Printable View
My favorite topic.
In the 1940's Cuba was the worlds top exporter of coffee.
In the early 1960's Cuba produced more than 60,000 tons of coffee.
This year Cuba produced about 5,000 tons of coffee and has to import the vast majority of coffee it consumes.
And they wonder why people proposing a larger governmental role are like fingernails on a blackboard to us.
[QUOTE=El Alamo; 412788]My favorite topic.
In the 1940's Cuba was the worlds top exporter of coffee.
In the early 1960's Cuba produced more than 60,000 tons of coffee.
This year Cuba produced about 5,000 tons of coffee and has to import the vast majority of coffee it consumes.
And people wonder why those people proposing a larger governmental role are like fingernails on a blackboard to us. [/QUOTE]Didn't you forget to point out that those marginalized by the 83% reduction of the industry, get FREE healthcare? Besides, if Cuba's coffee industry was still strong, Starbucks would just exploit the crap out of those poor starving people by paying them a decent wage to perform jobs. How cruel are you?
The shrinking effect that the left has on industries, is not dissimilar from the effects of a dip in freezing water on the size of your willie (or I guess on your Guillermo, in Bs As)
Obama: Well I hate going. Why can't I worship the Lord in my own way, by pretending that I pray to my Blackberry every day and by praying like hell on my death bed
Rham Emanuel: Mr. President, they can hear you inside!
Obama: Relax! Those pious morons are too busy talking to their phoney-baloney God!
[the Obama family enter the church to total silence and angry looks. They make their way to their pew]
Obama: How ya doin'? Peace be with you. Praise Jebus.
If I worked in an aspirin factory, I'd be pretty nervous going to work for the next five weeks.
When all else fails, time to wag the dog.
[QUOTE=Esten;412738]Stan you need to slow down a little and read more carefully.
The point of my last post was that Bush and Republicans played more than a minor role. When you say the only blame Repubs deserve is that Bush didn't use his veto, you bet I am going to challenge you on it. I did point out that Dems and the private sector also shared blame. But I did not get into how much blame each deserved, aside from an implication that most rests with the private sector. Your red herring essay on the GSEs doesn't change the fact that Bush made an aggressive push on housing at a time when the bubble was just beginning.
You said I conveniently omitted things. Let's take a look at that. If I had been making the case that Repubs were responsible for the entire economic mess, you would be correct. But I wasn't. Read slower. I was making the case that Repubs played more of a role than you claimed. OTOH, aside from the comment about Bush not using his veto, you have pinned the economic mess on Dems a number of times now. No mention of Bush's housing push, no mention of the private sector. All Dems re: Fannie and Freddie. I am sure in your research you have seen that most accounts cite multiple factors for the financial crisis. But you have chosen to focus on only one. Convenient omissions? Pot - Kettle?
Remember when Bush said "Wall Street Got Drunk"? Well there's a good case that Bush helped foster that environment to some extent. I recommend you take some time to read this article. There was a little more involved than Bush not using his veto.
White House Philosophy Stoked Mortgage Bonfire
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/21admin.html? _r=1&pagewanted=all[/url]
As far as Fannie and Freddie that's a separate debate. Tell me this: Fannie and Freddie existed for decades without anything near the kind of housing bubble we just had. So how did we get a massive housing bubble during 2001-2007 when Bush was in office?[/QUOTE]
I don't need to slow down. You need to be candid rather than pushing an agenda in obvious disregard of the facts.
There are many reasons the housing bubble occurred. The primary one, however, related directly to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac:
1. The low income housing quota for these entities stood at 40% in 1996. This means that the stated goal was that 40% of the mortgages Fannie and Freddie purchased would be loans to low-income borrowers who likely would not otherwise qualify for a mortgage. These were subprime loans (because borrowers had bad credit) and later became known as "toxic debt."
2. That quota was raised to 50% in the year 2000, and 56% in the year 2004. That's a 40% increase in the quota over an 8-year period.
3. While all that was going on, Fannie and Freddie [b]greatly[/b] expanded their presence in the marketplace. In the year 2000, they bought $35 billion in mortgages each year. By 2004, it was [b]$170 billion[/b]. That's a 500% increase in four years, and it continued thereafter until things started to unravel -- when Democrats finally agreed that someone else should regulate Fannie and Freddie.
4. Between 2000 and 2004, Fannie and Freddie essentially went from being large players in the subprime mortgage market, to being [b]the[/b] players in the mortgage market. In the year 2004 alone, Fannie and Freddie purchased [b]44% of all subprime mortgages.[/b] That's astronomical.
5. Add all of the above together, and you have a recipe for disaster: a 40% increase in the toxic loan purchase requirement and 500% more money being thrown at these bad loans, and two GSEs that essentially own this market -- ostensibly for "the public good." One of the reasons for this is that various Democrat-sponsored pressure groups -- primarily ACORN -- began to pressure HUD, Fannie and Freddie to enforce the low-income loan quotas and to expand these programs. Before 2000, Fannie and Freddie frequently didn't hit their 40% quota. After 2000, they exceeded their quotas. So, while Democrats were able to reward their pet activist groups and constituents with free money, the day of reckoning crept closer.
6. HUD is the group that sets the low income housing quota, and an arm of HUD is responsible for auditing Fannie and Freddie. Both were obvious failures at the time Bush proposed firing HUD as the regulator. In 2003, when the legislation was proposed, a HUD audit revealed that Fannie and Freddie had been cooking the books for years in order to pay huge bonuses to Franklin Raines and his subordinates. It had been going on for some time, but HUD's auditing arm never got around to looking. This, and the fact that HUD had no practical enforcement mechanism for requiring Fannie and Freddie to ensure that the loans they purchased were to "quality" borrowers (even if low income), is why we saw all the "liar" loans that started the housing bubble. Basically, Fannie and Freddie would purchase [i]anything[/i] -- they had to -- and all the lenders and mortgage brokers knew it.
Bush made it a part of his agenda to stop this for years and years. Every year Fannie and Freddie came up, and every year Democrats shot it down. They protected their buddies who were funneling them campaign contributions and ensuring that constituents could get free money. You can say a lot about George Bush, but you simply can't say that he did nothing to try to stop the eventual housing debacle. He clearly put his finger on the problem, highlighted the issue, and was thwarted by Democrats at every turn.
That YouTube video is just one of many showing Democrats in lock-step against anything being done to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Had you been paying any attention at all, you couldn't have missed it.
Stan:
We all know that interest in the facts wanes when they (the facts) don't support one's point of view. While I don't want to cast aspersions, I can think of a couple posters who have little interest in facts, largely because there are few if any that support their agendas.
You are correct about the facts, I believe that there is little debate amongst knowledgeable folks regarding the origins and unraveling of the mortgage bubble. Those who insist that it was Bush's fault are just Liberal-caused-housing-bubble-leading to-global-economic-meltdown deniers.
[QUOTE=Wild Walleye; 412839]Stan:
We all know that interest in the facts wanes when they (the facts) don't support one's point of view. While I don't want to cast aspersions, I can think of a couple posters who have little interest in facts, largely because there are few if any that support their agendas.
You are correct about the facts, I believe that there is little debate amongst knowledgeable folks regarding the origins and unraveling of the mortgage bubble. Those who insist that it was Bush's fault are just Liberal-caused-housing-bubble-leading to-global-economic-meltdown deniers. [/QUOTE]I couldn't agree more. It's one of the reasons that I rarely respond to Esten. I labor under no impression that I could convince him of anything. He's too far gone for that. There are others who read the board, and occasionally he posts something that is outright false and worthy of correction. But, I agree: If the goal is to convince him or the latest interloper, MiamiPro, it's not worth the candle, as they say.
Another rat fled the sinking ship today. Rahm Emanuel turned tail and ran. [url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101001/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_chief_of_staff[/url]
So, that leaves Geithner as the only top advisor left in less than two years. Frankly, Obama probably would have been better off had all the others stayed and Geithner left.
But, the departure of Rahm Emanuel will leave Obama better off [i]if[/i] his replacement, Pete Rouse, is as low key as the press makes him out to be. Emanuel was a bit too much like James Carville. Carville's antics could work during a campaign, but someone like that wears thin pretty quickly as part of an administration.
Now, if Obama fires David Axelrod next, then perhaps he'll start to back away from the dogmatic, socialist, true-believer agenda he's been peddling. I'm not betting on it, though. True believers generally don't change their spots, even when the ship is sinking.
It is well documented in this thread how many times right wing talking points have been recycled, in a one-sided manner in disregard to opposing facts. This recent claim that Fannie and Freddie were the primary cause of the housing bubble / economic mess is just the latest and greatest example.
To the extent that there is "little debate" on this topic, it's that knowledgeable folks acknowledge there were several contributing factors, and that Fannie/Freddie were not the primary factor. Only those who limit their news sources to far-right media could possibly be unaware of this.
The point has been made many times that Bush sought stronger oversight of the GSEs and Democrats resisted. This is true. But somehow we are supposed to believe, by a magical leap of faith, that if Dems had supported Bush, reforms would have been implemented, and in time, to significantly reduce the magnitude of the bubble and financial crisis. That's a mighty big leap of faith, which hasn't been and likely cannot be proven. But it's the conservative line, because it helps them shift blame to Dems and bring up their allegations of cronyism, which are really a deflection from the discussion as to how big a role the GSEs played in the crisis.
More to come. The conservative myth of the predominant role of Fannie/Freddie has been widely discredited, I will consolidate into a few main points.
Human nature being what it is, you put 2 people in a room, and all hell break loose. This thread is heading that way.
Argentina Private politically leans to the right and is sometimes intolerant to the left, even to moderate liberals. For the thread to be healthy, we need to tone down some of the personal insults and namecalling. And if you have to be hard, do it with some humor.
[QUOTE=Esten;412849]The conservative myth of the predominant role of Fannie/Freddie has been widely discredited[/QUOTE]We all know that the earth is turning into a gigantic ball of fire and that we will all perish due to effects of anthropogenic global warming.
Now, because you say this explanation of the origins of the housing crisis has been invalidated (with saying by whom or up what evidence this is based upon) we are supposed to accept it?
Oh, ok.
[QUOTE=Black Shirt;412851]Human nature being what it is, you put 2 people in a room, and all hell break loose. [/quote]
I have seen this happen first hand, several times. Most recently, it was at 1631 dpto 3D.
[quote=]Argentina Private politically leans to the right[/quote]
Depends on your perspective
[quote=] and is sometimes intolerant to the left, even to moderate liberals.[/quote]
I suffer fools gladly
[quote=] For the thread to be healthy, we need to tone down some of the personal insults and namecalling.[/quote]
"Well Mr. Helper. You remember that thing we had about 30 years ago called the Korean conflict? And how we failed to achieve victory? How come we didn't cross the 38th parallel and push those rice-eaters back to the Great Wall of China?
[quote=]And if you have to be hard, do it with some humor.[/QUOTE]
I've tried that. I think the language barrier impacts the comic delivery of a squirt in the eye. "Fue un accidente..."
[QUOTE=Wild Walleye; 412854]We all know that the earth is turning into a gigantic ball of fire and that we will all perish due to effects of anthropogenic global warming.
Now, because you say this explanation of the origins of the housing crisis has been invalidated (with saying by whom or up what evidence this is based upon) we are supposed to accept it?
Oh, ok. [/QUOTE]Especially most of Esten and Miamipros posts. Unlike most flaming liberals us republicans usually have a great sense of humor. Tick. Tick. Tick. Less than 30 days now. I still haven't conceeded that Madahos evening with Esten as I may still get my wish of more GOP than Dems in the senate in spite of tea party. Time will tell. Looks like the house is a lock!
Happy Mongering All,
Toymann
[QUOTE=Toymann;412857]Especially most of Esten and Miamipros posts.[/QUOTE]Whats really funny about my posts is the fact that your the punchline.
[QUOTE=Black Shirt;412851]Argentina Private politically leans to the right....[/QUOTE]Actualy, AP provides an equal voice to all political perspectives, which of course appears to be biased to liberals are used to dominating online political conversations.
Thanks,
Jackson
[QUOTE=Jackson; 412880]Actualy, AP provides an equal voice to all political perspectives, which of course appears to be biased to liberals are used to dominating online political conversations.
Thanks,
Jackson[/QUOTE]Yes, it is true that Argentina Pirvate provides equal posting rights to all "faiths". I also agree that liberals do dominate mass media. But going ballistic on Argentina Private seem to be a right wing phenomenon.
[QUOTE=Toymann; 412857]Especially most of Esten and Miamipros posts. Unlike most flaming liberals us republicans usually have a great sense of humor. Tick. Tick. Tick. Less than 30 days now. I still haven't conceeded that Madahos evening with Esten as I may still get my wish of more GOP than Dems in the senate in spite of tea party. Time will tell. Looks like the house is a lock!
Happy Mongering All,
Toymann[/QUOTE]I thought my comment about health care in Cuba was pretty funny.
[QUOTE=Black Shirt;412881]Yes, it is true that Argentina Private provides equal posting rights to all "faiths". I also agree that liberals do dominate mass media. But going ballistic on Argentina Private seem to be a right wing phenomenon.[/QUOTE]Hi,
It appears to me that the liberals here have done a pretty good job of enunciating their positions and otherwise "standing up" to the independents, libertarians and conservatives.
Of course, my own perspective may be biased.
Thanks,
Jackson
[QUOTE=Jackson; 412899]Hi,
It appears to me that the liberals here have done a pretty good job of enunciating their positions and otherwise "standing up" to the independents, libertarians and conservatives.
Of course, my own perspective may be biased.
Thanks,
Jackson[/QUOTE]Yes it is, but so is everyone's.
CNBC Special - Wed Oct.6 at 9pm
It's probably just a bunch of investment bankers complaining how Fannie and Freddie forced them to sell risky mortgage-backed products.
I haven't been contributing as much because I am back home in Miami. But will try and get my 2 cents in from time to time. I know if I don't WW will be depressed.
[QUOTE=Miamipro;412914]I haven't been contributing as much because I am back home in Miami... but will try and get my 2 cents in from time to time.. I know if i dont WW will be depressed[/QUOTE]
Obama is depressing the hell out of me (and the economy and the nation as a whole). Don't worry, the electorate is about to deliver some electoral prozac.
Stan posted a research-based case why he believes Fannie and Freddie were the primary cause of the housing bubble and economic mess. I respect the research effort, and it is true that many people who have looked into this topic agree Fannie / Freddie share some blame. Some even believe Fannie / Freddie were a significant factor, among several. But very few people / analyses have concluded Fannie / Freddie were "the" primary factor. Consider the following.
1. Fannie and Freddie expanded their presence in the mortgage market for decades, while house prices steadily increased without a giant housing bubble developing. As the housing bubble formed last decade, the GSE share of the mortgage market declined from 42% in 2000, to 34% in 2006.
2. Subprime was a small component of the mortgage market between 1997-2003, comprising between 5-8% of all mortgage originations each year. Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent.
3. These charts show the pattern clearly. Over the period 2003-06, Fannie and Freddie saw a sharp drop in their share of residental mortgage securitization. Over the same period, non-agency MBS issuance surged, a majority of which was subprime and Alt-A issuance which increased from approx. $270 Billion to $800 Billion.
[url]http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/03/things-everyone-in-chicago-knows/[/url]
4. For another look at the numbers see this report, Figure 1.2: Enterprises' Market Share.
Per the report, private-label issuers played a large role in securitizing higher-risk mortgages from early 2004 to mid-2007 while the GSEs continued to guarantee primarily traditional mortgages. Consequently, the GSEs lost market share of MBS issuance. After private-label issuers exited the secondary mortgage market in 2007, the GSEs market share increased.
[url]http://www.fhfa.gov/webfiles/16592/ConservatorsRpt82610.pdf[/url]
[url]http://modeledbehavior.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/image7.png[/url] (figure only)
5. In addition, commercial real estate also experienced a giant bubble over the same period, but CRE is outside the scope of the GSEs. This provides evidence of a broad-based bubble fueled by other market forces, such as speculation.
[url]http://mit.edu/cre/research/credl/rca.html[/url]
Of course this all took place against a backdrop of low interest rates, and a giant global pool of money (represented by $70 trillion in worldwide fixed income investments) seeking higher yields than those offered by USA Treasury bonds. This pool of money had roughly doubled in size from 2000 to 2007, yet the supply of relatively safe, income generating investments had not grown as fast. Wall Street answered this demand with MBS and CDO securities, which were assigned safe ratings by credit rating agencies. And this was all facilitated by deregulation such as the 1999 passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, and lax regulatory oversight over the bubble years. Bush's housing push was also part of the backdrop. Speculation and real estate "flipping" also played a large role. In 2005-2006, a record level of nearly 40% of home purchases were not intended as primary residences.
There is a good argument that private sector factors, as well as government policy / regulation, all played significant roles. Fannie and Freddie also clearly played a role. But the argument that Fannie and Freddie were "the" primary factor, is simply weak, which is why it is seen as little more than a conservative talking point among most people who have studied the topic.
[QUOTE=Esten;412937]Fannie and Freddie also clearly played a role. But the argument that Fannie and Freddie were "the" primary factor, is simply weak...[/QUOTE]So your best counter-argument, intended to negate everyone else's contention that [I]"Fannie and Freddie were 'the primary factor'"[/I] in the mortgage meltdown, appears at best to move only slightly off that point to merely that [I]"Fannie and Freddie also clearly played a role"[/I]?
Man, that's thin.
Linda McMahon barbecued Dick Blumenthal in her answer to the debate question [I]'How do you create a job? '[/I].
Blumenthal rambled on for a minute and 20 seconds about government's role in creating jobs, and then McMahon responded with this:
[quote=Linda McMahon]Government does not create jobs. It’s very simple how you create jobs. An entrepreneur takes [a] risk. He or she believes that they [can] create or good or service that is sold for more than it costs to produce it. If an entrepreneur thinks he can do that, he creates a job.[/quote]Here's the 2 minute video clip: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uilFn6mgm4[/url]
[QUOTE=Jackson; 412940]Linda McMahon barbecued Dick Blumenthal in her answer to the debate question [I]'How do you create a job? '[/I].
Blumenthal rambled on for a minute and 20 seconds about government's role in creating jobs, and then McMahon responted.
Here's the 2 minute video clip: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uilFn6mgm4[/url][/QUOTE]I am not sure how involved she was at WWE but that company went from laughing stock to NYSE big board stock (EV over US$1.0B. They employ nearly 600 people. Blumie is a liar and elitist snob (lives near friends of mine) and doesn't know how to create a job because he has never done it.
[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;412950]I am not sure how involved she was at WWE...[/QUOTE]She was actually the president for the entire life of the company. Her husband Vince McMahon was and is the big-beefy ex-wrestler who is the MC at many of their events.
[QUOTE=Jackson;412939]So your best counter-argument, intended to negate everyone else's contention that [I]"Fannie and Freddie were 'the primary factor'"[/I] in the mortgage meltdown, appears at best to move only slightly off that point to merely that "Fannie and Freddie also clearly played a role"?
Man, that's thin.[/QUOTE]
You beat me to the punch. Thanks for saving me the trouble. His response -- on an issue that he claims to have been investigating for quite some time -- is the best example of how weak the counter-argument is. But then, that's what I've come to expect. I'm back to not responding. If I knew where the !@#$!# Ignore button was, I'd probably use it.
[QUOTE=Jackson;412959]She was actually the president for the entire life of the company. Her husband Vince McMahon was and is the big-beefy ex-wrestler who is the MC at many of their events.[/QUOTE]But did not realize that she ran the company. Wow. That is pretty impressive. No, actually it is very impressive.
[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;412961]But did not realize that she ran the company. Wow. That is pretty impressive. No, actually it is very impressive.[/QUOTE]
I've been following the company (not the show) for ages, long before the World Wildlife Fund made them change their name. She may have the title, but I'm not sure she actually ran the show there. Then again, I'm not sure she didn't. If that Youtube clip is any guide, she's pretty sharp. Why she would want to get into government, I'll never know. But, Vince McMahon is the one who grew up as the promoter's son and really brought the company to prominence.
They made a ton of dough on licensing and PPV, both before and after they went public. You may recall that Monday Night Football moved back it's start time for a while so as not to have to compete with WWF for Monday ratings.
I used to invest in the companies that had the licenses for their video games and action figures, THQ and Jakk's Pacific. Both were extremely lucrative when WWF was hot. Then, WWF discovered that they were being cheated on license fees and took everything back, and I think they made even more money when they re-licensed to others. If she was responsible for that move, it was shrewd. Their brand has cooled off a bunch since then, though.
Seeing the contrast between her and Blumenthal, it's hard to believe anyone could vote for Blumenthal. Then again, it is Connecticut. If you sound like Mr. Howell on Gilligan's Island, you're bound to garner a good portion of the vote.
[QUOTE=Jackson; 412939]So your best counter-argument, intended to negate everyone else's contention that [I]"Fannie and Freddie were 'the primary factor'"[/I] in the mortgage meltdown, appears at best to move only slightly off that point to merely that [I]"Fannie and Freddie also clearly played a role"[/I]?
Man, that's thin. [/QUOTE]If you are looking for some quantitation, I would say F&F played somewhere between a "small" and "medium" size role. This general conclusion has been reached by many people who have studied the topic, is supported by the facts in my post, and is more than "slightly" different from the bogus claim that F&F were the primary factor. Don't take my word for it though, do your own research and you'll see.
What I would say is "thin", is posting a few numbers on F&F while ignoring the private sector numbers and other factors, and claiming that as proof that F&F were the primary factor.
Wouldn't you agree?
I watched the CNBC special "Goldman Sachs: Power And Peril" this evening.
I can't believe they made no mention of the huge role Fannie and Freddie played in forcing Goldman to sell risky mortgage-backed products. Unbelievable!
You mean CNBC doesn't find Fannie and Freddie responsible for the housing bubble.
Wow!! Now, if you could only get Barnie Franks or the ex-CEO's of Fannie and Freddie to step up to the plate and admit that Freddy and Fanny were not responsible for the housing bubble this controversy would be over.
[QUOTE=El Alamo; 412977]You mean CNBC doesn't find Fannie and Freddie responsible for the housing bubble.
Wow! Now, if you could only get Barnie Franks or the ex-CEO's of Fannie and Freddie to step up to the plate and admit that Freddy and Fanny were not responsible for the housing bubble this controversy would be over. [/QUOTE]If America would just accept the fact that it was all those greedy republicans on Wall Street's fault (who oddly donate disproportionately to democrat candidates) and keep the dems in control of all three branches of the govt, it will be like it never happened.
[QUOTE=El Alamo;412977]You mean CNBC doesn't find Fannie and Freddie responsible for the housing bubble.
Wow!! Now, if you could only get Barnie Franks or the ex-CEO's of Fannie and Freddie to step up to the plate and admit that Freddy and Fanny were not responsible for the housing bubble this controversy would be over.[/QUOTE]
Have no fear. Barack Obama is going to clarify that later today.
When he talks about not "returning to the failed policies of the last decade," he's going to clarify that he [i]doesn't mean[/i] the policy of democrats propping up Fannie and Freddie, blocking reform, siphoning off campaign contributions from these GSEs and from criminal Democratic pressure groups like ACORN, appointing Fannie's ex-CEO crooks as one of his campaign advisors, blocking inquiry into the sweetheart loans Democrats received from failed banks, and refusing to include Fannie and Freddie in their financial reform.
It's [i][b]the other failed policies[/b][/i] that he's referring to.
Now, this is just ridiculous. First, Barack Obama gets the Nobel Peace Prize for . . . absolutely nothing.
Now, Forbes ranks Michelle Obama as the "Most Powerful Woman in the World." [url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101006/lf_nm_life/us_power_women[/url]
Why? Cause you can see her guns when she wears those sleeveless tops? Nope. "Forbes said Obama topped the list this year because 'she has made the office of first lady her own' while remaining popular."
Angela Merkel? Hillary Clinton? Heck, Cristina Fernandez? Nope, none are as powerful as Michelle Obama, according to Forbes.
Who says the Dems don't have the mainstream media in their back pocket? For anyone complaining about Fox News, there are dozens and dozens of examples of media bias in favor of Democrats in general, and liberals in particular. This may be a mild one, but it's pathetic nonetheless. Not as bad as awarding the Nobel Peace Prize for hopes and aspirations, but it's just one more stroke in the left-tinged media mosaic.
[QUOTE=Stan the Man; 412992]Now, this is just ridiculous. First, Barack Obama gets the Nobel Peace Prize for. . . Absolutely nothing.
Now, Forbes ranks Michelle Obama as the "Most Powerful Woman in the World. " [url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101006/lf_nm_life/us_power_women[/url]
Why? Cause you can see her guns when she wears those sleeveless tops? Nope. "Forbes said Obama topped the list this year because 'she has made the office of first lady her own' while remaining popular. "
Angela Merkel? Hillary Clinton? Heck, Cristina Fernandez? Nope, none are as powerful as Michelle Obama, according to Forbes.
Who says the Dems don't have the mainstream media in their back pocket? For anyone complaining about Fox News, there are dozens and dozens of examples of media bias in favor of Democrats in general, and liberals in particular. This may be a mild one, but it's pathetic nonetheless. Not as bad as awarding the Nobel Peace Prize for hopes and aspirations, but it's just one more stroke in the left-tinged media mosaic. [/QUOTE]There are dozens of women that are more powerful than Mouchelle Obama, but kissing their asses may not payoff like kissing MO's.
This woman is a detestable, American-hating, elitist, racist (yes, I said it) snob. Maybe now that she has one this honor, she can be proud of AmeriKa for the second time.
Steve Forbes is a long-time Republican, so suggestions that Dems have his magazine in their back pocket seem dubious at best.
But I agree her ranking as "Most Powerful Woman in the World" is odd. It seems she has been supporting some worthwhile causes, but I wouldn't rank her above Merkel or Clinton. I usually change the channel when a story about her comes on, she is too wholesome for me.
Harsh words Walleye, though not surprising from you. Are these the racist comments you are referring to:?
[url]www.youtube.com/watch?v=EX3ZdYbixiw[/url]
[QUOTE=Miamipro;412879]Whats really funny about my posts is the fact that your the punchline.[/QUOTE]You were the last to bang Layla? Too Funny. Suggest you stick to serial antagonism and stay away from the chicas dude. You need to search the Layla thread to really get the whole picture here newbie. As I have already reported my wingman saw this chica late last week. As a liberal, as usual, you never let the facts get in your way. LOL. And I'm you're punchline? Too funny. Tick. Tick. Tick. Soon all will be revealed.
Happy Mongering All,
Toymann
I think we are in for some rough road before the unemployment numbers improve. Most previous Administrations understood that the private sector will add jobs only if adding jobs makes economic sense i.e. the tax burden of adding an employee does not break the back of the company.
Not this Administration. This Administration has the ingenious idea of increasing taxes on those who are working and using this tax money to create make believe government jobs. Wow, and these geniuses actually have college degrees.
But what do you expect from an Administration filled with life long government hacks who couldn't change the tires on their car much less operate a lemonade stand.