This man is an idiot

[Raz]

Re: This man is an idiot

So the more people hide themselves & are made ashamed of their natural desires & bodily functions, the more we'll have honesty & transparency in financial constructs?

The sexual drive is the most powerful impulse of humankind behind that of self-preservation. The unrestrained sexual impulse combined with the casting off of restraint has destroyed relationships, families and even contributed greatly to the collapse of some societies. The very same people who want advertisements using Joe Camel on billboards banned, because they say (and rightly so) it influences young people to begin smoking will also defend pornography and offer no reasons why the viewing of such wouldn't influence people to more willingly accept promiscuity or even deviancy.

Homosexuality is not "normal"; if it were none of us would be here. It is a manifestation of the corruption of our nature due to the Fall. It is not some "super-evil" behavior that's worse than certain others, but just another of the manifold afflictions that some of us are given to struggle with.

I am a believing and practicing Orthodox Christian. I don't anticipate more than 1/2 of one percent of the participants on these forums will agree with me, and I couldn't care less.

You cannot find the truth by counting noses.

[tombat1913]

Re: This man is an idiot

I have changed my mind recently on this. I thought it looked bleak, but I have been hearing a lot of rumblings from people around me. I think they are waking up. I don't know what it will take to get a third party voted in though.

This douchebag was blabbering this way in '05, re-elected in '06, market tanked in '07 and he becaomes chairman of the house financial services committee, the market ate shit in '08 and he was once again re-elected. Who the hell is waking up?

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: This man is an idiot

In Texas there are nine major aquifers that supplies a large percentage of the state's population.

Thanks for that link. As a recent Texan transplant, I enjoyed reading about Texas water.

Recently, a study by Monsanto showed that GMO corn caused damage to the liver, kidneys, and other organs of rats.

I recommend the following two videos on GMO food and on Monsanto:

• Everything you MUST KNOW About Dangerous Genetically Modified Foods (GMO)
• The World According to Monsanto.

I predict after seeing the GMO video, you will avoid GMO foods like the plague thereafter.

[Jay]

Re: This man is an idiot

This douchebag was blabbering this way in '05, re-elected in '06, market tanked in '07 and he becaomes chairman of the house financial services committee, the market ate shit in '08 and he was once again re-elected. Who the hell is waking up?

From the water cooler talk around me I have felt a different vibe recently. People do not appear nearly as sedentary as they were. They are actually willing to talk about the economy and what went wrong and who is to blame. Two years ago most people at my place of work thought I was an alien when talk came around to politics, economics or finance and I only told them a sliver of my views. Not any more, now they are all ears and other people stop to listen. That's all I got for now, but it is different.

[Raz]

Re: This man is an idiot

You have answered some points very well. You have also expended quite a bit of effort building a straw man to kick down.

"Really? What time was that? The 1960s? Please, I lived through the 1960s and nothing could be farther from the truth. A time where prejudice forced blacks to eat in the White House basement while the white people ate upstairs discussing the strides made in eliminating racial inequality? Where women routinely died due to illegal abortions? Where 57,000 of our own died in a war that we still can't explain why we were there?

I graduated High School in 1969 and I remember it well. Why do you feel the need to lecture me about racial conditions during the 1960s? Is it because I'm from the Deep South? What basis do you have to believe that I supported the Vietnam War?:confused:

As for abortion: the Socialist Workers Website (very pro-choice, for the mother, that is) cites a 1932 study that estimated 15,000 women died each year from illegal abortions or the complications thereof in the United States, although they put the actual number between 5,000 and 10,000 per year. The Alan Guttmacher Institute gives the number of abortions performed in the United States as averaging 1,500,000 per year since 1973. That means 100 little Americans have been murdered each year for every woman who died from an illegal abortion [on average] before 1973.

These little fellows might not share your view of "progress":
http://www.abortiontv.com/Pics/Abort...Trimester2.htm

I have discussed the humanity of the preborn with Jim Nickerson at great length. I stand by EVERYTHING I said to him. You are welcome to read it but I'm not going to waste my time posting it again. There are 11 posts concerning this matter as well as law and morality. http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...40660#poststop


How about the 1970s? That was the beginning of the great manufacturing decline while we gave rise to the Yuppies. We went from having the world standard in everything from telecommunication to middle class lifestyle and I completely reject sex as having anything to do with it. I do believe that we would probably agree that upper management of most of this country's corporations were expressly to blame - but they were slaves to their investors. this was a time when short term gains outweighed long term growth - and we are now experiencing what the effect of short term gain meant.

And then we roll into the 1980s - and Ronald Reagan's opening of the deficit spigot. While Jimmy Carter refused to deficit spend Ronald Reagan spent money in a way that must have made LBJ envious. Ironically, President Reagan is almost deified by the lunatic right as being a great leader when the reality is that he is largely to blame for the national debt we have today. This from a man who under his watch had our government sell weapons to a country that had declared war on us and had arguably attacked us on our soil.

How about the 1990s? George H. W. Bush? The savings and Loan Scandal? More record deficit spending?

As far as President Clinton, let's talk about sex and how much that impacted our society. Well, we learned about wagging the dog when our national security was at risk and when the administration tried to take any steps to combat terrorism, we heard about how this was a distraction. In the 1990s we also saw the dot bomb - something all the experts want to talk about - but the dot com crash was nothing compared to the telecommunications bloodbath that destroyed five times as much wealth. I love how we are often treated to how the dot com crash was all Clinton's fault when the underlying cause was the disruptive technology that eviscerated the telecommunications industry. Welcome to the Internet age, where the cost for long distance calls dropped from $.25/minute to not even metered. You better believe that a shift like that is going to spread pain far and wide.

Then we come into this millennium. I am not even going to waste my time discussing what a disaster this last decade has been - but I will reiterate that sex and morals had nothing to do with it - unless you would like to explain what sex has to do with greed and an idea that torture are acceptable American values."

What on earth does any of this have to do with what I said about lack of sexual shame? Because I said that America was far better off when the overwhelming majority could still blush you take that to mean that I thought every area of life was better back in the 1950s, 60s and 70s?:confused:That I thought the Reagan years were a Golden Age? You apparently assume the very worst of someone who touches one of your nerves.

And who said that the DotCom bubble was Clinton's fault? I've never heard that one, not even from an ignoramus like Hannity!
I have spent hours answering these questions to reasonable and friendly iTulipers and even an erascible curmudgeon like Jim Nickerson. I'l try to find those posts and hyperlink them for you, but I'm not going to spend time that I need to be working in order to answer your foaming rants about Reagan. And I have NEVER defended George W. Dumbass nor did I vote for him, so save your misplaced rant for someone who needs to hear it. I certainly don't.

During Reagan's eight years in office the Democratic Party held an average majority of 76 seats in the House of Representatives, ranging from 50 to 103. The Democrats held the "power of the purse" and I remember Tip O'Neill declaring every budget that the Reagan White House submitted to be "dead on arrival".
You want to absolve them of any responsibility or blame and dump it all on Reagan. How fair and balanced of you.
By the way, I voted for Jimmy Carter in 1976 and he turned out to be an arrogant, micromanaging failure as a chief executive.
I voted for Reagan in 1980 and again in 1984, and given the very same circumstances with the Soviet Union, the economy and tax structure, I would gladly do so again.

I have discussed all of this at length with a far more stable personality than you appear to be,
and I'm not going to waste my time doing it again.

You can read it here if you care to. There are 31 posts in the thread:

http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10169

[Raz]

Re: This man is an idiot

Edited for brevity, hopefully without changing context...



Ah, so what about when President Reagan dumped billions into the defense industry and quite literally pulled this country out of a recession that had begun at the end of the Nixon Administration? Did government involvement help industry at that time? I can site other examples, if you would like, but I felt that this one example addresses your assertion quite succinctly.




And here we agree - but I cannot reconcile how you believe that this amount of oversight was correct while also making the assertion that government should largely stay out of regulation. Who determines what is the right amount of influence and what isn't?

Your "editing for brevity" makes false assertions. Please point out where I said or implied that government regulation was unnecessary. I'm not going to attempt further conversation with you if you insist on putting words in my mouth. That is blatently dishonest.:mad:

Your assertion that the defense buildup under Reagan pulled the economy out of recession is utterly ridiculous. A collapse of inflation expectations along with a decline in interest rates from double-digits just might have had a little something to do with it! When I can spare the time I will point all of this out to you WITH FACTS. Right now I'm very tired and I've had more of your blather than I can take.

[KenD]

Re: This man is an idiot

[quote=Raz;143892]You have answered some points very well. You have also expended quite a bit of effort building a straw man to kick down.[quote]

I beg your pardon, exactly what strawman are you referring to?

I graduated High School in 1969 and I remember it well. Why do you feel the need to lecture me about racial conditions during the 1960s? Is it because I'm from the Deep South? What basis do you have to believe that I supported the Vietnam War?:confused:

Lecture you? Perish the thought. You made the statement following statement,

Beginning in the 1960s the dominant social movements in American society have sought to consider sexual matters to be of no consequence to the rest of a person's life. It was a bogus idea then and it is a bogus idea now. A person's sexual mores tend to bleed over into other areas of their life. It is not a partisan issue but one that is basic to a civil society. I don't favor the legislation of proper conduct in the bedroom, but I do believe that America in general was far better off when the overwhelming majority of her citizens still possesed a sense of shame. Barney Frank has none.

I can find no time during our lifetime when America was better or even possessed a sense of shame.

By the way, I had no idea you were from the South, but I am originally from the Boston area. If you want to point to unbridled racial hatred I believe during the busing crisis of the 1960s, Boston showed the rest of the country that the Northeast had every bit as much prejudice (if not more) than anywhere else in the country.

With all that said, I am still looking for you to tell us all when America was the place you seem to remember it as being. We grew up in almost exactly the same time period and I can't remember anything like when you believe ever existed.

As for abortion: the Socialist Workers Website (very pro-choice, for the mother, that is) cites a 1932 study that estimated 15,000 women died each year from illegal abortions or the complications thereof in the United States, although they put the actual number between 5,000 and 10,000 per year. The Alan Guttmacher Institute gives the number of abortions performed in the United States as averaging 1,500,000 per year since 1973. That means 100 little Americans have been murdered each year for every woman who died from an illegal abortion [on average] before 1973.

Good God, what a pile of crap.

These little fellows might not share your view of "progress":
http://www.abortiontv.com/Pics/Abort...Trimester2.htm

Nice.

I have discussed the humanity of the preborn with Jim Nickerson at great length. I stand by EVERYTHING I said to him. You are welcome to read it but I'm not going to waste my time posting it again. There are 11 posts concerning this matter as well as law and morality. http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php?p=140660#poststop

Thanks, I'll put this on my reading list - because nothing is more captivating than reading the talking point that AM Radio propagandists have fed to the masses being repeated.

What on earth does any of this have to do with what I said about lack of sexual shame? Because I said that America was far better off when the overwhelming majority could still blush you take that to mean that I thought every area of life was better back in the 1950s, 60s and 70s?:confused:

Yes, you said that, didn't you? And when challenged to specifically identify when that magical time was you can't seem to deliver.

Well, when was that time when America was better and people could blush?

That I thought the Reagan years were a Golden Age? You apparently assume the very worst of someone who touches one of your nerves.

Feel free to show me where I said that YOU thought the Reagan years were anything. All I did was to point out that at no point in our lifetime was America the fantasy land you would like to portray it as being with the possible exception of television.

And who said that the DotCom bubble was Clinton's fault? I've never heard that one, not even from an ignoramus like Hannity!

Here, let me show you.

I have spent hours answering these questions to reasonable and friendly iTulipers and even an erascible curmudgeon like Jim Nickerson. I'l try to find those posts and hyperlink them for you, but I'm not going to spend time that I need to be working in order to answer your foaming rants about Reagan. And I have NEVER defended George W. Dumbass nor did I vote for him, so save your misplaced rant for someone who needs to hear it. I certainly don't.

Please feel free to point out where I said you did. Is this a reading comprehension issue?

During Reagan's eight years in office the Democratic Party held an average majority of 76 seats in the House of Representatives, ranging from 50 to 103. The Democrats held the "power of the purse" and I remember Tip O'Neill declaring every budget that the Reagan White House submitted to be "dead on arrival".

And the president holds the veto pen - what's your point? Are you trying to tell us all that President Reagan didn't spend money as fast as was humanly possible or that it was the Democrats who created this deficit spending nightmare?

You want to absolve them of any responsibility or blame and dump it all on Reagan. How fair and balanced of you.

No, as I said in my first post to you, I want the blame to be assigned to those who are deserving. As far as your quoting of the term "Fair and Balanced" I prefer my news delivered to me accurately and timely and when I want some jackass's opinion, well, let's just say, they are not that hard to elicit.

By the way, I voted for Jimmy Carter in 1976 and he turned out to be an arrogant, micromanaging failure as a chief executive.

Congratulations.

I voted for Reagan in 1980 and again in 1984, and given the very same circumstances with the Soviet Union, the economy and tax structure, I would gladly do so again.

Well, it's nice of you to come out of the closet.

Let's see...

I think you've hit all of the NeoCon talking points, let's check.

Reagan defeated the Soviets by outspending them - but it was the Democrats in congress that held the purse strings, right?

The economy and tax structure - where President Reagan singlehandedly defeated the Democrats in congress (even though they had a huge majority) to dismantle the tax structure that had served this country well during it's most prosperous period in history, paving the way for the collapse we see today.

Please explain how the best economic times this country ever had coincided with a 90% tax rate on the highest tier but when that tax structure was reduced we began massive deficit spending followed by these repeated economic collapses.

I have discussed all of this at length with a far more stable personality than you appear to be, and I'm not going to waste my time doing it again.

And I have come to see you as a study in Cognitive Dissonance. Has it ever occurred to you that you hold these contradictions so close to your core beliefs that you when you regurgitate them in public you apparently don't seem to understand that you are negating your own arguments?

Y

ou can read it here if you care to. There are 31 posts in the thread:

http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10169

Oh, I'll get right on that!

Here's a tip, take it or leave it, all you are doing is presenting the same thoroughly debunked talking points that have been played out over the last several years.

You want a third party?
Guess what? I do to!

But I also want qualified candidates that actually understand the facts, can fix the problems, and will do so without having to worry if they measure up to your standards of morality. In other words, I want this country to return to what made her great - marginalizing people who think they know how to better live my life than I do. May I suggest that you embrace that concept (in a strictly manly manner, of course) before you find yourself left out of the process.

In spite of everything said here, I wish you the best. You strike me as a man who cannot comprehend the changes this world has made and is desperately praying that he can return to a time that never existed before he is passed by.

I find that to be extremely sad.

[KenD]

Re: This man is an idiot

Your "editing for brevity" makes false assertions. Please point out where I said or implied that government regulation was unnecessary. I'm not going to attempt further conversation with you if you insist on putting words in my mouth. That is blatently dishonest.:mad:

You don't even understand what you have repeatedly implied in your posts but when you are called out on them you claim I am being dishonest?

Wow, that is rich.

Your assertion that the defense buildup under Reagan pulled the economy out of recession is utterly ridiculous.

Really.

So that near two trillion dollars (1980 dollars) in increased national debt, coupled with the largest increase in military spending during a time when we were not at war had nothing to do with the economy? Did I correctly interpret what you said?

Here's quote from the undoubtedly Socialist site, Global Security.

"The Reagan defense buildup was a hallmark of his presidency, a free-spending crusade that lifted the nation's military industry out of the doldrums after the Vietnam War. He created a war-machine economy in a time of uneasy peace, with defense spending in amounts not seen since the heights of the Korean and Vietnam conflicts and sustained for longer than either of those wars."

And what effect did that have on our national debt?

According to the Treasury Department,

On January 31, 1981, the total national debt was $934 Billion. On January 31, 1989, just days after Ronald Reagan left office, the total national debt was $2.697 Trillion.

This is the man you voted for twice.

A collapse of inflation expectations along with a decline in interest rates from double-digits just might have had a little something to do with it!

Indeed. I'm assuming that you aren't suggesting that the money pumped into the economy through the defense department had nothing to do with the recovery. Or are you?

When I can spare the time I will point all of this out to you WITH FACTS.

Feel free, facts are something that I'm sure we can both appreciate.

Right now I'm very tired and I've had more of your blather than I can take.

Get some rest.

[KenD]

Re: This man is an idiot

The sexual drive is the most powerful impulse of humankind behind that of self-preservation. The unrestrained sexual impulse combined with the casting off of restraint has destroyed relationships, families and even contributed greatly to the collapse of some societies. The very same people who want advertisements using Joe Camel on billboards banned, because they say (and rightly so) it influences young people to begin smoking will also defend pornography and offer no reasons why the viewing of such wouldn't influence people to more willingly accept promiscuity or even deviancy.

And yet, you cannot cite a single credible study that backs up your assertion. I would like to point out that while you are certainly entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts.

Homosexuality is not "normal";

Normal - by your definition, of course.

Homosexuality has been documented in nature numerous times.

If this isn't behavior isn't normal why does it occur naturally in the animal kingdom?

It is a manifestation of the corruption of our nature due to the Fall.

Penguins were part of our fall?
Good to know.

It is not some "super-evil" behavior that's worse than certain others, but just another of the manifold afflictions that some of us are given to struggle with.

Like eating pork?

I am a believing and practicing Orthodox Christian.

And yet, we share the same religion.

I don't anticipate more than 1/2 of one percent of the participants on these forums will agree with me, and I couldn't care less.

You cannot find the truth by counting noses.

Truth?

And all this time the end authority on all things truth resided in this forum.

I will agree with you that popularity has nothing to do with what is right - but I take umbrage that you alone hold the one and only truth.

[Raz]

Re: This man is an idiot

[quote=KenD;143928][quote=Raz;143892]You have answered some points very well. You have also expended quite a bit of effort building a straw man to kick down.

I beg your pardon, exactly what strawman are you referring to?



Lecture you? Perish the thought. You made the statement following statement,



I can find no time during our lifetime when America was better or even possessed a sense of shame.

By the way, I had no idea you were from the South, but I am originally from the Boston area. If you want to point to unbridled racial hatred I believe during the busing crisis of the 1960s, Boston showed the rest of the country that the Northeast had every bit as much prejudice (if not more) than anywhere else in the country.

With all that said, I am still looking for you to tell us all when America was the place you seem to remember it as being. We grew up in almost exactly the same time period and I can't remember anything like when you believe ever existed.



Good God, what a pile of crap.



Nice.



[/color] Thanks, I'll put this on my reading list - because nothing is more captivating than reading the talking point that AM Radio propagandists have fed to the masses being repeated.
[/color]


Yes, you said that, didn't you? And when challenged to specifically identify when that magical time was you can't seem to deliver.

Well, when was that time when America was better and people could blush?

[/color]

Feel free to show me where I said that YOU thought the Reagan years were anything. All I did was to point out that at no point in our lifetime was America the fantasy land you would like to portray it as being with the possible exception of television.[/color]



Here, let me show you.
[/color]


Please feel free to point out where I said you did. Is this a reading comprehension issue?



And the president holds the veto pen - what's your point? Are you trying to tell us all that President Reagan didn't spend money as fast as was humanly possible or that it was the Democrats who created this deficit spending nightmare?



No, as I said in my first post to you, I want the blame to be assigned to those who are deserving. As far as your quoting of the term "Fair and Balanced" I prefer my news delivered to me accurately and timely and when I want some jackass's opinion, well, let's just say, they are not that hard to elicit.



Congratulations.
[/color]


Well, it's nice of you to come out of the closet.

Let's see...

I think you've hit all of the NeoCon talking points, let's check.

Reagan defeated the Soviets by outspending them - but it was the Democrats in congress that held the purse strings, right?[/color]

The economy and tax structure - where President Reagan singlehandedly defeated the Democrats in congress (even though they had a huge majority) to dismantle the tax structure that had served this country well during it's most prosperous period in history, paving the way for the collapse we see today.

Please explain how the best economic times this country ever had coincided with a 90% tax rate on the highest tier but when that tax structure was reduced we began massive deficit spending followed by these repeated economic collapses.



And I have come to see you as a study in Cognitive Dissonance. Has it ever occurred to you that you hold these contradictions so close to your core beliefs that you when you regurgitate them in public you apparently don't seem to understand that you are negating your own arguments?

Y

Oh, I'll get right on that!

Here's a tip, take it or leave it, all you are doing is presenting the same thoroughly debunked talking points that have been played out over the last several years.

You want a third party?
Guess what? I do to!

But I also want qualified candidates that actually understand the facts, can fix the problems, and will do so without having to worry if they measure up to your standards of morality. In other words, I want this country to return to what made her great - marginalizing people who think they know how to better live my life than I do. May I suggest that you embrace that concept (in a strictly manly manner, of course) before you find yourself left out of the process.

In spite of everything said here, I wish you the best. You strike me as a man who cannot comprehend the changes this world has made and is desperately praying that he can return to a time that never existed before he is passed by.

I find that to be extremely sad.

The straw man is the RazStraw you have made of Raz.

I never said most of the things you claim to be my opinions, nor am I a NeoCon.
I'm a Paleoconservative who detests the NeoCons and what they have done to our country.

As for my being from the South - it's just to the right of my avatar for anyone to see.

You blast off on a comprehensive rant on everything from racism to abortion to Reagan in order to show me that our country has always had problems when all I said was that society was better off when people blushed and weren't so sex-crazed.
You also seem to take that as a sign that I once belonged to the Moral Majority and wanted to see Falwell decide who was fit for public office. I prefer honest atheists who don't bash Christians to self-appointed popes like Falwell. He could preach against the "evils" of alcoholic beverages yet he practically ate himself to death. He probably didn't even know that gluttony is one of the Seven Deadly Sins. Or he didn't want to know.

I believe that our government should be Constitutional, as in "no religious test" for public office, but I also know from hard experience that a man who lacks fidelity in intimate relationships is most likely to be deficient of it in business.
That is not a religious issue since many atheists are more honest and faithful in their marriages than some Christians.

That greatest prosperity time period you refered to when the highest tax rate was 90% just happened to coincide with the aftermath of World War II when most of Europe and all of Japan was laid waste, we had most of the gold held by the central banks of the world, and oil was so cheap that the production of it had to be curtailed to keep the price above $1.00 per barrel. I'm pretty sure that those factors had something to do with it. You want to lay all of our problems at the feet of Ronald Reagan and give the Democrats a pass.
I don't find that to be fair.

So the dismemberment of more than 45,000,000 helpless little Americans since 1973 is not sad, tragic or the actual killing of the innocent and helpless, but only "a pile of crap"? I prefer to think better of you and hope that I missed your point, and if not, then I hope you will reconsider.

You're a word twister, an opinion assigner, and sad to say, in my specific case, apparently mendacious. You began these exchanges in an angry, accusative tone and it's only getting worse - on the part of both of us. Why you chose to attack me when others who posted said the same thing about Barney and his dishonesty leaves me puzzled.

I'm taking the second of your "tips" and deciding to leave it.

[KenD]

Re: This man is an idiot

[quote=Raz;143948][quote=KenD;143928]

You have answered some points very well. You have also expended quite a bit of effort building a straw man to kick down.

I never said most of the things you claim to be my opinions, nor am I a NeoCon.

As for my being from the South - it's just to the right of my avatar for anyone to see.


You are a word twister, an opinion assigner, and in my specific case, a liar.


You're not worth the time or effort.

A liar? Nice.

I think I'm going to leave you to the last word, should you elect to take it.

[Raz]

Re: This man is an idiot

[quote=KenD;143970][quote=Raz;143948]

A liar? Nice.

I think I'm going to leave you to the last word, should you elect to take it.

I'm sorry that you found this post before I was able to edit it. I apologize for calling you a liar, although I do believe that you've allowed your emotions to play a significant part in your responses to me - right from the very first one you made - causing you to assume positions on my part that are not true.

Example: "...but I cannot reconcile how you believe that this amount of oversight was correct while also making the assertion that government should largely stay out of regulation. ..."

I made no such assertion.That is not fair to me, especially when I said that the free market "will certainly do a far better job than any level of government at providing real production and real income at a far greater level of efficiency, notwithstanding the need for sufficient regulation to provide a fair and ethical business environment." Statements like the example above caused me to question your honesty.

When I told you that I made no such assertion you accused me of a "cognitive disconnect". Did you actually check what I said before you posted this reply? "You don't even understand what you have repeatedly implied in your posts but when you are called out on them you claim I am being dishonest?

Wow, that is rich."

I'll let you decide if that was fair.



I've read several of the posts you made on other threads and you seem to be not only very intelligent but reasonable and even tempered. I don't know why you came at me so hard in your first post. Perhaps we have what Strother Martin called "a failure to communicate".

You mentioned that we "share the same religion". I don't see how.
No one can be a believing Orthodox Christian and show such a cavalier attitude to the mass-murder of the preborn. That has been the clear position of the Church since the earliest times, and one upon which both Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox have always agreed. I hope that I've misread you on that point, and if so you have my apology in advance.

Back to your original post: I was unaware that Rep. Frank was speaking before the House on the subject of the Community Reinvestment Act. The poster made no mention of it and the video gave no indication of that to me. However, if that is indeed the case then why didn't you point that out to Jay who started the Thread, and to swgprop who made the first accusation that Barney Frank was corrupt?:confused: Instead you leaped on me as if I was the apologist for the worst members of the mortgage banking industry.

My knowledge of the abuses in the administartion of the CRA are clear and real, although anecdotal: I personally spoke with one of the highest officers of the second largest commercial bank in my state about this very subject back in 1993, asking him why on earth they were building two new branch offices in a run-down section of the city and was told that they had to expand the number of branches in certain areas, even where there was no likelyhood of attaining a profitable deposit base, as well as increasing the number and dollar amount of loans in those locations in order to obtain approval to expand outside of the state. He told me that the charge-offs for those loans were triple the rate of their other loans, although I don't know if he meant mortgages or other transactions such as auto or personal loans.

I'm not afraid to admit being wrong and in this case I could be because it seems that the largest part of the NINA and Liar's Loans were made by the Shadow Banks that didn't fall under the CRA. But it also seems that ARMs were needed to lower the payments for most of these CRA governed loans, just another reason for me to despise Alan Greenspan.
Yet none of this changes my opinion that Barney Frank is corrupt since he was a defender of the GSEs and Franklin Raines in the years of the worst abuses. And I certainly don't share your opinion of Reagan. But I do hope that your anger will subside enough to read the exchanes between myself and sunskyfan concerning the Soviet Threat of the late 1970s and the early 1980s.

I do wish you well, even though I suspect that our opinions and positions on some issues are simply irreconcilable.

[jtabeb]

Re: This man is an idiot

What burns my arse is the concerted attempt to blame EVERY PROBLEM on Bush and the Republicans. They certainly share more than 50% of the blame, but letting the Democrats off scott-free insures that the problems will never be fixed.

Don't worry Raz, the actions of the current administration ENSURE, that in the end, they will end up owning far more of the blame.

When Stiglitz, Johnson, Krugman et-al are hammering the Obama adminisration's economic policies, YOU know that things are going in the shitter in a hurry. (My personal observation is that the midterms are going to be a real bitch for the democrats).

You wait and see, there is enough blame to deservedly be foisted on BOTH parties (and I suspect that much more will end up on the heads of the democrats by the 2012 election).

Have patience my friend. The revolting qualities of both flavors of political denizen will be revealed in due (short) course.

As an objectivist, I am for SOUND policy and AGAINST everything else. (I see more people thinking along these lines, so do have patience, but understand that frustration is a natural emotion at this point).

I have a bit myself (frustration, that is).

[KenD]

Re: This man is an idiot

Sir,

This post shows a side of you that is very different from what I have seen here before and I respect you for having both the maturity as well as the decency to take this step.

I would like to ask that we start again and I will commit to keeping the language to the tone that you have set in this post.

I'm sorry that you found this post before I was able to edit it. I apologize for calling you a liar, although I do believe that you've allowed your emotions to play a significant part in your responses to me - right from the very first one you made - causing you to assume positions on my part that are not true.

Then let's take this opportunity to get to know each other better. I still maintain that the emotion you read into my first post was unintentional, but since you feel as though it was offensive, you have my unqualified apology.

Example: "...but I cannot reconcile how you believe that this amount of oversight was correct while also making the assertion that government should largely stay out of regulation. ..."

I made no such assertion.That is not fair to me, especially when I said that the free market "will certainly do a far better job than any level of government at providing real production and real income at a far greater level of efficiency, notwithstanding the need for sufficient regulation to provide a fair and ethical business environment." Statements like the example above caused me to question your honesty.

Fair enough.

From what I read in this exchange it appears to me that you do want government intervention as in the Glass-Steagall Act (which we both believe was a crucial piece of legislation) while also holding that the free market works.

There was a time when I believed in the free market but have since come to believe that the concept of a free market is a construct that can not and will not correctly function without constant attention - read government intervention.

I cited three examples (out of several more that I can provide) which I would appreciate hearing your opinion of instances where the free market would act in its best interest and not in the interest of society. It is my belief that people should be allowed the freedom to benefit from their work to enrich themselves but when that process is or becomes a detriment to society that freedom must be restricted.

When I told you that I made no such assertion you accused me of a "cognitive disconnect". Did you actually check what I said before you posted this reply? "You don't even understand what you have repeatedly implied in your posts but when you are called out on them you claim I am being dishonest?

Wow, that is rich."

That was harsh and uncalled for. At the same time, and while I am not excusing that statement, you had made the claim that government is not as efficient as private enterprise - something we can agree on - but the purpose of government (in my world view) is to accomplish what private enterprise cannot. The Interstate Highway system is a prime example of this. I can see no business model that would have created such an expansive transportation system and had this infrastructure been run by private business it is my belief that this country's economic growth would have been severely curtailed.

I'll let you decide if that was fair.

I will concede that without knowing you better, it was unfair. Again, you have my unqualified apology.

I've read several of the posts you made on other threads and you seem to be not only very intelligent but reasonable and even tempered. I don't know why you came at me so hard in your first post. Perhaps we have what Strother Martin called "a failure to communicate".

I am hopeful that this is the case.

You mentioned that we "share the same religion". I don't see how.

Practicing Christian, one who believes in not wearing my religion on my sleeve and unrestrained forgiveness for people who commit transgressions.

Please note - that was not a dig at you, simply a statement of my own beliefs. Let me also add, it is completely out of character for me to even mention religion and I am entirely uncomfortable having a public discussion about this topic.

No one can be a believing Orthodox Christian and show such a cavalier attitude to the mass-murder of the preborn.

Please do not confuse my complete disgust with the practice of abortion with my allowance of the procedure. While I usually shun introducing personal information on a public forum, I will be 54 years old in a couple of weeks and had my second son two years ago. To say that when my incredibly surprised wife of almost 20 years told me that we were going to have a son didn't cause me great concern would be an understatement.

I also know that many people do not have the ability to bring a child into this world. There are people with mental illness, medical issues, and even economic reasons for making what I would think is a most difficult decision. In my world view, I pity these people and believe that this is not something that should be done - but I refuse to judge them, as it is not my place. At the same time, it is their decision. If we are to accept that there is such a thing as free will, I believe that we must also accept that people will make these choices when they believe there is no alternative.

This is not the forum for this type of discussion and I am reticent to go into any discussion as to the beginning of life aspects of this subject so I will leave that alone.

That has been the clear position of the Church since the earliest times, and one upon which both Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox have always agreed. I hope that I've misread you on that point, and if so you have my apology in advance.

I would point out that both churches have made several extremely questionable decisions in the past - many of which I believe are unconscionable.

However, by way of answering your question, without mincing any words, I believe that I am not allowed the right to tell others how to run their lives, that a medical procedure is ultimately between a patient and their doctor but most importantly, any such decision is between and individual and their conscience as well as their God - my place is not to judge.

Back to your original post: I was unaware that Rep. Frank was speaking before the House on the subject of the Community Reinvestment Act. The poster made no mention of it and the video gave no indication of that to me. However, if that is indeed the case then why didn't you point that out to Jay who started the Thread, and to swgprop who made the first accusation that Barney Frank was corrupt?:confused:

I think it was your outright condemnation of Frank's lifestyle that caused me to respond to your post. To be honest with you, I was going to pass on this thread until I read your post and decided to (as you correctly point out) unfairly respond to you with the information that should have been directed at either Jay or swgprop.

Instead you leaped on me as if I was the apologist for the worst members of the mortgage banking industry.

You will note that you have posted that the CRA was involved in subprime lending and that this was causal in the housing bubble. It is this misinformation that has caused any number of people to attack the wrong segment of our population and has probably contributed to more people being incorrectly labeled as being responsible for this mess than anything I can name.

We both agree that this insanity needs to be corrected and that safeguards must be put in place to prevent another occurrence. Let's make sure that those of us who do believe this work together to make sure that this happens. Identifying good, solid, information is critical to that process.

My knowledge of the abuses in the administartion of the CRA are clear and real, although anecdotal: I personally spoke with one of the highest officers of the second largest commercial bank in my state about this very subject back in 1993, asking him why on earth they were building two new branch offices in a run-down section of the city and was told that they had to expand the number of branches in certain areas, even where there was no likelyhood of attaining a profitable deposit base, as well as increasing the number and dollar amount of loans in those locations in order to obtain approval to expand outside of the state.

This is exactly what the legislation was designed to do. In urban environments it is critical to have the necessary infrastructure in place to support the population of these areas will stay in a permanent state of decline. As the banking industry is largely supported by the government, and it is the government's function to ensure a level playing field for all, the government was forced to put pressure on the banking industry to provide services in these areas. I'm sure you understand that a location that has no banking, supermarkets, and retail establishments (etc) is heading toward abandonment and that this is not good for any of us.

He told me that the charge-offs for those loans were triple the rate of their other loans, although I don't know if he meant mortgages or other transactions such as auto or personal loans.

My information shows an entirely different picture, even though the gentleman you spoke with could have spoken reliably regarding his individual case.

Here is a pretty good article about sub-prime myths and I welcome any rebuttal to this information. Here is another interesting read, one that I believe I either posted here or picked up here. Here is one more article that deals specifically with CRA loans and has a number of additional links. If it is important to you, I can find more credible (at least what I consider credible) links that detail the fact that CRA loans are not defaulting at anything other than "average" rates but you may feel more comfortable researching this topic on your own.

I'm not afraid to admit being wrong and in this case I could be because it seems that the largest part of the NINA and Liar's Loans were made by the Shadow Banks that didn't fall under the CRA.

This is my understanding, as well. And for the record, being able to admit when you are wrong is an admirable trait, something that I also try to do when a credible case is made.

But it also seems that ARMs were needed to lower the payments for most of these CRA governed loans, just another reason for me to despise Alan Greenspan.

Can you explain why someone would want to lower an already subsidzed interest rate on a 30 year fixed rate mortgage? If what you are saying is that there were CRA customers who refinanced their properties, I would suggest that these people were no longer under the CRA umbrella and if they defaulted on their loans this would have nothing to do with the CRA program.

As far as Alan Greenspan, I suspect we are in complete agreement.

Yet none of this changes my opinion that Barney Frank is corrupt since he was a defender of the GSEs and Franklin Raines in the years of the worst abuses.

I simply don't see it. And this is a subject I would love to dive into. I believe that the function of GSEs was a valid one, even though I will admit that it is my opinion that owner occupied neighborhoods tend to be more stable than renter's neighborhoods.

And I certainly don't share your opinion of Reagan.

Apparently so. For the life of me I cannot even begin to understand why this man hasn't been held accountable for the wrongs he committed.

But I do hope that your anger will subside enough to read the exchanes between myself and sunskyfan concerning the Soviet Threat of the late 1970s and the early 1980s.

Again, this is not the forum for this topic.

With that said, I will say that when looking at the picture from the Soviet perspective, keeping in mind the carnage that was inflicted upon them during WWII, any country that builds and maintains a large military force, especially one who is willing to go to war with countries that have not attacked them, is a danger. I would go one further and suggest that the Soviet Union would have been irresponsible in the defense of their own people had they not attempted to counter our military buildup.

One more point, before I leave this topic, the collapse of the Soviet Union was well underway long before Ronald Reagan took office. What I find most alarming is that the same kind of economic collapse could very well happen to the United States. It disturbs me beyond description that there are Americans here who want this administration to fail, and the country to go with it, so that they can claim political points. I did not vote for President Obama and I am entirely less than satisfied with much of what this administration has done and is doing - but I sure as hell do not want our country to fail.

I do wish you well, even though I suspect that our opinions and positions on some issues are simply irreconcilable.

And there is nothing wrong with us holding opposing positions. In fact, contention, coupled with intelligent and polite discussion is how information is passed between the educated. At the same time, while discussions about the economy can get heated, introducing contempt for a person's choice of lifestyle (regardless of either of our personal opinions) and religion into any such debate is the functional equivalent of throwing gasoline and a match into the room and locking the door.

I come here for some of the most informed discussion (that I am aware of) regarding housing and its associated economics. While I have visited most of the other forums, I spend no time there. I do actively participate on another forum where the political discussions do become quite heated and work to keep those two on-line identities compartmentalized.

[KenD]

Re: This man is an idiot

Don't worry Raz, the actions of the current administration ENSURE, that in the end, they will end up owning far more of the blame.

As should be the case. Unfortunately, the American public has a short attention span and if the economy turns around they will consider the Obama Administration to have worked miracles. The best analysis I can find shows a "recovery" happening this year, right in time for the 2010 election.

When Stiglitz, Johnson, Krugman et-al are hammering the Obama adminisration's economic policies, YOU know that things are going in the shitter in a hurry.

Ah, but that is longer-term thinking, something that the American public doesn't handle all that well. And, for the record, I do not believe that "things are going in the shitter in a hurry" but instead the economic indicators are going to look pretty good by the end of this year, there will be another, but milder, decline in 2011 with the perception of a reasonably strong economy and vibrant economy by 2012.

Mind you, this is more one of appearances and it is a short term bandaid as opposed to actually fixing anything - but our political system rewards the person who can push the problems off onto the next owner of the hot seat and does not reward the leader who makes the difficult decisions to fix problems in the long term.

(My personal observation is that the midterms are going to be a real bitch for the democrats).

I'll take that bet.

As with any midterm election it is not unusual for the incumbent to lose seats and 2010 may very well follow that trend. However, what I expect to see is the conservative Democrats who are up for reelection be replaced so that the net gain for the Republicans will not change the texture of the Congress. I also believe that the Democrats will pick up several seats that will balance out the conservative gains and may even pick up one or more candidates switching parties.

For an educated analysis of this process, (one that has an excellent track record) may I recommend Fivethirtyeight?

You wait and see, there is enough blame to deservedly be foisted on BOTH parties (and I suspect that much more will end up on the heads of the democrats by the 2012 election).

While it's entirely too early to even call the 2010 election, unless there is a Mark Foley moment, 2012 is going to go mildly Democrat, as it looks right now.

As long as the Democrats can paint Rush Limbaugh as the voice of the Republican Party and the Tea Bag Patriots continue to run far right candidates against the Republicans, effectively splitting the conservative vote, any resurgence of a conservative movement is slim to none.

But like I said, it's still too early to call.

Have patience my friend. The revolting qualities of both flavors of political denizen will be revealed in due (short) course.

I guess, we'll see.

As an objectivist, I am for SOUND policy and AGAINST everything else. (I see more people thinking along these lines, so do have patience, but understand that frustration is a natural emotion at this point).

Please define what you consider sound policy. I cannot see anyone objecting to that term, until the particulars are voiced - and then everyone seems to come up with a different opinion of what sound policy is.

I have a bit myself (frustration, that is).

I have an enormous amount of frustration penned up, as well. And while you and I would probably agree on many things, I am equally sure we would be at odds over a great number of things.