Joined
·
292 Posts
Glenn explains AIG and why the bonuses were not the REAL problem
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Joined
·
16,129 Posts
Just shows that even a broken clock (or in this case, a complete idiot like Glenn Beck) is (sort-of) right now and then. The AIG bonuses are like all the outrage about earmarks--a drop in the bucket.
Of course, Glenn, being a total and complete idiot, sees this in terms of a simplistic political frame that leads him to take pot shots at Barney Frank and suggest that government encouragement to the mortgage market was the problem. Ummm, no. Those encouragements were deliberately exploited by bankers and then compounded by speculators.
I'm further disappointed that he didn't cry.
Of course, Glenn, being a total and complete idiot, sees this in terms of a simplistic political frame that leads him to take pot shots at Barney Frank and suggest that government encouragement to the mortgage market was the problem. Ummm, no. Those encouragements were deliberately exploited by bankers and then compounded by speculators.
I'm further disappointed that he didn't cry.
Joined
·
15,206 Posts
I was sorely disappointed... I watched the whole thing and he didn't cry even once.
I so wanted to see him fake cry again.
I so wanted to see him fake cry again.
Joined
·
16,129 Posts
He just loves his country, you know. And the only way you can love your country is when you're really scared and unified around an enemy.
Joined
·
26,306 Posts
Throwing our money away is going to make me cry
Joined
·
292 Posts
It's gonna make my kids, OH and don't forget my great grandkids cry. OH, it's okay, we're gonna have an Amero before then, I forgot, New World Order/North American Union will fix it all LOL Life is goooood
Joined
·
26,306 Posts
CNN) -- A defiant Sen. Chris Dodd defended his actions on bonuses for AIG executives Friday as news surfaced that a senior company executive was returning his $6 million bonus.
Sen. Chris Dodd admitted to CNN this week that he added bonus legislation to the stimulus bill.
Dodd said he was misled on the issue of bonuses for AIG executives. He claimed he would not have drafted key legislative changes allowing the bonuses to move forward if he knew the purpose of those changes.
Meanwhile, a senior AIG executive said through a company spokesman that he will return his $6 million bonus. The executive, Doug Poling, is returning the money "because it's the correct thing to do," said Mark Herr, an AIG spokesman.
Dodd, a Democrat from Connecticut, said officials at the Treasury Department led him to believe that the changes added to the $787 billion economic stimulus bill shortly before its final passage were merely "technical and innocuous" in nature.
GOOD GOD WHO IN THE WORLD GETS A 6 MILLION DOLLAR BONUS?????
Sen. Chris Dodd admitted to CNN this week that he added bonus legislation to the stimulus bill.
Dodd said he was misled on the issue of bonuses for AIG executives. He claimed he would not have drafted key legislative changes allowing the bonuses to move forward if he knew the purpose of those changes.
Meanwhile, a senior AIG executive said through a company spokesman that he will return his $6 million bonus. The executive, Doug Poling, is returning the money "because it's the correct thing to do," said Mark Herr, an AIG spokesman.
Dodd, a Democrat from Connecticut, said officials at the Treasury Department led him to believe that the changes added to the $787 billion economic stimulus bill shortly before its final passage were merely "technical and innocuous" in nature.
GOOD GOD WHO IN THE WORLD GETS A 6 MILLION DOLLAR BONUS?????
Joined
·
10,257 Posts
According to Mape, someone who just does his/her job.
Who is Glenn Beck, what does he stand for, and who are the people who follow and believe him?
Very interesting bio with some possible answers to those Qs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Beck
![]()
Very interesting bio with some possible answers to those Qs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Beck
Joined
·
16,129 Posts
Don't underestimate Wikipedia, Mr. T. Hermann Zweibel:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4530930.stm
Joined
·
292 Posts
LOL!! I thought Obama could do that, great...just great, why did you have to go ruin a good thing I had going on in my Disney Land head DAN! Bob, help me out here, can you pull something up to show Dan that Obama does pilot one, please my little world depends on it.
Sorry, Regina, Wikipedia didn't list anything on bubblegum wrappers about O piloting a spaceship. All I could find was something about walking on water....
And thanks, theoconbrio, for the reference to Wikipedia's level of accuracy. I use Wiki as a convenient, quick way of getting a reference which can be easily copied.
Any wagers on how long it will be until dweck, Regina, gundog, Snowflake, et al., start painting Wiki as being a blatantly liberal, far left wing, socialist or communist organ whenever it says something that's critical of their ideology? Something that doesn't have the unbiassed, middle of the road approach of Glenn Beck & Rush Limbaugh?
![]()
Below is the article theoconbrio linked:
Wikipedia survives research test
The free online resource Wikipedia is about as accurate on science as the Encyclopedia Britannica, a study shows.
The British journal Nature examined a range of scientific entries on both works of reference and found few differences in accuracy.
Wikipedia is produced by volunteers, who add entries and edit any page. But it has been criticised for the correctness of entries, most recently over the biography of prominent US journalist John Seigenthaler.
Open approach
Wikipedia was founded in 2001 and has since grown to more than 1.8 million articles in 200 languages. Some 800,000 entries are in English. It is based on wikis, open-source software which lets anyone fiddle with a webpage, anyone reading a subject entry can disagree, edit, add, delete, or replace the entry.
It relies on 13,000 volunteer contributors, many of whom are experts in a particular field, to edit previously submitted articles.
In order to test its reliability, Nature conducted a peer review of scientific entries on Wikipedia and the well-established Encyclopedia Britannica. The reviewers were asked to check for errors, but were not told about the source of the information.
"Only eight serious errors, such as misinterpretations of important concepts, were detected in the pairs of articles reviewed, four from each encyclopedia," reported Nature. "But reviewers also found many factual errors, omissions or misleading statements: 162 and 123 in Wikipedia and Britannica, respectively."
Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales welcomed the study. "We're hoping it will focus people's attention on the overall level of our work, which is pretty good," he said.
And thanks, theoconbrio, for the reference to Wikipedia's level of accuracy. I use Wiki as a convenient, quick way of getting a reference which can be easily copied.
Any wagers on how long it will be until dweck, Regina, gundog, Snowflake, et al., start painting Wiki as being a blatantly liberal, far left wing, socialist or communist organ whenever it says something that's critical of their ideology? Something that doesn't have the unbiassed, middle of the road approach of Glenn Beck & Rush Limbaugh?
Below is the article theoconbrio linked:
Wikipedia survives research test
The free online resource Wikipedia is about as accurate on science as the Encyclopedia Britannica, a study shows.
The British journal Nature examined a range of scientific entries on both works of reference and found few differences in accuracy.
Wikipedia is produced by volunteers, who add entries and edit any page. But it has been criticised for the correctness of entries, most recently over the biography of prominent US journalist John Seigenthaler.
Open approach
Wikipedia was founded in 2001 and has since grown to more than 1.8 million articles in 200 languages. Some 800,000 entries are in English. It is based on wikis, open-source software which lets anyone fiddle with a webpage, anyone reading a subject entry can disagree, edit, add, delete, or replace the entry.
It relies on 13,000 volunteer contributors, many of whom are experts in a particular field, to edit previously submitted articles.
In order to test its reliability, Nature conducted a peer review of scientific entries on Wikipedia and the well-established Encyclopedia Britannica. The reviewers were asked to check for errors, but were not told about the source of the information.
"Only eight serious errors, such as misinterpretations of important concepts, were detected in the pairs of articles reviewed, four from each encyclopedia," reported Nature. "But reviewers also found many factual errors, omissions or misleading statements: 162 and 123 in Wikipedia and Britannica, respectively."
Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales welcomed the study. "We're hoping it will focus people's attention on the overall level of our work, which is pretty good," he said.
Joined
·
5,276 Posts
*snort*
Joined
·
10,719 Posts
Besides that anyone with some knowledge can find a lot of mistakes. I do find it is a quick place to often find a picture when you kneed one.
dweck said
If that's your challenge, I accept.
From NOW ON, whenever YOU post the references that justify and support your opinions, I'll post my references when I oppose you.
Just post the third party assessments of the validity, the accuracy, that supports the truth of what you're saying.
Is this a bargain?
Is this what you want?
Do you accept?
If so, can we have some witnesses to this deal?
(But be warned -- just because the pope says it, that doesn't mean it's considered infallible by everyone else. I'm an a Episcopalian, a member of the Anglican Communion, and we rejected your doctrine of papal inflallibility a few hundred years ago.)
![]()
OH! Is THAT the test you want to use?
If that's your challenge, I accept.
From NOW ON, whenever YOU post the references that justify and support your opinions, I'll post my references when I oppose you.
Just post the third party assessments of the validity, the accuracy, that supports the truth of what you're saying.
Is this a bargain?
Is this what you want?
Do you accept?
If so, can we have some witnesses to this deal?
(But be warned -- just because the pope says it, that doesn't mean it's considered infallible by everyone else. I'm an a Episcopalian, a member of the Anglican Communion, and we rejected your doctrine of papal inflallibility a few hundred years ago.)
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Join the discussion
