Happy anniversary! Today marks year number 3 since you first became a Sifter and the community is better for having you. Thanks for your contributions!

I'd be interested in some of your links. I promise not to send any "counter-links." There are plenty here on the sift.

In reply to this comment by Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
For another example besides JS of how to discuss the tragedy with a little class was Barak Obama's speech tonight. If only the rabid wolves and wombats of the media would do as he suggests then maybe things would calm down a little. Sorta doubt that'll happen though. The media on both sides is addicted to angry rhetoric like a drug. Here's hoping...

Violent? You can't honestly believe that.

I do not 'believe' it. I KNOW it is fact because I've seen and heard it.

In the interest of not promulgating the venom I won't bother linking it. If you have any interest in seeing those examples, you can doubtless find them youself very very easily with a few simple web searches. I don't want to bother linking them, but rest assured the violence ridden hate speech of the left is myriad, pervasive, and all too common. Do not take my reticence as evidence that I'm somehow making it up. I am more than prepared to supply evidence A-Go-Go, but I'd rather not in the interest of avoiding the standard "Oh yeah well someone else says THIS" syndrome that inevitably follows. This is not the time for it, and it is an all too easy trap to fall into. I do not deny there is some violent rhetoric from a few jerkwads on the right. It is foolishness to deny that there isn't just as much violent rhetoric from the jerkwads on the left.

Excuse both sides if you wish. Or condemn both sides if you wish. But let no one pretend that such rhetoric exists in a bubble on only one side of the aisle. That is the talk of a partisan fool.

I feel shocked to agree with you, because I usually don't. Well put.

In reply to this comment by Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I'm not condoning the clearly eggregious tactics of some financial houses nowadays... Places pulling shady stunts get no love from me.

But what the heck is with these commentators' attitudes about the borrowers? They talk like people with mortgages bear NO responsibility for keeping track of their accounts. Anyone 'surprised' by a raft of late fees on a mortgage has not checked their account ONCE in at least 2 months. I couldn't sleep nights if I wasn't double checking my account every week.

The banks are being slimy - no questions. But a simple 1-minute check on your account just ONCE a month stops this kind of crap. Are people such helpless, stupid, pathetic sheep now that they can't be expected to even do THAT?

Wow. Two years already.

Happy anniversary! Today marks year number 2 since you first became a Sifter and the community is better for having you. Thanks for your contributions!

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:any doofus can 'claim' anything they want and who needs such things as 'evidence' or 'facts' as long as there are enough gullible suckers willing to brainlessly parrot the lie.


When it comes to this all of a sudden you want "evidence", but all it took was a few emails taken out of context - with no scientific data as proof - to convince you that global warming is a hoax. You are truly the KING of hypocrisy.

In reply to this comment by Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
if you are unwilling or unable to see the moral courage this woman has by standing up and doing what she felt was righteous

The bank is conducting itself legally. What you object to is that BoA offers credit to people who are 'risky' borrowers. You call it 'predatory'. Hmmm - what other entity does exactly the same thing...? What organization has been telling banks to lend money to people who "can't afford it"? Whose policy is it to "spend our way out of debt"?

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9CF8SIO0&show_article=1
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30388.html

My position is that it is stupid policy to lend money to people who are risky borrowers. It is unsustainable, foolish, and destructive at the business level AND the government level. But it is not IMMORAL. This womans 'stand' has nothing to do with morality. It a disagreement on how a company should conduct business.

When you disagree with how a company does business - you quit. You don't stick around violating the terms of your employment and doing stuff that will get you fired. You stand up straight, quit the job, and leave with your head high. She didn't. She slunk around, kept taking paychecks, disobeyed orders, bucked policy, and at finally got thrown out the door kicking and screaming like a baby. Then to cap it off she's got the cheek to make a whiny video about how unfair it was. Bullcrap. She got exactly what she deserved.

Now - I wholeheartedly agree with her opinion that money should not be lent to people who can't afford it. She and I are sympatico there. But she's saying it's 'wrong' and I'm saying it is merely 'stupid'.

However, I find it interesting that you agree with her sentiment that such practices are 'wrong' at a moral level. So - tell me - will you follow her example and condemn the current administration's practice of 'aggressively marketing' debt spending to people who can't afford it? After all, according to your moral code such actions are 'evil'. Will you support evil, or will you condemn and abandon it?


i never used the term evil.that is subjective.
and no,i do not agree with our governments massive borrowing practices.sadly we lack leadership in that arena.no administration has had the balls to do whats right.reagan ushered in the new financial economy while abandoning our industrial industry and no admin since has done it right.clinton balanced the budget..sure..but it took him raping SS and medicare to do it.

it angers me that average citizens are expected to be held accountable(which is right) yet our government can keep passing the buck.

as for the young lady.i see a woman who wrangled with a moral dilemma and used her supposed power to help those in trouble by breaking company policy.
i would have done the same.
you would not.
but in the end we both would have been out of a job.
our disagreement is one of semantics but at the heart i feel we agree.

In reply to this comment by Winstonfield_Pennypacker: Without clear, ironclad protections to their own rights there is just no way the 'traditional marriage' crowd is going to go along with these laws.


My point is, there ARE clear, ironclad protections to the "traditional marriage" crowd's rights - in the US constitution.

No PennyPacker, I'm saying that the FCC doesn't regulate cable channels ( fox cnn msnbc), they do, however, regulate public airwaves and any major news networks that use them. i.e. cbs abc nbc

If Fox "News" Channel wanted to report actual news they'd be directly involved with local stations.

Tho not surprisingly, Fox News Channel and 20th Century Fox (the sister company which controls all those local stations which fall under FCC regulation) are two seperate entities.
Murdoch and Turner(CNN) and Rogers(MSNBC) set up their "news" networks this way so they could have color commentary and opinion hosts because that drives ratings.

It doesn't earn Pulitzer awards tho..

Nonetheless, to say because CNN and MSNBC aren't true journalist networks either - and then somehow lump in everyother news outlet =/ - that it's okay for Fox News to straight up LIE, doctor pictures, and rally the neo con fringe into such a frenzy that they kill police officers and ob/gyns is a terrible argument.


Cnn sucks. They only talk about twitter now. Not the scrolling stories at the bottom of the screen.

Msnbc sucks. They don't cover Obama's or Dodd's or Frank's faults or inconsistencies.


Fox "News" is the worst. They lie, cheat, purposely exaggerate, shout down their interviewees, endorse violence, war, racism, bigotry and outright hatred of anything not stamped 'Fox Approved'. They then attempt to call themselves fair and balanced.. and try to sue you if you say otherwise.


Now I know all that text was pointless because it doesn't test your faith in your beloved bizarro world view. But if you consider yourself an objective viewer/citizen you'd realize that not only is Fox "News" extremely bias in it's "reporting" it's hurtful to the greater public interest of unity and honesty.

Insurance portability would not increase competition - it would only allow insurers to take advantage of lax state laws.

The Public Option will force insurers to compete, and actually provide affordable coverage or watch as their clients flock to the option that DOES. Take a look at health insurance industry profits in recent history and tell me they are really "competing".

Insurance portability would not increase competition - it would only allow insurers to take advantage of lax state laws.

The Public Option will force insurers to compete, and actually provide affordable coverage or watch as their clients flock to the option that DOES. Take a look at health insurance industry profits in recent history and tell me they are really "competing".


In reply to this comment by Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Winstonfield - I am really getting sick of this.

Then give up.

Insurance portability would only hurt consumers even more.

Increased competition lowers costs. Isn't that what Obama is saying? How can you agree with Obama that "increased competition will lower costs" and then say that a non-public plan designed to increase competition WON'T? Please supply the economic study that proves public programs lower private costs.

I'll bet large sums of money that if they came up with a GOOD idea - you know, one that would actually work - the Democrats would jump on it and make it pass.

I'd take that bet.

Look at every other industrialized country on the planet - they have massive healthcare programs

Well, for one thing the US ALREADY has a massive health care program. However, I reject "they do it so we should" justifications out of hand. European economies are inferior to the US economy. Why should we emulate European economic practices when their economic performance is demonstrably inferior?

Very Well spoken on the Prop 8 sacrament meeting sift. As an LDS and long-time sifter I've never registered until today. Hopefully I can contribute in a meaningful way.

I disagree with a lot of what you have to say.
However, for whatever it's worth, I have a tremendous amount of admiration for your poise and composure and for the intelligent way you present your point of view.

It's not entirely clear that Obama is left-wing. In America he is left-wing. From a global and historical standpoint he is on the right. This is reflected here:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008

But anyway, I wanted to ask which policies are neolib kook? Trying to pass healthcare reform? Is there something else? What is he doing that unpopular with normal every day citizens?

In reply to this comment by Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Obama is not NEARLY as liberal as we would like him to be.

Heh - I always get a good chuckle when I hear this. Seriously, Obama is the most liberal kook to ever hold the Presidency... And he isn't NEARLY 'liberal' enough for the kook neolib fringe.

Obama really is in a catch-22 when he listens to the kook neolib fringe. They are his core. The ACORN guys... The DailyKOS freaks... The AFL/CIO goons... The left-wing freak shows are his base. And to keep his base happy, he has to do stuff that is WAAAAAAAY out there to placate them. I mean WAAAAAAAAY out there. If he doesn't do these total whack-job, Dr. Insane-O, kook-fringe things then (as this vid demonstrates) his core of kook fringe flunkies start screaming bloody murder.

But Obama ran as a supposed 'centrist' who would govern from the center. He can't run his administration on a far-left kook fringe neolib ideologue platform. If he does, then he alienates every single independant voter, moderate, or blue-dog democrat who voted for him.

What Obama has actually DONE with his presidency so far is unequivocally left-wing.He has not governed as a moderate. He isn't even slightly conservative. He's a neolib kook and his policiies are all in that philosophy. Because he is such a left wing radical, he's alienating the bulk of his supporters. Moderates & Independants drank the Kool-aid in the election. They really thought he was a moderate. They're alarmed that he is such a slavish left-wing kook, and they hate what he's doing. His numbers reflect the fact that Obama's neolib platform is unwanted and unpopular with normal, everyday citizens.

But they aren't left wing ENOUGH for the neolib kooks - so he's losing support among even THEM. He's 10 points away from being George W. Bush. Almost feel a little sorry for him.

In reply to this comment by Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Well - you may like him but this video gives no cause to do so. 1. He makes a generic claim ('everyone is going to pay less'). 2. He supplies only shoddy assertions and unfounded opinions to justify his claim (we're magically going to save 10%). 3. He ignores the CBO report that says the plan is will not save even 0.001% (let alone 10%)

Do you have a link to the CBO report? I can't find that one on the CBO web site.