Racist Rush Limbaugh Says New Oreo Cookies Are “Biracial”, Will Be Called “Or-Bam-eo”
Tweet
No, he’s not racist. Just when he’s a racist.
99 Responses to “Racist Rush Limbaugh Says New Oreo Cookies Are “Biracial”, Will Be Called “Or-Bam-eo””
Journalist Marie Colvin Killed In Syria
Obama To Congress: Drop Corporate Tax Rate By 7%
Meet Rebecca Williams, The FBI’s Stripper Turned “Trailer Park Mata Hari”
VA Gov. McDonnell Backs Off Support Of Forced Vaginal Probe Law
Santorum A Birther? Got Briefing From Conspiracy Sheriff Arpaio
Billionaire Sheldon Adelson Adds $26 Billion To Fortune Under Obama, Complains Of Socialism
Kardashian – Endorsed QuickTrim Diet Pill May Face Class Action Lawsuit
Virginia Still Within Reach For Obama
Porn Displayed On Best Buy TVs Via Wifi
Latest Entries
VIDEO: Who Doesn’t Need A Gun That Can Take Out A Helicopter?
The Tea Party Loves Socialism, Fakes Otherwise
Conservatives Dead Set On Repeating 2004
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Maybe now would be a good time for some wingnut to step in with some kind of: “RAAAAACIST!!! OMFG!!!!” comment which in their mind, will magically vindicate the leader of the wingnuts from any personal responsibility, and confirm that racism is a liberal thing?
They’re probably sleeping off their hangovers right now, they’ll be along later with some mention of Robert Byrd or some other look over there.
If Limpballs gets called on his comment, the standard reply is “I was just making a joke.”
Republicans + comedy = oil + water
It’s too bad we don’t have Stalker Dennis around any longer, since I’m sure he’d be game to post 75% of the comments in this thread explaining how this fat, drug-addicted piece of shit isn’t really racist at all.
Gotta keep those ratings up.
He certainly knows his base.
I think his apologists actually have no doubt he’s racist, they defend him anyway, “just to piss liberals off”. It helps me to understand the irrationality better than just believing them to be unimaginably stupid or in Marianas trench-deep denial.
He’s racist to uptight race-obsessed kooks and to leftists that try to diminish him. Michael Steel and black conservatives are routinely called oreos and other such insults. Get the fuck over it.
Other than that, LOL.
And I would vote for a racist capitalist over an incompetent racist socialst any day of the week.
Thank you for proving my point.
He’s racist to uptight race-obsessed kooks and to leftists that try to diminish him.
Nah, anyone who thinks that someone who uses the term “anal poisoning” is a serious political commentator is diminished already
Michael Steel and black conservatives are routinely called oreos and other such insults.
Actually, Michael Steele was lying about oreos being thrown at him, but nice try, nanophallus:
http://www2.citypaper.com/news/story.asp?id=11150
BTW, are you talking about Michael Steele, the former head of the RNC, or Michael Steel, spokesperson for Boehner?
You’ve lost your way, moonbat.
/fixed
Nice “Look over there!”, SF, but not in accordance with reality:
I guess that arrest puts another hole in your theory, SF?
Or is that how you think people should treat a Congressman in America, by spitting on them?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/20/tea-party-protests-nier-f_n_507116.html
Doofus.
Republicans are literally impervious to facts, aren’t they?
Thanks for proving my point!
As per the arrest and subsequent release, Cleaver didn’t want to press charges, eh? I remember the last Congressman who, after an alleged crime was commited against them, refused to press charges… It’s almost as if they DON’T WANT to uncover the truth…
SF is living proof of the crippling effects of that most insidious of ailments, Anal poisoning
As per the arrest and subsequent release, Cleaver didn’t want to press charges, eh?
The Capitol cops had enough probable cause to arrest someone, whether or not he did anything wrong won’t be known, presumably because the Congressman didn’t want to stoop to the level of a spitter by dragging them into court, or the cops are in on it with Cleaver.
I know, I know, this is just proof of how Democrats use race-bating to force Tea Partiers to carry signs with Obama as a witch-doctor, they’re the real racists.
At least this guy had the good grace to resign right away, that’s what you expect from someone who demonstrates such good “Family Values”.
BTW, if you want to talk about a real, current scandal………….
Doofus.
I see that the IQ level of the Left is keeping pace with Obama’s falling approval numbers.
Let’s recall that “oreo” is a derogatory, racist term pioneered and used exclusively by the Left to refer to those people who, despite the dark color of their skin, refuse to think and behave in the way that the Left believes they should, hence the accusation that they are “white” on the inside.
So Rush making fun of a derogatory, racist Leftist code word proves, just PROVES that he is a racist.
Apparently, you all really are that stupid.
Let’s recall that “oreo” is a derogatory, racist term pioneered and used exclusively by the Left to refer to those people who, despite the dark color of their skin, refuse to think and behave in the way that the Left believes they should, hence the accusation that they are “white” on the inside.
So, it’s okay if Rush uses it because he isn’t from teh left?
So Rush making fun of a derogatory, racist Leftist code word proves, just PROVES that he is a racist.
Another victim of anal poisoning.
When will it stop?
Actually, Dave, the first time I heard the term used pejoratively, it was used by conservative/racist whites to insult a biracial kid in school. So your premise that it’s used exclusively by “the Left” is erroneous. Second, this notion that Rush is simply satirizing “liberal racism” is belied by the dozens of incidents and instances of similar comments made without even the veneer of such a justification over the many years of Limbaugh’s reign of error.
But, finally, it is STILL, after all, about doing what you believe pisses liberals or “the LEFT” off. Which is great, I suppose, until you log off and have to interact with the world as it is, not as you’d like it to be or imagine it to be.
And I would vote for a racist capitalist over an incompetent racist socialst any day of the week.
Odd declaration. I wouldn’t vote for any racist. And there’s only one socialist in all of DC. And he’s a western european style dem-socialist.
A “real, current scandal” … from 4 years ago. Nice.
I see that the IQ level of the Left is keeping pace with Obama’s falling approval numbers.
And the “IQ level” of the right is keeping pace with teabag congress’ falling approval numbers?
Also, Timmy, he’s a long way from being incompetent, much less a racist.
Indeed, he only stops kicking the butts long enough to take the names.
A major part of modern conservatism, is revising definitions to fit the extreme ideology.
By batty’s standard, Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan and Romney were socialists. In fact, there have been no real conservatives since Coolidge. Yet, somehow, magically, conservative leadership is what made America great the last century.
A “real, current scandal” … from 4 years ago. Nice.
Vitter is still in office, SF, but you don’t have a problem with someone remaining in office who committed a crime as long as they’re a Republican, right?
Jaim and Darky,
How about all those oreos out there sucking on the gov’t milkers? Can’t wait for Gingrich and Palin to change this country into an oreo loving country!!!
I love you RUSH, you the man brother.
The Doctor
Thanks for your concern, mike, but I have no problem whatsoever interacting with the real world. But then again, I’m not the one deluding myself into thinking that it’s possible to tax, spend and borrow our way to fiscal solvency. Or that 900+ days into his presidency, Obama is going to finally come up with a plan that actually addresses deficit spending, reduces unemployment OR does anything to turn the economy around. Or that ObamaCare is going to “bend the cost curve down” or in some way result in positive changes to the US health care system. Or that the S&P downgrade of the US credit rating for insufficient cuts to deficit spending is actually due to teabagger terrorist demands for spending cuts. Or that if we can just get millionaires to pay their “fair share”, slash defense spending to the bone and increase entitlement spending, we’ll be able to achieve the Social Justice Utopia that the Left has been craving for years.
So you see, it’s actually not me who’s having the difficult time accepting reality, is it?
And the “IQ level” of the right is keeping pace with teabag congress’ falling approval numbers?
That’s the best you could come up with? Seriously?
Back to the playground with you, timmy.
Actually, Dave, the first time I heard the term used pejoratively, it was used by conservative/racist whites to insult a biracial kid in school.
You do know that the plural of anecdote is not data, right?
Speaking of people having difficulty dealing with the real world:
Bam’s great PR bus-t
Dufthom has crossed the decency line … more than once.
You missed the real excitement as usual, Dave in Southern CA:
Feel the rush!
In DISC world 13 is bigger than 40.
Racist Church Attendance Scorecard:
Barack Obama – 20 years
Rush Limbaugh – 0
But you guys were ok with that…..
Maybe one day you’ll understand why a lot of us just don’t give a shit anymore when you start crying racism.
Drug addicts aren’t church-goers, MM?
Who knew?
Got bin Laden, not a terrorist anymore.
Found birth certificate, not an illegal anymore.
So many conservative policies, not a socialist anymore.
Becomes Imperial Wizard, not a racist anymore?
Shorter Dark (penis obsessed) Avenger: “LOOK OVER THERE!”
You do know that the plural of anecdote is not data, right?
Oh my, this is just too precious. Let’s recall that the bozo who boldly proclaims:
as gospel without deigning to offer a single source or reference – is suddenly getting high and mighty about… anecdotal evidence? I guess if you’re going to be a hypocritical ass, you might as well swing for the fences, Dave!
Don’t worry; self awareness is a total drag, anyway.
So Rush making fun of a derogatory, racist Leftist code word proves, just PROVES that he is a racist.
Dear lord, I love watching his apologists trying to convince themselves that it’s “satire” and he’s totally just kidding when he uses a derogatory term in its literal, intended manner.
Kind of like how he was calling people whose intelligence he doubts “retards”. Satire, right? I’m not sure how it’s satire when it’s entirely devoid of irony and sarcasm, but… but… but…
Seriously, do you honestly believe your bullshit? I gotta hope it’s just posturing and you’re doing it through gritted teeth. Otherwise you’re being a total retard.
Nope, just kidding! That was satire! Er… somehow.
Shorter Dark (penis obsessed) Avenger: “LOOK OVER THERE!”
Which was in response to Dave’s off-topic “Look over there!”.
Speaking of, her documentary did pretty well.
The Urban Dictionary doesn’t have one definition of Oreo that even suggests that it’s a racial slur used by whites to insult blacks.
Neither do any of the following:
Wikipedia
Dictionary.com
Answers.com
Merriam-Webster
Sorry, too lazy to do the HTML – go look it up.
Look , lefties: Pres Obama is an Afro-American. Get over it.
In January 2013, he won’t be President anymore, and you’ll need new names to call Republicans and Conservatives, any way…
Frank the Conservative Intellectual prefers extensively researching “Oreo” instead of the relevance of Say’s Law during major recessions.
Racist Church Attendance Scorecard:
Weak weak weak. As if that somehow balances things out in your little mind? Limpballs regularly says blatantly racist shit on the air, and that’s ok because Obama attended a church for two decades that gave wingnuts 45 seconds of the scawy black fiery preacher soundbites? Really, that’s your stance?
The election is long since over. Don’t you know that yet? You’re trying to bring back the lamest of lame old tired smears that didn’t work, dummy. It doesn’t matter anymore. You can scream Rev Wright all day long, and no one except you clods gives a shit.
In January 2013, he won’t be President anymore, and you’ll need new names to call Republicans and Conservatives, any way…
Wet brain and an idiot. So much for gaining wisdom in your final years, huh?
Tell me you wartfaced codger, who will beat Obama?
Perry? Bachmann? That fat fuck Christie? The empty shell Mittenz? Which sorry ass Jesus freak will be the one? Make me laugh, you crank.
Obama will beat any one of those morons, because the further right the GOP goes, and man they are going all the way this time, the more they will not appeal to the voters that count. Bachman and Perry will scare more voters than they attract, and those same voters might not exactly be thrilled with Obama right now, they will stick with him given the alternatives.
The teabaggers were the worst thing ever to happen to the GOP. They will ensure it wrecks itself from within. They are the angry unhinged uncontrollable riotous mob that will turn on itself and take it all with them. Awesome.
Speaking of people having difficulty dealing with the real world:
Yawn, you’re so outraged. Boring.
So, presumably Dave in SoCal wants the government to just *print* the money it needs, rather than collect it in taxes, or borrow it. Or perhaps he just wants to reduce all tax rates to 0, and then, when we get infinitely high economic growth, we’ll still have the money magically appear in government coffers? But what’s hilarious is that he uses this to claim he’s “interacting with the real world”.
Burn: Better to be thought a fool, then to open your mouth and remove all doubt. I am neither impressed by your ignorant insults. Your foul mouth serves to underscore your lack of vocabulary. You are an ignorant, foul mouthed buffoon. Like all your swinish liberal cohort, you think you can substitute anger and exaggeration for insight.
Go back to whatever gin mill spawned and bellow at them. Do us all, and yourself, a favor.
You know, I checked out Obama’s church. They had fed the hungry, helped the homeless, and visited the sick and imprisoned. And they had a loud mouthed preacher who said some stuff that pisses off rightwingers.
Is the problem that rightwingers don’t even know their own bibles, because they spend too much time thumping them to read them?
Timmy, look around you: Is any one discussing either Say’s Law or recessions? I think not.
Say good night, Timmy.
Or would bon voyage be better, since that ship has sailed?
Burn: I was so anxious to tell what a boor you were, I made some typographical errors.
Better to be thought a fool, then to open your mouth and remove all doubt. I am neither impressed by your ignorant insults, nor by your foul language. Your foul mouth serves to underscore your lack of vocabulary. You are an ignorant, foul mouthed buffoon. Like all your swinish liberal cohort, you think you can substitute anger and exaggeration for insight.
Go back to whatever gin mill spawned you and bellow at them. Do us all, and yourself, a favor.
Long haired weirdo…
I don’t care who they fed. The man and the congregation are a bunch of bigoted, racist, marxists. The fact that you even bother to excuse those types of views just further proves how insincere a lot of you are when you pretend to give a shit about anyone being or saying things that are racist. It’s nothing more than a political game for you people.
If a republican candidate had attended an equally racist church, you would’ve been herp derping all over the place, no matter how much food they gave away. And you people routinely denigrate and insult church’s that AREN’T racist for christ’s sake. And you damn well know it. But when Obama attended this whackjob shithole of a “church,” you didn’t give a shit. In fact, many of you called the fact that people simply POINTED OUT that he spent 20 years in this racist church, racist, just to try and shut people up. (as usual)
So I don’t need lectures from you people about who is or isn’t racist. You really don’t, and never did, truly give a shit. If you did, Barack Obama’s run for president would’ve ended with Jerimiah Wright. Spare me your phony concerns over Rush Limbaugh, you frauds.
Burn,
I’m not going to spend much time on you because you’re an immature ass, so let me just say this: look up black liberation theology and what it entails. That is what that “church” preaches. Also: see above comments about leftists and racism.
Also, It is hilarious to see the way you all get so bent out of shape over him taking an insult you normally reserve for black conservatives and throwing right the fuck in your faces.
Hilarious.
How does he still have a radio show? He’s terrible. And I don’t mean his racist content, he just sucks at his job. He has no sense of timing or rhythm.
The Urban Dictionary doesn’t have one definition of Oreo that even suggests that it’s a racial slur used by whites to insult blacks.
Well, that didn’t take long to disprove. Entry 17/100.
And while I agree that most of your other references don’t specifically say it’s a term used by whites, you’re withholding the fact that it’s because they’re all race-neutral on the offending end. It’s simply described as a derogatory term used against black people.
But logic be damned, Frank- I like the way you build a case. So, to pitch in, here’s a list of other books which also never suggest that “oreo” is used by white people:
The Bible
Strunk & White’s Elements of Style
The New York Times Guide to Essential Knowledge, Second Edition
The World Almanac and Book of Facts 2011
The Oxford Shakespeare: The Complete Works 2nd Edition (Which even has Othello!)
Excel 2011 For Dummies
The list goes on and on… this is some sound, relevant evidence we’re gathering, Frank. Case closed!
Er, by “books” I meant, “reference materials”. Duh.
MM, thanks for being the greatest conservative intellectual since W.F. Buckley, Jr. descended to hell a few years ago.
The man and the congregation are a bunch of bigoted, racist, marxists.
They talk mean about the ruling class. WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
Better to be thought a fool, then to open your mouth and remove all doubt. I am neither impressed by your ignorant insults, nor by your foul language.
Indeed, you’re such a paragon of virtue when it comes to your own language.
Frank, why must you be dumb?
I’ll let Feeble Standing Disease have the last word before closing:
This is your brain on Fox News and Thunderbird.
Any questions?
Burn: I was so anxious to tell what a boor you were, I made some typographical errors.
Well that is what happens when you’re up all night drinking Gordon’s Gin. Tends to impede your style.
You never did answer my question you crank, did you forget already or do I have to remind you again like the sign on your dresser that tells you ‘pants first, then shoes’?
Your foul mouth serves to underscore your lack of vocabulary. You are an ignorant, foul mouthed buffoon.
Man, that senility must be creeping up on your ten watt brain faster and faster every day. You really want me to dig into the archives here and find all the times you lost your little temper and start slinging the “fuck you liberal asshole” lines at everyone? Or were you drunk at the time and you just cannot remember?
Pathetic old fart.
I’m not going to spend much time on you because you’re an immature ass,
Translation, I got nothing, so there! Scary black liberation theology, oh my! Them negroes is a coming for the white wimmin!
Did you get beat up too many times by the black kids in middle and high school and never got over it? Tsk tsk.
Remember, Jesus told his followers not to say anything that hurts the poor fee-fees of people like Moonbat Monitor.
In fact, he said that if you follow his teachings, people will *love* you and *praise* you in public. He never said that people will say unkind things about his followers!
Well… not on Thursday, July 27th. Unless that was the day he said it… hmm.
Anyway, yeah, horrible thing, and Moonbat knows all about that church, because he didn’t attend but he’s seen some clips of video.
First I want to see actual evidence. “OBAMA ATTENDED A HORRIBLE RACIST MARXIST CHURCH!” coming from someone like SaveFarris or Moonbat Monitor means that a known liar or bullshitter has said something that might be a lie, or bullshit.
I know, it’s not *fair*, you’re supposed to say that Obama attended a horrible church and I’m supposed to believe you. But I don’t. Because face it; you’re a bullshitter. You complain about the CRA without knowing about it; you claim that giving out loans required by the CRA is what caused people to securitize mortgages, when mortgage securitization existed long before the CRA. You pretend that mortgage securitization is a bad thing, when it worked just fine when there was enough transparency to prevent people from cheating on it. And then, and this is the funny part, you pretend to know, well, anything, about the financial collapse.
Why would anyone trust you to say water is wet, without double checking to see if it had dried up sometime?
As for this:
Yeah. How *dare* he go to a church that believes in stuff like feeding the hungry, helping the homeless, and visiting the sick and imprisoned? What kind of *asshole* preaches that you should do those things?
I don’t know what your beef is with the teachings of Jesus, but a bunch of your fellow Republicans would find your lack of faith “disturbing”.
Dave in So Cal, the cost curve is already starting to be affected, in anticipation of the changes to the health care system. Medicare’s rate of growth slowed to about 4% last year, down from the 9% it had been averaging the past decade or two. Obama already reduced unemployment from 10.5% to 8.5%, before the too-small-to-be-wholly-effective stimulus program ran out of money and the rate started creeping up again.
What part of S&P specifically citing teabagger Repubs mulling default as “not a big deal” as part of its downgrade decision was unclear?
By the way, the budget plan produced by the House Progressive Caucus is the only plan that would actually balance the budget within 10 years, protect entitlements, cut spending overall, and provide funds for further stimulus. Even the Ryan plan would only balance the budget by 2030(ish), and then with fairly substantial cuts and drastic changes to Medicare. But I suppose it’s worth it, just to avoid that increase in the top marginal rate from 36 to 39.6%.
What does any of this have to do with Rush Limbaugh openly race baiting to pander to the racist component of his listenership? If Limbaugh were racist but his audience weren’t, he wouldn’t do this, because it’s bad for business. But if he were indifferent, but believed a big chunk of his audience was racist, it’d be good business to throw them some “red meat”(or would that be “dark meat”) once in a while.
So, maybe you’re right, I have no way of knowing for sure if Rush is actually racist. I do know, however, that apparently, RUSH LIMBAUGH FIRMLY BELIEVES THAT YOU, HIS LISTENERS, ARE RACIST, AND WILL KEEP SAYING STUFF LIKE THIS BECAUSE HE BELIEVES IT’S EXACTLY WHAT YOU WANT TO HEAR.
So, you know, carry on.
Burn, let me ask you a question: Do you know a recovering alcoholic?
Another question: Do you really expect me to answer your question?
One more question: Have you ever seen my face ? Is there a wart on it?
You’re right – I have cursed a lot on this blog. So I guess I shall continue. You are a worthless, gutless, witless douchebag.
Just for you, Timmy:
from WiseGeek:: http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-says-law-of-markets.htm
Essentially, Say’s Law of Markets holds to the idea that demand does not exist unless there is supply. This would mean that a recession could not take place due to a failure in demand. As long as there are goods available, there will be a demand for goods. Thus, a failure to create and offer an ample amount of desirable goods would be the factor that would trigger a recession. If there are not desirable goods to purchase, there will be no active commerce, even though consumers are willing to make purchases.
A lack of money in the hands of consumers is also not considered to be a trigger for a recession. According to Say’s Law of Markets, consumers always find a way to purchase when there are ample goods to choose from. The demand will be there, and will exist without the need to issue more currency. In fact, Say tended to lean away from issuing more currency in order to balance economic conditions, as the action could quickly swing the economy away from a recession and into a high rate of inflation.
Happy now ?
So what does Say’s Law have to do with the fact that the first time anybody publicly called Obama an oreo, it was a rich white guy, who was then forgiven by people who blamed black culture?
I dunno , ask Timmy
timmy says:
August 19, 2011 at 1:40 am
Frank the Conservative Intellectual prefers extensively researching “Oreo” instead of the relevance of Say’s Law during major recessions.
Nuf messing with your tiny head. Questions.
Thus, a failure to create and offer an ample amount of desirable goods would be the factor that would trigger a recession.
So in the ‘which came first’ question, supply always came first before demand. Invention is now the mother of necessity. If we build it, and they don’t come, we cannot blame the consumer.
But what if suppliers are building it in other countries? Do the buyers without jobs still come? If the government got busy building supply, which according to Say provides buyers, is that then considered capitalism or socialism?
I’d think adherents to the Austrian School would have quick answers to these things.
…look up black liberation theology and what it entails.
I am curious to know, Moonbat, what you think black liberation theology entails.
Burn, let me ask you a question: Do you know a recovering alcoholic?
No, I don’t hang around with weakling losers who can’t handle their drink. Even worse are the so called recovering types, since you’re endlessly obsessed with your ‘disease’ where in reality you’re just a weak willed chump who likes to get fucked up into oblivion. Whatever. I can only imagine what it’s like to have your life wrecked because of it. I can have 2-3 beers on the weekend and that’s where I leave it. I used to party hard back in my youth but I grew out of that phase. I have little sympathy for junkies and drunks really. I don’t buy the bullshit about addiction being a disease. It’s a choice. A conscious choice to use. No one forced you to do it, you made the decision because you cannot handle reality sober. If you’re too weak to handle it, well then too bad for you. Bottom’s up!
Another question: Do you really expect me to answer your question?
No, because you can’t. The question was who will beat Obama in 2012, and you haven’t answered since you are so sure he will lose. So I’ll ask you again, who will beat Obama in 2012? Really, thrill me. And try not to lose that infamous Italian temper this time and call me all sorts of names, dickhead.
One more question: Have you ever seen my face ?
Yes, I’ve seen your ugly chiseled face with decades of abuse written between the cracks. You used to link to your Myspace page here, remember? Oh, you don’t remember. Must have been during one of those benders you love so much. You only have dozens of profiles out there on every social networking site online. Must be lonely being you, huh? There’s this new fangled thing called TEH GOOGLES. All the kids love it. You know what you can do? You can type someone’s name into it, using them fancy quotes, and voila, you get results.
Is there a wart on it?
That’s your nose, my bad.
You are a worthless, gutless, witless douchebag.
I got your punk card every time, bitch. At least I can stay married and keep my job and not spawn idiots for sons. Them apples didn’t fall too far from the ol’ tree, eh?
Don’t listen the these guys, Frank. I enjoy your blog. How come you never talk about the Austrian School there?
Long haried weirdo…
This is a dumbass test: Are you saying he DIDN’T attend that church?
Press 1 for yes.
Press 2 for no.
As far as the CRA goes, banks with assets exceeding a certain point were given a CRA score by the government. If their score was not high enough, the government could deny them mergers, acquisitions, the marketing of new products,etc, and could even fine them. Now, with a bunch of shareholders up your ass, WTF do you think these banks HAD to do? The government, through coercion, left big banks no choice but to hand out shitty mortgages. If they didn’t, they would have been severely damaged financially. That’s how that game was played. So be proud. It’s your folks that used the CRA to try and manipulate loan originators into handing out houses to people that never should have had them. And I know this is fact. I work for one of the big 5, and deal directly with foreclosures. It’s a fucking mess. Every damn. Same shit. But they pay me good, so whatever.
Go home, amateur.
As far as the CRA goes, banks with assets exceeding a certain point were given a CRA score by the government. If their score was not high enough, the government could deny them mergers, acquisitions, the marketing of new products,etc, and could even fine them.
Not really
The government, through coercion, left big banks no choice but to hand out shitty mortgages.
They even did a study:
http://www.tribunact.com/news/2011-02-16/News/Loans_to_minorities_did_not_cause_housing_crisis_s.html
http://washingtonindependent.com/34376/battling-the-cra-myth
If they didn’t, they would have been severely damaged financially. That’s how that game was played. So be proud. It’s your folks that used the CRA to try and manipulate loan originators into handing out houses to people that never should have had them.
Find some articles that demonstrate what you’re talking about, or even a good reference outside of Fox News.
And I know this is fact. I work for one of the big 5, and deal directly with foreclosures. It’s a fucking mess. Every damn. Same shit. But they pay me good, so whatever.
http://www.slate.com/id/2201641/pagenum/all/
Dark,
Lending money to people that shouldn’t get loans makes businesses collapse. The CRA was a PART of that. They weren’t the ONLY factor. But the CRA was one of MANY factors. As far as this issue goes, I’m not even bothering with the “OMG I’ma copy/paste sumthing that backs up mah case” bullshit.
It’s old. It’s tired. And it’s pointless. I’ll say this though…I oversee the entire foreclosure process since the freeze on forecolusres took place. I make sure that the banks cross the i’s and dot the t’s. I deal with large firms and enormous investors. Some of the background one must attain to even START this position is an understanding of the entire mortgage industry. I can say this with absolute objectivity after sitting through countless hours of training, work, etc: the mortgage meltdown is just too enormous to blame on any one entitiy or any one ideology. Yes, the CRA was PART of it as I stated, but I will agree with most here on other points, mainly the fact thank banks that weren’t given subject to the CRA score went FUCKING APESHIT too, and greatly contributed to the mess. It’s huge. And neither side wants to admit it’s role. NOt the social engineering socialist fucks. Or the greedy souless pigs.
The whole lot of you can go to hell as far as I’m concerened.
Moonbat pushes paper in some anonymous cubicle so he’s an expert on how poor black people destroyed the economy.
Lending money to people that shouldn’t get loans makes businesses collapse. The CRA was a PART of that.
Which is why you’ve come back with studies up the wazoo about how that took place.
Oh, wait.
‘Better to be thought a fool, then to open your mouth and remove all doubt.’
You might consider taking your own advice now and then Frank.
Since you evidently require a link (which you will subsequently ignore) here you go: http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_1_the_trillion_dollar.html
There are thousands more. Let me know and I can post them, and you can pretend like they’re all a bunch of made up shit. Which is pretty much all you fucking people have left.
As I said. This is my fucking job. The CRA played a role in this. Your ideology that states that all well-intended plans can never be at fault prevents you from acknowledging this. That is your problem. And unfortunately, our country’s as well. You would probably continue the same shit that played a role in the housing meltdown because ‘the plan’ fits your belief system.
You are a very, very, ignorant, shortsighted person.
Yep, MM, an eleven-year old article makes your point.
not.
What color is the sky in your world.
Your ideology that states that all well-intended plans can never be at fault prevents you from acknowledging this.
Uh, no, the fact that studies have shown your assertion isn’t true and the fact that the only ‘evidence’ you have is an article 11 years old.
That is your problem.
But, hey, keep telling us how overpaid you are, that’s really impressive.
You are a very, very, ignorant, shortsighted person.
Yes, because I use facts, evidence and logic to make my case, while all you have is an article from 11 years ago to make your point.
Thanks for making J.S. Mill still relevant for the 21st Century.
There are thousands more
If there are thousands more articles, why do you keep linking to the same out dated story? Of course, the last time you used the phrase “There are thousands more” you linked to a completely debunked story about rape stats in Oslo.
You need to get out of your cubicle more, Moonbat.
The CRA played a role in this.
And a mosquito “played a role” in sinking the Titanic.
I don’t buy the bullshit about addiction being a disease. Of course you don’t. And you blame your ignorance on everyone around you. You insult my family, about whom you know nothing because you are a hateful piece of shit.
As to the answer to your question, I’m going to answer it.
Perhaps all you lefties who ask, “Who can beat Obama?” can learn something. Burn, of course, has provided us with ample evidence that he is beyond education, but perhaps some other lefties might learn something about American politics (“American politics” not meaning how and why liberals do or do not get elected).
In Republican primaries, candidates look for an ideological niche to fill – from right of center to further right. Most likely, those that occupy niches to the far right – like Rand Paul – will be eliminated first, as will those that are too far to the left.
In this group, they will share Republican approval, and, presumably, some independents’ approval, although we will not know what that is, until they can vote. That being the case, each Republican candidate can only get a small share of the Republican vote. This, compared to Obama’s presumptive ability to get all of the Democratic vote, makes him look like an unbeatable candidate.
BUT
As the Republican convention approaches, Republican hopefuls will fall by the wayside, and new ones will join the fray. By the time the Republican convention has ended, an unknown number of independents, and Democrats, will have joined the Republicans who are now faced with only one choice: re-elect Obama, or vote for the Republican candidate. There will be a whole new dynamic at this time.
Finally, the answer to the question: Who can beat Obama? The answer is Obama. As the incumbent, the election is his to lose. And he is currently losing it.
QiB: “And a mosquito “played a role” in sinking the Titanic.”
Don’t forget the role pirates have in global warming!
http://www.venganza.org/images/spreadword/pchart1.jpg
Wow Disalle, what kind of hooch are you downing these days? You just rambled incessantly without saying a goddamn thing. Typical, I usually see winos on the corner blabbering to themselves. I guess to your wet brain it only makes sense. To the rest of us, not so much.
You named nobody, which isn’t surprising in the least. You really think indies and Democrats are going to consider voting for Perry or Bachman or Palin? Ha ha, what a clown you are. You’re dumber than I could have imagined. Do you even pay attention to the news, you impotent geezer?
There is NO rational or sane GOP candidate out there. Oh sure,Huntsman, but he doesn’t stand a chance in hell. the GOP base is totally infected with the teabagger virus, and they are fucking extremists. They will not EVER vote for someone who says things like “I believe in climate change is real”
So assuming you are still alive in 17 months, I’ll see you here when Obama wins again. Until then, the next round is on me.
If a republican candidate had attended an equally racist church, you would’ve been herp derping all over the place, no matter how much food they gave away.
Well, not racist but bigoted, yes. I wonder why you never heard of him?
In conservative world: Refusing to stroke conservative’s bloated ego = bigoted
Blaming a major natural disaster on the existence of a minority = not bigoted
As far as the CRA goes, banks with assets exceeding a certain point were given a CRA score by the government. If their score was not high enough, the government could deny them mergers, acquisitions, the marketing of new products,etc, and could even fine them. Now, with a bunch of shareholders up your ass, WTF do you think these banks HAD to do? The government, through coercion, left big banks no choice but to hand out shitty mortgages. If they didn’t, they would have been severely damaged financially. That’s how that game was played. So be proud. It’s your folks that used the CRA to try and manipulate loan originators into handing out houses to people that never should have had them. And I know this is fact. I work for one of the big 5, and deal directly with foreclosures. It’s a fucking mess. Every damn. Same shit. But they pay me good, so whatever.
Except, as I’ve pointed out before, the shitty loans were non-CRA loans.
Word to the wise, scraping roadkill does NOT give you “insider knowledge”.
That’s the best you could come up with? Seriously?
Back to the playground with you, timmy.
It seems that conservatives have so little self awareness, it’s a wonder than they get dressed in the morning without severely injuring themselves.
Or that the S&P downgrade of the US credit rating for insufficient cuts to deficit spending is actually due to teabagger terrorist demands for spending cuts.
Well, we believe that because that’s what they actually said. Of course, things would be much worse if the teabaggers got everything they wanted.
The tea party played with fire, and we all got burned because of it. If you were decent human beings, now would be a time of self reflection on your hubris. That is, if you were decent people…
But then again, I’m not the one deluding myself into thinking that it’s possible to tax, spend and borrow our way to fiscal solvency.
Because everyone knows that borrowing money at an interest rate less than the rate of inflation is a stupid idea, right?
You do know that the plural of anecdote is not data, right?
Neither is bullshit.
This is the biggest collection of liberal idiots on the internet. I’m onvinced. You sorry ass people can’t bring yourselves to admit that coercing banks into giving shitty loans to people that never should have had them was a stupid idea, one of many that caused the housing meltdown.
Unbelievable.
Some of you live a sorry state of denial. Cognitive dissonance 101.
Here’s even a better question: how many of you shitheads would continue with this policy? Who here still wants to give out mortgages to people with marginal credit scores and low income? Speak up. Go on the record with this. I’d love to know.
Bunch of morons.
Quaker, Zython…
http://www.city-journal.org/2008/eon1030hh.html
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-cra-debate-a-users-guide-2009-6
http://mises.org/daily/2963
http://heartland.org/policy-documents/true-causes-housing-crisis
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/02/06/the-true-origins-of-this-finan#
http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/capital-commerce/2009/03/17/yes-the-community-reinvestment-act-really-did-help-cause-the-housing-crisis
You wanted links. Here you go. Not that any of it will change your mind though. Your too stupid to understand how this policy, which can be easily looked up, explicitly states that it can and will punish banks if their CRA score wasn’t high enough.
Your social engineering horseshit and interference into this market played a role in destroying the economy of this country. And you’re not getting off the hook for it. I’m actually going to bring some of these comments to work and show them to people, just for a laugh. When I see some of these loans, and have to pull origiginal apps, it almost makes my head explode. Nothing like seeing someone with a 560 credit score and a 30k/yr income get approved for a 280k loan. And it’s just hard to believe that are people as stupid as some of you here when it comes to this issue. Honestly….people like you are a fucking punchline to us. 2nd point: Who the hell do you think you are, arguing with me about this? I’m knee deep in the bullshit you freaking people helped to create ever single day. You don’t know dick about this compared to me.
So seriously….somebody answer me: who thinks banks should have to give out loans to people with bad or no credit, and with low income, in order to get a top CRA score, all so they would be allowed to make acquisitions and mergers, and market new products? It’s bullying and coercion.
Man up. Go on the record if you support this. Because that is what the CRA specifically requires.
This is the biggest collection of liberal idiots on the internet.
Gee, that was really useful to know. What else do you need to tell us?
I’m onvinced.
You sorry ass people can’t bring yourselves to admit that coercing banks into giving shitty loans to people that never should have had them was a stupid idea, one of many that caused the housing meltdown.
Yeah, because one article from before the meltdown, along with your say-so, should be convincing enough of liberal idiots like us, who use those ideologically biased facts and reasoning instead of the word of junior MOTU-in-training such as yourself.
Here’s even a better question: how many of you shitheads would continue with this policy?
I dunno, turds-for-brains, maybe you could show some evidence that the policy was a failure aside from your screeds and an 11-year old article.
Who here still wants to give out mortgages to people with marginal credit scores and low income?
Document your claim, doofus, or give up pretending you aren’t commenting from a Cheetos-stained computer in your mothers’ basement and that your metrics consist of more than dick inches:
Bunch of morons.
Ohh, that’s gotta sting, folks
not.
Thanks for playing, nanophallus.
i posted several more. but it won’t make a difference with you. your mind is made up. the comment is in moderation though.
as i’ve said before, this housing mess was way too big to just be the fault of one person, ideology, etc. the unwillingness of people here to admit that the cra did play some role in the mess is just ridiculous.
those of us that work in the industry know the truth though. and the truth always wins.
claim documented: they had to comply with CRA regulations, which did in fact bully banks into giving loans to people with sub-standard credit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act#Housing_advocacy_groups
The other articles:
http://www.city-journal.org/2008/eon1030hh.html
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-cra-debate-a-users-guide-2009-6
http://mises.org/daily/2963
http://heartland.org/policy-documents/true-causes-housing-crisis
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/02/06/the-true-origins-of-this-finan#
http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/capital-commerce/2009/03/17/yes-the-community-reinvestment-act-really-did-help-cause-the-housing-crisis
Now…..answer the question I asked. Somehow, I think you’re avioding doing so.
claim documented: they had to comply with CRA regulations, which did in fact bully banks into giving loans to people with sub-standard credit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act#Housing_advocacy_groups
And you can answer the question I posed earlier any time.
Call me crazy, but I think you’re avoiding doing so.
Wonder why.
i posted several more. but it won’t make a difference with you. your mind is made up. the comment is in moderation though.
I’m sure that they come from respected institutions, places known for their reliance on facts and reasoning when they turn out a study and come to conclusions based on it.
claim documented: they had to comply with CRA regulations, which did in fact bully banks into giving loans to people with sub-standard credit.
Is this what you’re talking about, Moonbat Madness?
In an article for the New York Post, economist Stan Liebowitz wrote that community activists intervention at yearly bank reviews resulted in their obtaining large amounts of money from banks, since poor reviews could lead to frustrated merger plans and even legal challenges by the Justice Department.[100] Michelle Minton noted that Chase Manhattan and J.P. Morgan donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to ACORN at about the same time they were to apply for permission to merge and needed to comply with CRA regulations.[85]
So, ACORN held a gun to the head of Americas’ largest financial institution, and made them give crappy loans to people who couldn’t afford to pay them back.
Yup, you’ve pointed to one article in one newspaper to prove your point.
Oh, and keep calling us shitheads, by appealing to our vanity you’ll win the argument in the end
doofus.
BTW:
Was this the part about housing advocates you meant, Moonbat:
Idiot.
Stereotypes, like old habits, die hard with the conservatives. It’s an amazing act of intellectual folly to think that a group of community organizers could bully some of the biggest and most power banking institutions in the world. The victims are always the rich and the powerful. Incredible.
I see DA already posted the graph on ACORNs opposition to subprime lending.
Moonbat, you keep screeching about ideological blinders while believing that poor people forced some of the country’s largest financial institutions to give them money.
It’s hard to even parody that.
Giuliani took credit for all the renewal, gentrification, and valuation in NYC. Of course, the real estate collapse there must now be Acorn’s fault.
The unintended consequences thing has some merit. But since it’s a blade that can cut both ways (more or less government), wingnuts will use any spurious evidence they can come up with to insinuate both ways are always the liberals fault.
And you can answer the question I posed earlier any time. Call me crazy, but I think you’re avoiding doing so. Wonder why.
because it’s a ridiculously stupid fuckIng question? The whole reason for the creation of the CRA was to combat decades of discriminatory lending practices best exemplified in the practice of “redlining,” the a priori denial of any lending to entire neighborhoods regardless of the credit history of an individual who lived in one. The CRA was created so that individuals who were good risks would not be denied credit based solely in their address. Such practices created a downward economic spiral for individuals and neighborhoods in which people looking to start businesses or buy houses in order improve themselves and thei neighborhoods were denied the financial tools available to other people who already lived in stable, middle class neighborhoods.
The CRA was and has been good public policy. The record shows (see your own wikipedia link) that there was little to no connection between CRA sponsored loans and the 2008 crash.
If it’s so easy (or even remotely possible) to force the jumbo banks to make bad loans to poor people, then it should be equally easy to force the jumbo health insurance companies to accept a single payer health care system.
Every single link from moonbat monitor is to crazy right wing sites, and not actual analysis.
Wow. I have to hand it to Moonbat Monitor. His article shows his premise: that investor greed took the success of the CRA and twisted it, until it caused the mortgage crisis.
That *is* his premise, right? That the CRA was working, with low defaults and losses, and then investor demand screwed things up?
Oh, wait, no, that’s not his premise. *His* premise was that the CRA had a *causative* effect.
Wow. He doesn’t even read his own links. He must be an idiot.
Or maybe he does. I like the way this guy backpedals:
See? Creativity, enforced by the CRA, meant making NINJA (No Income, No Job, or Assets) an indicator of “reliability”.
As much as the author really wants to blame the CRA, he keeps telling the truth: that the CRA requirements demanded that banks make sound loans, by experimenting with other ways to assess whether or not a borrower could repay.
The problem did not come about because the CRA encouraged people to find ways to make loans that would be paid back. The problem came about because people took those standards that were created to find ways to make good loans, and used them dishonestly, to make crap loans – so they could sell them, retaining none of the risk.
This is fraud, pure and simple.
But this does explain how uninformed people like Moonbat Monitor make such unfounded claims. Very Serious People are explaining that, oh, of course, the CRA played an important role. It encouraged banks to think about ways to make sound loans to people who otherwise wouldn’t get them. And, of course, “we” all know that those *evil, awful regulators* forced the standards low… but even then, apparently not so low as to show large losses.
So, although it was possible to do loans consistent with the CRA in a sound manner, it was clearly the fault of the CRA (and those horrible, horrible regulators) that people started engaging in wholesale fraud.
Now, I will grant one thing: if people could still only buy a house with 20% down, the mortgage meltdown wouldn’t have happened the same way.
But if there’d been sufficient regulation to keep people from making a mortgage, and then selling it, and walking away from all of the risk, the mortgage meltdown wouldn’t have happened either. People wouldn’t have made loans that were so likely to fail if they were forced to bear the risk.
So, if you need to blame the CRA for something, here’s what you can blame it for.
The CRA showed that you *can* make sound loans to people even if they don’t fit the perfect loan profile.
So, by showing that there were a lot of good people who didn’t have the right credit profile, it let a lot of bad people lie, claiming they were making loans to those good people.
The problem is not the basis for the lie; the problem is the lie.