Even Bush-Hating Baldwin Admits It's Dem's Fault

[jaydub Mach1]

If a Bush-bashing, Republican-hating nincompoop like Alec Baldwin understands that Democrats are responsible for the current financial crisis, and is willing to say so on national television, why can't America's so-called "real" journalists?

 

 

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard...ms-barney-frank

[ingram4868]

Common ground to agree.

[CobraCrazy]

That's right, the republicans have nothing to do with it; in fact everything that's been screwed up in the last eight years has nothing to do with the republicans, with conservatives; it's all the fault of the liberal democrats.

[69dejavue]

That's right, the republicans have nothing to do with it; in fact everything that's been screwed up in the last eight years has nothing to do with the republicans, with conservatives; it's all the fault of the liberal democrats.

 

Crazy, I did not post the original post but Thank God I finally won you over!!!!! I'll buy the first drink (and I don't drink)

[mciarochi]

Crazy, I did not post the original post but Thank God I finally won you over!!!!! I'll buy the first drink (and I don't drink)

I think crazy was being sarcastic. I had to read that twice, too.

 

I don't think it was ALL the Democrats fault, nor ALL the Republicans fault. I also don't think Bush had a lot to do with it, but I don't think he had nothing to do with it, either.

 

What is enraging is the Pelosi/Frank blatant lying in the face of hard facts (like videos of them telling lies over the past several years, and documentation that they received money from FNMA and FHLMC to do so).

 

And, by the way, sitting there doing nothing as president or senator, it doesn't do any good to have quietly sponsored a bill a few years ago, either. Bush, for instance did a little bit, McCain did a little bit. Either one of them could have shouted from the rooftops and declared an impending disaster, but they just packed up their failed bills and tucked them away for when the stuff hit the fan, so they could say, "I told you so." That does nothing for me.

 

And lest we let His Holiness the Oh-Oh-OBama off the hook, he's the one senator who took more money from these failed institutions than any other member of congress, even Barney Frank. One of his advisors, Franklin Raines was CEO of Fannie Mae for five or six years, and spearheaded this disaster while collecting tens of millions of dollars in salary. Of course, they claim he was "not a financial advisor", but that on several occasions Obama merely solicited advice from him on financial matters.

 

Unlike Obama, I'm not confused about what you call people who advise you. They are called advisors. Shakespeare had it right when he said a rose by any other name is still a rose.

 

Back to topic, I read the article on Baldwin, and I'll grudgingly give him some points on that one. He had it pretty much correct.

[DDT]

Crazy, I did not post the original post but Thank God I finally won you over!!!!! I'll buy the first drink (and I don't drink)

 

You seriously think that "DEREGULATION" had nothing to do with it???????????????

 

[Guest markham51]

If a Bush-bashing, Republican-hating nincompoop like Alec Baldwin understands that Democrats are responsible for the current financial crisis, and is willing to say so on national television, why can't America's so-called "real" journalists?

 

 

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard...ms-barney-frank

 

 

Baldwin clearly blames both parties according to the article you posted, yet you say "Democrats are responsible" as if he said they were alone were responsible. That is misleading.

 

I am not a fan of Barny Frank.

[69dejavue]

I think crazy was being sarcastic. I had to read that twice, too.

 

I don't think it was ALL the Democrats fault, nor ALL the Republicans fault. I also don't think Bush had a lot to do with it, but I don't think he had nothing to do with it, either.

 

What is enraging is the Pelosi/Frank blatant lying in the face of hard facts (like videos of them telling lies over the past several years, and documentation that they received money from FNMA and FHLMC to do so).

 

And, by the way, sitting there doing nothing as president or senator, it doesn't do any good to have quietly sponsored a bill a few years ago, either. Bush, for instance did a little bit, McCain did a little bit. Either one of them could have shouted from the rooftops and declared an impending disaster, but they just packed up their failed bills and tucked them away for when the stuff hit the fan, so they could say, "I told you so." That does nothing for me.

 

And lest we let His Holiness the Oh-Oh-OBama off the hook, he's the one senator who took more money from these failed institutions than any other member of congress, even Barney Frank. One of his advisors, Franklin Raines was CEO of Fannie Mae for five or six years, and spearheaded this disaster while collecting tens of millions of dollars in salary. Of course, they claim he was "not a financial advisor", but that on several occasions Obama merely solicited advice from him on financial matters.

 

Unlike Obama, I'm not confused about what you call people who advise you. They are called advisors. Shakespeare had it right when he said a rose by any other name is still a rose.

 

Back to topic, I read the article on Baldwin, and I'll grudgingly give him some points on that one. He had it pretty much correct.

 

 

I know Crazy was only kidding or being sarcastic. And I was only kidding him. I am conservative but one person I am starting to think very responsible was Bush. Bush had the knowledge of what was coming and his economic advisors and the fed chairman not only did nothing they did not even tell us what was coming. In addition, and I voted for Bush, he needed to start vetoing bills years ago that were laden with pork. Maybe he did it to consider himself working with a diverse congress. I don't know. But he should have the parent of Congress and vetoed many bills. We all know Congress is like a bunch of kids and out of control when it comes to spending. We needed a grown-up to veto the bills and he did not do his job.

[ShelbyDude]

You seriously think that "DEREGULATION" had nothing to do with it???????????????

 

 

 

Nope! It wasn't DEregulation. It was REGULATION that caused it.

 

Had they never come up with the "Community Reinvestment Act" none of this would have happened.

[69dejavue]

The Community Investment Act was well intentioned but fatally flawed. It was meant to overcome racism and redlinng by law. It was social engineering. But I still believe Bush allowed Congress to run amok with the budget and spending. He could have said no but did not. He appeased congress for whatever the reason.

[iastatefan]

Nope! It wasn't DEregulation. It was REGULATION that caused it.

 

Had they never come up with the "Community Reinvestment Act" none of this would have happened.

 

I popped into this thread to see if the neocons would perpetuate the freshest lie, and they did not disappoint. See this thread, from that liberal rag BusinessWeek, to get the real facts on this whopper.

 

Why is this lie so popular with neocons? Because again, it ties this whole mess on Negroes and wetbacks. The saliva flies as they sputter about these uppity minorities buying property. It lets the racists do what they do best, and the stupid blame the Dems. F'in pathetic.

 

Modern neocons have no shame, no honor, and endless hatred. I honestly cannot imagine a group of people more willing to believe whatever ridiculous tripe Limbaugh and Hannity feed them.

 

An imbecile might believe the Dems, in the 2 years they've been in charge -- are to blame. A moron might believe that the same people who claim Obama has never done anything in his life single-handedly caused this crisis by getting campaign contributions.

 

But could this same idiot then believe that McCain is pure despite much of McCain's staff making a living off Freddie and Fannie?

 

Now, these same people will say the liberal media is lying about the dozen or so financial lobbyists running McCain's campaign; but Franklin Raines is Obama's advisor despite official denials by both parties. No one on McCain's staff denies Davis, for instance, received $15000 a month from Fannie until 2 months ago. (I take that back, I think Palin may have said she had no idea if that was true or not.) But based on no proof whatever, other than a corporate journalist said it, they believe Obama and Raines are simpatico.

 

Let's take the neocons at their word; it's not racist smear, but they really believe regulation caused the meltdown. Specifically the Community Reinvestment Act, passed in 1977, which have always had a lower default rate!

 

To swallow this, you must believe that leverage had nothing to do with this. You must also believe that the head of the SEC is lying when he says implenting "voluntary regulation" was a huge mistake. If someone can truly repeat moronic Limbaugh taking points in the face of inconvenient facts like this; it is no wonder they can believe Obama is Muslim, and McCain fathered a black baby out of wedlock. Rove isn't an evil genius, he just has a dumb audience. McCain's campaign manager has said he's going ugly for the final weeks. In 2004, he said smears don't have to be true, they just have to be effective. And he learned from the master, Karl Rove.

 

So I fully expect to see the off-topics threads in this forum swell with plenty of crap irrelevant, untrue, and designed only to stir up hate for that uppity Negro. All the while, the posters will claim honest doubt -- that they really believe Obama took his oath on a Koran -- I have to wonder about the motivation.

 

Earlier, I thought this was mostly willingness to repeat any lie because it "furthers the cause." For others, simple racism. But the more I see how easily the right is fed ridiculous lies, despite reams and reams of facts that dispute them... maybe they are just really dumb.

 

Go Palin!

[iastatefan]

If you are going to lie about what Baldwin said, maybe you shouldn't post a link so we can read it? Liberals tend to look up the facts.

 

Baldwin "admits it's Dem's Fault"?

 

Maybe 'America's so-called "real" journalists' actually read what he said.

 

If a Bush-bashing, Republican-hating nincompoop like Alec Baldwin understands that Democrats are responsible for the current financial crisis, and is willing to say so on national television, why can't America's so-called "real" journalists?

 

 

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard...ms-barney-frank

[iastatefan]

The Community Investment Act was well intentioned but fatally flawed. It was meant to overcome racism and redlinng by law. It was social engineering. But I still believe Bush allowed Congress to run amok with the budget and spending. He could have said no but did not. He appeased congress for whatever the reason.

 

How is outlawing redlining "social engineering"? If that is true, then I suppose anti-lynching laws are social engineering.

 

Racism within a financial transaction does not make it "free market"; it's still just racism.

[svttim]

If you are going to lie about what Baldwin said, maybe you shouldn't post a link so we can read it? Liberals tend to look up the facts.

 

Baldwin "admits it's Dem's Fault"?

 

Maybe 'America's so-called "real" journalists' actually read what he said.

 

 

Liberals dont use fact, they use feelings. And, He did not lie, maybe a better title would have

 

"Baldwin admits its Dem's fault too! "

 

But then again, liberals are not into taking responsibility either

[stpracer43]

I popped into this thread to see if the neocons would perpetuate the freshest lie, and they did not disappoint. See this thread, from that liberal rag BusinessWeek, to get the real facts on this whopper.

 

Why is this lie so popular with neocons? Because again, it ties this whole mess on Negroes and wetbacks. The saliva flies as they sputter about these uppity minorities buying property. It lets the racists do what they do best, and the stupid blame the Dems. F'in pathetic.

 

Modern neocons have no shame, no honor, and endless hatred. I honestly cannot imagine a group of people more willing to believe whatever ridiculous tripe Limbaugh and Hannity feed them.

 

An imbecile might believe the Dems, in the 2 years they've been in charge -- are to blame. A moron might believe that the same people who claim Obama has never done anything in his life single-handedly caused this crisis by getting campaign contributions.

 

But could this same idiot then believe that McCain is pure despite much of McCain's staff making a living off Freddie and Fannie?

 

Now, these same people will say the liberal media is lying about the dozen or so financial lobbyists running McCain's campaign; but Franklin Raines is Obama's advisor despite official denials by both parties. No one on McCain's staff denies Davis, for instance, received $15000 a month from Fannie until 2 months ago. (I take that back, I think Palin may have said she had no idea if that was true or not.) But based on no proof whatever, other than a corporate journalist said it, they believe Obama and Raines are simpatico.

 

Let's take the neocons at their word; it's not racist smear, but they really believe regulation caused the meltdown. Specifically the Community Reinvestment Act, passed in 1977, which have always had a lower default rate!

 

To swallow this, you must believe that leverage had nothing to do with this. You must also believe that the head of the SEC is lying when he says implenting "voluntary regulation" was a huge mistake. If someone can truly repeat moronic Limbaugh taking points in the face of inconvenient facts like this; it is no wonder they can believe Obama is Muslim, and McCain fathered a black baby out of wedlock. Rove isn't an evil genius, he just has a dumb audience. McCain's campaign manager has said he's going ugly for the final weeks. In 2004, he said smears don't have to be true, they just have to be effective. And he learned from the master, Karl Rove.

 

So I fully expect to see the off-topics threads in this forum swell with plenty of crap irrelevant, untrue, and designed only to stir up hate for that uppity Negro. All the while, the posters will claim honest doubt -- that they really believe Obama took his oath on a Koran -- I have to wonder about the motivation.

 

Earlier, I thought this was mostly willingness to repeat any lie because it "furthers the cause." For others, simple racism. But the more I see how easily the right is fed ridiculous lies, despite reams and reams of facts that dispute them... maybe they are just really dumb.

 

Go Palin!

 

IASTATEFAN ~ the somewhat interesting portions of your reply (I followed the imbedded links) were more or less made irrelevant by your tirade of insults...

 

Your generalization of neoconservatives as "liars, racists, imbeciles, morons, idiots, having no shame, no honor, and endless hatred" provided no worthwhile commentary of any kind.

 

As to the primary topic at hand, sure the title was somewhat mis-labeled. But, it doesn't discount the most important comment Mr. Baldwin made in the video clip... (I'll paraphrase so I don't get accused of deliberately misquoting him):

 

"Our Congress failed us. If you are a Congressman and voted to approve the $854 Billion bill, you should be ashamed."

 

Our Congress is so greedy they couldn't stay focused on the real problem, but instead had to ADD another $154 Billion in extras. Those Congressmen who voted to Approve this Bill with "extra add-ins" going to their State were effectively BOUGHT or BRIBED.

 

With respect to blaming someone or something, let's start with some "individual" accountability. Start at the top with the CEOs or at the bottom with the home buyers; it matters not because these individuals didn't have enough accountability of themselves in either case.

 

Simply because there were no regulations (or regulations were lifted) against risky investments, doesn't relieve the large companies and CEOs from being accountable for making the risky decision (which may or may not have been in the best interest of their company, employees, shareholders).

Likewise, just because banks offered ridiculous mortgage packages to millions of people, doesn't relieve those home buyers of the accountability for being able to afford the homes they purchased.

 

Not everyone is a victim here, some are specifically culpable. I want to know WHO IS GOING TO JAIL?

 

As for the underlying theme of your reply, I respectfully request you take it somewhere else...

"So I fully expect to see the off-topics threads in this forum swell with plenty of crap irrelevant, untrue, and designed only to stir up hate for that uppity Negro"

 

I think you're reply would be the first in the category.

 

Keith

[WP64]

If you are going to lie about what Baldwin said, maybe you shouldn't post a link so we can read it? Liberals tend to look up the facts.

 

If you are going to lie about what John McCain said, maybe you shouldn't post a link so we can read it? Conservatives tend to look up the facts as well.

 

You wrote and linked," In 2004, he [McCain] said smears don't have to be true, they just have to be effective.

 

And here's your link you thought substantiated your lie The anatomy of a smear campaign - Boston.com News, 3-21-2004

 

The article actually has no quotes from John McCain but speaks of his 2000 Presidental campagn where he was the victim of a push-polling smear campagn in the primaries, to which his campagn vowed they would not participate in kind, "We also pledged to raise the level of debate by refusing to run any further negative ads -- a promise we kept,..." Richard H. Davis, one of John McCain's senior campagn advisors in 2000.

 

Perhaps you should read the 'Neo Con" smear articles you pull off of Liberal Web sites before you link them here...

 

"...the more I see how easily the right is fed ridiculous lies, despite reams and reams of facts that dispute them... maybe they are just really dumb."

 

There's plenty of 'dumb' hate to go around in your posts... It seems you feed from the Liberal lie trough yourself iastatefan...

[69dejavue]

How is outlawing redlining "social engineering"? If that is true, then I suppose anti-lynching laws are social engineering.

 

Racism within a financial transaction does not make it "free market"; it's still just racism.

 

Pinto, thank you for agreeing with me. The government wanted to encourage banks to lend to socio-depressed areas. The banks refused fearing they would lose on the investment. So the government made it mandatory to improve the socio-economic quality of life for those in those redlined areas. Yes, that is social engineering. Mandating that private business make investments to improve quality of life in a particular area is social engineering. Just like forced school busing, etc. Social engineering by liberals rather than allowing free markets. The banks would not have failed if they were permitted to set their own guidelines as they did not want to lose money. Now any entity can lose money whether it be banks, Chrysler, the Big 3 automakers, California, Massacheusets, etc can lose money and just demand that someone else come in and clean up the mess. If the government budget were run like the family budget or a large corporation, without expecting bailouts, we would not be in this position we are today.

[69dejavue]

How is outlawing redlining "social engineering"? If that is true, then I suppose anti-lynching laws are social engineering.

 

Racism within a financial transaction does not make it "free market"; it's still just racism.

 

Redlining was not based on racism but rather viewed as a poor investment on the part of the banks which were required to MAKE money, not LOSE money, in order to stay in business. It just so happened that the areas redlined were usually within minority neighborhoods due to the lower socio-economics of that community. So we changed all that with social engineering and FORCED the banks to lend money. What happened. We now know it as the sub-prime mortgage default which has crippled the housing and economy markets in general. Who votes for social engineering?

[Guest markham51]

Not in response to any one particular post or individual....

 

Politics is like religion. Some people believe what they want to believe and no rational arguments (either pro or con) are going to persuade them to change their minds. I know I'm pretty set in my basic beliefs myself. Our beliefs were usually formed quite some time ago, perhaps even passed down from our parents or grandparents. In essence, I see in many of these posts people are not interested in changing our ways of thinking, rather they are looking for something or someone that supports their beliefs.

 

For some of us, that doesn't work very well because we are analytical by nature. I'm a "bean counter" by training and I spend my whole life looking at both sides of every argument. It's how I make sound business decisions, never trust the obvious, and tirelessly investigate alternatives to make the most of the opportunity. It explains why I am a fiscal conservative on one hand (less government, less taxes) and a moderate on the other hand (health care, social safety net makes sense for those who deserve it). If it makes sense I fight for it and don't give up just because it has failed in the past.

 

Like many of you, understandably I tend to be most wary of sales people and politicians because they have the most to gain from misleading us. You know...."this car was only driven by an old lady I know" or "he hangs with the wrong crowd". It is opportunitic at best, frauduent at worst. Many here have accepted the fact that these groups can lie to get what they want, because thats what they do...well not all of us. Oh... and why do waiters at a restaurant insist on saying when you have selected your food.... "great choice, thats my favorite" C'mon now, don't patronise me, I'll judge for myself.

 

In closing, if you believe McCain is the better candidate fine, I can respect that.

 

If you believe Obama is the better candidate, thats fine too, I can respect that.

 

But if you think I'm a sucker for unsubstantiated BS you are dead wrong. If you want to post unverified or mean spirited political garbage on either side I'll jump in, it's not personal, it's in my nature.

 

I don't mind a decent helping of good natured "biased political mudslinging" after all, these are your beliefs and so long as it is not racist, demeaning or disrespectful to the candidates themselves I'm good with all of it. It is after all a contest. You have to break a few eggs to make an omelet and all that.....You must understand however, that if you disrespect a candidate, at the same time you are disrespecting the individual member who may believe passionately in their cause. Especially hurtful are thinly veiled racist comments. You don't have to use the N word or the C word (new to me) to be patently offensive. That especially causes tempers to flare and rightfully so. So if you wonder why sometimes people get MAJORLY pissed from time to time, it may not even relate that directly to something you have said in that post, but rather to a built up sense of frustration.

[LuckySnake]

markham's statement "Politics is like religion. Some people believe what they want to believe and no rational arguments (either pro or con) are going to persuade them to change their minds." This is the most accurate statement posted in this thread to date.

I know what we can do, lets all accuse the other guy of our problems, blame someone else, and drag as much crap to TS as possible, that will solve our problems.

[DDT]

Nope! It wasn't DEregulation. It was REGULATION that caused it.

 

Had they never come up with the "Community Reinvestment Act" none of this would have happened.

 

And who was responsible for "GROSSLY OVERINFLATING" appraised values??????????

 

 

"NEW CARS INCLUDED"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[JeffIsHereToo]

If a Bush-bashing, Republican-hating nincompoop like Alec Baldwin understands that Democrats are responsible for the current financial crisis, and is willing to say so on national television, why can't America's so-called "real" journalists?

 

 

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard...ms-barney-frank

 

funny I remembered this thread when I got this email tonight:

 

------------------------

 

 

Dear Jeff,

 

Here we are, just hours from Election Day and too many Democrats seem to think this election is already in the bag and all that's left to do is plan our Election Night parties. They could be in for a big surprise.

 

The Republicans play to win every time. They fostered every possible ethical breach to get Bush elected. They forged a whole set of new ones to get him reelected. Now they're trying to do the same for McCain and all their House candidates. It's up to us to stop them.

 

The past eight years have been the moral low point of the American experience. Bush and McCain ate birthday cake together while a major American city drowned before our eyes. They launched an unnecessary war in Iraq and left our economy and our future in shambles.

 

Voter suppression is the last card left in the GOP deck -- and sadly, they're playing it. In Florida, they've sent operatives to steal ballots from elderly Democratic voters.1 In California, they used phony petitions to dupe people into registering Republican.2 In Virginia they even circulated phony fliers telling Democrats to vote on the wrong day.3

 

Help us raise last-minute urgent funds to put enough eyes and ears on the ground to stop Republican voter fraud and voter suppression tactics.

 

This election represents a turning point for this country. If Obama wins, he'll need the help of a stronger Democratic Congress to dig us out of the hole that Bush, Cheney, and the GOP have put us in.

 

We must get this right. If we don't, John McCain and Sarah Palin will try and turn the clock back even further -- to a point none of us can imagine...

 

Let's finish our work.

 

Thanks,

 

Alec Baldwin

 

 

Sources

 

1. Miami Herald, October 25, 2008. http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/c...ory/740834.html

 

2. Los Angeles Times, October 20, 2008. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-fr...0,3842357.story

 

3. UPI, Oct. 28, 2008. http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/10/28/Pho...99161225226657/

[Boss Doctor]

I popped into this thread to see if the neocons would perpetuate the freshest lie, and they did not disappoint. See this thread, from that liberal rag BusinessWeek, to get the real facts on this whopper.

 

Why is this lie so popular with neocons? Because again, it ties this whole mess on Negroes and wetbacks. The saliva flies as they sputter about these uppity minorities buying property. It lets the racists do what they do best, and the stupid blame the Dems. F'in pathetic.

 

Modern neocons have no shame, no honor, and endless hatred. I honestly cannot imagine a group of people more willing to believe whatever ridiculous tripe Limbaugh and Hannity feed them.

 

An imbecile might believe the Dems, in the 2 years they've been in charge -- are to blame. A moron might believe that the same people who claim Obama has never done anything in his life single-handedly caused this crisis by getting campaign contributions.

 

But could this same idiot then believe that McCain is pure despite much of McCain's staff making a living off Freddie and Fannie?

 

Now, these same people will say the liberal media is lying about the dozen or so financial lobbyists running McCain's campaign; but Franklin Raines is Obama's advisor despite official denials by both parties. No one on McCain's staff denies Davis, for instance, received $15000 a month from Fannie until 2 months ago. (I take that back, I think Palin may have said she had no idea if that was true or not.) But based on no proof whatever, other than a corporate journalist said it, they believe Obama and Raines are simpatico.

 

Let's take the neocons at their word; it's not racist smear, but they really believe regulation caused the meltdown. Specifically the Community Reinvestment Act, passed in 1977, which have always had a lower default rate!

 

To swallow this, you must believe that leverage had nothing to do with this. You must also believe that the head of the SEC is lying when he says implenting "voluntary regulation" was a huge mistake. If someone can truly repeat moronic Limbaugh taking points in the face of inconvenient facts like this; it is no wonder they can believe Obama is Muslim, and McCain fathered a black baby out of wedlock. Rove isn't an evil genius, he just has a dumb audience. McCain's campaign manager has said he's going ugly for the final weeks. In 2004, he said smears don't have to be true, they just have to be effective. And he learned from the master, Karl Rove.

 

So I fully expect to see the off-topics threads in this forum swell with plenty of crap irrelevant, untrue, and designed only to stir up hate for that uppity Negro. All the while, the posters will claim honest doubt -- that they really believe Obama took his oath on a Koran -- I have to wonder about the motivation.

 

Earlier, I thought this was mostly willingness to repeat any lie because it "furthers the cause." For others, simple racism. But the more I see how easily the right is fed ridiculous lies, despite reams and reams of facts that dispute them... maybe they are just really dumb.

 

Go Palin!

 

I SEE RACIST PEOPLE!

[sharabi]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/washington/19cost.html

 

so do your math.