-
It's that time of year again - our ISP is asking for money. If you have some spare change, please click the Donate link... Thanks!
- About Us
- Search
- Need Help?
- Donate
- Login/Register
Latest Entries
Actions Menu
Blog Roll
- 4F Facebook Page
- Turn Up The Night with Kenny Pick
- Stephanie Miller Show
- The Tim Corrimal Show
- The Rachel Maddow Show
- Angry Americans with Paul Rieckhoff
- Thom Hartmann Program
- Turnips! Fans of Turn Up the Night Facebook Page
- Snopes.com
- Factcheck.org
- Official White House Page, if you must.
- The Brad Blog / Green News Report
- The Poorly Written Political Blog (Joe Santorsa)
When Ideologies Collide
Author: BobR
Date: 10/19/2011 10:28:06
Between Occupy Wall Street and the Republican race (with their mind-numbingly repetitive debates), there seem to be few news cycles for anything else. Foreign affairs normally get short shrift as it is, and the last couple weeks have been no exception. As the war in Afghanistan continues in seeming perpetuity, the war in Iraq (or at least U.S involvement) is finally coming to an end.
So it's no surprise that other than our own TriSec reporting yesterday, we have seen very little coverage of our newest military entanglement: Kenya. Naturally, there will be the conspiracy theorists going on about it because of President Obama's father, but look at the details and it's clear that it has more to do with Uganda than Kenya.
The LRA (Lord's Resistance Army) is a guerilla army in Kenya committing atrocities against the people of Uganda. The details are not for the faint of heart. Their leader - Joseph Kony - is wanted by the International Criminal Court. I know Ron Paul would disapprove, but then he's not against letting people die from lack of health insurance either. Most people, however, should feel that something needs to be done.
Naturally, there are idealists that feel that ANY military involvement is wrong, regardless of the reason, and this case is no exception. Either they look for conspiracies (like oil in Uganda), or simply chalk it up to imperialism. Never mind that progressive darling Russ Feingold created the legislation authorizing intervention (although he has stated that it didn't include armed combat):
So we have human rights activists at odds with anti-war activists. Most liberals/progressives embrace both ideals, but with a dose of common sense and a grip on the reality of the world in which we live. How is Joseph Kony any different than Osama bin Laden? He is a religious extremist using extreme violence against civilians to fulfill what he believes is his Supremely Ordained destiny.
The difference, of course, is that Joseph Kony is a Christian extremist, and that makes all the difference to some people... and by "some people" I mean Rush Limbaugh (and I quote):
Most Republicans have shown to be reflexively against anything President Obama says, does, or supports, even if it's something they would normally be in favor of. Limbaugh, however, seems to have gone one step farther, and tacitly endorse a maniacal killer simply because the president he hates is taking military action against him. How many of Limbaugh's listeners are going to hear this and reinforce in their minds that our president is a Muslim trying to kill good Christians. How long before one of Limbaugh's listeners decides it's time to be a Christian Soldier and "do something about it"? This kind of purposeful disinformation is irresponsible at best, and dangerous at worst.
Although the motivations are different, one has to wonder when anti-war activists disagree with human rights advocates, and come down on the same side as Rush Limbaugh in their criticism of this limited military involvement. Strange bedfellows indeed...
So it's no surprise that other than our own TriSec reporting yesterday, we have seen very little coverage of our newest military entanglement: Kenya. Naturally, there will be the conspiracy theorists going on about it because of President Obama's father, but look at the details and it's clear that it has more to do with Uganda than Kenya.
The LRA (Lord's Resistance Army) is a guerilla army in Kenya committing atrocities against the people of Uganda. The details are not for the faint of heart. Their leader - Joseph Kony - is wanted by the International Criminal Court. I know Ron Paul would disapprove, but then he's not against letting people die from lack of health insurance either. Most people, however, should feel that something needs to be done.
Naturally, there are idealists that feel that ANY military involvement is wrong, regardless of the reason, and this case is no exception. Either they look for conspiracies (like oil in Uganda), or simply chalk it up to imperialism. Never mind that progressive darling Russ Feingold created the legislation authorizing intervention (although he has stated that it didn't include armed combat):
The author of that legislation, former Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisc., told ABC News in a statement that “our legislation did not authorize the use of force by American troops anywhere,” but he noted that the bill “did call for a comprehensive approach in dealing with the Lord’s Resistance Army, which includes military, intelligence, diplomatic, and development components.”
Feingold said, “If the military advisors being deployed by the President are being used to facilitate information and intelligence sharing, including among regional militaries, that is consistent with part of what our bill was seeking. But that mission should be just one piece of a larger strategy that focuses on civilian protection in the broadest sense.”
A coalition of human rights groups applauded the president’s move.
“By deploying these advisers, President Obama is showing decisive leadership to help regional governments finally bring an end to the LRA’s mass atrocities,” said Paul Ronan, Director of Advocacy at Resolve.
So we have human rights activists at odds with anti-war activists. Most liberals/progressives embrace both ideals, but with a dose of common sense and a grip on the reality of the world in which we live. How is Joseph Kony any different than Osama bin Laden? He is a religious extremist using extreme violence against civilians to fulfill what he believes is his Supremely Ordained destiny.
The difference, of course, is that Joseph Kony is a Christian extremist, and that makes all the difference to some people... and by "some people" I mean Rush Limbaugh (and I quote):
Now, up until today, most Americans have never heard of the combat Lord’s Resistance Army. And here we are at war with them. Have you ever heard of Lord’s Resistance Army, Dawn? How about you, Brian? Snerdley, have you? You never heard of Lord’s Resistance Army? Well, proves my contention, most Americans have never heard of it, and here we are at war with them. Lord’s Resistance Army are Christians. It means God. I was only kidding. Lord’s Resistance Army are Christians. They are fighting the Muslims in Sudan. And Obama has sent troops, United States troops to remove them from the battlefield, which means kill them. That’s what the lingo means, “to help regional forces remove from the battlefield,” meaning capture or kill. [...]
Most Republicans have shown to be reflexively against anything President Obama says, does, or supports, even if it's something they would normally be in favor of. Limbaugh, however, seems to have gone one step farther, and tacitly endorse a maniacal killer simply because the president he hates is taking military action against him. How many of Limbaugh's listeners are going to hear this and reinforce in their minds that our president is a Muslim trying to kill good Christians. How long before one of Limbaugh's listeners decides it's time to be a Christian Soldier and "do something about it"? This kind of purposeful disinformation is irresponsible at best, and dangerous at worst.
Although the motivations are different, one has to wonder when anti-war activists disagree with human rights advocates, and come down on the same side as Rush Limbaugh in their criticism of this limited military involvement. Strange bedfellows indeed...
Comments:
Order comments Newest to Oldest Refresh Comments
Comment by 
Mondobubba on 10/19/2011 13:04:07
Mondobubba on 10/19/2011 13:04:07
Morning. So what was the Big Announcement? I am behind.
Comment by 
wickedpam on 10/19/2011 13:07:34
wickedpam on 10/19/2011 13:07:34
Morning 
Comment by wickedpam on 10/19/2011 13:12:26
wickedpam on 10/19/2011 13:12:26
Yeah, what was the big annoucment?
Comment by 
TriSec on 10/19/2011 13:16:58
TriSec on 10/19/2011 13:16:58
Morning, comrades!
Comment by 
Scoopster on 10/19/2011 13:18:40
Scoopster on 10/19/2011 13:18:40
Mornin' all.. 
AGH who replaced my whole milk with skim?!
AGH who replaced my whole milk with skim?!
Comment by TriSec on 10/19/2011 13:18:52
TriSec on 10/19/2011 13:18:52
Anyone else out there think the wild animals running loose in Ohio has the hallmarks of some kind of PETA action?
Comment by wickedpam on 10/19/2011 13:44:08
Why are you using my Skim Milk?
wickedpam on 10/19/2011 13:44:08
Quote by Scoopster:
Mornin' all..
Why are you using my Skim Milk?
Comment by 
Raine on 10/19/2011 13:48:13
Raine on 10/19/2011 13:48:13
Good Morning! 
Comment by Raine on 10/19/2011 13:49:23
Raine on 10/19/2011 13:49:23
We had a presidential candidate on the show last night. @35ratliff2012 on twitter.
Comment by Scoopster on 10/19/2011 13:51:47
Oh goodness did I grab the wrong bottle?
Scoopster on 10/19/2011 13:51:47
Quote by wickedpam:Quote by Scoopster:
Mornin' all..
Why are you using my Skim Milk?
Oh goodness did I grab the wrong bottle?
Comment by wickedpam on 10/19/2011 13:53:25
Very cool
wickedpam on 10/19/2011 13:53:25
Quote by Raine:
We had a presidential candidate on the show last night. @35ratliff2012 on twitter.
Very cool
Comment by Mondobubba on 10/19/2011 14:09:13
Oh fancy!
Mondobubba on 10/19/2011 14:09:13
Quote by Raine:
We had a presidential candidate on the show last night. @35ratliff2012 on twitter.
Oh fancy!
Comment by Scoopster on 10/19/2011 14:11:25
Scoopster on 10/19/2011 14:11:25
.... Did Michelle Bachmann REALLY say she wants a "double walled fence" on the Mexico border? 
Comment by Raine on 10/19/2011 14:11:48
Raine on 10/19/2011 14:11:48
Sounds like the debate last night was quite rambunctious!
Comment by Raine on 10/19/2011 14:17:01
It's even worse, imo:
Raine on 10/19/2011 14:17:01
Quote by Scoopster:
.... Did Michelle Bachmann REALLY say she wants a "double walled fence" on the Mexico border?
"The person who really has a problem with illegal immigration is President Obama," she answered solemnly. "It's his uncle and aunt that have had immigration problems."
While it is true that the Obama family have had some issues with immigration, it is entirely unclear what that has to do with President Obama's policies, particularly since there is no indication that these family members have even spoken to the President in recent memory. Rep. Bachmann rounded out her answer by asserting that she would "build a double-walled fence with an area of security neutrality" and, in a policy point that seems impossible to constitutionally enforce, "I will enforce English as the official language of the government."
Comment by Scoopster on 10/19/2011 14:17:14
Scoopster on 10/19/2011 14:17:14
From the DKos rolling debate summary.. 
6:22 PM PT: Newt Gingrich says something about morals and faith. He knows a lot about that because he keeps on doing it over and over, different women, different religions.
Comment by Raine on 10/19/2011 14:23:39
Raine on 10/19/2011 14:23:39
I may have a lot of questions about Occupy, but dammit THIS is police brutality and this shite needs to stop. A white shirt punched a woman in the face.
In other news... and this is a good damn start: Bologna should be canned.
In other news... and this is a good damn start:
An internal New York Police Department review has found an official violated department guidelines when he used pepper spray on Occupy Wall Street protesters last month, a person with knowledge of the investigation said Tuesday.
Deputy Inspector Anthony Bologna faces discipline of a loss of 10 vacation days after the Sept. 24 incident near Union Square, shortly after the now-global protests began in a tiny private plaza in lower Manhattan, the person said. The person had direct knowledge of the review but was not authorized to speak publicly and spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity.
Comment by Scoopster on 10/19/2011 14:36:43
Scoopster on 10/19/2011 14:36:43
Comment by Mondobubba on 10/19/2011 14:42:34
Three word: Civil Service Protection. Hard to can him. Okay that was more than three words.
Mondobubba on 10/19/2011 14:42:34
Quote by Raine:
I may have a lot of questions about Occupy, but dammit THIS is police brutality and this shite needs to stop. A white shirt punched a woman in the face.
In other news... and this is a good damn start:Bologna should be canned.An internal New York Police Department review has found an official violated department guidelines when he used pepper spray on Occupy Wall Street protesters last month, a person with knowledge of the investigation said Tuesday.
Deputy Inspector Anthony Bologna faces discipline of a loss of 10 vacation days after the Sept. 24 incident near Union Square, shortly after the now-global protests began in a tiny private plaza in lower Manhattan, the person said. The person had direct knowledge of the review but was not authorized to speak publicly and spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity.
Three word: Civil Service Protection. Hard to can him. Okay that was more than three words.
Comment by 
velveeta jones on 10/19/2011 14:56:43
velveeta jones on 10/19/2011 14:56:43
Morning! Great post. I've been for straightening out some of these rogue dictators in Africa long before going into Iraq or Iran..... too long coming.
Comment by velveeta jones on 10/19/2011 15:03:45
Oh NOOOOOOOes! I have that symbol on my phone! Wait! It's on my keyboard(s) as well!!! Oh the HORROR!
velveeta jones on 10/19/2011 15:03:45
Oh NOOOOOOOes! I have that symbol on my phone! Wait! It's on my keyboard(s) as well!!! Oh the HORROR!
Comment by wickedpam on 10/19/2011 15:14:01
Oh lord
wickedpam on 10/19/2011 15:14:01
Oh lord
Comment by 
livingonli on 10/19/2011 15:32:41
livingonli on 10/19/2011 15:32:41
Good morning everyone. Glad I don't have to watch the debates since I am usually at work. I think I would need a good stiff drink.
Comment by livingonli on 10/19/2011 15:33:50
So do I! I guess I must run off screaming into the night so I don't get possessed.
livingonli on 10/19/2011 15:33:50
Quote by velveeta jones:
Oh NOOOOOOOes! I have that symbol on my phone! Wait! It's on my keyboard(s) as well!!! Oh the HORROR!
So do I! I guess I must run off screaming into the night so I don't get possessed.
Comment by Raine on 10/19/2011 15:48:01
What a estupida idiot
Raine on 10/19/2011 15:48:01
What a estupida idiot
Comment by Raine on 10/19/2011 15:48:36
I agree Vel.
Raine on 10/19/2011 15:48:36
Quote by velveeta jones:
Morning! Great post. I've been for straightening out some of these rogue dictators in Africa long before going into Iraq or Iran..... too long coming.
I agree Vel.
Comment by Raine on 10/19/2011 15:52:16
Raine on 10/19/2011 15:52:16
Occupy Batman?
Could be...
Could be...
"The Dark Knight Rises," Christopher Nolan's third film in the Batman trilogy, has been shooting in Los Angeles in recent weeks. But the Christian Bale-led production is now set to make a trip to New York and could be heading to a fraught locale: the Occupy Wall Street protests.
Under its code name "Magnus Rex," the Warner Bros./Legendary Pictures production will arrive in the nation's biggest city for 14 days starting Oct. 29, according to a casting notice recently issued by producers. And, according to a person briefed on actors’ schedules who requested anonymity because production details were being kept confidential, cast members have been told the shoot could include scenes shot at the Occupy Wall Street protests.
Comment by Scoopster on 10/19/2011 16:08:57
Scoopster on 10/19/2011 16:08:57
BoA shifting garbage derivatives from unsecured Merrill Lynch to a taxpayer-insured division
And JP Morgan is doing the same thing apparently.. WHAT THE FUCK?!
And JP Morgan is doing the same thing apparently.. WHAT THE FUCK?!
Comment by Raine on 10/19/2011 16:24:30
This is getting ridiculous. Absofukinlutely ridiculous.
I am reading the original article from Bloomberg now.
Raine on 10/19/2011 16:24:30
Quote by Scoopster:
BoA shifting garbage derivatives from unsecured Merrill Lynch to a taxpayer-insured division
And JP Morgan is doing the same thing apparently.. WHAT THE FUCK?!
This is getting ridiculous. Absofukinlutely ridiculous.
I am reading the original article from Bloomberg now.
Comment by Raine on 10/19/2011 16:30:04
Raine on 10/19/2011 16:30:04
So if I am under the correct assumption, they moved money to areas that are covered under the FDIC as opposed to the fed?
One is taxpayer funded the other is not, right? (I get very confused with all of this.)
One is taxpayer funded the other is not, right? (I get very confused with all of this.)
Comment by Raine on 10/19/2011 16:34:44
Raine on 10/19/2011 16:34:44
BoA looks like they are in serious trouble, IMO.
Comment by wickedpam on 10/19/2011 16:41:41
I don't understand the difference between the FDIC and the fed. In fact anything financial and my eyes glaze over
wickedpam on 10/19/2011 16:41:41
Quote by Raine:
So if I am under the correct assumption, they moved money to areas that are covered under the FDIC as opposed to the fed?
One is taxpayer funded the other is not, right? (I get very confused with all of this.)
I don't understand the difference between the FDIC and the fed. In fact anything financial and my eyes glaze over
Comment by 
BobR on 10/19/2011 16:45:42
The Fed is the US government's central banking system. The FDIC is insurance for depositors (ie: customers, ie: us) insuring our deposits in the bank in case the bank fails.
BobR on 10/19/2011 16:45:42
Quote by wickedpam:Quote by Raine:
So if I am under the correct assumption, they moved money to areas that are covered under the FDIC as opposed to the fed?
One is taxpayer funded the other is not, right? (I get very confused with all of this.)
I don't understand the difference between the FDIC and the fed. In fact anything financial and my eyes glaze over
The Fed is the US government's central banking system. The FDIC is insurance for depositors (ie: customers, ie: us) insuring our deposits in the bank in case the bank fails.
Comment by Raine on 10/19/2011 16:47:05
Mine too, I try to understand.
The FDIC is a federal insurance program -- one that we as taxpayers help fund. That I know. it's a social safety net.
The Fed Reserve is one of those murky private entities. To the best of my knowledge (and someone please correct me here) BoA and JP Morgan are moving the derivates money to the banking [ ie: regular people money and deposits etc] to be covered by the FDIC.
From the Bloomberg link:
This I believe is a loophole they found in the Frank-Dodd act -- and it certainly was illegal before Glass Steagal was repealed.
These moves should NEVER have been allowed. I remember there were commercial banks, personal banks and investment firms. Now they are all a big muddy mess.
Raine on 10/19/2011 16:47:05
Quote by wickedpam:Quote by Raine:
So if I am under the correct assumption, they moved money to areas that are covered under the FDIC as opposed to the fed?
One is taxpayer funded the other is not, right? (I get very confused with all of this.)
I don't understand the difference between the FDIC and the fed. In fact anything financial and my eyes glaze over
Mine too, I try to understand.
The FDIC is a federal insurance program -- one that we as taxpayers help fund. That I know. it's a social safety net.
The Fed Reserve is one of those murky private entities. To the best of my knowledge (and someone please correct me here) BoA and JP Morgan are moving the derivates money to the banking [ ie: regular people money and deposits etc] to be covered by the FDIC.
From the Bloomberg link:
Derivatives are financial instruments used to hedge risks or for speculation. They’re derived from stocks, bonds, loans, currencies and commodities, or linked to specific events such as changes in the weather or interest rates.
This I believe is a loophole they found in the Frank-Dodd act -- and it certainly was illegal before Glass Steagal was repealed.
These moves should NEVER have been allowed. I remember there were commercial banks, personal banks and investment firms. Now they are all a big muddy mess.
Comment by livingonli on 10/19/2011 16:47:15
At this point I would love to see their board thrown in jail for what they have done. They have been probably breaking the law in the way they have been handling mortgages and then end up with no paperwork when they try to foreclose because they were betting on that mortgage failing in the first place.
livingonli on 10/19/2011 16:47:15
Quote by Raine:
BoA looks like they are in serious trouble, IMO.
At this point I would love to see their board thrown in jail for what they have done. They have been probably breaking the law in the way they have been handling mortgages and then end up with no paperwork when they try to foreclose because they were betting on that mortgage failing in the first place.
Comment by wickedpam on 10/19/2011 16:47:47
still seems like the same thing to me - isn't it the Fed that backs up the FDIC?
wickedpam on 10/19/2011 16:47:47
Quote by BobR:Quote by wickedpam:Quote by Raine:
So if I am under the correct assumption, they moved money to areas that are covered under the FDIC as opposed to the fed?
One is taxpayer funded the other is not, right? (I get very confused with all of this.)
I don't understand the difference between the FDIC and the fed. In fact anything financial and my eyes glaze over
The Fed is the US government's central banking system. The FDIC is insurance for depositors (ie: customers, ie: us) insuring our deposits in the bank in case the bank fails.
still seems like the same thing to me - isn't it the Fed that backs up the FDIC?
Comment by Raine on 10/19/2011 16:49:18
Raine on 10/19/2011 16:49:18
Also from the Bloomberg article:
So BoA decided to move it's hedge fund arm to make sure it was covered under the FDIC. I am damn pissed.
Dodd-Frank Rules
Keeping such deals separate from FDIC-insured savings has been a cornerstone of U.S. regulation for decades, including last year’s Dodd-Frank overhaul of Wall Street regulation.
The legislation gave the FDIC, which liquidates failing banks, expanded powers to dismantle large financial institutions in danger of failing. The agency can borrow from the Treasury Department to finance the biggest lenders’ operations to stem bank runs. It’s required to recoup taxpayer money used during the resolution process through fees on the largest firms.
So BoA decided to move it's hedge fund arm to make sure it was covered under the FDIC. I am damn pissed.
Comment by Raine on 10/19/2011 16:56:28
No.
about the FDIC
BoA is moving there crappy shit to be covered by the FDIC.
The Federal reserve however... As, Bob so aptly put it, is to provide the GOVERNMENT a banking system.
FDIC : Federal deposit INSURANCE company.
Fed: A bank
Raine on 10/19/2011 16:56:28
Quote by wickedpam:
still seems like the same thing to me - isn't it the Fed that backs up the FDIC?
about the FDIC
The FDIC also examines and supervises certain financial institutions for safety and soundness, performs certain consumer-protection functions, and manages banks in receiverships (failed banks).
Insured institutions are required to place signs at their place of business stating that "deposits are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States Government." Since the start of FDIC insurance on January 1, 1934, no depositor has lost any insured funds as a result of a failure.
BoA is moving there crappy shit to be covered by the FDIC.
The Federal reserve however... As, Bob so aptly put it, is to provide the GOVERNMENT a banking system.
FDIC : Federal deposit INSURANCE company.
Fed: A bank
Comment by Raine on 10/19/2011 16:57:40
Raine on 10/19/2011 16:57:40
BoA is taking advantage of the fact that corporations are people, so says the ruling of citizens untied.
Scoop -- am I off base here?
Scoop -- am I off base here?
Comment by livingonli on 10/19/2011 16:57:49
And if it helps, BoA is probably hoping they get the money and not the depositors. Fuckers, I really hope they end up going under.
livingonli on 10/19/2011 16:57:49
Quote by Raine:
Also from the Bloomberg article:Dodd-Frank Rules
Keeping such deals separate from FDIC-insured savings has been a cornerstone of U.S. regulation for decades, including last year’s Dodd-Frank overhaul of Wall Street regulation.
The legislation gave the FDIC, which liquidates failing banks, expanded powers to dismantle large financial institutions in danger of failing. The agency can borrow from the Treasury Department to finance the biggest lenders’ operations to stem bank runs. It’s required to recoup taxpayer money used during the resolution process through fees on the largest firms.
So BoA decided to move it's hedge fund arm to make sure it was covered under the FDIC. I am damn pissed.
And if it helps, BoA is probably hoping they get the money and not the depositors. Fuckers, I really hope they end up going under.
Comment by Raine on 10/19/2011 16:59:26
Raine on 10/19/2011 16:59:26
I hope I am making sense here. I think I am understanding, but I hope I am not misrepresenting information.
Comment by Raine on 10/19/2011 17:03:32
The depositors are going to pay -- as the depositors are taxpayers who are supposed to have the social safety net afforded us by the FDIC.
This needs immediate investigation from the administration. Once again, read the bloomberg article:
Raine on 10/19/2011 17:03:32
Quote by livingonli:
And if it helps, BoA is probably hoping they get the money and not the depositors. Fuckers, I really hope they end up going under.
This needs immediate investigation from the administration. Once again, read the bloomberg article:
The Federal Reserve and Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. disagree over the transfers, which are being requested by counterparties, said the people, who asked to remain anonymous because they weren’t authorized to speak publicly. The Fed has signaled that it favors moving the derivatives to give relief to the bank holding company, while the FDIC, which would have to pay off depositors in the event of a bank failure, is objecting, said the people. The bank doesn’t believe regulatory approval is needed, said people with knowledge of its position.
Three years after taxpayers rescued some of the biggest U.S. lenders, regulators are grappling with how to protect FDIC- insured bank accounts from risks generated by investment-banking operations. Bank of America, which got a $45 billion bailout during the financial crisis, had $1.04 trillion in deposits as of midyear, ranking it second among U.S. firms.
Comment by wickedpam on 10/19/2011 17:04:48
yep, I think I got it - eye's glazed over and all
So what I'm getting is they are putting that crappy stuff, the stuff that will tank out, epic fail or whatever into a place that is FDIC backed so when the it does tank it's insured up to 250K (I know there's a limit on the amount the FDIC insures for can't remember what it is though)
wickedpam on 10/19/2011 17:04:48
Quote by Raine:
I hope I am making sense here. I think I am understanding, but I hope I am not misrepresenting information.
yep, I think I got it - eye's glazed over and all
So what I'm getting is they are putting that crappy stuff, the stuff that will tank out, epic fail or whatever into a place that is FDIC backed so when the it does tank it's insured up to 250K (I know there's a limit on the amount the FDIC insures for can't remember what it is though)
Comment by Scoopster on 10/19/2011 17:09:25
Honey... I really hope you are. Because if not we're FUCKED.
Scoopster on 10/19/2011 17:09:25
Quote by Raine:
BoA is taking advantage of the fact that corporations are people, so says the ruling of citizens untied.
Scoop -- am I off base here?
Honey... I really hope you are. Because if not we're FUCKED.
Comment by Raine on 10/19/2011 17:10:28
Yes, you get it! What I am trying to find out ios how they can count on the FDIC insurance.
I have always been under the impression that it was 250K per depositor per bank. This is where I am trying to understand.
It makes me ask a LOT of questions. It almost looks like they are banking on things to fail. Individual depositors will still be insured -- but that also means we will still pay for bank failure.
Still researching. Still hoping someone can tell me if I am hunting down the wrong foxhole.
Raine on 10/19/2011 17:10:28
Quote by wickedpam:Quote by Raine:
I hope I am making sense here. I think I am understanding, but I hope I am not misrepresenting information.
yep, I think I got it - eye's glazed over and all
So what I'm getting is they are putting that crappy stuff, the stuff that will tank out, epic fail or whatever into a place that is FDIC backed so when the it does tank it's insured up to 250K (I know there's a limit on the amount the FDIC insures for can't remember what it is though)
Yes, you get it! What I am trying to find out ios how they can count on the FDIC insurance.
I have always been under the impression that it was 250K per depositor per bank. This is where I am trying to understand.
It makes me ask a LOT of questions. It almost looks like they are banking on things to fail. Individual depositors will still be insured -- but that also means we will still pay for bank failure.
Still researching. Still hoping someone can tell me if I am hunting down the wrong foxhole.
Comment by Raine on 10/19/2011 17:13:09
Mala brought up a VERY good point about the FDIC and the account insurance.
This needs to be seriously looked at.
Raine on 10/19/2011 17:13:09
Quote by Scoopster:Quote by Raine:
BoA is taking advantage of the fact that corporations are people, so says the ruling of citizens untied.
Scoop -- am I off base here?
Honey... I really hope you are. Because if not we're FUCKED.
It provides deposit insurance, which guarantees the safety of deposits in member banks, currently up to $250,000 per depositor per bank.
Comment by Scoopster on 10/19/2011 17:16:18
Scoopster on 10/19/2011 17:16:18
If I remember that FDIC limit was increased from $100k per investor sometime in 2009..
Comment by Raine on 10/19/2011 17:29:29
Was it?
OOh shit. Are you talking about this?
I'm still not quite understanding. Are you saying the FDIC starting insuring investors in 2009? (please forgive me -- I follow a LOT of things. I am terrible -- like Mala -- when it comes to this issue)
Raine on 10/19/2011 17:29:29
Quote by Scoopster:
If I remember that FDIC limit was increased from $100k per investor sometime in 2009..
Was it?
OOh shit. Are you talking about this?
I'm still not quite understanding. Are you saying the FDIC starting insuring investors in 2009? (please forgive me -- I follow a LOT of things. I am terrible -- like Mala -- when it comes to this issue)
Comment by Raine on 10/19/2011 17:36:57
Raine on 10/19/2011 17:36:57
Thom is now talking about this issue.
Comment by Scoopster on 10/19/2011 17:38:02
Nonono.. I'm saying the limit for how much FDIC would insure used to be $100k and I believe it was increased to $250k at some point during the past couple years.
Ah! Here's the article.
Scoopster on 10/19/2011 17:38:02
Quote by Raine:Quote by Scoopster:
If I remember that FDIC limit was increased from $100k per investor sometime in 2009..
Was it?
OOh shit. Are you talking about this?
I'm still not quite understanding. Are you saying the FDIC starting insuring investors in 2009? (please forgive me -- I follow a LOT of things. I am terrible -- like Mala -- when it comes to this issue)
Nonono.. I'm saying the limit for how much FDIC would insure used to be $100k and I believe it was increased to $250k at some point during the past couple years.
Ah! Here's the article.
Comment by wickedpam on 10/19/2011 17:42:58
Dang I think I missed it.
wickedpam on 10/19/2011 17:42:58
Quote by Raine:
Thom is now talking about this issue.
Dang I think I missed it.
Comment by Raine on 10/19/2011 17:47:11
Thanks! This is interesting:
I still don;t get how BoA and JP Morgan can move these so called assets to be covered by the FDIC. It just doesn't seem legal -- even under Frank-Dodd.
Raine on 10/19/2011 17:47:11
Quote by Scoopster:Quote by Raine:Quote by Scoopster:
If I remember that FDIC limit was increased from $100k per investor sometime in 2009..
Was it?
OOh shit. Are you talking about this?
I'm still not quite understanding. Are you saying the FDIC starting insuring investors in 2009? (please forgive me -- I follow a LOT of things. I am terrible -- like Mala -- when it comes to this issue)
Nonono.. I'm saying the limit for how much FDIC would insure used to be $100k and I believe it was increased to $250k at some point during the past couple years.
Ah! Here's the article.
Thanks! This is interesting:
The FDIC insurance coverage limit applies per depositor, per insured depository institution for each account ownership category.
The temporary increase from $100,000 to $250,000 was effective from October 3, 2008, through December 31, 2010. On May 20, 2009, the temporary increase was extended through December 31, 2013.
"With this permanent increase of deposit insurance coverage to $250,000, depositors with CDs above $100,000 but below $250,000 will no longer have to worry about losing coverage on those CDs maturing beyond 2013. We strongly encourage all bank depositors who have questions about their insurance coverage to go to our Web site at www.fdic.gov and use our Electronic Deposit Insurance Estimator (EDIE) or call our toll-free number at 1-877-ASK-FDIC. Insured deposits provide the comfort and peace of mind to depositors that their money is 100 percent safe – provided they keep their deposit balances within the insurance limits," said FDIC Chairman Sheila C. Bair.
I still don;t get how BoA and JP Morgan can move these so called assets to be covered by the FDIC. It just doesn't seem legal -- even under Frank-Dodd.
Comment by TriSec on 10/19/2011 17:49:18
TriSec on 10/19/2011 17:49:18
Comment by Raine on 10/19/2011 17:49:27
He didn;t talk much -- he kinda went off on a tangent. I was hoping he would give a little more info but he just mentioned the same link Scoop provided and went off.
I don't think he had enough time to provide the information about what is happening to talk about on air.
Raine on 10/19/2011 17:49:27
Quote by wickedpam:Quote by Raine:
Thom is now talking about this issue.
Dang I think I missed it.
He didn;t talk much -- he kinda went off on a tangent. I was hoping he would give a little more info but he just mentioned the same link Scoop provided and went off.
I don't think he had enough time to provide the information about what is happening to talk about on air.
Comment by Scoopster on 10/19/2011 17:49:44
I just re-read the Bloomberg piece and it looks like both the Fed and the FDIC have individual authority to block this move, and the FDIC is leaning towards denying it. I can't possibly see how they would approve of this kind of risk exposure to the taxpayers.
Scoopster on 10/19/2011 17:49:44
Quote by Raine:Quote by Scoopster:Quote by Raine:Quote by Scoopster:
If I remember that FDIC limit was increased from $100k per investor sometime in 2009..
Was it?
OOh shit. Are you talking about this?
I'm still not quite understanding. Are you saying the FDIC starting insuring investors in 2009? (please forgive me -- I follow a LOT of things. I am terrible -- like Mala -- when it comes to this issue)
Nonono.. I'm saying the limit for how much FDIC would insure used to be $100k and I believe it was increased to $250k at some point during the past couple years.
Ah! Here's the article.
Thanks! This is interesting:The FDIC insurance coverage limit applies per depositor, per insured depository institution for each account ownership category.
The temporary increase from $100,000 to $250,000 was effective from October 3, 2008, through December 31, 2010. On May 20, 2009, the temporary increase was extended through December 31, 2013.
"With this permanent increase of deposit insurance coverage to $250,000, depositors with CDs above $100,000 but below $250,000 will no longer have to worry about losing coverage on those CDs maturing beyond 2013. We strongly encourage all bank depositors who have questions about their insurance coverage to go to our Web site at www.fdic.gov and use our Electronic Deposit Insurance Estimator (EDIE) or call our toll-free number at 1-877-ASK-FDIC. Insured deposits provide the comfort and peace of mind to depositors that their money is 100 percent safe – provided they keep their deposit balances within the insurance limits," said FDIC Chairman Sheila C. Bair.
I still don;t get how BoA and JP Morgan can move these so called assets to be covered by the FDIC. It just doesn't seem legal -- even under Frank-Dodd.
I just re-read the Bloomberg piece and it looks like both the Fed and the FDIC have individual authority to block this move, and the FDIC is leaning towards denying it. I can't possibly see how they would approve of this kind of risk exposure to the taxpayers.
Comment by Raine on 10/19/2011 17:54:27
That is what I read as well.
The Fed is leaning FOR FDIC Against -- I think that is a huge problem in and of itself. The FDIC should be the be all and end all as to issues of this matter.
Raine on 10/19/2011 17:54:27
Quote by Scoopster:
I just re-read the Bloomberg piece and it looks like both the Fed and the FDIC have individual authority to block this move, and the FDIC is leaning towards denying it. I can't possibly see how they would approve of this kind of risk exposure to the taxpayers.
That is what I read as well.
The Fed is leaning FOR FDIC Against -- I think that is a huge problem in and of itself. The FDIC should be the be all and end all as to issues of this matter.
Comment by Raine on 10/19/2011 17:59:47
Not anymore.
They shot and killed most of those creatures.
And I would like for them to stop calling them exotic. They were animals. They paid the cost for a seriously disturbed person.
Raine on 10/19/2011 17:59:47
Quote by TriSec:
Anyone else out there think the wild animals running loose in Ohio has the hallmarks of some kind of PETA action?
Not anymore.
They shot and killed most of those creatures.
And I would like for them to stop calling them exotic. They were animals. They paid the cost for a seriously disturbed person.
Comment by BobR on 10/19/2011 18:07:32
The owner of the farm set them loose and then committed suicide.
BobR on 10/19/2011 18:07:32
Quote by Raine:Quote by TriSec:
Anyone else out there think the wild animals running loose in Ohio has the hallmarks of some kind of PETA action?
Not anymore.
They shot and killed most of those creatures.
And I would like for them to stop calling them exotic. They were animals. They paid the cost for a seriously disturbed person.
The owner of the farm set them loose and then committed suicide.
Comment by Scoopster on 10/19/2011 18:21:49
I personally suspect other rogue elements.. namely the Army of the 12 Monkeys.
Scoopster on 10/19/2011 18:21:49
Quote by BobR:Quote by Raine:Quote by TriSec:
Anyone else out there think the wild animals running loose in Ohio has the hallmarks of some kind of PETA action?
Not anymore.
They shot and killed most of those creatures.
And I would like for them to stop calling them exotic. They were animals. They paid the cost for a seriously disturbed person.
The owner of the farm set them loose and then committed suicide.
I personally suspect other rogue elements.. namely the Army of the 12 Monkeys.
Comment by wickedpam on 10/19/2011 18:25:24
There is still 1 monkey missing
wickedpam on 10/19/2011 18:25:24
Quote by Scoopster:Quote by BobR:Quote by Raine:Quote by TriSec:
Anyone else out there think the wild animals running loose in Ohio has the hallmarks of some kind of PETA action?
Not anymore.
They shot and killed most of those creatures.
And I would like for them to stop calling them exotic. They were animals. They paid the cost for a seriously disturbed person.
The owner of the farm set them loose and then committed suicide.
I personally suspect other rogue elements.. namely the Army of the 12 Monkeys.
There is still 1 monkey missing
Comment by Raine on 10/19/2011 18:36:07
Raine on 10/19/2011 18:36:07
Comment by TriSec on 10/19/2011 18:45:26
TriSec on 10/19/2011 18:45:26
Non-sequitir:
Who was moderating the debate last night? The press was all over the Romney-Perry spat, and it seemed to me that nobody was in control there.
Who was moderating the debate last night? The press was all over the Romney-Perry spat, and it seemed to me that nobody was in control there.
Comment by Scoopster on 10/19/2011 18:46:55
Anderson Cooper...
Scoopster on 10/19/2011 18:46:55
Quote by TriSec:
Non-sequitir:
Who was moderating the debate last night? The press was all over the Romney-Perry spat, and it seemed to me that nobody was in control there.
Anderson Cooper...
Comment by Scoopster on 10/19/2011 18:49:32
Scoopster on 10/19/2011 18:49:32
Check out this really fantastic analytical & critical look at the OWS movement.
Unlike most of the shit we read that oozes with obvious conservative talking points, this one really nails it with honest constructive criticism.
Unlike most of the shit we read that oozes with obvious conservative talking points, this one really nails it with honest constructive criticism.
Comment by Raine on 10/19/2011 18:52:08
Raine on 10/19/2011 18:52:08
Wow.
Comment by Raine on 10/19/2011 18:53:06
please take a look at the vid I just posted.
Anderson X13
Raine on 10/19/2011 18:53:06
Quote by TriSec:
Non-sequitir:
Who was moderating the debate last night? The press was all over the Romney-Perry spat, and it seemed to me that nobody was in control there.
Anderson X13
Comment by wickedpam on 10/19/2011 19:10:53
wickedpam on 10/19/2011 19:10:53
Comment by Raine on 10/19/2011 19:11:47
This is wonderful. and sad.
I have been having a few debates on the interwebs (ok Facebook... lol) about these issues that the author raises.
This movement gives people a feeling of having a voice. That said, people need to dig a little deeper. Feelings are not fact.
It's why I have been very critical of Occupy. It's why I have said all along leadership is needed -- otherwise it WILL be co-opted.
The MEdia is a BIG problem, I agree, but the media was allowed to be a problem when they chose not to have leaders. (and I think you all know how I feel about American media) There is NO PR.
AS much as people hate that idea, we are in the year 2011 -- PR -- a person for whom the media can contact regarding this movement is needed -- at a base level. Anything less -- yes, this author is correct.
Raine on 10/19/2011 19:11:47
Quote by Scoopster:
Check out this really fantastic analytical & critical look at the OWS movement.
Unlike most of the shit we read that oozes with obvious conservative talking points, this one really nails it with honest constructive criticism.
I have been having a few debates on the interwebs (ok Facebook... lol) about these issues that the author raises.
This movement gives people a feeling of having a voice. That said, people need to dig a little deeper. Feelings are not fact.
It's why I have been very critical of Occupy. It's why I have said all along leadership is needed -- otherwise it WILL be co-opted.
The MEdia is a BIG problem, I agree, but the media was allowed to be a problem when they chose not to have leaders. (and I think you all know how I feel about American media) There is NO PR.
AS much as people hate that idea, we are in the year 2011 -- PR -- a person for whom the media can contact regarding this movement is needed -- at a base level. Anything less -- yes, this author is correct.
Comment by TriSec on 10/19/2011 19:18:09
TriSec on 10/19/2011 19:18:09
If Romney and Perry started blasting away at each other with shotguns, who would win?
A) Romney
B) Perry
C) America
A) Romney
B) Perry
C) America
Comment by Scoopster on 10/19/2011 19:21:37
Scoopster on 10/19/2011 19:21:37
Comment by Mondobubba on 10/19/2011 19:23:54
As a refugee from financial services, lemme answer this one. Brokerage accounts aren't covered under FDIC insurance. That includes CD, IRAs etc offered through say Merrill Lynch. CDs, IRAs, savings accounts etc that are from say Bank of America, they are covered by the FDIC.
Mondobubba on 10/19/2011 19:23:54
Quote by Raine:Quote by Scoopster:Quote by Raine:Quote by Scoopster:
If I remember that FDIC limit was increased from $100k per investor sometime in 2009..
Was it?
OOh shit. Are you talking about this?
I'm still not quite understanding. Are you saying the FDIC starting insuring investors in 2009? (please forgive me -- I follow a LOT of things. I am terrible -- like Mala -- when it comes to this issue)
Nonono.. I'm saying the limit for how much FDIC would insure used to be $100k and I believe it was increased to $250k at some point during the past couple years.
Ah! Here's the article.
Thanks! This is interesting:The FDIC insurance coverage limit applies per depositor, per insured depository institution for each account ownership category.
The temporary increase from $100,000 to $250,000 was effective from October 3, 2008, through December 31, 2010. On May 20, 2009, the temporary increase was extended through December 31, 2013.
"With this permanent increase of deposit insurance coverage to $250,000, depositors with CDs above $100,000 but below $250,000 will no longer have to worry about losing coverage on those CDs maturing beyond 2013. We strongly encourage all bank depositors who have questions about their insurance coverage to go to our Web site at www.fdic.gov and use our Electronic Deposit Insurance Estimator (EDIE) or call our toll-free number at 1-877-ASK-FDIC. Insured deposits provide the comfort and peace of mind to depositors that their money is 100 percent safe – provided they keep their deposit balances within the insurance limits," said FDIC Chairman Sheila C. Bair.
I still don;t get how BoA and JP Morgan can move these so called assets to be covered by the FDIC. It just doesn't seem legal -- even under Frank-Dodd.
As a refugee from financial services, lemme answer this one. Brokerage accounts aren't covered under FDIC insurance. That includes CD, IRAs etc offered through say Merrill Lynch. CDs, IRAs, savings accounts etc that are from say Bank of America, they are covered by the FDIC.
Comment by Raine on 10/19/2011 19:28:32
So how can BoA do this?
They are moving their derivatives arm to the person banking arm, from all that I have read and understood.
Raine on 10/19/2011 19:28:32
Quote by Mondobubba:
As a refugee from financial services, lemme answer this one. Brokerage accounts aren't covered under FDIC insurance. That includes CD, IRAs etc offered through say Merrill Lynch. CDs, IRAs, savings accounts etc that are from say Bank of America, they are covered by the FDIC.
They are moving their derivatives arm to the person banking arm, from all that I have read and understood.
Comment by Mondobubba on 10/19/2011 19:28:53
Mondobubba on 10/19/2011 19:28:53
If you go to the terms on the Merrill site, there is a long disclosure that says that your accounts aren't insured etc.
Comment by Mondobubba on 10/19/2011 19:29:33
They can't. Those aren't covered by FDIC.
Mondobubba on 10/19/2011 19:29:33
Quote by Raine:So how can BoA do this?Quote by Mondobubba:
As a refugee from financial services, lemme answer this one. Brokerage accounts aren't covered under FDIC insurance. That includes CD, IRAs etc offered through say Merrill Lynch. CDs, IRAs, savings accounts etc that are from say Bank of America, they are covered by the FDIC.
They are moving their derivatives arm to the person banking arm, from all that I have read and understood.
They can't. Those aren't covered by FDIC.
Comment by Mondobubba on 10/19/2011 19:39:11
Mondobubba on 10/19/2011 19:39:11
Comment by Raine on 10/19/2011 20:33:01
I am gonna repost this interchange :
Mondo -- read these links. IT seems that BoA amd JP Morgan are doing just that.
I am trying to see how they are getting away with this -- the FDIC is leaning against it -- the Fed Reserve seems to be encouraging it.
(edited for Typo)
Raine on 10/19/2011 20:33:01
Quote by Mondobubba:Quote by Raine:So how can BoA do this?Quote by Mondobubba:
As a refugee from financial services, lemme answer this one. Brokerage accounts aren't covered under FDIC insurance. That includes CD, IRAs etc offered through say Merrill Lynch. CDs, IRAs, savings accounts etc that are from say Bank of America, they are covered by the FDIC.
They are moving their derivatives arm to the person banking arm, from all that I have read and understood.
They can't. Those aren't covered by FDIC.
Quote by Raine:Quote by Scoopster:
BoA shifting garbage derivatives from unsecured Merrill Lynch to a taxpayer-insured division
And JP Morgan is doing the same thing apparently.. WHAT THE FUCK?!
This is getting ridiculous. Absofukinlutely ridiculous.
I am reading the original article from Bloomberg now.
I am trying to see how they are getting away with this -- the FDIC is leaning against it -- the Fed Reserve seems to be encouraging it.
(edited for Typo)
Comment by Raine on 10/19/2011 20:45:01
Oh my.
*sigh* bring back preggers barbie fer krissakes.
Raine on 10/19/2011 20:45:01
Quote by Mondobubba:
Check out the bad-assed, pink haired, tat sportin' Barbie.
*sigh* bring back preggers barbie fer krissakes.
Comment by livingonli on 10/19/2011 21:14:00
livingonli on 10/19/2011 21:14:00
Go away to get a hair cut and some groceries and I miss all the fun.
Comment by Mondobubba on 10/19/2011 21:21:11
Here is the important take away, BoA did this without FDIC approval, the asshats just did it. Which is well, bullshit on their part. There is no way in hell that any kind of derivative is an insurable deposit. They are by definition investment vehicles that carry a good deal of risk.
Mondobubba on 10/19/2011 21:21:11
Quote by Raine:I am gonna repost this interchange :Quote by Mondobubba:Quote by Raine:So how can BoA do this?Quote by Mondobubba:
As a refugee from financial services, lemme answer this one. Brokerage accounts aren't covered under FDIC insurance. That includes CD, IRAs etc offered through say Merrill Lynch. CDs, IRAs, savings accounts etc that are from say Bank of America, they are covered by the FDIC.
They are moving their derivatives arm to the person banking arm, from all that I have read and understood.
They can't. Those aren't covered by FDIC.Mondo -- read these links. IT seems that BoA amd JP Morgan are doing just that.Quote by Raine:Quote by Scoopster:
BoA shifting garbage derivatives from unsecured Merrill Lynch to a taxpayer-insured division
And JP Morgan is doing the same thing apparently.. WHAT THE FUCK?!
This is getting ridiculous. Absofukinlutely ridiculous.
I am reading the original article from Bloomberg now.
I am trying to see how they are getting away with this -- the DIC is leaning against it -- the Fed Reserve seems to be encouraging it.
Here is the important take away, BoA did this without FDIC approval, the asshats just did it. Which is well, bullshit on their part. There is no way in hell that any kind of derivative is an insurable deposit. They are by definition investment vehicles that carry a good deal of risk.
Comment by Mondobubba on 10/19/2011 21:51:50
I sorta dig that Mattel is giving Barbie some sort of edge. I have to agree with the writer that is show some other form beauty that just blonde and tan.
Mondobubba on 10/19/2011 21:51:50
Quote by Raine:Oh my.Quote by Mondobubba:
Check out the bad-assed, pink haired, tat sportin' Barbie.
*sigh* bring back preggers barbie fer krissakes.
I sorta dig that Mattel is giving Barbie some sort of edge. I have to agree with the writer that is show some other form beauty that just blonde and tan.
Comment by Raine on 10/19/2011 21:55:51
I appreciate this information.
So it comes down to someone either approving of disallowing this? They did this without regulatory permission?
Raine on 10/19/2011 21:55:51
Quote by Mondobubba:
Here is the important take away, BoA did this without FDIC approval, the asshats just did it. Which is well, bullshit on their part. There is no way in hell that any kind of derivative is an insurable deposit. They are by definition investment vehicles that carry a good deal of risk.
So it comes down to someone either approving of disallowing this? They did this without regulatory permission?
Comment by Mondobubba on 10/19/2011 22:42:03
I went and re-read the articles again. They are of in cloudy financialese. What seems to be going on is two-on-one pissing match. BoA and the Fed vs FDIC. BoA and the Fed are saying yes, and FDIC saying no!
Mondobubba on 10/19/2011 22:42:03
Quote by Raine:I appreciate this information.Quote by Mondobubba:
Here is the important take away, BoA did this without FDIC approval, the asshats just did it. Which is well, bullshit on their part. There is no way in hell that any kind of derivative is an insurable deposit. They are by definition investment vehicles that carry a good deal of risk.
So it comes down to someone either approving of disallowing this? They did this without regulatory permission?
I went and re-read the articles again. They are of in cloudy financialese. What seems to be going on is two-on-one pissing match. BoA and the Fed vs FDIC. BoA and the Fed are saying yes, and FDIC saying no!
Comment by Mondobubba on 10/19/2011 22:43:42
Mondobubba on 10/19/2011 22:43:42
Bottom line for me is that BoA shouldn't be allowed to take risk out of Merrill and put it in the bank where it is covered by deposit insurance.
Comment by BobR on 10/19/2011 23:37:27
Stripper Barbie!
BobR on 10/19/2011 23:37:27
Quote by Mondobubba:Quote by Raine:Oh my.Quote by Mondobubba:
Check out the bad-assed, pink haired, tat sportin' Barbie.
*sigh* bring back preggers barbie fer krissakes.
I sorta dig that Mattel is giving Barbie some sort of edge. I have to agree with the writer that is show some other form beauty that just blonde and tan.
Stripper Barbie!
Comment by TriSec on 10/20/2011 00:56:58
TriSec on 10/20/2011 00:56:58
Say friends, there's some asschubery going on. You know who you are.