Thanks: 0
Likes: 0
Dislikes: 0
Array
Array
I hate all reality tv and in fact most tv period nowadays.
Our 21st century culture's have collectively pissed their heritages down the toilet.
Society is wretched and worthless by and large now.
Just witness the decline in art, literature, science, technology everything is just going to the dogs.
Whereas in the past our great people were visionaries, artists who created beauty out of nothing, made impossibly elegant buildings, discovered wonderous new things and dared to think great thoughts, our modern world revolves around consumerism and hedonism.
Nobody cares about art any more, save as some sort of shock value tactic where modern artist attempt to see who can stoop the lowest and create the most disgusting, offensive, worthless piece of 'art' in order to become famous and receive that glorious status of 'celebrity'.
Our great scientists are either making military weapons for lots of money or else working in genetics and cosmetics where they can make lots of money pandering to the vanities of our self obsessed citizens.
Meanwhile the masses no longer want to be educated. We don't want tv to tell us about history, the natural world, science etc, no we want to watch fat people try and make themselves look beautiful, or laugh at a talentless delusionist try and sing their way to stardom.
I think the modern world declines every year to be honest![]()
Array
Array
oh please spare this thread I have some shit to say in it. I'll wait.
Array
Also calling Lyle Sahib is going to do nothing but confuse the hell out of him. And me it confuses me too.
As for reality tv, it's really hit or miss. I mean there is a thin line between the surreal life and celebrity fit club. Usually contestents from the aforemention just cross over to the latter but no time for that now.
Non-competition based reality shows are sparingly good, only sparingly. The Real World for the most part is good stuff it just comes down to casting really. There have been times where the casting is so shit that it's unwatchable like when they followed up the great Real World San Diego (with the exception of the annoying Frankie) with Real World Austin where 2 of the cast members were gay and it turned into a whole home season with like 4 gay guys being in the house at lal times it was terrible. But the Real World for the most part was always good to watch but I haven't watched since.
Others, Keeping Up With The Celebrity family of the week type shows, are turrible. I'm a HUGE Hulk Hogan fan but no way I was watching that reality show. I think the first season I watched on occasion. Now it's the sparingly talented (and scarily thick) Brooke Hogan who is carrying the shows mantle I think. I remember she sung the national anthem way back when the Lightning were making there run and I think that was the pinnacle for her. Hulkamania won the Lightning that cup. Or maybe Hulkamania was just there to quell the evil forces of Canada and Calgary.
Garbage are all those shows I never watch. The Surreal Life was harmless fun and many times was hilarious. Shows based on competition, like American Idol and The Ultimate Fighter are better but American Idol is so much better because it keeps it just about the music. You can think the music is bubblegummy and the judges pricks but you'll never see what's happening in the hotel room on American Idol that is the National Enquirer and the TV Guide network's job. Other shows like Americas Next Top Model (girl had me watch it once, one where the girl was trippin about going blind or somethig, really wasn't that hot anyways), Ultimate Fighter and even the Apprentice (which is imo, the best reality show out there) let drama get to much in the way. I hate when people tell me their drama in real life I don't want to see it on TV too but sometimes the drama is so absurd it's hilarious.
You may hate it Lyle but Real World castmates getting heated over who has the car or who washes the dishes is great stuff to me.
I don't watch much TV anymore, mostly just ESPN and whatever sports are on but that is my take.
Oh yeah and Bush sucks blah blah Obama wants to bankrupt coal and the govenment is leftist blah blah this is republicans fault blah blah no it was the decision made in 2002 by Bush that caused this blah blah
That's what those topics end up looking like to me.
Array
Array
What are you talking about? I'm holding you accountable for trying to make every topic as boring as possible.
K buddy, who decided to bail out the Wall Street corporations that KNOWINGLY did wrong?
Also who are these folks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YL36nwCSYUM
And why would those folks not want regulation?
It wasn't JUST the Republicans, I don't say the Republicans don't have blame, EVERYBODY has blame in this situation as it's big enough to share but the sooner you get off your high horse and realize that YOUR BOYS in the Democrat party did wrong as well, the better.
Array
Array
t r u t h o u t | Freddie Mac Secretly Paid Republican Firm to Kill Regulation
GOP LOBBY TIED TO KILLING OVERHAUL BILL - New York Post
Just to keep it fair and balanced
Array
It's incredible. I explain stuff to you using facts and evidence to the point where you concede the argument. Then later you come out with exactly the same rubbish again. No matter how many times you're told that Fannie/Freddie/Jimmy Carter had nothing to do with the current mess it has no effect, it's like some kind of unkillable zombie lies that you can't not believe. This is why the mass gayification of conservatives has become necessary.
Once again, Fannie/Freddie/Carter/Clinton are not responsible for the current mess. The removal of all regulation and oversight of the financial industry by the Bush administration and their 2004 deal to allow investment banks to lever up their debt:asset ratio from a safe 10-15:1 to 40 and 50 and more :1 is. If Fannie, Freddie and the Community Reinvestment Act had never existed the exact same situation would currently exist.
Array
In the summer of 2003, leaders of the four federal agencies that oversee the banking industry gathered to highlight the Bush administration's commitment to reducing regulation. They posed for photographers behind a stack of papers wrapped in red tape. The others held garden shears. Gilleran, who succeeded Seidman as OTS director in late 2001, hefted a chain saw.
Gilleran was an impassioned advocate of deregulation. He cut a quarter of the agency's 1,200 employees between 2001 and 2004, even though the value of loans and other assets of the firms regulated by OTS increased by half over the same period. The result was a mismatch between a short-handed agency and a burgeoning thrift industry.
Banking Regulator Played Advocate Over Enforcer - washingtonpost.com
The whole of this article is good, full of facts and evidence. It only covers one small part of the overall scrapping of regulation and oversight of the financial industry that Bush was responsible for too.
![]()
Say what you will Captain Happy but out of the Democrats' own mouths come the words that I can use against them. Fannie and Freddie ARE corrupt organizations and the reason why stems from the coupling of BUSINESS and GOVERNMENT...GSE's are WRONG!
Once again I don't say the Republicans are not at fault, I just say the Democrats need to admit that the Republicans aren't alone. I also say that the Democrats have fucked us over in continuously bailing out the Wall Street brats who sold EVERYBODY out!!!!
Array
F and F are far less corrupt than the rest of the system. Now that the US government is currently bailing out every major US bank not only F and F but the entire US banking system are now Government Sponsored Enterprises. So is GEC, the car industry, half the insurance industry, state governments, etc. They're all socialist now baby. And again, if F and F had never existed the exact same thing would have happened. They're just two more privately-owned financial companies that are now on government welfare.
Republicans are alone. Exactly who has bailed everybody out so far Lyle?
Here's a new newspaper report today. I'm guessing this won't get much TV coverage :
The Bush administration backed off proposed crackdowns on no-money-down, interest-only mortgages years before the economy collapsed, buckling to pressure from some of the same banks that have now failed. It ignored remarkably prescient warnings that foretold the financial meltdown, according to an Associated Press review of regulatory documents.Bank regulators had proposed new guidelines for writing risky loans in 2005, but were rebuffed by the White House. The proposed regulations might have avoided the worst fo the housing and credit crisis, had they been enacted.
“Expect fallout, expect foreclosures, expect horror stories,” California mortgage lender Paris Welch wrote to U.S. regulators in January 2006, about one year before the housing implosion cost her a job.
Bowing to aggressive lobbying — along with assurances from banks that the troubled mortgages were OK — regulators delayed action for nearly one year. By the time new rules were released late in 2006, the toughest of the proposed provisions were gone and the meltdown was under way.
“These mortgages have been considered more safe and sound for portfolio lenders than many fixed rate mortgages,” David Schneider, home loan president of Washington Mutual, told federal regulators in early 2006. Two years later, WaMu became the largest bank failure in U.S. history.
What was so especially damning was these proposals were all stripped from the final Administrative rules by the Bush White House. None required congressional approval or even the president’s signature:
• Before banks could purchase mortgages from brokers, they should verify the process to ensure buyers could afford their homes.The banks that lobbied most aggressively against the rules reads like a who’s who of bankruptcy and FDIC conservatorship: IndyMac, Countrywide Financial, Washington Mutual, Lehman Brothers, and Downey Savings.
• Regulators told bankers exotic mortgages were often inappropriate for buyers with bad credit.
• Banks would have been required to increase efforts to verify that buyers actually had jobs and could afford houses.
• Regulators proposed a cap on risky mortgages so a string of defaults wouldn’t be crippling.
• Banks that bundled and sold mortgages were told to be sure investors knew exactly what they were buying.
• Regulators urged banks to help buyers make responsible decisions and clearly advise them that interest rates might skyrocket and huge payments might be due sooner than expected.
The Associated Press: AP IMPACT: US diluted loan rules before crash
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks