Monday, January 14, 2008

So, it took exactly five days for the chick to cry and the black candidate and his surrogates to play the race card.

I can't say I have a lot of sympathy for Ms. Rodham-Clinton and her HINO (husband in name only). After all, there's nothing wrong with welling up -- President Bush did it just the other day when visiting the Holocaust memorial in Israel. The difference, of course -- and this says it all -- is that, while the President wept over the horrific murder of six million souls by the national socialists, the socialist here, HRC, was weeping about how hard HER life is, having to actually answer questions about her "record."

In fact, not only do I not have a great deal of sympathy for America's "first black president" and his WINO, in being attacked as "racists." After all, this is the card these corrupt socialists play against those who disagree with them all the time.

Interestingly, when the Democrats say overtly racist things: something they do all the time, because Democrats are inherently bigoted, there is never a fuss -- their coideologists in the leftist media either covering it up, excusing it away or reporting it once and then moving on.

Of course, it was Ms. Rodham-Clinton who argued that all Indians work in gas stations when she claimed that Mahatma Ghandi owned a small gas station and it was Democrat Party elder statesman, Joe Biden who was stunned to meet a black man who was "clean." It's Democrats who are asking "is Barack black enough?" because he doesn't speak the way black people are supposed to speak and because he actually wears a belt that keeps his pants up rather than how what Democrats call "authentic blacks" are supposed to dress.

To the Democrats blacks not only all look alike and dress alike, but they all THINK alike, so that Condelezza Rice and Colin Powell, Rod Page and Bill Cosby are "not really black" because they actually speak proper English (not ebonics) and talk about such "white" things as personal responsibility.

So it's good to see "the first black president" (what makes him "black?" The fact that he cheats on his wife? The fact that he blames others for his failures?) and his WINO being attacked as "racists" when, in this case, they didn't say or do anything wrong. We Republicans are used to the race card being played against us as a way to stifle honest debate that the leftists know they cannot win.

What Ms. Rodham-Clinton said was exactly right. As inspirational and important was the work of Martin Luther King, Jr., without an ally in government who could translate the message into legislation, the movement (mostly against Democrats who opposed civil rights) would have remained just that: an inspirational movement.

Hopefully some Democrats will take a lesson from these attacks because what should be clear, is that it doesn't matter how beloved you are by the Democrats. It doesn't matter how many years you've worked in service of the leftist agenda, you can even be "the first black president," but if it suits them, they'll come after you.

Whenever you see the Democrats play the race card against Republicans, remember, they'll play it against you, too, if they can make an extra buck.

669 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   401 – 600 of 669   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

KKKaristokkkrat says:Democrats came back from World War 2 with "Golly that Nazi Weapons Law is the key to destroyin' the 2nd Amendment."

The fact that this posturing ass wants to pretend that gun control means disarming Americans instead of sanely regulating firearms should tell everyone that he's just another lowbrow with a lot of ridiculous pedantic posturing. Another Farmer John without all the irrelevant, long winded quotes which no one reads.

(((Thought Criminal))) said...

Now, let's see if Dora gets the difference between recognizing that statistical standards exist and blacks pre-dominantly over whites "sadly" fell / fall short of them (NR editorial, 1957)

So now you're agreeing with the 1957 editorial? Nice.

There's nothing factually wrong or sinister in that editorial. Statistical standards (income, education, etc.) in 1957 did show that sadly, black Americans weren't meeting those standards as well as white Americans. Not that they couldn't meet them, but that they weren't meeting them. There's nothing to be sad about if blacks inherently "meet the standard" set for everyone without regard to race. At the end of the day, 2 cents is still more that 1 cent, trees still make forests, and disco remixes suck.

It's a far cry from the "lower the standards so niggers can compete" mentality of the affirmative action advocating leftist neo-Nazi racial hierarchist.

and today's leftists (and then's, actually) are the ones saying "White people meet standards that are too hard for niggers to match. Better lower the standards."

Who's saying that?

Leftists imply this every time they demand schools, businesses, and banks set aside academic enrollment, employment, and economic standards as soon as they see a skin color that ain't white and / or doesn't have a penis. Just check the box that says "yes I'm black" and / or "yes I'm female" on your next application to anything - enrollment, a job, a loan - and see what happens.

It was a Republican president that sent the military to Little Rock to break the blocking of schools to black students.

It was a Democrat president, a decade later, that entertained his friends in the Oval Office with illegally obtained surveillance of Martin Luther King cheating on his wife in a hotel room.

You're ill-prepared to defend your "Republicans are racists" insipidness.

You know this.


So, that's it, your 2 examples prove your whole theory, end of story?

I dare not say I could prove anything to such a fine incest-advocating leftist as yourself, Dora.

You may scroll up and review Beamish's Hypothesis at your leisure.

Speaking of Brown v. Board of Educ., did you know that 8 of the 9 justices who were on that 9-0 majority were appointed by Democrat presidents? The Chief justice was Earl Warren, and his name send today's Republicans into apoplectic fits. Why is that?

Likely Warren's dangerous precedents in the 1960s entailing judicial activism and its encroachments upon the seperation of powers enshrined in the Constitution the Democratic Party was created to abolish.

Still, no apoplectic fits here.

Ever wonder about the cross-burning impulse that gets fired up among leftists when someone mentions Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, or Condi Rice?

Anonymous said...

Boy, that Justin is a simple little dink...doesn't even know the difference between the realities of bloody Xtian history and what the Jesus guy says in the new testament!!

Anonymous said...

Ever wonder about the cross-burning impulse that gets fired up among leftists when someone mentions Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, or Condi Rice?

Not really. They just don't like goofy, incompetent right wingers who were only chosen by the GOP for window dressing. The GOP is always on the lookout for the few Toms around so they can pretend they're not bigots. When they find some minority who is perverse enough to kiss their honky asses, they can tell themselves they must not be racist after all. Is that difficult to understand?

(((Thought Criminal))) said...

What reality is that skyv?

Jesus, in the Bible, said "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves."

Jesus, in the Bible, also said "And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

Anonymous said...

The radio ad aired by one of Obama's labor allies re-injects ethnicity into the Democratic primary contest in sharp terms.

"Hillary Clinton does not respect our people," the ad says in Spanish (original and Clinton campaign translation after the jump), referring to the lawsuit that failed today to shut down special caucus sites on Las Vegas' strip. "Hillary Clinton is shameless."

"Sen. Obama is defending our right to vote. Sen. Obama wants our votes. He respects our votes, our community, and our people. Sen. Obama’s campaign slogan is 'Si Se Puede.' Vote for a president who respects us, and who respects our right to vote," the ad says, according to a transcript provided by the Clinton campaign and confirmed in part by a union official.

Anonymous said...

"I have a plan - a moratorium on foreclosures for 90 days [and] freezing interest rates for five years, which I think we should do immediately," Clinton announced at what was the last Democratic debate before the Nevada Caucus on Jan. 19. A 90-day moratorium on foreclosures would throw a lifeline to some deserving homeowners, though I suspect it would only delay the inevitable for most. That's not my beef.

Where Clinton goes awry is her proposal to freeze mortgage rates for five years, which is essentially a much broader version of a deal President Bush recently hammered out with lenders to assist some subprime borrowers. If Clinton's only goal were to bail out homeowners facing steep rate resets on adjustable mortgages, her plan would work just fine.

For everyone else though, such a freeze would be disastrous. Interest rates on new mortgages would skyrocket - perhaps past 8 percent, as the mutual funds, pension funds and other investors who typically provide capital to the mortgage market shift their money into other investments where the government isn't impairing returns. With higher mortgage rates eroding buying power, the downward pressure on home prices would only increase. Lower home prices would lead to even more defaults, as more folks who'd lost the equity in their homes choose to walk away from their mortgages.

Anonymous said...

What reality? Why don't you ask a serious question? What Marx said and wanted was also utterly different from what transpired in practice.

Anonymous said...

Under pressure from feminist groups and his own bosses at MSNBC, Chris Matthews apologized yesterday for remarks about Hillary Clinton that he now admits sounded "nasty."

(((Thought Criminal))) said...

Ever wonder about the cross-burning impulse that gets fired up among leftists when someone mentions Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, or Condi Rice?

Not really. They just don't like goofy, incompetent right wingers who were only chosen by the GOP for window dressing.

Ah. America "looks like" Jocelyn Elders and Republicans entrust national security and foreign policy to "window dressing" instead of a dental hygienist.

Sheets still in the dryer, SkyV?

The GOP is always on the lookout for the few Toms around so they can pretend they're not bigots. When they find some minority who is perverse enough to kiss their honky asses, they can tell themselves they must not be racist after all. Is that difficult to understand?

Yes. Perfectly. The "few Toms around" are too many for you.

Back on the plantation, darkie. Massah SkyV don't like your uppityness.

Anonymous said...

Under pressure from feminist groups and his own bosses at MSNBC, Chris Matthews apologized yesterday for remarks about Hillary Clinton that he now admits sounded "nasty."

Here we go again!

Anonymous said...

dasrite Hugo...but does the stock market go DOWN when Hill speaks like it does for GeeDumbya? And you might consider some attribution for your pastings...

Anonymous said...

Yes. Perfectly. The "few Toms around" are too many for you. Them honkies don't learn to count very good in the honky nuthouse, do they...blacks are ninety what percent democrat?

Anonymous said...

Ah. America "looks like" Jocelyn Elders and Republicans entrust national security and foreign policy to "window dressing" instead of a dental hygienist.
See, it works like this..."entrusting" national security to a window mannequin has been a disaster...as has the black reactionary on the Supreme Court. And on down the line. The dems don't need to do that since they really are for racial equality and don't need to be making silly, little sideshows that don't convince anyone anyway.

(((Thought Criminal))) said...

Yes. Perfectly. The "few Toms around" are too many for you. Them honkies don't learn to count very good in the honky nuthouse, do they...blacks are ninety what percent democrat?

Other than the "few Toms around" not on the Democrat plantation, sure.

"Grits dummy good."

You make my case for me.

"Vote Democrat or we'll burn a cross in front of your HUD housing."

(((Thought Criminal))) said...

See, it works like this..."entrusting" national security to a window mannequin has been a disaster...as has the black reactionary on the Supreme Court. And on down the line. The dems don't need to do that since they really are for racial equality and don't need to be making silly, little sideshows that don't convince anyone anyway.

"I have a cabinet that 'looks like Americuh'" - our first "black" President, Bill Clinton.

"I am an African-American." - Teresa Heinz-Kerry

Sideshows?

Jane said...

That's just an idiotic statement. The republicans of today are not made up of the segregationists of the past.

They are in part. The confederate flagwavers vote Republican, as you know.

I'm not even going to address the garbage you wrote about Christianity.

Can I ask you again, though, why is it, if liberals are so racist and intolerant, that religious and racial minorities, as well as women and gays, vote for liberals more than for conservatives? What is up with that?!

Anonymous said...

You make my case for me.

"Vote Democrat or we'll burn a cross in front of your HUD housing."


I do? Duh...where's that? After getting your ass whupped, it does no good to simply announce that you won...unless you like being a joke? Cross burning is your thing...HUD is our thing...which would you rather defend?

Jane said...

Warren Buffet is right wing NewsMax most quoted guru.



Yeah, i like how these clowns have just dropped the whole Warren Buffet discussion, cuz they know they can't accuse him of being stupid, irrational, or not understanding economics.

I'll take the silence on Warren Buffet as your white flag on that issue.

Anonymous said...

Sideshows?

Yeah, sideshows...real AfAms vote democrat...Toms join the GOP sideshow where they are prominently displayed to create a mirage. You know that. I know that. Everybody knows that. Why don't you give it up...or is convincing yourself over and over again a necessary obsession?

Jane said...

Leftists imply this every time they demand schools, businesses, and banks set aside academic enrollment, employment, and economic standards as soon as they see a skin color that ain't white and / or doesn't have a penis. Just check the box that says "yes I'm black" and / or "yes I'm female" on your next application to anything - enrollment, a job, a loan - and see what happens.

You know what happens? Blacks get disproportionately hit with higher interest rates for loans. Weird, huh?

It was a Republican president that sent the military to Little Rock to break the blocking of schools to black students.

It was a Democrat president, a decade later, that entertained his friends in the Oval Office with illegally obtained surveillance of Martin Luther King cheating on his wife in a hotel room.

You're ill-prepared to defend your "Republicans are racists" insipidness.

You know this.

So, that's it, your 2 examples prove your whole theory, end of story?

I dare not say I could prove anything to such a fine incest-advocating leftist as yourself, Dora.

You may scroll up and review Beamish's Hypothesis at your leisure.


I'll take that as another white flag.

Speaking of Brown v. Board of Educ., did you know that 8 of the 9 justices who were on that 9-0 majority were appointed by Democrat presidents? The Chief justice was Earl Warren, and his name send today's Republicans into apoplectic fits. Why is that?

Likely Warren's dangerous precedents in the 1960s entailing judicial activism and its encroachments upon the seperation of powers enshrined in the Constitution the Democratic Party was created to abolish.


And Warren was an Eisenhower appointee, too!

Still, no apoplectic fits here.

Are you sure? What about Griswold, the case that established the right to privacy, upon which Roe v. WAde is founded?

Ever wonder about the cross-burning impulse that gets fired up among leftists when someone mentions Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, or Condi Rice?

Cross-burning impulse? where are the leftists that burn crosses? You've OD'ed on the koolaid.

Anonymous said...

"I am an African-American." - Teresa Heinz-Kerry

Ich bin ein Berliner...JFK...it's a solidarity thing...we all know that...why waste people's time with silliness. You need to decide why your party uses race to maintain a constituency and face it or justify it...don't go on with your stupid timesome lies...everyone just rolls their eyes and can't take you seriously.

Jane said...

Now, let's see if Dora gets the difference between recognizing that statistical standards exist and blacks pre-dominantly over whites "sadly" fell / fall short of them (NR editorial, 1957)

So now you're agreeing with the 1957 editorial? Nice.

There's nothing factually wrong or sinister in that editorial. Statistical standards (income, education, etc.) in 1957 did show that sadly, black Americans weren't meeting those standards as well as white Americans. Not that they couldn't meet them, but that they weren't meeting them. There's nothing to be sad about if blacks inherently "meet the standard" set for everyone without regard to race. At the end of the day, 2 cents is still more that 1 cent, trees still make forests, and disco remixes suck.


There's nothing sinister or factually wrong in the editorial? How about the part about whites being "the advanced race"? You see nothing wrong with that? What about "the cultural superiority of White over Negro"? Nothing wrong with that either?

There's a big difference between acknowledging differences in test scores, and concluding that whites are the "advanced race" from those statistics.

Now we see Beamish's true colors -- he sympathizes with language is that white supremacist by definition.

Jane said...

After getting your ass whupped, it does no good to simply announce that you won...

Um, no, you're wrong. Saying that you've won after you've been proved wrong on everything is their modus operandi.

You'll never get one of these dudes to admit they're wrong, but that's hardly shocking.

what kind of men want to bomb the fuck out of other countries just to feel like they're powerful? Pathetic men, with tiny tiny dicks. And those tiny dicks don't allow them to admit they're wrong either, cuz that would take away from the last shreds of self-esteem they have left.

Jane said...

Right wing radio host Bob Grant:

Stating that he had been praying for the death of basketball star Magic Johnson, Grant implored, “Why is it taking so long for the HIV to go into full-blown AIDS?” [10/1/92]

“Minorities are the Big Apple’s majority, you don’t need the papers to tell you that, walk around and you know it. To me, that’s a bad thing. I’m a white person.” [Newsday, 6/2/92]

Referring to black churchgoers, Grant said, “I can’t take these screaming savages, whether they’re in that A.M.E. Church, the African Methodist church, or in the street, burning, robbing, looting.” [4/30/93]

Grant onced claimed that the United States has “millions of sub-humanoids, savages, who really would feel more at home careening along the sands of the Kalahari or the dry deserts of eastern Kenya–people who, for whatever reason, have not become civilized.” [1/6/92]

“I’d like to get every environmentalist, put them up against a wall and shoot them.” [New York Times, 4/18/96]

Grant said that he hoped that President Clinton would “exchange bodily fluids” with an HIV-positive immigrant. [New York Times, 4/18/96]

Grant referred to former New York Mayor David N. Dinkins, an African-American man, as a “washroom attendant.” [New York Times, 4/18/96]

Anonymous said...

You'll never get one of these dudes to admit they're wrong, but that's hardly shocking.

That's their big weakness...why they cling forever to policies even after they're proven failures. It' what leads the modrun reichist to chose evil over good and right over wrong and to invariably embrace and snuggle up to and grope the policies that lead to failure over success...and like that.

Anonymous said...

“Minorities are the Big Apple’s majority, you don’t need the papers to tell you that, walk around and you know it. To me, that’s a bad thing. I’m a white person.” [Newsday, 6/2/92]

That's code talk that means "I loves darkies."

Anonymous said...

what kind of men want to bomb the fuck out of other countries just to feel like they're powerful? Pathetic men, with tiny tiny dicks. And those tiny dicks don't allow them to admit they're wrong either, cuz that would take away from the last shreds of self-esteem they have left.

You say your philosophy of life is "live and let live as long as nobody gets hurt". Well, what happens when someone comes along and kills your whole family, all your friends, and then beats and rapes you. Are you going to make an exception to your philosophy for that person? Or are you just going to "live and let live"? Your philosophy only works in a fools utopia - an impossibility for humanity. Violence is a constant in history because there are always evil people with power that wish to take what belongs to others. If you don't stand up and fight evil, you will die. Wake up! You live in a fantasy world.

BTW, this comment shows your level of intellectual maturity.

Jane said...

You say your philosophy of life is "live and let live as long as nobody gets hurt". Well, what happens when someone comes along and kills your whole family, all your friends, and then beats and rapes you. Are you going to make an exception to your philosophy for that person? Or are you just going to "live and let live"?

I'm not sure what you're asking. Would I want the person to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law? Of course. Would I call the police? Of course.

Would I go on a vigilante rampage looking for the guy or gal and then kill them myself? Um, no. We live in a society. I may want to do that at first, in the heat of the moment, but i hope i wouldn't.

Are you saying that the rampage scenario is the right response? That the rampage scenario should be legal (because it's SO not)?

I'm not really sure where my philosophy breaks down. The perpetrator will have violated the law and my principles against my family. They should be punished?

Or are you going to fault me now for not writing, "i'd slit his or her throat personally" a la Dukakis?

Or this some sort of analogy to the war on terror, because, you know, according to your own analogy, we should be exacting revenge against Osama bin Laden, the perpetrator, not fighting in Iraq, right? Or are you okay with someone rampaging and killing a few people who look like the perpetrator?

Your philosophy only works in a fools utopia - an impossibility for humanity. Violence is a constant in history because there are always evil people with power that wish to take what belongs to others. If you don't stand up and fight evil, you will die. Wake up! You live in a fantasy world.

No, i don't live in a fantasy world. I don't live in a State of Nature, either. Go read some Hobbes and Locke (favorites of the founding fathers, btw), then we'll talk.

Anonymous said...

Well, what happens when someone comes along and kills your whole family, all your friends, and then beats and rapes you.

You mean, of course, the thievery, meddling, murdering and dictator propping that we've been doing there for about a hundred years now. Well, what people do is get pissed and fight back. It's why we must be strong, ADULT people and admit our part in this conflict. Then, maybe we can begin to deal with each other without all this simple minded I'm right and you're wrong asininity.

Anonymous said...

if liberals are so racist and intolerant, that religious and racial minorities, as well as women and gays, vote for liberals more than for conservatives? What is up with that?!

They are women and minorities. LOL!

Anonymous said...

They are women and minorities. LOL! Jeezus, I hope this was a lib...otherwise we've got some moron telling us that minorities are against minorities.

Jane said...

I don't understand what this person is saying...

Anonymous said...

I think even that person does not know what that person is saying.

Anonymous said...

How about that kkkrazy Huckabee?

Huckabee equates homosexuality with bestiality.
TPM’s Greg Sargent notes that in a recent interview with Beliefnet, Mike Huckabee equated homosexuality with bestiality. Asked whether he wanted to bring the Constitution into conformity with the Bible, the former Arkansas Governor answered this way:

Well, I don’t think that’s a radical view to say we’re going to affirm marriage. I think the radical view is to say that we’re going to change the definition of marriage so that it can mean two men, two women, a man and three women, a man and a child, a man and animal.

Jane said...

Why are republicans so obsessed with man-on-dog and horse cock?

Seriously.

Anonymous said...

Dora said...
Why are republicans so obsessed with man-on-dog and horse cock?

Seriously.
It's hard to be serious, but maybe they get excited reading stuff like this from the good book:

Ezekiel 23:19-20
Yet she increased her prostitution, remembering the days of her youth when she engaged in prostitution in the land of Egypt. She lusted after their genitals as large as those of donkeys, and their seminal emission was as strong as that of stallions.

Anonymous said...

Dora said...
After getting your ass whupped, it does no good to simply announce that you won...

Um, no, you're wrong. Saying that you've won after you've been proved wrong on everything is their modus operandi.


Um, I disagree. It is not their modus operandi; it's their signature. The signature aspects of serial crimes are consistent over time and are present at every crime scene whereas a modus operandi may, and often does, change to enhance the chances of success. Also, the signature is usually based upon, and indeed reflects, the offender's fantasies. I think the refusal to acknowledge mistakes is a signature of these criminals.

Anonymous said...

smackdown said...
How about that kkkrazy Huckabee?

Huckabee equates homosexuality with bestiality.
TPM’s Greg Sargent notes that in a recent interview with Beliefnet, Mike Huckabee equated homosexuality with bestiality.


Huck likes his beasts roasted in a popcorn popper. Why could such a thing ONLY come from a Republican candidate?

Anonymous said...

In considering the incest thing, I am somewhat conflicted. Sex between first cousins is one thing. Sex, for instance, between a father (a widow or a divorced man, so that he isn't cheating on his wife) and a daughter of age may appear to be consensual on the surface. However, the dynamics of the balance of psychological power is distinctly in favor of the family provider such that true consent is a farce. I believe the same could be said of, say, of an older brother and a younger sister...both underage. That is not to say that I am entirely against the legalization of incest but only that there are circumstances existing in a family setting that puts the female at a disadvantage. And, I find this troubling.

Jane said...

However, the dynamics of the balance of psychological power is distinctly in favor of the family provider such that true consent is a farce. I believe the same could be said of, say, of an older brother and a younger sister...both underage. That is not to say that I am entirely against the legalization of incest but only that there are circumstances existing in a family setting that puts the female at a disadvantage. And, I find this troubling.

So you're okay with sex between a moter and a son, or an older sister and a younger brother? Or do you think this is not even possible?

Cuz ladies don't have sex drives, could never have deviant desires, the ladies they are all innocent and dainty, right?! :)

Anonymous said...

So you're okay with sex between a moter and a son, or an older sister and a younger brother?

No, I am not okay with that, either--and for the same reason.

Anonymous said...

Cuz ladies don't have sex drives, could never have deviant desires, the ladies they are all innocent and dainty, right?!

Wrong. Is that what you believe? :) I could have used the younger male as an example. However, without digging up stats, I do believe that women are more frequently victimized.

Anonymous said...

Is every GOP corrupt...probably...here's a Texas Suprem court justice:
Texas Justice Charged in Arson Case
1 day ago

HOUSTON (AP) — A Texas Supreme Court justice has been charged with tampering with evidence in a fire that destroyed his home, a blaze the judge's wife is accused of setting, a television station reported Thursday.

Justice David Medina, appointed by Gov. Rick Perry, was indicted in the June fire at the couple's home in the Houston suburb of Spring that also damaged a neighbor's house, Medina's attorney Terry Yates told KHOU-TV. It caused a total of nearly $1 million in damage.

Jane said...

Wrong. Is that what you believe? :) I could have used the younger male as an example. However, without digging up stats, I do believe that women are more frequently victimized.

I just resent the whole "we're doing this to protect the women!" line, because you know what, I really don't need your protection. It's cool.

And i know it harshes a lot of people's Repug koolaid buzz, but women are not just passive recipients of sex, consensual or otherwise. they have sex drives and needs too. Women ARE sometimes sexual predators.

(((Thought Criminal))) said...

Speaking of "signatures," who else but leftists would take the comments section of a post on a conservative blog specifically dedicated to the topic of the bigotry and the racism of leftists as well as the inability / incapability of the left to think rationally and proceed to prove those very premises?

We've got Dora, champion of incest; SkyV the Bible expert and auditor of "proper Negro behavior," Smackdown the armchair criminologist, and sock puppet circle jerks galore.

This especially exemplar:

There's nothing sinister or factually wrong in the editorial? How about the part about whites being "the advanced race"? You see nothing wrong with that? What about "the cultural superiority of White over Negro"? Nothing wrong with that either?

There's a big difference between acknowledging differences in test scores, and concluding that whites are the "advanced race" from those statistics.


If Dora and her sock puppet SkyV take the same test, and Dora scores an "A" and SkyV makes an "F,"
which of the two dipshits are more "advanced" in the particular standard of measure?

Did Dora score "better?" Or just "differently?"

Is it "sad" that SkyV compared to Dora via this test is "inferior?"

Should the test be changed so SkyV can "advance" in the class? Should SkyV be spotted 50% on the test on account that sock puppets are brainless so it can score as "well" as Dora without doing any studying?

Now we see Beamish's true colors -- he sympathizes with language is that white supremacist by definition.

The tendency of leftists to lack reading comprehension skills isn't helping you, Dora.

How many niggaz did your left-wing dominated American legal system put in prison today?

Would you rather talk about incest? Hanna Montana?

(((Thought Criminal))) said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
(((Thought Criminal))) said...

If whites weren't "advanced" over blacks by 1957 statistical measures, and "white" culture was not producing the "whites" that measured as "advanced" by these 1957 statistical standards, then what was so "sad" to interpret statistics by race?

Do any leftists know how to read?

Any?

Anonymous said...

AP Poll: McCain soars, Giuliani plummets 1/20

Seeing deeply beneath the surface, Psychet sees how this means only good things for his man crush, Rudith.

Anonymous said...

Peevish the KKKrat seems desperately hot to designate blacks as inferior...what kind of sickness does he suffer from? Japanese have a ten point superiority over US whites in IQ, you inferior honky. Fortunately, I'm 3/4 Oriental so I beat you by 7 1/2. IQ tests have been shown to have huge cultural biases, don't really measure intelligence in the first place and are just very shallow measures of human worth. Or you'd be in single digits. Also there's the obvious differences in individuals. The last I saw, a black girl had the highest score ever measured. And she could probably slap your weenie ass to the back of the bus.

Anonymous said...

Dora said...
I just resent the whole "we're doing this to protect the women!" line, because you know what, I really don't need your protection. It's cool.

And i know it harshes a lot of people's Repug koolaid buzz, but women are not just passive recipients of sex, consensual or otherwise. they have sex drives and needs too. Women ARE sometimes sexual predators. 9:39 AM


I already agreed with that statement. And, I specifically stated so. I could just have easily used a male in my argument and included that in my response.

Anonymous said...

"Apparent gaps in White House e-mail archives coincide with dates in late 2003 and early 2004 when the administration was struggling to deal with the CIA leak investigation and the possibility of a congressional probe into Iraq intelligence failures." Imagine that; They just got up, walked away, and went missing. 1/20

And, they were whining about a few of Hillary's papers.

Anonymous said...

cookie said...
AP Poll: McCain soars, Giuliani plummets 1/20

Seeing deeply beneath the surface, Psychet sees how this means only good things for his man crush, Rudith./


Suckette is crazy and probably does believe that. Rudy Mussolini's strajedery was to win in Florida and from then on against Mittens. His fake hero prattling might work with the dumbass repukes. But, what happens if someone who, at least (even if he has nothing else), has some claim to hero status?

Anonymous said...

KKKrat axes: How many niggaz did your left-wing dominated American legal system put in prison today?

When he wants to point to a failure, all of a sudden, something is "left wing dominated." Most of them are in there for drug related crap -- which many of us liberals would like to legalize -- many more are there due to the 3 stike idiocy -- another asinine right wing idea. Others got there via honky cops and judges. Yer a bonehead, dood.

Anonymous said...

Dora, you hotdamn shyster...git yer hand out of my sock.

Anonymous said...

Suckette is crazy and probably does believe that. Rudy Mussolini's strajedery was to win in Florida and from then on against Mittens. He must believe what he must believe. Dame Rudith's stajady seems to have left hims with such a deep loser image that Florida and even NY are not looking so good for him. However, as a conserv, Psychet, has deep reading skills that liberals lack and can see between the lines that this may not be true.

Anonymous said...

My, look at this...no less than the first head man, himself!!!

Tom Ridge: Waterboarding Is Torture

Eileen Sullivan, reporting for the Associated Press, states that Tom Ridge, the first secretary of the Homeland Security Department, "says waterboarding IS TORTURE."

Anonymous said...

Yup, Huckabee is as kkkrazy as sheeeeeit:

Mike Huckabee's White Supremacist Links
Mike Huckabee
by Max Blumenthal | January 19, 2008 - 10:29am

As South Carolina's Republican primary election draws nearer, Mike Huckabee has ratcheted up his appeals to the racial nationalism of white evangelicals. "You don't like people from outside the state coming in and telling you what to do with your flag," the former Arkansas governor told a Myrtle Beach crowd on January 17, referring to the Confederate flag. "If somebody came to Arkansas and told us what to do with our flag, we'd tell them what to do with the pole. That's what we'd do."

Making coded appeals to white racism is nothing new for Huckabee. Indeed, well before he was a nationally known political star, Huckabee nurtured a relationship with America's largest white supremacist group, the Council of Conservative Citizens. The extent of Huckabee's interaction with the racist group is unclear, but this much is known: he accepted an invitation to speak at the group's annual conference in 1993 and ultimately delivered a videotaped address that was "extremely well received by the audience."

Descended from the White Citizens Councils that battled integration in the Jim Crow South, including at Arkansas' Little Rock High School, the Council (or CofCC) has been designated a "hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

In its "Statement of Principles," the CofCC declares, "We also oppose all efforts to mix the races of mankind, to promote non-white races over the European-American people through so-called "affirmative action" and similar measures, to destroy or denigrate the European-American heritage, including the heritage of the Southern people, and to force the integration of the races."

The CofCC has hosted several conservative Republican legislators at its conferences, including former Representative Bob Barr of Georgia and Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi. But mostly it has been a source of embarrassment to Republicans hoping to move their party beyond its race-baiting image. Former Reagan speechwriter and conservative pundit Peggy Noonan pithily declared that anyone involved with the CofCC "does not deserve to be in a leadership position in America."

During a lengthy phone conversation in 2006, CofCC founder and former White Citizens Council organizer Gordon Lee Baum detailed for me Huckabee's dalliances with his group. Baum told me that Huckabee eagerly accepted his invitation to speak at the CofCC's 1993 national convention in Memphis, Tennessee.

Huckabee's plan was complicated, however, when Arkansas Gov. Jim Guy Tucker journeyed out of state and appointed a state senator to preside over the governorship. The Arkansas state legislature passed a resolution forbidding the lieutenant governor from leaving Arkansas until Tucker returned, thus preventing Huckabee from attending the CofCC's conference.

In lieu of his appearance, according to Baum, Huckabee "sent an audio/video presentation saying 'I can't be with you but I'd like to be speaker next time.'" (The CofCC promptly replaced Huckabee with Michael Ramirez, a right-wing cartoonist whose work is currently syndicated to 400 newspapers by the Copley News Service.)

Baum's account of Huckabee's videotaped message was confirmed by a CofCC newsletter obtained by Edward Sebesta, a veteran observer of the neo-Confederate movement. "Ark. Lt. Governor Mike Huckabee, unable to leave Arkansas by law because the Governor was absent from the state, sent a terrific videotape speech, which was viewed and extremely well received by the audience," the 1993 newsletter (Vol. 24, No. 3) reported.

The following year, in 1994, the CofCC held its national conference in Little Rock, Arkansas to accommodate Huckabee. According to Baum, Huckabee initially agreed to speak before his group, but became apprehensive when the Arkansas media reported that he would be joined on the CofCC's podium by Kirk Lyons, a white nationalist legal activist who has hailed Hitler as "probably the most misunderstood man in German history."

"He didn't know anything about Kirk Lyons or anyone else," Baum said of Huckabee. "He said he would show up if we took Lyons off."

But Baum refused to remove his friend Lyons from the bill. Huckabee, who was more concerned about receiving bad publicity than by the racist underpinnings of the CofCC, withdrew his promise to speak. The CofCC replaced him this time with former Arkansas Supreme Court Justice Jim Johnson, a White Citizens Council founder who organized the mob that rioted against the integration of Little Rock High School and later served as the star narrator of Rev. Jerry Falwell's discredited film, "The Clinton Chronicles."

In the end, Huckabee's aborted relationship with the CofCC benefited the group. "We had the biggest crowd in our history because of the publicity" surrounding Huckabee's planned appearance, Baum said of his 1994 conference.

The CofCC has since rebuked Huckabee for his insufficiently intolerant political behavior. Unfortunately, Huckabee has never rebuked the CofCC. Instead he embraced the group, ignoring its well known legacy of promoting racism and only severing ties when his political ambitions were threatened by bad publicity.

Now here is a question for the Huckabee campaign: Will you release the full transcript of Huckabee's "extremely well received" videotaped address to the CofCC?

Anonymous said...

Smackdown the armchair criminologist

..been studying you criminals for quite a while now. And, it's obvious that you guys are too dumb to pull off a simple statement of fact, let alone a robbery....probably demand a check from the vic with your name on it.

Anonymous said...

Why are republicans so obsessed with man-on-dog and horse cock?

They aren't.

Galatians 6: 6-7 Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things. Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

Anonymous said...

smackdown said...
Smackdown the armchair criminologist

..been studying you criminals for quite a while now. And, it's obvious that you guys are too dumb to pull off a simple statement of fact, let alone a robbery....probably demand a check from the vic with your name on it.


That's S-A-Y-E-T.

Anonymous said...

Bill Clinton, speaking at a Vegas YMCA last night, made more charges against Obama and claimed to have, with Chelsea, personally witnessed voter suppression by the Culinary Workers:

There is this whole business of the new politics. Well I got a taste of the new politics today. We need a new politics where we all love each other. You’ve heard all that. There’s a radio ad up in the northern part of Nevada telling Republicans that they ought to just register as Democrats for a day so they can beat Hillary and go out and be Republicans next week and vote in the primary. Doesn’t sound like the new politics to me.

Today when my daughter and I were wandering through the hotel, and all these culinary workers were mobbing us telling us they didn’t care what the union told them to do, they were gonna caucus for Hillary.

There was a representative of the organization following along behind us going up to everybody who said that, saying 'if you’re not gonna vote for our guy were gonna give you a schedule tomorrow so you can’t be there.' So, is this the new politics? I haven’t seen anything like that in America in 35 years. So I will say it again – they think they're better than you.


Even Bill Clinton can't stand the anti-democratic Democrats. LOL!

(((Thought Criminal))) said...

Cookie,

Peevish the KKKrat seems desperately hot to designate blacks as inferior...what kind of sickness does he suffer from?

I don't designate blacks as inferior. That's leftism, Kookie-san.

You won't see me advocating affirmative action handicap points towards college admissions or employment based solely on someone's skin color.

Japanese have a ten point superiority over US whites in IQ, you inferior honky. Fortunately, I'm 3/4 Oriental so I beat you by 7 1/2. IQ tests have been shown to have huge cultural biases, don't really measure intelligence in the first place and are just very shallow measures of human worth. Or you'd be in single digits. Also there's the obvious differences in individuals. The last I saw, a black girl had the highest score ever measured. And she could probably slap your weenie ass to the back of the bus.

So you agree with the 1957 editorial that categorizing statistical data by race is "sad."

Or do you? Let's let Dora decide for you. Or maybe SkyV. I take it he don't like uppity Asians either.

Simply put, if whites aren't ahead (i.e. "advanced") of minorities in measurable statistics (income, education, etc.) then all that talk of whitey being ahead of minorities and keeping them down is bullshit.

You can either put your superior Asian intellect to work on grasping that, or you can try to explain to Dora that "69" means "beef with broccoli."

Your call.

Anonymous said...

b w/b? Not Chew Manchu?

Anonymous said...

Our hope is that today’s caucus comes off without a hitch and as many people as possible participate, however we remain concerned that the tactics of the Clinton Campaign and their allies in recent days have confused voters and could lower participation.

And now, according to Jon Ralston, allies of the Clinton Campaign may be planning to challenge voters at the at-large precincts. It is a sad day when Democrats start trying to suppress the vote of other Democrats.

Beginning with the lawsuit filed by their allies to suppress turnout among union members, the Clinton Campaign has been engaged in a systematic effort to discredit the process – a process which was pushed, developed, and approved by their supporters at the Democratic National Committee and in Nevada. It wasn’t until Obama began gaining strength in a state they expected to win by at least 20 points that they began their attempts to delegitimize the process.

Former President Clinton said that this caucus “was not like an election” and that it disenfranchised voters. Even though the lawsuit was rejected as completely meritless by a federal judge, we remain concerned that the specter of the lawsuit has confused voters and threatens turnout at the at-large precincts, which may have been the intent of the Clinton allies all along.

The Clinton Campaign has also repeated the efforts it made in the closing days of the New Hampshire primary by launching knowingly false attacks on Barack’s opposition to Yucca, his 100-percent pro-choice rating, and position on Social Security. There have been push polls and robocalls pushing these false attacks.

And just last night, former President Clinton made two false and outrageous allegations, distorting a radio ad that does not even mention Senator Clinton and accusing the Culinary workers, whose support both Clintons furiously sought, of engaging in deliberate voter suppression.

The conduct of the Clinton Campaign in recent weeks essentially makes the case for why we need Barack Obama – it’s the same old-style say anything or do anything to win, divisive attacks that have prevented progress in this country for so long.

Anonymous said...

When he wants to point to a failure, all of a sudden, something is "left wing dominated." Most of them are in there for drug related crap -- which many of us liberals would like to legalize -- many more are there due to the 3 stike idiocy -- another asinine right wing idea. Others got there via honky cops and judges. Yer a bonehead, dood.

It goes back to that IQ thang, they don't even know left from right.

Anonymous said...

Hillary Robo-Slams Obama in Nevada.

Anonymous said...

Obama supporters attack Colorado.

Anonymous said...

DNC supporters attack the USA

Anonymous said...

KKKrat says: I don't designate blacks as inferior. That's leftism, Kookie-san.

You won't see me advocating affirmative action handicap points towards college admissions or employment based solely on someone's skin color.


If you wish to willfully deceive yourself that affirmative action is racism, go ahead and be a fool, but don't imagine you're kidding anyone but yourself and other resentful, little minds. As an honest adult I'll continue to understand that it's merely a device to help correct for past and continuing (real) racism.

Anonymous said...

An open mind can be a terrible thing. A waste.

Anonymous said...

cookie, got any spare change?

Anonymous said...

Jesse Jackson Jr. caught telling an OJ joke...

How does a black man attack a white woman?

It doesn't even need a punchline.

Anonymous said...

it's merely a device to help correct for past and continuing (real) racism.... by discriminating FOR black people. Racists discriminate AGAINST black people. AA discriminates AGAINST white people. It isn't racist. It's reverse racist!

Only whites can be racists.

Anonymous said...

Liberals... put on earth to punish conservatives for all the injustices conservatives had to commit to win them their freedom.

Discriminating in the name of justice since Brown vs Board of Education.

preacherman was right. God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

...but then the liberals can't get past the donkey dicks.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

No good deed goes unpunished.

Anonymous said...

AMERICA’S favourite television presenter is paying a painful price for her intervention in the US presidential campaign last month. Oprah Winfrey has been dubbed a “traitor” by some of her female fans for supporting Barack Obama instead of Hillary Clinton.

Winfrey’s website, Oprah.com, has been flooded with a barrage of abuse since the queen of daytime chat shows joined Obama on a tour of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina in mid-December.

Anonymous said...

Oooh, those poor honkies...leveling the playing field is racism...can you imagine how these poor weenies would have whined if they'd had to put up with the shit they shovelled on blacks for two hundred years? I guess we'd have to lynch a few of them to get an idea.

Evan Sayet said...

No, Dora, what that person is asking is if you would defend your family from the evil murderers entering your house? The answer is that the Democrat wouldn't. Or, at least, that's their philosophy.

If "war is not the answer," then what Dora would have to do is try to talk with the murderers. See what she did wrong to make them want to murder her and her family. Attempt to appease them, maybe agree to being raped not just today, but every day for a month, maybe even offer up their neighbors' daughters the way Neville Chamberlain offered up the people of Eastern Europe.

What the Democrat means by "live and let live" is "so long as you're murdering Jews in Israel, or Christians in the Sudan, or my neighbors down the street, it's okay, I'll let you live so long as you don't infringe upon my fun."

Jane said...

Poor Evan doesn't understand that the analogy between individual crimes and state-to-state conflict is a seriously flawed one, and its greatest flaw is that state responsibility is not the same as individual responsibility. "Iran," for example, is a collection of people, many of whom don't support what the government is doing. Therefore, to the well-adjusted person who can identify with others and express empathy, it seems unfair to punish Iran as a whole, including innocent civilians, etc., for the actions of individuals at the top of the government.

But i know that's much too nuanced of an argument for Evan & Co.

PS Evan, with you deign us with your views on WHY it is we liberals/Democrats always side with evil, are incapable of rational thought, and hate America?

(((Thought Criminal))) said...

Cookie,

I see you chose the beef-with-bloccori route.

So "racism" is passionately disbelieving that the only way minorities can be admitted to a school with established academic standards for admissions is for those minorities to be given a handicap score before they even take the test to get in said school, or exempt them from taking the admissions test altogether.

"You niggaz are just naturally too stupid to pass this admissions test, so we's gone spot you some nigga points to get you in."

I'm guessing you believe this is "fair" as well.

That you don't see affirmative action for the government mandated racism that it is is understandable. Leftists have never been real hopeful of convincing anyone that leftists aren't morons.

Anonymous said...

No, Dora, what that person is asking is if you would defend your family from the evil murderers entering your house? The answer is that the Democrat wouldn't. Or, at least, that's their philosophy.

Dingbat knocking over straw men again. They like to pretend they want to fight, but run from the recruiters like no one in history.Liberals fight real wars when they're necessary and know how to do it...ask Wilson, ask FDR...ask Truman, who fashioned the SUCCESSFUL cold war policy. Wait...I'm sorry, Reagan hit Granada hard. About the right side for a conservative pussy. Then GW attacked the country which had the LEAST to do with terror before we'd finished Afghanistan and will now go down in history as the only US dufus to lose two wars at once.

Anonymous said...

KKK Rat with the stale racist whine: That you don't see affirmative action for the government mandated racism that it is is understandable. Leftists have never been real hopeful of convincing anyone that leftists aren't morons.

Maybe Cookie will be around to kick your fat ass tomorrow, but for now does this goofball hater actually think anyone wants to convince him of anything?...that's a job for the maggots, cosmic entropy and a hundred more turns of the great Kharmatic wheel. We'll just settle for watching your little ideological bowel movement hang at 25% til about 2050 when they forget about you again like they did about your performance in the '20s and are ready to let you come back and foul everything up again.

(((Thought Criminal))) said...

Liberals fight real wars when they're necessary and know how to do it...ask Wilson, ask FDR...ask Truman, who fashioned the SUCCESSFUL cold war policy.

For those keeping score at home, that's the Wilson that revitalized the Ku Klux Klan into a national organization, the FDR that didn't have a problem selling steel to Nazi Germany until they attacked the Soviet Union, and the Klansman Truman that settled for a draw in Korea (and hated blacks and Asians, and couldn't let a Jew in his house out of fear of his wife's wrath).

Wait...I'm sorry, Reagan hit Granada hard. About the right side for a conservative pussy. Then GW attacked the country which had the LEAST to do with terror before we'd finished Afghanistan and will now go down in history as the only US dufus to lose two wars at once.

Except that neither war in Iraq and Afghanistan is anything resembling "lost," and before toppling Saddam Hussein led to "global warming," Al Gore was screaming his man tits off in 1992 that leaving a terrorism sponsor like Saddam in power after Desert Storm was a grave mistake.

I'm not even sure Simes post qualifies for a box of Rice-O-Roni to munch on the way home.

Anonymous said...

it seems unfair to punish Iran as a whole, including innocent civilians, etc., for the actions of individuals at the top of the government.

..but it's perfectly fair to punish whites for historical discrimination.

Anonymous said...

ask Truman, who fashioned the SUCCESSFUL cold war policy.

That would have been George Kennan, 'X', who spoke at the CFR. Hmmm. Containment...wasn't that the reason for the Vietnam War that Leftists complained about, protested, and called a "bad/unjust war".

Idiots.

Jane said...

it seems unfair to punish Iran as a whole, including innocent civilians, etc., for the actions of individuals at the top of the government.

..but it's perfectly fair to punish whites for historical discrimination.


So now you're equating war and death with affirmative action?

Nice.

Jane said...

So "racism" is passionately disbelieving that the only way minorities can be admitted to a school with established academic standards for admissions is for those minorities to be given a handicap score before they even take the test to get in said school, or exempt them from taking the admissions test altogether.

I don't think anyone believes that it's the only way, but if you look at statistics for UCLA Law, which did away with affirmative action, for example, black enrollment has dropped.

Of course, Beam here loves to forget that affirmative action also applies to hispanics, native americans, asians and WOMEN. But you know, conservatives have a real fixation on black people for some reason.

Why are blacks' test scores still lower than whites? Because a larger percentage of black people still live in poverty or places with bad schools, are in prison, are not high school graduates when they have children, etc., than white people. Imagine if Beamish here had a kid (beamish didn't graduate college) -- could beamish teach his kid about calculus? Latin? Vs a parent with a college degree, or a post graduate degree? It's something that is passed down in intangible ways.

You should read O'Connor's opinion in Grutter v. Bollinger. There's a big difference between state-instituted race discrimination that is done to put down an already disadvantaged race, and state-instituted race discrimination that is done to improve the plight of a historically disadvantaged group. Conservatives like to think that there isn't a difference, but I think most well-adjuted people can agree that there is.

Plus, let's hear it, please provide specific examples of when affirmative action has negatively affected you and your life?

Jane said...

For those keeping score at home, that's the Wilson that revitalized the Ku Klux Klan into a national organization,

Wilson was a racist, and he did like "Birth of a Nation" but I don't if you can credit him with revitalizing the KKK. Plus, I don't really know what that has to do with how he did in WWI.

the FDR that didn't have a problem selling steel to Nazi Germany until they attacked the Soviet Union,

Well, huh, ain't that just like arming the mujahedeen in Afghanistan, giving them weapons until they attacked us? Or maybe kinda like giving Saddam Hussein weapons in the 1980s to fight Iran for us?

But wait, I'm most reminded of Prescott Bush's dealings with the Nazis themselves:

George Bush's grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.

The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.

His business dealings, which continued until his company's assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz and to a hum of pre-election controversy.
[Guardian]

and the Klansman Truman that settled for a draw in Korea (and hated blacks and Asians, and couldn't let a Jew in his house out of fear of his wife's wrath).

What does him being a racist have to do with "settling for a draw" with Korea? What would you have had him do?

I excuse Truman a little bit, though - he was the only person in the 20th century to become president without graduating high school.

Anonymous said...

So now you're equating war and death with affirmative action?

No... that's one of your attempted substitutions of a strawman for a lost argument.

Anonymous said...

Because a larger percentage of black people still live in poverty or places with bad schools, are in prison, are not high school graduates when they have children, etc.,

sounds like a failed culture. The culture of "liberalism".

Anonymous said...

Plus, let's hear it, please provide specific examples of when affirmative action has negatively affected you and your life?

The subprime mortagage crises. 80% of loans were "affirmative action" loans. Now we're entering into an "affirmative action" recession.

Jane said...

So now you're equating war and death with affirmative action?

No... that's one of your attempted substitutions of a strawman for a lost argument.


Is it the same thing (a) to bomb the fuck out of a city and destroy infrastructure, hospitals, electrical power plants, roads, water mains, etc. and kill many people who are not personally responsible for what their government does, as (b) give slight preferences in school enrollment and hiring to people of a historically disadvantaged group?

And once again I ask you, can you give a specific concrete example when affirmative action has adversely affected you?

I mean, you guys love to ask this question about our whining about the PATRIOT Act and civil liberties, so why not answer it with respect to affirmative action?

Jane said...

The subprime mortagage crises. 80% of loans were "affirmative action" loans. Now we're entering into an "affirmative action" recession.



Please provide a citation for this.

Jane said...

Because a larger percentage of black people still live in poverty or places with bad schools, are in prison, are not high school graduates when they have children, etc.,

sounds like a failed culture. The culture of "liberalism".


So you're saying that just because after only 40 years after the civil rights act, black people are still underachieving when compared to white people (after hundreds of years of slavery for most of them, and then Jim Crow for a large percentage of them), that means "the culture of liberalism" (whatever that is) is failed?

Anonymous said...

Democrats... ending the culture/cycle of poverty and dependence by handing out cash and telling people they don't have to change since the 1960s.

Answer to the upcoming recession... hand out money.

Anonymous said...

So you're saying that just because after only 40 years after the civil rights act, black people are still underachieving when compared to white people (after hundreds of years of slavery for most of them, and then Jim Crow for a large percentage of them), that means "the culture of liberalism" (whatever that is) is failed?

Not only the original blacks, but two generations of their CHILDREN are STILL failing. You haven't changed the culture of slavery and dependence. No, instead you "honor" it with national holidays and replace the house "massah" with a government plantation.

Anonymous said...

Cite this.

Anonymous said...

Evidently liberals don't understand that the economy isn't amenable to modification to suit "past injustices".

Anonymous said...

Affirmative action.

Keeping blacks on the plantation since 1964.

Wait for the handout... don't throw the handout back in massah's face.

Jane said...

Democrats... ending the culture/cycle of poverty and dependence by handing out cash and telling people they don't have to change since the 1960s.

Well, if you look at historical poverty statistics, poverty has dropped significantly.

Highlights from the table linked above:

1959 - 22.4% of all US residents live in poverty

1964 - 19%

1965 - 17.3%

1966 - 14.7%

1967 - 14.2%

1968 - 12.8%

1969 - 12.1%

and so on until a low is hit in 1979 - 11.7%

1980 - 13.0%

continues to climb until a high in 1983 of 15.2

Drops to 12.8 in 1989

Climbs to 15.1 in 1993

Drops to 11.3 in 2000

Climbs to 12.7 in 2004

Now at 12.3.

Weird, huh?



Now let's look at blacks:

1959 - 55.1% of blacks live under the poverty line

1966 - 41.8%

1969 - 32.2%

1974 - 30.3%

1978 - 30.6%

Climbs to a high of 35.7 in 1983

Drops to 30.7 in 1989

Climbs to a high of 33.4 in 1993

Drops to 22.5 in 2000.

Jane said...

Not only the original blacks, but two generations of their CHILDREN are STILL failing. You haven't changed the culture of slavery and dependence.

But it's not like all black people are on welfare and gov't handouts. look at the stats, 1/5 are below the poverty line, but 4/5 ARE NOT!

No, instead you "honor" it with national holidays and replace the house "massah" with a government plantation.

Wait, what? you're against MLK day? geesus. you think you've heard everything, but then...

Anonymous said...

LOL! You know what "poverty" is? It's an artificial line which the government draws and redraws whenever it wants "poverty" to go up or down.

How many blacks have a POSITIVE net worth today vs 1930?

Jane said...

See, I think the secret problem here is that you all live in incredibly homogenous places. You don't have black friends or black coworkers or worse, black boses. You don't sit on the subway next to black people. You don't have black mayors and black governors (ah, my home state of MA makes me proud).

So, you actually do believe that MOST BLACK PEOPLE ARE POOR, LIVING IN THE GHETTO AND ARE ON SOME SORT OF GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE.

And the fact that you believe that is a scandal of ignorance in itself, but you then proceed to base other beliefs on these gross errors.

Jane said...

wrongmetricchooser said...

LOL! You know what "poverty" is? It's an artificial line which the government draws and redraws whenever it wants "poverty" to go up or down.

How many blacks have a POSITIVE net worth today vs 1930?


Why don't you go see if statistics on that are available, if you want to make that point?

Anonymous said...

Black History Month... Honoring the culture of slavery and telling blacks that they have a wonderful culture since the 1st black history month was created.

The content of black character is best exemplified by the fact that 30%+ of black males will be in "state correctional institutional" custody for some period in their abnormally short lives.

Anonymous said...

Why don't you go see if statistics on that are available, if you want to make that point?

Because governments have to much invested in failure to collect meaningful statistics. And let's face it, they "own" everyone who perform the studies.

Jane said...

The subprime mortagage crises. 80% of loans were "affirmative action" loans. Now we're entering into an "affirmative action" recession.

subprimeaffirmativeaction said...

Cite this.


You're just another dumb honkie, because you obviously have no idea how to interpret statistics at all.

Where in the article does it say that 80% of all subprime loans in this country were made to minorities and women?

But even more importantly, I like how you think that this whole crisis the fault of people who took out loans they "shouldn't have taken out."

California, Illinois Probe Countrywide Practices

LOS ANGELES (AP) ― Officials say attorneys general for California and Illinois are investigating the lending practices of Calabasas-based Countrywide Financial, the nation's largest mortgage lender.

The Illinois attorney general launched a probe into the lender's business practices and may expand the investigation to examine how homeowners were approved for mortgages with payments they were unable to afford.

A California probe is also under way. That's according to a state official familiar with the attorney general's investigation into mortgage lending practices who spoke on condition of anonymity, citing the confidential nature of the investigation.

Anonymous said...

Yes, Baltimore is a really homogenous place. And there are no affirmative action recipients in Washington DC.

Jane said...

demskeepdarkiesdown said...

Black History Month... Honoring the culture of slavery and telling blacks that they have a wonderful culture since the 1st black history month was created.

The content of black character is best exemplified by the fact that 30%+ of black males will be in "state correctional institutional" custody for some period in their abnormally short lives.

9:13 AM


I'm really not sure what you're trying to say. What would you do about all this if you were in charge?

Anonymous biteme said...

Why don't you go see if statistics on that are available, if you want to make that point?

Because governments have to much invested in failure to collect meaningful statistics. And let's face it, they "own" everyone who perform the studies.


So you just don't trust all government statistics?

How about those reports about violence and death in Iraq?

Anonymous said...

fficials say attorneys general for California and Illinois are investigating the lending practices

Yep, the government has been blaming "predatory lenders" for the problem since 2002, BEFORE it became a problem.

Sorry, but the subprime crises may be "facilitated" by lenders, but the government should have BANNED subprime loans. But then, if they did that, minorities couldn't live in houses they can't afford.

Anonymous said...

How about those reports about violence and death in Iraq?

Isn't the number of Iraqi's leaving/returning to Iraq a more meaningful statistic... Hmmm they aren't collecting that one, are they? At least no until they start "returning" and it makes them look good.

Jane said...

officials say attorneys general for California and Illinois are investigating the lending practices

Yep, the government has been blaming "predatory lenders" for the problem since 2002, BEFORE it became a problem.

Sorry, but the subprime crises may be "facilitated" by lenders, but the government should have BANNED subprime loans. But then, if they did that, minorities couldn't live in houses they can't afford.


Can you answer me this question? You've surely seen in the news, one bank after another is posting $9-10 billion losses related to the subprime mortgage crisis.

What exactly are those losses? Why are these banks posting those losses? Can you explain that to me?

Anonymous said...

What's a better measure of the health of black culture... their income or their numbers in prison, children born out of wedlock, or with a net worth greater than $0.

Jane said...

Isn't the number of Iraqi's leaving/returning to Iraq a more meaningful statistic... Hmmm they aren't collecting that one, are they? At least no until they start "returning" and it makes them look good.

So, once again, I ask you, you therefore think the whole system of the government gathering and releasing statistics is corrupt and cannot be trusted? Or can they?

Anonymous said...

You guys are world-class whinners. First, you deny that there is racism today. Wrong, of course. Then, you say that there is racism today and that the Democratic party embraces it. Wrong, again.

Jane said...

thinkonlywhatthegovernmenttellsu2think said...

What's a better measure of the health of black culture... their income or their numbers in prison, children born out of wedlock, or with a net worth greater than $0.


Okay, so you think that "black culture" is to blame. Where does this black culture come from? If you were in charge, what would you do, if anything, about the disparities between black and white people in this country? Would you abolish black history month and MLK day?

Come now, let's hear some concrete ideas.

Anonymous said...

What exactly are those losses? Why are these banks posting those losses? Can you explain that to me?

Dependent corporations whining for a taxpayer bailout/corporate welfare.

The banks have learned to be dependents, too.

The banks play along because government liberals won't let anyone or anything "fail". It would make them look bad.

Anonymous said...

"black culture" is to blame. Where does this black culture come from?

Liberals re-defining "necessity".

Anonymous said...

Blacks since the 60's have never operated w/o a safety net... so they risk their homes on a subprime w/o thinking twice. They've learned that no matter how irresponsibly they act, liberals in government will bail them out. They're "special" and they "deserve" it.

Anonymous said...

some concrete ideas.

Remind them that the government doesn't exist to keep them afloat in bling.

Let 'em fall and HIT the bottom. Teach 'em to NOT TRUST GOVERNMENT.

Anonymous said...

It isn't a govMINT. It's government. And worse, it's SELF-government.

Anonymous said...

Why do blacks vote for democrats?

Massah keeps 'em housed and fed down on the Democratic plantation.

Jane said...

playstheracecard said...

Yes, Baltimore is a really homogenous place. And there are no affirmative action recipients in Washington DC.


Baltimore is the classic example of a racially homogenous place. Most white people live in the white suburbs. You got any black neighbors? How do you think they pay their mortgage/rent? Black coworkers? You ever take public transport? Black friends?

Jane said...

screwthesubprimeholders said...

What exactly are those losses? Why are these banks posting those losses? Can you explain that to me?

Dependent corporations whining for a taxpayer bailout/corporate welfare.

The banks have learned to be dependents, too.

The banks play along because government liberals won't let anyone or anything "fail". It would make them look bad.


See, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You don't know. I know, but I looked it up in a book, whereas you looked it up in your gut.

You know where the demand for subprime loans came from? INVESTORS! I worked in mortgage-backed securities for a time before everything went bust -- we couldn't churn then out fast enough, hundreds of millions of dollars worth of them, people would buy them up as a low-risk, relatively-high return place to park their money. It seemed too good to be true, and it turned out it was.

You seem to be hinting at the government allowing all this to give minorities houses they couldn't afford (only the most short-sighted government official wouldn't see where this was all headed), but you're completely ignoring the whole machinery of how mortgages work in this country and why Citibank and Merril Lynch are writing down billions worth of mortgage-backed securities.

Plus, why didn't Bush outlaw them? Accoridng to you, it's the Dems that give handouts to the minorities, not the Repugs. So why didn't bush and his congress outlaw them then?

Cuz Bush gives handouts to big business. You ever wonder why henry Paulson, formerly of Goldman Sachs, is now in Bush's administration? Hellow!?!?!?!

If any of you are interested, I would be more than happy to explain to you how the mortgage market works in this country and what mortgage-backed securities are.

Jane said...

govmintaintgovernment said...

"some concrete ideas."

Remind them that the government doesn't exist to keep them afloat in bling.

Let 'em fall and HIT the bottom. Teach 'em to NOT TRUST GOVERNMENT.



Show me one time in history when that has worked.

Jane said...

govmintjulep said...

Why do blacks vote for democrats?

Massah keeps 'em housed and fed down on the Democratic plantation.


There are 2 problems with this theory:

(1) Are you saying that blacks are more gullible and are more easily fooled by handouts than whites?

(2) Why are most black (and other minorities and women and gays) politicians Democrats? Surely people who are elected to the house and senate and state houses and senates no longer need government handouts.

Anonymous said...

2stupid4words said...
..but it's perfectly fair to punish whites for historical discrimination.


How are whites being punished for historical discrimination? That is NOT the purpose of Affirmative Action. It is to address the barriers that stand in the way of the success of minorities:

"Affirmative Action as Equalizing Opportunity: Challenging the Myth of Preferential Treatment," Dr. Luke Charles Harris and Uma Narayan

FACT: Affirmative action removes barriers that unfairly exclude women and people of color. In so doing, it promotes equal opportunity for its beneficiaries.

In the United States access to the American Dream is often framed as a fair race in which the swiftest runners win. Critics say we should eliminate affirmative action because it gives some runners an unfair head start in an otherwise fair race. At the same time, many supporters of affirmative action say it is essential because some competitors are disabled and need a head start in order to compete in the race. But what if both of these perspectives miss the point about affirmative action?

Although much of the debate is framed in these stark terms, many people rightly wonder whether there isn’t a better way of thinking about affirmative action. There is. What if we begin with the observation that the lanes on the track used by the runners are fundamentally unequal. Some lanes are unobstructed while others are virtually impassable? From this perspective, we can see that policies that promote inclusion, like affirmative action, are designed to equalize the conditions of a previously unfair race.

We all know that there are numerous obstacles that litter the lanes of disadvantaged runners: people of color find their path blocked by racial discrimination; poverty creates broken lanes filled with potholes and other dangers: women find their lanes filled with impenetrable barriers; and urban youth are derailed far from the finish line by the school to prison pipeline. Meanwhile, those runners who aren’t kept back by race, class, or gender discrimination are privileged to run a race in which their ability to compete is not impeded by unwarranted arbitrary barriers. Some runners are luckier still. They are benefited by a host of privileges such as family connections, wealth, and an array of other factors that deliver them to the finish line ahead of all the other runners without even to have to break a sweat. Their lane is, in effect, a people-mover, an electrically powered lane that moves them along even when they simply assume the position of a runner while never having to actually lift a foot to propel themselves forward.

Let's take a closer look at two differentially positioned runners in the race toward the American Dream:

In the first lane, riddled with the potholes of poverty and the hurdles of systemic discrimination, Beah, an African American woman, is struggling to make ends meet while competing for public works projects that are rarely advertised and even more seldom awarded to women or people of color. She is no stranger to struggle, isolation or hostility to her participation in fields dominated by white men. Earlier in the race, she grew up in a hyper-segregated Detroit neighborhood and attended a poorly funded public school. Despite these obstacles, however, she went on to attend the largest public university in Michigan. Her family, unable to scale the hurdles of redlining and mortgage discrimination, had no home equity to support her education, so Beah struggled to maintain a full-class load while working full-time. She was the only Black person in her business-oriented field of study and there were no professors of color in her department. After graduating near the top of her class, she continued to be marginalized in her white male-dominated field despite her high quality credentials. Cut out of the old boy network, she has been unable to access the necessary capital to build the business she wants to create.

Meanwhile, over on the people-mover lane, the current Chief Executive of the strongest nation in the world is quickly cruising along without breaking a sweat. Earlier in the race, he was a below average student at Philips Andover, an elite private school. And yet, the people mover delivered him to Yale, where he paused just long enough to receive a C average before it shuttled him to the Harvard Business School. After graduation, despite the failures of subsequent business ventures, the people-mover continued to deliver him to ever higher levels of responsibility and power -- effectively bypassing all the other runners on the track. And now, here he is, standing still, blinking occasionally as he struggles through his second term in office.

Neither critics nor defenders of affirmative action seem to notice the conditions of the lanes, much less the runners relaxing on the people mover. Even would-be competitors on the people mover seem utterly unfazed by the huge differences in the conditions of the lanes on the track. Indeed, the most privileged of the runners seem especially critical of efforts to remove the very obstacles that they have never faced from the lanes of their competitors. George Bush, for example, denounced affirmative action as an unfair benefit distributed solely on the basis of race even as the lane that delivered him to the White House continued to move on its own without great effort on his part.

In both critics’ and defenders’ views, affirmative action is preferential treatment for some runners over others. Neither see affirmative action as equalizing a track wherein the conditions for some runners are fundamentally different from the conditions that others face. In defending affirmative action, a much more accurate and defensible view begins with the recognition that the problems that affirmative action addresses are not with damaged runners, but with damaged tracks in which some lanes favor their runners while other lanes impede them. In this light, affirmative action represents nothing more than a set of policies designed to remove the numerous impediments that litter the lanes of those who are disadvantaged for reasons associated with their racial, gender or class backgrounds.

In order to set affirmative action on a firmer foundation, these policies have to be reframed as programs that offset discriminatory barriers in American society. The media have been a central source of the misrepresentation of these policies and in creating public perceptions that affirmative action is fundamentally unfair. As Janine Jackson’s excellent study of the media coverage of affirmative action demonstrates, the media rarely link affirmative action programs to the existence of the patterns of discrimination it is meant to address. It is little wonder given the shocking failure of the media to adequately describe these social policies that so few people fully understand their basic purpose. Thus, affirmative action must be reclaimed. That effort must start squarely with an accurate description of the structural inequalities in American society and the role that affirmative action plays in dismantling traditions and practices that might otherwise obscure the potential of countless men and women in American society.

Jane said...

the problems that affirmative action addresses are not with damaged runners, but with damaged tracks in which some lanes favor their runners while other lanes impede them.

It's the classic nature v. nurture argument, and why some people are obsessed with studying "inherent" differences between the genders and the races.

You see, if you can prove that women/blacks are "inherently" less motivated, less competitive, less intelligent, etc. than whites and males, then you can say, "it's not society's fault, it's nature's fault, and we can't fix nature, so that's that." However, if you can't prove it, or worse, if you can prove that it's society's fault (nurture) and not inherent differences' fault (nature), then you have the impetus to change society.

The rightwingers on this blog want desperately to show that it's nature (some, like FJ, actually do already believe it), because they're middle class and greedy and don't want to give up their position of relative privilege, don't want to share it.

Therefore, if it's nature, then we don't have to do anything to help those who are inherently genetically inferior.

Anonymous said...

The rightwingers on this blog want desperately to show that it's nature (some, like FJ, actually do already believe it), because they're middle class and greedy and don't want to give up their position of relative privilege, don't want to share it.

Therefore, if it's nature, then we don't have to do anything to help those who are inherently genetically inferior.


And this is precisely why we should never ever allow the reichwingos to frame, and I do mean frame, these discussions around their morally, historically and logically BANKRUPT arguments.

Anonymous said...

The rightwingers on this blog want desperately to show that it's nature (some, like FJ, actually do already believe it), because they're middle class and greedy and don't want to give up their position of relative privilege, don't want to share it.

Therefore, if it's nature, then we don't have to do anything to help those who are inherently genetically inferior.


And this is precisely why we should never ever allow the reichwingos to frame, and I do mean frame, these discussions around their morally, historically and logically BANKRUPT arguments.

Anonymous said...

Baltimore is the classic example of a racially homogenous place.

Talk about someone who is out of touch and politically blind... 65% of the residents are black,... so I couldn't possibly have black neighbors, friends or coworkers. LOL!

Anonymous said...

You know where the demand for subprime loans came from? INVESTORS!

LOL Talk about a supply sider... Investors wanted to get less return and less risk on their money, so they invented the sub-prime loan.

Please... I think I need some air... I'm, laughing just WAY too much!

Anonymous said...

why didn't Bush outlaw them?

Because the committee that was responsible for regulating them...the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs was too worried about housing minorities and other "urban affairs" to give a crap what happened to the banks.

Besides, who's going to vote for more guvmint if the mint isn't printing mo money?

Anonymous said...

(1) Are you saying that blacks are more gullible and are more easily fooled by handouts than whites?

Yes, patronizingly racist dependency-based "liberal" plantation culture makes em gullible. Whites AREN'T getting the guvmint handout and guaranteed jobs. In that way guvmint STRENGTHENS and HELPS whites.

Anonymous said...

The black family and church were incredibly strong institutions until the Silas Legree democrats conned them into working on the liberal plantation.

Anonymous said...

Show me one time in history when that has worked.

Show me a government in history that could ever be trusted.

Anonymous said...

Surely people who are elected to the house and senate and state houses and senates no longer need government handouts.

But all their friends and families do. In fact, they can't make it w/o the handouts.

Anonymous said...

KKKRat bleats:Except that neither war in Iraq and Afghanistan is anything resembling "lost," and before toppling Saddam Hussein led to "global warming," Al Gore was screaming his man tits off in 1992 that leaving a terrorism sponsor like Saddam in power after Desert Storm was a grave mistake.

Both wars are irretrievably lost. Dumya is hanging on hoping to dump it on a Democrat...and Bush the Smarter, Powell, Cheney and almost every other relevant GOPiggy accurately predicted what a disaster it would be to remove Saddam. I believe those would be the RELEVANT quotes. These fools will mindlessly follow anything labeled Republican...even if it's totall opposite of what they said the day before.

Anonymous said...

How are whites being punished for historical discrimination? That is NOT the purpose of Affirmative Action. It is to address the barriers that stand in the way of the success of minorities:

Intentions and results are 2 completely different things. Do you help blacks compete by helping them over or lowering their hurdles so that they don't have to jump as high or run as fast? Is that helping them become better competitors?

No good deed goes unpunished. Helping blacks over the hurdles of life is handicapping them!

Anonymous said...

Dora says: But you know, conservatives have a real fixation on black people for some reason.

Their ugly little "secret" is that it's sexual. The men are insecure and the women are fascinated...poor hag ridden fools.

Anonymous said...

Stop lauging
freakanomix said...
You know where the demand for subprime loans came from? INVESTORS!

LOL Talk about a supply sider... Investors wanted to get less return and less risk on their money, so they invented the sub-prime loan.

Please... I think I need some air... I'm, laughing just WAY too much!



Hell yes, the investors. They were the ones who demanded higher yielding securities. The mortgage industry just drooled over the anticipated profits from origination fees, bundling mortgages into securities, and selling these securities to greedy investors, who thought that the risks would be alleviated via advanced risk-management techniques and who also thought that houses were going to appreciate forever. WRONG.

Anonymous said...

Well, huh, ain't that just like arming the mujahedeen in Afghanistan, giving them weapons until they attacked us? Or maybe kinda like giving Saddam Hussein weapons in the 1980s to fight Iran for us?

Actually it's mostly idiotic irrelevant spin. The country was not yet at war with Germany...and the GOP wanted to keep us out entirely. Anyone who says that FDR was not one of the greatest wartime Pres is a dishonest idiot...like these pathetic ignorami. And was Wilson a racist in the teens?...duh...so was everyone else.

Anonymous said...

Actually it's mostly idiotic irrelevant spin. The country was not yet at war with Germany...and the GOP wanted to keep us out entirely. Anyone who says that FDR was not one of the greatest wartime Pres is a dishonest idiot...like these pathetic ignorami. And was Wilson a racist in the teens?...duh...so was everyone else.

Yes. High time to cut through the bullshit with these idiots who want to put up some phony-baloney argument and expect us to treat it as logic. Damned Nimrods.

Anonymous said...

There is absolutely no debate whatsoever re the subprime disaster and its causes. It's a direct result of GOP belief in not regulating big money. They got greedy, invented "new" devices, forgot all their standards and got burned. Fabulous...it's a very nice replay of the '20s when the same thing happened.

Anonymous said...

Haha...reading the posts...the extreme writhing and twisting these poor, little racist fools manage in order to blame others and justify themselves is hilarious...reminds me of a big ball of snakes in a pit. Really ugly small minded monkeys. Liberal culture hasn't cured the sequelae to hundreds of years of conservative culture...namely Slavery...rilly? The disastrous results of slavery and colonialism are rampant all across the globe and have been "cured" nowhere...certainly not by more of that conserv culture.

Anonymous said...

Smack says: Hell yes, the investors. They were the ones who demanded higher yielding securities. The mortgage industry just drooled over the anticipated profits from origination fees, bundling mortgages into securities, and selling these securities to greedy investors, who thought that the risks would be alleviated via advanced risk-management techniques and who also thought that houses were going to appreciate forever. WRONG.

Yes, everyone, including conserv economists understand this. But the whored out pundits of Fox, Townhall etc are in the business of finding spin to keep what few morons they have left a reason to believe...and they've come up with some wildly ridiculous but imaginative stuff...gov helping minorities etc..yeah, the CONSERVATIVE BUSH gov't is really into that...it's quite a circus to watch and see how they're manipulating these little freaks. You have to believe that Sayet is receiving subsidies from some "think" tank to put his stupid poison out...he operates on the lowest end for just the very stupidest of wingbats...they have very carefully and consciously selected niches for all these sheep.This boy has really found his level...and never tries to go to a higher one. Not that he'd have a chance.

Anonymous said...

It's a direct result of GOP belief in not regulating big money. They got greedy, invented "new" devices, forgot all their standards and got burned...

Nope, it wasn't Republicans looking to not fix the OBVIOUS problems w/subprimes...obvious 5 years ago, anyway.

Gee, why wouldn't the Democrats want to fix the problem that was staring EVERYONE in the face? Quo bono? LOL!

Anonymous said...

In 2002 Senate Democrats passed a banking bill that was supposed to solve the sub-prime problem.

And gee, here it is, 2007, and Jesse Jackson is involved in the subprime loan crises. Why? Could it be that a below-prime interest rate has become a new "civil right" for minorities?

Blacks have been receiving "affirmative action" and qualifying for "undeserved/unqualified" below prime rate loans since the '68 civil rights legislation. No one says a word when long term interest rates are declining... but listen to them squeel when interest rates start going up!

Oh, we've got to bail them out, they cry. We're black and under-privledged!

Anonymous said...

Already these poor baboons have "forgotten" that the GOP has had complete control of the gov't for most of the last seven years...but it's the Dems who gave us the problem...hahaha...why bother them with facts? Just let them display themselves and laugh at them with everyone else.

Anonymous said...

Oh, did I say passed? I meant to say introduced. They had control of the Senate, but they couldn't be bothered to pass it. After all interest rates weren't going up yet and, as planned, blacks and other minorities were qualifying for sub-primes in record numbers.

So they reintroduced it every two years and did nothing... until interest rates started going up again.

Anonymous said...

Democrats controlled the Senate in may of 2002 when the bill was introduced. Still they did nothing. Imagine that.

Anonymous said...

Oh, that's right. Democrats need to control all three branches of government before they'll accept responsibility for not accomplishing ANYTHING for the American people. LOL!

Anonymous said...

Democrats promised to end the war in Iraq... and with control of BOTH House and Senate could't get a voluntary withdrawl date attached to a piece of legislation.

Coward, thy name is Democrat.

Anonymous said...

The subprime crisis will be this generation's Great Depression unless the federal government bails out more than 2 million homeowners facing possible foreclosure, the Rev. Jesse Jackson said Saturday.

"We're going to fight back and demand restructuring of loans before repossessing of homes," said the civil rights activist, who was in the city to promote his 11th annual Wall Street Project Economic Summit. "We're facing the most grave economic crisis of our time."

Jackson was joined by lawmakers and more than 100 other people at an unusual Saturday City Council hearing on the lending crisis.

"I don't know what to do," said Ray Dawkins, whose mortgage payments recently ballooned from $3,300 to $5,800 a month on his multi-family house in Canarsie, Brooklyn. "I didn't have any legal representation."


Gee, a black slumlord might lose his tenement. And gee, black want a federal bailout. Surprise, surprise.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, sooooorry boys...the last seven year are yours. Failures and successes...oh,there haven't been any? See, you embrace failurism and evilness...and terminal stupidity. But you are funny...that's why we keep acheckin in...don't let up now. I like to see the latest contortions.

(((Thought Criminal))) said...

Of course, Beam here loves to forget that affirmative action also applies to hispanics, native americans, asians and WOMEN. But you know, conservatives have a real fixation on black people for some reason.

This from Dora, in reference to and after directly quoting me:

So "racism" is passionately disbelieving that the only way minorities can be admitted to a school with established academic standards for admissions is for those minorities to be given a handicap score before they even take the test to get in said school, or exempt them from taking the admissions test altogether.

Jesus Dora, learn to friggin read already.

[So you can stop being a leftist.]

(((Thought Criminal))) said...

Simes,

You were supposed to boil the Rice-O-Roni first. Still got some in your teeth.

No, don't snort the flavor packet.

(((Thought Criminal))) said...

Already these poor baboons have "forgotten" that the GOP has had complete control of the gov't for most of the last seven years...but it's the Dems who gave us the problem...

What did you think was going to happen to the economy when Democrats took back Congress?

(((Thought Criminal))) said...

Haha...reading the posts...the extreme writhing and twisting these poor, little racist fools manage in order to blame others and justify themselves is hilarious...reminds me of a big ball of snakes in a pit. Really ugly small minded monkeys. Liberal culture hasn't cured the sequelae to hundreds of years of conservative culture...namely Slavery...rilly? The disastrous results of slavery and colonialism are rampant all across the globe and have been "cured" nowhere...certainly not by more of that conserv culture.

Yes, Kookie-san, that's it. All those historical ills you cite just happen to have the Democrat label attached to them, but it's just an uncanny cycle of coincidences.

Kinda like all the leftist sock puppets here deriding their percieved political enemies as various non-human animals. What flavor of leftism does that come from? Nazism, or Arab nationalism?

Anonymous said...

Now they're not even working hard enough to get a laugh...bear down a little harder, wingnuts, and maybe somebody will bother with you.

Jane said...

freakanomix said...

You know where the demand for subprime loans came from? INVESTORS!

LOL Talk about a supply sider... Investors wanted to get less return and less risk on their money, so they invented the sub-prime loan.

Please... I think I need some air... I'm, laughing just WAY too much!



Have you ever worked in an investment bank?

No? Then shut up.

(((Thought Criminal))) said...

Ah well hell. The kidz went home and left their balls.

Jane said...

fromindependence2dependence said...

why didn't Bush outlaw them?

Because the committee that was responsible for regulating them...the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs was too worried about housing minorities and other "urban affairs" to give a crap what happened to the banks.


(1) Is that the only committee that could have done something? No.

(2) This committee when the Republicans had control of the House and Senate was worried? The Republicans were worried? Are they race panderers too, then?

Jane said...

(1) Are you saying that blacks are more gullible and are more easily fooled by handouts than whites?

Yes, patronizingly racist dependency-based "liberal" plantation culture makes em gullible.


How does that work, exactly?

Jane said...

trappedinthecycleofdependence said...

Surely people who are elected to the house and senate and state houses and senates no longer need government handouts.

But all their friends and families do. In fact, they can't make it w/o the handouts.


You got some sort of citation for that? Cuz if not, that's just racist.

(((Thought Criminal))) said...

Rest assured Dora, I'd never challenge your work experience at making sub sandwiches at Blimpies.

I'd hate for you to be an "advocate of free speech" telling me to shut up too.

Even if you forgot the mustard on my hoagie.

Jane said...

Hell yes, the investors. They were the ones who demanded higher yielding securities. The mortgage industry just drooled over the anticipated profits from origination fees, bundling mortgages into securities, and selling these securities to greedy investors, who thought that the risks would be alleviated via advanced risk-management techniques and who also thought that houses were going to appreciate forever. WRONG.

That's much too complicated for these idiots. hells, these guys probably don't even know what a security is, considering that they're lower middle class who don't have enough money to invest in anything.

Jane said...

Gee, why wouldn't the Democrats want to fix the problem that was staring EVERYONE in the face? Quo bono? LOL!

Let's assume arguendo that the Dems don't want to fix the problem because they want to give houses to minorities. okay?

you still haven't explained why Bush & his Congress didn't outlaw these horrible horrible mortgages when they had the chance.

Jane said...

Already these poor baboons have "forgotten" that the GOP has had complete control of the gov't for most of the last seven years...but it's the Dems who gave us the problem...hahaha...why bother them with facts? Just let them display themselves and laugh at them with everyone else.

Yexactly.

Jane said...

DNCvotesarewastedvotes said...

Democrats promised to end the war in Iraq... and with control of BOTH House and Senate could't get a voluntary withdrawl date attached to a piece of legislation.

Coward, thy name is Democrat.


Huh, did you ever learn how a bill becomes a law? I know you guys don't really care about the constitution, but still, you know, the prez has to sign the bill become it becomes a law. If you have an idiot-ass stubborn prez, it might be a prolbem...

Jane said...

Oh beamish, i bet it pisses you SO MUCH that I have more meaningful work experience, education and salary than you do, even though you're a white man, and white men are supposed to get everything on a silver platter, right?

Ok, Beamish, explain to us how the mortgage market in the US works, and I'll not make fun of your pathetic loser life anymore.

Otherwise, I'll explain it, and you'll feel really stupid, once again.

(((Thought Criminal))) said...

you still haven't explained why Bush & his Congress didn't outlaw these horrible horrible mortgages when they had the chance.

What were those passages in that ol' US Constitution document that Democrats have been trying to destroy since importing Africans as slaves was banned by the federal government?

Oh yeah, here they are:

"No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

" No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility."

Wow. If you sign a legal mortgage contract, you're still obligated to it.

Heady stuff there.

Bet they didn't teach you that at onion-slicing school, Dora.

Anonymous said...

Most of these losers are guys who were too stupid to get into college or couldn't qualify for a decent job...their only excuse is to blame the nigrahs and the liberals. Did I actually hear one of the morons bring up Byrd's ancient history Klan thing?...loooooooooooooooooooosers.
See, the way it works, special ed guys, is that honkies already have a HUGE affirmative action thing going on for them...it's called RACISM.AA is just a little, tiny counterbalance to that. But you still suck wind when you try to get a job after lawn mowing season is over, so you gotta whine real loud so mama don't throw your useless ass out of her house.

(((Thought Criminal))) said...

Simes,

I told you not to snort the flavor packet.

Now your consolation prize is chicken-flavored snot.

Anonymous said...

This is too much, dora pretending to have experience as an investment banker. I bet she brought the lawyers coffee once this past summer. LOL!

And Beamish, you shouldn't waste your talent on these half wits. Making fun of their careers in the food service industry is disrespectful. And I'm sure that one day they'll graduate from dish washing to actual food prep. They just need to remember to wash their hands after using the restroom.

Anonymous said...

perversionism

Anonymous said...

I invented the Gardenburger you dumbass trog...check out my autobi...I know damn well you work for me blowing unhappy customers.

Jane said...

This is too much, dora pretending to have experience as an investment banker.

Yes, let's hear someone, ANYONE, explain what the hell these mortage-backed securities are, what SallieMae and FreddieMac and FannieMae are, and why Citi is writing down $9 billion worth of securities.

The floor is yours, boys...

Jane said...

" No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility."

Wow. If you sign a legal mortgage contract, you're still obligated to it.


How about if it was obtained by fraud? What then, smartypants?


Heady stuff there.

Bet they didn't teach you that at onion-slicing school, Dora.


It's true, the astronomical level of your stupidity does bring me to tears, metaphorically speaking.

Anonymous said...

Yes, let's hear someone, ANYONE, explain what the hell these mortage-backed securities are, what SallieMae and FreddieMac and FannieMae are, and why Citi is writing down $9 billion worth of securities.

The floor is yours, boys...


Where's the guy with the mahvlous IQ?

Anonymous said...

Where's the guy with the mahvlous IQ?

Well, that would be me but my field is reversed.

Jane said...

In the case that these fools don't manage to put together an explanation of all this mortgage-related mumbojumbo (chances of that: 100%), I will explain it all.

(((Thought Criminal))) said...

Wow. If you sign a legal mortgage contract, you're still obligated to it.

How about if it was obtained by fraud? What then, smartypants?

You take it to court and try to convince a judge that it's unfair that you're obligated by language in a mortgage contract you signed.

Or, you take your case to the Democrats, who are more than happy to issue bills of attainder and "fraud" verdicts without a trial against anyone not ideologically committed to killing American citizens.

Bet they didn't teach you that at onion-slicing school, Dora.

It's true, the astronomical level of your stupidity does bring me to tears, metaphorically speaking.

Need a tissue?

(((Thought Criminal))) said...

In the case that these fools don't manage to put together an explanation of all this mortgage-related mumbojumbo (chances of that: 100%), I will explain it all.

I take it this will be more fun than your advocacy of incest?

Jane said...

Bet they didn't teach you that at onion-slicing school, Dora.

It's true, the astronomical level of your stupidity does bring me to tears, metaphorically speaking.

Need a tissue?


Thanks, I have my own.

So, mortgage-backed securities...

There are big banks and small banks, but all banks have a limited amount of money that they can lend out to mortgagors. Eventually, the banks will run out of money to lend out.

Let's have an example: Beamish Bank has $1 million, can lend out ten mortgages of $100,000 each.

What then?

Well, that's where Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac come in. In the late 1970's, the gov't figured out that this shortage of money to lend was hindering housing ownership among Americans. So, the government decided to buy up all those mortgages from the banks, for a fair price, depending on the length of the mortgage, the credit-worthiness of the mortgagor, the amount of the mortgage, etc. Thus, the government ended up with a bunch of mortgages, and the banks ended up with more money to lend out.

So what would the government do with all these mortgages? Initially, it would make government-backed mortgage backed securities that were very low rick (bc they were government-backed) but consequently very low return.

How does a mortgage-backed security work? Suppose you have 10 mortgages of $100,000 each. 30 years, 5% interest rate. Every month, the mortgagors pay a certain amount on their mortages. It's a steady flow of money. You can "securitize" this cashflow and sell it as a security that pays a certain amount of money every month. The securitizer takes a small cut between the mortgagors' payments, and what it pays to the securities' owners.

You can do the same thing with anything else that has a steady cashflow, the following things have been securitized: student loans, credit card debt, casino revenues, record company revenues.

Anyway, so the government made these mortgage-backed securities, and it still does, to some extent. Then the government decided it would be fun to have the investment banks make their own mortgage-backed securities out of whatever diverse pool of loans they wanted. The investment banks did this. Investors ate it all up.

And then, there was no one else to give mortgages to. So, the subprime mortgage market opened up - more mortages, and higher payments on those mortgages, because the interest rates were higher.

The banks couldn't keep up with investors' demands for these securities, because investors saw them as low-risk, high return investments (when the economy was good, even the subprime people made their payments). And then, even the people who were eligble for those ran out. So, folks like countrywide decided to make extra-subprime, with intro rates that were far lower than the real rates, etc., to get even more mortgages to sell to the investment banks for money.

And so here we are, with everyone declaring multi-billion dollar losses (a loss in financial terms is a permanent loss that will never be recovered, unlike a decline in profits). What this means is that hundreds of these mortgage-backed securities have been basically declared VALUELESS because the mortgages that provide the revenue stream for the investors who invested in these securities have all disappeared. Billions have been lost on this overzealous scheme.

As a matter of disclosure, I worked on the insurance of these investments such that if they ever did get devalued, investors would be covered by a sort of insurance for their money. This is known as Credit Default Swaps.

(((Thought Criminal))) said...

That's a lot of roundabout just to say "everything works as long as people who take out mortgages [of any interest rate] pay their bills."

If it's not "unfair" for me to lose my car if I stop making payments on it, if it's not "unfair" to have my internet access shut off if I stop paying the bill, how is it "unfair" for someone to lose their house if they stop making payments on it?

Oh yeah, I forgot.

Billz are for white people.

Jane said...

Please show me statistics about the defaults right now that show that minorities are hardest hit.

(((Thought Criminal))) said...

Please show me statistics about the defaults right now that show that minorities are hardest hit.

Why don't you ask Jesse Jackson for them? He's the one agitating for the "civil right to not be obligated to pay your mortgage."

Personally, I could give a fuck about the issue. It will never affect me. No bank owns my house.

(((Thought Criminal))) said...

Absolutely love what it's doing for the market value of my house though...

Anonymous said...

Personally, I could give a fuck about the issue. It will never affect me. No bank owns my house.

Oh, it'll affect you alright, you naive, little clown...there's probably a very big recession down the road...and your equity is going down bigtime, right now.

(((Thought Criminal))) said...

Simes,

There was a recession in 2000, beginning right before Clinton left office and ending shortly after Bush's first fiscal year budget began [October 2001].

That's right, kiddo. What you're seeing now in the economy is the result of the new Democrat Congress
fiscal budget schedules [that Bush didn't veto...grrr] that began in October 2007.

You do realize a President's economic policy is largely "what Congress will let him get away with" - ultimately, America's economy is in Congress' hands.

Without a line item veto [hey, there's a Republican desire!] when the President signs a budget into law, he's rubber-stamping quite a few compromises.

And he gets to be the figurehead for the policy successes and / or failures, when it's Congress ultimately writing the budgets (and appropriating the funds for it...)

All of this is elementary to anyone familiar with the US Constitution.

Which itself explains why it's always news to a leftist.

Anyway, civics lessons aside, you see a recession coming.

What are you doing to throw out Congressional Democrats in the next election?

Nothing?

Then enjoy your recession.

Anonymous said...

You mean that once the federal government had completely distorted the regular credit market and ran out of money to lend to minorities under market conditions, they threatened to sue the banks under Title 8 of the 1968 Civil Rights Act and forced them to invent the subprime market?

Executive Order 12892, as amended (Leadership and Coordination of Fair Housing in Federal Programs: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing), provides that programs and activities relating to housing and urban development (including any Federal agency having regulatory or supervisory authority over financial institutions) shall be administered in a manner affirmatively to further the purposes of the Act and shall cooperate with the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, who shall be responsible for exercising leadership in furthering the design and delivery of Federal programs and activities.

Legal Authority: E.O. 12892, Equal Opportunity in Housing, Issued January 17, 1994, 59 FR 2939.


Oh gee Clinton invented, affirmative action in lending... what a clever scheme...how progressive!

(((Thought Criminal))) said...

BiggerPicture,

Heh!

The funny thing is that this Clinton executive order replaced an almost equally dismal one issued by Jimmy Carter 20 days before Reagan took office.

Anonymous said...

Yes, and they thereby created a moral hazard that no mortgage lender or security packager could insure against.

Anonymous said...

Forty Acres and a Mule became unlimited credit at below prime rate interest.

Welcome to the Affirmative Action Plantation. Vote Democrat!

Jane said...

Without a line item veto [hey, there's a Republican desire!] when the President signs a budget into law, he's rubber-stamping quite a few compromises.

And he gets to be the figurehead for the policy successes and / or failures, when it's Congress ultimately writing the budgets (and appropriating the funds for it...)

All of this is elementary to anyone familiar with the US Constitution.


What's evident to anyone who is familiar with the constitution is that the line item veto is unconstitutional.

I like how in Beamish's world, everything good that happens under Bush is thanks to Bush's wise leadership, and everything bad that happens isn't really his fault, it's the fault of Congress, Clinton, the intelligence community, Brownie, etc.

Jane said...

"Please show me statistics about the defaults right now that show that minorities are hardest hit."

Why don't you ask Jesse Jackson for them? He's the one agitating for the "civil right to not be obligated to pay your mortgage."


Irrelevant. You want to make a point, you find the statistics.

Personally, I could give a fuck about the issue. It will never affect me. No bank owns my house.

And boy, you are one hell of an idiot.

Anonymous said...

Table 12.

«Oldest ‹Older   401 – 600 of 669   Newer› Newest»