THE OBAMANISTA REGIME'S SCAMS, SCANDALS, CONTROVERSIES, LIES, DECEPTIONS AND EMBARRASSMENTS

Attorney General Eric Holder, revealed to be the man who, as Clinton's deputy AG, was the driving force behind the sentence commutation of 16 murderous FALN terrorists.

Attorney General Eric Holder's law firm represents 17 Gitmo terrorists and he is a driving force behind the closing of Gitmo.

On Inauguration Day, Obama granted only ABC News an interview, after they paid him $2 million to sponsor his DC Neighborhood Ball.

After three days in office, Obama ordered an attack on homes in Pakistan. Twenty-one people were killed but only five were reported to have been terrorists; the rest of the incinerated and dismembered victims were children, their moms and dads, and other civilians, according to the New York Times, the AFP, the AP and many other news sources.

On 23 January 2009, Obama demanded that GOP leaders stop listening to Rush Limbaugh or else things would not go well for them during his regime.

William Lind, a powerful defense industry lobbyist, was appointed by Obama to be deputy defense secretary, despite all the rants and promises Obama made about never appointing a lobbyist to a position of power in his regime.

On 23 January 2009, Obama lifted the ban on federal tax dollars funding abortion mill operations in Third World countries where eugenics are now again used to control the population.

Two days after seizing power, Obama signed an executive order to close Gitmo, making it clear that the comfort and happiness of the terrorists therein, and Europe's opinion of us, are far more important than national security and the lives of American families.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton refuses to reveal all of the big foreign donors to her husband's "foundation," but the Washington Times says huge sums of money came from the People's Republic of China via a secret 2006 stock transaction.

On 24 January 2009, despite his hundreds if not thousands of pledges and promises of total transparency in his regime, Obama held a secret closed-door meeting with his economic advisors as anger over his $1 trillion "economic stimulus" spending scheme, refusing to allow the media and American people access to what was discussed.

On 26 January 2009, Rep. John Boehner revealed that Obama and his Obamanistas in the Congress had added language in the Democrats' stimulus bill that would allow Obama's infamous voter fraud organization, ACORN, to receive billions of dollars in federal funding under the farcical guise of "neighborhood stabilization activities."

On 26 January 2009, U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Susan Rice, stated that the Obama regime seeks direct negotiations with the terrorist regime of Iran.

In a shocking insult to our military's heroes, on 20 January 2009, Barack Obama became the first president in 56 years--since its inception--to skip the Salute to Heroes Inaugural Ball, which is held in honor of Medal of Honor recipients, Purple Heart recipients, paralyzed veterans and other military heroes. Obama did, however, find time to attend the Neighborhood Ball, which was filled with Hollywood's ultra elite.

On 26 January 2009, with hat in hand and apologizing for the United States, Obama gave his first formal television interview as president not to an American network, but Al-Arabiya, saying America must stop "dictating," a move and statement that was immediately seen by extremist Muslims as a sign of sure weakness and fear.

James B. Steinberg, whom Obama nominated to be deputy secretary of state, told the Foreign Relations Committee in writing that Americans have a free speech right guaranteed by the Constitution to taxpayer funded abortions.

On 26 January 2009, Timothy Geithner was sworn in as Obama's secretary of the treasury despite having serious tax problems and having had an illegal alien housekeeper.

LOL...very very funny. Soon to be on snopes.

how?

Because you retard it is ALL incorrect.

I stopped reading when the very first item wasn't even a complete thought let alone a sentence. WTB a verb!

On 23 January 2009, Obama lifted the ban on federal tax dollars funding abortion mill operations in Third World countries where eugenics are now again used to control the population.

To be fair, Bush's restriction on this was basically if you mentioned abortion at all, you couldn't ever receive government funding (from what I remember, someone correct me if I'm wrong). Find me a credible source that goes beyond Obama repealing that, and actually mentions eugenics even in passing, and I'll re-evaluate my standpoint on this. The fact that most of this seems to be going for shock value makes me doubt the meat behind it.

I found these to be particularly funny...

After three days in office, Obama ordered an attack on homes in Pakistan. Twenty-one people were killed but only five were reported to have been terrorists; the rest of the incinerated and dismembered victims were children, their moms and dads, and other civilians, according to the New York Times, the AFP, the AP and many other news sources.

Suddenly these strikes are wrong to do? Not to mention the decision to launch is not a presidential one it is made at the direct command level.



Two days after seizing power, Obama signed an executive order to close Gitmo, making it clear that the comfort and happiness of the terrorists therein, and Europe's opinion of us, are far more important than national security and the lives of American families.

LOL...all I can say...


In a shocking insult to our military's heroes, on 20 January 2009, Barack Obama became the first president in 56 years--since its inception--to skip the Salute to Heroes Inaugural Ball, which is held in honor of Medal of Honor recipients, Purple Heart recipients, paralyzed veterans and other military heroes. Obama did, however, find time to attend the Neighborhood Ball, which was filled with Hollywood's ultra elite.

Once again...he had a specific ball for military personnel and veterans...I assure you...and the tickets were free...no charge.


On 26 January 2009, with hat in hand and apologizing for the United States, Obama gave his first formal television interview as president not to an American network, but Al-Arabiya, saying America must stop "dictating," a move and statement that was immediately seen by extremist Muslims as a sign of sure weakness and fear.

Did you even see this interview?

Who cares. Nice try, Osg.

Keep on truck'n.

I stopped reading when the very first item wasn't even a complete thought let alone a sentence. WTB a verb!

oh you mean the title? Duuuhhhhhhhhh


And if you are not at all bothered by any of these indisputable facts you a just as corrupt and disgusting as Obama himself.

Oh and I would liek to keep a running tally of his "accomplishments". Would you all prefer weekly? MOnthly? Quartly?

Oh and I would liek to keep a running tally of his "accomplishments". Would you all prefer weekly? MOnthly? Quartly?

Is this something you are asking permission for? Why? We know you are going to do it anyway. And even so we would not say no. Why rob you of your only reason to get up in the morning? No one here is that cruel.

I think you would like weekly. Thank you for the quick answer Lumm.. You get a gold star for the day.

Attorney General Eric Holder, revealed to be the man who, as Clinton's deputy AG, was the driving force behind the sentence commutation of 16 murderous FALN terrorists.

Not a sentence mate.

What ever.

Oh and I would liek to keep a running tally of his "accomplishments". Would you all prefer weekly? MOnthly? Quartly?

Check in once a year.

Rush must be really happy these days. instead of trying to find a justification for 43's constant fubars he can now go back to unalduterated hatemongering and blatant lies.

I love it, not sure how many times exactly i've read the last few days all the ZOMG EVERY BABY ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH WILL NOW GO UNBORN!!! BS!

My biggest hope is that all the rightwing nutters work themselves into such a fervor over the man now in the "Black House" that we see massive waves of cardiac failure sweep the nation. ahh one can dream, can't one?

You must understand, Osg is the consummate Chicken Hawk. Loves to advocate war but would be the one curled up in a ball and immobilized when the shooting starts. He's a gutless big mouthed moron. Other than that....I like him.

You must understand, Osg is the consummate Chicken Hawk. Loves to advocate war but would be the one curled up in a ball and immobilized when the shooting starts. He's a gutless big mouthed moron. Other than that....I like him.

lmao Rover

Rush must be really happy these days.

Yup. He waited 8 long years to relive his Clinton heydays.

oh you mean the title? Duuuhhhhhhhhh


And if you are not at all bothered by any of these indisputable facts you a just as corrupt and disgusting as Obama himself.


Taking just one of them to make a point, why the wringing of hands and chastising of Obama for an air strike that killed five terrorists along with sixteen noncombatants, when you never posted anything similar with regard to the same type of strikes under Bush? Were you not as bothered when innocent deaths were given the OK by a Republican?

I don't care if you post it hourly, daily, weekly, or whatever but I think it's more Nugget worthy myself ;)

Because everyone knows Commies LIKE killing babies. When us good people do it it's purely by accident and great pain is shared by all.

Not only do commies like killing babies, they eat them too.

Wonder how they would taste with some cheese whiz?

*nom nom nom*
I'll take a tall glass of neo-con tears to wash it all down too pls.

I would like weekly in depth updates Osg..... a new thread on each subject would be fine with me :)

I know at the local CPUSA dinner/murder nights, they stuff the babies and put them on the grill for a bit, baby is fairly fatty and doesn't need cheese. A good hollandaise maybe ...

Fat Bastard was a Liberal???

Wonder how they would taste with some cheese whiz?

*nom nom nom*
I'll take a tall glass of neo-con tears to wash it all down too pls.

I disagree with Malse, cheese is a must.

They taste pretty good but you need to add fried onions and never ever heat them in a microwave.

Slice them thinly and serve them Cheesesteak style FTW!!!
Never had much luck using them to make Brats or Polishes, to much Spice ruins the delicate flavor.

You have it all wrong... Jedd and his Hamas buddies babies are the tastiest... That Mediterranean sun brings out the best flavor.

You have it all wrong... Jedd and his Hamas buddies babies are the tastiest... That Mediterranean sun bring sou the best flavor

Pretty sure thats due to the prolific use of Olive oil in those places. I stay locally grown organic myself.

I would like weekly to by weekly reports. I can not believe yall are talking about eating babies!

Speaking of eating babies, I was watching MSNBC while doing some paperwork, and my attention was grabbed by Nora O'Donnell (sp) referring to a Rush clip where he says America has to bend over and grab it's ankles because Obama has a black father and is the first black President. She asks the Republican Congressman of Indiana if that is really the kind of dialog we need when trying to repair the economy and country, and the pussy refused to ssay yes or no or denounce Rush or anything; all he did was try to turn it around on Nora making Rush sound like a racist.

We need to get T-shirts made up for these people: "Rush's Bitch"!

Speaking of eating babies, I was watching MSNBC while doing some paperwork, and my attention was grabbed by Nora O'Donnell (sp) referring to a Rush clip where he says America has to bend over and grab it's ankles because Obama has a black father and is the first black President. She asks the Republican Congressman of Indiana if that is really the kind of dialog we need when trying to repair the economy and country, and the pussy refused to ssay yes or no or denounce Rush or anything; all he did was try to turn it around on Nora making Rush sound like a racist.

We need to get T-shirts made up for these people: "Rush's Bitch"!

in that same vein, i offer you this bit of comedy: http://gingrey.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=109616

Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Newt Gingrich, and other conservative giants are the voices of the conservative movement’s conscience.

ahahahahahahaah.

MSNBC was also showing the clip of Gingrey going on Rush Limbaugh's show to apologize to Rush, lol.

Gingrey = "Rush's Bitch"!

Gingrey going on Rush Limbaugh's show to apologize to Rush,

Given Rushies penchant for jaunts to certain "resorts" i'm pretty saddened by the depth's at wich the republican party is willing to "Sink to it's Knees" to re-establish it's "recievership" of our nations "love", sad indeed.

Lets review bloated and wasteful spending in the stimulus package that YOU will be on the hook for.

The Obamanistas added $325,000,000 to the economic stimulus bill for a program to teach Americans how not to get the clap and other STDs. More additions:

The Obamanistas added $1.5 billion to run a contest to capture carbon.

The Obamanistas added $45 million for ATV trails.

The Obamanistas added $572 million to create 1,235 Coast Guard civilian jobs at $460K each.

The Obamanistas added $4 billion for Obama's voter fraud unit that is under federal investigation for massive fraud.

The Obamanistas added $3.5 billion for new education facilities.

The Obamanistas added $200 million for DoD alternative energy vehicles.

The Obamanistas added $600 million for new government cars.

The Obamanistas added $134 million for hospices.

The Obamanistas added $50 million for the Endowment for the Arts.

The Obamanistas added $650 million for digital TV coupons.

Osg, get over the ACORN thing...it's past...they were guilty of nothing. The only voter organizations that were actually shut down and charged were republican.

You do realize all of that only adds up to a fraction of the bailouts Bush rammed through in the last few months, right? Damn that Socialist Bush mfer.

I agree Sanchek that was a bullshit Socialist move on Bush's part. I wanted the companies to fail or succeed based on a free market capitalist approach.

Lets review bloated and wasteful spending in the stimulus package that YOU will be on the hook for.

The Obamanistas added $325,000,000 to the economic stimulus bill for a program to teach Americans how not to get the clap and other STDs. More additions:

The Obamanistas added $1.5 billion to run a contest to capture carbon.

The Obamanistas added $45 million for ATV trails.

The Obamanistas added $572 million to create 1,235 Coast Guard civilian jobs at $460K each.

The Obamanistas added $4 billion for Obama's voter fraud unit that is under federal investigation for massive fraud.

The Obamanistas added $3.5 billion for new education facilities.

The Obamanistas added $200 million for DoD alternative energy vehicles.

The Obamanistas added $600 million for new government cars.

The Obamanistas added $134 million for hospices.

The Obamanistas added $50 million for the Endowment for the Arts.

The Obamanistas added $650 million for digital TV coupons.

All of this is also a small fraction of the stimulus bill, isn't it in the 80 billion range?

$650 million for DTV coupons will turn into a profit of billions for the government when they sell the analog VHF / UHF bands off, not to mention all the possible lives saved by improving communication between Fire, Police, Government and Rescue services.

$50 million for the Arts, heaven forbid. $3.5 billion for education. And when these children graduate college with a well rounded education they'll maybe have a chance to pay off the bailout bill's incredible debt.

DoD and Government alternate energy vehicles will save money in the long run too, as gas prices continue to climb. If anyone should be energy efficient its the military, when we're fighting in Iraq and Iran if we can't get fuel to them - they should still be able to operate and fight the war.

Even with the Osgillath twist on them they don't seem that bad. Spending money fighting diseases so we don't have to subsidize their health care in the future is a financial win for everyone. Creating jobs (training, facilities, and paying the employees) creates more US jobs. All of these things are designed to employ all of the people just laid off after suffering through 8 years of a Bush regieme and the failed fiscal policies of Greenspan and company. If you lost your job, you'd be singing a different tune.

This 800Billion, yes almost 1 trillion, dollar spending package was supposed to shore up the economy now. Not long term. This is more proof Obamessiah is not willing to work along with Republicans in Bipartisan efforts to stop the landslide. Instead we get a blank check printing press for any project the radical left thinks then need funded.

So you are saying improving education, improving our energy usage and infrastructure, and creating jobs is the wrong way to sure up our economy?

$650 million for DTV coupons will turn into a profit of billions for the government when they sell the analog VHF / UHF bands off, not to mention all the possible lives saved by improving communication between Fire, Police, Government and Rescue services.

At the moment this is laughable. As someone who has first hand knowledge of multi agency communication I can tell you it's years and years away and to waste money on it now is only going to make things worse. Take the DNC convention here in Denver. It was considered a level 1 NIMS/ICS emergency and was treated as such to to the size and complexity. It looked great on TV but believe me there was HUGE security and communication foul-ups. The best form of communictation? Cell phones. Now, I agree $$ in the future DOES need to be moved to this and training kept up, but not now in a short term stimulus package.

They are reserving a few small bands for Fire, Police, Government, and Rescue services - they don't have to do anything with them forever, they are just holding them back. The bulk of them are being sold to various industries for cellular and data transmission, wireless signals for radio devices, etc. They'll recoup billions of dollars on auction (and already have auctioned off a bunch of the bands).

Digital signals don't bleed so they can stack them on top of each other. Analog signals do bleed (hence why you sometimes see one channel on another, etc. Like how radio stations are so far apart not one channel at 101.1 and another at 101.2), switching all of them to digital frees up tons of space.

So you are saying improving education, improving our energy usage and infrastructure, and creating jobs is the wrong way to sure up our economy?

Gov't can't create jobs. Only support the market to by creating favorable conditions for businesses to operate successfully. And again THis bill should have been 100% about the economy NOW. not long term education funding.. contraceptive funding and all the other pork projects.

For your re-edumacation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal

How is building educational facilities NOW not gonna happen NOW? How is paying researchers NOW not gonna happen NOW? How is hiring people to educate the public about diseases NOW not gonna happen NOW? Honestly, you can't be as stupid as you are making yourself out to be.

I thought education was funded in bills and not part of stimulus package. Sorry I don't want my non existent stimulus money going to this NOW.

This is a bill. A bill that funds education.

And as you pointed out to me, its less than 1% of the total bill going to education.

Gov't can't create jobs. Only support the market to by creating favorable conditions for businesses to operate successfully. And again THis bill should have been 100% about the economy NOW. not long term education funding.. contraceptive funding and all the other pork projects

That's been done already. It was given to the banks and other institutions who are integral to the credit markets. Some of it got frittered away on bonuses towards the wealthy incompetent greedy bastards who orchestrated the very credit crunch the money was meant to alleviate. The fat cats already got their "bailout" and it did little to save jobs or homes. Granted its only been a short period of time, but if you want a stop gap measure, well its happened already. Who knows if its going to work. The market would have corrected itself eventually on its own and probably would have taken down a few institutions that really deserved to fail but instead got the government tit shoved in their mouth complements of your buddy Dubbyah.

Ultimately this project is meant to get people working and money spent on goods and services that will cascade down far beyond just the immediate impact of building a school. THAT gets money distributed into the economic cycle to free up capital for expenditures and creates jobs.

Osg, even you have to agree that our education system needs some serious overhaul and the aging roads and power grid need some attention as well. Sometimes you can't just rely on the markets to make EVERYTHING happen. Nations make investments in their future infrastructure all the time and that sometimes requires laying out a large stack of cash. In today's dollars this is probably not even as extravagant as the construction of the Interstate system, which, by the way, was sold as part of a national defense strategy.

Now I am sure if I turn on Rush he has a better idea all figured out, one where there is no public money spent at all but it probably involves private education and just letting the rest of the infrastructure and regulation go to pot.

Lets not forget this was an EMERGENCY package. 'esplain to me what that has to do with ATV trail?


Come to think about it it's not really a stimulus bill at all is it? It's a special interest payoff bill isn't it? Yes I think so.

It's a special interest payoff bill isn't it? Yes I think so.

Paint it what you want. And stop being such a fucking hypocrite. This is business as usual no matter who is in the White House because the government is alot more than just the president and many of those people were around when Bush was in charge are still around now. You just get to blame the other guy this time. You think that Dubbyah and his cronies didn't hook themselves up with gov't money and contracts? Chaney made so much money the past 8 years its disgusting. Now that he is free of the burdens of public accountability and scrutiny he can roll even deeper. Honestly, people don't give a shit as long as they see an end to joblessness and some kind of hope. That requires taking some money out of the public end of the economy and putting it into the private end which means spending it. Yes an ATV trail is as much a boondoggle as some of the defense related projects but at least its money wasted at home where it might do more good.

I am not whole heartedly arguing against you on this one, Osg. There is plenty of waste in this bill. Just after spending so much time overseas and seeing how much money we waste on other nations economies on stupid frivolous shit, I am glad to see gov't money being wasted on stupid frivolous shit where it matters. At home during a harsh recession. Its better to see past the ideology on this and just toeing some party line for sake of a better argument. That nit picking bullshit gets us nowhere.

I ate a baby once.

Ohh aye, baby. It's what's for dinner.

BABY, the other other white meat!!

The most retarded part of the whole stimulus package is the Republicans are arguing against it and the Democrats are arguing with Rush Limbaugh...lol...once again...

I ate a baby once.

Ohh aye, baby. It's what's for dinner.

BABY, the other other white meat!!

English babies are really gamy and stringy I heard. Is that true Halo?

Aye, they don't have half the fat on them as the American babies do. Unfortunately the babies here are about 8Ibs, whereas Yankee ones are about 150Ib - and good with BBQ sauce.

Aye, they don't have half the fat on them as the American babies do. Unfortunately the babies here are about 8Ibs, whereas Yankee ones are about 150Ib - and good with BBQ sauce.

lol




Anyways back to our Os rantings.

Here is a great interview with Ron Paul from two days ao on CNN. Nailed it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3FRAzULv8A

Oh you must be fucking kidding me.

WASHINGTON: The $800 billion-plus economic stimulus measure making its way through Congress could steer government checks to illegal immigrants, a top Republican congressional official asserted Thursday.

The legislation, which would send tax credits of $500 per worker and $1,000 per couple, expressly disqualifies nonresident aliens, but it would allow people who don't have Social Security numbers to be eligible for the checks.

Undocumented immigrants who are not eligible for a Social Security number can file tax returns with an alternative number. A House-passed version of the economic recovery bill and one making its way through the Senate would allow anyone with such a number, called an individual taxpayer identification number, to qualify for the tax credits.

A revolt among GOP conservatives to similar provisions of a 2008 economic stimulus bill, which sent rebate checks to most wage earners, forced Democratic congressional leaders to add stricter eligibility requirements. That legislation, enacted in February 2008, required that people have valid Social Security numbers in order to get checks.




Not a single Republican voted for an $819 billion version of the plan when it passed the House on Wednesday.

Oh you must be fucking kidding me.

..

Not a single Republican voted for an $819 billion version of the plan when it passed the House on Wednesday.

no, its actually true.

oh snap!

Aren't you supposed to be in the other thread supporting your terrorist buddies?

That's been done already. It was given to the banks and other institutions who are integral to the credit markets. Some of it got frittered away on bonuses towards the wealthy incompetent greedy bastards who orchestrated the very credit crunch the money was meant to alleviate. The fat cats already got their "bailout" and it did little to save jobs or homes. Granted its only been a short period of time, but if you want a stop gap measure, well its happened already. Who knows if its going to work. The market would have corrected itself eventually on its own and probably would have taken down a few institutions that really deserved to fail but instead got the government tit shoved in their mouth complements of your buddy Dubbyah.


And boy, did they - from an excellent article by Mark Levinson (a frequent Balkinization contributor) on the economic collapse, from Dissent magazine (now published through the Univ. of Pennsylvania press):

http://dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=1331

TREASURY SECRETARY Paulson’s plan has been, like so much else in the Bush administration, a disaster. In mid November, Alan Blinder, a professor of economics at Princeton, former member of President Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers, and former vice chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, testified before the House Committee on Financial Services on the administration’s pathetic response to the greatest economic crisis in seventy years.

Since the financial crisis has grown to be so complex and multi-faceted, it is worth recalling that it all began with falling house prices and defaults on mortgages—or, rather, fears that defaults would become rampant. (Those fears depressed the values of securities based on mortgages, and made them “troubled.”) Foreclosures are personally painful and economically costly; they undermine property values; and they lead to fire sales of homes, which depress house prices further, thereby continuing the vicious cycle. It is difficult to see a way out of this mess without reducing the coming tsunami of defaults and foreclosures. Congress wrote legislation that, at numerous points, exhorts, encourages, and even directs the Secretary of the Treasury to use TARP [Troubled Assets Relief Program] funds to acquire mortgages and get them refinanced. But he has not done so. Nor has he purchased any mortgage-related assets. . .

I fault the Treasury on at least six dimensions: First, while I understand the need to keep proprietary information confidential, the program is enshrouded in too much secrecy. It is, after all, the taxpayers’ money being put at risk. Second, Secretary Paulson decided to purchase preferred stock with no voting, or other control, rights. So the government provides money, but acquires virtually no influence over the recipient banks’ behavior. Third, taxpayers will receive only a 5% dividend on their investment (for the first five years). Curiously, just days before the legislation was passed, Warren Buffett concluded a deal with Goldman Sachs (a major recipient of TARP money) that included both preferred stock with a 10% dividend yield and more attractive warrants. . . . Fourth, participating banks are allowed to continue to pay dividends to their shareholders. This raises the spectacle of banks borrowing money (cheaply) from taxpayers in order to maintain their common stock dividends. Fifth, contrary to many suggestions, Secretary Paulson did not require participating banks to raise private capital parri passu with the government’s capital injections, which would at least have provided a valuable market test of viability. Sixth, the capital injections are being made with no public-purpose quid pro quos at all—e.g., a minimal lending requirement, or a pledge to refinance more mortgages.

Frankly, I find it all breathtaking.



At least the current stimulus bill being worked on will be paying for something concrete, which beats the hell out of the taxpayers being forced to pay the agents of the economy's ruination, without even any guarantees that the banks will resume lending (and evidence shows they aren't). As mentioned in today's Der Spiegel, in all liklihood the taxpayer soaking isn't done yet, either, since the November bailout did little to clean up the enormous pool of toxic assets still being held by banks (but did pay for bonuses and golden toilets ;) ); the ultimate price tag may require (conservative estimates) 1-1.4 trillion more just to recapitalize the banks:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,604248,00.html

All things considered, I feel a heck a lot more comfortable with a few of my tax dollars going to something which will clearly benefit the public good (and reap rewards down the road) than with what we handed out last autumn.

And, finally, can we just go ahead and use the 'D' word already? We're not kidding anyone but ourselves, folks:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090129/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/economy

Regards,
Nydia

Depression!!!! and i'm smack dab on the bad side of it already!

Oh you must be fucking kidding me.

WASHINGTON: The $800 billion-plus economic stimulus measure making its way through Congress could steer government checks to illegal immigrants,

HAHAHA...that explains the distant rumblings of a far off detonation to the west of me...there must be pieces of Osg all over Colorado.

Yea probably was bits of me falling all over these here beautiful Rockies...


Lets add these for tonight.


Obama's economic stimulus bill includes his plan to force all American to have their entire health care history recorded in a government electronic database that privacy experts say could result in your most private medical issues being shared and viewed by no-one-knows who.

After the House passed what conservative watchdog Michelle Malkin calls the Generational Theft Act of 2009 worth $1 trillion + in debt to the American people and loaded with leftist pork like $335,000,000 for training Americans how not to catch the clap, Obama, who promised to lead a "new era of responsibility," served up $100/ounce wagyu steak for some pals at the White House as shocking numbers of American homeless and jobless struggled to survive.

On 19 May 2008, Obama chided Americans that it is wrong for them to keep their thermostats on 72 degrees and stated, "That's not leadership. That's not going to happen." On 21 January 2009, Obama's chief political advisor, David Axelrod, said Obama will be keeping the Oval Office thermostat so high that "You could grow orchids in there" because "He likes it warm."

President Obama went to bat for accused USS Cole attack mastermind Abu al-Nashiri and told military judge James Pohl to postpone the terrorist's trial. On 29 January 2009, Pohl refused the presidential order. The attack killed 17 American sailors and wounded several dozen.

On 29 January 2009, it was learned that despite his many repeated promises, Obama was stacking his regime with lobbyists, such as William Corr (finance industry) and Mark Patterson (anti-tobacco industry, despite Obama being a heavy smoker), in addition to William Lynn of the defense industry.

Lets get this updated for this week... here is some more from the most corrupt administration in American history.

President Obama went to bat for accused USS Cole attack mastermind Abu al-Nashiri and told military judge James Pohl to postpone the terrorist's trial. On 29 January 2009, Pohl refused the presidential order. The attack killed 17 American sailors and wounded several dozen.

On 29 January 2009, it was learned that despite his many repeated promises, Obama was stacking his regime with lobbyists, such as William Corr (finance industry) and Mark Patterson (anti-tobacco industry, despite Obama being a heavy smoker), in addition to William Lynn of the defense industry.

In January 2009, more than 1 million homes from Texas to Maine were without power after a winter storm; dozens of people died in the storm. Estimates for some areas said it could be two weeks or more before power would be restored. Obama did nothing to save lives and restore power, instead cranking up the heat in the Oval Office, according to David Axelrod, to tropical levels. No liberals complained about Obama total lack of effective and timely response to the calamity, as they did after Katrina about Bush.

On 30 January 2009, it was learned that Tom Daschle, Obama's nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services, is a tax cheat who owes gigantic sums of money to the IRS, and who as a senator took hundreds of thousands of dollars in "donations" from the health care industry, which he will control if approved for the post.

Despite his promise not to conduct foreign diplomatic and national security business before taking office, Barack Obama, it was learned on 1 February 2009, had his advisors from the primarily leftist pacifist group United States Institute of Peace and transition staff (including Ellen Laipson and William Perry) conducting secret, "very, very high-level" meetings in Damascus with Syrian and Iranian officials, according to Jeffrey Boutwell.

During an interview with NBC's Matt Lauer on Superbowl Sunday 2009, Obama mocked and insulted Jessica Simpson by stating she is "losing a weight battle, apparently," after Lauer pointed out Simpson had replaced Obama on the cover of Us magazine. He also stated to Lauer that "People think I'm cool."

Shortly after taking power, Obama appointed Carol Browner to be his regime's energy and environment czar. He didn't tell us that she is a Marxist and a member of the Socialist International Commission for a Sustainable World Society, according to that organization's own website.

Nancy Killefer, nominated by Obama to be his regime's chief performance officer, withdrew her name from nomination on 3 February 2009 after it was learned she owed huge sums to the IRS.

On 3 February 2009, Tom Daschle, nominated by Obama to be his regime's secretary of health and human services, withdrew his name from nomination after it was learened he owed approximately $155,000 in back taxes that were only recently paid back after he was nominated.

On 4 February 2009, in a shocking break with the time-honored tradition of "generals serve at the pleasure of the president," retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni said he was now refusing to accept and position in the Obama regime.

On 4 February 2009, Gallup reported that Obama's favorable poll ratings, even before "Terrible Tuesday," had plummeted a shocking 14%.

On 4 February 2009, it was learned that Obama's Labor Secretary nominee, Hilda Solis, had lobbied for herself as a member of Congress, a clear violation of House ethics rules, and she is a pro-union activist, another ethics debacle that forced her nomination to be placed on hold.

LOL...once again filled with inaccuracies.

The Jessica Simpson thing was him reading the cover of the magazine. Fuck Osgi, do you even think for your own outside of email forwards?

Ran across this posting elsewhere, and thought I would share.

And yes, I snopes'd it first...Can't find the original on the paper's website, though.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/castro.asp

This appeared on the Editorial Page of the Richmond (VA) Times-Dispatch July 7, 2008.

Editor, Times-Dispatch



Each year I get to celebrate Independence Day twice. On June 30th, I celebrate my independence day and on July 4th, I celebrate America 's. This year is special because it marks the 40th anniversary of my independence.



On June 30, 1968, I escaped Communist Cuba and a few months later I was in the United States to stay. That I happened to arrive in Richmond on Thanksgiving Day is just part of the story, but I digress.



I've thought a lot about the anniversary this year. The election-year rhetoric has made me think a lot about Cuba and what transpired there. In the late 1950's, most Cubans thought Cuba needed a change, and they were right. So when a young leader came along, every Cuban was at least receptive.



When the young leader spoke eloquently and passionately and denounced the old system, the press fell in love with him. They never questioned who his friends were or what he really believed in. When he said he would help the farmers and the poor and bring free medical care and education to all, everyone followed. When he said he would bring justice and equality to all, everyone said 'Praise the Lord'. And when the young leader said, 'I wil be for change and I'll bring you change, everyone yelled, 'Viva Fidel!'



But nobody asked about the change, so by the time the executioner' s guns went silent, the people's guns had been taken away. By that time everyone was equal; they were equally poor, hungry, and oppressed. By the time everyone received their free education, it was worth nothing. By the time the press noticed, it was too late because they were now working for him. By the time the change was finally implemented, Cuba had been knocked down a couple of notches to Third-World status. By the time the change was over, more than a million people had taken to boats, rafts, and inner tubes. You can call those who made it ashore anywhere else in the world the most fortunate Cubans. And now I'm back to the beginning of my story.



Luckily, we would never fall in America for a left leaning young leader who promised change without asking: What change? How will you carry it out? What will it cost America?



Would we?



Manuel Alvarez, Jr.
Sandy Hook, VA

Ran across this posting elsewhere, and thought I would share.

And yes, I snopes'd it first...Can't find the original on the paper's website, though.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/castro.asp

This appeared on the Editorial Page of the Richmond (VA) Times-Dispatch July 7, 2008.

How does it feel to be the conspiracy theorists for once? Damn Republicans... Obama will be as much of a Castro as Bush was a Hitler.

You maybe right JEddster..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuwgHNtyD54

How does it feel to be the conspiracy theorists for once? Damn Republicans... Obama will be as much of a Castro as Bush was a Hitler.

Stop with the generalizations please.

I'm a Republican and I'm not looking to fit myself with a tinfoil hat.

On the other hand Democrats are looking a bit worn at the edges as a party atm.

It is hard to be the ruling party, the lime light is upon you and every mistake sure to be amplified.

How does it feel to be the conspiracy theorists for once? Damn Republicans... Obama will be as much of a Castro as Bush was a Hitler.


Last time I checked I wasn't a Republican....
And I didn't write the letter, merely shared it.
Is your stance that Mr. Alvarez, who was in Cuba during the Revolution, lacks some sort of credibility on comparing what happened there, and what is happening here?

It's not a conspiracy theory that Cuba is a Communist nation, based upon the desire of the people there wanting a change from what was the status quo. While I'm pretty sure that won't happen here in the U.S., I see the lesson in broader terms: Beware politicians promising change, you might get exactly that!

Last time I checked I wasn't a Republican....
And I didn't write the letter, merely shared it.
Is your stance that Mr. Alvarez, who was in Cuba during the Revolution, lacks some sort of credibility on comparing what happened there, and what is happening here?

It's not a conspiracy theory that Cuba is a Communist nation, based upon the desire of the people there wanting a change from what was the status quo. While I'm pretty sure that won't happen here in the U.S., I see the lesson in broader terms: Beware politicians promising change, you might get exactly that!

well...

The response of snopes would appear to believe that. Instead of just noticing that it was in fact on snopes, and it was in fact a letter to the editor, it might help for you to read the response as to the false generalizations or omissions of history in the letter to the editor.

Just because this guy wrote a letter to the editor attempting to make baseless comparisons doesn't mean he's credible.

I mean hell, I have been alive for the last 30 years. That must make me an expert on the Iran Contra situation, Monica Lewinsky, the Patriot Act, etc., just because I lived through it...

That's not to say the guy might not be an expert on what it's like to get on a boat and float illegally to the US. What basis is there to think this guy is any sort of expert on politics though? All we have is the guy's name. That puts none of his opinions into context.

Hey the Republicans have this guy who calls himself Joe and his name is really Samuel and he was a plumber but wasn't one and he became a war correspondent but left after his only story of the war he was at contained his disdain for war correspondents and he is expert enough to now be a political advisor to the Republican Party...so what's an expert?

"In January 2009, more than 1 million homes from Texas to Maine were without power after a winter storm; dozens of people died in the storm. Estimates for some areas said it could be two weeks or more before power would be restored. Obama did nothing to save lives and restore power, instead cranking up the heat in the Oval Office, according to David Axelrod, to tropical levels. No liberals complained about Obama total lack of effective and timely response to the calamity, as they did after Katrina about Bush."



Alright, this is now in the realm of poor stand up comedian fodder.

Why? Bush was castigated for his Katrina response and when a disaster happens to these folks it's fine..no sweat.. not to mention we have to turn our heat down but ol'double standard Barry can do what he wants. What a way to lead by example.

Katrina - 1,836 fatalities centered around mostly one city
"Massive" Winter Storm - 25 fatalities throughout 12 states

Never mind that the national guard was on the ground and emergency shelters were open BEFORE the winter storm hit.

You don't notice a huge fucking difference?

You don't notice a huge fucking difference?

Mid west states (or what ever wanna call them) have Mayor's and Govs who actually do their job?

Why? Bush was castigated for his Katrina response and when a disaster happens to these folks it's fine..no sweat.. not to mention we have to turn our heat down but ol'double standard Barry can do what he wants. What a way to lead by example.

Bush also gutted FEMA, and folded what was left of it into the Homeland Security department, with an ineffectual figurehead that had no experience whatsoever in the area of disaster relief.

President Obama has been in office all of two weeks.

Attempting to make these comparisons this early into his term is pathetic, at best.

Why? Bush was castigated for his Katrina response and when a disaster happens to these folks it's fine..no sweat.. not to mention we have to turn our heat down but ol'double standard Barry can do what he wants. What a way to lead by example.


LOL...Bush should have not only been castigated for the Federal response to Katrina, he should have been castrated. Look at New Orleans, the Ninth Ward, it looks like friggin' Beirut and we are going on four years after the storm.

As Byl said, FEMA was folded into DHS and as we can see DHS is one of the worst run and completely useless departments in the government. Bush was totally incompetent. His appointments were mostly done with other incompetent or people that lacked any experience in the area they were appointed to.

This country will pay the price of the incompetence and greed of both the Bush administration and the republican congress and senate for decades to come, if we are still here as a nation.

All I see is Ray "Chocolate city" Nagan completely and utterly failed to follow his cities emergency preparedness plan. If anyone is to blame is would be Chocolate City and that Governor. They killed 1800 people.

All I see is Ray "Chocolate city" Nagan completely and utterly failed to follow his cities emergency preparedness plan. If anyone is to blame is would be Chocolate City and that Governor. They killed 1800 people.


Actually Nagan followed the exact plan laid out which was to use the Super dome and the other place, name slips my mind, as points of mass shelter. The point that Nagan might have failed at was to use the available school buses to evacuate. Evacuae to where is the question tho?

The federal governments faiures were caused by cuts in some extremely essential services that were surprisingly cut after 9/11, that is what I find most intriuging.

Think about it, total failure to move in supplies and medical help, no contingency for hospitals being closed, the list goes on and on and this after 4 years of an administration that had FULL support of congress and the senate (remember they were overwhelmingly republican controlled) to not fund or even come up with a coherent and competent plan or force to deal with a major disaster.

Don't forget that whole administration had touted itself as the ones who could bring security and emergency response to its finest when called for.

You say that Nagan is responsible for 1800 deaths, a mayor of a city that has no force like the National Guard or Coast Guard or the logistics abilities of FEMA or they were supposed to have. Whether a city is run by a republican or democrat they ALL have very limited resources consisting of Police, Fire and Ambulence services.

Katrina was the equivelent of a nuclear explosion with no radiation and a speck of the casualties, imagine had it been a bomb... I can't imagine with the incompetence that was displayed by Bush and those he appointed what would have been.

Nagan is partially responsible, they failed to follow evacuation procedures. Tbh Nagan bears almost as much responsibility as the Gov of the time. If I recall there was a lack of action prior to the storm reaching the area.

This doesn't remove Bush and co. from their share, but local govt > federal govt when it comes to taking care of local issues.

I'm from Louisiana and there was most definately fault to the mayor and governor..... they were late in asking for help... by the time they asked is was almost too late to intervene.

Now bear in mind I hold plenty of fault with FEMA's response but who failed first and foremost by failing to follow plans laid out? Chocolate did...

I'm from Louisiana and there was most definately fault to the mayor and governor..... they were late in asking for help... by the time they asked is was almost too late to intervene.

Bise I do agree but I lay more blame on the Governor than I do the Mayor of NO. It's a matter of resources available to the level of government. Governors have military units available at their order Mayors do not.

I could agree with your statement... our governor at the time sucked.....

I could agree with your statement... our governor at the time sucked.....


LOL...this is why she is no longer governor

5 February 2009: On Obama's orders, military judge Susan J. Crawford dropped all charges against USS Cole bombing mastermind Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who led the operation that nearly sank the Cole, wounded dozens of sailors, and killed 17 sailors in Aden Harbor, Yemen, in October 2000.

On 5 February 2009, Obama ordered the pilot of Air Force One to fly him a mere 37 minutes to a retreat in Virginia to hobnob with his fellow Democrats. He refused to take Marine One or the presidential limo to save fuel and money and reduce air pollution, which he says causes global warming.

5 February 2009: On Obama's orders, military judge Susan J. Crawford dropped all charges against USS Cole bombing mastermind Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who led the operation that nearly sank the Cole, wounded dozens of sailors, and killed 17 sailors in Aden Harbor, Yemen, in October 2000.

On 5 February 2009, Obama ordered the pilot of Air Force One to fly him a mere 37 minutes to a retreat in Virginia to hobnob with his fellow Democrats. He refused to take Marine One or the presidential limo to save fuel and money and reduce air pollution, which he says causes global warming.


Osg, it is ommon knowledge that the charges were dropped against Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri because they would not be able to convict him correctly the way he was charged. It is well known that he is being charged differently with charges that have a much better chance of convicting him...so really enough already you know the context is wrong.

The second one is patently false.

5 February 2009: On Obama's orders, military judge Susan J. Crawford dropped all charges against USS Cole bombing mastermind Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who led the operation that nearly sank the Cole, wounded dozens of sailors, and killed 17 sailors in Aden Harbor, Yemen, in October 2000.

On 5 February 2009, Obama ordered the pilot of Air Force One to fly him a mere 37 minutes to a retreat in Virginia to hobnob with his fellow Democrats. He refused to take Marine One or the presidential limo to save fuel and money and reduce air pollution, which he says causes global warming.


Yeah, 'cus the Secret Service has nothing to say about his travel plans.

In February 2009, Obama, who avoided all military service, told the Joint Chiefs of Staff he did not trust their judgment or war plans in Afghanistan, and ordered them to re-evaluate their future operations in Afghanistan despite the tremendous successes they produced in Iraq and despite the massive number of terrorists being killed in Afghanistan. Obama issued the insult on behalf of senior Democrat leaders who, like Obama, distrust the military and all military personnel.

In February 2009, Obama broke federal law (Title 13 of the US Code) by seizing control of the Census Bureau in order to redistrict voting in 2012 to favor the Democratic Party. This is an impeachable federal offense. Title 13 states the Census Bureau is controlled by the Department of Commerce.

Keep reaching Bro..your almost there....Limbaugh's nutsack is almost in your mouth...

In February 2009, Obama, who avoided all military service, told the Joint Chiefs of Staff he did not trust their judgment or war plans in Afghanistan, and ordered them to re-evaluate their future operations in Afghanistan despite the tremendous successes they produced in Iraq and despite the massive number of terrorists being killed in Afghanistan. Obama issued the insult on behalf of senior Democrat leaders who, like Obama, distrust the military and all military personnel.

So. you think things are going well in Afghanistan presently?

In February 2009, Obama broke federal law (Title 13 of the US Code) by seizing control of the Census Bureau in order to redistrict voting in 2012 to favor the Democratic Party. This is an impeachable federal offense. Title 13 states the Census Bureau is controlled by the Department of Commerce.

Wha-huh?

He indicated that he may possibly ask for a review of census procedures. Lets not put the cart before the horse here.

This is fun... This should be like a booth at the carnival. 5 Bucks to smack down the crazy shit coming from the Nut Job's mouth. Get 3 and win a prize!

I must admit seizing the Census doesn't bode well for bipartisian ruling.

There is no good reason to do such that I can see. Other than redrawing lines why else is it such a top priority for Obama's regime?

Think about it Fandros. For the first time in eight years the health care and education needs of the entire country are about to be addressed. They need to know who lives where and what they make and need before allocating funds. Remember $650 million of the stimulus is to prepare the country for nationalized health care. Need to know where these folks live.

Think about it Fandros. For the first time in eight years the health care and education needs of the entire country are about to be addressed. They need to know who lives where and what they make and need before allocating funds. Remember $650 million of the stimulus is to prepare the country for nationalized health care. Need to know where these folks live.

Sorry Kelraz that doesn't wash.

It's one thing to ask for a copy of the census to do you suggested and another to seize the entire thing and hide the info from anyone else.

Its weird ( for lack of a better term ), and is certainly not what I envisioned when he spoke of doing business a different way in Washington.

To go down that "ZOMG, he seized it" path of reasoning, you have to first accept that the Fox News crew's explanation of his motives is correct. Sort of jumping the gun there.

Is it impossible that he really did want to make sure the 2010 census was more accurate than 2000's, especially in terms of the illegal alien issues?

Sorry Kelraz that doesn't wash.

It's one thing to ask for a copy of the census to do you suggested and another to seize the entire thing and hide the info from anyone else.

Its weird ( for lack of a better term ), and is certainly not what I envisioned when he spoke of doing business a different way in Washington.



He indicated that he may possibly ask for a review of census procedures.


That should maybe help clarify the facts.

LoL I didn't get my info from Fox was just asking as the info was presented here. I did hear a blurb on this from KSL radio local news and was curious.

Thanks for the big print though Rover. I'll be sure to return the favor soon , since you are such an old coot you'll need the bigger print ;P

To go down that "ZOMG, he seized it" path of reasoning, you have to first accept that the Fox News crew's explanation of his motives is correct. Sort of jumping the gun there.

Is it impossible that he really did want to make sure the 2010 census was more accurate than 2000's, especially in terms of the illegal alien issues?

/chuckle too easy but hell since you put the pinata' up and are quick to fuck with others....

Illegal aliens aren't too prone to answering the census and filling out the blocks for a govt form.....

Might be other valid reasons, but I doubt it's due to the illegal alien issue.

LoL I didn't get my info from Fox was just asking as the info was presented here. I did hear a blurb on this from KSL radio local news and was curious.

Still awfully defensive about that, eh?

In February 2009, Obama broke federal law (Title 13 of the US Code) by seizing control of the Census Bureau in order to redistrict voting in 2012 to favor the Democratic Party. This is an impeachable federal offense. Title 13 states the Census Bureau is controlled by the Department of Commerce.

You're using their verbiage, whether you mean to or not. Those sources are the only ones I've seen describe it as "seizing".

How you came upon doing that isn't very relevant.

/chuckle too easy but hell since you put the pinata' up and are quick to fuck with others....

Illegal aliens aren't too prone to answering the census and filling out the blocks for a govt form.....

Might be other valid reasons, but I doubt it's due to the illegal alien issue.

Duh...

That's the point. It has been often suggested that we need to rejigger our methods in this area so that we don't preclude ourselves from getting an accurate count.

If ever there was a time, the 2010 census is it.

LoL I didn't get my info from Fox was just asking as the info was presented here.


Yeah but you gotta look at the presenter...he's bat shit crazy.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/10/gop-lawmaker-calls-probe-obama-decision-oversee-census/

Oh...sorry....I thought you were the presenter here...so he and she are bat shit crazy...add one more to the lunatic fringe.

Still awfully defensive about that, eh?



You're using their verbiage, whether you mean to or not. Those sources are the only ones I've seen describe it as "seizing".

How you came upon doing that isn't very relevant.



Duh...

That's the point. It has been often suggested that we need to rejigger our methods in this area so that we don't preclude ourselves from getting an accurate count.

If ever there was a time, the 2010 census is it.

Pretty pretty , but unless you knock down the doors and force a head count at gunpoint it's not going to happen.

If the report is accurate, sounds like it's not, then there is no real good reason to grab the report. Definately not the strawman point of trying to count illegals with a census...sheeshh reaching 101

Just saying....

The "report" is from the fundamental rightwing nuts. There is no more a "report" on this than there is on faked moon landings. Anywhere that uses the word seize in conjunction with this is clearly flowing from the same source.

You calling it a "report" is either betraying your true alignment or your willful ignorance on the subject.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/02/07/only-fox-news-concerned-obamas-census-bureau-coup

I don't follow links from work so I don't violate work computer rules.

So while I'm not willfully ignorant of the subject I am ignorant of it ;P

Lets get up to date with the corruption shall we?

On 12 February 2009, Sen, Judd Gregg, in another humiliation for Obama, withdrew his name from nomination as the Secretary of Commerce, saying his views conflicted too sharply with the radical ideology of Barack Obama.

On 17 February 2009, Obama signed into law the largest spending bill in human history, consisting of $1.3 trillion with interest and made up mostly of special-interest pork projects that the Congressional Budget Office stated will reduce wages for most Americans. Obama flew to Denver on this date to plug green energy technology; he took Air Force One, a Boeing 747 tat is supported by numerous other presidential aircraft that dumped massive amounts of toxic pollutants into the atmosphere.

On 18 February 2009, Obama Attorney General Eric Holder outraged and insulted many Americans when he called America a "nation of cowards" because, in his opinion, they do not want to address racial issues he believes plague America. Holder is black, as is the president, and there have been black senators, black congressmen, black Supreme Court justices, two black secretaries of state, two black Sergeants Major of the Marine Corps, a black Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, four black governors and countless other blacks in high office.

On 18 February 2009, the Washington Times reported on how Obama, despite his publicly stated aversion to using the American flag as a false indicator of patriotism, is now using regular displays of numerous American flags as his backdrop to demonstrate his patriotism.

On 18 February 2009, Politico reported that at least six "prominent journalists" who had reported very favorably on Obama during his campaign, had been offered and had accepted jobs within the Obama regime.

In the 3rd week of February 2009, the Federal Election Commission notified Judicial Watch that Obama had in fact received a deeply discounted home loan (a savings of $108,000) from Northern Trust, which supported Obama's candidacies since 1990, that regular Americans could not receive. The loan was far below the normal interest rate at the time, had no origination fee (standard for regular people) and no discount points (standard for regular people), but the FEC claimed Obama broke no laws in securing the super sweetheart deal. The FEC also notified Judicial Watch that it was closing the file on Obama's highly unethical but still legal loan.

LOL...man you really reach. When is the "Obama got a blowjob" coming?

It scares me to death that none of this bothers you...

On 12 February 2009, Sen, Judd Gregg, in another humiliation for Obama, withdrew his name from nomination as the Secretary of Commerce, saying his views conflicted too sharply with the radical ideology of Barack Obama.

So Gregg who ASKED for a position in the administration and took the appointment suddenly changes his mind just in time for the bailout bill to be passed. Was he unaware of what was coming? Perhaps he wanted the republican version of tax cuts and bank deregulation. He was part of what was an obvious setup in a very lame attempt at scuttling the Obama administrations attempting to stem the tide.

On 17 February 2009, Obama signed into law the largest spending bill in human history, consisting of $1.3 trillion with interest and made up mostly of special-interest pork projects that the Congressional Budget Office stated will reduce wages for most Americans. Obama flew to Denver on this date to plug green energy technology; he took Air Force One, a Boeing 747 tat is supported by numerous other presidential aircraft that dumped massive amounts of toxic pollutants into the atmosphere.

It is not the largest spending bill in history...do your research. And no, I'm not concerned that the President of the United States used Air Force One to travel, I actually kind of expect him to.


On 18 February 2009, Obama Attorney General Eric Holder outraged and insulted many Americans when he called America a "nation of cowards" because, in his opinion, they do not want to address racial issues he believes plague America. Holder is black, as is the president, and there have been black senators, black congressmen, black Supreme Court justices, two black secretaries of state, two black Sergeants Major of the Marine Corps, a black Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, four black governors and countless other blacks in high office.

Yeah it was a retarded and not well thought out statement...perhaps he can clarify it. But I checked and I don't see any danger here to things like lets say...the first or second or fourth amendments. Lets hope that the extent of his errors stays at about that level.

On 18 February 2009, the Washington Times reported on how Obama, despite his publicly stated aversion to using the American flag as a false indicator of patriotism, is now using regular displays of numerous American flags as his backdrop to demonstrate his patriotism.

I believe it is traditional for the President of the United States to display the American Flag. Also, you might want to check on the accusation that Obama has an "aversion" to displaying the flag...I believe that he said..."Wearing a Flag Pin is not the litmus test for patriotism"


On 18 February 2009, Politico reported that at least six "prominent journalists" who had reported very favorably on Obama during his campaign, had been offered and had accepted jobs within the Obama regime.

OMG...you mean they left jobs in journalism to take jobs in the administration? How unnerving...

I seem to remember quite a few journalists writing favorable articles about a past administration..problem was they were being paid by that administration and oddly enough never disclosed that.


In the 3rd week of February 2009, the Federal Election Commission notified Judicial Watch that Obama had in fact received a deeply discounted home loan (a savings of $108,000) from Northern Trust, which supported Obama's candidacies since 1990, that regular Americans could not receive. The loan was far below the normal interest rate at the time, had no origination fee (standard for regular people) and no discount points (standard for regular people), but the FEC claimed Obama broke no laws in securing the super sweetheart deal. The FEC also notified Judicial Watch that it was closing the file on Obama's highly unethical but still legal loan.

First I heard of this...but it clearly states that an investigation was done and found that no laws were broken.


So no...I'm not concerned.

It worries me that you are not at all embarrassed to be posting such silly stuff, Osg.

Here's what really concerns me:

1) In Sept of 2008 the Bush administration wrote a bill that gave...for free...over 700 billion dollars to banks and the banks were not required to account for a penny of the money they received. In fact...they still haven't accounted for it.

2) The war in Iraq which is indisputably a war of aggression by the US and a war that has done nothing but to add to the destabilizing of the middle east and has cost over 4000 lives of US military personnel not to mention the tens of thousands wounded both physically and psychologically along with costs nearing or exceeding 1 trillion dollars is still going on.

3) That since October 2008 Wall street firms and Banks have received 700 billion dollars and Iraq has received 60 billion dollars from the government and people are not only bitching about but getting outright mean about A 75 billion dollar investment in America that would make a real difference in peoples lives by keeping them in their homes.

That scares me that you're more concerned that the President used Air Force One to travel than you are about the above.

Whoa, so we all agree Obama didn't put together this stimulas bill but now you are trying say Bush wrote the last one?

Sorry bub, that starts not with the administration but with the Democrats you cheered into victory a few years back.

/cough and was told they were the same type of crooks you wanted out.

Need to slip off the glasses O'bias and start targeting individuals instead of your constant "republicans are teh Ebil!".

It's wrong and VERY shortsighted.

Plus, what's the total cost of the bank bailout at now? It's more than 700 billion already, right? The number they promoted was only the cap at any one given time. The total cost is going to be several trillion by most estimates.

Whoa, so we all agree Obama didn't put together this stimulas bill but now you are trying say Bush wrote the last one?

Sorry bub, that starts not with the administration but with the Democrats you cheered into victory a few years back.

/cough and was told they were the same type of crooks you wanted out.

Need to slip off the glasses O'bias and start targeting individuals instead of your constant "republicans are teh Ebil!".

It's wrong and VERY shortsighted.


Yeah I believe a guy named Henry Paulson wrote the bank bailout bill...check your history.

Yeah, clearly a EBIL REPUBLICAN BILL....sheeshh

Senate Vote on H.R.5140

Dems For 46 Dems against 0 Abstained 3
Repubs For 33 Repubs against 16

House Vote on H.R.5140

Dems For 216 against 10
Repubs For 169 against 25

Bear in mind Democrats head all discussion groups on ...well everything.

So Rover, again I tell you it is time to take off your Glasses O'bias and look at either individuals or better yet realize there is no real difference between the parties.

LOL...man you really reach. When is the "Obama got a blowjob" coming?

I'd take 1 of thoise from Michelle Obama, hands down!

1) In Sept of 2008 the Bush administration wrote a bill that gave...for free...over 700 billion dollars to banks and the banks were not required to account for a penny of the money they received. In fact...they still haven't accounted for it.

Rover, The Legislative writes bills, the Executive signs them into law....

So the Obama Administration wrote the most current bill too? Or didn't?

From what I recall in the 2008 bailout bill written by Paulson the democrats had a slight majority in congress not even enough to pass the bill without republican votes. I do recall that the first vote failed due to lack of Republican support and finally passed after the republicans agreed to support it if certain of their projects were added to the bill.

Do I think the democrats bear no responsibility...clearly I do not come even close to that...I think you would have a leg to stand on if you could say that the republicans only voted for it once there were guarantees and rules of transparency added...but there were no rules added and there was no transparency added...only ridiculous tax breaks and your favorite target...pork barrel projects...that republicans demanded.

The whole thing is a cluster fuck...but to not take into account the facts is not prudent and irresponsible. As far as Obama goes, the man has been in office 30 days as of today and we see people and republicans actually attacking him, the President of the United States, for flying across the country on Air Force One...do tell...has he set a new precedent here? Is that unusual for a President to do?

Rover, The Legislative writes bills, the Executive signs them into law....

So the Obama Administration wrote the most current bill too? Or didn't?

Is your memory that short? It is clearly known that the bank bailout amount and terms were written by Paulson...that is a well known fact.

So the Obama Administration wrote the most current bill too

They wrote the current one too? As opposed to the one they wrote when they weren't even elected to office? I think election day was in November 2008...a few weeks after the bill was signed into law.

From what I recall in the 2008 bailout bill written by Paulson the democrats had a slight majority in congress not even enough to pass the bill without republican votes. I do recall that the first vote failed due to lack of Republican support and finally passed after the republicans agreed to support it if certain of their projects were added to the bill.

Do I think the democrats bear no responsibility...clearly I do not come even close to that...I think you would have a leg to stand on if you could say that the republicans only voted for it once there were guarantees and rules of transparency added...but there were no rules added and there was no transparency added...only ridiculous tax breaks and your favorite target...pork barrel projects...that republicans demanded.

The whole thing is a cluster fuck...but to not take into account the facts is not prudent and irresponsible. As far as Obama goes, the man has been in office 30 days as of today and we see people and republicans actually attacking him, the President of the United States, for flying across the country on Air Force One...do tell...has he set a new precedent here? Is that unusual for a President to do?

Tbh I have no issue at all with him using Air Force One. It's not as if he's flying about to golf or play a pickup game with the Celts.

The man is working hard and is stumbling as much as succeeds. All to be expected with someone taking over a high profile job.

Both parties are riding these pieces of shit Stimulus bills to nowhere on the high hog.

Hold both groups accountable and I'll be right there with ya Rover ;)

Now, gimme that drink!

Tbh I have no issue at all with him using Air Force One. It's not as if he's flying about to golf or play a pickup game with the Celts.

The man is working hard and is stumbling as much as succeeds. All to be expected with someone taking over a high profile job.

Both parties are riding these pieces of shit Stimulus bills to nowhere on the high hog.

Hold both groups accountable and I'll be right there with ya Rover ;)

Now, gimme that drink!

/opens a bottle of Scotch...

I agree that both parties should be held to full accountability.

OMW!!!!

Fire up the grill, I'll bring the steaks!

OMW!!!!

Fire up the grill, I'll bring the steaks!

I guess I will go out, so the two of you can be "alone".

You try to leave and I'll throw a pair of bolas at your legs!!

Is this the part where we talk about these two being hung in Iran. :devil

lol

Wow, it's like saying Frau Blücher in Young Frankenstein.
Mention Iran, and Jedd just HAS to post....
e5IWHt4OoNk

n 18 February 2009, the Washington Times reported on how Obama, despite his publicly stated aversion to using the American flag as a false indicator of patriotism, is now using regular displays of numerous American flags as his backdrop to demonstrate his patriotism.

On 18 February 2009, Politico reported that at least six "prominent journalists" who had reported very favorably on Obama during his campaign, had been offered and had accepted jobs within the Obama regime.

In the 3rd week of February 2009, the Federal Election Commission notified Judicial Watch that Obama had in fact received a deeply discounted home loan (a savings of $108,000) from Northern Trust, which supported Obama's candidacies since 1990, that regular Americans could not receive. The loan was far below the normal interest rate at the time, had no origination fee (standard for regular people) and no discount points (standard for regular people), but the FEC claimed Obama broke no laws in securing the super sweetheart deal. The FEC also notified Judicial Watch that it was closing the file on Obama's highly unethical but still legal loan.

On 20 February 2009, in another embarrasing communications and policy gaff, the Obama regime had to publicly slap down Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood's suggestion that the regime might tax Americans for every mile they drive.

According to a Kerry aid on 20 February 2009, Sen. John Kerry, after being admittedly caught carrying a letter from Hamas to Obama that was the first step in establishing a direct and personal dialogue between Hamas and Obama, turned the letter over to the Jerusalem consul general. Kerry is now claiming it is all a big mistake and he didn't know the letter was from Hamas.

On 17 February 2009, on Obama's orders, 16 people were killed in a coalition operation in Afghanistan, but only 3 were terrorists; the others were civilians, including two children and six women. Obama had no comment on the body count of kids and women he has already amassed as commander in chief.

On 20 February 2009, in a move that infuriated the ACLU and human rights groups around the world, Obama stunned many when he ordered his lawyers to file a brief stating, despite his many vehement campaign promises to the contrary, terrorists held prisoner by the US in Afghanistan have absolutely no rights whatsoever.

On 21 February 2009, in a shocking policy statement that sent human rights groups into a blind rage, Secretary of State Clinton said during a visit to China, one of the most repressive communist regimes in history, that "human rights cannot interfere" with the economy, global warming and other issues, which take precedence. This statement stunned human rights groups who believed Obama when he repeatedly stated during his campaign that human rights would be a priority in his regime.

In the 3rd week of February 2009, Obama suffered his first major foreign policy & security disaster when he failed to convince Pakistan's government that it should not surrender control of the restive, terrorist-filled Swat Valley to the Taliban terrorism cartel, even though Obama said he was the candidate who, as president, would be more effective in leading the war on terror there. In the same week, top-secret photos were leaked revealing a US Predator drone base inside Pakistan.

In his second major foreign affairs and security failure of his newly installed regime, Obama failed to prevent the start-up of the Iranian terrorist regime nuclear plant at Bushehr, which is slated for 25 February 2009 according to Iran's government. The start-up will take place despite Obama, during his campaign, repeatedly insisting that his diplomatic skills would turn the Iranian terrorist government off their path to nuclear power.

Despite his innumerable campaign promises to do whatever it takes to win the war in Afghanistan and support our military's efforts there, in February 2009, Obama ignored the sage advice of our most respected military officers, including the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and refused to order at least 30,000 additional troops into Afghanistan, instead opting for just over half of what was requested.

On 23 February 2009, in another embarrasing demonstration of the Obama regime's blatant hypocrisy, the Detroit News reported that of the 18 member of Obama's Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry, only two drove American cars.

On 19 February 2009, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano issued the bold lie that no Mexican drug cartel violence had crossed the border. In reality, according to news reports in major papers and in broadcast media in Arizona (she is the former governor of that state) and elsewhere, numerous police departments in Arizona and elsewhere, the FBI, and the Cato Institute, Mexican drug cartel crime is very commonplace inside the United States and 230 cities have Mexican drug cartel cells. Napolitano is believed to have told the absurd lie because had she admitted to the contrary, Obama's plan for open borders and pro-illegal-alien immigration reform would be less acceptable to the American people.

As of 23 February 2009, the Dow had plummeted more than 1,000 points under Obama's economic policies and more than 2,000 points since his election. On 23 February 2009, when the markets learned Obama was going to make a statement on fiscal responsibility, the Dow fell 251 points.

LOL...the incidents are the same, the dates have been changed to ignore the truth.

n 18 February 2009, the Washington Times reported on how Obama, despite his publicly stated aversion to using the American flag as a false indicator of patriotism, is now using regular displays of numerous American flags as his backdrop to demonstrate his patriotism.




ROFLMAO!!!!!

Out of curiosity, which President did not have the American flag behind him as a backdrop during press conferences or speeches?

And, how loudly would the Fox-bots be screaming if he did not have the American flag behind him as a backdrop?

This stuff just gets sillier and sillier.

One month in office, and you are grasping at whatever you can possibly find to complain or attack about. Again, Osg, this is truly pathtic.



And, I am really disappointed in you for tossing in that one about the civilian casualties in a military operation, as if to say that Obama, unlike Bush, cares nothing about those losses. Did you ever once post anything about the Afghani or Iraqi civilian lives being lost under the Bush-Cheney regime, and their public reactions to that loss?

LOL...it is really funny. Republicans sudden worries over human rights, spending money, deficits, casualties from bombing and this is particularly ironic:

Obama ignored the sage advice of our most respected military officers, including the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and refused to order at least 30,000 additional troops into Afghanistan, instead opting for just over half of what was requested.

LOL...after Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld with Iraq and Afghanistan they actually will say that? The biggest joke in America the modern republican party.



I think they forgot to add things like Feb 2009 Glenn Beck of Fox news urging viewers to go out buy guns and supplies and start a civil war.

The annoying thing about that is I can't find 9mm ammo to save my life lately.

The annoying thing about that is I can't find 9mm ammo to save my life lately.


http://www.the-armory.com/shopsite_sc/store/html/9mm_ammo.html


They have it in stock...just scroll down...buy online!

You should dump that 9 and get a .45. You need knockdown power...not a neat little hole.

Shotgun for that.

why go for the weak shit? real men use the tsar cannon

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/14/TheTsarCannonJuly2004.jpg/250px-TheTsarCannonJuly2004.jpg

ohhhhhhh yeah.

I'll take this instead of your cannon...

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1439/1308949537_8a7697ee7a.jpg?v=0

Doesn't fit in my downstairs coat closet!

LOL...it is really funny. Republicans sudden worries over human rights, spending money, deficits, casualties from bombing and this is particularly ironic:



LOL...after Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld with Iraq and Afghanistan they actually will say that? The biggest joke in America the modern republican party.



I think they forgot to add things like Feb 2009 Glenn Beck of Fox news urging viewers to go out buy guns and supplies and start a civil war.

Biggest joke is BOTH parties....till you see that you are part of the problem and not a hint of the solution man. Don't feed either party as having a clean pair of hands in any regards.

http://www.impactguns.com/store/PI23502.html


My choice!!

Biggest joke is BOTH parties....till you see that you are part of the problem and not a hint of the solution man. Don't feed either party as having a clean pair of hands in any regards.

Will you ever stop deflecting onto both parties when someone points out republican bullshit?

Here, I'll deflect onto both parties regardless:

Both fucking parties are as bad as the other!

Will you ever stop deflecting onto both parties when someone points out republican bullshit?

Will you ever stop being the Iranian mouthpiece and plumber to the stars?

Shut up bub...

BOTH PARTIES ARE CORRUPT...

Biggest joke is BOTH parties....till you see that you are part of the problem and not a hint of the solution man. Don't feed either party as having a clean pair of hands in any regards.

How am I painting anyones hands being clean? This stuff Osg posted isn't coming from the DNC...it comes from the RNC or one of its derivatives.

I am fully aware of Clintons culpability in repealing Glass/Steagull while the nation was captivated more with a blowjob. I am aware the hand that Biden had in reworking bankruptcy laws to favor the wealthy and large financial institutions instead of the individual debtor. I wear glasses now but I am not blind.

Join me in my quest and call a spade a spade without dragging in the other guys crime...address each on its own demerits not on the demerits of the other guy.

Feh, because it's not a mess of one parties creation.

You refuse to learn that fact, it's not Rep/Dem it's a level of bile and corruption as well as a disconnect from any reality we perceive.

The choices would have been no different, are no different with the Dem's firmly in control.

Oh and I ignore the rabid Anti Obama tone Osg has taken as it's as far out in left(right?) field as some of the shit slung at Bush.

Until you, and all of us for that matter, force the crooks that have taken over Washington to be totally visible and accountable it's never going to change.

Having these polarized sides to choose kills us.

Almost everyone picks a side based on the weather, and then adopts and supports that side's ideals. Almost no one picks a side that represents their own ideals. Maybe most no longer have ideals of their own? Too used to being told what to think and do?

fair enough!

Doesn't fit in my downstairs coat closet!

get a bigger closet, you girly-man.

Having these polarized sides to choose kills us.

Almost everyone picks a side based on the weather, and then adopts and supports that side's ideals. Almost no one picks a side that represents their own ideals. Maybe most no longer have ideals of their own? Too used to being told what to think and do?

I'd say this pretty much nails it. We need a third contender to more accurately represent the moderates!

Well, I am saddened by the absence of a fresh post by Osg, thanking Obama for saving he and his party the humiliation of winning an election only to have all these money issues surrounding Palin being the hot topic of talk TV and radio.

Just today we learn that Palin has agreed to reimburse the state for trips using state government monies for her children. And, the issue we were discussing last fall about her per diem monies for living in her own hometown rather than at the capital has also become an issue of potential legal wrangling within the state.

Osg, I am sure, appreciates having Obama to kick around rather than having his own party "leaders" once again being roasted for their corrupt practices.

I just read the State of the Union, Osg will have a long post tomorrow no doubt!

What about the speech he's giving tonight to a joint session of congress? Did you get a chance to read that too?

Ummm ... same thing? I'm here! Shooting for BET News.

My mistake. Apparently since its an inaugural year there is no constitutional requirement for the President to make a state of the union address to Congress, and this is just an "address" though it is being treated as a State of the Union.

Didn't watch it and didn't care so no huge post by me... Might try and find some good commentary but no opinion from me and we all already know what its going to say and you all already know I wouldn't like it.

Obama basically said I'm going to cut your taxes and give you all money .... he said a check is in the mail already (or something close to that).... well, glad we had all this extra money to give to 95% of Americans........

I thought it was better than his recent ones full of gloom 'n doom. Maybe not that realistic or necessarily accurate, but better.

his recent ones full of gloom 'n doom.

You can only set your expectations so low :D

Obama basically said I'm going to cut your taxes and give you all money .... he said a check is in the mail already (or something close to that).... well, glad we had all this extra money to give to 95% of Americans........

I think he's getting it from the money he is going to stop sending to Iraq.

I think he's getting it from the money he is going to stop sending to Iraq.

Iraq wasn't in the speech that I noticed, but from the Congressmen I spoke with tonight there'll be an announcement in the next few days about 19(?) months from now bringing home 85% of the troops there - leaving the last few to train and oversee and gather intel.

Iraq wasn't in the speech that I noticed, but from the Congressmen I spoke with tonight there'll be an announcement in the next few days about 19(?) months from now bringing home 85% of the troops there - leaving the last few to train and oversee and gather intel.

Sweet, your insiders read Yahoo News too! http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090224/ap_on_go_pr_wh/iraq_withdrawal

/snicker

Sweet, your insiders read Yahoo News too! http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090224/ap_on_go_pr_wh/iraq_withdrawal

lol read the 19 month timeline before Obama's speech yesterday. Spot on...

The huffington post had that as its headline at like 3 PM yesterday.

Sweet, your insiders read Yahoo News too! http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090224/ap_on_go_pr_wh/iraq_withdrawal

If there's one thing our elected officials do every day - its read all the news they can (mostly looking for their names in it) :)

WOLVERINES!
http://www.spideysenses.com/wp-content/wolverines.jpg

If there's one thing our elected officials do every day - its read all the news they can (mostly looking for their names in it) :)

They (read: their interns) should probably learn how to use Google Alerts instead.

Here is a BIG one for tonight's O'brezhnev regime update...

During his address to the nation on 24 February 2009, Obama:

(1) Falsely claimed that the automobile was invented in America, which it was not, thus making him look stupid and ignorant

(2) Stated his top three priorities did not include homeland security

(3) Complained about government debt, even though the week prior he added $1.4 trillion to that debt

(4) Complained about banks giving home loans to unqualified buyers, but it was his party that pushed that policy

(5) Falsely claimed he does not believe in big government, yet every expert says his policies will grow the size and power of the government exponentially

(6) Touted his website www.recovery.gov and claimed it shows details of exactly how the "stimulus" money will be spent, but the website shows no such thing and has been revealed to be a scam by the media

(7) Announced his program to use your tax dollars to help your neighbor buy a new car

(8) Falsely claimed his policies would prevent CEOs from buying new drapes and flying on private jets

(9) Falsely claimed he would never help "a single Wall Street executive" even though his bailous do precisely that

(10) Falsely claimed using tax dollars to create a socialist medicine program would reduce the deficit

(11) Promised to use taxpayer dollars to pay for every American to receive a college education

(12) Stated high school dropouts were "quitting on their country" even though hundreds of thousands, if not millions, served and serve in the military and huge numbers gave their lives for the country

(13) Falsely claimed their were no earmarks in the "stimulus" bill, even though he has never read it and even though hundreds of billions of dollars in the law were special-interest earmarks

(14) Threatened to destroy struggling U.S. companies that do any outsourcing to survive

(15) Said he would end the war in Iraq but refused to say he would lead us to victory there

(16) Failed to inform the American people that under his plan to prevent homes from going into foreclosure, illegal aliens would be eligible to receive your tax dollars to stay in their homes, according to the Center for Immigration Studies

Despite Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano's bald-faced lie that Mexican drug cartels are not operating in the United States, on 25 February 2009 the FBI arrested 750 Mexican drug cartel operatives inside the United States. This was a joint operation between the FBI, DEA and, yes, the Department of Homeland Security.

On 25 February 2009, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV), the longest serving Democrat in the Senate, publicly charged that Obama was violating the Constitution and therefore the law by conducting illegal power grabs.

On 25 February 2009, although the president failed to mention it during his speech the night before, the White House admitted under pressure that Obama's socialist medicine program would cost not the cited $634 billion, but actually $1 trillion.

On 25 February 2009, in sworn testimony before the House Homeland Security Committee, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano testified she would fail in her sworn duty to insure all commercial cargo containers entering the United States would be screened for nuclear and radiological weapons by 2012, a mandate set by the Democratic Congress in 2007.

On 25 February 2009, without Sec. of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano's specific permission to enforce the law, ICE raided a Washington State engine plant in an investigation of gang activity by illegal aliens there. Twenty-eight illegal aliens were arrested. Napolitano ordered an immediate investigation because, according to a spokesman, such law enforcement operations are inconsistent with the president's policy on illegal aliens.

On 25 February 2009, during an appearance on The Early Show, VP Joe Biden lied by saying Louisiana, under Gov. Bobby Jindal, loses 400 jobs/day. In reality, according to statistics from the Louisiana Workforce Commission, Louisiana is not only NOT losing 400 jobs/day under Governor Jindal, but actually gaining jobs, and the Louisiana unemployment rate is 5.9% under Governor Jindal, as opposed to the national unemployment rate under Obama, which is at 7.3%

In 2007 as a candidate, Obama said you have to make $1 million annually to be rich. In 2008, he lowered it to $250,000 and kept that figure in his February 2009 address to the nation. Two days later, after he promised your taxes would not go up so much as a dime if you make less than $250,000/year, Obama released his budget that included tax rate increases for those making above $209,000 and also included other massive tax increases via deduction eliminations, according to the Cato Institute and Neil Cavuto.

10 Fast Facts on the Administration's FY 2010 Budget

From House Republican Leader John Boehner:

Washington, Feb 26 - As the Obama Administration released its FY 2010 budget today, House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) warned taxpayers that “the era of big government is back, and Democrats want you to pay for it.” In 2009, federal spending will approach $4 trillion, or 28 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) – a one-third increase in the size of government in a single year. The budget released by the White House today is loaded with job-killing tax hikes and a slate of even more government spending. Overall, the blueprint projects a record $1.75 trillion deficit this year while doubling the national debt over the next ten years. Following are just 10 fast facts about the Administration’s budget, which our children and grandchildren will be paying for far into the future:

1. The Administration’s projected budget deficit of $1.75 trillion is higher than the last five years of deficits combined, and under this plan, we will see three consecutive trillion dollar deficits between now and FY 2012.

2. While it was purported to cut the budget deficit in half – from $1.75 trillion in 2009 to $533 billion by 2013 – this budget projects higher deficits in 2014 ($570 billion), 2015 ($583 billion), and 2016 ($637 billion). In 2019, the final year in the budget, the deficit is projected to be $712 billion.

3. Including the recently-enacted trillion-dollar “stimulus” spending bill, discretionary spending will soar by 24 percent this year under this budget.

4. The budget projects that the national debt will increase from $8.4 trillion in 2009 to $15.4 trillion in 2019.

5. The Administration’s budget contains $1.4 trillion in tax increases – tax hikes that will impact everyone, from small businesses, charities, and seniors to everyone who owns a 401(k) and anyone who flips on a light switch.

6. After promising that he will reduce taxes on 95 percent of Americans, the Administration’s budget establishes a $646 billion energy tax hike that will impact anyone who uses electricity, drives a car, or relies on energy in any way.

7. This budget forecasts more than $1.5 trillion in new health care spending, including a 10-year, $634 billion health care “reserve fund.” The budget also calls for seven percent annual growth in Medicare and more than six percent annual growth in Medicaid over the next 10 years.

8. The budget includes a $750 billion placeholder for a second round of spending under the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP), even though the first round of TARP spending is not yet finished, nor is there a clear explanation of how funds under the initial round was spent.

9. The Administration’s budget claims that reducing the number of troops in Iraq over the next 10 years will cut the deficit by $1.6 trillion; however, that is only because the budget allocates the same amount of funds for the Iraq war each year over the next decade, even though most combat troops may be withdrawn during the next 19 months. The savings are, at best, deceptive.

10. The budget provides a scant 2.9 percent pay raise for military personnel as required by law, less than a week after Democrats in Congress provided the necessary funding to implement District of Columbia locality pay for overseas Foreign Service officers, which would constitute an 18 percent pay increase.

I remember back when I used to be sucker enough to actually read these big copy/paste jobs.

I remember back when I used to be sucker enough to actually read these big copy/paste jobs.

Did you watch the newest 24?

Yeah. It's been a fucking disappointment all this season.

Yeah. It's been a fucking disappointment all this season.

Yah I am inclined to agree. Last season was a bit of a disappointment too. Though I thought it was cool when the President of Russia authorized the assault on his own embassy.

I like how they got "all the names" of the corrupt government officials, yet there are still other corrupt government officials.

I remember back when I used to be sucker enough to actually read these big copy/paste jobs.


Yes, it was rather large.. I really hate to post such large walls of text because I know no one reads them but tonight was a special case of bafoonary by our President.

I like how they got "all the names" of the corrupt government officials, yet there are still other corrupt government officials.

That part might be a little too accurate for comfort!

Yes, it was rather large.. I really hate to post such large walls of text because I know no one reads them but tonight was a special case of bafoonary by our President.

(10) Falsely claimed using tax dollars to create a socialist medicine program would reduce the deficit

The cost of healthcare is the number one reason why businesses fail and why people file bankruptcy. Most doctors and over 50 million Americans will tell you we need nationalized healthcare.

(2) Stated his top three priorities did not include homeland security

LOL...so now you don't want homeland security? Man you used to freak about it here. Pretty much a collapsed financial industry and 12 million families foreclosed on and homeless along with healthcare costs causing companies to leave or go bankrupt has a major negative impact on security.


Last I saw it was the Bush administration that handed out funds to the Wall st firms and Banks with no questions asked.


I think your neighbor should use your tax dollars to by a car...then just to fuck with him...you should use his tax dollars to buy your car.


Just too many false hoods and buzzwords to respond to in this one....but keep it coming...the laughs are great.

(4) Complained about banks giving home loans to unqualified buyers, but it was his party that pushed that policy


Hmmm, bet your refering to the CRA of 76 as the sole cause of the housing butfuck huh? you know the one that worked well for over 20 years. the one that saw about the same amount of forclosers as the more afluent places not covered under that law.
Couldnt have anything to do with the laws creating mortgage backed securities pushed by....you guessed it Phil Grahm. you know the long time democratic legislator and one time Obama economic advisor. revisionist history indeed.
I'll give Clinton the full blame he deserves for his hand in repealing Glass/Smeagol as he signed the bill and forever pinned his name to that masssive mistake. but his was only a part. it was the (R) congress/senate that placed it upon his desk.

Speaking of the Clintons. did you guys hear that Socks the cat, the family pet of 18 years so familiar to us all from his heartwarming hijinx in the Whitehouse passed recently? i know very sad.
Seems the family is taking it really hard, especially Bill........

We all know how much he hates losing an 18 year old Pussy.

Here is a couple diabolical, evil tidings from the great Satan Obama..

In 2007 as a candidate, Obama said you have to make $1 million annually to be rich. In 2008, he lowered it to $250,000 and kept that figure in his February 2009 address to the nation. Two days later, after he promised your taxes would not go up so much as a dime if you make less than $250,000/year, Obama released his budget that included tax rate increases for those making above $209,000 and also included other massive tax increases via deduction eliminations, according to the Cato Institute and Neil Cavuto.

On 27 February 2009, at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, Obama endured his most humiliating event since taking power when he was forced to admit before thousands of Marines that they had defeated the enemy in Iraq, in a war he said during the campaign we shouldn't have fought and believed we would lose. He also was forced to admit in essence that his promises during the campaign of total retreat and surrender within 16 months of his taking power were foolish and that he would leave up to 50,000 troops in Iraq after the drawdown is complete in late 2010.

Osg... Man you need to seriously consider sterilization.

No thank you.. I have a kid and 2 grandchildren all being brought up with high standing conservative ideals... They go to school in a small rural very conservative town that still says the pledge of allegiance EVERY morning.. God bless this great town. My girls will grow up right.

Heh...funny...they do the same thing in schools in NYC every morning also...or wait...I'm sorry, the whole town says it?

No the pledge of allegiance is not allowed in those godless immoral havens of socialism.. Now if they spit on it, that i'd believe.

God Joe B. is a tool... He is a clueless as Obamy..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXFGLySXZhI&eurl=http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?t=765030

I have a kid and 2 grandchildren all being brought up with high standing conservative ideals... They go to school in a small rural very conservative town

Awww, I think it's very sweet your kid and grandkids all get to go to school together. makes the homework thing very easy. that and the abstinance only programs.

On 4 March 2009, the British media teemed with rage and fury at Obama for Obama's shabby, rude and inexplicable treatment of Prime Minister Brown during his very brief visit to the White House. The PM was expecting proper treatment and enough time to discuss his agenda and mutual concerns, but instead Obama limited him to mere minutes and cancelled a press conference, opting only for a "spray" in the Oval Office with a few reporters. The international insults may have done severe damaged to Anglo-American relations for the remainder of the Obama regime and demonstrated Obama's horrific judgment and arrogance, which caused a major international scandal that infuriated and debased one of America's most important allies.

On 4 March 2009, Obama's nominee to head the National Intelligence Council, Charles Freeman, came under withering fire for his public anti-American statements after 9-11 and his anti-Semitic statements. Freeman has blamed the United States for 9-11 and is an al Qaeda apologist, and his ugly statements against Jews are well documented. Demands are growing for Obama to withdraw the extremist's name from nomination.

lol

This is better comedy than the daily show.

This is better comedy than the daily show.

I disagree. Watch tomorrow :) (Shameless Self Promotion) (http://ayonae.com/dvr-encoder-favor-t11976.html)

This is better comedy than the daily show.


On the Daily show tonight Rick "the I have no clue" Santelli was supposed to be on but bailed, Stewart totally eviscerated him and CNBC. One of the best Daily shows I've seen in a long time.

Very funny and bluntly true video below...another point was brought up at the end of the show...if we are giving AIG money to cover what they have to payout on the insured bad securities and then we are bailing the banks for having these bad securities which are insured by AIG...why are we paying for them twice?

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=220252&title=cnbc-gives-financial-advice

We aren't really backing AIG to pay for the mortgages. It's to support this absurd derivatives bubble (potentially in the quadrillions) that has developed over the decades. It's not a problem exclusive to AIG, but AIG is the largest player in that game by virtue (curse?) of being the largest insurer. The FED/Treasury have to do all they can to support the card at the bottom of the house of cards.

I don't at all agree with our monetary system allowing such fraud to exist, but a few hundred billion in loans (repaid with interest) is a lot cheaper than letting the whole system collapse.

My biggest disappointment with the whole debacle is that most people have missed this great opportunity to learn about the monetary system that has made it possible.

But the derivatives bubble is the mortgage bubble.

Our very currency is basically a derivative at this point. It goes much deeper than the housing bubble.

On 4 March 2009, it was learned that Charles Freeman, Obama's nominee to head the super-secret National Intelligence Council, which has access to this country's most sensitive intelligence, is a part-time employee of the People's Republic of China. Freeman sits on the advisory board of the China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC), which is wholly owned and operated by the Chinese government. As a board member, Freeman also signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the National Iranian Oil Company in 2006, wholly owned by the terrorist government of Iran, for CNOOC to develop Iran North Pars gas field. The State Department is investigating.

On 2 March 2009, Secretary of State Clinton admitted that Obama had ordered her to send official emissaries to the terrorist regime of Syria to begin a dialogue. Syria has been on the State Department's list of terrorism-sponsoring nations since 1979 for its direct support of terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. The admission made the Obama regime the first administration to openly and directly negotiate with terrorists.

On 5 March 2009, Education Secretary Arne Duncan publicly broke with the Obama regime is saying school vouchers for poor blacks in Washington, DC, to attend elite charter schools should be allowed to continue. Obama has said he will sign a bill currently being debated that will outlaw such vouchers. Obama's kids attend such an elite charter school, but Obama believes poor kids should not be allowed there.

On 5 March 2009, ABC News, which had brazenly supported Obama during his campaign, attacked him for attempting to deceive the American public with bogus bankruptcy figures that had been widely and publicly discredited. Using the absurd figures, Obama attempted to frighten the public in order to garner their support for his socialist medicine program. ABC reported that Obama farcical claim that one bankruptcy every 30 seconds is caused by medical bills is totally false and nowhere near accurate.

Ok, these just keep getting funnier.

Now, Osg is deciding what Obama's opinions are regarding poor children and education, and is defining exploratory talks with Syria as "negotiating with terrorists". Out of curiosity, since you are obviously more aware of the "facts" here than the rest of us, what would those "negotiations" be about?

C'mon, Osg, do a bit of extrapolation, and you must see just how completely ridiculous these are going to be at the 6 month mark, looking at what you are posting now after less than 2 months.

Israel negotiates with Syria... Are they bad too?!

2008 - Total Bankruptcy Personal Filings - 871,186 I believe the majority of those are due to medical bills...looks like one every 30 seconds is pretty close to correct.

From what I understand, allowing AIG to fail will trigger a more massive global meltdown.

Lenders made bad loans, sold that paper and made more bad loans. AIG came in with their 3A rating and insured those loans. European banks and investors believing the strength of AIG bought massively into that insurance.

Boom.

Their 3A rating that they pretty much gave themselves.

Well, no. That isn't accurate at all. Where are you getting that idea?

Moody's, Fitch, and S&P are the primary groups that rate AIG's credit, not AIG.

Well, no. That isn't accurate at all. Where are you getting that idea?

Moody's, Fitch, and S&P are the primary groups that rate AIG's credit, not AIG.

Gee I wonder who pays them?

Um, mainly the companies requesting information about companies that the credit bureaus rate.

The AAA rating is akin to a FICO score for a personal borrower. Before you actually lend to them, you're probably going to want to pay for a detailed credit history. Large companies do the same thing.

Umm..no you're wrong. Example: AIG pays Moody's to rate it. Did you ever wonder why let's say...Bear Stearns was rated AAA about 5 days before they tanked? Or why the Banks that are insolvent have AA ratings currently?

They pay to be rated...it is so far from a true rating.

I'm not sure how you could possibly follow that thought process through to a conclusion that makes sense. You're tainting it with your bias.

Moody's, for example, is spun off D&B and some ~30+% owned by Warren Buffet. You can't seriously expect anyone to believe that a Berkshire Hathaway company is as unethical as you're alleging.

As with the rest of your claims about the financial industry, let's see some proof. Substantiate what you're say instead of just slinging mud at the wall to see what sticks.

If you know anything about business you would know that D&B ratings are ridiculious, each company feeds D&B what they want them to see. The same goes for Moody's...the company being rated pays them to rate them...a little skewed maybe?

Warren Buffet is a good investor because the company's he invests in converge to a very specific point of winners. He learned his lesson many years ago with Berkshire Hathaway which was a clothing company essentially...Berkshire Mills.

Investing in a fashion or clothing company is not so wise because it is easy to create competition as really all it takes is a sewing machine and some material and you can be a clothing company. So buffet looks for investments that tend to converge to a single or very few winners. Becoming a "rating company" is not something lots of people can do which is why for many years D&B was the prominent business rating company.

Don't confuse the payment system with regular credit reporting such as Equifax etc... they are paid by those accessing the info...Moodys is paid by those whos info they report on.

My source is years of experience....I find instant Google experts very boring as it is just copy/paste and shows no real knowledge.

So, instead of substantiating any of those allegations, you talk about fashion designers? Hmm.

So, instead of substantiating any of those allegations, you talk about fashion designers? Hmm.

No, I talked about Buffet and what made him a good investor because you brought him into this. You seem to think Buffet bases his investments on integrity, he doesn't. He bases them on what I explained. Back in 2000 I think it was, Buffet had said that he felt that derivatives were a time bomb, Moodys made tons of money by rating the derivatives , securitized loans, Buffet knew they were going to implode but Berkshire Hathaway bought somewhere around 20% of Moodys. Not because Moody's has integrity but because he knows that every business is going to pay them to rate their debt and for many Moody's gets paid twice to rate the same debt. That along with their are only 3 "winners" in this business of rating gives the investment in one little competition from anywhere. So my point is that Integrity has not alot to do with who Buffet invests with...clear enough?

It's the same bullshit with companies on the Internet..."We are Microsoft Partners"..means we use their software and will get you to buy it.

Google Search Partner...means "We like Google and will get you to buy adwords"

It's slight of hand but on a far grander scale.

Buffet is well known for his long-term investing in ethical businesses that provide genuine value. In fact, he's long been a champion of fixing the tax system to lessen the class-warfare between the middle and upper class.

You seem to have internalized so much negativity over this whole debacle that you can't help but lash out at anyone you perceive to be even peripherally connected to it, without rational thought.

Buffet is well known for his long-term investing in ethical businesses that provide genuine value. In fact, he's long been a champion of fixing the tax system to lessen the class-warfare between the middle and upper class.

You seem to have internalized so much negativity over this whole debacle that you can't help but lash out at anyone you perceive to be even peripherally connected to it, without rational thought.

You're getting ridiculous now. Pointing out why Buffet invests in a company is not lashing out at Buffet it's telling it like it is...here's my source for why Buffet invested in Moody's...Source: Warren Buffet. I didn't disparage Buffet or say anything negative about him.

Look at your recent posts on this stuff. You're seeing monsters hiding in every shadow.

You think AIG bought their AAA rating, even though engaging in that sort of behavior would doom the credit agencies. There's no logical reason to believe they would intentionally fake ratings for a handful of companies at the risk of all their future business.

You think Buffet is investing in Moody's because they've got a racket going. You can't even imagine that he's investing in it because it's an ethical business that he believes in (why he invests in companies).

You keep trying to implicate AIG in the business that Bear/Lehman/etc engaged in, when AIG just wrote debt insurance on those bundles. Yet, you can't fathom the possibility that AIG got screwed as bad as anyone by these guys misrepresenting the true underlying risk.

You're so full of bile over all this, you don't seem able to think critically about the topic anymore. They all look the same to you, right?

Look at your recent posts on this stuff. You're seeing monsters hiding in every shadow.

You think AIG bought their AAA rating, even though engaging in that sort of behavior would doom the credit agencies. There's no logical reason to believe they would intentionally fake ratings for a handful of companies at the risk of all their future business.

You think Buffet is investing in Moody's because they've got a racket going. You can't even imagine that he's investing in it because it's an ethical business that he believes in (why he invests in companies).

You keep trying to implicate AIG in the business that Bear/Lehman/etc engaged in, when AIG just wrote debt insurance on those bundles. Yet, you can't fathom the possibility that AIG got screwed as bad as anyone by these guys misrepresenting the true underlying risk.

You're so full of bile over all this, you don't seem able to think critically about the topic anymore. They all look the same to you, right?


LOL...So Buffet says why he invested in Moodys and you say it's not the reason why? That he invests on the ethics of a company and ignores how it makes money?

If a Bank writes 100 mortgages and pays Moodys to rate that debt and then the bank bundles those mortgages into a security, securitizes them, and then Moodys is paid to rate that debt...they are being paid twice to rate the same debt. Pretty rudimentary and PROFITABLE.

You see, that is what Buffet saw in Moodys...things like that and once again...they have almost NO COMPETITION.


It doesn't mean Moodys or Buffet is corrupt it means the system is retarded.

Sorry I missed this point...

You think AIG bought their AAA rating, even though engaging in that sort of behavior would doom the credit agencies.


No, I don't think that...I'm pretty damn sure they did.

It doesn't mean Moodys or Buffet is corrupt it means the system is retarded.

No, that's exactly what you said when you said AIG bought its credit rating.

No, that's exactly what you said when you said AIG bought its credit rating.

Can I have some of what you are smoking? Read my post...stop acting like a moron...it's unbecoming of you.

Can I have some of what you are smoking? Read my post...stop acting like a moron...it's unbecoming of you.

You're contradicting yourself. Which is it? Corrupt or not?

Warren Buffet on Derivatives

Following are edited excerpts from the Berkshire Hathaway annual report for 2002.

I view derivatives as time bombs, both for the parties that deal in them and the economic system.
Basically these instruments call for money to change hands at some future date, with the amount to be
determined by one or more reference items, such as interest rates, stock prices, or currency values. For
example, if you are either long or short an S&P 500 futures contract, you are a party to a very simple
derivatives transaction, with your gain or loss derived from movements in the index. Derivatives contracts
are of varying duration, running sometimes to 20 or more years, and their value is often tied to several
variables.

Unless derivatives contracts are collateralized or guaranteed, their ultimate value also depends on the
creditworthiness of the counter-parties to them. But before a contract is settled, the counter-parties record
profits and losses – often huge in amount – in their current earnings statements without so much as a
penny changing hands. Reported earnings on derivatives are often wildly overstated. That’s because
today’s earnings are in a significant way based on estimates whose inaccuracy may not be exposed for
many years.

The errors usually reflect the human tendency to take an optimistic view of one’s commitments. But the
parties to derivatives also have enormous incentives to cheat in accounting for them. Those who trade
derivatives are usually paid, in whole or part, on “earnings” calculated by mark-to-market accounting. But
often there is no real market, and “mark-to-model” is utilized. This substitution can bring on large-scale
mischief. As a general rule, contracts involving multiple reference items and distant settlement dates
increase the opportunities for counter-parties to use fanciful assumptions. The two parties to the contract
might well use differing models allowing both to show substantial profits for many years. In extreme
cases, mark-to-model degenerates into what I would call mark-to-myth.

I can assure you that the marking errors in the derivatives business have not been symmetrical. Almost
invariably, they have favored either the trader who was eyeing a multi-million dollar bonus or the CEO
who wanted to report impressive “earnings” (or both). The bonuses were paid, and the CEO profited from
his options. Only much later did shareholders learn that the reported earnings were a sham.

Another problem about derivatives is that they can exacerbate trouble that a corporation has run into for
completely unrelated reasons. This pile-on effect occurs because many derivatives contracts require that
a company suffering a credit downgrade immediately supply collateral to counter-parties. Imagine then
that a company is downgraded because of general adversity and that its derivatives instantly kick in with
their requirement, imposing an unexpected and enormous demand for cash collateral on the company.

The need to meet this demand can then throw the company into a liquidity crisis that may, in some cases,
trigger still more downgrades. It all becomes a spiral that can lead to a corporate meltdown.

Derivatives also create a daisy-chain risk that is akin to the risk run by insurers or reinsurers that lay off
much of their business with others. In both cases, huge receivables from many counter-parties tend to
build up over time. A participant may see himself as prudent, believing his large credit exposures to be
diversified and therefore not dangerous. However under certain circumstances, an exogenous event that
causes the receivable from Company A to go bad will also affect those from Companies B through Z.

In banking, the recognition of a “linkage” problem was one of the reasons for the formation of the Federal
Reserve System. Before the Fed was established, the failure of weak banks would sometimes put sudden
and unanticipated liquidity demands on previously-strong banks, causing them to fail in turn. The Fed now
insulates the strong from the troubles of the weak. But there is no central bank assigned to the job of
preventing the dominoes toppling in insurance or derivatives. In these industries, firms that are
fundamentally solid can become troubled simply because of the travails of other firms further down the
chain.


Many people argue that derivatives reduce systemic problems, in that participants who can’t bear certain
risks are able to transfer them to stronger hands. These people believe that derivatives act to stabilize the
economy, facilitate trade, and eliminate bumps for individual participants.
On a micro level, what they say is often true. I believe, however, that the macro picture is dangerous and
getting more so. Large amounts of risk, particularly credit risk, have become concentrated in the hands of
relatively few derivatives dealers, who in addition trade extensively with one other. The troubles of one
could quickly infect the others.

On top of that, these dealers are owed huge amounts by non-dealer counter-parties. Some of these
counter-parties, are linked in ways that could cause them to run into a problem because of a single event,
such as the implosion of the telecom industry. Linkage, when it suddenly surfaces, can trigger serious
systemic problems.

Indeed, in 1998, the leveraged and derivatives-heavy activities of a single hedge fund, Long-Term Capital
Management, caused the Federal Reserve anxieties so severe that it hastily orchestrated a rescue effort.
In later Congressional testimony, Fed officials acknowledged that, had they not intervened, the
outstanding trades of LTCM – a firm unknown to the general public and employing only a few hundred
people – could well have posed a serious threat to the stability of American markets. In other words, the
Fed acted because its leaders were fearful of what might have happened to other financial institutions
had the LTCM domino toppled. And this affair, though it paralyzed many parts of the fixed-income market
for weeks, was far from a worst-case scenario.

One of the derivatives instruments that LTCM used was total-return swaps, contracts that facilitate 100%
leverage in various markets, including stocks. For example, Party A to a contract, usually a bank, puts up
all of the money for the purchase of a stock while Party B, without putting up any capital, agrees that at a
future date it will receive any gain or pay any loss that the bank realizes.

Total-return swaps of this type make a joke of margin requirements. Beyond that, other types of
derivatives severely curtail the ability of regulators to curb leverage and generally get their arms around
the risk profiles of banks, insurers and other financial institutions. Similarly, even experienced investors
and analysts encounter major problems in analyzing the financial condition of firms that are heavily
involved with derivatives contracts.

The derivatives genie is now well out of the bottle, and these instruments will almost certainly multiply in
variety and number until some event makes their toxicity clear. Central banks and governments have so
far found no effective way to control, or even monitor, the risks posed by these contracts. In my view,
derivatives are financial weapons of mass destruction, carrying dangers that, while now latent, are
potentially lethal.


There...I used Google...you can rejoice now. Gosh...I wonder if Moodys rates derivatives?

Did you just type random terms into Google and paste the first result? How does Buffet speaking out against this stuff in 2002 somehow implicate him?

I'd appreciate it if you'd just settle down and try to make a coherent point instead of knee-jerking random stuff back. I really have no idea what your point is anymore other than: "I indiscriminately hate everyone in finance of any kind"

You said Moodys is paid by people who want to know what a company is doing. I told you that is wrong that the company that is rated pays Moodys. I was correct...

You said Buffet invests in companies based on their integrity. I said he invests on how they make a profit. I showed you how you were wrong.

You said that when I pointed out that Buffet basically shit all over derivatives, somewhere around 2000, that would mean he was in on a scam with Moodys. I show you the Berkshire Hathaway Annual Report parts from 2002 where he...shits all over derivatives. Yet, he buys a controlling portion of a company that is....Paid to Rate Derivatives...you say he is all about integrity...I say he is about making a profit...I was wrong on the year...forgive my Memory.

Calling out AIG for writing insurance policies that they knew they couldn't cover is not being bitter...it's pointing out the facts. Pointing out that banks are the final cog in the loan approval process is not bitter...it's pointing out the facts.

One time I went to buy a car, I saw a really nice Corvette at the dealer...I told them I wanted to buy it...the bank declined my loan based on income at the time...they did loan me money for a Monte Carlo though because they did their job and did that funny old debt to income ratio thing...

Once again...pointing out that banks and mortgage lenders shirked their basic responsibilities is not bitter...it's pointing out the facts. If people obtained mortgages that were not affordable it is the banks fault for writing the loan.

Jast as a point....

You keep trying to implicate AIG in the business that Bear/Lehman/etc engaged in, when AIG just wrote debt insurance on those bundles. Yet, you can't fathom the possibility that AIG got screwed as bad as anyone by these guys misrepresenting the true underlying risk.

They got screwed? No...they got paid by the taxpayer. Not only did we pay AIG for writing policies THEY KNEW THEY COULDN'T COVER...we paid the banks for those same securities that AIG paid them for. We paid twice.

The only ones who got screwed are taxpayers and homeowners...not AIG or any lender.

Jast as a point....



They got screwed? No...they got paid by the taxpayer. Not only did we pay AIG for writing policies THEY KNEW THEY COULDN'T COVER...we paid the banks for those same securities that AIG paid them for. We paid twice.

The only ones who got screwed are taxpayers and homeowners...not AIG or any lender.

See, this is exactly what I'm talking about.

1) You assume they knew the CDO's were bad liabilities. However, there is no logical explanation suggesting they did.

Why would they willingly underwrite debt swaps on those items if they knew they were going to fail? They aren't like these others who repackaged and resold paper without caring about the viability of the debt. The buck stopped with them, and they had no incentive to act as you keep alleging.

If you took just a minute to think critically about it, how could you possibly believe that's the case?

2) It's a loan. They have to repay it with interest. When a bank loans you money for a house or car, are you "getting paid"? Of course not.

In fact, they'll probably have to repay the loans through cannibalizing their own company to sell off the best subsidiaries. That's hardly a victory for them.

3) Have you really, honestly convinced yourself these things you're saying are the truth? You almost seem like you actually believe what you're saying, which is the scary part.

You said Moodys is paid by people who want to know what a company is doing. I told you that is wrong that the company that is rated pays Moodys. I was correct...

That simply isn't the case. The fee to rate a company/product is a nominal fee for the analysts, not a profit center.

Moody's makes their money selling software and information products to investors, lenders, etc who may want to do business with the companies Moody's rates.

Look it up. Read their 10-Ks.

These products are only valuable to these customers if Moody's is as objective as possible. All your wild accusations of AIG "buying" their AAA rating simply do not jive with reality here. I understand that you want to believe that and lump them in with your hate of everything remotely financial, but you're way out in left field here.

Once again...pointing out that banks and mortgage lenders shirked their basic responsibilities is not bitter...it's pointing out the facts. If people obtained mortgages that were not affordable it is the banks fault for writing the loan.

And that's AIG's fault because?

That simply isn't the case. The fee to rate a company/product is a nominal fee for the analysts, not a profit center.

Moody's makes their money selling software and information products to investors, lenders, etc who may want to do business with the companies Moody's rates.

Look it up. Read their 10-Ks.

These products are only valuable to these customers if Moody's is as objective as possible. All your wild accusations of AIG "buying" their AAA rating simply do not jive with reality here. I understand that you want to believe that and lump them in with your hate of everything remotely financial, but you're way out in left field here.



And that's AIG's fault because?


LOL..you actually believe that Moodys gets only nominal fees for ratings? Moodys has a huge amount of pricing power on debt ratings, you should know that and know why.

Here is why Buffet bought into Moodys

Moody's business model is actually a low-risk enterprise. The company makes money primarily by providing ratings for issuers of publicly and privately traded securities.

The dynamics of the securities markets encourage issuers to keep coming to Moody's for ratings. Nearly all investors in fixed-income securities and derivative instruments require a rating from at least one nationally recognized statistical rating organization, such as S&P or Moody's. Investor confidence in the expertise and reputation of the existing rating agencies makes it unlikely that new competitors could challenge the dominant position of today's industry leaders. (S&P has approximately 40% of the ratings business, and Moody's holds 39%.) In other words, this is a market with steady demand, and dynamics that reinforce Moody's current leading position.

As far as AIG...they wrote policies that had no collateral to back them...they knew it and have come straight out and said that. They based it on that they thought real estate was always going to go up and they would never need to pay off on those policies...why else would they have started in a tailspin? Please tell me because if they had done what they were supposed to do they would not be asking for the US government to give them the money they never had in the first place.

Uh, when's the last time you provided collateral for insurance? What are you talking about?

Far as Moody's (and the rest of them), just go read the 10-Ks. It's right there in black and white.

You never did resolve that contradictions in your posts, BTW. Are you or are you not calling the ratings companies corrupt?

Uh, when's the last time you provided collateral for insurance? What are you talking about?

Far as Moody's (and the rest of them), just go read the 10-Ks. It's right there in black and white.

You never did resolve that contradictions in your posts, BTW. Are you or are you not calling the ratings companies corrupt?

I don't have to have collateral for insurance, the company that writes the policy does. They can't write a policy that they can't pay off doing that is called fraud. Did AIG pay on those bad loan securities they insured?

Lets assume they did...by doing that they ran out of money...if we don't give them money (bail out) they will go out of business. So we paid them for the policies that they couldn't fund without going out of business or begging for money.

There isn't any contradictions in my posts.

I think what it boils down to is this:

My source is years of experience....

You seem to think that running an online dildo shop somehow qualifies you to talk about any other industry as if you have experience there too.

You've alleged all sorts of wild claims about AIG, on this thread and others, yet can't prove a bit of it (because it's not true). I mean, how many times do we have to hear you make the claim that the government is giving AIG money, when it's all loans? Are we up to a dozen times yet?

Now this garbage about "collateral"?

Do you think that your auto insurance agency has "collateral" to pay claims on all its customers at once? If everyone had an accident on the same day, Geico would be right out of business in a heartbeat. That's simply how insurance works.

This should be of no shock to anyone.

That's what happened to AIG. All the CDOs had an "accident" during the same year, which no insurance company in the world would be capitalized to handle.

There isn't any contradictions in my posts.

You still haven't answered the simple question. Either Moody's isn't corrupt (as you said in one post) or AIG "bought their rating" (as you said in another post). That one doesn't go both ways.

Which are you claiming?

Rover, I think it is time for you to step back for a bit and deal with whatever needs dealing with and then maybe you will stop, or at least do less, unloading on everyone and everything.

How many folks have made the point? I am sure that at least once during your tour of duty you heard someone say "If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, pretty good chance it is a duck." Well, folks keep saying something is going on with Rover, and Rover keeps posting like something is going on with Rover.......maybe there really is something going on with Rover.

Your posts on this topic at least are blatantly biased, and you are posting opinion and claiming it as fact. The way you are going on with this topic, San could stop posting and you would more than likely argue with yourself about it, just to be able to spew some crap at the corporations and rich folks.

I think what it boils down to is this:



You seem to think that running an online dildo shop somehow qualifies you to talk about any other industry as if you have experience there too.

You've alleged all sorts of wild claims about AIG, on this thread and others, yet can't prove a bit of it (because it's not true). I mean, how many times do we have to hear you make the claim that the government is giving AIG money, when it's all loans? Are we up to a dozen times yet?

Now this garbage about "collateral"?

Do you think that your auto insurance agency has "collateral" to pay claims on all its customers at once? If everyone had an accident on the same day, Geico would be right out of business in a heartbeat. That's simply how insurance works.

This should be of no shock to anyone.

That's what happened to AIG. All the CDOs had an "accident" during the same year, which no insurance company in the world would be capitalized to handle.



You still haven't answered the simple question. Either Moody's isn't corrupt (as you said in one post) or AIG "bought their rating" (as you said in another post). That one doesn't go both ways.

Which are you claiming?


That's what happened to AIG. All the CDOs had an "accident" during the same year, which no insurance company in the world would be capitalized to handle.


Thank you...I believe I said AIG wrote policies they couldn't cover. Let's go way back to your "personal responsibility" thing.



LOL..you think I run an online Dildo shop as experience?

I have an Internet Marketing business with 400+ clients and have been in that business for 15 years. My clients include online retailers, financial institutions, wholesale businesses, manufacturing companies, cosmetic companies, industrial service businesses, home service businesess, business organizations etc... Before that from the late 80's to around 1995 I owned a commercial property maintenance business that maintained large retail, office and other industrial facilities. My clients were FedEx 70 facilities, Kmart 15 stores, Jaguar cars corporate headquarters, Weight Watchers, IBM convention center, Marriott Hotels, we were the only company of our kind that Marriott outsourced to, along with many other regional property management services such as Cushman Wakefield etc... Both businesses I started from scratch without outside financing. I sold my first business to my Operations Manager before I got into the Internet in '95. So please, don't lecture me on experience.

My point is that Moodys ratings were not quite correct and why not. Perhaps because the companies that they were rating paid them for their ratings or maybe they just were not doing their due diligence in rating them as it seems most of them collapsed.

Your arguing is patently ridiculuos as you keep trying to say I have no basis and yet I show you directly from a Berkshire Hathaway annual report where Buffet opines about derivatives and you had claimed he never did that.

I put forth that Buffets investments are based on how profitable and his method of investing and you say "no way" he invests based on integrity although what I pointed out was directly from Buffet and your best argument is a tag line about integrity...

Your posts on this topic at least are blatantly biased, and you are posting opinion and claiming it as fact.


LOL...I posted directly from an annual report of Berkshire Hathaway and was told before that it was not so about Buffet. I'm being told that Buffet only invests in businesses based on Integrity...that is false...he invests based on long term returns.

AIG is being "loaned" money by the government of the United States because they got screwed...lol...AIG openly admits that it wrote policies that it knew it couldn't pay on and Sancheks best argument is one of semantics? I'll say the money is a loan once it's paid back and I don't see that happening in the foreseable future.

There's nothing wrong with Rover, I'm doing fine. I'm angered at them not because of any other reason that this AIG fiasco as well as the bank/lender fiasco happened due to piss poor management and simple shoddy greed and it has had massive negative implications for business in general along with our national security.

So we all agree, Obama sucks!

So we all agree, Obama sucks!

Short sellers suck...that is why the market is down.

Rover, I only began to read that rant before realizing it was pointless to talk to you about this stuff.

I do suggest you at least try to get a grasp on how insurance works though. If you keep living in this fiction that you've created about how you think things should work, you're only going to continue being disappointed again and again.

Pro-tip: No insurance underwriter, period, can withstand all of their policies filing a claim at once. This is not an AIG problem. It's just how insurance works.

Oh, and you still haven't managed to answer that one simple question. I've asked you several times.

Well. AIG DID make some massive mistakes.

They COULD have been alot more proactive in 2007 when they started to show losses. Instead they decided they didnt want to sell "too cheap". So they let the problem fester out of sheer greed. I guess they thought... "Awwww screw it... either it works out, or we get the government to bail us out, but we aint selling our shares at a bargin rate in order to raise capital to cover losses"

This mess seems like it started with Hank Greenberg playing fast and loose with funds in 2004 - 2006, trying to hide investment losses as insurance payments. This attracted the attention of Elliot Spitzer who took time off from bonking hookers to go after Greenberg.

AIG was forced to pay 1.6 billion in fines and Greenberg resigned.

In the wake of this, Joe Cassano, head of the Financial Division, seems to have come under intense pressure to boost profits. As such he started some very high risk practices and he "entered into credit default swaps to insure $441 billion worth of securities originally rated AAA. Of those securities, $57.8 billion were structured debt securities backed by subprime loans"
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aTzTYtlNHSG8

This was something that could have been prevented. This is something that could have been avoided with better, more responsible managment.
The letter follows one sent by the investors to AIG directors on May 12, two days before the annual shareholder meeting, complaining that the insurer suffered a ``staggering breakdown of risk controls.''
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=asOzAMceAsiY&refer=us

Well there...L2 posted links. I apologize I generally work from memory. AIG in itself may not be the total bastion of corruption but some of its management certainly were either corrupt or plain idiots whos actions created a really close look of corruption.

Moodys, well, really they are much like the company they were spun off from...they based their ratings on what those wanting to be rated told them. They lacked any real investigative reasoning as to why something was rated AAA.

I'm quite surprised of your adherence to the paractices (intentional misspelling) that caused this with AIG. I wonder what your connection is with them. You seem to be giving something a free pass and at the same time I've known you to look at 9/11 being an "inside job" and there is so much less evidence of that.

Pro-tip: No insurance underwriter, period, can withstand all of their policies filing a claim at once. This is not an AIG problem. It's just how insurance works.

Pro-tip: AIG didn't only insure securities.

As far as insurance goes...I have a very good understanding of how it is supposed to work, in this case it obviously didn't work.

Almost everyone screwed up the risk ratings on these mortgage bundles though. Calling AIG corrupt or incompetent for making the same mistake that everyone else did is sort of silly.

At least AIG wasn't packaging up these mortgage bundles and selling them off like the others. AIG was (and is) the final pillar holding the whole thing up, by insuring the CDOs even when they all went South. They deserve better than all this vitriol you're tossing out.

We can wish that they'd known what was coming and never insured debt swaps on those CDOs, but that's awfully easy for us to say now. In hindsight, who couldn't always do better? In retrospect, there is a very long chain of events, long before it got to AIG, that I'm confident we all wish we could undo.

AIG didn't only insure securities.

As far as insurance goes...I have a very good understanding of how it is supposed to work, in this case it obviously didn't work.

So if you understand how insurance works, why are you having such a hard time understanding that no insurance carrier in the world would have been able to pay out all of those swaps at once? That's just the nature of insurance...

I don't understand your goal in continuing to talk around this point. Like I said, if you expect that insurance companies have enough money to pay worst-case claims on all of their customers at once, you're in for quite a disappointment. It doesn't work that way.

On another note, I find it interesting that you think when CDO holders tricked AIG into insuring them, it was AIG's fault. Yet, when your mortgage broker tricked you into signing an adjustable rate loan, it was the mortgage broker's fault instead of yours. Hypocrisy much?

I wonder what your connection is with them. You seem to be giving something a free pass and at the same time I've known you to look at 9/11 being an "inside job" and there is so much less evidence of that.

It is abundantly obvious that AIG stood to gain nothing from insuring CDOs that were all about to go South. There isn't an angle or "inside job" to theorize about. What evidence are you talking about?

Do you honestly think their end game in all of this was to go in debt to the Treasury and lose the most profitable subsidiaries of their company?

Where's the logic? How do you see this situation as a win for AIG?

What you're saying makes as much sense as me suggesting that you must have colluded with your mortgage broker to screw you over on your loan, so that you could... um get stuck paying more money. Oh wait, that doesn't make a damn bit of sense, does it?

On another note, I find it interesting that you think when CDO holders tricked AIG into insuring them, it was AIG's fault. Yet, when your mortgage broker tricked you into signing an adjustable rate loan, it was the mortgage broker's fault instead of yours. Hypocrisy much?

LOL..hey...the feelings mutual. I didn't buy my house as an investment, my company is my investment. I bought a home for my family and I had every reasonable expectation that the experts were being truthful with me. Insurers, lenders etc are financial experts..I'm just a really good Internet marketing guy.

I do find it odd that you think AIG was tricked. Are they are not supposed to weigh what they are insuring? AIG insured them because their experts, a term loosely applied, were short sighted and their reasoning is that they never thought that real estate would go down and they themselves admit they thought they would never have to pay 2 cents in claims on those securitized mortgages. That isn't my wishful thinking or my supposed unreasonable hatred for AIG it is what they themselves said.

So now I've asked you in multiple threads multiple times...what is your relationship with AIG?

It is abundantly obvious that AIG stood to gain nothing from insuring CDOs that were all about to go South. There isn't an angle or "inside job" to theorize about. What evidence are you talking about?

LOL..I didn't say AIG was an inside job, I said ...omg..nevermind it's impossible for you to do anything other than try to make it be something that I am obviously not. Argue the point, don't make things up that people aren't even thinking.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123638394500958141.html

Banks and other financial companies were trading partners of AIG's financial-products unit, which operated more like a Wall Street trading firm than a conservative insurer.

That is otherwise known as mis-management.

LOL..hey...the feelings mutual. I didn't buy my house as an investment, my company is my investment. I bought a home for my family and I had every reasonable expectation that the experts were being truthful with me. Insurers, lenders etc are financial experts..I'm just a really good Internet marketing guy.

Well, at least you've finally admitted that you don't know much about this stuff.

I wonder what your connection is with them.

So now I've asked you in multiple threads multiple times...what is your relationship with AIG?

I'm the President, and a client!

I have no relationship with AIG, personal or professional.

I have written a bit of actuarial software for a client, which is used to evaluate risk and solicit underwriting on their products (not financial products). Not for AIG though. Mostly the Hartford Group.

So, I've spent a few years thoroughly learning the industry in order to refine that software. It's particularly frustrating to listen to people clearly talking out of their ass about the topic after reading a couple sensationalist CNN headlines followed by poorly written articles.

Please show me "multiple threads multiple times" where you've asked what my relationship to AIG is. Those two quotes from this thread are all I remember.

You sure exaggerate a lot lately.

LOL..I didn't say AIG was an inside job, I said ...omg..nevermind it's impossible for you to do anything other than try to make it be something that I am obviously not. Argue the point, don't make things up that people aren't even thinking.

But, you have no point.

Every time you make another wild claim and I refute it, you retreat to a new, wild claim. You have no clearly articulated position on this to debate.

You're just spewing as much bile as you can, however you think you might get away with it.

AIG deserves some definite blame. They took on a ton of risk, crazy foolish risk, out of sheer greed, and as Alan Greenspan would have called it, irrational exuberance.

They could have avoided this all San. They decided not to act early on it and not sell some assets at a cheaper rate. Instead they decided that short term driving up the stock price was more valuable to them than avoiding potential catastrophe.

They pretty much abandoned risk controls after Hank Greenberg left. If those risk controls were in place, and people were mindful of the long term health of the company, they NEVER would have taken on 53 Billion dollars worth of CDOs, based on high risk loans and given them 3A rating insurance.

They fucked up.. they fucked up huge. They did so because just like the homeowner who got a mortgage a bit too big and had one too many credit cards, they had this irrational viral belief that nothing could ever go wrong.

Like I said, I think we all wish we could go back and try to stop this entire chain of events, starting with the people buying what they couldn't afford and going all the way up.

At the same time, it's all too easy to taint our judgment of those past situations with our current knowledge. Just a couple years ago, people were painted as nutjobs for suggesting what we all now know. To most, even in the financial sector, this stuff wasn't as obvious as it may now seem.

In the end, I just don't understand the outrage at AIG. Maybe if they were getting free money, but they're not. They're losing many billions of dollars over this, and probably their entire company as it's currently structured (i.e. they'll have to sell off the best parts to repay the loans).

I think it boils down to people being generally upset, not feeling empowered to do anything about it, and wanting to lash out at any seemingly appropriate target. So, CNN throws up headlines about AIG "getting" more money, and the mob of mouth-breathers is all too ready to brandish their pitchforks.

But, you have no point.

Every time you make another wild claim and I refute it, you retreat to a new, wild claim. You have no clearly articulated position on this to debate.

You're just spewing as much bile as you can, however you think you might get away with it.

I do have a point and you have refuted nothing. Your posts are a constant drivel at twisting words to try to trip me or anyone up that you can, so much so you sound like Buyza has hacked your account.

You show only that you can Google things that will show your side of the argument, that's easy enough it helps make everyone an expert. You claim the most ridiculous things and when it is proven you are completely wrong you shift directions and start on word play. You are always certain yet often wrong. If you had any concept of reality you would see clearly how AIG has a major hand in this. They are losing money because they had NO capita to back ANY of the derivatives policies they wrote, that's not bile, that is what they themselves admit. You are also incorrect that they have to sell off the profitable parts to pay the loans on the bad parts, the treasury bought the bad and is trying to sell it to get the money back, AIG is keeping the best parts and you, me and everyone else gets the currently worthless parts.

So again, one more time in this thread, what is your relationship to AIG? Do you have a contract with them? A family member who works for them? What's the deal?

Are you daft?

Of course they couldn't afford to pay back claims on all policies at once. That's just how insurance works. Why is this so impossible for you to understand? It's very rudimentary.

I already addressed your silly conspiracy theory about me having a "relationship" to AIG. Try actually reading my posts... (Cliff's notes: I don't)

You are also incorrect that they have to sell off the profitable parts to pay the loans on the bad parts, the treasury bought the bad and is trying to sell it to get the money back, AIG is keeping the best parts and you, me and everyone else gets the currently worthless parts.

Maybe this is the source of your confusion.

AIG is not getting funds in this manner. You're confusing them with the recipients of the "banker bailout" that came later on. These are completely unrelated in terms of structuring. AIG simply got a Federal loan from Treasury to allow it to cover its obligations on debt swaps, which it must repay with interest.

Everyone from AIG, to analysts, to the government itself expects that AIG will have to sell off its profitable subsidiaries to repay that loan. This is common knowledge if you've been following the financial news (instead of CNN fluff pieces).

Were AIG to fail or default on the loan (and fail), Treasury can satisfy the obligation many times over with just a subset of AIG's subsidiaries. It's a no-brainer deal, which keeps the financial system from imploding and poses no long-term risk to Treasury.

No, I'm not daft...I pointed out that NOT ONE of the policies for derivatives that AIG had were backed by anything other than the "premium" paid, not one of them. If one single policy had to be paid there was NOT ANY collateral to back it.

When an insurance company pays out on a policy it is not written off as a loss...it doesn't matter whether they pay one or all of them, that is rudimentary.

Attempting to reason that AIG was simply duped is plain nuts, they come right out and say they ignored all good prudent conservative practices when they wrote those policies. They admit that.

The only people that duped AIG were those in AIG.

I don't expect you to see anything but what you post...I understand, it must be true after all you googled it and read it on the Internet.

No, I'm not daft...I pointed out that NOT ONE of the policies for derivatives that AIG had were backed by anything other than the "premium" paid, not one of them. If one single policy had to be paid there was NOT ANY collateral to back it.

When an insurance company pays out on a policy it is not written off as a loss...it doesn't matter whether they pay one or all of them, that is rudimentary.

Attempting to reason that AIG was simply duped is plain nuts, they come right out and say they ignored all good prudent conservative practices when they wrote those policies. They admit that.

The only people that duped AIG were those in AIG.

I don't expect you to see anything but what you post...I understand, it must be true after all you googled it and read it on the Internet.

You're describing the usual way in which insurance is capitalized, yet acting as if it's abnormal. Like I said, if you take issue with that, you're in for a shocking disappointment when you realize that's how all of your insurance works.

You can dislike that all you want, but it's pointless to pretend that the world works the way you think it should. You're the only one living in this fiction that you've created.

Ok San. But from your line of thinking.. don't blame the people who defaulted on their loans either. How many of them could have foresaw that they would have fallen down the stairs and out of work for 8 months, or that their overtime would dry up, or they lost their job, or they got a divorce, or any one of the 1000 situations people found themselves.. Because, the reality is that most people who took out these loans could for the most part pay them back in good conditions. But they were too stretched out, and had too much risk. Just like AIG. I know the Limbaughs and Hannitys of this world want us to believe the whole thing is the cause of 4 million of the mythical "Welfare Queens" of the 80's rose up and took Fanny and Freddie Loans then laughed as they intentionally never intended to pay a dime back. It sounds just as crazy as AIG intentionally destroying their business.


In the end, I just don't understand the outrage at AIG. Maybe if they were getting free money, but they're not. They're losing many billions of dollars over this, and probably their entire company as it's currently structured (i.e. they'll have to sell off the best parts to repay the loans).

Yes.. it must have been really awful for them to lose billions. I bet they were really torn up about it, they probably couldnt even enjoy their massages. (http://www.nydailynews.com/money/2008/10/08/2008-10-08_aig_execs_planned_second_resort_trip_aft.html) Why do bad things happen to good people? Oh unjust God!

Seriously though,, what the fuck do they care? Even Bernie Madoff gets to keep his 20 Mill penthouse. They took a massive risk with other peoples money. None of those AIG execs is going to be losing THEIR homes, or worrying about THEIR retirement. Hell... they still got their FUCKING BONUSES this year. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/11/earlyshow/main4661900.shtml?source=mostpop_story)


The thing I'm very worried about is the fact that AIG is not accounting where this money given to it went. These people are getting paid and walking away, and if AIG collapses, like they still most likely will, then we NEVER get paid back and these loans to AIG were simply gifts to its trading partners.

Oh, sure, I blame both the lenders and borrowers. We just had a thread here recently where I was very clear about that. I don't think the blame lies totally with either.

However, I do very quickly lose my sympathy for borrowers when they refuse to take any personal responsibility for the loan they signed for.

Those vacations they had were pre-paid and planned long in advance of the economic turmoil. They'd paid some 80-90% deposit on it that would've been lost. It can be spun as extravagant, but saying they took the loan and bought vacations is tremendously misleading. IIRC, most/all of them were performance rewards for top earners in the profitable insurance subsidiaries too, not people who have any reason to be punished for the parent company's troubles.

Don't worry about the loans. Even if AIG fails, their subsidiaries are worth plenty to cover it. Treasury will be fine.

Before an astounded, head-shaking European Parliament on 6 March 2009, Hillary Clinton stated, "I have never understood multiparty democracy." She then went on to misstate EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana's position and got European Commission External Relations Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner's name wrong. Clinton also embarrased herself when she claimed the United States' democracy "has been around a lot longer than European democracy," a demonstrably false statement that visibly annoyed many of the dignitaries.

In direct contradiction to his earlier assessment of the attorney general's judgment anc character, on 6 March 2009, Obama publicly embarrased Attorney General Holder for using insulting language to describe Americans for Holder saying America is a "nation of cowards." Obama said he failed to properly supervise and advise Holder and implied that would not happen again.

On 8 March 2009, USAToday, which had directly and openly supported Obama for president during the campaign, reported that two think tanks are estimating that Obama's job-creation policy would create up to 300,000 jobs for illegal aliens.

Clinton also embarrased herself when she claimed the United States' democracy "has been around a lot longer than European democracy," a demonstrably false statement that visibly annoyed many of the dignitaries.




Please demonstrate the false aspect of the statement.