pokerfied.com
Promoting poker discussions.

Main
Date: 30 Dec 2008 14:28:35
From: Mike
Subject: Some rags get sillier by the day...
Front page article on the NY Times today. Apparently the NY Times
needed to spin the current economic crisis of the auto industry into
the race card. I would laugh if it wasn't so sad.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/business/30detroit.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&ref=us&adxnnlx=1230675709-zc9+RImVp+1K9EvZYYkYgw

So how come we need to focus on the Black workers plight and ignore
everyone else who may also be affected by the auto industry?

Reverse discrimination at its zenith....*sigh*




 
Date: 05 Jan 2009 16:26:45
From: RichD
Subject: UPDATE: nappy head hos getting shorter, was Re: Some rags get
On Dec 31 2008, zxcv <zxcvnos...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> > >> Front page article on the NY Times today. =A0Apparently the NY Times
> > >> needed to spin the current economic crisis of the auto industry into
> > >> the race card. =A0
> > >>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/business/30detroit.html?_r=3D1&adxn=
nl...
>
>=A0The point is that blacks are singled out as
> being hit hard. =A0Is there an article talking about how this effects
> whites or Asians losing their jobs? =A0The only group's hardships that
> they feel the need to point out specifically is the blacks. =A0What
> makes me kind of sick is this mentality that success or failure of
> others of the same race is more important than anyone else.

http://www.ajc.com/search/content/news/stories/2008/12/30/shrink.html

African women growing shorter... obviously a plot by
Republican corporate conservatives... have no fear, the
Messiah shall wave his mighty hand, call forth a miracle,
and command bones to lengthen, hallelujah!

--
Rich


  
Date: 06 Jan 2009 19:13:13
From: Archimedes' Lever
Subject: Re: UPDATE: nappy head hos getting shorter, was Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 16:26:45 -0800 (PST), RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com >
wrote:

>On Dec 31 2008, zxcv <zxcvnos...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > >> Front page article on the NY Times today.  Apparently the NY Times
>> > >> needed to spin the current economic crisis of the auto industry into
>> > >> the race card.  
>> > >>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/business/30detroit.html?_r=1&adxnnl...
>>
>> The point is that blacks are singled out as
>> being hit hard.  Is there an article talking about how this effects
>> whites or Asians losing their jobs?  The only group's hardships that
>> they feel the need to point out specifically is the blacks.  What
>> makes me kind of sick is this mentality that success or failure of
>> others of the same race is more important than anyone else.
>
>http://www.ajc.com/search/content/news/stories/2008/12/30/shrink.html
>
>African women growing shorter... obviously a plot by
>Republican corporate conservatives... have no fear, the
>Messiah shall wave his mighty hand, call forth a miracle,
>and command bones to lengthen, hallelujah!


Palm of hand thumps forhead with a swift smack, and the word "HEAL!"
was spouted loudly...


 
Date: 05 Jan 2009 13:48:39
From: jpatk
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
On Jan 5, 9:06=A0am, "Irish Mike" <mjos...@ameritech.net > wrote:
> <h...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>
> news:l264m49a2boq8ftcc0c17urdu97157ehhi@4ax.com...
>
> And Obama said he sat in the pews for 20+ years and never heard Jeremiah
> Wright make a single racist, anti-American or anti-Semitic comment. =A0Th=
en he
> said he could no more disown Jeremiah Wright than he could disown the bla=
ck
> community. =A0That was, of course, before he disowned Wright a couple of =
weeks
> later. =A0

But isn't that very like your own behavior in continuing to
enthusiastically support the Catholic Church in the face of the
buggering activities of a large number of priests? And not just
random buggering, although there are rumors of that, too, in the
seminaries, but of the young boys in their charge. I would think that
you of all people would be willing to cut Obama a little slack in this
matter lest you be considered hypocritical.


 
Date: 04 Jan 2009 22:41:29
From: zxcv
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
On Jan 2, 10:36=A0am, suds macheath <sudsmcduff19...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> zxcv wrote:
> > On Dec 31, 9:14 am, suds macheath <sudsmcduff19...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> zxcv wrote:
> >>> On Dec 30, 5:28 pm, Mike <mikejc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>> Front page article on the NY Times today. =A0Apparently the NY Times
> >>>> needed to spin the current economic crisis of the auto industry into
> >>>> the race card. =A0I would laugh if it wasn't so sad.
> >>>>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/business/30detroit.html?_r=3D1&adxn=
nl...
> >>>> So how come we need to focus on the Black workers plight and ignore
> >>>> everyone else who may also be affected by the auto industry?
> >> ---You must have missed this one, Sparky....or you're cherry picking:
>
> >>http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/19/business/businessspecial2/19generat..=
.
>
> >> You may have "missed" it, but the plight of "everyone else" has been
> >> done to death by MSM, including the NYT....
>
> > That is not the point.
>
> ---That is indeed the point.....The OP laments that the NYT only
> mentions blacks as suffering from the auto manufacturing crisis, when
> there are articlews published beforehand that highlight whoie suffering
> as well. Which leads me to believe the OP has an agenda to proffer....
>
> =A0 =A0The point is that blacks are singled out as
>
> > being hit hard.
>
> ----Harder than whites. The stats are there in the article....
>
> =A0 =A0Is there an article talking about how this effects
>
> > whites or Asians losing their jobs?
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/19/business/businessspecial2/19generat...
> And many, many more....where have you been?
>
> =A0 The only group's hardships that
>
> > they feel the need to point out specifically is the blacks. =A0What
> > makes me kind of sick is this mentality that success or failure of
> > others of the same race is more important than anyone else. =A0If a
> > black guy or white guy loses his job or gets rich it effects him the
> > same.
>
> ---I can see you didn't read the article.....either one.- Hide quoted tex=
t -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Imagine a headline, "White Workers Hurt by Microsoft's Ills." Why is
it more important that people that share a characteristic have an
issue?

Well I read the first one. The second comes up as page not found. My
only agenda is fairness. I cannot say the same for the NY Times. The
article implies that blacks losing their jobs will be hurt more than
non-blacks losing their jobs. It is immaterial that there are a lot
of blacks in the auto industry. The article doesn't say but I imagine
more whites will be losing their jobs than blacks. The article even
points out how minorities are given an advantage in acquiring dealer
ownership. Why can't I get access to that help? Because a white guy
before me was successful?


  
Date: 06 Jan 2009 08:20:43
From: Mike
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
On Jan 6, 11:03=A0am, h...@nospam.com wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 15:22:34 GMT, GreenDistantStar
>
> <pde63...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> >Obama's win was comprehensive, he has a mandate.
>
> worst part for Obama is that the conservatives want him to fail and
> will do anything in their power to impede him. =A0If he tries to affect
> any real change he will be murdered.

Mostly what will happen is that he will disappoint the Demo-Rats and
then they'll have no one to blame but themselves.


  
Date: 05 Jan 2009 04:49:48
From: suds macheath
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
zxcv wrote:
> On Jan 2, 10:36 am, suds macheath <sudsmcduff19...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> zxcv wrote:
>>> On Dec 31, 9:14 am, suds macheath <sudsmcduff19...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> zxcv wrote:
>>>>> On Dec 30, 5:28 pm, Mike <mikejc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Front page article on the NY Times today. Apparently the NY Times
>>>>>> needed to spin the current economic crisis of the auto industry into
>>>>>> the race card. I would laugh if it wasn't so sad.
>>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/business/30detroit.html?_r=1&adxnnl...
>>>>>> So how come we need to focus on the Black workers plight and ignore
>>>>>> everyone else who may also be affected by the auto industry?
>>>> ---You must have missed this one, Sparky....or you're cherry picking:
>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/19/business/businessspecial2/19generat...
>>>> You may have "missed" it, but the plight of "everyone else" has been
>>>> done to death by MSM, including the NYT....
>>> That is not the point.
>> ---That is indeed the point.....The OP laments that the NYT only
>> mentions blacks as suffering from the auto manufacturing crisis, when
>> there are articlews published beforehand that highlight whoie suffering
>> as well. Which leads me to believe the OP has an agenda to proffer....
>>
>> The point is that blacks are singled out as
>>
>>> being hit hard.
>> ----Harder than whites. The stats are there in the article....
>>
>> Is there an article talking about how this effects
>>
>>> whites or Asians losing their jobs?
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/19/business/businessspecial2/19generat...
>> And many, many more....where have you been?
>>
>> The only group's hardships that
>>
>>> they feel the need to point out specifically is the blacks. What
>>> makes me kind of sick is this mentality that success or failure of
>>> others of the same race is more important than anyone else. If a
>>> black guy or white guy loses his job or gets rich it effects him the
>>> same.
>> ---I can see you didn't read the article.....either one.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Imagine a headline, "White Workers Hurt by Microsoft's Ills." Why is
> it more important that people that share a characteristic have an
> issue?
>
> Well I read the first one. The second comes up as page not found.

----Here ya go:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/19/business/businessspecial2/19generations.html?sq=auto%20workers&st=cse&scp=3&pagewanted=print

For a G.M. Family, the American Dream Vanishes
By DANNY HAKIM

Correction Appended

FLINT, Mich. - Four generations of the Roy family relied on General
Motors for their prosperity.

Over more than seven decades, the company's wages bought the Roys homes,
cars and once-unimaginable comforts, while G.M.'s enviable medical and
pension benefits have kept them secure in their retirements.

But the G.M. that was once an unassailable symbol of the nation's
industrial might is a shadow of its former self, and the post-World War
II promise of blue-collar factory work being a secure path to the
American dream has faded with it.

After a long slide, it now looks like the end of an era. "General
Motors, when I got in there, it was like I'd died and went to heaven,"
said Jerry Roy, 49 - who started at G.M. in 1977 and now works on an
assembly line at a plant operated by Delphi, the bankrupt former G.M.
parts unit that was spun off in 1999.

When Mr. Roy was hired at G.M., nearly three decades ago, his salary
more than doubled from his job at a local supermarket. He traded in his
five-year-old Buick for a new Chevy and since then he has done well
enough to buy a pleasant house on a lake near Flint.

But now he faces the prospect of either losing his job or accepting a
sharp pay cut. And for those coming after him, "it's just sad that it's
ending, that it looks like this," he said. In his hometown, he added,
"all these places that used to be factories are now just parking lots."

Those factories supported the Roy family for generations.

Jerry's great-grandfather, John Westley Roy, came to Michigan from
Missouri in 1931, in the depths of the Depression. He built a home five
blocks north of a plant operated by General Motors' AC Delco division
and worked there for a decade before he was injured and retired to a farm.

Mr. Roy's grandfather, Edward, worked at the Delco plant during the war,
when it was converted into a machine-gun plant: he would tell a story
about a day one of the guns came off a mount and began shooting holes in
the wall of a cafeteria.

Mr. Roy's father, Gerald, started at G.M.'s Fisher Body unit in 1951,
was laid off after a year and a half, and then got a job in 1954 at AC
Delco. Gerald's sister, uncle and future wife, Delores, worked at the plant.

The elder Mr. Roy remembers the 1950's and '60's as a golden era, when
everything seemed possible.

"There were three shifts - they worked around the clock," he said of the
AC Delco plant, adding, "you'd go in there and you couldn't even hardly
walk."

Buoyed by such prosperity, the auto industry was the pioneer in
advancing what became the American model for the social contract between
workers and their employees - from the $5 a day Henry Ford offered
workers in 1914 to the all-inclusive health care and pension benefits
that became a mainstay of the vast expansion of the middle class in the
second half of the 20th century.

In many ways, it was not the government but Detroit and other major
industries, at the prodding of their unions, that created the
American-style social safety net, and helped foster the shared
prosperity that is now fracturing.

"The days when blue-collar work could be passed on down the family line,
those days are over," said Gary N. Chaison, a professor of labor
relations at Clark University in Worcester, Mass. "Where you did have
automobile plants, it was always looked at as an elite job. It was hard
work, but good, steady work, with wonderful benefits and good solid pay,
and you were in the upper middle class."

Now, with G.M. and other domestic automakers and suppliers fighting to
survive brutal global competition, Detroit is planning to cut even more
manufacturing jobs. At the same time, the industry is moving to rewrite
or even tear up its labor contracts in a bid to turn itself around by
drastically reducing both wages and benefits. Today, Mr. Roy and Gerald,
71, who once helped him get his job, are both preparing to make sacrifices.

Robert S. Miller, the turnaround specialist who became chairman and
chief executive of Delphi in July, said in an interview in October that
Delphi and the United Auto Workers would have to grapple with how much
to take from the retirees' pockets and how much from workers.

"This is a trade-off," he said. "I can't satisfy what everyone would
like to have."

[But Delphi is pressing for such large cuts from both constituencies
that one top U.A.W. leader, Richard Shoemaker, recently called the
company's proposals a "roadmap for confrontation."]

Not only is the company seeking to cut two-thirds of its 34,000 hourly
workers in the United States, it wants to cut wages to as little as $10
an hour from as much as $30.

Worries about a strike at Delphi have also been among the many issues
weighing on G.M. itself. Talk of bankruptcy has become so persistent
around G.M., despite the significant cash and other resources it still
has at its disposal, that Rick Wagoner, the company's chief executive,
has gone out of his way recently to state that there was no intention
for G.M. to file.

Delphi is also seeking major cuts in the health care and pension
benefits of retirees, though under the terms of the spinoff of Delphi,
G.M. would have to assume much of those costs, setting up a further
quandary because simply dumping troubles on G.M., its largest customer,
is not necessarily palatable to Delphi or the union.

Delphi plans as well to do more of what it has been doing since its
spin-off, by continuing to shift thousands of jobs overseas. An internal
memo obtained earlier in November by The Detroit News listed the Flint
plant where Jerry Roy works among factories intended for closing. Delphi
has called the memo incomplete and preliminary.

Delphi puts the choices facing Detroit and its workers in starkest
relief. G.M., at least so far, has sought a more compromising approach,
in large part because automakers face slightly less-onerous competitive
dynamics than their suppliers.

In early November , U.A.W. members reluctantly agreed to allow the
company to shave $15 billion, or nearly 20 percent, from its retiree
health care liability. The elder Mr. Roy and other retirees will now be
required to pay monthly premiums, deductibles and co-payments for
medical services for the first time, with costs of as much as $752 a year.

For his part, Gerald Roy is more worried for his son Jerry than himself.

"What worries me the most, or bothers me the most, is him working for 28
years for G.M. and he might lose his retirement," he said.

But the Roys are the lucky ones. Gerald and his wife, Delores, another
G.M. retiree, are healthy and not on medication, and their son is single
and does not have any children.

They are both aware that the good life that auto work has afforded their
family for four generations, and for hundreds of thousands of other
families in Michigan and elsewhere across the country, is ending.

Indeed, others face more difficult times.

"We're going to have to make a choice between what bill to pay, whether
to go to the doctor," said Larry Mathews, who works at the same Delphi
plant as Mr. Roy and is also the editor of The Sparkler, a paper for
plant workers. If the pay cuts go through, Mr. Mathews said he would no
longer be able to afford his son's college tuition.

"I know I'm going to have to call my son at Central Michigan and tell
him to come home," he said. "I bet those executives don't have to make
those calls."

Like Gerald Roy, Mr. Mathews's father retired from G.M. at a time when
the bond between the company and its workers was still strong. Mr.
Mathews's father died from an asbestos-related illness stemming from his
plant work. Even so, Mr. Mathews said his father, who became ill in his
late seventies, refused to sue.

"He said, 'This place paid for everything I got today; I'm not going to
sue them now,' " Mr. Mathews recalled.

But now, Mr. Mathews makes clear that he has no desire for his own son
to continue the family tradition.

"Given what we've lost here in the past decade, I really didn't want to
see him come to work at G.M. or Delphi," he said. "The security just
isn't there."

When the web of labor contracts was woven during the postwar American
auto boom, industry executives wanted, above all, to keep the union at
bay and the profit rolling in. With young workers and no Toyotas and
Hondas to worry about, there was little short-term downside to the
industry's concessions.

"The work forces were young, the pension costs were low, the exposure
for health care wasn't really there and they didn't promise a lot to
begin with," said Gerald Meyers, a professor at the University of
Michigan and the former chief executive of American Motors. Each
contract, he said, "added a little more and a little more and a little
more."

"The thinking in top management," he said, speaking from personal
experience, "is that they've kicked this ball in front of us, and keep
kicking it. And when it comes due, we're not going to have to pay it."

"It's like the national debt," he added. "We'll spend it now and let the
kids worry about it. Well, here we are in 2005, and the kids are now the
management. They're paying for their fathers' sins."

G.M. workers should not expect the dire approach that Delphi has taken,
at least on wages, because assembly work has always been better paying,
even at competitors like Toyota and Honda in their American plants.

G.M.'s problem, at least in terms of its costs, is the enormous price of
health care benefits for hundreds of thousands of retirees. G.M. is the
largest private provider of health care, covering more than a million
Americans.

"If I look at our priority list on the things we need to do to get
cost-competitive, wage rates are nowhere near the top for us," Mr.
Wagoner, the G.M. chairman and chief executive, said in a recent interview.

Not that anyone has much chance of getting a job at these companies
anymore. Wages are less important because the industry is so much more
efficient than it used to be and has already cut so many jobs.

G.M. plans to cut its blue-collar work force even further, though, to
86,000 Americans nationwide by the end of 2008, about the same number of
people it once employed in Flint alone in the 1970's. At its peak, G.M.
employed more than 600,000 Americans.

"Frankly in our business, the progress in improving productivity has
been dramatic," Mr. Wagoner said. "Over a 10-year period, we have gone
from a ballpark of 40-plus hours a vehicle in assembly to 20-plus hours
a vehicle."

Benefits are another matter. G.M. pays about $1,500 per car assembled in
the United States for health care, more than it spends on steel.

Even with the coming cuts for retirees, the elder Mr. Roy is not
concerned; he is actually more worried about paying heating bills for
the large house he built two years ago, abutting woods just outside Flint.

"It costs a lot to heat this place," he said, sitting on a swivel chair
in his sun room, before taking a visitor on a tour of his house,
including his own wood carvings displayed in his basement.

"We really made out," he said. "I bought a little cabin out on the lake
and made a chalet on it, turned around and made enough money to buy this
house."

But his son Jerry, knowing that his job may disappear and that his pay
is likely to shrink no matter where he ends up, faces much greater
uncertainty.

"What can you do?" Jerry asked. "People survive somehow, regardless of
what happens. I mean, it's sad, I could cry all night, but I'll figure
out a way to get by - somehow."

Jeremy W. Peters contributed reporting from Detroit for this article.

Correction: Nov. 22, 2005, Tuesday:

Because of an editing error, a front-page article on Saturday about a
family with four generations of General Motors workers referred
incorrectly in some editions to a statement by Rick Wagoner, General
Motors' chief executive, on the possibility of a bankruptcy filing by
the company. Mr. Wagoner said recently that the company had no plans to
file for bankruptcy, not that it did intend to do so.

My
> only agenda is fairness.

---And, of course, the OP stated that the MSM ignores whites in the same
financial boat, which is stunningly blind, given the coverage of un
employment recently....but, you're all about fairness....

I cannot say the same for the NY Times.

----Yes, the Times has many articles concerning white
unemployment....that the OP seems to have skipped...

The
> article implies that blacks losing their jobs will be hurt more than
> non-blacks losing their jobs.

"As in most recessions, African-Americans have been hit harder by this
recession than other workers. The overall unemployment rate for blacks
increased to 11.2 percent in November, an increase of 2.8 percentage
points over last year. By comparison, national unemployment last month
was 6.7 percent, up 2 percentage points from a year ago."

It is immaterial that there are a lot
> of blacks in the auto industry.

----It's immaterial that unemployment is much higher among blacks?

The article doesn't say but I imagine
> more whites will be losing their jobs than blacks.

----and has been covered previously by almost every MSM outlet known to
man....contrary to the OP's assertations....

The article even
> points out how minorities are given an advantage in acquiring dealer
> ownership. Why can't I get access to that help?

----You can....

Because a white guy
> before me was successful?

---Easier for a white guy with connections to rich white guys, perhaps?


   
Date: 05 Jan 2009 07:53:57
From: Irish Mike
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...

"suds macheath" <sudsmcduff19911@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:oDk8l.2876$gE4.2452@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> zxcv wrote:
>> On Jan 2, 10:36 am, suds macheath <sudsmcduff19...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> zxcv wrote:
>>>> On Dec 31, 9:14 am, suds macheath <sudsmcduff19...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> zxcv wrote:
>>>>>> On Dec 30, 5:28 pm, Mike <mikejc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Front page article on the NY Times today. Apparently the NY Times
>>>>>>> needed to spin the current economic crisis of the auto industry into
>>>>>>> the race card. I would laugh if it wasn't so sad.
>>>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/business/30detroit.html?_r=1&adxnnl...
>>>>>>> So how come we need to focus on the Black workers plight and ignore
>>>>>>> everyone else who may also be affected by the auto industry?
>>>>> ---You must have missed this one, Sparky....or you're cherry picking:
>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/19/business/businessspecial2/19generat...
>>>>> You may have "missed" it, but the plight of "everyone else" has been
>>>>> done to death by MSM, including the NYT....
>>>> That is not the point.
>>> ---That is indeed the point.....The OP laments that the NYT only
>>> mentions blacks as suffering from the auto manufacturing crisis, when
>>> there are articlews published beforehand that highlight whoie suffering
>>> as well. Which leads me to believe the OP has an agenda to proffer....
>>>
>>> The point is that blacks are singled out as
>>>
>>>> being hit hard.
>>> ----Harder than whites. The stats are there in the article....
>>>
>>> Is there an article talking about how this effects
>>>
>>>> whites or Asians losing their jobs?
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/19/business/businessspecial2/19generat...
>>> And many, many more....where have you been?
>>>
>>> The only group's hardships that
>>>
>>>> they feel the need to point out specifically is the blacks. What
>>>> makes me kind of sick is this mentality that success or failure of
>>>> others of the same race is more important than anyone else. If a
>>>> black guy or white guy loses his job or gets rich it effects him the
>>>> same.
>>> ---I can see you didn't read the article.....either one.- Hide quoted
>>> text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> Imagine a headline, "White Workers Hurt by Microsoft's Ills." Why is
>> it more important that people that share a characteristic have an
>> issue?
>>
>> Well I read the first one. The second comes up as page not found.
>
> ----Here ya go:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/19/business/businessspecial2/19generations.html?sq=auto%20workers&st=cse&scp=3&pagewanted=print
>
> For a G.M. Family, the American Dream Vanishes
> By DANNY HAKIM
>
> Correction Appended
>
> FLINT, Mich. - Four generations of the Roy family relied on General Motors
> for their prosperity.
>
> Over more than seven decades, the company's wages bought the Roys homes,
> cars and once-unimaginable comforts, while G.M.'s enviable medical and
> pension benefits have kept them secure in their retirements.
>
> But the G.M. that was once an unassailable symbol of the nation's
> industrial might is a shadow of its former self, and the post-World War II
> promise of blue-collar factory work being a secure path to the American
> dream has faded with it.
>
> After a long slide, it now looks like the end of an era. "General Motors,
> when I got in there, it was like I'd died and went to heaven," said Jerry
> Roy, 49 - who started at G.M. in 1977 and now works on an assembly line at
> a plant operated by Delphi, the bankrupt former G.M. parts unit that was
> spun off in 1999.
>
> When Mr. Roy was hired at G.M., nearly three decades ago, his salary more
> than doubled from his job at a local supermarket. He traded in his
> five-year-old Buick for a new Chevy and since then he has done well enough
> to buy a pleasant house on a lake near Flint.
>
> But now he faces the prospect of either losing his job or accepting a
> sharp pay cut. And for those coming after him, "it's just sad that it's
> ending, that it looks like this," he said. In his hometown, he added, "all
> these places that used to be factories are now just parking lots."
>
> Those factories supported the Roy family for generations.
>
> Jerry's great-grandfather, John Westley Roy, came to Michigan from
> Missouri in 1931, in the depths of the Depression. He built a home five
> blocks north of a plant operated by General Motors' AC Delco division and
> worked there for a decade before he was injured and retired to a farm.
>
> Mr. Roy's grandfather, Edward, worked at the Delco plant during the war,
> when it was converted into a machine-gun plant: he would tell a story
> about a day one of the guns came off a mount and began shooting holes in
> the wall of a cafeteria.
>
> Mr. Roy's father, Gerald, started at G.M.'s Fisher Body unit in 1951, was
> laid off after a year and a half, and then got a job in 1954 at AC Delco.
> Gerald's sister, uncle and future wife, Delores, worked at the plant.
>
> The elder Mr. Roy remembers the 1950's and '60's as a golden era, when
> everything seemed possible.
>
> "There were three shifts - they worked around the clock," he said of the
> AC Delco plant, adding, "you'd go in there and you couldn't even hardly
> walk."
>
> Buoyed by such prosperity, the auto industry was the pioneer in advancing
> what became the American model for the social contract between workers and
> their employees - from the $5 a day Henry Ford offered workers in 1914 to
> the all-inclusive health care and pension benefits that became a mainstay
> of the vast expansion of the middle class in the second half of the 20th
> century.
>
> In many ways, it was not the government but Detroit and other major
> industries, at the prodding of their unions, that created the
> American-style social safety net, and helped foster the shared prosperity
> that is now fracturing.
>
> "The days when blue-collar work could be passed on down the family line,
> those days are over," said Gary N. Chaison, a professor of labor relations
> at Clark University in Worcester, Mass. "Where you did have automobile
> plants, it was always looked at as an elite job. It was hard work, but
> good, steady work, with wonderful benefits and good solid pay, and you
> were in the upper middle class."
>
> Now, with G.M. and other domestic automakers and suppliers fighting to
> survive brutal global competition, Detroit is planning to cut even more
> manufacturing jobs. At the same time, the industry is moving to rewrite or
> even tear up its labor contracts in a bid to turn itself around by
> drastically reducing both wages and benefits. Today, Mr. Roy and Gerald,
> 71, who once helped him get his job, are both preparing to make
> sacrifices.
>
> Robert S. Miller, the turnaround specialist who became chairman and chief
> executive of Delphi in July, said in an interview in October that Delphi
> and the United Auto Workers would have to grapple with how much to take
> from the retirees' pockets and how much from workers.
>
> "This is a trade-off," he said. "I can't satisfy what everyone would like
> to have."
>
> [But Delphi is pressing for such large cuts from both constituencies that
> one top U.A.W. leader, Richard Shoemaker, recently called the company's
> proposals a "roadmap for confrontation."]
>
> Not only is the company seeking to cut two-thirds of its 34,000 hourly
> workers in the United States, it wants to cut wages to as little as $10 an
> hour from as much as $30.
>
> Worries about a strike at Delphi have also been among the many issues
> weighing on G.M. itself. Talk of bankruptcy has become so persistent
> around G.M., despite the significant cash and other resources it still has
> at its disposal, that Rick Wagoner, the company's chief executive, has
> gone out of his way recently to state that there was no intention for G.M.
> to file.
>
> Delphi is also seeking major cuts in the health care and pension benefits
> of retirees, though under the terms of the spinoff of Delphi, G.M. would
> have to assume much of those costs, setting up a further quandary because
> simply dumping troubles on G.M., its largest customer, is not necessarily
> palatable to Delphi or the union.
>
> Delphi plans as well to do more of what it has been doing since its
> spin-off, by continuing to shift thousands of jobs overseas. An internal
> memo obtained earlier in November by The Detroit News listed the Flint
> plant where Jerry Roy works among factories intended for closing. Delphi
> has called the memo incomplete and preliminary.
>
> Delphi puts the choices facing Detroit and its workers in starkest relief.
> G.M., at least so far, has sought a more compromising approach, in large
> part because automakers face slightly less-onerous competitive dynamics
> than their suppliers.
>
> In early November , U.A.W. members reluctantly agreed to allow the company
> to shave $15 billion, or nearly 20 percent, from its retiree health care
> liability. The elder Mr. Roy and other retirees will now be required to
> pay monthly premiums, deductibles and co-payments for medical services for
> the first time, with costs of as much as $752 a year.
>
> For his part, Gerald Roy is more worried for his son Jerry than himself.
>
> "What worries me the most, or bothers me the most, is him working for 28
> years for G.M. and he might lose his retirement," he said.
>
> But the Roys are the lucky ones. Gerald and his wife, Delores, another
> G.M. retiree, are healthy and not on medication, and their son is single
> and does not have any children.
>
> They are both aware that the good life that auto work has afforded their
> family for four generations, and for hundreds of thousands of other
> families in Michigan and elsewhere across the country, is ending.
>
> Indeed, others face more difficult times.
>
> "We're going to have to make a choice between what bill to pay, whether to
> go to the doctor," said Larry Mathews, who works at the same Delphi plant
> as Mr. Roy and is also the editor of The Sparkler, a paper for plant
> workers. If the pay cuts go through, Mr. Mathews said he would no longer
> be able to afford his son's college tuition.
>
> "I know I'm going to have to call my son at Central Michigan and tell him
> to come home," he said. "I bet those executives don't have to make those
> calls."
>
> Like Gerald Roy, Mr. Mathews's father retired from G.M. at a time when the
> bond between the company and its workers was still strong. Mr. Mathews's
> father died from an asbestos-related illness stemming from his plant work.
> Even so, Mr. Mathews said his father, who became ill in his late
> seventies, refused to sue.
>
> "He said, 'This place paid for everything I got today; I'm not going to
> sue them now,' " Mr. Mathews recalled.
>
> But now, Mr. Mathews makes clear that he has no desire for his own son to
> continue the family tradition.
>
> "Given what we've lost here in the past decade, I really didn't want to
> see him come to work at G.M. or Delphi," he said. "The security just isn't
> there."
>
> When the web of labor contracts was woven during the postwar American auto
> boom, industry executives wanted, above all, to keep the union at bay and
> the profit rolling in. With young workers and no Toyotas and Hondas to
> worry about, there was little short-term downside to the industry's
> concessions.
>
> "The work forces were young, the pension costs were low, the exposure for
> health care wasn't really there and they didn't promise a lot to begin
> with," said Gerald Meyers, a professor at the University of Michigan and
> the former chief executive of American Motors. Each contract, he said,
> "added a little more and a little more and a little more."
>
> "The thinking in top management," he said, speaking from personal
> experience, "is that they've kicked this ball in front of us, and keep
> kicking it. And when it comes due, we're not going to have to pay it."
>
> "It's like the national debt," he added. "We'll spend it now and let the
> kids worry about it. Well, here we are in 2005, and the kids are now the
> management. They're paying for their fathers' sins."
>
> G.M. workers should not expect the dire approach that Delphi has taken, at
> least on wages, because assembly work has always been better paying, even
> at competitors like Toyota and Honda in their American plants.
>
> G.M.'s problem, at least in terms of its costs, is the enormous price of
> health care benefits for hundreds of thousands of retirees. G.M. is the
> largest private provider of health care, covering more than a million
> Americans.
>
> "If I look at our priority list on the things we need to do to get
> cost-competitive, wage rates are nowhere near the top for us," Mr.
> Wagoner, the G.M. chairman and chief executive, said in a recent
> interview.
>
> Not that anyone has much chance of getting a job at these companies
> anymore. Wages are less important because the industry is so much more
> efficient than it used to be and has already cut so many jobs.
>
> G.M. plans to cut its blue-collar work force even further, though, to
> 86,000 Americans nationwide by the end of 2008, about the same number of
> people it once employed in Flint alone in the 1970's. At its peak, G.M.
> employed more than 600,000 Americans.
>
> "Frankly in our business, the progress in improving productivity has been
> dramatic," Mr. Wagoner said. "Over a 10-year period, we have gone from a
> ballpark of 40-plus hours a vehicle in assembly to 20-plus hours a
> vehicle."
>
> Benefits are another matter. G.M. pays about $1,500 per car assembled in
> the United States for health care, more than it spends on steel.
>
> Even with the coming cuts for retirees, the elder Mr. Roy is not
> concerned; he is actually more worried about paying heating bills for the
> large house he built two years ago, abutting woods just outside Flint.
>
> "It costs a lot to heat this place," he said, sitting on a swivel chair in
> his sun room, before taking a visitor on a tour of his house, including
> his own wood carvings displayed in his basement.
>
> "We really made out," he said. "I bought a little cabin out on the lake
> and made a chalet on it, turned around and made enough money to buy this
> house."
>
> But his son Jerry, knowing that his job may disappear and that his pay is
> likely to shrink no matter where he ends up, faces much greater
> uncertainty.
>
> "What can you do?" Jerry asked. "People survive somehow, regardless of
> what happens. I mean, it's sad, I could cry all night, but I'll figure out
> a way to get by - somehow."
>
> Jeremy W. Peters contributed reporting from Detroit for this article.
>
> Correction: Nov. 22, 2005, Tuesday:
>
> Because of an editing error, a front-page article on Saturday about a
> family with four generations of General Motors workers referred
> incorrectly in some editions to a statement by Rick Wagoner, General
> Motors' chief executive, on the possibility of a bankruptcy filing by the
> company. Mr. Wagoner said recently that the company had no plans to file
> for bankruptcy, not that it did intend to do so.
>
> My
>> only agenda is fairness.
>
> ---And, of course, the OP stated that the MSM ignores whites in the same
> financial boat, which is stunningly blind, given the coverage of un
> employment recently....but, you're all about fairness....
>
> I cannot say the same for the NY Times.
>
> ----Yes, the Times has many articles concerning white unemployment....that
> the OP seems to have skipped...
>
> The
>> article implies that blacks losing their jobs will be hurt more than
>> non-blacks losing their jobs.
>
> "As in most recessions, African-Americans have been hit harder by this
> recession than other workers. The overall unemployment rate for blacks
> increased to 11.2 percent in November, an increase of 2.8 percentage
> points over last year. By comparison, national unemployment last month was
> 6.7 percent, up 2 percentage points from a year ago."
>
> It is immaterial that there are a lot
>> of blacks in the auto industry.
>
> ----It's immaterial that unemployment is much higher among blacks?
>
> The article doesn't say but I imagine
>> more whites will be losing their jobs than blacks.
>
> ----and has been covered previously by almost every MSM outlet known to
> man....contrary to the OP's assertations....
>
> The article even
>> points out how minorities are given an advantage in acquiring dealer
>> ownership. Why can't I get access to that help?
>
> ----You can....
>
> Because a white guy
>> before me was successful?
>
> ---Easier for a white guy with connections to rich white guys, perhaps?

Right you are bucko! Hell, every one knows white people were all born rich
on big plantations and their families owned slaves. In fact, my family was
so rich when they immigrated here from Ireland that our slaves all owned
Mexicans to do the field work for them. Yeah, it was a grand life for us
legal immigrant white folks. When me and my brothers were born, our parents
gave each of us a couple of dozen buckets of cash and bought us sports cars.
Needless to say, we all got in to colleges and had our tuition paid because
they were trying to meet their quota of white students. And when we
graduated, we were all given executive jobs because all of the big
corporations, were desperate to get more white guys on the top floor. And
then the government stepped in and said it would guarantee us a subprime
loan to buy any thing we wanted, but couldn't afford, as long as we agreed
to be too stupid to read the interest rate printed on the loan papers. And
if some bank refused to give us our subprime loan, the ACLU, EEOC , NAAWP
and ACORN would step in and play the white race card on their asses.

Irish Mike

Proud to be one of the 55,000,000+ Americans who did not vote for your
messiah.




    
Date: 06 Jan 2009 13:32:23
From: RichD
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
On Jan 6, h...@nospam.com wrote:
> >Have you ever listened to Joe Biden speak? =A0How the hell any one who v=
oted
> >for that babbling moron can be hypocritical enough call any one else a
> >"dingbat" is a mystery to me.
>> Irish Mike
>
> Biden is smarter than you, idiot.

yep, he's a scholar who studied all FDR's teevee speeches...


--
Rich


     
Date: 06 Jan 2009 22:34:19
From: krw
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 13:32:23 -0800 (PST), RichD
<r_delaney2001@yahoo.com > wrote:

>On Jan 6, h...@nospam.com wrote:
>> >Have you ever listened to Joe Biden speak?  How the hell any one who voted
>> >for that babbling moron can be hypocritical enough call any one else a
>> >"dingbat" is a mystery to me.
>>> Irish Mike
>>
>> Biden is smarter than you, idiot.
>
>yep, he's a scholar who studied all FDR's teevee speeches...

The ones from 1929?


    
Date: 05 Jan 2009 07:27:52
From:
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 07:53:57 -0500, "Irish Mike"
<mjostar@ameritech.net > wrote:

>Irish Mike
>
>Proud to be one of the 55,000,000+ Americans who did not vote for your
>messiah.
>
so you're proud to have voted for More-of-the-same McCain and Pathetic
Palin? After 8 years of destroying our nation it wasn't enough for
you so you wanted 8 more years of exactly the same screwups? And
you're proud of that?

When asked what newspapers and magazines she read, Sarah Palin
answered: "All of them."

<snicker >


     
Date: 06 Jan 2009 20:21:24
From: Mike
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
On Jan 6, 3:30=A0pm, "Irish Mike" <mjos...@ameritech.net > wrote:
> <h...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>
> news:qfc7m455qj6cs28v93v7e4e6al4mrmt7jb@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 12:22:09 -0500, "Irish Mike"
> > <mjos...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
> >><h...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> >>news:6307m4li9brmhf8dkm1dosl9l7ipirv2rn@4ax.com...
> >>> On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 15:22:34 GMT, GreenDistantStar
> >>> <pde63...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
> >>>>Obama's win was comprehensive, he has a mandate.
>
> >>> worst part for Obama is that the conservatives want him to fail and
> >>> will do anything in their power to impede him. =A0If he tries to affe=
ct
> >>> any real change he will be murdered.
>
> >>Do you mean like the retreat-and-surrender-in -Iraq Democrats who did
> >>every
> >>thing they possibly could to undermine President Bush and this country =
for
> >>the last eight straight years?
>
> > you mean the Iraq that was invaded illegally based on nothing but
> > intentional lies?
>
> > Bush need to be undermined. =A0He is a traitor to this nation, and the
> > worst president we have ever had.
>
> >>Irish Mike
>
> Well bucko, I disagree with you on every point. =A0But one thing is for s=
ure -
> there has not been a terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11. =A0Bus=
h has
> kept this country safe for the last seven years. =A0Now it's Obama's turn=
. =A0He
> controls the White House, Senate and Congress. =A0He is the commander in =
chief
> and he appointed all of the key national defense directors. =A0 All of th=
e
> Generals and Admiralsa now ultimately report to Obama. =A0So we'll see wh=
at
> happens after he and his left wing liberal pals close Gitmo, gut the Patr=
iot
> Act, handcuff America's intelligence gathering capability, demoralize the
> military and start kissing the UN's ass. and bargining with terrorists
> without any pre-conditions. =A0What ever the result, it's going to be 100=
% on
> Obama and the Democrats.
>

I think Oblama is over his head personally. He's gonna shit a brick
when the Israeli-Palestinian thing goes into all out war. Watch.

Mike



      
Date: 08 Jan 2009 00:19:26
From:
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...

"Pierre Honeyman" <pearhed@gmail.com > wrote in message news:4343effa-
e23b-4b4f-bd16-2ddd2ea05cf4@i20g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> One side is a religiously inspired genocidal death cult and the other
> side is Israel, a peaceful liberal democracy.
>
> I know which side I'm on.
>
> Pierre
>
>


Let me know which side you are on again, when one day someone breaks
into your home, forcibly confine you, and build a peaceful democracy
for his own wife and kids right inside your home at your expense. That
is what the Zionists are doing to the Palestinians.





       
Date: 09 Jan 2009 15:53:52
From: Charlie E.
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 00:19:26 -0800 (PST), wannabesomeonecares@gmail.com
wrote:

>
>"Pierre Honeyman" <pearhed@gmail.com> wrote in message news:4343effa-
>e23b-4b4f-bd16-2ddd2ea05cf4@i20g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> One side is a religiously inspired genocidal death cult and the other
>> side is Israel, a peaceful liberal democracy.
>>
>> I know which side I'm on.
>>
>> Pierre
>>
>>
>
>
>Let me know which side you are on again, when one day someone breaks
>into your home, forcibly confine you, and build a peaceful democracy
>for his own wife and kids right inside your home at your expense. That
>is what the Zionists are doing to the Palestinians.
>
>

Ok, so you have no idea what actually happened when Isreal was
created, then. You have some sort of fantasy that the evil zionists
expelled all the palestinians, took their land and homes, and build
their country. Well, take a little time and learn some history...

In reality, the jews mainly bought the properties they own. Then, the
state of Isreal was created by the UN. The palastinians, fearing some
sort of trouble, got up and left, mainly because they thought that all
their arab neighbors would rise up, and drive the jews into the sea,
and they didn't want to be in the middle of it. Guess what, the
opposite happened. The jews drove the arab 'armies' to the far side
of the Jordan.

You then add in 50+ years of sour grapes, and you get our present
situation. It really no longer has anything to do with religion, it
is just idiots with a suicidal grudge doing stupid things, and
wondering why people don't like it when they do.

Charlie


        
Date: 09 Jan 2009 10:36:00
From:
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 15:53:52 GMT, Charlie E. <edmondson@ieee.org >
wrote:


>You then add in 50+ years of sour grapes, and you get our present
>situation. It really no longer has anything to do with religion, it
>is just idiots with a suicidal grudge doing stupid things, and
>wondering why people don't like it when they do.

no, it has everything to do with religion. Both sides are taught that
they are better, the only right, decent and holy ones, and everyone
else is inferior and/or evil. Judaism, Islam, and Christianity all
teach exactly the same thing. Any evil or atrocity is justified if
you do it in the same of your god. This is the human sickness that
gives us eternal war. If it were not for religion, mankind could
learn to live in peace for the sake of future survival. Thanks to
religion our future most likely will result in in our total
self-destruction.

>
>Charlie


         
Date: 09 Jan 2009 23:18:55
From: Charlie E.
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 10:36:00 -0700, hal@nospam.com wrote:

>On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 15:53:52 GMT, Charlie E. <edmondson@ieee.org>
>wrote:
>
>
>>You then add in 50+ years of sour grapes, and you get our present
>>situation. It really no longer has anything to do with religion, it
>>is just idiots with a suicidal grudge doing stupid things, and
>>wondering why people don't like it when they do.
>
>no, it has everything to do with religion. Both sides are taught that
>they are better, the only right, decent and holy ones, and everyone
>else is inferior and/or evil. Judaism, Islam, and Christianity all
>teach exactly the same thing. Any evil or atrocity is justified if
>you do it in the same of your god. This is the human sickness that
>gives us eternal war. If it were not for religion, mankind could
>learn to live in peace for the sake of future survival. Thanks to
>religion our future most likely will result in in our total
>self-destruction.
>
>>
>>Charlie

Nope, sorry, but you are just an anti-religous nutcase. All the
religions you mention teach tolerance, love and respect. Now, some
practicioners have some of the silly attitudes you mention, but humans
have found out that you don't have to have religion to do that. Just
look at Hitler, Lenin, Pol Pot, etc.

In truth, it is just politics and folks that want to manipulate the
proles and make themselves feel good at the expense of others. Isreal
would really just like to live in peace. Some arabs just can't stand
that...

Charlie


          
Date: 09 Jan 2009 19:01:55
From:
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 23:18:55 GMT, Charlie E. <edmondson@ieee.org >
wrote:

>On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 10:36:00 -0700, hal@nospam.com wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 15:53:52 GMT, Charlie E. <edmondson@ieee.org>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>You then add in 50+ years of sour grapes, and you get our present
>>>situation. It really no longer has anything to do with religion, it
>>>is just idiots with a suicidal grudge doing stupid things, and
>>>wondering why people don't like it when they do.
>>
>>no, it has everything to do with religion. Both sides are taught that
>>they are better, the only right, decent and holy ones, and everyone
>>else is inferior and/or evil. Judaism, Islam, and Christianity all
>>teach exactly the same thing. Any evil or atrocity is justified if
>>you do it in the same of your god. This is the human sickness that
>>gives us eternal war. If it were not for religion, mankind could
>>learn to live in peace for the sake of future survival. Thanks to
>>religion our future most likely will result in in our total
>>self-destruction.
>>
>>>
>>>Charlie
>
>Nope, sorry, but you are just an anti-religous nutcase. All the
>religions you mention teach tolerance, love and respect.

yea, right.

> Now, some
>practicioners have some of the silly attitudes you mention, but humans
>have found out that you don't have to have religion to do that. Just
>look at Hitler, Lenin, Pol Pot, etc.

"Gott mit Uns."

>
>In truth, it is just politics and folks that want to manipulate the
>proles and make themselves feel good at the expense of others. Isreal
>would really just like to live in peace. Some arabs just can't stand
>that...

sure they want to live in peace, on someone else's land.

>
>Charlie


       
Date: 08 Jan 2009 15:50:34
From: warm'n'flat
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 00:19:26 -0800 (PST), wannabesomeonecares@gmail.com
wrote:

>
>"Pierre Honeyman" <pearhed@gmail.com> wrote in message news:4343effa-
>e23b-4b4f-bd16-2ddd2ea05cf4@i20g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> One side is a religiously inspired genocidal death cult and the other
>> side is Israel, a peaceful liberal democracy.
>>
>> I know which side I'm on.
>>
>> Pierre
>>
>>
>
>
>Let me know which side you are on again, when one day someone breaks
>into your home, forcibly confine you, and build a peaceful democracy
>for his own wife and kids right inside your home at your expense. That
>is what the Zionists are doing to the Palestinians.
>
>

That's fine, because their god told them the home was promised to
them, and sod anyone already living there.


       
Date: 08 Jan 2009 06:36:58
From:
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 00:19:26 -0800 (PST), wannabesomeonecares@gmail.com
wrote:

>
>"Pierre Honeyman" <pearhed@gmail.com> wrote in message news:4343effa-
>e23b-4b4f-bd16-2ddd2ea05cf4@i20g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> One side is a religiously inspired genocidal death cult and the other
>> side is Israel, a peaceful liberal democracy.
>>
>> I know which side I'm on.
>>
>> Pierre
>>
>>
>
>
>Let me know which side you are on again, when one day someone breaks
>into your home, forcibly confine you, and build a peaceful democracy
>for his own wife and kids right inside your home at your expense. That
>is what the Zionists are doing to the Palestinians.

not only that, but imagine someone moving in next door. Setting up a
rocket crew in their yard and started firing rockets into the next
county. Then along comes tanks from the next county and they raze
your neighborhood, kill your wife and kids, and take over your house
for "the sake of peace". Turns out the folks who moved in next door
were from the next county and worked for the people who just murdered
your family and took your land. That's what the Zionists are doing to
the Palestinians.

>
>


      
Date: 08 Jan 2009 00:01:11
From: Pierre Honeyman
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
On Jan 7, 8:10=A0pm, h...@nospam.com wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 03:40:02 GMT, "Jerry B. Altzman"
>
>
>
> <jba...@altzman.com> wrote:
> >Or we can say it'll continue until the Arabs decide to remove themselves
> >from Israeli land -- I mean, it's only the recency of the conquest that
> >seems to be at issue here?
> >Arabs did it a few hundred years ago. Israelis, 60.
> >Jews before that. Romans before that. Jews before that. Babylonians
> >before that. Jews before that. Canaanites before that.
>
> >There are two possible ends:
> >1) The Israelis destroy the desire of the Arabs to wage war.
> >2) The Arabs wipe out all the Israelis.
>
> >(A third alternative, that the Israelis wipe out all the Arabs, I
> >dismiss as being too morally repugnant for the Israelis.)
>
> >I know which side I'm on.
>
> if it wasn't for religion you people could learn to live in peace.
> After all, you are all related.

One side is a religiously inspired genocidal death cult and the other
side is Israel, a peaceful liberal democracy.

I know which side I'm on.

Pierre


       
Date: 08 Jan 2009 06:33:25
From:
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 00:01:11 -0800 (PST), Pierre Honeyman
<pearhed@gmail.com > wrote:


>> >(A third alternative, that the Israelis wipe out all the Arabs, I
>> >dismiss as being too morally repugnant for the Israelis.)
>>
>> >I know which side I'm on.
>>
>> if it wasn't for religion you people could learn to live in peace.
>> After all, you are all related.
>
>One side is a religiously inspired genocidal death cult and the other
>side is Israel, a peaceful liberal democracy.

horseshit. One side uses god as their motivator and justification for
fighting invaders and threats to their way of life. The other side
uses god as their motivator and justification to lie and cheat anyone
they want that benefits their way of life. In case you still haven't
figured it out, Jews lie. Not only is it condoned in their religious
writings, it is encouraged.

>
>I know which side I'm on.
>
>Pierre


      
Date: 07 Jan 2009 06:43:59
From:
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 20:21:24 -0800 (PST), Mike <mikejc563@yahoo.com >
wrote:


>
>I think Oblama is over his head personally. He's gonna shit a brick
>when the Israeli-Palestinian thing goes into all out war. Watch.
>
>Mike

Can you think of one person alive in the entire world that wouldn't be
over his head in times like these? Despite your feelings about his
idealogy simple fact is the man is extremely intelligent, calm and
cool under pressure, can think on his feet quickly, and has good
leadership qualities. Add to that he is picking a staff of
intelligent and highly experienced people without any severe
idealogical issues. I'm thinking right now Obama is by far the best
man for the job we could have found anywhere. For the sake of the
republic and our personal freedoms I am trying to remain optimistic.


     
Date: 05 Jan 2009 10:06:51
From: Irish Mike
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...

<hal@nospam.com > wrote in message
news:l264m49a2boq8ftcc0c17urdu97157ehhi@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 07:53:57 -0500, "Irish Mike"
> <mjostar@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
>>Irish Mike
>>
>>Proud to be one of the 55,000,000+ Americans who did not vote for your
>>messiah.
>>
> so you're proud to have voted for More-of-the-same McCain and Pathetic
> Palin? After 8 years of destroying our nation it wasn't enough for
> you so you wanted 8 more years of exactly the same screwups? And
> you're proud of that?
>
> When asked what newspapers and magazines she read, Sarah Palin
> answered: "All of them."
>
> <snicker>

And Obama said he sat in the pews for 20+ years and never heard Jeremiah
Wright make a single racist, anti-American or anti-Semitic comment. Then he
said he could no more disown Jeremiah Wright than he could disown the black
community. That was, of course, before he disowned Wright a couple of weeks
later. And Obama gave his word that he would stick to public campaign
funding. That was, of course, before he broke his word again. Now brace
your feet and try to pull your head out of The Messiah's kool aid bucket.

Irish Mike

Very, very proud to be one of the 55,000,000+ Americans who did not vote for
your
messiah.





      
Date: 06 Jan 2009 01:02:44
From:
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 10:06:51 -0500, "Irish Mike"
<mjostar@ameritech.net > wrote:


>> When asked what newspapers and magazines she read, Sarah Palin
>> answered: "All of them."
>>
>> <snicker>
>
>And Obama said he sat in the pews for 20+ years and never heard Jeremiah
>Wright make a single racist, anti-American or anti-Semitic comment. Then he
>said he could no more disown Jeremiah Wright than he could disown the black
>community. That was, of course, before he disowned Wright a couple of weeks
>later. And Obama gave his word that he would stick to public campaign
>funding. That was, of course, before he broke his word again. Now brace
>your feet and try to pull your head out of The Messiah's kool aid bucket.
>
>Irish Mike
>
>Very, very proud to be one of the 55,000,000+ Americans who did not vote for
>your
>messiah.

you're retarded, right?


       
Date: 06 Jan 2009 03:15:23
From: Irish Mike
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...

<hal@nospam.com > wrote in message
news:0046m4lci3fn5i4hrukrjmi9dq8r7jff4v@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 10:06:51 -0500, "Irish Mike"
> <mjostar@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
>
>>> When asked what newspapers and magazines she read, Sarah Palin
>>> answered: "All of them."
>>>
>>> <snicker>
>>
>>And Obama said he sat in the pews for 20+ years and never heard Jeremiah
>>Wright make a single racist, anti-American or anti-Semitic comment. Then
>>he
>>said he could no more disown Jeremiah Wright than he could disown the
>>black
>>community. That was, of course, before he disowned Wright a couple of
>>weeks
>>later. And Obama gave his word that he would stick to public campaign
>>funding. That was, of course, before he broke his word again. Now brace
>>your feet and try to pull your head out of The Messiah's kool aid bucket.
>>
>>Irish Mike
>>
>>Very, very proud to be one of the 55,000,000+ Americans who did not vote
>>for
>>your
>>messiah.
>
> you're retarded, right?

No, that would be the 62,000,000 who voted for your messiah.

Irish Mike




        
Date: 07 Jan 2009 11:05:03
From: Mike
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
On Jan 7, 8:43=A0am, h...@nospam.com wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 20:21:24 -0800 (PST), Mike <mikejc...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >I think Oblama is over his head personally. =A0He's gonna shit a brick
> >when the Israeli-Palestinian thing goes into all out war. =A0Watch.
>
> >Mike
>
> Can you think of one person alive in the entire world that wouldn't be
> over his head in times like these? =A0Despite your feelings about his
> idealogy simple fact is the man is extremely intelligent, calm and
> cool under pressure, can think on his feet quickly, and has good
> leadership qualities. =A0Add to that he is picking a staff of
> intelligent and highly experienced people without any severe
> idealogical issues. =A0I'm thinking right now Obama is by far the best
> man for the job we could have found anywhere. =A0For the sake of the
> republic and our personal freedoms I am trying to remain optimistic.

This isn't the debate club at Harvard. Obama may have to make some
tough decisions. Like pick a side in this war and take a hard
stance. Negotiating might not work here.

Can he do this? I dunno...


         
Date: 08 Jan 2009 12:24:43
From: Pierre Honeyman
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
On Jan 8, 5:33=A0am, h...@nospam.com wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 00:01:11 -0800 (PST), Pierre Honeyman
>
> <pear...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >(A third alternative, that the Israelis wipe out all the Arabs, I
> >> >dismiss as being too morally repugnant for the Israelis.)
>
> >> >I know which side I'm on.
>
> >> if it wasn't for religion you people could learn to live in peace.
> >> After all, you are all related.
>
> >One side is a religiously inspired genocidal death cult and the other
> >side is Israel, a peaceful liberal democracy.
>
> horseshit. =A0One side uses god as their motivator and justification for
> fighting invaders and threats to their way of life. =A0 The other side
> uses god as their motivator and justification to lie and cheat anyone
> they want that benefits their way of life. =A0In case you still haven't
> figured it out, Jews lie. =A0Not only is it condoned in their religious
> writings, it is encouraged. =A0

Wow, quite the raging case of anti-Semitism you've got going on there
hal. Do all you niggers have it or is it just you?

Pierre


         
Date: 07 Jan 2009 15:37:32
From:
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 11:05:03 -0800 (PST), Mike <mikejc563@yahoo.com >
wrote:

>On Jan 7, 8:43 am, h...@nospam.com wrote:
>> On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 20:21:24 -0800 (PST), Mike <mikejc...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >I think Oblama is over his head personally.  He's gonna shit a brick
>> >when the Israeli-Palestinian thing goes into all out war.  Watch.
>>
>> >Mike
>>
>> Can you think of one person alive in the entire world that wouldn't be
>> over his head in times like these?  Despite your feelings about his
>> idealogy simple fact is the man is extremely intelligent, calm and
>> cool under pressure, can think on his feet quickly, and has good
>> leadership qualities.  Add to that he is picking a staff of
>> intelligent and highly experienced people without any severe
>> idealogical issues.  I'm thinking right now Obama is by far the best
>> man for the job we could have found anywhere.  For the sake of the
>> republic and our personal freedoms I am trying to remain optimistic.
>
>This isn't the debate club at Harvard. Obama may have to make some
>tough decisions. Like pick a side in this war and take a hard
>stance. Negotiating might not work here.
>
>Can he do this? I dunno...

this is easy. Pull all funding for Israel and let the Arabs wipe them
out. Establish the nation of Palestine. Then we need to abolish The
Fed, and take control of our money supply back from the Jews. Then we
can have world peace and restore our economy.


          
Date: 08 Jan 2009 01:01:25
From: Jerry B. Altzman
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
on 1/7/2009 5:37 PM hal@nospam.com said the following:
> this is easy. Pull all funding for Israel and let the Arabs wipe them
> out. Establish the nation of Palestine. Then we need to abolish The
> Fed, and take control of our money supply back from the Jews. Then we
> can have world peace and restore our economy.

Is this your final solution?

//jbaltz
--
jerry b. altzman jbaltz@altzman.com www.jbaltz.com
thank you for contributing to the heat death of the universe.


           
Date: 07 Jan 2009 19:19:37
From:
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 01:01:25 GMT, "Jerry B. Altzman"
<jbaltz@altzman.com > wrote:

>on 1/7/2009 5:37 PM hal@nospam.com said the following:
>> this is easy. Pull all funding for Israel and let the Arabs wipe them
>> out. Establish the nation of Palestine. Then we need to abolish The
>> Fed, and take control of our money supply back from the Jews. Then we
>> can have world peace and restore our economy.
>
>Is this your final solution?

nah, I just say that stuff to make Goldberg's blood boil. But ya
gotta admit it is a problem that there is no end to under present
circumstances.

>
>//jbaltz


            
Date: 08 Jan 2009 02:28:21
From: Jerry B. Altzman
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
on 1/7/2009 9:19 PM hal@nospam.com said the following:
> On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 01:01:25 GMT, "Jerry B. Altzman"
> <jbaltz@altzman.com> wrote:
>> on 1/7/2009 5:37 PM hal@nospam.com said the following:
>>> this is easy. Pull all funding for Israel and let the Arabs wipe them
>>> out. Establish the nation of Palestine. Then we need to abolish The
>>> Fed, and take control of our money supply back from the Jews. Then we
>>> can have world peace and restore our economy.
>> Is this your final solution?
> nah, I just say that stuff to make Goldberg's blood boil. But ya

You don't have to try so hard to be a prick. It seems to come naturally
to you. Just let yourself go for two or more sentences, and it will just
come flowing forth.

> gotta admit it is a problem that there is no end to under present
> circumstances.

What is "it" that there is no end to "under present circumstances"? And
where is the compelling point that "[I] gotta admit" to?

//jbaltz
--
jerry b. altzman jbaltz@altzman.com www.jbaltz.com
thank you for contributing to the heat death of the universe.


             
Date: 07 Jan 2009 19:36:42
From:
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 02:28:21 GMT, "Jerry B. Altzman"
<jbaltz@altzman.com > wrote:


>> gotta admit it is a problem that there is no end to under present
>> circumstances.
>
>What is "it" that there is no end to "under present circumstances"? And
>where is the compelling point that "[I] gotta admit" to?

that war in the middle east will never stop and will continue to
escalate until we all have mutual destruction as long as Israel
occupies Arab lands with nothing but a claim their god gave it to them
and with the help of 2 billion dollars a year of American taxpayer
money.

>
>//jbaltz


              
Date: 08 Jan 2009 03:40:02
From: Jerry B. Altzman
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
on 1/7/2009 9:36 PM hal@nospam.com said the following:
> On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 02:28:21 GMT, "Jerry B. Altzman"
> <jbaltz@altzman.com> wrote:
>> What is "it" that there is no end to "under present circumstances"? And
>> where is the compelling point that "[I] gotta admit" to?
> that war in the middle east will never stop and will continue to
> escalate until we all have mutual destruction as long as Israel
> occupies Arab lands with nothing but a claim their god gave it to them
> and with the help of 2 billion dollars a year of American taxpayer
> money.

Or we can say it'll continue until the Arabs decide to remove themselves
from Israeli land -- I mean, it's only the recency of the conquest that
seems to be at issue here?
Arabs did it a few hundred years ago. Israelis, 60.
Jews before that. Romans before that. Jews before that. Babylonians
before that. Jews before that. Canaanites before that.

There are two possible ends:
1) The Israelis destroy the desire of the Arabs to wage war.
2) The Arabs wipe out all the Israelis.

(A third alternative, that the Israelis wipe out all the Arabs, I
dismiss as being too morally repugnant for the Israelis.)

I know which side I'm on.

//jbaltz
--
jerry b. altzman jbaltz@altzman.com www.jbaltz.com
thank you for contributing to the heat death of the universe.


               
Date: 07 Jan 2009 21:10:49
From:
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 03:40:02 GMT, "Jerry B. Altzman"
<jbaltz@altzman.com > wrote:


>Or we can say it'll continue until the Arabs decide to remove themselves
>from Israeli land -- I mean, it's only the recency of the conquest that
>seems to be at issue here?
>Arabs did it a few hundred years ago. Israelis, 60.
>Jews before that. Romans before that. Jews before that. Babylonians
>before that. Jews before that. Canaanites before that.
>
>There are two possible ends:
>1) The Israelis destroy the desire of the Arabs to wage war.
>2) The Arabs wipe out all the Israelis.
>
>(A third alternative, that the Israelis wipe out all the Arabs, I
>dismiss as being too morally repugnant for the Israelis.)
>
>I know which side I'm on.

if it wasn't for religion you people could learn to live in peace.
After all, you are all related.

>
>//jbaltz


                
Date: 08 Jan 2009 05:27:24
From: Jerry B. Altzman
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
on 1/7/2009 11:10 PM hal@nospam.com said the following:
> if it wasn't for religion you people could learn to live in peace.
> After all, you are all related.

If it weren't for stupidity, you'd say something intelligent every now
and again.

People manage to commit plenty of evil without resorting to religion.

//jbaltz
--
jerry b. altzman jbaltz@altzman.com www.jbaltz.com
thank you for contributing to the heat death of the universe.


                 
Date: 08 Jan 2009 06:29:17
From:
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 05:27:24 GMT, "Jerry B. Altzman"
<jbaltz@altzman.com > wrote:

>on 1/7/2009 11:10 PM hal@nospam.com said the following:
>> if it wasn't for religion you people could learn to live in peace.
>> After all, you are all related.
>
>If it weren't for stupidity, you'd say something intelligent every now
>and again.
>
>People manage to commit plenty of evil without resorting to religion.

this conflict is solely due to religion. It is what divides you. You
claim your god gives you the sole inalienable right to occupy
Palestine however you see fit. The Muslims god tells them they must
destroy their enemies who threaten their way of life. That's why you
people murder each other constantly. Simply fact is you are all
cousins. All descended from the same ancestors. You could live in
peace if it wasn't for your sick, perverted religions.

>
>//jbaltz


                 
Date: 08 Jan 2009 09:20:11
From: warm'n'flat
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 05:27:24 GMT, "Jerry B. Altzman"
<jbaltz@altzman.com > wrote:

>on 1/7/2009 11:10 PM hal@nospam.com said the following:
>> if it wasn't for religion you people could learn to live in peace.
>> After all, you are all related.
>
>If it weren't for stupidity, you'd say something intelligent every now
>and again.
>
>People manage to commit plenty of evil without resorting to religion.

True, but it's the most frequently used excuse to commit evil..

Religion is just an accepted subset of tribalism, probably the most
destructive aspect of human behaviour.

Tribalism and therefore religion is the root of all evil.

How to solve it? God only knows.
>
>//jbaltz


                  
Date: 08 Jan 2009 06:30:28
From:
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 09:20:11 +0000, warm'n'flat
<warm'n'flat@rabbit.com.au > wrote:

>On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 05:27:24 GMT, "Jerry B. Altzman"
><jbaltz@altzman.com> wrote:
>
>>on 1/7/2009 11:10 PM hal@nospam.com said the following:
>>> if it wasn't for religion you people could learn to live in peace.
>>> After all, you are all related.
>>
>>If it weren't for stupidity, you'd say something intelligent every now
>>and again.
>>
>>People manage to commit plenty of evil without resorting to religion.
>
>True, but it's the most frequently used excuse to commit evil..
>
>Religion is just an accepted subset of tribalism, probably the most
>destructive aspect of human behaviour.
>
>Tribalism and therefore religion is the root of all evil.

so very true.

>
>How to solve it? God only knows.

God, save me from your followers.

>>
>>//jbaltz


                
Date: 07 Jan 2009 23:46:49
From: Mark Goldberg
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
hal@nospam.com wrote:

>
> if it wasn't for religion you people could learn to live in peace.
> After all, you are all related.

Gosh, if those arabs were just simple marxist why they'd live in peace
with everyone, wouldn't they, you idiot.

Mark


                
Date: 07 Jan 2009 23:45:04
From: Mark Goldberg
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
hal@nospam.com wrote:

> if it wasn't for religion you people could learn to live in peace.
> After all, you are all related.

Spoken by an imbecile who can't get along with anyone now giving asshole
advice about world peace.

What a joke :^))

Oh, asshole, as for your idiot's comment about how sweet the taliban
are, you know- the one's to get rid of drug abuse... their 'cousins'

Al-Queda are using pedophile sites. That's right asswipe, here's just
another item from ... today.

The Al Qaeda "Pedobear"

All's "fair" in love and jihad? More on how, for jihadists, the end,
Islamic supremacy, will always justify the means, no matter how odious.

"Al-Qaeda Hiding Behind Pedobear for British terror attacks," from the
Inquisitr, January 5:

Al-Qaeda is using pedophile websites to plot terror attacks on Britain
according to British Security Services.
Al-Qaeda is using the sites due to the levels of security employed:
paedophile sites are said to be password-protected and encrypted to
avoid detection from police, which apparently makes them great for
secretly plotting terrorist attacks as well.

A security source quoted in The Mirror said “Using child pornography
sites appears to be al-Qaeda’s latest desperate attempt to avoid
detection. Sadly, the high levels of secrecy, passwords and encryption
demanded by paedophiles means their websites can offer good cover for
terrorists.”

Pedophiles and terrorists: a snappy headline waiting to be had, but not
really surprising either.
-------

Nor that you're a fan of these people.

Mark


              
Date: 07 Jan 2009 22:03:56
From: Mark Goldberg
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
hal@nospam.com wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 02:28:21 GMT, "Jerry B. Altzman"
> <jbaltz@altzman.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> gotta admit it is a problem that there is no end to under present
>>> circumstances.
>> What is "it" that there is no end to "under present circumstances"? And
>> where is the compelling point that "[I] gotta admit" to?
>
> that war in the middle east will never stop and will continue to
> escalate until we all have mutual destruction as long as Israel
> occupies Arab lands .....

uh, nope... but thanks for playing, 'I'm a whore and I like being a punk
world killing coward'

Although most of us were simply discussing, not playing 'your game of
world destruction'

Actually, you see, the jews- Israel, is whom the idiot muslims stole
their idea of a 'god' from and created the opposite of the jewish idea.
One teeny nation to live as an example for themselves and others, as
opposed to the muslim idea of

They own the world and their god told them they go to the highest
heaven, for killing those who prevent that.....

So... arabs wiping out Israel only means- as they say- 'the world is ours'

Of course, a nazi and marxist like yourself can't help but masturbate to
the thought of world control. Even if by idiots.

It's so juicy an idea for you.

Living as you do... a mere troll on the internet, on your little
mountain hideaway, dreaming of world slaughter, and meowing like a pussy.

Mark


           
Date: 07 Jan 2009 19:55:43
From: krw
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 01:01:25 GMT, "Jerry B. Altzman"
<jbaltz@altzman.com > wrote:

>on 1/7/2009 5:37 PM hal@nospam.com said the following:
>> this is easy. Pull all funding for Israel and let the Arabs wipe them
>> out. Establish the nation of Palestine. Then we need to abolish The
>> Fed, and take control of our money supply back from the Jews. Then we
>> can have world peace and restore our economy.
>
>Is this your final solution?

Very good!


          
Date: 07 Jan 2009 17:49:57
From: Irish Mike
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...

<hal@nospam.com > wrote in message
news:sibam49o0kchkcs5c217rr70mvrmvhsg0c@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 11:05:03 -0800 (PST), Mike <mikejc563@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Jan 7, 8:43 am, h...@nospam.com wrote:
>>> On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 20:21:24 -0800 (PST), Mike <mikejc...@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >I think Oblama is over his head personally. He's gonna shit a brick
>>> >when the Israeli-Palestinian thing goes into all out war. Watch.
>>>
>>> >Mike
>>>
>>> Can you think of one person alive in the entire world that wouldn't be
>>> over his head in times like these? Despite your feelings about his
>>> idealogy simple fact is the man is extremely intelligent, calm and
>>> cool under pressure, can think on his feet quickly, and has good
>>> leadership qualities. Add to that he is picking a staff of
>>> intelligent and highly experienced people without any severe
>>> idealogical issues. I'm thinking right now Obama is by far the best
>>> man for the job we could have found anywhere. For the sake of the
>>> republic and our personal freedoms I am trying to remain optimistic.
>>
>>This isn't the debate club at Harvard. Obama may have to make some
>>tough decisions. Like pick a side in this war and take a hard
>>stance. Negotiating might not work here.
>>
>>Can he do this? I dunno...
>
> this is easy. Pull all funding for Israel and let the Arabs wipe them
> out. Establish the nation of Palestine. Then we need to abolish The
> Fed, and take control of our money supply back from the Jews. Then we
> can have world peace and restore our economy.


Well bucko, sounds like you've come up with the "solution" to the Jewish
problem. BTW, did it sting when you had that swastika tattooed on your ass?

Irish Mike




        
Date: 07 Jan 2009 06:39:26
From: Mike
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
On Jan 7, 8:43=A0am, h...@nospam.com wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 20:21:24 -0800 (PST), Mike <mikejc...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >I think Oblama is over his head personally. =A0He's gonna shit a brick
> >when the Israeli-Palestinian thing goes into all out war. =A0Watch.
>
> >Mike
>
> Can you think of one person alive in the entire world that wouldn't be
> over his head in times like these? =A0Despite your feelings about his
> idealogy simple fact is the man is extremely intelligent, calm and
> cool under pressure, can think on his feet quickly, and has good
> leadership qualities. =A0Add to that he is picking a staff of
> intelligent and highly experienced people without any severe
> idealogical issues. =A0I'm thinking right now Obama is by far the best
> man for the job we could have found anywhere. =A0For the sake of the
> republic and our personal freedoms I am trying to remain optimistic.

This aint the debate club at Harvard. He's going to have to help
negotiate peace between two sovereign nations who have been at each
other's throats for decades. He's going to have to pick a side and
take a hard stance and I don't see him up to the task personally.

Mike


         
Date: 07 Jan 2009 15:03:58
From: GreenDistantStar
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
Mike wrote:
> On Jan 7, 8:43 am, h...@nospam.com wrote:
>> On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 20:21:24 -0800 (PST), Mike <mikejc...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> I think Oblama is over his head personally. He's gonna shit a brick
>>> when the Israeli-Palestinian thing goes into all out war. Watch.
>>> Mike
>> Can you think of one person alive in the entire world that wouldn't be
>> over his head in times like these? Despite your feelings about his
>> idealogy simple fact is the man is extremely intelligent, calm and
>> cool under pressure, can think on his feet quickly, and has good
>> leadership qualities. Add to that he is picking a staff of
>> intelligent and highly experienced people without any severe
>> idealogical issues. I'm thinking right now Obama is by far the best
>> man for the job we could have found anywhere. For the sake of the
>> republic and our personal freedoms I am trying to remain optimistic.
>
> This aint the debate club at Harvard. He's going to have to help
> negotiate peace between two sovereign nations who have been at each
> other's throats for decades. He's going to have to pick a side and
> take a hard stance and I don't see him up to the task personally.
>
> Mike

A lot will depend upon who he chooses as his advisors etc.

His recent choice of Dr Sanjay Gupta as Surgeon General is, er, curious.

Judge Judy for the Supreme Court?

GDS

"Lets roll!"


          
Date: 07 Jan 2009 08:39:05
From:
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 15:03:58 GMT, GreenDistantStar
<pde63539@bigpond.net.au > wrote:

>A lot will depend upon who he chooses as his advisors etc.

so far he has done an outstanding job. Lots of very smart people with
extensive experience in their field. And no one with any sort of
extreme idealogy.

>
>His recent choice of Dr Sanjay Gupta as Surgeon General is, er, curious.

I thought it was intriguing.

>
>Judge Judy for the Supreme Court?

as the spokesman explained, the primary role of Surgeon General in
the US is one of public relations. His primary responsibility is to
evaluate public health risks and communicate the extent of those risks
to a frightened public. Dr. Gupta is clearly extremely qualified and
intelligent, and who could be better at communicating health issues to
the public?

>
>GDS
>
>"Lets roll!"


         
Date: 07 Jan 2009 07:51:38
From:
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 06:39:26 -0800 (PST), Mike <mikejc563@yahoo.com >
wrote:

>On Jan 7, 8:43 am, h...@nospam.com wrote:
>> On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 20:21:24 -0800 (PST), Mike <mikejc...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >I think Oblama is over his head personally.  He's gonna shit a brick
>> >when the Israeli-Palestinian thing goes into all out war.  Watch.
>>
>> >Mike
>>
>> Can you think of one person alive in the entire world that wouldn't be
>> over his head in times like these?  Despite your feelings about his
>> idealogy simple fact is the man is extremely intelligent, calm and
>> cool under pressure, can think on his feet quickly, and has good
>> leadership qualities.  Add to that he is picking a staff of
>> intelligent and highly experienced people without any severe
>> idealogical issues.  I'm thinking right now Obama is by far the best
>> man for the job we could have found anywhere.  For the sake of the
>> republic and our personal freedoms I am trying to remain optimistic.
>
>This aint the debate club at Harvard. He's going to have to help
>negotiate peace between two sovereign nations who have been at each
>other's throats for decades. He's going to have to pick a side and
>take a hard stance and I don't see him up to the task personally.

decades? Try centuries. There is nothing we can do to make these
people live in peace because none of the religious groups want it.
Obama might as well not worry at all about tribal warfare in the ME
and worry about our own problem. IMO the best thing he could do is
cut off all funding to Israel and let the chips fall where they may.

>
>Mike


        
Date: 06 Jan 2009 07:21:22
From:
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 03:15:23 -0500, "Irish Mike"
<mjostar@ameritech.net > wrote:


>> you're retarded, right?
>
>No, that would be the 62,000,000 who voted for your messiah.
>
>Irish Mike
>
for one thing, no one considers him a "messiah". And I voted for him
because there was no way I could vote for another 8 years of more of
the same, especially not considering the fact that the moron Palin
might become president when the old geezer kicks off.


         
Date: 06 Jan 2009 09:58:46
From: Irish Mike
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...

<hal@nospam.com > wrote in message
news:p3q6m4lbcfth39bbb3sb431l5rhhiqgg5h@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 03:15:23 -0500, "Irish Mike"
> <mjostar@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
>
>>> you're retarded, right?
>>
>>No, that would be the 62,000,000 who voted for your messiah.
>>
>>Irish Mike
>>
> for one thing, no one considers him a "messiah". And I voted for him
> because there was no way I could vote for another 8 years of more of
> the same, especially not considering the fact that the moron Palin
> might become president when the old geezer kicks off.

The lunatic liberal left considers him a Messiah. But here's what always
amuses me about you left wing hypocrites. You smear 71 year old John McCain
through out his campaign for being too old. (Never mind that your Messiah
has no experience, no political accomplishments, never served in the
military and will become Commander In Chief with out ever having heard a
shot fired in anger) . But your crooked-as-a-cork-screw Democrat Gov.
Blago, appoints a 71 year old man to take the Messiah's scandal-ridden
vacant Senate seat and suddenly your guy is "a senior statesman whose
experience will be a great asset for the position". LOL!

Irish Mike




          
Date: 06 Jan 2009 08:58:03
From:
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 09:58:46 -0500, "Irish Mike"
<mjostar@ameritech.net > wrote:


>> for one thing, no one considers him a "messiah". And I voted for him
>> because there was no way I could vote for another 8 years of more of
>> the same, especially not considering the fact that the moron Palin
>> might become president when the old geezer kicks off.
>
>The lunatic liberal left considers him a Messiah.

those are your words, nothing more.

> But here's what always
>amuses me about you left wing hypocrites. You smear 71 year old John McCain
>through out his campaign for being too old. (Never mind that your Messiah
>has no experience, no political accomplishments, never served in the
>military and will become Commander In Chief with out ever having heard a
>shot fired in anger) .

Obama has more intelligence in his little finger than you have
totally.

> But your crooked-as-a-cork-screw Democrat Gov.
>Blago, appoints a 71 year old man to take the Messiah's scandal-ridden
>vacant Senate seat and suddenly your guy is "a senior statesman whose
>experience will be a great asset for the position". LOL!

An elderly gentleman in a Senate seat is completely different than one
as chief executive. And I might not have minded McCain so much if he
didn't pick a total dingbat as second in charge.

>
>Irish Mike
>


           
Date: 06 Jan 2009 12:18:36
From: Irish Mike
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...

<hal@nospam.com > wrote in message
news:3ov6m4pp3ugiu7c2rc98bcll8hartmppp6@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 09:58:46 -0500, "Irish Mike"
> <mjostar@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
>
>>> for one thing, no one considers him a "messiah". And I voted for him
>>> because there was no way I could vote for another 8 years of more of
>>> the same, especially not considering the fact that the moron Palin
>>> might become president when the old geezer kicks off.
>>
>>The lunatic liberal left considers him a Messiah.
>
> those are your words, nothing more.
>
>> But here's what always
>>amuses me about you left wing hypocrites. You smear 71 year old John
>>McCain
>>through out his campaign for being too old. (Never mind that your Messiah
>>has no experience, no political accomplishments, never served in the
>>military and will become Commander In Chief with out ever having heard a
>>shot fired in anger) .
>
> Obama has more intelligence in his little finger than you have
> totally.
>
>> But your crooked-as-a-cork-screw Democrat Gov.
>>Blago, appoints a 71 year old man to take the Messiah's scandal-ridden
>>vacant Senate seat and suddenly your guy is "a senior statesman whose
>>experience will be a great asset for the position". LOL!
>
> An elderly gentleman in a Senate seat is completely different than one
> as chief executive. And I might not have minded McCain so much if he
> didn't pick a total dingbat as second in charge.
>
>>
>>Irish Mike

Have you ever listened to Joe Biden speak? How the hell any one who voted
for that babbling moron can be hypocritical enough call any one else a
"dingbat" is a mystery to me.

Irish Mike




            
Date: 06 Jan 2009 19:58:31
From: Clave
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
"Irish Mike" <mjostar@ameritech.net > wrote in message
news:LnM8l.12488$yr3.7810@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...

<... >

> Have you ever listened to Joe Biden speak? How the hell any one who voted
> for that babbling moron can be hypocritical enough call any one else a
> "dingbat" is a mystery to me.

Being called a dingbat by you isn't the insult you think it is.

Jim




            
Date: 06 Jan 2009 12:32:41
From:
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 12:18:36 -0500, "Irish Mike"
<mjostar@ameritech.net > wrote:


>Have you ever listened to Joe Biden speak? How the hell any one who voted
>for that babbling moron can be hypocritical enough call any one else a
>"dingbat" is a mystery to me.
>
>Irish Mike
>
Biden is smarter than you, idiot.


             
Date: 06 Jan 2009 13:38:41
From: krw
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
In article <1ec7m4luab6s1dhdq5nd4s9tuv06f3jshe@4ax.com >,
hal@nospam.com says... >
> On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 12:18:36 -0500, "Irish Mike"
> <mjostar@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
>
> >Have you ever listened to Joe Biden speak? How the hell any one who voted
> >for that babbling moron can be hypocritical enough call any one else a
> >"dingbat" is a mystery to me.
> >
> >Irish Mike
> >
> Biden is smarter than you, idiot.

Now *THAT* is funny.




            
Date: 06 Jan 2009 11:35:57
From: krw
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
In article <LnM8l.12488$yr3.7810@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com >,
mjostar@ameritech.net says... >
> <hal@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:3ov6m4pp3ugiu7c2rc98bcll8hartmppp6@4ax.com...
> > On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 09:58:46 -0500, "Irish Mike"
> > <mjostar@ameritech.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>> for one thing, no one considers him a "messiah". And I voted for him
> >>> because there was no way I could vote for another 8 years of more of
> >>> the same, especially not considering the fact that the moron Palin
> >>> might become president when the old geezer kicks off.
> >>
> >>The lunatic liberal left considers him a Messiah.
> >
> > those are your words, nothing more.
> >
> >> But here's what always
> >>amuses me about you left wing hypocrites. You smear 71 year old John
> >>McCain
> >>through out his campaign for being too old. (Never mind that your Messiah
> >>has no experience, no political accomplishments, never served in the
> >>military and will become Commander In Chief with out ever having heard a
> >>shot fired in anger) .
> >
> > Obama has more intelligence in his little finger than you have
> > totally.
> >
> >> But your crooked-as-a-cork-screw Democrat Gov.
> >>Blago, appoints a 71 year old man to take the Messiah's scandal-ridden
> >>vacant Senate seat and suddenly your guy is "a senior statesman whose
> >>experience will be a great asset for the position". LOL!
> >
> > An elderly gentleman in a Senate seat is completely different than one
> > as chief executive. And I might not have minded McCain so much if he
> > didn't pick a total dingbat as second in charge.
> >
> >>
> >>Irish Mike
>
> Have you ever listened to Joe Biden speak? How the hell any one who voted
> for that babbling moron can be hypocritical enough call any one else a
> "dingbat" is a mystery to me.

The plagiarist is pretty good when he's lifting other's work
though.



          
Date: 06 Jan 2009 15:22:34
From: GreenDistantStar
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
Irish Mike wrote:
> <hal@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:p3q6m4lbcfth39bbb3sb431l5rhhiqgg5h@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 03:15:23 -0500, "Irish Mike"
>> <mjostar@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> you're retarded, right?
>>> No, that would be the 62,000,000 who voted for your messiah.
>>>
>>> Irish Mike
>>>
>> for one thing, no one considers him a "messiah". And I voted for him
>> because there was no way I could vote for another 8 years of more of
>> the same, especially not considering the fact that the moron Palin
>> might become president when the old geezer kicks off.
>
> The lunatic liberal left considers him a Messiah. But here's what always
> amuses me about you left wing hypocrites. You smear 71 year old John McCain
> through out his campaign for being too old. (Never mind that your Messiah
> has no experience, no political accomplishments, never served in the
> military and will become Commander In Chief with out ever having heard a
> shot fired in anger) .

If it's necessary to hear a shot fired in anger to be a competent US President, that would exclude
most current candidates and most former presidents.

But your crooked-as-a-cork-screw Democrat Gov.
> Blago, appoints a 71 year old man to take the Messiah's scandal-ridden
> vacant Senate seat and suddenly your guy is "a senior statesman whose
> experience will be a great asset for the position". LOL!

McCain never had a hope.

Nice guy 'n' all, but he *did* make a clown of himself dropping out of the front line of the election
to attend the financial summit, only to make no contribution because he hadn't a clue what they were
talking about.

Obama's win was comprehensive, he has a mandate.

GDS

"Let's roll!"


           
Date: 07 Jan 2009 15:32:58
From: Mike
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
On Jan 7, 5:37=A0pm, h...@nospam.com wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 11:05:03 -0800 (PST), Mike <mikejc...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jan 7, 8:43=A0am, h...@nospam.com wrote:
> >> On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 20:21:24 -0800 (PST), Mike <mikejc...@yahoo.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >I think Oblama is over his head personally. =A0He's gonna shit a bric=
k
> >> >when the Israeli-Palestinian thing goes into all out war. =A0Watch.
>
> >> >Mike
>
> >> Can you think of one person alive in the entire world that wouldn't be
> >> over his head in times like these? =A0Despite your feelings about his
> >> idealogy simple fact is the man is extremely intelligent, calm and
> >> cool under pressure, can think on his feet quickly, and has good
> >> leadership qualities. =A0Add to that he is picking a staff of
> >> intelligent and highly experienced people without any severe
> >> idealogical issues. =A0I'm thinking right now Obama is by far the best
> >> man for the job we could have found anywhere. =A0For the sake of the
> >> republic and our personal freedoms I am trying to remain optimistic.
>
> >This isn't the debate club at Harvard. =A0Obama may have to make some
> >tough decisions. =A0Like pick a side in this war and take a hard
> >stance. =A0Negotiating might not work here.
>
> >Can he do this? =A0I dunno...
>
> this is easy. =A0Pull all funding for Israel and let the Arabs wipe them
> out. =A0Establish the nation of Palestine. Then we need to abolish The
> Fed, and take control of our money supply back from the Jews. =A0Then we
> can have world peace and restore our economy.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

This is funny, your anti-Semitic overtones not withstanding. Israel
is the Big Dog in the Middle East. They could wipe out any country
there they choose. They're just being nice......for now.
Remember that.

Mike


            
Date: 07 Jan 2009 19:18:35
From:
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 15:32:58 -0800 (PST), Mike <mikejc563@yahoo.com >
wrote:


>This is funny, your anti-Semitic overtones not withstanding. Israel
>is the Big Dog in the Middle East. They could wipe out any country
>there they choose. They're just being nice......for now.
>Remember that.
>
>Mike

for one thing, it is not anti-Semitic to criticize the Zionists. The
Jews are not a superior race that is beyond reproach. Secondly, they
could not wipe out cockroaches without US funding. We send them 2
billion dollars a year and give them all the technology they want. And
why is it fair we arm one side to the detriment of the other? And
does Israel really have any proper claim to Palestine other than the
fact that their god said they could have it? How would you like if a
bunch of Muslims came into Washington DC and claimed that Allah said
they could have it. Is their any other reason we blindly support
Israel other than the fact that our religion shares the same god as
theirs? Is there any real reasoning to this protracted conflict other
than contradictory religions? And where does it ever end? Armageddon?
That's what the fundamentalist Christians will have you believe. So
what do we believe? Who do we believe?


             
Date: 07 Jan 2009 22:19:20
From: Mark Goldberg
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
hal@nospam.com wrote:

....How would you like if a
> bunch of Muslims came into Washington DC and claimed that Allah said
> they could have it.

Uh... Hal, they do claim that. And have claimed that and the rest of the
world. It is their belief that the world IS theirs.

Is there any real reasoning to this protracted conflict other
> than contradictory religions?

Well... they believe that submitting the entire world is their goal.
That is the goal. And of course, as marx intoned...'peace is the absence
of competing political and philosophic systems' or some such.

Ego, he's another world dominion broker, which is why we have the
protracted conflict... 'other than religions'

You, know, making everyone the 'oppressed' so the marxists and
socialists can claim that it's for the greatest good and all.

You know... those 150 millions killed the last century.

Mark


           
Date: 06 Jan 2009 11:56:15
From: Irish Mike
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...

"GreenDistantStar" <pde63539@bigpond.net.au > wrote in message
news:_GK8l.8366$cu.2891@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Irish Mike wrote:
>> <hal@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:p3q6m4lbcfth39bbb3sb431l5rhhiqgg5h@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 03:15:23 -0500, "Irish Mike"
>>> <mjostar@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> you're retarded, right?
>>>> No, that would be the 62,000,000 who voted for your messiah.
>>>>
>>>> Irish Mike
>>>>
>>> for one thing, no one considers him a "messiah". And I voted for him
>>> because there was no way I could vote for another 8 years of more of
>>> the same, especially not considering the fact that the moron Palin
>>> might become president when the old geezer kicks off.
>>
>> The lunatic liberal left considers him a Messiah. But here's what always
>> amuses me about you left wing hypocrites. You smear 71 year old John
>> McCain through out his campaign for being too old. (Never mind that your
>> Messiah has no experience, no political accomplishments, never served in
>> the military and will become Commander In Chief with out ever having
>> heard a shot fired in anger) .
>
> If it's necessary to hear a shot fired in anger to be a competent US
> President, that would exclude most current candidates and most former
> presidents.
>
> But your crooked-as-a-cork-screw Democrat Gov.
>> Blago, appoints a 71 year old man to take the Messiah's scandal-ridden
>> vacant Senate seat and suddenly your guy is "a senior statesman whose
>> experience will be a great asset for the position". LOL!
>
> McCain never had a hope.
>
> Nice guy 'n' all, but he *did* make a clown of himself dropping out of the
> front line of the election to attend the financial summit, only to make no
> contribution because he hadn't a clue what they were talking about.
>
> Obama's win was comprehensive, he has a mandate.
>
> GDS
>
> "Let's roll!"

John McCain is a nice guy. He's also a decorated combat veteran and a hero.
As I posted before, his decision to drop out of the campaign to go to
Washington to vote "yes" on the bailout was a strategic blunder and cost him
the election. Well that and the fact that he didn't communicate the
Democrat's role in contributing to this financial disaster. However, you
are dead wrong about Obama having a "mandate". In an election where 117
million votes were cast, he won by 7 million. Given Bush's unpopularity,
the Iraq war, McCain's blunders, the financial disaster and the fact that
Obama out spent McCain by a huge amount, Obama should have won by five times
that number. There are 55,000,000+ Americans who voted against him and I'm
proud to be one of them. Your Messiah's win was not "comprehensive" and he
absolutely does NOT have a mandate. And what he does have is going to
disappear in a heart beat if there is another terrorist attack on American
soil on his watch.

Irish Mike




            
Date: 07 Jan 2009 00:55:21
From: GreenDistantStar
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
Irish Mike wrote:
> "GreenDistantStar" <pde63539@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
> news:_GK8l.8366$cu.2891@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> Irish Mike wrote:
>>> <hal@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>> news:p3q6m4lbcfth39bbb3sb431l5rhhiqgg5h@4ax.com...
>>>> On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 03:15:23 -0500, "Irish Mike"
>>>> <mjostar@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> you're retarded, right?
>>>>> No, that would be the 62,000,000 who voted for your messiah.
>>>>>
>>>>> Irish Mike
>>>>>
>>>> for one thing, no one considers him a "messiah". And I voted for him
>>>> because there was no way I could vote for another 8 years of more of
>>>> the same, especially not considering the fact that the moron Palin
>>>> might become president when the old geezer kicks off.
>>> The lunatic liberal left considers him a Messiah. But here's what always
>>> amuses me about you left wing hypocrites. You smear 71 year old John
>>> McCain through out his campaign for being too old. (Never mind that your
>>> Messiah has no experience, no political accomplishments, never served in
>>> the military and will become Commander In Chief with out ever having
>>> heard a shot fired in anger) .
>> If it's necessary to hear a shot fired in anger to be a competent US
>> President, that would exclude most current candidates and most former
>> presidents.
>>
>> But your crooked-as-a-cork-screw Democrat Gov.
>>> Blago, appoints a 71 year old man to take the Messiah's scandal-ridden
>>> vacant Senate seat and suddenly your guy is "a senior statesman whose
>>> experience will be a great asset for the position". LOL!
>> McCain never had a hope.
>>
>> Nice guy 'n' all, but he *did* make a clown of himself dropping out of the
>> front line of the election to attend the financial summit, only to make no
>> contribution because he hadn't a clue what they were talking about.
>>
>> Obama's win was comprehensive, he has a mandate.
>>
>> GDS
>>
>> "Let's roll!"
>
> John McCain is a nice guy. He's also a decorated combat veteran and a hero.
> As I posted before, his decision to drop out of the campaign to go to
> Washington to vote "yes" on the bailout was a strategic blunder and cost him
> the election. Well that and the fact that he didn't communicate the
> Democrat's role in contributing to this financial disaster. However, you
> are dead wrong about Obama having a "mandate". In an election where 117
> million votes were cast, he won by 7 million. Given Bush's unpopularity,
> the Iraq war, McCain's blunders, the financial disaster and the fact that
> Obama out spent McCain by a huge amount, Obama should have won by five times
> that number. There are 55,000,000+ Americans who voted against him and I'm
> proud to be one of them. Your Messiah's win was not "comprehensive" and he
> absolutely does NOT have a mandate. And what he does have is going to
> disappear in a heart beat if there is another terrorist attack on American
> soil on his watch.
>
> Irish Mike

How is Obama my Messiah? I didn't vote in the election, you dumbass.

GDS

"Let's roll!"


           
Date: 06 Jan 2009 09:03:04
From:
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 15:22:34 GMT, GreenDistantStar
<pde63539@bigpond.net.au > wrote:


>Obama's win was comprehensive, he has a mandate.

worst part for Obama is that the conservatives want him to fail and
will do anything in their power to impede him. If he tries to affect
any real change he will be murdered.


            
Date: 06 Jan 2009 12:22:09
From: Irish Mike
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...

<hal@nospam.com > wrote in message
news:6307m4li9brmhf8dkm1dosl9l7ipirv2rn@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 15:22:34 GMT, GreenDistantStar
> <pde63539@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
>
>>Obama's win was comprehensive, he has a mandate.
>
> worst part for Obama is that the conservatives want him to fail and
> will do anything in their power to impede him. If he tries to affect
> any real change he will be murdered.

Do you mean like the retreat-and-surrender-in -Iraq Democrats who did every
thing they possibly could to undermine President Bush and this country for
the last eight straight years?

Irish Mike




             
Date: 06 Jan 2009 12:34:09
From:
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 12:22:09 -0500, "Irish Mike"
<mjostar@ameritech.net > wrote:

>
><hal@nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:6307m4li9brmhf8dkm1dosl9l7ipirv2rn@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 15:22:34 GMT, GreenDistantStar
>> <pde63539@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Obama's win was comprehensive, he has a mandate.
>>
>> worst part for Obama is that the conservatives want him to fail and
>> will do anything in their power to impede him. If he tries to affect
>> any real change he will be murdered.
>
>Do you mean like the retreat-and-surrender-in -Iraq Democrats who did every
>thing they possibly could to undermine President Bush and this country for
>the last eight straight years?

you mean the Iraq that was invaded illegally based on nothing but
intentional lies?

Bush need to be undermined. He is a traitor to this nation, and the
worst president we have ever had.

>
>Irish Mike
>


              
Date: 06 Jan 2009 15:30:25
From: Irish Mike
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...

<hal@nospam.com > wrote in message
news:qfc7m455qj6cs28v93v7e4e6al4mrmt7jb@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 12:22:09 -0500, "Irish Mike"
> <mjostar@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
>>
>><hal@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>news:6307m4li9brmhf8dkm1dosl9l7ipirv2rn@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 15:22:34 GMT, GreenDistantStar
>>> <pde63539@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Obama's win was comprehensive, he has a mandate.
>>>
>>> worst part for Obama is that the conservatives want him to fail and
>>> will do anything in their power to impede him. If he tries to affect
>>> any real change he will be murdered.
>>
>>Do you mean like the retreat-and-surrender-in -Iraq Democrats who did
>>every
>>thing they possibly could to undermine President Bush and this country for
>>the last eight straight years?
>
> you mean the Iraq that was invaded illegally based on nothing but
> intentional lies?
>
> Bush need to be undermined. He is a traitor to this nation, and the
> worst president we have ever had.
>
>>
>>Irish Mike

Well bucko, I disagree with you on every point. But one thing is for sure -
there has not been a terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11. Bush has
kept this country safe for the last seven years. Now it's Obama's turn. He
controls the White House, Senate and Congress. He is the commander in chief
and he appointed all of the key national defense directors. All of the
Generals and Admiralsa now ultimately report to Obama. So we'll see what
happens after he and his left wing liberal pals close Gitmo, gut the Patriot
Act, handcuff America's intelligence gathering capability, demoralize the
military and start kissing the UN's ass. and bargining with terrorists
without any pre-conditions. What ever the result, it's going to be 100% on
Obama and the Democrats.

Irish Mike




               
Date: 08 Jan 2009 17:52:49
From: Pierre Honeyman
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
On Jan 8, 5:40=A0pm, Michael Price <nini_...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Jan 8, 2:40=A0pm, "Jerry B. Altzman" <jba...@altzman.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > on 1/7/2009 9:36 PM h...@nospam.com said the following:
>
> > > On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 02:28:21 GMT, "Jerry B. Altzman"
> > > <jba...@altzman.com> wrote:
> > >> What is "it" that there is no end to "under present circumstances"? =
And
> > >> where is the compelling point that "[I] gotta admit" to?
> > > that war in the middle east will never stop and will continue to
> > > escalate until we all have mutual destruction as long as Israel
> > > occupies Arab lands with nothing but a claim their god gave it to the=
m
> > > and with the help of 2 billion dollars a year of American taxpayer
> > > money.
>
> > Or we can say it'll continue until the Arabs decide to remove themselve=
s
> > from Israeli land -- I mean, it's only the recency of the conquest that
> > seems to be at issue here?
> > Arabs did it a few hundred years ago. Israelis, 60.
> > Jews before that. Romans before that. Jews before that. Babylonians
> > before that. Jews before that. Canaanites before that.
>
> > There are two possible ends:
> > 1) The Israelis destroy the desire of the Arabs to wage war.
> > 2) The Arabs wipe out all the Israelis.
>
> > (A third alternative, that the Israelis wipe out all the Arabs, I
> > dismiss as being too morally repugnant for the Israelis.)
>
> > I know which side I'm on.
>
> =A0 I don't think there's anything too morally repugnant to the
> Israelis.
> They've already blockaded food shipments, what's worse than that?
> And why is the possibility that Israel loses the will to wage war not
> mentioned?

Israel has let in over 700 truckloads of food since hostilities began,
despite having no obligation to do so. Egypt, for instance, could
just as easily ship in humanitarian supplies, yet the Rafah crossing
remains mostly closed. Not that it matters, because when Egypt did
have some 40 ambulances and medical crews waiting at the Rafah
crossing early on Hamas wouldn't let their wounded cross anyhow.

Pierre


               
Date: 08 Jan 2009 17:40:20
From: Michael Price
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
On Jan 8, 2:40=A0pm, "Jerry B. Altzman" <jba...@altzman.com > wrote:
> on 1/7/2009 9:36 PM h...@nospam.com said the following:
>
> > On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 02:28:21 GMT, "Jerry B. Altzman"
> > <jba...@altzman.com> wrote:
> >> What is "it" that there is no end to "under present circumstances"? An=
d
> >> where is the compelling point that "[I] gotta admit" to?
> > that war in the middle east will never stop and will continue to
> > escalate until we all have mutual destruction as long as Israel
> > occupies Arab lands with nothing but a claim their god gave it to them
> > and with the help of 2 billion dollars a year of American taxpayer
> > money.
>
> Or we can say it'll continue until the Arabs decide to remove themselves
> from Israeli land -- I mean, it's only the recency of the conquest that
> seems to be at issue here?
> Arabs did it a few hundred years ago. Israelis, 60.
> Jews before that. Romans before that. Jews before that. Babylonians
> before that. Jews before that. Canaanites before that.
>
> There are two possible ends:
> 1) The Israelis destroy the desire of the Arabs to wage war.
> 2) The Arabs wipe out all the Israelis.
>
> (A third alternative, that the Israelis wipe out all the Arabs, I
> dismiss as being too morally repugnant for the Israelis.)
>
> I know which side I'm on.

I don't think there's anything too morally repugnant to the
Israelis.
They've already blockaded food shipments, what's worse than that?
And why is the possibility that Israel loses the will to wage war not
mentioned?
>
> //jbaltz
> --
> jerry b. altzman =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0jba...@altzman.com =A0 =A0www.jbaltz.com
> thank you for contributing to the heat death of the universe.



               
Date: 06 Jan 2009 19:57:21
From: Clave
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
"Irish Mike" <mjostar@ameritech.net > wrote in message
news:CbP8l.13496$c45.12974@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com...

<... >

> Well bucko, I disagree with you on every point. But one thing is for
> sure - there has not been a terrorist attack on American soil since
> 9/11...

Why would there be? Bush gave bin Laden everything he demanded.

Jim




               
Date: 06 Jan 2009 14:47:13
From:
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 15:30:25 -0500, "Irish Mike"
<mjostar@ameritech.net > wrote:


>Well bucko, I disagree with you on every point.

Gee, there's a shocker.

> But one thing is for sure -
>there has not been a terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11.

yea, and? That has nothing to do with Iraq remember.

> Bush has
>kept this country safe for the last seven years.

horseshit. He sat back and watched while 9/11 happened. He new it
was coming and did nothing to stop it.

> Now it's Obama's turn. He
>controls the White House, Senate and Congress. He is the commander in chief
>and he appointed all of the key national defense directors. All of the
>Generals and Admiralsa now ultimately report to Obama. So we'll see what
>happens after he and his left wing liberal pals close Gitmo,

good, good, and more good.

> gut the Patriot
>Act,

the Patriot Act needs to be repealed completely. It's the worst
attack on individual liberties ever enacted in this nation.

> handcuff America's intelligence gathering capability, demoralize the
>military and start kissing the UN's ass. and bargining with terrorists
>without any pre-conditions. What ever the result, it's going to be 100% on
>Obama and the Democrats.

yada, yada, yada, blab, blab, blab.

No matter how bad Obama might be, he can't possibly be as bad as
George Bush, so we only have one way to go and that's up.

>
>Irish Mike
>


      
Date: 05 Jan 2009 08:16:38
From:
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 10:06:51 -0500, "Irish Mike"
<mjostar@ameritech.net > wrote:


>And Obama said he sat in the pews for 20+ years and never heard Jeremiah
>Wright make a single racist, anti-American or anti-Semitic comment. Then he
>said he could no more disown Jeremiah Wright than he could disown the black
>community. That was, of course, before he disowned Wright a couple of weeks
>later. And Obama gave his word that he would stick to public campaign
>funding. That was, of course, before he broke his word again. Now brace
>your feet and try to pull your head out of The Messiah's kool aid bucket.

yes, of course, "Guilt by association".

as most rightards, you will not understand what this means, so I
suggest you look it up and let me know what questions you have.


>
>Irish Mike
>
>Very, very proud to be one of the 55,000,000+ Americans who did not vote for
>your
>messiah.
>
>


       
Date: 05 Jan 2009 19:29:15
From: krw
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 08:16:38 -0700, hal@nospam.com wrote:

>On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 10:06:51 -0500, "Irish Mike"
><mjostar@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
>
>>And Obama said he sat in the pews for 20+ years and never heard Jeremiah
>>Wright make a single racist, anti-American or anti-Semitic comment. Then he
>>said he could no more disown Jeremiah Wright than he could disown the black
>>community. That was, of course, before he disowned Wright a couple of weeks
>>later. And Obama gave his word that he would stick to public campaign
>>funding. That was, of course, before he broke his word again. Now brace
>>your feet and try to pull your head out of The Messiah's kool aid bucket.
>
>yes, of course, "Guilt by association".

Yes, you are judged by those who you *freely* associate with.
Rightfully so.

>as most rightards, you will not understand what this means, so I
>suggest you look it up and let me know what questions you have.

You obviously don't know what "guilt by association" means.


       
Date: 05 Jan 2009 10:51:37
From: Irish Mike
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...

<hal@nospam.com > wrote in message
news:4094m4lbtdbgv526p1vu6hg98n15c1vlbp@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 10:06:51 -0500, "Irish Mike"
> <mjostar@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
>
>>And Obama said he sat in the pews for 20+ years and never heard Jeremiah
>>Wright make a single racist, anti-American or anti-Semitic comment. Then
>>he
>>said he could no more disown Jeremiah Wright than he could disown the
>>black
>>community. That was, of course, before he disowned Wright a couple of
>>weeks
>>later. And Obama gave his word that he would stick to public campaign
>>funding. That was, of course, before he broke his word again. Now brace
>>your feet and try to pull your head out of The Messiah's kool aid bucket.

Irish Mike
>
> yes, of course, "Guilt by association".
>
> as most rightards, you will not understand what this means, so I
> suggest you look it up and let me know what questions you have.

It doesn't have any thing to do with "guilt by association". It has every
thing to do with Obama being caught lying through his teeth. Just like he
lied about his involvement with Tony Rezko. Just like he lied when he said
he never spoke to Gov. Blago about filling his vacant senate seat. Hell,
Obama's own campaign manager (Axelrod) stated on national TV that Ogama had
several conversations with Blago about filling his senate seat. Seriously
bucko, turn off Chris Matthews, put down your copy of Oprah's magazine and
pull your head out of the Obama kool aid bucket.

Irish Mike

Very, very proud to be one of the 55,000,000+ Americans who did not vote for
your messiah.




       
Date: 05 Jan 2009 09:42:56
From: John Galt
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
hal@nospam.com wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 10:06:51 -0500, "Irish Mike"
> <mjostar@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
>
>> And Obama said he sat in the pews for 20+ years and never heard Jeremiah
>> Wright make a single racist, anti-American or anti-Semitic comment. Then he
>> said he could no more disown Jeremiah Wright than he could disown the black
>> community. That was, of course, before he disowned Wright a couple of weeks
>> later. And Obama gave his word that he would stick to public campaign
>> funding. That was, of course, before he broke his word again. Now brace
>> your feet and try to pull your head out of The Messiah's kool aid bucket.
>
> yes, of course, "Guilt by association".

It's not "guilt by association." It was a legitimate question concerning
the tenure of the family in the church, the rhetoric from the pulpit
which was at odds with the temperament one would expect from one's
president, and the core tenets of Black Liberation Theology, which is
also at odds with the idea of racial equality. Reasonable people
demanded answers to those questions, and the candidate agreed, because
he took the time to address those questions in his now-famous speech on
race in America, and also dissasociated himself from the church and the
cleric in question.

So, YOU may think the idea was silly, but the candidate obviously did
not, taking the matter very seriously.

Further, if you still believe that one's associations should have no
bearing on persona or character, I sincerely that you're never in
business or otherwise closely associated with anyone indicted for a
serious crime. I assume that, during your deposition where prosecution
is trying to find out what YOU knew and when you knew it, you'll stand
up and dramatically say "THIS IS GUILT BY ASSOCIATION! I WON'T STAND FOR
IT!" and walk out of the room.

If you take that attitude, be nice to the police when they come and get
you.
>
> as most rightards, you will not understand what this means, so I
> suggest you look it up and let me know what questions you have.

I think that the questions on the concept are all yours. Anybody with a
modicum of sanity knew that there were legitimate questions the Wright
association raised, as did the candidate, which is why he addressed them.

JG



>
>
>> Irish Mike
>>
>> Very, very proud to be one of the 55,000,000+ Americans who did not vote for
>> your
>> messiah.
>>
>>


 
Date: 04 Jan 2009 15:01:30
From: Mike
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
On Jan 4, 4:06=A0pm, suds macheath <sudsmcduff19...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Mike wrote:
> > On Jan 3, 10:21 am, suds macheath <sudsmcduff19...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Irish Mike wrote:
> >>> "suds macheath" <sudsmcduff19...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:Vsq7l.1698$gE4.1559@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> >>>> Irish Mike wrote:
> >>>>> "suds macheath" <sudsmcduff19...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:52L6l.814$gE4.582@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> >>>>>> zxcv wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Dec 30, 5:28 pm, Mike <mikejc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Front page article on the NY Times today. =A0Apparently the NY T=
imes
> >>>>>>>> needed to spin the current economic crisis of the auto industry =
into
> >>>>>>>> the race card. =A0I would laugh if it wasn't so sad.
> >>>>>>>>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/business/30detroit.html?_r=3D1&=
adxnnl...
> >>>>>>>> So how come we need to focus on the Black workers plight and ign=
ore
> >>>>>>>> everyone else who may also be affected by the auto industry?
> >>>>>> ---You must have missed this one, Sparky....or you're cherry picki=
ng:
> >>>>>>http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/19/business/businessspecial2/19gener=
at...
> >>>>>> You may have "missed" it, but the plight of "everyone else" has be=
en
> >>>>>> done to death by MSM, including the NYT....
> >>>>>>>> Reverse discrimination at its zenith....*sigh*
> >>>>>> ---The point in your showcased article being that when the US catc=
hes a
> >>>>>> cold, blacks catch the flu....
> >>>>>> "As in most recessions, African-Americans have been hit harder by =
this
> >>>>>> recession than other workers. The overall unemployment rate for bl=
acks
> >>>>>> increased to 11.2 percent in November, an increase of 2.8 percenta=
ge
> >>>>>> points over last year. By comparison, national unemployment last m=
onth
> >>>>>> was 6.7 percent, up 2 percentage points from a year ago."
> >>>>> Blacks also have a higher percentage of out of wedlock children, si=
ngle
> >>>>> parent families, abandoned children, incarceration, high school dro=
p
> >>>>> outs, crack use, violent crime and welfare and entitlement program =
use.
> >>>>> You see any kind of pattern here bucko? =A0How about stepping up an=
d taking
> >>>>> some responsibility for your own actions?
> >>>>> Irish Mike
> >>>> ---Except, those mentioned in the articles are workers, White Mike, =
not
> >>>> welfare leaches. Or you one of those who believe all blacks are lazy=
and
> >>>> shiftless?
> >>> No, I'm not bucko. =A0Nor do I believe they are all long-suffering an=
d
> >>> oppressed. =A0However, I do believe in every one stepping up and taki=
ng some
> >>> responsibility for their own action. =A0I'd recommend you read a book=
called
> >>> "Stupid Black Men, Playing the Race Card and Losing" by Larry Elder, =
who
> >>> happens to be black. =A0It'll give you a little insight in to the pol=
itics of
> >>> victimization.
> >>> Irish Mike
> >> ---Ah, a self styled "Rupublitarian" ....no thanks. He *is* brown,
> >> though....so is Ken Blackwell....- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Just cover your ears and keep your eyes shut like a good libtard....
>
> ---Keep lapping up Rush and Sean like a good rightard....- Hide quoted te=
xt -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Actually I'm kinda partial to Mike Savage thanks...;)


  
Date: 04 Jan 2009 16:23:00
From:
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
On Sun, 4 Jan 2009 15:01:30 -0800 (PST), Mike <mikejc563@yahoo.com >
wrote:


>Actually I'm kinda partial to Mike Savage thanks...;)

whatever rightwing pundit's boots your licking, history has proven
once again that your kind destroys the economy, and the nation.


 
Date: 04 Jan 2009 14:24:57
From: Mike
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
On Jan 4, 2:34=A0pm, h...@nospam.com wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Jan 2009 09:15:57 -0800 (PST), Mike <mikejc...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jan 3, 10:21=A0am, suds macheath <sudsmcduff19...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Irish Mike wrote:
> >> > "suds macheath" <sudsmcduff19...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:Vsq7l.1698$gE4.1559@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> >> >> Irish Mike wrote:
> >> >>> "suds macheath" <sudsmcduff19...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> >>>news:52L6l.814$gE4.582@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> >> >>>> zxcv wrote:
> >> >>>>> On Dec 30, 5:28 pm, Mike <mikejc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>>> Front page article on the NY Times today. =A0Apparently the NY =
Times
> >> >>>>>> needed to spin the current economic crisis of the auto industry=
into
> >> >>>>>> the race card. =A0I would laugh if it wasn't so sad.
>
> >> >>>>>>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/business/30detroit.html?_r=3D1=
&adxnnl...
>
> >> >>>>>> So how come we need to focus on the Black workers plight and ig=
nore
> >> >>>>>> everyone else who may also be affected by the auto industry?
> >> >>>> ---You must have missed this one, Sparky....or you're cherry pick=
ing:
>
> >> >>>>http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/19/business/businessspecial2/19gene=
rat...
>
> >> >>>> You may have "missed" it, but the plight of "everyone else" has b=
een
> >> >>>> done to death by MSM, including the NYT....
>
> >> >>>>>> Reverse discrimination at its zenith....*sigh*
> >> >>>> ---The point in your showcased article being that when the US cat=
ches a
> >> >>>> cold, blacks catch the flu....
>
> >> >>>> "As in most recessions, African-Americans have been hit harder by=
this
> >> >>>> recession than other workers. The overall unemployment rate for b=
lacks
> >> >>>> increased to 11.2 percent in November, an increase of 2.8 percent=
age
> >> >>>> points over last year. By comparison, national unemployment last =
month
> >> >>>> was 6.7 percent, up 2 percentage points from a year ago."
> >> >>> Blacks also have a higher percentage of out of wedlock children, s=
ingle
> >> >>> parent families, abandoned children, incarceration, high school dr=
op
> >> >>> outs, crack use, violent crime and welfare and entitlement program=
use.
> >> >>> You see any kind of pattern here bucko? =A0How about stepping up a=
nd taking
> >> >>> some responsibility for your own actions?
>
> >> >>> Irish Mike
> >> >> ---Except, those mentioned in the articles are workers, White Mike,=
not
> >> >> welfare leaches. Or you one of those who believe all blacks are laz=
y and
> >> >> shiftless?
>
> >> > No, I'm not bucko. =A0Nor do I believe they are all long-suffering a=
nd
> >> > oppressed. =A0However, I do believe in every one stepping up and tak=
ing some
> >> > responsibility for their own action. =A0I'd recommend you read a boo=
k called
> >> > "Stupid Black Men, Playing the Race Card and Losing" by Larry Elder,=
who
> >> > happens to be black. =A0It'll give you a little insight in to the po=
litics of
> >> > victimization.
>
> >> > Irish Mike
>
> >> ---Ah, a self styled "Rupublitarian" ....no thanks. He *is* brown,
> >> though....so is Ken Blackwell....- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >Just cover your ears and keep your eyes shut like a good libtard....
>
> supposed "libtards" have been right about everything, so what's that
> make you?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Heh, suds wouldn't even read the book.
lol


  
Date: 05 Jan 2009 04:34:42
From: suds macheath
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
Mike wrote:
> On Jan 4, 2:34 pm, h...@nospam.com wrote:
>> On Sun, 4 Jan 2009 09:15:57 -0800 (PST), Mike <mikejc...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 3, 10:21 am, suds macheath <sudsmcduff19...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Irish Mike wrote:
>>>>> "suds macheath" <sudsmcduff19...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:Vsq7l.1698$gE4.1559@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>>>>>> Irish Mike wrote:
>>>>>>> "suds macheath" <sudsmcduff19...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:52L6l.814$gE4.582@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>>>>>>>> zxcv wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Dec 30, 5:28 pm, Mike <mikejc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Front page article on the NY Times today. Apparently the NY Times
>>>>>>>>>> needed to spin the current economic crisis of the auto industry into
>>>>>>>>>> the race card. I would laugh if it wasn't so sad.
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/business/30detroit.html?_r=1&adxnnl...
>>>>>>>>>> So how come we need to focus on the Black workers plight and ignore
>>>>>>>>>> everyone else who may also be affected by the auto industry?
>>>>>>>> ---You must have missed this one, Sparky....or you're cherry picking:
>>>>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/19/business/businessspecial2/19generat...
>>>>>>>> You may have "missed" it, but the plight of "everyone else" has been
>>>>>>>> done to death by MSM, including the NYT....
>>>>>>>>>> Reverse discrimination at its zenith....*sigh*
>>>>>>>> ---The point in your showcased article being that when the US catches a
>>>>>>>> cold, blacks catch the flu....
>>>>>>>> "As in most recessions, African-Americans have been hit harder by this
>>>>>>>> recession than other workers. The overall unemployment rate for blacks
>>>>>>>> increased to 11.2 percent in November, an increase of 2.8 percentage
>>>>>>>> points over last year. By comparison, national unemployment last month
>>>>>>>> was 6.7 percent, up 2 percentage points from a year ago."
>>>>>>> Blacks also have a higher percentage of out of wedlock children, single
>>>>>>> parent families, abandoned children, incarceration, high school drop
>>>>>>> outs, crack use, violent crime and welfare and entitlement program use.
>>>>>>> You see any kind of pattern here bucko? How about stepping up and taking
>>>>>>> some responsibility for your own actions?
>>>>>>> Irish Mike
>>>>>> ---Except, those mentioned in the articles are workers, White Mike, not
>>>>>> welfare leaches. Or you one of those who believe all blacks are lazy and
>>>>>> shiftless?
>>>>> No, I'm not bucko. Nor do I believe they are all long-suffering and
>>>>> oppressed. However, I do believe in every one stepping up and taking some
>>>>> responsibility for their own action. I'd recommend you read a book called
>>>>> "Stupid Black Men, Playing the Race Card and Losing" by Larry Elder, who
>>>>> happens to be black. It'll give you a little insight in to the politics of
>>>>> victimization.
>>>>> Irish Mike
>>>> ---Ah, a self styled "Rupublitarian" ....no thanks. He *is* brown,
>>>> though....so is Ken Blackwell....- Hide quoted text -
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> Just cover your ears and keep your eyes shut like a good libtard....
>> supposed "libtards" have been right about everything, so what's that
>> make you?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Heh, suds wouldn't even read the book.
> lol

---Did you? I'm currently reading "The Age of American Unreason"...you
may find it at your library...I rarely waste my time reading
conservative pundits, who have a rather lengthy chapter in my current
book.....


  
Date: 04 Jan 2009 16:21:30
From:
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
On Sun, 4 Jan 2009 14:24:57 -0800 (PST), Mike <mikejc563@yahoo.com >
wrote:


>Heh, suds wouldn't even read the book.
>lol

in light of the fact that your boy George is turning out to be the
nation's worst and most hated president ever, you might want to
consider shutting the fuck up.


 
Date: 04 Jan 2009 09:15:57
From: Mike
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
On Jan 3, 10:21=A0am, suds macheath <sudsmcduff19...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Irish Mike wrote:
> > "suds macheath" <sudsmcduff19...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:Vsq7l.1698$gE4.1559@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> >> Irish Mike wrote:
> >>> "suds macheath" <sudsmcduff19...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:52L6l.814$gE4.582@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> >>>> zxcv wrote:
> >>>>> On Dec 30, 5:28 pm, Mike <mikejc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> Front page article on the NY Times today. =A0Apparently the NY Tim=
es
> >>>>>> needed to spin the current economic crisis of the auto industry in=
to
> >>>>>> the race card. =A0I would laugh if it wasn't so sad.
>
> >>>>>>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/business/30detroit.html?_r=3D1&ad=
xnnl...
>
> >>>>>> So how come we need to focus on the Black workers plight and ignor=
e
> >>>>>> everyone else who may also be affected by the auto industry?
> >>>> ---You must have missed this one, Sparky....or you're cherry picking=
:
>
> >>>>http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/19/business/businessspecial2/19generat=
...
>
> >>>> You may have "missed" it, but the plight of "everyone else" has been
> >>>> done to death by MSM, including the NYT....
>
> >>>>>> Reverse discrimination at its zenith....*sigh*
> >>>> ---The point in your showcased article being that when the US catche=
s a
> >>>> cold, blacks catch the flu....
>
> >>>> "As in most recessions, African-Americans have been hit harder by th=
is
> >>>> recession than other workers. The overall unemployment rate for blac=
ks
> >>>> increased to 11.2 percent in November, an increase of 2.8 percentage
> >>>> points over last year. By comparison, national unemployment last mon=
th
> >>>> was 6.7 percent, up 2 percentage points from a year ago."
> >>> Blacks also have a higher percentage of out of wedlock children, sing=
le
> >>> parent families, abandoned children, incarceration, high school drop
> >>> outs, crack use, violent crime and welfare and entitlement program us=
e.
> >>> You see any kind of pattern here bucko? =A0How about stepping up and =
taking
> >>> some responsibility for your own actions?
>
> >>> Irish Mike
> >> ---Except, those mentioned in the articles are workers, White Mike, no=
t
> >> welfare leaches. Or you one of those who believe all blacks are lazy a=
nd
> >> shiftless?
>
> > No, I'm not bucko. =A0Nor do I believe they are all long-suffering and
> > oppressed. =A0However, I do believe in every one stepping up and taking=
some
> > responsibility for their own action. =A0I'd recommend you read a book c=
alled
> > "Stupid Black Men, Playing the Race Card and Losing" by Larry Elder, wh=
o
> > happens to be black. =A0It'll give you a little insight in to the polit=
ics of
> > victimization.
>
> > Irish Mike
>
> ---Ah, a self styled "Rupublitarian" ....no thanks. He *is* brown,
> though....so is Ken Blackwell....- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Just cover your ears and keep your eyes shut like a good libtard....


  
Date: 07 Jan 2009 20:34:46
From: Michael Coburn
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 14:29:00 -0800, Mike wrote:

> On Jan 6, 4:14 pm, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 10:27:08 -0800, Mike wrote:
>> > On Jan 6, 12:15 pm, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:01:34 -0500, Irish Mike wrote:
>> >> > "krw" <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message
>> >> >news:ipc5m49shmfnq54a68msa9n1ecdrf36psj@4ax.com...
>> >> >> On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 10:43:02 -0500, "Irish Mike"
>> >> >> <mjos...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> >>>"Mike" <mikejc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> >>>news:118d065b-351e-4a6d-
>>
>> >> acae-50f8a8a44...@f40g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> >>>On Jan 5, 4:36 am, suds macheath <sudsmcduff19...@yahoo.com>
>> >> >>>wrote:
>> >> >>>> Mike wrote:
>> >> >>>> > On Jan 4, 6:23 pm, h...@nospam.com wrote:
>> >> >>>> >> On Sun, 4 Jan 2009 15:01:30 -0800 (PST), Mike
>> >> >>>> >> <mikejc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >>>> >>> Actually I'm kinda partial to Mike Savage thanks...;)
>> >> >>>> >> whatever rightwing pundit's boots your licking, history has
>> >> >>>> >> proven once again that your kind destroys the economy, and
>> >> >>>> >> the nation.
>>
>> >> >>>> > How can lowering taxes destroy the economy? I would think it
>> >> >>>> > would have the opposite effect.
>>
>> >> >>>> > And please proofread.....in the first line it should be
>> >> >>>> > you're and not your....thanks.
>>
>> >> >>>> > Mike
>>
>> >> >>>> ---Why didn't higher taxes on the rich destroy the economy in
>> >> >>>> the 50's?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> >>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >> >>>Well, there's the millioinaires, then there's the small biz
>> >> >>>owners who make in the six figure range.  Like the sorcerer
>> >> >>>mentioned already, they won't take risk anymore and open up new
>> >> >>>ventures, won't borrow morey, won't travel as much, etc.etc..
>>
>> >> >>>Mike
>>
>> >> >>>Not to mention the fact that it's small businesses that create
>> >> >>>most of the new jobs in this country.  That's why Obama's play to
>> >> >>>"tax the rich" was so
>> >> >>>stupid.  The majority of the "rich" he'd be taxing are small
>> >> >>>business owners.
>>
>> >> >> ...and thoes "rich" aren't all that rich.
>>
>> >> > "Tax the rich and give it to the poor 'til there ain't no rich no
>> >> > more"
>>
>> >> "Tax the rich and use it to improve the economy and the environment
>> >> and the quality of life of the producers in the society"
>>
>> > Again, how can taxing the rich more improve the economy?
>>
>> You seem to have a reading disability.  Look at the sentence to which
>> you are responding.  I know it is "hidden" from you idiotological eyes,
>> but the answer is right there in the same sentence that calls for the
>> taxation.
>>
>> > Reminds me of a story.
>>
>> Let me get some popcorn....
>>
>> > I was in my favorite coffee shop the other day. The 20-something
>> > barista behind the counter was pro-Obama and he was talking with his
>> > buddy about Obama's tax plan.  You know, the eeevil rich capitalists
>> > who exploit the little man, all that shit. Anyway, I bud in politely
>> > and ask him a question.  "This coffee shop you work in, of which was
>> > just renovated head to toe from an old building, on a section of Main
>> > Street that has just been revitalized over the past 5 years from the
>> > low-rent blight that it once was, who do you think owns this business
>> > and gives you a job?"  "Do you really want to make it harder for
>> > these owners to give people like you a job?"  "Otherwise you'd be on
>> > the outside fogging up a window..." He didn't say much after that.  I
>> > guess it gave him something to think about.
>>
>> The "owners" have had it there way long enough and they have created
>> horseshit jobs like the one you have showcased while stuffing their
>> pockets with money from asset appreciation.
>
> Not really.

Yes. Really.

> These proprieters actually revitalized the downtown area -
> made it a place where people actually want to come. Created trendy
> coffee shops, nice restaurants, art galleries, antique galleries, you
> name it. Better than what we had 5-6 years ago when it was just Puerto
> Rican welfare moms pushing baby strollers down the street.

And the owners stuffed their pockets with money and left the scene or
will now be faced with the reality that all that glitz ain't worth spit.

>>Perhaps if all the
>> manufacturing and engineering jobs had not left the country or been
>> given to legal and illegal immigrants you would be brewing your own
>> #@)#%@&(* coffee.
>>
> Well to contrast your bullshit statement about high-tech jobs leaving
> the country.

We will now see some horseshit microcosm of cherry picked anecdotal
garbage just like the coffee shop.

> I live in upstate NY.

Yup.

> Years ago Gov. Pataki (a Republican
> mind you) created a Nanotech science and research center which attracted
> billions in assets from some of the top companies in the industry. I
> work for one of these companies. That has sinced spawned other
> companies to follow suit and open up other opportunities in the area.
> Mind you the whole thing was started by ponying up taxpayer money. But
> hey, it's better than dumping our tax dollars into another welfare
> blackhole..

And then this other Republican gave Santa a ride on his leer jet and that
proves that the rich are wonderful and so too are Republicons.

The nation and its people are in debt up to their eyeballs with no
productive enterprises to create the exports necessary to pay down the
debt. It is the Republicans that have done this. All your anecdotal
cherry picking crap is meaningless. The real numbers are what they are.

--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson


  
Date: 07 Jan 2009 18:53:28
From: Michael Coburn
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 09:35:01 -0600, krw wrote:

> In article <gk0hql7j4c@news3.newsguy.com>, mikcob@verizon.net says...>
>> On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 11:44:28 -0600, krw wrote:
>>
>> > In article <gk03fv3abs@news2.newsguy.com>, mikcob@verizon.net
>> > says...>
>> >> On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 19:26:36 -0600, krw wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 10:43:02 -0500, "Irish Mike"
>> >> > <mjostar@ameritech.net> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>"Mike" <mikejc563@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> >>news:118d065b-351e-4a6d-
>> >> acae-50f8a8a44e0a@f40g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >>On Jan 5, 4:36 am, suds macheath <sudsmcduff19...@yahoo.com>
>> >> >>wrote:
>> >> >>> Mike wrote:
>> >> >>> > On Jan 4, 6:23 pm, h...@nospam.com wrote:
>> >> >>> >> On Sun, 4 Jan 2009 15:01:30 -0800 (PST), Mike
>> >> >>> >> <mikejc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> >>> Actually I'm kinda partial to Mike Savage thanks...;)
>> >> >>> >> whatever rightwing pundit's boots your licking, history has
>> >> >>> >> proven once again that your kind destroys the economy, and
>> >> >>> >> the nation.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> > How can lowering taxes destroy the economy? I would think it
>> >> >>> > would have the opposite effect.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> > And please proofread.....in the first line it should be you're
>> >> >>> > and not your....thanks.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> > Mike
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> ---Why didn't higher taxes on the rich destroy the economy in
>> >> >>> the 50's?- Hide quoted text -
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> - Show quoted text -
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Well, there's the millioinaires, then there's the small biz owners
>> >> >>who make in the six figure range. Like the sorcerer mentioned
>> >> >>already, they won't take risk anymore and open up new ventures,
>> >> >>won't borrow morey, won't travel as much, etc.etc..
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Mike
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Not to mention the fact that it's small businesses that create
>> >> >>most of the new jobs in this country. That's why Obama's play to
>> >> >>"tax the rich" was so stupid. The majority of the "rich" he'd be
>> >> >>taxing are small business owners.
>> >> >
>> >> > ...and thoes "rich" aren't all that rich.
>> >>
>> >> And the lie is double: The true "small businesses" which support
>> >> the statement concerning the "creation of jobs" are the
>> >> proprietorships and sub-s corps that do not take in more that $250K
>> >> taxable income (lie number one), and that these small business
>> >> owners are the rich in any case. Rich is actually measured in
>> >> assets and the PASSIVE income from same (Republican lie number two).
>> >
>> > First of all, the $250K is a bald-faced lie. The number is closer to
>> > $150K. Taxable income includes income used to buy a business. You'd
>> > better have an income well into six-figures to buy a business worth
>> > millions. I know it's hard for a leftist weenie, but think about it.
>>
>> Why do you think I give a rat's ass how much it costs to "buy a
>> business"? More importantly, why do you think that buying an
>> established business is good for the economy in general?
>
> I know *you* don't care about any business. You think government should
> own it anyway, eh comrad? Those who depend on that business do care
> though.

Yet another pitiful response from the rightard. Why not address the
issue? What good does it do the economy for some leveraged asshole to
"buy out" a business? The result is a less profitable business that can
only pay back the borrowing by cutting jobs and dividends. The payment
of "good will" is simply a drain on the productivity of the enterprise.

>> >> The other lie (we'll call it lie number 3) is that incomes exceeding
>> >> a couple of million per year are "earned" simply because they are
>> >> received in the form of wages. Such "wages" are merely "economic
>> >> rent" or "producer surplus" in extremis.
>> >
>> > Your point is (besides that one between your shoulders)?
>>
>> That is a typical rightarded response. Name calling and assholiness as
>> opposed to any actual address of the points proffered.
>
> It's calling a spade a spade, comrad Coburn.

As I said: Name calling and assholiness.

--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson


   
Date: 10 Jan 2009 09:33:16
From: mo_charles
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
> > I know *you* don't care about any business. You think government should
> > own it anyway, eh comrad? Those who depend on that business do care
> > though.
>
> Yet another pitiful response from the rightard. Why not address the
> issue? What good does it do the economy for some leveraged asshole to
> "buy out" a business? The result is a less profitable business that can
> only pay back the borrowing by cutting jobs and dividends. The payment
> of "good will" is simply a drain on the productivity of the enterprise.

people who buy businesses think to improve them.

> >> >> The other lie (we'll call it lie number 3) is that incomes exceeding
> >> >> a couple of million per year are "earned" simply because they are
> >> >> received in the form of wages. Such "wages" are merely "economic
> >> >> rent" or "producer surplus" in extremis.
> >> >
> >> > Your point is (besides that one between your shoulders)?
> >>
> >> That is a typical rightarded response. Name calling and assholiness as
> >> opposed to any actual address of the points proffered.
> >
> > It's calling a spade a spade, comrad Coburn.
>
> As I said: Name calling and assholiness.

idiot.

mo_charles

----- 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com



   
Date: 07 Jan 2009 13:34:43
From: krw
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
In article <gk2tn801mmk@news7.newsguy.com >, mikcob@verizon.net
says... >
> On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 09:35:01 -0600, krw wrote:
>
> > In article <gk0hql7j4c@news3.newsguy.com>, mikcob@verizon.net says...>
> >> On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 11:44:28 -0600, krw wrote:
> >>
> >> > In article <gk03fv3abs@news2.newsguy.com>, mikcob@verizon.net
> >> > says...>
> >> >> On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 19:26:36 -0600, krw wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 10:43:02 -0500, "Irish Mike"
> >> >> > <mjostar@ameritech.net> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>"Mike" <mikejc563@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >>news:118d065b-351e-4a6d-
> >> >> acae-50f8a8a44e0a@f40g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> >>On Jan 5, 4:36 am, suds macheath <sudsmcduff19...@yahoo.com>
> >> >> >>wrote:
> >> >> >>> Mike wrote:
> >> >> >>> > On Jan 4, 6:23 pm, h...@nospam.com wrote:
> >> >> >>> >> On Sun, 4 Jan 2009 15:01:30 -0800 (PST), Mike
> >> >> >>> >> <mikejc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> >>> Actually I'm kinda partial to Mike Savage thanks...;)
> >> >> >>> >> whatever rightwing pundit's boots your licking, history has
> >> >> >>> >> proven once again that your kind destroys the economy, and
> >> >> >>> >> the nation.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> > How can lowering taxes destroy the economy? I would think it
> >> >> >>> > would have the opposite effect.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> > And please proofread.....in the first line it should be you're
> >> >> >>> > and not your....thanks.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> > Mike
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> ---Why didn't higher taxes on the rich destroy the economy in
> >> >> >>> the 50's?- Hide quoted text -
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> - Show quoted text -
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>Well, there's the millioinaires, then there's the small biz owners
> >> >> >>who make in the six figure range. Like the sorcerer mentioned
> >> >> >>already, they won't take risk anymore and open up new ventures,
> >> >> >>won't borrow morey, won't travel as much, etc.etc..
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>Mike
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>Not to mention the fact that it's small businesses that create
> >> >> >>most of the new jobs in this country. That's why Obama's play to
> >> >> >>"tax the rich" was so stupid. The majority of the "rich" he'd be
> >> >> >>taxing are small business owners.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > ...and thoes "rich" aren't all that rich.
> >> >>
> >> >> And the lie is double: The true "small businesses" which support
> >> >> the statement concerning the "creation of jobs" are the
> >> >> proprietorships and sub-s corps that do not take in more that $250K
> >> >> taxable income (lie number one), and that these small business
> >> >> owners are the rich in any case. Rich is actually measured in
> >> >> assets and the PASSIVE income from same (Republican lie number two).
> >> >
> >> > First of all, the $250K is a bald-faced lie. The number is closer to
> >> > $150K. Taxable income includes income used to buy a business. You'd
> >> > better have an income well into six-figures to buy a business worth
> >> > millions. I know it's hard for a leftist weenie, but think about it.
> >>
> >> Why do you think I give a rat's ass how much it costs to "buy a
> >> business"? More importantly, why do you think that buying an
> >> established business is good for the economy in general?
> >
> > I know *you* don't care about any business. You think government should
> > own it anyway, eh comrad? Those who depend on that business do care
> > though.
>
> Yet another pitiful response from the rightard. Why not address the
> issue? What good does it do the economy for some leveraged asshole to
> "buy out" a business? The result is a less profitable business that can
> only pay back the borrowing by cutting jobs and dividends. The payment
> of "good will" is simply a drain on the productivity of the enterprise.
>
> >> >> The other lie (we'll call it lie number 3) is that incomes exceeding
> >> >> a couple of million per year are "earned" simply because they are
> >> >> received in the form of wages. Such "wages" are merely "economic
> >> >> rent" or "producer surplus" in extremis.
> >> >
> >> > Your point is (besides that one between your shoulders)?
> >>
> >> That is a typical rightarded response. Name calling and assholiness as
> >> opposed to any actual address of the points proffered.
> >
> > It's calling a spade a spade, comrad Coburn.
>
> As I said: Name calling and assholiness.

Yes, I call an asshole an asshole too, comrad asshole.


  
Date: 06 Jan 2009 18:55:24
From: Tim Norfolk
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
On Jan 6, 5:29=EF=BF=BDpm, Mike <mikejc...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Jan 6, 4:14=EF=BF=BDpm, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 10:27:08 -0800, Mike wrote:
> > > On Jan 6, 12:15=EF=BF=BDpm, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote=
:
> > >> On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:01:34 -0500, Irish Mike wrote:
> > >> > "krw" <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message
> > >> >news:ipc5m49shmfnq54a68msa9n1ecdrf36psj@4ax.com...
> > >> >> On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 10:43:02 -0500, "Irish Mike"
> > >> >> <mjos...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
> > >> >>>"Mike" <mikejc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > >> >>>news:118d065b-351e-4a6d-
>
> > >> acae-50f8a8a44...@f40g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >> >>>On Jan 5, 4:36 am, suds macheath <sudsmcduff19...@yahoo.com> wrot=
e:
> > >> >>>> Mike wrote:
> > >> >>>> > On Jan 4, 6:23 pm, h...@nospam.com wrote:
> > >> >>>> >> On Sun, 4 Jan 2009 15:01:30 -0800 (PST), Mike
> > >> >>>> >> <mikejc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >> >>>> >>> Actually I'm kinda partial to Mike Savage thanks...;)
> > >> >>>> >> whatever rightwing pundit's boots your licking, history has
> > >> >>>> >> proven once again that your kind destroys the economy, and t=
he
> > >> >>>> >> nation.
>
> > >> >>>> > How can lowering taxes destroy the economy? I would think it
> > >> >>>> > would have the opposite effect.
>
> > >> >>>> > And please proofread.....in the first line it should be you'r=
e
> > >> >>>> > and not your....thanks.
>
> > >> >>>> > Mike
>
> > >> >>>> ---Why didn't higher taxes on the rich destroy the economy in t=
he
> > >> >>>> 50's?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > >> >>>> - Show quoted text -
>
> > >> >>>Well, there's the millioinaires, then there's the small biz owner=
s
> > >> >>>who make in the six figure range. =EF=BF=BDLike the sorcerer ment=
ioned
> > >> >>>already, they won't take risk anymore and open up new ventures,
> > >> >>>won't borrow morey, won't travel as much, etc.etc..
>
> > >> >>>Mike
>
> > >> >>>Not to mention the fact that it's small businesses that create mo=
st
> > >> >>>of the new jobs in this country. =EF=BF=BDThat's why Obama's play=
to "tax
> > >> >>>the rich" was so
> > >> >>>stupid. =EF=BF=BDThe majority of the "rich" he'd be taxing are sm=
all
> > >> >>>business owners.
>
> > >> >> ...and thoes "rich" aren't all that rich.
>
> > >> > "Tax the rich and give it to the poor 'til there ain't no rich no
> > >> > more"
>
> > >> "Tax the rich and use it to improve the economy and the environment =
and
> > >> the quality of life of the producers in the society"
>
> > > Again, how can taxing the rich more improve the economy?
>
> > You seem to have a reading disability. =EF=BF=BDLook at the sentence to=
which you
> > are responding. =EF=BF=BDI know it is "hidden" from you idiotological e=
yes, but
> > the answer is right there in the same sentence that calls for the
> > taxation.
>
> > > Reminds me of a story.
>
> > Let me get some popcorn....
>
> > > I was in my favorite coffee shop the other day.
> > > The 20-something barista behind the counter was pro-Obama and he was
> > > talking with his buddy about Obama's tax plan. =EF=BF=BDYou know, the=
eeevil
> > > rich capitalists who exploit the little man, all that shit. Anyway, I
> > > bud in politely and ask him a question. =EF=BF=BD"This coffee shop yo=
u work in,
> > > of which was just renovated head to toe from an old building, on a
> > > section of Main Street that has just been revitalized over the past 5
> > > years from the low-rent blight that it once was, who do you think own=
s
> > > this business and gives you a job?" =EF=BF=BD"Do you really want to m=
ake it
> > > harder for these owners to give people like you a job?" =EF=BF=BD"Oth=
erwise
> > > you'd be on the outside fogging up a window..." He didn't say much af=
ter
> > > that. =EF=BF=BDI guess it gave him something to think about.
>
> > The "owners" have had it there way long enough and they have created
> > horseshit jobs like the one you have showcased while stuffing their
> > pockets with money from asset appreciation. =EF=BF=BD
>
> Not really. =EF=BF=BDThese proprieters actually revitalized the downtown =
area
> - made it a place where people actually want to come. =EF=BF=BDCreated tr=
endy
> coffee shops, nice restaurants, art galleries, antique galleries, you
> name it. =EF=BF=BDBetter than what we had 5-6 years ago when it was just
> Puerto Rican welfare moms pushing baby strollers down the street.
>
> >Perhaps if all the
> > manufacturing and engineering jobs had not left the country or been giv=
en
> > to legal and illegal immigrants you would be brewing your own #@)#%@&(*
> > coffee.
>
> Well to contrast your bullshit statement about high-tech jobs leaving
> the country. =EF=BF=BDI live in upstate NY. =EF=BF=BDYears ago Gov. Patak=
i (a
> Republican mind you) created a Nanotech science and research center
> which attracted billions in assets from some of the top companies in
> the industry. =EF=BF=BDI work for one of these companies. =EF=BF=BDThat h=
as sinced
> spawned other companies to follow suit and open up other opportunities
> in the area. =EF=BF=BDMind you the whole thing was started by ponying up
> taxpayer money. =EF=BF=BDBut hey, it's better than dumping our tax dollar=
s
> into another welfare blackhole..
>
> Have a nice day!
>
> Mike- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Which reinforces my opinion that one of the best things that the US
government has done in history is to jump-start basic research.


  
Date: 06 Jan 2009 14:29:00
From: Mike
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
On Jan 6, 4:14=A0pm, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net > wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 10:27:08 -0800, Mike wrote:
> > On Jan 6, 12:15=A0pm, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:01:34 -0500, Irish Mike wrote:
> >> > "krw" <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message
> >> >news:ipc5m49shmfnq54a68msa9n1ecdrf36psj@4ax.com...
> >> >> On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 10:43:02 -0500, "Irish Mike"
> >> >> <mjos...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
> >> >>>"Mike" <mikejc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> >>>news:118d065b-351e-4a6d-
>
> >> acae-50f8a8a44...@f40g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> >>>On Jan 5, 4:36 am, suds macheath <sudsmcduff19...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >>>> Mike wrote:
> >> >>>> > On Jan 4, 6:23 pm, h...@nospam.com wrote:
> >> >>>> >> On Sun, 4 Jan 2009 15:01:30 -0800 (PST), Mike
> >> >>>> >> <mikejc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> >>>> >>> Actually I'm kinda partial to Mike Savage thanks...;)
> >> >>>> >> whatever rightwing pundit's boots your licking, history has
> >> >>>> >> proven once again that your kind destroys the economy, and the
> >> >>>> >> nation.
>
> >> >>>> > How can lowering taxes destroy the economy? I would think it
> >> >>>> > would have the opposite effect.
>
> >> >>>> > And please proofread.....in the first line it should be you're
> >> >>>> > and not your....thanks.
>
> >> >>>> > Mike
>
> >> >>>> ---Why didn't higher taxes on the rich destroy the economy in the
> >> >>>> 50's?- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> >>>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >> >>>Well, there's the millioinaires, then there's the small biz owners
> >> >>>who make in the six figure range. =A0Like the sorcerer mentioned
> >> >>>already, they won't take risk anymore and open up new ventures,
> >> >>>won't borrow morey, won't travel as much, etc.etc..
>
> >> >>>Mike
>
> >> >>>Not to mention the fact that it's small businesses that create most
> >> >>>of the new jobs in this country. =A0That's why Obama's play to "tax
> >> >>>the rich" was so
> >> >>>stupid. =A0The majority of the "rich" he'd be taxing are small
> >> >>>business owners.
>
> >> >> ...and thoes "rich" aren't all that rich.
>
> >> > "Tax the rich and give it to the poor 'til there ain't no rich no
> >> > more"
>
> >> "Tax the rich and use it to improve the economy and the environment an=
d
> >> the quality of life of the producers in the society"
>
> > Again, how can taxing the rich more improve the economy?
>
> You seem to have a reading disability. =A0Look at the sentence to which y=
ou
> are responding. =A0I know it is "hidden" from you idiotological eyes, but
> the answer is right there in the same sentence that calls for the
> taxation.
>
> > Reminds me of a story.
>
> Let me get some popcorn....
>
> > I was in my favorite coffee shop the other day.
> > The 20-something barista behind the counter was pro-Obama and he was
> > talking with his buddy about Obama's tax plan. =A0You know, the eeevil
> > rich capitalists who exploit the little man, all that shit. Anyway, I
> > bud in politely and ask him a question. =A0"This coffee shop you work i=
n,
> > of which was just renovated head to toe from an old building, on a
> > section of Main Street that has just been revitalized over the past 5
> > years from the low-rent blight that it once was, who do you think owns
> > this business and gives you a job?" =A0"Do you really want to make it
> > harder for these owners to give people like you a job?" =A0"Otherwise
> > you'd be on the outside fogging up a window..." He didn't say much afte=
r
> > that. =A0I guess it gave him something to think about.
>
> The "owners" have had it there way long enough and they have created
> horseshit jobs like the one you have showcased while stuffing their
> pockets with money from asset appreciation. =A0

Not really. These proprieters actually revitalized the downtown area
- made it a place where people actually want to come. Created trendy
coffee shops, nice restaurants, art galleries, antique galleries, you
name it. Better than what we had 5-6 years ago when it was just
Puerto Rican welfare moms pushing baby strollers down the street.

>Perhaps if all the
> manufacturing and engineering jobs had not left the country or been given
> to legal and illegal immigrants you would be brewing your own #@)#%@&(*
> coffee.
>
Well to contrast your bullshit statement about high-tech jobs leaving
the country. I live in upstate NY. Years ago Gov. Pataki (a
Republican mind you) created a Nanotech science and research center
which attracted billions in assets from some of the top companies in
the industry. I work for one of these companies. That has sinced
spawned other companies to follow suit and open up other opportunities
in the area. Mind you the whole thing was started by ponying up
taxpayer money. But hey, it's better than dumping our tax dollars
into another welfare blackhole..

Have a nice day!

Mike


  
Date: 06 Jan 2009 21:18:13
From: Michael Coburn
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 11:44:28 -0600, krw wrote:

> In article <gk03fv3abs@news2.newsguy.com>, mikcob@verizon.net says...>
>> On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 19:26:36 -0600, krw wrote:
>>
>> > On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 10:43:02 -0500, "Irish Mike"
>> > <mjostar@ameritech.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>"Mike" <mikejc563@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >>news:118d065b-351e-4a6d-
>> acae-50f8a8a44e0a@f40g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>> >>On Jan 5, 4:36 am, suds macheath <sudsmcduff19...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>> Mike wrote:
>> >>> > On Jan 4, 6:23 pm, h...@nospam.com wrote:
>> >>> >> On Sun, 4 Jan 2009 15:01:30 -0800 (PST), Mike
>> >>> >> <mikejc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> >>> Actually I'm kinda partial to Mike Savage thanks...;)
>> >>> >> whatever rightwing pundit's boots your licking, history has
>> >>> >> proven once again that your kind destroys the economy, and the
>> >>> >> nation.
>> >>>
>> >>> > How can lowering taxes destroy the economy? I would think it
>> >>> > would have the opposite effect.
>> >>>
>> >>> > And please proofread.....in the first line it should be you're
>> >>> > and not your....thanks.
>> >>>
>> >>> > Mike
>> >>>
>> >>> ---Why didn't higher taxes on the rich destroy the economy in the
>> >>> 50's?- Hide quoted text -
>> >>>
>> >>> - Show quoted text -
>> >>
>> >>Well, there's the millioinaires, then there's the small biz owners
>> >>who make in the six figure range. Like the sorcerer mentioned
>> >>already, they won't take risk anymore and open up new ventures, won't
>> >>borrow morey, won't travel as much, etc.etc..
>> >>
>> >>Mike
>> >>
>> >>Not to mention the fact that it's small businesses that create most
>> >>of the new jobs in this country. That's why Obama's play to "tax the
>> >>rich" was so stupid. The majority of the "rich" he'd be taxing are
>> >>small business owners.
>> >
>> > ...and thoes "rich" aren't all that rich.
>>
>> And the lie is double: The true "small businesses" which support the
>> statement concerning the "creation of jobs" are the proprietorships and
>> sub-s corps that do not take in more that $250K taxable income (lie
>> number one), and that these small business owners are the rich in any
>> case. Rich is actually measured in assets and the PASSIVE income from
>> same (Republican lie number two).
>
> First of all, the $250K is a bald-faced lie. The number is closer to
> $150K. Taxable income includes income used to buy a business. You'd
> better have an income well into six-figures to buy a business worth
> millions. I know it's hard for a leftist weenie, but think about it.

Why do you think I give a rat's ass how much it costs to "buy a
business"? More importantly, why do you think that buying an established
business is good for the economy in general?

>> The other lie (we'll call it lie number 3) is that incomes exceeding a
>> couple of million per year are "earned" simply because they are
>> received in the form of wages. Such "wages" are merely "economic rent"
>> or "producer surplus" in extremis.
>
> Your point is (besides that one between your shoulders)?

That is a typical rightarded response. Name calling and assholiness as
opposed to any actual address of the points proffered.

--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson


   
Date: 07 Jan 2009 09:35:01
From: krw
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
In article <gk0hql7j4c@news3.newsguy.com >, mikcob@verizon.net
says... >
> On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 11:44:28 -0600, krw wrote:
>
> > In article <gk03fv3abs@news2.newsguy.com>, mikcob@verizon.net says...>
> >> On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 19:26:36 -0600, krw wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 10:43:02 -0500, "Irish Mike"
> >> > <mjostar@ameritech.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>"Mike" <mikejc563@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> >>news:118d065b-351e-4a6d-
> >> acae-50f8a8a44e0a@f40g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> >> >>On Jan 5, 4:36 am, suds macheath <sudsmcduff19...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >>> Mike wrote:
> >> >>> > On Jan 4, 6:23 pm, h...@nospam.com wrote:
> >> >>> >> On Sun, 4 Jan 2009 15:01:30 -0800 (PST), Mike
> >> >>> >> <mikejc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> >>> Actually I'm kinda partial to Mike Savage thanks...;)
> >> >>> >> whatever rightwing pundit's boots your licking, history has
> >> >>> >> proven once again that your kind destroys the economy, and the
> >> >>> >> nation.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> > How can lowering taxes destroy the economy? I would think it
> >> >>> > would have the opposite effect.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> > And please proofread.....in the first line it should be you're
> >> >>> > and not your....thanks.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> > Mike
> >> >>>
> >> >>> ---Why didn't higher taxes on the rich destroy the economy in the
> >> >>> 50's?- Hide quoted text -
> >> >>>
> >> >>> - Show quoted text -
> >> >>
> >> >>Well, there's the millioinaires, then there's the small biz owners
> >> >>who make in the six figure range. Like the sorcerer mentioned
> >> >>already, they won't take risk anymore and open up new ventures, won't
> >> >>borrow morey, won't travel as much, etc.etc..
> >> >>
> >> >>Mike
> >> >>
> >> >>Not to mention the fact that it's small businesses that create most
> >> >>of the new jobs in this country. That's why Obama's play to "tax the
> >> >>rich" was so stupid. The majority of the "rich" he'd be taxing are
> >> >>small business owners.
> >> >
> >> > ...and thoes "rich" aren't all that rich.
> >>
> >> And the lie is double: The true "small businesses" which support the
> >> statement concerning the "creation of jobs" are the proprietorships and
> >> sub-s corps that do not take in more that $250K taxable income (lie
> >> number one), and that these small business owners are the rich in any
> >> case. Rich is actually measured in assets and the PASSIVE income from
> >> same (Republican lie number two).
> >
> > First of all, the $250K is a bald-faced lie. The number is closer to
> > $150K. Taxable income includes income used to buy a business. You'd
> > better have an income well into six-figures to buy a business worth
> > millions. I know it's hard for a leftist weenie, but think about it.
>
> Why do you think I give a rat's ass how much it costs to "buy a
> business"? More importantly, why do you think that buying an established
> business is good for the economy in general?

I know *you* don't care about any business. You think government
should own it anyway, eh comrad? Those who depend on that business
do care though.

> >> The other lie (we'll call it lie number 3) is that incomes exceeding a
> >> couple of million per year are "earned" simply because they are
> >> received in the form of wages. Such "wages" are merely "economic rent"
> >> or "producer surplus" in extremis.
> >
> > Your point is (besides that one between your shoulders)?
>
> That is a typical rightarded response. Name calling and assholiness as
> opposed to any actual address of the points proffered.

It's calling a spade a spade, comrad Coburn.




  
Date: 06 Jan 2009 21:14:18
From: Michael Coburn
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 10:27:08 -0800, Mike wrote:

> On Jan 6, 12:15 pm, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:01:34 -0500, Irish Mike wrote:
>> > "krw" <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message
>> >news:ipc5m49shmfnq54a68msa9n1ecdrf36psj@4ax.com...
>> >> On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 10:43:02 -0500, "Irish Mike"
>> >> <mjos...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>
>> >>>"Mike" <mikejc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >>>news:118d065b-351e-4a6d-
>>
>> acae-50f8a8a44...@f40g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >>>On Jan 5, 4:36 am, suds macheath <sudsmcduff19...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>>> Mike wrote:
>> >>>> > On Jan 4, 6:23 pm, h...@nospam.com wrote:
>> >>>> >> On Sun, 4 Jan 2009 15:01:30 -0800 (PST), Mike
>> >>>> >> <mikejc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>>> >>> Actually I'm kinda partial to Mike Savage thanks...;)
>> >>>> >> whatever rightwing pundit's boots your licking, history has
>> >>>> >> proven once again that your kind destroys the economy, and the
>> >>>> >> nation.
>>
>> >>>> > How can lowering taxes destroy the economy? I would think it
>> >>>> > would have the opposite effect.
>>
>> >>>> > And please proofread.....in the first line it should be you're
>> >>>> > and not your....thanks.
>>
>> >>>> > Mike
>>
>> >>>> ---Why didn't higher taxes on the rich destroy the economy in the
>> >>>> 50's?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >>>Well, there's the millioinaires, then there's the small biz owners
>> >>>who make in the six figure range.  Like the sorcerer mentioned
>> >>>already, they won't take risk anymore and open up new ventures,
>> >>>won't borrow morey, won't travel as much, etc.etc..
>>
>> >>>Mike
>>
>> >>>Not to mention the fact that it's small businesses that create most
>> >>>of the new jobs in this country.  That's why Obama's play to "tax
>> >>>the rich" was so
>> >>>stupid.  The majority of the "rich" he'd be taxing are small
>> >>>business owners.
>>
>> >> ...and thoes "rich" aren't all that rich.
>>
>> > "Tax the rich and give it to the poor 'til there ain't no rich no
>> > more"
>>
>> "Tax the rich and use it to improve the economy and the environment and
>> the quality of life of the producers in the society"
>>
>>
> Again, how can taxing the rich more improve the economy?

You seem to have a reading disability. Look at the sentence to which you
are responding. I know it is "hidden" from you idiotological eyes, but
the answer is right there in the same sentence that calls for the
taxation.

> Reminds me of a story.

Let me get some popcorn....

> I was in my favorite coffee shop the other day.
> The 20-something barista behind the counter was pro-Obama and he was
> talking with his buddy about Obama's tax plan. You know, the eeevil
> rich capitalists who exploit the little man, all that shit. Anyway, I
> bud in politely and ask him a question. "This coffee shop you work in,
> of which was just renovated head to toe from an old building, on a
> section of Main Street that has just been revitalized over the past 5
> years from the low-rent blight that it once was, who do you think owns
> this business and gives you a job?" "Do you really want to make it
> harder for these owners to give people like you a job?" "Otherwise
> you'd be on the outside fogging up a window..." He didn't say much after
> that. I guess it gave him something to think about.

The "owners" have had it there way long enough and they have created
horseshit jobs like the one you have showcased while stuffing their
pockets with money from asset appreciation. Perhaps if all the
manufacturing and engineering jobs had not left the country or been given
to legal and illegal immigrants you would be brewing your own #@)#%@&(*
coffee.

--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson


  
Date: 06 Jan 2009 10:27:08
From: Mike
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
On Jan 6, 12:15=A0pm, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net > wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:01:34 -0500, Irish Mike wrote:
> > "krw" <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message
> >news:ipc5m49shmfnq54a68msa9n1ecdrf36psj@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 10:43:02 -0500, "Irish Mike" <mjos...@ameritech.net=
>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>"Mike" <mikejc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:118d065b-351e-4a6d-
>
> acae-50f8a8a44...@f40g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>On Jan 5, 4:36 am, suds macheath <sudsmcduff19...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>> Mike wrote:
> >>>> > On Jan 4, 6:23 pm, h...@nospam.com wrote:
> >>>> >> On Sun, 4 Jan 2009 15:01:30 -0800 (PST), Mike
> >>>> >> <mikejc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> >>> Actually I'm kinda partial to Mike Savage thanks...;)
> >>>> >> whatever rightwing pundit's boots your licking, history has prove=
n
> >>>> >> once again that your kind destroys the economy, and the nation.
>
> >>>> > How can lowering taxes destroy the economy? I would think it would
> >>>> > have the opposite effect.
>
> >>>> > And please proofread.....in the first line it should be you're and
> >>>> > not your....thanks.
>
> >>>> > Mike
>
> >>>> ---Why didn't higher taxes on the rich destroy the economy in the
> >>>> 50's?- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >>>Well, there's the millioinaires, then there's the small biz owners who
> >>>make in the six figure range. =A0Like the sorcerer mentioned already,
> >>>they won't take risk anymore and open up new ventures, won't borrow
> >>>morey, won't travel as much, etc.etc..
>
> >>>Mike
>
> >>>Not to mention the fact that it's small businesses that create most of
> >>>the new jobs in this country. =A0That's why Obama's play to "tax the
> >>>rich" was so
> >>>stupid. =A0The majority of the "rich" he'd be taxing are small busines=
s
> >>>owners.
>
> >> ...and thoes "rich" aren't all that rich.
>
> > "Tax the rich and give it to the poor 'til there ain't no rich no more"
>
> "Tax the rich and use it to improve the economy and the environment and
> the quality of life of the producers in the society"
>

Again, how can taxing the rich more improve the economy?

Reminds me of a story. I was in my favorite coffee shop the other
day. The 20-something barista behind the counter was pro-Obama and he
was talking with his buddy about Obama's tax plan. You know, the
eeevil rich capitalists who exploit the little man, all that shit.
Anyway, I bud in politely and ask him a question. "This coffee shop
you work in, of which was just renovated head to toe from an old
building, on a section of Main Street that has just been revitalized
over the past 5 years from the low-rent blight that it once was, who
do you think owns this business and gives you a job?" "Do you really
want to make it harder for these owners to give people like you a
job?" "Otherwise you'd be on the outside fogging up a window..."
He didn't say much after that. I guess it gave him something to think
about.

Mike



  
Date: 06 Jan 2009 17:15:00
From: Michael Coburn
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:01:34 -0500, Irish Mike wrote:

> "krw" <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message
> news:ipc5m49shmfnq54a68msa9n1ecdrf36psj@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 10:43:02 -0500, "Irish Mike" <mjostar@ameritech.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Mike" <mikejc563@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:118d065b-351e-4a6d-
acae-50f8a8a44e0a@f40g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>>>On Jan 5, 4:36 am, suds macheath <sudsmcduff19...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Mike wrote:
>>>> > On Jan 4, 6:23 pm, h...@nospam.com wrote:
>>>> >> On Sun, 4 Jan 2009 15:01:30 -0800 (PST), Mike
>>>> >> <mikejc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >>> Actually I'm kinda partial to Mike Savage thanks...;)
>>>> >> whatever rightwing pundit's boots your licking, history has proven
>>>> >> once again that your kind destroys the economy, and the nation.
>>>>
>>>> > How can lowering taxes destroy the economy? I would think it would
>>>> > have the opposite effect.
>>>>
>>>> > And please proofread.....in the first line it should be you're and
>>>> > not your....thanks.
>>>>
>>>> > Mike
>>>>
>>>> ---Why didn't higher taxes on the rich destroy the economy in the
>>>> 50's?- Hide quoted text -
>>>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>
>>>Well, there's the millioinaires, then there's the small biz owners who
>>>make in the six figure range. Like the sorcerer mentioned already,
>>>they won't take risk anymore and open up new ventures, won't borrow
>>>morey, won't travel as much, etc.etc..
>>>
>>>Mike
>>>
>>>Not to mention the fact that it's small businesses that create most of
>>>the new jobs in this country. That's why Obama's play to "tax the
>>>rich" was so
>>>stupid. The majority of the "rich" he'd be taxing are small business
>>>owners.
>>
>> ...and thoes "rich" aren't all that rich.
>
> "Tax the rich and give it to the poor 'til there ain't no rich no more"

"Tax the rich and use it to improve the economy and the environment and
the quality of life of the producers in the society"

--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson


  
Date: 06 Jan 2009 17:13:35
From: Michael Coburn
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 19:26:36 -0600, krw wrote:

> On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 10:43:02 -0500, "Irish Mike" <mjostar@ameritech.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>"Mike" <mikejc563@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:118d065b-351e-4a6d-
acae-50f8a8a44e0a@f40g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>>On Jan 5, 4:36 am, suds macheath <sudsmcduff19...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Mike wrote:
>>> > On Jan 4, 6:23 pm, h...@nospam.com wrote:
>>> >> On Sun, 4 Jan 2009 15:01:30 -0800 (PST), Mike <mikejc...@yahoo.com>
>>> >> wrote:
>>>
>>> >>> Actually I'm kinda partial to Mike Savage thanks...;)
>>> >> whatever rightwing pundit's boots your licking, history has proven
>>> >> once again that your kind destroys the economy, and the nation.
>>>
>>> > How can lowering taxes destroy the economy? I would think it would
>>> > have the opposite effect.
>>>
>>> > And please proofread.....in the first line it should be you're and
>>> > not your....thanks.
>>>
>>> > Mike
>>>
>>> ---Why didn't higher taxes on the rich destroy the economy in the
>>> 50's?- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>Well, there's the millioinaires, then there's the small biz owners who
>>make in the six figure range. Like the sorcerer mentioned already, they
>>won't take risk anymore and open up new ventures, won't borrow morey,
>>won't travel as much, etc.etc..
>>
>>Mike
>>
>>Not to mention the fact that it's small businesses that create most of
>>the new jobs in this country. That's why Obama's play to "tax the rich"
>>was so stupid. The majority of the "rich" he'd be taxing are small
>>business owners.
>
> ...and thoes "rich" aren't all that rich.

And the lie is double: The true "small businesses" which support the
statement concerning the "creation of jobs" are the proprietorships and
sub-s corps that do not take in more that $250K taxable income (lie
number one), and that these small business owners are the rich in any
case. Rich is actually measured in assets and the PASSIVE income from
same (Republican lie number two).

The other lie (we'll call it lie number 3) is that incomes exceeding a
couple of million per year are "earned" simply because they are received
in the form of wages. Such "wages" are merely "economic rent" or
"producer surplus" in extremis.

--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson


   
Date: 06 Jan 2009 11:44:28
From: krw
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
In article <gk03fv3abs@news2.newsguy.com >, mikcob@verizon.net
says... >
> On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 19:26:36 -0600, krw wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 10:43:02 -0500, "Irish Mike" <mjostar@ameritech.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>"Mike" <mikejc563@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>news:118d065b-351e-4a6d-
> acae-50f8a8a44e0a@f40g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> >>On Jan 5, 4:36 am, suds macheath <sudsmcduff19...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> Mike wrote:
> >>> > On Jan 4, 6:23 pm, h...@nospam.com wrote:
> >>> >> On Sun, 4 Jan 2009 15:01:30 -0800 (PST), Mike <mikejc...@yahoo.com>
> >>> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >>> Actually I'm kinda partial to Mike Savage thanks...;)
> >>> >> whatever rightwing pundit's boots your licking, history has proven
> >>> >> once again that your kind destroys the economy, and the nation.
> >>>
> >>> > How can lowering taxes destroy the economy? I would think it would
> >>> > have the opposite effect.
> >>>
> >>> > And please proofread.....in the first line it should be you're and
> >>> > not your....thanks.
> >>>
> >>> > Mike
> >>>
> >>> ---Why didn't higher taxes on the rich destroy the economy in the
> >>> 50's?- Hide quoted text -
> >>>
> >>> - Show quoted text -
> >>
> >>Well, there's the millioinaires, then there's the small biz owners who
> >>make in the six figure range. Like the sorcerer mentioned already, they
> >>won't take risk anymore and open up new ventures, won't borrow morey,
> >>won't travel as much, etc.etc..
> >>
> >>Mike
> >>
> >>Not to mention the fact that it's small businesses that create most of
> >>the new jobs in this country. That's why Obama's play to "tax the rich"
> >>was so stupid. The majority of the "rich" he'd be taxing are small
> >>business owners.
> >
> > ...and thoes "rich" aren't all that rich.
>
> And the lie is double: The true "small businesses" which support the
> statement concerning the "creation of jobs" are the proprietorships and
> sub-s corps that do not take in more that $250K taxable income (lie
> number one), and that these small business owners are the rich in any
> case. Rich is actually measured in assets and the PASSIVE income from
> same (Republican lie number two).

First of all, the $250K is a bald-faced lie. The number is closer
to $150K. Taxable income includes income used to buy a business.
You'd better have an income well into six-figures to buy a business
worth millions. I know it's hard for a leftist weenie, but think
about it.

> The other lie (we'll call it lie number 3) is that incomes exceeding a
> couple of million per year are "earned" simply because they are received
> in the form of wages. Such "wages" are merely "economic rent" or
> "producer surplus" in extremis.

Your point is (besides that one between your shoulders)?



  
Date: 04 Jan 2009 16:06:33
From: suds macheath
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
Mike wrote:
> On Jan 3, 10:21 am, suds macheath <sudsmcduff19...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Irish Mike wrote:
>>> "suds macheath" <sudsmcduff19...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:Vsq7l.1698$gE4.1559@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>>>> Irish Mike wrote:
>>>>> "suds macheath" <sudsmcduff19...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:52L6l.814$gE4.582@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>>>>>> zxcv wrote:
>>>>>>> On Dec 30, 5:28 pm, Mike <mikejc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Front page article on the NY Times today. Apparently the NY Times
>>>>>>>> needed to spin the current economic crisis of the auto industry into
>>>>>>>> the race card. I would laugh if it wasn't so sad.
>>>>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/business/30detroit.html?_r=1&adxnnl...
>>>>>>>> So how come we need to focus on the Black workers plight and ignore
>>>>>>>> everyone else who may also be affected by the auto industry?
>>>>>> ---You must have missed this one, Sparky....or you're cherry picking:
>>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/19/business/businessspecial2/19generat...
>>>>>> You may have "missed" it, but the plight of "everyone else" has been
>>>>>> done to death by MSM, including the NYT....
>>>>>>>> Reverse discrimination at its zenith....*sigh*
>>>>>> ---The point in your showcased article being that when the US catches a
>>>>>> cold, blacks catch the flu....
>>>>>> "As in most recessions, African-Americans have been hit harder by this
>>>>>> recession than other workers. The overall unemployment rate for blacks
>>>>>> increased to 11.2 percent in November, an increase of 2.8 percentage
>>>>>> points over last year. By comparison, national unemployment last month
>>>>>> was 6.7 percent, up 2 percentage points from a year ago."
>>>>> Blacks also have a higher percentage of out of wedlock children, single
>>>>> parent families, abandoned children, incarceration, high school drop
>>>>> outs, crack use, violent crime and welfare and entitlement program use.
>>>>> You see any kind of pattern here bucko? How about stepping up and taking
>>>>> some responsibility for your own actions?
>>>>> Irish Mike
>>>> ---Except, those mentioned in the articles are workers, White Mike, not
>>>> welfare leaches. Or you one of those who believe all blacks are lazy and
>>>> shiftless?
>>> No, I'm not bucko. Nor do I believe they are all long-suffering and
>>> oppressed. However, I do believe in every one stepping up and taking some
>>> responsibility for their own action. I'd recommend you read a book called
>>> "Stupid Black Men, Playing the Race Card and Losing" by Larry Elder, who
>>> happens to be black. It'll give you a little insight in to the politics of
>>> victimization.
>>> Irish Mike
>> ---Ah, a self styled "Rupublitarian" ....no thanks. He *is* brown,
>> though....so is Ken Blackwell....- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Just cover your ears and keep your eyes shut like a good libtard....

---Keep lapping up Rush and Sean like a good rightard....


  
Date: 04 Jan 2009 12:34:45
From:
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
On Sun, 4 Jan 2009 09:15:57 -0800 (PST), Mike <mikejc563@yahoo.com >
wrote:

>On Jan 3, 10:21 am, suds macheath <sudsmcduff19...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Irish Mike wrote:
>> > "suds macheath" <sudsmcduff19...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >news:Vsq7l.1698$gE4.1559@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>> >> Irish Mike wrote:
>> >>> "suds macheath" <sudsmcduff19...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >>>news:52L6l.814$gE4.582@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>> >>>> zxcv wrote:
>> >>>>> On Dec 30, 5:28 pm, Mike <mikejc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>> Front page article on the NY Times today.  Apparently the NY Times
>> >>>>>> needed to spin the current economic crisis of the auto industry into
>> >>>>>> the race card.  I would laugh if it wasn't so sad.
>>
>> >>>>>>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/business/30detroit.html?_r=1&adxnnl...
>>
>> >>>>>> So how come we need to focus on the Black workers plight and ignore
>> >>>>>> everyone else who may also be affected by the auto industry?
>> >>>> ---You must have missed this one, Sparky....or you're cherry picking:
>>
>> >>>>http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/19/business/businessspecial2/19generat...
>>
>> >>>> You may have "missed" it, but the plight of "everyone else" has been
>> >>>> done to death by MSM, including the NYT....
>>
>> >>>>>> Reverse discrimination at its zenith....*sigh*
>> >>>> ---The point in your showcased article being that when the US catches a
>> >>>> cold, blacks catch the flu....
>>
>> >>>> "As in most recessions, African-Americans have been hit harder by this
>> >>>> recession than other workers. The overall unemployment rate for blacks
>> >>>> increased to 11.2 percent in November, an increase of 2.8 percentage
>> >>>> points over last year. By comparison, national unemployment last month
>> >>>> was 6.7 percent, up 2 percentage points from a year ago."
>> >>> Blacks also have a higher percentage of out of wedlock children, single
>> >>> parent families, abandoned children, incarceration, high school drop
>> >>> outs, crack use, violent crime and welfare and entitlement program use.
>> >>> You see any kind of pattern here bucko?  How about stepping up and taking
>> >>> some responsibility for your own actions?
>>
>> >>> Irish Mike
>> >> ---Except, those mentioned in the articles are workers, White Mike, not
>> >> welfare leaches. Or you one of those who believe all blacks are lazy and
>> >> shiftless?
>>
>> > No, I'm not bucko.  Nor do I believe they are all long-suffering and
>> > oppressed.  However, I do believe in every one stepping up and taking some
>> > responsibility for their own action.  I'd recommend you read a book called
>> > "Stupid Black Men, Playing the Race Card and Losing" by Larry Elder, who
>> > happens to be black.  It'll give you a little insight in to the politics of
>> > victimization.
>>
>> > Irish Mike
>>
>> ---Ah, a self styled "Rupublitarian" ....no thanks. He *is* brown,
>> though....so is Ken Blackwell....- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Just cover your ears and keep your eyes shut like a good libtard....

supposed "libtards" have been right about everything, so what's that
make you?


 
Date: 01 Jan 2009 18:18:47
From: Michael Price
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
On Jan 2, 10:03=A0am, GreenDistantStar <pde63...@bigpond.net.au > wrote:
> John Galt wrote:
> > GreenDistantStar wrote:
>
> >> Tim Norfolk wrote:
> >> clipped
>
> >>> I will ask the same question that I have done before: how are these
> >>> pressures (lending to people with less than stellar credit)
> >>> responsible for turning $100-300 billion in mortgages into $50
> >>> trillion or more in derivatives?
>
> >> The multiplier effect of derivatives ie leverage.
>
> >> Moreover, these CDOs were sold worldwide to governments and corporatio=
ns.
>
> >> They bought them because they were rated up to AAA. The trading desks
> >> of AA banks and govt securities traders bought them as a *safe*
> >> investment.
>
> >> There are some *very* pissed off European banks and governments who
> >> feel utterly deceived by the US, and they are 100% correct.
>
> > How? It wasn't the "US" that deceived them. It was Moody's and Standard
> > & Poor's.
>
> Deceived by US ratings agencies, then.
>
> GDS
>
> "Let's roll!"

Which are let's face it FedGov lapdogs. The Feds designed the
system where
for legal purposes 3 firms controlled credit ratings for almost
everything. Naturally
as soon as they became a government sponsored cartel they stopped
competing
to produce quality work and started to say what the government wanted
them to
say. The housing market was clearly overvalued for years before the
crash, but
the government didn't want anyone to admit that the wealth created was
largely
smoke and mirrors, so the ratings agencies didn't say that. They
stayed true to
their real customer, Uncle Sam and he's going to stay true to them.
Notice how
nobody is going after the ratings agencies?


 
Date: 01 Jan 2009 01:50:53
From: Tim Norfolk
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
On Dec 31 2008, 9:22=A0pm, James Arthur <bogusabd...@verizon.net > wrote:
> suds macheath wrote:
> > Irish Mike wrote:
> >> "Mike" <mikejc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>news:082e16c8-2189-4362-9074-d38e5deb0ace@o4g2000pra.googlegroups.com..=
.
> >>> Front page article on the NY Times today. =A0Apparently the NY Times
> >>> needed to spin the current economic crisis of the auto industry into
> >>> the race card. =A0I would laugh if it wasn't so sad.
>
> >>>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/business/30detroit.html?_r=3D1&adxnn=
l...
>
> >>> So how come we need to focus on the Black workers plight and ignore
> >>> everyone else who may also be affected by the auto industry?
>
> >>> Reverse discrimination at its zenith....*sigh*
>
> >> Hey! =A0Maybe the government could help out these poor $42 dollar an
> >> hour black auto workers. =A0You know, force banks to give them loans
> >> they don't qualify for to buy houses they can't afford.
>
> > Lending money to poor people doesn't make you poor. Lending money poorl=
y
> > to rich people does.
>
> >http://www.slate.com/id/2201641/
> > We've now entered a new stage of the financial crisis: the ritual
> > assigning of blame. It began in earnest with Monday's congressional
> > roasting of Lehman Bros. CEO Richard Fuld and continued on Tuesday with
> > Capitol Hill solons delving into the failure of AIG. On the Republican
> > side of Congress, in the right-wing financial media (which is to say th=
e
> > financial media), and in certain parts of the op-ed-o-sphere, there's a
> > consensus emerging that the whole mess should be laid at the feet of
> > Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the failed mortgage giants, and the
> > Community Reinvestment Act, a law passed during the Carter
> > administration. The CRA, which was amended in the 1990s and this decade=
,
> > requires banks=97which had a long, distinguished history of not making
> > loans to minorities=97to make more efforts to do so.
>
> > The thesis is laid out almost daily on the Wall Street Journal editoria=
l
> > page, in the National Review, and on the campaign trail. John McCain
> > said yesterday, "Bad mortgages were being backed by Fannie Mae and
> > Freddie Mac, and it was only a matter of time before a contagion of
> > unsustainable debt began to spread." Washington Post columnist Charles
> > Krauthammer provides an excellent example, writing that "much of this
> > crisis was brought upon us by the good intentions of good people." He
> > continues: "For decades, starting with Jimmy Carter's Community
> > Reinvestment Act of 1977, there has been bipartisan agreement to use
> > government power to expand homeownership to people who had been shut ou=
t
> > for economic reasons or, sometimes, because of racial and ethnic
> > discrimination. What could be a more worthy cause? But it led to
> > tremendous pressure on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac=97which in turn
> > pressured banks and other lenders=97to extend mortgages to people who w=
ere
> > borrowing over their heads. That's called subprime lending. It lies at
> > the root of our current calamity." The subtext: If only Congress didn't
> > force banks to lend money to poor minorities, the Dow would be well on
> > its way to 36,000. Or, as Fox Business Channel's Neil Cavuto put it, "I
> > don't remember a clarion call that said: Fannie and Freddie are a
> > disaster. Loaning to minorities and risky folks is a disaster."
>
> > Let me get this straight. Investment banks and insurance companies run
> > by centimillionaires blow up, and it's the fault of Jimmy Carter, Bill
> > Clinton, and poor minorities?
>
> > These arguments are generally made by people who read the editorial pag=
e
> > of the Wall Street Journal and ignore the rest of the paper=97economic
> > know-nothings whose opinions are informed mostly by ideology and,
> > occasionally, by prejudice. Let's be honest. Fannie and Freddie, which
> > didn't make subprime loans but did buy subprime loans made by others,
> > were part of the problem. Poor Congressional oversight was part of the
> > problem. Banks that sought to meet CRA requirements by indiscriminately
> > doling out loans to minorities may have been part of the problem. But
> > none of these issues is the cause of the problem. Not by a long shot.
> > =A0From the beginning, subprime has been a symptom, not a cause. And th=
e
> > notion that the Community Reinvestment Act is somehow responsible for
> > poor lending decisions is absurd.
>
> > Here's why.
>
> > The Community Reinvestment Act applies to depository banks. But many of
> > the institutions that spurred the massive growth of the subprime market
> > weren't regulated banks. They were outfits such as Argent and American
> > Home Mortgage, which were generally not regulated by the Federal Reserv=
e
> > or other entities that monitored compliance with CRA. These institution=
s
> > worked hand in glove with Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, entities to
> > which the CRA likewise didn't apply. There's much more. As Barry
> > Ritholtz notes in this fine rant, the CRA didn't force mortgage
> > companies to offer loans for no money down, or to throw underwriting
> > standards out the window, or to encourage mortgage brokers to
> > aggressively seek out new markets. Nor did the CRA force the
> > credit-rating agencies to slap high-grade ratings on packages of
> > subprime debt.
>
> > Second, many of the biggest flameouts in real estate have had nothing t=
o
> > do with subprime lending. WCI Communities, builder of highly amenitized
> > condos in Florida (no subprime purchasers welcome there), filed for
> > bankruptcy in August. Very few of the tens of thousands of now-surplus
> > condominiums in Miami were conceived to be marketed to subprime
> > borrowers, or minorities=97unless you count rich Venezuelans and
> > Colombians as minorities. The multiyear plague that has been documented
> > in brilliant detail at IrvineHousingBlog is playing out in one of the
> > least-subprime housing markets in the nation.
>
> > Third, lending money to poor people and minorities isn't inherently
> > risky. There's plenty of evidence that in fact it's not that risky at
> > all. That's what we've learned from several decades of microlending
> > programs, at home and abroad, with their very high repayment rates. And
> > as the New York Times recently reported, Nehemiah Homes, a long-running
> > initiative to build homes and sell them to the working poor in subprime
> > areas of New York's outer boroughs, has a repayment rate that lenders i=
n
> > Greenwich, Conn., would envy. In 27 years, there have been fewer than 1=
0
> > defaults on the project's 3,900 homes. That's a rate of 0.25 percent.
>
> > On the other hand, lending money recklessly to obscenely rich white
> > guys, such as Richard Fuld of Lehman Bros. or Jimmy Cayne of Bear
> > Stearns, can be really risky. In fact, it's even more risky, since they
> > have a lot more borrowing capacity. And here, again, it's difficult to
> > imagine how Jimmy Carter could be responsible for the supremely poor
> > decision-making seen in the financial system. I await the Krauthammer
> > column in which he points out the specific provision of the Community
> > Reinvestment Act that forced Bear Stearns to run with an absurd leverag=
e
> > ratio of 33 to 1, which instructed Bear Stearns hedge-fund managers to
> > blow up hundreds of millions of their clients' money, and that required
> > its septuagenarian CEO to play bridge while his company ran into
> > trouble. Perhaps Neil Cavuto knows which CRA clause required Lehman
> > Bros. to borrow hundreds of billions of dollars in short-term debt in
> > the capital markets and then buy tens of billions of dollars of
> > commercial real estate at the top of the market. I can't find it. Did
> > AIG plunge into the credit-default-swaps business with abandon because
> > Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now members picketed
> > its offices? Please. How about the hundreds of billions of dollars of
> > leveraged loans=97loans banks committed to private-equity firms that
> > wanted to conduct leveraged buyouts of retailers, restaurant companies,
> > and industrial firms? Many of those are going bad now, too. Is that Bil=
l
> > Clinton's fault?
>
> > Look: There was a culture of stupid, reckless lending, of which Fannie
> > Mae and Freddie Mac and the subprime lenders were an integral part. But
> > the dumb-lending virus originated in Greenwich, Conn., midtown
> > Manhattan, and Southern California, not Eastchester, Brownsville, and
> > Washington, D.C. Investment banks created a demand for subprime loans
> > because they saw it as a new asset class that they could dominate. They
> > made subprime loans for the same reason they made other loans: They
> > could get paid for making the loans, for turning them into securities,
> > and for trading them=97frequently using borrowed capital.
>
> > At Monday's hearing, Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., gamely tried to pin
> > Lehman's demise on Fannie and Freddie. After comparing Lehman's small
> > political contributions with Fannie and Freddie's much larger ones, Mic=
a
> > asked Fuld what role Fannie and Freddie's failure played in Lehman's
> > demise. Fuld's response: "De minimis."
>
> > Lending money to poor people doesn't make you poor. Lending money poorl=
y
> > to rich people does.
>
> Riddled with errors of omission and logic.
>
> The government pressed lenders to make those loans, and
> got Fannie and Freddie to buy them. =A0So lenders made
> them. =A0It's really that simple.
>
> Freddie and Fannie bought 'em, held some as investments,
> securitized the rest and sold them TO Wall Street.
>
> It doesn't matter that the CRA didn't apply to every
> lender. =A0Freddie and Fannie were still purchasing
> and or underwriting (guaranteeing the payment of) those
> loans regardless of who made them. =A0That's what made
> the whole mess possible.
>
> Freddie and Fannie were backed by the government.
> They distorted the mortgage market, both supply and
> demand.
>
> Prior 1999, banks were loaning to people of all colors.
> High-risk people got loans too, just at higher rates.
> That's how it works (and should work).
>
> The purpose of the 1999 amendments was to ensure that more
> high-risk people got loans, and at lower rates. Insisting
> that marginal customers get lower-than-prudent rates is,
> by definition, the same as insisting on imprudent lending.
>
> The following article, from that time, clears up who was
> pressuring whom to do what, and for what purpose:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3k7rtf
> =A0 Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
> =A0 By STEVEN A. HOLMES
> =A0 The New York Times =A0Published: September 30, 1999
>
> SUMMARY: The Clinton Administration was pressuring the industry
> for looser lending. =A0Raines indicates Fannie wants to get into
> subprime, which it did. =A0Fannie hoped, by its actions, "to
> spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar
> credit ratings." =A0They stressed the loans would be made to
> everyone, but indicated their specific intention was to increase
> loans based on skin color, regardless of ability to pay.
>
> The risks were known and apparent even then. =A0The article
> predicted then that those exact policies could cause
> today's meltdown:
>
> =A0 "In moving, even tentatively, into this new area
> =A0 =A0of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly
> =A0 =A0more risk, which may not pose any difficulties
> =A0 =A0during flush economic times. But the government-
> =A0 =A0subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an
> =A0 =A0economic downturn, prompting a government rescue
> =A0 =A0similar to that of the savings and loan industry
> =A0 =A0in the 1980's."
>
> Which is what's happening.
>
> Cheers,
> James Arthur

I will ask the same question that I have done before: how are these
pressures (lending to people with less than stellar credit)
responsible for turning $100-300 billion in mortgages into $50
trillion or more in derivatives?


  
Date: 02 Jan 2009 22:38:13
From: James Arthur
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
Tim Norfolk wrote:
> On Dec 31 2008, 9:22 pm, James Arthur <bogusabd...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> suds macheath wrote:
>>> Irish Mike wrote:
>>>> "Mike" <mikejc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:082e16c8-2189-4362-9074-d38e5deb0ace@o4g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> Front page article on the NY Times today. Apparently the NY Times
>>>>> needed to spin the current economic crisis of the auto industry into
>>>>> the race card. I would laugh if it wasn't so sad.
>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/business/30detroit.html?_r=1&adxnnl...
>>>>> So how come we need to focus on the Black workers plight and ignore
>>>>> everyone else who may also be affected by the auto industry?
>>>>> Reverse discrimination at its zenith....*sigh*
>>>>
>>>> Hey! Maybe the government could help out these poor $42 dollar an
>>>> hour black auto workers. You know, force banks to give them loans
>>>> they don't qualify for to buy houses they can't afford.
>>>
>>> Lending money to poor people doesn't make you poor. Lending money poorly
>>> to rich people does.
>>> http://www.slate.com/id/2201641/

<snip article >

>> Riddled with errors of omission and logic.
>>
>> The government pressed lenders to make those loans, and
>> got Fannie and Freddie to buy them. So lenders made
>> them. It's really that simple.
>>
>> Freddie and Fannie bought 'em, held some as investments,
>> securitized the rest and sold them TO Wall Street.
>>
>> It doesn't matter that the CRA didn't apply to every
>> lender. Freddie and Fannie were still purchasing
>> and or underwriting (guaranteeing the payment of) those
>> loans regardless of who made them. That's what made
>> the whole mess possible.
>>
>> Freddie and Fannie were backed by the government.
>> They distorted the mortgage market, both supply and
>> demand.
>>
>> Prior 1999, banks were loaning to people of all colors.
>> High-risk people got loans too, just at higher rates.
>> That's how it works (and should work).
>>
>> The purpose of the 1999 amendments was to ensure that more
>> high-risk people got loans, and at lower rates. Insisting
>> that marginal customers get lower-than-prudent rates is,
>> by definition, the same as insisting on imprudent lending.
>>
>> The following article, from that time, clears up who was
>> pressuring whom to do what, and for what purpose:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/3k7rtf
>> Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
>> By STEVEN A. HOLMES
>> The New York Times Published: September 30, 1999
>>
>> SUMMARY: The Clinton Administration was pressuring the industry
>> for looser lending. Raines indicates Fannie wants to get into
>> subprime, which it did. Fannie hoped, by its actions, "to
>> spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar
>> credit ratings." They stressed the loans would be made to
>> everyone, but indicated their specific intention was to increase
>> loans based on skin color, regardless of ability to pay.
>>
>> The risks were known and apparent even then. The article
>> predicted then that those exact policies could cause
>> today's meltdown:
>>
>> "In moving, even tentatively, into this new area
>> of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly
>> more risk, which may not pose any difficulties
>> during flush economic times. But the government-
>> subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an
>> economic downturn, prompting a government rescue
>> similar to that of the savings and loan industry
>> in the 1980's."
>>
>> Which is what's happening.
>>
>
> I will ask the same question that I have done before: how are these
> pressures (lending to people with less than stellar credit)
> responsible for turning $100-300 billion in mortgages into $50
> trillion or more in derivatives?

The long answer is that the changes made for "affordable
housing" created a marginal loan industry that made lots
of government-approved, marginal loans.

But, to the immediate question, derivatives are, generally,
various forms of insurance and bets on whether a mortgage
will be paid.

While not accepting your numbers, the primary need for
the development and application of derivatives is,
obviously, to insure the /riskier/ mortgages.

Otherwise, if the guilty derivatives were based on
sound loans, why would they be failing, or even
matter? How does someone else's bet on your mortgage
affect your ability to make the monthly payments?

It doesn't.

Cheers,
James Arthur


   
Date: 02 Jan 2009 19:28:30
From: krw
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 22:38:13 GMT, James Arthur
<bogusabdsqy@verizon.net > wrote:

>Tim Norfolk wrote:
>> On Dec 31 2008, 9:22 pm, James Arthur <bogusabd...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> suds macheath wrote:
>>>> Irish Mike wrote:
>>>>> "Mike" <mikejc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:082e16c8-2189-4362-9074-d38e5deb0ace@o4g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>> Front page article on the NY Times today. Apparently the NY Times
>>>>>> needed to spin the current economic crisis of the auto industry into
>>>>>> the race card. I would laugh if it wasn't so sad.
>>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/business/30detroit.html?_r=1&adxnnl...
>>>>>> So how come we need to focus on the Black workers plight and ignore
>>>>>> everyone else who may also be affected by the auto industry?
>>>>>> Reverse discrimination at its zenith....*sigh*
>>>>>
>>>>> Hey! Maybe the government could help out these poor $42 dollar an
>>>>> hour black auto workers. You know, force banks to give them loans
>>>>> they don't qualify for to buy houses they can't afford.
>>>>
>>>> Lending money to poor people doesn't make you poor. Lending money poorly
>>>> to rich people does.
>>>> http://www.slate.com/id/2201641/
>
><snip article>
>
>>> Riddled with errors of omission and logic.
>>>
>>> The government pressed lenders to make those loans, and
>>> got Fannie and Freddie to buy them. So lenders made
>>> them. It's really that simple.
>>>
>>> Freddie and Fannie bought 'em, held some as investments,
>>> securitized the rest and sold them TO Wall Street.
>>>
>>> It doesn't matter that the CRA didn't apply to every
>>> lender. Freddie and Fannie were still purchasing
>>> and or underwriting (guaranteeing the payment of) those
>>> loans regardless of who made them. That's what made
>>> the whole mess possible.
>>>
>>> Freddie and Fannie were backed by the government.
>>> They distorted the mortgage market, both supply and
>>> demand.
>>>
>>> Prior 1999, banks were loaning to people of all colors.
>>> High-risk people got loans too, just at higher rates.
>>> That's how it works (and should work).
>>>
>>> The purpose of the 1999 amendments was to ensure that more
>>> high-risk people got loans, and at lower rates. Insisting
>>> that marginal customers get lower-than-prudent rates is,
>>> by definition, the same as insisting on imprudent lending.
>>>
>>> The following article, from that time, clears up who was
>>> pressuring whom to do what, and for what purpose:
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/3k7rtf
>>> Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
>>> By STEVEN A. HOLMES
>>> The New York Times Published: September 30, 1999
>>>
>>> SUMMARY: The Clinton Administration was pressuring the industry
>>> for looser lending. Raines indicates Fannie wants to get into
>>> subprime, which it did. Fannie hoped, by its actions, "to
>>> spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar
>>> credit ratings." They stressed the loans would be made to
>>> everyone, but indicated their specific intention was to increase
>>> loans based on skin color, regardless of ability to pay.
>>>
>>> The risks were known and apparent even then. The article
>>> predicted then that those exact policies could cause
>>> today's meltdown:
>>>
>>> "In moving, even tentatively, into this new area
>>> of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly
>>> more risk, which may not pose any difficulties
>>> during flush economic times. But the government-
>>> subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an
>>> economic downturn, prompting a government rescue
>>> similar to that of the savings and loan industry
>>> in the 1980's."
>>>
>>> Which is what's happening.
>>>
>>
>> I will ask the same question that I have done before: how are these
>> pressures (lending to people with less than stellar credit)
>> responsible for turning $100-300 billion in mortgages into $50
>> trillion or more in derivatives?
>
>The long answer is that the changes made for "affordable
>housing" created a marginal loan industry that made lots
>of government-approved, marginal loans.
>
>But, to the immediate question, derivatives are, generally,
>various forms of insurance and bets on whether a mortgage
>will be paid.
>
>While not accepting your numbers, the primary need for
>the development and application of derivatives is,
>obviously, to insure the /riskier/ mortgages.
>
>Otherwise, if the guilty derivatives were based on
>sound loans, why would they be failing, or even
>matter? How does someone else's bet on your mortgage
>affect your ability to make the monthly payments?

The question here is, should others be allowed to bet on your montyly
payment?

>It doesn't.

...and bet shouldn't be allowed. I can't insure your home, or your
life. Why should I be able to insure your home if I have no stake
(the bank obviously should be able to, usually with your money).


    
Date: 03 Jan 2009 04:11:42
From: James Arthur
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
krw wrote:
> James Arthur wrote:

>> While not accepting your numbers, the primary need for
>> the development and application of derivatives is,
>> obviously, to insure the /riskier/ mortgages.
>>
>> Otherwise, if the guilty derivatives were based on
>> sound loans, why would they be failing, or even
>> matter? How does someone else's bet on your mortgage
>> affect your ability to make the monthly payments?
>
> The question here is, should others be allowed to bet on your montyly
> payment?
>
>> It doesn't.
>
> ...and bet shouldn't be allowed. I can't insure your home, or your
> life. Why should I be able to insure your home if I have no stake
> (the bank obviously should be able to, usually with your money).

You can get insurance on someone else's life, and probably their
home. And why not? It's gambling, but who's hurt by it?

What shouldn't be allowed is for Freddie or Fannie (or
anyone else) to get useless insurance on junk, then
sell / use junk as if it were triple-A.

Best regards,
James Arthur


     
Date: 03 Jan 2009 20:54:44
From: Stanley Moore
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...

"James Arthur" <bogusabdsqy@verizon.net > wrote in message
news:2AB7l.3049$Es4.1437@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> krw wrote:
>> James Arthur wrote:
>
>>> While not accepting your numbers, the primary need for
>>> the development and application of derivatives is,
>>> obviously, to insure the /riskier/ mortgages.
>>>
>>> Otherwise, if the guilty derivatives were based on
>>> sound loans, why would they be failing, or even
>>> matter? How does someone else's bet on your mortgage
>>> affect your ability to make the monthly payments?
>>
>> The question here is, should others be allowed to bet on your montyly
>> payment?
>>> It doesn't.
>>
>> ...and bet shouldn't be allowed. I can't insure your home, or your
>> life. Why should I be able to insure your home if I have no stake
>> (the bank obviously should be able to, usually with your money).
>
> You can get insurance on someone else's life, and probably their
> home. And why not? It's gambling, but who's hurt by it?
>

As a general rule you cannot get insurance on someone else's life unless you
can show an insurable interest. This was part of the problem that Walmart
ran into when they tried to insure peons without their knowledge. "Key man"
policies are something else. But if you could insure folks without their
will or knowledge you can see how ripe for fraud that would be.

There was an episode of The Closer where employees of a halfway house conned
the cons into taking out insurance policies (which they didn't pay for) then
after a year they would get the ex-con drunk and run him over to get the
proceeds. Their pretext was they were providing nice funerals to guys with
no resources. Take care
--
Stanley L. Moore
"The belief in a supernatural
source of evil is not necessary;
men alone are quite capable
of every wickedness."
Joseph Conrad





      
Date: 04 Jan 2009 21:07:36
From: James Arthur
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
Stanley Moore wrote:
> "James Arthur" <bogusabdsqy@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:2AB7l.3049$Es4.1437@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>> krw wrote:
>>> James Arthur wrote:
>>>> While not accepting your numbers, the primary need for
>>>> the development and application of derivatives is,
>>>> obviously, to insure the /riskier/ mortgages.
>>>>
>>>> Otherwise, if the guilty derivatives were based on
>>>> sound loans, why would they be failing, or even
>>>> matter? How does someone else's bet on your mortgage
>>>> affect your ability to make the monthly payments?
>>> The question here is, should others be allowed to bet on your montyly
>>> payment?
>>>> It doesn't.
>>> ...and bet shouldn't be allowed. I can't insure your home, or your
>>> life. Why should I be able to insure your home if I have no stake
>>> (the bank obviously should be able to, usually with your money).
>> You can get insurance on someone else's life, and probably their
>> home. And why not? It's gambling, but who's hurt by it?
>>
>
> As a general rule you cannot get insurance on someone else's life unless you
> can show an insurable interest.

Thanks for that clarification.

> This was part of the problem that Walmart
> ran into when they tried to insure peons without their knowledge. "Key man"
> policies are something else. But if you could insure folks without their
> will or knowledge you can see how ripe for fraud that would be.
>
> There was an episode of The Closer where employees of a halfway house conned
> the cons into taking out insurance policies (which they didn't pay for) then
> after a year they would get the ex-con drunk and run him over to get the
> proceeds. Their pretext was they were providing nice funerals to guys with
> no resources. Take care

Indeed. Some elderly ladies in California were convicted not long
ago of insuring homeless people, killing, then collecting on their
life insurance.

Thinking on it, they did it indirectly, just as in your example.


My greater point remains that the derivatives didn't cause
the loan problem, merely amplified its effects.

Cheers,
James Arthur


       
Date: 04 Jan 2009 16:04:22
From: krw
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 21:07:36 GMT, James Arthur
<bogusabdsqy@verizon.net > wrote:

>Stanley Moore wrote:
>> "James Arthur" <bogusabdsqy@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:2AB7l.3049$Es4.1437@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>>> krw wrote:
>>>> James Arthur wrote:
>>>>> While not accepting your numbers, the primary need for
>>>>> the development and application of derivatives is,
>>>>> obviously, to insure the /riskier/ mortgages.
>>>>>
>>>>> Otherwise, if the guilty derivatives were based on
>>>>> sound loans, why would they be failing, or even
>>>>> matter? How does someone else's bet on your mortgage
>>>>> affect your ability to make the monthly payments?
>>>> The question here is, should others be allowed to bet on your montyly
>>>> payment?
>>>>> It doesn't.
>>>> ...and bet shouldn't be allowed. I can't insure your home, or your
>>>> life. Why should I be able to insure your home if I have no stake
>>>> (the bank obviously should be able to, usually with your money).
>>> You can get insurance on someone else's life, and probably their
>>> home. And why not? It's gambling, but who's hurt by it?
>>>
>>
>> As a general rule you cannot get insurance on someone else's life unless you
>> can show an insurable interest.
>
>Thanks for that clarification.
>
>> This was part of the problem that Walmart
>> ran into when they tried to insure peons without their knowledge. "Key man"
>> policies are something else. But if you could insure folks without their
>> will or knowledge you can see how ripe for fraud that would be.
>>
>> There was an episode of The Closer where employees of a halfway house conned
>> the cons into taking out insurance policies (which they didn't pay for) then
>> after a year they would get the ex-con drunk and run him over to get the
>> proceeds. Their pretext was they were providing nice funerals to guys with
>> no resources. Take care
>
>Indeed. Some elderly ladies in California were convicted not long
>ago of insuring homeless people, killing, then collecting on their
>life insurance.
>
>Thinking on it, they did it indirectly, just as in your example.
>
Screen writers aren't that gifted. ;-)

>My greater point remains that the derivatives didn't cause
>the loan problem, merely amplified its effects.

Leverage didn't cause the loan problem either, but sure cranked up the
gain. In the end, gain *was* the cause.


     
Date: 02 Jan 2009 23:19:34
From: krw
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
On Sat, 03 Jan 2009 04:11:42 GMT, James Arthur
<bogusabdsqy@verizon.net > wrote:

>krw wrote:
>> James Arthur wrote:
>
>>> While not accepting your numbers, the primary need for
>>> the development and application of derivatives is,
>>> obviously, to insure the /riskier/ mortgages.
>>>
>>> Otherwise, if the guilty derivatives were based on
>>> sound loans, why would they be failing, or even
>>> matter? How does someone else's bet on your mortgage
>>> affect your ability to make the monthly payments?
>>
>> The question here is, should others be allowed to bet on your montyly
>> payment?
>>
>>> It doesn't.
>>
>> ...and bet shouldn't be allowed. I can't insure your home, or your
>> life. Why should I be able to insure your home if I have no stake
>> (the bank obviously should be able to, usually with your money).
>
>You can get insurance on someone else's life, and probably their
>home. And why not? It's gambling, but who's hurt by it?

No you certainly can not! You cannot insure what you don't have an
interest in.

>What shouldn't be allowed is for Freddie or Fannie (or
>anyone else) to get useless insurance on junk, then
>sell / use junk as if it were triple-A.

They didn't rate the junk. F&F were a large part of the problem, but
the ratings of the bonds wasn't theirs.



      
Date: 04 Jan 2009 01:57:42
From: James Arthur
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
krw wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Jan 2009 04:11:42 GMT, James Arthur
> <bogusabdsqy@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> krw wrote:
>>> James Arthur wrote:
>>>> While not accepting your numbers, the primary need for
>>>> the development and application of derivatives is,
>>>> obviously, to insure the /riskier/ mortgages.
>>>>
>>>> Otherwise, if the guilty derivatives were based on
>>>> sound loans, why would they be failing, or even
>>>> matter? How does someone else's bet on your mortgage
>>>> affect your ability to make the monthly payments?
>>> The question here is, should others be allowed to bet on your montyly
>>> payment?
>>>
>>>> It doesn't.
>>> ...and bet shouldn't be allowed. I can't insure your home, or your
>>> life. Why should I be able to insure your home if I have no stake
>>> (the bank obviously should be able to, usually with your money).
>> You can get insurance on someone else's life, and probably their
>> home. And why not? It's gambling, but who's hurt by it?
>
> No you certainly can not! You cannot insure what you don't have an
> interest in.

I'd thought otherwise, but I'll take your word on it.

>> What shouldn't be allowed is for Freddie or Fannie (or
>> anyone else) to get useless insurance on junk, then
>> sell / use junk as if it were triple-A.
>
> They didn't rate the junk. F&F were a large part of the problem, but
> the ratings of the bonds wasn't theirs.
>

They didn't rate the stuff, but they knew it was crap.
I posted an article a ways back in which their former
mid-honchos, interviewed, said pretty much exactly
that: they knew full well they were buying junk mortgages
and liar loans, they just didn't care.


Best regards,
James Arthur


       
Date: 04 Jan 2009 00:22:59
From: Irish Mike
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...

"James Arthur" <bogusabdsqy@verizon.net > wrote in message
news:qIU7l.3247$Es4.2403@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> krw wrote:
>> On Sat, 03 Jan 2009 04:11:42 GMT, James Arthur
>> <bogusabdsqy@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>> krw wrote:
>>>> James Arthur wrote:
>>>>> While not accepting your numbers, the primary need for
>>>>> the development and application of derivatives is,
>>>>> obviously, to insure the /riskier/ mortgages.
>>>>>
>>>>> Otherwise, if the guilty derivatives were based on
>>>>> sound loans, why would they be failing, or even
>>>>> matter? How does someone else's bet on your mortgage
>>>>> affect your ability to make the monthly payments?
>>>> The question here is, should others be allowed to bet on your montyly
>>>> payment?
>>>>> It doesn't.
>>>> ...and bet shouldn't be allowed. I can't insure your home, or your
>>>> life. Why should I be able to insure your home if I have no stake
>>>> (the bank obviously should be able to, usually with your money).
>>> You can get insurance on someone else's life, and probably their
>>> home. And why not? It's gambling, but who's hurt by it?
>>
>> No you certainly can not! You cannot insure what you don't have an
>> interest in.
>
> I'd thought otherwise, but I'll take your word on it.
>
>>> What shouldn't be allowed is for Freddie or Fannie (or
>>> anyone else) to get useless insurance on junk, then
>>> sell / use junk as if it were triple-A.
>>
>> They didn't rate the junk. F&F were a large part of the problem, but
>> the ratings of the bonds wasn't theirs.
>>
>
> They didn't rate the stuff, but they knew it was crap.
> I posted an article a ways back in which their former
> mid-honchos, interviewed, said pretty much exactly
> that: they knew full well they were buying junk mortgages
> and liar loans, they just didn't care.
>
>
> Best regards,
> James Arthur

Barney Frank and Chris Dodd have chaired the banking and finance committees
for the past two years. Between 8/07 and 8/08, during Barney Frank's
chairmanship, F-MAE and F-MAC lost 90% of it's stock value. In mid July,
2008 Barney Frank is on record saying that both F-MAE and F-MAC were
basically sound and in no danger of being taken over. So either he truly
didn't know the shape they were in, which makes him an idiot. Or he knew
and lied about it, which makes him a crook.

Irish Mike




  
Date: 01 Jan 2009 09:21:41
From: John Galt
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
Tim Norfolk wrote:
> On Dec 31 2008, 9:22 pm, James Arthur <bogusabd...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> suds macheath wrote:
>>> Irish Mike wrote:
>>>> "Mike" <mikejc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:082e16c8-2189-4362-9074-d38e5deb0ace@o4g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> Front page article on the NY Times today. Apparently the NY Times
>>>>> needed to spin the current economic crisis of the auto industry into
>>>>> the race card. I would laugh if it wasn't so sad.
>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/business/30detroit.html?_r=1&adxnnl...
>>>>> So how come we need to focus on the Black workers plight and ignore
>>>>> everyone else who may also be affected by the auto industry?
>>>>> Reverse discrimination at its zenith....*sigh*
>>>> Hey! Maybe the government could help out these poor $42 dollar an
>>>> hour black auto workers. You know, force banks to give them loans
>>>> they don't qualify for to buy houses they can't afford.
>>> Lending money to poor people doesn't make you poor. Lending money poorly
>>> to rich people does.
>>> http://www.slate.com/id/2201641/
>>> We've now entered a new stage of the financial crisis: the ritual
>>> assigning of blame. It began in earnest with Monday's congressional
>>> roasting of Lehman Bros. CEO Richard Fuld and continued on Tuesday with
>>> Capitol Hill solons delving into the failure of AIG. On the Republican
>>> side of Congress, in the right-wing financial media (which is to say the
>>> financial media), and in certain parts of the op-ed-o-sphere, there's a
>>> consensus emerging that the whole mess should be laid at the feet of
>>> Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the failed mortgage giants, and the
>>> Community Reinvestment Act, a law passed during the Carter
>>> administration. The CRA, which was amended in the 1990s and this decade,
>>> requires banks—which had a long, distinguished history of not making
>>> loans to minorities—to make more efforts to do so.
>>> The thesis is laid out almost daily on the Wall Street Journal editorial
>>> page, in the National Review, and on the campaign trail. John McCain
>>> said yesterday, "Bad mortgages were being backed by Fannie Mae and
>>> Freddie Mac, and it was only a matter of time before a contagion of
>>> unsustainable debt began to spread." Washington Post columnist Charles
>>> Krauthammer provides an excellent example, writing that "much of this
>>> crisis was brought upon us by the good intentions of good people." He
>>> continues: "For decades, starting with Jimmy Carter's Community
>>> Reinvestment Act of 1977, there has been bipartisan agreement to use
>>> government power to expand homeownership to people who had been shut out
>>> for economic reasons or, sometimes, because of racial and ethnic
>>> discrimination. What could be a more worthy cause? But it led to
>>> tremendous pressure on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—which in turn
>>> pressured banks and other lenders—to extend mortgages to people who were
>>> borrowing over their heads. That's called subprime lending. It lies at
>>> the root of our current calamity." The subtext: If only Congress didn't
>>> force banks to lend money to poor minorities, the Dow would be well on
>>> its way to 36,000. Or, as Fox Business Channel's Neil Cavuto put it, "I
>>> don't remember a clarion call that said: Fannie and Freddie are a
>>> disaster. Loaning to minorities and risky folks is a disaster."
>>> Let me get this straight. Investment banks and insurance companies run
>>> by centimillionaires blow up, and it's the fault of Jimmy Carter, Bill
>>> Clinton, and poor minorities?
>>> These arguments are generally made by people who read the editorial page
>>> of the Wall Street Journal and ignore the rest of the paper—economic
>>> know-nothings whose opinions are informed mostly by ideology and,
>>> occasionally, by prejudice. Let's be honest. Fannie and Freddie, which
>>> didn't make subprime loans but did buy subprime loans made by others,
>>> were part of the problem. Poor Congressional oversight was part of the
>>> problem. Banks that sought to meet CRA requirements by indiscriminately
>>> doling out loans to minorities may have been part of the problem. But
>>> none of these issues is the cause of the problem. Not by a long shot.
>>> From the beginning, subprime has been a symptom, not a cause. And the
>>> notion that the Community Reinvestment Act is somehow responsible for
>>> poor lending decisions is absurd.
>>> Here's why.
>>> The Community Reinvestment Act applies to depository banks. But many of
>>> the institutions that spurred the massive growth of the subprime market
>>> weren't regulated banks. They were outfits such as Argent and American
>>> Home Mortgage, which were generally not regulated by the Federal Reserve
>>> or other entities that monitored compliance with CRA. These institutions
>>> worked hand in glove with Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, entities to
>>> which the CRA likewise didn't apply. There's much more. As Barry
>>> Ritholtz notes in this fine rant, the CRA didn't force mortgage
>>> companies to offer loans for no money down, or to throw underwriting
>>> standards out the window, or to encourage mortgage brokers to
>>> aggressively seek out new markets. Nor did the CRA force the
>>> credit-rating agencies to slap high-grade ratings on packages of
>>> subprime debt.
>>> Second, many of the biggest flameouts in real estate have had nothing to
>>> do with subprime lending. WCI Communities, builder of highly amenitized
>>> condos in Florida (no subprime purchasers welcome there), filed for
>>> bankruptcy in August. Very few of the tens of thousands of now-surplus
>>> condominiums in Miami were conceived to be marketed to subprime
>>> borrowers, or minorities—unless you count rich Venezuelans and
>>> Colombians as minorities. The multiyear plague that has been documented
>>> in brilliant detail at IrvineHousingBlog is playing out in one of the
>>> least-subprime housing markets in the nation.
>>> Third, lending money to poor people and minorities isn't inherently
>>> risky. There's plenty of evidence that in fact it's not that risky at
>>> all. That's what we've learned from several decades of microlending
>>> programs, at home and abroad, with their very high repayment rates. And
>>> as the New York Times recently reported, Nehemiah Homes, a long-running
>>> initiative to build homes and sell them to the working poor in subprime
>>> areas of New York's outer boroughs, has a repayment rate that lenders in
>>> Greenwich, Conn., would envy. In 27 years, there have been fewer than 10
>>> defaults on the project's 3,900 homes. That's a rate of 0.25 percent.
>>> On the other hand, lending money recklessly to obscenely rich white
>>> guys, such as Richard Fuld of Lehman Bros. or Jimmy Cayne of Bear
>>> Stearns, can be really risky. In fact, it's even more risky, since they
>>> have a lot more borrowing capacity. And here, again, it's difficult to
>>> imagine how Jimmy Carter could be responsible for the supremely poor
>>> decision-making seen in the financial system. I await the Krauthammer
>>> column in which he points out the specific provision of the Community
>>> Reinvestment Act that forced Bear Stearns to run with an absurd leverage
>>> ratio of 33 to 1, which instructed Bear Stearns hedge-fund managers to
>>> blow up hundreds of millions of their clients' money, and that required
>>> its septuagenarian CEO to play bridge while his company ran into
>>> trouble. Perhaps Neil Cavuto knows which CRA clause required Lehman
>>> Bros. to borrow hundreds of billions of dollars in short-term debt in
>>> the capital markets and then buy tens of billions of dollars of
>>> commercial real estate at the top of the market. I can't find it. Did
>>> AIG plunge into the credit-default-swaps business with abandon because
>>> Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now members picketed
>>> its offices? Please. How about the hundreds of billions of dollars of
>>> leveraged loans—loans banks committed to private-equity firms that
>>> wanted to conduct leveraged buyouts of retailers, restaurant companies,
>>> and industrial firms? Many of those are going bad now, too. Is that Bill
>>> Clinton's fault?
>>> Look: There was a culture of stupid, reckless lending, of which Fannie
>>> Mae and Freddie Mac and the subprime lenders were an integral part. But
>>> the dumb-lending virus originated in Greenwich, Conn., midtown
>>> Manhattan, and Southern California, not Eastchester, Brownsville, and
>>> Washington, D.C. Investment banks created a demand for subprime loans
>>> because they saw it as a new asset class that they could dominate. They
>>> made subprime loans for the same reason they made other loans: They
>>> could get paid for making the loans, for turning them into securities,
>>> and for trading them—frequently using borrowed capital.
>>> At Monday's hearing, Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., gamely tried to pin
>>> Lehman's demise on Fannie and Freddie. After comparing Lehman's small
>>> political contributions with Fannie and Freddie's much larger ones, Mica
>>> asked Fuld what role Fannie and Freddie's failure played in Lehman's
>>> demise. Fuld's response: "De minimis."
>>> Lending money to poor people doesn't make you poor. Lending money poorly
>>> to rich people does.
>> Riddled with errors of omission and logic.
>>
>> The government pressed lenders to make those loans, and
>> got Fannie and Freddie to buy them. So lenders made
>> them. It's really that simple.
>>
>> Freddie and Fannie bought 'em, held some as investments,
>> securitized the rest and sold them TO Wall Street.
>>
>> It doesn't matter that the CRA didn't apply to every
>> lender. Freddie and Fannie were still purchasing
>> and or underwriting (guaranteeing the payment of) those
>> loans regardless of who made them. That's what made
>> the whole mess possible.
>>
>> Freddie and Fannie were backed by the government.
>> They distorted the mortgage market, both supply and
>> demand.
>>
>> Prior 1999, banks were loaning to people of all colors.
>> High-risk people got loans too, just at higher rates.
>> That's how it works (and should work).
>>
>> The purpose of the 1999 amendments was to ensure that more
>> high-risk people got loans, and at lower rates. Insisting
>> that marginal customers get lower-than-prudent rates is,
>> by definition, the same as insisting on imprudent lending.
>>
>> The following article, from that time, clears up who was
>> pressuring whom to do what, and for what purpose:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/3k7rtf
>> Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
>> By STEVEN A. HOLMES
>> The New York Times Published: September 30, 1999
>>
>> SUMMARY: The Clinton Administration was pressuring the industry
>> for looser lending. Raines indicates Fannie wants to get into
>> subprime, which it did. Fannie hoped, by its actions, "to
>> spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar
>> credit ratings." They stressed the loans would be made to
>> everyone, but indicated their specific intention was to increase
>> loans based on skin color, regardless of ability to pay.
>>
>> The risks were known and apparent even then. The article
>> predicted then that those exact policies could cause
>> today's meltdown:
>>
>> "In moving, even tentatively, into this new area
>> of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly
>> more risk, which may not pose any difficulties
>> during flush economic times. But the government-
>> subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an
>> economic downturn, prompting a government rescue
>> similar to that of the savings and loan industry
>> in the 1980's."
>>
>> Which is what's happening.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> James Arthur
>
> I will ask the same question that I have done before: how are these
> pressures (lending to people with less than stellar credit)
> responsible for turning $100-300 billion in mortgages into $50
> trillion or more in derivatives?

Sorry if this is old ground (jumping into the middle of the thread,
here) but the answer to your question is that mortgages given to
questionable borrowers don't force the creation of any sort of
derivatives market whatsoever. What they did was decrease the stability
of the collateral underpining the derivatives market. The Biblical
caution about not "building your house on a foundation of sand" comes to
mind.

JG


  
Date: 01 Jan 2009 10:00:18
From: GreenDistantStar
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...


Tim Norfolk wrote:
clipped

> I will ask the same question that I have done before: how are these
> pressures (lending to people with less than stellar credit)
> responsible for turning $100-300 billion in mortgages into $50
> trillion or more in derivatives?

The multiplier effect of derivatives ie leverage.

Moreover, these CDOs were sold worldwide to governments and corporations.

They bought them because they were rated up to AAA. The trading desks of AA banks and govt securities
traders bought them as a *safe* investment.

There are some *very* pissed off European banks and governments who feel utterly deceived by the US,
and they are 100% correct.

GDS

"Let's roll!


   
Date: 01 Jan 2009 09:29:43
From: John Galt
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
GreenDistantStar wrote:
>
>
> Tim Norfolk wrote:
> clipped
>
>> I will ask the same question that I have done before: how are these
>> pressures (lending to people with less than stellar credit)
>> responsible for turning $100-300 billion in mortgages into $50
>> trillion or more in derivatives?
>
> The multiplier effect of derivatives ie leverage.
>
> Moreover, these CDOs were sold worldwide to governments and corporations.
>
> They bought them because they were rated up to AAA. The trading desks of
> AA banks and govt securities traders bought them as a *safe* investment.
>
> There are some *very* pissed off European banks and governments who feel
> utterly deceived by the US, and they are 100% correct.

How? It wasn't the "US" that deceived them. It was Moody's and Standard
& Poor's.

JG


    
Date: 01 Jan 2009 23:03:04
From: GreenDistantStar
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...


John Galt wrote:
> GreenDistantStar wrote:
>>
>>
>> Tim Norfolk wrote:
>> clipped
>>
>>> I will ask the same question that I have done before: how are these
>>> pressures (lending to people with less than stellar credit)
>>> responsible for turning $100-300 billion in mortgages into $50
>>> trillion or more in derivatives?
>>
>> The multiplier effect of derivatives ie leverage.
>>
>> Moreover, these CDOs were sold worldwide to governments and corporations.
>>
>> They bought them because they were rated up to AAA. The trading desks
>> of AA banks and govt securities traders bought them as a *safe*
>> investment.
>>
>> There are some *very* pissed off European banks and governments who
>> feel utterly deceived by the US, and they are 100% correct.
>
> How? It wasn't the "US" that deceived them. It was Moody's and Standard
> & Poor's.

Deceived by US ratings agencies, then.

GDS

"Let's roll!"


 
Date: 31 Dec 2008 13:58:22
From: zxcv
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
On Dec 31, 9:14=A0am, suds macheath <sudsmcduff19...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> zxcv wrote:
> > On Dec 30, 5:28 pm, Mike <mikejc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Front page article on the NY Times today. =A0Apparently the NY Times
> >> needed to spin the current economic crisis of the auto industry into
> >> the race card. =A0I would laugh if it wasn't so sad.
>
> >>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/business/30detroit.html?_r=3D1&adxnnl=
...
>
> >> So how come we need to focus on the Black workers plight and ignore
> >> everyone else who may also be affected by the auto industry?
>
> ---You must have missed this one, Sparky....or you're cherry picking:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/19/business/businessspecial2/19generat...
>
> You may have "missed" it, but the plight of "everyone else" has been
> done to death by MSM, including the NYT....
>

That is not the point. The point is that blacks are singled out as
being hit hard. Is there an article talking about how this effects
whites or Asians losing their jobs? The only group's hardships that
they feel the need to point out specifically is the blacks. What
makes me kind of sick is this mentality that success or failure of
others of the same race is more important than anyone else. If a
black guy or white guy loses his job or gets rich it effects him the
same.


  
Date: 06 Jan 2009 10:10:40
From: jpatk
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
On Jan 6, 10:56=A0am, "Irish Mike" <mjos...@ameritech.net > wrote:
> "GreenDistantStar" <pde63...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
>
> news:_GK8l.8366$cu.2891@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
>
>
> > Irish Mike wrote:
> >> <h...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> >>news:p3q6m4lbcfth39bbb3sb431l5rhhiqgg5h@4ax.com...
> >>> On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 03:15:23 -0500, "Irish Mike"
> >>> <mjos...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>> you're retarded, right?
> >>>> No, that would be the 62,000,000 who voted for your messiah.
>
> >>>> Irish Mike
>
> >>> for one thing, no one considers him a "messiah". =A0And I voted for h=
im
> >>> because there was no way I could vote for another 8 years of more of
> >>> the same, especially not considering the fact that the moron Palin
> >>> might become president when the old geezer kicks off.
>
> >> The lunatic liberal left considers him a Messiah. =A0But here's what a=
lways
> >> amuses me about you left wing hypocrites. =A0You smear 71 year old Joh=
n
> >> McCain through out his campaign for being too old. =A0(Never mind that=
your
> >> Messiah has no experience, no political accomplishments, never served =
in
> >> the military and will become Commander In Chief with out ever having
> >> heard a shot fired in anger) .
>
> > If it's necessary to hear a shot fired in anger to be a competent US
> > President, that would exclude most current candidates and most former
> > presidents.
>
> > =A0 But your crooked-as-a-cork-screw Democrat Gov.
> >> Blago, appoints a 71 year old man to take the Messiah's scandal-ridden
> >> vacant Senate seat and suddenly your guy is "a senior statesman whose
> >> experience will be a great asset for the position". =A0 LOL!
>
> > McCain never had a hope.
>
> > Nice guy 'n' all, but he *did* make a clown of himself dropping out of =
the
> > front line of the election to attend the financial summit, only to make=
no
> > contribution because he hadn't a clue what they were talking about.
>
> > Obama's win was comprehensive, he has a mandate.
>
> > GDS
>
> > "Let's roll!"
>
> John McCain is a nice guy. =A0He's also a decorated combat veteran and a =
hero.
> As I posted before, his decision to drop out of the campaign to go to
> Washington to vote "yes" on the bailout was a strategic blunder and cost =
him
> the election. =A0Well that and the fact that he didn't communicate the
> Democrat's role in contributing to this financial disaster. =A0However, y=
ou
> are dead wrong about Obama having a "mandate". =A0In an election where 11=
7
> million votes were cast, he won by 7 million. =A0Given Bush's unpopularit=
y,
> the Iraq war, McCain's blunders, the financial disaster and the fact that
> Obama out spent McCain by a huge amount, Obama should have won by five ti=
mes
> that number. =A0There are 55,000,000+ Americans who voted against him and=
I'm
> proud to be one of them. =A0Your Messiah's win was not "comprehensive" an=
d he
> absolutely does NOT have a mandate. =A0And what he does have is going to
> disappear in a heart beat if there is another terrorist attack on America=
n
> soil on his watch.

What did Bush say when he won in 2004? Something like: I've earned a
lot of political capital in this election and I'm gonna spend it?

And what was the popular vote in 2004? Something like 62,000,000 to
59,000,000?

QED


  
Date: 02 Jan 2009 10:36:01
From: suds macheath
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
zxcv wrote:
> On Dec 31, 9:14 am, suds macheath <sudsmcduff19...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> zxcv wrote:
>>> On Dec 30, 5:28 pm, Mike <mikejc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Front page article on the NY Times today. Apparently the NY Times
>>>> needed to spin the current economic crisis of the auto industry into
>>>> the race card. I would laugh if it wasn't so sad.
>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/business/30detroit.html?_r=1&adxnnl...
>>>> So how come we need to focus on the Black workers plight and ignore
>>>> everyone else who may also be affected by the auto industry?
>> ---You must have missed this one, Sparky....or you're cherry picking:
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/19/business/businessspecial2/19generat...
>>
>> You may have "missed" it, but the plight of "everyone else" has been
>> done to death by MSM, including the NYT....
>>
>
> That is not the point.

---That is indeed the point.....The OP laments that the NYT only
mentions blacks as suffering from the auto manufacturing crisis, when
there are articlews published beforehand that highlight whoie suffering
as well. Which leads me to believe the OP has an agenda to proffer....

The point is that blacks are singled out as
> being hit hard.

----Harder than whites. The stats are there in the article....

Is there an article talking about how this effects
> whites or Asians losing their jobs?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/19/business/businessspecial2/19generat...
And many, many more....where have you been?

The only group's hardships that
> they feel the need to point out specifically is the blacks. What
> makes me kind of sick is this mentality that success or failure of
> others of the same race is more important than anyone else. If a
> black guy or white guy loses his job or gets rich it effects him the
> same.

---I can see you didn't read the article.....either one.


 
Date: 31 Dec 2008 13:17:36
From: Tim Norfolk
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
On Dec 31, 9:37=EF=BF=BDam, "Irish Mike" <mjos...@ameritech.net > wrote:
> "suds macheath" <sudsmcduff19...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:52L6l.814$gE4.582@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > zxcv wrote:
> >> On Dec 30, 5:28 pm, Mike <mikejc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> Front page article on the NY Times today. =EF=BF=BDApparently the NY =
Times
> >>> needed to spin the current economic crisis of the auto industry into
> >>> the race card. =EF=BF=BDI would laugh if it wasn't so sad.
>
> >>>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/business/30detroit.html?_r=3D1&adxnn=
l...
>
> >>> So how come we need to focus on the Black workers plight and ignore
> >>> everyone else who may also be affected by the auto industry?
>
> > ---You must have missed this one, Sparky....or you're cherry picking:
>
> >http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/19/business/businessspecial2/19generat...
>
> > You may have "missed" it, but the plight of "everyone else" has been do=
ne
> > to death by MSM, including the NYT....
>
> >>> Reverse discrimination at its zenith....*sigh*
>
> > ---The point in your showcased article being that when the US catches a
> > cold, blacks catch the flu....
>
> > "As in most recessions, African-Americans have been hit harder by this
> > recession than other workers. The overall unemployment rate for blacks
> > increased to 11.2 percent in November, an increase of 2.8 percentage
> > points over last year. By comparison, national unemployment last month =
was
> > 6.7 percent, up 2 percentage points from a year ago."
>
> Blacks also have a higher percentage of out of wedlock children, single
> parent families, abandoned children, incarceration, high school drop outs=
,
> crack use, violent crime and welfare and entitlement program use. =EF=BF=
=BDYou see
> any kind of pattern here bucko? =EF=BF=BDHow about stepping up and taking=
some
> responsibility for your own actions?
>
> Irish Mike- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Judging by my area, and some of the people that I know, most other
groups are trying hard to catch up in some of these stats.


 
Date: 31 Dec 2008 00:16:03
From: zxcv
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
On Dec 30, 5:28=A0pm, Mike <mikejc...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Front page article on the NY Times today. =A0Apparently the NY Times
> needed to spin the current economic crisis of the auto industry into
> the race card. =A0I would laugh if it wasn't so sad.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/business/30detroit.html?_r=3D1&adxnnl..=
.
>
> So how come we need to focus on the Black workers plight and ignore
> everyone else who may also be affected by the auto industry?
>
> Reverse discrimination at its zenith....*sigh*

"The world to end tomorrow. Minorities hardest hit."


  
Date: 05 Jan 2009 07:00:49
From: Mike
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
On Jan 5, 4:36=A0am, suds macheath <sudsmcduff19...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Mike wrote:
> > On Jan 4, 6:23 pm, h...@nospam.com wrote:
> >> On Sun, 4 Jan 2009 15:01:30 -0800 (PST), Mike <mikejc...@yahoo.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> Actually I'm kinda partial to Mike Savage thanks...;)
> >> whatever rightwing pundit's boots your licking, history has proven
> >> once again that your kind destroys the economy, and the nation.
>
> > How can lowering taxes destroy the economy? =A0I would think it would
> > have the opposite effect.
>
> > And please proofread.....in the first line it should be you're and not
> > your....thanks.
>
> > Mike
>
> ---Why didn't higher taxes on the rich destroy the economy in the 50's?- =
Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Well, there's the millioinaires, then there's the small biz owners who
make in the six figure range. Like the sorcerer mentioned already,
they won't take risk anymore and open up new ventures, won't borrow
morey, won't travel as much, etc.etc..

Mike


   
Date: 05 Jan 2009 10:43:02
From: Irish Mike
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...

"Mike" <mikejc563@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:118d065b-351e-4a6d-acae-50f8a8a44e0a@f40g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 5, 4:36 am, suds macheath <sudsmcduff19...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Mike wrote:
> > On Jan 4, 6:23 pm, h...@nospam.com wrote:
> >> On Sun, 4 Jan 2009 15:01:30 -0800 (PST), Mike <mikejc...@yahoo.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> Actually I'm kinda partial to Mike Savage thanks...;)
> >> whatever rightwing pundit's boots your licking, history has proven
> >> once again that your kind destroys the economy, and the nation.
>
> > How can lowering taxes destroy the economy? I would think it would
> > have the opposite effect.
>
> > And please proofread.....in the first line it should be you're and not
> > your....thanks.
>
> > Mike
>
> ---Why didn't higher taxes on the rich destroy the economy in the 50's?-
> Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Well, there's the millioinaires, then there's the small biz owners who
make in the six figure range. Like the sorcerer mentioned already,
they won't take risk anymore and open up new ventures, won't borrow
morey, won't travel as much, etc.etc..

Mike

Not to mention the fact that it's small businesses that create most of the
new jobs in this country. That's why Obama's play to "tax the rich" was so
stupid. The majority of the "rich" he'd be taxing are small business
owners.

Irish Mike




    
Date: 05 Jan 2009 19:26:36
From: krw
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 10:43:02 -0500, "Irish Mike"
<mjostar@ameritech.net > wrote:

>
>"Mike" <mikejc563@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:118d065b-351e-4a6d-acae-50f8a8a44e0a@f40g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>On Jan 5, 4:36 am, suds macheath <sudsmcduff19...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Mike wrote:
>> > On Jan 4, 6:23 pm, h...@nospam.com wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 4 Jan 2009 15:01:30 -0800 (PST), Mike <mikejc...@yahoo.com>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >>> Actually I'm kinda partial to Mike Savage thanks...;)
>> >> whatever rightwing pundit's boots your licking, history has proven
>> >> once again that your kind destroys the economy, and the nation.
>>
>> > How can lowering taxes destroy the economy? I would think it would
>> > have the opposite effect.
>>
>> > And please proofread.....in the first line it should be you're and not
>> > your....thanks.
>>
>> > Mike
>>
>> ---Why didn't higher taxes on the rich destroy the economy in the 50's?-
>> Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Well, there's the millioinaires, then there's the small biz owners who
>make in the six figure range. Like the sorcerer mentioned already,
>they won't take risk anymore and open up new ventures, won't borrow
>morey, won't travel as much, etc.etc..
>
>Mike
>
>Not to mention the fact that it's small businesses that create most of the
>new jobs in this country. That's why Obama's play to "tax the rich" was so
>stupid. The majority of the "rich" he'd be taxing are small business
>owners.

...and thoes "rich" aren't all that rich.



     
Date: 05 Jan 2009 22:01:34
From: Irish Mike
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...

"krw" <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz > wrote in message
news:ipc5m49shmfnq54a68msa9n1ecdrf36psj@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 10:43:02 -0500, "Irish Mike"
> <mjostar@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mike" <mikejc563@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:118d065b-351e-4a6d-acae-50f8a8a44e0a@f40g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>>On Jan 5, 4:36 am, suds macheath <sudsmcduff19...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Mike wrote:
>>> > On Jan 4, 6:23 pm, h...@nospam.com wrote:
>>> >> On Sun, 4 Jan 2009 15:01:30 -0800 (PST), Mike <mikejc...@yahoo.com>
>>> >> wrote:
>>>
>>> >>> Actually I'm kinda partial to Mike Savage thanks...;)
>>> >> whatever rightwing pundit's boots your licking, history has proven
>>> >> once again that your kind destroys the economy, and the nation.
>>>
>>> > How can lowering taxes destroy the economy? I would think it would
>>> > have the opposite effect.
>>>
>>> > And please proofread.....in the first line it should be you're and not
>>> > your....thanks.
>>>
>>> > Mike
>>>
>>> ---Why didn't higher taxes on the rich destroy the economy in the 50's?-
>>> Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>Well, there's the millioinaires, then there's the small biz owners who
>>make in the six figure range. Like the sorcerer mentioned already,
>>they won't take risk anymore and open up new ventures, won't borrow
>>morey, won't travel as much, etc.etc..
>>
>>Mike
>>
>>Not to mention the fact that it's small businesses that create most of the
>>new jobs in this country. That's why Obama's play to "tax the rich" was
>>so
>>stupid. The majority of the "rich" he'd be taxing are small business
>>owners.
>
> ...and thoes "rich" aren't all that rich.

"Tax the rich and give it to the poor
'til there ain't no rich no more"

Irish Mike
>




  
Date: 04 Jan 2009 16:34:56
From: Mike
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
On Jan 4, 6:21=A0pm, h...@nospam.com wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Jan 2009 14:24:57 -0800 (PST), Mike <mikejc...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Heh, suds wouldn't even read the book.
> >lol
>
> in light of the fact that your boy George is turning out to be the
> nation's worst and most hated president ever, you might want to
> consider shutting the fuck up.

Well we're not even talking about the president....the fact that you
can't seem to follow the conversation makes me worried, but not
surprised.


  
Date: 04 Jan 2009 16:32:52
From: Mike
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
On Jan 4, 6:23=A0pm, h...@nospam.com wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Jan 2009 15:01:30 -0800 (PST), Mike <mikejc...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Actually I'm kinda partial to Mike Savage thanks...;)
>
> whatever rightwing pundit's boots your licking, history has proven
> once again that your kind destroys the economy, and the nation.

How can lowering taxes destroy the economy? I would think it would
have the opposite effect.

And please proofread.....in the first line it should be you're and not
your....thanks.

Mike


   
Date: 05 Jan 2009 08:19:45
From:
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
On Sun, 4 Jan 2009 16:32:52 -0800 (PST), Mike <mikejc563@yahoo.com >
wrote:

>On Jan 4, 6:23 pm, h...@nospam.com wrote:
>> On Sun, 4 Jan 2009 15:01:30 -0800 (PST), Mike <mikejc...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Actually I'm kinda partial to Mike Savage thanks...;)
>>
>> whatever rightwing pundit's boots your licking, history has proven
>> once again that your kind destroys the economy, and the nation.
>
>How can lowering taxes destroy the economy? I would think it would
>have the opposite effect.
>
>And please proofread.....in the first line it should be you're and not
>your....thanks.

I do that to mock your buddy Goldberg. He consistently uses one for
the other. My very favorite is: "your an idiot". Love that one.
Almost as good as when he calls me a "Marxist Nazi"

fuck me, you can't pay for entertainment this good.

>
>Mike


   
Date: 05 Jan 2009 04:36:30
From: suds macheath
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
Mike wrote:
> On Jan 4, 6:23 pm, h...@nospam.com wrote:
>> On Sun, 4 Jan 2009 15:01:30 -0800 (PST), Mike <mikejc...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Actually I'm kinda partial to Mike Savage thanks...;)
>> whatever rightwing pundit's boots your licking, history has proven
>> once again that your kind destroys the economy, and the nation.
>
> How can lowering taxes destroy the economy? I would think it would
> have the opposite effect.
>
> And please proofread.....in the first line it should be you're and not
> your....thanks.
>
> Mike

---Why didn't higher taxes on the rich destroy the economy in the 50's?


    
Date: 05 Jan 2009 01:40:58
From: Clave
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
"suds macheath" <sudsmcduff19911@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:Wqk8l.2872$gE4.577@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> Mike wrote:
>> On Jan 4, 6:23 pm, h...@nospam.com wrote:
>>> On Sun, 4 Jan 2009 15:01:30 -0800 (PST), Mike <mikejc...@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Actually I'm kinda partial to Mike Savage thanks...;)
>>> whatever rightwing pundit's boots your licking, history has proven
>>> once again that your kind destroys the economy, and the nation.
>>
>> How can lowering taxes destroy the economy? I would think it would
>> have the opposite effect.
>>
>> And please proofread.....in the first line it should be you're and not
>> your....thanks.
>>
>> Mike
>
> ---Why didn't higher taxes on the rich destroy the economy in the 50's?

I keep waiting for someone to show me some rich person who got taxed to the
point that they weren't rich any more.

Jim




     
Date: 05 Jan 2009 14:41:53
From: Beldin the Sorcerer
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...

"Clave" <ClaviusNoSpamDammit@cablespeed.com > wrote in message
news:y7ydnVAtUao2SPzUnZ2dnUVZ_gidnZ2d@cablespeedmi.com...
> "suds macheath" <sudsmcduff19911@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Wqk8l.2872$gE4.577@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>> Mike wrote:
>>> On Jan 4, 6:23 pm, h...@nospam.com wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 4 Jan 2009 15:01:30 -0800 (PST), Mike <mikejc...@yahoo.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Actually I'm kinda partial to Mike Savage thanks...;)
>>>> whatever rightwing pundit's boots your licking, history has proven
>>>> once again that your kind destroys the economy, and the nation.
>>>
>>> How can lowering taxes destroy the economy? I would think it would
>>> have the opposite effect.
>>>
>>> And please proofread.....in the first line it should be you're and not
>>> your....thanks.
>>>
>>> Mike
>>
>> ---Why didn't higher taxes on the rich destroy the economy in the 50's?
>
> I keep waiting for someone to show me some rich person who got taxed to
> the point that they weren't rich any more.
>
They don't.
They get taxed to the point where they don't take risk any more.




  
Date: 31 Dec 2008 09:14:55
From: suds macheath
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
zxcv wrote:
> On Dec 30, 5:28 pm, Mike <mikejc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Front page article on the NY Times today. Apparently the NY Times
>> needed to spin the current economic crisis of the auto industry into
>> the race card. I would laugh if it wasn't so sad.
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/business/30detroit.html?_r=1&adxnnl...
>>
>> So how come we need to focus on the Black workers plight and ignore
>> everyone else who may also be affected by the auto industry?

---You must have missed this one, Sparky....or you're cherry picking:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/19/business/businessspecial2/19generations.html?scp=4&sq=auto%20workers&st=cse

You may have "missed" it, but the plight of "everyone else" has been
done to death by MSM, including the NYT....

>> Reverse discrimination at its zenith....*sigh*

---The point in your showcased article being that when the US catches a
cold, blacks catch the flu....

"As in most recessions, African-Americans have been hit harder by this
recession than other workers. The overall unemployment rate for blacks
increased to 11.2 percent in November, an increase of 2.8 percentage
points over last year. By comparison, national unemployment last month
was 6.7 percent, up 2 percentage points from a year ago."

----If discrimination is apparent, it ain't "reverse"....let's see, you
happened to catch one article pertaining to black employment amongst the
hundreds concerning un employment in general....don't have an axe to
grind, do ya Doc?


   
Date: 06 Jan 2009 21:18:58
From: Michael Coburn
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 11:39:48 -0600, krw wrote:

> In article <gk02vk2abs@news2.newsguy.com>, mikcob@verizon.net says...>
>> On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 19:29:15 -0600, krw wrote:
>>
>> > On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 08:16:38 -0700, hal@nospam.com wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 10:06:51 -0500, "Irish Mike"
>> >><mjostar@ameritech.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>And Obama said he sat in the pews for 20+ years and never heard
>> >>>Jeremiah Wright make a single racist, anti-American or anti-Semitic
>> >>>comment. Then he said he could no more disown Jeremiah Wright than
>> >>>he could disown the black community. That was, of course, before he
>> >>>disowned Wright a couple of weeks later. And Obama gave his word
>> >>>that he would stick to public campaign funding. That was, of
>> >>>course, before he broke his word again. Now brace your feet and try
>> >>>to pull your head out of The Messiah's kool aid bucket.
>> >>
>> >>yes, of course, "Guilt by association".
>> >
>> > Yes, you are judged by those who you *freely* associate with.
>> > Rightfully so.
>> >
>> >>as most rightards, you will not understand what this means, so I
>> >>suggest you look it up and let me know what questions you have.
>> >
>> > You obviously don't know what "guilt by association" means.
>>
>> It means that if the dog catcher in Obama's neighborhood was a member
>> of the skinhead neo-Nazis then the rightards will be proclaiming a
>> "LINK" between Obama and Hitler.
>
> So you admit that you're nothing but a petty liar. We already know that
> by your status as a weenie.

rightard alert.

--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson


    
Date: 06 Jan 2009 22:33:04
From: krw
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
On 6 Jan 2009 21:18:58 GMT, Michael Coburn <mikcob@verizon.net > wrote:

>On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 11:39:48 -0600, krw wrote:
>
>> In article <gk02vk2abs@news2.newsguy.com>, mikcob@verizon.net says...>
>>> On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 19:29:15 -0600, krw wrote:
>>>
>>> > On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 08:16:38 -0700, hal@nospam.com wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 10:06:51 -0500, "Irish Mike"
>>> >><mjostar@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>>And Obama said he sat in the pews for 20+ years and never heard
>>> >>>Jeremiah Wright make a single racist, anti-American or anti-Semitic
>>> >>>comment. Then he said he could no more disown Jeremiah Wright than
>>> >>>he could disown the black community. That was, of course, before he
>>> >>>disowned Wright a couple of weeks later. And Obama gave his word
>>> >>>that he would stick to public campaign funding. That was, of
>>> >>>course, before he broke his word again. Now brace your feet and try
>>> >>>to pull your head out of The Messiah's kool aid bucket.
>>> >>
>>> >>yes, of course, "Guilt by association".
>>> >
>>> > Yes, you are judged by those who you *freely* associate with.
>>> > Rightfully so.
>>> >
>>> >>as most rightards, you will not understand what this means, so I
>>> >>suggest you look it up and let me know what questions you have.
>>> >
>>> > You obviously don't know what "guilt by association" means.
>>>
>>> It means that if the dog catcher in Obama's neighborhood was a member
>>> of the skinhead neo-Nazis then the rightards will be proclaiming a
>>> "LINK" between Obama and Hitler.
>>
>> So you admit that you're nothing but a petty liar. We already know that
>> by your status as a weenie.
>
>rightard alert.

Liar alert. But there is no real need for an alert. Everyone can
plainly see it here.



   
Date: 06 Jan 2009 17:04:52
From: Michael Coburn
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 19:29:15 -0600, krw wrote:

> On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 08:16:38 -0700, hal@nospam.com wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 10:06:51 -0500, "Irish Mike" <mjostar@ameritech.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>And Obama said he sat in the pews for 20+ years and never heard
>>>Jeremiah Wright make a single racist, anti-American or anti-Semitic
>>>comment. Then he said he could no more disown Jeremiah Wright than he
>>>could disown the black community. That was, of course, before he
>>>disowned Wright a couple of weeks later. And Obama gave his word that
>>>he would stick to public campaign funding. That was, of course, before
>>>he broke his word again. Now brace your feet and try to pull your head
>>>out of The Messiah's kool aid bucket.
>>
>>yes, of course, "Guilt by association".
>
> Yes, you are judged by those who you *freely* associate with. Rightfully
> so.
>
>>as most rightards, you will not understand what this means, so I suggest
>>you look it up and let me know what questions you have.
>
> You obviously don't know what "guilt by association" means.

It means that if the dog catcher in Obama's neighborhood was a member of
the skinhead neo-Nazis then the rightards will be proclaiming a "LINK"
between Obama and Hitler.

--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson


    
Date: 06 Jan 2009 11:39:48
From: krw
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
In article <gk02vk2abs@news2.newsguy.com >, mikcob@verizon.net
says... >
> On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 19:29:15 -0600, krw wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 08:16:38 -0700, hal@nospam.com wrote:
> >
> >>On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 10:06:51 -0500, "Irish Mike" <mjostar@ameritech.net>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>And Obama said he sat in the pews for 20+ years and never heard
> >>>Jeremiah Wright make a single racist, anti-American or anti-Semitic
> >>>comment. Then he said he could no more disown Jeremiah Wright than he
> >>>could disown the black community. That was, of course, before he
> >>>disowned Wright a couple of weeks later. And Obama gave his word that
> >>>he would stick to public campaign funding. That was, of course, before
> >>>he broke his word again. Now brace your feet and try to pull your head
> >>>out of The Messiah's kool aid bucket.
> >>
> >>yes, of course, "Guilt by association".
> >
> > Yes, you are judged by those who you *freely* associate with. Rightfully
> > so.
> >
> >>as most rightards, you will not understand what this means, so I suggest
> >>you look it up and let me know what questions you have.
> >
> > You obviously don't know what "guilt by association" means.
>
> It means that if the dog catcher in Obama's neighborhood was a member of
> the skinhead neo-Nazis then the rightards will be proclaiming a "LINK"
> between Obama and Hitler.

So you admit that you're nothing but a petty liar. We already know
that by your status as a weenie.





   
Date: 31 Dec 2008 09:37:07
From: Irish Mike
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...

"suds macheath" <sudsmcduff19911@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:52L6l.814$gE4.582@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> zxcv wrote:
>> On Dec 30, 5:28 pm, Mike <mikejc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Front page article on the NY Times today. Apparently the NY Times
>>> needed to spin the current economic crisis of the auto industry into
>>> the race card. I would laugh if it wasn't so sad.
>>>
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/business/30detroit.html?_r=1&adxnnl...
>>>
>>> So how come we need to focus on the Black workers plight and ignore
>>> everyone else who may also be affected by the auto industry?
>
> ---You must have missed this one, Sparky....or you're cherry picking:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/19/business/businessspecial2/19generations.html?scp=4&sq=auto%20workers&st=cse
>
> You may have "missed" it, but the plight of "everyone else" has been done
> to death by MSM, including the NYT....
>
>>> Reverse discrimination at its zenith....*sigh*
>
> ---The point in your showcased article being that when the US catches a
> cold, blacks catch the flu....
>
> "As in most recessions, African-Americans have been hit harder by this
> recession than other workers. The overall unemployment rate for blacks
> increased to 11.2 percent in November, an increase of 2.8 percentage
> points over last year. By comparison, national unemployment last month was
> 6.7 percent, up 2 percentage points from a year ago."

Blacks also have a higher percentage of out of wedlock children, single
parent families, abandoned children, incarceration, high school drop outs,
crack use, violent crime and welfare and entitlement program use. You see
any kind of pattern here bucko? How about stepping up and taking some
responsibility for your own actions?

Irish Mike





    
Date: 02 Jan 2009 10:39:01
From: suds macheath
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
Irish Mike wrote:
> "suds macheath" <sudsmcduff19911@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:52L6l.814$gE4.582@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>> zxcv wrote:
>>> On Dec 30, 5:28 pm, Mike <mikejc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Front page article on the NY Times today. Apparently the NY Times
>>>> needed to spin the current economic crisis of the auto industry into
>>>> the race card. I would laugh if it wasn't so sad.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/business/30detroit.html?_r=1&adxnnl...
>>>>
>>>> So how come we need to focus on the Black workers plight and ignore
>>>> everyone else who may also be affected by the auto industry?
>> ---You must have missed this one, Sparky....or you're cherry picking:
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/19/business/businessspecial2/19generations.html?scp=4&sq=auto%20workers&st=cse
>>
>> You may have "missed" it, but the plight of "everyone else" has been done
>> to death by MSM, including the NYT....
>>
>>>> Reverse discrimination at its zenith....*sigh*
>> ---The point in your showcased article being that when the US catches a
>> cold, blacks catch the flu....
>>
>> "As in most recessions, African-Americans have been hit harder by this
>> recession than other workers. The overall unemployment rate for blacks
>> increased to 11.2 percent in November, an increase of 2.8 percentage
>> points over last year. By comparison, national unemployment last month was
>> 6.7 percent, up 2 percentage points from a year ago."
>
> Blacks also have a higher percentage of out of wedlock children, single
> parent families, abandoned children, incarceration, high school drop outs,
> crack use, violent crime and welfare and entitlement program use. You see
> any kind of pattern here bucko? How about stepping up and taking some
> responsibility for your own actions?
>
> Irish Mike

---Except, those mentioned in the articles are workers, White Mike, not
welfare leaches. Or you one of those who believe all blacks are lazy and
shiftless?


     
Date: 05 Jan 2009 21:35:45
From: Mike
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
On Jan 5, 10:19=A0am, h...@nospam.com wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Jan 2009 16:32:52 -0800 (PST), Mike <mikejc...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Jan 4, 6:23=A0pm, h...@nospam.com wrote:
> >> On Sun, 4 Jan 2009 15:01:30 -0800 (PST), Mike <mikejc...@yahoo.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >Actually I'm kinda partial to Mike Savage thanks...;)
>
> >> whatever rightwing pundit's boots your licking, history has proven
> >> once again that your kind destroys the economy, and the nation.
>
> >How can lowering taxes destroy the economy? =A0I would think it would
> >have the opposite effect.
>
> >And please proofread.....in the first line it should be you're and not
> >your....thanks.
>
> I do that to mock your buddy Goldberg. =A0He consistently uses one for
> the other. =A0My very favorite is: =A0"your an idiot". =A0Love that one.
> Almost as good as when he calls me a "Marxist Nazi"
>

What's wrong...are they not supposed to be capitalized?
; >)



     
Date: 03 Jan 2009 08:19:41
From: Irish Mike
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...

"suds macheath" <sudsmcduff19911@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:Vsq7l.1698$gE4.1559@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> Irish Mike wrote:
>> "suds macheath" <sudsmcduff19911@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:52L6l.814$gE4.582@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>>> zxcv wrote:
>>>> On Dec 30, 5:28 pm, Mike <mikejc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> Front page article on the NY Times today. Apparently the NY Times
>>>>> needed to spin the current economic crisis of the auto industry into
>>>>> the race card. I would laugh if it wasn't so sad.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/business/30detroit.html?_r=1&adxnnl...
>>>>>
>>>>> So how come we need to focus on the Black workers plight and ignore
>>>>> everyone else who may also be affected by the auto industry?
>>> ---You must have missed this one, Sparky....or you're cherry picking:
>>>
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/19/business/businessspecial2/19generations.html?scp=4&sq=auto%20workers&st=cse
>>>
>>> You may have "missed" it, but the plight of "everyone else" has been
>>> done to death by MSM, including the NYT....
>>>
>>>>> Reverse discrimination at its zenith....*sigh*
>>> ---The point in your showcased article being that when the US catches a
>>> cold, blacks catch the flu....
>>>
>>> "As in most recessions, African-Americans have been hit harder by this
>>> recession than other workers. The overall unemployment rate for blacks
>>> increased to 11.2 percent in November, an increase of 2.8 percentage
>>> points over last year. By comparison, national unemployment last month
>>> was 6.7 percent, up 2 percentage points from a year ago."
>>
>> Blacks also have a higher percentage of out of wedlock children, single
>> parent families, abandoned children, incarceration, high school drop
>> outs, crack use, violent crime and welfare and entitlement program use.
>> You see any kind of pattern here bucko? How about stepping up and taking
>> some responsibility for your own actions?
>>
>> Irish Mike
>
> ---Except, those mentioned in the articles are workers, White Mike, not
> welfare leaches. Or you one of those who believe all blacks are lazy and
> shiftless?

No, I'm not bucko. Nor do I believe they are all long-suffering and
oppressed. However, I do believe in every one stepping up and taking some
responsibility for their own action. I'd recommend you read a book called
"Stupid Black Men, Playing the Race Card and Losing" by Larry Elder, who
happens to be black. It'll give you a little insight in to the politics of
victimization.

Irish Mike




      
Date: 03 Jan 2009 10:21:23
From: suds macheath
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
Irish Mike wrote:
> "suds macheath" <sudsmcduff19911@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Vsq7l.1698$gE4.1559@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>> Irish Mike wrote:
>>> "suds macheath" <sudsmcduff19911@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:52L6l.814$gE4.582@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>>>> zxcv wrote:
>>>>> On Dec 30, 5:28 pm, Mike <mikejc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Front page article on the NY Times today. Apparently the NY Times
>>>>>> needed to spin the current economic crisis of the auto industry into
>>>>>> the race card. I would laugh if it wasn't so sad.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/business/30detroit.html?_r=1&adxnnl...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So how come we need to focus on the Black workers plight and ignore
>>>>>> everyone else who may also be affected by the auto industry?
>>>> ---You must have missed this one, Sparky....or you're cherry picking:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/19/business/businessspecial2/19generations.html?scp=4&sq=auto%20workers&st=cse
>>>>
>>>> You may have "missed" it, but the plight of "everyone else" has been
>>>> done to death by MSM, including the NYT....
>>>>
>>>>>> Reverse discrimination at its zenith....*sigh*
>>>> ---The point in your showcased article being that when the US catches a
>>>> cold, blacks catch the flu....
>>>>
>>>> "As in most recessions, African-Americans have been hit harder by this
>>>> recession than other workers. The overall unemployment rate for blacks
>>>> increased to 11.2 percent in November, an increase of 2.8 percentage
>>>> points over last year. By comparison, national unemployment last month
>>>> was 6.7 percent, up 2 percentage points from a year ago."
>>> Blacks also have a higher percentage of out of wedlock children, single
>>> parent families, abandoned children, incarceration, high school drop
>>> outs, crack use, violent crime and welfare and entitlement program use.
>>> You see any kind of pattern here bucko? How about stepping up and taking
>>> some responsibility for your own actions?
>>>
>>> Irish Mike
>> ---Except, those mentioned in the articles are workers, White Mike, not
>> welfare leaches. Or you one of those who believe all blacks are lazy and
>> shiftless?
>
> No, I'm not bucko. Nor do I believe they are all long-suffering and
> oppressed. However, I do believe in every one stepping up and taking some
> responsibility for their own action. I'd recommend you read a book called
> "Stupid Black Men, Playing the Race Card and Losing" by Larry Elder, who
> happens to be black. It'll give you a little insight in to the politics of
> victimization.
>
> Irish Mike
>
>

---Ah, a self styled "Rupublitarian" ....no thanks. He *is* brown,
though....so is Ken Blackwell....


      
Date: 03 Jan 2009 06:29:57
From: CincinnatiKid
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
On Jan 3 2009 8:19 AM, Irish Mike wrote:

> "suds macheath" <sudsmcduff19911@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Vsq7l.1698$gE4.1559@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> > Irish Mike wrote:
> >> "suds macheath" <sudsmcduff19911@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:52L6l.814$gE4.582@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> >>> zxcv wrote:
> >>>> On Dec 30, 5:28 pm, Mike <mikejc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>> Front page article on the NY Times today. Apparently the NY Times
> >>>>> needed to spin the current economic crisis of the auto industry into
> >>>>> the race card. I would laugh if it wasn't so sad.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/business/30detroit.html?_r=1&adxnnl...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So how come we need to focus on the Black workers plight and ignore
> >>>>> everyone else who may also be affected by the auto industry?
> >>> ---You must have missed this one, Sparky....or you're cherry picking:
> >>>
> >>>
>
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/19/business/businessspecial2/19generations.html?scp=4&sq=auto%20workers&st=cse
> >>>
> >>> You may have "missed" it, but the plight of "everyone else" has been
> >>> done to death by MSM, including the NYT....
> >>>
> >>>>> Reverse discrimination at its zenith....*sigh*
> >>> ---The point in your showcased article being that when the US catches a
> >>> cold, blacks catch the flu....
> >>>
> >>> "As in most recessions, African-Americans have been hit harder by this
> >>> recession than other workers. The overall unemployment rate for blacks
> >>> increased to 11.2 percent in November, an increase of 2.8 percentage
> >>> points over last year. By comparison, national unemployment last month
> >>> was 6.7 percent, up 2 percentage points from a year ago."
> >>
> >> Blacks also have a higher percentage of out of wedlock children, single
> >> parent families, abandoned children, incarceration, high school drop
> >> outs, crack use, violent crime and welfare and entitlement program use.
> >> You see any kind of pattern here bucko? How about stepping up and taking
> >> some responsibility for your own actions?
> >>
> >> Irish Mike
> >
> > ---Except, those mentioned in the articles are workers, White Mike, not
> > welfare leaches. Or you one of those who believe all blacks are lazy and
> > shiftless?
>
> No, I'm not bucko. Nor do I believe they are all long-suffering and
> oppressed. However, I do believe in every one stepping up and taking some
> responsibility for their own action. I'd recommend you read a book called
> "Stupid Black Men, Playing the Race Card and Losing" by Larry Elder, who
> happens to be black. It'll give you a little insight in to the politics of
> victimization.
>
> Irish Mike

Now I know you're not really Irish. Confirmed. ALL Irish males are racist.
That's an indisputable fact.

------- 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com



 
Date: 30 Dec 2008 16:32:39
From: Mike
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
On Dec 30, 6:30=A0pm, "Irish Mike" <mjos...@ameritech.net > wrote:
> "Mike" <mikejc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:082e16c8-2189-4362-9074-d38e5deb0ace@o4g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Front page article on the NY Times today. =A0Apparently the NY Times
> > needed to spin the current economic crisis of the auto industry into
> > the race card. =A0I would laugh if it wasn't so sad.
>
> >http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/business/30detroit.html?_r=3D1&adxnnl.=
..
>
> > So how come we need to focus on the Black workers plight and ignore
> > everyone else who may also be affected by the auto industry?
>
> > Reverse discrimination at its zenith....*sigh*
>
> Hey! =A0Maybe the government could help out these poor $42 dollar an hour
> black auto workers. =A0You know, force banks to give them loans they don'=
t
> qualify for to buy houses they can't afford. =A0The government could call=
them
> "subprime" mortgages and get ACORN to play the race card on any bank that
> doesn't write enough of them.
>
> Irish Mike

We did that already...; >P


 
Date: 30 Dec 2008 18:30:01
From: Irish Mike
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...

"Mike" <mikejc563@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:082e16c8-2189-4362-9074-d38e5deb0ace@o4g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> Front page article on the NY Times today. Apparently the NY Times
> needed to spin the current economic crisis of the auto industry into
> the race card. I would laugh if it wasn't so sad.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/business/30detroit.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&ref=us&adxnnlx=1230675709-zc9+RImVp+1K9EvZYYkYgw
>
> So how come we need to focus on the Black workers plight and ignore
> everyone else who may also be affected by the auto industry?
>
> Reverse discrimination at its zenith....*sigh*

Hey! Maybe the government could help out these poor $42 dollar an hour
black auto workers. You know, force banks to give them loans they don't
qualify for to buy houses they can't afford. The government could call them
"subprime" mortgages and get ACORN to play the race card on any bank that
doesn't write enough of them.

Irish Mike




  
Date: 31 Dec 2008 08:43:25
From: suds macheath
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
Irish Mike wrote:
> "Mike" <mikejc563@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:082e16c8-2189-4362-9074-d38e5deb0ace@o4g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>> Front page article on the NY Times today. Apparently the NY Times
>> needed to spin the current economic crisis of the auto industry into
>> the race card. I would laugh if it wasn't so sad.
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/business/30detroit.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&ref=us&adxnnlx=1230675709-zc9+RImVp+1K9EvZYYkYgw
>>
>> So how come we need to focus on the Black workers plight and ignore
>> everyone else who may also be affected by the auto industry?
>>
>> Reverse discrimination at its zenith....*sigh*
>
> Hey! Maybe the government could help out these poor $42 dollar an hour
> black auto workers. You know, force banks to give them loans they don't
> qualify for to buy houses they can't afford.

Lending money to poor people doesn't make you poor. Lending money poorly
to rich people does.

http://www.slate.com/id/2201641/
We've now entered a new stage of the financial crisis: the ritual
assigning of blame. It began in earnest with Monday's congressional
roasting of Lehman Bros. CEO Richard Fuld and continued on Tuesday with
Capitol Hill solons delving into the failure of AIG. On the Republican
side of Congress, in the right-wing financial media (which is to say the
financial media), and in certain parts of the op-ed-o-sphere, there's a
consensus emerging that the whole mess should be laid at the feet of
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the failed mortgage giants, and the
Community Reinvestment Act, a law passed during the Carter
administration. The CRA, which was amended in the 1990s and this decade,
requires banks—which had a long, distinguished history of not making
loans to minorities—to make more efforts to do so.

The thesis is laid out almost daily on the Wall Street Journal editorial
page, in the National Review, and on the campaign trail. John McCain
said yesterday, "Bad mortgages were being backed by Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac, and it was only a matter of time before a contagion of
unsustainable debt began to spread." Washington Post columnist Charles
Krauthammer provides an excellent example, writing that "much of this
crisis was brought upon us by the good intentions of good people." He
continues: "For decades, starting with Jimmy Carter's Community
Reinvestment Act of 1977, there has been bipartisan agreement to use
government power to expand homeownership to people who had been shut out
for economic reasons or, sometimes, because of racial and ethnic
discrimination. What could be a more worthy cause? But it led to
tremendous pressure on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—which in turn
pressured banks and other lenders—to extend mortgages to people who were
borrowing over their heads. That's called subprime lending. It lies at
the root of our current calamity." The subtext: If only Congress didn't
force banks to lend money to poor minorities, the Dow would be well on
its way to 36,000. Or, as Fox Business Channel's Neil Cavuto put it, "I
don't remember a clarion call that said: Fannie and Freddie are a
disaster. Loaning to minorities and risky folks is a disaster."

Let me get this straight. Investment banks and insurance companies run
by centimillionaires blow up, and it's the fault of Jimmy Carter, Bill
Clinton, and poor minorities?

These arguments are generally made by people who read the editorial page
of the Wall Street Journal and ignore the rest of the paper—economic
know-nothings whose opinions are informed mostly by ideology and,
occasionally, by prejudice. Let's be honest. Fannie and Freddie, which
didn't make subprime loans but did buy subprime loans made by others,
were part of the problem. Poor Congressional oversight was part of the
problem. Banks that sought to meet CRA requirements by indiscriminately
doling out loans to minorities may have been part of the problem. But
none of these issues is the cause of the problem. Not by a long shot.
From the beginning, subprime has been a symptom, not a cause. And the
notion that the Community Reinvestment Act is somehow responsible for
poor lending decisions is absurd.

Here's why.

The Community Reinvestment Act applies to depository banks. But many of
the institutions that spurred the massive growth of the subprime market
weren't regulated banks. They were outfits such as Argent and American
Home Mortgage, which were generally not regulated by the Federal Reserve
or other entities that monitored compliance with CRA. These institutions
worked hand in glove with Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, entities to
which the CRA likewise didn't apply. There's much more. As Barry
Ritholtz notes in this fine rant, the CRA didn't force mortgage
companies to offer loans for no money down, or to throw underwriting
standards out the window, or to encourage mortgage brokers to
aggressively seek out new markets. Nor did the CRA force the
credit-rating agencies to slap high-grade ratings on packages of
subprime debt.

Second, many of the biggest flameouts in real estate have had nothing to
do with subprime lending. WCI Communities, builder of highly amenitized
condos in Florida (no subprime purchasers welcome there), filed for
bankruptcy in August. Very few of the tens of thousands of now-surplus
condominiums in Miami were conceived to be marketed to subprime
borrowers, or minorities—unless you count rich Venezuelans and
Colombians as minorities. The multiyear plague that has been documented
in brilliant detail at IrvineHousingBlog is playing out in one of the
least-subprime housing markets in the nation.

Third, lending money to poor people and minorities isn't inherently
risky. There's plenty of evidence that in fact it's not that risky at
all. That's what we've learned from several decades of microlending
programs, at home and abroad, with their very high repayment rates. And
as the New York Times recently reported, Nehemiah Homes, a long-running
initiative to build homes and sell them to the working poor in subprime
areas of New York's outer boroughs, has a repayment rate that lenders in
Greenwich, Conn., would envy. In 27 years, there have been fewer than 10
defaults on the project's 3,900 homes. That's a rate of 0.25 percent.

On the other hand, lending money recklessly to obscenely rich white
guys, such as Richard Fuld of Lehman Bros. or Jimmy Cayne of Bear
Stearns, can be really risky. In fact, it's even more risky, since they
have a lot more borrowing capacity. And here, again, it's difficult to
imagine how Jimmy Carter could be responsible for the supremely poor
decision-making seen in the financial system. I await the Krauthammer
column in which he points out the specific provision of the Community
Reinvestment Act that forced Bear Stearns to run with an absurd leverage
ratio of 33 to 1, which instructed Bear Stearns hedge-fund managers to
blow up hundreds of millions of their clients' money, and that required
its septuagenarian CEO to play bridge while his company ran into
trouble. Perhaps Neil Cavuto knows which CRA clause required Lehman
Bros. to borrow hundreds of billions of dollars in short-term debt in
the capital markets and then buy tens of billions of dollars of
commercial real estate at the top of the market. I can't find it. Did
AIG plunge into the credit-default-swaps business with abandon because
Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now members picketed
its offices? Please. How about the hundreds of billions of dollars of
leveraged loans—loans banks committed to private-equity firms that
wanted to conduct leveraged buyouts of retailers, restaurant companies,
and industrial firms? Many of those are going bad now, too. Is that Bill
Clinton's fault?

Look: There was a culture of stupid, reckless lending, of which Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac and the subprime lenders were an integral part. But
the dumb-lending virus originated in Greenwich, Conn., midtown
Manhattan, and Southern California, not Eastchester, Brownsville, and
Washington, D.C. Investment banks created a demand for subprime loans
because they saw it as a new asset class that they could dominate. They
made subprime loans for the same reason they made other loans: They
could get paid for making the loans, for turning them into securities,
and for trading them—frequently using borrowed capital.

At Monday's hearing, Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., gamely tried to pin
Lehman's demise on Fannie and Freddie. After comparing Lehman's small
political contributions with Fannie and Freddie's much larger ones, Mica
asked Fuld what role Fannie and Freddie's failure played in Lehman's
demise. Fuld's response: "De minimis."

Lending money to poor people doesn't make you poor. Lending money poorly
to rich people does.
The government could call them
> "subprime" mortgages and get ACORN to play the race card on any bank that
> doesn't write enough of them.
>
> Irish Mike
>
>


   
Date: 01 Jan 2009 02:22:51
From: James Arthur
Subject: Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
suds macheath wrote:
> Irish Mike wrote:
>> "Mike" <mikejc563@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:082e16c8-2189-4362-9074-d38e5deb0ace@o4g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>>> Front page article on the NY Times today. Apparently the NY Times
>>> needed to spin the current economic crisis of the auto industry into
>>> the race card. I would laugh if it wasn't so sad.
>>>
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/business/30detroit.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&ref=us&adxnnlx=1230675709-zc9+RImVp+1K9EvZYYkYgw
>>>
>>>
>>> So how come we need to focus on the Black workers plight and ignore
>>> everyone else who may also be affected by the auto industry?
>>>
>>> Reverse discrimination at its zenith....*sigh*
>>
>> Hey! Maybe the government could help out these poor $42 dollar an
>> hour black auto workers. You know, force banks to give them loans
>> they don't qualify for to buy houses they can't afford.
>
> Lending money to poor people doesn't make you poor. Lending money poorly
> to rich people does.
>
> http://www.slate.com/id/2201641/
> We've now entered a new stage of the financial crisis: the ritual
> assigning of blame. It began in earnest with Monday's congressional
> roasting of Lehman Bros. CEO Richard Fuld and continued on Tuesday with
> Capitol Hill solons delving into the failure of AIG. On the Republican
> side of Congress, in the right-wing financial media (which is to say the
> financial media), and in certain parts of the op-ed-o-sphere, there's a
> consensus emerging that the whole mess should be laid at the feet of
> Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the failed mortgage giants, and the
> Community Reinvestment Act, a law passed during the Carter
> administration. The CRA, which was amended in the 1990s and this decade,
> requires banks—which had a long, distinguished history of not making
> loans to minorities—to make more efforts to do so.
>
> The thesis is laid out almost daily on the Wall Street Journal editorial
> page, in the National Review, and on the campaign trail. John McCain
> said yesterday, "Bad mortgages were being backed by Fannie Mae and
> Freddie Mac, and it was only a matter of time before a contagion of
> unsustainable debt began to spread." Washington Post columnist Charles
> Krauthammer provides an excellent example, writing that "much of this
> crisis was brought upon us by the good intentions of good people." He
> continues: "For decades, starting with Jimmy Carter's Community
> Reinvestment Act of 1977, there has been bipartisan agreement to use
> government power to expand homeownership to people who had been shut out
> for economic reasons or, sometimes, because of racial and ethnic
> discrimination. What could be a more worthy cause? But it led to
> tremendous pressure on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—which in turn
> pressured banks and other lenders—to extend mortgages to people who were
> borrowing over their heads. That's called subprime lending. It lies at
> the root of our current calamity." The subtext: If only Congress didn't
> force banks to lend money to poor minorities, the Dow would be well on
> its way to 36,000. Or, as Fox Business Channel's Neil Cavuto put it, "I
> don't remember a clarion call that said: Fannie and Freddie are a
> disaster. Loaning to minorities and risky folks is a disaster."
>
> Let me get this straight. Investment banks and insurance companies run
> by centimillionaires blow up, and it's the fault of Jimmy Carter, Bill
> Clinton, and poor minorities?
>
> These arguments are generally made by people who read the editorial page
> of the Wall Street Journal and ignore the rest of the paper—economic
> know-nothings whose opinions are informed mostly by ideology and,
> occasionally, by prejudice. Let's be honest. Fannie and Freddie, which
> didn't make subprime loans but did buy subprime loans made by others,
> were part of the problem. Poor Congressional oversight was part of the
> problem. Banks that sought to meet CRA requirements by indiscriminately
> doling out loans to minorities may have been part of the problem. But
> none of these issues is the cause of the problem. Not by a long shot.
> From the beginning, subprime has been a symptom, not a cause. And the
> notion that the Community Reinvestment Act is somehow responsible for
> poor lending decisions is absurd.
>
> Here's why.
>
> The Community Reinvestment Act applies to depository banks. But many of
> the institutions that spurred the massive growth of the subprime market
> weren't regulated banks. They were outfits such as Argent and American
> Home Mortgage, which were generally not regulated by the Federal Reserve
> or other entities that monitored compliance with CRA. These institutions
> worked hand in glove with Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, entities to
> which the CRA likewise didn't apply. There's much more. As Barry
> Ritholtz notes in this fine rant, the CRA didn't force mortgage
> companies to offer loans for no money down, or to throw underwriting
> standards out the window, or to encourage mortgage brokers to
> aggressively seek out new markets. Nor did the CRA force the
> credit-rating agencies to slap high-grade ratings on packages of
> subprime debt.
>
> Second, many of the biggest flameouts in real estate have had nothing to
> do with subprime lending. WCI Communities, builder of highly amenitized
> condos in Florida (no subprime purchasers welcome there), filed for
> bankruptcy in August. Very few of the tens of thousands of now-surplus
> condominiums in Miami were conceived to be marketed to subprime
> borrowers, or minorities—unless you count rich Venezuelans and
> Colombians as minorities. The multiyear plague that has been documented
> in brilliant detail at IrvineHousingBlog is playing out in one of the
> least-subprime housing markets in the nation.
>
> Third, lending money to poor people and minorities isn't inherently
> risky. There's plenty of evidence that in fact it's not that risky at
> all. That's what we've learned from several decades of microlending
> programs, at home and abroad, with their very high repayment rates. And
> as the New York Times recently reported, Nehemiah Homes, a long-running
> initiative to build homes and sell them to the working poor in subprime
> areas of New York's outer boroughs, has a repayment rate that lenders in
> Greenwich, Conn., would envy. In 27 years, there have been fewer than 10
> defaults on the project's 3,900 homes. That's a rate of 0.25 percent.
>
> On the other hand, lending money recklessly to obscenely rich white
> guys, such as Richard Fuld of Lehman Bros. or Jimmy Cayne of Bear
> Stearns, can be really risky. In fact, it's even more risky, since they
> have a lot more borrowing capacity. And here, again, it's difficult to
> imagine how Jimmy Carter could be responsible for the supremely poor
> decision-making seen in the financial system. I await the Krauthammer
> column in which he points out the specific provision of the Community
> Reinvestment Act that forced Bear Stearns to run with an absurd leverage
> ratio of 33 to 1, which instructed Bear Stearns hedge-fund managers to
> blow up hundreds of millions of their clients' money, and that required
> its septuagenarian CEO to play bridge while his company ran into
> trouble. Perhaps Neil Cavuto knows which CRA clause required Lehman
> Bros. to borrow hundreds of billions of dollars in short-term debt in
> the capital markets and then buy tens of billions of dollars of
> commercial real estate at the top of the market. I can't find it. Did
> AIG plunge into the credit-default-swaps business with abandon because
> Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now members picketed
> its offices? Please. How about the hundreds of billions of dollars of
> leveraged loans—loans banks committed to private-equity firms that
> wanted to conduct leveraged buyouts of retailers, restaurant companies,
> and industrial firms? Many of those are going bad now, too. Is that Bill
> Clinton's fault?
>
> Look: There was a culture of stupid, reckless lending, of which Fannie
> Mae and Freddie Mac and the subprime lenders were an integral part. But
> the dumb-lending virus originated in Greenwich, Conn., midtown
> Manhattan, and Southern California, not Eastchester, Brownsville, and
> Washington, D.C. Investment banks created a demand for subprime loans
> because they saw it as a new asset class that they could dominate. They
> made subprime loans for the same reason they made other loans: They
> could get paid for making the loans, for turning them into securities,
> and for trading them—frequently using borrowed capital.
>
> At Monday's hearing, Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., gamely tried to pin
> Lehman's demise on Fannie and Freddie. After comparing Lehman's small
> political contributions with Fannie and Freddie's much larger ones, Mica
> asked Fuld what role Fannie and Freddie's failure played in Lehman's
> demise. Fuld's response: "De minimis."
>
> Lending money to poor people doesn't make you poor. Lending money poorly
> to rich people does.


Riddled with errors of omission and logic.

The government pressed lenders to make those loans, and
got Fannie and Freddie to buy them. So lenders made
them. It's really that simple.

Freddie and Fannie bought 'em, held some as investments,
securitized the rest and sold them TO Wall Street.

It doesn't matter that the CRA didn't apply to every
lender. Freddie and Fannie were still purchasing
and or underwriting (guaranteeing the payment of) those
loans regardless of who made them. That's what made
the whole mess possible.

Freddie and Fannie were backed by the government.
They distorted the mortgage market, both supply and
demand.

Prior 1999, banks were loaning to people of all colors.
High-risk people got loans too, just at higher rates.
That's how it works (and should work).

The purpose of the 1999 amendments was to ensure that more
high-risk people got loans, and at lower rates. Insisting
that marginal customers get lower-than-prudent rates is,
by definition, the same as insisting on imprudent lending.

The following article, from that time, clears up who was
pressuring whom to do what, and for what purpose:

http://tinyurl.com/3k7rtf
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
By STEVEN A. HOLMES
The New York Times Published: September 30, 1999

SUMMARY: The Clinton Administration was pressuring the industry
for looser lending. Raines indicates Fannie wants to get into
subprime, which it did. Fannie hoped, by its actions, "to
spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar
credit ratings." They stressed the loans would be made to
everyone, but indicated their specific intention was to increase
loans based on skin color, regardless of ability to pay.


The risks were known and apparent even then. The article
predicted then that those exact policies could cause
today's meltdown:

"In moving, even tentatively, into this new area
of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly
more risk, which may not pose any difficulties
during flush economic times. But the government-
subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an
economic downturn, prompting a government rescue
similar to that of the savings and loan industry
in the 1980's."

Which is what's happening.

Cheers,
James Arthur