BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Jul 09 - 01:56 PM

Here's a thought. How about I get Chongo to contact his friends in the wrestling trade and they set up a steel cage match in Miami between Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin and use it to raise money for charity. I think the draw to such an event would be simply incredible.

People might feel that Sarah would have an unfair advantage, due to her relative youth, but I think that Hillary's greater experience would count heavily and that it would be a very even match. I have confidence in Hillary's instinct to go for the jugular, but I would hesitate to predict who the ultimate winner would be.

One thing for sure, the betting would be furious on this one. There's millions to be made here, people! Maybe even billions!

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: Peace
Date: 21 Jul 09 - 02:06 PM

That would be a sight to beheld.

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Jul 09 - 02:21 PM

It would certainly bring out all the most rabid hardcore Democrats and Republicans in Florida. They'd have to have a phalanx of police 8 deep around the ring just in case the crowd got out of hand. Maybe have the National Guard standing by too...

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: Amos
Date: 21 Jul 09 - 02:24 PM

Hillary would wear a little bejeweled ring with a poison stinger on it. One scratch and Ms Palin woudl lie around looking like an untrimmed moose.   This would only be fair considering their different ages and backgrounds.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Jul 09 - 02:43 PM

LOL!!! Yeah, but she wouldn't use the ring until at least the dying moments of the 3rd round of the match. The crowd has to get their money's worth, ya know.

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 21 Jul 09 - 03:15 PM

I'll just jump in here with a link to a clever article that Vanity Fair did. They took the transcript of Palin's rambling resignation speech and copy edited it.

Here it is.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Jul 09 - 04:33 PM

Good grief. I take back my thought that, given her premise, Palin was coherent in developing it.

She is a certified journalist? Heavens above.

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: Peace
Date: 21 Jul 09 - 04:35 PM

"Yeah, but she wouldn't use the ring until at least the dying moments of the 3rd round of the match. The crowd has to get their money's worth, ya know. "

Poor old Lady Macbeth . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: Peace
Date: 21 Jul 09 - 04:55 PM

SRS, I've seen less red at a deer-meets-car MVC.

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: Charley Noble
Date: 21 Jul 09 - 08:49 PM

SRS-

What's black and white and red all over?

Cheerily,
Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: Riginslinger
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 08:59 AM

In five days she'll be shed of the yoke of the governorship of Alaska. After that, I expect Vanity Faire will be in he cross-hairs.

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 11:25 AM

Yes, and then the road will be clear to the big fight with Hillary in Miami in September. The pre-sales on this are going to really be something to see.

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: Riginslinger
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 11:37 AM

Okay, I give up, why Miami?

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 11:40 AM

Because it's such a tacky place, that's why. The whole state of Florida is almost unbelievably corrupt, but I figure it all comes to a head in Miami...sort of like a gigantic pimple sitting on the face of North America. ;-)

Then again...maybe we should set up this fight in Las Vegas. Hmmm.

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: Amos
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 12:13 PM

Darn good editors!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: gnu
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 12:17 PM

"In five days she'll be shed of the yoke of the governorship of Alaska."

In five days Alaska'll be shed of the joke of the governorship.

I dunno why... she just really bugs me.

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: Riginslinger
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 12:52 PM

"Darn good editors!"

             Yeah, if James Joyce had had editors like that, just think how skinny and easy to read his books would be today!

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: Riginslinger
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 12:54 PM

"I dunno why... she just really bugs me."

          Probably because she's not super-rich and graduated from the University of Idaho. Americans have gotten it into their collective heads that only super-rich and products of Ivy-League institutions should run.

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: gnu
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 01:56 PM

You could have sommat there, Rig.

Nah... she's an airhead.

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: Riginslinger
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 02:00 PM

I know, but so was George Bush!

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: gnu
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 02:01 PM

Two wrongs do do not make a right.

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: katlaughing
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 02:04 PM

Or, in their case, they do...the FAR Right!

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: gnu
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 04:24 PM

Far out... errr, spaced out.

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 05:54 PM

Your comment about the editing seems quite apt to me, Rig. ;-) I think that with a sufficiently negative attitude toward someone it would be easy to edit almost anyone's speech in a similarly nasty fashion and cross out at least half of it.

Not that I think her speech was a very well-crafted one. I don't think so. But I think that the editing excercise was done by someone with a big political axe to grind and a strong partisan desire to simply ridicule Sarah Palin quite regardless of what she says or doesn't say...not by someone with an objective and unbiased mind.

It was a mean-spirited exercise. But it will delight and amuse all those who already detest Sarah Palin, of course, so that means it will get a very enthusiastic reception here on this forum. ;-) Whoo-hoo! Party time!

It's all so utterly predictable....you already know what the standard reactions will be before the event itself even happens.

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 06:01 PM

And, no...I am NOT a Sarah Palin supporter in any way whatsoever. Thought I'd better say that before some fool here conveniently assumes that I am just on the basis of that last post.

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: Amos
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 07:09 PM

Little Hawk:

You are so full of hot air sometimes!! When I said "good editing" I meant that each sentence was made clearer, more energetic, better worded, more concise, by the editorial suggestions. There was nothing mean-spirited about it, and it is clear you have never spent much time editing the windy wanderings of someone who did not think clearly but who wanted to write anyway.

Your slanting of my remarks was opportunistic humbuggery on your part. You are clearly a ne'er-do-well.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: Peace
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 07:27 PM

Her writing was as clear as her thinking.

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: gnu
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 07:32 PM

WHO did the rediting?

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: Riginslinger
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 07:35 PM

Little Hawk:

You are...clearer, more energetic, better (and) more concise... There it is... you have spent much time editing... ...the windy wanderings of someone who did not think clearly (my remarks) was opportunistic humbuggery. You are clearly... well.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 08:56 PM

Man. Speak of predictable. Little Hawk and Rig, you have successfully completed your degree in the art of predictability.

Rig, agreeing with the editing has nothing whatever to do with money or an Ivy League education. Good writing has to do with communication. (Not to mention that Palin allegedly has a degree in journalism. And journalism, if nothing else, aims at clarity and pithiness.)

Little Hawk, I think that sometimes you jump on the bandwagon just because its wheels are turning. It doesn't seem to matter to you what is being said or which side is speaking- you take the other side. I hope that does not mean that you are not principled?

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 09:24 PM

Amos? Huh? What???? Say again?????? I don't even remember having you in mind at all when I typed that post. I was thinking about whoever did the editing job on the Palin speech, not about you. You must be bearing some deep resentments over my incisive analysis of the pressing psychological problems which prompted you to concoct the bizarre character "Chinga" and inflict her on me and my poor, hardworking buddy Chongo, who is only labouring day after day behind a hot desk so that people in Chicago can breathe easier and sleep better at night while he keeps the bad guys at bay. Yeah, that's gotta be it. ;-D Well, I feel your pain too, man. I do.

Do what I did. Get a poster of the upcoming Hillary vs Sarah steel cage match in...wherever it's gonna be...Miami? Las Vegas? Atlantic City? Fresno? ....and paste it on your wall. Just looking at it will do wonders for your morale.

Ebbie - Nope. (grin) It just means that I tend to resist crowds that are caught up in imitative group behaviour...gangs...swarmings...hazing of outsiders...bullying....cushy little self-congratulatory "in" groups of people that get their kicks by harassing those who are not part of the "in" group...that sort of thing. It stems from my early childhood experiences, mostly in school. There was no group I was part of...but BOY were there a bunch of tight little groups around me. Yessiree. And they all had their favorite dogs to kick. So does this forum.

In the sense of principles, I utterly oppose Sarah Palin's social and political slant on things. I also oppose the absolutely crass and destructive and vicious partisanship that BOTH the Democrats AND the Republicans constantly indulge in when they go after each other. I oppose political parties altogether, matter of fact. I'd like to see them all gone, and replaced by nothing but independent candidates of no party affiliation whatsoever.

And I think you'd know that, if you'd been reading my posts for the last few years.

Oh, one last thing: I like Barack Obama. ;-) I like him a lot. I like his style. I like his attitude. I bet I won't hear too many complaints about that here, will I? Maybe from Bearded Bruce, but certainly not from you or Amos. No...because now I am talking the gospel, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: Riginslinger
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 09:55 PM

"Rig, agreeing with the editing has nothing whatever to do with money or an Ivy League education."

                It does in this sense. If the left-wing-looneys went after Mitt Romney in the same manner, he'd simply write a check for the legal expenses of exposing them for what they are, and he'd go on about his business. The left-wing-looneys know he can do that, so they don't attack him. Instead, they attack Sarah Palin who has a much more difficult time coming up with the needed legal expenses. They know that, so they attack her over and over and over, and eventually, they'll go back and try to make the case that she used the money inappropriately.
                Then they're off on another wild adventure.
                It don't cost them nothin'.
                They're assholes.

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: Amos
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 10:50 PM

Little Hawk:

Oh, follow the thread, from the point where I commented on the editing that was done, to Rig's remarks and then to yours, and you can plainly see what I was referring tou. All this backpedaling!! Goodness!! Either you are suffering from insensitivity beyond all normal limits, or you are CYA-ing at a mad rate,

Rig: I think if you look closely at the editing done on Palin's remarks, you will find the editing does not alter or twist the ideas she is communicating. So what is all this tomfoolery about? The fact that she does not speak clearly is self-evident, but it seems to me you are muddying the waters with other issues and some past hurt of your own.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 11:23 PM

"If the left-wing-looneys went after Mitt Romney in the same manner, he'd simply write a check for the legal expenses of exposing them for what they are, and he'd go on about his business. The left-wing-looneys know he can do that, so they don't attack him. Instead, they attack Sarah Palin who has a much more difficult time coming up with the needed legal expenses." Rig

What blind baloney, Rig. If and when Mitt Romney becomes relevant again there will be plenty of attacks.

Paragraph 1: "Ebbie - Nope. (grin) It just means that I tend to resist crowds that are caught up in imitative group behaviour...gangs...swarmings...hazing of outsiders...bullying....cushy little self-congratulatory "in" groups of people that get their kicks by harassing those who are not part of the "in" group...that sort of thing. It stems from my early childhood experiences, mostly in school. There was no group I was part of...but BOY were there a bunch of tight little groups around me. Yessiree. And they all had their favorite dogs to kick. So does this forum."

ME: To my mind you ARE fighting your early childhood experiences, Little Hawk.

Paragraph 2: "In the sense of principles, I utterly oppose Sarah Palin's social and political slant on things. I also oppose the absolutely crass and destructive and vicious partisanship that BOTH the Democrats AND the Republicans constantly indulge in when they go after each other. I oppose political parties altogether, matter of fact. I'd like to see them all gone, and replaced by nothing but independent candidates of no party affiliation whatsoever.
And I think you'd know that, if you'd been reading my posts for the last few years."

ME: May I postulate that you are confusing "absolutely crass and d"estructive and vicious partisanship" with what is happening in actuality. We, in general, are looking at what Palin has done and said. The problem, imo, lies in how YOU choose to interpret it. To my mind, so far as I can tell, we are not attacking what she does and says on a partisan basis. "Far right"-ness, yes, because that is what her actions and speech reflect. I couldn't care less that she is Republican (although I would add that if she had the views that I admire, in all likelihood she would not identify herself as Republican these days because the Republican party has been hijacked by malignant elements. Incidentally, I think we have demonstrated objectiveness as opposed to partisanship because you may have noticed from time to time how admiringly we have spoken of the occasional Republican who gets it right).

ME: Of course, I am aware that you oppose political parties and labeling. But you might drop that mantra because I think you might concede that that won't happen for at least the next 50 years.

"Oh, one last thing: I like Barack Obama. ;-) I like him a lot. I like his style. I like his attitude. I bet I won't hear too many complaints about that here, will I? Maybe from Bearded Bruce, but certainly not from you or Amos. No...because now I am talking the gospel, right?"

But, Little Hawk, the way it comes across to me is that in recent months if someone were to glow about Obama - and someone else were to denigrate the man and his views -you would feel constrained to join in with him or her. I certainly agree that freedom of speech is a good thing- I don't agree that palpable nonsense deserves the same attention and respect that a reasoned response would entail. Especially if that 'someone else' refuses to answer objections or to elucidate.

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Jul 09 - 12:21 AM

Of course I'm fighting my early childhood experiences, Ebbie. Virtually everyone I've ever met is doing that. Maybe literally everyone I've ever met. We all encounter various painful issues when we are very young, and we get patterned into battling around those issues for the rest of our lives. The question is whether one becomes aware of what's really happening or just acts it out blindly. If you become aware of it, then you can usually moderate it quite a bit.

I never like to see a mob of people ganging up on their favorite target...whoever it may be. I tend to stick up for the underdog and the outsider. I tend to look for something decent in a person that a crowd paints as all bad. I try to balance the equation.

This does not require me to betray any of my political or social principles. It just requires me to look beyond stark black and white stereotypes of "good and evil" in specific individuals, that's all.

Now, while I do not in the least agree with Sarah Palin's politics or her philosophy, I find it a bit distasteful watching the left (which I am part of) chasing her about with glee like a bunch of hunters chasing a fox. I would find it equally distasteful if the Right chased someone around like that...and they do, of course. Some of the stuff they threw at Obama during that election campaign was positively astounding.

I know perfectly well that political parties are not going to go away anytime soon...but neither is the Mafia! And neither are the A-bombs. And neither is the CIA. And you know what? I'm dead against all of them. And I know that the fact that I'm dead against all of them isn't going to make a particle of difference....but I do have principles, and I stand by them, regardless of whether there's any hope of my personal stand changing anything.

It's not so much when people "glow" about someone that it bothers me. It's when they gather in a self-congratulatory mob to denigrate and destroy someone they have all decided to go after and they do it for their own mean emotional satisfaction that I am bothered. That someone could be Barack Obama. It could be Hillary Clinton. It could be Sarah Palin. It could be a member or a Guest of this forum. And it often is.

It's public lynchings I don't like, Ebbie.

I'm not accusing you and Amos of carrying out any such lynchings, either. I'm simply talking in general terms about what I don't like to see people in general (in our society) doing...that is, ganging up on someone like a mob of people at a lynching.

It's herd mentality, Ebbie. People will do things as part of a mob that they would probably be a bit ashamed to do if they were on their own. Part of the charge they get is knowing they have a supportive audience. That's why excitable people in groups can be quite dangerous at times.

If you and Amos insist on taking that personally, then you are missing the point of why I'm even talking about it. I'm talking about humanity, not about you. I'm talking about tendencies that are probably latent in every one of us...given the wrong circumstances.

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: Ebbie
Date: 23 Jul 09 - 12:54 AM

I'm not taking it personally, Little Hawk, but I would suggest that you are using a cudgel far more often than the scalpel. I frequently agree with your views but heavy hands, frankly, are ugly.

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: SharonA
Date: 23 Jul 09 - 04:33 AM

3...

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: Riginslinger
Date: 23 Jul 09 - 08:50 AM

"What blind baloney, Rig. If and when Mitt Romney becomes relevant again there will be plenty of attacks."

                He is relevant. The last poll I saw had him as the likely front-runner for 2012. But he has money, went to the right schools, and they leave him alone. These journalists are just simply snobs. It interesting to look into their backgrounds and see how some of them got to where they are.

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Jul 09 - 08:57 AM

""Oh, one last thing: I like Barack Obama. ;-) I like him a lot. I like his style. I like his attitude. I bet I won't hear too many complaints about that here, will I? Maybe from Bearded Bruce, but certainly not from you or Amos. No...because now I am talking the gospel, right?""


Actually, I like Obama, too- as a person. It is his politics, policies, and the effect of what he is trying to do that I complain about. And anyone is entitled to LIKE whoever they wish ( as much as some here deny that)

That and the fact that his worshippers here have given him the benefit of the doubt that they refused to give Bush.- IF you want to hold someone accountable for what goes on in his administration, you can't claim that the next one is NOT responsible for what goes on in the next administration.

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: Ebbie
Date: 23 Jul 09 - 11:55 AM

I would be interested, bb, in hearing how you think the Bush deficit should have been addressed.

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jul 09 - 12:16 PM

I don't think anyone has said that Obama was not responsible for his administration, Bruce. However, even you will allow that starting with a record surplus, as Bush did, and no wars, is a LOT easier than starting with two wars, a collapsed economy, and the largest deficit in history.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: SharonA
Date: 23 Jul 09 - 12:29 PM

I don't know why this thread is being clouded with talk of Obama's administration, Bush's administration, etc., etc. The point here is Palin.

I think that invoking an image of Sarah Palin being publicly lynched by "the left" or "the media" is outrageous hyperbole. Lynching is an act of mob violence that results in the physical death of the victim, and Palin is not targeted for death by "the left" or "the media", nor is she a victim.

It is not an act of mob violence to point out Palin's many self-contradictions, violations of law, outright lies, inability to communicate with clarity, and other characteristics that make her unfit for executive office in the federal government and even in Alaska state government. Rather, it is an act of vigilance.

As long as she insists on keeping herself in the public eye, that eye should see clearly just who and what she is, and not be obscured by the rhetoric of "the right" and its insistence that nothing is wrong with their picture of her in the Oval Office.

Poking fun at her is not only impossible to resist, but it is necessary to do as long as there are people out there who take her seriously and are so taken by her charms that they would vote for her. Those people need to be convinced otherwise.

Please, let's drop the word "lynch" from this thread's conversation. I don't want her to die. I just want her to go away and have a happy life fishing and raising her kids and grandkids. Mind you, I don't envy the kids and grandkids who have to listen to Sarah prattle on incoherently, but hopefully they will learn not to listen too closely and just love her as a family member... and visit her in jail if she should ever end up there for her political crimes.

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Jul 09 - 12:43 PM

Deficits can be quite a problem...mainly because they accrue interest...and a system that is founded upon usury constantly enlarges the money supply...which causes the money to lose value...which causes inflation...and society suffers. The ones who derive the most benefit in a monetary system which allows usury are the moneylenders: that is, the banks and financial institutions.

Here's an interesting article on the history of usury, and how the meaning of the term has changed in our vernacular (it used to mean charging ANY interest on lent money...it now means charging what is though to be excessive interest on lent money):

the historical definitions of usury


It's in the interest of the banks to encourage the public to borrow money...usually more money than is wise. Thus we see the proliferation of credit cards and buying on credit. People are encouraged to be irresponsible and get themselves into debt, because that benefits the moneylenders.

The moneylenders likewise have encouraged governments to borrow vast amounts of money and get themselves into debt.

Such borrowing always encourages lots of mercantile activity for awhile, but it also enlarges the national money supply, weakens the value of the dollar, and loads a society with an ever-enlarging burden of debt.

And to whose benefit? To the benefit of banks.

Presently you have a situation where the dollar has fallen to, say, a tenth of its original value...or a 20th of its original value...and where the government owes so much money on past debts that it is utterly beholden to the banks and therefore in their power.

The whole thing becomes a pyramid scheme because it finally inflates beyond all possible hope of recovery...due to the creation of vast amounts of "new" money (which appeared by the stroke of a pen or a computer key) through lending and charging interest on existing loans. Interest even ends up getting charged on interest, in effect!

It's a recipe for disaster, but it makes bankers rich. If the bubble bursts...as eventually happens with all pyramid schemes...then there is a financial collapse due to so many people (and governments) being unable to pay off their loans.

This happened recently.

And what did the government do? They bailed out the banks! They did not throw the moneylenders out of the temple...they rewarded them for their own irresponsibility.

I think that if Obama or anyone in the presidency actually tried to reverse the present usury-based banking system and make it an honest and responsible system, that he'd end up dead by assassination, because the financial forces that are running the status quo are not about to give up what they have put in place ever since the reign of Henry VIII in England in the 1500s. They have a money tree that makes them fabulously rich at the expense of the rest of society and that gives them the whip hand over government policy. That gives them control of society. I can't see any president really being able to reverse that at this point without immediate peril to his own life.

If I were in Obama's position, I would very stringently regulate the banks and greatly reduce their lending margins. And then I would hire the best bodyguards I could possibly find, cross my heart, and hope to live to the end of my term...

Here in Canada we are being told that the recession is ending and we're on the road to recovery. I hope that is so. It seems to be so, but we'll have to wait and see what happens in September-October.

The main thing that has protected Canada through this recent financial crisis has been that our banks are much better regulated than the banks in the USA or the UK. We were lucky this time.

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: Riginslinger
Date: 23 Jul 09 - 01:24 PM

"Poking fun at her is not only impossible to resist, but it is necessary to do as long as there are people out there who take her seriously and are so taken by her charms that they would vote for her."

                   Which is the same motive that entices radio talk show hosts to continue to push to see a copy of Obama's birth certificate.

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: pdq
Date: 23 Jul 09 - 01:25 PM

Not exaktly, Birdfeathers...

At the time the housing bubble burst, the two federally-created mortgage companies Fannie Mae (by FDR) and Freddie Mac (by Lyndon Johnson) held the majority of mortgage money secured ty single-family housing in the entire country.

Private lenders (by a small amount) held a minority of such loan money.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac answer to House and Senate committees and are not subject to the regulation that private lenders are.



"Alan Greenspan and the Federal Reserve Warned Congress – Greenspan Testified for McCain's Bill to Fix Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2004 and 2005 – Democrats Voted No in House and in Senate Blocked it Along Party Lines!

Posted by iusbvision on September 23, 2008

Brit Hume covered this story on Sept 23 and came to the same conclusion as we did here at IUSB Vision.

The Republicans, in a bill co-sponsored by John McCain,  tried to change the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac oversight regulations to those that are used by bank regulators. The bill to change the oversight rules was eek-ed by the Senate Committee in a party line vote with Democrats against it, but since Democrats were filibustering most significant legislation they didn't like the Republicans did not have the 60 votes to pass it. Not one Democrat would budge.

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae answer to the banking committee's in Congress – NOT the Treasury Dept, and are monitored by a small agency called OFHEO to report to the committee's, so Congress KNEW this was coming and have for years...

If we fail to strengthen GSE regulation, we increase the possibility of insolvency and crisis. … As I concluded last year, the GSEs need a regulator with authority on a par with banking regulators, with a free hand to set appropriate capital standards, and with a clear and credible process sanctioned by the Congress for placing a GSE in receivership, where the conditions under which debt holders take losses are made clear."

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: SharonA
Date: 23 Jul 09 - 02:16 PM

Me: "Poking fun at her is not only impossible to resist, but it is necessary to do as long as there are people out there who take her seriously and are so taken by her charms that they would vote for her."

Rig: "Which is the same motive that entices radio talk show hosts to continue to push to see a copy of Obama's birth certificate."


Sorta, Rig, but not exactly. The right-wing-radio talk show hosts are motivated by the Republican Party's talking points, and the R's are indeed motivated by the threat of losing votes to the D's. But the talk show hosts are also motivated by ratings, advertising revenue, keeping themselves on the air by firing up unthinking people with thoughtless rhetoric... that sort of strictly-business thing.

Also, the talk-show hosts are continuing to harp on non-issues, like the President's birth certificate (perfectly legitimate -- see Snopes) and his former ties to the church of the Reverend Wright (severed due to Wright's behavior) and such -- non-issues that have already been proven to be insignificant and irrelevant to Obama's ability to hold the highest office in the land in a somber, responsible manner that is respectful of that office and of the law of the land. In stark contrast, those who report on Palin's comments, her behavior and her record of abuse of her office as mayor and governor are reporting on issues that directly relate to her ability to govern should she seek higher office in future, as well as to her ability to take any kind of leadership role in her political party.

The right-wing talk show hosts are trying to make Obama out to be something he is not. The people who report Palin's activities, and even those who do things like "edit' her speech, are trying to show her as she is.

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: heric
Date: 23 Jul 09 - 02:26 PM

Sarah Palin Meets the Gnu

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: Riginslinger
Date: 23 Jul 09 - 02:54 PM

Well, Sharon, like I've said, I don't agree with most of what Sarah Palin stands for politically, but the level of bitterness against her seems unrealistic to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: SharonA
Date: 23 Jul 09 - 03:01 PM

Well, Rig, Sarah Palin herself seems unrealistic to me! *grin*

Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin will resign on July 26!
From: Ebbie
Date: 23 Jul 09 - 03:02 PM

Enter into the equation, Rig, that if Palin were qualified to inhabit the highest and most visible office we have in the US, no one would be happier about it than Alaskans, of whatever stripe.

But she is not. Far from being a feather in Alaska's cap, she would be an embarrassment, if not worse.

Even those partisan peeps who bemoan the reality that her stab at vice president was short lived and hope she runs for president in 2012 cannot give one actual reason that she should. The closest to a reason that I've heard is that "a president has LOTS of advisers- she'll do fine."

I think they confuse her with Walter Brennan. They like her looks and her folksy ways.