" Wow! LOL! This is horrible.. "

" Wondering, could we just do an end run around all these bloviating senators and vote straight for Sarah Palin?

McCain will get my vote, but he concerned me earlier this week when he went for Christopher Cox's jugular over this issue of the failed banks, investment houses, and the Fannie/Freddie fiasco. While he's good on a lot of things, clearly the economy is not his strong suit. Christopher Cox has been an exemplary SEC chairman and the current economic issues are NOT due to any failure on his part. This is a situation that's been in the making for years, going back to the 90s and the Clinton administration, and that it has come to a head now, should not surprise anyone who's actually been paying attention.

The Fannie/Freddie fiasco, in fact, began with a typical liberal exploit in social engineering when politicians decided that banks should be required to make home loans available to people who normally would not qualify.

Despite all, we end the week with the DOW up close to 800 points. Earlier in the week, we had the usual liberal sycophants on here screaming, "Aren't you glad now that we didn't allow Bush to replace Social Security with private investment accounts?" or words to that effect. Yeah. If I was putting all the money into an IRA or a private investment account that I put into Social Security, I'd probably have something by the time I'm 65.

^o^
—Divest to the government or invest in Free Enterprise. I'll take the latter. "

" wow! professor clayson really hasn't learned anything. i hope his students are held to the same low academic standards he holds himself too. "

" the_bat wrote on Sep 21, 2008 10:51 AM:

The Fannie/Freddie fiasco, in fact, began with a typical liberal exploit in social engineering when politicians decided that banks should be required to make home loans available to people who normally would not qualify.

**WHAT?? This whole mess is because financiers wanted the government out of their business regarding the types of loans they could extend and investors wanted the same regarding the types of security backed loans they could trade. But, in the case of FHLMC and FNMA, those investors wanted a government safety net, flying in the face of your totally free market bs. And they got it, at taxpayer's expense. Which I don't necessarily have a beef with, outside of the fact that it's one more in an endless list of hypocrisies the GOP puts on display that the uninformed voter won't notice because somebody doesn't wear a lapel pin or two dudes wanna get married.
It's the same deregulation that led to the S&L fiasco in the 80's. Because a bunch of foot stomping lobbyists cried about how they want the government to leave them alone and let them do what they want with their money but since this stuff doesn't happen in a vacuum and affects all of us, now me, you, and Clayson get to help bail out these irresponsible clowns.
So let's see - that's a multi-trillion dollar war that appears to have reaped zero net gains, a budget crisis, a historical amount of pork barrel spending over the past eight years, and a nationwide financial center bailout. All things the taxpayer gets to cover because of the totally diligent conservative administration and their rubber stamping Congressional yes men.
Oh, and a falling dollar.
Tell me again why I should trust your conservative "values"?

Despite all, we end the week with the DOW up close to 800 points. Earlier in the week, we had the usual liberal sycophants on here screaming, "Aren't you glad now that we didn't allow Bush to replace Social Security with private investment accounts?" or words to that effect. Yeah. If I was putting all the money into an IRA or a private investment account that I put into Social Security, I'd probably have something by the time I'm 65.

**And why is the DOW closing at 800 points? Because of the bailouts. Because of what your dope friends call socialism.
Oh, but forget all that. Since I don't know what I'm talking about I'll just take the lazy, convenient way out and blame it on those scumbag libs. "

" Short of what Clayson says he likes or not, the statements he makes are correct. McCain is the republican candidate, not the conservative choice. however, he is so much closer to the middle than his unworthy counterpart. barack hussein obama is to the left of extreme liberalism. liberals claim this is what the country needs, but they know, in the disquiet of their nightmares, that barack hussein obama and his terrorist friend ayers, his racist friends like wright, his neoliberal wife who hates the US, and his muslim beliefs, that he is too left of what they claim to fight for. (Notice I said claim to fight for. liberals dont fight for anything, they fight against conservatism. handouts and welfare should be paid for by hardworking conservatives, not themselves.)

The best candidate running in this election is by far Sarah Palin. I find it hilarious that feminists are coming out saying Palin is not worthy of being a female! She is a woman who has made it on her own, she is very intelligent, and very hard working. But because she is a conservative, and attractive, she is a 'pig with lipstick.' The left is filled with hypocrits, as Clayson does an excellent job of pointing out.

Palin will be a force in politics for the next twenty years. extreme liberal women everywhere hate and envy her because she has now launched herself to a higher place then the all of them. If Palin was a liberal, she would be hailed as the next czaress. But because she is a conservative she must have slept with men to move up so far, so fast. How dare she have children and a career! how dare she not abort a downs baby! These sexists are scary.

Say no to the true sexist party and barack hussein obama. The truly worthy candidates are McCain and Palin.

our momma palin is alot better than your obama! "

" Prof. Clayson’s column this week is a sad one. It’s sad because more that anything else it proves him to be a cheap-shot artist. He provides his readers with a long list of people he doesn’t like very much and adds a snarky comment about each. By the time he is done, he has insulted about everyone including his readers. I have never understood his penchant for insulting his readers. But he does it again this week.

One odd characteristic is that he pairs a snarky comment about “liberals” with an equally snarky comment about those on the hard-right. (It’s a tough world in which no one but he is right.) He doesn’t identify some of those he insults with enough definition for anyone to figure out who he’s complaining about. And he also attributes positions to “liberals” and to those on the hard right that they’ve never held as far as I can tell. It makes debating a lot easier when you’re permitted to just make-up opponents positions.

I’d like to review just a couple of Prof. Clayson’s weird claims.

I’d challenge Prof. Clayson to prove, “you will become somewhat of a national hero if you have a lot of sex with women you won't marry. Case in point is the private lives of all the Democratic presidents for the last 70 years.” I’m reasonably familiar with American history but I’ve never heard of any historian even suggest something like that might be true.

I’d challenge him to demonstrate how some journalists consider Sarah Palin to be “trailer trash.” There has been lots of discussion of her qualifications but none that I’m aware of ever use an epithet like that. The ethical standards of the journalists seem to be higher than Prof. Clayson’s.

Prof. Clayson also says, “At least three-fourths of the Republican Party is pretending to like McCain.”

Oh, pl-eeze! I watched the Republican Convention and nobody looked like they were faking enthusiasm to me.

Surely, there was something somewhere in the world on this Sunday that could have better filled the right-hand column of The Courier. "

" Sarah Palin is the best candidate of the four? Oh, that's rich, that's the best joke I have heard in a long time. Even flip-flopping Johnny Mac is better than her. Obviously spoken by someone who hasn't listened to her speak or answer questions.

Let's put it this way. George Bush has spent 8 years taking a wrecking ball to our constitution, our economy, our military, our international partnerships, and our fiscal standing. He is, by all accounts the village idiot to top all village idiots.

Sarah Palin is the idiot's apprentice.

Does that spell it out clear enough? "

" I loved this piece! Remarkably insightful, accurate and funny! Good job!
The things I've learned from this election are:
1) The whole process is too darn long!
2) It's all about egos.
3) Things won't change much anyway because
the Farmer's Almanac didn't weigh in on
the election! "

" Clayson hit it out of the ballpark with this one!
No truer words have been spoken about this election yet!
Excellent, entertaining and correct! "

" Phil, stop being so snarky! Palin has more class in her middle finger than barack hussein obama has in his entire ideology. If Bush is the village idiot, then George Obama is living in a hut right smack in the middle of the village. barack hussein obama is his brothers keeper? Then maybe he could pass his bro a bone or two.

As far as hearing Palin speak, barack hussein without a teleprompter is the worst public speaker i have ever heard. His hardly literate ums, uhs, and ers make him so hard to listen too. Of course, he has no idea what he is saying so he has to fake it.

List one piece of legislation that barack hussein obama has authored on his own, that has passed? Come on, one??

Vote no to socialism and barack hussein obama! "

" Cross- I have no life other than criticizing Prof Clayson:
"I’d challenge Prof. Clayson to prove, “you will become somewhat of a national hero if you have a lot of sex with women you won't marry...." That would be JFK, and of course, Bill Clinton.

Phil-I want McCain to win:
wrote on Sep 21, 2008 8:21 PM:

" Sarah Palin is the best candidate of the four?..." What do you care? You're not going to vote for him no matter who he picks as VP. Are you pretending you want him to pick a better candidate so he can win? Or are you terrified that, because he picked her, they're going to win. I'd say the latter. "

" xdfred - You are right, I am not going to vote for him no matter who he picks - just like you aren't going to vote for Obama no matter how many times the Republican party shafts the working taxpayers of this nation. But his selection of Palin shows McCain does not care about the country, just his base. McCain's flip-flopping on issues shows he has lost his character, the one thing he had that made him better than Bush. Now he is just a Bush clone.

If you can look at what has gone on in this country the past 8 years and say we are better off now then in 2000, then you should vote for McCain. Of course unless you work for an oil company or Halliburton I don't know how you can say that with a clear mind or a straight face.

You can't yell "socialism" any more, cause that's where Bush/McCain has taken us this week. "

" The following person knows exactly what they are talking about. LETS GET RID OF THE REPUBICANS IN OFFICE!!!!!!!!!!



Phil wrote on Sep 21, 2008 8:21 PM:
" Sarah Palin is the best candidate of the four? Oh, that's rich, that's the best joke I have heard in a long time. Even flip-flopping Johnny Mac is better than her. Obviously spoken by someone who hasn't listened to her speak or answer questions.

Let's put it this way. George Bush has spent 8 years taking a wrecking ball to our constitution, our economy, our military, our international partnerships, and our fiscal standing. He is, by all accounts the village idiot to top all village idiots.

Sarah Palin is the idiot's apprentice.

Does that spell it out clear enough? " "

" Phil..to say that McCain doesn't care about his country is one of the dumbest things I have ever read. He has given more for his country than you or I ever will. "

" hetfield @ Sep 22, 2008 8:56 AM said, "Vote no to socialism and barack hussein obama!"

Last week, W bailed out Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac.

Last week, the private company AIG was nationalized.

This week, W wants to spend $700 billion to buy up all that bad paper held by every investment bank in the country.

Your objections to "socialism" get nothing but a horse-laugh anymore. "

" Phil, anyone who knows anything about Politics knows that McCain is anything BUT the continuation of Bush.
The two are opposites in the same party.
Duh! HELLO? "

" phil, bush bailed out freddie because the democrats who ran it into the ground cant count to ten! how much cash did barack hussein obama pocket in this deal? if it was a republican run cash cow, their would be hearings goign on right now. but no, congress is run by hypocrits.

also, why didnt you answer the question on barack hussein obama that I posed?
anyone that would vote for this person who hangs out with ayers and laughs about bombing america is a joke.

but the good guys will get the last laugh.

dont worry. be happy! the sky isnt falling! i know alot of you leftys are struggling right now with the handouts and welfare checks, but the productive ones out here are doing just fine. I know I am! "

" Hetfiled,
It is good to see that you are back on your couch spewing hatred from the cushions, while sipping on Busch Light no doubt. When will you learn that anything you type comes across as narrow-minded, nitwitted and bigoted? You represent the City of Waterloo well. I love emailing your comments to friends of mine for a good laugh. "

" Phil
wrote on Sep 22, 2008 2:40 PM:

" xdfred - You are right, I am not going to vote for him no matter who he picks - just like you aren't going to vote for Obama no matter how many times the Republican party shafts the working taxpayers of this nation..." Workers of the world, unite.... Of the two presidential candidates, which one wants to raise taxes? Obama. So who is shafting the taxpayers? BTW, the workers of the world is from Karl Marx. I don't want Chester to get all flipped out. "

" Phil:

"...If you can look at what has gone on in this country the past 8 years and say we are better off now then in 2000, then you should vote for McCain. Of course unless you work for an oil company or Halliburton I don't know how you can say that with a clear mind or a straight face...." Earth to Phil. Bush isn't running again. McCain is. Different philosophies. Different goals. Live with it. What's Obama got? (tumbleweeds rolling in the wind) "

" cross1242
wrote on Sep 22, 2008 6:27 PM:

" hetfield @ Sep 22, 2008 8:56 AM said, "Vote no to socialism and barack hussein obama!"

Last week, W bailed out Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac.

Last week, the private company AIG was nationalized.

This week, W wants to spend $700 billion to buy up all that bad paper held by every investment bank in the country.

Your objections to "socialism" get nothing but a horse-laugh anymore. "

The objections still stand. Socialism got us into this mess. Government pushed those institutions into making bad loans.

This is a quote, now. I didn't dream all this up. This is from soemone else. "..THE DEMOCRATS AND THE FINANCIAL CRISIS
Yesterday on the program I brought you a lot of information about this nonsense with Freddie Mae and Fannie Mac. Nancy Pelosi, says that the Democrats are not to blame ... not one little bit! .. for our current situation. Not only is Nancy Pelosi wrong, it would seems as though she is trying to rewrite history. If you want to thank whoever who failed to see this train wreck coming, and who decided to vote against doing anything to correct it, thank your nearest Democrat representative.
Out of all of the stories I brought you yesterday, this one was the most requested. An article on Bloomberg.com called How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis by Kevin Hassett. Here's the set up ... back in 2005, Alan Greenspan warned that Fannie and Freddie were on the path to putting our entire financial system at substantial risk. For the first time, a Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill was co-sponsored, by the way, by none other than John McCain. The bill would have required Fannie and Freddie to eliminate their investments in "risky assets" and it would have given a regulator the power to say "no way."
Here's the rest of the story from Bloomberg ...
"If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, a blizzard of terrible mortgage paper fluttered out of the Fannie and Freddie clouds, burying many of our oldest and most venerable institutions. Without their checkbooks keeping the market liquid and buying up excess supply, the market would likely have not existed.
But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter."
Now how does Barack Obama fit into this picture? Do the words Community Reinvestment Act and ACORN come to mind? How about the fact that Obama worked as a community organizer for ACORN. Yesterday I read you some quotes from leaders of so-called community groups bragging about their harassment tactics on banks aimed at getting them to make more loans to unqualified buyers. I'm sitting here waiting for some reporter to ask Obama is he was ever a part of any effort to force a bank to make loans to marginal homebuyers...." From Neil Boortz, OK Chester?

The choice now is bailouts or let them go under. "

" tim brackett...you apparently are one of his former students? It appears that the proper use of the word "to" escapes you. ;) "

" xdfred @ Sep 23, 2008 11:00 AM said, "Government pushed those institutions into making bad loans."

xdfred, I'll bet that somewhere around your home you have, in a safe place, your warranty deed to the Brooklyn Bridge.

Using Neil Boortz, another of the hard-right voices on the radio, is the same as using Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, or Glenn Beck to prove the truth of some claim. But, your quote of Boortz does show where your mindset comes from. "

" cross1242
wrote on Sep 23, 2008 1:06 PM:

" xdfred @ Sep 23, 2008 11:00 AM said, "Government pushed those institutions into making bad loans."

xdfred, I'll bet that somewhere around your home you have, in a safe place, your warranty deed to the Brooklyn Bridge...." But you can't show otherwise, can you?

".....Using Neil Boortz, another of the hard-right voices on the radio, is the same as using Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, or Glenn Beck to prove the truth of some claim. But, your quote of Boortz does show where your mindset comes from....." My quote was from Boortz. Why did you throw all the others in? I'm not proving the truth any more than you have proven any of these people have lied. Just citing a source? So tell me, what radio personalities, authors, pundits are truthful, in your opinion, that is? Who should I listen to to get the truth, as you say? "

" That's easy - NPR is radio that at least allows politicians of all stripes to come on and tell their side of the story without yelling or name calling. A lot of right wingers call it "liberal" radio, but you will hear as many conservative voices being interviewed as you will liberal ones, and often more. But they come on because they know the format allows them to speak their piece. Of course you have to be willing to listen to both sides of view and that can be very difficult for those who believe there is only one side. "

" xdfred @ Sep 23, 2008 1:42 PM asked: "So tell me, what radio personalities, authors, pundits are truthful, in your opinion, that is? Who should I listen to to get the truth, as you say?"

Obama. "

" Though this has nothing to do with the article by Clayson, I feel this week about like I did after 9/11. There is fear and anger and distrust.

In such times we make decisions that come back to haunt us. "

" Xdfred, the left and liberals are very scared of Rush's 20 million listeners.
they would rather you read naomi wolf. this liberal freak had a relationship with jesus, thinks women have every right to chose to kill new borns, set sexual harrassment claims back 20 years, and thought algore should dress like an alpha male.

she wants nothing more than to bring socialism to the US, just like barack hussein obama, ayers and the rest of the yahoos he hangs with.

sick, really sick. "

" What I am learning in the election

I am learning that xdfred gets his jollies by trying to talk down to people and really enjoys his self satisfaction of trying to impress the public with his so called knowledge. Give it a break Fred... Your boring and you sound like a broken record.

How does it feel Fred to know that my one vote will nullify your PHD vote? "

" So, apparently, liberal men like liberals, and an occasional woman who won't demand much.

What is Clayson talking about? Is this some sort of attack on gays.

Clayson calls the article "what I am learning in the election", yet he doesn't mention anything he has learned, in the article Clayson spews his typical hate.

Hey, is he trying to trick me into thinking he learned something new? Or is he lying about learning to see which blogger eats the most fodder. I'll let xdfred and hitlerfield be the judges on that one. "

" tomanderson
wrote on Sep 22, 2008 7:24 PM:

" Hetfiled,
It is good to see that you are back on your couch spewing hatred from the cushions, while sipping on Busch Light no doubt. When will you learn that anything you type comes across as narrow-minded, nitwitted and bigoted? You represent the City of Waterloo well. I love emailing your comments to friends of mine for a good laugh. "


Tomanderson, It is good to see that you are back on your couch spewing hatred from the cushions, while sipping on Colt 45 Light no doubt. When will you learn that anything you type comes across as narrow-minded, nitwitted and bigoted? You represent the City of Waterloo well. I love emailing your comments to friends of mine for a good laugh.

I can copy and paste too. "

" cross1242
wrote on Sep 23, 2008 4:25 PM:

" xdfred @ Sep 23, 2008 1:42 PM asked: "So tell me, what radio personalities, authors, pundits are truthful, in your opinion, that is? Who should I listen to to get the truth, as you say?"

Obama. " That's funny. He changes his story depending on which way the wind is blowing. But if you think listening to a guy like Obama is where you get the truth, more power to you. "

" Phil
wrote on Sep 23, 2008 4:13 PM:

" That's easy - NPR is radio that at least allows politicians of all stripes to come on and tell their side of the story..." If it were so great, don't you think NPR would have more listeners? And not need tax subsidies? No, too left wing. Next. "

" Panther88
wrote on Sep 23, 2008 5:18 PM:

" What I am learning in the election

I am learning that xdfred gets his jollies by trying to talk down to people and really enjoys his self satisfaction of trying to impress the public with his so called knowledge. Give it a break Fred... Your boring and you sound like a broken record." OK, Dr. excitement.

"...How does it feel Fred to know that my one vote will nullify your PHD vote? ...." Doesn't bother me one bit. But I seem to bother you, don't I? Face it, left wingers don't run these boards anymore. "

" NPR is only "left wing" if you are a right winger.

Why don't more folks listen to it - many do, but often for specific programs, not as an "all day" station. Also its programming is meant to fill a niche that commercial radio doesn't.

Why do people listen to Rush, Sean or Neil Boortz? Cause they need to be reassured that the views they have that their neighbors and relatives think are wacked out are "normal". That there are other folks out there thinking those things too, so they must be right. That they aren't part of some lunatic fringe.

Sorry, Rush and his copycats are the lunatic fringe and if you listen to him or Neil then you are a member as well. They don't even realize that terms like "dittoheads" are a put down. "

" phil calls rushs's audience the lunatice fringe? come on phil, he has 20 million listeners! why do so many people listen to him? because he not only knows exactly what he is talking about but he does it in such a sarcastic and outrageous way. It is hilarious how his comments about liberals everywhere makes them want to condemn what Rush says!

All the drive by media say they condemn him; all liberal candidates for any position says it; and every liberal on this board says it. Rush knows more about politics, the economy, and his audience than liberals do about ANYTHING. How he speaks down to liberals is great radio.

It is clear that he has influenced not only this election, but many in the past, and he will continue to do so for years to come.

barack hussein obama has Zero shot of winning this election. "

" hetfield - Rush does know his audience, as your writings here prove.

The rest, well let's just say if being a liar disqualifies you from reaching heaven, Rush is in deep, deep trouble.

By the way, his audience is measured at 13.5 million - still very large - but inflating the number by over 50% - well that's just one more untruth being spread. "

" Phil
wrote on Sep 24, 2008 4:51 PM:

" NPR is only "left wing" if you are a right winger.

Why don't more folks listen to it - many do, .... like "dittoheads" are a put down. " Given Rush's audience, both quantity and quality, that's a very silly statement to make. 20 million plus are wrong, and you, of course, are right in your thinking. There's a medical term and treatment for that condition. "

" Phil
wrote on Sep 25, 2008 9:26 AM:

" hetfield - Rush does know his audience, as your writings here prove.

The rest, well let's just say if being a liar disqualifies you from reaching heaven, Rush is in deep, deep trouble..." Another baseless unsubstantiated claim. What a reputation you have.

"...By the way, his audience is measured at 13.5 million - still very large - but inflating the number by over 50% - well that's just one more untruth being spread....." Depends on where you look. His sponsors know better. "

" i grew weary of rush limbaugh back in 93-94, so i can only imagine how bad he is now.
and 20 million listeners (yes, i'll use the liberal estimate provided by conservatives) is still fringe considering it is less than 10% of the u.s. population!
and anyone who would listen to limbaugh after the whole "obama is an arab" incident is not interested in facts anymore, so their arguments and beliefs mean nothing to me. not only did limbaugh tell an outright lie in his attempt to scare the voters/fire up the base, but he also mis-quoted a newspaper article to support his racist agenda. "

" I highly recommend all of you read the following article regarding the current financial bailout situation. It is written by a conservative who was a former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. It is non-partisan and will give you a much better understanding what has happened here.

http://counterpunch.org/roberts09242008.html

And here is another article from this same person giving a snapshot of our current economy and our government's financial condition.

http://counterpunch.org/roberts09162008.html

Or of course you can join hetfield and listen to Rush to get all the news you need to know about the economy. "

" Oh, so Rush lies to 20+ million every day.

and btw rush has more votes sewed up for mccain than clinton had. so, uh, er, uh(too quote barack hussein obama) see ya in 4 years.

barack is a buffoon for not wanting to get to DC> "

" hetfield @ Sep 25, 2008 1:17 PM said, "Oh, so Rush lies to 20+ million every day."

Yeah, that's a good analysis. "

" cross1242
wrote on Sep 25, 2008 3:25 PM:

" hetfield @ Sep 25, 2008 1:17 PM said, "Oh, so Rush lies to 20+ million every day."

Yeah, that's a good analysis. "

And of course 20+ million enjoy being lied to and come back for more. Or you and Phil are full of hate and envy towards Rush and others like him. I vote for the latter.
Wealth envy. It's a terrible thing. "

" ok. if rush lies to 20 million he is only trying to respond ot the lies of the liberal media and the 14 people they reach a day.

liberals will beleive only what liberals tell them to beleive.

let's examine the current mortgage crisis. There is a democratic political hack barney frank out of MA. This is what occurred in '03. per the record and source is wiki.

'In 2003, Frank opposed Bush administration and Congressional Republican efforts for the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis.[28] Under the plan a new agency would have been created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry. "These two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis," Frank said. He added, "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing'

frank and the other liberals at the time stopped Bush from seeking regulatory overhaul of this huge liberal cash cow. (Note: barack hussein obama has benefitted more from slush fund financing from Freddie than all but one politician currently in office. ) What frank was saying, and what the clinton's goal was in the 90's was allow people with little income to own homes. they tweaked the legislation to allow higher cost higher risk loans and caused this entire fiasco. at the time of Frank's quote in 2003 he went on to say that the government would never bail out freddie. This is how liberals act. they lie one second, then pass the buck and lie when things go bad. and in liberal policies, they always go bad.

so we are now buying out mortgages on consumers homes who should have never been able to purchase homes in the first place. but because liberals want everyone to be the same mindless minions as the next minion, we now are forced to bail out this mess.

liberals everywhere are slothing at the mouth to blame bush and the pubs, but the pubs are blameless. Of course the libs are going to blame wall st as well, as there are plenty of republicans who make money on wall st investments.


these are the facts of the current mortgage mess, but because liberals dont want their media reporting it, you wont read it anywhere.

now, cross, phil, and other minions will come on and say baloney. this is to be expected because the truth can easily be penciled through with enough BS babbling about.

say no to socialism and barack hussein obama. Say yes to saving our unborn!

oh and for the record, i do NOT support bailing out freddie. However it is the only answer as the dollar is already taking a beating, and consumer confidence as reported in the liberal news is waning. those liberal mindless beleive everything they read or hear in the liberal news. i for one have a wonderful home, pay my mortgage on time and make additional payments. i also have never been in a better financial position in my life.

I dont beleive everythign i read on these boards or in the liberal media.

go forth and prosper. the sky is NOT falling. "

" George Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 years.
The first six the economy was fine.
A little over one year ago:
1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3) the unemployment rate was 4.5%.
4) the DOW JONES hit a record high--14,000 +
5) American's were buying new cars,taking cruises,
vacations overseas, living large!...

But American's wanted 'CHANGE'! So, in 2006 they voted in a Democratic Congress and yes--
we got 'CHANGE' all right. In the PAST YEAR:
1) Consumer confidence has plummeted ;
2) Gasoline is now over $4 a gallon & climbing!;
3) Unemployment is up to 5.5% (a 10% increase);
4) Americans have seen their home equity drop
by $12 TRILLION DOLLARS and prices still dropping;
5) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.
6) as I write, THE DOW is probing another low~~
$2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS HAS EVAPORATED FROM THEIR STOCKS, BONDS & MUTUAL FUNDS INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS!

YES, IN 2006 AMERICA VOTED FOR CHANGE...AND WE SURE GOT IT! ....
REMEMBER THE PRESIDENT HAS NO CONTROL OVER ANY OF THESE ISSUES, ONLY CONGRESS.
AND WHAT HAS CONGRESS DONE IN THE LAST TWO YEARS? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
NOW THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT CLAIMS HE IS GOING TO REALLY GIVE US CHANGE ALONG WITH A DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS!!!!
JUST HOW MUCH MORE 'CHANGE' DO YOU THINK YOU CAN STAND? "

" chester11
wrote on SEP 21, 2008 12:23 PM:

...."**WHAT??"

Yeah, what. The Fannie/Freddie fiasco began with a piece of legislation pushed through by Democrats back in 1977 (remember Jimmy Carter?) called the "Community Reinvestment Act."

What this did was require banks to make a certain percentage of funds available for home loans to buyers who, due to income or credit history issues, would not normally qualify. Banks that failed to meet certain quotas in issuing these so called sub-prime mortgages were threatened with loosing their FDIC insurance coverage.

All in all, Democrats have blocked about 13, or so, different attempts by Republicans to reform and fix this mess.

A correspondent friend of mine summarizes this succinctly:

>FACT: The Democrats caused the mortgage crisis by mandating eased requirements for lending, even to people who had no chance of ever paying the loan back. Starting with the CRA during Jimmah Carter followed by Clinton expanding the program in 1995, the Dems are the cause of this up to their eyeballs.

>FACT: The Democrats stacked Fannie Mae Management with other Democrats who then cooked the books (FM had to settle with the SEC about this) so they could steal hundreds of millions in bonuses while Congressional Dems provided cover (Charlie Rangel , Chris Dodd , The Messiah and Biden included). Franklin Raines (now an Obama financial adviser), Jamie Gorelick (Asst AG for Janet Reno under Bill Clinton) and Jim Johnson who is also an Obama campaign staff member.

>FACT: The Democrats blocked every attempt by Republicans to investigate and reform Fannie Mae and its business practices. In fact, over 13 attempts were made to reign them in, only to be blocked every single time by Democrats. Since the Repubs never had a super majority during these times, the Dems were successful.

Sorry, but it's pretty much another Democrat Debacle. Maybe more of the Repubs should have screamed louder and harder than they did, but they were probably afraid of being branded as fascist rascists by all these self-anointed Democratic pillars of tolerance.

^o^
—You can fool all of the people some of the time. And some of the people all of the time. Evidently Democrats belong in the latter category. "

" I always find it amusing how liberals seem to think all us conservatives do all day is sit around listening to talk shows to get our marching orders and talking points.

Speaking for myself, when I do have time during the day, I might tune in and listen to Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity for a bit. I maybe get to do this more than many because my job involves a bit of drive time. The thing I don't think they understand, however, is that the reason a Rush Limbaugh or a Sean Hannity are as successful as they are is that they are simply saying what their listeners are already thinking. And they're doing it in a way that's engaging and entertaining. It's more a substantive and compelling discussion, in other words.

NPR, on the other hand, is what we listen to to get the liberal talking points. They may have some conservatives, but the ones I always seem to hear tend more to the populist side. Air America? Sorry, but that's just a bit too pathetic.

To the contrary, I get a far stronger sense that it's those on the left who are marching in lockstep. Of course they may be wearing Birkenstocks instead of jackboots, but the effect is eerily similar.

^o^
—And just because they're now getting $600 haircuts doesn't mean they don't miss those days when they still had their shoulder length maggot infested locks. Oh! Wait! That's John Edwards who gets the $600 haircuts.



^o^ "

" Good work Bat, Think, and Hetfield. Greta way to summerize the messes left wingers get this country into. Thanks.

Cross? Chester? Jeroze? Anybody? Hello......(tumbleweeds rolling in the wind) I guess you guys only like certain "facts". "

" thinkaboutit--the economy was already on its way down in 2006. economies don't tank (or boom) overnight. personally, i don't give clinton all the credit for the economic boom of the 90's because we were already coming out of the recession during the first bush's last year in office, and likewise, i'm not going to assign all the blame for our current problems to a newly democratic controlled congress.

as for the current financial crisis--blame can be assigned to both parties, but wall street is largely responsible and we all know which party is the party of big business.

and the mortgage crisis is do to predatory lending, NOT programs designed to allow home ownership for those in poverty. that is a fact, not spin! "

" Here's a nice little excerpt from the Washington Post regarding the Bipartisain meeting at the White House yesterday with Bush...

"the Democrats allowed Senator Obama to run their side of the meeting. That did not work as the meeting quickly devolved into a contentious shouting match that did not seek to craft a bipartisan solution."

There's your Democratic candidate showing his amazing leadership abilities, and showing how he will work across party lines to get problems solved. No wonder he want to go forward with the debates, as the longer he stays in Washington, the more America will see he is not ready to lead. This is the perfect oppourtunity for Obama (and McCain) to show how he can lead our nation through a major crisis. What has he done? Obama is more worried about HIS presidential debate and not working for the people who voted him in as Senator of Illinois. His job is Senator first and Presidential candidate second. "

" The most recent posts have put me in a quandary. The amount of baloney is incredible. On the other hand, it isn’t wise to pick an argument with a wack job on the street corner carrying a sign reading, “The end is nigh” and mumbling to himself. Most of what those on the hard right say are the equivalent of that guy on the street corner.

I fear that, against my better judgment, pointing out the errors in “the_bat’s” post cannot lead to anything good. Nevertheless, I shall try.

“The_bat” says, “>FACT: The Democrats caused the mortgage crisis by mandating eased requirements for lending, even to people who had no chance of ever paying the loan back. Starting with the CRA during Jimmah Carter followed by Clinton expanding the program in 1995, the Dems are the cause of this up to their eyeballs.”

ME: What “the_bat” is talking about is the Community Reinvestment Act. It’s a 1995 law that prohibits lenders from redlining. “Redlining” is the practice of lenders to refuse to loan money to certain areas in the lenders marketing area. Those areas are inevitably where the poor and minorities live. The CRA is something that those on the hard right have been yapping about ever since it was enacted. Now, they claim that the prohibition of redlining somehow caused the current bank crisis.

The real fact is that the CRA has nothing to do with the current crisis. Nothing in the CRA or any other law or regulation required the lenders to fraudulently qualify unqualified people for mortgage loans that they couldn’t possibly pay back.

This claim by the hard right is still baloney.

“The_bat” says, “>FACT: The Democrats stacked Fannie Mae Management with other Democrats who then cooked the books (FM had to settle with the SEC about this) so they could steal hundreds of millions in bonuses while Congressional Dems provided cover (Charlie Rangel , Chris Dodd , The Messiah and Biden included). Franklin Raines (now an Obama financial adviser), Jamie Gorelick (Asst AG for Janet Reno under Bill Clinton) and Jim Johnson who is also an Obama campaign staff member.”

ME: More baloney. The Directors of the Fannie Mae as well as Freddie Mac could not possibly be stacked by the Democrats. For each corporation, five of the 18 directors are appointed by the President. The remainder is elected by the stockholders.

“The_bat” says, “>FACT: The Democrats blocked every attempt by Republicans to investigate and reform Fannie Mae and its business practices. In fact, over 13 attempts were made to reign them in, only to be blocked every single time by Democrats. Since the Repubs never had a super majority during these times, the Dems were successful.”

ME: And still more baloney. From 2001 to 2006 the Republicans had control of both houses of Congress. And, it’s strictly “majority rule” in the US House of Representatives. No “super majority” is required to get anything done. And, even during the years of Republican control of the Senate, the Democrats did NOT block legislation of the Republicans by use of the filibuster rule. That is an invention of the Republicans since the Democrats took back control of the Senate. So, “the_bat” is falsely accusing the Democrats of conduct now regularly perpetrated by Senate Republicans.

This is typical argument of the hard right: if the facts aren’t in your favor, then make up the facts. "

" timbrackett
wrote on Sep 26, 2008 8:59 AM:

"...and the mortgage crisis is do to predatory lending, NOT programs designed to allow home ownership for those in poverty. that is a fact, not spin!..." OK, who in his right mind would lend money to someone that cannot show areasonable ability to pay it back? What exactly is predatory lending? Purposely making bad loans? How does that make money? No, this is nothing more than another blatant failure of politically correct socialist thinking. In my opnion, fed backed house loans should only be approved with 20% down. Private banks can do what they want, but no bailouts on bad loans.
And what has this done to the price of housing? Raised it artificially so that those who can pay, are paying more than they should because of this. To manny dollars chasing too few homes. "

" Obama has to resort to threats now?

Molon labe, Mr. Barack Hussein Obama!

http://www.nrapvf.org/news/Read.aspx?ID=11588&T=1

Cross? Chester? Jeroze? Anybody? Hello......(tumbleweeds rolling in the wind) "

" do some research on the mortgage crisis before your comments. there is not enough room here to explain, but it has nothing to do with "socialism" or providing loans to low-income earners. it has everything to do with unregulated lenders who made bad loans to cash in on the quick buck. "

" timbrackett
wrote on SEP 26, 2008 8:59 AM:

" thinkaboutit--the economy was already on its way down in 2006. economies don't tank (or boom) overnight. personally, i don't give clinton all the credit for the economic boom of the 90's because we were already coming out of the recession during the first bush's last year in office, and likewise, i'm not going to assign all the blame for our current problems to a newly democratic controlled congress.

as for the current financial crisis--blame can be assigned to both parties, but wall street is largely responsible and we all know which party is the party of big business.

and the mortgage crisis is do to predatory lending, NOT programs designed to allow home ownership for those in poverty. that is a fact, not spin! "

---> Well. After that brilliant and insightful analysis, what can I say.

We'll have to go over this one more time...

...With feeling:

The current financial crisis we now face has it's roots in a mortgage financing debacle that began with the Community Reinvestment Act otherwise known as the CRA.

This was enacted way back in 1977 when Jimmy Carter was president.

It was supposed to work by requiring banks to grant mortgage loans to sub-prime borrowers who otherwise would not qualify.

If banks failed to meet their quota of these so-called sub-prime loans, their FDIC insurance coverage would be yanked.

The CRA/Community Reinvestment Act began under a Democratic administration.

It was pushed through by a Democratic controlled
Congress.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were the vehicles that ultimately provided liquidity (funding) to the mortgage market. Fannie Mae actually goes back to FDR's "New Deal" in 1938 and for a subsequent period of about 30 years dominated or controled what's known as the secondary mortgage market.

About Fannie Mae (the Federal National Mortgage Association), Wikopedia says (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Mae):

>In 1968, to remove the activity of Fannie Mae from the annual balance sheet of the federal budget, it was converted into a private corporation.[6] Fannie Mae ceased to be the guarantor of government-issued mortgages, and that responsibility was transferred to the new Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae).

>In the late 1990's, the then CEO Franklin Raines relaxed lending standards at Fannie Mae to allow subprime borrowers to obtain loans. This was done under the direction of the Clinton Administration.

Freddie Mac (the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation), according to Wikopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freddie_Mac):

>...was created in 1970 to expand the secondary market for mortgages in the US. Along with other GSEs, Freddie Mac bought mortgages on the secondary market, pooled them, and sold them as mortgage-backed securities to investors on the open market. This secondary mortgage market increases the supply of money available for mortgages lending and increases the money available for new home purchases.

Of course I already know this stuff but am citing reference links for those too embroiled in toeing the Democratic talking points to actually do a little research.

Anyway, since the Community Reinvestment Act was passed, Republicans in Congress have attempted, actually, something like 15 times to reform this program, place safeguards, and apply some transparency to Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac which have ultimately been (ta! ta! <--trumpet fanfare) DEMOCRAT RUN bureaucracies.

EVERY SINGLE TIME... those efforts were stonewalled and blocked by Democrats.

No, the current mortgage market related financial debacle is NOT due to "predatory lending." It IS due to a Democratic controlled Congressional mandate.

Or, maybe you could say it's "predatory lending", in a sense. Only, the "predatory lenders" are Democrats who protected the program in Congress and who ran Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

So, I'll concede you that point.

Maybe.

But, I digress. While there may be a few Republicans (RINO'S of "Republicans In Name Only" & the infamous "country clubbers") implicated in this, they do not include John McCain and George Bush. No, the truth is they are just a couple of the higher profile "good guys" who tried, on more than one occasion, to do something about it.

Y'know, I hate to sound like a partisan hack on this — like so many of the Dems who love to bloviate on here — because, I'm not really a Republican. I'm an Adam Smith conservative who is entirely capable of voting for a Democrat or Independent and have, on occasion, done so. However this usually happens only in those rare incidents where the Democrat or Independent is the more conservative. The last few years, though, such birds have been increasingly rare. Meanwhile, moderate/liberal Republicans have become a bit too common. McCain, himself, is a little too far left-of-center as far as I'm concerned. But when the alternate choice is a couple of far-left ideologues like Obama and Biden, it's not much of a choice.

For a little additional perspective on how we got in this mess, I'd suggest reading Paul Gigot's article, "The Fannie Mae Gang" at <http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB121677050160675397.html>. Also Bill Mann, Seth Jayson, Tim Hanson, Nate Weisshaar and Keith Beverly's article "The People Responsible for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac" at . These are not partisan rants but, rather, succinct outlines of the current deepening crisis.

Like so many leftist/socialist/liberal fantasies, the results are never what was intended. Unfortunately there are a great many in this country who really would surrender their Liberty along with the responsibilities of being a free citizen in a free republic and a capitalist economy if it means they would no longer be accountable for their own welfare and the consequences of their own choices and actions. These people ALWAYS feel they are being lied to, manipulated, and exploited by vague nebulous powers and conspiracies they can never quite put their finger on except to point to "fat cat Republicans, capitalists, and Wall Street". Exploiting this, the Left and it's Democratic party vehicle have fomented and cultivated something that appears to be approaching a mass hysteria of class envy and mistrust that may very well bring down the country. We may or may not survive this. But, if we blithely continue to ignore the true roots of our folly, we will never be able to correct it.



—How can we expect an electorate so oblivious to reality and history to be able to wisely choose their elected leadership? "

" xdfred
wrote on SEP 26, 2008 12:20 PM:

---//snippa buncha stuffa//---

"And what has this done to the price of housing? Raised it artificially so that those who can pay, are paying more than they should because of this. To manny dollars chasing too few homes. "

Absolutely, 100% correct.

This easy availability of mortgage money has blown home prices through the roof with the net result that we see houses on the market that shouldn't bring more than $50-$60 thousand going for $150k to $200k. Or more. Little ranch bungalows in median neighborhoods in California have been going for $1.3 million. It's ridiculous!

Here's a modest proposal: How about we just don't buy a house unless we can pay cash for it? Especially in the current market. Oh, we can take out a mortgage, and it could make sense to do so, but don't buy a house for more than we actually have socked away. That way, if something happens, we lose your job or business or are disabled and can't work for some reason, we can pay the thing off.

For a long time the conventional canard held that buying your own home was a good investment. But now we see, like everything, there may be exceptions to this. One significant effect of all this is that we are probably going to see home values decline significantly. The downside of this is that people who are overly indebted in their homes are going to take a shot in the you know where. On the upside, it may put home ownership in reach of more prudent and less leveraged buyers as price adjustments occur.

Debt is an insidious beast and in a culture where accruing it has reached a degree of general acceptance, even becoming a sort of perverse status symbol, it can get way out of control. People actually boast about their credit rating which is basically the same as boasting about the length of rope they'll be allowed to have to hang themselves with. Frankly, unless there is some compelling reason to buy a house, I suspect more folks may be better off just renting or leasing and saving or investing the difference. But, of course, that requires self discipline and that's in short supply these days.

^o^
—Not a financial advisor. Just made my own mistakes and have tried to learn from them. "

" When a couple walks into ..(a lendor) and wants to buy a house without a down-payment and the loan department agrees BUT insists on an adjusting interest rate "it MAY go up in 6 years but MOST LIKELY will decrease" and makes that the only way this couple can get a mortgage to achieve their American dream of home ownership THAT is predatory lending practices. "

" Someone please tell me...if Republicans so deeply desired to reform the CRA with legislation placing safeguards, and applying some transparency to Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, why did they not accomplish that between 2000 and last year, when they controlled both the legislative and the executive?

It's a valid question. "

" the_bat @ Sep 26, 2008 2:02 PM said, "The current financial crisis we now face has it's roots in a mortgage financing debacle that began with the Community Reinvestment Act otherwise known as the CRA."

"the_bat" that claim is simply WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. The CRA prohibited redlining and had NOTHING to do with the predatory loans that directly led to the current problems. And predatory loans are when loan officers qualify people for mortgage loans that they shouldn't get. (The loan officers get commissions or bonuses on the front end.) Sometimes they qualified people by simply forging papers.

The fact that you make that claim marks you as part of the hard-right political milieu and not some Adam Smith believer. The CRA was getting at racism. The fact that the hard-right has been yapping about the CRA mostly shows that they want to restore racism rather than anything about sound finance.

You and the whole hard-right just makes up "facts" to prove what you already believe. "

" MAC @ Sep 26, 2008 3:04 PM asked, "Someone please tell me...if Republicans so deeply desired to reform the CRA with legislation placing safeguards, and applying some transparency to Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, why did they not accomplish that between 2000 and last year, when they controlled both the legislative and the executive?"

What the House Republicans are doing in the current negotiations may be instructive. They don't want any part of the bailout. What they want instead is:

(1) A new entity that guarantees payment of the mortgage loans; and

(2) Eliminating regulations on the mortgage loan business.

On #1, that's what Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac already do.

On #2, everybody else other than the House Republicans understand that the lack of regulation is what brought on this crisis. (That they are sure it will work right the next time is, as I recall, the definition of insanity.)

So, Mac, you might conclude that what Republicans like to do is TALK about "freeing up the free market," but aren't too much in favor of actually doing it. I think that's called hypocrisy. "

" DoesAnyoneCare @ Sep 26, 2008 10:26 AM said, "Here's a nice little excerpt from the Washington Post regarding the Bipartisain meeting at the White House yesterday with Bush...

"the Democrats allowed Senator Obama to run their side of the meeting. That did not work as the meeting quickly devolved into a contentious shouting match that did not seek to craft a bipartisan solution."

ME: I'd challenge you to prove that.

I went to WaPo's website and couldn't find a mention of any story like that. (But, it's always difficult to prove a negative.)

Obama was way down at the end of the table. That's not the position of someone who was trying to run the meeting.

I'm pretty sure that its SOP when in the White House that the President never defers to anyone and always presides. The pictures and tape tend to show that.

Unless you can sight WaPo's exact article, we shall all assume that you're another right winger making up facts. "

" " As an independent voter I think that all four people need to be grilled together several times so we can see how they all react to different questions and answers. Nothing scripted, all of this crap from the wacky left and the screwball right just reinforced my belief that the two party system has totally messed up this country. Can any of you so called experts from either side explain why having both canidates and their VP choices really grilled hard is a bad thing? This tit for tat crap is why this country has problems. NO PARTY HAS ALL OF THE ANSWERS! THEY BOTH ARE TOO BLAME FOR THIS MESS! " "

" the_bat--50674, mac & cross1242 provided an excellent response.
i'll give you credit for actually researching your opinions, but i still disagree.
as long as we can disagree cordially, i'll still respect your opinions. "

" 50674
wrote on Sep 26, 2008 2:35 PM:

" When a couple walks into ..(a lendor) and wants to buy a house without a down-payment and the loan department agrees BUT insists on an adjusting interest rate "it MAY go up in 6 years but MOST LIKELY will decrease" and makes that the only way this couple can get a mortgage to achieve their American dream of home ownership THAT is predatory lending practices. "

not so. this is a poor decision by the consumer. noone forced them to take the loan. you take a loan, you assume the risk. now liberals enticed them to take the loan, but of course, liberals never do anything wrong.

Cross, barack hussein obama was given the reigns to the bush meeting by the democratic leaders in hopes that he would know what to do, and new the facts. they wanted to make him appear presidential for the first time! he not only dropped the ball, but did so in such a completely inane manner as he deferred to Johnson. the left then went into disaster control mode and started yelling and the meeting broke down. Bush tried to get control, mccain simply stayed out of the fracas knowing that this meeting was over.

in reality, the left did not need to meetm, but did so as mccain was calling the shots! the left has majority of both houses, as cross maintains the right did in '03. but of course the left knows they need the house republicans to share the defeat. the bailout goes down as the largest socialist act since fdr.

of course the media spin refuses to report much of what happened as their candidate looked like a freshman senator from illinois and anything but presidential. Some would argue, well he was setting up Johnson. No, he didnt know what the current condition of the bailout was, and has zero negotitation abilities. A negotiator never loses control of the negotiation.

the proof is in the pudding, not hte baloney, cross. "

" hetfield @ Sep 28, 2008 5:44 PM said, "Cross, barack hussein obama was given the reigns to the bush meeting by the democratic leaders in hopes that he would know what to do, and new the facts. they wanted to make him appear presidential for the first time! he not only dropped the ball, but did so in such a completely inane manner as he deferred to Johnson. the left then went into disaster control mode and started yelling and the meeting broke down. Bush tried to get control, mccain simply stayed out of the fracas knowing that this meeting was over."

Hetfield, I've Googled this and can find no reference to this "story" on any news or other source. Until you produce a legitimate citation, I shall assume that this is another right-wing fiction job. "

" well hetfield, poor decision or not it is STILL predatory lendding practices. I did use a very specific example of a financial institution (which the Courier deleted) because they are notorious for this very practice. Just because you don't believe it (note the correct spelling of believe and try to use it in your futute posts instead of your constant "beleive") does not make it not so. You are now arguing just to argue by accusing me of lying because you disagree. You are as credible as the loan department at the (deleted) financial institution. Go P*** up some other tree, would you? "

" and before you make reference to my TYPO it was meant to be *future*. "

" What I learned from this election: Obama's money is dirty

http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/Obama_fundraising_illegal/2008/09/29/135718.html

OK, so why won't Obama disclose contributers like McCain does? And isn't it amazing the the bulk of these contributions are at $200? "

" Have charges been brought against Obama based on the allegations, conjectures and innuendos made by this conservative Republican *activist*? What would one expect from any Timmerman perspective? "

" 50674 wrote on Sep 30, 2008 1:36 PM:

" Have charges been brought against Obama based on the allegations, conjectures and innuendos made by this conservative Republican *activist*? What would one expect from any Timmerman perspective? " Because all the left wing quacks will cry racism, that's why. Just like when the mayor of Detroit got busted. "

" Obama, defender of freedom:

http://www.thecabin.net/stories/100108/opi_1001080019.shtml

http://www.newsmax.com/politics/Obama_Wants_NRA_Ads_Banne/2008/09/27/135118.html

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/6034

Gotta love them democrats. "

" I read the buckeyesfirearms "quote" their headline takes a concept totally out of it context and injects their own slant to it. You are a real winner there xdfred. As a gun-owner I don't worry one bit about losing my rights as a gun owner. But boy, I worry about people of your mindset out running free and unsupervised. "

" Newsmax is typical Timmmerman and has as much credibility as well xdfred. The cabin.net has a "story" and the truth of that "story" is refuted right below that "story". But keep reading xdfred someday you may find some facts to back your rhetoric but I'm not betting on it. "