Remember this? In 1994, a class-action lawsuit was filed against CitiBank, demanding loans be made.

[GWV5903]

This is what the BANKS CHOSE TO DO, and NOT what the government forced them to do.

Wrong, this is what the Clinton Administration chose to do...

Bill Clinton s drive to increase homeownership went way too far - BusinessWeek

This was the birth of Zero Down Payment mentality...

 

[GWV5903]

The Banks did this...

and less than 10% of all the loans that went bad in the crash, were from people in Red line (CRA)areas, the other 90% of who the banks loaned to that could not afford their loans or did not qualify for loans under any normal circumstance, were the 90%...YES, white as snow people.

And yes CRA was used to implement FHA DPA, look it up and realize this happened under the Clinton Administration...

 

[TooTall]

Jebus, you guys are messed up...

What is red-lining?

refuse (a loan or insurance) to someone because they live in an area deemed to be a poor financial risk.

The banks were redlining areas, and preventing people from being able to get a loan BASED ON WHAT AREA they lived in, NOT based on the individual's credit or ability to pay for that mortgage or insurance.

THAT is what is ILLEGAL....

As it SHOULD be.

It should be illegal to redline, but it is nothing short of stupid to allow someone to purchase a home that they cannot afford...

Guess what, that is what this accomplished...

This is what the BANKS CHOSE TO DO, and NOT what the government forced them to do.

That is incorrect.

If you are interested in what really caused the housing boom and bust, read this article.

Here s How The Community Reinvestment Act Led To The Housing Bubble s Lax Lending - Business Insider

 

[Care4all]

This is what the BANKS CHOSE TO DO, and NOT what the government forced them to do.

Wrong, this is what the Clinton Administration chose to do...

Bill Clinton s drive to increase homeownership went way too far - BusinessWeek

This was the birth of Zero Down Payment mentality...

Then WHY didn't this fiasco and wall street crash and the biggest Housing boom ever happen in the 90's, after 1994?

Why did President Bush push the banks to put 5 million more poor people in to homes? Why did he have this housing initiative for the poor?

When 10% or less of the loans that went belly up during the housing bust were in CRA areas, then the CRA areas were NOT the loans that CAUSED this crisis.... I don't think there is any way around theowl/GVW/Tootall.... it is PLAIN AS DAY, that whatever happened in 1994 with forcing the banks to NOT red line areas, but to qualify the individual not qualify the area for loans....is NOT what caused the Wall Street crash and the housing bust.

I would not be "making excuses" for those banks, you would be on the wrong side of the issue.

Nope tootall! see below
BESIDES, even the Banks are NOT CLAIMING that red lining and the CRA /bank lawsuit caused this housing boom, derivative, insurance fiasco.....

 

[kaz]

Well, that was clearly W's fault...

You didn't get the memo I take it? The one that said that nothing that occurred during the eight years of the George Bush Presidency was his fault. George has been shown to be incompetent so nothing could be blamed on him.

Now Obama on the other hand. Obama can be and has been blamed for everything. Every right winger knows that Obama CAUSED the housing crisis with the lawsuit you are speaking of. End of story. Non refutable.

George Bush is blameless for anything and Obama is guilty of everything.

Just save time and type the above over and over. Bush blameless for anything, Obama guilty of everything.
That about sum it up?

W sucked, Obama sucks, and you're a dumb ass.

 

[kaz]

[Passing a law requiring banks to loan their depositors money to people who obviously do not have the means to repay it is not equality by any stretch of the imagination.

Not loaning money to black people is racist, it doesn't matter if they can pay it back. Seriously, you don't know about slavery?

And then when the banks loaned the money to THOSE PEOPLE and they could not pay, the same racism profiteers who argued and sued to lower lending standards did an about face and of course called those banks racist that did, what they were obligated to do under the law.

No matter what happens, the grievance INDUSTRY is alive and well. Of course it is all entirely dependent on the moronic double talking ignorant brainwashed left for that industry to thrive.

Banks foreclosing on black borrowers who don't pay is racist

 

[GWV5903]

This is what the BANKS CHOSE TO DO, and NOT what the government forced them to do.

Wrong, this is what the Clinton Administration chose to do...

Bill Clinton s drive to increase homeownership went way too far - BusinessWeek

This was the birth of Zero Down Payment mentality...

Then WHY didn't this fiasco and wall street crash and the biggest Housing boom ever happen in the 90's, after 1994?

Why did President Bush push the banks to put 5 million more poor people in to homes? Why did he have this housing initiative for the poor?

When 10% or less of the loans that went belly up during the housing bust were in CRA areas, then the CRA areas were NOT the loans that CAUSED this crisis.... I don't think there is any way around theowl/GVW/Tootall.... it is PLAIN AS DAY, that whatever happened in 1994 with forcing the banks to NOT red line areas, but to qualify the individual not qualify the area for loans....is NOT what caused the Wall Street crash and the housing bust.

I would not be "making excuses" for those banks, you would be on the wrong side of the issue.

Nope tootall! see below
BESIDES, even the Banks are NOT CLAIMING that red lining and the CRA /bank lawsuit caused this housing boom, derivative, insurance fiasco.....

Housing starts do not happen over night, it takes years to build it up...

The machine for housing starts is enormous, the boom did begin in the 90's look it up...

http://www.macrotrends.net/1314/housing-starts-historical-chart

 

[GWV5903]

CARE4ALL no response?

 

[2aguy]

Do NOT bring facts and accuracy into this Forum.

You will be mocked incessantly for doing so

Yes like linking WMD's to a lawsuit about equal housing lending..what a stretch..

Where was there any linking?
Obama was part of the lawsuit. Fact. Acorn was going to make massive protests if the suit had not been settled out of court which included Obama!
Unqualified loans backed by Fannie/Freddie were supported by investors buying these loans KNOWING that this is what would happen:
Oct. 23,2008 (Bloomberg) --
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have an ``effective'' federal guarantee, not the "full faith and credit'' of the U.S. government, Federal Housing Finance Agency Director James Lockhart said after the hearing. That does give them effectively a guarantee of the U.S. government.''
Lockhart s Fannie Freddie Guarantee Remarks Stir Up Confusion - Bloomberg

So we had linkage between "flipping-homes-bad-loans" backed by Fannie/Freddie and coupled with the effort Bush tried to get the Democrat Congress to rein in Fannie/Freddie... Bush was laughed at and admonished by Franks/Dodd... facts:

Many prominent Democrats, including House Finance Chairman Barney Frank, opposed any legislation correcting the risks posed by GSEs.
* House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) criticized the President's warning saying:
"these two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis .
The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms
of affordable housing."...
(Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," New York Times, 9/11/03)

* Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd also ignored the President's warnings and called
on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position.
Eric Dash,"Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," NYT, 8/11/07)
Barney Frank s Fannie and Freddie Muddle - US News

So over the years these subprime loans came to a head on 9/18/2008 again NOT mentioned widely by the biased MSM and I'm sure YOU've NEVER heard about this!

Now as far as WMDs here are the FACTS that Bill Clinton FOUND to sign the 1998 Liberation (LIBERATION folks NOT INVASION!!) of Iraq:

"..deny Iraq the capacity to develop WMD".Bill Clinton,1998
"..most brutal dictators of Century", Biden,1998
"Iraq compliance with Resolution 687 becomes shell game"..Daschle 1998
"He will use those WMDs again,as he has ten times since 1983" ..Berger Clinton Ntl. Secur. Advr 1998
"posed by Iraq's refusal to end its WMD programs" Levin 1998
"Saddam has ignored the mandate of the UN and is building WMDs and the means to deliver.." Levin 2002
"Saddam has been engaged in development of WMDs which is a threat.."Pelosi 1998
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building WMDS.."Albright 1999
"Saddam to refine delivery systems, that will threaten the US..."Graham 2001
"Compelling evidence Saddam has WMDs production storage capacity.." Graham 2002
"Iraq's search for WMDs ...will continue as long as Saddam's in power"..Gore 2002
"Saddam retains stockpiles of WMDS.."Byrd 2002
"..give President authority to use force..to disarm Saddam because..threat our security"..Kerry 2002
"Without a question, we need to disarm Saddam. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an
oppressive regime .... to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
.... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...."Kerry , Jan. 23. 2003
"..Unmistakable evidence Saddam developing nuclear weapons next 5 years.."Rockefeller 2002
"Violated over 11 years every UN resolution demanding disarming WMDs.."Waxman 2002
"He's given aid,comfort & sanctuary to al Qaeda members..and keep developing WMDs"..Hillary 2002
“So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interest of our nation. A vote for it is
not a vote to rush to war. It is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our president.”
Hillary Clinton on October 2, 2002

Clinton signed this ACT and proceeded to bomb Iraq!
Saddam continued to defy UN, USA the rest of the world.

The 1998 Liberation of Iraq, SIGNED by CLINTON, and the Congress passed Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502)
"Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq " "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling .
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."
On December 16, 1998, President Bill Clinton mandated Operation Desert Fox, a major four-day bombing campaign on Iraqi targets.
Then in 2001 with 9/11 and anthrax attacks!

So again FACTS trump your speculations and ignorance!!!

Amen Brother.......the truth, an enemy of the left since time began.....

 

[Moonglow]

This is what the BANKS CHOSE TO DO, and NOT what the government forced them to do.

Wrong, this is what the Clinton Administration chose to do...

Bill Clinton s drive to increase homeownership went way too far - BusinessWeek

This was the birth of Zero Down Payment mentality...

Then WHY didn't this fiasco and wall street crash and the biggest Housing boom ever happen in the 90's, after 1994?

Why did President Bush push the banks to put 5 million more poor people in to homes? Why did he have this housing initiative for the poor?

When 10% or less of the loans that went belly up during the housing bust were in CRA areas, then the CRA areas were NOT the loans that CAUSED this crisis.... I don't think there is any way around theowl/GVW/Tootall.... it is PLAIN AS DAY, that whatever happened in 1994 with forcing the banks to NOT red line areas, but to qualify the individual not qualify the area for loans....is NOT what caused the Wall Street crash and the housing bust.

I would not be "making excuses" for those banks, you would be on the wrong side of the issue.

Nope tootall! see below
BESIDES, even the Banks are NOT CLAIMING that red lining and the CRA /bank lawsuit caused this housing boom, derivative, insurance fiasco.....

Housing starts do not happen over night, it takes years to build it up...

The machine for housing starts is enormous, the boom did begin in the 90's look it up...

http://www.macrotrends.net/1314/housing-starts-historical-chart

Yes it was good times for us construction workers....

 

[Care4all]

CARE4ALL no response?

I just saw your response.... 14 years is a long time....

I believe the reneging of of Glass Stegall act is what pushed it over the edge in the 2000's....

And illegal RED LINING was banks not giving loans to people who lived in specific areas, REGARDLESS of their ability to pay for such loan....

The government lawsuit did NOT push them in to loaning to every person on this earth with a SUBPRIME balloon loan, with no verification of any kind....

The banks CHOSE to do such, then came to the GSE's to get them to buy these loans from them....

our gvt was complicit, no doubt..... but the Banks created the mess....those 10% of the loans in RED LINING districts that they once black balled did NOT bring our nation to its knees, the other 90% was the bulk of it....

And it's not even that people could not afford their home loans, but these subprime adjustable loans and balloon loans came to a halt and all those homeowners that were told by the mortgage brokers that they could easily refinance when the loan ballooned or the interest rate became too high were fooled....when houses stopped going up in price and started to drop, these people COULD NOT get refinanced as they were told by the bankers they easily could....

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Guess who led that lawsuit. You got it, barrack hussein obama.

In 1994, a class-action lawsuit was filed against CitiBank, demanding that loans be made to poor people, and others who could not show proof that they could pay the money back. The basis of the lawsuit was the 14th Amendment, which requires 'fair and equal' treatment for all citizens.

The legal theory was that failing to loan money to poor/indigent/unemployed people was, on it's face, a discriminatory act by lending institutions. Thousands of loans were processed, and of course many went into default, in part explaining why we're in the financial mess we're in.

Now, it's easy for some people to point the finger of blame at Pres. Geo. Bush for this crisis, because he's sitting in the hot seat.

What many people don't know is the suit was filed during the Clinton Administration.



"He wrote lots of substantial memos, but he didn't try any cases," said Judson Miner, a partner in the firm who was Obama's boss.

Obama represented Calvin Roberson in a 1994 lawsuit against Citibank, charging the bank systematically denied mortgages to African-American applicants and others from minority neighborhoods.

"I don't recall him ever standing up and giving an impassioned speech — it was a lot of behind-the-scenes stuff," said Fay Clayton, the lead lawyer on the case.

"He was the very junior lawyer in that case," said attorney Robert Kriss. "He had just graduated from law school. I don't recall him being in court at any time I was there. I was the lead lawyer for Citibank and he was not very visible to me."

Kriss, Clayton and every other co-counsel and opposing counsel interviewed for this story praised Obama's legal ability, temperament and everything about his courtroom demeanor, even though, they agree, he didn't say much in the courtroom.

On Feb. 23, 1995, Obama billed 2 hours and 50 minutes for an appearance before Judge Ruben Castillo on behalf of his client, and also for reviewing some documents in advance of a deposition. That cost Citibank — which ultimately had to pay the winning side's fees — $467 at Obama's hourly rate of $165.

Fact Check Obama Had More to Do With 2008 Economic Meltdown Than Bush Ever Did The Gateway Pundit

Liberals folks. They are dangerous tools of the socialists. They are all liars. They are all ignorant as hell. They are all utter wastes of time.

They still think Booooosh lied about wmds, regardless of the fact that Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act for wmds and Boooooooosh enforced that policy.

They are all morons. Especially the redean loser.

lol, fact check?

snopes.com Obama Required Banks to Lend Money to Poor People

Mostly false.

Once again, left leaning snopes comes to the rescue.

Are you saying that Snopes got this wrong? You have a different set of facts?

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

This is what the BANKS CHOSE TO DO, and NOT what the government forced them to do.

Wrong, this is what the Clinton Administration chose to do...

Bill Clinton s drive to increase homeownership went way too far - BusinessWeek

This was the birth of Zero Down Payment mentality...

Then WHY didn't this fiasco and wall street crash and the biggest Housing boom ever happen in the 90's, after 1994?

Why did President Bush push the banks to put 5 million more poor people in to homes? Why did he have this housing initiative for the poor?

When 10% or less of the loans that went belly up during the housing bust were in CRA areas, then the CRA areas were NOT the loans that CAUSED this crisis.... I don't think there is any way around theowl/GVW/Tootall.... it is PLAIN AS DAY, that whatever happened in 1994 with forcing the banks to NOT red line areas, but to qualify the individual not qualify the area for loans....is NOT what caused the Wall Street crash and the housing bust.

I would not be "making excuses" for those banks, you would be on the wrong side of the issue.

Nope tootall! see below
BESIDES, even the Banks are NOT CLAIMING that red lining and the CRA /bank lawsuit caused this housing boom, derivative, insurance fiasco.....

Housing starts do not happen over night, it takes years to build it up...

The machine for housing starts is enormous, the boom did begin in the 90's look it up...

http://www.macrotrends.net/1314/housing-starts-historical-chart

Trying desperately to stick this with the dems, eh?

 

[TooTall]

Guess who led that lawsuit. You got it, barrack hussein obama.

In 1994, a class-action lawsuit was filed against CitiBank, demanding that loans be made to poor people, and others who could not show proof that they could pay the money back. The basis of the lawsuit was the 14th Amendment, which requires 'fair and equal' treatment for all citizens.

The legal theory was that failing to loan money to poor/indigent/unemployed people was, on it's face, a discriminatory act by lending institutions. Thousands of loans were processed, and of course many went into default, in part explaining why we're in the financial mess we're in.

Now, it's easy for some people to point the finger of blame at Pres. Geo. Bush for this crisis, because he's sitting in the hot seat.

What many people don't know is the suit was filed during the Clinton Administration.



"He wrote lots of substantial memos, but he didn't try any cases," said Judson Miner, a partner in the firm who was Obama's boss.

Obama represented Calvin Roberson in a 1994 lawsuit against Citibank, charging the bank systematically denied mortgages to African-American applicants and others from minority neighborhoods.

"I don't recall him ever standing up and giving an impassioned speech — it was a lot of behind-the-scenes stuff," said Fay Clayton, the lead lawyer on the case.

"He was the very junior lawyer in that case," said attorney Robert Kriss. "He had just graduated from law school. I don't recall him being in court at any time I was there. I was the lead lawyer for Citibank and he was not very visible to me."

Kriss, Clayton and every other co-counsel and opposing counsel interviewed for this story praised Obama's legal ability, temperament and everything about his courtroom demeanor, even though, they agree, he didn't say much in the courtroom.

On Feb. 23, 1995, Obama billed 2 hours and 50 minutes for an appearance before Judge Ruben Castillo on behalf of his client, and also for reviewing some documents in advance of a deposition. That cost Citibank — which ultimately had to pay the winning side's fees — $467 at Obama's hourly rate of $165.

Fact Check Obama Had More to Do With 2008 Economic Meltdown Than Bush Ever Did The Gateway Pundit

Liberals folks. They are dangerous tools of the socialists. They are all liars. They are all ignorant as hell. They are all utter wastes of time.

They still think Booooosh lied about wmds, regardless of the fact that Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act for wmds and Boooooooosh enforced that policy.

They are all morons. Especially the redean loser.

lol, fact check?

snopes.com Obama Required Banks to Lend Money to Poor People

Mostly false.

Once again, left leaning snopes comes to the rescue.

Are you saying that Snopes got this wrong? You have a different set of facts?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Guess who led that lawsuit. You got it, barrack hussein obama.

In 1994, a class-action lawsuit was filed against CitiBank, demanding that loans be made to poor people, and others who could not show proof that they could pay the money back. The basis of the lawsuit was the 14th Amendment, which requires 'fair and equal' treatment for all citizens.

The legal theory was that failing to loan money to poor/indigent/unemployed people was, on it's face, a discriminatory act by lending institutions. Thousands of loans were processed, and of course many went into default, in part explaining why we're in the financial mess we're in.

Now, it's easy for some people to point the finger of blame at Pres. Geo. Bush for this crisis, because he's sitting in the hot seat.

What many people don't know is the suit was filed during the Clinton Administration.



"He wrote lots of substantial memos, but he didn't try any cases," said Judson Miner, a partner in the firm who was Obama's boss.

Obama represented Calvin Roberson in a 1994 lawsuit against Citibank, charging the bank systematically denied mortgages to African-American applicants and others from minority neighborhoods.

"I don't recall him ever standing up and giving an impassioned speech — it was a lot of behind-the-scenes stuff," said Fay Clayton, the lead lawyer on the case.

"He was the very junior lawyer in that case," said attorney Robert Kriss. "He had just graduated from law school. I don't recall him being in court at any time I was there. I was the lead lawyer for Citibank and he was not very visible to me."

Kriss, Clayton and every other co-counsel and opposing counsel interviewed for this story praised Obama's legal ability, temperament and everything about his courtroom demeanor, even though, they agree, he didn't say much in the courtroom.

On Feb. 23, 1995, Obama billed 2 hours and 50 minutes for an appearance before Judge Ruben Castillo on behalf of his client, and also for reviewing some documents in advance of a deposition. That cost Citibank — which ultimately had to pay the winning side's fees — $467 at Obama's hourly rate of $165.

Fact Check Obama Had More to Do With 2008 Economic Meltdown Than Bush Ever Did The Gateway Pundit

Liberals folks. They are dangerous tools of the socialists. They are all liars. They are all ignorant as hell. They are all utter wastes of time.

They still think Booooosh lied about wmds, regardless of the fact that Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act for wmds and Boooooooosh enforced that policy.

They are all morons. Especially the redean loser.

lol, fact check?

snopes.com Obama Required Banks to Lend Money to Poor People

Mostly false.

Mostly.... ha ha ha ha

More to the point however... he didn't assert that "Obama Required Banks to Lend Money"

 

[GWV5903]

CARE4ALL no response?

I just saw your response.... 14 years is a long time....

I believe the reneging of of Glass Stegall act is what pushed it over the edge in the 2000's....

And illegal RED LINING was banks not giving loans to people who lived in specific areas, REGARDLESS of their ability to pay for such loan....

The government lawsuit did NOT push them in to loaning to every person on this earth with a SUBPRIME balloon loan, with no verification of any kind....

The banks CHOSE to do such, then came to the GSE's to get them to buy these loans from them....

our gvt was complicit, no doubt..... but the Banks created the mess....those 10% of the loans in RED LINING districts that they once black balled did NOT bring our nation to its knees, the other 90% was the bulk of it....

And it's not even that people could not afford their home loans, but these subprime adjustable loans and balloon loans came to a halt and all those homeowners that were told by the mortgage brokers that they could easily refinance when the loan ballooned or the interest rate became too high were fooled....when houses stopped going up in price and started to drop, these people COULD NOT get refinanced as they were told by the bankers they easily could....

When the market turned it was years before it took off, the turn was mid '91. Clinton initiated FHA DPA in late '96 to boost housing starts.

Repealing Glass Steagall was a mistake and yes our POTUS Bill Clinton signed it into law.

The momentum by this time was out of control already. FHA DPA was the birth of this mentality, prior to FHA DPA Sub Prime loans were a 80 to 70 percent LTV usually 4% over par. I closed 30 year Fixed Rate loans at 12 to 13 percent in '94 and '95 with Sub Prime borrowers, but they had to have 20 to 30 percent down payments. Clinton changed all of that in '96 with FHA DPA loans. Now this type of borrower could get a loan with as little as ZERO down and have a 516 FICO score, get it?

I will tell you again, the machine to build housing is enormous and numerous manufacturers have to invest millions to supply the needs, this takes years.

The thing you miss about this is the Equal Housing Act, everybody in the industry from loan officers, realtors and new home sales people knew it was a disaster waiting to happen, but this law that was enacted due to the Civil Rights movement would not allow you to tell a borrower it was a mistake.

Our government was much more than complicit, they were responsible. I find it funny when Congress grilled Blankfein about Investment Banking. They acted like they had no idea they bet against investments they also supported, this is a clear example of their full knowledge, yet they point the finger at Wall Street. We have become a nation of Two Faced Opinions.

I liken the FHA DPA / Sub Prime Mortgage Meltdown to placing a 55 gallon drum full of jelly beans in the middle of a dozen 8 year olds and telling them they can't have any, it will be half way empty in a day and all will be gone in a week. It's human nature and we are all guilty of it to some degree.

Currently the US Taxpayer funds a similar loan program called USDA, ZERO Down low MI.

ZERO risk for a $200,000 investment, pretty cool huh?

 

[GWV5903]

Trying desperately to stick this with the dems, eh?

Trying desperately would mean I had NO FACTS or KNOWLEDGE...

But I have both, so nothing desperate about it...

Graham is clearly a Republican and his name is all over the bill...

Both parties have fault, but CRA is all Carters, FHA DPA is all Clinton's as well as Glass Steagall being repealed, by most accounts that would be a Democrats fault, but I am sure you and the rest of the Liberal Loons can find some sort of excuse for them...

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Trying desperately to stick this with the dems, eh?

Trying desperately would mean I had NO FACTS or KNOWLEDGE...

But I have both, so nothing desperate about it...

Graham is clearly a Republican and his name is all over the bill...

Both parties have fault, but CRA is all Carters, FHA DPA is all Clinton's as well as Glass Steagall being repealed, by most accounts that would be a Democrats fault, but I am sure you and the rest of the Liberal Loons can find some sort of excuse for them...

It's a CRAP thread -- just admit it already.

 

[GWV5903]

Trying desperately to stick this with the dems, eh?

Trying desperately would mean I had NO FACTS or KNOWLEDGE...

But I have both, so nothing desperate about it...

Graham is clearly a Republican and his name is all over the bill...

Both parties have fault, but CRA is all Carters, FHA DPA is all Clinton's as well as Glass Steagall being repealed, by most accounts that would be a Democrats fault, but I am sure you and the rest of the Liberal Loons can find some sort of excuse for them...

It's a CRAP thread -- just admit it already.

See I knew you would find an excuse...

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Trying desperately to stick this with the dems, eh?

Trying desperately would mean I had NO FACTS or KNOWLEDGE...

But I have both, so nothing desperate about it...

Graham is clearly a Republican and his name is all over the bill...

Both parties have fault, but CRA is all Carters, FHA DPA is all Clinton's as well as Glass Steagall being repealed, by most accounts that would be a Democrats fault, but I am sure you and the rest of the Liberal Loons can find some sort of excuse for them...

It's a CRAP thread -- just admit it already.

See I knew you would find an excuse...

Look, if you're completely out in left field on an issue and you get caught in the headlights, just admit it and move on.

Trying to put it off on me, like I'm the one with his head up his ass, will not save you OR the thread.