PDA

View Full Version : Taxpayers paid for Blackwater strippers, prostitutes



Roger Perry
02-12-2010, 01:36 PM
February 12, 2010 - 5:40am


Blackwater Worldwide (http://www.xecompany.com/), the mercenary firm that the administration of formerPresident George W. Bush (http://www.georgewbushlibrary.gov/) allowed to run amuck in Iraq, defrauded the U.S. government for years by filing fake expenses reports, double billing and charging government agencies for strippers and whores, court records show.
Two former employees of the para-military firm, in documents filed under a 2008 lawsuit, outlined the pattern of theft of taxpayer funds in Blackwater activities in Iraq, Afghanistan and even in Louisiana in the weeks and months followingHurricane Katrina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrina).

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/25637

How do you righties like how your tax dollars were spent?

pat addis
02-12-2010, 01:51 PM
kind of like the fraud that acorn likes to do

Rudd
02-12-2010, 02:03 PM
Gotta keep employee morale up.

Buzz
02-12-2010, 02:38 PM
Sounds like a great company to work for. ;-)

Lucky Seven
02-12-2010, 02:42 PM
What about Pelosi's alcohol bill ??
all the flowers too ????

Pot ...... meet kettle. :D

Hoosier
02-12-2010, 02:44 PM
Finally taxpayer dollars being spent on something we can all appreciate, well all of us but Roger apparently.

Rudd
02-12-2010, 02:45 PM
Pot ...... meet kettle. :D

Great, another "black labs are best" thread. :p

Franco
02-12-2010, 03:24 PM
Bill Clinton must be in charge of entertainment for Blackwater.

badbullgator
02-12-2010, 05:17 PM
Sure need something to pass the time with over there other then berka (sic?) clad women and no alcohol
Good for them

I eally like the "that George Bush allowed to run amuck"...... of course capitolblue is a bastion of fair and ballanced right Roger? Great objective reporting

M&K's Retrievers
02-12-2010, 05:49 PM
How do you righties like how your tax dollars were spent?

Roger, I think it's great compared to Pelosi's jet, her -and others- trips abroad, Obama's dates, Michele's "staff". Need I go on?

Leddyman
02-12-2010, 07:23 PM
If they were democrat congressmen you would be defending them.

M&K's Retrievers
02-12-2010, 07:38 PM
If they were democrat congressmen you would be defending them.

If they were Democrat's, he wouldn't have mentioned it.

Hoosier
02-12-2010, 07:47 PM
I didn't see anywhere in the article how much money we're talking about. You can get a lap dance for 5 bucks. By the way, how much did it cost to fly air force one over New York City for that photo shoot/

Roger Perry
02-13-2010, 11:00 AM
If they were democrat congressmen you would be defending them.

So let me see if I got this right. Any spending the Bush administration did was good. Any spending the Obama administration has done is bad. Did I get it right?

M&K's Retrievers
02-13-2010, 11:13 AM
So let me see if I got this right. Any spending the Bush administration did was good. Any spending the Obama administration has done is bad. Did I get it right?

Whoa! Roger almost gets it. Wasteful spending is wasteful regardless of who does it. It's so easy to point to the Dems when one of you libs complains about the Reps as if your cronies were guiltless. Give me a break.

cotts135
02-13-2010, 11:23 AM
If they were Democrat's, he wouldn't have mentioned it.
Doesn't need to, he has you.

Roger Perry
02-13-2010, 11:58 AM
Whoa! Roger almost gets it. Wasteful spending is wasteful regardless of who does it. It's so easy to point to the Dems when one of you libs complains about the Reps as if your cronies were guiltless. Give me a break.

Although President Clinton was not "one of my cronies" (I did not vote for him) he left the USA in pretty good shape economic wise. It is a shame that the administration that followed him did not do the same.

M&K's Retrievers
02-13-2010, 12:57 PM
Although President Clinton was not "one of my cronies" (I did not vote for him) he left the USA in pretty good shape economic wise. It is a shame that the administration that followed him did not do the same.

As I recall, Clinton used mirrows, borrowing and creative accounting to have that appearence. Bush did suck in many ways but doesn't hold a candle to the current batch of bozos.

Roger Perry
02-13-2010, 01:27 PM
As I recall, Clinton used mirrows, borrowing and creative accounting to have that appearence. Bush did suck in many ways but doesn't hold a candle to the current batch of bozos.

If it hadn't been for the Bush administration do you really believe that the Obama administration would have to be spending so much money?

Hoosier
02-13-2010, 02:06 PM
If it hadn't been for the Bush administration do you really believe that the Obama administration would have to be spending so much money?

Yes, it's just now they have a scapegoat.

M&K's Retrievers
02-13-2010, 02:51 PM
If it hadn't been for the Bush administration do you really believe that the Obama administration would have to be spending so much money?

Obama, Pelosi, Reid et al would be spending the same and more regardless of the economy when they got control. "If you build it, they will come" If they can print it, they will spend it.

Chicken Little regards...

Bayou Magic
02-13-2010, 03:28 PM
If it hadn't been for the Bush administration do you really believe that the Obama administration would have to be spending so much money?

Did you really mean to type what you did?

Are you implying that Oboma, because of Bush, had to borrow and spend billions we don't have to make us more economically sound?

I am a fiscal conservative and generally vote Republican, but I'm not so blind I can't see that the working American people have been screwed by the politicians, both Dem and Rep, for generations to come. The career politicians only care about themselves and those who fund their efforts to stay in power. They are kept in power so they can keep money flowing to their contributors. Sooner or later the piper will be paid. Guess who will suffer when the tab is due. It won't be the politicians in power or those that pay dearly to keep them there.

fp

Marvin S
02-13-2010, 07:11 PM
Did you really mean to type what you did?

Are you implying that Oboma, because of Bush, had to borrow and spend billions we don't have to make us more economically sound?

I am a fiscal conservative and generally vote Republican, but I'm not so blind I can't see that the working American people have been screwed by the politicians, both Dem and Rep, for generations to come. The career politicians only care about themselves and those who fund their efforts to stay in power. They are kept in power so they can keep money flowing to their contributors. Sooner or later the piper will be paid. Guess who will suffer when the tab is due. It won't be the politicians in power or those that pay dearly to keep them there.

fp

The thing that amazes me is that a lot of normal people could see this coming but the people in charge apparently could not. Possibly they are not as brilliant as they profess :p.

I'm reminded of a comment I heard in a Stand Up meeting during the infancy of the 767 program. Things were going slow, pre-planning had been a little behind & we'd had an upper management shuffle for that reason. The VP sent to our area was one of the sharpest managers in the company & after the 1st Stand Up meeting you could sense a new tone.

Planning came to the meeting & stated they were behind because of late Engineering. The VP stopped them right there, asked if they had the necessary Engineering documents in hand & when they stated they did said "You have all the tools you need, if the job is behind you are now the organization that is late, so you need to correct that situation".

It is always easy to blame someone else, those who recognize they need to take action generally come out on top :cool:. Anyone who is cutting this administration slack certainly knows little of basic management requirements :rolleyes:. The longer this administration blames the previous administration the more folks will realize they are not qualified to be in charge.

When the point in time comes that those who have saved can get a reasonable return this government will not have enough money to cover all the idiocy this administration has proposed. This government & commerce are living off the low interest rates being paid.

Uncle Bill
02-14-2010, 12:30 PM
Dandy post, Marvin.

This statement bears repeating, not that the 'walking wounded' messiah lovers will understand of course.

"It is always easy to blame someone else, those who recognize they need to take action generally come out on top :cool:. Anyone who is cutting this administration slack certainly knows little of basic management requirements :rolleyes:. The longer this administration blames the previous administration the more folks will realize they are not qualified to be in charge."


Since so many on this BB also follow football, how analogous is a change in head coachs? How long would the fans put up with a blame-game by the new coach?

That said, I'm not EVER expecting Roger and his buddies to recognize that. Whining their way through life IS their way of life. Since they have never accepted any personal responsibility, why would we expect them to reason their political leaders would?

UB

Roger Perry
02-14-2010, 12:55 PM
Dandy post, Marvin.

This statement bears repeating, not that the 'walking wounded' messiah lovers will understand of course.

"It is always easy to blame someone else, those who recognize they need to take action generally come out on top :cool:. Anyone who is cutting this administration slack certainly knows little of basic management requirements :rolleyes:. The longer this administration blames the previous administration the more folks will realize they are not qualified to be in charge."


Since so many on this BB also follow football, how analogous is a change in head coachs? How long would the fans put up with a blame-game by the new coach?

That said, I'm not EVER expecting Roger and his buddies to recognize that. Whining their way through life IS their way of life. Since they have never accepted any personal responsibility, why would we expect them to reason their political leaders would?

UB

So GW Bush takes office with both the country and economy in relatively good shape. When GW Bush leaves office we are dealing with 2 wars and an economy on the verge of a depression. When Bush took office he did not have one thing to blame on Clinton. Bush screwed up the country all by himself with the decisions he made and now you want to put all the blame on Obama. Just how in the world could any one change the economy around the minute they took office be it McCain or Obama? It's just now all the righties are saying Bush is not president anymore. What did we do, just skip over the 8 years Bush was in office and start the blame with Clinton and end it with Obama?

huntinman
02-14-2010, 01:14 PM
So GW Bush takes office with both the country and economy in relatively good shape. When GW Bush leaves office we are dealing with 2 wars and an economy on the verge of a depression. When Bush took office he did not have one thing to blame on Clinton. Bush screwed up the country all by himself with the decisions he made and now you want to put all the blame on Obama. Just how in the world could any one change the economy around the minute they took office be it McCain or Obama? It's just now all the righties are saying Bush is not president anymore. What did we do, just skip over the 8 years Bush was in office and start the blame with Clinton and end it with Obama?

Selective memory as usual. Bush tried to get Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over-hauled but Barney Fwank, Chris Dodd and the other Dems pitched a fit and would not go along. Dems ran congress the last couple years of the Bush presidency. Your logic is the same as Obambi's...Blame bush! It's always someone elses fault. Stand up, be a man and admit you libs are just wrong. You screwed up by electing an incompetent Chicago thug as president and now you want to blame everyone but yourselves.

ducknwork
02-14-2010, 01:29 PM
Although President Clinton was not "one of my cronies" (I did not vote for him) he left the USA in pretty good shape economic wise. It is a shame that the administration that followed him did not do the same.

Yes, the economy was in good shape, but did he not pave the way for disaster? Don't forget NAFTA and that housing/lending legislation back in 1992...

Marvin S
02-14-2010, 01:40 PM
Don't forget NAFTA

Don't agree with you on NAFTA - IMO we need to establish trade with poorer countries to raise their Standard of Living? I am sure the Brits felt the same way about us when we were no longer a colony ;).

But I also believe that we have skills to compete on a higher level in the Mfg. Process, not sure we have the will &/or the management required :(. In many cases our workers & Management have become complacent!!

Roger Perry
02-14-2010, 02:50 PM
Selective memory as usual. Bush tried to get Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over-hauled but Barney Fwank, Chris Dodd and the other Dems pitched a fit and would not go along. Dems ran congress the last couple years of the Bush presidency. Your logic is the same as Obambi's...Blame bush! It's always someone elses fault. Stand up, be a man and admit you libs are just wrong. You screwed up by electing an incompetent Chicago thug as president and now you want to blame everyone but yourselves.

Why didn't Bush overhaul it in the first 6 years of his presidency when he had control of Congress? What excuse do you have for Bush that you want to tell us all about? :confused:

Roger Perry
02-14-2010, 02:56 PM
Yes, the economy was in good shape, but did he not pave the way for disaster? Don't forget NAFTA and that housing/lending legislation back in 1992...

Let's see 2001 (when Bush took over Presidency) - 1992 = 9 years. Add to that 6 years Bush had Congress backing him and it was 15 years down the road. Are you saying Bush was not smart enough to fix things he felt were broken in his first 6 years in office with a Republican Congress behind him? That all of a sudden during his last 2 years there was a Democrat Congress and that is what screwed up the economics of our Country?:confused:

M&K's Retrievers
02-14-2010, 04:14 PM
Let's see 2001 (when Bush took over Presidency) - 1992 = 9 years. Add to that 6 years Bush had Congress backing him and it was 15 years down the road. Are you saying Bush was not smart enough to fix things he felt were broken in his first 6 years in office with a Republican Congress behind him? That all of a sudden during his last 2 years there was a Democrat Congress and that is what screwed up the economics of our Country?:confused:

How say you:

April, 2001 - Bush warned of potential problems with Fannie and Freddie

Spring, 2003 - Warned again

Fall, 2003 - Bush requested new agency be formed to oversee both FMs while Barney Franks said nothing was needed but to make more loans to those who don't qualify

2005 - Greenspan warned that FM' insolvent. Denied by Schumer

2006 - McCain sponsered legislation to regulate FMs. Voted against by all Dems. Rebs didn't have votes to pass.

huntinman
02-14-2010, 05:51 PM
Why didn't Bush overhaul it in the first 6 years of his presidency when he had control of Congress? What excuse do you have for Bush that you want to tell us all about? :confused:

I don't have any excuse for President Bush. Don't need them. He was a better president than Obambi could ever hope to be. I never heard him apologize for America like your boy does.

M&K's Retrievers
02-17-2010, 12:21 AM
How say you:

April, 2001 - Bush warned of potential problems with Fannie and Freddie

Spring, 2003 - Warned again

Fall, 2003 - Bush requested new agency be formed to oversee both FMs while Barney Franks said nothing was needed but to make more loans to those who don't qualify

2005 - Greenspan warned that FM' insolvent. Denied by Schumer

2006 - McCain sponsered legislation to regulate FMs. Voted against by all Dems. Rebs didn't have votes to pass.

Oh, Roger?

BonMallari
02-17-2010, 12:59 AM
So GW Bush takes office with both the country and economy in relatively good shape. When GW Bush leaves office we are dealing with 2 wars and an economy on the verge of a depression. When Bush took office he did not have one thing to blame on Clinton. Bush screwed up the country all by himself with the decisions he made and now you want to put all the blame on Obama. Just how in the world could any one change the economy around the minute they took office be it McCain or Obama? It's just now all the righties are saying Bush is not president anymore. What did we do, just skip over the 8 years Bush was in office and start the blame with Clinton and end it with Obama?


Let's see 2001 (when Bush took over Presidency) - 1992 = 9 years. Add to that 6 years Bush had Congress backing him and it was 15 years down the road. Are you saying Bush was not smart enough to fix things he felt were broken in his first 6 years in office with a Republican Congress behind him? That all of a sudden during his last 2 years there was a Democrat Congress and that is what screwed up the economics of our Country?:confused:

Roger , your hatred for all things GWB are well documented, but they seem to cloud your perspective

now you want to add 6 yrs of a Republican congress and make his influence and Presidency span 15 yrs....:rolleyes:

give up the hatred its not a healthy thing, dont let your obsession with the POTUS #43 years define who you are, you're better than that...

dnf777
02-17-2010, 06:01 AM
To get hung up on bashing someone for the sake of bashing them is indeed bad. But to never forget who's responsible for catastrophic policies that put us into a deep hole, is to study history as to never repeat it. Even recent history counts, especially when less than a month into the post-Bush era, people were trying to forget and blame the new guy already!

paul young
02-17-2010, 07:35 AM
too bad he couldn't have run for a third term-he was just starting to get the hang of it...-Paul

ducknwork
02-17-2010, 07:35 AM
To get hung up on bashing someone for the sake of bashing them is indeed bad. But to never forget who's responsible for catastrophic policies that put us into a deep hole, is to study history as to never repeat it. Even recent history counts, especially when less than a month into the post-Bush era, people were trying to forget and blame the new guy already!

The messiah needs to get a-studyin'!

M&K's Retrievers
02-18-2010, 12:11 AM
To get hung up on bashing someone for the sake of bashing them is indeed bad. But to never forget who's responsible for catastrophic policies that put us into a deep hole, is to study history as to never repeat it. Even recent history counts, especially when less than a month into the post-Bush era, people were trying to forget and blame the new guy already!

When is it Obama's turn? I'm guessing 1/20/13.

JDogger
02-18-2010, 12:33 AM
When is it Obama's turn? I'm guessing 1/20/13.

C'mon M&K.
That even if maybe, the House and Senate are Repub again this year, and the WH in 2012, that everything will just be hunky-dory again?

It's not a football game. It's gonna take a lot more than a change of parties to turn the mess around. and you know it.

Just for fun, lets say SP is Potus. You don't think the other side would tear into her like the current Potus is being now? Where's that gonna get us?
Got any ideas?

JD

Cody Covey
02-19-2010, 01:02 PM
C'mon M&K.
That even if maybe, the House and Senate are Repub again this year, and the WH in 2012, that everything will just be hunky-dory again?

It's not a football game. It's gonna take a lot more than a change of parties to turn the mess around. and you know it.

Just for fun, lets say SP is Potus. You don't think the other side would tear into her like the current Potus is being now? Where's that gonna get us?
Got any ideas?

JD

Mexico?! plus some to fill in the requirements for posting haha

Uncle Bill
02-21-2010, 01:12 PM
Let's see 2001 (when Bush took over Presidency) - 1992 = 9 years. Add to that 6 years Bush had Congress backing him and it was 15 years down the road. Are you saying Bush was not smart enough to fix things he felt were broken in his first 6 years in office with a Republican Congress behind him? That all of a sudden during his last 2 years there was a Democrat Congress and that is what screwed up the economics of our Country?:confused:


What part of this can you not get through your boney head?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&NR=1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&NR=1)

UB

M&K's Retrievers
02-21-2010, 01:49 PM
Let's see 2001 (when Bush took over Presidency) - 1992 = 9 years. Add to that 6 years Bush had Congress backing him and it was 15 years down the road. Are you saying Bush was not smart enough to fix things he felt were broken in his first 6 years in office with a Republican Congress behind him? That all of a sudden during his last 2 years there was a Democrat Congress and that is what screwed up the economics of our Country?:confused:

Roger has been AWOL since posting the above. :confused:

ducknwork
02-22-2010, 08:02 AM
He's still working on the equation.

Liberals + Facts = Massive headaches, depression, denial

YardleyLabs
02-22-2010, 11:12 AM
The fact is that even before Obama was inaugurated, he was being blamed by the right for failures in the economy, yet the same people blaming Obama for everything wrong in the economy today are saying that the economic collapse in 2007 and 2008 under Bush is attributable to Clinton and Democratic members of the Senate. That dog won't hunt.

It is interesting that those who quote Bush's comments on the need for greater supervision of the mortgage market, ignore the fact that Bush actually claimed credit repeatedly for expanding home ownership among those previously unable to buy their own homes. Those are two sides of the same coin. And those who blame deregulation of the banking industry on Clinton, fail to address the fact that the deregulation was strongly supported and even demanded by Republicans.

In the final analysis, Americans expect the President to show leadership in protecting and growing the economy. They get credited for the bad and the good, whether truly "deserved" or not. At this point in his presidency, Reagan was deeply unpopular because we were still in the middle of a recession that he inherited. As the economy turned around, so did his popularity. Clinton faced a similar problem and also benefited as the economy recovered and grew. Bush inherited an economy in trouble that was losing jobs every month, it looked like he was destined to be a one term President. He was actually saved by al Qaeda. His ultimate failing was that the economic recovery that did happen on his watch never filtered down to much of the population and the economic collapse happened before he could get out of office. Obama's political future and reputation depend largely on timing: Do we have an economic recovery that is strong enough to benefit a broader segment of the population before he faces reelection?

ducknwork
02-22-2010, 12:00 PM
And those who blame deregulation of the banking industry on Clinton, fail to address the fact that the deregulation was strongly supported and even demanded by Republicans.



I apologize in advance for the bluntness, but who gives a shit? How many times does it have to be pointed out that this R vs D crap is getting us nowhere? We ALL know it, but there are some on here that continue to attempt to make it an R vs D blame game. Neither one of them are worth the paper I wipe my butt with. Let's all try to grow up and move on.


No longer in kindergarten regards,

YardleyLabs
02-22-2010, 12:17 PM
I apologize in advance for the bluntness, but who gives a shit? How many times does it have to be pointed out that this R vs D crap is getting us nowhere? We ALL know it, but there are some on here that continue to attempt to make it an R vs D blame game. Neither one of them are worth the paper I wipe my butt with. Let's all try to grow up and move on.


No longer in kindergarten regards,

And yet, you defined the problem thus:


...
Liberals + Facts = Massive headaches, depression, denial

where the "facts" that were being described were statements that Democrats caused the housing bubble by blocking Bush's effort to increase controls. Self-serving hogwash.

ducknwork
02-22-2010, 12:21 PM
Next time I will add a smiley face so the humor doesn't go over anyone's head.:rolleyes:

Buzz
02-22-2010, 12:33 PM
It is interesting that those who quote Bush's comments on the need for greater supervision of the mortgage market, ignore the fact that Bush actually claimed credit repeatedly for expanding home ownership among those previously unable to buy their own homes. Those are two sides of the same coin. And those who blame deregulation of the banking industry on Clinton, fail to address the fact that the deregulation was strongly supported and even demanded by Republicans.




I can't imagine that everyone forgot about Bush's "Ownership Society." I'd say that's downright convenient..



Remember the ownership society? President George W. Bush championed the concept when he was running for re-election in 2004, envisioning a world in which every American family owned a house and a stock portfolio, and government stayed out of the way of the American Dream.

These families were, of course, conservative, or at a minimum traditional and nuclear, consisting of a heterosexual married couple and at least two kids living in a stand-alone home with a yard, a car or two and a multimedia room with a flat-screen television. The latter was a new addition to this 21st-century simulacrum of the 1950s "Leave It to Beaver" idyll. But the dream was the same.

Such a country would be more stable, Bush argued, and more prosperous. "America is a stronger country every single time a family moves into a home of their own," he said in October 2004. To achieve his vision, Bush pushed new policies encouraging homeownership, like the "zero-down-payment initiative," which was much as it sounds—a government-sponsored program that allowed people to get mortgages without a down payment. More exotic mortgages followed, including ones with no monthly payments for the first two years. Other mortgages required no documentation other than the say-so of the borrower. Absurd though these all were, they paled in comparison to the financial innovations that grew out of the mortgages—derivatives built on other derivatives, packaged and repackaged until no one could identify what they contained and how much they were, in fact, worth.


As we know by now, these instruments have brought the global financial system, improbably, to the brink of collapse. And as financial strains drive husbands and wives apart, Bush's ownership ideology may end up having the same effect on the stable nuclear families conservatives so badly wanted to foster.

The dream of a better society through homeownership didn't originate with George W. Bush. It's as American as Manifest Destiny. The Homestead Act in 1862 offered acres to anyone willing to brave the Western frontier. During Reconstruction, freed slaves were promised "40 acres and a mule." And after World War II, with Levittown and its cousins, affordable homes were a reward of victory. But until very recently, those hopes and dreams were connected to actual income and gainful employment. No longer.

The giddiness of the Bush years built on the promise of the New Economy era, a promise perfectly encapsulated by a 1999 billboard advertising a shiny new subdivision in Scroggins, Texas, filled with homes that most of their owners couldn't really afford: YES, YOU CAN HAVE IT ALL! That dream took a sharp hit with the collapse of the Internet stock bubble in 2000-2001 and then with 9/11, both of which destroyed billions of dollars of wealth. But it came roaring back in 2002, encouraged by Bush's post-9/11 exhortation that Americans could do their patriotic duty by going shopping and paying lower taxes, even as government spending exploded. Shop they did, and homes they bought.

The spree wasn't confined to the United States. Britain has its own version of the ownership society, which received a boost from Margaret Thatcher, who promoted "a property-owning democracy" that her Labour successors, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, endorsed. Blair liked to talk of building a "stakeholder economy" with a big role for the ordinary property-owning citizen. More recently, Brown has spoken of creating a "homeowning, asset-owning, wealth-owning democracy." Millions were happy to buy into the vision. Tenants of government-owned properties gladly took up Thatcher's offer to sell them their homes at knockdown prices. More than 70 percent of Britons now own their homes, compared with 40 percent of Germans and 50 percent of French.


The rest is here:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/163451/page/1

Henry V
02-22-2010, 01:31 PM
Come on Buzz. Newsweek is a liberal rag. The red covered color gives it all away. :)

I always thought ownership society meant for the corporations/banks and by the corporations/banks and we then just own the "trickle".

Buzz
02-22-2010, 02:24 PM
Come on Buzz. Newsweek is a liberal rag. The red covered color gives it all away. :)

I always thought ownership society meant for the corporations/banks and by the corporations/banks and we then just own the "trickle".

You want to know what's funny? I was listening to Tom Sullivan on Fox Radio a week or two ago. They were talking about the housing crisis. You want to know what they blamed it on?

THE ENTITLEMENT SOCIETY!

That's right. Now that it blew up in our faces, it is not the ownership society any more. It's been renamed! Now the concept is the misplaced notion that everyone feels entitled to own a home. And the callers were phoning in and just foaming at the mouth that these morons didn't think that renting was good enough for them, NO!, they had to have a house that they couldn't afford.

I didn't know whether to laugh or get angry.