| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 2008/2/13-18 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:49131 Activity:moderate |
2/12 Why does Feinstein keep getting elected by California? She's like
our version of Lieberman.
http://tinyurl.com/34kexz
\_ Last chance to stop it:
link:secure.eff.org/site/Advocacy?id=363
\_ because the democrats are too wimpy to run anyone plausible against
her. She's a serious sell-out. -tom
\_ What has she sold out on?
\_ Follow the URL. OP: thanks for the link -- I was looking
for that info myself yesterday.
\_ Patriot Act. DMCA. Iraq. Mukasey. FISA. Death penalty.
Flag burning, for chrissakes. -tom
\_ Who is your ideal office holder? (Among all national level
elected figures).
\_ how is that relevant? DiFi is inches away from being
a neocon. -tom
\_ Shows how far left you are. Ask your NRA friends
what they think of Feinstein.
\_ It's "far left" to be against the Patriot Act,
DMCA, and FISA? -tom
DMCA, FISA, and the flag burning amendment? -tom
\_ I wouldn't call Feinstein "far left" but
she's certainly not "inches away from
being a neocon". She's not even close to
a moderate right winger let alone a neocon.
\_ So she has a few votes you don't like. What
about the rest of her zillion year voting
record? No politician is going to agree with
you 100%. What politician has a 100% record
with you?
\_ ...? If you have perhaps a half-dozen hot-
button issues, and she screws you over on
all six, the rest of her record becomes
increasingly irrelevant.
\_ Her voting against one's personal HB
issues doesn't make her a sell-out. I'd
still like to know the candidate anyone
here agrees with 100%.
\_ How would you define "sell-out"? -tom
\_ What candidate has a 100% track
record with you?
\_ Someone who mostly votes
against party lines and/or
constituents' desires. Since
Feinstein keeps getting
re-elected it looks like the
voters are happy with her
record. I am. Not everyone who
votes 'D' is as far left as you.
\_ What credible liberal candidate
has run against Feinstein?
The fact that she can beat
a tool like Michael Huffington
by less than 2% (failing to
even get a majority) is
hardly an endorsement. -tom
\_ Someone would run
against her if they
thought they would win.
\_ prove it. Party politicos
tend to smack down
serious challenges
from within the party.
-tom
\_ Not if there's a
person in office
they dislike and
who opposes their
ideals.
\_ Medea Benjamin?
\_ Har. Oh, and DiFi is
also from Stanford. -tom
\_ Who do you consider to
be a credible liberal?
\_ Isn't that a plus?
That she's smart?
\_ Who do you consider to
be a credible liberal?
\_ executive summary: she voted against removing telecom immunity
for illegal wiretapping from the FISA Amemdments bill passed
by the senate.
\_ so?
\_ http://www.csua.org/u/krr
Summary: very pro-choice and anti-gun, but other than that,
mostly a moderate. |
| 2008/2/13-14 [Uncategorized/Profanity] UID:49132 Activity:moderate |
2/12 Fuck you homeowners. And fuck Paulson. May you drown in your
irresponsible debt.
\_ What are you babbling about, young troll?
\_ At a guess, the 30 day reprieve. -!op
\_ Yes, the first bail out plan was bad enough. Moral Hazard. -op
\_ Probably the conforming limit boost?
\_ I was just listening to someone on the radio make an interesting
point. All these interest rate cuts and things are really for the
benefit of the banks who are in crappy financial situations due to
their own incompetence. The fed. reserve's primary duty is to keep
them afloat. It kinda makes sense when you consider the real effect
of interest rate cuts at this time, and who benefits the most, vs.
who gets hurt.
\_ The number of defaulting homeowners is trivial compared to the
number that took out normal loans they're paying every month. But
I guess that doesn't make for a good motd troll.
\_ Exactly. "It's not a big deal" in the macro sense. So why is the
goverment arranging special treatment for those who are defaulting? -op
goverment arranging special treatment for those who are
defaulting? -op
\_ Fear, and the desire to be seen to be "doing something". |
| 2008/2/13-14 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49133 Activity:high 75%like:49141 |
2/13 Mythbusting Canadian Health Care
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/mythbusting-canadian-health-care-part-i
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/mythbusting-canadian-healthcare-part-ii-debunking-free-marketeers
\_ Oh sure, you'd expect this from free-market deniers.
\_ Care to respond to the arguments or just blather
and set up strawmen?
\_ "1. Canada's health care system is "socialized medicine."
False. In socialized medical systems, the doctors work directly
for the state."
This is a joke. It's a semantic nit-pick.
This is a joke. It's a semantic nit-pick. (And goes downhill
from there.)
\_ All I can say is that I have one of the best PPOs money
can buy in the USA, and it SUCKS DONKEY BALLS. If
what Canada has is socialism, then bring on the
socialism. ok thx.
\_ Move to Canada then psb.
\_ That wasn't psb. --also not psb
\_ Maybe your PPO isn't as good as you think. My
current one sucks, but my previous one was awesome.
If yours sucks then it doesn't indict the entire
medical system.
\_ Move to Canada then.
\_ yeah, because who would want to do anything to
improve America? -tom
\_ I don't think it would be good for America, and
the arguments at the links above are specious. I
think the government needs to get *less* involved
in health care, not more. If you want Canada's
system, go to Canada.
\_ If the system changes and you don't like it,
where are you going to go? -tom
\_ Excellent non sequitur, sir!
\_ Mexico, where health care is cheap and
of high quality.
\_ Cuba!
\_ What exactly sucks about it? That it's not free?
\_ This is my favorite:
"We'll have rationed care
Don't look now: but America does ration care. And it does it in the
most capricious, draconian, and often dishonest way possible.
"Mostly, the US system rations care by simply eliminating large
numbers of people from the system due to an inability to pay."
Um, yes. That's called capitalism. This is saying, "socialized
health care would be better because socialism is better!"
-emarkp
\_ no, it's saying that capitalism rations care. -tom
\_ No, capitalism puts care on a market.
\_ and that's good because...?
\_ Because markets are a proven mechanism for optimizing
results and give you a choice of where and how to
spend your money. What's good about socialism? You
are trying to change the system so the onus is on
you.
\_ Evolution is also a proven mechanism for
optimizing results. Just let all the poor, dumb
people die, it's the natural order of things.
\_ Don't forget about the UNLUCKY. Evolution
doesn't care if it operates fairly. Fairness
is a human peculiarity.
\_ It is a fallacy that markets optimize results.
An obvious failure case in the health realm is that
markets don't provide universal vaccine, which
ends up being a larger public health cost than
vaccine would be. -tom
\_ I'm not saying everything should only be driven
purely by markets. So provide free vaccine. Next?
\_ Socialist.
\_ Exceptions don't mean it's a fallacy. "Commons"
concerns are a known area where markets alone
can't optimize the problem, because the costs
and benefits aren't easily quantified or owned.
Another example is stuff like national parks
and open space. The actual value of open space
to the society at large or in the area is hard
to accurately capture. I'm open to discussion
of what constitutes such cases but I don't see
convincing arguments with respect to health
care.
\_ Proven, you mean like how the markets put CAs
power out a few years back? And gave us M$ as a
monopoly product? No one seriously believes in
unregulated markets as a mechanism for optimizing
anything.
\_ No one seriously promotes unregulated markets,
dumbass. Power markets are a laughable example
however: regulations prevented investment in
more power infrastructure.
\_ Then if you agree we need to regulate markets
you are just arguing over how much "socialism"
we really need.
\_ Regulation (laws) is not socialism, dumbass.
\_ I'm confused. op posts article debunking
myths about Canada's healthcare system.
emarkp makes comparison to socialism.
criticisms of capitalism follow, then
praises of capitalism (by way of the
free market, i.e., competition), then
bad examples of said competition, then
qualifications based on possible limited
regulation, followed by ironic
invocation of "socialism," followed by
literal reference to socialism. At what
point does any of this point to the US
system somehow being better?
\_ Well, it's true but oddly twisted. All limited resources
must be rationed some how. I only know of 3 ways, money,
politics, and violence. The Free Market uses money for a
variety of good reasons, but sometimes it doesn't work.
However, we are so used to the free market that we only call
political rationing, rationing. It's just a matter of
common language use.
\_ No, it's saying "fears of rationing care are based on a
fictional lack of rationed care in the US."
\_ I love this argument:
- Universal health care is Socialism! Capitalism rox! F U TAXES!
- Our health care system sucks! We need Canada's system! OBAMA!! |
| 2008/2/13-18 [Recreation/Dating] UID:49134 Activity:nil |
2/13 wendy
http://sportsbybrooks.com/g/index.php?action=dosearch&tag=wendy4&os=2
\_ Those boobs are fake, right? Cute face, though. |
| 2008/2/13-18 [Finance/Banking, Reference/RealEstate] UID:49135 Activity:kinda low |
2/12 What is the profile of a person defaulting home loan? I mean,
are these type of people under-educated? Risk takers? High
school drop-outs who desperately want to own homes? And why
are they in certain areas (Inland Empire, etc)?
\_ They run the gamut. If the loan officers were all of a sudden willing to
give them a loan, even though they previously didn't qualify, and they
want a house, who are they to object. "I sign my name saying I'll pay it
back. But if they give me the money, that must mean I can pay it back.
Because otherwise the government would tell them not to give me the money."
\_ They run the gamut. If the loan officers were all of a sudden
willing to give them a loan, even though they previously didn't
qualify, and they want a house, who are they to object. "I sign my
name saying I'll pay it back. But if they give me the money, that
must mean I can pay it back. Because otherwise the government would
tell them not to give me the money."
\_ in another word people with lower than avg intelligence,
who mostly congregate in SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA like our dimwit
\_ There are fewer foreclosures in places like SF because
the market is stronger. That's all. Look at Sacramento
for NoCal "stupidity".
\_ SF markets did not go up as much as in LA, mostly because
people were not dumb enough to sign a bunch of loans they
couldn't afford, so the bubble wasn't as bad here. Only
in the NorCal burbs are people that stupid.
\_ Southern California style left wing is not
MAINSTREAM AMERICA.
\_ one oddity about california is foreclosure laws here make it hard for
the lender to persue assets beyond the property on which the loan
was taken out. This takes a most of the risk out of defaulting on
a loan for a 'underwater' property.
\_^left^right
\_ one oddity about california is foreclosure laws here make it hard
for the lender to persue assets beyond the property on which the
loan was taken out. This takes a most of the risk out of defaulting
on a loan for a 'underwater' property.
\_ unless you re-fi'd
\_ They are San Jose engineers making $100K+ with a $740K mortgage
\_ Yes, but being a state with trust deeds instead of mortgages
mitigates that somewhat, as it is much easier to foreclose
on a trust deed.
\_ They are San Jose engineers making $100K+ with a $740K mortgage now
who bought at $275K in 1995
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/12/business/12credit.html
\_ "... when he refinanced his home in Northern California to take
cash out to pay for his daughter's college tuition."
Yeah, blame it on the daughter. Stop playing good parent. Did
he pay $465K+ for his daughter's college tuition? There's
probably some European vacations and a BMW that he's not
mentioning.
\_ People have an amazing ability to rationalize away their
mistakes and put the blame on someone else. Too bad, they
lose a chance to learn something when they do that.
\_ I know someone who bought a house in Berkeley *knowing* she was
going to lose the house. 5 figure salary, really bad credit, not
a very convincing person. Didn't matter. They gave her a huge
loan knowing she couldn't pay it and she knew she couldn't. I just
don't understand.
\_ The market is broken because all parties involved are shielded
from the consequences of their behavior by the government.
\_ Tell that to JP Morgan and Citibank. The mortgage securitization
conduits did not look at the paper they were packaging. Greenspan
turned a blind eye, and did not enforce what little mortgage
underwriting regulation there is. Or use FedRes' considerable influence
to stop the BS.
\_ Tell that to JP Morgan and Citibank. The mortgage
securitization conduits did not look at the paper
they were packaging. Greenspan turned a blind eye,
and did not enforce what little mortgage underwriting
regulation there is. Or use FedRes' considerable
influence to stop the BS.
\_ So what are the consequences? I haven't paid much attention
honestly but I haven't heard of any high profile people
getting fired or anything.
\_ Oh Jees. Something like a dozen CEOs have lost their
jobs in the last six months. But no one in the White
House, it is a "responsibilty-free zone."
\_ you mean they they found an excuse to take their
golden parachute early. |
| 2008/2/13-14 [Uncategorized] UID:49136 Activity:nil |
2/12 So how many days until the motd is littered with Obama-Madrassa
trolls? |