B-Man Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 Common, man. For all intensive purposes, regardless and irregardless are the same word, you moran. Tom, you're killing me. how many snarky references are in that post ? intensive purposes.......................I'm still chuckling at that nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 Irregardless? Who said that? Im curious. Do you think things would have come down the way they did if not for the CRA? My contention has always been that the CRA was the root cause. Sure bad things happened after that, but they were done to cover up or switch who was going to be the loser. Yes, irregardless is a perfectly cromulant response when someone plays the intensive purposes card which only serves to embiggen the argument. As for the CRA reference, I was just taking a shot at you for some of the huge battles fought over the years, but I don't know enough about the CRA adn their role to offer an opinion one way or the other. I've focused more on the financial players, the debt instruments, and lending practices than the regulatory side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 (edited) Oh my Lord, thanks for the laugh. "for all intensive purposes"...........................seriously??? "for all intensive purposes" ? Please, please........keep referring to me as a joke and then demonstrate your ignorance, its hilarious. . do you even know what that phrase means... im not so sure you should answer that... Tom, you're killing me. how many snarky references are in that post ? im not so sure you know what tom means... intensive purposes.......................I'm still chuckling at that nonsense. Edited June 27, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 27, 2012 Author Share Posted June 27, 2012 Yes, irregardless is a perfectly cromulant response when someone plays the intensive purposes card which only serves to embiggen the argument. As for the CRA reference, I was just taking a shot at you for some of the huge battles fought over the years, but I don't know enough about the CRA adn their role to offer an opinion one way or the other. I've focused more on the financial players, the debt instruments, and lending practices than the regulatory side. No problem, that's perfectly cromulent when attempting to "portion" blame. The CRA led to the housing bubble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 do you even know what that phrase means... im not so sure you should answer that... Will you learn to use the !@#$ing quote feature properly, you asshat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 do you even know what that phrase means... im not so sure you should answer that... I don't. Please explain the meaning of "all intensive purposes." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 I don't. Please explain the meaning of "all intensive purposes." Hold on. Let me get a beer... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 (edited) for all intensive purposes, repubs/conservatives had control from 00-06, especially with blue dogs. again, youre a joke Bush was no conservative. I think if you really knew anything you would know that. Even so, he was only about half as bad as the current treasonous, Constitution crushing left wing nut job who is in charge now. Conservatives haven't had any kind of control since Reagan. If Conservatives were in power as long as you say we would be in good shape now. Edited June 27, 2012 by Dante Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 do you even know what that phrase means... im not so sure you should answer that... This is great. Are there any more intents, rather than just the one: laughing at MDP? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 27, 2012 Author Share Posted June 27, 2012 This is great. Are there any more intents, rather than just the one: laughing at MDP? I've got my popcorn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 I've got my popcorn. It's times like these that I wish the plethora of liberal posters from 2005 were still here, so I could ask them about that whole "liberals are more educated and intelligent" thing they were running back then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 (edited) Bush bad. Low unemployment and High growth bad. So the worst economic catastrophe in the last half-century didn't occur in 2006-2008...under Bush's watch? At the end of the day, right is right and wrong is wrong. If it happened, it happened...notwithstanding how many times someone references it to justify the difficulties in crafting an economic policy to pull the country out of it. And why the disingenuousness amongst conservatives? Some conservatives are such whiney biatches and act like their **** doesn't stink: 9/11 happened because of what Clinton didn't do 2 years earlier; the mortgage crises happened because of democratic legislation in the late 1970s........and Acorn communists; the last prosperous time in this country's history had nothing to do with Bill Clinton, rather it was the result of conservative game-planning during the H.W. Bush Administration and the subsequent Republican Congress; Bush is not responsible for creating an economic mess of such profound moment that its impact can still be felt 3-4 years later - he is insulated by 9/11 (which actually happened on Clinton's watch somehow) which dispirited consumer confidence and curtailed the sale of red-bottom shoes and pedi-paws. Any responsibility for the 2007 recession that began during Bush's tenure would be tolled and actually begin with whatever Democrat assumed office on January 20, 2009. If McCain would have won, the 2007 recession would go back to being Carter and Clinton's fault Why the conservative excuse machine about everything? And the ONE thing that Bush should legitimately take responsibility for (impaling, destroying, and pathetically managing the economy), the apologists absolve him for with innane "Bush bad" references with respect to the current Administration. Does that just make his fu((k ups go away? /rant With respect to Obama's personality (arrogance or whatever), I'll repeat what a very smart person once told me about politics and law: To succeed today in politics you need either to be: 1. intelligent, diligent, organized, efficient and congenial; or 2. resourceful, intrepid, creative, outgoing, dogged, confident, and fearless. You definitely need to fit into one of those two categories because if you are merely pretty smart, responsible, and a nice guy, this business is going to steam roll the fu(((k outta you. The type described by category 1 will get elected and be successful doing the bidding of fellow politicians, business-men and special interest groups who are generally either type 2 folks or the incredibly rare mix of type 1 and 2. If you aren't type 1, you have to survive with very little direction, no instruction or security, and with a lot of chaos and unknowns dominating your life - therefore, you'd better be a type 2 personality. If you aren't either of those, you are a douche and never should have stuck your nose into a confrontational and difficult profession like politics in the first place. Darwin rules right now in politics so you either eat or get eaten. Don't be scared of the fu((king apes. Obama is a type 2 - and there is an arrogance to that. It's not a bad thing. It's adaptation. Romney is a type 1. He is also a silver-spoon, glad-hander, fairy punk who had success handed to him and was always insulated from the risk endemic to most hard-working human beings in this lifetime. Edited June 27, 2012 by Juror#8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 obama in a depression, with a mentally ill right wing segment in congress. a few screw ups and slow recovery. ---- = "a withering portrayal of a radical adrift, in over his head, drowning in his own incompetency -- while being weighed down by a small circle of "advisers" who are compounding the problem of the Amateur in the White House." - this has to be a joke... bush takes a solid economy, deregulates, spends 5 trillion, does nothing about the 5 trillion before him, starts a stupid ass war in iraq and afghanistan and does literally nothing about health care. - any rational person would say bush is the worse president outside of nixon this nation has ever seen, maybe worse because of the depression under his watch... the quote in the article is so extreme and beyond any realm of rational discourse based in reality, i am left without words. we would have been back to under 5-6% unemployment if congress would just act. Obama can't even stop the fires my State, he's not getting my vote.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 27, 2012 Author Share Posted June 27, 2012 So the worst economic catastrophe in the last half-century didn't occur in 2006-2008...under Bush's watch? At the end of the day, right is right and wrong is wrong. If it happened, it happened...notwithstanding how many times someone references it to justify the difficulties in crafting an economic policy to pull the country out of it. And why the disingenuousness amongst conservatives? Some conservatives are such whiney biatches and act like their **** doesn't stink: 9/11 happened because of what Clinton didn't do 2 years earlier; the mortgage crises happened because of democratic legislation in the late 1970s........and Acorn communists; the last prosperous time in this country's history had nothing to do with Bill Clinton, rather it was the result of conservative game-planning during the H.W. Bush Administration and the subsequent Republican Congress; Bush is not responsible for creating an economic mess of such profound moment that its impact can still be felt 3-4 years later - he is insulated by 9/11 (which actually happened on Clinton's watch somehow) which dispirited consumer confidence and curtailed the sale of red-bottom shoes and pedi-paws. Any responsibility for the 2007 recession that began during Bush's tenure would be tolled and actually begin with whatever Democrat assumed office on January 20, 2009. If McCain would have won, the 2007 recession would go back to being Carter and Clinton's fault Why the conservative excuse machine about everything? And the ONE thing that Bush should legitimately take responsibility for (impaling, destroying, and pathetically managing the economy), the apologists absolve him for with innane "Bush bad" references with respect to the current Administration. Does that just make his fu((k ups go away? /rant With respect to Obama's personality (arrogance or whatever), I'll repeat what a very smart person once told me about politics and law: To succeed today in politics you need either to be: 1. intelligent, diligent, organized, efficient and congenial; or 2. resourceful, intrepid, creative, outgoing, dogged, confident, and fearless. You definitely need to fit into one of those two categories because if you are merely pretty smart, responsible, and a nice guy, this business is going to steam roll the fu(((k outta you. The type described by category 1 will get elected and be successful doing the bidding of fellow politicians, business-men and special interest groups who are generally either type 2 folks or the incredibly rare mix of type 1 and 2. If you aren't type 1, you have to survive with very little direction, no instruction or security, and with a lot of chaos and unknowns dominating your life - therefore, you'd better be a type 2 personality. If you aren't either of those, you are a douche and never should have stuck your nose into a confrontational and difficult profession like politics in the first place. Darwin rules right now in politics so you either eat or get eaten. Don't be scared of the fu((king apes. Obama is a type 2 - and there is an arrogance to that. It's not a bad thing. It's adaptation. Romney is a type 1. He is also a silver-spoon, glad-hander, fairy punk who had success handed to him and was always insulated from the risk endemic to most hard-working human beings in this lifetime. I can dig these up all day: http://www.bucksright.com/bush-proposed-fannie-mae-freddie-mac-supervision-in-2003-1141 "Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry. The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios. The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt — is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates. But Democrats in Congress, also known as “the caucus perpetually on the wrong side of history,” were having none of this “responsibility” stuff. ”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.” Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed. ”I don’t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,” Mr. Watt said." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 do you even know what that phrase means... im not so sure you should answer that... Okay, you sorry dolt, I should let you just keep digging, but everyone is enjoying your silliness too much There is no such phrase as "intensive purposes" its "for all intents and purposes". and before you come back with the all too standard "whats the difference, my point is still the same" liberal response, its because you kept insisting that "we" were all fools. That is what we were laughing at............. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 Originally the spot was going to be "The most uppity Mulatto in the world" but it didn't poll as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 Originally the spot was going to be "The most uppity Mulatto in the world" but it didn't poll as well. Of course, everything in the satirical video in the original post was about the President's actions since taking office, not his skin pigmentation. But hey, I am sure that your response makes you feel better, that's whats important. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 27, 2012 Author Share Posted June 27, 2012 Originally the spot was going to be "The most uppity Mulatto in the world" but it didn't poll as well. Another lib, playing the race card. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 (edited) Okay, you sorry dolt, I should let you just keep digging, but everyone is enjoying your silliness too much There is no such phrase as "intensive purposes" its "for all intents and purposes". and before you come back with the all too standard "whats the difference, my point is still the same" liberal response, its because you kept insisting that "we" were all fools. That is what we were laughing at............. I'm going to take a crack at MDP logic: We're all fools because video killed the radio star by using fake TV signals to oppress the proletariat. If we would just acknowledge that, irregardless of the intensive purposes of capital distribution, forced slave labor is the true source of all debt and the foundations of modern intellectual society. By using fake money printed by the banks to finance zebras, we all contribute to global warming and the deforestation of the Gobi desert. In conclusion, the penguin flies at midnight. Edited June 27, 2012 by Koko78 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 and before you come back with the all too standard "whats the difference, my point is still the same" liberal response, its because you kept insisting that "we" were all fools. That is what we were laughing at............. Actually, when dolts say "for all intensive purposes" they actually mean the exact opposite of "for all intents and purposes". All means all, not only those purposes qualified as "intensive". And, intents aren't the same thing as purposes. They aren't. So by using intensive, you further distort the meaning. The best was...I saw a guy try to play this off...by adding an entry to the urban dictionary. See entry #1 here. It's hysterical...because they DO NOT mean the same thing. Pedant or not. I wonder what the thread where he got busted for his idiocy with this was like. Wonder if he was saying excetera....and drinking expresso, when he posted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts