Maxine Waters Tax GangBanks Out of Business

freedombecki

Let's go swimmin'!
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
23,687
Reaction score
7,640
Points
198
Location
My house
Maxine Waters, D-Ca, wishes to define banks who mind going bankrupt making bad loans as "Gangsta Banks," and she wants President Obama to tax them out of business. :rolleyes:

Mediaite

Waters told the crowd that now is the time for the President to use the bully pulpit, and “bring the gangstas in, put them around the table and let them know that if they don’t come up with loan modifications and keep people in their homes, that they’ve worked so hard for, we’re gonna tax them out of business.”
Is this wise when so many people are out of work, to further frighten the business sector?
 

grunt11b

VIP Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2011
Messages
4,649
Reaction score
500
Points
88
Location
In Reality
Maxine Waters, D-Ca, wishes to define banks who mind going bankrupt making bad loans as "Gangsta Banks," and she wants President Obama to tax them out of business. :rolleyes:

Mediaite

Waters told the crowd that now is the time for the President to use the bully pulpit, and “bring the gangstas in, put them around the table and let them know that if they don’t come up with loan modifications and keep people in their homes, that they’ve worked so hard for, we’re gonna tax them out of business.”
Is this wise when so many people are out of work, to further frighten the business sector?
They are just putting on a show, they want those people out of their homes so they can place them on gubment assistance, they want those people out of work for the same reason. They need a collapse in this economy to reach their totalitarian goals.
 

Truthmatters

Rookie
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
80,182
Reaction score
2,263
Points
0
I thought they were people?

shouldnt they be punished for harming others with lies and duplicity?
 
Joined
Jul 3, 2011
Messages
1,301
Reaction score
94
Points
48
I cant get away with poor spelling butt these people are in power?

Doesnt make sense, i get vetted on comments made here more than the average Democrat

gets by the mass media after they say the most screwed up chit.

LIAMD :cuckoo:
 
OP
freedombecki

freedombecki

Let's go swimmin'!
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
23,687
Reaction score
7,640
Points
198
Location
My house
I thought they were people?

shouldnt they be punished for harming others with lies and duplicity?
People who make loans, agreeing to pay them back, then go spend they money on drugs and "can't" pay?

Banks should just stfu and stay outta they way, letting the wage earners pay the druglords?

Maybe Maxine should try running a bank?

Nobody likes to see anyone lose their homes, Truthmatters, but if you buy a 4-bedroom mansion with someone else's money, then quit your job and pursue happiness thinking nobody can touch you, you're putting the government in the business of letting criminal mischief go unpunished.

Maxine Waters must destroy America's financial sector to get votes from people who pay nothing in taxes to help America foot the bill for criminal mischief.

That is bad, and it is not good.
 

Trajan

conscientia mille testes
Joined
Jun 17, 2010
Messages
29,048
Reaction score
5,458
Points
48
Location
The Bay Area Soviet
they are already engaged in making banks do exactly what got us here ala the housing bubble( see below).......and since her husband got a Tarp bailout for his banking interets ( whats up wiht that investigation btw?) shes got some friggin nerve...what a hack...



* AUGUST 31, 2011

Justice's New War Against Lenders
The Obama administration repeats mistakes of the past by intimidating banks into lending to minority borrowers at below-market rates in the name of combatting discrimination.

Talk about not learning from past mistakes: A government department is again intimidating banks into lending to minority borrowers at below-market rates, all in the name of combating "discrimination." Welcome to the next housing mess.

The 1990s may have brought us supercharged politicized lending, but Eric Holder's Department of Justice is taking the game to an entirely new level, and then some. The weapon is a "fair lending" unit created in early 2010, led by special counsel Eric Halperin and overseen by Civil Rights Division head Thomas Perez.

A sampling of Mr. Perez's thinking, from April 2010 congressional testimony: "The foreclosure crisis has touched virtually every community in this country, but it disproportionately touches communities of color, in particular African-Americans and Latinos." And: "[C]ross burnings are the most overt form of discrimination and bigotry. Lending discrimination is some of the most subtle. It's what I call discrimination with a smile."

Even for the Obama administration's antidiscrimination cops, this is a shocker: A political appointee who's supposed to neutrally enforce the law loosely equates bankers with Klu Klux Klan thugs. But let's move from what may be Mr. Perez's personal bias, and focus on the broader brush strokes of the Justice Department—which seem designed to paint bankers into a corner.

Lenders who discriminate on the basis of race and those who make decisions on the basis of credit scores are two entirely different animals. The former our society doesn't permit, for moral reasons; the latter we encourage because it's fundamental to capitalism. A lender will go bust if he can't distinguish between a risky loan and a good loan. Poor people aren't well-served by getting loans they can't afford.

Historically, fair-lending cases have fallen into roughly two categories: "price discrimination" cases, in which lenders are accused of charging minorities higher prices than other clients, and "red-lining" suits, in which they are accused of intentionally failing to serve minority communities. Sounds straightforward for those who seek to obey the law.


snip-

But not when Justice revives "disparate impact" theory: the idea that even if lenders don't actively discriminate, they can still be sued if the cumulative effect of their actions implies discrimination. The latter is usually "proved" through statistical analysis (and the old standard—discriminatory intent—is thrown out the window). The Bush administration largely declined to pursue these cases.

And for good reason. Consider two AIG subsidiaries that Justice alleged "failed to supervise or monitor brokers in setting broker fees" between 2003 and 2006, but that Justice didn't pursue aggressively until the Obama administration. The government claimed that, in aggregate, African-Americans were charged more than other ethnic groups. AIG settled in March 2010 while it was under federal ownership, and Mr. Perez gained a big legal stick in price-discrimination cases. Suddenly lenders may be held liable for other people's business practices, even if those business practices aren't individually discriminatory.

Justice is pushing the legal envelope on red-lining, too. In a July 1 letter to Cardinal Financial Corp., Justice contends that after the bank bought George Mason Mortgage in 2004, it "failed to serve predominantly black areas on an equal basis with predominantly white areas" by not opening branches in majority-black areas or engaging in "effective outreach activities." Justice wants the bank to add nine counties to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.-approved geographic area where Cardinal does business.

more at-

Mary Kissel: Justice's New War Against Lenders - WSJ.com
 
OP
freedombecki

freedombecki

Let's go swimmin'!
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
23,687
Reaction score
7,640
Points
198
Location
My house
they are already engaged in making banks do exactly what got us here ala the housing bubble( see below).......and since her husband got a Tarp bailout for his banking interests ( whats up with that investigation btw?) shes got some friggin nerve...what a hack...

* AUGUST 31, 2011

Justice's New War Against Lenders
The Obama administration repeats mistakes of the past by intimidating banks into lending to minority borrowers at below-market rates in the name of combating discrimination.

Talk about not learning from past mistakes: A government department is again intimidating banks into lending to minority borrowers at below-market rates, all in the name of combating "discrimination." Welcome to the next housing mess.

The 1990s may have brought us supercharged politicized lending, but Eric Holder's Department of Justice is taking the game to an entirely new level, and then some. The weapon is a "fair lending" unit created in early 2010, led by special counsel Eric Halperin and overseen by Civil Rights Division head Thomas Perez.

A sampling of Mr. Perez's thinking, from April 2010 congressional testimony: "The foreclosure crisis has touched virtually every community in this country, but it disproportionately touches communities of color, in particular African-Americans and Latinos." And: "[C]ross burnings are the most overt form of discrimination and bigotry. Lending discrimination is some of the most subtle. It's what I call discrimination with a smile."

Even for the Obama administration's antidiscrimination cops, this is a shocker: A political appointee who's supposed to neutrally enforce the law loosely equates bankers with Klu Klux Klan thugs. But let's move from what may be Mr. Perez's personal bias, and focus on the broader brush strokes of the Justice Department—which seem designed to paint bankers into a corner.

Lenders who discriminate on the basis of race and those who make decisions on the basis of credit scores are two entirely different animals. The former our society doesn't permit, for moral reasons; the latter we encourage because it's fundamental to capitalism. A lender will go bust if he can't distinguish between a risky loan and a good loan. Poor people aren't well-served by getting loans they can't afford.

Historically, fair-lending cases have fallen into roughly two categories: "price discrimination" cases, in which lenders are accused of charging minorities higher prices than other clients, and "red-lining" suits, in which they are accused of intentionally failing to serve minority communities. Sounds straightforward for those who seek to obey the law.


snip-

But not when Justice revives "disparate impact" theory: the idea that even if lenders don't actively discriminate, they can still be sued if the cumulative effect of their actions implies discrimination. The latter is usually "proved" through statistical analysis (and the old standard—discriminatory intent—is thrown out the window). The Bush administration largely declined to pursue these cases.

And for good reason. Consider two AIG subsidiaries that Justice alleged "failed to supervise or monitor brokers in setting broker fees" between 2003 and 2006, but that Justice didn't pursue aggressively until the Obama administration. The government claimed that, in aggregate, African-Americans were charged more than other ethnic groups. AIG settled in March 2010 while it was under federal ownership, and Mr. Perez gained a big legal stick in price-discrimination cases. Suddenly lenders may be held liable for other people's business practices, even if those business practices aren't individually discriminatory.

Justice is pushing the legal envelope on red-lining, too. In a July 1 letter to Cardinal Financial Corp., Justice contends that after the bank bought George Mason Mortgage in 2004, it "failed to serve predominantly black areas on an equal basis with predominantly white areas" by not opening branches in majority-black areas or engaging in "effective outreach activities." Justice wants the bank to add nine counties to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.-approved geographic area where Cardinal does business.

more at-

Mary Kissel: Justice's New War Against Lenders - WSJ.com
Thanks, Mr. Trajan. IOW, Maxine Waters, D-CA is influence-peddling her family TARP bailout, which means her calumny against decent people who happen to be bankers is pointed to save herself and her family money. (TARP = "Troubled Assets Relief Program") So that's how congresscritters go to Congress. It's not about helping others, it's about hurting others and taking their money away from them through taxation. They even have Training Areas telling their pals how to screw everyone else by taking advantage of TARP legislation. I bet they don't tell any Republicans and others Mrs. Waters wants to tax to death.

Yes, I am beginning to see her hypocrisy in protecting herself, her own money, which will have to finance her re-elections another way, once it is squandered.

My gosh, getting everybody, Democrats and Republicans, to foot the bill for her own personal piggy bank enhancement with bitter-banter politics is really dirty politics. :rolleyes:

What a Washington parasite Maxine Waters has made of herself. No wonder California is in such fiscal trouble.

Laws of Mercy.
 
Last edited:

dcbl

Good guys wear white hats
Joined
Aug 23, 2011
Messages
5,491
Reaction score
2,267
Points
400
Location
Bham, AL
Our friends on the left want to tax EVERYONE out of business. Why should banks be any different?
 
OP
freedombecki

freedombecki

Let's go swimmin'!
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
23,687
Reaction score
7,640
Points
198
Location
My house
Our friends on the left want to tax EVERYONE out of business. Why should banks be any different?
Well, Obama started out by subsidizing banks who supported HIM. Now, Maxine Waters wants to decimate through taxation banks who do not cooperate with her plan of making bad loans to people who have no intention of paying them back. There was talk of an exploratory committed into the nefarious activities of Maxine Waters a little while ago, which seems to have escalated her to eliminate through her Congressional Seats the free enterprises that do not pave her way.

That means, she will not consider free enterprise as an option to the government takeover closet Marxists in the government have on their agenda. She's even gone so far as to compliment Fidel Castro after voting against his doings a couple of years back.

I truly do not think eliminating free enterprise will bolster poor Californians whom she claims to represent.

If you destroy free enterprise, it will take out the economic base that has made America enjoy prosperity--good food, cross-country travel to make friends in other states with affordable gasoline and cars, interstate commerce, competitiveness enough to ensure that people can afford everyday commodities, the whole enchilada of free enterprise benefits.

The alternative is starvation, even more joblessness than there already is, "representatives" representing their family's TARP interests more than her duty to uphold the U. S. Constitution as it is written, anarchy, rebellion, civil war, and all the things that go to exacerbate poverty to more people than those the government is lying are in poverty but own two cars, two television sets in color, computers, etc.

We, the people, need to be chary if not ever-vigilant against those who are promoting themselves while masquerading as representatives of the poor, which are truly their last concern.
 
Last edited:

dcbl

Good guys wear white hats
Joined
Aug 23, 2011
Messages
5,491
Reaction score
2,267
Points
400
Location
Bham, AL
they are already engaged in making banks do exactly what got us here ala the housing bubble( see below).......and since her husband got a Tarp bailout for his banking interets ( whats up wiht that investigation btw?) shes got some friggin nerve...what a hack...



* AUGUST 31, 2011

Justice's New War Against Lenders
The Obama administration repeats mistakes of the past by intimidating banks into lending to minority borrowers at below-market rates in the name of combatting discrimination.

Talk about not learning from past mistakes: A government department is again intimidating banks into lending to minority borrowers at below-market rates, all in the name of combating "discrimination." Welcome to the next housing mess.

The 1990s may have brought us supercharged politicized lending, but Eric Holder's Department of Justice is taking the game to an entirely new level, and then some. The weapon is a "fair lending" unit created in early 2010, led by special counsel Eric Halperin and overseen by Civil Rights Division head Thomas Perez.

A sampling of Mr. Perez's thinking, from April 2010 congressional testimony: "The foreclosure crisis has touched virtually every community in this country, but it disproportionately touches communities of color, in particular African-Americans and Latinos." And: "[C]ross burnings are the most overt form of discrimination and bigotry. Lending discrimination is some of the most subtle. It's what I call discrimination with a smile."

Even for the Obama administration's antidiscrimination cops, this is a shocker: A political appointee who's supposed to neutrally enforce the law loosely equates bankers with Klu Klux Klan thugs. But let's move from what may be Mr. Perez's personal bias, and focus on the broader brush strokes of the Justice Department—which seem designed to paint bankers into a corner.

Lenders who discriminate on the basis of race and those who make decisions on the basis of credit scores are two entirely different animals. The former our society doesn't permit, for moral reasons; the latter we encourage because it's fundamental to capitalism. A lender will go bust if he can't distinguish between a risky loan and a good loan. Poor people aren't well-served by getting loans they can't afford.

Historically, fair-lending cases have fallen into roughly two categories: "price discrimination" cases, in which lenders are accused of charging minorities higher prices than other clients, and "red-lining" suits, in which they are accused of intentionally failing to serve minority communities. Sounds straightforward for those who seek to obey the law.


snip-

But not when Justice revives "disparate impact" theory: the idea that even if lenders don't actively discriminate, they can still be sued if the cumulative effect of their actions implies discrimination. The latter is usually "proved" through statistical analysis (and the old standard—discriminatory intent—is thrown out the window). The Bush administration largely declined to pursue these cases.

And for good reason. Consider two AIG subsidiaries that Justice alleged "failed to supervise or monitor brokers in setting broker fees" between 2003 and 2006, but that Justice didn't pursue aggressively until the Obama administration. The government claimed that, in aggregate, African-Americans were charged more than other ethnic groups. AIG settled in March 2010 while it was under federal ownership, and Mr. Perez gained a big legal stick in price-discrimination cases. Suddenly lenders may be held liable for other people's business practices, even if those business practices aren't individually discriminatory.

Justice is pushing the legal envelope on red-lining, too. In a July 1 letter to Cardinal Financial Corp., Justice contends that after the bank bought George Mason Mortgage in 2004, it "failed to serve predominantly black areas on an equal basis with predominantly white areas" by not opening branches in majority-black areas or engaging in "effective outreach activities." Justice wants the bank to add nine counties to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.-approved geographic area where Cardinal does business.

more at-

Mary Kissel: Justice's New War Against Lenders - WSJ.com
It really is amazing, isn't it?

The government implements policies that reward 9and essentially FORCE) lending institutions to write loans to people that have absolutely no business getting them - all in the name of Fairness" & "racial equality".

AND THEN, when these loans go upside down, the very same government wants to punish these lending institutions for attempting 5to recover what assets they can...

Just another day in paradise...
 

ColonialMarine

DEUS VULT
Joined
Aug 25, 2011
Messages
48
Reaction score
20
Points
6
Location
FLorida
The real "gangstas" are the fools that took out mortgages without knowing what they were doing. For a country that essentially created free market capitalism I'm amazed at how many Americans are so ignorant on basic matters regarding how money works and economics. I saw a report on my local news where a homeowner in default (a real twit) didn't know the difference between a fixed rate & an adjustable rate mortgage. Miss Waters is typical of the pandering politician who wants a Nanny-State to take care of people from womb to tomb. Actions have consequences you "ignorant slut"*.


*channeling clasic Saturday Night Live skit. :lol:
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
50,337
Reaction score
10,053
Points
0
Maxine Waters, D-Ca, wishes to define banks who mind going bankrupt making bad loans as "Gangsta Banks," and she wants President Obama to tax them out of business. :rolleyes:

Mediaite

Waters told the crowd that now is the time for the President to use the bully pulpit, and “bring the gangstas in, put them around the table and let them know that if they don’t come up with loan modifications and keep people in their homes, that they’ve worked so hard for, we’re gonna tax them out of business.”
Is this wise when so many people are out of work, to further frighten the business sector?
We really should admire Waters. She never lets her moronic ignorance stop her from speaking her..... ummm..... errrrr.... ummmm..... mind? Is that the right word?

That woman is thicker than pig shit. Seriously.
 
OP
freedombecki

freedombecki

Let's go swimmin'!
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
23,687
Reaction score
7,640
Points
198
Location
My house
Maxine Waters is the most racist politician on the Hill. One that isn't even that bright.
Yebbut she's the media darling of the moment until it comes out about her TARP conflict-of-interest they don't want the public to know about before election time.
 

ColonialMarine

DEUS VULT
Joined
Aug 25, 2011
Messages
48
Reaction score
20
Points
6
Location
FLorida
Maxine Waters is the most racist politician on the Hill. One that isn't even that bright.
Yebbut she's the media darling of the moment until it comes out about her TARP conflict-of-interest they don't want the public to know about before election time.
Don't expect the Obama Lap Dog Lame Stream Media to report it. Only FOXNews has covered it.
 
OP
freedombecki

freedombecki

Let's go swimmin'!
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
23,687
Reaction score
7,640
Points
198
Location
My house
they are already engaged in making banks do exactly what got us here ala the housing bubble( see below).......and since her husband got a Tarp bailout for his banking interets ( whats up wiht that investigation btw?) shes got some friggin nerve...what a hack...



* AUGUST 31, 2011

Justice's New War Against Lenders
The Obama administration repeats mistakes of the past by intimidating banks into lending to minority borrowers at below-market rates in the name of combatting discrimination.

Talk about not learning from past mistakes: A government department is again intimidating banks into lending to minority borrowers at below-market rates, all in the name of combating "discrimination." Welcome to the next housing mess.

The 1990s may have brought us supercharged politicized lending, but Eric Holder's Department of Justice is taking the game to an entirely new level, and then some. The weapon is a "fair lending" unit created in early 2010, led by special counsel Eric Halperin and overseen by Civil Rights Division head Thomas Perez.

A sampling of Mr. Perez's thinking, from April 2010 congressional testimony: "The foreclosure crisis has touched virtually every community in this country, but it disproportionately touches communities of color, in particular African-Americans and Latinos." And: "[C]ross burnings are the most overt form of discrimination and bigotry. Lending discrimination is some of the most subtle. It's what I call discrimination with a smile."

Even for the Obama administration's antidiscrimination cops, this is a shocker: A political appointee who's supposed to neutrally enforce the law loosely equates bankers with Klu Klux Klan thugs. But let's move from what may be Mr. Perez's personal bias, and focus on the broader brush strokes of the Justice Department—which seem designed to paint bankers into a corner.

Lenders who discriminate on the basis of race and those who make decisions on the basis of credit scores are two entirely different animals. The former our society doesn't permit, for moral reasons; the latter we encourage because it's fundamental to capitalism. A lender will go bust if he can't distinguish between a risky loan and a good loan. Poor people aren't well-served by getting loans they can't afford.

Historically, fair-lending cases have fallen into roughly two categories: "price discrimination" cases, in which lenders are accused of charging minorities higher prices than other clients, and "red-lining" suits, in which they are accused of intentionally failing to serve minority communities. Sounds straightforward for those who seek to obey the law.


snip-

But not when Justice revives "disparate impact" theory: the idea that even if lenders don't actively discriminate, they can still be sued if the cumulative effect of their actions implies discrimination. The latter is usually "proved" through statistical analysis (and the old standard—discriminatory intent—is thrown out the window). The Bush administration largely declined to pursue these cases.

And for good reason. Consider two AIG subsidiaries that Justice alleged "failed to supervise or monitor brokers in setting broker fees" between 2003 and 2006, but that Justice didn't pursue aggressively until the Obama administration. The government claimed that, in aggregate, African-Americans were charged more than other ethnic groups. AIG settled in March 2010 while it was under federal ownership, and Mr. Perez gained a big legal stick in price-discrimination cases. Suddenly lenders may be held liable for other people's business practices, even if those business practices aren't individually discriminatory.

Justice is pushing the legal envelope on red-lining, too. In a July 1 letter to Cardinal Financial Corp., Justice contends that after the bank bought George Mason Mortgage in 2004, it "failed to serve predominantly black areas on an equal basis with predominantly white areas" by not opening branches in majority-black areas or engaging in "effective outreach activities." Justice wants the bank to add nine counties to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.-approved geographic area where Cardinal does business.

more at-

Mary Kissel: Justice's New War Against Lenders - WSJ.com
It really is amazing, isn't it?

The government implements policies that reward 9and essentially FORCE) lending institutions to write loans to people that have absolutely no business getting them - all in the name of Fairness" & "racial equality".

AND THEN, when these loans go upside down, the very same government wants to punish these lending institutions for attempting 5to recover what assets they can...

Just another day in paradise...
This particular incident is even lower than that, dcbl, (by the way, good to have you around USMB).

We have Maxine Waters, who just last week threatened the CEO of a major oil corporation to destroy the oil industry if he didn't fall into line with her agendas, using scorched earth diatribe to promote her agenda of destroying free enterprise, for once and for all.
 
OP
freedombecki

freedombecki

Let's go swimmin'!
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
23,687
Reaction score
7,640
Points
198
Location
My house
She's a Democrat. She doesn't care about jobs for the little guy.

Immie
That's what we know, but her rhetoric makes her seem like she is nailed to a cross somewhere in their behalf. She isn't telling people nor is the media how invested her family is in the TARP-for-profit scheme, to which I posted a link above that shills instructions on how to take advantage of TARP. Of course, preferred access is likely the choice of the people running TARP who may have uniquely-bestowed appointments to high-paying salaries for reviewing who benefits. Guess who isn't going to benefit even though the Constitution is based on equality for all.
 

jillian

Princess
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
84,087
Reaction score
15,779
Points
2,220
Location
The Other Side of Paradise
Maxine Waters, D-Ca, wishes to define banks who mind going bankrupt making bad loans as "Gangsta Banks," and she wants President Obama to tax them out of business. :rolleyes:

Mediaite

Waters told the crowd that now is the time for the President to use the bully pulpit, and “bring the gangstas in, put them around the table and let them know that if they don’t come up with loan modifications and keep people in their homes, that they’ve worked so hard for, we’re gonna tax them out of business.”
Is this wise when so many people are out of work, to further frighten the business sector?
and? who cares what that nutter wants?
 
OP
freedombecki

freedombecki

Let's go swimmin'!
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
23,687
Reaction score
7,640
Points
198
Location
My house
Maxine Waters, D-Ca, wishes to define banks who mind going bankrupt making bad loans as "Gangsta Banks," and she wants President Obama to tax them out of business. :rolleyes:

Mediaite

Waters told the crowd that now is the time for the President to use the bully pulpit, and “bring the gangstas in, put them around the table and let them know that if they don’t come up with loan modifications and keep people in their homes, that they’ve worked so hard for, we’re gonna tax them out of business.”
Is this wise when so many people are out of work, to further frighten the business sector?
We really should admire Waters. She never lets her moronic ignorance stop her from speaking her..... ummm..... errrrr.... ummmm..... mind? Is that the right word?

That woman is thicker than pig shit. Seriously.
I don't think a Congresscritter who is using government funds personally, who goes on the attack of free enterprises and threatens to get rid of them with her resources when she actually is neck-deep into self-beneficent conflicts-of-interest has the slightest moronic ignorance in her mind. I think she is a hip, fully-aware pirate who uses her Congressional seat to feather her own nest at taxpayer offense, and anybody who opposes her becomes her elimination target for professional abuse of power.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top