A reminder of how democrats led us to this mess

AMERICAN BANKERDOTCOM

GSE Critics Ignore Loan Performance



...There is no data anywhere to cast doubt on the vastly superior loan performance of the GSEs. Year after year, decade after decade, before, during and after the housing crash, GSE loan performance has consistently been two-to-six times better than that of any other segment of the market.
The numbers are irrefutable, and they show that the entire case against GSE underwriting standards, and their role in the financial crisis, is based on social stereotyping, smoke and mirrors, and little else.



...Or check out the FHFA study that compares, on an apples-to-apples basis, GSEs loan originations with those for private label securitizations. The study segments loans four ways, by ARMs-versus-fixed-rate, as well as by vintage, by FICO score and by loan-to-value ratio. In almost every one of 1800 different comparisons covering years 2001 through 2008, GSE loan performance was exponentially better. On average, GSE fixed-rate loans performed four times better, and GSE ARMs performed five times better.



Mortgage analyst Laurie Goodman estimated that private label securitizations issued during 2005-2007 incurred a loss rate of 24%, whereas the GSE loss rate for 2005-2007 vintage loans was closer to 4%.

And yet, large numbers of people remain convinced that Fannie and Freddie's underwriting standards caused the mortgage crisis. Why is that?


http://www.americanbanker.com/bankthink/gse-critics-ignore-loan-performance-1059187-1.html
Double talk bullshit.

"One thing was clear: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were given a government-sponsored monopoly on a large part of the U.S. secondary mortgage market. It is this monopoly, combined with the government's implicit guarantee to keep these firms afloat, that would later contribute to the mortgage market's collapse. (For more on the secondary mortgage market, see Behind the Scenes of Your Mortgage.)

In 2007, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac began to experience large losses on their retained portfolios, especially on their Alt-A and subprime investments. In 2008, the sheer size of their retained portfolios and mortgage guarantees led the FHFA to conclude that they would soon be insolvent. By September 6, 2008, it was clear that the market believed the firms were in financial trouble, and the FHFA put the companies into "conservatorship". American taxpayers were left on the hook for future losses beyond the companies' existing - and shrinking - capital cushions.

Read more: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac And The Credit Crisis Of 2008 Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac And The Credit Crisis Of 2008
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook

Do you even understand what you are reading?

"In 2007, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac began to experience large losses on their retained portfolios, especially on their Alt-A and subprime investments."

Translation...Fannie and Freddie were NOT making those subprime loans...PRIVATE lenders were...


There’s a dangerous — and misleading — argument making the rounds about the causes of our current credit crisis. It’s emanating from Washington where politicians are engaging in the usual blame game but this time the stakes are so high that we can’t afford to fall victim to political doublespeak. In this fact-free zone, government sponsored mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac caused the real estate bubble and subprime meltdown. It’s completely false. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were victims of the credit crisis, not culprits.

Start with the most basic fact of all: virtually none of the $1.5 trillion of cratering subprime mortgages were backed by Fannie or Freddie. That’s right — most subprime mortgages did not meet Fannie or Freddie’s strict lending standards. All those no money down, no interest for a year, low teaser rate loans? All the loans made without checking a borrower’s income or employment history? All made in the private sector, without any support from Fannie and Freddie.

Look at the numbers. While the credit bubble was peaking from 2003 to 2006, the amount of loans originated by Fannie and Freddie dropped from $2.7 trillion to $1 trillion. Meanwhile, in the private sector, the amount of subprime loans originated jumped to $600 billion from $335 billion and Alt-A loans hit $400 billion from $85 billion in 2003. Fannie and Freddie, which wouldn’t accept crazy floating rate loans, which required income verification and minimum down payments, were left out of the insanity.

There’s a must-read study by staff members of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York analyzing the roots of the subprime crisis that came out in March. I don’t think it got much attention then as the conclusions seemed uncontroversial at the time. But now that Washington politicians are trying to rewrite history, it should be mandatory reading for every American interested in knowing how we got here.

The study identifies five causes of the subprime meltdown:
-Convoluted loan products that consumers didn’t understand.
-Credit ratings that didn’t do a good job highlighting the risks contained in subprime-backed securities.
-Lack of incentives for institutional investors to do their own research (they just relied on the credit ratings).
-Predatory lending and borrowing (which I think means fraud perpetrated by borrowers).
-Significant errors in the models used by credit rating agencies to assess subprime-backed securities.

You’ll note in the Fed’s five causes that there’s some culpability for lenders, borrowers, investors and credit raters. There’s no blame for Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae which had little or nothing to do with the entire situation.

It’s certainly fair to criticize Fannie and Freddie over real issues that contributed to their downfall. The companies had numerous accounting problems and inadequate safeguards covering their own investment portfolios. Those weaknesses came home to roost when the real estate market cratered. Fannie and Freddie purchased billions of dollars of subprime-backed securities for their own investment portfolios and got hit just like every other investor. But it’s some kind of crazy, politically inspired CYA to blame for the mess we’re in.

(For a more fair and balanced — and detailed — recounting of Fannie and Freddie’s subprime investing forays, see this post from the excellent Calculated Risk blog.)

Businessweek
 
AMERICAN BANKERDOTCOM

GSE Critics Ignore Loan Performance



...There is no data anywhere to cast doubt on the vastly superior loan performance of the GSEs. Year after year, decade after decade, before, during and after the housing crash, GSE loan performance has consistently been two-to-six times better than that of any other segment of the market.
The numbers are irrefutable, and they show that the entire case against GSE underwriting standards, and their role in the financial crisis, is based on social stereotyping, smoke and mirrors, and little else.



...Or check out the FHFA study that compares, on an apples-to-apples basis, GSEs loan originations with those for private label securitizations. The study segments loans four ways, by ARMs-versus-fixed-rate, as well as by vintage, by FICO score and by loan-to-value ratio. In almost every one of 1800 different comparisons covering years 2001 through 2008, GSE loan performance was exponentially better. On average, GSE fixed-rate loans performed four times better, and GSE ARMs performed five times better.



Mortgage analyst Laurie Goodman estimated that private label securitizations issued during 2005-2007 incurred a loss rate of 24%, whereas the GSE loss rate for 2005-2007 vintage loans was closer to 4%.

And yet, large numbers of people remain convinced that Fannie and Freddie's underwriting standards caused the mortgage crisis. Why is that?


http://www.americanbanker.com/bankthink/gse-critics-ignore-loan-performance-1059187-1.html
Double talk bullshit.

"One thing was clear: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were given a government-sponsored monopoly on a large part of the U.S. secondary mortgage market. It is this monopoly, combined with the government's implicit guarantee to keep these firms afloat, that would later contribute to the mortgage market's collapse. (For more on the secondary mortgage market, see Behind the Scenes of Your Mortgage.)

In 2007, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac began to experience large losses on their retained portfolios, especially on their Alt-A and subprime investments. In 2008, the sheer size of their retained portfolios and mortgage guarantees led the FHFA to conclude that they would soon be insolvent. By September 6, 2008, it was clear that the market believed the firms were in financial trouble, and the FHFA put the companies into "conservatorship". American taxpayers were left on the hook for future losses beyond the companies' existing - and shrinking - capital cushions.

Read more: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac And The Credit Crisis Of 2008 Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac And The Credit Crisis Of 2008
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook

You mean AFTER Dubya changed (2004) Clinton's rule that the "high cost loans (read subprime) could be used for the "affordable housing goals for the GSE's (F/F) , AND Dubya pushed those goals from 50% to 56% (2004), F/F was in trouble? Perhaps Dubya shouldn't had REQUIRED F/F to purchase $440 BILLION (2003-2007) in Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS) from the secondary markets? SOMETHING HAPPENED TO F/F?

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis


Talk radio and the blogosphere are pushing the idea that the stock market meltdown and the freeze on credit was triggered by finance giants Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's lending money to poor and minority Americans. But federal housing data reveal that that charge isn't true. Instead, it was the private sector that was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.


The Subprime Market Surged From 2004 To 2006


From 2004 To 2006, Fannie And Freddie's Share Of Subprime Market Fell From Almost Half To Just Under One-Quarter.

Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent,




Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis


Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”


Subprime_mortgage_originations,_1996-2008.GIF




Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse

FACTS on Dubya's great recession | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
 
Funny how you folks somehow didn't "see" the other points I made.

Every day in here, my theory that adherence to hardcore partisan ideology distorts perception is proven correct.
.

And every day here, you prove that you are self important, narcissistic and just so "above" us mere mortals...
 
Dispute it
Republicans run the house, senate, and Presidency from 2000 to 2006. But let's blame the Democrats! :rofl:
The democrats are the ones who voted against regulating Freddie and Fannie. Nice try.
Who was running things for 6 years of that administration again?

What is it you all liked to say during Obama's last election? Hmm.... was it... OWN IT!
Bush and republicans warned everyone but the lobbyists once again bought off the democrats. Spin it any way you want the democrats own this mess.

I can't wait to see how you spin Iran when that turns to shit.



Bush talked about reform. He talked and he talked. And then he stopped reform. (read that as many times as necessary. Bush stopped reform). And then he stopped it again

Testimony from Dubya's Treasury Secretary John Snow to the REPUBLICAN CONGRESS concerning the 'regulation' of the GSE's 2004


Mr.BARNEY Frank: ...Are we in a crisis now with these entities?

Secretary Snow. No, that is a fair characterization, Congressman Frank, of our position. We are not putting this proposal before you because of some concern over some imminent danger to the financial system for housing; far from it.


October 26, 2005

STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY

The Administration strongly believes that the housing GSEs should be focused on their core housing mission, particularly with respect to low-income Americans and first-time homebuyers. Instead, provisions of H.R. 1461 that expand mortgage purchasing authority would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers.

George W. Bush: Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 1461 - Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005

Yes, he said he was against it because it "would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers"


June 17, 2004

(CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.


Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004


BUT NO, THOUGH BUSH CRUSHED F/F (AS REGULATOR), THE GSE'S DIDN'T CAUSE THE BUSH SUBPRIME CRISIS



Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis


The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis | Economics | McClatchy DC



Bush talked about reform. He talked and he talked. And then he stopped reform. (read that as many times as necessary. Bush stopped reform). And then he stopped it again


FACTS on Dubya's great recession | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
 
Funny how you folks somehow didn't "see" the other points I made.

Every day in here, my theory that adherence to hardcore partisan ideology distorts perception is proven correct.
.
And every day here, you prove that you are self important, narcissistic and just so "above" us mere mortals...
No snappy comeback for that one, huh? You were dishonest and I called you on it.

Nothing special about me, I'm just honest.

Well, come to think of it, when dealing with hardcore partisan ideologues, I guess that DOES make me special!

Thanks!
.
 
Funny how you folks somehow didn't "see" the other points I made.

Every day in here, my theory that adherence to hardcore partisan ideology distorts perception is proven correct.
.
And every day here, you prove that you are self important, narcissistic and just so "above" us mere mortals...
No snappy comeback for that one, huh? You were dishonest and I called you on it.

Nothing special about me, I'm just honest.

Well, come to think of it, when dealing with hardcore partisan ideologues, I guess that DOES make me special!

Thanks!
.

Honest? lol
 
Funny how you folks somehow didn't "see" the other points I made.

Every day in here, my theory that adherence to hardcore partisan ideology distorts perception is proven correct.
.
And every day here, you prove that you are self important, narcissistic and just so "above" us mere mortals...
No snappy comeback for that one, huh? You were dishonest and I called you on it.

Nothing special about me, I'm just honest.

Well, come to think of it, when dealing with hardcore partisan ideologues, I guess that DOES make me special!

Thanks!
.
Arguing whether or not someone is an ideologue is kind of irrelevant if the purported ideologues are correct in their assertions. I presume you are in agreement with the facts presented as you have made no effort to correct them. Why not take offense with the partisan nature of the OP, he is after all the one peddling BS.
 
Funny how you folks somehow didn't "see" the other points I made.

Every day in here, my theory that adherence to hardcore partisan ideology distorts perception is proven correct.
.
And every day here, you prove that you are self important, narcissistic and just so "above" us mere mortals...
No snappy comeback for that one, huh? You were dishonest and I called you on it.

Nothing special about me, I'm just honest.

Well, come to think of it, when dealing with hardcore partisan ideologues, I guess that DOES make me special!

Thanks!
.


YOOHOO, I THINK YOU'VE BEEN CALLED OUT BY TEHON BUBS

"Arguing whether or not someone is an ideologue is kind of irrelevant if the purported ideologues are correct in their assertions. I presume you are in agreement with the facts presented as you have made no effort to correct them. Why not take offense with the partisan nature of the OP, he is after all the one peddling BS."


LOL
 
Arguing whether or not someone is an ideologue is kind of irrelevant if the purported ideologues are correct in their assertions. I presume you are in agreement with the facts presented as you have made no effort to correct them. Why not take offense with the partisan nature of the OP, he is after all the one peddling BS.

That's because Mac always talks about ideologues from both sides, but he only goes after liberals. There is nothing a right winger can utter or blurt that will draw his ire.
 
Arguing whether or not someone is an ideologue is kind of irrelevant if the purported ideologues are correct in their assertions. I presume you are in agreement with the facts presented as you have made no effort to correct them. Why not take offense with the partisan nature of the OP, he is after all the one peddling BS.

That's because Mac always talks about ideologues from both sides, but he only goes after liberals. There is nothing a right winger can utter or blurt that will draw his ire.
And you folks have just provided a delightful example of why.

We're nowhere near the topic of the thread, and as I recall, the last time we were, I had simply (and correctly) pointed out the fact that you had dishonestly ignored several specific points I had made. Then you folks went mental, made the thread about me (again) and here we are, with you whining that I "only go after liberals".

I don't care for nasty, dishonest people. Maybe you folks are just nastier and more dishonest than your right wing counterparts.
.
 
Last edited:
And you folks have just provided a delightful example of why.

We're nowhere near the topic of the thread, and as I recall, the last time we were, I had simply pointed out the fact that you had dishonestly ignored several specific points I had made.

Then you folks went mental, made the thread about me (again) and here we are. Deflection doesn't work with me. I don't care for nasty, dishonest people.
.

Actually Mac, we are right on topic...

Let's recap what the OP said...

0dDaxG4.png


GMU said 100% of the financial crisis was on Democrats. And the video falsely lays the blame of the financial crisis on Freddie, Fannie and government.

Totally false, hyper-partisan and absurd...but not a PEEP from you on that topic...

The only one who has ignored the "topic" is you Mac. But you are not here for conversation or debate. You are here to pontificate, criticize, critique and pound your chest.

I am surprised you haven't evoked the "PC" pablum.
 
And you folks have just provided a delightful example of why.

We're nowhere near the topic of the thread, and as I recall, the last time we were, I had simply pointed out the fact that you had dishonestly ignored several specific points I had made.

Then you folks went mental, made the thread about me (again) and here we are. Deflection doesn't work with me. I don't care for nasty, dishonest people.
.

Actually Mac, we are right on topic...

Let's recap what the OP said...

0dDaxG4.png


GMU said 100% of the financial crisis was on Democrats. And the video falsely lays the blame of the financial crisis on Freddie, Fannie and government.

Totally false, hyper-partisan and absurd...but not a PEEP from you on that topic...

The only one who has ignored the "topic" is you Mac. But you are not here for conversation or debate. You are here to pontificate, criticize, critique and pound your chest.

I am surprised you haven't evoked the "PC" pablum.
So you didn't read Post 88.

That's okay, no law says you have to.

But wait, you quoted me from it.

Weird.
.
 
And you folks have just provided a delightful example of why.

We're nowhere near the topic of the thread, and as I recall, the last time we were, I had simply pointed out the fact that you had dishonestly ignored several specific points I had made.

Then you folks went mental, made the thread about me (again) and here we are. Deflection doesn't work with me. I don't care for nasty, dishonest people.
.

Actually Mac, we are right on topic...

Let's recap what the OP said...

0dDaxG4.png


GMU said 100% of the financial crisis was on Democrats. And the video falsely lays the blame of the financial crisis on Freddie, Fannie and government.

Totally false, hyper-partisan and absurd...but not a PEEP from you on that topic...

The only one who has ignored the "topic" is you Mac. But you are not here for conversation or debate. You are here to pontificate, criticize, critique and pound your chest.

I am surprised you haven't evoked the "PC" pablum.
So you didn't read Post 88.

That's okay, no law says you have to.
.

I did read post 88 and corrected your false accusations and assumptions.
 
And you folks have just provided a delightful example of why.

We're nowhere near the topic of the thread, and as I recall, the last time we were, I had simply pointed out the fact that you had dishonestly ignored several specific points I had made.

Then you folks went mental, made the thread about me (again) and here we are. Deflection doesn't work with me. I don't care for nasty, dishonest people.
.

Actually Mac, we are right on topic...

Let's recap what the OP said...

0dDaxG4.png


GMU said 100% of the financial crisis was on Democrats. And the video falsely lays the blame of the financial crisis on Freddie, Fannie and government.

Totally false, hyper-partisan and absurd...but not a PEEP from you on that topic...

The only one who has ignored the "topic" is you Mac. But you are not here for conversation or debate. You are here to pontificate, criticize, critique and pound your chest.

I am surprised you haven't evoked the "PC" pablum.
So you didn't read Post 88.

That's okay, no law says you have to.
.

I did read post 88 and corrected your false accusations and assumptions.
Fabulous, great. Thank goodness I have you to take care of that stuff for me, since you know more so much more about it than I.

Anything else?
.
 
Fabulous, great. Thank goodness I have you to take care of that stuff for me, since you know more so much more about it than I.

Anything else?
.

Do I detect a hint of sarcasm Mac? And a dose of "nasty" Mac?
 
And you folks have just provided a delightful example of why.

We're nowhere near the topic of the thread, and as I recall, the last time we were, I had simply pointed out the fact that you had dishonestly ignored several specific points I had made.

Then you folks went mental, made the thread about me (again) and here we are. Deflection doesn't work with me. I don't care for nasty, dishonest people.
.

Actually Mac, we are right on topic...

Let's recap what the OP said...

0dDaxG4.png


GMU said 100% of the financial crisis was on Democrats. And the video falsely lays the blame of the financial crisis on Freddie, Fannie and government.

Totally false, hyper-partisan and absurd...but not a PEEP from you on that topic...

The only one who has ignored the "topic" is you Mac. But you are not here for conversation or debate. You are here to pontificate, criticize, critique and pound your chest.

I am surprised you haven't evoked the "PC" pablum.
So you didn't read Post 88.

That's okay, no law says you have to.
.

I did read post 88 and corrected your false accusations and assumptions.
Fabulous, great. Thank goodness I have you to take care of that stuff for me, since you know more so much more about it than I.

Anything else?
.

Do I detect a hint of sarcasm Mac? And a dose of "nasty" Mac?
No, I'm just thankful you guys are here to set me straight on this.

The deepest, broadest, most complicated financial meltdown in the history of the planet was all the fault of those guys. Over there.

The next time I'm having dinner with a CFA from Fidelity Funds or a Regional Manager from some REIT group or a fellow CFP/ChFC/CLU I'll point out that a couple of guys in a political message board have convinced me of that. Then we'll roll our eyes and laugh and order another beer.

So, thanks.
.
 
No, I'm just thankful you guys are here to set me straight on this.

The deepest, broadest, most complicated financial meltdown in the history of the planet was all the fault of those guys. Over there.

The next time I'm having dinner with a CFA from Fidelity Funds or a Regional Manager from some REIT group or a fellow CFP/ChFC/CLU I'll point out that a couple of guys in a political message board have convinced me of that. Then we'll roll our eyes and laugh and order another beer.

So, thanks.

There is nothing more impressive than name dropping and the use of acronyms...I AM impressed...

You accused me of not reading your epic post #88...

But you didn't address my reply...

So how about addressing it now oh mighty one?

Please tell me where I am in error...

A reminder of how democrats led us to this mess | Page 15 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I read post 88...now what?

  • Borrowers (yes kids, they were involved in this too) signing on the dotted line for loans they goddamn well knew they couldn't afford
  • Borrowers (oops, there they are again) getting loans to pay off bills and then, as if they had no functioning brain matter whatsoever, immediately running up new bills
The vast majority of "borrowers" could afford to pay back the loans. The chose not to. Instead they chose to walk away. You see, they were not buying a "homestead"...they were investors who jettisoned a bad investment.
 
No, I'm just thankful you guys are here to set me straight on this.

The deepest, broadest, most complicated financial meltdown in the history of the planet was all the fault of those guys. Over there.

The next time I'm having dinner with a CFA from Fidelity Funds or a Regional Manager from some REIT group or a fellow CFP/ChFC/CLU I'll point out that a couple of guys in a political message board have convinced me of that. Then we'll roll our eyes and laugh and order another beer.

So, thanks.

There is nothing more impressive than name dropping and the use of acronyms...I AM impressed...

You accused me of not reading your epic post #88...

But you didn't address my reply...

So how about addressing it now oh mighty one?

Please tell me where I am in error...

A reminder of how democrats led us to this mess | Page 15 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I read post 88...now what?

  • Borrowers (yes kids, they were involved in this too) signing on the dotted line for loans they goddamn well knew they couldn't afford
  • Borrowers (oops, there they are again) getting loans to pay off bills and then, as if they had no functioning brain matter whatsoever, immediately running up new bills
The vast majority of "borrowers" could afford to pay back the loans. The chose not to. Instead they chose to walk away. You see, they were not buying a "homestead"...they were investors who jettisoned a bad investment.
A vast majority. Great. Link?
.
 
No, I'm just thankful you guys are here to set me straight on this.

The deepest, broadest, most complicated financial meltdown in the history of the planet was all the fault of those guys. Over there.

The next time I'm having dinner with a CFA from Fidelity Funds or a Regional Manager from some REIT group or a fellow CFP/ChFC/CLU I'll point out that a couple of guys in a political message board have convinced me of that. Then we'll roll our eyes and laugh and order another beer.

So, thanks.

There is nothing more impressive than name dropping and the use of acronyms...I AM impressed...

You accused me of not reading your epic post #88...

But you didn't address my reply...

So how about addressing it now oh mighty one?

Please tell me where I am in error...

A reminder of how democrats led us to this mess | Page 15 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I read post 88...now what?

  • Borrowers (yes kids, they were involved in this too) signing on the dotted line for loans they goddamn well knew they couldn't afford
  • Borrowers (oops, there they are again) getting loans to pay off bills and then, as if they had no functioning brain matter whatsoever, immediately running up new bills
The vast majority of "borrowers" could afford to pay back the loans. The chose not to. Instead they chose to walk away. You see, they were not buying a "homestead"...they were investors who jettisoned a bad investment.
And by the way, why are those the only two points you quoted? Again?

Do I have your expert blessing on the other four?

'Cuz your expert blessing is very important to me.
.
 
I wonder if Mac will ever come out of his cocoon of passive aggressive arrogance long enough to realize that just about every USMB member who is capable of critical thought thinks he's a tool?
 

Forum List

Back
Top