[CA renter]

[quote=FlyerInHi]CAr, you’re romanticizing the past. I don’t miss much of anything about the past. The products we have now are so much better price/quality wise. Remember, in the past appliances cost a lot more as a portion of income. Now they are commodities.

Kitchen aid are the high end whirlpool. It’s all about marketing, but Maytag is rated commercial and have 5 year warranty, i think.

I have an 5 year old IKEA/whirlpool panel ready dishwasher. I love it because it’s beautiful and blends in flush with my cabinets. Wish we had more euro style choices of appliances.

If you want spotless dishes, use Lemi Shine detergent booster.[/quote]

It’s not just about romanticizing the past (though I do like retro-style). I like things that are built to last. Paying $1,000 for a dishwasher that will last 20-30 years is a heck of a lot cheaper than buying a $400-$800 dishwasher that needs to be replaced every 7 years (or less!).

Add to that the fact that planned obsolescence is one of the main causes of environmental pollution — mining and transporting raw materials, manufacturing and transporting finished products, transporting from point-of-sale to customers’ homes/businesses, and the pollution created by transporting and then recycling or dumping the item being replaced. It’s a HUGE contributor to environmental degradation.

Personally, I’m a “function over form” kind of person. I like things to be clean and orderly, but don’t need extra frills or shiny “new” features that, more often than not, aren’t nearly as durable (or as efficient) as what they are supposed to be improving upon.

I would argue that we got better quality for our dollar in years past. FWIW, the Bosch, Viking, and even Miele dishwashers don’t seem to be that much better than the KitchenAid dishwashers (based on consumer feedback). We even purchased slightly more expensive KitchenAid dishwashers that were supposed to be more durable. All three (we have two dishwashers in our kitchen, and one already had to be replaced within 3 years!) have had problems, problems that are major enough to render the dishwashers unusable; these issues are well known, but KA refuses to do anything to fix the problem and make their customers whole. That is totally inexcusable. We did not have these problems 20+ years ago.

Not sure if you know this or not, but most of the major appliance companies have been bought out or merged with other companies so we essentially have only one dishwasher manufacturer. Whirlpool owns Whirlpool, Maytag, Hotpoint, Amana, KitchenAid, Jenn-Air, etc. The difference between most of these machines is just branding.

I’ve been trying to convince Speed Queen (commercial washers and dryers that are still built to last) to get into other appliance lines, with no luck so far. Still working on it. 😉

[CA renter]

[quote=gzz]One retro item that works as well or better than modern ones are digital alarm clocks from the 80’s.

During my very brief vacation rental experiment, I put different ones in every bedroom. Now I have a pile of them in storage, so I am set for life.

https://img1.etsystatic.com/058/1/8411034/il_570xN.714716571_m88z.jpg

http://thumbs.picclick.com/00/s/NjY5WDg5OQ==/z/wt8AAOSwaB5XvP92/$/Vintage-70s-Spartus-Alarm-Clock-Radio-Old-School-_1.jpg

That does not match with FlyerHI’s “W Hotel Look” though, more like “Ramada Inn That Has Not Been Renovated in 35 Years Look”. In an old beach house, however, they looked great by the nightstand.[/quote]

I love those old digital clocks. Had one just like that myself. 🙂

FWIW, I hope that your new dishwasher/fridge work out okay. Most repair people will tell you to keep the old ones until they literally fall apart because they are superior to the new ones. We’ve bought three KitchenAid dishwashers over the past 5 years, and every single one of them has had problems. When I was younger, we routinely had 20-40 year-old dishwashers that never failed. Planned obsolescence is a HUGE pet peeve of mine.

[CA renter]

Brian, I’m sure it will look beautiful. It sounds like you’re into design and aesthetics; your tenants will be lucky with whatever you put in.

I like the pic in gzz’s photo, too.

FWIW, it can be as much of a curse as it is a blessing to have a spouse who’s too clean. In fact, I had to change my ways a bit after getting married and having kids…then dogs. As my DH (who is also clean, but far less neurotic about it) says, “houses are for living in, not looking at.”

[CA renter]

Thank you, Rich. 🙂

[CA renter]

Rich, did the upgrade affect the search function? I’ve installed some additional blocker software on my computer in the past couple of months, so not sure if it’s that or something with the site.

Thank you, as always, for providing us with the opportunity to learn, share, and vent here. 🙂

Happy 2017!

[CA renter]

[quote=FlyerInHi]White and grey Carrara sounds nice. But I’m with you, better to go with the cheaper commodity material.

I’m getting ready to do a 1 bedroom and I didn’t see any fake wood vinyl at Home Depot for 50c. I see $2.50 It’s a second flood condo, so I’ll do vinyl flooring everywhere including kitchen and bath. I will do the bath walls with dark tiles for a sexy look. Floating wall hung Ikea vanity with under cabinets lighting. Simple black granite in the Ikea kitchen. Regular 6 inch backsplash. I don’t like fancy backsplash in kitchen. Detracts from modern mid century look. Pure white walls.

http://www.homedepot.com/p/MS-International-Enigma-6-in-x-24-in-Glazed-Porcelain-Floor-and-Wall-Tile-10-sq-ft-case-NHDENI6X24/206821045%5B/quote%5D

Just my 2 cents, but I don’t like black countertops. It’s not easy to see dirt, which leads to a feeling that the surface might be dirty, and a kitchen counter needs to be spotless. Why not a light/white color, instead? It looks cleaner, IMO.

[CA renter]

Sorry, svelte. Nobody hates his drivel more than I do, and his posting style is clearly designed for maximum obnoxiousness. He’s obviously a troll, and I’ve been trying more recently to just ignore him, but want to make sure that misinformation isn’t spread.

The reason I post whole quotes (from any poster) almost 100% of the time is because I’ve had a poster (Pri/harvey) regularly cherry pick certain sentences or phrases from my posts, then include his own text as though they were my posts in order to make it look like I’ve said something that I never actually said or even implied. I’ve seen this done on other message boards, too; not just to my posts, but with other people’s posts. As you know, context is everything, so including the quote that one is responding to is important to me. For this reason, I prefer to include entire posts so that anyone whose reading will know exactly the context of what was originally written.

Realize that my last post on this thread was from November 29th. I ignored his most recent post because I’m trying desperately not to feed the trolls.

That being said, I fully understand if you want to “ignore” me, if that’s what you feel is necessary to maintain some mental peace. I won’t take it personally.

Hope you and your family have a happy, healthy 2017! 🙂

[CA renter]

[quote=gogogosandiego]1. Where were there thousands of people in the streets in 2008? Be specific. It was not “all I could find”. It took 10 seconds to find. To find actual reported articles 8 years later I’d probably have to use Lexus or something else better than google and I’m not going to do that unless you have some actual specifics because I don’t remotely remember people in the streets.

2. Paul Krugman writes on the editorial pages. He or any other opinion piece or personality has nothing to do with what I am explaining to you about how large, world renowned papers like the NYT and WSJ work. ZH is clickbait. Nothing more, nothing less.

3. The Fed raised and then lowered as the economic cycle dictated, not bc of the stock market. Rates are irrelevant to lending standards all things being equal. The loosening (and outright fraud within the system) of lending standards was the primary cause of the housing bubble.

4. You don’t get it. You’re putting the cart WAY before the horse and you seem to think it’s OK for foreign countries to steal information from our government.

5. “Those who know what was going on”? You I suppose?

6. Prove that corps had more say that pols.

This is more or less what happened:

“Only the representatives of “We the People” should be involved, with input from corporate, environmental, and labor groups who are all given the same consideration.”

ISDS already exists in other trade agreements; I’ve already explained this to you. It’s not some boogie man that allows corps to just sue whomever they like for whatever they like.

7. You still don’t understand what happened with that bill.

8. I “oppose” sloppy, conspiracy based “reporting” that suggests Obama signed a anti free speech bill into law under the cover of Xmas.

You’re going to need to start presenting evidence for your claims if you’d like to continue. Actual, verifiable evidence. Not “I was there” or “I know” or “I was told”. That’s not how a “debate” works if you think we are debating.[/quote]

1.) Look at the video that I linked from the September 2008 protests. There were thousands of people in the streets. I was looking for news coverage at the time, and posted it on this site (the search function for Piggington is not working for me, but you can look it up). I specifically called out the fact that it was not being discussed in the media back in 2008. There was no more news coverage regarding that event in 2008 than there is now. Why do you think that is?

2.) The NYT is definitely more liberal in its bias. FYI, Krugman has been the face of the NYT’s left-leaning economic positions for years. Their choice of columnists reflects their views. The Op-Ed pages are usually the most widely read (and discussed in other media) pages of a newspaper. Whose opinions they place there matter greatly.

You can see here who their columnists are — the majority of them are liberal:

http://www.nytimes.com/pages/opinion/index.html?module=SectionsNav&action=click&version=BrowseTree&region=TopBar&contentCollection=Opinion%2FOp-Ed%20Columnists&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=collection#columnists

This is a history of the NYT’s presidential endorsements. It’s hardly neutral or unbiased.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/09/23/opinion/presidential-endorsement-timeline.html?mtrref=topics.nytimes.com&gwh=093CE592D9A5C24D1DA46F103B187FD9&gwt=pay&assetType=opinion

Today’s stories in the NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/pages/opinion/index.html

The WSJ is economically on the right. That stands to reason, since they represent the insights and interests of the business community.

When a member of the WSJ’s editorial board endorsed Clinton, it was widely reported on because the WSJ has a policy of not endorsing presidential candidates. FTR, many Republican leaders endorsed Clinton over Trump because her economic positions during the campaign were to the right of Trump (free trade, immigration reform, etc.).

Here’s how it was reported in The Hill. So much for not using sensationalist writing.

“A member of The Wall Street Journal’s traditionally conservative editorial board has endorsed Hillary Clinton for president, calling her “eminently sane” and bashing Republican nominee Donald Trump as the candidate of “white supremacists and swastika devotees.”’

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/298648-wall-street-journal-editorial-board-member-endorses

Keep pretending that they are not biased if that’s what makes you feel better at night.

3.) The stock market and the economy were on fire when they dropped rates after 1996 when Greenspan noted the “irrational exuberance.” There was no reason to lower rates. The stock market affects the economy because people have more (unrealized) wealth, which prompts them to spend more. Since ~70% of our economy is based on consumption, this is a big deal.

Rates are not at all irrelevant to lending standards. Claiming this shows a terrific lack of understanding about monetary policy.

“We find that insurance companies, pension funds, and, in particular, structured- finance vehicles take higher credit risk when investors expect interest rates to remain low. Banks originate riskier loans that they tend to divest shortly after origination, thus appearing to accommodate other lenders’ investment choices. These results are consistent with a search for yield” by certain types of shadow banks and, to the extent that Federal Reserve policies affected longer-term rates, the results are also consistent with the presence of a risk-taking channel of monetary policy. Finally, we find that longer-term interest rates have only a modest effect on loan spreads.

[Text didn’t format correctly, so check the original document for accuracy. -CAR]

https://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/feds/2015/files/2015068pap.pdf

4.) The Democratic Party is a private organization, it is not a governmental agency. Again, I don’t care how we get the relevant information and transparency. If our own system fails to provide transparency and hold people accountable, then other actors need to step in.

I want the government to investigate the actual fraud, not those who exposed it.

5.) Yes, those of us who were actively working on the ground knew what was going on and shook our heads at the contrived stories the MSM was making up about HRC being the presumptive nominee (she wouldn’t have been without the fraud), and then POTUS. Nobody who actually knew what was going on thought that HRC would win. Only those who followed the MSM’s propaganda and who lived in an echo chamber believed it (even her own people knew better…the fact that she was considered untrustworthy, unlikable, and unpopular was well known even among her most loyal insiders). Yes, I was actively involved in the presidential campaign, so knew what was going on.

6.) The fact that corporations are the ones who wrote most of the trade agreement shows that they had more power. Look up what our congressional representatives had to say about it.

7.) You’re the one who doesn’t understand what happened with that bill. The links and information regarding this legislation are posted throughout this thread.

8.) Apparently, anything that goes against your preconceived notions is “sloppy” reporting. The fact that this anti-free-speech bill passed under the radar isn’t a suggestion, it’s a fact.

You’re going to have to start presenting evidence for your claims if you’d like to continue. I’m the one who’s actually cited sources and links. For the record, those of us who were calling out the election fraud and DNC collusion were called “conspiracy theorists” and told that we were delusional (among other terms that were used to try to discredit us)…until Wikileaks proved us right. All too often, conspiracy theories are conspiracy facts. You’re painfully naive if you think that people in power aren’t working in concert to push an agenda that benefits themselves at the expense of others.

[CA renter]

ZK, you really need to look in the mirror. You’re projecting your weaknesses onto others.

[CA renter]

[quote=zk][quote=CA renter]

Your claim that my “attempts to discredit me and pass me off as a troll are pathetic and typical,” would indicate that you know me already and have debated me in the past since you used the word “typical.” So, are you a disinformation troll, or are you Pri/zk’s alter ego?[/quote]

Here’s a perfect example of how you twist things around to fit the idea that you’re right, even when you’re not.

You want to believe that gogo can’t be right (and therefore you wrong) so you want to discredit him. So you say (and, apparently, believe) that gogo’s claim – that you trying to discredit him and pass him off as a troll is typical – is evidence that he’s already debated you (and therefore he’s an alter ego). Anybody else who reads that claim of gogo’s (who has said he’s read this site for years) can see that his point is that it’s typical of you to try to discredit / pass off as a troll somebody who disagrees with you. Not to discredit and pass off him in particular as a troll. Not normally that important a distinction, but in this case, it’s a way for you to discredit him by trying to show that he’s an alter ego. I’m not sure how being an alter ego would make his points any less valid, but that’s not the point. The point is that you think it does, and therefore you want to believe it. And therefore you don’t see how you’ve misapplied logic. If you’ve got that 99th percentile IQ that you claim (and I have no reason to doubt that – high-IQ (which is different from smart) people can have believe-crazy-things issues and they can have seeing-when-they’re-wrong issues), then missing that bit of logic probably isn’t due to lack of intelligence. It’s probably due to yet another desperate attempt to not be wrong (in this case by discrediting the other person).

Fascinating.[/quote]

zk, the only people I’ve accused of being trolls are Pri and phaster. It’s pretty obvious that they are trolls — they are the very definition of trolls. But I’ve used this term very rarely, so in order for “gogogosandiego” to know that this is “typical” of me (it’s not), would mean that he/she would have had to closely follow some of the most divisive, lengthy, off-topic threads on this site where Pri or phaster really got obnoxious with their ad hominem attacks and off-topic posts. I find that highly unlikely for a simple lurker.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

But this new “gogogosandiego” is different. He/she is either an alter-ego, or is likely paid. I say this because we know for a fact that there has been a very heavy increase in the volume of spam and troll attacks, particularly regarding this “fake news” issue, on political sites. I say this as an admin on political pages/sites and as someone who’s been in regular contact with other admins about this topic.

[CA renter]

[quote=harvey]Quick, somebody hire more paid trolls!

She’s too strong … we need reinforcements![/quote]

Quick! Give Pri a clue!

[It’s so nice to see how you elevate discourse around here. /s]

[CA renter]

1.) That’s all you could find? Where are the pictures of the protests? The numbers of protestors? I saw nothing on any of the MSM TV channels, and nothing in the the newspapers. If you google “September 2008 Wall Street protests,” or even “September 2008 protests,” that CNN/Money online article is the only one that comes up. There were thousands of people on the street, and that’s all we got. Compare that to the much smaller anti-Trump protests that got immediate, and very broad, coverage after the election. Why do you think that is?

2.) The media is controlled by both the government and corporate interests. The government is “corporate interests.” If you haven’t figured that out yet, you need to start doing your homework. These corporate interests are the primary vested interests in our poliltical-economic world.

So, owning a site that generates revenue is, in itself, evidence of what? Your precious WSJ and NYT are also revenue-driven. Yes, they are biased. Where in the world did you get the idea that they weren’t? Are you trying to say that Paul Krugman isn’t biased, or that the WSJ doesn’t present stories from a business/economic-right perspective?

For the record, the fact that a media outlet is biased doesn’t mean that they are not presenting facts. It only means that they tend to highlight certain perspectives, while downplaying or ignoring other perspectives. Nearly all media outlets are biased in some way these days.

3.) The Fed started raising rates **two years** after Greenspan acknowledged the “irrational exuberance.” This was after they decreased rates an even further .75 pts in 1998! They raised rates in 1999-2000 by .25 pts at a time, with the exception of one .5 pt increase — those are tiny increments, especially when view against the rate at which interest rates tend to be lowered.

And low rates were the cause of lax lending standards. As rates are lowered, investors move further out on the risk curve in order to boost gains. That’s the reason the Fed lowers interest rates when the economy is slow. It was widely understood that low rates caused the credit/housing bubble, so why do you think they are doing it again, and at an even more aggressive rate?

It’s obvious that you don’t understand how monetary policy and the Fed work.

4.) Russia (or whomever it was, because there is still no evidence that Russia did it) exposed the corruption, collusion, and fraud, they did not engage in it. Are you saying that we didn’t have a right to know about the fraud? Why is the government more focused on going after the whistle-blower instead of pursuing the actual fraud? As you’ve said: If you don’t see the issue here you are clearly deluded as to what Democracy is and what’s important.

5.) Trump’s victory was very obvious to those who knew what was going on. Again, the polls were very clear, as well. Only the ignorant masses who got their spoon-fed propaganda from the HRC-biased MSM didn’t know about it. It was obvious shortly after he entered the race.

6.) Yes, corporations had more say than the politicians. Only a tiny group of politicians, including Hillary, who falsely claimed during the election to be ignorant of the inner workings of the TPP, knew what was in it. And very few representatives had any say about what went into the document. No, corporations have no business writing our trade deals. Only the representatives of “We the People” should be involved, with input from corporate, environmental, and labor groups who are all given the same consideration.

You appear to be clueless about the TPP, too. One of the most dangerous components of this deal is the Investor-State Dispute Settlement provision which would have given corporations power over sovereign governments. Like hell that would be good for us…or anyone, other than corporations.

http://www.citizen.org/tppinvestment

Fair trade that takes into account labor and environmental protections is generally good, but “free trade” is not. You are the one who’s uninformed about how our trade policies impact various populations and the environment.

7.) Yes, I understand exactly what occurred with that bill. This is the first item from your linked Snopes article:

“WHAT’S TRUE: On 23 December 2016, President Obama signed a Defense Department appropriations bill with a provision establishing an interagency office to identify and combat foreign propaganda.

WHAT’S FALSE: The provision is aimed at countering foreign sources of disinformation and does not apply to American independent or alternative media.”

and this…

“Note that according to its authors, the legislation was conceived not to clamp down on alternative news sources within the U.S., but rather to protect the “freedom of the marketplace of ideas on the international stage.” Note also that as written into the NDAA, the legislation’s provisions establish an inter-agency body “to track and evaluate counterfactual narratives abroad that threaten the national security interests of the United States and United States allies,” and to develop “procedures to expose and refute foreign misinformation and disinformation and proactively promote fact-based narratives and policies to audiences outside the United States.”‘

This is what’s in the overly-broad bill:

“(B) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this subsection may be construed to prohibit the team described in paragraph (1) from engaging in any form of communication or medium, either directly or indirectly, or coordinating with any other department or agency of the United States Government, a State government, or any other public or private organization or institution because a United States domestic audience is or may be thereby exposed to activities or communications of the team under this subsection, or based on a presumption of such exposure.”

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/3274/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22Countering+Disinformation+and+Propaganda+Act%22%5D%7D&r=1

Any information sources with an anti-U.S. bias that get traction here or abroad can be labeled as “foreign propaganda” or “disinformation,” and can be monitored and “countered” as a result of this bill. Do you seriously not see the dangers in this?

Again, who is the arbiter of what constitutes “foreign propaganda”? That’s what makes this dangerous.

8.) You didn’t address this, “gogogosandiego”:

[quote=CA renter]
…You claim that you’ve been reading this site for years, yet you created a new ID nine days after this thread was started, presumably because you wanted to object to my linking to a ZH article about the propaganda bill that was recently passed. For the record, Zero Hedge has been mentioned many times on this site over the years; some of these posts were even more “sensationalized” than what I posted, which was a factual piece about the legislation…where were you then?

As noted earlier, I linked to the ZH story because none of the mainstream media sources had mentioned it. I knew about the legislation from my own personal connections, and did not learn about it from ZH. But I like to include links to sources when I post something so that people can check it out for themselves. When others questioned the ZH story, I linked to other sources, including the site of the senator who co-authored this bill. I posted those other links prior to your obtaining this new user ID and going on your rant, so the legitimacy of the story was not in question (unless you are pri or zk…because some people still refuse to do any of their own research). So, did you oppose the exposure of this legislation, or the fact that ZH was used to corroborate the story (which was factual, BTW)? And why did you choose to speak out AFTER the other links were posted?

[/quote]

No, I don’t believe that you are some innocent random lurker of many years who’s just decided to sign up because of the ZH link. Your tone, writing style, accusations, and the timing of your ID and posts belie your claim.

[CA renter]

[quote=zk][quote=zk]
[to gogogosandiego:]I assure you you’re wasting your time and effort

It doesn’t take Nostradamus to predict she will respond with more nonsense and a complete inability to see anything she’s wrong about [/quote]

Pretty much everything she’s said since then has been that prediction coming true, but here it is in a nutshell:

[quote=CA renter] So, are you a disinformation troll, or are you Pri/zk’s alter ego?[/quote]

In CA Renter’s world, she’s twisted everything around so that these are the only options. The option where you’re making solid points – and she is wrong – does not exist.

Fascinating.[/quote]

What’s fascinating is that you posted this:

[quote=zk]Just like somehow you’re not wrong about Obama signing the “Countering Disinformation And Propaganda Act” into law.[/quote]

…and then went on to insist that you are right, and that I’m the one who has a problem admitting when I’m wrong. Have you printed out the other thread and presented it to a psychologist yet? You’re in desperate need of help, zk.

It’s your binary thinking that has got you in such a pickle. Life is more complex, and things tend to exist on a spectrum. Open your mind and stop worrying about whether someone else tells you if you’re right or wrong. Just focus on the facts instead of name-calling, and you’ll be far better off.

[CA renter]

[quote=harvey][quote=flu]pinyington.com… It might constitute trademark infringement, but I promise to run the fake news pinyington.com off of a server in China.[/quote]

It would be a week, maybe two, before CAR would be citing your content as proof that we are all wrong.[/quote]

You’re a real nutcase, Pri. I’ve been here for over 10 years, so this should be easy for you…show us ONE single post where I linked to a source that gave false information. You have to prove that it was false by linking to an equally trustworthy source (or better) that proves my source/information wrong.

[CA renter]

[quote=gogogosandiego]1. If you were protesting bailouts that’s great. If you thought you were part of or referred to what you were doing as a Tea party movement you were duped by political and corporate interests, plain and simple.

2. The media world is not controlled by the government. Yes a news piece is called a “story”. That isn’t the same thing as a story that is made up or has discretion from the author. A news story is reported, as in facts are reported. The NYT and WSJ are not biased in their reporting.

3. The Fed doesn’t “clamp down on speculation”. Your own link shows the Fed funds rate increasing in 1999 until the economy slowed in 2001 (that’s when the Fed is supposed to lower rates, not when there is “speculation”). Think tanks and other experts don’t consistently get things wrong; it’s just that they can’t force the government and others to act. Yours is a classic argument of “well if I was in charge I would have done this, this and this (magically of course) and everything would have been perfect”.

4. I’m not going to condone the actions of the DNC. Bernie was certainly an oddball candidate and one can make a very strong argument that his nomination was not in the best interest of the party. But don’t you dare question my support of Democracy after posting that you think the takeaway from a foreign country hacking government databases and then selectively releasing the information in a way to potentially affect our elections is “they exposed the fraud and collusion”. That shows how little you care about Democracy, your only allegiance lies with getting your guy elected. And no one is trying to start a war with Russia.

5. Trump was not obvious to anyone. I’m sure it was widely predicted by Bernie supporters once they realized Bernie wasn’t happening. The same way Trump supporters would have all predicted Hillary over whoever beat Trump.

6. “Unprecedented”? Versus what? Again, all trade deals are done as confidentially as possible for good reason. Government, corporate and other interests were all involved in TPP negotiations. Once done it’s released for everyone to see. This is how most “deals” are done. For you to expect anything differently with something covering hundreds of variables with numerous other countries as parties and took several years to get done is ridiculous. What exactly should the media have been reporting about the TPP? “Day 876 here at TPP negotiations, meeting number 52, everything is pretty locked up, back to you in studio Joe”?

As for me, I’ve been reading this site for years. Your statement that there aren’t many objective news sources and that ZH is somehow objective (and continue to believe so after having been shown they are not) was too much for me. I had to make an ID and jump in. I never said the MSM is the “sole source of unbiased information”. I am saying that sources like the NYT and WSJ are some of the best outlets and are specifically designed and run to give unbiased news. ZH and similar sites are not news.

Your attempts to discredit me and pass me off as a troll are pathetic and typical.[/quote]

1.) Regarding the Tea Party, many of us knew about FreedomWorks, but we agreed that there shouldn’t be any bailouts; and many of us were as opposed to bailing out speculators and flippers as we were to bailout out the banking industry. The people I knew weren’t duped, we just took advantage of the situation because we were in agreement with their original points. Once it became more about Obamacare and “big government,” those of us who were simply opposed to the bailouts got out. As I’ve pointed out earlier, there were protests in 2008 that got absolutely zero news coverage. Thousands of people in the street…and nothing from your vaunted MSM. We had to go where we could to get traction.

We were discussing this very issue here in 2009.

https://piggington.com/california_tax_revolt_attend_a_tea_party

2.) The media is controlled by vested interests. Sometimes, those people are in the government, and sometimes they’re not. But the reporters are indeed told what they can and cannot say, especially if a report would threaten one of these powerful interests. It’s not at all uncommon for journalists to be threatened with the loss of their jobs, and even criminal charges, if they report on certain topics or in certain ways. It has nothing to do with whether or not they are telling the truth, but whether or not they are threatening a vested/powerful interest.

The NYT and WSJ, along with most other media outlets, are absolutely biased in what they report and how they report it.

3.) Yes, the Fed can indeed clamp down on speculation.

-They can simply talk about the speculation and unjustifiably high asset prices, with some warnings that they may have to take action to stop or slow it down, instilling some fear in the markets that are moving into bubble territory.

-They can increase capital requirements.

-They can raise rates.

Regarding the Fed Funds Rate during the dot.com bubble, you’ll see that rates were raised nearly two years after Greenspan acknowledged the “irrational exuberance” in the stock market in 1996. Even then, the rate increases were relatively tiny (.75 pts. in the fall of 1998 and 1 pt in 1999), and were only in place for a short while before being dropped much more rapidly in 2001 to feed another bubble.

https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/openmarket_archive.htm

And even after it seemed that the consensus opinion regarding the cause of the credit/housing bubble was that rates were held too low for too long, the Fed did it again, but at even lower rates and for a longer period of time than before.

4.) My desire to have a transparent and accountable government means that I don’t care who forces this on the government, as long as all of the actions are clear, and all of the players are held accountable. Whether Russia exposed the fraud, or if insiders at the DNC exposed it (which is what many of us believe), matters not at all. Russia did not selectively release the information, they released batches of emails, and people were able to search and sort through them as they desired.

Your assertion that Bernie was “odd” or “bad for the party” is quaint given how HRC consistently changed her positions to more closely align herself with what Bernie was saying. She changed her opinion on the TPP, universal healthcare, “free” college (with means testing for HRC), criminal justice reform, etc…all during the primary season.

Absolutely, HRC and others in the govt/corporate sector have been trying to start a war with Russia for some time. Perhaps you haven’t been paying attention, but while you were focused on the “news” being reported by the MSM, this has been going on (and the sabre-rattling regarding the emails has been pushed to the forefront of the propaganda cycle in order to get the public’s buy-in of aggressive actions against Russia):

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-nato-russia-idUSKCN12P31W

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-russia-usa-idUSKBN14G0K0?il=0

And if you oppose Russian influence in our elections (or even in the elections of our neighboring countries), how do you feel about our involvement in the affairs of former Russian territories?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957

Good Job, “Yats”: Why The Neocons Subverted The Ukraine

Yes, I will question your support for democracy since you appear to have no problem with the appointment of an “elected” candidate, rather that having a free and fair election to decide who should be running in the general election. That’s why we’re now stuck with Donald Trump. Thank you, “gogogosandiego.”

5.) Trump’s victory was obvious to anyone working on the ground, and it was obvious at the beginning of the primary election season when the all of the candidates were still in the race. The only other Republican candidates who got any traction were Cruz and Carson, and their support was still significantly less than Trump’s. The polls showing that Bernie consistently outperformed Clinton against nearly all of the Republican candidates were showing this well before she “won” the nomination (many of us also believe that she would not have won the Democratic Party’s nomination without all of the fraud and collusion that transpired).

6.) The secrecy surrounding the TPP was unprecedented compared to the negotiation of any of our other trade deals, with the possible exception of NAFTA. Why should corporations have more say in our trade deals than our political representatives do? The MSM should have been doing what the alternative news sources were doing — letting people know about the trade deal and how our own politicians weren’t allowed to participate in, or even know the details about, these negotiations until after the agreement was drawn up. Add the TPA (“fast track”) authority which would tie congress’s hands and prevent them from amending the agreement by forcing them only to vote up or down on it, and maybe you’ll understand why so many people were opposed to it.

7.) You claim that you’ve been reading this site for years, yet you created a new ID nine days after this thread was started, presumably because you wanted to object to my linking to a ZH article about the propaganda bill that was recently passed. For the record, Zero Hedge has been mentioned many times on this site over the years; some of these posts were even more “sensationalized” than what I posted, which was a factual piece about the legislation…where were you then?

As noted earlier, I linked to the ZH story because none of the mainstream media sources had mentioned it. I knew about the legislation from my own personal connections, and did not learn about it from ZH. But I like to include links to sources when I post something so that people can check it out for themselves. When others questioned the ZH story, I linked to other sources, including the site of the senator who co-authored this bill. I posted those other links prior to your obtaining this new user ID and going on your rant, so the legitimacy of the story was not in question (unless you are pri or zk…because some people still refuse to do any of their own research). So, did you oppose the exposure of this legislation, or the fact that ZH was used to corroborate the story (which was factual, BTW)? And why did you choose to speak out AFTER the other links were posted?

Contrary to your erroneous claim, I never said that ZH was objective; only that they’re willing to talk about stories that are being ignored or intentionally biased in the MSM. As a matter of fact, I pointed out that most news/information sources are biased.

Your claim that my “attempts to discredit me and pass me off as a troll are pathetic and typical,” would indicate that you know me already and have debated me in the past since you used the word “typical.” So, are you a disinformation troll, or are you Pri/zk’s alter ego?

[Author]

Posts