Headline News 2012

by **dxmnkd316** » Tue 5/08/12 7:13 pm

The only people who seem to care about post counts are you guys. Who cares?

by **Tee09** » Tue 5/08/12 7:14 pm

dxmnkd316 wrote:
Tee09 wrote:I click on this thread expecting to read about Headline News. Jeez.

Seriously?

What do you think?

by **dxmnkd316** » Tue 5/08/12 7:16 pm

Tee09 wrote:
dxmnkd316 wrote:
Tee09 wrote:I click on this thread expecting to read about Headline News. Jeez.

Seriously?

What do you think?

I think a lot of things

by **Orion** » Tue 5/08/12 7:17 pm

by **dxmnkd316** » Tue 5/08/12 7:20 pm

I don't live under the delusion that anyone cares about any of my posts.

by **Armadillo** » Tue 5/08/12 7:22 pm

streakygopher wrote:Well, they don't call him the post virgin.

At this rate, he'll soon be the post "ten-for-a-nickel" guy.

by **gopher6** » Wed 5/09/12 9:04 am

Korean war vet shoots crook breaking into his house
http://kstp.com/news/stories/S2612093.shtml?cat=1 :shoot1:

by **SouthTexGopher** » Wed 5/09/12 9:15 am

gopher6 wrote:Korean war vet shoots crook breaking into his house
http://kstp.com/news/stories/S2612093.shtml?cat=1

I love stories like this. :dup:

Here's the local coverage of that story: Link

According to police, Raymond Hills, 25, fled from the Elizabeth Township home just after 4:30 a.m. when 84-year-old Fred Ricciutti shot him with the German Luger he used in the Korean War.

"I said 'Halt, who's there?'" said Ricciutti. "I'm thinking, friend or foe, he shouldn't be there that time of day."

Ricciutti said he was awoken when he heard Hiles breaking in through an unlocked kitchen window. When he confronted the intruder standing in his doorway, Ricciutti fired.

by **team22tank** » Wed 5/09/12 9:17 am

SouthTexGopher wrote:
gopher6 wrote:Korean war vet shoots crook breaking into his house
http://kstp.com/news/stories/S2612093.shtml?cat=1

I love stories like this.

Here's the local coverage of that story: Link

According to police, Raymond Hills, 25, fled from the Elizabeth Township home just after 4:30 a.m. when 84-year-old Fred Ricciutti shot him with the German Luger he used in the Korean War.

"I said 'Halt, who's there?'" said Ricciutti. "I'm thinking, friend or foe, he shouldn't be there that time of day."

Ricciutti said he was awoken when he heard Hiles breaking in through an unlocked kitchen window. When he confronted the intruder standing in his doorway, Ricciutti fired.

I like the using of the word "Halt!"

by **Kelly Red** » Wed 5/09/12 1:43 pm

Kelly Red wrote:Holy smokes, that's one pissed off girlfriend!

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/dentist-pulls-her-ex-boyfriend-teeth-split-210829769.html

Turns out this whole story was a fake :ddown:

IT was pretty weird.

by **Handyman** » Wed 5/09/12 2:18 pm

Well this should lead to the thread being locked but:

Obama to Endorse Marriage Equality

by **Tee09** » Wed 5/09/12 2:35 pm

Here's a guy claiming the record for tallest wave ever surfed. 78' high.

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012/05/ ... er-surfed/

by **SouthTexGopher** » Wed 5/09/12 2:39 pm

Handyman wrote:Well this should lead to the thread being locked but:

Obama to Endorse Marriage Equality

To be fair, there are about 10,000 other less partisan sources you could have cited. LinkMania

Communist. :wink:

by **Chris Eckes** » Wed 5/09/12 2:44 pm

Wow. Obama taking such a firm stance is really risky politically. Personally I think it is a wonderful first step, but I would be lying if I didn't say I was very surprised to see that headline today. You don't see a politician taking a firm stance on basically ANYTHING now, especially something so divisive.

by **team22tank** » Wed 5/09/12 2:50 pm

I'm curious why the State is in the business of issuing marriage licenses period?

by **Chris Eckes** » Wed 5/09/12 2:58 pm

I agree with T22T. It's been my view for a long time that the state should only issue "Civil Unions" no matter whether the couple be same-sex or heterosexual. Since "marriage" is a religious term, let the individual churches decide. Seems like the least messy way to afford everyone the same rights under the law while still keeping religious institutions' freedom to "marry" whomever they view as okay to marry.

by **bonesaw** » Wed 5/09/12 3:05 pm

The X Factor wrote:Wow. Obama taking such a firm stance is really risky politically. Personally I think it is a wonderful first step, but I would be lying if I didn't say I was very surprised to see that headline today. You don't see a politician taking a firm stance on basically ANYTHING now, especially something so divisive.

I'm not terribly surprised it happened, although perhaps not this soon--I was expecting this to come near the beginning of the 2nd term if he gets reelected. It was pretty clear that the administration was testing the waters earlier this week with Biden voicing his support--there's no way the VP makes that clear of a statement in such a public interview without specific direction from his boss.

by **Tee09** » Wed 5/09/12 3:18 pm

The X Factor wrote:Wow. Obama taking such a firm stance is really risky politically. Personally I think it is a wonderful first step, but I would be lying if I didn't say I was very surprised to see that headline today. You don't see a politician taking a firm stance on basically ANYTHING now, especially something so divisive.

Would you consider it a "gutsy call"?

by **Tee09** » Wed 5/09/12 3:27 pm

bonesaw wrote:
The X Factor wrote:Wow. Obama taking such a firm stance is really risky politically. Personally I think it is a wonderful first step, but I would be lying if I didn't say I was very surprised to see that headline today. You don't see a politician taking a firm stance on basically ANYTHING now, especially something so divisive.

I'm not terribly surprised it happened, although perhaps not this soon--I was expecting this to come near the beginning of the 2nd term if he gets reelected. It was pretty clear that the administration was testing the waters earlier this week with Biden voicing his support--there's no way the VP makes that clear of a statement in such a public interview without specific direction from his boss.

His true views on the subject have been pretty clear for a long time. It was just politically inconvenient to be honest about it during the presidential election. Politicians will be politicians.

by **streakygopher** » Wed 5/09/12 3:54 pm

Tee09 wrote:
bonesaw wrote:
The X Factor wrote:Wow. Obama taking such a firm stance is really risky politically. Personally I think it is a wonderful first step, but I would be lying if I didn't say I was very surprised to see that headline today. You don't see a politician taking a firm stance on basically ANYTHING now, especially something so divisive.

I'm not terribly surprised it happened, although perhaps not this soon--I was expecting this to come near the beginning of the 2nd term if he gets reelected. It was pretty clear that the administration was testing the waters earlier this week with Biden voicing his support--there's no way the VP makes that clear of a statement in such a public interview without specific direction from his boss.

His true views on the subject have been pretty clear for a long time. It was just politically inconvenient to be honest about it during the presidential election. Politicians will be politicians.

He's not going to get the old testament votes anyway. He's got his political sniffer in the air and it's telling him it's time to roll it out. It's not like it hasn't been coming for a long time. Changing his views on things isn't new. Prior to the election, he decried the Patriot Act and the "Bush" tax cuts, too...then rubber stamped them both.

by **streakygopher** » Wed 5/09/12 3:59 pm

Danny Zuko, say it isn't so....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/08/john-travolta-lawsuit-masseur-sexual-battery-harassment_n_1500681.html?ref=mostpopular

by **thinkbui** » Wed 5/09/12 4:32 pm

streakygopher wrote:
Tee09 wrote:
bonesaw wrote:
The X Factor wrote:Wow. Obama taking such a firm stance is really risky politically. Personally I think it is a wonderful first step, but I would be lying if I didn't say I was very surprised to see that headline today. You don't see a politician taking a firm stance on basically ANYTHING now, especially something so divisive.

I'm not terribly surprised it happened, although perhaps not this soon--I was expecting this to come near the beginning of the 2nd term if he gets reelected. It was pretty clear that the administration was testing the waters earlier this week with Biden voicing his support--there's no way the VP makes that clear of a statement in such a public interview without specific direction from his boss.

His true views on the subject have been pretty clear for a long time. It was just politically inconvenient to be honest about it during the presidential election. Politicians will be politicians.

He's not going to get the old testament votes anyway. He's got his political sniffer in the air and it's telling him it's time to roll it out. It's not like it hasn't been coming for a long time. Changing his views on things isn't new. Prior to the election, he decried the Patriot Act and the "Bush" tax cuts, too...then rubber stamped them both.

Well it would depend on how fired up the marriage traditionalists get since, like every other group, not all of them come out to vote every election.

In the end I don't think this will affect the election any more than the killing of Bin Laden will. Obama defined his presidency on getting Americans back to work, so his reelection will depend on how happy voters are with how that's going. Anything else I'm expecting just to affect the spread.

by **Armadillo** » Wed 5/09/12 4:43 pm

The X Factor wrote:I agree with T22T. It's been my view for a long time that the state should only issue "Civil Unions" no matter whether the couple be same-sex or heterosexual. Since "marriage" is a religious term, let the individual churches decide. Seems like the least messy way to afford everyone the same rights under the law while still keeping religious institutions' freedom to "marry" whomever they view as okay to marry.

I agree with X Factor.

by **5 O.T.** » Wed 5/09/12 5:18 pm

Tee09 wrote:
bonesaw wrote:
The X Factor wrote:Wow. Obama taking such a firm stance is really risky politically. Personally I think it is a wonderful first step, but I would be lying if I didn't say I was very surprised to see that headline today. You don't see a politician taking a firm stance on basically ANYTHING now, especially something so divisive.

I'm not terribly surprised it happened, although perhaps not this soon--I was expecting this to come near the beginning of the 2nd term if he gets reelected. It was pretty clear that the administration was testing the waters earlier this week with Biden voicing his support--there's no way the VP makes that clear of a statement in such a public interview without specific direction from his boss.

His true views on the subject have been pretty clear for a long time. It was just politically inconvenient to be honest about it during the presidential election. Politicians will be politicians.

He's been "evolving" for a long time....who knew?

by **streakygopher** » Wed 5/09/12 5:22 pm

5 O.T. wrote:
Tee09 wrote:
bonesaw wrote:
The X Factor wrote:Wow. Obama taking such a firm stance is really risky politically. Personally I think it is a wonderful first step, but I would be lying if I didn't say I was very surprised to see that headline today. You don't see a politician taking a firm stance on basically ANYTHING now, especially something so divisive.

I'm not terribly surprised it happened, although perhaps not this soon--I was expecting this to come near the beginning of the 2nd term if he gets reelected. It was pretty clear that the administration was testing the waters earlier this week with Biden voicing his support--there's no way the VP makes that clear of a statement in such a public interview without specific direction from his boss.

His true views on the subject have been pretty clear for a long time. It was just politically inconvenient to be honest about it during the presidential election. Politicians will be politicians.

He's been "evolving" for a long time....who knew?

Okay, in the spirit of a Jay Leno gag, that

pokes fun at all sides, that was pretty funny

by **fake shemp** » Wed 5/09/12 5:27 pm

streakygopher wrote:
5 O.T. wrote:
Tee09 wrote:
bonesaw wrote:
The X Factor wrote:Wow. Obama taking such a firm stance is really risky politically. Personally I think it is a wonderful first step, but I would be lying if I didn't say I was very surprised to see that headline today. You don't see a politician taking a firm stance on basically ANYTHING now, especially something so divisive.

I'm not terribly surprised it happened, although perhaps not this soon--I was expecting this to come near the beginning of the 2nd term if he gets reelected. It was pretty clear that the administration was testing the waters earlier this week with Biden voicing his support--there's no way the VP makes that clear of a statement in such a public interview without specific direction from his boss.

His true views on the subject have been pretty clear for a long time. It was just politically inconvenient to be honest about it during the presidential election. Politicians will be politicians.

He's been "evolving" for a long time....who knew?

Okay, in the spirit of a Jay Leno gag, that pokes fun at all sides, that was pretty funny

I would say more like frickin' hilarious! :biggrin2:

Not that there's anything wrong with it, no not at all.

by **Kelor** » Wed 5/09/12 8:28 pm

team22tank wrote:I'm curious why the State is in the business of issuing marriage licenses period?

The same reason they issue most licenses. To generate another tax without calling it a tax.

by **Norm** » Wed 5/09/12 9:08 pm

streakygopher wrote:Danny Zuko, say it isn't so....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/08/john-travolta-lawsuit-masseur-sexual-battery-harassment_n_1500681.html?ref=mostpopular

Not too surprising after the scene in Saturday Night Fever where he's standing in front of a mirror in his black underwear, combing his hair and admiring himself. Gave me the creeps.

by **davescharf** » Wed 5/09/12 10:31 pm

team22tank wrote:
SouthTexGopher wrote:
gopher6 wrote:Korean war vet shoots crook breaking into his house
http://kstp.com/news/stories/S2612093.shtml?cat=1

I love stories like this.

Here's the local coverage of that story: Link

According to police, Raymond Hills, 25, fled from the Elizabeth Township home just after 4:30 a.m. when 84-year-old Fred Ricciutti shot him with the German Luger he used in the Korean War.

"I said 'Halt, who's there?'" said Ricciutti. "I'm thinking, friend or foe, he shouldn't be there that time of day."

Ricciutti said he was awoken when he heard Hiles breaking in through an unlocked kitchen window. When he confronted the intruder standing in his doorway, Ricciutti fired.

I like the using of the word "Halt!"

Given the 20th year anniversary of Wolfenstein 3D, "Halt, Gestapo" would have been an even better play.

by **rowshkex** » Wed 5/09/12 10:39 pm

"U, Fairview to build $182 million clinic near campus"

http://www.startribune.com/local/150870185.html

Damn you all, medical gods! Build it by 2014 so I can use it...

by **Chris Eckes** » Thu 5/10/12 8:59 am

Armadillo wrote:
The X Factor wrote:I agree with T22T. It's been my view for a long time that the state should only issue "Civil Unions" no matter whether the couple be same-sex or heterosexual. Since "marriage" is a religious term, let the individual churches decide. Seems like the least messy way to afford everyone the same rights under the law while still keeping religious institutions' freedom to "marry" whomever they view as okay to marry.

I agree with X Factor.

by **gopher6** » Thu 5/10/12 11:41 am

this Russian jet slammed into a Volcano :ahhh:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/10/world/asi ... ?hpt=hp_t2

by **Tee09** » Thu 5/10/12 7:40 pm

Well done, Seattle Times. Well done, indeed.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/seattle- ... an-repeal/

by **Chris83** » Thu 5/10/12 7:50 pm

Tee09 wrote:Well done, Seattle Times. Well done, indeed.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/seattle- ... an-repeal/

by **dxmnkd316** » Thu 5/10/12 8:50 pm

Oh. My. God.

If that's intentional, that's brilliant.

by **thinkbui** » Thu 5/10/12 9:58 pm

Tee09 wrote:Well done, Seattle Times. Well done, indeed.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/seattle- ... an-repeal/

I'm posting that on Facebook. :lol:

by **The Rube** » Thu 5/10/12 10:13 pm

I like the pic that's going around:

North Carolina: where you can marry your cousin, but you can't marry your GAY cousin.

by **davescharf** » Thu 5/10/12 10:18 pm

thinkbui wrote:
Tee09 wrote:Well done, Seattle Times. Well done, indeed.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/seattle- ... an-repeal/

I'm posting that on Facebook.

How in the world can the NY papers top that? Brilliant

by **Snowcool08** » Thu 5/10/12 10:37 pm

TIME magazine's cover for this week's edition:

by **The Rube** » Thu 5/10/12 10:39 pm

Not sure what to think of it. On one hand, it seems tabloid-ish, but on the other hand, it's Time, so one may view it in a different light.

What WOULD happen if someone like the National Enquirer ran this cover?

by **Slap Shot** » Thu 5/10/12 10:40 pm

Snowcool08 wrote:TIME magazine's cover for this week's edition:

Double-u tee eff

by **davescharf** » Thu 5/10/12 10:48 pm

Banks still looking for ways to game the system

Http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/201 ... phole.html

by **team22tank** » Fri 5/11/12 12:59 pm

I feel more safe with these regulations...

http://www.naturalnews.com/035826_Minne ... _moms.html

by **Tee09** » Fri 5/11/12 1:01 pm

The Rube wrote:Not sure what to think of it. On one hand, it seems tabloid-ish, but on the other hand, it's Time, so one may view it in a different light.

What WOULD happen if someone like the National Enquirer ran this cover?

The only difference is Time thinks they are a legit magazine while the Enquirer is honest with themselves.

by **team22tank** » Fri 5/11/12 1:03 pm

Tee09 wrote:
The Rube wrote:Not sure what to think of it. On one hand, it seems tabloid-ish, but on the other hand, it's Time, so one may view it in a different light.

What WOULD happen if someone like the National Enquirer ran this cover?

The only difference is Time thinks they are a legit magazine while the Enquirer is honest with themselves.

Good point.

by **rowshkex** » Fri 5/11/12 1:08 pm

"F.D.A. Advisory Panel Backs Preventive Use of H.I.V. Drug"
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/11/healt ... ref=health

Amazing news in the health world.

by **thinkbui** » Fri 5/11/12 1:19 pm

rowshkex wrote:"F.D.A. Advisory Panel Backs Preventive Use of H.I.V. Drug"
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/11/healt ... ref=health

Amazing news in the health world.

Indeed it is. Hopefully using this drug in preventive care is one of the major breaks we need in the global battle against AIDS.

by **Zwak** » Fri 5/11/12 1:50 pm

Boys basebal team forfeits final game rather than play a team that has a girl that plays second base.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/11/ba ... ?hpt=hp_t2

by **team22tank** » Fri 5/11/12 2:05 pm

Zwak wrote:Boys basebal team forfeits final game rather than play a team that has a girl that plays second base.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/11/ba ... ?hpt=hp_t2

"Lady of Sorrows Academy" oh the irony they have a girls name :lol:

There's a very good joke here about the church but I am going to leave it alone.

by **Beauner** » Fri 5/11/12 3:42 pm

Zwak wrote:Boys basebal team forfeits final game rather than play a team that has a girl that plays second base.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/11/ba ... ?hpt=hp_t2

If only the teams the Twins played against had the same approach with the girl we have playing catcher! :biggrin2:

by **Armadillo** » Fri 5/11/12 3:45 pm

Beauner wrote:
Zwak wrote:Boys basebal team forfeits final game rather than play a team that has a girl that plays second base.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/11/ba ... ?hpt=hp_t2

If only the teams the Twins played against had the same approach with the girl we have playing catcher!

by **Don Adams Wheel of Justice** » Fri 5/11/12 3:48 pm

Tee09 wrote:
The Rube wrote:Not sure what to think of it. On one hand, it seems tabloid-ish, but on the other hand, it's Time, so one may view it in a different light.

What WOULD happen if someone like the National Enquirer ran this cover?

The only difference is Time thinks they are a legit magazine while the Enquirer is honest with themselves.

What I can write with 99% certainty is this mother is a giant pain in the ass. I feel sorry for her husband.

by **Armadillo** » Fri 5/11/12 3:52 pm

So everybody's familiar with the double agent operation that foiled the al Qaeda underwear plot part 2, correct?

Apparently not everybody's happy with us.

by **5 O.T.** » Fri 5/11/12 5:02 pm

Armadillo wrote:So everybody's familiar with the double agent operation that foiled the al Qaeda underwear plot part 2, correct?

Apparently not everybody's happy with us.

Spiking the football, so classy. :ddown:

by **Kelor** » Sat 5/12/12 4:07 pm

6 generations - all living

http://laughingsquid.com/six-living-gen ... 111-years/

I'm thinking the 7th generation might be a stretch.

by **Kelor** » Sat 5/12/12 4:12 pm

Jacksonville woman given 20 years for firing a warning shot towards abusive husband.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/11/justice/f ... index.html

This is the same prosecuting attorney in the Zimmerman case.

by **Kelor** » Sun 5/13/12 11:04 am

Meanwhile, as every news station is clambering for more government regulations due to JP Morgan losing 2% on a $100 billion dollar investment, California's deficit has jumped by $7 billion in 4 months to a projected $16 billion.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/ ... 0D20120513

Meet the Press had this to say:

by **GrandForksGopher** » Sun 5/13/12 11:51 am

Apparently not everyone is fond of Euro 2012 in Europe.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/to ... 012-830460

by **Slap Shot** » Sun 5/13/12 1:17 pm

Kelor wrote:Meanwhile, as every news station is clambering for more government regulations due to JP Morgan losing 2% on a $100 billion dollar investment, California's deficit has jumped by $7 billion in 4 months to a projected $16 billion.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/ ... 0D20120513

Right.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a-palermo/jp-morgan_b_1512805.html

Any setback to the policy-making elite's long-term project of pauperizing the working class in this country is a good thing. Jamie Dimon's $2 billion comeuppance is already sparking a renewed effort to impose a tougher version of the Volcker Rule that would at least ban the kind of proprietary trading in derivatives that caused JP Morgan's recent multi-billion dollar losses. The shattering of this latest Wall Street Ponzi scheme is a good thing because it shifts the optics and forces a conversation about greater federal oversight.

Dimon's new predicament points to the absurdly inflated derivatives "market," which according to some accounts, has swollen to a notional value of $600 trillion (or even $1.2 quadrillion!). What do figures like these even mean? Are we supposed to wait around for the next catastrophic financial meltdown in the hope that we can then elect people with the guts to stand up to people like Dimon?

The potential world-wide economic failure due to derivatives dwarfs what could result from CA's problems. Not saying in the least that what is going on in CA should be ignored, but only a head in the sand could conjure up such a lobsided reality in reverse.

by **Kelor** » Sun 5/13/12 2:49 pm

GrandForksGopher wrote:Apparently not everyone is fond of Euro 2012 in Europe.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/to ... 012-830460

Yulia, who staged the protest on her 23rd birthday, will appear in court tomorrow charged with hooliganism.

Charged with Hooliganism :mrgreen:

by **Armadillo** » Sun 5/13/12 7:37 pm

GrandForksGopher wrote:Apparently not everyone is fond of Euro 2012 in Europe.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/to ... 012-830460

So the hypothesis is that staging a major tournament in Ukraine will bring sex tourists to the country.

Because of this, you attack a trophy.

You may want to readjust your sights, young lady. You just shot a nun.

by **Armadillo** » Mon 5/14/12 12:41 am

Donald "Duck" Dunn, most famously known as the bassist for Booker T. & the MGs and The Blues Brothers, dies in Tokyo at age 70.

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/music-arts/bassist-donald-duck-dunn-dead-70-article-1.1077320

by **Handyman** » Mon 5/14/12 9:29 am

Slap Shot wrote:
Kelor wrote:Meanwhile, as every news station is clambering for more government regulations due to JP Morgan losing 2% on a $100 billion dollar investment, California's deficit has jumped by $7 billion in 4 months to a projected $16 billion.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/ ... 0D20120513

Right.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a-palermo/jp-morgan_b_1512805.html

Any setback to the policy-making elite's long-term project of pauperizing the working class in this country is a good thing. Jamie Dimon's $2 billion comeuppance is already sparking a renewed effort to impose a tougher version of the Volcker Rule that would at least ban the kind of proprietary trading in derivatives that caused JP Morgan's recent multi-billion dollar losses. The shattering of this latest Wall Street Ponzi scheme is a good thing because it shifts the optics and forces a conversation about greater federal oversight.

Dimon's new predicament points to the absurdly inflated derivatives "market," which according to some accounts, has swollen to a notional value of $600 trillion (or even $1.2 quadrillion!). What do figures like these even mean? Are we supposed to wait around for the next catastrophic financial meltdown in the hope that we can then elect people with the guts to stand up to people like Dimon?

The potential world-wide economic failure due to derivatives dwarfs what could result from CA's problems. Not saying in the least that what is going on in CA should be ignored, but only a head in the sand could conjure up such a lobsided reality in reverse.

Hey man, regulation is bad. We should just get rid of it or relax it...I mean that worked so well the last time

by **Chris Eckes** » Mon 5/14/12 9:36 am

Armadillo wrote:Donald "Duck" Dunn, most famously known as the bassist for Booker T. & the MGs and The Blues Brothers, dies in Tokyo at age 70.

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/music-arts/bassist-donald-duck-dunn-dead-70-article-1.1077320

Sad news indeed. I'll watch Blues Brothers (BRILLIANT movie with really good music, if you've been living under a rock and haven't seen it you should do so) in his honor.

by **Tee09** » Mon 5/14/12 10:26 am

Handyman wrote:Hey man, regulation is bad. We should just get rid of it or relax it...I mean that worked so well the last time

Do you honestly think a lack of regulations was the root of the problem?

Sad to hear about Donald "Duck" Dunn though. Good bassists are hard to come by and never appreciated as much as they should be.

by **Chris Eckes** » Mon 5/14/12 11:35 am

Tee09 wrote:
Handyman wrote:Hey man, regulation is bad. We should just get rid of it or relax it...I mean that worked so well the last time

Do you honestly think a lack of regulations was the root of the problem?

I do.

by **Tee09** » Mon 5/14/12 12:09 pm

The X Factor wrote:
Tee09 wrote:
Handyman wrote:Hey man, regulation is bad. We should just get rid of it or relax it...I mean that worked so well the last time

Do you honestly think a lack of regulations was the root of the problem?

I do.

The root of the problem was that the same genius regulators you are putting your faith in decided they knew better than lenders. If you want to go after people for fraudulently selling packages of bad loans to people, we already had laws for that. By all means, enforce them. The bigger problem was that idiotic loans were made because of the actions of regulators. All other problems stem from that.

by **Handyman** » Mon 5/14/12 12:30 pm

Everything was the problem, because Clinton deregulated the banking industry and Dubya/Obama had morons in charge. You think too small. The cronyism that goes on was also a major issue. Allowing Goldman Sachs guys like Paulson and Geitner to be in power is like letting the wolf watch the henhouse. Everyone was getting rich so no one was caring how and even if they did know they didnt have the power to stop it.

If you think less regulation is going to help I got ocean front property in Grand Forks to sell you...cheap.

by **team22tank** » Mon 5/14/12 12:38 pm

Tee09 wrote:
The X Factor wrote:
Tee09 wrote:
Handyman wrote:Hey man, regulation is bad. We should just get rid of it or relax it...I mean that worked so well the last time

Do you honestly think a lack of regulations was the root of the problem?

I do.

The root of the problem was that the same genius regulators you are putting your faith in decided they knew better than lenders. If you want to go after people for fraudulently selling packages of bad loans to people, we already had laws for that. By all means, enforce them. The bigger problem was that idiotic loans were made because of the actions of regulators. All other problems stem from that.

Yup we need a lot more regulation :ddown:

; gov't officials acting in collusion with their favored business interests to create policies that give those interests a monopoly position to the disadvantage of both competitors and consumers.

Where are all the neighborhood banks that use to exist?

The biggest regulation was removed and that was responsibility.

by **team22tank** » Mon 5/14/12 12:41 pm

Handyman wrote:Everything was the problem, because Clinton deregulated the banking industry and Dubya/Obama had morons in charge. You think too small. The cronyism that goes on was also a major issue. Allowing Goldman Sachs guys like Paulson and Geitner to be in power is like letting the wolf watch the henhouse. Everyone was getting rich so no one was caring how and even if they did know they didnt have the power to stop it.

If you think less regulation is going to help I got ocean front property in Grand Forks to sell you...cheap.

Handy so much of your post makes sense but who the hell writes the regs? Who lobbies for the regs? The huge corps buy these politicians for a reason.

by **Handyman** » Mon 5/14/12 12:41 pm

So we should have less regulation and let greed run amok...awesome see you at the next crash! I cant wait to by GE and Ford at $6 a share!! :dup:

by **team22tank** » Mon 5/14/12 12:44 pm

Handyman wrote:So we should have less regulation and let greed run amok...awesome see you at the next crash! I cant wait to by GE and Ford at $6 a share!!

Lobbyist create the regulation and they get it through because they have the $ and they have already bought the politicians. Where do so many politicians go to work after their political career or vice versa? More regulation will not represent you or I but we'll be on the hook when the next bubble burst.

You don't think greed is running amok already? Greed runs amok because it is allowed to. There is no more competition the big banks and corps have all the $ and power, they created the regulations and they don't mind them because they have huge legal teams to deal with it all.

by **Handyman** » Mon 5/14/12 12:51 pm

team22tank wrote:
Handy so much of your post makes sense but who the hell writes the regs? Who lobbies for the regs? The huge corps buy these politicians for a reason.

Yeah so what is the solution...if you deregulate it isnt going to be any better. What the big banks did leading up to the crash in '08 will be like a no pads scrimmage compared to the butthurt they will put on the economy this time. There wont be any holding back because there will be nothing to stop it. JPMorgan, Goldman and all the rest will just blow all our money and laugh while they do it.

Ya know if you ever see the movie "Too Big To Fail" there is a point early on where Paulson goes to China and is talking to some government official. The chinese and the Russians had billions invested in Fannie and Freddie and were worried because the stock was falling. (as was Bear Stearns which fell off the cliff) The Chinese official intimated that the Russians wanted to sell off their shares (along with the Chinese) which would have pretty much crashed everything. There never would have been the government takeover of Fannie and Freddie, they both would have crashed like Lehman overnight and the markets would have shut down for the most part. That is how close we got to annihilating the world economy, the Chinese saying 'No" to the Russians. (if you believe the story which I do)

by **5 O.T.** » Mon 5/14/12 12:52 pm

Didn't see that one coming.... :roll:

So how soon does he make the official announcement?

by **greydogg** » Mon 5/14/12 1:32 pm

Who is online