| Author |
|
Joe Zhang
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 12843
|
| Posted: 02 September 2008 at 6:34am | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
Did he have fun killing people?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Dan Avenell
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 06 March 2008
Posts: 1038
|
| Posted: 02 September 2008 at 6:38am | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
Ha, I'm British and I know the phrase 'under God' was added much later. She is hilarious. The Alaskan Separatist story is also amusing. I hope the scandals and gaffes keep coming and her name becomes a punchline like Dan Quayle.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Tom French
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 07 January 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 4154
|
| Posted: 02 September 2008 at 6:58am | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
I hope the scandals and gaffes keep coming and her name becomes a punchline like Dan Quayle.
I wonder how she feels about funding the "abstinence-only" sex-ed courses in Alaska right now?
Was that too mean?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Neil Lindholm
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 January 2005
Location: China
Posts: 4945
|
| Posted: 02 September 2008 at 7:10am | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
Check out his reply to the "bomb Iran" quote.
What exactly is his position on Iran? Blow the fuckers up and let God sort it out?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Al Cook
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 21 December 2004
Posts: 12735
|
| Posted: 02 September 2008 at 7:40am | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
And joke about it.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
William McCormick
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 26 February 2006
Posts: 3297
|
| Posted: 02 September 2008 at 9:43am | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
Come on, guys. Lighten up.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Al Cook
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 21 December 2004
Posts: 12735
|
| Posted: 02 September 2008 at 9:49am | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
Heh.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Joel Tesch
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 May 2006
Posts: 2834
|
| Posted: 02 September 2008 at 10:03am | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
If I may revisit the subject of "don't ask, don't tell" in the military...I think Rich might be on to something!
http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/gay_war_hero_awa rded
Edited by Joel Tesch on 02 September 2008 at 10:10am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Tom French
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 07 January 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 4154
|
| Posted: 02 September 2008 at 10:41am | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
That was hysterical -- and even for the Onion, slightly believable...
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Michael Casselman
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 14 January 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 1258
|
| Posted: 02 September 2008 at 10:47am | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
As far as 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell', it still comes down to individual commanders/posts discretion when it comes to discharges, same as I've seen it with cases of pregnancies or other issues that can (not necessarily will) lead to a discharge. It all comes down to case-by-case stories.
'Stop Loss' isn't a breach of contract, any more than being called back up for IRR. 'Stop Loss' isn't explicitly stated in such terms, but in cases of national emergency, it is stated that the military can retain you due to critical shortages. And 'stop loss' isn't a new concept, either. It's been around for quite a while.
And when did it start being OK to be using a candidates (especially underage) children against them in such a vile and personal way? SNL caught flack for doing something on Chelsea Clinton over a decade ago, and recently, even now that she's a grown woman, NBC caught hell for so much as saying she was being 'pimped out' (gosh... "Those kids and their new, hip lingo") for her mom's campaign. It's not Governor Palin who's becoming a punchline, it's her 17 year old daughter. Poor form, regardless of which side is doing it.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Dan Avenell
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 06 March 2008
Posts: 1038
|
| Posted: 02 September 2008 at 10:51am | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
If it's off-limits, why are the Republicans trying to spin it as a positive?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Michael Myers
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 December 2004
Posts: 831
|
| Posted: 02 September 2008 at 10:57am | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
Rich wrote:
| The divisions you lay out regarding change are for the most part, on point. Although it is of a genteel nature as to almost gloss over the issues at hand. There's a difference between a concept on paper and the reality of making things work in the complexity of the real world where all sorts of variables come into play. |
|
|
I'll say...
QUOTE:
"let free enterprise thrive rather than strangle it"
Well, on paper that is sweet, concise and makes perfect sense to a world of Republicans. Now let's put that into the real world of the past 8 yrs. In the interest of freeing, the Bush Administration undid a host of regulations on the Banking Industry. |
|
|
The Bush administration undid a "host" of regulations in the financial services sector? A host? Perhaps you'd care to give me a run down which might justify use of your "host" term, Rich? No? In terms of banking and securities deregulation, the truest, only pertinent example remains the redress of the Glass-Steagall Act; and the Bush administration may hardly take credit. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act--revising the provisions of the Glass-Steagall Act--was passed by a bi-partisan House, a Republican majority in the Senate, and signed into law by President Clinton (who, along with Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, actively lobbied Congress in support of the bill) in 1999.
Save for the rather glaring shortsightedness of its mandatory lending stipulations, I have little problem with the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. In the modern financial world, the Glass-Steagall Act was an anacronism that had been facing steady erosion of its purpose for thirty years; and a dedicated chipping away of its intent all through the 90s under President Clinton.
QUOTE:
| Did Industry thrive? Yes it did. Did people make money? You bet. -All sort of new schemes were ushered up to mine gold from the housing industry. Banks pushed, encouraged and prodded variable rate mortgages ontohome buyers -who themselves hardly understood the legalese of what they were getting themselves into. People who shouldn't have received loans got them. The engine was purring, running white hot. Builder's built. Values went up. Huge sums of money passed hands. You should see the gregarious displays of wealth I saw from friends who were Realtors. |
|
|
I suppose you mean ostentatious? Wow, shame on them. Tell me, Rich, is this really your summation for the rationale of the Fed keeping interest rates low...with no other concern...that is, that it amounted to "new schemes"? This would be ridiculously naive, if such were the case. The most which might be said is that Greenspan should have highlighted the possibility of a "housing" bubble, rather than denying the possibility. Either way--and coming from a cat unsympathetric to Greenspan in general--there is nothing he could have done in terms of his office beyond "saying" something. Certainly there is no power in the office of the chair of the Board of Governors of the Fed which should have been materially employed to prevent people from attempting to take advantage of cheap credit (and it would be sort of self-defeating, wouldn't it?).
QUOTE:
| The people at the top knew what was going on. They knew the risk involved in the bubble bursting. So did the Bush Administration. But the Banks were 'safe' because they knew if they failed, the Government would pick up the tab. And the Government was too happy to see it's "ownership society" humming along. It was a pyramid scheme that would work so long as external economic factors worked in their favor. But the bubble did burst. All the take, take, take ground to a halt and people were in trouble. People who signed on the dotted line not understanding the fine print found themselves owing money they couldn't possibly cover. Job loss led to job loss. And then failures on enormous scales. Major, top of the line home builders suddenly gone. Fanny May in desperate need of a bail out. And the U. S. government -nay, the people of America are left with one more bill to be added to our gargantuan National Debt. |
|
|
The stipulations for securing an ARM are hardly "fine print", Rich, but, rather, the rationale of the adjustable rate itself. As to points, etc., we already have laws and established regulations designed to insure a proper awareness of the terms. If these laws were not followed, then the pertinent truth-in-lending laws were broken.
And, can we please understand the situation as it exists? Those naive, subprime borrowers now facing foreclosure which you infer make up less than one-hundredth of the domestic real estate sector; which, itself, accounts for less than four percent of our Real GDP. The actual "crisis" revolves around the packaged lots of mortgage loans sold, en masse, as CDO's to Wall Street corporate investors...hardly, by standing, an ignorant investment sector. Far more worthy of condemnation are the ratings agencies like the S&P, Moody's, etc, which failed to accurately rate firms dealing in such CDOs. The ratings agencies were faced with an innovation in the financial sector (non-bank mortgage lenders collateralizing whole lots of sub-prime mortgages) for which they were unprepared. It is the doubt engendered by such practices that threaten a credit crunch, when no one knows with whom or where they may invest (lend) their capital...hence, builders facing a slow down. It is not simple job loss, as you infer.
Fanny May and Freddie Mac? They account for something like half the real estate lending market in the US, Rich. They are not part of the government, but only government backed to extent. It is NOT the foreclosure crisis, of itself--the fact you're offering of poor borrowers not meeting their mortgages, which necessitated the government's "comfort" move of declaring backstop support--which put them in crisis and poses the greatest threat. It is the the over-inflation of property which put them upside down that causes the problem. They hold more in paper than they do in actual value, quite simply. This is hardly a boon to prospective investors. It is, again, not simply the fact that a relatively small number of sub-prime borrowers are facing foreclosure.
But then, there's a difference between a concept on paper and the reality of making things work in the complexity of the real world. You know, where all sorts of variables come into play?
And, Rich, you make sarcastic reference to the concept of an "ownership society"? What is about the concept that you find distasteful? Is there some problem with the notion of a nation of private property owners? Some flaw in the promotion of individual home ownership and the idea of that property being used as collateral in loans by people that might not otherwise have access to such capital? What is illusory about low interest rates and the expectation of individual responsibility with regard to monies borrowed in this example of the housing bubble?
QUOTE:
| A debt and burst that COULD have been deeply minimized had the Bush Administration stepped in with some oversight early in the game. But no, that would have "strangled" the feeding frenzy. -It's never a bad time for making money. |
|
|
How? Exactly what oversight might the Bush administration have provided short of stumping for new legislation specifically regarding Collateralized Debt Obligations? Legislation which, whatever the arguable merits of the notion and assuming the very best possible bill imaginable, could not possibly have averted anything. What? Would you have us nationalize the financial institutions of the world's healthiest, largest economy? Ridiculous.
As it is, you seem to be ignorant of just what has been done with regard to oversight of the financial sector. Or is the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002 (Sarbanes-Oxley Act) not something to be mentioned? This act was originated in the republican-controlled House by Representative Oxley, a Republican, as CAARTA. Senator Sarbanes offered the senate version. It was pushed strongly by the Bush administration and passed both houses with near unanimous support, being signed into law in 2002. This is hardly an innocuous piece of legislation with regard to what you're bemoaning...yet you seem unaware of its provisions, or are willfully ignoring such legislation in favor of some empty rant.
In fact, as an aside in support of your view of nasty Republicans, I'd argue it goes too far. No other major country levies such restrictions on its financial sector. Ask our members in Great Britain if their FSA hits this heavily. This too needs to be reformed in light of modern financial services practices. Nevertheless, passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act is just one example of exactly the sort of oversight you say was never attempted...and the Republicans couldn't have been more instrumental in its passage into law.
QUOTE:
| And this lack of oversight is exactly the core fault I have with the past 8 years. There wasn't any on any level. You have republicans here shining their laser light of attention on every possible minutia of Hillary this, John Edwards that. Where was the self scrutiny over the past 8 years. If they were as attentive to Abramov and co. the way they are to Edwards love child, we may be facing the consequences of the housing burst we face now. |
|
|
Republicans, here? Where?
Is it? I don't think you really have a point, here.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
|
|
Topic Closed)
