Yes, this video is six-and-a-half minutes long. It's very interesting and worth the investment of your time. Basically, it proves a point I made earlier...
Then the Bro, who'd once said "Banks need regulation,"
gave to the Wall Streeters
THE ENTIRE WHO NATION.
He gave bankers no rules.
He just gave them money.
"It'll free up some credit," he said, which was funny.
For the credit stayed stuck at banks too big to fail.
Those crooks all got trillions when they should have faced jail.
Some said: "Buy 'em and try 'em!
Just buy the banks, Bro. Then try all the crooks."
But the Bro just said "No!"
He said "Larry and Timmy will be watching your backs."
But Larry and Timmy preferred Goldman Sachs.
Just buy the banks, Bro. Then try all the crooks."
But the Bro just said "No!"
He said "Larry and Timmy will be watching your backs."
But Larry and Timmy preferred Goldman Sachs.
I've been going easy on Obama this election year, because Romney would be even worse and the GOP has gone even more insane than usual. But let's not forget this administration's historic failure.
7 comments:
I prefer to think of it as their historic success. Its not like its an unforeseen consequence. I have some bad pool puns to try on you. This was a "bank" shot they played for -they definitely nominated "public money" into the "banker pocket".
What would the poor do with money anyway?
Harry
Ultimately, while Hillary Clinton has flown millions of miles as Secretary of State, her alleged fans, be they PUMA's or feminists or reformed republicans, have let her down this year by not having the guts to just create topic headlines such as "Hillary Clinton for president in 2012".
Sandro, although I remain convinced that Hillary would have been a better president -- certainly better equipped to deal with the opposition -- I honestly don't think that she wants the job now. Moreover, I don't think that she is the answer. This administration's foreign policy has been very questionable, and like it or not, her signature in on the canvas.
What guarantee is there that Obama won't veer sharply to the Right to ensure a cushy job on Wall Street come 2017?
Glenn Ford for example, used the 'facts' that were available and made the right conclusion that Obama was going to be as f123ed up as he is because of how he is and how the 'left' media was going to let him be his apathetic corporate stooge self. I share Ford's belief that Obama is the more effective evil. Based on the power he possesses, his demonstrated apathy towards the hoi polloi of this country all combined with his lame duck status, Obama will be even more dangerous, not less. He does not get enough pushback now so, even if that were to increase dreamatically, to Bush 'Iraq/Afghanistan suckiness levels', he's got nothing to lose by continuing to ignore any pushback. Nothing. Therefore no reason to change course at all. Romney gets in, if the grief he's getting now is any indication, he will get pushback from Dems and the media, the same way Bush received it as the war started to reveal it's suckiness. He then may be outed in 4 years. If lameduck Obama does what I think he'll do, based on what he's done so far(f123ed things up for the country and the dem party-progressive ideas) and how he's done it(not giving a f123), the country isn't going to trust a Dem to run the country in 2016. Hells to the nah. So says the great 'KarnHack'.
What about the Supreme Court...? What about all the lower judges who would approve ever-more-restrictive voting procedures?
Those concerns alone make it necessary to hold your nose and vote for the devil we know. Vote for Romney in 2012 and you may be voting for a Republican president forever.
Oh fer crissake Joe, we already have a "Republican president forever" and have had since the coup of 2000. Where the f**k have you been these last 12 years?
Post a Comment