General Debate 29/01/11

Taxpayers have spent more than $160 million defending (among others) Franklin Raines and Tim Howard, executives of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, infuriating lawmakers who want to know why taxpayers are footing the bill for heads of agencies that have already cost Americans at least $150 billion. In 2008, ex-Fannie chief Franklin Raines, who left the agency in 2004, personally paid back nearly $25 million in compensation after settling a lawsuit that claimed he had been improperly rewarded for the billions of dollars in profits that didn’t exist.

6 thoughts on “General Debate 29/01/11

  1. I know I shouldn’t be surprised but this sort of bullshit really pisses me off.

    Rather than being outspoken on climate change and suchlike, he made his name as an advocate for civil liberties and peace.

    Keith Locke is a communist who supported some of the most murderous regimes on the planet. He supported the Urewera 17. He supports oligarchic, theocratic middle-eastern countries over democratic Israel. He, along with a compliant media converted Ahmed Zaoui from being a known terrorist group collaborator into a martyr and a peacemaker.

    Keith Locke spent his entire adult life doing nothing but loathing and undermining the Western capitalist system that gave him the freedom and luxury to protest. Screw him.


  2. Do you know what sickens me most about communists like Locke? You would think that someone who witnessed events as they unfolded in Khmer Rouge controlled Cambodia would actually begin to learn that the inevitable outcome of socialism/collectivism is depravity and death. But no, not Keith.


  3. Just watched a couple of interesting videos from a guy who grew up under European communism and he makes the point that the soft totalitarianism of today’s Progressives affords less personal freedom of expression than what he experienced under hard communism back in the sixties and seventies.

    He makes a good case. I would believe it. Truth is stifled more every day.


  4. Arizona is another state where Obama will be stopped by legislation requiring proof of Constitutional eligibility. I was reading about it this morning and came across a poll at the New York Daily News site. 80% of participant think this is a serious issue.

    If you ever had any doubts about the partisan political stance of the mainstream media, you would only have to observe their wide use of the term “birthers”. This is a term designed to discredit those who have driven the issue, by bracketing them with very few crazy nutters who think Bush engineered 9/11 and who are commonly referred to as “Truthers”.

    In fact the two issues are like chalk and cheese. One subscribes to an unbelievable conspiracy theory. The other refutes the claim that Obama has proven himself Constitutionally eligible and merely asks that he do so. Obama and his followers squirm and twist and turn and do everything to avoid providing this proof.

    One has very few supporters. The other is supported by more than 70% of the American people.

    “Birthers” is a demeaning and politically partisan term and no real journalist would use it.

    Link to NY Daily News story and poll.


Comments are closed.