PDA

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
02-18-2008, 07:36 PM
Interesting - on the mortgage fiasco and BushCo.

BushCo removed the Clinton-appointed head of FNMA and accused him of irregularities - way back in 2002...

Now I see this tidbit of information has surfaced. AMAZING!

Bush Administration invoked an obscure Banking clause 1863 to enable predatory lending practices

By: John Amato on Friday, February 15th, 2008 at 3:16 PM - PST Gov.

Elliot Spitzer explains:

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis. This threat was so clear that as New York attorney general, I joined with colleagues in the other 49 states in attempting to fill the void left by the federal government. Individually, and together, state attorneys general of both parties brought litigation or entered into settlements with many subprime lenders that were engaged in predatory lending practices. Several state legislatures, including New York's, enacted laws aimed at curbing such practices.

That sounds good. I witnessed such practices and saw prices skyrocket before my eyes . That was a huge reason that the Bush economy held up as long as it did-I think Bush called it the "ownership society." I guess we can call it the foreclosure society…. The right wingers usually try to say that we blame Bush for everything. Well, let's see how he did, shall we…

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.

The administration accomplished this feat through an obscure federal agency called the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The OCC has been in existence since the Civil War. Its mission is to ensure the fiscal soundness of national banks. For 140 years, the OCC examined the books of national banks to make sure they were balanced, an important but uncontroversial function. But a few years ago, for the first time in its history, the OCC was used as a tool against consumers. In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative.

Taco John
02-18-2008, 07:44 PM
Nobody cares because the only answer to any of this is to move away from a debt based currency system, to a, yes, hard currency gold standard. American Idol is starting soon, and Dominoes is delivering two for one. People can't be bothered to think about sound money. It's too kooky for them, and it's just much easier to pretend like this whole thing can be solved by giving the Fed carte blanche to just "fix it."

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
09-25-2008, 06:15 PM
Now would be an appropriate time to revisit this story:

Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

How the Bush Administration Stopped the States From Stepping In to Help Consumers

By Eliot Spitzer
Thursday, February 14, 2008; Page A25

Several years ago, state attorneys general and others involved in consumer protection began to notice a marked increase in a range of predatory lending practices by mortgage lenders. Some were misrepresenting the terms of loans, making loans without regard to consumers' ability to repay, making loans with deceptive "teaser" rates that later ballooned astronomically, packing loans with undisclosed charges and fees, or even paying illegal kickbacks. These and other practices, we noticed, were having a devastating effect on home buyers. In addition, the widespread nature of these practices, if left unchecked, threatened our financial markets.

Even though predatory lending was becoming a national problem, the Bush administration looked the other way and did nothing to protect American homeowners. In fact, the government chose instead to align itself with the banks that were victimizing consumers.

') ; } // --> </script></div> Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis. This threat was so clear that as New York (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/New+York?tid=informline) attorney general, I joined with colleagues in the other 49 states in attempting to fill the void left by the federal government. Individually, and together, state attorneys general of both parties brought litigation or entered into settlements with many subprime lenders that were engaged in predatory lending practices. Several state legislatures, including New York's, enacted laws aimed at curbing such practices.

What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge? As Americans are now painfully aware, with hundreds of thousands of homeowners facing foreclosure and our markets reeling, the answer is a resounding no.

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.

Let me explain: The administration accomplished this feat through an obscure federal agency called the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Office+of+the+Comptroller+of+the+Currency?tid=info rmline) (OCC). The OCC has been in existence since the Civil War. Its mission is to ensure the fiscal soundness of national banks. For 140 years, the OCC examined the books of national banks to make sure they were balanced, an important but uncontroversial function. But a few years ago, for the first time in its history, the OCC was used as a tool against consumers.

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.

But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks. In fact, when my office opened an investigation of possible discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed a federal lawsuit to stop the investigation.

Throughout our battles with the OCC and the banks, the mantra of the banks and their defenders was that efforts to curb predatory lending would deny access to credit to the very consumers the states were trying to protect. But the curbs we sought on predatory and unfair lending would have in no way jeopardized access to the legitimate credit market for appropriately priced loans. Instead, they would have stopped the scourge of predatory lending practices that have resulted in countless thousands of consumers losing their homes and put our economy in a precarious position.

When history tells the story of the subprime lending crisis and recounts its devastating effects on the lives of so many innocent homeowners, the Bush administration will not be judged favorably. The tale is still unfolding, but when the dust settles, it will be judged as a willing accomplice to the lenders who went to any lengths in their quest for profits. So willing, in fact, that it used the power of the federal government in an unprecedented assault on state legislatures, as well as on state attorneys general and anyone else on the side of consumers.

The writer is governor of New York.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021302783.html

baja
09-25-2008, 06:22 PM
Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.

No there is no sinister agenda going on here. Add it up folks at it all up

9/11

Iraq

Gismo

The above crime

etc

etc

etc

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
09-25-2008, 06:26 PM
The plan is to consolidate and concentrate all of America's wealth and power in the hands of a small group of elites from the international banking cartel.

Mission accomplished.

baja
09-25-2008, 06:34 PM
The plan is to consolidate and concentrate all of America's wealth and power in the hands of a small group of elites from the international banking cartel.

Mission accomplished.

LABF you posted a great list of the Bushco crimes will you repost that please?

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
09-25-2008, 06:44 PM
LABF you posted a great list of the Bushco crimes will you repost that please?

That wasn't me.

I can't recall who it was.

W*GS
09-25-2008, 07:14 PM
Why does Eliot Spitzer, of all people, have any credibility?

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
09-25-2008, 07:24 PM
W*GS to BushCo's rescue - as always. :oyvey:

Which of Spitzer's claims do you dispute?

W*GS
09-25-2008, 07:32 PM
I certainly wouldn't build a case using the claims of a proven hypocrite.

Obviously LABF has a lower standard.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
09-25-2008, 07:36 PM
Just as I expected - more "attack the messenger" from W*GS.

His efforts to cover Bush's flank are really getting desperate.

W*GS
09-25-2008, 07:39 PM
You can do better than Spitzer to make your case, LABF.

Try a little, next time.

DenverBrit
09-25-2008, 07:43 PM
The writer was governor of New York until he was arrested for crimes that he was hypocritically active in prosecuting to the max. Kind of like Rush and drugs.

You should at least update the source. He's a disgraced ex-governor. No need, I fixed it for you. ;D

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
09-25-2008, 07:46 PM
You should at least update the source. He's a disgraced ex-governor. No need, I fixed it for you. ;D

And this refutes his claims how?

DenverBrit
09-25-2008, 07:59 PM
And this refutes his claims how?

Where did I refute his claims??
The man is a whoredog hypocrite.
He went after prostitutes and their Johns while making a $10,000 transfer to a prostitution ring. When he realized his mistake.....transferring$10,000 alerted the IRS.....he tried to brow beat his bank into withdrawing their alert to the IRS. They refused.
You'd think that someone who is so knowledgeable about banking practices would have known that his activities would attract attention.
He's not only a hypocrite, he's an incompetent, arrogant ass who apparently doesn't understand rudimentary banking protocols, got caught and resigned under threat of impeachment.
Do I think that his activities might cloud his opinions about those he tries to prosecute??
You bet. Same as Rush and his bullhit. L.A. BRONCOS FAN 09-25-2008, 08:01 PM Where did I refute his claims?? Nowhere that I can see. Thanks - that's all I wanted to know. (Actually, it's Bush who should be thanking you for the deflection.) DenverBrit 09-25-2008, 08:05 PM Nowhere that I can see. Thanks - that's all I wanted to know. (Actually, it's Bush who should be thanking you for the deflection.) If you're going to use well known liars and hypocrites to make a point, you should expect commentary. As for 'deflection' where was it?? I just updated the credentials of the source you used. I wrote the truth in context. Nice try though. :wave: L.A. BRONCOS FAN 09-25-2008, 08:12 PM If you're going to use well known liars and hypocrites to make a point, you should expect commentary. Unless said lies and/or hypocrisy have any direct bearing on the subject at hand, then you should STFU. As for 'deflection' where was it?? See all of your posts on this thread. By your own admission, you have not refuted Spitzer's claims in the OP. Why, then, are you wasting our time here? DenverBrit 09-25-2008, 08:21 PM Unless said lies and/or hypocrisy have any direct bearing on the subject at hand, then you should STFU. See all of your posts on this thread. By your own admission, you have not refuted Spitzer's claims in the OP. Why, then, are you wasting our time here? There was no deflection. He's a liar and his actions showed he didn't understand the basics of banking rules, so his opinion should be questioned. Or do you think he has credibility beyond reproach?? L.A. BRONCOS FAN 09-25-2008, 08:30 PM There was no deflection. Your capacity for denial puts even the most unrepentant Bush supporter to shame. Every last one of your posts on this thread is an attempt to deflect attention from Spitzer's claims in the OP by attacking him on some other front. He's a liar and his actions showed he didn't understand the basics of banking rules, so his opinion should be questioned. Show me which one of his claims in the OP is a lie. If you can't do this, then please quit wasting my time and find another thread to jack. Or do you think he has credibility beyond reproach?? Apparently his credibility is sufficient to prevent you from actually disputing any of his factual assertions in the OP. DenverBrit 09-25-2008, 08:42 PM http://cornerstork.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/crying_baby.jpg Waaaaaa!!! DenverBrit questioned my source. Hilarious! L.A. BRONCOS FAN 09-25-2008, 08:46 PM Waaaaaa!!! DenverBrit questioned my source. Hilarious! :stupid: You didn't "question" the source - you simply opted to attack the messenger while admitting you couldn't refute the message. Do you have any idea how idiotic this makes you look? In any case, wake me up when you're done playing 'attack the messenger' and you're actually interested in debating the factual assertions. DenverBrit 09-25-2008, 08:56 PM You didn't "question" the source - you simply opted to attack the messenger while admitting you couldn't refute the message. Are you suggesting that there is another source and Spitzer is merely the messenger?? :spit: L.A. BRONCOS FAN 09-25-2008, 09:00 PM Are you suggesting that there is another source and Spitzer is merely the messenger?? :spit: I'm 'suggesting' that you have yet to challenge or dispute even one factual assertion in the piece. That you believe your mud slinging somehow constitutes some sort of rebuttal of the facts in question is beyond hilarious. ROFL! DenverBrit 09-25-2008, 09:32 PM I'm 'suggesting' that you have yet to challenge or dispute even one factual assertion in the piece. Oh, that's what you're suggesting. I thought you said: You didn't "question" the source - you simply opted to attack the messenger while admitting you couldn't refute the message. So who is the source and who is the messenger?? It's a very simple question, try answering it this time. L.A. BRONCOS FAN 09-25-2008, 09:38 PM So who is the source and who is the messenger?? It's a very simple question, try answering it this time. Poisoning the well didn't work, so now you're trying to turn this into a semantic argument? You really are desperate. Once again, let me know when you are ready to actually challenge the factual assertions. Until then, feel free to continue doing double duty here, i.e., embarrassing yourself and taking the heat off BushCo. DenverBrit 09-25-2008, 11:03 PM Poisoning the well didn't work, so now you're trying to turn this into a semantic argument? Semantics?? You're the clown who wrote this gem: L.A. BRONCOS FAN You didn't "question" the source - you simply opted to attack the messenger while admitting you couldn't refute the message. So who is the "Source" and who is the "messenger." It's a simple question about a statement of yours. A statement that makes no sense. As for poisoning the well, no need.......you pi$$ed in it before I got here. L.A. BRONCOS FAN 09-25-2008, 11:22 PM Semantics?? You're the clown who wrote this gem: So who is the "Source" and who is the "messenger." It's a simple question about a statement of yours. A statement that makes no sense. "Attack the messenger" is a figure of speech, moron. I used that figure of speech in reference to the author - only a drooling imbecile could fail to grasp this. As for poisoning the well, no need.......you pi$$ed in it before I got here. You have it bass-ackwards again. Let's recap: 1) I posted an article. 2) Rather than dispute the factual assertions in the article, you chose to attack/smear the messenger (you even admitted you could not refute the assertions in question.) 3) I called you on your intellectual dishonesty. 4) You responded with your typical "I am rubber - you are glue" idiocy. In any event, I'm sure Bush thanks you for jacking this thread and distracting us from the substance of the article. DenverBrit 09-25-2008, 11:40 PM I used that figure of speech in reference to the author - only a drooling imbecile could fail to grasp this. I questioned Spitzer's credibility and rightly so. He's a liar and hypocrite who resigned to avoid impeachment. This was your response. WTF does it mean?? L.A. BRONCOS FAN You didn't "question" the source - you simply opted to attack the messenger while admitting you couldn't refute the message. If Spitzer isn't the "source" who is?? Simple question. Why don't you answer it for once instead of resorting to your usual deflections and insults. ??? L.A. BRONCOS FAN In any event, I'm sure Bush thanks you for jacking this thread and distracting us from the substance of the article. http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h57/mike1386/authentic_drama_queen.jpg L.A. BRONCOS FAN 09-26-2008, 12:04 AM If Spitzer isn't the "source" who is?? Simple question. Christ, you are thick as a brick. Did you see the quotes around the word "question?" You suggested I was upset because you "questioned" my source. My answer was that you, in fact, didn't question the source (Spitzer) - you merely attempted to impugn his credibility. "Questioning" would imply some effort on your part to confirm or disconfirm facts. I questioned Spitzer's credibility and rightly so. He's a liar and hypocrite who resigned to avoid impeachment. Actually, the Bush administration went after Spitzer when he went public with the facts discussed in the article. They found some dirt on him, and they used that dirt to discredit him (you know - sort of like you are trying to do here?) At any rate, your input on this thread is nothing more than sound and fury, signifying nothing. You have yet to challenge even one factual assertion in the article - opting instead to repeatedly attack the messenger. You are turning what should be a discussion about facts (and a serious issue) into one of your typical, puerile ad hominem attacks. L.A. BRONCOS FAN 09-26-2008, 12:06 AM He's a liar and hypocrite who resigned to avoid impeachment. Show me where Spitzer is lying in the article I posted. Either put up or STFU. alkemical 09-26-2008, 06:38 AM You can do better than Spitzer to make your case, LABF. Try a little, next time. W*gs, i did a few google runs and found a bit more on this. Good call. Mises.org is having a field day with what's going on with the Econ right now. alkemical 09-26-2008, 06:44 AM Wags, i also found this (below) - Not that Spitzer isn't shady...but do you think maybe some of it was character assassination? http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/banking-henhouse.php Regulating fraudulent, predatory and overly-speculative banking practices has been left to the States, not necessarily by law but by default. According to then-Governor Eliot Spitzer, writing in January of 2008, state regulators tried to regulate these shady practices but were hamstrung by federal authorities. In a February 14 Washington Post article titled "Predatory Lenders; Partner in Crime: How the Bush Administration Stopped the States from Stepping in to Help Consumers," Spitzer complained: "several years ago, state attorneys general and others involved in consumer protection began to notice a marked increase in a range of predatory lending practices by mortgage lenders. Some were misrepresenting the terms of loans, making loans without regard to consumers' ability to repay, making loans with deceptive 'teaser; rates that later ballooned astronomically, packing loans with undisclosed charges and fees, or even paying illegal kickbacks. These and other practices, we noticed, were having a devastating effect on home buyers. In addition, the widespread nature of these practices, if left unchecked, threatened our financial markets. "Even though predatory lending was becoming a national problem, the Bush administration looked the other way and did nothing to protect American homeowners. In fact, the government chose instead to align itself with the banks that were victimizing consumers. . . . [A]s New York attorney general, I joined with colleagues in the other 49 states in attempting to fill the void left by the federal government. Individually, and together, state attorneys general of both parties brought litigation or entered into settlements with many subprime lenders that were engaged in predatory lending practices. Several state legislatures, including New York's, enacted laws aimed at curbing such practices . . . . "Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye. . . . The administration accomplished this feat through an obscure federal agency called the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). . . . In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules. But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks. In fact, when my office opened an investigation of possible discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed a federal lawsuit to stop the investigation." Less than a month after publishing this editorial, Spitzer was out of office, following a surprise exposé of his personal indiscretions by the Justice Department. Greg Palast observed that Spitzer was the single politician standing between a200 billion windfall from the Federal Reserve guaranteeing the mortgage-backed junk bonds of the same banking predators that were responsible for the subprime debacle. While the Federal Reserve was trying to bail them out, Spitzer had been trying to regulate them, bringing suit on behalf of consumers.3 But Spitzer has now been silenced, and any other state attorneys general who might get similar ideas will be deterred by the federal oversight under which banking regulators are to be "consolidated."

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
09-26-2008, 06:56 AM
Neither W*GS nor his boyfriend DenverTwit have actually challenged the facts - nothing but "attack the messenger" and character assassination from these idiots so far.

alkemical
09-26-2008, 07:07 AM
Neither W*GS nor his boyfriend DenverTwit have actually challenged the facts - nothing but "attack the messenger" and character assassination from these idiots so far.

No, wags mostly just asked you to use another source. IMO he challenged you to do better than spitzer - not just that the article was wrong. That's just my opinion.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
09-26-2008, 07:18 AM
No, wags mostly just asked you to use another source. IMO he challenged you to do better than spitzer - not just that the article was wrong. That's just my opinion.

His response was a textbook example of "poisoning the well."

You know that.

alkemical
09-26-2008, 07:56 AM
His response was a textbook example of "poisoning the well."

You know that.

You can do better than Spitzer to make your case, LABF.

Try a little, next time.

Actually - see him asking you to just find someone other than Spitzer - again - he has a problem with spitzer due to the shenanigans he had run.

Seriously LABF. I know both of you have bad blood - but W*gs actually was trying to "motivate" you to use a better "cited source".

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
09-26-2008, 08:10 AM
Actually - see him asking you to just find someone other than Spitzer - again - he has a problem with spitzer due to the shenanigans he had run.

Seriously LABF. I know both of you have bad blood - but W*gs actually was trying to "motivate" you to use a better "cited source".

His objection was utter horsesh*t and a textbook case of poisoning the well.

It would be like me saying "I wouldn't trust anything amesj has to say about computer networks - after all, he (hypothetically) got busted with a hooker once."

alkemical
09-26-2008, 08:13 AM
His objection was utter horsesh*t and a textbook case of poisoning the well.

It would be like me saying "I wouldn't trust anything amesj has to say about computer networks - after all, he (hypothetically) got busted with a hooker once."

I'm not asking you to promise to be nice - but W*gs was doing his best LABF. He actually was trying to get you to dig into it a bit more and not just use spitzer. That's all i took from it and how i read it.

Look man, i'm playing arbiter here. :thumbs:

The reason being is that - things are going to be very ugly for a period of time - and we are going to have to learn to meet each other half way if we are going to make it OK through this.

Disagree ideologically - fine - but he didn't pull his normal disdain for you. He just challenged you this time. I mean, you do have to admit that spitzer was doing some pretty wrong ****. He may not be "wrong" on this instance - but if you are going to present an argument on someone's authority - maybe they should have a..."better" record. I think that's all wagsy was getting at.

Garcia Bronco
09-26-2008, 08:15 AM
Sptizer is a POS and I have never believed a word he says. Maybe he should stick to what he knows best - Cheating on his wife.

alkemical
09-26-2008, 08:15 AM
Sptizer is a POS and I have never believed a word he says. Maybe he should stick to what he knows best - Cheating on his wife.

He however, isn't nec. WRONG on this case. If you do some research (as i did last night/this AM) - it's interesting what turns up.

alkemical
09-26-2008, 08:24 AM
Did you guys also notice something:

Main Entry:
in·voke Listen to the pronunciation of invoke
Pronunciation:
\in-ˈvōk\
Function:
transitive verb
Inflected Form(s):
in·voked; in·vok·ing
Etymology:
Middle English envoken, from Middle French invoquer, from Latin invocare, from in- + vocare to call, from voc-, vox voice — more at voice
Date:
15th century

1 a: to petition for help or support b: to appeal to or cite as authority2: to call forth by incantation : conjure3: to make an earnest request for : solicit4: to put into effect or operation : implement5: bring about , cause

Seems someone's been playing some black magick with our money.

DenverBrit
09-26-2008, 08:31 AM
My answer was that you, in fact, didn't question the source (Spitzer) - you merely attempted to impugn his credibility.
Correct. The source is suspect. He was well known for his efforts to prosecute prostitution rings, while using them at the same time. He resigned under threat of impeachment. He, by default, protected the prostitution ring HE was using. Additionally, he demonstrated that he didn't understand a basic banking rule. Transfer $10,000 or more and the IRS is notified. That's how he was caught, he attempted to transfer$10,000 to his hookers and was reported. His credibility is shot.
Actually, the Bush administration went after Spitzer when he went public with the facts discussed in the article. They found some dirt on him, and they used that dirt to discredit him (you know - sort of like you are trying to do here?)

Not trying, doing. The man is a well known liar and hypocrite, I merely pointed that out to you. Had I posted an article written by a well know, lying Republican who was shamed out of office, you'd be questioning the credibility of the source. I used Limbaugh as an example of another lying hypocrite.

If the story is valid, then find a source that is trustworthy and credible. Spitzer is anything but.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
09-26-2008, 08:32 AM
If the story is valid, then find a source that is trustworthy and credible. Spitzer is anything but.

Once again, what factual assertions from the article are you disputing?

Can you point to even one?

Or did you even read the article?

alkemical
09-26-2008, 08:40 AM
If the story is valid, then find a source that is trustworthy and credible. Spitzer is anything but.

Also, you can do what i did - and run through a search engine and find what you can find. I mean, don't just take some one's word about something at face value.

DenverBrit
09-26-2008, 08:44 AM
Once again, what factual assertions from the article are you disputing?

Can you point to even one?

Or did you even read the article?

I'm not disputing the content, I'm questioning the source.
From the very beginning I have suggested that you are using a suspect source.
That's all.

DenverBrit
09-26-2008, 08:46 AM
Also, you can do what i did - and run through a search engine and find what you can find. I mean, don't just take some one's word about something at face value.

I usually do, but Spitzer is another Limbaugh in my book, I wouldn't trust either.
It's quicker to ask for a different source than research serial liars. ;D

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
09-26-2008, 08:46 AM
I'm not disputing the content, I'm questioning the source.
From the very beginning I have suggested that you are using a suspect source.
That's all.

If you're not disputing the content, then why bother with the song and dance about the source? ???

DenverBrit
09-26-2008, 08:51 AM
If you're not disputing the content, then why bother with the song and dance about the source? ???

It's quicker to ask for a different source than research serial liars. ;D

Have you researched the article to confirm each point is correct??

If you have, please post the confirming sources.

Garcia Bronco
09-26-2008, 08:54 AM
He however, isn't nec. WRONG on this case. If you do some research (as i did last night/this AM) - it's interesting what turns up.

He's an asshat and a crook, and not because he cheated on his wife. He made life very difficult on me and I'll never forgive him.

alkemical
09-26-2008, 08:55 AM
I usually do, but Spitzer is another Limbaugh in my book, I wouldn't trust either.
It's quicker to ask for a different source than research serial liars. ;D

Also look at the article that notes that Spitzer, although not immune from character assassination - might have been "laid to slaughter" due to his criticisms of such deplorable action.

I mean, holding someone's character as the value of their person goes so far.

I mean, there are drug abusers (not addicts), and drug dealers that are honest people when it comes to many different areas of life. I'd believe the word of a Hooker than a politician. The hooker has no illusions as to who and what she is, and doesn't try to show us otherwise.

I hope you follow my meaning, or intention on this.

Also, don't be afraid to do your own work - you can ask for a different source - but don't be lazy either. Don't just attack the messenger - find some information to either side of teh discussion.

And how the **** did i become the nice one on the WRP forum?

alkemical
09-26-2008, 08:56 AM
He's an asshat and a crook, and not because he cheated on his wife. He made life very difficult on me and I'll never forgive him.

LOL - now you know how i feel about GWB. ;)

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
10-13-2008, 08:11 AM
From MSNBC:

States warned about impending mortgage crisis
Bush administration, financial industry thwarted efforts to curb greed

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27121535/

baja
10-13-2008, 08:49 AM
From MSNBC:

States warned about impending mortgage crisis
Bush administration, financial industry thwarted efforts to curb greed

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27121535/

If all these converging constructive forces were not orchestrated by Bush's puppet masters than Bush has the grandest case of reverse Midis Tough in the history of creation.

10-13-2008, 09:42 AM
Bush is an asshat, and those who defend him are similarly defective.....

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
10-13-2008, 04:49 PM
Bush is an asshat, and those who defend him are similarly defective.....

Yep.

All you have to do is read this thread for a partial roll call of Bush brownie hounds.

watermock
10-13-2008, 08:31 PM
Good article. States rights with regards to inadequate fed oversight has been a Bush doctrine. It (the fed) USED to be a floor, NOT a ceiling to protect consumers.

This is also a big issue regarding dangerous pharm. drugs

It seems the court has split 5-4 on alot of thngs lately.