Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Do as I Lied, Not as I Did
If a Republican politician a) had had a sexual affair with a Fannie Mae official, b) had made a litany of abjectly idiotic statements in the years 2003, 2004, and 2005, and c) lied (TWICE, at least twice) in the years 2009 and 2010 about having never made those clumsy statements, the institutional left would have hung this individual IN EFFIGY. BUT, because it's Congressman Barney Frank who perpetrated all of these highly questionable actions, crickets....Is it any wonder why the citizenry is so overwhelmingly sick of such partisan politics/bullshit?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
Yeah, good ole Barney from MA. The dude can get away with a lot and his party winks and nods.
I'll leave it at that.
Are you making the insane proposal that republicans go after their own objectively, but democrats do not, or are you making the insane proposal the republicans are just a gentler kinder group and tend to let people off more easily, or are you making a third insane proposal that I have yet to consider?
This is the same Barney Frank who allowed a criminal enterprise to be run out of his house. You are so correct on all of this. The only reason people here are defending him is because he has a "D" after his name.
John: I see the point that we should criticize these very bad politicians regardless of their party.
Greetings, Gentlemen. Yeah, I guess that the third insane proposal is that we simply go after all of these guys with at least a semblance of equal tenacity; Greenspan (Mr. Bailout), Bush (Mr. I don't know the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite), Frank (Mr. Revisionist), Obama (Mr. I backed myself into a corner on Afghanistan), etc., etc..
Is the citizenry so overwhelmingly sick of things that never happened? Obviously you are... I'm part of the citizenry, and I most certainly am not.
Barney Frank DIDN'T have a conflict of interest ladened sexual affair with a Fannie Mae executive? He DIDN'T go on national television and lie to Larry King and those CNBC anchors? He DIDN'T utter such idiotic things as - a) "This (the situation at Fannie and Freddie) is not a dot com situation. We will not see a collapse that people see when we talk about a bubble." Face it, dude, your hero is severely compromised.
Congressman Frank September 10, 2003:......"I do think I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness that we have in OCC [Office of the Comptroller of the Currency] and OTS [Office of Thrift Supervision]. I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing."......He wanted to ROLL THE DICE, knowing full well that the American tax-payer would be on the hook if the situation deteriorated.
More from Mr. "I tried to warn everybody"......House Financial Services Committee hearing, Sept. 10, 2003:
Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.): "I worry, frankly, that there's a tension here. The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, 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 and that can withstand some of the disaster scenarios."......Correction, the previous quote is from September 25, 2003.
Will: Congressman Frank September 10, 2003... More from Mr. "I tried to warn everybody"... House Financial Services Committee hearing, Sept. 10, 2003...
Rep. Barney Frank changed his position on Fannie and Freddie in 2004.
Transcript of Youtube video...
In 2003 I didn't see a problem with Fannie and Freddie. In 2004 I did. That's why I changed my position. And again, let's be very clear, the gentleman from Texas said, "They warned us about this problem, but I wasn't concerned". I wasn't in 2003. I was in 2004.
Sorry, wd, but that video of Barney Frank saying that he was FOR home ownership for lower income families is from 2005. The clip that you provided is just another CYA/revisionist statement by the intrepid Mr. Frank.
Will: Sorry but that video of Barney Frank saying that he was FOR home ownership for lower income families is from 2005.
So the hell what? Saying he is for home ownership for lower income individuals who qualify isn't the same as not acknowledging a problem with F&F.
They can't pay a mortgage on a modest home instead of paying rent to "the man"? If they can pay rent it's conceivable that they could pay a mortgage. These things should be decided on a case-by-case basis (by examining a person's credit history). Being "lower income" shouldn't be an automatic disqualification.
Why are you so bigoted against lower income people?
WD,do you ever tire making an ass out of yourself? Will is correct on this one...Barney Frank is a greasy butt pirate.
And he lied, Russ/wd. He went on Larry King and CNBC and told the American people that he NEVER pushed for home ownership among lower income families with Fannie and Freddie - just rental. It was a frigging bald-faced lie, for Christ.
"The man"? What in the hell are you talking about? Most of the people that I know who own property and rent it out are hard-working middle-class people (one was an 80 year-old woman on O2). And they often get stiffed by these poor undifferentiated masses of yours - in money and with the apartment sometimes being trashed.
Will: Most of the people that I know who own property and rent it out are hard-working middle-class people.
OK, so we're only going by what we have personally experienced? I used to rent, and the apartment I rented was owned by a company. Therefore ZERO hard-working middle-class people own rental property (as far as my personal experience goes).
I see you have made your prejudices clear though... if you're poor it's because you're lazy and think the world owes you a living.
And Will is completely silent when it comes to Rusty's homophobic slur... even though he implied that YOU SAID IT and he was only agreeing with you! I guess since Will didn't set Rusty straight I'll have to assume Will is a homophobe too. Why else wouldn't WIll correct him?
Rusty's Friday news flash:
To go along with his falling poll numbers two things are about to bite Obama square on his ass.
"Fast and Furious"
" Solyndra"
Remember this is from the guy who broke the Anthony Weiner story.
Yes WD,Rusty is a homophobe,he's also a racist,he also hates Latins,Asian's,Russians,Bulgarians,Australians,the French,Italians,German's,Viet Namese,Koreans....wait I already mentioned Asians.Shit WD,just put me down for one of each.
Rusty, wd makes a valid point here. The butt-pirate comment was gratuitous and unrelated. When I made the point about the relationship, I didn't feel the need to elaborate about the fellow's sexual "orientation". It was the conflict of interest component of the relationship that was incriminating and not the homosexual one.
I said MOST of the people that I know. I don't live in an inner city and it may be different there. And even if it IS a company, is that it and of itself a bad thing? ALL companies are bad?......And, no, I DON'T think that ALL poor people are lazy. But, neither do I think that they're all the poor and helpless victims of some oppressive corporate cabal, either. I live in the real world, wd. And a lot of people out there know how to game the system and act irresponsibly. We, as a nation, need to be able to separate and distinguish between these 2 groups; for their sake and for the sake if the Treasury.
Rusty said: "Yes WD,Rusty is a homophobe,he's also a racist,he also hates..."
Actually, WD is a racist, as he favors discriminating against people based on skin color (a key component of racism) if it is for a "good" cause.
Sorry dmarks, but affirmative action isn't discrimination, nor is it racism. But delusions of discrimination and racism against white people is.
WD said: "Sorry dmarks, but affirmative action isn't discrimination"
You are the one who needs to be sorry. Any affirmative action policy that takes into account someone's skin color/race in hiring or promotion does engage in discrimination, and if the discrimination is based on race, it is by definition racist.
"But delusions of discrimination and racism against white people is."
Any time one of these racist policies is put into practice, such as at the University of Michigan, or the New Haven government, racism against white people does occur. That's a fact.
That you deny the obvious only shows your racism. Sorry, WD, racism is racism even if you think the people stomped on by it deserve it due to their skin color.
As for me, I am aware of what racism is, and I oppose it no matter what the skin color of the victim.
Another example of affirmative action-related racism: the recent Chicago firefighter decision.
Over the years there have been incompetant would-be firefighters who haven't been hired because they just aren't up to snuff. Both black and white.
Thanks to a lying attorney with a frivolous lawsuit, the city government has to hire the incompetant black failures and/or pay them a massive amount of money.
The incompetent white failures don't get any reward for their inferiority. This is clearly a racist policy.
Post a Comment