Barney Frank gets biatch slapped by Bill O'reilley

[calidem411]

You be the judge!!!:D

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/o0c7aGIocIw&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/o0c7aGIocIw&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Mr. Shaman]

You be the judge!!!:D
Yes....he can be very entertaining....if you're amused by people with mental-illnesses. :rolleyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHUGCkROwJE&feature=related

[Mr. Carpenter]

Yes....he can be very entertaining....if you're amused by people with mental-illnesses. :rolleyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHUGCkROwJE&feature=related

Well, at least you agree with the rest of us that Barney Frank IS mentally ill. Probably AIDS induced dementia.

[Popeye]

Well, at least you agree with the rest of us that Barney Frank IS mentally ill. Probably AIDS induced dementia.

BillO has AIDS? You would think a man of his age would know to use protection. Perhaps one of those obscene phone calls he is so fond of making developed into something much more.

[vyo476]

Well, at least you agree with the rest of us that Barney Frank IS mentally ill. Probably AIDS induced dementia.

Try telling a gay man he "probably has AIDS" to his face. See what happens.

[bododie]

Try telling a gay man he "probably has AIDS" to his face. See what happens.
DO tell, what would happen? Would he cry? Or would he assault the person?

[Vyddo]

I like Bill O'Reilly, I know he has a conservative slant but I think he normally tries to be responsible in a journalistic sense. That said, I didn't like the way he handled the interview. I believe everyone is deserving of a certain amount of base respect and he didn't achieve anything by shouting down a member of congress. Noone's perfect, Bill let his own feelings play into the interview and the point was lost and cheapened by the antics. Noone's perfect, including Bill O'Reilly.

[calidem411]

I like Bill O'Reilly, I know he has a conservative slant but I think he normally tries to be responsible in a journalistic sense. That said, I didn't like the way he handled the interview. I believe everyone is deserving of a certain amount of base respect and he didn't achieve anything by shouting down a member of congress. Noone's perfect, Bill let his own feelings play into the interview and the point was lost and cheapened by the antics. Noone's perfect, including Bill O'Reilly.

I think that you need to understand that this Barney guy went on national TV like he was Marlon Brando in the Godfather a few days ago, saying; I'd like to know who those republicans are who did not vote for this bill. I will try to persuade them in a not so nice way....

Yet, he has been caught many times in the past telling congress that there was nothing wrong with FANNIE MAE and FREDDIMAC.

It's about time that somebody put him in his place... :)

[NO Obamanation]

IT was funny. I dont really like Bill that much but this was funny

[Mr. Carpenter]

Try telling a gay man he "probably has AIDS" to his face. See what happens.

Been there, done that, he pouted and skulked away. Actually, I told him if he hadn't been such a hedonistic c***suckin', pillow-bitin', rump ranger, that he wouldn't have gotten AIDS in the first place.

[vyo476]

Been there, done that, he pouted and skulked away. Actually, I told him if he hadn't been such a hedonistic c***suckin', pillow-bitin', rump ranger, that he wouldn't have gotten AIDS in the first place.

Do you find putting down the lifestyles of others somehow validates your own?

[Mr. Carpenter]

Do you find putting down the lifestyles of others somehow validates your own?

When they insist on trying to impose their sick twisted "lifestyle" on me and mine, I have absolutely no problem telling them exactly what I think about them and theirs. You see, he has the right to say what he wants to say, and I have the right to say what I want to say too, and if they don't like it...TOUGH ****! That's the wonderful thing about the first amendment, it applies equally to everyone.

Oh, and there's no need to "validate" the natural order. It's just too bad for the pillow-biters that they don't have that advantage.

[Popeye]

Been there, done that, he pouted and skulked away. Actually, I told him if he hadn't been such a hedonistic c***suckin', pillow-bitin', rump ranger, that he wouldn't have gotten AIDS in the first place.

Your behavior is extremely revealing... Studies have shown that the most homophobic of men are more prone to having homosexual desires....feeling a sense of shame they attempt to cover it up with bombastic macho homophobic behavior.

Journal of Abnormal Psychology. Vol 105(3), Aug 1996, 440-445.
The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35 ) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992). Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.

http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=main.doiLanding&uid=1996-00463-014

[Mr. Carpenter]

Your behavior is most revealing... Studies have shown that the most homophobic of men are more prone to having homosexual desires....feeling a sense of shame they attempt to cover it up with bombastic macho homophobic behavior.

First off, I'm not the least bit "homophobic" as I'm not afraid of anyone. Secondly, if the sick twisted son-of-a-***** had gone away when I told him I wasn't interested in listening to his "woe-is-me" begging crap, there wouldn't have been a problem, but he was too dense to pick up on the hint (I guess he didn't know what "take a hike" meant), and kept bugging us while we were trying to enjoy our meal, so I got up, got in his face, and told him off. Now, if you have a problem with that, then that's exactly what it is, YOUR problem, and it's YOUR job to deal with YOUR problem.

Oh, and one other thing popeye, the absolute last person in the world I'm the least bit interested in taking advise from, or validating the opinion of, it a completely disingenuous barking moon bat liberal like you. Now, go hoist your white flag of surrender, bend over and grab your ankles, because if you elect Obama, we're ALL screwed, and I will rub all of you lib's faces in it every day of his 4 years in office (if he makes it the whole four).

One last thing. I could care less what a bunch of fag shrinks think about anything. They just wish that straight men were actually interested in them, so they "project" their own feelings of inadequacy on their test subjects.

[Popeye]

First off, I'm not the least bit "homophobic" as I'm not afraid of anyone. Secondly, if the sick twisted son-of-a-***** had gone away when I told him I wasn't interested in listening to his "woe-is-me" begging crap, there wouldn't have been a problem, but he was too dense to pick up on the hint (I guess he didn't know what "take a hike" meant), and kept bugging us while we were trying to enjoy our meal, so I got up, got in his face, and told him off. Now, if you have a problem with that, then that's exactly what it is, YOUR problem, and it's YOUR job to deal with YOUR problem.

Oh, and one other thing popeye, the absolute last person in the world I'm the least bit interested in taking advise from, or validating the opinion of, it a completely disingenuous barking moon bat liberal like you. Now, go hoist your white flag of surrender, bend over and grab your ankles, because if you elect Obama, we're ALL screwed, and I will rub all of you lib's faces in it every day of his 4 years in office (if he makes it the whole four).

All your post did was confirm the study, actually I would have been surprised at anything else. You're not taking advise from me, we're looking at a study.

So, lets see here:

Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.

You've already issued your denial..nothing unusual there. The only question remains.. are you in fact aware of your desires or do they exist in a dormant form?

[GenSeneca]

You've already issued your denial..nothing unusual there. The only question remains.. are you in fact aware of your desires or do they exist in a dormant form?

SOCIALIST TROLL BAIT!

Popeye... are you ready to admit to your Socialist tendencies or are you going to deny your hammer and sickle mentality?

[Mr. Carpenter]

All your post did was confirm the study, actually I would have been surprised at anything else. You're not taking advise from me, we're looking at a study.

The fact that you would even know where to find such a "study" (:rolleyes:) only serves to prove that you're one of the sick-o's yourself.

You've already issued your denial..nothing unusual there. The only question remains.. are you in fact aware of your desires or do they exist in a dormant form?

Oh really, I can play that silly game too.

Have you stopped sexually abusing your children and prostituting them out to support your drug habit? Don't bother denying it either, that would only serve to prove your sexual perversions and moral turpitude!

Now, do you REALLY want to play these silly games, or are you going to at least try to act like an adult?

[vyo476]

The fact that you would even know where to find such a "study" (:rolleyes:) only serves to prove that you're one of the sick-o's yourself.

What on Earth are you talking about?

Oh really, I can play that silly game too.

Have you stopped sexually abusing your children and prostituting them out to support your drug habit? Don't bother denying it either, that would only serve to prove your sexual perversions and moral turpitude!

The difference being that there's no scientific basis for your argument.

Now, do you REALLY want to play these silly games, or are you going to at least try to act like an adult?

Would this be the same "acting like an adult" that involves calling people "hedonistic c***suckin', pillow-bitin', rump rangers"?

[Mr. Carpenter]

What on Earth are you talking about?

Just playing games with one of the most intellectually and morally bankrupt individuals on the forum, why?

The difference being that there's no scientific basis for your argument.

And there's no "scientific" basis for his argument either, as the "study" was simply a self-fulfilling fantasy sponsored and paid for by fags, which totally negates any "conclusions" they may have reached. (PROVE me wrong!)

Would this be the same "acting like an adult" that involves calling people "hedonistic c***suckin', pillow-bitin', rump rangers"?

Tell ya what, why don't you tell me what YOU would have done if you were sitting in a nice restuarant, enjoying dinner with your wife and family, and some disgusting (as in he obviously hadn't washed in weeks) comes in and starts panhandling claiming to be a AIDS victim, and gets loud, rude, and refuses to leave you alone after repeated requests? HMMMM? Are you going to be all sweetness and nice, or are you going to get in his face and run the bum off? Never mind, I forgot, you don't have the stones to actually confront someone and defend your own rights.

LATE EDIT: And just for the record, I don't like fags, I've never liked fags, I never will like fags, and there's nothing you can say that's ever going to convince me that they're anything but sick demented hedonistic perverts, so don't bother wasting any more of your time.

[NO Obamanation]

I don’t know how this thread turned into a homosexual issue but I don’t think a person has to approve of homosexual behavior or else they are a homophobe closet homosexual.

I do not approve of homosexual sex. I am not a closet homosexual. But when I say that I do not approve of homosexual sex people say that I must be a closet homosexual.

I also do not approve of random sex with multiple partners. No one ever accuses me of being a closet whore for saying that, just a prude :)

It bothers me when we are told we have to agree with behaviors we do not agree with or else we are bad people. My personal beliefs tell me that this is not something we should be participating in, like many other behaviors. No one can help if they get certain desires, but its weather or not we act on those desires is the issue.

To cherry pick some of those things and say AGREE WITH IT OR ELSE YOU ARE A BAD PERSON!! Is stupid and childish.

I think it would be horrible to dislike someone or be rude or mean to someone just because they had homosexual tendencies but I also think it is horrible for anyone to expect a person to put away their personal faith because another person expects you to accept their lifestyles.

[Mr. Carpenter]

I don’t know how this thread turned into a homosexual issue but I don’t think a person has to approve of homosexual behavior or else they are a homophobe closet homosexual.

I do not approve of homosexual sex. I am not a closet homosexual. But when I say that I do not approve of homosexual sex people say that I must be a closet homosexual.

I also do not approve of random sex with multiple partners. No one ever accuses me of being a closet whore for saying that, just a prude :)

It bothers me when we are told we have to agree with behaviors we do not agree with or else we are bad people. My personal beliefs tell me that this is not something we should be participating in, like many other behaviors. No one can help if they get certain desires, but its weather or not we act on those desires is the issue.

To cherry pick some of those things and say AGREE WITH IT OR ELSE YOU ARE A BAD PERSON!! Is stupid and childish.

I think it would be horrible to dislike someone or be rude or mean to someone just because they had homosexual tendencies but I also think it is horrible for anyone to expect a person to put away their personal faith because another person expects you to accept their lifestyles.

It's that whole double-edged sword called "intolerence" that they love to swing around, but they forget that when they accuse someone of being "intolerent", they themselves are being intolerent! They expect everyone to be tolerant of their beliefs, but they're not tolerant of ours! Liberals are hypocritical, equivocal rats by nature, they can't help it, it's in their genetic makeup, but that doesn't make it right, and it sure as God made little green apples is no reason to accept it.

[vyo476]

Just playing games with one of the most intellectually and morally bankrupt individuals on the forum, why?

So there isn't any basis for the statement you made? It was just a "game?"

And there's no "scientific" basis for his argument either, as the "study" was simply a self-fulfilling fantasy sponsored and paid for by fags, which totally negates any "conclusions" they may have reached. (PROVE me wrong!)

The article Popeye quoted appeared in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology, published by the American Psychological Assocation. It is a peer-reviewed scientific journal that covers a wide range of psychological topics, including mood disorders, eating disorders, personality disorders, and special states of consciousness. If you're going to state that it is "sponsored and paid for" by homosexuals, you're going to have to be the one to prove it. After all, I'm not the one who questions its standing as a scientific journal.

Here's a link to the journal's main page, if you'd care to try: http://www.apa.org/journals/abn/description.html

Tell ya what, why don't you tell me what YOU would have done if you were sitting in a nice restuarant, enjoying dinner with your wife and family, and some disgusting (as in he obviously hadn't washed in weeks) comes in and starts panhandling claiming to be a AIDS victim, and gets loud, rude, and refuses to leave you alone after repeated requests? HMMMM? Are you going to be all sweetness and nice, or are you going to get in his face and run the bum off?

Perhaps I would have asked the staff of the restaurant to intervene.

What I would not have done was "get right in his face" and start throwing insinuations around about his lifestyle. I would have attempted to be understanding, since obviously this man has a lot of problems - a lot more problems than, say, I do.

Never mind, I forgot, you don't have the stones to actually confront someone and defend your own rights.

Do not obsess yourself with your percieved knowledge of others. Unless you have some background for statements like that, making them does not enhance your argument at all. All it does is make you sound angry. Acting with regard to emotion above logic is supposedly a liberal failing.

LATE EDIT: And just for the record, I don't like fags, I've never liked fags, I never will like fags, and there's nothing you can say that's ever going to convince me that they're anything but sick demented hedonistic perverts, so don't bother wasting any more of your time.

If you are one hundred percent inflexible in your views, why do you bother coming to a forum? Shouldn't you be satisfied if the your self-assurance? Or are you here because you feel the need to share your stalwart views with those who are less informed (ie, us)? Huh, I thought elitism was a liberal failing, too.

[Mr. Carpenter]

So there isn't any basis for the statement you made? It was just a "game?"

Just as much basis as there was for his.

The article Popeye quoted appeared in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology, published by the American Psychological Assocation. It is a peer-reviewed scientific journal that covers a wide range of psychological topics, including mood disorders, eating disorders, personality disorders, and special states of consciousness. If you're going to state that it is "sponsored and paid for" by homosexuals, you're going to have to be the one to prove it. After all, I'm not the one who questions its standing as a scientific journal.

vyo, I challenge the validity of anything written by anyone who bases their entire profession on the ravings of a drug addled closet fag who had the hots for his sister. If you consider them "credible", that's your problem, but don't think for a moment that you can impose that garbage on me.

Perhaps I would have asked the staff of the restaurant to intervene.

Let me get this straight, you'd have gotten up from the table and walked away to find someone to help you, while your wife and children were left alone at the table with a mentally deranged, and admittedly AIDS infected bum? Yeah, that's REAL smart.......NOT!:mad:

What I would not have done was "get right in his face" and start throwing insinuations around about his lifestyle. I would have attempted to be understanding, since obviously this man has a lot of problems - a lot more problems than, say, I do.

So you admit that you're a coward, and aren't even smart enough to know that you NEVER leave your family in a position to be attacked by an obviously diseased and mentally deranged individual! Yeah, you're a REAL good example of American intestinal fortitude.

Do not obsess yourself with your percieved knowledge of others. Unless you have some background for statements like that, making them does not enhance your argument at all. All it does is make you sound angry. Acting with regard to emotion above logic is supposedly a liberal failing.

You've already proven me correct, both in your previous posts, and in this one, so it's not preception, it's observation.

If you are one hundred percent inflexible in your views, why do you bother coming to a forum? Shouldn't you be satisfied if the your self-assurance? Or are you here because you feel the need to share your stalwart views with those who are less informed (ie, us)? Huh, I thought elitism was a liberal failing, too.

I come here to discuss issues with those of like mind. Anyone else's opinions are strictly fodder for pure entertainment value.

[vyo476]

I don’t know how this thread turned into a homosexual issue

That's my fault, actually. I took offense to something that was said early in the thread and responded in kind. I'd split off the homosexual debate and move it to a more appropriate section of the forum if I thought it was necessary.

but I don’t think a person has to approve of homosexual behavior or else they are a homophobe closet homosexual.

There's a difference between disapproving of homosexual behavior and using bigoted epithets and insulting insinuations when faced with a homosexual.

I do not approve of homosexual sex. I am not a closet homosexual. But when I say that I do not approve of homosexual sex people say that I must be a closet homosexual.

Then they are misinformed as to the nature of homophobia. Having studied the matter rather closely, I wouldn't say you're a homophobe. I don't agree with you - but you're not a homophobe.

I also do not approve of random sex with multiple partners. No one ever accuses me of being a closet whore for saying that, just a prude :)

You'll find opponents of promiscuity on both sides of the sexual divide. Actually, if you're ever interested in learning more about the homosexual perspective (and can stomach a film that is sympathetic to homosexuality) you might try watching And the Band Played On. Ian McKllelan's character is a homosexual who is ardently anti-promiscuity.

It bothers me when we are told we have to agree with behaviors we do not agree with or else we are bad people. My personal beliefs tell me that this is not something we should be participating in, like many other behaviors. No one can help if they get certain desires, but its weather or not we act on those desires is the issue.

To cherry pick some of those things and say AGREE WITH IT OR ELSE YOU ARE A BAD PERSON!! Is stupid and childish.

I agree with you on this.

I think it would be horrible to dislike someone or be rude or mean to someone just because they had homosexual tendencies but I also think it is horrible for anyone to expect a person to put away their personal faith because another person expects you to accept their lifestyles.


Homosexuals expect acceptance only in so far as they aren't harrassed simply for being homosexual. Well, okay, the ones I agree with only expect that much; its true, some go further than that, and I've told them that frankly I can't get behind their point of view.

[vyo476]

vyo, I challenge the validity of anything written by anyone who bases their entire profession on the ravings of a drug addled closet fag who had the hots for his sister. If you consider them "credible", that's your problem, but don't think for a moment that you can impose that garbage on me.

Let me see if I understand what you're trying to say here.

You contend that psychology is based entirely on the ravings of a "drug addled" closet homosexual "who had the hots for his sister." Are you referring to Freud? Because you might want to know that there's a lot more to psychology than Freud.

In any case, the personal shortcomings of a scientist matter little in the light of peer-review. No matter how quirky Einstein was, the bomb that was based on his ideas still worked.

Let me get this straight, you'd have gotten up from the table and walked away to find someone to help you, while your wife and children were left alone at the table with a mentally deranged, and admittedly AIDS infected bum? Yeah, that's REAL smart.......NOT!:mad:



So you admit that you're a coward, and aren't even smart enough to know that you NEVER leave your family in a position to be attacked by an obviously diseased and mentally deranged individual! Yeah, you're a REAL good example of American intestinal fortitude.

There weren't any waiters in this "nice restaurant" of yours?

You've already proven me correct, both in your previous posts, and in this one, so it's not preception, it's observation.

Even if I had proven you correct in my previous post, the comments to which I stated you were obssessing yourself with your views of others were made before that post. So unless you consider yourself a prophet - try again.

I come here to discuss issues with those of like mind. Anyone else's opinions are strictly fodder for pure entertainment value.

You came to a non-partisan political forum only to be around people of a like mind?

[vyo476]

It's that whole double-edged sword called "intolerence" that they love to swing around, but they forget that when they accuse someone of being "intolerent", they themselves are being intolerent! They expect everyone to be tolerant of their beliefs, but they're not tolerant of ours! Liberals are hypocritical, equivocal rats by nature, they can't help it, it's in their genetic makeup, but that doesn't make it right, and it sure as God made little green apples is no reason to accept it.

I do my level best to be as tolerant of the conservative point of view as possible. If I thought it had no worth than I never would have come here in the first place; furthermore, discussion with intelligent conservatives has changed my views on a number of issues, such as gun control and abortion. In all fairness, you've put your finger on a large and unfortunate issue amongst my fellow liberals: that they don't recognize that tolerance must necessarily extend, at least in a limited capacity, to the intolerant.

[Mr. Carpenter]

Let me see if I understand what you're trying to say here.

You contend that psychology is based entirely on the ravings of a "drug addled" closet homosexual "who had the hots for his sister." Are you referring to Freud? Because you might want to know that there's a lot more to psychology than Freud.

In any case, the personal shortcomings of a scientist matter little in the light of peer-review. No matter how quirky Einstein was, the bomb that was based on his ideas still worked.

Psychology isn't based on science vyo, it's based on "feelings", "emotions", and "interpretation". Physics is based on FACTS and SCIENCE.

There weren't any waiters in this "nice restaurant" of yours?

You're wasting your time vyo, and I'm not the least bit interested in playing your silly game, so let it go.

Even if I had proven you correct in my previous post, the comments to which I stated you were obssessing yourself with your views of others were made before that post. So unless you consider yourself a prophet - try again.

You yourself made it perfectly clear that you're a victim in waiting vyo, simply because you took offense at something that doesn't apply to you. You automatically look to pacify, you look for someone else to 'help' you, and you condemn those who stand up for themselves and their families as "aggressive".:rolleyes: I've dealt with your type (liberal) my entire life, and you're all as predictable as the sun rising in the east, so it didn't take any great leaps of logic or even prophetic abilities to know where you were going before you even started down the path.

You came to a non-partisan political forum only to be around people of a like mind?

The only intelligent posts I've seen are from those of the conservative bent. The resident liberals tend to post garbage spam attacks and generally unintelligible nonsense, which I find to be quite amusing because they think they're oh so smart when the reality is that they're generally dumber than a box of rocks, so they are my "comic relief". It's just refreshing to know that there are actually people, from all around the country, and in fact from all over the world, who are even dumber than some of the ones that I work with every day, and that makes it easier for me to deal with them when I'm at my job!

[Mr. Carpenter]

I do my level best to be as tolerant of the conservative point of view as possible. If I thought it had no worth than I never would have come here in the first place; furthermore, discussion with intelligent conservatives has changed my views on a number of issues, such as gun control and abortion. In all fairness, you've put your finger on a large and unfortunate issue amongst my fellow liberals: that they don't recognize that tolerance must necessarily extend, at least in a limited capacity, to the intolerant.

And that last part of your very post is a primary example of the hypocrisy that I spoke of.

You call me "intollerent" because I don't like fags, but I can guarantee you that yourself are just as intollerent, if not moreso than I am. Everyone is.

Are you alergic to anything? Then you are "intolerent" of it.

Is there some food or beverage that you simply refuse to consume just because you really don't like it? You're being "intolerent".

Do you smoke? If not, then I bet you're "intolerent" of smokers.

I don't expect you to answer any of those questions vyo, but just think about it, and then you won't even try to play the intolerent game with me, because you'll realize that you've already lost before you even get to the starting line.

[Andy]

I am glad most conservatives are not this snippy. I don't think I would be open to conservatism, if I had been treated this way when I was liberal.

How you say it, is just as important as what you say.

[Mr. Carpenter]

I am glad most conservatives are not this snippy. I don't think I would be open to conservatism, if I had been treated this way when I was liberal.

How you say it, is just as important as what you say.

By "snippy", I take it you mean unapologetically HONEST. Honesty is something that's been given a bad name by Communists/Socialists/Liberals because it totally destroys the entire concept of liberalism, so they invented PC as a means of making people feel bad about being honest.

Trust me, PC does NOT mean "politically correct", it means "Personal Cowardice".

As for when you were a liberal, that's something that most thinking people work themselves out of by the time they're 40. It's like the old saying, if you're not a liberal when you're young, you have no heart, if you're still a liberal when you get older, you have no brains. I haven't had a heart since I was 12 years old.

[NO Obamanation]

That's my fault, actually. I took offense to something that was said early in the thread and responded in kind. I'd split off the homosexual debate and move it to a more appropriate section of the forum if I thought it was necessary.



There's a difference between disapproving of homosexual behavior and using bigoted epithets and insulting insinuations when faced with a homosexual.



Then they are misinformed as to the nature of homophobia. Having studied the matter rather closely, I wouldn't say you're a homophobe. I don't agree with you - but you're not a homophobe.



You'll find opponents of promiscuity on both sides of the sexual divide. Actually, if you're ever interested in learning more about the homosexual perspective (and can stomach a film that is sympathetic to homosexuality) you might try watching And the Band Played On. Ian McKllelan's character is a homosexual who is ardently anti-promiscuity.



I agree with you on this.



Homosexuals expect acceptance only in so far as they aren't harrassed simply for being homosexual. Well, okay, the ones I agree with only expect that much; its true, some go further than that, and I've told them that frankly I can't get behind their point of view.

When I said I did not agree with multiple partners, I was actually thinking of straight people. I guess it could apply to homosexuals too but it’s not where my mind was. I believe we were meant for a single life time partner and we just don’t take that serious enough.

I agree with we should never treat anyone as lesser than us. I don’t agree with a number of things but I would never try to stop other people from believing in them or participating in them.

I have watched many documentaries on homosexuality, all of them in support of it. I do believe that some people are just born with their wires crossed differently than the majority. I watched one documentary about twin boys that I will never forget. One from as early as he could talk, walk exc. liked things that girls would normally like, the other was more than the usual into masculine things. By the age of 10 one was very fem and the other more masculine than most boys his age. The parents raised them exactly the same just they are different. I don’t think anyone can fault those parents, or that boy. It’s just how he was wired.

I have seen some really interesting shows about men who had surgery and became woman and visa Versa. I learned a great deal from it, and I feel I understand better now about that issue.

I do think that people who are bi sexual, this week I am with a girl next week I am with a guy... I admit less tolerance to this or I am just more judgmental. It might be that I just lack understanding. But for me they just like sex period and don’t care who or what they have it with. I have a great deal of respect and understanding for the first two groups but I am a bit less willing to understand the third.

[GenSeneca]

I am glad most conservatives are not this snippy. I don't think I would be open to conservatism, if I had been treated this way when I was liberal.

How you say it, is just as important as what you say.

Agreed.... :(

[Vyddo]

I think that you need to understand that this Barney guy went on national TV like he was Marlon Brando in the Godfather a few days ago, saying; I'd like to know who those republicans are who did not vote for this bill. I will try to persuade them in a not so nice way....

Yet, he has been caught many times in the past telling congress that there was nothing wrong with FANNIE MAE and FREDDIMAC.

It's about time that somebody put him in his place... :)

*chuckles* I hate you for making me defend Barney..

I watched Barney when he made his comment and it wasn't in a Marlon brandoesque type fashion. It was actually quite funny.

Frank actually was simply responding to the notion that 12 republican's jumped ship from the vote because Pelosi said not so nice things. Frank replied, something like " Give me the names of these individuals and I will go speak uncharacteristically nice to them and then they can do what's right for the country.

It was a funny statement and if anyone changed vote for that reason, then yes, I'd agree he was right.

I'm not debating that Frank shouldn't have been called out, he definitely needed to be and shares responsibility for the problems. My critique was in how Bill when about it, Bill took the attention off the issue and put it on himself and Frank by how he conducted the interview. Good for Barney, maybe good for Bill.. but not good for the viewer in my personal opinion.

[vyo476]

Psychology isn't based on science vyo, it's based on "feelings", "emotions", and "interpretation". Physics is based on FACTS and SCIENCE.

No, psychology is the science of feeling and emotion. Interpretation comes from philosophy and is, by the way, one of the two necessary components of human perception...so there's no way around it, really.

You're wasting your time vyo, and I'm not the least bit interested in playing your silly game, so let it go.

Funny, you seemed plenty interested in "playing" when you felt comfortable calling me a coward and an idiot. And now, suddenly, when your line of logic gets derailed...now you don't want to "play" any longer.

You yourself made it perfectly clear that you're a victim in waiting vyo, simply because you took offense at something that doesn't apply to you. You automatically look to pacify, you look for someone else to 'help' you, and you condemn those who stand up for themselves and their families as "aggressive".:rolleyes: I've dealt with your type (liberal) my entire life, and you're all as predictable as the sun rising in the east, so it didn't take any great leaps of logic or even prophetic abilities to know where you were going before you even started down the path.

There's aggressive and there's unnecessarily aggressive. Ask yourself this: how much of standing up to that man, who you obviously consider your inferior, was about exerting your own sense of dominance?

Or think of this: sure, in the short term, you solved your own problem. Congratulations, anyone with a temper can do that. It is more difficult - and more rewarding - to try to be understanding in situations like the one you described. You might be able to help solve his problems as well as your own. Not by acquiescing to his point of view, but by suggesting he get help rather than just running him off.

Then again, his problems aren't yours. So what if he continues to be what he is now rather than getting help and maybe making something of what remains of his life? That isn't your problem, at least not so long as he doesn't bother you again.

[Bunz]

Just a side note from The Bunz:
If I were Barney Frank, I would have walked away from the interview. Whilst one may disagree with the sentiments of the Congressman, he certainly demands a certain amount of respect, that Oreilley did in no way shape or form show. Bill needs to smoke a joint or something to chill out. I thought he might have a stroke in that clip.

[Mr. Carpenter]

No, psychology is the science of feeling and emotion. Interpretation comes from philosophy and is, by the way, one of the two necessary components of human perception...so there's no way around it, really.

Sure there is. Take this entire discussion as a primary example. You "feel" I badly handled a situation that YOU didn't witness, and were not a part of, based on YOUR interpretation, and YOU are all "emotional" about it. There's nothing "scientific" about it, and it all boils down to a busybody sticking their nose into someone elses business.

Funny, you seemed plenty interested in "playing" when you felt comfortable calling me a coward and an idiot. And now, suddenly, when your line of logic gets derailed...now you don't want to "play" any longer.

Now YOUR "emotions" are getting in the way because you realize that I saw your little baited hook for what it was and refused to take it, and now you're "feelings" are hurt. No, I'm not interested in playing your silly game, because you're not good at it, and it would be a complete waste of my time.

There's aggressive and there's unnecessarily aggressive. Ask yourself this: how much of standing up to that man, who you obviously consider your inferior, was about exerting your own sense of dominance?

Aggressive? He was the one being aggressive when he refused to leave after I told him to take a hike, and you're just plain silly. I considered him to be a possible threat to my family, and I dealt with him accordingly. Now if you "feel" that it was inappropriate, that's your problem, not mine.

Or think of this: sure, in the short term, you solved your own problem. Congratulations, anyone with a temper can do that. It is more difficult - and more rewarding - to try to be understanding in situations like the one you described. You might be able to help solve his problems as well as your own. Not by acquiescing to his point of view, but by suggesting he get help rather than just running him off.

Then again, his problems aren't yours. So what if he continues to be what he is now rather than getting help and maybe making something of what remains of his life? That isn't your problem, at least not so long as he doesn't bother you again.

vyo, you're operating under the misguided impression that I give a damn about him, or anyone like him, I don't. I care about me and mine, everyone and everything comes after that, and I'm not the least bit interested in being "understanding" towards him, or anyone like him, or even solving his problems. If you want to run around trying to save the world, go right ahead, but I've been around the world, and believe me when I tell you, it doesn't want to be saved, it's just looking for easy marks like you to come along because it knows that you'll give 'em what they want, or if it comes to it, that they can TAKE what they want from you, because you're such a wuss that you won't even defend yourself or your own family. You remind me of those stupid Nuns in Honduras who were out there, spreading the word, "taking care" of the natives, and got raped and murdered by the "emotional" Sandanistas for their efforts because they were idiot-logues and wouldn't take an "aggressive" armed patrol with them to ensure their safety, because they were worried about how it might make someone else "feel". As far as I'm concerned, they asked for it, they got it, Toyota.

Now, I hope, for your sake, that some day you aren't confronted with someone like that, because if you are, chances are we'll be reading about you in the papers, with the title of VICTIM in front of your name. One thing about it though, if you are, and you survive, when you get out of the hospital, you'll be a NEOCONSERVATIVE, because, and I don't remember who said it, but neoconservatives are liberals who have been mugged.

[Mr. Carpenter]

Just a side note from The Bunz:
If I were Barney Frank, I would have walked away from the interview. Whilst one may disagree with the sentiments of the Congressman, he certainly demands a certain amount of respect, that Oreilley did in no way shape or form show. Bill needs to smoke a joint or something to chill out. I thought he might have a stroke in that clip.


Barney Frank is the lowest form of scum in DC. He's spent years there, wasting the tax payers dollars, lining his own pockets, and ensuring his own aggrandizement. In 1774, he's have been tarred, feathered, and paraded through town before being thrown into the Potomic. What Bill did was give that lying sack of spit a taste of what he deserved, because he came out of the gate lying, and lied almost the whole way through the interview.

[Mr. Shaman]

I like Bill O'Reilly, I know he has a conservative slant but I think he normally tries to be responsible in a journalistic sense.
Yeah....he tries, alright (http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/21-outfoxed-bill-o-reilly-attacks-9-11-victim-s-son). :rolleyes:

[Mr. Shaman]

What Bill did was give that lying sack of spit a taste of what he deserved.....
We can always rely on Snoop to make deserved-comments (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWDVpSUXHeM), as well. :cool:

[Mr. Carpenter]

We can always rely on Snoop to make deserved-comments (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWDVpSUXHeM), as well. :cool:

Let me get this right, you want to compare Bill O'Reilly to a punk, thug, and criminal like Snoop Doggy dog sh*t? You really are a crack-head!

[Mr. Shaman]

Let me get this right, you want to compare Bill O'Reilly to a punk, thug, and criminal like Snoop Doggy dog sh*t? You really are a crack-head!
Yeah....Bill-O The Clown is a real salt-o'-the-earth kind o' guy!! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBu1b_GpXM8) :rolleyes:

[Mr. Carpenter]

Yeah....Bill-O The Clown is a real salt-o'-the-earth kind o' guy!! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBu1b_GpXM8) :rolleyes:

I can't speak to that Mr. Shaman, as I don't know him personally, but you are a LIAR, as evinced by the fact your sig line is an EGREGIOUS LIE!

[Mr. Shaman]

I can't speak to that Mr. Shaman, as I don't know him personally, but you are a LIAR, as evinced by the fact your sig line is an EGREGIOUS LIE!
ooooooooooooooooooooooooo.....changin' the subject!

Whatta shocker. :rolleyes:

[GenSeneca]

Just a side note from The Bunz:
If I were Barney Frank, I would have walked away from the interview. Whilst one may disagree with the sentiments of the Congressman, he certainly demands a certain amount of respect, that Oreilley did in no way shape or form show. Bill needs to smoke a joint or something to chill out. I thought he might have a stroke in that clip.

I respectfully disagree... Mark Foley, Larry Craig, William "Cold Cash" Jefferson, et all deserve NO respect as far as I'm concerned. You betray the public trust, it doesn't matter whether you are still in office or get re-elected (of course, being re-elected after a scandal only happens with Democrats), you deserve, and you will get, no respect from me.

I don't like Bill O', I make no appologies for the man, but Frank was right... Treat lying piles of dirt like Barney Frank as the piles of dirt they are and they won't come on your program... To which I say, Good Riddence.

Frank doesn't deserve the airtime, don't give it to him. He tried to use the airtime to peddle more lies and spin the truth to make it sound like his Shat didn't stink and Bill lost it.

What did Bill think was going to happen? Its not like Democrats ever OWN UP to their corruption, ineptitude or other intentional failings... and its not like the Democrat Voters are interested in holding them accountable.... They shift blame, scapegoat and their constituents reward and participate in the same activity. (Republicans also like to shift blame and scapegoat but the majority of their constituents hold them accountable and force them from office)

[Mr. Shaman]

I don't like Bill O', I make no appologies for the man, but Frank was right... Treat lying piles of dirt like Barney Frank as the piles of dirt they are and they won't come on your program... To which I say, Good Riddence.

Frank doesn't deserve the airtime, don't give it to him. He tried to use the airtime to peddle more lies and spin the truth to make it sound like his Shat didn't stink and Bill lost it.
Come on.....he's (obviously) unaware of "conservatives'" delicate-condition (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-2He4wfMCc&feature=related). :rolleyes:

[NO Obamanation]

Barney Frank is the lowest form of scum in DC. He's spent years there, wasting the tax payers dollars, lining his own pockets, and ensuring his own aggrandizement. In 1774, he's have been tarred, feathered, and paraded through town before being thrown into the Potomic. What Bill did was give that lying sack of spit a taste of what he deserved, because he came out of the gate lying, and lied almost the whole way through the interview.

I think Charlie Rangle has him beat for lowest form of scum but he is a close second :)

[NO Obamanation]

I respectfully disagree... Mark Foley, Larry Craig, William "Cold Cash" Jefferson, et all deserve NO respect as far as I'm concerned. You betray the public trust, it doesn't matter whether you are still in office or get re-elected (of course, being re-elected after a scandal only happens with Democrats), you deserve, and you will get, no respect from me.

I don't like Bill O', I make no appologies for the man, but Frank was right... Treat lying piles of dirt like Barney Frank as the piles of dirt they are and they won't come on your program... To which I say, Good Riddence.

Frank doesn't deserve the airtime, don't give it to him. He tried to use the airtime to peddle more lies and spin the truth to make it sound like his Shat didn't stink and Bill lost it.

What did Bill think was going to happen? Its not like Democrats ever OWN UP to their corruption, ineptitude or other intentional failings... and its not like the Democrat Voters are interested in holding them accountable.... They shift blame, scapegoat and their constituents reward and participate in the same activity. (Republicans also like to shift blame and scapegoat but the majority of their constituents hold them accountable and force them from office)


The rule is this

if they have an R behind their name they will be called on everything they do by both parties

if they have a d behind their name then other D's ignore their wrong doings and Rs are just over reacting when they call them on it.

always check for the R or D before calling someone on something is the basic rule of "fairness"

[Mr. Shaman]

The rule is this

if they have an R behind their name they will be called on everything they do by both parties

if they have a d behind their name then other D's ignore their wrong doings and Rs are just over reacting when they call them on it.
Gee.....when did THAT rule-change (http://www.newsweek.com/id/146651) happen? :rolleyes:

[Mr. Shaman]

Do you find putting down the lifestyles of others somehow validates your own?
Ya' gotta understand....."conservatives" dread the thought some Gay-dude has larger balls (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ5okcvl7zE) than they do. :rolleyes:

"The federal government should “not lock people up or use scarce federal resources to arrest people for using or possessing … marijuana,” Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) announced at a Capitol Hill press conference Wednesday. “The vast amount of human activity ought to be none of the government's business (http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7670). I don't think it is the government's business to tell you how to spend your leisure time.”

[NO Obamanation]

Gee.....when did THAT rule-change (http://www.newsweek.com/id/146651) happen? :rolleyes:

It started at least back when Teddy Kennedy walked away from Mary Jo and got away with it

it continued when robert sheets bird was defeneded while anyone with an R behind their name with equal or less guilt was fried
and its just gotten worse

Charlie Rangle would have been out years ago if he were a republican
so would barney frank
so would teddy kennedy
so would many others

[NO Obamanation]

Ya' gotta understand....."conservatives" dread the thought some Gay-dude has larger balls (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ5okcvl7zE) than they do. :rolleyes:

OH pish!

Hillary Rodham Clinton has more balls and they are bigger than any Democrat man in congress!

[bododie]

Frank Raines was Barney Frank's lover. If they didn't screw me too, I wouldn't care what they chose to screw.

[robert hawkins]

perhaps he had sex with a diseased phone!

[vyo476]

Sure there is. Take this entire discussion as a primary example. You "feel" I badly handled a situation that YOU didn't witness, and were not a part of, based on YOUR interpretation, and YOU are all "emotional" about it. There's nothing "scientific" about it, and it all boils down to a busybody sticking their nose into someone elses business.

First of all, I didn't claim that any of those things were psychological facts. Just observations.

Second of all, your own reaction was clearly based largely in anger, which is an emotion.

Now YOUR "emotions" are getting in the way because you realize that I saw your little baited hook for what it was and refused to take it, and now you're "feelings" are hurt. No, I'm not interested in playing your silly game, because you're not good at it, and it would be a complete waste of my time.

My baited hook? Has your ability to go back and reread this thread been somehow hampered?

1. You asked me how I would have dealt with the situation.

http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=64761&postcount=19

2. I responded that I probably would have asked the restaurant staff to intervene.

http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=64766&postcount=22

3. You assumed that meant that I would get up and leave the family, which lead into you calling me stupid and a coward.

http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=64768&postcount=23

4. I asked if there were any waiters in the restaurant, since, obviously, if there were, that would mean that they could have been asked for assistance without having to leave the table.

http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=64770&postcount=25

5. And now, suddenly, I'm "playing games." You were totally okay with calling me stupid and a coward a couple of posts before, but not it's a "game" and now you're not interested.

http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=64772&postcount=27

6. I bring up the fact that your feelings toward this series of events seems to have shifted.

http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=64815&postcount=34

7. And now, apparently, you've "seen my little baited hook" and you've "refused to take it," when you in fact were the one who initiated this line of questioning and you were the one who failed to respond to the last actual point made.

Asking me how I would have dealt with the situation was your choice. Deal with it.

Aggressive? He was the one being aggressive when he refused to leave after I told him to take a hike, and you're just plain silly. I considered him to be a possible threat to my family, and I dealt with him accordingly. Now if you "feel" that it was inappropriate, that's your problem, not mine.

There's more than one way to solve a problem, Carpenter.

And yeah, he could very well have been a threat. If, say, when you got all up in his face and started yelling at him, he'd pulled out a gun or a knife on you, what would you have done then?

vyo, you're operating under the misguided impression that I give a damn about him, or anyone like him, I don't. I care about me and mine, everyone and everything comes after that, and I'm not the least bit interested in being "understanding" towards him, or anyone like him, or even solving his problems. If you want to run around trying to save the world, go right ahead, but I've been around the world, and believe me when I tell you, it doesn't want to be saved, it's just looking for easy marks like you to come along because it knows that you'll give 'em what they want, or if it comes to it, that they can TAKE what they want from you, because you're such a wuss that you won't even defend yourself or your own family. You remind me of those stupid Nuns in Honduras who were out there, spreading the word, "taking care" of the natives, and got raped and murdered by the "emotional" Sandanistas for their efforts because they were idiot-logues and wouldn't take an "aggressive" armed patrol with them to ensure their safety, because they were worried about how it might make someone else "feel". As far as I'm concerned, they asked for it, they got it, Toyota.

Sigh.

If you think I'm motivated by my massive, unconditional love for every single other human being on the planet, you'd be wrong. I don't much like people, to be honest. But I recognize that people are an unavoidable quantity of living in society, and the improvement of the "dregs" of society, so to speak, benefits everyone up the food chain.

Just think: if someone had stopped to help that man prior to that night, you might not have had to deal with him in the restaurant. You don't have to trouble yourself thinking about what he'd actually be doing - or even that, God forbid, you might have helped someone you didn't know. All you would have to think about was, "I protected my family and now that particular dangerous homeless guy won't bother people anymore," rather than just "I protected my family."

Then again, I suppose you wouldn't terribly mind being interrupted like that again and again and again. It was quite fun telling him off, wasn't it?

Now, I hope, for your sake, that some day you aren't confronted with someone like that, because if you are, chances are we'll be reading about you in the papers, with the title of VICTIM in front of your name. One thing about it though, if you are, and you survive, when you get out of the hospital, you'll be a NEOCONSERVATIVE, because, and I don't remember who said it, but neoconservatives are liberals who have been mugged.[/QUOTE]

[bododie]

Originally Posted by Mr. Shaman
Ya' gotta understand....."conservatives" dread the thought some Gay-dude has larger balls than they do. Wow! did you come out of the closet for your board buddies? As a woman, I can tell you that non-gay men, concervative or not, aren't concerned with other men's body parts. They are concerned with mine. lol.

[NO Obamanation]

Originally Posted by Mr. Shaman
Wow! did you come out of the closet for your board buddies? As a woman, I can tell you that non-gay men, concervative or not, aren't concerned with other men's body parts. They are concerned with mine. lol.

Oh that was good! and accurate :)

I assumed you were male. I assume everyone on here is male except for me, Silouette and I "thought" someone else, but found out I was wrong.

[Mr. Carpenter]

ooooooooooooooooooooooooo.....changin' the subject!

Whatta shocker. :rolleyes:

I didn't change the subject, YOU did that, I just addressed your statement.

Oh, and you're STILL a liar, as evinced by your sig line.

[Mr. Carpenter]

Come on.....he's (obviously) unaware of "conservatives'" delicate-condition (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-2He4wfMCc&feature=related). :rolleyes:

Well I got about 45 seconds into the video you posted before it became blatantly obvious that your YoungTurd was as big a liar as you are. It was NOT the Republicans who caused this mess, it was the Dems, as has been proven time and time again (and I know you'll never acknowledge it either), so as I've said time and time again, you're just a liar.

[Mr. Carpenter]

First of all, I didn't claim that any of those things were psychological facts. Just observations.

Just as mine was an observation, which I made perfectly clear.

Second of all, your own reaction was clearly based largely in anger, which is an emotion.

No, it was based on concern for my families safety. If I had been angry, he would have been on the deck, and bleeding profusely.

<snip bulls***>

And yeah, he could very well have been a threat. If, say, when you got all up in his face and started yelling at him, he'd pulled out a gun or a knife on you, what would you have done then?

First of all, I didn't yell at him, and in fact, my tone never got above normal conversational levels, and secondly, if he had pulled a weapon, I'd have killed him where he stood, but I have the advantages of 1) having a CCW, 2) carrying everywhere I go, 3) having had my hand on my weapon when he started getting 'ugly', and 4) having been trained by the military to kill and not feel any remorse about it.

If you think I'm motivated by my massive, unconditional love for every single other human being on the planet, you'd be wrong. I don't much like people, to be honest. But I recognize that people are an unavoidable quantity of living in society, and the improvement of the "dregs" of society, so to speak, benefits everyone up the food chain.

If he had asked for a JOB, I'd have been more than happy to talk to him, but I have no use for beggers, and especially the ones that try to use their own reckless behavior as an "excuse" for me to feel sorry for them, and when they attempt to intimidate me into "helping" them, they've crossed the line, and it's just going to suck to be them.

Look, you can "emote" all you want to, but that doesn't change the fact that you ARE a victim in waiting, and I can only hope that if it does happen that you actually survive the encounter, because most don't.

[Mr. Shaman]

Frank Raines was Barney Frank's lover.
Yeah.....whatta shame Barney Frank isn't a man's man, like "Jeff Christie" (http://pssht.com/biography/rush_limbaugh.html). :rolleyes:

[Mr. Shaman]

Originally Posted by Mr. Shaman
Wow! did you come out of the closet for your board buddies? As a woman, I can tell you that non-gay men, concervative or not, aren't concerned with other men's body parts.
Gee.....I guess you forgot to italicize balls. :rolleyes:

Everything's sex, with you "conservatives"......kinda like in Jr. High School, where....the people who did the most talkin'-about-it, were gettin' the least. (No doubt, the source of "conservative"-hatred for Bill Clinton.)

http://www.americanpolitics.com/coulterpiningforbill.jpg

[Mr. Shaman]

I didn't change the subject, YOU did that, I just addressed your statement.
Gee.....I guess you can't recall. :rolleyes:

The subject was Bill-O The Clown (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBu1b_GpXM8).

[bododie]

Actually I'm a woman. And since it is about sex for you guys from Junior High on, I really never had any problem, talking or not. And I much prefer bolding to italicizing, thank you. You can't win babe.

[Mr. Shaman]

It was NOT the Republicans who caused this mess, it was the Dems, as has been proven time and time again.....
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight (http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Ronald_Reagan_Government_Reform.htm)..... :rolleyes:

[Mr. Shaman]

And I much prefer bolding to italicizing, thank you.
.....Even though I wasn't talkin'-about balls, literally, huh?

I guess that's the part you didn't get.....you know, being "conservative"-and-all. :rolleyes:

[bododie]

nice try.

[bododie]

Originally Posted by Mr. Carpenter
It was NOT the Republicans who caused this mess, it was the Dems, as has been proven time and time again.....

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight

Get out much?

How the dems helped you lose your house:

In particular, 1977's Community Reinvestment Act which required banks and savings institutions to make loans to the lower-income areas in the communities they served.

In 1995, President Bill Clinton's HUD agreed to let Fannie and Freddie get affordable-housing credit for buying subprime securities that included loans to low-income borrowers. The idea was that subprime lending benefited many borrowers who did not qualify for conventional loans. HUD expected that Freddie and Fannie would impose their high lending standards on subprime lenders.

In September 2003 the Bush administration launched a measure to bring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under stricter regulatory control, after a report by outside investigators established that they were not adequately hedging against risks and that Fannie Mae in particular had scandalously mis-stated its accounts. In 2006, it was revealed that Fannie Mae had overstated its earnings – to which its senior executives' bonuses were linked – by a stunning $9.3billion. Between 1998 and 2003, Fannie Mae's executive chairman, Franklin Raines, picked up over $90m in bonuses and stock options.

Yet Barney Frank and his chums blocked all Bush's attempts to put a rein on Raines. During the House Financial Services Committee hearing following Bush's initiative, Frank declared: "The more people exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness [at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae], the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury which I do not see. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially." His colleague on the committee, the California Democrat Maxine Walters, said: "There were nearly a dozen hearings where we were trying to fix something that wasn't broke. Mr Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac and particularly at Fannie Mae under the outstanding leadership of Mr Franklin Raines."

When Mr Raines himself was challenged by the Republican Christopher Shays, to the effect that his ratio of capital to assets (that is, mortgages) of 3 per cent was dangerously low, the Fannie Mae boss retorted that "our assets are so riskless, we could have a capital ratio of under 2 per cent".

Maxine Walters' complaint about previous attempts to bring the great state-sponsored housing finance bodies under stricter control was partly a reference to Bill Clinton's efforts. Last week the former President acknowledged that "responsibility" for the absence of proper regulation rested "with Democrats who were resisting any efforts of Republicans in Congress, and earlier when I was President and tried to impose tighter standards on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac". Then, as now, members of his own party saw all such initiatives as unwonted attacks on the chances for low-earners, and particularly African-Americans, to own their own homes.

From its inception in 1938 Fannie Mae (and later Freddie Mac) was designed to make housing finance available to "ordinary Americans". This was a noble aim. In the 1970s another Democrat President, Jimmy Carter, introduced legislation which demanded that such bodies enhance their lending to minorities. Again, this was based on a noble idea: to stamp out racism in the mortgage market. Thus by 1998 you had the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston producing a document entitled "Closing the Gap: a Guide to Equal Opportunities Lending", which instructed banks that an applicant's "lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative factor" in obtaining a mortgage. As Stephen Malanga of the Manhatta *Institute notes: "Of course the new federal standards couldn't just apply to minorities. If they could pay back loans under these terms, then so could the majority of loan applicants. Quickly, these became the new standards in the industry. As the housing market boomed, banks embraced these new standards with a vengeance. Between 2004 and 2007, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac became the biggest purchasers of subprime mortgages from all kinds of applicants, white and minority, and most of these loans were based on lending standards promoted by the Government."

Barney Frank and Frank Raines were lovers. Tell me how only conservatives would let that get in the way of oh say, not causing an economic meltdown?

[Mr. Shaman]

It was NOT the Republicans who caused this mess, it was the Dems, as has been proven time and time again.....
Gee.....I guess things are working-out (for us), better than-was-planned (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/03/AR2008100303699_pf.html)!!!

[Mr. Shaman]

Get out much?

How the dems helped you lose your house:

In particular, 1977's Community Reinvestment Act which required banks and savings institutions to make loans to the lower-income areas in the communities they served.

In 1995, President Bill Clinton's HUD agreed to let Fannie and Freddie get affordable-housing credit for buying subprime securities that included loans to low-income borrowers. The idea was that subprime lending benefited many borrowers who did not qualify for conventional loans.
Yeah.....big mistake.

I guess Bill Clinton never expected George Bush to rape Bill's economy.

I guess you're too-young (or, were still livin' with Mom & Dad), to have noticed the '90s Economy (http://www.mikehersh.com/article_95.shtml). :rolleyes:

[Mr. Shaman]

Get out much?

How the dems helped you lose your house:
Gee.....lemme guess.....Ratt Sludge?? :confused:

[Bunz]

Barney Frank is the lowest form of scum in DC. He's spent years there, wasting the tax payers dollars, lining his own pockets, and ensuring his own aggrandizement.
So what makes him any different than any other politician in DC? You can delete Barney Frank and enter just about any other member of Congress and come to the same conclusion.:rolleyes:

In 1774, he's have been tarred, feathered, and paraded through town before being thrown into the Potomic.I doubt it. But if you are talk make such bold statements it might be worthy of getting your facts straight. In 1774, DC was a marshland. Maybe you meant the Delaware or somewhere closer to Philly or even Boston.

What Bill did was give that lying sack of spit a taste of what he deserved, because he came out of the gate lying, and lied almost the whole way through the interview.
Well it worked for Bill, and Barney. Bill's little tantrum proved to what sort of a person he is. Bill was going to make a fool of himself regardless. Its good for ratings. ;) Barney on the other hand just ensured he will continue to get elected thanks to Bill.
Although it seems that there are plenty of people out there who like him enough to tune in. I think Orielly would have been more effective in actually hurting Barney if he said what he wanted to in a calm confident voice instead of freaking out like a 8 year old who wants thier bike back.

[Bunz]

I respectfully disagree... Mark Foley, Larry Craig, William "Cold Cash" Jefferson, et all deserve NO respect as far as I'm concerned.
See this is where we differ, at least for your first two examples. I think in the majority of cases, the media and public need to stay out of the bedroom. Criminal issues are another thing though.
The point of my original post here was that there is a certain amount of respect that is due to elected officials, and well humans in general. There are plenty of elected officials that I despise from both parties. Shouting at them on TV like this is uncalled for.

You betray the public trust, it doesn't matter whether you are still in office or get re-elected (of course, being re-elected after a scandal only happens with Democrats), you deserve, and you will get, no respect from me.
The bold is utter BS. There are plenty of examples of both parties who get re-elected after scandals, and those who are run out of office. Ill point out that my own Senator Stevens is on trial right now for corruption. They have him on tape talking about the $250k home improvement he didnt really pay for.
http://www.adn.com/news/politics/fbi/stevens/
There is a possibility he will be re-elected despite a potential guilty verdict.

I don't like Bill O', I make no appologies for the man, but Frank was right... Treat lying piles of dirt like Barney Frank as the piles of dirt they are and they won't come on your program... To which I say, Good Riddence.

Frank doesn't deserve the airtime, don't give it to him. He tried to use the airtime to peddle more lies and spin the truth to make it sound like his Shat didn't stink and Bill lost it.

I dont imagine Barney Frank sought out Bill for the airtime. I think he got baited into it, and I doubt you will see him back.

What did Bill think was going to happen? Its not like Democrats ever OWN UP to their corruption, ineptitude or other intentional failings... and its not like the Democrat Voters are interested in holding them accountable.... They shift blame, scapegoat and their constituents reward and participate in the same activity. (Republicans also like to shift blame and scapegoat but the majority of their constituents hold them accountable and force them from office)
Partisanship at its best in this paragraph. :cool:
Politicians being held accountable, especially on the Congressional level is a joke, regardless of thier party. This notion that Democrats are somehow more guilty is wishful thinking.

[GenSeneca]

Partisanship at its best in this paragraph. :cool:
Politicians being held accountable, especially on the Congressional level is a joke, regardless of thier party. This notion that Democrats are somehow more guilty is wishful thinking.

You are going to be hard pressed to find even one example of Republicans passing legislation with the goal of social engineering. The seeds to the housing/credit crisis began with the passage of the CRA - A Democrat piece of Legislation and an example of social engineering. Did members of both parties benefit from and ride out the gravy train? Yes they did.

Democrats are more guilty. They created the CRA. They created Fannie and Freddie. They blocked repeated attempts at regulation and oversight. They steadily increased the quota for sub-prime loans from the 70's to the 90's, Fannie and Freddie were mandated to have 12%, rising over time to 52%, of their mortgages be sub-prime. These institutions were told the loans had to go to people at the lowest income brackets -60% of the median income. That comes out to roughly $30,000 a year... and Fannie and Freddie's mandated quota for loans to such people was 52% at their collapse.

[GenSeneca]

The bold is utter BS. There are plenty of examples of both parties who get re-elected after scandals, and those who are run out of office. Ill point out that my own Senator Stevens is on trial right now for corruption. They have him on tape talking about the $250k home improvement he didnt really pay for.
http://www.adn.com/news/politics/fbi/stevens/
There is a possibility he will be re-elected despite a potential guilty verdict.

Possibility? Potential guilty verdict? IF, and thats a big IF, Stevens is both found guilty AND re-elected... you will have a legitimate claim.

Edward Kennedy was driving a car with Kopechne as his passenger when the Senator drove off Dike Bridge into the channel between Chappaquiddick Island and Martha's Vineyard. The Senator swam to safety, but Kopechne died in the car. Kennedy left the scene and did not call authorities until after Kopechne's body was discovered the following day. He pleaded guilty to leaving the scene of an accident and was sentenced to two months in jail, suspended.
http://thepeoplescube.com/images/Kennedy_GoodSwimmer_300.gif
Along the lines of the Stevens investigation... Democrats have the following pending cases:
Diane Feinstein (http://michellemalkin.com/2007/03/29/difi-and-the-culture-of-corruption/)
Charles Rangel (http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/18/rangel-tangle-corruptocrat-fights-for-his-life/)
and a mixed bag of Corruption:
Rep. Alan Mollohan (WV): He's set to take the chair of the very appropriations panel in whose purse strings he has already entangled himself. (He has helped steer nearly $500 million in taxpayer money to his rural district, half of which has gone to five organizations Mollohan created with friends.) As a result, he's under FBI investigation. Enough said.

Rep. John Murtha (PA): Likely to chair the Defense Appropriations subcommittee. Murtha's been tagged as a shameless earmarker, spending tens of millions on projects nobody wants to benefit his friends and his district. He's already been caught on tape by the FBI explaining how he works scams, so at least if the Feds pick up his trail again, they'll know what to look for. With massive classified budgets and a long history of wasteful spending, this post is ripe for abuse. The FBI probe into its former chairman, Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA), attests to that. Murtha's also making a play for Majority Leader.

Rep. Alcee Hastings (FL): Tapped to chair the House Permanent Standing Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI). Without a serious intel/national security background, Hastings is said to have gotten up to speed on the material since joining the committee. Still, there's a congressional impeachment in his background, and charges of a $150,000 bribe from his days as a judge. In the wake of major corruption scandals in the intel world, is it so hard to find a little less complicated candidate to oversee them?

Rep. Steny Hoyer (MD): Hoyer, an appropriator, hopes to be House Majority Leader. Unfortunately, he has an addiction to special interest money, and eagerly courts K Street donors. Does that matter? He broke ranks with his party last year to vote in favor of a draconian bankruptcy bill that would bar many Americans from getting out from under debt, regardless of the circumstances which landed them there. Hoyer has taken around $120,000 from lending institutions this cycle. It's okay to slow-dance with 'em, Steny; but don't let them take you home.
Pelosi said this would be the most ethical congress in history... By "Most Ethical" she must have meant "least popular".

[GenSeneca]

See this is where we differ, at least for your first two examples. I think in the majority of cases, the media and public need to stay out of the bedroom. Criminal issues are another thing though.

We don't disagree about the bedroom... but Foley was soliciting underage pages via text messages and Craig plead guilty to soliciting sex in a public restroom. Both are totally unacceptable... Foley is gone and Craig is on his way out, neither man will be returning to a job in Washington.

[Mr. Carpenter]

Yeah.....whatta shame Barney Frank isn't a man's man, like "Jeff Christie" (http://pssht.com/biography/rush_limbaugh.html). :rolleyes:

Yeah, whatta shame that you're totally incapable of telling the truth, or providing any substantive evidence of your allegations.

YOU'RE A LIAR, AND SO IS YOUR SIG LINE.

[Mr. Carpenter]

Gee.....I guess you can't recall. :rolleyes:

The subject was Bill-O The Clown (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBu1b_GpXM8).

No, the subject is your boy friend, Barney the FAG.

[Mr. Carpenter]

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight (http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Ronald_Reagan_Government_Reform.htm)..... :rolleyes:

Just keep on ignoring the facts and evidence. Everyone has figured out that you're nothing but a DU troll who is utterly incapable of telling the truth.

YOU LIE, IN YOUR POSTS AND IN YOUR SIG LINE!

[Mr. Carpenter]

So what makes him any different than any other politician in DC? You can delete Barney Frank and enter just about any other member of Congress and come to the same conclusion.:rolleyes:

The difference is that Barney BUTT**** is the Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, which has oversight over Fannie and Freddie, and it was his duty to be judicious with OUR money. Not only that, but he was the ranking minority member on the House Financial Services Committee in the 109th Congress, you know, the one that blocked every effort by Republicans to get Fannie and Freddie under control. Not only that, but in 1991, when his boyfriend was an executive at Fannie, he started receiving a lot of money from Freddie, to the tune of over $42,000, and the year that Barney's boyfriend was appointed to Fannie, and Barney started getting bribes from Fannie Barney suddenly started pushing for more deregulation on two and three family homes, regardless of the fact that they were defaulting at 2-5 times the rate of single family homes.

So, in short, the difference is that Barney has had his hands all over this mess going back to the early 90's, and he has consistantly ignored the facts and worried more about what he could do for his butt buddies!

I doubt it. But if you are talk make such bold statements it might be worthy of getting your facts straight. In 1774, DC was a marshland. Maybe you meant the Delaware or somewhere closer to Philly or even Boston.

WHAT? Are you on drugs? Perhaps you are the one that needs to do some research and get YOUR facts straight. I take it you never heard of Occoquan Virginia or any of the other major communities that were in that area before the revolution? Perhaps you were under the impression that the entire state of Virginia was unpopulated before DC was established?:rolleyes:

Well it worked for Bill, and Barney. Bill's little tantrum proved to what sort of a person he is. Bill was going to make a fool of himself regardless. Its good for ratings. ;) Barney on the other hand just ensured he will continue to get elected thanks to Bill.
Although it seems that there are plenty of people out there who like him enough to tune in. I think Orielly would have been more effective in actually hurting Barney if he said what he wanted to in a calm confident voice instead of freaking out like a 8 year old who wants thier bike back.

It's too bad that you're too ignorant to know why Bill would go after Barney butt****** the way he did. Barney, along with Maxine Waters and the rest of the Dems on the Committee have routinely ignored, for more than a decade, every attempt to get legislation pushed through that would have prevented this mess. THOSE are the people who are in charge, it's THEIR responsibility, and if YOU'RE not pissed off about it, then you've either got your money stashed under your mattress, or you didn't have any to begin with, but some of us have lost a SH*TLOAD of our money because of those fu**heads, and we're PISSED. I want serious FBI investigations into every one of those assholes, and I want to see them thrown in Federal Prison, for the rest of their stinking lives!

[Mr. Carpenter]

SOURCE (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,432501,00.html)

Lawmaker Accused of Fannie Mae Conflict of Interest
Friday, October 03, 2008

By Bill Sammon

WASHINGTON — Unqualified home buyers were not the only ones who benefitted from Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank’s efforts to deregulate Fannie Mae throughout the 1990s.

So did Frank’s partner, a Fannie Mae executive at the forefront of the agency’s push to relax lending restrictions.

Now that Fannie Mae is at the epicenter of a financial meltdown that threatens the U.S. economy, some are raising new questions about Frank's relationship with Herb Moses, who was Fannie’s assistant director for product initiatives. Moses worked at the government-sponsored enterprise from 1991 to 1998, while Frank was on the House Banking Committee, which had jurisdiction over Fannie.

Both Frank and Moses assured the Wall Street Journal in 1992 that they took pains to avoid any conflicts of interest. Critics, however, remain skeptical.

"It’s absolutely a conflict," said Dan Gainor, vice president of the Business & Media Institute. "He was voting on Fannie Mae at a time when he was involved with a Fannie Mae executive. How is that not germane?

"If this had been his ex-wife and he was Republican, I would bet every penny I have - or at least what’s not in the stock market - that this would be considered germane," added Gainor, a T. Boone Pickens Fellow. "But everybody wants to avoid it because he’s gay. It’s the quintessential double standard."

A top GOP House aide agreed.

"C’mon, he writes housing and banking laws and his boyfriend is a top exec at a firm that stands to gain from those laws?" the aide told FOX News. "No media ever takes note? Imagine what would happen if Frank’s political affiliation was R instead of D? Imagine what the media would say if [GOP former] Chairman [Mike] Oxley’s wife or [GOP presidential nominee John] McCain’s wife was a top exec at Fannie for a decade while they wrote the nation’s housing and banking laws."

Frank’s office did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Frank met Moses in 1987, the same year he became the first openly gay member of Congress.

"I am the only member of the congressional gay spouse caucus," Moses wrote in the Washington Post in 1991. "On Capitol Hill, Barney always introduces me as his lover."

The two lived together in a Washington home until they broke up in 1998, a few months after Moses ended his seven-year tenure at Fannie Mae, where he was the assistant director of product initiatives. According to National Mortgage News, Moses "helped develop many of Fannie Mae’s affordable housing and home improvement lending programs."

[my commentary](I guess ole Barney didn't have any more use for him since he wasn't bringing in any more of OUR money from Fannie that Barney was shoveling at him as hard as he could).[end my commentary]

Critics say such programs led to the mortgage meltdown that prompted last month’s government takeover of Fannie Mae and its financial cousin, Freddie Mac. The giant firms are blamed for spreading bad mortgages throughout the private financial sector.

Although Frank now blames Republicans for the failure of Fannie and Freddie, he spent years blocking GOP lawmakers from imposing tougher regulations on the mortgage giants. In 1991, the year Moses was hired by Fannie, the Boston Globe reported that Frank pushed the agency to loosen regulations on mortgages for two- and three-family homes, even though they were defaulting at twice and five times the rate of single homes, respectively.

Three years later, President Clinton’s Department of Housing and Urban Development tried to impose a new regulation on Fannie, but was thwarted by Frank. Clinton now blames such Democrats for planting the seeds of today’s economic crisis.

"I think the responsibility that the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was president, to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac," Clinton said recently.

VgctSIL8Lhs
hxMInSfanqg

[Mr. Shaman]

Just keep on ignoring the facts and evidence. Everyone has figured out that you're nothing but a DU troll who is utterly incapable of telling the truth.
Yeah.....let's get The Truth from Sarah Quayle (http://www.evilbible.com/end_times.htm). :rolleyes:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/the%20end%20times%20are%20here%20for%20the%20repub licans.jpg

[Mr. Carpenter]

gK2q76TvJB4

[Mr. Carpenter]

SOURCE (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/sam-dealey/2008/09/10/barney-franks-fannie-and-freddie-muddle.html)

Barney Frank's Fannie and Freddie Muddle
September 10, 2008 10:20 AM ET
Sam Dealey

Now that crisis management has taken root and Fannie and Freddie have been placed in conservatorship, a number of commentators have remarked that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's actions bear a striking resemblance to what his predecessor proposed five years ago. Whether the two mortgage giants deserve a future will be a pitched battle, but for now, Democratic Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the Financial Services Committee chairman, has issued a press release with a fanciful take on history.

From Frank's press release:

The truth is when President Bush took office, and the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress, he did not make any progress on comprehensive legislation to reform the regulation of the Government Sponsored Enterprises. It was not until 2005, when the House, on a bipartisan basis, and over the President's objections finally passed a reform bill. It died in the Senate in part because the White House's failure to make it a priority.

In fact, here's a New York Times story (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B 63&sec=&spon=&&scp=3&sq=%202003%20fannie%20freddie%20labaton&st=cse) from September 2003, clearly showing that the first substantive Fannie and Freddie reform from inside government came from the Bush administration. Spurred by worries that Fannie and Freddie were cooking their books and taking too many risks, Treasury Secretary John Snow proposed placing the companies under Treasury oversight with strict controls over risk and capital reserves. The NYT labeled the proposal "the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago" and noted:

Mr. Snow said that Congress should eliminate the power of the president to appoint directors to the companies, a sign that the administration is less concerned about the perks of patronage than it is about the potential political problems associated with any new difficulties arising at the companies.

So five years ago, there was one of those rare moments in Washington when the branches and personalities of government—in this case, the Bush administration—are less interested in protecting or expanding their turf than in fixing a looming catastrophe. What was Frank's response to the proposal?

"These two entities—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

As Frank mentions in his press release today, two years after it was first proposed, the House finally voted on a bill reforming the mortgage giants. Alas, the legislation was watered down to the point of being meaningless—that's why it passed the House with such wide margins (122 Democrats and 209 Republicans). But even then, and despite his high regard for bipartisanship now, Barney Frank wasn't among the yeas.

[Mr. Carpenter]

7-I34MdWAMY

[Mr. Shaman]

gK2q76TvJB4
Your desperation is all-too-obvious. :rolleyes:

*

http://www.proudofwhoweare.org/images/david3.jpg

"The presence of David Drier and other high powered, closeted, gay Republicans stands in stark contrast to the rigid, hardened opposition to anyone who is gay by socially conservative activists," Rogers said in a statement following his appearance. "Right wing figures such as Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council and James Dobson of Focus on the Family must be increasingly alarmed by the high number of gays in the Republican party (http://www.proudofwhoweare.org/)," he added."

"When the interview started, Bill honestly thought he had a good point but his whole case evaporated after a few seconds of Frank's response and then he started to rant to cover up his own mistakes. Even stupid people see through this (http://www.crooksandliars.com/node/23172)."

[Mr. Carpenter]

Your desperation is all-too-obvious. :rolleyes:

Red Herring Mr. Shaman. None of your "points" have anything to do with the fact that Frank and the rest of the Dems are directly responsible for the current financial mess out economy is in.

So, as usual, you LIE, and your sig line PROVES it.

[bododie]

Shaman, I'm probably older than you kiddo, and even able to read. I'll tell ya. little tyke, reading stuff in a history book isn't the same as living it no matter what you say. The books you and I have read, no doubt left out a lot that we who experienced everything from the 60's on lived. You have proven your ignorance by not being informed again and again, especially about Frank and his BB. Your credibilty is gone. Your amusement level as a man and human being is high though, keep it up.

[Mr. Shaman]

None of your "points" have anything to do with the fact that Frank and the rest of the Dems are directly responsible for the current financial mess out economy is in.
I guess we're gonna find-out.....this evening (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1998/07/08/60minutes/main13502.shtml). :rolleyes:

[Mr. Shaman]

You have proven your ignorance by not being informed again and again, especially about Frank and his BB.
I guess I don't listen to Porky Limbaugh (as often as I should), huh? :rolleyes:

BTW.....my birthdate is 4/8/50. -> Aries (http://mizian.com.ne.kr/englishwiz/library/names/zodiac/aries.htm)/Tiger (http://www.holymtn.com/astrology/tiger.htm)

[bododie]

I wouldn't know, never have listened to his show. You have 4 years on me. You're wrong, wrong, wrong about dems not being the major culprits in this crisis though. Why can't you admit it? For God's sake even Alec Baldwin, the poster boy for dems admits it. It just is. Barney Frank needs to pay. Politically and personally.

[calidem411]

7-I34MdWAMY

Funny video. I don't know if Frank is queer and I don't care... I also don't think that this whole mess is Greenspan's fault...C'mon!

[Mr. Shaman]

You're wrong, wrong, wrong about dems not being the major culprits in this crisis though. Why can't you admit it? For God's sake even Alec Baldwin, the poster boy for dems admits it. It just is. Barney Frank needs to pay. Politically and personally.
I guess it's lookin' like you & Mr. Carpenter are wrong, AS USUAL!!!! :p

"This is a full-blown financial storm and one that comes around perhaps once every 50 or 100 years. This is the real thing," says Jim Grant, the editor of "Grant's Interest Rate Observer."

Grant is one of the country’s foremost experts on credit markets. He says it didn't have to happen, that this disaster was created entirely by Wall Street itself, during a time of relative prosperity. And they did it by placing a trillion dollar bet, with mostly borrowed money, that the riskiest mortgages in the country could be turned into gold-plated investments.

"The idea that you could lend money to someone who couldn't pay it back is not an inherently attractive idea to the layman, right. However, it seemed to fly with people who were making $10 million a year," Grant says.

These complex financial instruments were actually designed by mathematicians and physicists, who used algorithms and computer models to reconstitute the unreliable loans in a way that was supposed to eliminate most of the risk.

"Obviously they turned out to be wrong," Partnoy says.

Asked why, he says, "Because you can't model human behavior with math."

What most people outside of Wall Street and Washington don't know is that a lot of people who bought these risky mortgage securities also went out and bought even more arcane investments that Wall Street was peddling called "credit default swaps." And they have turned out to be a much bigger problem.

Before your eyes glaze over, Michael Greenberger, a law professor at the University of Maryland and a former director of trading and markets for the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, says they are much simpler than they sound. "A credit default swap is a contract between two people, one of whom is giving insurance to the other that he will be paid in the event that a financial institution, or a financial instrument, fails," he explains.

"It is an insurance contract, but they've been very careful not to call it that because if it were insurance, it would be regulated. So they use a magic substitute word called a 'swap,' which by virtue of federal law is deregulated," Greenberger adds."

But he says there was a big problem. "The problem was that if it were insurance, or called what it really is, the person who sold the policy would have to have capital reserves to be able to pay in the case the insurance was called upon or triggered. But because it was a swap, and not insurance, there was no requirement that adequate capital reserves be put to the side (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/05/60minutes/main4502454_page2.shtml)."

Ya' know....I'm (actually) startin' to feel kinda guilty about slappin'-around so many McBush-supporters, here.....with actual-FACTS....but, you folks keep-it-up with your rhetoric. At the same time....it's an awful-lotta-FUN, educating the terminally-incurious!!!!

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :p

[Mr. Carpenter]

I guess I don't listen to Porky Limbaugh (as often as I should), huh? :rolleyes:

BTW.....my birthdate is 4/8/50. -> Aries (http://mizian.com.ne.kr/englishwiz/library/names/zodiac/aries.htm)/Tiger (http://www.holymtn.com/astrology/tiger.htm)

It's hard to understand how anyone could live that long, and still be that damned STUPID. You can't be an American. Probably from the same 3rd world s***hole as Dinkyboy.

[Mr. Carpenter]

I guess it's lookin' like you & Mr. Carpenter are wrong, AS USUAL!!!! :p



Ya' know....I'm (actually) startin' to feel kinda guilty about slappin'-around so many McBush-supporters, here.....with actual-FACTS....but, you folks keep-it-up with your rhetoric. At the same time....it's an awful-lotta-FUN, educating the terminally-incurious!!!!

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :p

If by "smacking around", you mean LYING, yeah, you do that pretty well. If you mean by basing your arguments on facts and evidence, you're not even close. And when you post someone elses work, it's customary to post a LINK to it, otherwise it's called PLAGERISM.

No, you're a liar, and so is your sig line.

[Mr. Shaman]

It's hard to understand how anyone could live that long......
Eternal-vigilance....an ol' Founding Fathers' favorite.

[Mr. Shaman]

If by "smacking around", you mean LYING, yeah, you do that pretty well. If you mean by basing your arguments on facts and evidence, you're not even close. And when you post someone elses work, it's customary to post a LINK to it, otherwise it's called PLAGERISM.
Missed the link, did ya'? :rolleyes:

That's my fault, huh? :rolleyes:

[bododie]

Shaman, anyone who is sporting their Zodiac sign can't be taken seriously as a thinking adult. Hate to break it to you and your animal partner, but I'm not a Bush supporter. I also don't like men who let their dick, dick-tate politics. All that you posted is spin drivel. The ones in Congress who could have stopped the extent of deception didn't. THEY KNEW. Barney Frank is culpable, he's going to go down, and this time it isn't going to be to eat chocolate. Congress is going to be shaken up, our economy WILL cause ripples in your little village in goat land for the better part of the rest of your life, and America will still be standing. Solly Chollie.
Bottom line: Keep your words for a snack when you got no money, honey!

[Mr. Shaman]

All that you posted is spin drivel.
Read n' weep (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_39/b4101000869093.htm), Skippy. :rolleyes:

[bododie]

Read n' weep, Skippy. Lol. Hold your breath and wait for it doll.

[Mr. Shaman]

Shaman, anyone who is sporting their Zodiac sign can't be taken seriously as a thinking adult.
Typically, I rely on accomplished-individuals' opinions (http://www.astrologyguidance.com/financial/index.shtml).

[Mr. Shaman]

Lol. Hold your breath and wait for it doll.
Comprehension-issues, huh? :rolleyes:

[bododie]

Typically, I rely on accomplished-individuals' opinions Oooh, snappy come-back. It's O.K. I can wait for the stars to align for you to think clearly. Can you tell me what I haven't accomplished in life?

[robert hawkins]

my reading of this thread indicates that mr. carpenter likes wood!

[Mr. Shaman]

Can you tell me what I haven't accomplished in life?

I give up......what?

[bododie]

Ya know shaman, I just caught wind of a post of yours that makes me think you are a racist black? is that so?

[top gun]

Bill O'Reilly is a sexually harassing loofah loving blowhard with an anger management problem! He was that kid that was far to uncoordinated to play sports, wasn't smart in class and preferred being the obnoxious class clown because he couldn't even play an instrument in the band.:D

All those wedgies and all those times getting stuffed in his locker for being the school tattle tale and he's still that obnoxious little runt to this day!:eek:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABwrV4nZCNk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tJjNVVwRCY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ln-cBFanW9I

[bododie]

Bill O'Reilly is a sexually harassing loofah loving blowhard with an anger management problem! He was that kid that was far to uncoordinated to play sports, wasn't smart in class and preferred being the obnoxious class clown because he couldn't even play an instrument in the band.

All those wedgies and all those times getting stuffed in his locker for being the school tattle tale and he's still that obnoxious little runt to this day!

My God, and here you hunted him all over the net. Interesting. I know the answer:
Change the channel!

[Mr. Carpenter]

Bill O'Reilly is a sexually harassing loofah loving blowhard with an anger management problem! He was that kid that was far to uncoordinated to play sports, wasn't smart in class and preferred being the obnoxious class clown because he couldn't even play an instrument in the band.:D

All those wedgies and all those times getting stuffed in his locker for being the school tattle tale and he's still that obnoxious little runt to this day!:eek:

And as usual, the resident libs have absolutely no respect for the truth, only for slander.

Bill O'Reilly played football (punter) in college, and semi-pro baseball (pitcher), so it sounds to me like you're projecting your own shortcomings on someone else. A "runt"? He's 6'4" tall, but I suspect that, as I said earlier, the truth doesn't mean anything to you.

[Mr. Carpenter]

Eternal-vigilance....an ol' Founding Fathers' favorite.

Yup, and it's too bad that you have no concept of what that means, being the liar that you are and all.

[bododie]

while they're pulling "last night" out of their ass, libs think they are pulling the truth out too...

[Mr. Carpenter]

Missed the link, did ya'? :rolleyes:

That's my fault, huh? :rolleyes:

It is when you hide it in the text. It's customary to provide the link in an OBVIOUS manner.

[top gun]

My God, and here you hunted him all over the net. Interesting. I know the answer:
Change the channel!

Hey I seldom watch O'Reilly. Doesn't take me long to recognize a crazy zealot, sexually harassing, bigot!:D But there are clips of his rants everywhere.

It's actually kinda funny that anyone sees him as anything but a freak show for neo-cons... LoL!;)

[bododie]

Are you aware that your neocons by definition used to be politically liberal? You use it as something that defines a lifelong Republican/conservative.

a crazy zealot, sexually harassing, bigot! Are you sure you weren't watching Jesse or Al? lol.

[top gun]

And as usual, the resident libs have absolutely no respect for the truth, only for slander.

Bill O'Reilly played football (punter) in college, and semi-pro baseball (pitcher), so it sounds to me like you're projecting your own shortcomings on someone else. A "runt"? He's 6'4" tall, but I suspect that, as I said earlier, the truth doesn't mean anything to you.

I was actually talking about O'Reilly's K-12 days. He was a little whiny runt... now he just acts like one. It just so happens I did play Division 1 basketball in college and my daughter is playing Division 2 ball as we speak. And for longer than I care to remember now I've been coaching both basketball & football. Anyone that thinks Bill O' is hard now or ever was a hard athlete is fooling themselves.

Mr. O'Reilly has done a little spinning of his own here. Others might call it resume padding. The football office at Marist states that football was not even a varsity sport there until 1978 -- seven years after O'Reilly graduated. When he played, it was a so-called club sport where players paid all their own expenses, and schedules and, most importantly, statistical record keeping were haphazard.

[Mr. Shaman]

Hey I seldom watch O'Reilly. Doesn't take me long to recognize a crazy zealot, sexually harassing, bigot!:D But there are clips of his rants everywhere.

It's actually kinda funny that anyone sees him as anything but a freak show for neo-cons... LoL!;)
He does have somewhat a limited-vocabulary (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIVnwYGU9Qo&feature=related). :rolleyes:

[Mr. Shaman]

Are you aware that your neocons by definition used to be politically liberal?
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight......Liberals are heavy into Imperialism (http://www.newamericancentury.org/). :rolleyes:

[top gun]

bododie;65323]Are you aware that your neocons by definition used to be politically liberal? You use it as something that defines a lifelong Republican/conservative.

Well aware... have you never heard the saying... There is no zealot like a convert? It's not that they're lifelong... it's that they have become "ultra" in many ways.

Are you sure you weren't watching Jesse or Al? lol.

Believe me I'm no fan of Jesse or Al either. In fact that's one of the things that makes it tough trying to be a moderate. You often dislike the messenger (and even his message) but you do see the balancing act against the just as radical other side.

It's a shame there's not a strong "Centrist Party" so the far Right & Left did not have such influence. ;)

[top gun]

He does have somewhat a limited-vocabulary (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIVnwYGU9Qo&feature=related). :rolleyes:

It's very hard to watch the guy. He's loud, obnoxio