Killing us with compassion

TO:David,
HERE is the REAL reason we're in the financial mess...send a love letter to YOUR corrupt DEMOCRAT Rep, Barney Frank who stated not long ago ON CAMERA, that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were SOUND and that MORE $$$ needed to be given to low income families with little or no down payment.
Stop watching the Liberal Propaganda Ministry news on CNN, NBC, CBS, and ABC and take a night course in Economics 101.

How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis: Kevin Hassett

(Bloomberg)-- The financial crisis of the past year has provided a number of surprising twists and turns, and from Bear Stearns Cos. to American International Group Inc., ambiguity has been a big part of the story.

Why did Bear Stearns fail, and how does that relate to AIG? It all seems so complex.

But really, it isn't. Enough cards on this table have been turned over that the story is now clear. The economic history books will describe this episode in simple and understandable terms: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac exploded, and many bystanders were injured in the blast, some fatally.

Fannie and Freddie did this by becoming a key enabler of the mortgage crisis. They fueled Wall Street's efforts to securitize subprime loans by becoming the primary customer of all AAA-rated subprime-mortgage pools. In addition, they held an enormous portfolio of mortgages themselves.

In the times that Fannie and Freddie couldn't make the market, they became the market. Over the years, it added up to an enormous obligation. As of last June, Fannie alone owned or guaranteed more than $388 billion in high-risk mortgage investments. Their large presence created an environment within which even mortgage-backed securities assembled by others could find a ready home.

The problem was that the trillions of dollars in play were only low-risk investments if real estate prices continued to rise. Once they began to fall, the entire house of cards came down with them.

Turning Point

Take away Fannie and Freddie, or regulate them more wisely, and it's hard to imagine how these highly liquid markets would ever have emerged. This whole mess would never have happened.

It is easy to identify the historical turning point that marked the beginning of the end.

Back in 2005, Fannie and Freddie were, after years of dominating Washington, on the ropes. They were enmeshed in accounting scandals that led to turnover at the top. At one telling moment in late 2004, captured in an article by my American Enterprise Institute colleague Peter Wallison, the Securities and Exchange Comiission's chief accountant told disgraced Fannie Mae chief Franklin Raines that Fannie's position on the relevant accounting issue was not even ``on the page'' of allowable interpretations.

Then legislative momentum emerged for an attempt to create a ``world-class regulator'' that would oversee the pair more like banks, imposing strict requirements on their ability to take excessive risks. Politicians who previously had associated themselves proudly with the two accounting miscreants were less eager to be associated with them. The time was ripe.

Greenspan's Warning

The clear gravity of the situation pushed the legislation forward. Some might say the current mess couldn't be foreseen, yet in 2005 Alan Greenspan told Congress how urgent it was for it to act in the clearest possible terms: If Fannie and Freddie ``continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road,'' he said.``We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.''

What happened next was extraordinary. For the first time in history, a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill gave a regulator power to crack down, and would have required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets.

Different World

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.

That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then. Wallison wrote at the time:``It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit. The Democrats and the few Republicans who oppose portfolio limitations could not possibly do so if their constituents understood what they were doing.''

Mounds of Materials

Now that the collapse has occurred, the roadblock built by Senate Democrats in 2005 is unforgivable. Many who opposed the bill doubtlessly did so for honorable reasons. Fannie and Freddie provided mounds of materials defending their practices. Perhaps some found their propaganda convincing.

But we now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years.

Throughout his political career, Obama has gotten more than $125,000 in campaign contributions from employees and political action committees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, second only to Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman, who received more than $165,000.

Clinton, the 12th-ranked recipient of Fannie and Freddie PAC and employee contributions, has received more than $75,000 from the two enterprises and their employees. The private profit found its way back to the senators who killed the fix.

There has been a lot of talk about who is to blame for this crisis. A look back at the story of 2005 makes the answer pretty clear.

Oh, and there is one little footnote to the story that's worth keeping in mind while Democrats point fingers between now and Nov. 4: Senator John McCain was one of the three cosponsors of S.190, the bill that would have averted this mess.

mrunpc wrote:

Greenspan's Warning
The clear gravity of the situation pushed the legislation forward. Some might say the current mess couldn't be foreseen, yet in 2005 Alan Greenspan told Congress how urgent it was for it to act in the clearest possible terms: If Fannie and Freddie ``continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road,'' he said.``We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.''
What happened next was extraordinary. For the first time in history, a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill gave a regulator power to crack down, and would have required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets.
Different World
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.
That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then. Wallison wrote at the time:``It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit. The Democrats and the few Republicans who oppose portfolio limitations could not possibly do so if their constituents understood what they were doing.''
Mounds of Materials
Now that the collapse has occurred, the roadblock built by Senate Democrats in 2005 is unforgivable. Many who opposed the bill doubtlessly did so for honorable reasons. Fannie and Freddie provided mounds of materials defending their practices. Perhaps some found their propaganda convincing.
But we now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years.
Throughout his political career, Obama has gotten more than $125,000 in campaign contributions from employees and political action committees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, second only to Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman, who received more than $165,000.
Clinton, the 12th-ranked recipient of Fannie and Freddie PAC and employee contributions, has received more than $75,000 from the two enterprises and their employees. The private profit found its way back to the senators who killed the fix.
There has been a lot of talk about who is to blame for this crisis. A look back at the story of 2005 makes the answer pretty clear.
Oh, and there is one little footnote to the story that's worth keeping in mind while Democrats point fingers between now and Nov. 4: Senator John McCain was one of the three cosponsors of S.190, the bill that would have averted this mess.

Another Rushbot that believes it's all the Democrats fault.Take the blinders off! Both parties are corrupt.

Thanks for commenting on my letter.

Once upon a time American capitalism was unregulated. Not surprisingly, players at the top of the ladder figured ways to game the system and make sure their wealth and position remained unchallenged. They paid little in taxes and offered no rights or protections for either consumers or employees. They bought politicians and got their money's worth.

These were the dark days, the "robber-baron" era. Surely you've heard of it. It's in any American history book; it's not a crackpot hippie left-wing idea. "Robber-barons." Look it up.

Courageous liberals on both sides of the aisle changed all that by creating regulations that, when followed and administered by sober adults in government, kept markets as honest and healthy as they could manage.

The cry of the modern-day robber baron is, in the words of perhaps the most misunderstood president, Ronald Reagan, "government is not the solution, it's the problem."

When you're trying to steal as much as you can without interference, this is certainly true, as our current predicament shows.

My point is simply that the rush to de-regulate energy, banking, mortgages, finance, insurance, and a host of other industries is exactly the same as a pickpocket trying to get fewer police on the streets.

The way to get police off the streets if you're a purse-snatcher - and regulators off your back if you're in industry - is to starve the government by cutting taxes until basic services are cut.

And it is a right-wing idea.

David Wilensky wrote:

Thanks for commenting on my letter.
Once upon a time American capitalism was unregulated. Not surprisingly, players at the top of the ladder figured ways to game the system and make sure their wealth and position remained unchallenged. They paid little in taxes and offered no rights or protections for either consumers or employees. They bought politicians and got their money's worth.
These were the dark days, the "robber-baron" era. Surely you've heard of it. It's in any American history book; it's not a crackpot hippie left-wing idea. "Robber-barons." Look it up.
Courageous liberals on both sides of the aisle changed all that by creating regulations that, when followed and administered by sober adults in government, kept markets as honest and healthy as they could manage.
The cry of the modern-day robber baron is, in the words of perhaps the most misunderstood president, Ronald Reagan, "government is not the solution, it's the problem."
When you're trying to steal as much as you can without interference, this is certainly true, as our current predicament shows.
My point is simply that the rush to de-regulate energy, banking, mortgages, finance, insurance, and a host of other industries is exactly the same as a pickpocket trying to get fewer police on the streets.
The way to get police off the streets if you're a purse-snatcher - and regulators off your back if you're in industry - is to starve the government by cutting taxes until basic services are cut.
And it is a right-wing idea.

I hope your point isn't that they don't buy politicians today. Look at the money Frank, Dodd and Obama got from the Financial Services industry.

And no one wants to cut basic services. It's the money funnelled to La Raza and Acorn that needs to be cut.

Democrats are a joke:

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/07/top-s...

16 out of 25 were Democrats. The Top 5 were Democrats. Number 3 was the one and only Barrack Hussein Obama. No McCain to be found anywhere on the list.

Also:

Watch this 10 Minute Video (very revealing):

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Democrats have proven to be much more corrupt than anyone over the years. Democrats are absolutely Socialists. They support Social programs that require citizens to be dependent on the government.

Social is the root word in "Socialist" and "Social programs." Coincidence? Absolutely Not. The more we depend on the government, the more that we need the Democrats that advocate these Social programs. We don't need Liberal Democrats, we need to step up and take responsibility for our own inequities instead of blaming everyone else. Don't spend money that you can't pay back - It's that simple. You know what you can and can't afford. If not, you deserve to lose what you can't have in the first place but got because of the Bill Clinton administration's liberal mortgage programs that were created to allow people that can't afford something to get it anyway. Cowboy up people! Take your responsibility and stop putting the entire blame on the Government. They allowed it but, we fell into the trap. Denying that won't make it go away. Neither will the government. No matter who gets elected, we are up the creek econoimcally. Let the Democrats create more Tax funded social programs? I don't think so. Leave Iraq to bomb Pakistan? I don't think so. Finish what we started so that our children don't have to go back to finish the job. Just like the Clinton Administration did. We wouldn't even need to be in Afghanistan if King Clinton would have done the job in Bora Bora back in 1996 when we knew the exact location of Osama Bin Laden. He would rather hug him than capture him. So, don't blame the Republicans. The Congress is mostly Democrat and thing still suck.

In Barrack's own words, "Senator McCain, you are right."

Ah, the cries of partisanship. Remember, folks, your humble servant is no Democrat. I just call it like I see it.

It bears mentioning that the majority of bad mortgages did not come from Fannie and Freddie, but from the myriad smaller companies who had no incentive to be responsible.

If you really do think Democrats are more corrupt than Republicans, why don't you research Jack Abramoff and the K street project? If you really believe Republicans are more responsible than Democrats, how do you reconcile that all the regulatory changes of the last eight years were forced through by an entirely Republican House, Senate, and White House, with a Republican-leaning Supreme Court, a compliant Right-wing corporate media, and most of the people (temporarily) believing in their ideas - "voodoo economics," as the Bush Who Could Read called it?

No, no, no, my friends. We are this very day living in Republican Utopia. And you voted for it all, not me.

Tell me - do you think George W. Bush's judgment has been sound?

If Al Gore had not had the 2000 election stolen, it is likely 9/11 never would have happened. Sandy Berger handed Condi Rice a comprehensive plan to "connect the dots" that included all the elements of international law enforcement and engagement, but she didn't even look at until - when - say it with me now - 9/10/01.

I do not think George W. Bush is a deep and thoughtful thinker on par with the greats of American government. he's kind of like sarah Palin, a cypher put together by others like Dick "Bang!" Cheney to be the face of a larger machine.

War and corporate gimmies. Also, since when was being a loud and public Christian ever a virtue in American politics?

Do you believe in the constitution, which states that international treaties are the law of the land? The Geneva Conventions are the law of the land. Period. Unless you do not support and defend the Constitution.

I took an oath to do so and would defend it with my last drop of blood. And I am ashamed that we are torturing the guilty and innocent alike in secret prisons around the world, and not supporting our veterans.

Look it up: active servicemen and women are donating to Obama 6 to 1. Tell me why and win a prize!

Anyway, it's always fun to tangle with youse guys. One thing I do admire about the Republicans is that right or wrong, they fight like Hell for what they believe in. The Left could use some of their zest. Maybe then I'd register Democrat.

Peace!

David Wilensky wrote:

Ah, the cries of partisanship. Remember, folks, your humble servant is no Democrat. I just call it like I see it.
It bears mentioning that the majority of bad mortgages did not come from Fannie and Freddie, but from the myriad smaller companies who had no incentive to be responsible.
If you really do think Democrats are more corrupt than Republicans, why don't you research Jack Abramoff and the K street project? If you really believe Republicans are more responsible than Democrats, how do you reconcile that all the regulatory changes of the last eight years were forced through by an entirely Republican House, Senate, and White House, with a Republican-leaning Supreme Court, a compliant Right-wing corporate media, and most of the people (temporarily) believing in their ideas - "voodoo economics," as the Bush Who Could Read called it?
No, no, no, my friends. We are this very day living in Republican Utopia. And you voted for it all, not me.
Tell me - do you think George W. Bush's judgment has been sound?
If Al Gore had not had the 2000 election stolen, it is likely 9/11 never would have happened. Sandy Berger handed Condi Rice a comprehensive plan to "connect the dots" that included all the elements of international law enforcement and engagement, but she didn't even look at until - when - say it with me now - 9/10/01.
I do not think George W. Bush is a deep and thoughtful thinker on par with the greats of American government. he's kind of like sarah Palin, a cypher put together by others like **** "Bang!" Cheney to be the face of a larger machine.

My guess would be that you didn't read anything prior to your post and that you have no idea how our government works. Our "humble servant" does not make these types of decisions, the Congress does. If the myriad of bad mortgages came from the smaller companies, why are we "bailing out" Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? I'll answer my own question - Because, they paid lobbyist money to our wonderful Congress. That congress was led by a Democrat, Dodd who is the top recipient of that money. The top 5 recipients of that money were Democrats and 16 out of the top 25 were Democrats. Number 3 on that list was your wonderful friend, Barrack Hussein Obama. Did I mention that McCain was nowhere on the list and actually Co-sponsored S-190 in 2005 which would have averted the financial disaster that we are in right now? Because, that is a FACT!
I don't know where you get an entirely Republican White House. You must be referring to your neighbor's house. The one in Washington DC which is actually called the Capitol Building holds our predominantly Democratic Congress, who are the ones that make that decision, NOT THE PRESIDENT! The bills haven't even made it to his desk. S-190 never made it there either. Why? Because 100% of the Republicans voted for it and 0% of the Democrats did. They hold the majority and the majority rules. If Al Gore had been president, we would be speaking another language while hugging trees and terrorists. This whole mess started during the Clinton Administration when his administration passed the laws to allow "affordable Loans." What a crock of crap that is. He was too busy getting his pickle smooched to read anything and even if he did read the bill before he signed it, he's an idiot for doing so. If you can't afford it, you can't have it - Another original idea brought to you by the 1920's.
You can count on my vote for another round of "Republican Utopia." I would only vote Democrat this time if Obama knew what the heck he was doing. But, he doesn't. Please do some more research and then post. Democrats are nothing but Socialist Sleazeballs!

Sleazeballs? Half the country? Come on now. I have genuine friends who are far Right of me and we manage not to throw slime. So let's not, okay?

"Your humble servant" is me. David. It is a literary construct. Not a reference to any politician.

We're probably not going to get anywhere trying to convince each other of our rightness. So how about some common ground. We both love our country, it's constitution, and its diverse and varied population. We both clearly value free speech.

We both are likely law-abiding, even when we disagree with the law. We both vote -- and I'll say it again - I'm not a Democrat! Or a Republican! I'm a Liberal and damn proud. Democrats are wusses who bring knives to a gunfight.

I'll stand firm for what I believe in, and that includes your right to speak and assemble. We're Americans, man. We don't fear.

I'm a citizen, a proud one. I vote. I can name all nine supreme court justices. I go to political events and seek unbiased information to make up my own mind. I call my officials on the phone fairly often, let 'em know how I think they're doing. I pay my taxes. I don't shirk my civic duties.

I admire some Republicans and dislike some Democrats. I am also a human being and citizen of the larger world.

Americans were taught that that communists were not human, didn't love their children like we do. Turns out they did, and they were taught that we didn't. We are now taught the same about Muslims.

Humans are humans. Same species everywhere, same species-wide flaws and proclivities. An Iranian does not love his children less than I love mine.

Our Constitution makes our country unique, and our freedoms are glorious and worth dying for if absolutely necessary. but people are people. Most Iranians would love to come to the U.S.- and not to bomb it, either.

I have a next-door neighbor who is an evangelist and bush supporter. We agree on nothing. Yet we love each other and care for each other's children. I would trust him in an emergency and have, and he trusts me in return.

One point about Clinton: his pickle is irrelevant to me. Bush Sr. had a 30 year affair with Jennifer Fitzgerald and the press left it alone in the grand tradition which is no longer there. FDR died in his mistress' bed, if I am correct. And JFK (not a fan, by the way) was an epic womanizer.

Senator Larry Craig has promiscuous sex with men in bathrooms. Who cares?

I have never cheated on my wife - it ain't my style. But who's to judge? Thomas Jefferson schtupped his slaves. Doesn't mean he was a bad president.

Finally, you use the term socialist as if it were "child molester" or "murderer." Socialism is a philosophy of government, not an epithet. We can agree with it or not. My feeling is, socialism in its undiluted form won't work - but that does not mean our own social program don't have merit. Medicare, for example, is the most popular single Federal program ever. Before it, poor old folks died of minor causes.

Capitalism in its undiluted form fails equally miserably. Unregulated, it becomes feudalism and oligarchy.

Look, my friend, if we were to meet in public I think you'd get along with me. I never get angry and always buy the first round. When I'm at the pistol range, I always clean up my brass when I'm done and let friends have the first shot when I start.

Do you blog or right letters in the paper? I'd love to read some.

David Wilensky wrote:

Sleazeballs? Half the country? Come on now. I have genuine friends who are far Right of me and we manage not to throw slime. So let's not, okay?
"Your humble servant" is me. David. It is a literary construct. Not a reference to any politician.
We're probably not going to get anywhere trying to convince each other of our rightness. So how about some common ground. We both love our country, it's constitution, and its diverse and varied population. We both clearly value free speech.
We both are likely law-abiding, even when we disagree with the law. We both vote -- and I'll say it again - I'm not a Democrat! Or a Republican! I'm a Liberal and damn proud. Democrats are wusses who bring knives to a gunfight.
I'll stand firm for what I believe in, and that includes your right to speak and assemble. We're Americans, man. We don't fear.
I'm a citizen, a proud one. I vote. I can name all nine supreme court justices. I go to political events and seek unbiased information to make up my own mind. I call my officials on the phone fairly often, let 'em know how I think they're doing. I pay my taxes. I don't shirk my civic duties.

Americans were taught that that communists were not human, didn't love their children like we do. Turns out they did, and they were taught that we didn't. We are now taught the same about Muslims.
Humans are humans. Same species everywhere, same species-wide flaws and proclivities. An Iranian does not love his children less than I love mine.
Our Constitution makes our country unique, and our freedoms are glorious and worth dying for if absolutely necessary. but people are people. Most Iranians would love to come to the U.S.- and not to bomb it, either.

Do you blog or right letters in the paper? I'd love to read some.

There is no reasoning with that man! He has very narrow views! And he might ask you for facts because you speaking your mind is wrong in his eyes! Those aren't facts so they are not right! I've spent a great amount of time on Topix during my work hours entertaining myself by arguing with him. He rants about Democrats and Liberals ruining America and the American Soceity. He goes on and on claiming people are terrorists and racists. You telling him that you are a liberal automatically places you on his list of people who he won't understand! Oh by the way, great posts!

David Wilensky wrote:

Sleazeballs? Half the country? Come on now. I have genuine friends who are far Right of me and we manage not to throw slime. So let's not, okay?
"Your humble servant" is me. David. It is a literary construct. Not a reference to any politician.
We're probably not going to get anywhere trying to convince each other of our rightness. So how about some common ground. We both love our country, it's constitution, and its diverse and varied population. We both clearly value free speech.
We both are likely law-abiding, even when we disagree with the law. We both vote -- and I'll say it again - I'm not a Democrat! Or a Republican! I'm a Liberal and damn proud. Democrats are wusses who bring knives to a gunfight.
I'll stand firm for what I believe in, and that includes your right to speak and assemble. We're Americans, man. We don't fear.
I'm a citizen, a proud one. I vote. I can name all nine supreme court justices. I go to political events and seek unbiased information to make up my own mind. I call my officials on the phone fairly often, let 'em know how I think they're doing. I pay my taxes. I don't shirk my civic duties.
I admire some Republicans and dislike some Democrats. I am also a human being and citizen of the larger world.
Americans were taught that that communists were not human, didn't love their children like we do. Turns out they did, and they were taught that we didn't. We are now taught the same about Muslims.
Humans are humans. Same species everywhere, same species-wide flaws and proclivities. An Iranian does not love his children less than I love mine.
Our Constitution makes our country unique, and our freedoms are glorious and worth dying for if absolutely necessary. but people are people. Most Iranians would love to come to the U.S.- and not to bomb it, either.
I have a next-door neighbor who is an evangelist and bush supporter. We agree on nothing. Yet we love each other and care for each other's children. I would trust him in an emergency and have, and he trusts me in return.
One point about Clinton: his pickle is irrelevant to me. Bush Sr. had a 30 year affair with Jennifer Fitzgerald and the press left it alone in the grand tradition which is no longer there. FDR died in his mistress' bed, if I am correct. And JFK (not a fan, by the way) was an epic womanizer.
Senator Larry Craig has promiscuous sex with men in bathrooms. Who cares?
I have never cheated on my wife - it ain't my style. But who's to judge? Thomas Jefferson schtupped his slaves. Doesn't mean he was a bad president.
Finally, you use the term socialist as if it were "child molester" or "murderer." Socialism is a philosophy of government, not an epithet. We can agree with it or not. My feeling is, socialism in its undiluted form won't work - but that does not mean our own social program don't have merit. Medicare, for example, is the most popular single Federal program ever. Before it, poor old folks died of minor causes.
Capitalism in its undiluted form fails equally miserably. Unregulated, it becomes feudalism and oligarchy.
Look, my friend, if we were to meet in public I think you'd get along with me. I never get angry and always buy the first round. When I'm at the pistol range, I always clean up my brass when I'm done and let friends have the first shot when I start.
Do you blog or right letters in the paper? I'd love to read some.

I agree with your post 100%. I musst have misunderstood the first on. Sorry about that. I mean, who can argue with that logical reasoning?

Leaders of the Free World wrote:

<quoted text>
There is no reasoning with that man! He has very narrow views! And he might ask you for facts because you speaking your mind is wrong in his eyes! Those aren't facts so they are not right! I've spent a great amount of time on Topix during my work hours entertaining myself by arguing with him. He rants about Democrats and Liberals ruining America and the American Soceity. He goes on and on claiming people are terrorists and racists. You telling him that you are a liberal automatically places you on his list of people who he won't understand! Oh by the way, great posts!

You're just ticked because I called you on the carpet for pulling the race card yourself. Racism is alive and kicking in our country and is a 2 way street. When someone pulls the race card inappropriately (i.e. when they/you run out of valid points), that fuels the flames of racism and they are going one way regardless of their race. Anyone that votes based on race is an ignorant A$$ and shouldn't be allowed to vote in the first place. I have called people on the carpet for it before, even those that supported the same candidate as me. So, let's all put our color blinds on and vote for the more qualified candidate instead of the whiter or blacker candidate. Skin color does not make a President!

"Jefferson 'schtupped' his slaves" LMAO.
Interesting how we got from the bailout to 9-11 to playing the race card. I don't see the race issue factor mattering that much. I find the experience factor, patriotism and the type of people the candidates hang with far more relevant. The next 5 weeks should prove very interesting.

Tony wrote:

"Jefferson 'schtupped' his slaves" LMAO.
Interesting how we got from the bailout to 9-11 to playing the race card. I don't see the race issue factor mattering that much. I find the experience factor, patriotism and the type of people the candidates hang with far more relevant. The next 5 weeks should prove very interesting.

Exactly, I was just letting Leaders of The Free World know that it is not OK to use the race card when you run out of everything else. You can only use it when it is appropriate or it gets worn out.

Trivia:

What are the only 2 Bills that Obama sponsored that ever passed?

1. A bill that sought to promote democracy in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

2. A bill that named a post office.

That is some important stuff! That is one impressive record - NOT!

What wrote:

<quoted text>
You're just ticked because I called you on the carpet for pulling the race card yourself. Racism is alive and kicking in our country and is a 2 way street. When someone pulls the race card inappropriately (i.e. when they/you run out of valid points), that fuels the flames of racism and they are going one way regardless of their race. Anyone that votes based on race is an ignorant A$$ and shouldn't be allowed to vote in the first place. I have called people on the carpet for it before, even those that supported the same candidate as me. So, let's all put our color blinds on and vote for the more qualified candidate instead of the whiter or blacker candidate. Skin color does not make a President!

I've pulled the race card out on you once because your comments from one forum was ignorant and racist in my opinion! It must be the dumbest $hit I've read from you and from that moment I had the lowest amount of respect for you from then on! This election is not based on race or color for me you clown! Its based on who can do better for the country that I live in! Yes racist is alive in this country and if you are that blind to see that some of you comments doesn't come off as racist then you my friend are living under a rock! I don't care that you were an ex cop or have multi-race family members! That doesn't excuse the fact that you my friend is an ignorant SOB.

Leaders of the Free World wrote:

<quoted text>
I've pulled the race card out on you once because your comments from one forum was ignorant and racist in my opinion! It must be the dumbest $hit I've read from you and from that moment I had the lowest amount of respect for you from then on! This election is not based on race or color for me you clown! Its based on who can do better for the country that I live in! Yes racist is alive in this country and if you are that blind to see that some of you comments doesn't come off as racist then you my friend are living under a rock! I don't care that you were an ex cop or have multi-race family members! That doesn't excuse the fact that you my friend is an ignorant SOB.

The only time that I ever say anything that has anything to do with race is if someone pulls the race card or says something racist. I dislike racists very much regardless of their own race. Like I said, Racism is a 2 way street. I don't care if you are black or white, anyone that uses race to get ahead in any situation is a loser and an idiot.

What wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't care if you are black or white, anyone that uses race to get ahead in any situation is a loser and an idiot.

And as I much as I hate to say it but I actually agree with you on that!

Leaders of the Free World wrote:

<quoted text>
And as I much as I hate to say it but I actually agree with you on that!

Excellent! We found some common ground and if I was wrong before, I apologize. My intent is not to offend you or anyone. I am passionate about racism and quite frankly, can't stand it. As a result, Sometimes, I do jump the gun and that may have been the case with you earlier. Based on your past few posts, I think that was wrong about you and I am willing to admit it. Yes, I am sometimes wrong. So, I hope that you accept my apology for anything that I may have done to offend you, that was not my intention.

What wrote:

<quoted text>
Excellent! We found some common ground and if I was wrong before, I apologize. My intent is not to offend you or anyone. I am passionate about racism and quite frankly, can't stand it. As a result, Sometimes, I do jump the gun and that may have been the case with you earlier. Based on your past few posts, I think that was wrong about you and I am willing to admit it. Yes, I am sometimes wrong. So, I hope that you accept my apology for anything that I may have done to offend you, that was not my intention.

Please accept my apologies as well. And if I've said anything in the past to offend it was nothing personal just the heat of the moment to keep myself entertained on the job. I respect you and your views and I'd hope you respect mines too even though we don't share many. If any of my opinions has offend you in any way I apologize for that.