I don't know if any of you know, but I used to be a fan of Howard Stern (waits for hisses and boos to stop). My step-dad turned me onto him when I was 13. Don't blame him he was only fiscally conservative. I know Stern can be very gross and mildly offencive, but back when I was in high screwl he was funny and I wanted to relax in the morning and Rush would stress me out talking about Bill Clinton. So I turned to what made me laugh. I stuck it out with Stern for many years, but when he started getting political (left wing even) I bailed and came back to Rush figuring if I was gonna hear politics I'd rather hear someone I agree with.
I could have told you this moment would come, because anyone with half a brain will be turned off by democrats eventually. In a time when B. Hussein Obama poses a true threat to our country having Stern sway some votes will be a plus, unless he backs Barr. My next post will cover anchor babies and how they are NOT citizens. The 14th Amendment deserves a second look. But for now enjoy this.
Stern on XM/Sirius Merger: 'I Will Never Vote For a Democrat Again' Satellite radio talk show star cites 'gangsterism,' 'communism' for holding up deal. By Jeff Poor Business & Media Institute7/24/2008 3:27:46 PM
Sirius Satellite Radio host Howard Stern supports the merger of his network with XM Satelitte Radio and is fuming at Democratic opposition on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) panel.
After FCC commissioners announced they have reached a deal to approve the merger of Sirius (NASDAQ:SIRI) and XM (NASDAQ:XMSR), Stern ranted about Democrats’ ‘gangsterism’ and ‘communism’ and the obstacles to the merger.
Stern described a phone conversation he had with his agent, who he described as a “liberal Democrat kind of guy.”
“I go, ‘That’s it!’” Stern said. “[I] go, ‘You know what Don, I’ve voted Republican and I’ve voted Democrat. I have vowed I will never vote for a Democrat again. I don’t give a [expletive] – no matter who they are. I don’t care if God becomes a Democrat.’ I said, ‘I backed Hillary Clinton, I backed Al Gore, I backed John Kerry. I am done with them.’”
Stern took it a step even further and called Democrats on the FCC “communists” and referred to their tactics as “gangsterism.”
“The fact that these Democrats on the FCC are communists,” Stern said. “They’re for communism. They don’t want to see companies – this is gangsterism. I said, ‘This is crazy.’”
The FCC commission is a five-member panel made up of three Republicans and two Democrats. The Democrats include Jonathan Adelstein and Michael Copps. The Republicans include FCC Chairman Kevin Martin, Robert McDowell and Deborah Taylor Tate. Tate had been the swing vote on the proposed merger and on July 24 The Wall Street Journal reported she would vote in favor of the merger.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Monday, July 21, 2008
I give you what the NY Times Won't
So I know I haven't posted in a while and I can't promise I'll keep up from here but I will try. Lots of things have been happening in the news I know, but lots has been happening in my life as well. But I think I am ready to jump back in to this.
Yes McCain is the nominee and I know I railed against him, but I can't risk an Obama in the White House so I gotta back the guy. I just have to close my eyes on half his views. It is TOO IMPORTANT that we win the war in Iraq. I know his border policies could lose us the war here at home, but the President does not dictate our border policy thank God. That's why I am using the http://getdrunkandvote4mccain.com way. No amount of booze would make me pull for B. Hussein Obama but it could work for McCain.
The New (Old) York Times last week ran an editorial by Obama on his plans for Iraq. This wee was supposed to be McCain's plan but the NYT rejected his editorial. I am not surprised by this but I do think it should be read. SO here is john McCains plan which th NYT won't run:
"In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he said on January 10, 2007. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse." Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.” Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City—actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his “plan for Iraq” in advance of his first “fact finding” trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future. Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military's readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops. No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five “surge” brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013. But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.” Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be “very dangerous.” The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely. I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies."
Yes McCain is the nominee and I know I railed against him, but I can't risk an Obama in the White House so I gotta back the guy. I just have to close my eyes on half his views. It is TOO IMPORTANT that we win the war in Iraq. I know his border policies could lose us the war here at home, but the President does not dictate our border policy thank God. That's why I am using the http://getdrunkandvote4mccain.com way. No amount of booze would make me pull for B. Hussein Obama but it could work for McCain.
The New (Old) York Times last week ran an editorial by Obama on his plans for Iraq. This wee was supposed to be McCain's plan but the NYT rejected his editorial. I am not surprised by this but I do think it should be read. SO here is john McCains plan which th NYT won't run:
"In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he said on January 10, 2007. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse." Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.” Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City—actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his “plan for Iraq” in advance of his first “fact finding” trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future. Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military's readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops. No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five “surge” brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013. But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.” Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be “very dangerous.” The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely. I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies."
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
A Fallen Hero's Family Needs Our Help
Kevin Bewley gave his life for his country on November 5, 2007. A member of the Navy’s Explosive Ordnance Disposal Mobile Unit 11, Petty Officer Bewley died trying to save lives by disabling an explosive, and unfortunately lost his life in the process. Bewley’s family has set up a website and a trust fund for his daughter McKinnzie, and they’re looking for donations. Here is the eulogy Bewley’s brother gave at his memorial:
My brother Kevin Bewley was born April 18, 1980, in Russellville,Arkansas. Kevin had a lifelong dream of joining the military, seeing the world and making an impact on the lives of others.
He was a lifelong student of history. While on his first tour of duty, he completed Civil War, and American West history courses at Columbia. He spent two tours of duty in Iraq as a member of the Navy’s elite EOD Mobile Unit 11 Bomb Disposal Squad. During this time, Kevin and his team conducted 288 Combat missions and countless IED responses.
While in service, Kevin was responsible for the disposal of hundreds of terrorist bombs through which he protected thousands of American and Iraqi lives. He loved adventure and the outdoors. I had the privilege to travel tens of thousands of miles with Kevin. Our trips took us from the desert to the artic, and from the bottoms of the oceans to the tops of mountains.
Whether it was thru his service in Iraq, always being the first to volunteer for Snake Hunter missions, or simply thru his honesty, integrity, and spirituality, my brother led by example and he led from the front.
He did his job with professionalism and he did his job right all the way to the end. He lived his life with no regrets. For those of you who have came to honor him, we thank you.
Rest well, for men like Kevin Bewley are at your guard.
McKinnzie suffers from cerebral palsy and needs physical therapy to help her learn to walk. Kevin Bewley gave his life to his country; maybe his country could give some of its attention to his little girl. Donations can be transmitted through the website or through the Navy.
http://www.daddywaskilled.com/
My brother Kevin Bewley was born April 18, 1980, in Russellville,Arkansas. Kevin had a lifelong dream of joining the military, seeing the world and making an impact on the lives of others.
He was a lifelong student of history. While on his first tour of duty, he completed Civil War, and American West history courses at Columbia. He spent two tours of duty in Iraq as a member of the Navy’s elite EOD Mobile Unit 11 Bomb Disposal Squad. During this time, Kevin and his team conducted 288 Combat missions and countless IED responses.
While in service, Kevin was responsible for the disposal of hundreds of terrorist bombs through which he protected thousands of American and Iraqi lives. He loved adventure and the outdoors. I had the privilege to travel tens of thousands of miles with Kevin. Our trips took us from the desert to the artic, and from the bottoms of the oceans to the tops of mountains.
Whether it was thru his service in Iraq, always being the first to volunteer for Snake Hunter missions, or simply thru his honesty, integrity, and spirituality, my brother led by example and he led from the front.
He did his job with professionalism and he did his job right all the way to the end. He lived his life with no regrets. For those of you who have came to honor him, we thank you.
Rest well, for men like Kevin Bewley are at your guard.
McKinnzie suffers from cerebral palsy and needs physical therapy to help her learn to walk. Kevin Bewley gave his life to his country; maybe his country could give some of its attention to his little girl. Donations can be transmitted through the website or through the Navy.
http://www.daddywaskilled.com/
Thursday, February 14, 2008
The Guy on the Shirt?
I am sure you have seen the nutroots running around in their Che-T's. Some of you might know who he was and some might not, so I am going to give you a brief rundown on this t-shirt worthy hero or as we like to call him SCUMBAG.
Guevara was born in Argentina in 1928 and originally trained to become a doctor at the University of Buenos Aires. In 1952, he embarked on the trip over-dramatized in "The Motorcycle Diaries" across South America. After returning to Buenos Aires to complete his medical degree, Guevara set off again to travel through the Americas. He participated in leftist movements in Guatemala and Mexico and became acquainted with Cuban expatriates in those countries. He joined Castro's revolutionary Cuban army in 1956 as a top commander and Castro's personal physician. He helped Castro topple the regime in Havana in 1959.
As Castro's right-hand man in the new regime, Guevara ordered the execution of hundreds of people while in charge of the notorious La Caba, a prison in Havana. He was unapologetic about the mass killings of innocent people, explaining, "To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary. These procedures are an archaic bourgeois detail. This is a revolution! And a revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate."
Pure hate. It wasn't the first time Guevara used the expression, nor the last. He explained how it must be a tool in the arsenal of revolutionary terrorists – permitting them to do things they would otherwise never be able to accomplish.
"Hatred as an element of struggle; unbending hatred for the enemy, which pushes a human being beyond his natural limitations, making him into an effective, violent, selective and cold-blooded killing machine – this is what our soldiers must become," Guevara said.
During the Cuban missile crisis, Guevara was in favor of a nuclear war with the U.S. because he believed that a better world could be built from the ashes, regardless of the cost in millions of lives. He was overruled by cooler heads in the Kremlin and in Cuba. The nuclear missiles headed for Cuba, 90 miles from the U.S., were returned to Russia.
Disgraced by the slight, Guevara went to create new revolutionary movements and wage armed struggle in Africa and Latin America. He was killed in the jungles of Bolivia in 1967.
Guevara was proud of the fact that he personally put bullets in the backs of the heads of many he considered counter-revolutionary.
Once again, in rallying his guerrillas in Angola, he wrote: "Blind hate against the enemy creates a forceful impulse that cracks the boundaries of natural human limitations, transforming the soldier into an effective, selective and cold killing machine. A people without hate cannot triumph against the adversary."
This beret wearing douche is not the hero (crazy) people say he is. He stood for murder and hatred. You might as well where a shirt with Hitler on it.
Guevara was born in Argentina in 1928 and originally trained to become a doctor at the University of Buenos Aires. In 1952, he embarked on the trip over-dramatized in "The Motorcycle Diaries" across South America. After returning to Buenos Aires to complete his medical degree, Guevara set off again to travel through the Americas. He participated in leftist movements in Guatemala and Mexico and became acquainted with Cuban expatriates in those countries. He joined Castro's revolutionary Cuban army in 1956 as a top commander and Castro's personal physician. He helped Castro topple the regime in Havana in 1959.
As Castro's right-hand man in the new regime, Guevara ordered the execution of hundreds of people while in charge of the notorious La Caba, a prison in Havana. He was unapologetic about the mass killings of innocent people, explaining, "To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary. These procedures are an archaic bourgeois detail. This is a revolution! And a revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate."
Pure hate. It wasn't the first time Guevara used the expression, nor the last. He explained how it must be a tool in the arsenal of revolutionary terrorists – permitting them to do things they would otherwise never be able to accomplish.
"Hatred as an element of struggle; unbending hatred for the enemy, which pushes a human being beyond his natural limitations, making him into an effective, violent, selective and cold-blooded killing machine – this is what our soldiers must become," Guevara said.
During the Cuban missile crisis, Guevara was in favor of a nuclear war with the U.S. because he believed that a better world could be built from the ashes, regardless of the cost in millions of lives. He was overruled by cooler heads in the Kremlin and in Cuba. The nuclear missiles headed for Cuba, 90 miles from the U.S., were returned to Russia.
Disgraced by the slight, Guevara went to create new revolutionary movements and wage armed struggle in Africa and Latin America. He was killed in the jungles of Bolivia in 1967.
Guevara was proud of the fact that he personally put bullets in the backs of the heads of many he considered counter-revolutionary.
Once again, in rallying his guerrillas in Angola, he wrote: "Blind hate against the enemy creates a forceful impulse that cracks the boundaries of natural human limitations, transforming the soldier into an effective, selective and cold killing machine. A people without hate cannot triumph against the adversary."
This beret wearing douche is not the hero (crazy) people say he is. He stood for murder and hatred. You might as well where a shirt with Hitler on it.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
A New Idea
Having spent time pushing two losers for the republican nominee, I have decided the problem is more than lame candidates. The problem is the Republican Party. The party of Bush and McCain is an entity I want nothing to do with. I was repeatedly disappointed by the lack of energy in the Republican Party for years now, going back to George HW Bush. I watched the two California senate seats slide into the hands of the two most sickeningly corrupt disgusting women I have ever seen. The governor being so bad we recalled him and installed an actor who fooled us into thinking he was better. Conservatism is not dead but the Republican Party looks like it's about to flat line.
I long for a day when conservatives have a party that can stand alone, a party that has the strength to stand up to all invaders foreign and domestic. Republicans spent to long drifting to the left, talking and not acting. Talk is cheap and sitting on your hands will do nothing. Abe Lincoln and Ron Reagan’s republican party is far far away. I didn’t leave the Republican Party, the Republican Party left me! I will not CALM DOWN. I will not fade into the crowd; I will not go quietly into the polling booth. I am a LOUD PERSON and proud. The time is now to create a new party, a CONSERVATIVE party.
Monday, January 21, 2008
How the mighty have fallen...
I am so pissed with this whole Fred Thompson bailing to back McCain situation. I put a lot of faith and dollars into Fred. This will be a bitter pill to swallow if it pans out the way it's looking.
Years back at my (very liberal) jr. college I tried starting a conservative club because the republicans were not cutting it. I was registered independent and proud. But I wanted to see change so much that I realigned myself with the republican party to back GWB. Since then I have let things slide, and oh have they slid. With George Bush Jr. turning out to be such a liberal wank, failing us on Iraq, the economy and the border. I was thrilled when I read Fred Thompson's platform. He seemed to have a grasp on what Reagan conservatism meant. A glimmer of small government and lower taxes with a military that was second to NONE. Ideas that I still believe will keep America on top where it belongs. I will hold out a little longer to see if Fred does the RIGHT thing. My faith is shaken, but I hope the republican party has some guts left. If I leave the party again it will take WAY more than a GWB to get me back. I am sooo pissed...
Years back at my (very liberal) jr. college I tried starting a conservative club because the republicans were not cutting it. I was registered independent and proud. But I wanted to see change so much that I realigned myself with the republican party to back GWB. Since then I have let things slide, and oh have they slid. With George Bush Jr. turning out to be such a liberal wank, failing us on Iraq, the economy and the border. I was thrilled when I read Fred Thompson's platform. He seemed to have a grasp on what Reagan conservatism meant. A glimmer of small government and lower taxes with a military that was second to NONE. Ideas that I still believe will keep America on top where it belongs. I will hold out a little longer to see if Fred does the RIGHT thing. My faith is shaken, but I hope the republican party has some guts left. If I leave the party again it will take WAY more than a GWB to get me back. I am sooo pissed...
Monday, January 14, 2008
What Housing Crises? (Rated R)
I know you've heard a lot about it in the news and I have been reading up and today we're gonna be talking about the "Housing crises" and the feds misguided actions towards "averting" it. I will probably piss off a few people, most likely limp wristed whining sacks of shit that don't believe in personal responsibility, but that's ok, because these are generally the same people that refuse to answer violence with violence, an attack with retaliation, so the worst that is gonna happen is they are gonna whine at me, at which point I will promptly tell them to pray to St. Doomonyou, we don't have a housing crises. What we have is a personal responsibility crises, and THAT is definitely something the government should be doing something about. Would you kids like to know WHAT the government should be doing about the personal responsibility crises? Why, it's the same thing they SHOULD be doing for the "housing crises" but aren't.....thaaaat's riiigghhhttt..........NOTHING!!!!! What we have here is thousands upon thousands, maybe even millions, of people that saw something that looked too good to be true, and in their pursuit of the American Dream they took it. What they forgot was that the American Dream, or at least the part of it that entails owning ones own home, does not entail low interest rate loans with a balloon payment in three to five years. The American Dream of owning ones own home begins and ends with PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. You save up your down payment, usually five to ten percent of the price of the house, maybe even twenty percent, under the theory that if you have so much of your hard earned money and time put into the house you are going to be serious about taking care of it and paying it off. Then you go out and find a lender that is willing to work with you to secure the loan that you would spend the next decade or two paying off, because you, during all those years that you were saving that money for a down payment also didn't run up tons of debt on credit cards, and you paid your bills on time and drove a car you could afford the payments and insurance on, and certainly wouldn't buy a car that was the equal to the cost of 1/6 of your house or buy such extravagances as flat screen TV's, iPhones and every other gadget that Amazon shopping said was THE MUST HAVE FUCKING GADGET OF THE YEAR AND IF YOU DON'T GET ONE YOU ARE THE LAMEST PERSON ON EARTH!!!! THAT is how it is supposed to be done, but NOOOOOOOOWWW we have a bunch of whining fucktwits unable to understand basic math or accept the responsibility for the loans they willingly signed up for, and we have a bunch of weak kneed blithering idiot morons in D.C. screaming about some "housing crises" when in reality the crisis is of their own fucking doing. That's RIGHT!!! This is 30 years of education policy (that the feds aren't even supposed to be involved in) coming home to roost, and I lay the blame right where it belongs, WITH THE NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION!!!The dumbed down, politically correct "education" system that now stresses making johnny "Feel good" rather than making sure johhny can fucking read or count has created a whole friggin society of people that won't take responsibility for their actions and expects government to bail them out when things get too deep.And the same people that are crying that the goverment needs to help them save their houses are the very same ones that will vote for a fucking socialist twit (a democrat for those of you, as Rush says, in Rio Lindo) come november. I am torn between suddenly becoming afflicted with a disorder that crosses Tourettes with some disorder that causes me to violently lash out at people at "random" and then wandering into some patchouli reeking coffee bar and having an "attack" and just throwing up my hands and try to get everyone to vote for the dems, quit their jobs as soon as that president is sworn in and spend all our days marching and demanding that the government take care of us. I mean, the second situation is what we have now, but at this time all of us dumbasses that actually expected to pay for our houses ourselves are quietly toiling away, while some sunuvabitch that can't bother to figure out that when the loan agent says "balloon payment" or "rate increase" it means "HEY DUMBASS, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO PAY MORE MONEY AT A LATER DATE!!!!!!". You see, many of these loan agents apparently said something along the lines of "Yeah, the payment goes up in three years, but THAT is when you just REFI and get your payment lowered." The loan agents never added "unless the housing market is in a slump and all these subprime loans, like yours senor sanchez, are causing havoc in the financial markets. Then you can probably totally forget about getting a refi and you may very well be stuck with a house payment that is three times what you make every month." But hey, the loan guys aren't psychics, they are just trying to make an honest living. Who knew they were gonna get stuck with a bunch of dishonest customers. There is a reason subprime loans are subprime loans. Because the poor bastards that have shown they can't manage their finances and make too little money to support their lifestyle, such as flatscreen TVs and Cadillac Escalades are really bad loan risks. Did you ever notice you see so many people at the laundromat driving a 50 thousand dollar car? Wouldn't you buy a cheaper car and get a damned washer/dryer set? Yeah, me too.Now the question becomes, what DO we do about this "housing crises."Nothing. Let them lose their houses. Sure, it'd set the financial market around for a bit, but it certainly won't kill us, and it may very well teach a valuable lesson that needs to be relearned, mainly don't loan money to people that are bad at handling it. It'd also teach a valuable lesson to all those people who are clamoring for the government to get them out of the mess they made, and that lesson is "Hey, ASSHOLE, paying your bills is YOUR job, not your Uncle Sam's." Finally it'd put a whole lot of houses on the market under foreclosure, allowing people who have not lived in a financially suicidal way to buy some investment real estate and improve their lot in life, setting a fine example for all those asshats whining for D.C. to save their homes and showing them that with some fiscal restraint and some patience they too can partake in the American Dream.One thing though...if you do go into buying some foreclosed housing and start renting them out to the legions of suddenly houseless former home owners needing a place to stay, you might wanna do a background check and make sure they don't have a foreclosure on their record and consider not renting to them. I hear those kinds of folks don't like to pay their own bills.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)