Thread: It's good to be a bankster! Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024346
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
As if robosigning and foreclosing wasn't enough. Banksters have been foreclosing on people, kicking them out of their homes, then reversing the foreclosure and re***ning the mortgage. I'm fealing physically sick over this twist. ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
[It's good to be a bankster!]
[ 13. February 2013, 00:18: Message buggered about with by: comet ]
Posted by comet (# 10353) on
:
that's is beyond fucked up and scary as hell.
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
I think that comes very close to negotiating in bad faith. Legally that is a bad move.
Posted by comet (# 10353) on
:
I'm with Justinian. makes me physically sick.
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
And you somehow expected better of banks?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
And you somehow expected better of banks?
No. Doesn't make it less disgusting, though.
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
And you somehow expected better of banks?
No. Doesn't make it less disgusting, though.
I don't expect better of banks. But I would expect that there would be some legal recourse for the people who were treated so badly. I know the homeowners probably can't afford to hire lawyers on their own. But wouldn't a lawyer be able to find a couple of people to start a class-action lawsuit?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Nationalize the lot.
Posted by comet (# 10353) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
And you somehow expected better of banks?
No. Doesn't make it less disgusting, though.
I don't expect better of banks. But I would expect that there would be some legal recourse for the people who were treated so badly. I know the homeowners probably can't afford to hire lawyers on their own. But wouldn't a lawyer be able to find a couple of people to start a class-action lawsuit?
before anyone should have to sue the lawmakers need to step in and fix this. it's like the neverending nightmare.
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Nationalize the lot.
Or at least make them co-operatives.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
This shit makes free availability of firearms look virtuous.
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
Thanks to successive government policy it one law for business and another law for individuals. MP's are perpetually falling over backwards to lick the backsides of big business.
What do you expect from a system that has our own inland revenue whoreing itself off to a tax haven while publicly claiming it was a UK company.
Apparently this isn't fraud.
What do you expect from a system that actively help big business discover tax avoidance schemes.
What do you expect from a system that imprisions individuals for minor drug offences but let's banks off with a fine for laundering drug money.
Fuck em all. I have zero respect politicians right now. Tory's Labour, Libreral are just all the same stinking grey goo. If in future it turns out the greens are just as bad it will be time to storm parliament.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
As if robosigning and foreclosing wasn't enough. Banksters have been foreclosing on people, kicking them out of their homes, then reversing the foreclosure and reopening the mortgage. I'm fealing physically sick over this twist.
Well, the threat of a reduced bonus at the end of another 'successful' year must be hard to contemplate ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
. That extra couple of million comes in really handy, you know. Have you seen the prices in Monte Carlo recently?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Tory's Labour, Libreral are just all the same stinking grey goo. If in future it turns out the greens are just as bad it will be time to storm parliament.
...and install yet another helping of the same stinking grey goo in their place.
It ain't politicians that are the problem, it's people. We're all corrupt shits feathering our own nests, it's just that most of us don't get the chance to do it in a big way.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Thanks to successive government policy it one law for business and another law for individuals. MP's are perpetually falling over backwards to lick the backsides of big business.
Err... the thing is Georgie lad, this is peculiar to the US mortgage system. I'm not aware that this practice is in use in the UK. I'm willing to be corrected on that though.
It does seem an unpleasant situation though. I wonder how a Democratic president full of "Hope" and recently returned for a second term could have allowed this to develp without wanting to "do something".
George, the Americans voted for the man twice, so I think they must be happy with him and what he allows to happen on his watch.
A Republican president might have fixed it before now, but we'll never know because President Obama has turned a blind eye to it.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
A Republican president might have fixed it before now, but we'll never know because President Obama has turned a blind eye to it.
I don't think it's one of those things the President can fix. AFAICT it's for the courts to behave differently or Congress to change the law.
Before the people get angry enough to pick up all those guns and have another revolution.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
A Republican president might have fixed it before now, but we'll never know because President Obama has turned a blind eye to it.
I don't think it's one of those things the President can fix. AFAICT it's for the courts to behave differently or Congress to change the law.
Before the people get angry enough to pick up all those guns and have another revolution.
I'm pretty sure the President has some influence though, on those lawmakers. Maybe if he'd mention it from time to time, hold some meetings to look into it, start the ball rolling as it were. Has he done any of that? I wouldn't know as I'm English. Perhaps he has. Let's hope so eh?
Posted by The Rogue (# 2275) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
A Republican president might have fixed it before now, but we'll never know because President Obama has turned a blind eye to it.
Why would a Republican president have been any better?
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
...and install yet another helping of the same stinking grey goo in their place.
It ain't politicians that are the problem, it's people. We're all corrupt shits feathering our own nests, it's just that most of us don't get the chance to do it in a big way.
I agree with that. People get all worked up about politicians and others in power, not noticing that they're a mirror of how we behave in general.
I'm all for getting worked up about them if they're not scapegoats.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Rogue:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
A Republican president might have fixed it before now, but we'll never know because President Obama has turned a blind eye to it.
Why would a Republican president have been any better?
Oh, I'm not saying they would, but the story in the OP indicates the "zombie" aspect of the problem begain in 2010, under Obama - Man of "Hope".
We'll never know how a Republican would have dealt with it, because there wasn't one. Pity, as it would have meant the Ship's port-side crew could have raged at a "real" target (a Republican), rather than the Sainted, Blessed Obama - Man of "Hope", who seem's to have been willing to let this play out without doing anything. Or perhaps he did do something, I'm English so I don't know.
Posted by geroff (# 3882) on
:
I looked at the OP read the article and thought "US mortgage/legislation - I haven't a clue - lets leave it to US shipmates." and so didn't post.
So shall we just leave it to them or shall we post inane uninformed rubbish?
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
Oh, we discuss US events all the time over here - see the thread about the shootings in America - so yes, we should be able to weigh in to at least ask why they haven’t held their President to account for this situation, especially as they have just re-elected him.
Even more relevant is the fact that one of the banks involved in the HSBC, which is a British bank.
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
I don't know much about the American situation but I hold the opinion that American politicians and their fixation with big business are just as bad as English politicians so I used mostly English examples. I had thought those examples were common knowledge but for anyone uninformed enough to think them rubbish I suppose I could provide the appropriate links.
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
We'll never know how a Republican would have dealt with it, because there wasn't one. Pity, as it would have meant the Ship's port-side crew could have raged at a "real" target (a Republican), rather than the Sainted, Blessed Obama - Man of "Hope", who seem's to have been willing to let this play out without doing anything. Or perhaps he did do something, I'm English so I don't know.
There isn't a hell of a lot he could do, in our system. He has done some of the things he could do by executive order -- setting up, and then expanding, programs to allow folks to refinance loans that they could no longer afford, as long as those loans were owned or guaranteed by Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae. Any more than that will require Congress to act. And the folks in Congress are too beholden to the banks to do anything meaningful.
It's the same with the student loan programs. Obama has made changes around the edges of federal student loans, but it's the private student loans that are killing people, and he can't do anything about those without the help of Congress.
If you really want to understand what's going on in the American banking system (mortgages, bailouts, and all), the best place to start is with Matt Taibbi's blog on Rolling Stone. Some of the older articles are available only in their archive, which are behind their paywall. But you can start with what's publicly available, and learn a lot.
Unless, of course, you just like talking about things you know nothing about.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by geroff:
I looked at the OP read the article and thought "US mortgage/legislation - I haven't a clue - lets leave it to US shipmates." and so didn't post.
So shall we just leave it to them or shall we post inane uninformed rubbish?
Thank you Geroff, I was waiting for the same thing. I haven't a clue either and I actually worked in banks most of my life although at a very low level. I did work in loans long enough to hear outraged complaints about every loan turndown, as though we were in the business of just giving the depositors money away to anyone with bad credit and the excuses for not making payments made it obvious that a surprising number of people put their mortgage payment at the bottom of their priority list after vacations, clothes and large screen TVs.
This from the article seems to be an important point: quote:
Chase said it sent Keller a copy of its court filing on December 9, 2008. Keller says he never received any notification.
Surely something this important should be sent by registered mail.
Banks seem a bit damned if they do, damned if they don't in this story. If they foreclose they're kicking the poor guy out of "his" house and if they decide not to foreclose they're even meaner.
Banks can be awful, no doubt about it. The latest AIG scandal and the amazing fact that no one in charge is being punished for it is shocking and wrong.
But my sympathy with the man in Columbus is strained a bit. Ten months without a mortgage payment? He signed a promisory note saying he would make those payments and if he couldn't either see the bank about a refinancing deal or put together one single payment in that length of time then it doesn't seem to me like he was trying very hard. As seen in this article banks don't want to foreclose so the slightest sign of effort on the mortgage holder's part will often appease them.
We don't expect to quit making our car payments and still get to keep the car, we shouldn't expect to keep our house and not pay for it. If banks took the soft charitable attitude so many people expect of them, the bank would fail and all the depositors would lose out.
This man was mighty quick to go live in his daughter's dining room and never look back. She's the one I feel really sorry for.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
There isn't a hell of a lot he could do, in our system. He has done some of the things he could do by executive order -- setting up, and then expanding, programs to allow folks to refinance loans that they could no longer afford, as long as those loans were owned or guaranteed by Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae. Any more than that will require Congress to act. And the folks in Congress are too beholden to the banks to do anything meaningful.
It's the same with the student loan programs. Obama has made changes around the edges of federal student loans, but it's the private student loans that are killing people, and he can't do anything about those without the help of Congress.
If you really want to understand what's going on in the American banking system (mortgages, bailouts, and all), the best place to start is with Matt Taibbi's blog on Rolling Stone. Some of the older articles are available only in their archive, which are behind their paywall. But you can start with what's publicly available, and learn a lot.
Unless, of course, you just like talking about things you know nothing about. [/QB]
If the President is so impotent, why do people want to attain the office? I don’t buy that argument. If the President is merely the “Administrator-in-Chief” then there’s no point in having an election for the post. Just let Congress appoint someone.
But that isn’t the case is it. The President has a huge amount of power, even with Congress. The Congretional system’s power is centred in the committee’s. Get a few important committee people on-side and you can do business. He has all sorts of power to help influence these people from his position in the executive branch. Has he done anything at that level, or is he keeping his powder dry for other issues that he want to push.
It seems to me that Obama has done nothing on this because he probably wants to use his influence, his political capital if you like, on other things he deems as “more important”. This Democratic President seems to have made a value judgement that these people are not worth doing much more for, other than tossing them a few token administrative sops.
I do like talking about things I don’t know much about, it’s what keeps “Hell” in business I think! But I do know a little about the US Government processes and I know that this issue isn’t something that the Democrats, either in the White House or on the Hill, feel the need to waste any effort or capital on.
Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on
:
I consider myself a fairly conservative guy, and I don't like gov't getting in the way of business, but I DO think business should be accountable to gov't, which at least theoretically represents the will of the people.
Why there aren't more executives sharing a roof with Bernie Madoff over this is beyond me. Maybe there are, and I just don't know about it. These ruthless and selfish con men have wiped out honest, hardworking people and caused no end of consternation for millions of families just trying to get by in an economy where college and health care cost increases outstrip general cost-of-living increases by what? 10:1 or something like that?
That being said, this is a warning to let people know to follow up on these things. I know a couple in a similar situation, and because they kept in touch, found out that the foreclosure wasn't going to happen, and are back in their house.
Tom
/Not a good Hell poster...
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
deano,
I am no expert on American politics, but it appears you are speaking from the wrong orifice.
The bank bailouts were begun under George W. and those baiilouts were just loads of dosh thrust at the banks with no guidelines. Not saying a Democrat president would have done it better, just that this mess began under a Repubican.
On both sides of the pond, and on the underside of the world as well, it is legal until a law written says it isn't.* Not certain what a president or a prime minister can do in this type of situation.
*Roughly. My understanding is something is not illegal unless there is something in the system saying it is. Those with actual knowledge, please correct me if I have this wrong.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
deano,
I am no expert on American politics, but it appears you are speaking from the wrong orifice.
The bank bailouts were begun under George W. and those baiilouts were just loads of dosh thrust at the banks with no guidelines. Not saying a Democrat president would have done it better, just that this mess began under a Repubican.
Well, you have hit the nail on the head when you say "began", but you missed out "allowed to continue" under a Democrat. Not just any old Democrat either, but the blessed Obama Man-Of-Hope himself.
He may not have started the shafting of the weak and vulnerable, but he allowed it to continue for four years, doing nothing except the odd bit of administrative tat.
Obama Man-of-Hope left people hopeless.
I may be wrong of course, being English.
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
Yes, you are entirely wrong, deano. You are thinking of a Westminster parliamentary system where the party leadership commands a majority, calls the shots and actually gets things done.
In the US Congress is independent of the President, who may propose laws and veto them, but needs Congressional support to pass them. Your British mind cannot compass the thought of the executive and the legislature actually being at direct odds because in the Westminster system it's impossible.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
the blessed Obama Man-Of-Hope
Why some people on the left thought this about a man who was so clearly a pragmatic centrist escapes me.
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
I think that comes very close to negotiating in bad faith. Legally that is a bad move.
Legality is whatever the banksters' friend the Oboehna administration wants it to be.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Yes, you are entirely wrong, deano. You are thinking of a Westminster parliamentary system where the party leadership commands a majority, calls the shots and actually gets things done.
In the US Congress is independent of the President, who may propose laws and veto them, but needs Congressional support to pass them. Your British mind cannot compass the thought of the executive and the legislature actually being at direct odds because in the Westminster system it's impossible.
Hmmm. Yeah… but… no… but…
I don’t believe I am completely wrong.
You are technically correct, which is a euphemism for “not completely right and you need to learn about things a bit more”.
In practice the President can submit bills using a sponsor in Congress. If the White House isn’t confident of a majority they will have to lobby Congress to try and get votes for the bill.
Members of Congress may do this for access to the President, higher media profile, getting a Government contract signed with a company in their home state etc. That is what is meant by the President’s political capital.
This has not, to my knowledge, been done in the situation outlined in the OP.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Yes, you are entirely wrong, deano. You are thinking of a Westminster parliamentary system where the party leadership commands a majority, calls the shots and actually gets things done.
No he wasn't, he wasn't thinking at all. He was just hijacking a thread on something he neither knows nor cares about in order to get in a few more racist insults about Obama. Just like the pompous ignorant Tory arsehole he either is, or acts as on this forum.
quote:
Your British mind cannot compass the thought of the executive and the legislature actually being at direct odds because in the Westminster system it's impossible.
You are doing a great imitation of being a pompous ignorant Tory arsehole yourself. Keep it up!
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
No he wasn't, he wasn't thinking at all. He was just hijacking a thread on something he neither knows nor cares about in order to get in a few more racist insults about Obama. Just like the pompous ignorant Tory arsehole he either is, or acts as on this forum.
I resent that Ken! I don't "act".
The racism charge is risible, even from you! "If you don't like Obama you must be a racist" is pretty pathetic. I have no problem with the colour of the guys skin. In fact, I think it is a pity Colin Powell never ran for the Presidency, as I rate him very highly. So suck on it Kenny boy!
I also reject the charge of hijacking the thread. I have made references back to the OP all the way through. Why hasn't the President of the USA dealt with the issue raised in the OP in the way I've outlined above?
It isn't terribly difficult to follow Ken, so do try to keep up. I know you tend to feel self-concious and humiliated when around actual thinking Ken, but you don't need to lash out. It's unseemly.
[ 15. January 2013, 12:21: Message edited by: deano ]
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
No he wasn't, he wasn't thinking at all. He was just hijacking a thread on something he neither knows nor cares about in order to get in a few more racist insults about Obama. Just like the pompous ignorant Tory arsehole he either is, or acts as on this forum.
I resent that Ken! I don't "act".
Thanks for clearing that up, it is good to know that you are a pompous ignorant Tory arsehole instead of just acting as one.
Posted by Antisocial Alto (# 13810) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Why hasn't the President of the USA dealt with the issue raised in the OP in the way I've outlined above?
I don't know if y'all over there in the mother country have noticed, but the Congresses Obama has faced (except for about a year at the beginning of his administration) have been even more than usually obstructive. Obama requesting something from Congress would probably result in them doing the exact opposite.
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
the blessed Obama Man-Of-Hope
Why some people on the left thought this about a man who was so clearly a pragmatic centrist escapes me.
And finally, here, an avowed conservative (who voted for Obama) cops to the truth:
quote:
Obama has taken a major step toward transforming his presidency into a replica of the administration of George H.W. Bush, at least when it comes to foreign policy.
In a way, much of what Obama has been advocating on domestic policy is not very different from what a Bush I administration (or Nixon, Ford or Eisenhower) would be doing, ranging from raising taxes, reforming immigration policy, or protecting the environment. Obama, in short, is not a socialist or a even a social-democrat, just a good old centrist Republican.
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Yes, you are entirely wrong, deano. You are thinking of a Westminster parliamentary system where the party leadership commands a majority, calls the shots and actually gets things done.
No he wasn't, he wasn't thinking at all. He was just hijacking a thread on something he neither knows nor cares about in order to get in a few more racist insults about Obama. Just like the pompous ignorant Tory arsehole he either is, or acts as on this forum.
quote:
Your British mind cannot compass the thought of the executive and the legislature actually being at direct odds because in the Westminster system it's impossible.
You are doing a great imitation of being a pompous ignorant Tory arsehole yourself. Keep it up!
As a person who lives IN a Westminster system and is moreover a member of the New Democratic Party of Canada, your comments ken are completely ignorant.
Please go back under the bridge to the troll-cave where you belong and stop bothering the adults with your inane twaddle.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
....and is moreover a member of the New Democratic Party of Canada,....
My knees are knocking in fear!
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
The racism charge is risible, even from you! "If you don't like Obama you must be a racist" is pretty pathetic.
Good thing I never said it then. I didn't say you were acting like a racist bigot because of your silly irrelevant sniping at Obama, I said you were acting like a racist bigot because that's how you post on other threads, and have done for a long time. If it is not in fact an act but your genuine opinion, so much the worse for you.
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
....and is moreover a member of the New Democratic Party of Canada,....
My knees are knocking in fear!
What, that's all you can muster?
The NDP is the Canadian sibling of Old Labour, the fact of which you were ignorant.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Yup. Even I know, ken, that if you were Canadian you'd likely be NDP. Maybe on the left of it, but still NDP.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Yup. Even I know, ken, that if you were Canadian you'd likely be NDP. Maybe on the left of it, but still NDP.
Maybe, but so what? My complaint about SPK's moan about Deano was that he was missing the point entirely. And SPK then out-Deanoed Deano by a silly reply. Which political party I (or anyone else) might support if we went to Canada isn't really relevant.
Also SPK's strange idée fixe that the root cause of all error, both intellectual and moral, is insufficient knowledge of Canada - and in particular the history and constitution of the United Church of Canada - gets a bit funny after a while. Deano wasn't saying nasty things about the USA because he is ignorant of Canada. He just seems to like saying nasty things about people he doesn't like - such as the working class, gypsies, women, socialists, black people, trade unionists, Scots, Welsh, children, foreigners, and so on - almost whatever the topic of discussion.
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Deano wasn't saying nasty things about the USA because he is ignorant of Canada. He just seems to like saying nasty things about people he doesn't like - such as the working class, gypsies, women, socialists, black people, trade unionists, Scots, Welsh, children, foreigners, and so on - almost whatever the topic of discussion.
Hmmmm...
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I didn't say you were acting like a racist bigot because of your silly irrelevant sniping at Obama
Ahh, but Ken, dear Ken, that is a terminological inexactitude, or LIE! You probably don't remember but you actually wrote...
quote:
in order to get in a few more racist insults about Obama.
So you were having a go at me about being racist over Obama! Just scroll up a bit and you will see.
Silly boy.
You seem to be losing more and more of your credibility with every post you make. I love it!
Hey moderators, can I just hurl some random insults at him please??? Pretty please, just a few, just for laughs??? Go on!! You know you want to see it!
I love the fact that people have grabbed hold of the "act" joke and are going "SEE!! HE SAID IT!!! HE SAID IT!!!"
It takes me back. When I were a lad, a nipper in short trousers, in the schoolyard there was this game. One lad wouold say to another...
Lad 1: Say what you are. You are male
Lad 2: I am male.
Lad 1: You are from Chesterfield
Lad 2: I am from Chesterfield
Lad 1: You are gay
Lad 2: I am gay
Lad 1: HAHHH!! YOU ADMITTED IT!!!!
Then lad 2 would realise he'd been had and him and his mates would kick the living shit out of lad 1 and we all laughed.
It's like that round here a bit.
Posted by comet (# 10353) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Then lad 2 would realise he'd been had and him and his mates would kick the living shit out of lad 1 and we all laughed.
you're one sick little motherfucker, aren't you?
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
You seem to be losing more and more of your credibility with every post you make.
Seems so to whom? Someone here may be losing credibility, but I doubt it's ken. Anyway, he's laid in quite a stock, so I don't suppose he's bothered. You, on the other hand ...
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Then lad 2 would realise he'd been had and him and his mates would kick the living shit out of lad 1 and we all laughed.
you're one sick little motherfucker, aren't you?
It was a tough primary school. You didn't graduate, you survived.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
As if robosigning and foreclosing wasn't enough. Banksters have been foreclosing on people, kicking them out of their homes, then reversing the foreclosure and reopening the mortgage. I'm fealing physically sick over this twist.
Seems there should have to be a signed acknowledgement of being crawfished on, just like any other transaction. A bank saying they sent a notice in the mail doesn't cut it. Or shouldn't. It was always my understanding that in real estate if it ain't in writing, it ain't. So, where did these folks sign off saying it was there property again?
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
You seem to be losing more and more of your credibility with every post you make.
Credibility in your eyes, perhaps. But as a statement of fact it would help if other people supported your thesis.
Your credibility in my eyes, however, is remaining pretty constant.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Then lad 2 would realise he'd been had and him and his mates would kick the living shit out of lad 1 and we all laughed.
you're one sick little motherfucker, aren't you?
It was a tough primary school. You didn't graduate, you survived.
Well, explains a lot about your general attitude to others.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
I like a good Ad Hominem attack as much as anyone, especially as a diversionary tactic.
But!
Why has Obama - Man... of Hope! - not expended any political capital on fixing the problem outlined by the OP?
Why didn't he take advantage of an election year to try to fix it, as I doubt anyone would want to be seen opposing fixing this. But he didn't.
Has any Democratic congressman tried to introduce any legislation fixing this?
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Why didn't he take advantage of an election year to try to fix it, as I doubt anyone would want to be seen opposing fixing this.
Yeah, right, because it's not like any right-wingers would try to depict him as a communist, or any crazy shit like that.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Why didn't he take advantage of an election year to try to fix it, as I doubt anyone would want to be seen opposing fixing this.
Yeah, right, because it's not like any right-wingers would try to depict him as a communist, or any crazy shit like that.
Aww bless, was he too frightened of the nasty fascists then? Did some bigger boys tell him not to try fixing it or they would call him names?
Or perhaps he doesn't actually give that much of a shit about the issue?
Posted by comet (# 10353) on
:
or perhaps he wasn't aware of this issue, as I wasn't until the article came out and this thread started.
But of course, he's president so he knows Everything.
Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Why has Obama - Man... of Hope! - not expended any political capital on fixing the problem outlined by the OP?
Why didn't he take advantage of an election year to try to fix it, as I doubt anyone would want to be seen opposing fixing this. But he didn't.
Has any Democratic congressman tried to introduce any legislation fixing this?
There is very little accomplished during an election year - particularly when a president running for re-election wants it and the other side wants him to look bad. We've had a do nothing Congress who spent the year prior to the election doing nothing but campaigning for their own seat or for their "side". After the election there was this thing called a "fiscal cliff" game of brinksmanship. Obama spent a chunk of political capital ensuring the higher taxes for all didn't go into effect on 1/1. Congress, being congress, kicked most of the problem up 2 months for the new congress to deal with. In short order we have the debt ceiling which has been hit and needs to be raised and the rest of the fiscal cliff mess that congress didn't deal with last year. It's going to be an absolute disaster. Obama by himself cannot do anything that is assigned to the legislature - you'll note his "executive orders didn't do anything for gun control and he can do nothing by himself on budgetary or banking issues. Congress must do it - and they've been doing a bang up job of doing nothing. There is no such thing as negotiation or compromise any more. Both parties want their way or nothing. So, they do nothing or kick the can up the road for a few months.
Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Why didn't he take advantage of an election year to try to fix it, as I doubt anyone would want to be seen opposing fixing this.
Yeah, right, because it's not like any right-wingers would try to depict him as a communist, or any crazy shit like that.
Aww bless, was he too frightened of the nasty fascists then? Did some bigger boys tell him not to try fixing it or they would call him names?
Or perhaps he doesn't actually give that much of a shit about the issue?
I have a suggestion - sit down, do some research and learn how our system of government works. Especially what a president can and cannot do. I know the campaign ads make it seem like he can do everything, but in reality he cannot.
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Why didn't he take advantage of an election year to try to fix it, as I doubt anyone would want to be seen opposing fixing this.
Yeah, right, because it's not like any right-wingers would try to depict him as a communist, or any crazy shit like that.
Aww bless, was he too frightened of the nasty fascists then? Did some bigger boys tell him not to try fixing it or they would call him names?
Or perhaps he doesn't actually give that much of a shit about the issue?
You asked why he didn't do it in an election year, and my point was merely that, in an election year, his first duty was to win the election. This would include not giving very stupid opponents - barking fascists or otherwise - any extra ammunition to use against him. Because some people, deano - and this may shock you - will use anything going to try to score cheap political points, however inconsistent that makes them appear.
[ 16. January 2013, 22:00: Message edited by: QLib ]
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
Okay, so can you confirm that the President has no such thing as political influence or political capital?
Can you confirm that the President under no circumstances ever asks a member of congress to introduce a bill on his behalf, or ever will?
Can you confirm that the relationshiip between the White House and Congress is strictly limited to what the Constitution allows and that no informal contacts ever take place to work out the best way of tackling issues?
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Then lad 2 would realise he'd been had and him and his mates would kick the living shit out of lad 1 and we all laughed.
you're one sick little motherfucker, aren't you?
It was a tough primary school. You didn't graduate, you survived.
So physical violence because of perceived homosexuality is OK? As someone who was on the receiving end of violence frequently at school because of my sexuality, you make me sick. Of course you would value 'being tough' over being kind deano, of course you would.
Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Okay, so can you confirm that the President has no such thing as political influence or political capital?
This president had NO political capital during his first term, particularly when the other side made their only goal making him a one term president. This term he started out with very little and pretty much spent it getting as much of the financial cliff crisis solved in a way that didn't hurt middle income or poor people, but not enough to convince congress to get the job done. He's only introducing gun control now, not because he has political capital, but because if it isn't pushed now it never will be. Priorities. the Bankster issue hasn't been on the radar or even on the news til now so I'm not sure it's even crossed the president's desk. A better strategy for those hurt by this would be letters to congressman who can actually do something - not only with legislation, but for individuals as well.
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Can you confirm that the President under no circumstances ever asks a member of congress to introduce a bill on his behalf, or ever will?
The President has asked for Congress to do many things in various speeches, however, you'll notice how many of them get done - pretty much none. Your post, however, asked why didn't the President didn't do anything in an election year (or after) had nothing to do with this and has pretty much been answered. Perhaps as this gains more traction in the press it will become an item that crosses the Presidents desk and he will apply pressure for Congress to do it's job (not that that will do any good). The place to start asking why they didn't do their job is with Congress, not the President. He has a lot on his plate from world problems, other serious domestic problems and a U.S. economy that is once again about to go into meltdown because Congress can't do it's job and pass a budget, deal with the fiscal cliff and debt ceiling.
Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Then lad 2 would realise he'd been had and him and his mates would kick the living shit out of lad 1 and we all laughed.
you're one sick little motherfucker, aren't you?
It was a tough primary school. You didn't graduate, you survived.
Well, explains a lot about your general attitude to others.
His posting style indicates he hasn't grown up past grade school.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
As if robosigning and foreclosing wasn't enough. Banksters have been foreclosing on people, kicking them out of their homes, then reversing the foreclosure and reopening the mortgage. I'm fealing physically sick over this twist.
Seems there should have to be a signed acknowledgement of being crawfished on, just like any other transaction. A bank saying they sent a notice in the mail doesn't cut it. Or shouldn't. It was always my understanding that in real estate if it ain't in writing, it ain't. So, where did these folks sign off saying it was there property again?
Mortgages are not simple contracts. Contracts are not the sum total of liability. While there are people who have taken advantage of the strange limbo the housing market collapses have created, many are simply screwed by the systems. Why is this difficult to accept?
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Then lad 2 would realise he'd been had and him and his mates would kick the living shit out of lad 1 and we all laughed.
you're one sick little motherfucker, aren't you?
It was a tough primary school. You didn't graduate, you survived.
So physical violence because of perceived homosexuality is OK? As someone who was on the receiving end of violence frequently at school because of my sexuality, you make me sick. Of course you would value 'being tough' over being kind deano, of course you would.
Oh get off your high horse. I’m talking about what 8 year olds in the less politically correct 1970’s in a pit village in the north of England were like.
The point was to highlight the inane, witless whining about the “act” comment above was comparable to what 8 year olds did in the playground at my school.
Anything else you read into it is your problem. Why do you even look in Hell if you are so sensitive to everything?
Deal with it.
[ 17. January 2013, 08:30: Message edited by: deano ]
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Then lad 2 would realise he'd been had and him and his mates would kick the living shit out of lad 1 and we all laughed.
you're one sick little motherfucker, aren't you?
It was a tough primary school. You didn't graduate, you survived.
So physical violence because of perceived homosexuality is OK? As someone who was on the receiving end of violence frequently at school because of my sexuality, you make me sick. Of course you would value 'being tough' over being kind deano, of course you would.
Oh get off your high horse. I’m talking about what 8 year olds in the less politically correct 1970’s in a pit village in the north of England were like.
The point was to highlight the inane, witless whining about the “act” comment above was comparable to what 8 year olds did in the playground at my school.
Anything else you read into it is your problem. Why do you even look in Hell if you are so sensitive to everything?
Deal with it.
So why aren't you pointing out how wrong those 8 year olds were if you don't agree with it? Yeah, what a laugh being politically incorrect was when you could beat up gays any old time.
And a) I'll be in Hell if I bloody well want to be and b) I wasn't aware that objecting to homophobic violence was 'being so sensitive to everything'. Most people consider that to be basic decency. Perhaps you should try it some time.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Then lad 2 would realise he'd been had and him and his mates would kick the living shit out of lad 1 and we all laughed.
you're one sick little motherfucker, aren't you?
It was a tough primary school. You didn't graduate, you survived.
So physical violence because of perceived homosexuality is OK? As someone who was on the receiving end of violence frequently at school because of my sexuality, you make me sick. Of course you would value 'being tough' over being kind deano, of course you would.
Oh get off your high horse. I’m talking about what 8 year olds in the less politically correct 1970’s in a pit village in the north of England were like.
The point was to highlight the inane, witless whining about the “act” comment above was comparable to what 8 year olds did in the playground at my school.
Anything else you read into it is your problem. Why do you even look in Hell if you are so sensitive to everything?
Deal with it.
So why aren't you pointing out how wrong those 8 year olds were if you don't agree with it? Yeah, what a laugh being politically incorrect was when you could beat up gays any old time.
And a) I'll be in Hell if I bloody well want to be and b) I wasn't aware that objecting to homophobic violence was 'being so sensitive to everything'. Most people consider that to be basic decency. Perhaps you should try it some time.
Because then it would be a different thread - a Dead Horse! This is about zombie mortgages, my discussion of what Obama and the democrats did about them, and pointing out how childish some posters were.
You want to turn it into a DH thread. Why? To divert attention from the real scandal of the US left not caring about the people with zombie mortgages of course!
You don't want the Democrats to be exposed as the uncaring, unfeeling fools they are, so you hijack a thread with a strawman.
Start your own thread and maybe I'll get interersted in what you have to say.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
I have zero problem with the US government being called out for their zombie mortgages - that's a good thing. So it's not a strawman at all, neither am I trying to make it a DH thread - just commenting on your general lack of humanity and how it hurts others. Not that Jesus is concerned with that or anything.
But to take it back to the OP, it's not about the left in the US - which is a tiny group of people since most Democrats are not left-wing. Do not confuse liberalism with being left-wing, the two are different. It's about the Republicans hating Obama so much that nothing is getting done in Congress about it.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I have zero problem with the US government being called out for their zombie mortgages - that's a good thing. So it's not a strawman at all, neither am I trying to make it a DH thread - just commenting on your general lack of humanity and how it hurts others. Not that Jesus is concerned with that or anything.
But to take it back to the OP, it's not about the left in the US - which is a tiny group of people since most Democrats are not left-wing. Do not confuse liberalism with being left-wing, the two are different. It's about the Republicans hating Obama so much that nothing is getting done in Congress about it.
Oh I could buy that if were even trying to do something, but he isn't. He isn't shouting this from the rooftops!
Will he mention the iniquity of it in his inauguration speech next Monday? No.
Will he mention the iniquity of it in the State of the Union in February? No.
But he will be mentioning other things he wants to do, in spite of an adversarial Congress. Why not add fixing zombie mortgages to the things he wants to do?
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
It isn't terribly difficult to follow Ken, so do try to keep up. I know you tend to feel self-concious and humiliated when around actual thinking Ken, but you don't need to lash out. It's unseemly.
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
You seem to be losing more and more of your credibility with every post you make. I love it!
Hey moderators, can I just hurl some random insults at him please??? Pretty please, just a few, just for laughs??? Go on!! You know you want to see it!
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I like a good Ad Hominem attack as much as anyone, especially as a diversionary tactic.
Evidently. You like doing your own personal attacks, but when they're done at you, you play the victim or say people are avoiding the issue.
You were the sort who got confused with some primary school-type game, I daresay.
Posted by Craigmaddie (# 8367) on
:
I guess we shouldn't expect too much from institutions whose very purpose it is to magic money out thin air and then charge compound interest on it. There are no extrinsic titles that could justify this kind of charge on fiat money. It's usury in all its ugliness.
Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
]Because then it would be a different thread - a Dead Horse! This is about zombie mortgages, my discussion of what Obama and the democrats did about them, and pointing out how childish some posters were.
You want to turn it into a DH thread. Why? To divert attention from the real scandal of the US left not caring about the people with zombie mortgages of course!
You don't want the Democrats to be exposed as the uncaring, unfeeling fools they are, so you hijack a thread with a strawman.
Start your own thread and maybe I'll get interersted in what you have to say.
You haven't responded to all of the points that have been made refuting your attacks on Obama and Democrats. You love making attacks, but hate responding to sound arguments made in the discussion. You love attacking other posters, but hate it when the tables are turned on you. Pretty much like an 8 year old...
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Jade, rosa and Nightowl! Shame on you. I know this is hell, but to gang up and insult 8-year olds like that.....
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
My congratulations and thanks to Craigmaddie for posting on-topic.
And the rest of you remember we hosts have to read this shit. Ho hum, back to the brain-bleach.
Sioni Sais
Hellhost
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl:
You haven't responded to all of the points that have been made refuting your attacks on Obama and Democrats.
What points? Nobody has made any points of any note. Plenty of people have stepped up to the plate to defend Obama which I find egregious.
Even your points are derisory and ill-informed! Witness…
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl:
the Bankster issue hasn't been on the radar or even on the news til now so I'm not sure it's even crossed the president's desk.
But that is refuted by Josephine, so you now have an argument with her…
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
[QB
He has done some of the things he could do by executive order -- setting up, and then expanding, programs to allow folks to refinance loans that they could no longer afford, as long as those loans were owned or guaranteed by Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae. Any more than that will require Congress to act. And the folks in Congress are too beholden to the banks to do anything meaningful.
[/QB]
If it hasn’t been brought to his attention, why did he make these changes? Of course he knew about them. The case in the OP goes back to 2010 – 2 years ago!
You can bet your arse that those affected contacted their members of Congress as soon as the letters hit their doormats. That’s the first thing Americans do!
I don’t mind being attacked by anybody. When lefties do it, it reassures me that I must be on the right track.
I especially don’t mind being attacked by dear old ken. It’s like being savaged by a dead-sheep (with apologies to Dennis Healey).
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
You can bet your arse that those affected contacted their members of Congress as soon as the letters hit their doormats. That’s the first thing Americans do!
Shows how much you know about Americans. Most don't even know who their members of Congress are.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
You can bet your arse that those affected contacted their members of Congress as soon as the letters hit their doormats. That’s the first thing Americans do!
Shows how much you know about Americans. Most don't even know who their members of Congress are.
Bollocks. They find out quick enough when they want to.
Just because YOU don't know, don't assume your fellow countrymen don't.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
YEAH, RUTH!
Seriously, she's right. Maybe some Americans scream to the rooftops about writing their congressmen, but most don't do it.
[ 17. January 2013, 18:59: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
YEAH, RUTH!
Seriously, she's right. Maybe some Americans scream to the rooftops about writing their congressmen, but most don't do it.
Even if you are faced with a zombie mortgage? If you can't be bothered to complain to your Congress-critter about something like that, why bother complaining about it at all?
No, the people in the OP probably did contact their members of congress, got nowhere so contacted the media.
Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
YEAH, RUTH!
Seriously, she's right. Maybe some Americans scream to the rooftops about writing their congressmen, but most don't do it.
Even if you are faced with a zombie mortgage? If you can't be bothered to complain to your Congress-critter about something like that, why bother complaining about it at all?
No, the people in the OP probably did contact their members of congress, got nowhere so contacted the media.
It's a minority of people who actually take the time and make the effort to contact their congressman. People are either so taken up with immediate problems or too lazy to write a snailmail letter, writing their congressman isn't what comes to mind. Those who write are generally the few who may actually get taken care of. Quite often it makes the local paper, which would hopefully spur others to contact their local congressman and make the population at large aware of the problem. When the letters hit the proportion of everyone affected by the problem, if it' a really large population, it'll again make the papers, this time national publications. It happens every time their is a large volume of letters being written to congressmen and it ups the chances of both parties actually working together when they see it might be their seat on the line.
[ 17. January 2013, 19:24: Message edited by: Niteowl ]
Posted by comet (# 10353) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
YEAH, RUTH!
Seriously, she's right. Maybe some Americans scream to the rooftops about writing their congressmen, but most don't do it.
I'm pretty sure my half a congressman has me blocked and written down as a stalker.
Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Niteowl:
You haven't responded to all of the points that have been made refuting your attacks on Obama and Democrats.
What points? Nobody has made any points of any note. Plenty of people have stepped up to the plate to defend Obama which I find egregious.
Even your points are derisory and ill-informed! Witness…
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl:
the Bankster issue hasn't been on the radar or even on the news til now so I'm not sure it's even crossed the president's desk.
But that is refuted by Josephine, so you now have an argument with her…
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
[QB
He has done some of the things he could do by executive order -- setting up, and then expanding, programs to allow folks to refinance loans that they could no longer afford, as long as those loans were owned or guaranteed by Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae. Any more than that will require Congress to act. And the folks in Congress are too beholden to the banks to do anything meaningful.
This specific problem, isn't what made the executive order round - especially in 2010. The foreclosure mess is many faceted and Obama has done what he legally could to assist those facing foreclosure in being able to renegotiate their mortgages and keep their houses from going under water. That doesn't include this specific problem. Your reading comprehension is deplorable. I didn't defend Obama, I basically gave you a lesson in how the U.S. government is set up, which you obviously didn't pay any attention to and know very little about. Anything that doesn't line up with your hatred of others is brushed off. Do yourself a favor and pick up a book or two on U.S. civics.
For your information, I did not vote for Obama the first time around. I'd have preferred having a decent candidate to vote for as an alternative to Obama this past election, but there wasn't one and with the issues too important I couldn't afford not to vote for him. I am by far a "fan girl". The points I made to you were based on FACTS about the U.S. government along with our current political mess of neither side wanting to compromise for fear of giving the other a political victory. As to citizens writing letters, see my previous post.
You DO have a problem with anyone attacking you as you throw a fit when some someone attacks you - even if it's in response to one of your attacks. Get over it. Ignore Ken if you're that bent out of shape over him that you have to mention him in a post that has nothing to do with him.
Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
YEAH, RUTH!
Seriously, she's right. Maybe some Americans scream to the rooftops about writing their congressmen, but most don't do it.
I'm pretty sure my half a congressman has me blocked and written down as a stalker.
Some of us are unusual, I know and have seen too many of the other type.
BTW, many also don't know that emails get ignored as do most faxes, unless there is a public fax campaign.
[ 17. January 2013, 19:39: Message edited by: Niteowl ]
Posted by comet (# 10353) on
:
my favorite line, from a phone conversation with him, "you know, you don't get what you want from speaking up and calling me. You get it from hard work."
so far, working my ass off isn't doing me much good.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
No, the people in the OP probably did contact their members of congress, got nowhere so contacted the media.
Again, you clearly know diddly-squat about Americans. I promise you, the vast majority of people affected by zombie mortgages have not even thought about contacting their Congressional Representatives. Even among people who do write to Congress, this is mostly done in regards to legislation, not for personal problems. I don't know a single person who has ever contacted their Rep. about anything other than legislative issues.
I do, however, know who my Rep. is (that you assume I don't shows you know diddly-squat about me). I haven't written to him about anything yet, because he is a freshman and he is probably still trying to figure out how to work the copy machine and where the men's room is.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
No, the people in the OP probably did contact their members of congress, got nowhere so contacted the media.
After re-reading the OP link, I think fastest, most efficient way for that guy to get results would be to hit the media. Loud.
Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
YEAH, RUTH!
Seriously, she's right. Maybe some Americans scream to the rooftops about writing their congressmen, but most don't do it.
Even if you are faced with a zombie mortgage? If you can't be bothered to complain to your Congress-critter about something like that, why bother complaining about it at all?
No, the people in the OP probably did contact their members of congress, got nowhere so contacted the media.
You know nothing about American government nor American citizens.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
my favorite line, from a phone conversation with him, "you know, you don't get what you want from speaking up and calling me. You get it from hard work."
so far, working my ass off isn't doing me much good.
I'm sure Mr Congressperson is right and that he got where he is and what he wants through hard work. I doubt it was all his own hard work, by a long measure. Like the banks, he got what he wanted on the back of the hard work of others.
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl:
You know nothing about American government nor American citizens.
Hush--don't spoil it!!!! He's far more entertaining this way.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Yeah, deano, tell us about American health care!
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I don't know a single person who has ever contacted their Rep. about anything other than legislative issues.
I have to differ with you, Ruth. Senator John McCain (or at least his office staff) was very helpful when I contacted him about a problem my father was having with the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Aww bless, was he too frightened of the nasty fascists then? Did some bigger boys tell him not to try fixing it or they would call him names?
Or perhaps he doesn't actually give that much of a shit about the issue?
Fuck, you're dumb. Are your fingers, like, barfing or shitting? Money bills have to originate in the House of Representatives, which is controlled by the Republicans. Speaker John Boehner, a Republican, decides what bills are brought forward. Boehner has generally followed the "Hastert Rule" which says no legislation is brought forward that won't get the majority of Republican House votes. This has made bipartisan coalitions of centrist Republicans and Democrats a thing of the past.
Now, if you have a mortgage relief bill that a majority of Republican Congresscritters would support, it is unconscionable that you haven't contacted Speaker Boehner to help the homeowners you care so much about.
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
my favorite line, from a phone conversation with him, "you know, you don't get what you want from speaking up and calling me. You get it from hard work."
so far, working my ass off isn't doing me much good.
If you worked harder, you'd have enough to make a decent campaign contribution.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Now, if you have a mortgage relief bill that a majority of Republican Congresscritters would support, it is unconscionable that you haven't contacted Speaker Boehner to help the homeowners you care so much about.
No mate, they're your citizens, not mine. Why should I give a monkeys about them if their own Government doesn't.
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl:
You DO have a problem with anyone attacking you as you throw a fit when some someone attacks you - even if it's in response to one of your attacks. Get over it. Ignore Ken if you're that bent out of shape over him that you have to mention him in a post that has nothing to do with him.
Er, I think you seem to be the one throwing a fit!
Here's the very first post that turned this into a slanging match...
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Yes, you are entirely wrong, deano. You are thinking of a Westminster parliamentary system where the party leadership commands a majority, calls the shots and actually gets things done.
No he wasn't, he wasn't thinking at all. He was just hijacking a thread on something he neither knows nor cares about in order to get in a few more racist insults about Obama. Just like the pompous ignorant Tory arsehole he either is, or acts as on this forum.
[Rest snipped for brevity and tedium]
Note, it was posted by your good friend Ken! So I was responding to his Ad Hominem attack, not he to me.
Please read the threads carefully before wading in, it's just good manners.
This is Hell, if I have a pop at someone, then I fully expect to get some back. That's the way it works. Ken had a rant at me so I waded back in. He was expecting it, it's Hell? I'm not going to ignore anyone, that wouldn't be polite.
Anyway, Ken and I have a thing going. He thinks I'm a Nazi and I think he's a Clueless Uninformed Neo Trotskyite.
Kelly, what do you want to know about American Healthcare? Actually scratch that. Raise your own thread.
(Just as an aside, let me clarify where my own knowledge of US politics comes from. For my sins my company sells some software to the US Department of Energy and I spend about a quarter of a year over there on work around that package. Once or twice a year me and some other suppliers meet in Washington with the DoE's Congressional Affairs department to discuss any issues that are pertinent to our packages that Congress has raised. I don't want to over-egg this, there are quite a few of us suppliers there, the questions are low-level stuff that have been on the backburner for a while, and the meetings are with "Assistant to the 3rd Undersecretaries Advisor on..." type levels. But they do like to gossip about their work - don't we all - and we had a pretty good introduction to how thing work when the meetings were set up. As I deal with the Government I like to keep myself up to speed with things over there. So I'm happy that I know as much as the average American about how it works, leavened with a very, very little bit of low-grade "inside the Beltway" yeast.)
Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl:
You DO have a problem with anyone attacking you as you throw a fit when some someone attacks you - even if it's in response to one of your attacks. Get over it. Ignore Ken if you're that bent out of shape over him that you have to mention him in a post that has nothing to do with him.
Er, I think you seem to be the one throwing a fit!
Here's the very first post that turned this into a slanging match...
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Yes, you are entirely wrong, deano. You are thinking of a Westminster parliamentary system where the party leadership commands a majority, calls the shots and actually gets things done.
No he wasn't, he wasn't thinking at all. He was just hijacking a thread on something he neither knows nor cares about in order to get in a few more racist insults about Obama. Just like the pompous ignorant Tory arsehole he either is, or acts as on this forum.
[Rest snipped for brevity and tedium]
Note, it was posted by your good friend Ken! So I was responding to his Ad Hominem attack, not he to me.
Please read the threads carefully before wading in, it's just good manners.
This is Hell, if I have a pop at someone, then I fully expect to get some back. That's the way it works. Ken had a rant at me so I waded back in. He was expecting it, it's Hell? I'm not going to ignore anyone, that wouldn't be polite.
Anyway, Ken and I have a thing going. He thinks I'm a Nazi and I think he's a Clueless Uninformed Neo Trotskyite.
Kelly, what do you want to know about American Healthcare? Actually scratch that. Raise your own thread.
(Just as an aside, let me clarify where my own knowledge of US politics comes from. For my sins my company sells some software to the US Department of Energy and I spend about a quarter of a year over there on work around that package. Once or twice a year me and some other suppliers meet in Washington with the DoE's Congressional Affairs department to discuss any issues that are pertinent to our packages that Congress has raised. I don't want to over-egg this, there are quite a few of us suppliers there, the questions are low-level stuff that have been on the backburner for a while, and the meetings are with "Assistant to the 3rd Undersecretaries Advisor on..." type levels. But they do like to gossip about their work - don't we all - and we had a pretty good introduction to how thing work when the meetings were set up. As I deal with the Government I like to keep myself up to speed with things over there. So I'm happy that I know as much as the average American about how it works, leavened with a very, very little bit of low-grade "inside the Beltway" yeast.)
You seem to have a problem with reading comprehension. I'm not friends with Ken and couldn't care less what transpires between you and him - just offering you some friendly advice that since you keep bitching about him that you simply ignore him. You might find your blood pressure down and the rest of us won't have to read your repetitious posts about how nasty he is to you.
You haven't gotten a very good education on U.S. politics.
[ 18. January 2013, 08:42: Message edited by: Niteowl ]
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl:
You seem to have a problem with reading comprehension. I'm not friends with Ken and couldn't care less what transpires between you and him - just offering you some friendly advice that since you keep bitching about him that you simply ignore him. You might find your blood pressure down and the rest of us won't have to read your repetitious posts about how nasty he is to you.
Couple of points...
1. Are you going to tell Ken the same thing, seeing as he began this little Ad Hominem-fest as I showed above? Or don't you like to bother other good little lefties?
2. Can't you see that your posts are diatribes against me, and that your posts are repetitious? You are a hypocrite!
3. Lastly, I would like to know where I have been factually incorrect about my knowledge of the US political system. I know the "official", constitutional process governed by separation of powers, and I also know about the "unofficial" process, driven by self-interested politics such as patronage, lobbying and so on. Which bit of my understanding is wrong?
4. Would you like some cheese to go with your whine?
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
I guess Deano has 'studied it out' . ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
(Not sure about the rest of the interview, but the news VTR is kind of funny.)
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I guess Deano has 'studied it out' .
(Not sure about the rest of the interview, but the news VTR is kind of funny.)
Sorry Anselmina, I don't do YouTube, it annoys me greatly and I refuse to engage with it.
Is there a precis of what it's about? Or a link to a transcript or something?
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Fuck em all. I have zero respect politicians right now. Tory's Labour, Libreral are just all the same stinking grey goo. If in future it turns out the greens are just as bad it will be time to storm parliament.
Count me in GS , (might have to wake me up though , I suspect corporate capitalism has a lot more teetering to do before it topples).
What was it they always said about banks ?
Oh yeah . Lend you an umbrella when the sun is shining, and take it back when the rain comes.
Bass-tads.
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
So physical violence because of perceived homosexuality is OK? As someone who was on the receiving end of violence frequently at school because of my sexuality, you make me sick. Of course you would value 'being tough' over being kind deano, of course you would.
Sorry to go completely off Hell topic:
But get over yourself Jade, you are not the first, last or only gay person to have had a rough time at school, or in life outside of school, stop bleating about it. It has a time, a place, and a use when used correctly and for the right purposes.
Schools are rough places at times, and yes jokes about being gay were seen as rather funny at the time from what I remember of my school days (both in terms of the age range talked about and going back a couple of years it was the cultural norm), but people grow up, learn that it's not really that ok to do it, and in the main stop doing it, and our current culture has moved mainly away from it, the main problems now being those overly emotional and hormone filled mid-teenagers being the biggest source of issues.
I'm bored of your sob story - I imagine everyone else, in and outside of the LGBT community is aswell.
Rant over.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Count me in GS , (might have to wake me up though , I suspect corporate capitalism has a lot more teetering to do before it topples).
Won't happen in any of our lifetimes though. It's been around for centuries now and it will keep on "being around".
Banks will start lending again at some point, but don't expect to get big mortgages unless you have big wages to make sure you can pay it.
The one thing this has done is to see the back of those risky loans to people with a high chance of defaulting. It used to be that you would have to pay a higher rate if you were a credit-risk (which I always thought was self-defeating) but when the lending starts again they wont get the loan at any rate.
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
I'm bored of your sob story - I imagine everyone else, in and outside of the LGBT community is aswell.
You are not speaking for all of us.
Those minorities, eh? Speaking about abuses done to them. How terrible for us.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
I'm bored of your sob story - I imagine everyone else, in and outside of the LGBT community is aswell.
You are not speaking for all of us.
Those minorities, eh? Speaking about abuses done to them. How terrible for us.
I'm with Sergius-Melli on this one.
JC does bang on about it as though she were the only person to be bullied. She wasn't, plenty of us were including me. Do what the rest of us learned to do... deal with it.
I've learned not to let those bullies live rent free in my head.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Banks will start lending again at some point, but don't expect to get big mortgages unless you have big wages to make sure you can pay it.
How positively old fashioned.
Only taking on a mortgage you can afford to repay?
What will they think of next.
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
I'm bored of your sob story - I imagine everyone else, in and outside of the LGBT community is aswell.
You are not speaking for all of us.
Those minorities, eh? Speaking about abuses done to them. How terrible for us.
I will vigorously, and not without some allowed righteous indignation, go on about my own life story at the hands of homophobes and bigots, but I wont trot it out everytime the topic comes up or present it like I was the victim of the worst acts of homophobia ever imaginable, I use it where it is needed and when needed and remember to always be aware that other LGBT people and minorities have had it by far worse than I have growing up in the Western world and present it as such.
I have actually managed to move on from feeling sorry for myself and use those experiences and feelings to better myself and the world, not continue to be inward lookin and bleat to the world 'Look at me... Look at how sorry for myself I am.'
Experiences in this world should not become our slaves, slapping us in chains, it just allows the aggressor to actually win. Our experiences are supposed to be the building blocks of who we turn out to be, how we develop and grow, and most importantly of all, we should use those experiences to influence how we interact with the systems of the world around us and how we can shape and use those systems to benefit others rather than being selfish and thinking of ourselves all the time. Those of us who have been through and survived (because many haven't survived and it is their stories which matter more than Jade's or mine) the experience, owe the memories of those who didn't survive and owe those coming through all the help and support we can - not to mull over our own life stories.
[ 18. January 2013, 12:57: Message edited by: Sergius-Melli ]
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I guess Deano has 'studied it out' .
(Not sure about the rest of the interview, but the news VTR is kind of funny.)
Sorry Anselmina, I don't do YouTube, it annoys me greatly and I refuse to engage with it.
Is there a precis of what it's about? Or a link to a transcript or something?
Seriously. You expect to come to an informed conclusion on a piece of reportage you can't even be arsed to click on? And based on the precis of another person? Do you always get your opinions second and third hand?
Do you really expect me to trawl the internet to get a transcription of an already clear and easily accessible piece of information just to save you from being 'annoyed'? Product of the nanny state or what....
Okay, deano, here it is. Like you, it's a clip of a woman who doesn't 'do' certain things. Like making an effort to become intelligently informed about issues she's butting her great big silly head into. In this case she doesn't 'do' thinking before opening her mouth.
But then you'll have to take my word for that, won't you .
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
(Just as an aside, let me clarify where my own knowledge of US politics comes from. I'm a software salesman.
Fixed that for you.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
But then you'll have to take my word for that, won't you .
Yep. Sounds tedious.
I don't bother with youtube because what is on their is made by amateurs or advertisers.
If it is real news then there will be a link to a proper mainstream news organisation's web site.
YouTube clips are either cats falling, adverts for some products, or biased diatrabes by losers who don't have anything useful to say.
[ 18. January 2013, 14:31: Message edited by: deano ]
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
(Just as an aside, let me clarify where my own knowledge of US politics comes from. I'm the Chairman and CEO of a small UK company employing about a dozen staff who develops software packages used in the energy supply industry
Fixed that for you.
Fixed properly. Loser.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Just as an aside, let me clarify where my own knowledge of US politics comes from. I'm the Chairman and CEO of a small UK company employing about a dozen staff who develops software packages used in the energy supply industry
And how does that make you any kind of expert in anything other than running small software company?
There's an odd tendency that people successful in one sphere reckon they possess equal authority in almost any other field. That does explain your ceaseless pontifications on any subject under the sun.
[ 18. January 2013, 14:49: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
I am an extert in my own field related to measuring and reporting on certain properties surrounding the generating units in power stations.
Business is slow at this time of year as most power companies are selling at a very high rate, because of the weather conditions.
This means they don't plan upgrades or outages of generating units. Our busy time is spring through to autumn.
Which is why I've got time on my hands to annoy you lot now and again.
However, we all have opinions a pick up information to form them.
[ 18. January 2013, 14:52: Message edited by: deano ]
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Business is slow at this time of year as most power companies are selling at a very high rate, because of the weather conditions.
This means they don't plan upgrades or outages of generating units. Our busy time is spring through to autumn.
Which is why I've got time on my hands to annoy you lot now and again.
I realise you're the CEO but how about diversifying into a field with an autumn/winter peak?
Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl:
You seem to have a problem with reading comprehension. I'm not friends with Ken and couldn't care less what transpires between you and him - just offering you some friendly advice that since you keep bitching about him that you simply ignore him. You might find your blood pressure down and the rest of us won't have to read your repetitious posts about how nasty he is to you.
Couple of points...
1. Are you going to tell Ken the same thing, seeing as he began this little Ad Hominem-fest as I showed above? Or don't you like to bother other good little lefties?
2. Can't you see that your posts are diatribes against me, and that your posts are repetitious? You are a hypocrite!
3. Lastly, I would like to know where I have been factually incorrect about my knowledge of the US political system. I know the "official", constitutional process governed by separation of powers, and I also know about the "unofficial" process, driven by self-interested politics such as patronage, lobbying and so on. Which bit of my understanding is wrong?
4. Would you like some cheese to go with your whine?
1. Nope, Ken isn't the one whining. Which relates to #4. It's your whine and cheese party.
I started out trying to give you some insight into the U.S. political and legislative system, but since you're the expert in your own mind I'll stop as I realize getting you to open your eyes is a lost cause. You're one of the more arrogant, yet ignorant posters we have on these boards and I generally treat hell as purgatorial, so you won't see me making those statements often. As I don't care to engage in a flame war this is my last post to you. Read the posts of others who have been saying the same things I have and try to open up to some knowledge instead of insisting you know more than everyone else.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
Honestly Niteowl, you have your head stuck so far up your own arse you must be looking at your tonsils now.
Your ability to rewrite history is a triumph of quantity over quality and bit of a trial for those of us unfortunate enough to have to read your inane ramblings so it is with a lightness of heart that I wish you adieu!
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
But then you'll have to take my word for that, won't you .
Yep. Sounds tedious.
[/QUOTE]
Though obviously less tedious than doing your own thinking, it seems. Still your choice.
quote:
I don't bother with youtube because what is on their is made by amateurs or advertisers.
If it is real news then there will be a link to a proper mainstream news organisation's web site.
YouTube clips are either cats falling, adverts for some products, or biased diatrabes by losers who don't have anything useful to say.
No. You're wrong. There is more than that on Youtube, for those who know how to coordinate the easy-to-use search facility with a thinking brain and their index finger. If all you've ever seen are falling cats, adverts and 'biased diatribes' it would appear you haven't got the hang of it yet. And considering you can only watch on youtube what you personally select for your own viewing, you appear to be saying more about your own choices than about youtube here.
Incidentally, berating video because it's amateur is a little stupid. Many amateurs have caught important things which no news-agency either had the access to film, or the will, for that matter. I'm not saying youtube is full of this quality of material. But it's worth remembering that not everything newsworthy comes from the professional media and not everything that comes from the professional media is newsworthy - much as it appears you esteem it.
Having said all that; the clip is just about an opponent of Obama being given a little unexpected air-time. It's amusing rather than informative. Probably in the 'falling cats' category; though much funnier because it involves a (slightly) higher IQ.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
But it's worth remembering that not everything newsworthy comes from the professional media and not everything that comes from the professional media is newsworthy
This is where I disagree the most with your statement.
If something is newsworthy, it will find its way into the professional media. There are plenty of stations and they have to fill 24-hours a day of rolling news, so I maintain if it it newsworthy it will find its way into the media.
I don't need YouTube for news. In fact what is on YouTube is not "news" but commentary. It is someone else's opinion of news facts. Usually someone with a specific political bias.
I prefer to get the facts and make up my own mind.
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I don't need YouTube for news. In fact what is on YouTube is not "news" but commentary. It is someone else's opinion of news facts. Usually someone with a specific political bias.
Unlike mainstream news sources, of course, which are totally apolitical and impartial.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
(Just as an aside, let me clarify where my own knowledge of US politics comes from. For my sins my company sells some software to the US Department of Energy and I spend about a quarter of a year over there on work around that package. Once or twice a year me and some other suppliers meet in Washington with the DoE's Congressional Affairs department to discuss any issues that are pertinent to our packages that Congress has raised. I don't want to over-egg this, there are quite a few of us suppliers there, the questions are low-level stuff that have been on the backburner for a while, and the meetings are with "Assistant to the 3rd Undersecretaries Advisor on..." type levels. But they do like to gossip about their work - don't we all - and we had a pretty good introduction to how thing work when the meetings were set up. As I deal with the Government I like to keep myself up to speed with things over there. So I'm happy that I know as much as the average American about how it works, leavened with a very, very little bit of low-grade "inside the Beltway" yeast.)
And this means you know as much about Americans and about US politics than those of us who have lived here our whole lives?
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
YEAH, RUTH!
Seriously, she's right. Maybe some Americans scream to the rooftops about writing their congressmen, but most don't do it.
Even if you are faced with a zombie mortgage? If you can't be bothered to complain to your Congress-critter about something like that, why bother complaining about it at all?
No, the people in the OP probably did contact their members of congress, got nowhere so contacted the media.
Most replies from our congress-critters, when boiled down, would be "Sucks to be you".
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
How positively old fashioned.
Only taking on a mortgage you can afford to repay?
For about 30 years up to 2008 that was treated like a stupid question.
Posted by JonahMan (# 12126) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I prefer to get the facts and make up my own mind.
You claim to have a mind?
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
deano, I think I'm beginning to pity you! I won't ask you did you truly read and understand what I posted because, sadly, I'm sure you think you did. I think you honestly don't know what I've said. That's the only thing that can account for some of your replies. Though, sincerely, all credit to you for replying!
Perhaps you mean that a professional news agency adds credibility to a news item, that an amateur video or blog doesn't. Perhaps that is very often true.
But where do you think a significant amount of Video and hard news from around the world is sourced? From the ordinary guy in the crowd secretly filming a gay man being hanged in the Middle East or a raped woman being stoned to death. Or the covert recording of a presidential candidate dissing half of America's population. Or the blog of a 15 year old Pakistani girl who has to move to England in order to save her life because she wants more choices in her own land. To name but a few. All these things - and so much more - were real news before any news agency got involved. Not all 'amateurs' should be ignored and dismissed.
But that's one - and a fairly separate - issue.
If you don't watch youtube and weren't going to click on the link all you had to do was say 'I don't bother with youtube, it's rubbish'. But you were silly enough to show disdain for the link and then ask for what was on it, because you were too lazy/contrary to click on it for yourself!
That's like telling someone you don't like chocolate cake, but if they could provide you with the ingredients, or tell you where you can find a cookery book you'll go and make your own.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I'm the Chairman and CEO of a small UK company employing about a dozen staff who develops software packages used in the energy supply industry
You have a dozen employees and you call yourself Chairman and Chief Executive Officer? ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Did you get your name painted in your parking space too? What's the receptionist's title? Vice-President of Communications?
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
If something is newsworthy, it will find its way into the professional media.
And that's just fucking naive. The product of the "professional media" industry is the audience, not the news, and the real consumers are advertisers.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
I'm bored of your sob story - I imagine everyone else, in and outside of the LGBT community is aswell.
You are not speaking for all of us.
Those minorities, eh? Speaking about abuses done to them. How terrible for us.
I will vigorously, and not without some allowed righteous indignation, go on about my own life story at the hands of homophobes and bigots, but I wont trot it out everytime the topic comes up or present it like I was the victim of the worst acts of homophobia ever imaginable, I use it where it is needed and when needed and remember to always be aware that other LGBT people and minorities have had it by far worse than I have growing up in the Western world and present it as such.
I have actually managed to move on from feeling sorry for myself and use those experiences and feelings to better myself and the world, not continue to be inward lookin and bleat to the world 'Look at me... Look at how sorry for myself I am.'
Experiences in this world should not become our slaves, slapping us in chains, it just allows the aggressor to actually win. Our experiences are supposed to be the building blocks of who we turn out to be, how we develop and grow, and most importantly of all, we should use those experiences to influence how we interact with the systems of the world around us and how we can shape and use those systems to benefit others rather than being selfish and thinking of ourselves all the time. Those of us who have been through and survived (because many haven't survived and it is their stories which matter more than Jade's or mine) the experience, owe the memories of those who didn't survive and owe those coming through all the help and support we can - not to mull over our own life stories.
Fuck you. I'm not 'feeling sorry for myself', I'm righteously angry at the fact that it happened because IT SHOULD NOT HAPPEN. Do you honestly think that anger over my own experiences mean I don't know that my experiences aren't the worst ever? And saying it's up to the victim to learn from the experience as opposed to others not bully in the first place is inexcusable. Why, pray tell, should it be for *me* to get anything from the experience apart from 'some people hate me because I am queer'?
And why can you talk for everyone in and outside the LGBTQ community? Are you psychic?
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
I'm bored of your sob story - I imagine everyone else, in and outside of the LGBT community is aswell.
You are not speaking for all of us.
Those minorities, eh? Speaking about abuses done to them. How terrible for us.
I'm with Sergius-Melli on this one.
JC does bang on about it as though she were the only person to be bullied. She wasn't, plenty of us were including me. Do what the rest of us learned to do... deal with it.
I've learned not to let those bullies live rent free in my head.
Why can I not expect the bullying to not happen in the first place? Hate to break it to you, but homophobic (and all other) attacks should not be a normal experience to 'just get over'. They are something to be stamped out. If others don't want to speak up about their own experiences and why it was wrong to happen, that's up to them, but I don't see why that should stop me from doing so.
I forgot that beating up fags is normal childhood behaviour as far as you're concerned ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
Hostly Notice
You have a choice:
i) Continue this LGBT / Homophobic bullying tangent or
ii) Get back on topic
(note: if i), thread dies)
Sioni Sais
Hellhost
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Hostly Notice
You have a choice:
i) Continue this LGBT / Homophobic bullying tangent or
ii) Get back on topic
(note: if i), thread dies)
Sioni Sais
Hellhost
Ok - sorry for having somewhat highjacked the thread a little, but it didn't merit an entire thread of it's own though at this time.
Posted by passer (# 13329) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
There's an odd tendency that people successful in one sphere reckon they possess equal authority in almost any other field. That does explain your ceaseless pontifications on any subject under the sun.
Hidden within that grammatically awkward euphuism is a truth born of personal experience, deano. Pay heed to the certainty and sagacity of the one who deigns to share his wisdom with you and one day you too could revert to being a salaryman.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
But where do you think a significant amount of Video and hard news from around the world is sourced? From the ordinary guy in the crowd secretly filming a gay man being hanged in the Middle East or a raped woman being stoned to death. Or the covert recording of a presidential candidate dissing half of America's population. Or the blog of a 15 year old Pakistani girl who has to move to England in order to save her life because she wants more choices in her own land. To name but a few. All these things - and so much more - were real news before any news agency got involved. Not all 'amateurs' should be ignored and dismissed.
But you have just proved my point with that list!
All those things found their way into the mainstream media. I know all about those stories, not from YouTube, but from the BBC News, their website and The Times! I'm pretty sure they were also available on other broadcast media and newspapers.
If my understanding of the US political system is wrong, then answer the question I posted above on the subject pleased. Nobody has.
PS SS - I will pontificate on any subject I feel qualified to, as others on this forum are entitled to. What you mean is I shouldn't pontificate on anything because I don't share the same political view as the majority.
[ 19. January 2013, 12:41: Message edited by: deano ]
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
If my understanding of the US political system is wrong, then answer the question I posted above on the subject pleased. Nobody has.
If your understanding of the U.S. political system is wrong what makes you think you would understand any explanations of how you have misunderstood something? From what I've seen on this thread it appears you can't even recognise such a thing.
quote:
PS SS - I will pontificate on any subject I feel qualified to, as others on this forum are entitled to. What you mean is I shouldn't pontificate on anything because I don't share the same political view as the majority.
Feel free to pontificate, just don't expect to be treated as an authority on matters outside your areas of expertise or competence, especially when others have knowledge or hard evidence to the contrary.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
But where do you think a significant amount of Video and hard news from around the world is sourced? From the ordinary guy in the crowd secretly filming a gay man being hanged in the Middle East or a raped woman being stoned to death. Or the covert recording of a presidential candidate dissing half of America's population. Or the blog of a 15 year old Pakistani girl who has to move to England in order to save her life because she wants more choices in her own land. To name but a few. All these things - and so much more - were real news before any news agency got involved. Not all 'amateurs' should be ignored and dismissed.
But you have just proved my point with that list!
All those things found their way into the mainstream media. I know all about those stories, not from YouTube, but from the BBC News, their website and The Times! I'm pretty sure they were also available on other broadcast media and newspapers.
Hosts will be glad to hear this is my last post on this. Here's my last go. Don't you see that in order to 'find their way' anywhere, they have to first exist?
You know about these things because AMATEURS made blogs and took films. What you see on the TV or in the papers or on the radio is the END RESULT of AMATEURS sharing the details of their lives outside of the professional media; who in due course picked them up.
Without the AMATEUR footage and reportage these particular stories would simply have been forgotten whispers, along with most of such similar stuff which isn't videoed or blogged etc.
youtube is a side issue. There is a lot of documentary and informational stuff there. But it is seen as mostly for entertainment.
The issue I've been addressing here is you saying you don't want amateur involvement in 'professional' media processes. And I think you're wrong precisely for the reasons that the cases I've stated above illustrate so well.
Personally I don't much care for the trend in news-agencies to elicit running-banner soundbites from the texting public. But that's a world away from the examples above.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If your understanding of the U.S. political system is wrong what makes you think you would understand any explanations of how you have misunderstood something? From what I've seen on this thread it appears you can't even recognise such a thing.
Well, Sioni, you would say that, wouldn't you?
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
What ridiculous idiocy. The main goal for mainstream media is to obtain ratings. Hence the popular but blatant falsehoods rife there. This is not improved by their occasional secondary goal of inflicting opinion on the public.
To base one's understanding solely on mainstream media for anything is the realm of the stupidly lazy.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
What ridiculous idiocy. The main goal for mainstream media is to obtain ratings. Hence the popular but blatant falsehoods rife there. This is not improved by their occasional secondary goal of inflicting opinion on the public.
To base one's understanding solely on mainstream media for anything is the realm of the stupidly lazy.
This is absolutely correct. With ratings first and influencing public opinion second. There is a complication with the second purpose, and that is that we have limited clarity about the full influence of government and corporations on it. Increasingly it also seems that it is difficult to differentiate the two as corporations take over public space physically, psychologically and socially.
Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Even more relevant is the fact that one of the banks involved in the HSBC, which is a British bank.
I've just come upon this thread, and if the point I want to make has already been made, apologies for overlooking it. Deano, HSBC stands for the Hong Kong Banking Corporation. It took over the British Midland Bank some years ago, but is in no way British, even though it operates in Great Britain, as does the Spanish Bank Santander. Perhaps the only thing it has in common with really British banks is that its call centres are based on the Indian subcontinent.
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
No doubt that's the "British" bank where deano's company's accounts are held.
Posted by Kittyville (# 16106) on
:
HSBC Holdings Plc is the group holding company (of which Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary), is incorporated in England and is headquartered in London - so very much British.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
Oh HSBC is definitely British.
It was formed in England in the 19th Century to provide banking facilities to British people working in the Empire colonies in the Far East.
I's headquarters used to be on Lower Thames Street in London before they moved to Canada Square.
Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on
:
Ah so. Thanks for the courteous and unhellish correction. Pity about the call centres on the Indian subcontinent, though.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
It was formed in England in the 19th Century to provide banking facilities to British people working in the Empire colonies in the Far East.
Actually, no - it was formed in Hong Kong and Shanghai in 1865.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Founded in a colony after a war with the local people, to benefit members of the oppressing group to fund an industry to the detriment of the local people? Could not be more British.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Re anything newsworthy making the mainstream news:
Project Censored and FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting) might provide a useful perspective.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Deano's lamentable knowledge of the USA, and his even more lamentable knowledge of Youtube, would both be a lot more hilarious if I had a choice about reading this stuff.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
orfeo! Where hast thou been? I hast missed you! Nice to see you back. ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Thou hast not been reading Styx threads? If thou hadst, mine absence would not have suprised thee.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
Styx threads? Who the fuck reads Styx threads?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
People who want to know when Hosts will be away, that's who.
Let go of my ankles and run along now.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Deano's lamentable knowledge of the USA
Defend please. Specifically detail where what I have posted is factually incorrect, taking into account the context.
If you can’t then stop whining about being a moderator.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Let's see. Basically everything you said along the lines of "the President must have lots of legislative power because he's a really powerful guy and everyone wants to be President".
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Let's see. Basically everything you said along the lines of "the President must have lots of legislative power because he's a really powerful guy and everyone wants to be President".
No. What I said was that the president has no constitutional power to introduce legislation, but normally they get one of their own parties Congressmen to introduce a bill in Congress.
Do you deny that is possible, or has never been done?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Of course not. But basic electoral math tells me that introducing a piece of legislation in such a manner is a million miles away from getting it passed in most Congresses.
You keep rabbiting on about a President getting things done. Introducing legislation that hasn't got a hope in hell of passing is not my idea of getting things done.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Of course not. But basic electoral math tells me that introducing a piece of legislation in such a manner is a million miles away from getting it passed in most Congresses.
You keep rabbiting on about a President getting things done. Introducing legislation that hasn't got a hope in hell of passing is not my idea of getting things done.
Well I'm glad you have confirmed my understanding of the process, even if you disagree with the implementation!
I agree with you that introducing legislation that hasn't got a hope in hell of passing is pointless. In fact, that is the answer to the OP's original point about zombie mortgages being unfair... Yes they are, but don't hold your breath about getting them fixed.
Your own Government is not going to fix them because
1. Obama wont waste any of his own political capital on it.
2. No Member of Congress is interested in doing anything about it.
3. Any bill to correct the problem - as you say - hasn't got a hope in hell of passing
The whole point of my posts was that there is a PROCESS - if the political will was there - to fix zombie mortgages, but that the political will is NOT there.
People kept telling me that there is NO PROCESS, but what they really meant was that there was NO POLITICAL WILL to fix zombie mortgages.
The whole situation is unjust but the problem isn't with the system, it is with the politicians themselves.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Actually, the point of your posts appeared to be to criticise Obama for not doing something you now acknowledge he couldn't do - which was precisely what people were telling you.
Why the blazes you thought a Republican president could have had a different result when it's Congress that passes laws, not Presidents, is quite beyond the rest of us mere mortals to comprehend. But hey, we don't sell energy software so we lack your devastating ability to read about the US political system on all the right kinds of websites.
[ 21. January 2013, 14:36: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Actually, the point of your posts appeared to be to criticise Obama for not doing something you now acknowledge he couldn't do - which was precisely what people were telling you.
Why the blazes you thought a Republican president could have had a different result when it's Congress that passes laws, not Presidents, is quite beyond the rest of us mere mortals to comprehend. But hey, we don't sell energy software so we lack your devastating ability to read about the US political system on all the right kinds of websites.
Of course I was criticising Obama. He has done nothing. He has no political will to fix it. That is entirely his fault. How would a president go about trying to fix this? As I said, a big speech about it, a mention in the State of the Union speech next month, trying to bring some bi-partisanship to an egregious situation, or getting a cabinet secretary to start a discussion on the subject in a speech or interview. There are many things that could be done to stir up public and congressional sympathy, to actualy START the process, but he is doing none of them. This wont get a mention in the SotU, he wont refer to it at all in fact, neither will any cabinet secretaries and no members of congress will be URGED to do anything!
There is a difference between not having the power to legislate, and doing nothing because you don't give a monkeys, and in my opinion Obama is doing nothing because he doesn't give a monkeys.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
The obvious reason that no politician is going to do dick about zombie mortgages or the generally porcine behavior of Wall Street CEOs (while, funnily enough, hounding Aaron Swartz to his death for posting articles from JSTOR) is simply this : they know which side their bread's buttered on. Sure, Wall Street brought our economy to the brink of collapse--but Big Finance contributes to both political parties, and those companies didn't get to where they are now by not being careful to get value for their money.
And it's not like Romney would have been any better than Obama about this, either. Diverting popular outrage about Wall Street into blaming one party or the other is a great tactic of the banksters, because it gets the heat off them and onto the sideshow of which political party "cares" more about the financial well-being of the common guy (newsflash : neither really gives a shit).
Consider this a hell call for Wall Street. In the words of Lou Reed,
"Does anyone need yet another blank skyscraper
if you're like me I'm sure a minor miracle will do
A flaming sword or maybe a gold ark floating up the Hudson
when you spit in the wind it comes right back at you"
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0