Slashdot Mirror

AC as I've modded... too bad, as I've not seen this info posted and it could be worth some karma...

Actually, neither prison nor removal/expulsion are guaranteed, tho expulsion may be likely, but depends on a 2/3 vote, very difficult to come up with regardless of the subject, in today's highly partisan and divided Senate (but perhaps more doable in the new senate he'd be serving in, the makeup of which of course won't be known until after the election). In the past, such convictions have apparently often netted only fines and parole.

Also note that sentencing was set for Jan 26, but the Judge changed his mind and it's now not yet scheduled. However, if it's then or later as it likely will be (Stevens' motivation to continue with speed now being off, as it'll not be resolved before the election in any case), it should be after the new congressional session starts, in mid January I believe.

The following MSNBC story has more details.

Stevens says he'll stay in Senate race
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27398089/

Despite being a convicted felon, he is not required to drop out of the race or resign from the Senate. If he wins re-election, he can continue to hold his seat because there is no rule barring felons from serving in Congress. The Senate could vote to expel Stevens on a two-thirds vote. Article here

WTF?!?! Seriously?

From same article, when asked about stepping down: "Put this down: That will never happen - ever, OK?" Stevens said in the weeks leading up to his trial. "I am not stepping down. I'm going to run through and I'm going to win this election.

What an absolutely arrogant bastard! It's good to know what the rule of law really means to the men in charge of this country.

Indonesia is far from peaceful. And most of it is religiously motivated. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15124934/ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24009029/ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27356420/

Indonesia is far from peaceful. And most of it is religiously motivated. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15124934/ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24009029/ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27356420/

Indonesia is far from peaceful. And most of it is religiously motivated. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15124934/ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24009029/ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27356420/

US troops attack Syrian [border] village. Co-incidence? October ain't over yet... a surprise flare up there, plus a bit of domestic false-flag, and lo! "Chips" is back in with a chance... remember when the UK Govt had tanks and machine-gun toting troops ringing Heathrow airport - just before the last General Election? Ministers went on telly looking serious, denying there was any specific threat but hinting darkly that "if you knew what we knew...". oh look, that was just before the crucial vote on participating in the invasion of Iraq. Anything happening over in the US at the moment, vote-wise? I don't keep up with y'domestic politics, you know how it is...

Wow.. And if you would have put a little effort in this, you wouldn't have come out looking like an idiot. We aren't talking about Delegates dumb ass. We are talking about the Super delegates. That aren't the same.

Here are some articles concerning the super delegates that we are talking about. There are/were in 2008, 842 super delegates that had no obligation whatsoever at all to any primary or caucus results. There were 796 unplugged super delegates when Dean made them chose over a risk of losing their voice at the convention. After Dean made his declaration, they _told_ Hillary to stop campaigning when Obama reached the number of delegates required. However, seeing how 441 of Obama's delegates where super delegates and by DNC rules had until the convention months later to decide, Hillary could have easily convinced some of them to goto her camp and Obama wouldn't have gotten the nomination. There is no guarantee that she could have but the rules said that the risk to Obama and the challenge to Clinton should have been there until the convention at the end of August when the votes where counted and if she could have convinced enough of the super delegates to vote for her, she would have had the election.

You cannot deny that. It is fact and hiding behind regular delegates as if your acting ignorant of the facts doesn't make you right or correct. As a matter of fact, rule 9a and 9b speak specifically of the super delegates and their roles in the very links you provided. Of course they listed them as unpledged party leader and elected official delegate as well as add on delegates but I assumed that since you were taking a stand on them that you know this or at least had the wherewithal to google for super delegate in which one of the first pages would have told you about this. I also like the way you think it is perfectly ok to punish democrats of a state that is controlled by republicans who change the timing of the election. That's a bit like citing the passenger of the car for speed and driving without a license because the driver got the ticket. But in the case of preferring Obama, I guess it is worth it, right? And no, I'm not making this up, after the penalty to Michigan and Florida for something that the democrats in the states had no control over, you find that they still favored Clinton over Obama. In fact, the results in Florida was 33.5 Obama to 52.5 Hillary and in Michigan it was 29.5 Obama to 34.5 Hillary. Now if you remember, they cut the delegates in half for Michigan and Florida so Hillary should have gotten 105 in Florida and 76 in Michigan and if the full count would have been listed, Hillary would have had 87 more for a total of 1983.5 which is only 135 below the minimum needed to win. When Dean made his demands, about 320 super delegate votes where up for grabs and some of the already committed super delegates have already switched pledged alliances. Deans own words were The party "cannot give up three months of campaigning and active healing time,"

Don't whine about the political slants of the sites either. I did a simple google search and those are the sites that came up. I'm not getting paid to educate you and I'm not going to invest the time to do it past what is easy for me. You can find the same information on other sites from going deeper into the google search or by even useing a different

confusion marketing
noun
Definition: deliberate confusion of customers: the practice of deliberately making marketing material confusing for customers in order to make comparisons with other similar products impossible

Confusion Marketing Definition

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4997808/
If I recall correctly (it's been 4+ years), they're honestly not even sure that shell was even Iraqi.

Not in the weeks immediately following 9/11. On September 13th, the UN Security Council passed yet another resolution against Iraq, even though Iraq hadn't done anything new, but members of the council were drawing conclusions because Saddam publicly praised the terrorists.

I'm just curious, which resolution are we talking about? This site lists all U.N. Security Council resolutions against Iraq prior to 2004. I don't see anything on September 13, except one drafted in 1990 regarding foodstuffs.

Perhaps this link doesn't have everything, but it seems comprehensive.

Many suggested the security council was immediately ready to approve military action against Iraq if the US wanted to pursue it.

Many? MANY?? Who would this 'many' be? Think tanks? Newspaper Op-Eds? National Security experts?

Your article suggests people were against the war in 2003, which is true. What I'm suggesting is that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, several leaders were vocally drawing links to Iraq, even though they had no proof.

Cool, I agree with this. Several "leaders" were drawing links to Iraq and they were wrong because they had zero proof.

The sentiments changed greatly because we pursued diplomacy instead of immediately charging in on trumped up charges when support was higher.

We pursued diplomacy? When? As far as I can recall, the U.S. kicked out the weapons inspectors in 2003 before the bombs dropped, because they weren't finding anything. The fact that they were on the verge of announcing that there were no WMD's in Iraq scared the crap out of the Bush administration, as it destroyed any case they had for war. This is further shown when the Bush administration changed their reasoning for war, going from finding WMD's to "ridding the world of a tyrant."

Also, while the 9/11 Panel, President Bush, and Paul Wolfowitz have publicly denied or questioned that there was any link between Iraq and 9/11, Dick Cheney is still TO THIS DAY spreading this lie in some shape or form.

The Bush Administration tried their hardest to make it seem like they exhausted all of their options, but in reality, they sent in a group of weapons inspectors, Saddam let them in, they couldn't find anything, and so Bush immediately called them ineffective and declared war.

Banks were pushed. Banks were even sued to extend home ownership to those who, frankly, can't handle it.

According to the docket in your linked article, the banks were sued for the following reason:

Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant-bank rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories.

Your position appears to be that plaintiffs lied -- that in fact loan applications were denied purely based on the financial and credit characteristics of the applicants. Is there any evidence to support and/or disprove this position? I've read your links but I have not been able to find statistics that provide any confirmation of the claim that "Obama Sued Citibank Under CRA to Force it to Make Bad Loans"

Without evidence that the banks were (or were not) denying loan applications based on ethnic origin, I don't see how I -- or anyone else -- can reasonably assess whether lawsuits like this one had a significant impact on the current banking crises.

I have found The Color of Money, a series of articles on lender's avoidance of middle-income black neighborhoods. The article series won the author, Bill Dedman, the Pulitzer Prize[1]. I'll be adding the articles to my reading queue -- my expectation is that the truth behind these loans is quite a bit more complex than has been presented here.

[1] Bill Dedman's MSNBC bio

I was simply summarizing your own links.

Still, if we're going to widen the net to environmental effects possibly decades down the road, we can add some more coal deaths in.

24,000 a year in the USA, 2,800 from lung cancer?
Or maybe it's 25,100?

Or pneumoconiosis, killing an estimated 1,500 former coal miners a year?

I'm NOT arguing that nuclear power is 100% safe - but then, nothing is. What I'm arguing is that it's better than the most common alternative.

Not trying to buy yellowcake. Already bought the stuff, 550 metric tons, in fact: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/ [msn.com]

In fact, no. From the very article you cite ...

And, in a symbolic way, the mission linked the current attempts to stabilize Iraq with some of the high-profile claims about Saddam's weapons capabilities in the buildup to the 2003 invasion. ... There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said.

Meaning, the claims by the US government before the invasion of Iraq that they had been recently and actively trying to buy yellow cake on the open market are false.

We're talking about removing older stockpiles of this stuff, not whether or not they'd ever had any. That little bit about trying to buy it from Nigeria was quite resoundingly demonstrated to have been a forgery.

It's easy to keep repeating the same falsehood and claim it's true. In this case, the assertion about yellow cake wrt Iraq and the justifications for military action simply aren't borne out to be true.

Cheers

The belief that Iraq was trying to buy Yellow Cake

Not trying to buy yellowcake. Already bought the stuff, 550 metric tons, in fact: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/

This MSNBC article suggests filing a complaint with the FTC to stop the calls. Apparently the bulk of the warranty scams are coming out of St. Louis and the Missouri Attorney General is currently investigating many of the companies selling these warranties in his state.

1) Sure.
2) Sure.

Sony has a history of "religiously incorrect" games. See here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19202841/

However, this time they do not even dare to talk with Muslims. Because it's useless - Muslims are like big babies and are offended by EVERYTHING. Like giving name 'Mohammed' to a stuffed animal.

The difference is that people are, for whatever reason, absolutely terrified of W. A Democratic congress refused to even censure him for anything he's done. And he's done a lot that's wrong - just ask Dennis Kucinich. You'd think after the whole Bill Clinton impeachment fiasco they'd be dying for some payback. But they didn't go for it. Why?

Dick Cheney can shoot someone in the face, and what happens? The victim goes on TV and makes a public apology. For being shot in the face.

This administration is absolutely terrifying. And everyone is afraid of them. That makes a coup possible. Improbable, sure. But not impossible.

Again, I'm pretty certain I'm worrying over nothing, as you suggest. However I'm not 100% certain. I just want 1/20 to come and go as quickly as possible so I don't have to worry about it anymore.

Considering this is really about child pornography and NY state, take into consideration the recent University professor / grad student that was arrested for having one some of the "most sexually graphic material" NY state police have ever seen...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27182455/

http://www.wham1180.com/cc-common/news/sections/newsarticle.html?feed=122742&article=4404817

At some point, I have a feeling it was, if not still is about child porn.

By 'hobby' I assume you mean hookers. Hookers are a hobby now? Fuck stamp collecting, I'm doing that!

You're being funny ... but you're right. The people who frequent escorts do call it that.

The US doesn't, not really. I thought that there was protection for mail entering the US, but then I found that they are allowed to search basically any "Mail Believed to Contain Dutiable or Prohibited Articles", for example, personal letters. At least domestic first class mail is still safe.

I'm an engineer, not a public policy nerd. This is a discussion, not a dissertation. I am raising an issue, not making public policy. But since you asked, about 500,000. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15513596/

Like the recent stock market rebound...

Uhh....what? http://moneycentral.msn.com/detail/stock_quote?Symbol=$INDU

What would happen to a politician that challenged the media? They would be torn apart in the press.

Palin, anyone? But why would the media support Obama at all costs? Why, did Pelosi promise the media a new Shield Law? Or is it that Obama is outspending McCain 3 to 1? Elections sure is good for bid'ness.

If you had enough financial data somebody could cause an economic collapse - I wonder what it would look like.

Probably something like this.

They do. They're called adaptive brake lights.

... stop claiming you have a wife who watches Kathy Griffin's show, or that you have ever seen a naked woman!

Admit it, you think Kathy Griffin is hot!

Laugh, so do I... carry on brother!

No?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23595533/

I can see the Slashdot headline ten years from now: "Nerd plays MMO for three years, control fused to forehead. On an up note, he reached level 50!"

Do Obama and the Democrats deserve a lift in the polls as a result of the financial and mortgage problems? The answer from history is a clear NO. Here's the lead of a New York Times story on September 30, 1999:

"Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending" [link below]. That's 1999 folks. Clinton Administration, I believe.

Here's the lead of a New York Times story on Sept. 11, 2003:

"The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago. "[see link below] The Democrats killed the reforms.

McCain said in co-sponsoring the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190:

"If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole. The Democrats killed the Bill.

What was Barney Frank and fellow Democrats saying at the time of these attempted reforms? According to reports, Representative Barney Frank(D-MA) claimed of the thrifts :

"These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis, the more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

Representative Mel Watt (D-NC) added of the reforms "I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing." [ See Community Reinvestment Act, link below ]

Even Bill Clinton points to Congressional Democrats failure to deal with Fannie and Freddie as a primary cause.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsynspIqAoE

The link below contains a purported list of the top 25 in Congress who got contributions from the folks at Fannie and Freddie. Obama is listed third, after Dodd and Kerry, even though Obama is just a junior Senator. Obama is followed next by Clinton. Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi are on the list as well.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=16&artnum=1&issue=20080918

Then there is the Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher J. Dodd who allegedly got special mortgage deals from Countrywide, who gave preferential rates to 'friends' of company's chairman.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25140560/

For an interesting article purporting to detail the House Financial Services Committee Chairs long history with Fannie Mae, See:
http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2008/20080924145932.aspx

"House Financial Services Committee Chair promoted GSEs while former 'spouse' was Fannie Mae executive."

The link below describes how some in Congress tried to use the original version of the bailout bill to divert money eventually recovered to groups like ACORN, a group Obama has a long association with. See:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122247015469280723.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

And then there is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who allegedly has directed nearly $100,000 from her political action committee to her husband's real estate and investment firm.

http://www.washtimes.com/news/2008/oct/01/pelosis-pac-pays-bills-for-spouses-firm.

See also:

Do Obama and the Democrats deserve a lift in the polls as a result of the financial and mortgage problems? The answer from history is a clear NO. Here's the lead of a New York Times story on September 30, 1999:

"Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending" [link below]. That's 1999 folks. Clinton Administration, I believe.

Here's the lead of a New York Times story on Sept. 11, 2003:

"The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago. "[see link below] The Democrats killed the reforms.

McCain said in co-sponsoring the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190:

"If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole. The Democrats killed the Bill.

What was Barney Frank and fellow Democrats saying at the time of these attempted reforms? According to reports, Representative Barney Frank(D-MA) claimed of the thrifts :

"These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis, the more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

Representative Mel Watt (D-NC) added of the reforms "I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing." [ See Community Reinvestment Act, link below ]

Even Bill Clinton points to Congressional Democrats failure to deal with Fannie and Freddie as a primary cause.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsynspIqAoE

The link below contains a purported list of the top 25 in Congress who got contributions from the folks at Fannie and Freddie. Obama is listed third, after Dodd and Kerry, even though Obama is just a junior Senator. Obama is followed next by Clinton. Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi are on the list as well.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=16&artnum=1&issue=20080918

Then there is the Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher J. Dodd who allegedly got special mortgage deals from Countrywide, who gave preferential rates to 'friends' of company's chairman.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25140560/

For an interesting article purporting to detail the House Financial Services Committee Chairs long history with Fannie Mae, See:
http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2008/20080924145932.aspx

"House Financial Services Committee Chair promoted GSEs while former 'spouse' was Fannie Mae executive."

The link below describes how some in Congress tried to use the original version of the bailout bill to divert money eventually recovered to groups like ACORN, a group Obama has a long association with. See:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122247015469280723.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

And then there is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who allegedly has directed nearly $100,000 from her political action committee to her husband's real estate and investment firm.

http://www.washtimes.com/news/2008/oct/01/pelosis-pac-pays-bills-for-spouses-firm.

See also:

And don't forget that Biden is against Net Neutrality too!

Do Obama and the Democrats deserve a lift in the polls as a result of the financial and mortgage problems? The answer from history is a clear NO. Here's the lead of a New York Times story on September 30, 1999:

"Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending" [link below]. That's 1999 folks. Clinton Administration, I believe.

Here's the lead of a New York Times story on Sept. 11, 2003:

"The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago. "[see link below] The Democrats killed the reforms.

McCain said in co-sponsoring the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190:

"If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole. The Democrats killed the Bill.

What was Barney Frank and fellow Democrats saying at the time of these attempted reforms? According to reports, Representative Barney Frank(D-MA) claimed of the thrifts :

"These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis, the more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

Representative Mel Watt (D-NC) added of the reforms "I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing." [ See Community Reinvestment Act, link below ]

Even Bill Clinton points to Congressional Democrats failure to deal with Fannie and Freddie as a primary cause.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsynspIqAoE [youtube.com]

The link below contains a purported list of the top 25 in Congress who got contributions from the folks at Fannie and Freddie. Obama is listed third, after Dodd and Kerry, even though Obama is just a junior Senator. Obama is followed next by Clinton. Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi are on the list as well.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=16&artnum=1&issue=20080918 [investors.com]

Then there is the Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher J. Dodd who allegedly got special mortgage deals from Countrywide, who gave preferential rates to 'friends' of company's chairman.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25140560/ [msn.com]

For an interesting article purporting to detail the House Financial Services Committee Chairs long history with Fannie Mae, See:
http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2008/20080924145932.aspx [businessandmedia.org]

"House Financial Services Committee Chair promoted GSEs while former 'spouse' was Fannie Mae executive."

The link below describes how some in Congress tried to use the original version of the bailout bill to divert money eventually recovered to groups like ACORN, a group Obama has a long association with. See:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122247015469280723.html?mod=googlenews_wsj [wsj.com]

And then there is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who allegedly has directed nearly $100,000 from her political action committee to her husband's real estate and investment firm.

http://www.washt

Do Obama and the Democrats deserve a lift in the polls as a result of the financial and mortgage problems? The answer from history is a clear NO. Here's the lead of a New York Times story on September 30, 1999:

"Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending" [link below]. That's 1999 folks. Clinton Administration, I believe.

Here's the lead of a New York Times story on Sept. 11, 2003:

"The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago. "[see link below] The Democrats killed the reforms.

McCain said in co-sponsoring the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190:

"If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole. The Democrats killed the Bill.

What was Barney Frank and fellow Democrats saying at the time of these attempted reforms? According to reports, Representative Barney Frank(D-MA) claimed of the thrifts :

"These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis, the more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

Representative Mel Watt (D-NC) added of the reforms "I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing." [ See Community Reinvestment Act, link below ]

Even Bill Clinton points to Congressional Democrats failure to deal with Fannie and Freddie as a primary cause.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsynspIqAoE

The link below contains a purported list of the top 25 in Congress who got contributions from the folks at Fannie and Freddie. Obama is listed third, after Dodd and Kerry, even though Obama is just a junior Senator. Obama is followed next by Clinton. Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi are on the list as well.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=16&artnum=1&issue=20080918

Then there is the Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher J. Dodd who allegedly got special mortgage deals from Countrywide, who gave preferential rates to 'friends' of company's chairman.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25140560/

For an interesting article purporting to detail the House Financial Services Committee Chairs long history with Fannie Mae, See:
http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2008/20080924145932.aspx

"House Financial Services Committee Chair promoted GSEs while former 'spouse' was Fannie Mae executive."

The link below describes how some in Congress tried to use the original version of the bailout bill to divert money eventually recovered to groups like ACORN, a group Obama has a long association with. See:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122247015469280723.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

And then there is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who allegedly has directed nearly $100,000 from her political action committee to her husband's real estate and investment firm.

http://www.washtimes.com/news/2008/oct/01/pelosis-pac-pays-bills-for-spouses-firm.

See also:

Do Obama and the Democrats deserve a lift in the polls as a result of the financial and mortgage problems? The answer from history is a clear NO. Here's the lead of a New York Times story on September 30, 1999:

"Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending" [link below]. That's 1999 folks. Clinton Administration, I believe.

Here's the lead of a New York Times story on Sept. 11, 2003:

"The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago. "[see link below] The Democrats killed the reforms.

McCain said in co-sponsoring the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190:

"If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole. The Democrats killed the Bill.

What was Barney Frank and fellow Democrats saying at the time of these attempted reforms? According to reports, Representative Barney Frank(D-MA) claimed of the thrifts :

"These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis, the more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

Representative Mel Watt (D-NC) added of the reforms "I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing." [ See Community Reinvestment Act, link below ]

Even Bill Clinton points to Congressional Democrats failure to deal with Fannie and Freddie as a primary cause.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsynspIqAoE

The link below contains a purported list of the top 25 in Congress who got contributions from the folks at Fannie and Freddie. Obama is listed third, after Dodd and Kerry, even though Obama is just a junior Senator. Obama is followed next by Clinton. Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi are on the list as well.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=16&artnum=1&issue=20080918

Then there is the Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher J. Dodd who allegedly got special mortgage deals from Countrywide, who gave preferential rates to 'friends' of company's chairman.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25140560/

For an interesting article purporting to detail the House Financial Services Committee Chairs long history with Fannie Mae, See:
http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2008/20080924145932.aspx

"House Financial Services Committee Chair promoted GSEs while former 'spouse' was Fannie Mae executive."

The link below describes how some in Congress tried to use the original version of the bailout bill to divert money eventually recovered to groups like ACORN, a group Obama has a long association with. See:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122247015469280723.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

And then there is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who allegedly has directed nearly $100,000 from her political action committee to her husband's real estate and investment firm.

http://www.washtimes.com/news/2008/oct/01/pelosis-pac-pays-bills-for-spouses-firm.

See also:

UPS is profitable. I think they might have a few trucks....and, oh by the way, rail companies are doing really well as well.

UPS is trading at a 5-year low. UPS is struggling horribly right now. You are out of your mind if you think UPS is glad that oil prices went so high. Learn Rail companies are doing well, but that is because the trucking industry is in crisis

If you think commodities are where it's at, go ahead and lose your shirt investing in them. Global demand is going down for the next few years and commodities are already crashing

Who said anything about the nature of dark matter? It is detectable in astronomy only by its gravity so the best we can say is that it has mass, doesn't emit light and interacts feebly at best by any force other than gravity. What I claim is that there's good evidence that there is unseen mass out there other than boring things like cold gas and brown dwarfs.

a link to one of the prettier pictures of mass distribution, and another link showing a collision between galaxy clusters in which most visible matter collided and slowed, but which gravitational lensing shows that most of the invisible mass of the galaxies continued on its path unaffected by the collision.

"By just about any measure, the past three years have produced one of the biggest cash gushers in the oil industry's history. Since January of 2002, the price of crude has tripled, leaving oil producers awash in profits. During that period, the top 10 major public oil companies have sold some $1.5 trillion worth of crude, pocketing profits of more than $125 billion.

"Exxon beat its own one-year-old record for the biggest corporate profits ever by 3 percent. Put together with the announcement by the No. 2 U.S. oil company, Chevron, of an $18.7 billion year, up 9 percent over 2006, plus the earlier results of Shell and ConocoPhillips, and that's more than $100 billion in profits from four companies. It's all thanks to the historic 35 percent climb in worldwide crude oil prices in the second half of 2007, ending the first week of this year when oil briefly touched $100 per barrel...Exxon Mobil's profits are 80 percent higher than those of General Electric, which used to be the largest U.S. company by market capitalization before Exxon left it in the dust in 2005. The new economy? Microsoft earns about a third as much money. And next to Exxon, the world's largest retailer, Wal-Mart, looks like a quaint boutique, with annual profits of about $11 billion."

Just because they aren't getting money straight from Uncle Sam like the military industrial contractors are, don't think that this war hasn't served to make oil far more profitable than ever, and don't think that is any surprise to the oil man in the Whitehouse.

Plenty of blame to go around:
Pressured to Take More Risk, Fannie Reached a Tipping Point
SEC's 2004 Rule Let Banks Pile Up New Debt
The Roots of the Crisis

And after all the fear mongering to push the bailout plan, which caused the stock market to crater, the plan probably won't work anyway; what's happening is a natural correction to the credit bubble:
Can the bailout work? Fat chance
Are we headed for an epic bear market?

The debate over the bailout is missing the big picture - we risk destroying the credibility of our currency, and when that happens, China and other countries with trade surpluses will stop taking our debt and things will really get tough:
The Chinese have been ready to treat U.S. Treasuries as a rock-hard store of value and loan us the dollars they accumulate at a very low interest rate. But what if they start to doubt the U.S. government will repay its debt?
"We are getting closer to a tipping-point," said Benn Steil, an economist. "People are asking: can we really trust the dollar as a store of value?"

Plenty of blame to go around:
Pressured to Take More Risk, Fannie Reached a Tipping Point
SEC's 2004 Rule Let Banks Pile Up New Debt
The Roots of the Crisis

And after all the fear mongering to push the bailout plan, which caused the stock market to crater, the plan probably won't work anyway; what's happening is a natural correction to the credit bubble:
Can the bailout work? Fat chance
Are we headed for an epic bear market?

The debate over the bailout is missing the big picture - we risk destroying the credibility of our currency, and when that happens, China and other countries with trade surpluses will stop taking our debt and things will really get tough:
The Chinese have been ready to treat U.S. Treasuries as a rock-hard store of value and loan us the dollars they accumulate at a very low interest rate. But what if they start to doubt the U.S. government will repay its debt?
"We are getting closer to a tipping-point," said Benn Steil, an economist. "People are asking: can we really trust the dollar as a store of value?"

The problem is that the people who were supposed to oversee Fannie Mae are the same people that are now supporting a certain Democrat candidate for president, and it would not be beneficial for the media to expose those relationships to the public-at-large until after the election.

• Jamie Gorelick, on the board of Fannie Mae, received > $75 million in bonuses when the company was "doing well"; she is now assisting Obama's campaign. Investigation would reveal that FM was "cooking the books" in order to pump up executive bonuses.
• Barney Frank, served on the House Banking Committee, and stopped many legislation attempts to regulate Fannie Mae.
• Frank Raines, former Fannie Mae executive and Clinton budget directory, received preferentially lower interest rates on personal loans. He is now advising the Obama campaign.
• Democratic Congressional Black Caucus, who was praised by Fannie Mae's CEO Daniel Mudd for passing beneficial legislation, in the name of loosening regulations allowing people with poor credit scores to overextend themselves with home loans. We know today how that turned out.

I don't understand how the Enron Trial is on the tip of everyone's tongue, but the media isn't calling to put these banking executive in jail for a fraud that is 10x worse!

Woodmansee said sex would be "the killer app of space tourism ... because every couple who goes up there, or threesome or whatever their personal choice is, is going to want to try this."

TFA :

Outer-space sex carries complications
Experts say new devices and data would be needed to hit the zero-G-spot
By Alan Boyle
Science editor
updated 4:38 p.m. ET, Mon., July. 24, 2006
LAS VEGAS - Having sex in the weightlessness of outer space is the stuff of urban legends and romantic fantasy â" but experts say that there would be definite downsides as well.

Spacesickness, for instance. And the difficulty of choreographing intimacy. And the potential for sweat and other bodily fluids to, um, get in the way.

"The fantasy might be vastly superior to the reality," NASA physician Jim Logan said here Sunday at the Space Frontier Foundation's NewSpace 2006 conference. Nevertheless, Logan and others say the study of sex and other biological basics in outer space will be crucial to humanity's long-term push into the final frontier.

"Sex in space is not just a good idea, it's survival," said Vanna Bonta, a writer who blends romance with space travel and quantum physics in the novel "Flight."

Sex in the space environment has long been a source of rumor and speculation: Several years ago, one author claimed that NASA had conducted a study of sexual behavior during a space shuttle mission, sparking a quick round of denials. Today, NASA follows something of a "don't ask, don't tell" policy on the subject â" leading Logan to stress that he was not representing the space agency at Sunday's panel discussion.

The subject is coming to the fore again now for several reasons â" including next month's publication of a book by Laura Woodmansee titled "Sex in Space," as well as billionaire Robert Bigelow's plan to host research into animal propagation on his commercial space modules.

After all, sometime in the next decade Bigelow Aerospace envisions putting a hotel complex in orbit, "where people will probably be recreating and having sex," Bonta said.

Woodmansee said sex would be "the killer app of space tourism ... because every couple who goes up there, or threesome or whatever their personal choice is, is going to want to try this."

However, off-Earth romantics will have to cope with some practical challenges:
# Sex in space would likely be "hotter and wetter" than on Earth, Bonta said, because in zero-G there is no natural convection to carry away body heat. Also, scientists have found that people tend to perspire more in microgravity. The moisture associated with sexual congress could pool as floating droplets.
# The physics of zero-G make the mechanics of sex more complicated. Bonta said it was challenging even to kiss her husband during a zero-G simulation flight they took recently. "You actually have to struggle to connect and stay connected," she recalled. Partners would have to be anchored to the wall and/or to each other. To address that need, Bonta has come up with her own design for garments equipped with strategically placed Velcro strips and zippers.
# Although zero-G could be a boon for saggy body parts, Bonta said males might notice a "slight decrease" in penis size due to the lower blood pressure that humans experience in microgravity.
# Romantics will also need to guard against the type of motion sickness that space travelers often encounter, especially if they get too adventurous right off. "Save the acrobatics for post-play vs. foreplay," Bonta advised.

For all these reasons, Logan said spontaneous sex in space could be "a little underwhelming."

"It's a pretty messy environment, when you think about it," he said. "And for every

Although the flight may take two hours, the article says passengers are only weightless for about five minutes. Even with velcro suits, I imagine it would take considerably longer than that just to figure out how to get the damn thing done.

TJ Maxx doesn't seem to care. The regular customer has no clue what happened, TJ Maxx pays a fine for their crap security and goes about their merry business.

Wouldn't you feel like a complete fool if all of humanity cut back on carbon emissions and exacerbated a cooling trend? Billions could die if this were to come true.

That can be turned on it's head too. If Global Warming is true then many can die or become ill, forget about flooding of lowlands. With a warmer world for instance malaria carrying mosquitoes can go to higher altitudes as well as latitudes. Ebola is probably the same. With higher CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere poison ivy grows faster as well. Unfortunately I haven't found a reference but I once read about a science study that concluded melting ice in a caldera could form a lake increases the chances of an eruption. I'm sure many other things like these can happen as well.

Second, what if warming isn't man-made? What if the planet is getting warmer due to solar activity, or planetary magnetic fields flipping, or any of the other non-anthropocentric theories?

I can't answer about the others here but "Sun's Power Hits New Low". Unfortunately this can make Global Warming pale in comparison. Like in the movie "The Core" the earth could bake though from cosmic rays instead of solar winds.

Ruining a global economy (or even a national one) might be worth it if there was a positive climactic change, but it's certainly not worth it if there is no measurable effect.

Why do people automatically assume doing something about Global Warming will hurt the global economy? Doing something about Global Warming can actually help the economy. Renewable energy can create a lot of well paying jobs. People will be employed in R&D, manufacturing, installation and maintenance of alternative energy sources. While I don't really like some of what Obama wants I do like his push on green collar jobs. And what of the trillions insurance companies can lose as well? How many billions will New Orleans cost? What about Texas? What about a volcanic eruption?

You're claiming something extraordinary is on the way and that I should take extraordinary measures to offset it. I'm asking for extraordinary proof.

And methane farts, er burbs, aren't enough, on top of a melting North Pole and Greenland's glaciers?

While you're at it, submit a counter-argument to those who disagree with you, one that contains a point-by-point proof of where their models fail. Submit it for rigorous peer review. When you've got it to the point where no reputable, knowledgeable climatologist will disagree with it, I'm on board.

I bet even the day after you won't get 100% agreement, being afterwards, on the cause.

As I recall, we have yet to detect a single star with a 'little rock' like ours. Period. And we can 'see' quite a few of them these days.

In the sense that someone standing on a beach can see "quite a bit" of water, sure. In the sense of coming close to a representative sample of what's out there, heck no.

And there seems to be (tho i could be misinterpreting you) a tone of "our wonderful advanced technology can't see it yet, so it must not exist," when in fact scientific discovery is frequently a matter of "hey, uh, remember that thing that was absolutely 100% true last week...?"

Which is what makes it fun!

And then, of course, there's this.

Dude. The glaciers on Greenland are several thousands of years old. The southern cape of Greenland, the part being inhabited by people from Norway and Iceland, was not covered with ice, and neither has it been since then. It is in fact at about the same latitude as Erik the Red's birthplace in Norway -- south of Iceland, about as far north as Anchorage. Also, the reason for Greenland being called Greenland may have been because of its shallow ("grunn") fjords, as it was also transcribed Gruntland back in those days. The etymology is simply unknown, so your bullshit isn't convincing at all. It's just not based on fact.

But OK, a couple of links:
1
2.

no environmental impact studies

If you don't care about environmental impacts then I bet coal and gas fired power plants can be built faster than nuclear power plants. These studies are done for a reason though.

None of which are good for base load. If wind turbines can survive in the open marketplace (i.e. no government handouts like Pickens wants) who am I to question the invisible hand. But I wouldn't put down a major bet they could compete against nukes if nukes were given a chance.

People use France as an example of how nuclear power can compeat but even there the government subsidies nuclear power. According to one person how much nuclear power in France is subsidized is a "state secrete". The French nuclear power giant Areva is government owned, and will be compeating with US companies for US subsidies. Areva also may have some problems.

I won't be voting for McCain. Like most elections I will be voting against the Democratic Socialist Party's candidate.

I'm not voting for McCain either, if Bob Barr is not on the ballot I don't know if I will vote for anyone for President, I've left blanks on ballots before. As for your vote, please vote for whom you want to be president and not against, I'm guessing Obama. I did that in 2000 when I picked Gross, er Gore. I didn't want a Gore president but a Bush president was worse to me. After that vote I swore I would not vote against someone again.

Falcon

First of all your ancedotal testimony from your 19yo cousin is worthless in the face of this argument, its 2nd hand info and we have not heard form your cousin himself, so that point is dead

EVERYTHING is anecdotal testimony. --Everything except what you experience directly for yourself. EVERYTHING you see on the web, on TV, in books, in newspapers, EVERYTHING is somebody else telling you or showing you something which you didn't see or hear directly for yourself. You have to listen to the claims and judge for yourself what you will allow into your mind to be labeled as 'knowledge'. So saying that the poster's story about his cousin is 'dead' simply because it is anecdotal, is silly. In reality, it's just another piece of information which we each have to measure personally and decide what to do with. I happen to know several people who went through the military process, and I've seen exactly the reaction described by this anecdote. I've also seen the complete opposite reaction; people who went in with false beliefs kindled by propaganda, and who came out again huge cynics of everything government. From that perspective, I find the poster's anecdote believable but all I can do is add it to the "Fool" pile. I'll tabulate later which pile is higher.

Mr Barrack Obama who incidentally is a Muslim

'Muslim' is a belief system. Not a genetic trait. That means you get to pick.

--I was taken to a Christian church in my childhood and my parents are both Christians. Does that make me a Christian? Heck no. I get to believe whatever I want. So do you really truly believe that Obama is a Muslim who follows the teachings of the Koran with the same idiot fervor that makes Christians following their doctrines into Christians? Are you saying that Obama was like, an undercover Muslim secret agent in his Christian church for twenty years?

Obama scares me because he's religious and calls himself a Christian; ALL religious people, no matter which stripe they claim, are retarded on some level. I distrust Christians as much as I distrust Muslims. They're equally capable of putting their brains on hold to do extremely dangerous things en mass. But the claim that Obama is a Muslim is just plain silly, and it comes from people who fear Obama for one reason or another and who are trying to justify that fear by trying to come up with as many irrational 'facts' as they possibly can. That's just lame, dude.

I also read through the anti-Chomsky stuff and even put some stock in it for a while, but that didn't stop me from continuing to read and think and collect knowledge, and eventually I realized that the anti-Chomsky stuff was deliberate garbage designed by the kind of people who have something to lose from his candor. How many prominent Jews speak out against the Israeli government and the crimes taking place in Palestine? Sheesh. --Chomsky certainly doesn't know everything, but he's certainly a wiser and better educated man than you or me. And he's a man of positive intent who opposes fear and selfishness. That counts for a lot. So if you have problems with him, my guess is that they are either based on false info, or that you are an asshole with something to lose.

And finally. . . Your claim that WMD's were found in Iraq is not supported at all by the article you linked to, and that's a right-wing blog site no less! A more complete version of the story on that yellow cake can be found here. The UN knew about that yellow cake before the current war and knew it dated back to when Saddam was trying to build a nuclear facility. That facility was bombed by the Israelis and the remaining yellow cake had been sitting in storage doing nothing since then. The UN weapons sanctions against Iraq were upheld and that yellow cake was not being used to make WMD's.

Yellow cake, it should be pointed out, is just dirt with Uranium oxide in it. You can't even make a dirty bomb with the stuff. It needs full refin

What's wrong with internet gambling? Well, what's wrong with electronic voting machines?

There is absolutely no way to know if manipulation/fraud is being comitted. There is no trail or independent confirmation or any way at all to tell if it is honest. (at least at "real" tables, you can watch the dealer and other players and you know they are regulated by the state gaming commission). And since large amounts of money are involved with no oversight, you can almost guarantee it WILL be manipulated. Internet Gambling should be outlawed, not because of killjoy prudism or moralizing, but because the state has an obligation to protect its citizens from certain fraud. Its now a question of "if" the players are being defrauded, but "how much" are they being defrauded.

Even wellknown "respected" sites can be fraudulant. Take a look at this MSNBC story Poker site cheating plot a high-stakes whodunit.

Since when did ridiculousness stop a government move? In W.Va. a man is charged with assault and battery of a police officer with a fart. Wonder if it will get laughed out of court, the guy will plea bargain, or if they convict him of this absurdity. Wonder if they will arrange any expert witnesses?

Depends on what you call middle class.

In some studies anywhere from 53 to 80 percent of people consider themselves middle class.

I consider myself to be lower middle class and make about 70K for my household. I don't know about you but enough of that is taken by the banks and government that even $1155 is a pretty big chunk of change.

Some people in the $200,000 range consider themselves middle class, I think $1155 is a bit easier to come by for them.

http://pewsocialtrends.org/pubs/706/middle-class-poll

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21272238/page/2/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_middle_class

Correction: She did NOT support the bridge to nowhere.

Yes she did.