Barney Frank gets biatch slapped by Bill O'reilley

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.)

coulterpiningforbill.jpg
 
Werbung:
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.
 
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?
 
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. :rolleyes:
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Kennedy_GoodSwimmer_300.gif

Along the lines of the Stevens investigation... Democrats have the following pending cases:
Diane Feinstein
Charles Rangel
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".
 
Werbung:
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.
 
Back
Top