Obama Administration Attacks "Rightwingers"

[driveby]

He doesn't know .......

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

There is not ONE SCINTILLA OF THIS "FINANCIAL DISASTER THAT IS NOT ROOTED IN LEFTISM! So stow the anti-American bullshit.

I just love these blanket assessments with absolutely NOTHING to back them up.

ROFL... Blanket assessments?

ROFLMNAO...

Well I’ve posted it 500 times, so once more is no big deal...

The current financial crisis is a direct result of the abuse of power by the Leftists in the legislature; it began nearly a century ago and slowly crept deeper into the US Markets, but was accelerated exponentially in the 1990s when the "Progressives" in the legislature, threatened the US mortgage industry with Civil Rights lawsuits if they did not underwrite mortgages in red-line districts... thus manipulating and undermining the reasonable and time tested actuarial thresholds of mortgage lending...

Of course, the Financial industry SHOULD have told the leftist to shove it, and in so doing forced those civil right lawsuits and exposed the leftists as the rancid fools that they always have been; but instead they assented to the coercive abuse of power and public trust all of which lead to pseudo-guarantees through Fanny wherein it was determined that if the Lenders wrote the deals, Fanny would take their shady paper; leaving the lenders held presumably harmless.

The problem is of course, that even the US Federal government and it's Leftist, er... "Progressive" means to print money, can't guarantee THAT volume of liability... just as the Federal government can't actually guarantee Deposits by the whole of it's citizenry, which they've now doubled-down on... all they can do is to SAY that they can guarantee those deposits... which puts the fear of those depositors, that 'their money is at risk of evaporating' at ease...

And THAT is the BIG LIE; and THAT is why the 'Progressives' have had to spend two TRILLION DOLLARS... to avoid runs from panicky depositors which would once again PROVE that the Progressive house of cards is unsustainable; which would force the Federal government to fold after it is forced to print MANY, MANY MORE TRILLIONS in cash to pay those depositors...

It's Progressive "Fractional Banking" sis and it's a SCAM.

Bernie Madoff is an ANGEL; a veritable economic SAINT compared to the scam that leftism has pulled and continues to pull on the international economy and the hard working people of the entire world...

Credits and debits... based upon nothing, except the means of the US Taxpayer to PAY TAXES... which are paid using the same credits and debits which are based upon the same nothing.

The scam was never sustainable, but the superior production of a free market and the prudent and virtuous nature of the American people, acted as a regulating, moderating influence which prolonged what would have otherwise collapsed decades ago.

Where the Left hijacked the actuarial thresholds to advance it's warped and wholly erroneous sense of fairness, it precluded the means of market to regulate itself... due to lowering the means by which these highly coveted instruments were obtained, it induced a frenzy of mortgage buying which lead to exponential increases in the cost of the real estate which secures those mortgages...

Sadly, once the actuarial thresholds were lowered, the runaway Mortgage Genie was out of the bottle... the same 'irrational exuberance' which drove the tech bubble/burst, drove the price of secured real estate beyond the means of the market to sustain it and PRESTO... the market failed to sustain sales; values plummeted... and the fraction of liquidity which the industry is required to have on hand against it's liabilities was once again exposed as being grossly insufficient and TRILLIONS WERE NEEDED TO PREVENT THE PUBLIC FROM REALIZING THAT THE ENTIRE "PROGRESSIVE" ECONOMY IS A SCAM.

So, with all that said, one may be tempted to run and decry “GREED CAUSED IT ALL”… but that human beings are, by their nature, GREEDY is not news… humanity is saddled with numerous frailties… so PERHAPS it’s a BAD IDEA to advance POLICY WHICH SETS ASIDE SOUND PRINCIPLE… PERHAPS… it’s a BAD IDEA to advance ideas which PREY ON THOSE FRAILTIES… just perhaps it’s a BAD idea to lend credence to those who suggests that actuarial thresholds should be lowered to accommodate ideological goals which rest upon invalid reasoning and exists wholly outside of sound principle.

Need anything else Sis?

 

[elvis]

Whine, cry, piss and moan, snivel

The poor little wingnuts might have to see President Barak Hussein Obama become a real success story.

Well I guess you could say Lenin was a success.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Every time CON$ervatism fails, and it fails every time it's tried, they say it was CON$ervatives acting like Libs. LOL

Hardly, but will say socialism and communism have failed 100% of time. Capitalism? Not so, not saying there haven't been glitches, but not on the level of the others.

And every time they say the same thing as CON$, it wasn't really socialism or communism that failed.

ROFL...

OK...

I love this one...

So I'm going to beat ya rhetorically senseless with it...

Now I'll be needing you to DEFINE: SUCCESS

AND I'll ask that you utilize THAT DEFINITION TO DEMONSTRATE WHERE SOCIALISM HAS "SUCCEEDED"...

Best of luck...

Now here's how this will go...

First she'll ignore the challenge...

Second she will redefine "success" to a point where it's meaningless and try to show that because socialism EXISTS... it therefore succeeds.

Capitalism is the natural order of economics... it cannot fail; it is impossible FOR Capitalism TO FAIL.

If you define SUCCESS and FAILURE... TRY to describe how Capitalism MIGHT FAIL... using the scope of those definitions... It can't be done...

What the left wants to do is to project their erroneous notion of fairness into an equation wherein FAIRNESS IS IRRELEVANT... principle-less, secular 'moral imperatives'... which economics does not serve...

As I've stated many time, Socialism is NOT an economic system... it's an ideology which attempts to use economics in it's sales pitch.

And just as Capitalism CANNOT fail... Socialism can never succeed... IF success is defined by the meeting of its stated goal...

Capitalisms goal is the free exchange of goods and services to the mutual benefit of both parties... where prudent, sound, virtuous people trade, both will benefit from the exchange; socialism strips virtue and prudence from the equation and there is NO place in left-think for sound reasoning.

 

[tigerbob]

She criticizes the administration so she's a domestic terrorist?

The lefties are so fucking insecure they cannot stand the thought that someone may disagree with them and oh the horrors,, rally a protest. they simply freak out and start blathering about violence, and inciting violence I still remember the leftie threatening a revolution if the obamalama was not nominated. I still remember the black panthers standing at the polling place tapping their nightsticks and looking intimidating.. buncha DUmbazz HYPOCRITES is what lefties are!

How funny! I invite you to READ what you just wrote, honey. Ironically, hypocrisy doesn't even begin to describe your own ranting diatribes. You're so "insecure," you're in panic mode! Do you EVER have anything of substance to say, and minus all the profanity?

Post #91, which was immediately followed by post #92.

Even at my local polling place there were two black guys standing outside the door as you enter the building to vote. They had on TSHRTS reflecting Black Power. Can you imagine the reporting and riots of white people did that with tshirts that said White Power?

I think you're full of shit. Polling place monitors would not have allowed that. Not all of us suffer from gullible-itis, ya know.

 

[edthecynic]

There is not ONE SCINTILLA OF THIS "FINANCIAL DISASTER THAT IS NOT ROOTED IN LEFTISM! So stow the anti-American bullshit.

I just love these blanket assessments with absolutely NOTHING to back them up.

ROFL... Blanket assessments?

ROFLMNAO...

Well I’ve posted it 500 times, so once more is no big deal...

The current financial crisis is a direct result of the abuse of power by the Leftists in the legislature; it began nearly a century ago and slowly crept deeper into the US Markets, but was accelerated exponentially in the 1990s when the "Progressives" in the legislature, threatened the US mortgage industry with Civil Rights lawsuits if they did not underwrite mortgages in red-line districts... thus manipulating and undermining the reasonable and time tested actuarial thresholds of mortgage lending...

Redlining was based entirely on racism, and had absolutely nothing to do with ability to pay. That's why CON$ support red lining and hate anyone who tries to end this racist practice.

Redlining

What Does Redlining Mean?
The unethical practice whereby financial institutions make it extremely difficult or impossible for residents of poor inner-city neighborhoods to borrow money, gain approval for a mortgage, take out insurance or gain access to other financial services because of high default rates. In this case, the rejection does not take the individual's qualifications and creditworthiness into account.

 

[edthecynic]

I just get sick and tired of seeing the same old, same old lame conservative ideological BS. We KNOW it doesn't work, yet you continue to truck on, and nothing (NOTHING!!) convinces you otherwise. Maybe if you mixed up your reading and/or viewing habits a tad, you would understand that not EVERYTHING you attempt to prove is ALL true. When you restrict yourself to only one set of partisan material, it's called tunnel vision. Apparently you've read my other postings in other threads; otherwise you wouldn't be suggesting that I'm having a bad hair day. Therefore, it should be obvious to you that I DO, in fact, mix it up. I have strong opinions on over-spending by either party, where our taxes go, and everything else rationally discussed on those issues. But when it comes to stoic, rabidly right ideology which is often not right, but wrong, I will prove it.

Conservatism works every time it's tried.

Of course, it hasnt been tried in decades. Hence why you see problems.

Every time CON$ervatism fails, and it fails every time it's tried, they say it was CON$ervatives acting like Libs. LOL

Hardly, but will say socialism and communism have failed 100% of time. Capitalism? Not so, not saying there haven't been glitches, but not on the level of the others.

And every time they say the same thing as CON$, it wasn't really socialism or communism that failed.

ROFL...

OK...

I love this one...

So I'm going to beat ya rhetorically senseless with it...

Now I'll be needing you to DEFINE: SUCCESS

AND I'll ask that you utilize THAT DEFINITION TO DEMONSTRATE WHERE SOCIALISM HAS "SUCCEEDED"...

Best of luck...

Now here's how this will go...

First she'll ignore the challenge...

Second she will redefine "success" to a point where it's meaningless and try to show that because socialism EXISTS... it therefore succeeds.

Capitalism is the natural order of economics... it cannot fail; it is impossible FOR Capitalism TO FAIL.

If you define SUCCESS and FAILURE... TRY to describe how Capitalism MIGHT FAIL... using the scope of those definitions... It can't be done...

What the left wants to do is to project their erroneous notion of fairness into an equation wherein FAIRNESS IS IRRELEVANT... principle-less, secular 'moral imperatives'... which economics does not serve...

As I've stated many time, Socialism is NOT an economic system... it's an ideology which attempts to use economics in it's sales pitch.

And just as Capitalism CANNOT fail... Socialism can never succeed... IF success is defined by the meeting of its stated goal...

Capitalisms goal is the free exchange of goods and services to the mutual benefit of both parties... where prudent, sound, virtuous people trade, both will benefit from the exchange; socialism strips virtue and prudence from the equation and there is NO place in left-think for sound reasoning.

Obviously you can't deny the complete failure of CON$ervatism so you must desperately use a diversion.
You sure beat me rhetorically. ROFLMAO

 

[JimCo]

There is not ONE SCINTILLA OF THIS "FINANCIAL DISASTER THAT IS NOT ROOTED IN LEFTISM! So stow the anti-American bullshit.

I just love these blanket assessments with absolutely NOTHING to back them up.

ROFL... Blanket assessments?

ROFLMNAO...

Well I’ve posted it 500 times, so once more is no big deal...

The current financial crisis is a direct result of the abuse of power by the Leftists in the legislature; it began nearly a century ago and slowly crept deeper into the US Markets, but was accelerated exponentially in the 1990s when the "Progressives" in the legislature, threatened the US mortgage industry with Civil Rights lawsuits if they did not underwrite mortgages in red-line districts...........................................................................

Need anything else Sis?

I have a question ... what point was there in electing Repubs if they were in control of Congress from 1994 to 2006 and the Presidency from 2001 to 2009 and they were such wimps? If you wussy Repubs can't control us Libs when you are in control of that much power ... then it is obviously time for you to go the way of the Whigs and make room for a new conservative party with bigger cojones!!!

 

[Skull Pilot]

Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion: The Constitution Is A Subversive Manifesto Per DHS

read the DHS report here: http://www.thelibertypapers.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/hsa-rightwing-extremism-09-04-07.pdf

Tuesday, April 14, 2009
The Constitution Is A Subversive Manifesto Per DHS

The Department of Homeland Security Report titled "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment" was first brought to light by Stephen Gordon at The Liberty Papers Blog. The Report was issued a week before the scheduled Tea Parties across the country, and is all over the news today. Reading the report is depressing, not because it reveals any current threat, but because of the shoddy definitions and analysis.

One thing that is not clear from the news reports, to begin with, is that the Report specifically states that there is no current real threat, even from the most extreme White Supremacist groups: "Threats from white supremacist and violent anti-government groups during 2009 have been mostly rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts." From the news accounts, you would think there was an actual threat, but that is not so.

But the even bigger vice is how a "rightwing extremist" is defined. I don't disagree that the few remaining White Supremacist groups should be in any definition, but DHS puts a distinctly political spin on the definition (emphasis mine):

Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

This definition is so broad as to include anyone who seeks to preserve the foundation of our federal-state constitutional distinction, under the 10th Amendment ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people"), because such a person could be deemed to "reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority." So Texas Governor Rick Perry, who has come out in support of preserving the constitutional integrity of Texas now should be on the DHS' extremist and radical watch-list.

Similarly, the reference to "abortion or immigration" is purely political. Why pick those two subjects? If someone is planning violence, that is one thing. But vocalizing one's view on a subject and seeking to influence the government are protected by the 1st Amendment ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances").

Only in a highly politicized bureaucracy could the Constitution be viewed as a subversive manifesto.

The first goal of all government propaganda is to define the enemies of the state.

Clearly this administration sees as enemies all who disagree.

February 1, 2008
RUSH: you do not know the left in this country. You do not know the enemy.

February 6, 2008
RUSH: Mr. McCain, Ronaldus Magnus did reach out to Democrats -- to defeat them!

RUSH: They are the enemy! They are to be defeated.

The last time I checked, Rush Limbaugh was not a government agency. This "warning" is coming from the department of homeland security not some fat radio talk show host.

The fact that the government that should be protecting our liberties and among those liberties, the absolute right to free speech and dissent is now labeling acts of free speech and dissent a threat should concern you far more than what Rush Limbaugh says.

Try again.

 

[Skull Pilot]

"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government."

-- Thomas Paine, American revolutionary

Odd that it's taken all these years. Suddenly when we have a black president who was plopped in the middle of the worst financial crisis in history that people suddenly feel this patriotic "urge" to protect the citizenry from him.

Yes the race card once again.

I have been advocating for lower taxes and smaller government for years. And I wouldn't care if the current president was a blond haired blue eyed boy from Minnesota. i would still oppose his plans of gargantuan government and runaway government spending.

The very fact that a mere disagreement with the current administration can be considered to be a threat to homeland security should have all of us worried. Bush started it with his "free speech zones" and Obama has taken the government usurpation of liberties to the next level by identifying all that may disagree as "radical right wing" and threats to the country.

Tell me,if those exercising their first amendment rights are now considered threats to the government, shouldn't we be fighting to protect first amendment rights lest more of our Constitutionally guaranteed protections be considered a threat to national security?

 

[edthecynic]

Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion: The Constitution Is A Subversive Manifesto Per DHS

read the DHS report here: http://www.thelibertypapers.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/hsa-rightwing-extremism-09-04-07.pdf


The first goal of all government propaganda is to define the enemies of the state.

Clearly this administration sees as enemies all who disagree.

February 1, 2008
RUSH: you do not know the left in this country. You do not know the enemy.

February 6, 2008
RUSH: Mr. McCain, Ronaldus Magnus did reach out to Democrats -- to defeat them!

RUSH: They are the enemy! They are to be defeated.

The last time I checked, Rush Limbaugh was not a government agency. This "warning" is coming from the department of homeland security not some fat radio talk show host.

The fact that the government that should be protecting our liberties and among those liberties, the absolute right to free speech and dissent is now labeling acts of free speech and dissent a threat should concern you far more than what Rush Limbaugh says.

Try again.

I love it!
Not so much fun when it's YOU under the boot of the Patriot Act instead of the Quakers, is it??? LOL

 

[Skull Pilot]

February 1, 2008
RUSH: you do not know the left in this country. You do not know the enemy.

February 6, 2008
RUSH: Mr. McCain, Ronaldus Magnus did reach out to Democrats -- to defeat them!

RUSH: They are the enemy! They are to be defeated.

The last time I checked, Rush Limbaugh was not a government agency. This "warning" is coming from the department of homeland security not some fat radio talk show host.

The fact that the government that should be protecting our liberties and among those liberties, the absolute right to free speech and dissent is now labeling acts of free speech and dissent a threat should concern you far more than what Rush Limbaugh says.

Try again.

I love it!
Not so much fun when it's YOU under the boot of the Patriot Act instead of the Quakers, is it??? LOL

What? you assume i supported the Patriot Act? You have just proven yet again that you have no other agenda than your own partisan pap.

I raise a legitimate constitutional argument and you cannot seem to think beyond the confines of the two political parties and the childish finger pointing and name calling that all political argument has devolved to.

That you can't seem to even fathom the possibility that a person cannot fit into your limited paradigm is obvious.

The larger issue here, which obviously evades you, is that the government is now defining citizens who dissent as threats. That is an argument that is nonpartisan but since you are incapable of being objective you are utterly incapable of seeing this.

 

[krotchdog]

Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion: The Constitution Is A Subversive Manifesto Per DHS

read the DHS report here: http://www.thelibertypapers.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/hsa-rightwing-extremism-09-04-07.pdf


The first goal of all government propaganda is to define the enemies of the state.

Clearly this administration sees as enemies all who disagree.

February 1, 2008
RUSH: you do not know the left in this country. You do not know the enemy.

February 6, 2008
RUSH: Mr. McCain, Ronaldus Magnus did reach out to Democrats -- to defeat them!

RUSH: They are the enemy! They are to be defeated.

The last time I checked, Rush Limbaugh was not a government agency. This "warning" is coming from the department of homeland security not some fat radio talk show host.

The fact that the government that should be protecting our liberties and among those liberties, the absolute right to free speech and dissent is now labeling acts of free speech and dissent a threat should concern you far more than what Rush Limbaugh says.

Try again.

Hey, he lost twenty seven pounds, thats right, 27. there, I educated you, thank me

 

[edthecynic]

The last time I checked, Rush Limbaugh was not a government agency. This "warning" is coming from the department of homeland security not some fat radio talk show host.

The fact that the government that should be protecting our liberties and among those liberties, the absolute right to free speech and dissent is now labeling acts of free speech and dissent a threat should concern you far more than what Rush Limbaugh says.

Try again.

I love it!
Not so much fun when it's YOU under the boot of the Patriot Act instead of the Quakers, is it??? LOL

What? you assume i supported the Patriot Act? You have just proven yet again that you have no other agenda than your own partisan pap.

I raise a legitimate constitutional argument and you cannot seem to think beyond the confines of the two political parties and the childish finger pointing and name calling that all political argument has devolved to.

That you can't seem to even fathom the possibility that a person cannot fit into your limited paradigm is obvious.

The larger issue here, which obviously evades you, is that the government is now defining citizens who dissent as threats. That is an argument that is nonpartisan but since you are incapable of being objective you are utterly incapable of seeing this.

What obviously evades you is this is not NEW. Not even close! One need only look back to the 60s and Nixon's "Enemies List." But it's good to know you have come over to the side of the dippy hippies of the U C Berkley Free Speech Movement.

 

[KittenKoder]

You know who Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore really are ... right folks?




.... Fred ... Savage ... true story, saw it on FOX.

 

[Ravi]

The last time I checked, Rush Limbaugh was not a government agency. This "warning" is coming from the department of homeland security not some fat radio talk show host.

The fact that the government that should be protecting our liberties and among those liberties, the absolute right to free speech and dissent is now labeling acts of free speech and dissent a threat should concern you far more than what Rush Limbaugh says.

Try again.

I love it!
Not so much fun when it's YOU under the boot of the Patriot Act instead of the Quakers, is it??? LOL

What? you assume i supported the Patriot Act? You have just proven yet again that you have no other agenda than your own partisan pap.

I raise a legitimate constitutional argument and you cannot seem to think beyond the confines of the two political parties and the childish finger pointing and name calling that all political argument has devolved to.

That you can't seem to even fathom the possibility that a person cannot fit into your limited paradigm is obvious.

The larger issue here, which obviously evades you, is that the government is now defining citizens who dissent as threats. That is an argument that is nonpartisan but since you are incapable of being objective you are utterly incapable of seeing this.

Did you actually read the article? I see nothing wrong with keeping tabs on extremist groups as long as the proper safeguards are in place...warrants, etc. They aren't targeting the teabaggers, perhaps you missed that.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I love it!
Not so much fun when it's YOU under the boot of the Patriot Act instead of the Quakers, is it??? LOL

What? you assume i supported the Patriot Act? You have just proven yet again that you have no other agenda than your own partisan pap.

I raise a legitimate constitutional argument and you cannot seem to think beyond the confines of the two political parties and the childish finger pointing and name calling that all political argument has devolved to.

That you can't seem to even fathom the possibility that a person cannot fit into your limited paradigm is obvious.

The larger issue here, which obviously evades you, is that the government is now defining citizens who dissent as threats. That is an argument that is nonpartisan but since you are incapable of being objective you are utterly incapable of seeing this.

What obviously evades you is this is not NEW. Not even close! One need only look back to the 60s and Nixon's "Enemies List." But it's good to know you have come over to the side of the dippy hippies of the U C Berkley Free Speech Movement.

Excuse me for being a toddler in the 60s

And when did i say it was new? So in your mind because this latest attempt to erode our liberties is not new that it should be ignored because a democrat is in office?

 

[Skull Pilot]

I love it!
Not so much fun when it's YOU under the boot of the Patriot Act instead of the Quakers, is it??? LOL

What? you assume i supported the Patriot Act? You have just proven yet again that you have no other agenda than your own partisan pap.

I raise a legitimate constitutional argument and you cannot seem to think beyond the confines of the two political parties and the childish finger pointing and name calling that all political argument has devolved to.

That you can't seem to even fathom the possibility that a person cannot fit into your limited paradigm is obvious.

The larger issue here, which obviously evades you, is that the government is now defining citizens who dissent as threats. That is an argument that is nonpartisan but since you are incapable of being objective you are utterly incapable of seeing this.

Did you actually read the article? I see nothing wrong with keeping tabs on extremist groups as long as the proper safeguards are in place...warrants, etc. They aren't targeting the teabaggers, perhaps you missed that.

it's the loose definition of extremist i was commenting on. Did you even read the actual report from DHS?

 

[Skull Pilot]

February 1, 2008
RUSH: you do not know the left in this country. You do not know the enemy.

February 6, 2008
RUSH: Mr. McCain, Ronaldus Magnus did reach out to Democrats -- to defeat them!

RUSH: They are the enemy! They are to be defeated.

The last time I checked, Rush Limbaugh was not a government agency. This "warning" is coming from the department of homeland security not some fat radio talk show host.

The fact that the government that should be protecting our liberties and among those liberties, the absolute right to free speech and dissent is now labeling acts of free speech and dissent a threat should concern you far more than what Rush Limbaugh says.

Try again.

Hey, he lost twenty seven pounds, thats right, 27. there, I educated you, thank me

Only 75 more to go so...still fat

 

[editec]

I can't believe some of you are still feeding at the partisan trough.

Honest to god, when are you clueless partisans going wake up and realize that both parties increased the size of government, eroded your civil rights, reduced you from citizens of a democratic republic to consumer/victims in a kleptocracy, increased the national debt and COLLABORATED to make the super wealthy rich at everyone else's expense?

Do you partisans get paid to come here and provoke disputes between liberals and conservatives, or something?

Because if you're NOT getting paid to post this insane partisan blather, you have got to be dumber than dirt.