Jon Stewart makes an hor d'oeuvre of Joe Biden before feasting on Dick Cheney and Sarah Palin. Stewart picks up on Gunslinger Joe's defense of Obama's stalwart "I don't have the votes" commitment to gun owner's rights:
“I guarantee you, Barack Obama ain't taking my shotguns, so don't buy that malarkey. Don't buy that malarkey. They're going to start peddling that to you. I got two, if he tries to fool with my Beretta, he's got a problem. I like that little over and under, you know? I'm not bad with it.”
Stewart tries to bring Joe back to earth, or at least low earth orbit, noting that the Beretta is a handgun.
Well, I'm sure it could be, and often in the movies it is. But Biden did claim it was a shotgun (over and under was a second hint), and maybe this time he speaks with authority.
We know that neither Stewart nor his writers have the least clue about guns, but still.
Beretta makes shotguns as well. But I don't know for sure what Biden is packin'.
Posted by: George T | September 25, 2008 at 01:16 PM
Beretta makes excellent, and very expensive shotguns, plus they're foreign-made. Such as this is, it goes in handy with Joe "Lunch bucket" Bidens' unque man-of-the-people appeal. Not.
Posted by: Forbes | September 25, 2008 at 01:19 PM
I have just so had it with these people.
Here's another one: McClatchy calls offside on Obama's falsehoods about McCain stem-cell position.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | September 25, 2008 at 01:20 PM
Another fun one: Obama adviser: Betting McCain shows for the debate
Quoth the article: "No details on how Obama might be preparing for a one-man debate."
It's too easy.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | September 25, 2008 at 01:24 PM
I can answer that question, Chaco!! Obama stands on both sides of the podium and on each he says "As I've always said...." and outlines a position and then it's counterpoint..He does it all the time and has mucho practice at it.
Posted by: clarice | September 25, 2008 at 01:30 PM
beretta is FAMOUS for its over-under shotgun.
Posted by: RELIAPUNDIT | September 25, 2008 at 01:45 PM
And then in the VP debate, Biden can refute Obama and retract on each question.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | September 25, 2008 at 01:53 PM
OT,
Burn Rate
∅ has to raise a lot of money just to break even. That means working day and night.
By the time of the last debate he is sure to be tired. Tired people make mistakes.
Posted by: M. Simon | September 25, 2008 at 01:56 PM
Esp. tired people who like him seem never to have worked very hard. He seemed tired before the heat really was built up. Didn't he?
Posted by: clarice | September 25, 2008 at 01:59 PM
Okay, this is now my favorite.
You want to bet she doesn't do it?
You want to bet that she won't kill if she does?
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | September 25, 2008 at 02:00 PM
I can answer that question, Chaco!! Obama stands on both sides of the podium and on each he says "As I've always said...."
Debate highlight - "That's not the Obama I knew".
Posted by: Tom Maguire | September 25, 2008 at 02:10 PM
Jon Liebowitz doesn't know guns. Is there anything this sawed-off self-hater is an expert on other than being a dumbass?
Posted by: Captain Hate | September 25, 2008 at 02:11 PM
Caprese salad recipe.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | September 25, 2008 at 02:11 PM
High Dollar item. Baretta Boutique in Highland Park Village in Dallas with Hermes, Carolina Herrera, real high end retail.
Joe must be doing well. He spent more on that over-under than he ever gave to charity by a long shot. Oh well whats a soup kitchen to do. Would have paid for alot of soup.
Posted by: Will Wills | September 25, 2008 at 02:15 PM
Esp. tired people who like him seem never to have worked very hard. He seemed tired before the heat really was built up. Didn't he?
Imagine the stress and fear. He has to win, or he'll never have revenge for the multiple abandonments, for feeling his maternal grandmother didn't really love him since she was scared of black guys.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | September 25, 2008 at 02:17 PM
High Dollar item. Baretta Boutique in Highland Park Village in Dallas with Hermes, Carolina Herrera, real high end retail.
I was wondering if that was the brand of the shotgun that Tony Soprano's father in law got on his birthday because I remember everyone raving about how pricey it was.
Posted by: Captain Hate | September 25, 2008 at 02:23 PM
Forbes Op-Ed:
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | September 25, 2008 at 02:26 PM
Finally something I know about(never any logging or timber threads at JOM for some reason). Stewart's a dope.
Beretta, HQed in northern Italy's Val Trompia, the center of the thriving Italian gun trade, is over 500 years old and is still owned by the Beretta family and makes O/U, S/S and semi auto shotguns. They also make O/U rifles and I still think they make S/S rifles and of course various types of pistols. They make bolt action rifles through their Sako and Tikka subsidiaries and semi auto shotguns through Benelli, another subsidiary. They also own Franchi and a couple of other gun manufacturers and I think an optics company and make a bunch of apparel and other accessories.
Posted by: Barney Frank | September 25, 2008 at 02:35 PM
CH,
Beretta does make some high end guns but smaller Italian and British firms like Bertuzzi, Piotti, Purdey and Holland and Holland specialize in the highest of the high.
The best Berettas approach the others in quality but its not their bread and butter like the specialists.
Posted by: Barney Frank | September 25, 2008 at 02:39 PM
Thanks, Barney. I didn't realize they owned Benelli. Those are rated among the best self-defense shotguns you can buy, I think for around $1500. Supposedly the smoothest pump action there is.
Posted by: Extraneus | September 25, 2008 at 02:46 PM
BF,
There was a discussion at AoS which prompted me to look Beretta up online and I could see that they were some fancy boomsticks. Some commenters stated that for trap and skeet shooting that they fell short of Winchesters and maybe Remingtons. Does that ring true? Keeping in mind that it's the shooter that's the real story and whatever he/she is comfortable with, of course.
Posted by: Captain Hate | September 25, 2008 at 02:51 PM
Via Sweetness & Light:
Here is another piece to the missing years of Barack Obama’s life uncovered by the Los Angeles Times on their “history of LA” site.
It appears to be a contemporaneous snapshot of Mr. Obama from the March 19, 1990 edition of the Harvard Law Review:
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | September 25, 2008 at 02:56 PM
Remington is located just down the pike from me. An AF base wing commander hornswoggled a tour some years back and I got to tag along. Loved it. In addition to the shotguns, including a very heavy 10 gauge goose gun, they were manufacturing high end sniper rifles for the military.
Posted by: sbw | September 25, 2008 at 02:56 PM
oops wrong thread
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | September 25, 2008 at 02:57 PM
BTW, I just caught up on the last three threads and bagged three more trolls. I give 'em three entries to show even a glimmer of good sense and, if there are no watts of power, mercy kill 'em.
Posted by: sbw | September 25, 2008 at 02:59 PM
So now the big news is that they've reached an agreement? Question for Republican Senators on the Banking Committee: Why announce this prior to the big Bush meeting or before McCain can get into the action?
Posted by: Extraneus | September 25, 2008 at 02:59 PM
H/T to JOM commenters:
Obama Plans To Debate Himself
Posted by: M. Simon | September 25, 2008 at 02:59 PM
many of the top competitive shotgun shooters in the world use Beretta. Very reliable and a great feel in the hands. All sorts of other makes work as well, but I would say they have the bulk of the trade for competition. Perazzi's, Brownings, and the English guns are also popular. One thing you learn is not to critique the other guy's tool of choice out at the gun club. Beretta also manufacture the military's primary sidearm, the Model 92 semi auto pistol. Nice, but not my cup of tea.
Posted by: matt | September 25, 2008 at 03:06 PM
They? They have reached an agreement?
I wouldn't believe that there is an agreement until GWB says he'll sign.
Posted by: sbw | September 25, 2008 at 03:09 PM
a very heavy 10 gauge goose gun
Holy carp, is it hard finding shells for them? Somebody let me shoot his Remington 12 gauge automatic at a trap shoot many years ago. I couldn't believe how easy on the shoulder it was (yes, I realize that some of the recoil is absorbed in the auto mechanism but my dad's 16 gauge over and under made me feel like a truck hit me).
Posted by: Captain Hate | September 25, 2008 at 03:10 PM
CH, I asked about handling the recoil, and the manager said "the secret is the mass." More mass in the machined block lessens the recoil on the shoulder.
Posted by: sbw | September 25, 2008 at 03:16 PM
sbw;
it's a combination of factors; the way the gas is vented is probably the primary factor. Semi autos use the gas to charge the next shell into place, while O/U's tend to have a little more kick. Competitive shooters often "port" their barrels to reduce recoil and allow them to recover for the second shot more rapidly.
Posted by: matt | September 25, 2008 at 03:23 PM
The only House Republican in the room said nothing about a "deal"
And Rep. Spencer Bachus of Alabama, the only House Republican in the bargaining meeting, did not directly say he agreed with the other lawmakers who emerged describing an imminent deal.
Democrats are desperate to get the spotlight off of small self centered non presidential looking candidate Barack Obama, by trying frantically to declare a deal that does not yet exist.
I saw Lloyd Dogpoop the liberal from Austin Texas yesterday and he wanted to go into next week and make sure this got done right. Funny how McCain showing up changed the Democrat tune. But I can name that tune. In three notes.
Posted by: Gmax | September 25, 2008 at 03:24 PM
Some commenters stated that for trap and skeet shooting that they fell short of Winchesters and maybe Remingtons.
Not into competion guns (I build custom stocks for sporting rifles and shotguns) but off the top of my head I don't know the last time a US made gun won a shotgun, rifle, pistol or air rifle medal at the Olympics.
Perazzi (Italian) and other Euro shotguns dominate high end trap and skeet, competition although Browning is popoular too. But both Browning and Winchester are now subsidiaries of the famous Belgian arms company FN. Winchesters are now made under licens by Browning I think. Winchester's, aka US Repeating Arms, recent history is a tangle of licensing and ownership changes.
Posted by: Barney Frank | September 25, 2008 at 03:26 PM
The first time I shot a shotgun was at 10 years old. One of my older brothers told me if I braced the back of my shoulder with a tree, the 12 guage wouldn't kick as much. Being an idiot I did it. Strong bones, heavy winter clothes and the grace of God spared me from broken bones. Had a heck of a bruise.
Posted by: bad | September 25, 2008 at 03:29 PM
GMax,
I'm betting that it's essentially Paulson's entire deal with oversight plus a giggler on executive compensation and maybe a touch of warrant grease that will turn out not to apply to any existing company.
They're holding details until after the close so I know there's a bell and a whistle but I'll bet both are designed to be absolutely nonfunctional.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | September 25, 2008 at 03:32 PM
Why announce this prior to the big Bush meeting or before McCain can get into the action?
Because when they say it, they mean the democrats have reached there deal. They still don't have a deal with everyone onboard.
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | September 25, 2008 at 03:32 PM
chaco--of course she's going to do it and of course she'll knock them dead.
As for the caprese salad--olives? Olives? PHEH
Posted by: clarice | September 25, 2008 at 03:32 PM
oy - there deal = their deal
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | September 25, 2008 at 03:33 PM
Sara--they are saying it to deflect from McCain--to suggest it was all wrapped up before he got there--Don't ya think? I do.
McCain says there is no deal and he's not signed off on one either.
Posted by: clarice | September 25, 2008 at 03:33 PM
Schumer is on CNBC saying that they want warrents, but he won't vote against it without.
What he does think is essential is an oversight board; money in tranches, but as $250B right away, $100 billion on a Presidential certification, and the last $350 billion on request, but (if I undersstood him correctly) the Congress would have to vote against it.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | September 25, 2008 at 03:35 PM
What they really mean is that they've made an offer to Bush's meeting.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | September 25, 2008 at 03:35 PM
I like olives enough I'd put them in ice cream (actually, that's not a bad idea: savory black olive ice cream) but in this case it's entirely visual.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | September 25, 2008 at 03:37 PM
Or warrants, rather.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | September 25, 2008 at 03:37 PM
Schumer is trying to say Obama was a big contributor and McCain hasn't done anything, and that it was too little regulation that caused the problem.
Delicacy forbids expressing myself fully.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | September 25, 2008 at 03:38 PM
bad,
That was a physics lesson you will never forget.
Elastic vs inelastic collisions.
Posted by: M. Simon | September 25, 2008 at 03:39 PM
i was just being a smart ass about the olives , Charlie .
Posted by: clarice | September 25, 2008 at 03:40 PM
So I just saw a photo op on MSNBC of Obama going into his Senate office and making a little statement.
It seems like just yesterday the Dems were accusing McCain of wanting to use his entrance into the Senate as a photo op.
Good times. Good times.
Posted by: MayBee | September 25, 2008 at 03:42 PM
Sorry OT - but (LUN)
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | September 25, 2008 at 03:47 PM
Sara--they are saying it to deflect from McCain--to suggest it was all wrapped up before he got there--Don't ya think? I do.
McCain says there is no deal and he's not signed off on one either.
Yes, politically I think that is exactly right.
On the deal itself, it is my understanding that the dems have agreed among themselves and worked out their differences, the repubs. haven't yet come to an agreement among themselves or with the dems.
Rep. Jim Bunting just said he is a no vote, there is no crisis, etc. etc. and he doesn't care what McCain wants, his vote is still no.
That does not bode well.
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | September 25, 2008 at 04:01 PM
Ron Paul said he was pretty sure it was a done deal, but then he went to the floor and now he isn't sure at all.
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | September 25, 2008 at 04:02 PM
Eyeball Caprese. Kids will love 'em.
Posted by: Extraneus | September 25, 2008 at 04:05 PM
they are saying it to deflect from McCain
Worse, I'm guessing they have it loaded with carp that they know the Repubs will reject, then they can claim that the Repubs are the obstacle.
Posted by: jimmyk | September 25, 2008 at 04:05 PM
Barney
Don't forget Boss for your gun requirements.Though the Holland and Holland .700 Nitro Express side by side DB is a wonderful troll gun.
Posted by: PeterUK | September 25, 2008 at 04:05 PM
Rick
That is my bet too, although I was Senator Bennett and he seemed to be in favor of warrants not not opposed, might be because it is window dressing that never gets exercised.
I give McCain full credit for this. Dogpoop was quite happy to drag this out forever and was in full dungeon about allowing mortgage cramdown in bankruptcy ( think about that one and the impact lenders might demand in mortgage rate for the additional risk and uncertainty ). Now nowhere to be found.
Lets see what Bush puts on Obama before the cameras go on in the oval office. I am betting its Paulson with a smart oversight board and the exec compensation provisions for the likes of Lehman, which is too late to matter.
"Provisions to allow you to lie to your constituents are US".
Posted by: Gmax | September 25, 2008 at 04:08 PM
"That does not bode well."
I don't believe it makes a bit of difference. The deal cut by the bi-cameral, bi-partisan leadership will pass and the posturing of those opposing the deal is just theater.
It's like the $700 B price tag - the number is wholly immaterial because once the Fed and Treasury are in, they're in all the way. I'll bet a nickel that purchases won't exceed that $250 B first tranche because they simply won't be necessary once the market is floored.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | September 25, 2008 at 04:08 PM
Ron Paul said he was pretty sure it was a done deal, but then he went to the floor and now he isn't sure at all.
They'll roll over: "The realisation that one is to be hanged in the morning concentrates the mind wonderfully."
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | September 25, 2008 at 04:10 PM
Rick, you make it easier to sleep at night.
Posted by: bad | September 25, 2008 at 04:13 PM
Jim Bunning has been in full froth since day one, calling anyone and everyone a socialist. If he had sprinkled in some ad hom and profanity, I would have swore we found the real TCO!
He is no bellwhether. Watch for Demint. If he says no more, even if he quietly votes no, the deal is done. If he is stilling adamant the Senate could be a bit of a challenge. But the Senate has enough squishs and friends of MAC that I think he pulls this thorough with only a handful of nay votes.
Posted by: Gmax | September 25, 2008 at 04:17 PM
I've finished my piece explaining everything --- it turned out to be 2000 words. Any volunteers to read it and see if it's in English?
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | September 25, 2008 at 04:19 PM
Rick
Good thought. With the threat to do the whole 700 B and the ability, that will certainly make it look like the govt is serious. If they can find a hedgehog to buy from them at a profit after that, the race will be on, everyone will think they are missing out on the bottom fishers dream deals. And there will be market prices to allow write ups under m2m so that works too.
Lets hope the impact to the economy from all of this was not as severe as I currently fear. I think we were on a verge of recovery, and may have pushed that out six to nine months now.
Posted by: Gmax | September 25, 2008 at 04:21 PM
Wall Street - A Done Deal. The goods have been pawned.
Posted by: PeterUK | September 25, 2008 at 04:29 PM
Some things reemerge with the regularity of an unwanted season.
Posted by: Neo | September 25, 2008 at 04:32 PM
Well Neo, that explains why the marriage didn't last.
Posted by: bad | September 25, 2008 at 04:35 PM
Are restrictions on oil shale in the bill?
Posted by: M. Simon | September 25, 2008 at 04:41 PM
Obama's Katrina moment?
Posted by: Michael | September 25, 2008 at 04:41 PM
Charlie I'll take a look at the article.
Posted by: RichatUF | September 25, 2008 at 04:49 PM
You know, actually I think that's entirely within Jon Stewart's œvre.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | September 25, 2008 at 04:49 PM
Thanks, Rich. Do I have an email for you? I don't want to put it up on the web because that's "publishing" and then I can't sell it.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | September 25, 2008 at 04:50 PM
"Obama's Katrina moment?"
Or Katrina's Obama moment ?
Posted by: PeterUK | September 25, 2008 at 04:50 PM
Charlie,
I owe you one. Send it to me with a deadline.
E-mail on my sidebar if you lost it. LUN.
Posted by: M. Simon | September 25, 2008 at 04:53 PM
Do I have an email for you?
richatuf1 at yahoo dot com
Posted by: RichatUF | September 25, 2008 at 04:54 PM
Bad,
I might be wrong but I have money down on being right. The financial press has done a horrifically bad job of reporting on this entire mess. I have yet to see a universal scope article identifying:
1) Total number of housing units (115M), of which 75M are owned by the people living in them of whom 51M are carrying mortgages of any kind.
2) The combined total count of ARM and ALT-A mortgages was 5.1 M in August (or 10% of the total number of mortgages)
3) The total dollars involved in the ARM/ALT-A mortgages is $1.26T
4) The total dollars involved in the MBS mortgages is $6.1T
5) The total dollars involved in all mortgages is $11.1T
6) 14% of the ARM/ALT-A houses are in foreclosure or owned by the lender. hat works out to less than 1% of the 75M houses owned by the people living in them.
It is not now nor has it ever been an unmanageable problem.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | September 25, 2008 at 04:57 PM
Simon, Rich, you have it. Deadline would be, like, sooner than that. I've shown it to PJM in draft.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | September 25, 2008 at 05:09 PM
M. Simon
Perhaps I should have clung less bitterly...
Posted by: bad | September 25, 2008 at 05:14 PM
The Cap'n has a piece from the LAT and explaining the siuation etc.
Putting on my Josh Marshall Dunce Cap, here is my question:
The majority of failed sub prime mortgages belong to blacks and hispanics. And they cannot repay the money they borrowed.
Am I a racist for pointing that out? Were the lenders subervisively racist in targeting those groups?
Posted by: Enlightened | September 25, 2008 at 05:18 PM
Rick
Those figures are something I can understand and they help put this situation in perspective. Thre are probably plenty like me. You should put together an article.
Posted by: bad | September 25, 2008 at 05:19 PM
I'm rooting for The Resistance, even though their chance of carrying the day is likely nil.
Posted by: DebinNC | September 25, 2008 at 05:20 PM
The majority of failed sub prime mortgages belong to blacks and hispanics. And they cannot repay the money they borrowed.
I'd want to see both of those demonstrated before I believed them: the default rate on subprimes is less than 20 percent, so the second one in particular seems unlikely.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | September 25, 2008 at 05:24 PM
"I think we were on a verge of recovery, and may have pushed that out six to nine months now."
Maybe. If we suffer the misfortune of an Obama win it could be a lot longer than that. The Obama Bear Market is no joke - who the hell wants to do anything with Benjies but stuff a mattress when there's a commie in sight? A McCain win coupled with the rate cuts that are coming as surely as sunrise could actually give us a nice Q1 surprise.
Among the many things going wholly unreported by the business press is the fact that there is actually a demand side to the housing equation which is determined by demographics as much as by market prices. The US is actually about a million units low at the moment, based solely on population growth numbers.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | September 25, 2008 at 05:28 PM
Well, I would love for McCain to now go to the debate on national security - our economy is definitely a national security threat and since Bambi could not display his extensive executive experience on the job, I would love for McCain to ask a couple of questions that only someone working on the fix would know the answer to.
I bet that teleprompter would be buzzing trying to display all those uh, uh, um, well, uh, um, I um........
Posted by: Enlightened | September 25, 2008 at 05:29 PM
Enlightened
Are you sure? Or are you speculating? The Community Reinvestment Act, was a Democrat Party blunt instrument to beat lenders over the head for not loaning enough money in minority areas. They called it redlining when they were demagoguing the bill on Capital Hill.
If you are right and the majority of subprimes did go to minorities, it kinda leads back to a bill with Democrat finger prints all over it.
Link or other source please.
Posted by: Gmax | September 25, 2008 at 05:31 PM
Buffet already made back his $5 billion investment today, per Fox.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | September 25, 2008 at 05:34 PM
Barney
Don't forget Boss for your gun requirements.
PUK,
That sends a chill up my leg.
Boss is the sleekest, prettiest O/U there is or ever will be.
If it was ever in doubt previously, you are a man of supremely discriminating and impeccable taste.
Must confess to a real fondness for vintage hammer guns lately myself.
Posted by: Barney Frank | September 25, 2008 at 05:35 PM
Of course this is what the MSM is reporting, so I guess a big steamin grain of salt is required:
"The report by the United for a Fair Economy (UFE) advocacy group said subprime mortgages, home loans issued to Americans with scant finances, were "ruthlessly hawked" and that a "solid majority of subprime loan recipients were people of color."
Hundreds of thousands of families lost their homes to foreclosure last year after failing to keep up with mortgage payments, a hefty chunk of which were subprime loans, amid a national housing downturn that shows no sign of easing.
Posted by: Enlightened | September 25, 2008 at 05:35 PM
"Were the lenders subversively racist in targeting those groups?"
Not at all. Minorities are under represented in the ownership group and over represented in the renter group. The "social benefit" aspect of the regs governing access to Fed backed mortgages require a good faith attempt to make more owners out of renters. It's wanna them math thingies - if the target group contains an over representation on day one then on judgment day you should see that very same over representation.
BTW - they're doing loan count percentages. Dollar volume percentages will be completely different. For example - one $40K loan in the prog fief of Detroit counts the same as one $420K loan in the Bay Area burbs. The white fella in the burbs did 10.5 times as much damage as the black fella in the prog fief.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | September 25, 2008 at 05:39 PM
The report estimated the total loss of wealth "for people of color" including Latinos to be between 163 and US$278 billion for subprime loans taken out during the past eight years.
"We believe this represents the greatest loss of wealth for people of color in recent US history," the UFE said, saying America was entering an economic downturn that could match the Great Depression.
Sorry - here's the link-
http://daily.iflove.com/world/2008-01/16/content_6399049.htm
Posted by: Enlightened | September 25, 2008 at 05:39 PM
So considering this was a MSM link, the content of the article in January of 2008 never generated (IIRC) the amount of "racist, racism, racial" alleged GOP attacks we are fed every day now by Josh Marshall and his ilk etc.
Posted by: Enlightened | September 25, 2008 at 05:44 PM
Enlightened the story is being carried by Chinadaily and has no clear byline. Are the communist writing stories on how awful America is again?
Posted by: Gmax | September 25, 2008 at 05:46 PM
These TV pundits are driving me craaaaaaaaaazy!
All they talk about is will he or won't he show up for the debate. Sheesh, there are big things going on which they gloss over and then spend the next 5 guests on the debate question.
They cannot stand the idea of any bi-partisan negotiations, there always has to be a "winner" or a "gotcha."
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | September 25, 2008 at 05:49 PM
Hey - I know NOTHING about this economic stuff - I'm just ready to bend over sans the vaseline any day now. If this article turns out to be exaggerated, well hell it is the MSM, but I do believe some people believe the content.
I was just curious as to why there is no discernable wave of racism being thrown about in the same manner as everything we say is racist in ref to The One.
Posted by: Enlightened | September 25, 2008 at 05:49 PM
GMax - It was covered by several "agencies" (if you know what I mean)
Boston Herald carried the same gist: (Sorry but article has been archived)
http://bostonherald.com/business/real_estate/view.bg?articleid=1066590
Here's the UFE webpage -
http://www.faireconomy.org/dream
Seriously, is it me? I've heard mention of this, but not to the degrees this group is indicating, but for some reason it is not being promoted as racist, yet EVERYTHING negative about The One is racist. Curious.
Posted by: Enlightened | September 25, 2008 at 05:56 PM
"I was just curious as to why there is no discernible wave of racism being thrown about in the same manner as everything we say is racist in ref to The One."
I know. I know. Ask me, ask me.
The ACORN bandits were steering the poor minority folk into the arms of the hungry land sharks. For a fee, you understand. 'Cause that $40K loan in the prog fief carried some very rich up front fees.
You could ask Alfonso Jackson (disgraced former head of HUD) about that since he actually had oversight of the FMs while cronies of the Conyers and Kilpatricks were systematically looting them. I mean, you can ask him after the Feds get done with him.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | September 25, 2008 at 05:58 PM
Ok, Rick can I blame the persons that have defaulted on their subprime loans, or are they pretty much blameless? I feel for some of them, but did they exacerbate this problem? You can tell me if my head is up my ass.
Posted by: Enlightened | September 25, 2008 at 06:04 PM
Netroots are getting nervous...expect a troll here soon...here is a post at Kos....
"I knew something didnt smell right with this. Folks this is a set up. I repeat Obama is being set up! John McCain has set himself up to be the savior of this bill. We need to stop this now!
When i saw McCain smiling at the White House I knew something wasnt right. Here's the deal. 2:30 pm a deal is in place. By 4pm the "photo op" at the White House.
Coincedentally, at the same time, the "deal" that is in place is now seen as breaking apart by the Republicans. Giving off the percpetion that they are not on board. Thus giving McCain the plaform to come in and save this bill without having to do anything!
The problem is with the parameters of this bill already in place, the Republicans can approve their side at anytime. So guess when that would be? Right during the time of the debate tomorrow. You see where this is going??? This is a big set up
We need to expose this for what it is. We need to get on all the blogs, contact everyone we know and expose this before it can come to pass. Dont think for a moment the McCain camp is going to sit by and just let Obama have the floor and TV all to himself.
This is a set up and we need to get on this ASAP"
Posted by: ben | September 25, 2008 at 06:05 PM
This is a set up
From their mouths to God's ears.
Or from whatever the words come out of.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | September 25, 2008 at 06:08 PM
"I feel for some of them, but did they exacerbate this problem?"
That one is beyond my pay grade. If you allow (due to ignorance) an ACORN idiot to steer you to a crook who is offering 100% no doc loans, are you actually intentionally exacerbating the problem? The ACORN guy has been around for a while and he's always been on the side of poor folks - why wouldn't you trust him (I mean, aside from the fact that he's a damned commie)?
I don't 'feel' much for ignorant folks who allow themselves be lead by the nose by community organizers. I don't blame them much, either. Ignorance is expensive enough as it is without me adding disapproval to the cost.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | September 25, 2008 at 06:17 PM
Whether it's a setup or not, if a deal is done McCain comes out on top in a big way.
In a crisis, he led, Obama followed. End of story.
Posted by: Barney Frank | September 25, 2008 at 06:18 PM
"This is a set up".
Oh come on! Be fair.Bush rang Barrack Hussein Obama,"Yo Barry O,we are doin' a whole heap of real boring stuff here in Washington,want to come on over,or would you rather be doin important stuff like being out in the boonies raising money?"
Posted by: PeterUK | September 25, 2008 at 06:19 PM
Ok, from NRO -
"Clarey makes an important point — there would be no crisis if individuals and businesses who had promised to pay back their loans were doing so. The vast majority of those who are not paying back their loans are not victims – they are irresponsible. There are also a lot of careless banks, lenders, politicians and investors who enabled unworthy borrowers to get these loans. Why American taxpayers must pay for this nonsense still has not been adequately explained by the White House, the Treasury or leaders on Capitol Hill."
Ok, so I'm not totally wrong - they should be blamed. And I do blame them. And since UFE says what they say about who got these loans - I guess I am racist. That's just great. I need another Black Russian.
Posted by: Enlightened | September 25, 2008 at 06:22 PM