The Most Arrogant Man In The World

[OCinBuffalo]

Originally the spot was going to be "The most uppity Mulatto in the world" but it didn't poll as well.

hehehe ...lybob

 

You really wish you guys hadn't cried racist wolf so much now, don't you? "But it's all over now".

 

Then, this might mean something to somebody. But, now, when you call racist...it means nothing. "Nowhere man....making all his nowhere plans for nobody."

 

hehehe .....lybob You are unique in that your posts here can usually be refuted with Beatles and Stones lyrics.

 

As far as calling people you don't agree with...racists with either nothing, or absurdity, to back it up? My advice: "Let it be"

 

[....lybob]

hehehe ...lybob

 

You really wish you guys hadn't cried racist wolf so much now, don't you? "But it's all over now".

 

Then, this might mean something to somebody. But, now, when you call racist...it means nothing. "Nowhere man....making all his nowhere plans for nobody."

 

hehehe .....lybob You are unique in that your posts here can usually be refuted with Beatles and Stones lyrics.

 

As far as calling people you don't agree with...racists with either nothing, or absurdity, to back it up? My advice: "Let it be"

 

"Get Back"

[3rdnlng]

"Get Back"

 

"I Don't Want To See You Again"

[MARCELL DAREUS POWER]

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."

 

 

its called lobbying by big business to make huge profits. :wallbash:

 

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?

 

 

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=For%20all%20intensive%20purposes

 

[GG]

"Get Back"

 

As in "Back in the USSR?"

[Juror#8]

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."

 

2 things:

 

1. Respectfully, your post addresses only a small fraction (and only one political instance) of my post.

 

2. Your link seemed to be from a considerably biased and decidedly editorialized spam blog. That doesn't mean that some of the information is not legit though (I consider the message independent from the messenger unlike some here who discount anything linked to Fox, Huffington, or whatever). It's just difficult to take seriously a "news outlet" that editorializes thusly: "but Democrats in Congress, also known as 'the caucus perpetually on the wrong side of history,' were having none of this 'responsibility' stuff."

 

If you want to forget about the other political instances that I mentioned in that post and just discuss the mortgage crises, we can. However, my point still stands unchallenged.

[3rdnlng]

2 things:

 

1. Respectfully, your post addresses only a small fraction (and only one political instance) of my post.

 

2. Your link seemed to be from a considerably biased and decidedly editorialized spam blog. That doesn't mean that some of the information is not legit though (I consider the message independent from the messenger unlike some here who discount anything linked to Fox, Huffington, or whatever). It's just difficult to take seriously a "news outlet" that editorializes thusly: "but Democrats in Congress, also known as 'the caucus perpetually on the wrong side of history,' were having none of this 'responsibility' stuff."

 

If you want to forget about the other political instances that I mentioned in that post and just discuss the mortgage crises, we can. However, my point still stands unchallenged.

 

 

Respectfully, I thought your post was over the top. Calling Romney a "silver-spoon glad hander, fairy punk who had success handed to him" is f'd up. Anyway, here's a little more:

 

 

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2009-06-27/wall_street/30009234_1_mortgage-standards-lending-standards-mortgage-rates

[Adam]

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.

I believe you are referring to President George W Bush. While he wasn't one of the best presidents ever, I think history's view will be kinder than what you say. Part of a president's legacy is defined by world events. He had no say in 9/11 or Katrina happening- events that could have marred the presidencies of President George Washington and President Abraham Lincoln.

 

President Nixon? He had some personal shortcomings, which led to his exit, but the worst president ever?

[Juror#8]

Respectfully, I thought your post was over the top. Calling Romney a "silver-spoon glad hander, fairy punk who had success handed to him" is f'd up. Anyway, here's a little more:

 

 

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2009-06-27/wall_street/30009234_1_mortgage-standards-lending-standards-mortgage-rates

 

Well that was me opining.

 

Thankfully, I'm not a news outlet and don't purport to offer news in any objective way that should be taken objectively seriously.

 

I think all those things of Romney. "Silver spoon," when looked at phraseologically, is objectively true as he was born to significant privilege and wealth. He is also very much a glad hander (significant opportunist who has been described as a "smile-in-your-face" kinda guy).

 

Neither of those two are diparaging. But even if you see them as such, thankfully, I don't purport to be a news outlet.

 

 

"Fairy punk" is actually euphemisitic. But it's still disparaging. It's a nice way of saying what I really want to characterize him as. It only lightly reflects my disdain for him. I just don't think that he is a conservative. I think he is fake and he is working an angle. I'm only slightly right of center on most issues ( but on some I'm very far right [immigration, 2nd Amendment] and on some, slightly to the left). I think that Romney is FAR more to the left than I am...principally. I don't believe him when he says otherwise. This is an opportunity for him and he is working an available angle.

 

 

When I vote for Romney, I'll be voting for his advisors and the people that he surrounds himself with.

[Joe Miner]

I believe you are referring to President George W Bush. While he wasn't one of the best presidents ever, I think history's view will be kinder than what you say. Part of a president's legacy is defined by world events. He had no say in 9/11 or Katrina happening- events that could have marred the presidencies of President George Washington and President Abraham Lincoln.

 

President Nixon? He had some personal shortcomings, which led to his exit, but the worst president ever?

 

If Obama is good because he got us out of Iraq, what does that make Nixon?

[3rdnlng]

Well that was me opining.

 

Thankfully, I'm not a news outlet and don't purport to offer news in any objective way that should be taken objectively seriously.

 

I think all those things of Romney. "Silver spoon," when looked at phraseologically, is objectively true as he was born to significant privilege and wealth. He is also very much a glad hander (significant opportunist who has been described as a "smile-in-your-face" kinda guy).

 

Neither of those two are diparaging. But even if you see them as such, thankfully, I don't purport to be a news outlet.

 

 

"Fairy punk" is actually euphemisitic. But it's still disparaging. It's a nice way of saying what I really want to characterize him as. It only lightly reflects my disdain for him. I just don't think that he is a conservative. I think he is fake and he is working an angle. I'm only slightly right of center on most issues ( but on some I'm very far right [immigration, 2nd Amendment] and on some, slightly to the left). I think that Romney is FAR more to the left than I am...principally. I don't believe him when he says otherwise. This is an opportunity for him and he is working an available angle.

 

 

When I vote for Romney, I'll be voting for his advisors and the people that he surrounds himself with.

 

Romney is a manager's manager. I don't think he is really comfortable playing the politician. That makes him appear stiff, thus contributing to his image as someone putting on a false front. He's competent and will surround himself with competent people.

[Juror#8]

Romney is a manager's manager. I don't think he is really comfortable playing the politician. That makes him appear stiff, thus contributing to his image as someone putting on a false front. He's competent and will surround himself with competent people.

 

That's all I'm asking for from him.

[3rdnlng]

That's all I'm asking for from him.

 

He will govern right of center and work on practical fixes. I think he will also be strong on defense and illegal immigration.

[Juror#8]

He will govern right of center and work on practical fixes. I think he will also be strong on defense and illegal immigration.

 

This is my biggest concern from him. He has become conspicuously quiet on immigration once demographic polls began dropping and the gap between him and certain demographic groups became known.

 

We need someone in the WH who is serious about immigration. Inflation, resource over-utilization, safety, and over-burdened infrastructure are very real issues. If you weren't born here and you can't offer redeeming and significantly beneficial societal, professional, scientific, or artistic value, you and your kids need to get the fu((k out.

 

Democrats are too beholden to certain "interests" to do what needs to be done with respect to immigration. That's a deal-breaker. I think that it is a national security dilemma of the first order.

 

Romney NEEDS to be tough on this issue.