "big deal", how ever i wouldnt go as far as to
discredit it as a "non issue".

GBMelBlount
05-22-2009, 07:56 PM
What I would like to see is contracts that are simpler and more clear. Sometimes, in the name of full disclosure and protecting the consumer, so much paperwork and legalese is required that people miss the most important things or just stop reading it altogether. In some cases it hurts more than it helps.

I have seen mortgage loan closings with 60-70 pages of loan related paperwork and after 5 or 10 pages, many people just give up trying to understand it, unfortunately.

tony hipchest
05-22-2009, 07:58 PM
screw the bastards. i'd love to see them fail (just because it wouldnt affect me one bit).just to clarify...

by this i meant the credit card companies, not the resident obama bashers.

kinda sad that i feel the need to clarify what i take for granted to be obvious. :shake01:

I_Bleed_Black_And_Gold
05-23-2009, 05:16 AM
On a side note, I just payed of my second to last credit card today!

Dropped a $1800 bomb on it and put it out of my misery. Down from 15k and around November of last year to around 5k now!

theplatypus
05-23-2009, 09:13 AM
On a side note, I just payed of my second to last credit card today!

Dropped a $1800 bomb on it and put it out of my misery. Down from 15k and around November of last year to around 5k now!

Somebody has been listening to Dave Ramsey.

xfl2001fan
05-23-2009, 09:20 AM
On a side note, I just payed of my second to last credit card today!

Dropped a $1800 bomb on it and put it out of my misery. Down from 15k and around November of last year to around 5k now!

Good job bud! I was fortunate enough to have never wanted/desired a credit card. I have always been afraid of how I'd react to having one (because I have a lot of traits of an impulsive buyer.) I recognize those traits...and avoid the credit card pit like I would the plague (and I don't see much difference between the two.)

how come none of the resident obama bashers have commented on the credit card co. reform bill obama just signed to help squash some of their predatory biat and switch practices that have made them so rich?
Honestly, I hadn't seen it. I won't see much political stuff over the next few weeks while the NBA playoffs are still going on...espcially while my Cavs are still playing. I can only focus on so much without taking away from my family...and they come before even Obama bro. :flap:


oh, thats right...

while its a step in the right direction it doesnt fit the bashers agenda to comment on such matters.
Don't sell yourself short here. How much publicity is this getting? How many bills are passed (quietly) each year?

while i dont even pay 9% on the dollar for "credit", it was change i can believe in. im seriously thinking of switching over to a debit card altogether, because the credit card companies answer is to charge me interrest up front for any purchase i make.

screw the bastards. i'd love to see them fail (just because it wouldnt affect me one bit).

I'm all for the Credit Card companies failing. Don't own one, don't want to. I'm cool with doing things the old fashioned way, saving up until I can afford it. I like leading a simple life. It's not always easy, but simple is almost always better!

SteelersinCA
05-23-2009, 09:59 AM
just to clarify...

by this i meant the credit card companies, not the resident obama bashers.

kinda sad that i feel the need to clarify what i take for granted to be obvious. :shake01:

I understood what you meant and i agree. I meant it was a non-issue for me, personally, that's why I never mentioned it.:tt03:

HometownGal
05-23-2009, 01:41 PM
just to clarify...

by this i meant the credit card companies, not the resident obama bashers.

kinda sad that i feel the need to clarify what i take for granted to be obvious. :shake01:

just to clarify hipcheese...:wink02:

You know which statement I was referring to in my rep comment. :buttkick:

With regard to credit cards - I have a bank debit card which also doubles as a VISA (most people have those now-a-days). I've always lived by the credo that if I can't pay cash for something, I really don't need it and therefore, I'm not gonna by it. :thumbsup:

revefsreleets
05-25-2009, 02:59 PM
Care to elaborate?

When it comes to the economy, simply saying that "because Obama is expanding the federal budget even more than Bush did, he's extending his policies" is asinine.

I don't agree with everything in Obama's stimulus package--Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi did their best to pork it up as much as possible--but the macroeconomic principles behind a massive spending bill in the midst of a recession are extremely basic.

Nobody questions that some type of economic intervention was needed--the only question is what kind. Obama has actually cut taxes thus far, and he's shifted spending from now-obsolete defense spending (which Republican Secretary of Defense Robert Gates suggested) into investments in infrastructure and education.

All dollars spent are not created equal, and it has been documented by numerous economists that the value of investing in society as a whole far outweighs the risk of a temporary deficit. The marginal impact of Obama's economic policies is exponentially higher than that of Bush's--it's basic economic law that the marginal propensity to consume (MPC) increases as spending is channeled toward lower segments of the population (i.e. social spending), leading to enhanced Keynesian multipliers.

Basically, if you cut a millionaire a $1,000 check (which is what Bush's tax cuts effectively did) it's unlikely to radically change his spending habits, which is what we need to revitalize the economy. On the other hand, if you cut a family living off the mean American salary (somewhere in the ballpark of $40,000) a $1,000 check, it has a much larger impact.

The economic policy is basically a 180 degree reversal from Bush's macroeconomic policy, which begs the question . . . what are you talking about?

A) I was talking about Obama extending other policies, on which I need not elaborate since I've posted at least 15 threads on the subject, outlining the MYRIAD "Failed Bush Policies" that were either adopted, slightly altered then adopted, or, as is the case with wiretaps, adopted and EXPANDED (That's a great jumping off point, though, as Obama campaigned against them, called them "Wrong and immoral" to get elected, then, rather than live up to his campaign promise to eliminate them, he expanded them. EXPANDED THEM).
B) Obama is trying to do the best of both, and failing. He's trying to cut taxes AND exponentially increase government spending. As I've stated many time before, the difference between a balanced Bush budget and a deficit is the two wars. Period. Obama's spending is across the board.
C) Obama's tax incentive is a joke. Horribly flawed. Instead of $400 at once which may make a difference, we get $400 spread out over 52 weeks. Zero impact, but we still end up with the bill, which will just get socked away in all the other deficit spending.
D) As far as economics goes, well, time will tell. But the word "temporary" is interesting. BEST CASE models have us running several trillion dollar deficits into the next 10 years, and a lot of worst case scenarios have us simply running up unsustainable debts, at which case we...what? Default? Go bankrupt? It's a nice idea to redistribute wealth, but now really ain't the time and place...
E) Finally, the "$1000" scenario is nice, and it's steeped in economic terms (which I'm assuming is supposed to impress), but the bottom line is this: The $1,000 is the same $1,000. Is it better to invest it? Not now. Better to pay off credit card debt? Probably not now. Save it? Again, that's the last thing we need. Better to get it and dump it back into the economy, so why would it be better for4 a poor person to dump his $1000 into credit card debt than for a rich person with already discretionary income to go out and actually spend it on taxable goods?

I_Bleed_Black_And_Gold
05-26-2009, 05:05 AM
Somebody has been listening to Dave Ramsey.

Lol, good guess... I swear the guy is a lifesaver. He tells you everything you already know, but for some reason hearing it from someone else makes it stick!

revefsreleets
05-26-2009, 01:58 PM
Oh, I almost forgot! I wanted to address Obama's credit card law.

On it's face, it looks okay, but there are many, many problems here.

1st off, if you're "on the fringe", hang onto your credit card. This legislation will make it increasingly difficult to get a credit card. Why would a credit card company take a risk anymore if they can't cover their asses? If you needed a 600 score to secure a decent card before, you'll probably need a 650. Below 600 and you get bupkus.

Secondly, if you pay your bill every month on time, YOU'LL most likely be the one to suffer. Do you think the CC companies will just go peacefully into the night and lose all this revenue because Obama says it's a good thing? In any incentive or cash back programs? Kiss those goodbye, too. If you have a credit card and pay it on time I'm guessing your rate will go up to cover the difference.

College student? You ain't getting a card at all.

This is what happens when the government intercedes on our behalf. If you are a credit card carrier who pays your bill on time, you lose! If you have a CC and pay late and are cavalier in your attitude towards your contractual obligations outlined by the CC company, you win!

This reminds me of the state law Ohio passed concerning paycheck advance companies. We voted to stop the 400% usury rates these shysters were charging, which is a good thing. What did the cash advance companies do? They just created a bunch of other fee's and charges to make up the difference.

Business will always be one-step ahead of the busybody do-gooders in government. It's far better to work with them on solutions than to try and strong arm them in some misguided crusade to help the downtrodden. It always ends badly...

tony hipchest
05-26-2009, 10:13 PM
5 days late and a dollar short, revs.

unless you think re-addressing points ive already touched on, and parrotting a usa today piece, is bringing insight and thoughtfulness unto the subject unbeknownst to the rest of us.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/credit/2009-05-21-obama-credit-card-reform-law_N.htm

so, whose ghostwriting your posts? :busted:

SunshineMan21
05-26-2009, 11:59 PM
A) I was talking about Obama extending other policies, on which I need not elaborate since I've posted at least 15 threads on the subject, outlining the MYRIAD "Failed Bush Policies" that were either adopted, slightly altered then adopted, or, as is the case with wiretaps, adopted and EXPANDED (That's a great jumping off point, though, as Obama campaigned against them, called them "Wrong and immoral" to get elected, then, rather than live up to his campaign promise to eliminate them, he expanded them. EXPANDED THEM).
B) Obama is trying to do the best of both, and failing. He's trying to cut taxes AND exponentially increase government spending. As I've stated many time before, the difference between a balanced Bush budget and a deficit is the two wars. Period. Obama's spending is across the board.
C) Obama's tax incentive is a joke. Horribly flawed. Instead of $400 at once which may make a difference, we get $400 spread out over 52 weeks. Zero impact, but we still end up with the bill, which will just get socked away in all the other deficit spending.
D) As far as economics goes, well, time will tell. But the word "temporary" is interesting. BEST CASE models have us running several trillion dollar deficits into the next 10 years, and a lot of worst case scenarios have us simply running up unsustainable debts, at which case we...what? Default? Go bankrupt? It's a nice idea to redistribute wealth, but now really ain't the time and place...
E) Finally, the "$1000" scenario is nice, and it's steeped in economic terms (which I'm assuming is supposed to impress), but the bottom line is this: The $1,000 is the same $1,000. Is it better to invest it? Not now. Better to pay off credit card debt? Probably not now. Save it? Again, that's the last thing we need. Better to get it and dump it back into the economy, so why would it be better for4 a poor person to dump his $1000 into credit card debt than for a rich person with already discretionary income to go out and actually spend it on taxable goods?

A) Actually, I would appreciate it if you did elaborate. I'm troubled by Obama's acceptance of wiretaps, but all things being equal I'm still not seeing the similarities between the two administrations. Obama's economic policy is radically different from Bush's--the former's is standard pump priming recession-busting, while the latter's was fairly extreme supply-side economics. The Bush policies did have some positive effects, but they also slashed social programs that would have helped to stabilize the economy.

B) You just defined Keynesian economics . . . the response to a recession is to stimulate demand by 1. Putting money back in the hands of consumers so that they may spend it (tac cuts and tax rate cuts) and 2. Increasing government outlays in order to pump more money into the economy.

Every American administration (and most credible economists) has used some variation of this approach for the last 75 years . . . the only questions are who to give the money to (the "spread-the-wealth" argument versus more neo-liberal perspectives) and how to spend the money--as well as to what magnitude both policies should be employed.

Economic arguments for balancing the budget in times of recession died with Herbert Hoover--look how that turned out for him.

C) I'm not even really sure what your criticism is here . . . perhaps I'm not understanding you correctly?

D) Actually, now is exactly the time and place. Some level of debt is sustainable, but not the level left over from the Bush years--the problem is that unless we stimulate growth, simply trying to manage the current debt won't be enough.

And growth isn't going to come simply through tax cuts, although I'm a fan of those. The stimulus package is imperfect, and much of the pork barrel spending is disturbing, but the financial outlays were necessary. It's also interesting that Senate Republicans tried to make the same arguments I'm making here when obsolete defense programs went on the chopping block (we can't cut any spending--it'll cost jobs!).

So perhaps while I agree with you that portions of the money could be spent more intelligently, there isn't much question that something had to be done in terms of spending.

E) I'm not sure whether my use of economic terms was "intended to impress," but it was certainly designed to illustrate the basic economics of the situation. Your counterexample just doesn't hold up.

If rich people actually pumped back every dollar they received into the economy, maybe that argument would hold water. But the point that I was trying to make with my discussion of MPCs, etc . . . is this:

Tax dollars returned to poor people are much, much more likely to be recycled as consumption than tax dollars returned to rich people.

It's a fact, an economic axiom, whatever you want to call it. But it's true, and while some elements of this post are my opinion, this really isn't . . . it's pretty much a given at this point.

I already discussed some of the reasons why (I believe) this is so, but what it boils down to is that poor people can't afford to save--if they get money in this kind of economy, they're going to have to spend it. Your counterexample made it seem as though rich people were more likely to spend tax cut money--that's just not true, as the mere fact that they already have disposable income means that a tax cut or rebate is much less likely to cause them to change behavior.

GBMelBlount
05-27-2009, 07:41 AM
SunshineMan21

And growth isn't going to come simply through tax cuts,

Really, why not?


Sunshineman21
Tax dollars returned to poor people are much, much more likely to be recycled as consumption than tax dollars returned to rich people.

Unfortunately, as Big Willie's thread topic recently pointed out, when you give people who aren't used to doing productive things with other people's money, some money, they tend to spend it on things like booze & porn.

Not great long term for economic prosperity, especially when it is at the expense of trillions of dollars of deficit spending by an already bankrupt government.........that will likely be paid for by our children and their children.

To argue this "stimulus" as necessary or more beneficial than it's costs, is tenuous at best. Despite Obama's absurd comparisons to the great depression, we would have very likely come out of this recession regardless of the additional trillions of dollars in deficit spending, wouldn't you agree?

revefsreleets
05-27-2009, 09:43 AM
5 days late and a dollar short, revs.

unless you think re-addressing points ive already touched on, and parrotting a usa today piece, is bringing insight and thoughtfulness unto the subject unbeknownst to the rest of us.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/credit/2009-05-21-obama-credit-card-reform-law_N.htm

so, whose ghostwriting your posts? :busted:

Huh? WTF....

You are posting a USA Today piece that parrots SOME of what I said about credit card reform, and....um....I don't get it? What IS your point? You asked why nobody commented, so I commented...did you mean to say that you posted the story before? If that's the case, sorry, I didn't read it, as you're credibility at posting related links to stories is dubious at best (see: maps to bunkers that aren't really the bunkers in question).

Speaking of, LOVE the really late retort in the closed thread about the White House bunker.

Fisrt you said it was the bunker on the PA border. That was wrong. Now you're stating that it's the bunker under the White House? That's wrong, too.

This is the new bunker, the one under the VP's house at the Naval Observatory. The one that nobody knew about until Biden opened his yapper.

You're losing it, dude. Strictly B-list on the political side, but you don't give up easily, do you?

You were wrong. You're still wrong even when you tried to change what you said (which was super weak and transparent). Stick to sports and you'll be fine, buddy...you're just out of your depth on the political side, and I think you know it, hence the extremely long delay in following up on the bunker with further erroneous stuff...

tony hipchest
05-27-2009, 06:40 PM
Speaking of, LOVE the really late retort in the closed thread about the White House bunker.

Fisrt you said it was the bunker on the PA border. That was wrong. Now you're stating that it's the bunker under the White House? That's wrong, too.

This is the new bunker, the one under the VP's house at the Naval Observatory. The one that nobody knew about until Biden opened his yapper.

You're losing it, dude. Strictly B-list on the political side, but you don't give up easily, do you?

You were wrong. You're still wrong even when you tried to change what you said (which was super weak and transparent). Stick to sports and you'll be fine, buddy...you're just out of your depth on the political side, and I think you know it, hence the extremely long delay in following up on the bunker with further erroneous stuff...how can i be wrong when ive already shown the article is wrong?

once again, i will spell it out for you.

what is actually your source for this so called biden article? an anecdotal political blogger on the newsweek site? LMAO! are you freaking kidding me? eleanor clift probably wouldnt know her asshole from a bunker in the ground. fox news icked up on the blog and then ran their piece of shit "article" on her speculative interpretation.

you as a media expert shouldve seen it was complete slant and bias, unless you consider this objective "reporting"-

The revelation is the latest from Biden, who has a long history of political blunders.

Most recently, he said in a televised interview that if a family member asked him about traveling he'd advise staying away from public transportation or confined spaces to avoid swine flu -- a remark described as "borderline fearmongering" by an airline spokesman.

Click to see a full list of Biden's political blunders

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...ret-vp-bunker/

:noidea:

now this will take some astute reading comprehension, so follow along and read slowly...

"The officer explained that when Cheney was in lock down, this was where his most trusted aides were stationed,

you see that? cheney was in lock down in 1 location. his most trusted aides were stationed in another. biden saw and spoke of the upstairs vice-command/communications post that he had converted to a guest room upon his arrival in the house. (of course the aids command post would be secure and vaulted off from the cleaning staff.

unless you are really believing that on 9-11-01 cheney and his aides were hunkered down together in the same bunker that your own source of information suggests wasnt even built until 2002. :hunch:

what a riot! like you, elanore dont know what she was reading or writing, and like you fox news bought in.

a blogger... :toofunny: hilarious. get back with me when you got something real.

....The one that nobody knew about until Biden opened his yapper.

:chuckle:


as for your crazy and narcissistic suggestion that i have dodged your posts, it isnt exactly a mystery that i have been holed up in a car, hospital, and hotel room for the past 9 days, as i had to take my in-law to scottsdale for what amounted to emergency surgery to remove a malignant growth from his tongue.

contrary to popular belief in your world, its not all about you, plus posting on a messageboard via blackberry isnt exactly my idea of entertainment on such an occasion.

sorry to keep you waiting, but watching you fail in all attempts to clown me were well worth it. :drink:

its a shame a meltdown got that fine piece of fox news prejac locked down.

revefsreleets
05-28-2009, 08:52 AM
So you are basing your whole argument on the fact that you don't like Eleanor Clift? You are "impeaching the witness"? Eleanor Clift, by the way, is probably best known for her vicious defense of the CLINTON White House. She's hardly a bastion of right wing causes. Fail.

You DO know that Newsweek reported this, correct? So you'll have to add Newsweek to the list of discredited bloggers or whatever it is you are trying to spin up here in your pathetic and sad little defense of REPEATED wrongs.

You do know the difference between a blog and a major news reporting magaize, don't you?

It's fine if you toss insults my way. I get that...I did, after all, correctly label you as a second tier political poster, and I'm sure that truth hurts a little , and you want to, no, probably NEED to lash out a little.

Fine. I can take it...

But let's stay on point here. You DID provide maps of some location that was neither the bunker under the White House NOR the bunker under the Naval Observatory as your "smoking gun" and than pranced around in post after post acting like you scored some kind of victory, and then you backpeddled and threw up some smoke about a White House bunker, which is also NOT what Biden was talking about.

Spinning and twisting and slithering won't work. You're caught. Putting your hands over your ears and trying to yell that you're right and I'm wrong is cute, but also completely ridiculous.

tony hipchest
05-28-2009, 01:53 PM
et tu brute...

just gonna rely on more lies, huh?



You DO know that Newsweek reported this, correct? So you'll have to add Newsweek to the list of discredited bloggers or whatever it is you are trying to spin up here in your pathetic and sad little defense of REPEATED wrongs.

You do know the difference between a blog and a major news reporting magaize, don't you?



incorrect.

sorry but im gonna need a link (as should everyone else) before i am to believe your lies amidst the embarrassing rhetoric, taunts and jibes.

no :link: = fail = exposed.

you DO know the difference between blogging on a magazines website and actually reporting NEWS for that same magazine, right?

just because a blogger on sportsillustrated.com overheard a conversation about favre coming out of retirement doesnt make it true. it makes it a speculative blog piece.

no article.
no revelation of classified info.
no cheney in a hole under the naval palace on 9-11.
no story.

yet im the one who is supposedly wrong. :laughing:

revefsreleets
05-28-2009, 02:02 PM
Well, this is easy enough to do.

aol- http://news.aol.com/main/politics/article/biden-cheney-secret-bunker/486555?icid=main|main|dl1|link2|http%3A%2F%2Fnews. aol.com%2Fmain%2Fpolitics%2Farticle%2Fbiden-cheney-secret-bunker%2F486555

Newsweek- http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2009/05/15/shining-light-on-cheney-s-hideaway.aspx

Eleanor Clift writes for Newsweek. This is on Newsweeks site. Last time I checked, aol news was legit. I haven't seen Fox News, Newsweek, aol or Eleanor Clift being sued for libel. Or, for that matter, censured in any way.

What else ya got, second stringer?

What about the maps to the bunker on the PA border? What DO that have to do with, anyway?

tony hipchest
05-28-2009, 06:27 PM
so where is this article you and AOL say newsweek reported? all you did was post the exact blogs i was referencing...


You do know the difference between a blog and a major news reporting magaize, don't you?


...all you did was prove it is YOU who dont know the difference between a blog and a major news reporting magazine article. :busted:

eleanore is a contributing editor, who has an actual weekly column (in addition to her blog) that comes out mainly on fridays like clockwork. but where is it for the week of the biden "story". :huh:

http://mobile.newsweek.com/list.jsp?key=ec_col&rc=col_vo&start=0

did newsweek "censure" it because they didnt want to be attributed any further with this piece of shoddy "jounalism"/ sensacionalism? why are they covering their and hers ass by pointing out that SHE never used the word underground either (biden surely didnt. why would he? he revealed an upstairs guest room).

the only mainstream media that even bothered to turn her blog musings into an actual "story" was fox and politico who both quickly did an about face.

do you need a belt? cause face it, you were caught with your pants down in a lame attempt to clown me. FAIL

go back and re-read your "article" and you will see why things such as the 9-11 commission report and the maps are relevant to showing poor little eleanore putting her bloggers foot in her mouth.

until then i will eagerly await you to start citing "articles" and "reporting" by mike florio and tim lumber. :toofunny:

HometownGal
05-28-2009, 06:28 PM
Why don't the two of you just get a room? :chuckle:

tony hipchest
05-28-2009, 06:32 PM
Why don't the two of you just get a room? :chuckle:

ewwww....

only if eleasnore :yawn: clift wants to be the meat in a "man sandwich". :laughing:

revefsreleets
05-29-2009, 09:08 AM
A) I don't care WHERE the bunker is. It's irrelevant. One point is that NONE of us should even be discussing this, because oyr elected officials should not be talking about this.
B Point 2 is that Biden is a blabbering ass, and without even knowing what he said or what you were going to defend, you blindly leapt in and posted a bunch of grabage that had NOTHING to do with what he said in his defense.
C) YOU provided maps to some bunker on the PA border, and paraded around like you scored a point. I'm still waiting for you to explain what the relevance of THAT was. You were wrong, dead wrong, and you will not admit it. Again, the location of the bunker is meaningless in the big picture, but YOU focusing on this "3rd bunker" and clamoring on and on about how everyone else was wrong DOES have meaning.
D) It doesn't matter where the story occurs (blog, straight news), but it DOES matter who is presenting the story. Eleanor Clift is representing Newsweek. AOL News is here, as is Fox News. They reported the story. If there were retractions, I'd like to see them.


This is about Biden being a fool. This is about you blindly defending him and Obama. This is about links to articles about bunkers on the PA border. This is about you not actually UNDERSTANDING what it is these articles are about, or what your posted reactions to them are. You've managed through pages and pages of backtracking and retractions to put this someplace else, but THESE are the real issues.

It pretty much comes down to this: No matter WHAT Obama does, you'll defend him. You may not understand what he did. You may not understand what you post to defend him. You may not understand what the people questioning Obama are actually saying, but one thing is certain. You WILL defend Obama no matter WHAT he does.

GBMelBlount
05-29-2009, 11:16 AM
revefsreleets

It pretty much comes down to this: No matter WHAT Obama does, you'll defend him. You may not understand what he did. You may not understand what you post to defend him. You may not understand what the people questioning Obama are actually saying, but one thing is certain. You WILL defend Obama no matter WHAT he does.


Bingo.

revefsreleets
05-29-2009, 12:06 PM
And THAT, and that alone, makes Tony a strictly second-rate political poster. There's no balance, no synthesis of knowledge, no critical thinking being applied, just a strict and simple adherence to the party line...at any cost, even staring straight in the face of all evidence pointing to the contrary.

tony hipchest
05-29-2009, 07:23 PM
i dont care about what YOUR OPINION of biden is, as youre extreme case of bitterness and hateritis has left you blinded.

Fact is, this thread is about biden supposedly revealing the top secret underground bunker cheney was hunkered in after 9-11.

deny that all you want. already bein proven wrong dictates you do so.

as opposed to the blow hard opionions you have offered (which is about all you got), i have shown facts that debunk the premise of this thread.

the only fact you brought to the table is that you dont understand the difference of a blog entry and an actual news report from a major media outlet....

....even staring straight in the face of all evidence pointing to the contrary

your AOL link passed off as a report of fact was the biggest joke in this thread. you call a "she said, he said, he said...." article actual news reporting??? :toofunny:

in the real world that is called hearsay.

seriously, you must spend about as much time studying LITP's tactics of worming his way out of lost arguments via deflection and diversion, as you do op/ed pieces to parrot.

dont talk to me about critical thinking as yours is terminal.


And THAT, and that alone, makes Tony a strictly second-rate political poster. There's no balance, no synthesis of knowledge, no critical thinking being applied, just a strict and simple adherence to the party line...at any cost, even staring straight in the face of all evidence pointing to the contrary.

seen a mirror lately? :coffee:

You do know the difference between a blog and a major news reporting magaize, don't you?


:chuckle: priceless....

tony hipchest
05-29-2009, 07:33 PM
people here will ATTACK obama/biden no matter what they do. the fact that there is an alternate voice frustrates those people.

as far as balance and all the other :blah: BS revs blabbed about, this football board is a b-list political board at best.

revs can step off his high horse at any time.

or he can take it to a high minded, above the brow, republican board and join the rest of the clones. but telling me to quit posting in the SF political forum isnt going to work no matter how bad anyone hates being PROVEN wrong with FACT and the most elementary LOGIC.

tony hipchest
05-29-2009, 10:50 PM
i noticed something thats been hanging around like a noose... (besides the sheer hypocricy that has been evident forever).

oh the bitter[for you]sweet[for me] irony....



It pretty much comes down to this: No matter WHAT [Arians] does, you'll defend him. You may not understand what he did. You may not understand what you post to defend him. You may not understand what the people questioning [Arians] are actually saying, but one thing is certain. You WILL defend [Arians] no matter WHAT he does.

And THAT, and that alone, makes [Revs] a strictly second-rate sports poster. There's no balance, no synthesis of knowledge, no critical thinking being applied, just a strict and simple adherence to the [team] line...at any cost, even staring straight in the face of all evidence pointing to the contrary.

:busted: :laughing: :busted:

feel free to substitue arians with hendrick/gordon/labron/whatever. it doesnt matter.

according to your very own FLAWED AND FAILED LOGIC you have exposed yourself as a b-list sports poster who is in desperate need of a belt.

i'll make you a deal. you do yourself some good and stick to the political stuff, and i will stick to the sports forums. :drink:

since we both know that is never going to happen, i eagerly await our next "political" debate, as i have effectively stuck a fork in this one (yet again). im sure theres a thread out there about obama being a muslim or socialist for you to play in.

:wave:

so, speaking of munger, anyone read any lee iacocca lately?

revefsreleets
05-30-2009, 04:45 AM
Ahahahahaha!

Must have struck a nerve...hey, does anybody here have any good maps of bunkers on the PA border that have nothing to do with anything?:rofl:

revefsreleets
05-30-2009, 05:27 AM
By the way, second stringer, before you blast Clift and try to marginalize her because you didn't like what she wrote, why don't you actually LEARN a little about her before you knee-jerk based on complete ignorance (like usual).

Clift actually digs Obama...granted, not as much as you, because she's actually said a critical word or two about him, but here is an example of her work. Not bad for the former WH correspondent, bureau chief, frequent guest on the McLaughlin Group, etc, etc...Maybe you could send her your maps of that bunker on the PA border?:rofl:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/194981

Obama get a B+ for his first 100 days

fansince'76
05-30-2009, 08:24 AM
Hey folks, can we please get back to debating respectfully as opposed to taking shots at each other? Thanks.

tony hipchest
05-30-2009, 11:41 AM
http://www.newsweek.com/id/194981

Obama get a B+ for his first 100 days

HA!

pssst.... a day and a dollar short once again. i already posted you a link to that in post #95. :laughing:

WHOOOOSH!!!! (reading comprehension is your friend)

nice to see you actually LEARNED a little about her before you knee-jerk based on complete ignorance (like usual).

what did you do? visit her wiki page? LOL

fansince'76
05-30-2009, 11:48 AM
I guess I don't write in English. Thread closed.