jjamie12
-
Posts
622 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by jjamie12
-
-
The mortgage holders have no say in this. The Fan/Fed debt-holders do.
I think that is what I was saying, no?
-
No, I just think it's a stupid point. We're talking about the guarantors of mortgage bonds being bailed out. OF COURSE this action is aimed at the bond holders.
I think his point is that it wasn't the mortgage bond holders that were driving the decisions, but the Fannie/Freddie debt-holders.
-
We should accept the fact that she had no idea what he was talking about when he mentioned the words "Bush" and "doctrine" right next to each other in the same sentence, regardless of what it specifically means to whom.
That is certainly one reasonable way to interpret what happened.
Another very reasonable way to interpret this is her being unsure of what Gibson was getting at, isn't it? The words 'Bush Doctrine,' it seems to me, have been used to describe several different things at different times, no?
-
Urine rare form, this subject hasn't de-turd you from a steady stream of comments.
Very, very nice... You're on your game these days!
-
Uh as a matter of fact I have voted for Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Independents and Greens and will continue to do so.
Just because I think the current Administration is full of incompetent nitwits who are puppets of corporate America, and because in recent history that's a hallmark of the Republican party, doesn't mean I am blind to the failings of the Democratic party. I would, for instance, have been pleased had Obama chosen Chuck Hagel as his running mate. There are some things I don't agree with about Hagel, and about Obama, but overall I share their beliefs and values as i understand them. I supported McCain in 2000 and am dismayed at how he's sacrificed his integrity in his current campaign. Frankly I have more respect for a $2 whore...with or without the lipstick.
Fair enough. You just appear to be very, very partisan is all.
-
That was in large part due to Clinton, he cagoled the mideast sheiks and threatened large releases of the SPR, in fact he did it at least once.
I'll admit that I'm a little fuzzy on this exact quote here, but I find it incredibly hard to believe that this was "... in large part due to Clinton." In fact, it sounds like complete and total bs to me, but, admittedly, I don't have anything really solid to back it up with, other than a fundamental understanding of economics and the fact that, for at least today, I have my sanity.
I'm open to being convinced, though.
-
Not to mention the .com boom
And extremely low oil prices, too... Don't forget about the low oil (commidities in general, I suppose) prices.
-
This election, as all others, is about issues and values. The problem is that most people don't take the time to really understand those. They are either blindly allied to a party or they follow the sound bites without taking time to explore. And that's how we end up with poor leadership and irresponsible government.
I agree with all of that, except I don't understand how you can write that with a straight face and be so in the tank for the Democrats. Or do you just think that people who vote Republican are stupid? An alternate reading of this could go: People who DO take the time to really understand issues and values would vote Democrat. Isn't that what you're saying given how Democrat-centric you are?
-
How's 6th grade working out for you? Inference, like the McCain ad inferring that Obama voted for comprehensive sex education for kindergardeners instead of the reality of teaching them about reporting pedophiles and the difference between good touch/bad touch?
Just as an aside... Your tag line under the avatar is pretty damn funny.
-
“Make no mistake about this, Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America. Let’s get that straight,” Biden said testily when a voter told Biden he was glad the Delaware senator had been chosen and not Clinton.
Show me where he says "SHE SHOULD HAVE BEEN PICKED".
Maybe this quote isn't accurate, but the rest of the quote goes like this:
Emphasis mine."Make no mistake about this," Biden responded. "Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America. Let’s get that straight. She’s a truly close personal friend, she is qualified to be president of the United States of America, she’s easily qualified to be vice president of the United States of America, and quite frankly, it might have been a better pick than me. But she’s first rate, I mean that sincerely, she’s first rate, so let’s get that straight."Did you stop reading?
-
It must be true, Sean Hannity just said she's going after the media tonight.
How exactly is complaining that, "if you're not part of the Washington elite, you are not qualified" sticking it to the media? Besides, I was really talking more of the campaign and all of its surrogates in lockstep on the sexist issue, and pulling that out on any criticism of her. And McCain himself canceling a CNN interview just because they didn't like the question of "Name one thing Palin did as Commander of the Alaska National Guard." after the campaign had been using that experience as reason she has foreign policy experience.I didn't see any 'whining' in that speech. Again, we may have to agree to disagree, but I don't see any of this as 'whining'. She hit back pretty hard and showed a lot of toughness. She didn't complain about it, she said she didn't care what they thought "... do not seek their good opinion"
-
Yeah. Name one quote or question by anyone that says or implies in any way whatsoever that the reason she isn't qualified is that she is not part of the Washington elite? You don't recognize the code word? Or that somehow she needs to meet the media's approval and she would get better treatment? Who is asking her to seek approval of the media? It doesn't even make any sense. All it is is feeding the idea that the media has been ruthless, sexist or unfair. That's just whining.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I mean, honestly... if you've got to go to 'code words', then I'm completely missing it. Reading it at face value, I don't see it as whining, I see it as strong and defiant. There's no quote there asking people to stop being mean, or stop writing stories, or any other hallmark of 'whining'. In fact, to me, it sounds like she's telling the media to 'stick it'. That's not whining.
-
That's 'whining'? Really?
Sounds strong and defiant to me. Then again, I don't have a vested interest in that being either 'whining' or 'not whining'.
-
Doesn't a state of mind where you're not considered rich unless you have 5 million dollars sound like elitism to you? What about wearing 500$ Italian loafers?
No, it actually doesn't, especially if you know what 'elitist' means.
-
Newsflash: It's not a debate that you are an a-hole. Marketing meeting? Such a tool.
WORD OF THE DAY
'Elitist': The Rarefied Term That's a Low Blow
Washington Post
Other than being called a criminal, a philanderer or a terrorist sympathizer, is there an accusation in American politics worse than being branded an "elitist"? The word supposes something fundamentally effete and out of touch, a whiff of brie and latte....
It is really comical how your own definition of the word contradicts what you've posted earlier.
It bears repeating: Elitist is a state of mind, NOT a wealth measure.
-
Play fast and loose with the truth. Really I could give two craps if it's many, most, some, whatever... people are losing their homes and struggling to keep them. To debate the use of the word "most" is a waste of time. I say that people are losing their homes because it's true, not because of where my vote may lie.
Quite honestly, it sucks to be right about you... I was sincerely hoping that you would take a step back and think about what you were saying and how framing things in that manner broke down discussion more than added to it. Instead, I (we all did, though, I suppose because we're all watching this) got exactly what I predicted from you. Dismissively waving away factual inaccuracies because:
To debate the use of the word "most" is a waste of time.Unfortunately, inasumch as this debate pertains to you, I must, with sincere sadness, wholeheartedly agree.
-
Wow, splitting hairs.
When you make hyperbolic statements like "Most people are struggling to save their home...," you are continuing to spread a falsehood. It is not even close to 'Most people'. Not even close! And it bothers me, because when you play fast and loose with the truth and then later dismiss it as 'splitting hairs', you're doing nothing at all to bring anything of substance to a debate. You're completely wrong, yet, instead of learning something today, you've dismissed the education as 'splitting hairs'. And do you know why I can be pretty confident that this is true? Because I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that you'll say, in another debate and another time with someone else, something along the lines of "...most people in this country are losing their homes!" again and not think twice about it. Because it fits your political ideology / agenda.
That sucks.
edited for clarity
-
Since when are most people struggling to save their home? Damn, I guess there isn't a foreclosure problem in the country right now? Damn, I guess those people in my neighborhood that lost their homes weren't struggling to keep them.
Bolded emphasis mine.
pBills- 'Most' people are not struggling to save their home. 'Some' people are struggling to save their home.
For example: There are several (ie more than 20) trillion dollars worth of mortgages outstanding. Most estimates have the foreclosure numbers at something less than $5 trillion. How does that = 'Most'?
Edit: Don't know, for sure, the updated estimated foreclosure numbers. Pretty sure it's less than $5 trillion
-
No, but having no idea how many houses you have means you're either senile or an elitist.
Having money, homes, cars, boats, SUV's, (ie 'things') doesn't and CAN'T make one an 'elitist'.
Elitist is an attitude, not a wealth contest.
For example: If I win the lottery tonight (let's go Mega Millions!) I don't automatically become an elitist.
When I win Mega Millions and start talking about how poor people are saps who don't understand how the world works and can't be trusted to vote for the betterment of the country or even their own self-interest... Now, I'm being an elitist.
In fact, even if I don't win Mega Millions tonight and still start talking about how poor people are saps who don't understand how the world works and can't be trusted to vote for the betterment of the country or even their own self-interest... I'll be an elitist.
Edit: Dammit! I'm slow on the reply button lately. Point was already made...
-
Since it seems that you love to spout off about things that you have absolutely no knowledge of should I explain the shortcomings of missile defense to you, or is it above your comprehension level?
This is one of the most unintentionally funny things I have seen in quite some time.
Kudos, Bravo, and Well Done, JK.
-
Getting briefed and making decisions in secure conference calls isn't the same as standing up and being visibly in charge, while the world watches a crisis unfold.
But sometimes, this is exactly the correct way to handle things (I have no idea if this was the best course of action to take). Do you honestly think that they didn't consider him leaving Beijing and stand up and scream at Russia and tell them to leave? Why do you assume that they were diddling around?
Oh, that's right... You are concerned about the 'perception' that they were diddling around. Perceptions that you yourself have admitted are not true and, let's be honest, are nonsense.
I don't think the WSJ was false or disingenuous; they were saying "what in the hell was he doing in Beijing once the Russian tanks came through the Roki Tunnel?"An argument that, as its logical base, presumes that the President of the United States wasn't doing anything during his time in China... a position that you, yourself, presume to be a false.
Edit: Wow... Wait a few minutes and someone else makes your point for you.
-
If you believe this to be true:
For the record, I believe he was working the phones, getting intel, expert advice, and probably got information overload while in China. That also was never in question. There's also no argument whatsoever that he's always on the job 24/7, never out of touch. I also strongly believe in the value of telecommuting, something else that may have been misunderstood.How in the world do you get to this:
But when respected sources like the WSJ say stuff like "President Bush finally condemned Russia's actions on Monday after a weekend of Olympics tourism in Beijing while Georgia burned", it bothers me, as it should you.Instead of:
I don't give a damn about this Wall Street Journal article quote and editorial because of how disingenuous and silly this argument is.Finally, how can you possibly use this quote from the Wall Street Journal as evidence that the President wasn't doing his job (in the first place) when you just admitted that you agree that what they are saying is demonstrably false (at worst) and, at best, completely disingenuous?
If someone is making up stories about your friend, are you mad at your friend because of his perception issues, or do you reject the source of the stories as being less than honest?
-
I was surprised, and still am, about how much support people were giving the president over his choices and responses, while so many outlets and opinions were slamming him worldwide.
Pointing out that the President of the United States of America is never actually on 'vacation' is not the same thing as 'supporting' President Bush.
Pointing out that you seem to have some inconsistencies in your arguments about diplomacy / unilateralism / multi-lateralism is not the same things as 'supporting' President Bush.
I've read through this thread and I don't think I read even ONE single quote suggesting that President Bush is doing "...a helluva job, Bushie!"
Finally, disagreeing with you is NOT the same thing as 'supporting' President Bush. You don't have to 'support' President Bush in order to see that much of what you are saying is nonsense.
-
Obama's tax plan doesn't seem to warrant the outrage it gets from those of us on the conservative side, does it?
Can any of our resident economists chime in on this?
Financial meltdowns continue
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
I know... The article, as I understand it was mostly concerned with Fannie/Freddie 'Agency Debt', which, seems to be referring to their corporate debt, not their mortgage guarantees. Tom seems to be referring to the mortgage bondholders as being 'bailed out', which, while technically true (as I think more about this, I'm not TOTALLY sure that this is correct. I think it is unclear at this time whether or not the MBS are 'guaranteed', as they are still trading at a spread to treasuries... of course, Fan/Fred debt is also trading at a spread to treasuries, even though the gov't has 'guaranteed' those, so I'm not totally sure), isn't the point of the article as I understand it.
Edit: And the reason I think Tom is referring to the mortgage debt, specifically, is because a few times he's referenced it, like here:
Which is actually incorrect. Fan/Fred issue corporate debt, as well. He also referenced it here (ultimately this quote is actually a little ambiguous, but given his statement above, I interpreted this as referencing mortgage debt, not 'Agency debt'):
Again, it isn't totally clear which bondholders he's writing about, as I said before, I interpreted this to be the holders of the mortgage debt.
I re-read the original linked article, and it appears that the thrust of the article is about bailing out Corporate bondholders of Fannie/Freddie, not the mortgage bond holders. And this makes sense to me, because Fannie/Freddie (in theory) collect what are known as (I'm pretty sure you know this) 'g-fees' in order to guarantee the principal on these bonds. The article seems to be mainly (again) talking about corporate debt and Fannie/Freddie bondholders, NOT Fannie/Freddie mortgage-backed-securities holders.