this just in from my favorite columnist

[jmo]

since when is the 'wall street urinal' a 'reputable source'?

 

Why isn't it? If you think a mainstream publication like the WSJ is false, it's on you to prove. You all have pretty high standards for media. Basically, anything that doesn't add to your liberal propaganda isn't reputable.

 

Plus, even Tvash says it is.

[jmo]

It is a big government document. A very, very big government document.

 

sinking $1 trillion a year in the military is no less big government, so let's quit with the rightwing ideological framing.

 

Get a clue, freak. I've argued here for years for a massive reduction in military spending.

 

I agree we need to reduce military spending. But first both parties need to get over thier "world police force' mentality. Otherwise it should stay the same.

[el jefe]

since when is the 'wall street urinal' a 'reputable source'?

 

Why isn't it? If you think a mainstream publication like the WSJ is false, it's on you to prove. You all have pretty high standards for media. Basically, anything that doesn't add to your liberal propaganda isn't reputable.

 

Plus, even Tvash says it is.

 

i don't think it is "false", i think it is grossly biased. and the fact that it receives the tvash seal of approval means what, exactly? basically, anything that doesn't add to your crypto-fascist propaganda isn't reputable.

[jmo]

since when is the 'wall street urinal' a 'reputable source'?

 

Why isn't it? If you think a mainstream publication like the WSJ is false, it's on you to prove. You all have pretty high standards for media. Basically, anything that doesn't add to your liberal propaganda isn't reputable.

 

Plus, even Tvash says it is.

 

i don't think it is "false", i think it is grossly biased. and the fact that it receives the tvash seal of approval means what, exactly? basically, anything that doesn't add to your crypto-fascist propaganda isn't reputable.

 

More liberal lies. The only media source I've said is disreputable on this forum is snopes. All the liberals on this board have attacked the source of several articles I've posted. I have only disputed one, and in that case I agreed that snopes was right.

 

tvash thinks the WSJ is a reputable source. tvash also is about as left wing as they come. You seem to also be left wing, but dimiss the WSJ as right wing propaganda. You two should coordinate your attacks better.

 

Could you kindly put up a list of 5-10 news sites that you personally would accept as a reputable source?

Edited March 7, 2009 by jmo

[tvashtarkatena]

As for the bailout, we're giving all the money to the very crooks who fucked everything up. There needs to be firing squads first before I'll be comfortable with a bailout of any form.

 

Frankly, I think Obama has just hung out a big sign that says "Get your free money here!". Every shyster in America, and that would be about half the population, is now sprinting for that check.

 

Both the bail out and the budget are pure, panic driven insanity.

 

Not good.

[jmo]

As for the bailout, we're giving all the money to the very crooks who fucked everything up. There needs to be firing squads first before I'll be comfortable with a bailout of any form.

 

Frankly, I think Obama has just hung out a big sign that says "Get your free money here!". Every shyster in America, and that would be about half the population, is now sprinting for that check.

 

Both the bail out and the budget are pure, panic driven insanity.

 

Not good.

 

I completely agree agree. I opposed all the bailouts under both Bush and Obama. I feel the reward irresponsibility and punish those who did the right thing and lived within their means.

[el jefe]

if i say the 'wall street urinal' is biased, how is that a "lie"? it's an opinion, not a lie. it's only a lie if i say it but don't believe it, but trust me, i believe the opinion page of the wsj is biased, and that's no lie.

 

also, just because tvash and i are -- per your rather biased perspective -- "liberals", doesn't mean we need to get our ideas "coordinated". only you crypto-fascists believe everyone from the same end of the political spectrum needs to goose-step in unison.

[jmo]

if i say the 'wall street urinal' is biased, how is that a "lie"? it's an opinion, not a lie. it's only a lie if i say it but don't believe it, but trust me, i believe the opinion page of the wsj is biased, and that's no lie.

 

also, just because tvash and i are -- per your rather biased perspective -- "liberals", doesn't mean we need to get our ideas "coordinated". only you crypto-fascists believe everyone from the same end of the political spectrum needs to goose-step in unison.

 

I'll clarify. Here's the lie "basically, anything that doesn't add to your crypto-fascist propaganda isn't reputable. " I said nothing of the sort.

 

I also said nothing about goose stepping. Before you accuse conservatives of being Nazis, remember that Nazis were socialists.

Edited March 7, 2009 by jmo

[JosephH]

Rupert Murdoch bought the WSJ about a year ago and it's been an exodus of editorial integrity ever since - Murdoch's right wing orientation and priority on profit and entertainment have already changed the journal forever. The question isn't how editorially compromised it is, only how bad the compromise will end up over time. On the whole, from an editorial perspective, it's sort of holding your breath wondering just how low the markets can go.

 

“ Mr. Murdoch told the Bancrofts that 'any interference -- or even hint of interference -- would break the trust that exists between the paper and its readers, something I am unwilling to countenance.' ... Mr. Murdoch and the Bancrofts agreed on standards modeled on the longstanding Dow Jones Code of Conduct.

 

A special committee was established to oversee The Journal's editorial integrity. But after the managing editor, Marcus Brauchli resigned on April 22, 2008, the committee said that he resigned under pressure, and that News Corporation had violated its agreement by not notifying the committee earlier.[21] Brauchli said that he thought it was reasonable that new owners would appoint their own editor.

 

However, a June 5 Journal news story quoted charges that Murdoch had made and broken similar promises in the past.

 

[el jefe]

i didn't accuse conservatives of being nazis, i said they were fascists. nazism was just one form of fascism. the american dictionary says fascism is "extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice." that's what i mean.

[jmo]

i didn't accuse conservatives of being nazis, i said they were fascists. nazism was just one form of fascism. the american dictionary says fascism is "extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice." that's what i mean.

 

You implied it because the Nazis are the most famouse goose stepping fascist and perhaps the only ones. According to dictionary.com, fascists are "1. a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism." Wikipedia says essentially the same thing, as does encyclopedia.com. Fascism is simply socialism with a nationalistic focus. Conservatives are fascists. Republicans, when they stick to the principles they say, are not fascists. Almost all are for smaller government.

 

In this forum, the conservatives throw far less mud than liberals, left wing, or democrats. Who's intolerant?

 

[el jefe]

if the shoe fits, jmo, goose step in it. you conservatives like to pretend you believe in democracy, but the recent republifuck attempt to create a "permanent majority" was fascist to the core. wiretapping without a warrant and interring people at guantanamo without a trial/any legal proceeding whatsoever, extraordinary rendition, torturing prisoners -- that's the legacy of republifuck conservatism and it's also "forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism", so it's fascist.

 

you guys also like to talk about "smaller government" but you don't practice it. the government is bigger and more in debt now after the past 8 years of republican domination.

 

by the way, the soviet army also goose stepped so i could have been implying you were a commie, not a nazi.

[mattp]

In this forum, the conservatives throw far less mud than liberals, left wing, or democrats. Who's intolerant?

 

It'd be interesting to keep score for a month you see if this is true. It used to be that almost all of the truly vile insults and bullying came from the conservatives around here but that has changed.

 

In the public media, however, I think a scorekeeper would certainly conclude that the mudslinging comes mainly from the right but then again I don't react the same way when someone attacks, say, Palin as opposed to Kerry, so maybe I just don't notice all of it.

[tvashtarkatena]

if i say the 'wall street urinal' is biased, how is that a "lie"? it's an opinion, not a lie. it's only a lie if i say it but don't believe it, but trust me, i believe the opinion page of the wsj is biased, and that's no lie.

 

also, just because tvash and i are -- per your rather biased perspective -- "liberals", doesn't mean we need to get our ideas "coordinated". only you crypto-fascists believe everyone from the same end of the political spectrum needs to goose-step in unison.

 

Um, all Op Ed pages are biased. That's where the 'opinion' part comes in.

 

The reporting (and that would be in a different section) has a focus, as doas any paper, but the writing, editing, and vetting are all of a high standard.

[tvashtarkatena]

In this forum, the conservatives throw far less mud than liberals, left wing, or democrats. Who's intolerant?

 

It'd be interesting to keep score for a month you see if this is true. It used to be that almost all of the insult and bullying came from the conservatives around here but that has changed.

 

 

And as for weasel-like passive aggressive attacks; those would be pretty much limited to the poster above. This little jewel will insult other posters in threads they're not even paricipating in, insinuating what they 'might' post in such a situation, or for threads that occured months prior that have long been put to rest. He claims to 'want a discussion of the issue', but the vast majority of his posts are about, well, other posters, the one above included. Rarely does he tender a compelling opinion on anything. A tiresome, nasty little cunt, really.

 

 

 

But of course, he's 'above it all', don't you know.

Edited March 7, 2009 by tvashtarkatena

[mattp]

You've tried that before, Tvash. The fact is, I have directly stated my opinions about your posting practices - both in public and private threads - and you have responded with anger and insult every time. In this particular instance, you apparently assume I was referring to you and felt the need to engage once again but there was nothing "passive aggressive" about my responding to JMO's post and I have every right to state my opinion without you having to start the name calling.

 

After the first several times I tried to suggest you would make yourself look better and do the rest of us a favor if you were a tad less bombastic around here I have given up on the matter. You can carry on but don't try to bully me into avoiding all comment that might offend you.

[tvashtarkatena]

As for the bailout, we're giving all the money to the very crooks who fucked everything up. There needs to be firing squads first before I'll be comfortable with a bailout of any form.

 

Frankly, I think Obama has just hung out a big sign that says "Get your free money here!". Every shyster in America, and that would be about half the population, is now sprinting for that check.

 

Both the bail out and the budget are pure, panic driven insanity.

 

Not good.

 

I completely agree agree. I opposed all the bailouts under both Bush and Obama. I feel the reward irresponsibility and punish those who did the right thing and lived within their means.

 

They reward criminal behavior, and I"m talking about the Wall Street and Washington fat cats who came up with all these tricks. The firing squads are for them.

 

Before you find yourself ageeing with me, make no mistake; mine is an 'eat the rich' opinion.

[tvashtarkatena]

You've tried that before, Tvash. The fact is, I have directly stated my opinions about your posting practices - both in public and private threads - and you have responded with anger and insult every time. In this particular instance, you apparently assume I was referring to you and felt the need to engage once again but there was nothing "passive aggressive" about my responding to JMO's post and I have every right to state my opinion without you having to start the name calling.

 

After the first several times I tried to suggest you would make yourself look better and do the rest of us a favor if you were a tad less bombastic around here I have given up on the matter. You can carry on but don't try to bully me into avoiding all comment that might offend you.

 

No anger or bullying there (that would require too much energy). Just identifying hypocrisy when and where it might occur. I've heard your opinions, noted that you don't practice what you preach, established that you have zero credibility, and duly ignored what you have to say.

[mattp]

Have a nice day, Tvash!

Edited March 7, 2009 by mattp

[tvashtarkatena]

I always do.

[STP]

Crypto-fascism!

 

[video:youtube]W90jR6NU9P8

 

For all you know, the Democratic party will disintegrate along with the Republicans within 4-12 years. Maybe what we will see is a transvaluation of political ideas, e.g., taxation is theft. Maybe folks like Leary were premature in stating "tune in, turn on, drop out." Instead of engaging, perhaps we should be disengaging...

 

Maybe it's time for a new radicalism: The Republic of Cascadia.

 

 

[JosephH]

The problem with having to mark toxic loans to market and running a balance sheet (hint: the 'bottom' is still a long way off...):

 

[JosephH]

Hopefully the market will level off high like it did after WWII, but there could be a rough ride still to come if the track of our real estate values takes same path the Japanese took. Also, this is a societal and cultural crisis more than a politically generated one. Personally, I blame 60 years of television and consumer advertising: you can have it all, you just have to pay for it sooner or later - in this case it just happened to be later.

 

The packaging of all four forms of consumer debt - home, auto, credit card, and student loans - into asset backed securities was thought to be a stroke of genius relative to distributing risk, in reality - and with the help of no small amount of greedy and fraudulent behavior - it simply masked risk so essentially everybody could make it to the top of the mountain in style. But, we all know the name of the game is getting back down from the top alive - unfortunately, in an economic sense, this time a lot of us aren't going to make it.

 

 

[DirtyHarry]

I don't know as much about politics and economics as you guys but I found this article by Steve Forbes, which criticizes Obama for retaining Bush policies on Mark-to-Market valuation and Naked Short Selling, very interesting.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB123630304198047321-lMyQjAxMDI5MzA2NjMwMDYzWj.html

[JosephH]

Steve is attempting to defend the financial industry's hope / fantasy that if they just hold on to the assests long enough they'll come back around - that they're really 'retaining' their value so long as the loans are being serviced - so there is no need to mark them to market or even assume they might not be worth at least the loan amount.

 

In order to support that position you have be willing to say with a straight face that all the real estate is holding its value and everything is going to be fine. As a member of the first family of capitalism he's pretty much obligated to defend it even in the face of its complete and utter failure.