BTW, the internet-troll invasion of blog comment sections you mentioned in a prior post is pervasive, and their common theme seems to be the one you’ve addressed here. You’ve got enough active commenters that you needn’t be bothered, but they can dominate a small blog. In my case the comment moderation feature eliminated the problem.

Great post, GayPatriotWest.

And in what alternate universe does a “greedy” business think they’ll get even more money by lending to people who can’t afford to pay it back?

Lets not forget that in the last 8 years (unless it was for supplies for the troops) the democratic screed was that President Bush didn’t spend *enough*

11: Opponents have just found another way to show “sore loser-itis”

1) Although much of the “right” did not raise a huge objection to the Iraq War-generated deficits, they certainly did with respect to the domestic spending. True, they re-elected Bush, but their priority at the time was the war.

2) The Left seems to be saying now that because Bush ran what today look like small deficits, it’s OK for Obama to run vastly larger deficits. Under that argument, if anyone supports running any size deficit for any reason, they aren’t allowed to object to any subsequent deficits, no matter the size OR the reason. An absurd argument. But typical of a pttern the Left uses today: don’t address the issue, merely discredit and disqualify the opponenet. Like the old “chickenhawk” argument over the war, wherein anyone who has not personally gone to war can have no valid opinion about the war (excepot, presumably, to oppose it,) now no one who has not strenuously objected to ALL deficicits for ALL reasons can objects to ANY deficits for ANY reasons.

3) Isn’t the real hypocrisy among the Democrats, including Obama, Reid Pelosi and so many others who very loudly criticized the Bush deficits and now breezily dismiss any concerns at all over their vastly larger ones? Only through profound intellectual dishonesty can someone have supported these two contradictory positions. This argument is even more absurd than #2. ANy Democrat who opposes GOP-generated deficits can support far larger Dem-generated deficits and accuse the other side of hypocrisy.

Basically you have to remember that the Hive is like The Terminator. Basically their target is your wallet, and they are zeroed in on that. Whatever argument they have to make to further their relentless pursuit of grabbing you by the ankles, turning you upside down, and shaking you until all your money runs out, they’ll make. Basically these people are the New Tories, and they have the State’s mailed fist up their butts they can taste Rustoleum.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/KD03Dj02.html

Here is an except:

What Geithner does not want the public to understand, his “dirty little secret”, is that the repeal of Glass-Steagall and the passage of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act in 2000 allowed the creation of a tiny handful of banks that would virtually monopolize key parts of the global “off-balance sheet” or OTC derivatives issuance.

Today, five US banks, according to data in the just-released Federal Office of Comptroller of the Currency’s Quarterly Report on Bank Trading and Derivatives Activity, hold 96% of all US bank derivatives positions in terms of nominal values, and an eye-popping 81% of the total net credit risk exposure in event of default.

The top three are, in declining order of importance: JPMorgan Chase, which holds a staggering $88 trillion in derivatives; Bank of America with $38 trillion, and Citibank with $32 trillion. Number four in the derivatives sweepstakes is Goldman Sachs, with a mere $30 trillion in derivatives; number five, the merged Wells Fargo-Wachovia Bank, drops dramatically in size to $5 trillion. Number six, Britain’s HSBC Bank USA, has $3.7 trillion.

The truth is, if there were a run on these five giants, the world economy would tank. This is beyond toxic. It is nuclear. And at the same time, Obama calls for mega-deficit spending and entitlements that are in the additional trillions.

The “government” is looking at trading the burden of the derivatives debt for equity shares in the institutions. To put it plainly, the “government” will join the Ponzi scheme as the controlling player. The money to fund the Ponzi scheme will come from the tax payers, devalued currency, rampant inflation and moxie. The “moxie” will come in the form of the US government forcing the chinese, et. al. to carry the debt, because we will only submit to foreclosure at the point of a nuclear missile.

Yeah right, DaveA. Americans are really going to want four more years of that.

P.S. The Democrats’ Reagan? What does that even mean? Using the word “Obama” in the same sentence with “Reagan” is an obscenity.

Ever hear those words before, Levi?

The evils were BARELY “sufferable” but are now completely UN-sufferable. Some of us have JOBS and LIVES to attend to, and we have done so – but now all of that has been compromised by an utterly corrupt Congress (you know, the guys holding the nation’s wallet?). They ALL need to go, post haste.

1.) Per Goldberg’s review, linked to in an earlier post, in order to charge the right with caring too much about deficits now, you must concede that the left just SUDDENLY STOPPED caring about them.  Levi? I hear crickets. “Does this have something to do with the new occupant in the White House?”

2.) Bush, facing a crisis, was forced to choose the best option available to him as one branch of divided government.  The current president, you will agree, has no such limitations.  He could have done anything and he chose – without comment, mind you – to do a 180 on his campaign promises and just ask house Democrats for a wish list.   Bush broke with orthodoxy and was apologetic.  Obama proudly proclaimed the spending a victory.  Well? The Democrats took full ownership of this one.  Is profligate debt a bad thing or not? 

3.) For chrissakes, other than one ambivalent essay by Ponneru about Bush’s prescription plan, I’ve never heard anyone on the right advocate a bigger bureaucracy.  Why are we apologizing?  We’ve been harping on this since DHLS was formed and now the debt’s quadrupled in four friggin’ months.  I want to know how you can watch all this and NOT be furious!

4.) The left has no credibility in accusing anyone of distracting critiques.  The fake turkey scandal made the New York Times and we’re the ones being distracting?  Come on!  In one week, Obama lost his last hire to tax fraud allegations, hired a car czar who “probably won’t be indicted”, had his biggest fun time teleprompter gaffe and ignored the North Korean saber-rattling.  Slate though it would be a great week to revive their “Bushisms” feature!  Email them, lefties, they might be hiring.

Obama comes out worse in this debate no matter how you slice it.  Please. Please. Please. Keep bringing it up.

Best wishes,
-MFS

I think that’s because it takes time for a movement to coalesce.

Oh come on. You don’t think it has something to do the new occupant in the White House? That’s just a total coincidence, huh?

I might be a little more willing to believe in your sincerity if you guys didn’t spend all your time on absurd stuff like Obama bowing and accusing him of letting pirates hold all of America hostage. Spending isn’t the only thing you guys don’t seem to be very serious about.