See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

1. Noblesse Oblige » Friends of Fannie and Freddy
2. Are We Lumberjacks?
3. The good guys fight back « Right Minded Online
4. Webloggin » ObamaMac Truth Alert: McCain Ties Obama to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
5. Prove You’re Patriotic…Pay MORE Taxes? Joe, huh? « Mcnorman’s Weblog
6. Stuck On Stupid
7. Obama, McCain and Wall Street « Dianej’s Weblog
8. The Vast Global Zionist Conspiracy v 5.0
9. southchild » Blog Archive » Obama and Biden: Stark, Naked Socialists
10. Obama on the Economy: Present « The Dude’s Blog
11. McCain Slaps Obama on the Fannie | Faith and Facts
12. Noblesse Oblige » The Friends of Fannie and Freddy

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: « 1 [2]

101. #101
     On September 18th, 2008 at 4:49 pm, happyscrapper said:

     I heard something about the mortgage crisis being brought about partially because, in the Clinton administration, Mr. Black President kept pushing all those multicultural, affirmative action laws that forced many in the banking industry to give loans to minorities who didn’t qualify financially. They got a lot of breaks, but still were expected to pay up in the end. Well, the end came and they couldn’t pay. It is one thing to want good housing for everyone, but quite another to bankrupt your country with stupid business practices. I know there is more to it than that, but I believe that was part of it!

102. #102
     On September 18th, 2008 at 4:49 pm, flenser said:

     I’ll paste this here, for the benefit of those who can’t be bothered to read the main article.

     Now McCain wants to fire Chris Cox from the SEC specifically because Cox supposedly “allowed naked short-selling.” This is just the latest in a string of utterly panicky statements this week in which McCain has shown that he doesn’t have a clue what he is talking about. The truth is, Cox actually did move to ban naked short-selling, and withstood harsh (but wrongheaded) criticism from almost all quarters when he did so. His staff was working on regs — which takes some time — to make the ban permanent. He has been pushing since the first time I ever met him, in 1993, to curb outlandish short-selling. He was probably the single most avid person in all of Congress AGAINST aggressive short selling, and has tried ever since he got to the SEC to curb it. Blaming him for naked short selling is like blaming McCain for losing Vietnam…..

103. #103
     On September 18th, 2008 at 4:51 pm, AlohaGuy said:

     How come McCain doesn’t know who the Prime Minister of Spain?

     Who’s the President of Finland? These dopey questions are endless…

     More to the point from the London Times

     Fresh doubts over Barack Obama’s foreign policy credentials were expressed on both sides of the Atlantic …after it emerged that he had made only one brief official visit to London – and none elsewhere in Western Europe or Latin America.

     …
     …they underlined this message by pointing to reports showing that Mr Obama had failed to convene a single policy meeting of the Senate European subcommittee, of which he is chairman. There was also strikingly robust criticism from an independent Washington think-tank about a “disconcerting void” over transatlantic relations in Mr Obama’s foreign policy, as well as from a former British Minister for Europe.

104. #104
     On September 18th, 2008 at 4:59 pm, happyscrapper said:

     On September 18th, 2008 at 1:34 pm, Mookie said:
     John Ansell, hijacking the topic away from again? You are beginning to get annoying.
     I’m glad that someone keeps talking about McCain’s immigration stance since Michelle doesn’t anymore.

     Good grief! We are all too aware of how John McCain stands on illegal immigration. Just get off it, will you??? We’re not dummies, and we haven’t forgotten. The more important issue right now is to not allow a marxist to be elected to the most powerful office in the world. I can’t believe all the trolls who have hijacked our threads lately. I don’t mind an intelligent discussion, but this not not getting us anywhere and it is just plain dumb. Do you think that by bringing this up all the time, we will change our vote to Obama? We’re not crazy.

105. #105
     On September 18th, 2008 at 5:41 pm, Papa Louie said:

     On September 18th, 2008 at 4:46 pm, T-Bone said:
     If all the evil corporations were taken over and run by the Government, wouldn’t we have just 1 evil corporation that employs everybody?

     Yes. And that’s exactly what the Left wants - a nanny state where the government runs everything and where you have to ask permission to go potty. (An evironmental impact study might be required, as well.) That’s their idea of Utopia.

     When you look at all the countries, like North Korea, Cuba, China, etc., where the government runs everything, it makes you wonder why the Left would want a similar form of government.

     I think the answer lies in the distorted, narcissistic view they have of themselves. They actually believe that they will be the ones running this all-powerful government. They use class envy to obtain power, but they don’t really care about the little guy once they have it.

     Check the records and look at how little liberals give to charity. Biden gives less than .5% of his income to charity on average. Obama barely does any better, and his donations went to Rev. Wright. Is Chicago better off because of Obama? Only Obama’s rich friends are any better off. They don’t care about the poor; they use them. When the Left runs the government everyone will be equal, except SOME will be more equal than others.

     A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.
     — Thomas Jefferson

106. #106
     On September 18th, 2008 at 6:06 pm, T-Bone said:

     On September 18th, 2008 at 5:41 pm, Papa Louie said:
     I think the answer lies in the distorted, narcissistic view they have of themselves. They actually believe that they will be the ones running this all-powerful government. They use class envy to obtain power, but they don’t really care about the little guy once they have it.

     I guess jealousy, envy, & greed play into that as well. If I don’t have it, then I want it, and I’ll do whatever it takes to get it (outside of real work of course). But when I get it, I like it and theres always more to get.

     Money, power, prestige, respect, fame, material wealth.

     So I have to do something to keep it and I want to give back to those who were where I was. (this is the compassionate side of humanity)

     Until they try to take mine. Thats why I don’t actually give what I have. I try to get others to give by taxing them. Sure, I have to give a little too but since everyone chips in, I don’t have to give as much. But it’s like a Ponzi scheme where there is no real product or service being delivered. Just shifting funds.

     Then I notice that power is where the real wealth is. Power is what keeps me wealthy. Power is all consuming and I can never give it up. I then will use the little guy to keep me in power and throw some crumbs their way as a carrot. Power also gives me the big stick if they don’t comply which gives me even more power.

     Wow, now I’m really bummed. My power is weak. I should run for office. Lets see, Local club, City Council, Mayor, State Senator, Governor, VP, President, Emperor of the world!

     Nope, not enough energy. Guess I’ll just read blogs all day.

107. #107
     On September 18th, 2008 at 6:11 pm, Ron said:

     Hey, before you get behind Cox, the SEC chief, ask yourself if he’s really been trying to regulate for investors or the people he’s supposed to be regulating. When given the chance to increase oversight, he turned it down. Some of the practices on Wall Street are so far beyond common sense its ridiculous. Ever hear of “naked short selling”? Its a practice where someone sells a stock he doesn’t own and he hasn’t even borrowed with a promise to give it back later, after he’s reaped the profits from selling at today’s price and buying it back at tomorrow’s lower price (he hopes). To me that sounds like selling the Brooklyn Bridge without having the deed. That practice should be illegal everywhere, period. But not under Cox on Wall Street. He banned it for a list of 17 companies — including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, after the horse was out of the barn — but every other company’s stock was fair game. If conservative means no regulation, you have to have companies that do real self-policing and self-regulation, and which have some common, ordinary ethics. Not true on Wall Street today from the looks of it.

108. #108
     On September 18th, 2008 at 6:12 pm, MtsEdge said:

     How come McCain doesn’t know who the Prime Minister of Spain?

     Spain has a Prime Minister?

109. #109
     On September 18th, 2008 at 6:25 pm, Papa Louie said:

     Rev Wolf said:
     Hands off my naked short-selling. Just disband the SEC already.

     My hands aren’t going anywhere near your naked short-selling; however, I can’t vouch for Sen. Craig. But I was wondering, is there any other kind? I mean, if you sell your shorts, wouldn’t that leave you “naked”?

110. #110
     On September 18th, 2008 at 6:26 pm, MtsEdge said:

     Power is all consuming and I can never give it up. I then will use the little guy to keep me in power and throw some crumbs their way as a carrot.

     O/T, kinda reminds me of Oprah with her audience giveaways…couldn’t resist.

111. #111
     On September 18th, 2008 at 7:55 pm, shooter said:

     Ever hear of “naked short selling”? Its a practice where someone sells a stock he doesn’t own and he hasn’t even borrowed with a promise to give it back later, after he’s reaped the profits from selling at today’s price and buying it back at tomorrow’s lower price (he hopes).

     Not quite.
     Short selling is selling in hopes the stock will go down. You have to pay for it in x hours/days no matter if it goes up or down.
     Naked short selling IS ILLEGAL RIGHT NOW!

112. #112
     On September 18th, 2008 at 8:57 pm, Rob said:

     How come McCain doesn’t know who the Prime Minister of Spain?

     Maybe if Spain had a La Raza and was invading America, McAmnesty would drop his pants and bend over for them too!

113. #113
     On September 19th, 2008 at 9:43 am, TexasEngineer said:

     Nice column by Jonah Goldberg over at National Reveiew Online with a bit of “who’s to blame”. http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=M2QwNDhkZTg2OGYzZjkzM2E2NDEwM2U5OGVkNTc0YzU=

114. #114
     On September 19th, 2008 at 1:45 pm, cheapseat said:

     thirty years of a nearly tied republican and democrat government has assured both sides will take your tax money and bribe you with it to keep them in office. the socialists support government entities, and the republicans support their cronies in business. but in all cases, the taxpayer must pick up the tab. my grandson would like to thank these crooks for placing him into involuntary servitude.

115. #115
     On September 19th, 2008 at 1:53 pm, rpg1616 said:

     “We want to take money.”

     - Joe Biden

116. #116
     On September 19th, 2008 at 2:31 pm, RobM1981 said:

     I have no idea if Mr. Cox is Ronald Reagan Resurrected. I do know, however, that the mission of the SEC is:

     “The mission of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is to protect investors, maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets, and facilitate capital formation. ”

     If he’s the chairman of that Commission, why shouldn’t he be fired, again? Short selling doesn’t seem to be the crux of the problem, does it?

     Is Mr. Cox on the record as repeatedly warning Federal and State regulators that the junk mortgages they were floating were time bombs? If not… well, shouldn’t he have been? If not him, then who?

Comment pages: « 1 [2]