Jim Thompson wrote:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...-54816897.html

...Jim Thompson

Jim,

The previous administration initiated the waste of trillions of dollars on the invasion of Iraq.

Your taxes up in smoke.

Each administration has its own way of blowing your cash.

**** the lot of them - but Obama's way is arguably more benign.

Richard

richard wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...-54816897.html

...Jim Thompson

Jim,

The previous administration initiated the waste of trillions of
dollars on the invasion of Iraq.
Your taxes up in smoke.

Each administration has its own way of blowing your cash.

**** the lot of them - but Obama's way is arguably more benign.

Richard

Not to mention the fact that the pension funds need bailed out because of
the republican-generated subprime mortgage crisis's effect on the markets.
Examiner.com, being a worthless "social networking" site, probably won't
tell us that.

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 11:51:42 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 15:55:04 +0100, richard
wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...-54816897.html

...Jim Thompson

Jim,

The previous administration initiated the waste of trillions of dollars on the invasion of Iraq.

The cost of the Iraq war, from beginning all the way to now, hasn't
yet reached the amount Obama and the Democrats in Congress spent in
just one 'stimulus' of bribes bill that they didn't even allow anyone
to read before passing.


Your taxes up in smoke.

Each administration has its own way of blowing your cash.

**** the lot of them - but Obama's way is arguably more benign.

The destruction of liberty is never 'benign'.


Richard

Richard Mullens has been in my kill file for years... a real
off-the-wall leftist wuss.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

GO GREEN!
Recycle Congress
In 2010

flipper wrote:
On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 10:39:32 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

richard wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...-54816897.html

...Jim Thompson

Jim,

The previous administration initiated the waste of trillions of
dollars on the invasion of Iraq.
Your taxes up in smoke.

Each administration has its own way of blowing your cash.

**** the lot of them - but Obama's way is arguably more benign.

Richard

Not to mention the fact that the pension funds need bailed out
because of the republican-generated subprime mortgage crisis's
effect on the markets. Examiner.com, being a worthless "social
networking" site, probably won't tell us that.


I'll give you credit for one thing: you're consistently clueless.

Poor floppy. Always with the handwaving, never with the proof. lol

flipper wrote:
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 15:55:04 +0100, richard
wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...-54816897.html

...Jim Thompson

Jim,

The previous administration initiated the waste of trillions of
dollars on the invasion of Iraq.

The cost of the Iraq war, from beginning all the way to now, hasn't
yet reached the amount Obama and the Democrats in Congress spent in
just one 'stimulus' of bribes bill that they didn't even allow anyone
to read before passing.

That would be the one where 40% of the earmarks are republican, right?

flipper wrote:
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 15:55:04 +0100, richard
wrote:


Jim Thompson wrote:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...-54816897.html

...Jim Thompson

Jim,

The previous administration initiated the waste of trillions of dollars on the invasion of Iraq.


The cost of the Iraq war, from beginning all the way to now, hasn't
yet reached the amount Obama and the Democrats in Congress spent in
just one 'stimulus' of bribes bill that they didn't even allow anyone
to read before passing.



Your taxes up in smoke.

Each administration has its own way of blowing your cash.

**** the lot of them - but Obama's way is arguably more benign.


The destruction of liberty is never 'benign'.

Two wrongs don't make a right - but what was the Patriot act if it wasn't the destruction of liberty ?

Jim Thompson wrote:
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 11:51:42 -0500, flipper wrote:


On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 15:55:04 +0100, richard
wrote:


Jim Thompson wrote:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...-54816897.html

...Jim Thompson

Jim,

The previous administration initiated the waste of trillions of dollars on the invasion of Iraq.

The cost of the Iraq war, from beginning all the way to now, hasn't
yet reached the amount Obama and the Democrats in Congress spent in
just one 'stimulus' of bribes bill that they didn't even allow anyone
to read before passing.



Your taxes up in smoke.

Each administration has its own way of blowing your cash.

**** the lot of them - but Obama's way is arguably more benign.

The destruction of liberty is never 'benign'.


Richard


Richard Mullens has been in my kill file for years... a real
off-the-wall leftist wuss.


Hardly - I'm a liberal with anarchist tendencies :-)

I hate all politicians - they're all a bad lot !

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 19:39:43 +0100, richard wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:
....
Hardly - I'm a liberal with anarchist tendencies :-)

I hate all politicians - they're all a bad lot !

please don't feed the troll.

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 19:39:43 +0100, richard wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:
....
Hardly - I'm a liberal with anarchist tendencies :-)

I hate all politicians - they're all a bad lot !

please don't feed the troll.

AZ Nomad wrote:
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 19:39:43 +0100, richard wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:

...

Hardly - I'm a liberal with anarchist tendencies :-)


I hate all politicians - they're all a bad lot !


please don't feed the troll.

He finds me unpalatable :-)

flipper wrote:
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 19:37:21 +0100, richard
wrote:


flipper wrote:

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 15:55:04 +0100, richard
wrote:



Jim Thompson wrote:


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...-54816897.html

...Jim Thompson

Jim,

The previous administration initiated the waste of trillions of dollars on the invasion of Iraq.


The cost of the Iraq war, from beginning all the way to now, hasn't
yet reached the amount Obama and the Democrats in Congress spent in
just one 'stimulus' of bribes bill that they didn't even allow anyone
to read before passing.




Your taxes up in smoke.

Each administration has its own way of blowing your cash.

**** the lot of them - but Obama's way is arguably more benign.


The destruction of liberty is never 'benign'.

Two wrongs don't make a right


I couldn't agree more so why is it you appear to be making that kind
of argument?



- but what was the Patriot act if it wasn't the destruction of liberty ?


Just exactly which 'liberty' did you loose? The 'liberty' to chat 'in
private' with Al Qaida in Pakistan or the 'liberty' to plan a bombing
in secret?

The word you intend is "lose". "Loose" is associated with a screw.

The situation is that the state now has greater powers to snoop on the citizens.
Wholly innocent people come under suspicion and are subject to investigation and arrest.
The "terrorists" have succeeded. The population is cowed.
People suspect one and other more.
Your taxes go to pay for this heightened "security". A whole range of people get arbitrary powers.

Perhaps not the patriot act, but I had a laser pointer confiscated from me at an airport.
A woman beside me had a "snowstorm" confiscated for fear that the liquid was explosive.
I am not allowed to take photos in railway stations etc etc.

People are more paranoid and uptight.

The perception is that the Americans routinely torture foreign nationals.

All this is what Bush visited on the American people so, in that sense, it is a relief that he has been replaced by someone with
more humane values.




I have my own problems with certain parts of the Patriot Act but it
was targeted at avowed enemies of the United States and (already)
illegal activities. It was passed with overwhelming support from both
parties, making most of the critics cowards and hypocrites, and most
provisions were sunsetted, meaning they were not permanent.

Now, I'm not going to argue that the Patriot Act was '100%' benign but
I haven't yet found an average, everyday, Joe who, besides spouting
political talking points, could put his finger on anything in his life
it affected and I doubt the vast majority of people, save a few
terrorists, would have been able to tell it even existed if not for
the 'politics'.

Obama's proposed 'heath care reform', or 'insurance reform', or
whatever 'focus group wording' he's calling it this week, is another
whole ball of wax. It affects every single soul in the country, is
permanent, and, if the critics are correct (and it's my opinion they
are), amounts to a government take over of 16% of the economy. And
that's before you get to the 'good stuff' like government agencies
deciding what constitutes 'good practice' whether "you and your
doctor" think it is or not.

And even if you disagree with my opinion of the Patriot Act, "two
wrongs don't make a right."

flipper wrote:
On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 13:05:41 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 10:39:32 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

richard wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...-54816897.html

...Jim Thompson

Jim,

The previous administration initiated the waste of trillions of
dollars on the invasion of Iraq.
Your taxes up in smoke.

Each administration has its own way of blowing your cash.

**** the lot of them - but Obama's way is arguably more benign.

Richard

Not to mention the fact that the pension funds need bailed out
because of the republican-generated subprime mortgage crisis's
effect on the markets. Examiner.com, being a worthless "social
networking" site, probably won't tell us that.


I'll give you credit for one thing: you're consistently clueless.

Poor floppy. Always with the handwaving, never with the proof. lol

Further proof you're not only consistently clueless but willfully
clueless as I've not only explained it but I explained it to YOU.

Crazy redefinition xplanations from a serial liar are not proof.

flipper wrote:
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 19:39:43 +0100, richard
wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 11:51:42 -0500, flipper
wrote:


On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 15:55:04 +0100, richard
wrote:


Jim Thompson wrote:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...-54816897.html

...Jim Thompson

Jim,

The previous administration initiated the waste of trillions of
dollars on the invasion of Iraq.

The cost of the Iraq war, from beginning all the way to now, hasn't
yet reached the amount Obama and the Democrats in Congress spent in
just one 'stimulus' of bribes bill that they didn't even allow
anyone to read before passing.



Your taxes up in smoke.

Each administration has its own way of blowing your cash.

**** the lot of them - but Obama's way is arguably more benign.

The destruction of liberty is never 'benign'.


Richard


Richard Mullens has been in my kill file for years... a real
off-the-wall leftist wuss.


Hardly - I'm a liberal with anarchist tendencies :-)

Either you don't know what those words mean or you don't know what
'modern liberalism' is because they're antithetical. Anarchists are
against any form of government while it's a toss up whether the first
word out of a liberals mouth is tax, spend, or regulate.

Or, as Reagan put it "Government's view of the economy could be summed
up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving,
regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."

Well, with Obama you have to add "take it over."

Plutarch warned, "The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is
he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits."


I hate all politicians - they're all a bad lot !

Then you're not a liberal. Liberals only hate the 'opposition'. They
love their own for whom all sins are forgiven or irrelevant as
illustrated by one editorialist who opined during the Monica Lewinsky
scandal that she didn't care if Pres. Clinton was out robbing
convenience stores on his 'off time'. That didn't 'affect his job
performance'.

More made-up crap from the serial liar.

flipper wrote:
On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 13:07:11 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 15:55:04 +0100, richard
wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...-54816897.html

...Jim Thompson

Jim,

The previous administration initiated the waste of trillions of
dollars on the invasion of Iraq.

The cost of the Iraq war, from beginning all the way to now, hasn't
yet reached the amount Obama and the Democrats in Congress spent in
just one 'stimulus' of bribes bill that they didn't even allow
anyone to read before passing.

That would be the one where 40% of the earmarks are republican,
right?


Wrong.

Lie.

flipper wrote:
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 19:37:21 +0100, richard
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 15:55:04 +0100, richard
wrote:


Jim Thompson wrote:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...-54816897.html

...Jim Thompson

Jim,

The previous administration initiated the waste of trillions of
dollars on the invasion of Iraq.


The cost of the Iraq war, from beginning all the way to now, hasn't
yet reached the amount Obama and the Democrats in Congress spent in
just one 'stimulus' of bribes bill that they didn't even allow
anyone to read before passing.



Your taxes up in smoke.

Each administration has its own way of blowing your cash.

**** the lot of them - but Obama's way is arguably more benign.


The destruction of liberty is never 'benign'.

Two wrongs don't make a right

I couldn't agree more so why is it you appear to be making that kind
of argument?


- but what was the Patriot act if it wasn't the destruction of
liberty ?

Just exactly which 'liberty' did you loose? The 'liberty' to chat 'in
private' with Al Qaida in Pakistan or the 'liberty' to plan a bombing
in secret?

I have my own problems with certain parts of the Patriot Act but it
was targeted at avowed enemies of the United States and (already)
illegal activities. It was passed with overwhelming support from both
parties, making most of the critics cowards and hypocrites, and most
provisions were sunsetted, meaning they were not permanent.

Now, I'm not going to argue that the Patriot Act was '100%' benign but
I haven't yet found an average, everyday, Joe who, besides spouting
political talking points, could put his finger on anything in his life
it affected and I doubt the vast majority of people, save a few
terrorists, would have been able to tell it even existed if not for
the 'politics'.

Obama's proposed 'heath care reform', or 'insurance reform', or
whatever 'focus group wording' he's calling it this week, is another
whole ball of wax. It affects every single soul in the country, is
permanent, and, if the critics are correct (and it's my opinion they
are), amounts to a government take over of 16% of the economy.

No evidence for that whatsoever.

flipper wrote:
On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 00:41:12 +0100, richard
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 19:37:21 +0100, richard
wrote:


flipper wrote:

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 15:55:04 +0100, richard
wrote:



Jim Thompson wrote:


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...-54816897.html

...Jim Thompson

Jim,

The previous administration initiated the waste of trillions of
dollars on the invasion of Iraq.


The cost of the Iraq war, from beginning all the way to now,
hasn't yet reached the amount Obama and the Democrats in Congress
spent in just one 'stimulus' of bribes bill that they didn't even
allow anyone to read before passing.




Your taxes up in smoke.

Each administration has its own way of blowing your cash.

**** the lot of them - but Obama's way is arguably more benign.


The destruction of liberty is never 'benign'.

Two wrongs don't make a right


I couldn't agree more so why is it you appear to be making that kind
of argument?



- but what was the Patriot act if it wasn't the destruction of
liberty ?


Just exactly which 'liberty' did you loose? The 'liberty' to chat
'in private' with Al Qaida in Pakistan or the 'liberty' to plan a
bombing in secret?

The word you intend is "lose". "Loose" is associated with a screw.

Thank you for locating a typo.

I suppose a "two wrongs" argument is just too tempting a fallacy for
you to pass up because despite you, yourself, saying it you still
couldn't resist speaking entirely of your perceived 'Bush flaws' with
not one word about the problem at hand.

The situation is that the state now has greater powers to snoop on
the citizens.
Wholly innocent people come under suspicion and are subject to
investigation and arrest.

That's a decent recitation of the left's bugaboo strawman talking
points

No, that's two unassailable facts.


but, as I already said, I've not found a single everyday
average Joe who could put his finger on anything in his life the
Patriot Act affected

Completely irrelevant. We are not talking about who you know.


and I doubt the vast majority of people, save a
few terrorists, would have been able to tell it even existed if not
for the left crying wolf.

Plenty of announcements from the gov.t made in all media - why lie?



Now, you can cry wolf again but it won't alter the fact that I've
still not found any average, everyday, Joes it affected.

It has affected every American citizen.



So you tell me, Does crying wolf make wolves appear?


The "terrorists" have succeeded.

Utter nonsense. That's like saying "Hitler succeeded" because the
Americans engaged in a war against him. And, along with the Allies,
won it, btw.

Next thing you know the loony left will be saying the US decoding
Japan's encrypted communications during WWII violated Tojo's 'privacy
rights'.

Made-up crap.



The population is cowed. People suspect one and other more.

Don't presume everyone else is afflicted with your own paranoid
delusions. I wasn't 'cowed' nor do I know anyone who was, other than a
few fools who took the left seriously and those few couldn't put a
finger on anything either.

Please do understand, again, we are not talking about who you know.




Your taxes go to pay for this heightened "security".

Your taxes went to pay for WWII too.

Does 9/11 ring a bell?

Yep. Thanks, republicans!



A whole range of people get arbitrary powers.

Nobody got 'arbitrary powers'.

Made-up crap.




Perhaps not the patriot act, but I had a laser pointer confiscated
from me at an airport. A woman beside me had a "snowstorm"
confiscated for fear that the liquid was explosive. I am not allowed
to take photos in railway stations etc etc.

Since you seem to be aware that's "not the patriot act" why do you go
ahead and create strawman arguments that have nothing to do with the
patriot act?


People are more paranoid and uptight.

You think having giant craters filled with dead bodies where the two
largest skyscrapers in NY used to stand might have had something to do
with that?

People were a tad "more paranoid and uptight" after Pearl Harbor too
but that's a normal reaction to discovering there's a whole gaggle of
fanatics hell bent on killing your ass.

Playing stupid.




The perception is that the Americans routinely torture foreign
nationals.

A false 'perception' created and promulgated by our supposed 'friends'
on the loony left.

An unassailable fact.




All this is what Bush visited on the American people

No, you've recounted a litany of paranoid delusions visited by the
loony left on the American people and, as I said, I doubt anyone,
besides a few terrorists, would have known the patriot act even
existed if not for the left hysterically screaming a litany of
paranoid delusions.

Made-up crap.



so, in that sense, it is a relief that he has been replaced by
someone with
more humane values.

I don't find socialism and fascism 'benign' nor does it become
'benign' because the perpetrator spouts pleasant sounding 'goals' as
the excuse.

And yet, you defend it at every opportunity. lol

flipper wrote:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 09:47:56 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 13:05:41 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 10:39:32 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

richard wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...-54816897.html

...Jim Thompson

Jim,

The previous administration initiated the waste of trillions of
dollars on the invasion of Iraq.
Your taxes up in smoke.

Each administration has its own way of blowing your cash.

**** the lot of them - but Obama's way is arguably more benign.

Richard

Not to mention the fact that the pension funds need bailed out
because of the republican-generated subprime mortgage crisis's
effect on the markets. Examiner.com, being a worthless "social
networking" site, probably won't tell us that.


I'll give you credit for one thing: you're consistently clueless.

Poor floppy. Always with the handwaving, never with the proof.
lol

Further proof you're not only consistently clueless but willfully
clueless as I've not only explained it but I explained it to YOU.

Crazy redefinition xplanations from a serial liar are not proof.

You're inability to grasp reality doesn't make reality 'crazy', it
just shows you to be crazy.

Here's a small dose of it. When you set up a system, through Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac, to 'give' no ask loans to people who can't afford
the loans then you are eventually going to have foreclosures.

Yep. See George Bush's American Dream Downpayment Initiative of 2003.



And when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, per their government charter,
repackage the bad loans and sell them off as guaranteed securities
then you are eventually going to have a market flooded with 'toxic
securities' because the 'no ask' loans they instructed everyone to
make were crap to begin with.

Yep. See fired McCain campaign co-chair Phil Gramm's Commodities Futures
Modernization Act of 2000, and his Financial Services Modernization Act of
1999.

flipper wrote:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 16:29:51 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 09:47:56 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 13:05:41 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 10:39:32 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

richard wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...-54816897.html

...Jim Thompson

Jim,

The previous administration initiated the waste of trillions
of dollars on the invasion of Iraq.
Your taxes up in smoke.

Each administration has its own way of blowing your cash.

**** the lot of them - but Obama's way is arguably more
benign.

Richard

Not to mention the fact that the pension funds need bailed out
because of the republican-generated subprime mortgage crisis's
effect on the markets. Examiner.com, being a worthless "social
networking" site, probably won't tell us that.


I'll give you credit for one thing: you're consistently
clueless.

Poor floppy. Always with the handwaving, never with the proof.
lol

Further proof you're not only consistently clueless but willfully
clueless as I've not only explained it but I explained it to YOU.

Crazy redefinition xplanations from a serial liar are not proof.

You're inability to grasp reality doesn't make reality 'crazy', it
just shows you to be crazy.

Here's a small dose of it. When you set up a system, through Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac, to 'give' no ask loans to people who can't
afford the loans then you are eventually going to have foreclosures.

Yep. See George Bush's American Dream Downpayment Initiative of
2003.

Bush didn't create Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac nor did he put the
Clinton cronies in there that bankrupted the place.

Sorry, he and his republican buddies enabled 40% of their business to be
no-down-payment loans.


And when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, per their government charter,
repackage the bad loans and sell them off as guaranteed securities
then you are eventually going to have a market flooded with 'toxic
securities' because the 'no ask' loans they instructed everyone to
make were crap to begin with.

Yep. See fired McCain campaign co-chair Phil Gramm's Commodities
Futures Modernization Act of 2000, and his Financial Services
Modernization Act of 1999.

Institutions that *did* take advantage of those acts were the ones
that did *not* need 'bailing out'.

A pathetic lie.


It's the ones who did not, I.E.
worked the way you want, that did.

A pathetic lie.


Of course, being a good, obedient, mind numbed robot you don't give a
flying fig what the real problem is.

The real problem was the laws I mentioned from Phil Gramm that
intentionally removed the derivatives market from any and all regulation and
allowed banks to become brokers.

You are the one directly lying about this issue. You will, of course,
produce nothing authoritative to back up your k00kp00p. You never do.

flipper wrote:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 09:48:54 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:


flipper wrote:

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 19:39:43 +0100, richard
wrote:


Jim Thompson wrote:

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 11:51:42 -0500, flipper
wrote:



On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 15:55:04 +0100, richard
wrote:



Jim Thompson wrote:


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...-54816897.html

...Jim Thompson

Jim,

The previous administration initiated the waste of trillions of
dollars on the invasion of Iraq.

The cost of the Iraq war, from beginning all the way to now, hasn't
yet reached the amount Obama and the Democrats in Congress spent in
just one 'stimulus' of bribes bill that they didn't even allow
anyone to read before passing.




Your taxes up in smoke.

Each administration has its own way of blowing your cash.

**** the lot of them - but Obama's way is arguably more benign.

The destruction of liberty is never 'benign'.



Richard


Richard Mullens has been in my kill file for years... a real
off-the-wall leftist wuss.


Hardly - I'm a liberal with anarchist tendencies :-)

Either you don't know what those words mean or you don't know what
'modern liberalism' is because they're antithetical. Anarchists are
against any form of government while it's a toss up whether the first
word out of a liberals mouth is tax, spend, or regulate.

Or, as Reagan put it "Government's view of the economy could be summed
up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving,
regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."

Well, with Obama you have to add "take it over."

Plutarch warned, "The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is
he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits."



I hate all politicians - they're all a bad lot !

Then you're not a liberal. Liberals only hate the 'opposition'. They
love their own for whom all sins are forgiven or irrelevant as
illustrated by one editorialist who opined during the Monica Lewinsky
scandal that she didn't care if Pres. Clinton was out robbing
convenience stores on his 'off time'. That didn't 'affect his job
performance'.

More made-up crap from the serial liar.



You, and your sole criteria of if a liberal said it it's good and if a
'rightie' said it it's a 'lie' is proof of the truth of it.

Another load of unreasoned right wing ******** from flipper !

flipper wrote:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 09:48:54 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 19:39:43 +0100, richard
wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 11:51:42 -0500, flipper
wrote:


On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 15:55:04 +0100, richard
wrote:


Jim Thompson wrote:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...-54816897.html

...Jim Thompson

Jim,

The previous administration initiated the waste of trillions of
dollars on the invasion of Iraq.

The cost of the Iraq war, from beginning all the way to now,
hasn't yet reached the amount Obama and the Democrats in
Congress spent in just one 'stimulus' of bribes bill that they
didn't even allow anyone to read before passing.



Your taxes up in smoke.

Each administration has its own way of blowing your cash.

**** the lot of them - but Obama's way is arguably more benign.

The destruction of liberty is never 'benign'.


Richard


Richard Mullens has been in my kill file for years... a real
off-the-wall leftist wuss.


Hardly - I'm a liberal with anarchist tendencies :-)

Either you don't know what those words mean or you don't know what
'modern liberalism' is because they're antithetical. Anarchists are
against any form of government while it's a toss up whether the
first word out of a liberals mouth is tax, spend, or regulate.

Or, as Reagan put it "Government's view of the economy could be
summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps
moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."

Well, with Obama you have to add "take it over."

Plutarch warned, "The real destroyer of the liberties of the people
is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits."


I hate all politicians - they're all a bad lot !

Then you're not a liberal. Liberals only hate the 'opposition'. They
love their own for whom all sins are forgiven or irrelevant as
illustrated by one editorialist who opined during the Monica
Lewinsky scandal that she didn't care if Pres. Clinton was out
robbing convenience stores on his 'off time'. That didn't 'affect
his job performance'.

More made-up crap from the serial liar.


You, and your sole criteria of if a liberal said it it's good and if a
'rightie' said it it's a 'lie' is proof of the truth of it.

More made-up crap from the serial liar.

flipper wrote:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 09:49:17 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 13:07:11 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 15:55:04 +0100, richard
wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...-54816897.html

...Jim Thompson

Jim,

The previous administration initiated the waste of trillions of
dollars on the invasion of Iraq.

The cost of the Iraq war, from beginning all the way to now,
hasn't yet reached the amount Obama and the Democrats in Congress
spent in just one 'stimulus' of bribes bill that they didn't even
allow anyone to read before passing.

That would be the one where 40% of the earmarks are republican,
right?


Wrong.

Lie.


You snipping out the entire explanation is proof that it is you who
are the liar.

More made-up crap from the serial liar.

Now, the facts:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/62742.html

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/03/12/earmarks/

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...OjIPA&refer=us

flipper wrote:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 09:50:17 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 19:37:21 +0100, richard
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 15:55:04 +0100, richard
wrote:


Jim Thompson wrote:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...-54816897.html

...Jim Thompson

Jim,

The previous administration initiated the waste of trillions of
dollars on the invasion of Iraq.


The cost of the Iraq war, from beginning all the way to now,
hasn't yet reached the amount Obama and the Democrats in Congress
spent in just one 'stimulus' of bribes bill that they didn't even
allow anyone to read before passing.



Your taxes up in smoke.

Each administration has its own way of blowing your cash.

**** the lot of them - but Obama's way is arguably more benign.


The destruction of liberty is never 'benign'.

Two wrongs don't make a right

I couldn't agree more so why is it you appear to be making that kind
of argument?


- but what was the Patriot act if it wasn't the destruction of
liberty ?

Just exactly which 'liberty' did you loose? The 'liberty' to chat
'in private' with Al Qaida in Pakistan or the 'liberty' to plan a
bombing in secret?

I have my own problems with certain parts of the Patriot Act but it
was targeted at avowed enemies of the United States and (already)
illegal activities. It was passed with overwhelming support from
both parties, making most of the critics cowards and hypocrites,
and most provisions were sunsetted, meaning they were not permanent.

Now, I'm not going to argue that the Patriot Act was '100%' benign
but I haven't yet found an average, everyday, Joe who, besides
spouting political talking points, could put his finger on anything
in his life it affected and I doubt the vast majority of people,
save a few terrorists, would have been able to tell it even existed
if not for the 'politics'.

Obama's proposed 'heath care reform', or 'insurance reform', or
whatever 'focus group wording' he's calling it this week, is another
whole ball of wax. It affects every single soul in the country, is
permanent, and, if the critics are correct (and it's my opinion they
are), amounts to a government take over of 16% of the economy.

No evidence for that whatsoever.

Said the blind man.

Just how do you propose Obama "control healthcare costs" without
control?

Sorry, that's not "a government takeover of 16% of the economy." We won't
be doing any more redefining of my statements, sorry.

Do you have any evidence of such a takeover or not? Do remember, ther
health care plan depends on private insurers, which are already regulated by
government.

flipper wrote:
On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 09:38:14 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 16:29:51 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 09:47:56 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 13:05:41 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 10:39:32 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

richard wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...-54816897.html

...Jim Thompson

Jim,

The previous administration initiated the waste of trillions
of dollars on the invasion of Iraq.
Your taxes up in smoke.

Each administration has its own way of blowing your cash.

**** the lot of them - but Obama's way is arguably more
benign.

Richard

Not to mention the fact that the pension funds need bailed
out because of the republican-generated subprime mortgage
crisis's effect on the markets. Examiner.com, being a
worthless "social networking" site, probably won't tell us
that.


I'll give you credit for one thing: you're consistently
clueless.

Poor floppy. Always with the handwaving, never with the
proof. lol

Further proof you're not only consistently clueless but
willfully clueless as I've not only explained it but I
explained it to YOU.

Crazy redefinition xplanations from a serial liar are not proof.

You're inability to grasp reality doesn't make reality 'crazy', it
just shows you to be crazy.

Here's a small dose of it. When you set up a system, through
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to 'give' no ask loans to people who
can't afford the loans then you are eventually going to have
foreclosures.

Yep. See George Bush's American Dream Downpayment Initiative of
2003.

Bush didn't create Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac nor did he put the
Clinton cronies in there that bankrupted the place.

Sorry, he and his republican buddies enabled 40% of their business
to be no-down-payment loans.

False.

The Bush administration tried multiple times to improve regulations on
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac but were blocked every time by the likes of
Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and friends with Barney Frank explaining "I
see no need to fix what isn't broke" a few months before Fannie Mae
went belly up in a flurry of fraud investigations leading to the
ouster of Franklin Raines, a Clinton crony who learned how to cook
books as his White House Budget Director.

Clinton put in Raines as head of Fannie Mae in 1998 and by 2000 he was
burning the barn with sub-prime loans. By 2002 alarms bells were going
off.

BUSINESS WEEK MAGAZINE, MARCH 11, 2002

"In part, the aggressive tactics of mortgage lenders have been made
possible by the automated underwriting systems developed in recent
years by the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae).. The
new underwriting systems being used by Fannie Mae . allow for higher
loan-to-income ratios than in the past to encourage home buying. .but
the relaxed ratios could pose serious problems in the future. For one,
there is already evidence that defaults are rising. For Fannie Mae .
which only began expanding into subprime mortgages two years ago,
deteriorating credit quality may be a new and unpleasant experience. "

-----------------

This is also linked to Countrywide who was providing 'special deals'
for "friends of Angelo" or FoA, standing for Friends of Countrywide
Chief Executive Angelo Mozilo, including Raines, James Johnson (a
Democratic party activist and adviser to Sen. Barack Obama who was
named to a panel to help choose Obama's Vice Presidential running
mate), Democrat Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Senator
Chris Dodd, and the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Democrat
Kent Conrad.

And you think these people are going to 'fix' it, eh? Well, they've
certainly been in on 'the fix',

And when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, per their government charter,
repackage the bad loans and sell them off as guaranteed securities
then you are eventually going to have a market flooded with 'toxic
securities' because the 'no ask' loans they instructed everyone to
make were crap to begin with.

Yep. See fired McCain campaign co-chair Phil Gramm's Commodities
Futures Modernization Act of 2000, and his Financial Services
Modernization Act of 1999.

Institutions that *did* take advantage of those acts were the ones
that did *not* need 'bailing out'.

A pathetic lie.

Supercilious ad hominem from the grossly ignorant.

Another pathetic lie.



It's the ones who did not, I.E.
worked the way you want, that did.

A pathetic lie.

Supercilious ad hominem from the grossly ignorant.

Another pathetic lie.





Of course, being a good, obedient, mind numbed robot you don't give
a flying fig what the real problem is.

The real problem

The facts show otherwise.

Another pathetic lie.



was the laws I mentioned from Phil Gramm that
intentionally removed the derivatives market from any and all
regulation

It did not remove "any and all regulation."

Another pathetic lie.



and
allowed banks to become brokers.

It allowed diversification and the only reason it wasn't allowed
before is the two regulatory agencies got into a turf battle over who
would be 'king of the hill' and in a lover's murder pack decided if
one can't have it neither would get it. The bill simply resolved the
lover's dispute.

I've previously pasted Clinton's ringing endorsement of it so I won't
bother again because noting sticks in your vacuum packed head anyway.

And there would have been no problem with 'derivatives' if the
underlying 'guaranteed' assets from 'government backed' Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac hadn't been crap to begin with because our liberal friends
insisted we make 'no ask, no down, deferred interest' loans to people
who couldn't pay the loans.

Another pathetic lie.




You are the one directly lying about this issue. You will, of
course, produce nothing authoritative to back up your k00kp00p. You
never do.

I've already done so, and multiple times, but, being the obedient mind
numbed robot you are, you're deaf, dumb and blind to reality.

Another pathetic lie.


And just what kind of 'authority' do you need to grasp the concept
that people who can't afford a loan are not going to be able to pay it
back?

Strawman.

flipper wrote:
On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 11:13:54 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 09:38:14 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 16:29:51 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 09:47:56 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 13:05:41 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 10:39:32 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

richard wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...-54816897.html

...Jim Thompson

Jim,

The previous administration initiated the waste of
trillions of dollars on the invasion of Iraq.
Your taxes up in smoke.

Each administration has its own way of blowing your cash.

**** the lot of them - but Obama's way is arguably more
benign.

Richard

Not to mention the fact that the pension funds need bailed
out because of the republican-generated subprime mortgage
crisis's effect on the markets. Examiner.com, being a
worthless "social networking" site, probably won't tell us
that.


I'll give you credit for one thing: you're consistently
clueless.

Poor floppy. Always with the handwaving, never with the
proof. lol

Further proof you're not only consistently clueless but
willfully clueless as I've not only explained it but I
explained it to YOU.

Crazy redefinition xplanations from a serial liar are not
proof.

You're inability to grasp reality doesn't make reality 'crazy',
it just shows you to be crazy.

Here's a small dose of it. When you set up a system, through
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to 'give' no ask loans to people who
can't afford the loans then you are eventually going to have
foreclosures.

Yep. See George Bush's American Dream Downpayment Initiative of
2003.

Bush didn't create Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac nor did he put the
Clinton cronies in there that bankrupted the place.

Sorry, he and his republican buddies enabled 40% of their business
to be no-down-payment loans.

False.

The Bush administration tried multiple times to improve regulations
on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac but were blocked every time by the
likes of Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and friends with Barney Frank
explaining "I see no need to fix what isn't broke" a few months
before Fannie Mae went belly up in a flurry of fraud investigations
leading to the ouster of Franklin Raines, a Clinton crony who
learned how to cook books as his White House Budget Director.

Clinton put in Raines as head of Fannie Mae in 1998 and by 2000 he
was burning the barn with sub-prime loans. By 2002 alarms bells
were going off.

BUSINESS WEEK MAGAZINE, MARCH 11, 2002

"In part, the aggressive tactics of mortgage lenders have been made
possible by the automated underwriting systems developed in recent
years by the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae)..
The new underwriting systems being used by Fannie Mae . allow for
higher loan-to-income ratios than in the past to encourage home
buying. .but the relaxed ratios could pose serious problems in the
future. For one, there is already evidence that defaults are
rising. For Fannie Mae . which only began expanding into subprime
mortgages two years ago, deteriorating credit quality may be a new
and unpleasant experience. "

-----------------

This is also linked to Countrywide who was providing 'special deals'
for "friends of Angelo" or FoA, standing for Friends of Countrywide
Chief Executive Angelo Mozilo, including Raines, James Johnson (a
Democratic party activist and adviser to Sen. Barack Obama who was
named to a panel to help choose Obama's Vice Presidential running
mate), Democrat Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Senator
Chris Dodd, and the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee,
Democrat Kent Conrad.

And you think these people are going to 'fix' it, eh? Well, they've
certainly been in on 'the fix',

And when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, per their government
charter, repackage the bad loans and sell them off as
guaranteed securities then you are eventually going to have a
market flooded with 'toxic securities' because the 'no ask'
loans they instructed everyone to make were crap to begin with.

Yep. See fired McCain campaign co-chair Phil Gramm's
Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000, and his Financial
Services Modernization Act of 1999.

Institutions that *did* take advantage of those acts were the ones
that did *not* need 'bailing out'.

A pathetic lie.

Supercilious ad hominem from the grossly ignorant.

Another pathetic lie.

Supercilious ad hominem from the grossly ignorant.

It's the ones who did not, I.E.
worked the way you want, that did.

A pathetic lie.

Supercilious ad hominem from the grossly ignorant.

Another pathetic lie.

Supercilious ad hominem from the grossly ignorant.

Of course, being a good, obedient, mind numbed robot you don't
give a flying fig what the real problem is.

The real problem

The facts show otherwise.

Another pathetic lie.

Supercilious ad hominem from the grossly ignorant.

was the laws I mentioned from Phil Gramm that
intentionally removed the derivatives market from any and all
regulation

It did not remove "any and all regulation."

Another pathetic lie.

Supercilious ad hominem from the grossly ignorant.

and
allowed banks to become brokers.

It allowed diversification and the only reason it wasn't allowed
before is the two regulatory agencies got into a turf battle over
who would be 'king of the hill' and in a lover's murder pack
decided if one can't have it neither would get it. The bill simply
resolved the lover's dispute.

I've previously pasted Clinton's ringing endorsement of it so I
won't bother again because noting sticks in your vacuum packed head
anyway.

And there would have been no problem with 'derivatives' if the
underlying 'guaranteed' assets from 'government backed' Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac hadn't been crap to begin with because our liberal
friends insisted we make 'no ask, no down, deferred interest' loans
to people who couldn't pay the loans.

Another pathetic lie.

Supercilious ad hominem from the grossly ignorant.

You are the one directly lying about this issue. You will, of
course, produce nothing authoritative to back up your k00kp00p.
You never do.

I've already done so, and multiple times, but, being the obedient
mind numbed robot you are, you're deaf, dumb and blind to reality.

Another pathetic lie.

Supercilious ad hominem from the grossly ignorant.

And just what kind of 'authority' do you need to grasp the concept
that people who can't afford a loan are not going to be able to pay
it back?

Strawman.

LOL

And that kind of stupidity is how we get left wing loony tunes in
Congress and Fannie Mae making 'no ask' loans to people who can't pay
them back and then they wonder what went wrong.

In other words, you can't defend any claim you made. Thanks.

flipper wrote:
On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 12:56:39 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 09:48:54 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 19:39:43 +0100, richard
wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 11:51:42 -0500, flipper
wrote:


On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 15:55:04 +0100, richard
wrote:


Jim Thompson wrote:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...-54816897.html

...Jim Thompson

Jim,

The previous administration initiated the waste of trillions
of dollars on the invasion of Iraq.

The cost of the Iraq war, from beginning all the way to now,
hasn't yet reached the amount Obama and the Democrats in
Congress spent in just one 'stimulus' of bribes bill that they
didn't even allow anyone to read before passing.



Your taxes up in smoke.

Each administration has its own way of blowing your cash.

**** the lot of them - but Obama's way is arguably more
benign.

The destruction of liberty is never 'benign'.


Richard


Richard Mullens has been in my kill file for years... a real
off-the-wall leftist wuss.


Hardly - I'm a liberal with anarchist tendencies :-)

Either you don't know what those words mean or you don't know what
'modern liberalism' is because they're antithetical. Anarchists
are against any form of government while it's a toss up whether
the first word out of a liberals mouth is tax, spend, or regulate.

Or, as Reagan put it "Government's view of the economy could be
summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps
moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."

Well, with Obama you have to add "take it over."

Plutarch warned, "The real destroyer of the liberties of the
people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and
benefits."


I hate all politicians - they're all a bad lot !

Then you're not a liberal. Liberals only hate the 'opposition'.
They love their own for whom all sins are forgiven or irrelevant
as illustrated by one editorialist who opined during the Monica
Lewinsky scandal that she didn't care if Pres. Clinton was out
robbing convenience stores on his 'off time'. That didn't 'affect
his job performance'.

More made-up crap from the serial liar.


You, and your sole criteria of if a liberal said it it's good and
if a 'rightie' said it it's a 'lie' is proof of the truth of it.

More made-up crap from the serial liar.


The proof of my case.

So, your inability to refute my statements remains unbroken. Have a nice
life!

flipper wrote:
On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 14:37:38 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 11:13:54 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 09:38:14 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 16:29:51 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 09:47:56 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 13:05:41 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 10:39:32 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

richard wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...-54816897.html

...Jim Thompson

Jim,

The previous administration initiated the waste of
trillions of dollars on the invasion of Iraq.
Your taxes up in smoke.

Each administration has its own way of blowing your
cash.

**** the lot of them - but Obama's way is arguably more
benign.

Richard

Not to mention the fact that the pension funds need
bailed out because of the republican-generated subprime
mortgage crisis's effect on the markets. Examiner.com,
being a worthless "social networking" site, probably
won't tell us that.


I'll give you credit for one thing: you're consistently
clueless.

Poor floppy. Always with the handwaving, never with the
proof. lol

Further proof you're not only consistently clueless but
willfully clueless as I've not only explained it but I
explained it to YOU.

Crazy redefinition xplanations from a serial liar are not
proof.

You're inability to grasp reality doesn't make reality
'crazy', it just shows you to be crazy.

Here's a small dose of it. When you set up a system, through
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to 'give' no ask loans to people
who can't afford the loans then you are eventually going to
have foreclosures.

Yep. See George Bush's American Dream Downpayment Initiative
of 2003.

Bush didn't create Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac nor did he put the
Clinton cronies in there that bankrupted the place.

Sorry, he and his republican buddies enabled 40% of their
business to be no-down-payment loans.

False.

The Bush administration tried multiple times to improve
regulations on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac but were blocked every
time by the likes of Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and friends with
Barney Frank explaining "I see no need to fix what isn't broke" a
few months before Fannie Mae went belly up in a flurry of fraud
investigations leading to the ouster of Franklin Raines, a
Clinton crony who learned how to cook books as his White House
Budget Director.

Clinton put in Raines as head of Fannie Mae in 1998 and by 2000 he
was burning the barn with sub-prime loans. By 2002 alarms bells
were going off.

BUSINESS WEEK MAGAZINE, MARCH 11, 2002

"In part, the aggressive tactics of mortgage lenders have been
made possible by the automated underwriting systems developed in
recent years by the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie
Mae).. The new underwriting systems being used by Fannie Mae .
allow for higher loan-to-income ratios than in the past to
encourage home buying. .but the relaxed ratios could pose serious
problems in the future. For one, there is already evidence that
defaults are rising. For Fannie Mae . which only began expanding
into subprime mortgages two years ago, deteriorating credit
quality may be a new and unpleasant experience. "

-----------------

This is also linked to Countrywide who was providing 'special
deals' for "friends of Angelo" or FoA, standing for Friends of
Countrywide Chief Executive Angelo Mozilo, including Raines,
James Johnson (a Democratic party activist and adviser to Sen.
Barack Obama who was named to a panel to help choose Obama's Vice
Presidential running mate), Democrat Chairman of the Senate
Banking Committee, Senator Chris Dodd, and the chairman of the
Senate Budget Committee, Democrat Kent Conrad.

And you think these people are going to 'fix' it, eh? Well,
they've certainly been in on 'the fix',

And when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, per their government
charter, repackage the bad loans and sell them off as
guaranteed securities then you are eventually going to have a
market flooded with 'toxic securities' because the 'no ask'
loans they instructed everyone to make were crap to begin
with.

Yep. See fired McCain campaign co-chair Phil Gramm's
Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000, and his
Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999.

Institutions that *did* take advantage of those acts were the
ones that did *not* need 'bailing out'.

A pathetic lie.

Supercilious ad hominem from the grossly ignorant.

Another pathetic lie.

Supercilious ad hominem from the grossly ignorant.

It's the ones who did not, I.E.
worked the way you want, that did.

A pathetic lie.

Supercilious ad hominem from the grossly ignorant.

Another pathetic lie.

Supercilious ad hominem from the grossly ignorant.

Of course, being a good, obedient, mind numbed robot you don't
give a flying fig what the real problem is.

The real problem

The facts show otherwise.

Another pathetic lie.

Supercilious ad hominem from the grossly ignorant.

was the laws I mentioned from Phil Gramm that
intentionally removed the derivatives market from any and all
regulation

It did not remove "any and all regulation."

Another pathetic lie.

Supercilious ad hominem from the grossly ignorant.

and
allowed banks to become brokers.

It allowed diversification and the only reason it wasn't allowed
before is the two regulatory agencies got into a turf battle over
who would be 'king of the hill' and in a lover's murder pack
decided if one can't have it neither would get it. The bill simply
resolved the lover's dispute.

I've previously pasted Clinton's ringing endorsement of it so I
won't bother again because noting sticks in your vacuum packed
head anyway.

And there would have been no problem with 'derivatives' if the
underlying 'guaranteed' assets from 'government backed' Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac hadn't been crap to begin with because our liberal
friends insisted we make 'no ask, no down, deferred interest'
loans to people who couldn't pay the loans.

Another pathetic lie.

Supercilious ad hominem from the grossly ignorant.

You are the one directly lying about this issue. You will, of
course, produce nothing authoritative to back up your k00kp00p.
You never do.

I've already done so, and multiple times, but, being the obedient
mind numbed robot you are, you're deaf, dumb and blind to reality.

Another pathetic lie.

Supercilious ad hominem from the grossly ignorant.

And just what kind of 'authority' do you need to grasp the concept
that people who can't afford a loan are not going to be able to
pay it back?

Strawman.

LOL

And that kind of stupidity is how we get left wing loony tunes in
Congress and Fannie Mae making 'no ask' loans to people who can't
pay them back and then they wonder what went wrong.

In other words, you can't defend any claim you made. Thanks.

No, "in other words" only leftist loony tunes and idiots like you
can't figure out that loans to people who can't repay don't get
repaid.

Sorry, no defense = no response.


" Institutions that *did* take advantage of those acts were the ones
that did *not* need 'bailing out'.

A pathetic lie.


It's the ones who did not, I.E.
worked the way you want, that did.

A pathetic lie.

...You are the one directly lying about this issue. You will, of course,
produce nothing authoritative to back up your k00kp00p. You never do."

Prediction validated. Have a nice life!

Hey, apparently I still get to use my pseudonyms!

Way Kewl!

Thanks for that "motzarella" link, whoever it was!

Cheers!
Rich

"Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" wrote in message
news
Hey, apparently I still get to use my pseudonyms!

Way Kewl!

Thanks for that "motzarella" link, whoever it was!



I found a link to all the newsservers I ever had at
207.177.16.121 all read write.