HomeFactopediaBrainoffsRankingsCommunityLog In
You know 0 facts





Wed 25 Jul 12 #1 
jmaxg
Contributor


Was watching "The Newsroom" (HBO) the other day and I found out about something I always knew existed, but never knew what it was.

The "Banking Act of 1933", otherwise referred to as the "Glass-Steagall Act", was signed into law after the Great Depression collapse of 1929 and basically said that an investment bank could be an investment bank, and a commercial bank could be a commercial bank, but the two were prohibited by law from being one and the same.

That law was repealed in 1999 by President Bill Clinton (the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act). Investment and commercial banks were now free to merge again and that they did, immediately and with gusto.

Now, y'all know me. I prefer a glib comment whenever possible and I found one in that same "The Newsroom" episode.....

"This meant that Gordon Gecko could use George Bailey's funds to do whatever he liked."

(the references above were to the movies "Wall Street" (1987) - Gordon Gecko - and "It's a Wonderful Life" (1946) - George Bailey)

Now the current powers that be would have us believing that the former "Glass-Steagall Act" still has no relevance in the current economic environment and that President Clinton was right to repeal it.

I say they are wrong. I say that the banks have to again be split apart so that commercial banks do what they do (lend mortgages, supply business lines of credit, look after customers) and investment banks can do what they do (pledge allegiance to Satan, buy and take apart small business, trade in misery).

I have heard recently that if you are in the inner circles of government, and that you espouse the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall or something like it, you will be threatened with professional ruin. If, on the other hand, you agree with people like Bernanke and Geitner, you will be showered with the promise of further career progression and oodles of money.

So that begs the question(s).....

Should something like "Glass-Steagall" be reintroduced, and

If so, how could it be done given the current climate when the massive commercial interests are in control?

Opinions please.


Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Thu 26 Jul 12 #2 
kevg
The Grumpinator

Bugger I hate to say it but for once the fool is talking sense. Yes the two very different sides to the banking industry should be separated. It actually came as a surprise to me that they were allowed to use each others funds, but then I've never been a high flier so don't know much about them.


Knows 40110 facts
like | send message


Sat 28 Jul 12 #3 
jmaxg
Contributor

Stunning! And this happened after I posted this thread, I swear....

One of the guys that championed and led to the "Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act" that allowed the joining of investment houses and commercial banks, undoing that which had been put in place to prevent 1929 from happening again, that same act that was authorised by President William Jefferson Clinton (President Bill Clinton) in perhaps the single worst decision of his two terms, has re-surfaced....

Sanford Weill, the former chairman of Citicorp, has recently appeared on cable TV and stated that commercial banks and investment banks should now be separated again.

He was succinct too. When asked what did he mean specifically, he responded with (paraphrasing):

"We should separate the big banks so that there is a bank, a thing that takes deposits, gives withdrawals, and provides loans to qualified people and firms."

He looked disheveled, defeated and kind of sad. When asked about what happened 10 years ago, he just said "that was ten years ago."

If no-one else but me and kev get the significance of this, then yes.......we all deserve to go down a black hole.

"Trickle down" is dead. For obvious reasons. Now let's just see if we can save what's left.


Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Sun 29 Jul 12 #4 
southshoregirl

If you take back what you said about trickle down I will say I agree with you on this one, too. (Subject to change upon finding further information.)


like | send message


Mon 30 Jul 12 #5 
jmaxg
Contributor

I cannot and will not take back my criticism of "trickle down".

From it's inception during the Reagan administration, the whole idea seemed unsound both mentally and given an appreciation of the realities of human nature.

Trickle down: The idea that if the deregulation of economics takes place, companies and owners will make a LOT of money and then allow a "trickle down" of the profits all the way to floor level. In other words, everyone will benefit through raised salary or wage, share options, or bonuses.

In reality, and as expected, the companies made a lot of money and either just plain kept it for themselves and/or their shareholders, or they reinvested it hoping to make more to keep for themselves and/or their shareholders. There was no evidence of increased wage at the floor level out of the ordinary. Offerings of shares stayed pretty much the same or dipped. And the only salary and/or bonus explosions that happened occurred at the highest level - light years away from "middle class" level or lower.

In other words, the trickle got plugged by the ones makin' all the money - well d'uhhhhhhhh.


Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Mon 30 Jul 12 #6 
jmaxg
Contributor

I'll give old Ronnie this.......he could deliver a speech well.

But this question I ask of my missus and she can't answer it neither can anyone else.....

Given that he gave a good speech, does that necessarily mean it made any sense in reality?


Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Mon 30 Jul 12 #7 
kevg
The Grumpinator

Don't know much about what he did in the USA economically or otherwise. We didn't get daily updates in those days cos we had enough to worry about ourselves.
He was the President that broke the Russians and ended the Cold War and that alone makes him a good if not great President in my book. Admittedly he had Maggie holding his hand and pushing his arm up his back but he still did it.
Could I see the present incumbent or any of his challengers doing the same ?? Not a chance, lightweight professional politicians who've never held a real job in their lives. I am , amazingly, counting acting as a real job !!
Perhaps giving a good speech then letting people get on with it works, it did for Churchill.


Knows 40110 facts
like | send message


Tue 31 Jul 12 #8 
USS Palladin
Contributor

Sanford Weill....penitent or just a plain old hypocrite?. The guy is a joke. Manipulates government along with Clinton, Rubin, Sommers, Paulson to name a few and now he is sorry???? Sorry, he knew what he was doing the whole time and is just trying to save his ass. When government regulators did try to intervene, Rubin, Sommers, Greenspan and others shut them out.

Wise up, we have government by Wall Street. Still waiting for anybody, anywhere in the U.S. to be prosecuted for financial crimes related to the Sept. 2008 meltdown. Isn't going to happen, won't happen either.

The country should wise up and seek better alternatives than either the Republicans or Democrats.


Knows 46364 facts
like | send message


Wed 1 Aug 12 #9 
jmaxg
Contributor

Skip.....who the bloody hell is "Grover Norquist"? I mean, apart from having the same first name as my favourite muppet, who is he and why the hell is this idiot dictating taxation policy to republicans??


Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Wed 1 Aug 12 #10 
USS Palladin
Contributor

Good question, hell if I know.

There have been tons of bipartisan solutions put out to solve our problems. It is the idiots on the extremes that prevent the middle from finding the best and natural course. Grover is on the extreme and thus an idiot.

It is a taxation and a revenue problem. There is some Congressman from either South Carolina or Florida who has the right idea. Historically we have traditionally spent 21% and collected 20% in taxes. Lately it has been very, very skewed. Just by returning to that historic ratio we can solve a lot of our problems with some pain but not the pain to be experienced by sequestration or by other gutless measures put forth by a Congress with no cajones. Honestly, a big article in the New York Times about the military and the M-1 tank. Best tank in the world, great for fighting the Russians in a Cold War scenario, but useless in insurgent warfare. Surprisingly vulnerable to IED's yet Congress WON'T let the Army stop modernizing these behemoths. The Army doesn't want to modernize them but they have no choice. No cajones Congress.....

You have to raise revenue, we will have to raise taxes and spending will need to be cut, it will just be question of who pays and how much. I guess they will have to decide soon as the fiscal cliff approaches...


Knows 46364 facts
like | send message


Wed 1 Aug 12 #11 
jmaxg
Contributor

Ok....getting back on the track of discussion, you wanna put people back to work?

Start by regulating. Force all the capitalists to contribute back into society instead of just purely making a buck.

At this point in time, there is nothing that will compel a house of investment to offer a line of credit to a small business.

I find that detrimental to the safety and security of the United States.

We, as a world power, have two choices:

Either regulate the current environment in which case we would have to order private businesses to do government bidding (socialism), or

Reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act and confirm that the "commercial bank" and the "investment firm" are two completely different things.

A simple thing really.


Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Wed 1 Aug 12 #12 
USS Palladin
Contributor

Lordy, lordy...

What country that is TRILLIONS in dollars of debt can be considered a world power?

Oh sure we get all the business now, and that is because we have the world's reserve currency but that isn't going to last much longer.

Why is it that the Federal Reserve has a mandate in regards to unemployment and inflation and has been unable to meet those goals? The economy stagnates, there could be some benefit to QE3 yet still we don't have one. Holding off till just a few months before the election? Could be but that might be just cynical. Holding off because our major creditor (China) doesn't want to see the value of their vast holdings of U.S. Treasuries get debased any further? Probably. Every QE causes vast inflation in the Asia while making it easier for us finance an overwhelming debt burden.

I am not against re instating parts of Glass Steagall I am not sure if full reinstatment wouldn't damage the economy nor would it get more credit to small business since the system is already awash in cheap money. In fact banks are now doing what they should have been doing long before we got into this mess and actually looking into the credit worthiness of those applying for loans. The fact that a lot of folks can't get loans probably means that they are not a good risk. I will say that there are some cases in which the bankers are just being way to cautious but that is to be expected when the pendulum swings so far the other way. Forcing banks to lend on one hand while at the same time telling them they need to be very, very careful about the risk ratios just doesn't work. Now maybe, just maybe they don't need to be so conservative when the Feds are backstopping them and providing them and the Fed is virtually charging them nothing for money. Banking is all about risk and when you can make more borrowing money from the Fed for nothing and turning around and buying U.S. Treasuries and getting paid interest to finance the debt, well it just doesn't quite seem fair or right but we all need a banking system right?

The real issue is the deep structural problems in the U.S. Besides too much debt, we have a work force that has become so productive that fewer workers are needed to produce the same amount of goods. No demand, no need for more goods and more workers. So you seek demand elsewhere but hell, poor Europe is in worse shape than we are ( I recommend you short the Euro) and since it is really the world's largest consumer market we are still years away from getting out of the morass.

As a former small business owner and a manager of one I would tell you now that even if I could get money (I can) I wouldn't be investing it in my business because till we work through the mountain of debt there is no extra cash for more than basics.

Banks need to re think the housing mess. I don't know if that means stopping foreclosures and going to rent to own schemes, etc, etc, etc but till you fix housing, you can't fix the economy.

If Geitner goes to China soon or meets with some big wig from China then we know that we might, just might get QE3 and that is only because the Chinese economy is beginning to sputter and if you think we can't afford all the unemployed, they certainly can't from a social unrest point of view. They might, just might give us the Imperial nod and let us print some more dollars....WEEEEEEEEEE!!!!


Knows 46364 facts
like | send message


Wed 1 Aug 12 #13 
southshoregirl

Start slapping some hefty tariffs on Chinese imports for starters and tell them to stop manipulating their yuans. China is going down! JMax! Let capitalists earn money so they can hire people and pay them. How do you think people get jobs?
If you want to have a socialist country in which to live, PLEASE go some where else!! I would rather see the free enterprise system flourish here once again. Get rid of Obamacare which still left 30 million people uninsured.


like | send message


Fri 3 Aug 12 #14 
jmaxg
Contributor

"In fact banks are now doing what they should have been doing long before we got into this mess and actually looking into the credit worthiness of those applying for loans."

Skip, the only reason they are doing that now is because the collapse reinforced what they should have been doing in the first place. They stopped doing it because investment managers took over. If banks and investment houses remained separate, it simply would not have been an issue.

"The fact that a lot of folks can't get loans probably means that they are not a good risk."

The fact is, such folks DID get loans. Why? Because it contributed to powering the derivative system that led to all this.

Anyway you look at it, Glass-Steagal should not have been undone.


Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Fri 3 Aug 12 #15 
USS Palladin
Contributor

I think the repeal of Glass Steagal did many things. Probably helped a lot of folks get into homes when they couldn't have and probably helped a lot of people get into homes that shouldn't have. :-)

I am think there may be some benefit to going back to the firewall. I am sure as hell not gonna take that sort of advice from a hypocrite like Weil and neither should you. I will ask you and anybody else that just goes ballistic over this and that is this: Why do you all continue to place your faith in a government run by Wall Street? Why has there been no prosecutions for fraudulent activity? Finally I ask, how in the hell do you fix: #1 stupid, because everybody knows you can't and bankers and regulators were stupid and #2. How do you regulate greed when the regulators are all from the place you are supposed to be regulating. Asking Greenspan, Sommers, Paulson and others to regulate their industry is like putting mice in charge of the cheese factory.

And the Titantic sails on..........

Interesting side point. Sen Glass of the aformentioned law later came out against his own law, saying it had gone to far. :-)

I haven't taken the time but anybody know what Sen. Schumer of New York says about bringing back Glass Stegal..... Bet you he is against it. LOL! I wonder why??? :-)

"The fact is, such folks DID get loans. Why? Because it contributed to powering the derivative system that led to all this.". I think the answer to this is simple. Greed and avarice on the part of the bankers and the consumer.


Knows 46364 facts
like | send message


Fri 3 Aug 12 #16 
southshoregirl

I agree with what you say, Pall. Well said.
If you ever figure Schumer out please let me know!


like | send message


Tue 7 Aug 12 #17 
jmaxg
Contributor

Still think it should not have been undone. President Clinton was wrong to sign it.

George Bailey should be looking after his stuff and Gordon Gekko should be doing his thing and they should NOT overlap. To me it's just common sense given what we now know. It was common sense before then.

Not sure about the Chuck Schumer angle. There are a few democratic reps and senators that never appealed to me and Schumer was always one.....Biden was another.

They just never seemed to be able to say anything. Joe Biden in particular. I am positive the guy never finished a sentence before starting another sentence!


Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Tue 7 Aug 12 #18 
USS Palladin
Contributor

I don't mind Schumer or Biden, I know they are partisan and they don't hide the fact. I actually enjoy hearing what they say, Biden more than Schumer as I feel Biden is less of a hypocrite..lol.

I actually didn't like Coburn of Oklahoma very much but I understand on the super committee he did vote for revenue increases. Of course that doesn't go well with McConnell and Boehner, so of course any sort of statesmanship get buried by idiot leaders. I don't think Patty Murray was very helpful either as she was a tool of Reid.

They have a bi partisan game plan to go by, just get negotiating. It is called Simpson-Bowles.....

The fiscal cliff approacheth........


Knows 46364 facts
like | send message


Tue 7 Aug 12 #19 
jmaxg
Contributor

The political numbers standeth.

Anything that President Obama instigated that works (or even doesn't work) WILL be shot down, stymied, buried, stopped, shot, burned, drawn and quartered and crapped on.

The merits of the proposal are immaterial.

But this case is unique and the political statistics bear that out. If he was white and president, the opposition would not have been anywhere near as coordinated.

The low point about President Obama's case was that some of the opposition was WILLFULLY handed over by democratic party members. That is the sad part. Not only does it still exist but it is still openly practiced even by aligned members of the party.

According to my research, no other president has had to deal with this.


Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Fri 10 Aug 12 #20 
USS Palladin
Contributor

Is that gonna be the story now....

Racism is the problem rather than ineffectual leadership.

Ok, I seem to recall that when he was elected he had majorities in BOTH houses of Congress.

Truman was blessed with a do nothing Congress too and I believe he was white.

I think the President has lost opportunities to lead. That he is African American makes the challenge more difficult I am sure and I am sure that folks object to him solely on the basis of his race but I am not one of them. If you are handed a mandate as he was you are expected to do something with it. He didn't.

Is he a better choice than Romney? I don't know. Both are Wall Street cronies and I just noticed that the Obama Justice Dept. will not be prosecuting Goldman Sachs for the Abacus affair. Shall we check the donation list for the DNC?


Knows 46364 facts
like | send message


Sat 11 Aug 12 #21 
southshoregirl

Biden is a bigot and Schumer is a fool. I live in his state. Occasionally Schumer comes out with a good idea but he is basically an ideologue. Biden? He's good for a laugh. When they did his brain surgeries they probably removed his self control switch. I am sick of politics. Why do they start these campaigns so early?


You should check everything Obama does. He is a bigtime liar and cheat.


like | send message


Mon 13 Aug 12 #22 
jmaxg
Contributor

"If you are handed a mandate as he was you are expected to do something with it. He didn't."

I don't agree.

BUT, I agree he could have done more.

The PPACA (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) is basically a "Frankenstein Monster" and a direct result of the misfunction of Congress.

But apart from that, ANY attempt by the sitting president was stopped by Congress. That's a matter of record. ANY attempt to alleviate the current situation was simply shut down using numbers, regardless of it's value.

That, alone, is not unique. But previously it has happened in a "party against part" situation.

BUT this is the first time it has happened with regard to a sitting president and same party objection to the extent that it negates the sitting president.

Explain it away all you like, but I keep seeing the same thing particularly when you evaluate the decisions of congressional members.

Truman was one thing. But the President Obama's WTF rating is through the roof.


Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Mon 13 Aug 12 #23 
USS Palladin
Contributor

No...no...no.

He is a Democrat, he was elected as a Democrat and as such HE becomes the leader of his party. Not Harry Reid, not Nancy Pelosi, he does. As such he bares responsibility for failing to get those two to do their jobs in Congress. Lets face it, Pelosi and Reid and much more radical than Mr. Obama.

When a party is not in power than it is the highest elected official of that party that becomes the de facto leader of that party. So in effect either McConnel or Boehner are the ones to be pointing fingers at for Republicans. Yipee (heavy tone of sarcasm...)

The unfortunate thing for Mr. Obama is he is a leftist leaning moderate and he is cursed with leadership in the Senate and House that are more left than he is when he did have a majority.

Nobody likes Congress and the issue with Mr. Obama is was he was elected to make a change. He choose the wrong time to be a moderate. FDR got elected to make a change and that guy was radical for his time end to the extent of wanting to stack the Supreme Court. Yes, different time, different country etc, etc, etc. yet he saw he had a mandate and acted. For better or worse.

Even your statement that he could have done more is basically saying that in some aspects of leadership he has failed. This election will be about his leadership as it always is when a President stands for another term. It will always come down to Reagan's statement versus Jimmy Carter. "Are you better off than you were four years ago?? If you think you are than you will vote for Mr. Obama or if your think they can be, you will vote for him, or if you want to continue to have a government from Wall Street than I guess it really doesn't matter since both of them are beholding to the Streeters anyway.... :-)


Knows 46364 facts
like | send message


Mon 13 Aug 12 #24 
southshoregirl

Do you really think Obama is a moderate? LOL OMG! That is hilarious! He is so far left he is ready to fall into the Pacific! *splash* He is a rabble rousing community organizer who has sealed ALL of his records so we know NOTHING about him. I wonder if he has ever told the truth even once in his life along with those lying friends, Pelosi and Reid.


like | send message


Mon 13 Aug 12 #25 
USS Palladin
Contributor

Yes if you are watching Fox news...you bet, he is a borderline communist....

That said what I said was he was a LEFTIST leaning moderate.

In today's current media circus I think Fox news would consider Teddy Roosevelt a leftist moderate for all the things he did. Nixon is probably in the same boat and possibly Clinton but in a rightist way.

The policies all three of the above continue to shape the nation in many ways. Clinton for welfare reform, Roosevelt for a great many things but mainly conservation and Nixon for the enviornment and China. I am sure Obama will be known for his health care revolution but I think the final judgement on that is years down the road. The President that will really make his mark is the one that brings entitlements under control. As almost 60% of the Federal Budget is spoken for without any Congressional redress we are in fact fighting over the meagre 40% that is left and a lot of that is going to defense and HSS.

To his credit Mr. Obama started out trying to be conciliatory as are most newly elected Presidents, but I am not sure that is a policy to take these days. The first 100 days of any Presidency are telling and I don't think he made the most out of his honeymoon with Congress or the American people.

And while he is President of the whole United States he did (does) have a consituency that elected him and he should be held accountable by them and by those that did not vote for him.

We have discussed community organizing before, and there is nothing wrong with it nor should there be. I don't know about the sealed records concerning his community organizing but I really doubt that they are. You may not like the tactics that community organizers use to get what the they want but from what I have read and why they are using such tactics (getting slum lords to clean up their acts) I say good for them. Folks may be poor and they may not be able to afford the best of circumstances but that doesn't mean the places they live in shouldn't have the city mandated maintenance and if the city won't hold them accountable then what is left to these people but organizing. As to community organizers using government money to get people to vote, that isn't right but that has been exposed. No worse I guess than Wall Street bankers buying votes in Congress to pass repeals of Glass Steagall......

Pelosi and Reid are not my favorites but there type exist on both sides of aisle. Congress is now about partisanship and not about the welfare of the country as a whole. Time we as voters begin rewarding the compromisers instead of the flame throwers that seem to define whom we elect these days. Less sound bite and more action.


Knows 46364 facts
like | send message


Tue 14 Aug 12 #26 
southshoregirl

If you don't know about Obama's sealed records and the criminals he associates with there is little hope of you understanding any of my statements. He did NOT try to be conciliatory when he first came into office. He was arrogant as he is now and he has done something nearly everyday that contradicts the promises he made during his campaign.

I am not glued to Fox news or any other news. I do watch Fox Business news because I follow the markets. The information I have gotten about Obama is on the internet and it was there before the election. I am not going to keep defending my position to you or anyone else. He is a communist and his grandparents were and that is a well-known fact. Instead of me doing your homework why don't you go look up some sites about this bastard and find out for yourself.

The problem with him being a community organizer is that he has barely any experience in politics. Hardly any. He certainly was not ready to become President of the US and he has legislative experience, barely, and he just signs executive orders to get thiings done. He has no regard to moving legislation through congress. If it doesn't go through channels he signs an executive order. OK, I am too pissed off to continue. Do some homework and see what he is and where he came from and if you really think he should be re-elected. That's all I have to say. I am sick of this crap. Borderline? Ha!


like | send message


Tue 14 Aug 12 #27 
USS Palladin
Contributor

Well I have seen the websites you have quoted in the past to back up your specious statements and quite frankly they are crap and for an educated person such as yourself to subscribe to such just makes who you defame look that much better.

You remind me of that commercial currently running for State Farm were the woman tells they guy that is using the app that everything on the internet is true. I think you could actually play that woman.

You tell me to do my homework when I actually think you can't prove what you say but feel it is your right to go ahead a spew crap about anybody just so you can be heard. You are certainly entitled to feel about Obama or anybody else for that matter in anyway you please but express it as your opinion and not as some mysterious fact on some mysterious website you happen to glance at when the medications run out. If you want them to be accepted as fact than share with us where and how you got them or just state this is your opinion and leave it at that.

Opinion isn't fact until proven and so please share with us your facts. Don't hold your breath here folks cause she never has and never will, more an likely because she can't and she will make some excuse why she can't but that is the same old story and that is really why we should all be sick of your crap all it is is hatred and ignorance wrapped in bigotry.


Knows 46364 facts
like | send message


Tue 14 Aug 12 #28 
kevg
The Grumpinator

You leave hatred, ignorance and bigotry alone !!


Knows 40110 facts
like | send message


Tue 14 Aug 12 #29 
southshoregirl

You can say a lot of things, can't you, Jon, but to stoop to the depth of accusing me of "running out of medications" is a truly despicable thing to say. I am so ashamed for you that you felt you had to say something so obnoxious. I am not a member of the drug crowd. Sorry, you struck out there. Maybe you should be reported to the Count for such disgraceful talk and such arrogance in speaking to me or anyone else. I am not walking into one of your stupid little traps again. I am very happy playing this game again and I am not risking getting thrown off because of you. I advise you to keep your discussions above a personal level. I will not even address you again.


like | send message


Tue 14 Aug 12 #30 
USS Palladin
Contributor

Reading your posts which often times are a bunch of lies and defamation is far more obnoxious than stating what I said. In fact the only factual thing that can be said about my statement is that I can't base it in fact which really you shouldn't find that hard to accept since most of your posts are opinions which have no basis in fact and for the most part are a load of toss.

P.S. last time I looked arrogance wasn't against forum rules or did you forget to look that up too. :-)
Then go look in the mirror and see a picture of arrogance right there. You go ahead and make statements and somebody asks you to provide proof and or defend them and you retreat behind the wall of intellectual laziness that you always go to and say you don't have to while at the same time you act affronted that somebody, anybody would dare challenge your posts. You want to put up opinions of crap don't get mad about somebody, anybody calling you out on them. Either put your big girl panties on and bring proof that Obama's parents were communists or take your licks.


Knows 46364 facts
like | send message


Tue 14 Aug 12 #31 
Doctor Factenstein
Evil Genius

Could all users please remember to refrain from making personal attacks?

You can? Great! That'd be lovely.


Knows 34637 facts
like | send message


Tue 14 Aug 12 #32 
Doctor Factenstein
Evil Genius

Just to follow up on that, could all users please remember to refrain from making unsubstantiated defamatory remarks too?

If you're making controversial claims about "well-known facts" then please be prepared to back them up - it'll make my life so much easier and I'm a big fan of an easy life.


Knows 34637 facts
like | send message


Tue 14 Aug 12 #33 
southshoregirl

Tell him to never make personal remarks. First of all, I don't lie. I state opinions and known facts. If he disagrees he may do so. But, DOCTOR FACTENSTEIN, please advise him that he must NEVER say anything personal about me such as me needing medication. That is horrendously inexcusable. If he want to be arrogant and feels it is an important part of his persona I have to say that is his choice. But he is not allowed to make personal attacks on me or to post untrue things about me. Thanks, Stu. I know you will understand how annoying it is to deal with this crap. I want an easy life, too.


like | send message


Tue 14 Aug 12 #34 
USS Palladin
Contributor

Per post #32 please provide proof that his grandparents were communists as you state that this is a well known fact.

Per rule 6.2.2 your statement in regards to this matter is defamtory unless proven


Knows 46364 facts
like | send message


Tue 14 Aug 12 #35 
southshoregirl

What is rule 6.2.2?


like | send message


Tue 14 Aug 12 #36 
USS Palladin
Contributor

6.2.2 post, publish, distribute or disseminate material or information that is defamatory, infringing, obscene, indecent, threatening, abusive, harassing or unlawful;

And I owe you an apology for violating:

6.2.3 post, publish, distribute or disseminate material or information that incites discrimination, hate or violence towards any person or group on account of their race, religion, disability, nationality or otherwise;

I suppose one could take my previous comment as mocking a disabilty. A case could be made for my comment also violating 6.2.2 so as I have already said and I will repeat again, my apologies.

So per 6.2.2 you need to come up with proof that his grandparents were communists and that he is a communist or else your comments are defamtory as I pointed out. You state that these are well known facts. I respectfully disagree and per post #32 you are asked to substantiate this claim. :-)

Both of the above are found under the terms of agreement for participating on this forum and playing games on this website.


Knows 46364 facts
like | send message


Wed 15 Aug 12 #37 
kevg
The Grumpinator

getting infantile now, how about closing this thread ??


Knows 40110 facts
like | send message


Wed 15 Aug 12 #38 
USS Palladin
Contributor

She asked, I answered and I apologized for my statement.

So that qualifies as infantile?


Knows 46364 facts
like | send message


Wed 15 Aug 12 #39 
southshoregirl

Close the thread if you want. I am still going to send him the sites. If you don't mind my server has been down. I have not been able to retrieve the sites and you can believe that I am not putting anything up that can be picked apart and called a "specious" site. I do not have a disability except for a short fuse now and then.


like | send message


Wed 15 Aug 12 #40 
Doctor Factenstein
Evil Genius

I'm going to leave this open for now. SSG has told me that she has the sites to hand and she'll put them up here for us to look at today.

Any more personal remarks though and I'm going to turn nasty, OK?


Knows 34637 facts
like | send message


Wed 15 Aug 12 #41 
southshoregirl

Here is one. I have at least one more. I am putting these up as bonafide sites which I expect to be read and not be rippied apart as "specious" please.

www.westernjournalism.com/frank-marshall-davis-communist-mentor-to-a-president/


Sorry, I dont know how to put them up so you can just click on the address.

Frank Marshall Davis is the man in Hawaii with whom Obama spent much time and who may POSSIBLY be his father. No one knows much about O's background so it is hard to determine but FMD is the man to whom Obama is referring as his father in his book Dreams of My Father.


like | send message


Wed 15 Aug 12 #42 
southshoregirl

This one tells it all except for the grandparent but if you follow obama you would know all about it. I will still see if I can find a site where Stanley Dunham is exposed as a communist.


www.commieblaster.com/obama/index.html

Don't turn up your nose at the name of the website. There is a lot of info in there.There is information from a large number of sources incliding CBS, ABC, NBC, etc in other words the mainstream nedia.


like | send message


Wed 15 Aug 12 #43 
southshoregirl

This is very interesting and I am still looking for the site about his grand parents. I do not customarily save these thimgs so I have to find them again. Unfortunately, many sites are removed or changed around. I will find it but you may have to wait a day or two.

Read this. It is very interesting.
http://usasurvival.org/ck07.12.html#azzz23daQkfmm


I found a site that has the history of the Dunham hamily and his grandmother is mentioned as a communist and his grand father is hinted at being one but it was not strong enough for me to use. I know it is very interesting to me but I am looking for the best one. No complaining, please. I have spent time finding these sites.


like | send message


Wed 15 Aug 12 #44 
southshoregirl

That is all the time I care to spend on this today. Thank you.


like | send message


Wed 15 Aug 12 #45 
Doctor Factenstein
Evil Genius

I don't think anyone needs to rubbish the sites per se when you've already said yourself that they don't contain anything that supports your claim that President Obama's grandparents were communists.

Can I suggest that if it were a well known fact, as you originally suggested, then it would be somewhat easier to track down and prove?

Is it, perhaps, possible that it's not a fact but a theory and that you were mistaken?

With regards to the quality of the sites you've posted...

Western Journalism is a blog-based journalism site. The author could be you or me (as in, we could create accounts there and write similar articles). As far as its reliability goes, it's probably worse than Wikipedia. At least with Wikipedia articles, claims made tend to be supported by citations with linked to those references. There's no such control in Western Journalism. That's not to say it might not be correct, of course, I'm just pointing out that it's in no way an authoritative site - you might as well cite a forum post on here.

Sorry but I would turn up my nose at a site called CommieBlaster for providing evidence. It's clearly biased and unashamedly so. Of course, if there were links to more reputable sites contained in there that would be a different matter. With that said, when a site which is clearly gung-ho to support claims that President Obama is a communist doesn't contain anything about his grandparents I have to wonder if they're sloppy or whether the evidence is too tenuous even for them.

The CBS links on that page refer to CBS reporting a broken promise and CBS reporting poll results. There are no links to ABC although it does describe the network as "commie media outlet ABC". MSNBC is also described as a "commie media outlet" but there aren't actually any links to their site.

Sorry but the site lacks any credibility. It's definitely in the serious conspiracy theorist category with added mudslinging (with over 20 links to suggest that the president is gay).

Cliff Kincaid who wrote the article on USA Survival News has a long history of "Obama bashing" in his role as director of AIM. If this article, claiming that an Arizona sheriff has come up with "sure fire proof" that the president's birth certificate has been tampered with contains a shred of genuine evidence I'm sure we'll hear about it when the president is impeached. I wouldn't hold my breath.

I'm sorry to be critical and appreciate that you've spent time trying to support your original claims about President Obama's grandparents. However, you haven't yet found anything that backs up your comments and the things you have posted are from unreliable sources.

If you believe what those sites say then that's your prerogative but I'm sure you'd agree that you couldn't exactly cite them as evidence in a court of law. Not, obviously, that this is a court of law but if you're going to describe something as a fact then you probably need a better class of evidence than blog sites. You can find a blog to support just about any claim you make.


Knows 34637 facts
like | send message


Wed 15 Aug 12 #46 
southshoregirl

I am not surprised in the least at your reaction, Stu. Feel free to disregard. I will believe it and many, many Americans do. I must advice you that many sites concerning Obama have been removed from the internet and that is why I am having trouble finding the precise site which Mr. Dunham was discussed openly as a communist. I don't mind if you end this discussion. I know I will find the site, or another and someone, particularly a European, will dismiss it. That is fine. I do not intend to participate in any further conversations since I am held to special standards. It's fine. I will leave and not complain. I will live in gross ignorance and everyone else can live in bliss! Aah, what a wonderful world we have. I am not going to post anything here-say here but there is plenty out there. You believe whatever you like. It is your right. I am through here. I am only playing the dailies and the Kevvie. That is quite enough.


like | send message


Thu 16 Aug 12 #47 
southshoregirl

Where are the rules listed, please?


like | send message


Thu 16 Aug 12 #48 
Doctor Factenstein
Evil Genius

You'll find them at the bottom of every page on the site, through the link Terms.


Knows 34637 facts
like | send message


Fri 17 Aug 12 #49 
jmaxg
Contributor

And they have been, like, FOREVER!

Anyway, to add further grist to the mill, I want this discussed before I do my traditional American Election forum....



Interesting accusations made.


Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Fri 17 Aug 12 #50 
southshoregirl

Not watching. I am out of this discussion. I have read the rules, Stu. Thank you.


like | send message


Sun 19 Aug 12 #51 
jmaxg
Contributor

Anyway, the accusations appear to be a slightly more sophisticated version of what was tried before on a democratic candidate in a previous election.

It has come to be known as "swift boating" in honour of the type of boat that the 2004 democratic candidate, John Kerry, commanded during the Vietnam war.

What happened is that the republican party dredged up and paid a number of Vietnam war veterans to claim that whatever John Kerry claimed (the democratic candidate) was not true. Even though these people never served with John Kerry and it is a matter of proven fact that John Kerry was a swift boat commander in the Vietnam war.

And so....."swift boating": the art of destroying the valid claims of a candidate using any method whatsoever relying on the ignorance of the electorate.

The funny thing is, I never thought "swift boating" had much of a life beyond that one expression. Once you played that card, the gang were on to you. Sucks to be John Kerry, of course. But beyond that, you would expect the electorate to be wise to the trick.

Sort of like 9/11......a devastatingly good trump card. But once you played it, you have nothing. No back up, no second wave, zip. A poor move ultimately strategically speaking.

The above video is nothing more than a "swift boat" exercise targeting President Barack Obama. The video goes out of it's way to state "The President never took out Usama Bin Laden". In fact, it repeats that time and time and time again, ad nauseum.

And so, given that the American electorate have been fooled before, do the creators of this video really think that the independent voters don't know the difference between a "direction" and an implementation?

I have never once heard the current president claim that "I killed Bin Laden". Not once........ever.

So, with this "swift boat" attempt, you would think the effort was a wee bit more sophisticated.


Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Sun 19 Aug 12 #52 
southshoregirl

Ho hum. That statement was from a Navy Seal, was it not? What does that have to do with John Kerry? I am so sorry but I don't get the connection between the two.


like | send message


Thu 23 Aug 12 #53 
jmaxg
Contributor

Just like President Obama was not personally there when Usama Bin Laden was taken out.

That's what the Karl Rove types want you to think.

In this case, however, there was a commander-in-chief and an order. They carried it out.

Despite the illegality of the action, I as commander in chief would have ordered the same.


Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Thu 23 Aug 12 #54 
USS Palladin
Contributor

Why do you say it is illegal? Doesn't his oath require him to protect the U.S. against all enemies foreign and domestic?

Rotten campaign, on both sides, the President himself hasn't said this directly and neither should he, but as Commander in Chief he is entitled to his time in the sun. I don't know if his campaign staff is doing this though. Are they?

The point is the Armed Forces should never be politicized by either side but maybe that is the price we pay for civilian control of them as manifested by having a civilian commander in chief. Somethings should just be bigger than trying to get elected.

Note: I did not bother to look at the video, but seems to me and I may be wrong, but I doubt that this guy is an active navy seal, you aren't allowed to criticize the commander in chief while in uniform. Just ask that NCO from the Marine Corps that got discharged recently because of his comments on Facebook.


Knows 46364 facts
like | send message


Fri 24 Aug 12 #55 
southshoregirl

Wow! You really said it was an illegal act for Obama to order the killing of Bin Laden, jmax? That is astounding.


like | send message


Wed 29 Aug 12 #56 
jmaxg
Contributor

Possibly.....not sure.......I am not a lawyer.

Ya wanna go there with George W. Bush's record?


Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Fri 31 Aug 12 #57 
southshoregirl

Let it go, jmax. You are getting silly now. I could say stuff but I will just not lower myself. I never said George W. Bush was great. I am leaving it there. There were MANY THINGS he was not.


like | send message


This topic is now closed.






   About - Terms - Privacy Log In