ican711nm
 
  1  
Sat 12 Jun, 2010 05:06 pm
@rabel22,
Bush's tried multiple times to convince his Republican majority in Congress to fix Fan&Fred before they caused too much of a disaster to stop. Bush failed.

Subsequently, Bush's tried multiple times to convince the Democrat majority in Congress to fix Fan&Fred before they caused far more of a disaster to stop. Bush failed.

Quote:
PARTIAL HISTORY OF THE DECLINE OF THE USA's FINANCE INDUSTRY

1977
President Carter signs into law CRA (i.e., Community Investment Act). Carter
Mandates banks invest in poor urban areas.

1995
Clinton changes CRA to require banks provide mortgages to their poorer communities.

2001
*04/30""Bush declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is a potential large financial problem because financial trouble of a large "GSE (i.e., Government Sponsored Enterprise) could cause strong repercussions in financial markets."

2003
*01/22""Freddie Mac announces it must restate financial results for the previous 3 years due to earnings report errors.
*06/11""Freddie Mac is the subject of federal securities and criminal investigations.

*10/29""Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.

2004
*06/16""Samuel Bodman, Deputy Secretary of Treasury, repeats Bush Administration call "for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System.
*10/06""Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae CEO, testifies before the House Financial Services Committee, "assets are so riskless that the capital for holding them should be under two percent. "

2006

*11/07""Democrats win majorities in both houses of Congress. The U.S. economy is growing at about 3 percent, unemployment is at 4.5 percent, and inflation under 2 percent.

2007
*08/09"" President Bush requests Congress pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
*12/06"" President Bush warns Congress of need to pass legislation reforming GSEs.


2008
*03/14""J.P. Morgan and the Federal Reserve recognize extent of Bear's toxic assets, including sub-prime mortgages, and credit default swaps, and interconnection with other banks.

*09/15""Lehman Brothers officially collapses, the government does not intervene, and panic occurs, triggering a big Dow decline.
*09/16""Nancy Pelosi is asked if the Democrats bear some responsibility for the current crisis on Wall Street. Pelosi answers, "No. "
*09/17""Harry Reid regarding the economic collapse: "No one knows what to do."
*09/18""About 11:00 AM, the Federal Reserve noticed a tremendous drawdown of money market accounts in the United States within two hours, equal to about $550. Treasury puts $105 billion in the system, but quickly realizes it cannot correct the problem.
*09/18""Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke ask Congress for the required funds""and unprecedented authority to bail out the entire financial system. They say failure to act means "we may not have an economy on Monday."
*09/23"" Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke in Senate Banking Committee testimony outline the $700 billion asset relief program (TARP).
*09/29""That TARP version doesn't pass the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives.
*10/03""Three days later TARP is passed after about $112 billion is added.
*11/05""The day after Barack Obama's election, stocks plunge 500 points.
*11/12""Paulson changes the TARP rules from purchasing "troubled assets" to buying bank stocks to spur lending.
*11/23""Paulson gives Citibank a $308 billion bailout.
*12/06""Both houses of Congress agree to bail out the U.S. auto companies.
*12/18""President-elect Obama hints at an $800 billion to $1 trillion stimulus plan within his first month of office, and the Dow drops another 2.5 percent.
mysteryman
 
  2  
Sat 12 Jun, 2010 05:14 pm
@rabel22,
How is Bush responsible for the oil leak?
How is Bush responsible for whats going on in Israel right now?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Sat 12 Jun, 2010 05:16 pm
@ican711nm,
Obama has done nothing to fix Fan&Fred. In fact, he has made them worse!
0 Replies
 
morell
 
  2  
Sat 12 Jun, 2010 10:08 pm
@ican711nm,
Thanks for a good analysis, Ican. The real culprit in the piece is Barney Frank who manipulated the system so that millions were able to get into homes without down payments or thorough background checks. This, of course, was the genesis of our current economic malaise.
mysteryman
 
  2  
Sun 13 Jun, 2010 07:46 am
The Obama admin LIED about what their own experts said.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/10/experts-say-obama-misrepresented-views-justify-offshore-drilling-ban/#content

Quote:
The seven experts who advised President Obama on how to deal with offshore drilling safety after the Deepwater Horizon explosion are accusing his administration of misrepresenting their views to make it appear that they supported a six-month drilling moratorium -- something they actually oppose.


Snip

Quote:
Salazar apologized to those experts Thursday.

"The experts who are involved in crafting the report gave us their recommendation and their input and I very much appreciate those recommendations," he said. "It was not their decision on the moratorium. It was my decision and the president's decision to move forward."



Read the rest of the article, its rather interesting.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Sun 13 Jun, 2010 08:15 am
@morell,
morell wrote:

Thanks for a good analysis, Ican. The real culprit in the piece is Barney Frank who manipulated the system so that millions were able to get into homes without down payments or thorough background checks. This, of course, was the genesis of our current economic malaise.


Laughing

The facts of the matter are contrary to your claim in various ways.

Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Sun 13 Jun, 2010 10:05 am
Quote:
BLAME WHERE BLAME IS DUE.... This gets so tiresome.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer expressed frustration on NBC's "Meet the Press" today over partisan fighting as lawmakers try to lift the cap that limits how much oil cleanup BP is responsible for, calling it reminiscent of the Bush administration's "psychology of neglect."

But House Minority Leader John Boehner jumped on Hoyer, telling him it is time for Democrats to stop blaming the Bush administration for the regulatory failings that may have contributed to the BP oil spill.

"How long are you going to blame the Bush administration? Come on," Boehner said.

Look, blaming the Bush administration for its catastrophic failures isn't just sport. Dems aren't reminding folks of the Bush/Cheney disaster for its entertainment value. The point is to take accountability seriously and, just as importantly, avoid repeating the same spectacular Republican mistakes.

Bush gave the oil industry everything it wanted for eight years. Painfully corrupt Bush administration officials were in bed -- sometimes literally -- with oil industry lobbyists, who were allowed to write up their own inspection reports. Government regulations and safeguards that could have made a real difference were deemed too "burdensome" by the Bush White House.

Indeed, perhaps the most salient criticism of the Obama administration in this entire BP fiasco is that it tried to clean up Bush's Energy Department corruption, but didn't try fast enough.

Notice that Boehner doesn't respond to the substance -- because he can't. For Boehner, the point isn't that the Bush/Republican approach to regulating - or in this case, not regulating -- was appropriate. Rather, the point is that Boehner simply doesn't want to hear it anymore. Bush/Cheney may very well be entirely responsible, the argument goes, but Boehner would appreciate it if Dems stopped mentioning it.

"How long are you going to blame the Bush administration?" How about this: when it stops being true, Dems should stop using it.


http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_06/024231.php

Cycloptichorn
morell
 
  1  
Mon 14 Jun, 2010 12:19 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycopitchorn either does not know the facts about Rep. Frank's misfeasance or does not wish to admit it. Hopefully, Frank will lose his Chairmanship soon.

The facts:



Frank's fingerprints are all over the financial fiasco
By Jeff Jacoby
Globe Columnist / September 28, 2008 --'THE PRIVATE SECTOR got us into this mess. The government has to get us out of it."

That's Barney Frank's story, and he's sticking to it. As the Massachusetts Democrat has explained it in recent days, the current financial crisis is the spawn of the free market run amok, with the political class guilty only of failing to rein the capitalists in. The Wall Street meltdown was caused by "bad decisions that were made by people in the private sector," Frank said; the country is in dire straits today "thanks to a conservative philosophy that says the market knows best." And that philosophy goes "back to Ronald Reagan, when at his inauguration he said, 'Government is not the answer to our problems; government is the problem.' "

In fact, that isn't what Reagan said. His actual words were: "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." Were he president today, he would be saying much the same thing.

Because while the mortgage crisis convulsing Wall Street has its share of private-sector culprits -- many of whom have been learning lately just how pitiless the private sector’s discipline can be -- they weren't the ones who "got us into this mess." Barney Frank's talking points notwithstanding, mortgage lenders didn't wake up one fine day deciding to junk long-held standards of creditworthiness in order to make ill-advised loans to unqualified borrowers. It would be closer to the truth to say they woke up to find the government twisting their arms and demanding that they do so - or else.

The roots of this crisis go back to the Carter administration. That was when government officials, egged on by left-wing activists, began accusing mortgage lenders of racism and "redlining" because urban blacks were being denied mortgages at a higher rate than suburban whites.

The pressure to make more loans to minorities (read: to borrowers with weak credit histories) became relentless. Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act, empowering regulators to punish banks that failed to "meet the credit needs" of "low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods." Lenders responded by loosening their underwriting standards and making increasingly shoddy loans. The two government-chartered mortgage finance firms, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, encouraged this "subprime" lending by authorizing ever more "flexible" criteria by which high-risk borrowers could be qualified for home loans, and then buying up the questionable mortgages that ensued.

All this was justified as a means of increasing homeownership among minorities and the poor. Affirmative-action policies trumped sound business practices. A manual issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston advised mortgage lenders to disregard financial common sense. "Lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative factor," the Fed's guidelines instructed. Lenders were directed to accept welfare payments and unemployment benefits as "valid income sources" to qualify for a mortgage. Failure to comply could mean a lawsuit.

As long as housing prices kept rising, the illusion that all this was good public policy could be sustained. But it didn't take a financial whiz to recognize that a day of reckoning would come. "What does it mean when Boston banks start making many more loans to minorities?" I asked in this space in 1995. "Most likely, that they are knowingly approving risky loans in order to get the feds and the activists off their backs . . . When the coming wave of foreclosures rolls through the inner city, which of today's self-congratulating bankers, politicians, and regulators plans to take the credit?"

Frank doesn't. But his fingerprints are all over this fiasco. Time and time again, Frank insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in good shape. Five years ago, for example, when the Bush administration proposed much tighter regulation of the two companies, Frank was adamant that "these two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis." When the White House warned of "systemic risk for our financial system" unless the mortgage giants were curbed, Frank complained that the administration was more concerned about financial safety than about housing.

Now that the bubble has burst and the "systemic risk" is apparent to all, Frank blithely declares: "The private sector got us into this mess." Well, give the congressman points for gall. Wall Street and private lenders have plenty to answer for, but it was Washington and the political class that derailed this train. If Frank is looking for a culprit to blame, he can find one suspect in the nearest mirror
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Mon 14 Jun, 2010 08:30 am
@morell,
The account you have posted, while containing nuggets of truth, has little to do with the financial crisis. CRA loans were far less likely to default then other loans and minorities were less likely than whites to default on their homes.

Quote:
Barney Frank's talking points notwithstanding, mortgage lenders didn't wake up one fine day deciding to junk long-held standards of creditworthiness in order to make ill-advised loans to unqualified borrowers.


Yes, they absolutely did. The Subprime loans and alt-A loans which went belly up were in most cases on houses owned by middle- and upper-class Americans, not poor ones.

They did so, because of the farce of credit-default swaps. It gave them the ability to pretend that there was little risk in these extremely risky investments.

Blaming this mess on Barney Frank is a sign that you haven't done any actual research into the event, other than what right-wing websites have told you. I would recommend learning the truth of the matter.

http://joebuchanan.newsvine.com/_news/2009/03/15/2550717-hope-and-hype-conservatives-the-cra-and-the-crash

Quote:
I have researched BofA's historic financials and I can find no example of where CRA brought about a losing year for the bank. The bank was highly profitable throughout this time period and absorbed whatever CRA losses occurred without resorting to subprime lending; that is, until the bank acquired Countrywide and Merrill Lynch in 2008.

Interestingly, on a recent interview by Lesley Stahl on 60 Minutes, Ken Lewis, the current CEO stated when asked about subprime loans, "In 2001, my first year as CEO, we decided that we just didn't like the business. It was too risky."

Now let's look at the date again, 2001, and his words, "too risky". The IBD argument is that the CRA was the root cause because it engendered, or at the very least facilitated, subprime loans. Yet how is this possible if one of the largest players in the mortgage business wasn't participating in subprime mortgages, but still working within the framework of CRA?

Michael Barr and Gene Sperling go into much detail dealing with this question in the article referenced previously and do so in a convincing manner. However, they failed to mention Countrywide, Ameriquest, New Century Financial Corp. or any of the thousands of people involved on the non-bank, non-CRA side: subprime mortgage wholesalers, independent mortgage brokers and retailers who received their financing from the major mortgage companies, who in turn received their funding from Wall Street. This was where the action was, not piddling around at the commercial bank level trying to comply with CRA requirements.

Summary

Without going into tremendous detail, we can summarize the probable sources of the financial crisis with a few related statements.

1. The recession was brought about by a credit crunch. This was brought about by a diminution of housing values, ultimately bringing about a collapse of the mathematical assumptions subprime MBS's, Collateralized Debt Obligations, Credit Default Swaps and Bond Ratings were based on.

2. The non-CRA mortgage and re-fi lending industry was based largely on subprime lending because it was more profitable than "A" paper lending.

3. Subprime lending was committed almost entirely by non-CRA organizations until 2005 and afterwards, non-banks were still responsible for 75% of the total.

4. Wall Street financed the non-bank, non-CRA lenders, securitized their loans and sold them at highly profitable commissions as AAA bonds to unsuspecting clients (which is a subject of another matter for another time).

5. The CRA was neither directly involved or responsible for the collapse of Bear Stearns, Lehman, Washington Mutual, Indy Mac, Wachovia, GE Capital, AIG or any other financial institution. Again, from Barr and Sperling:
"The subprime boom was led by investment banks and mortgage brokers, not by government-sponsored enterprises. Fannie and Freddie became unhinged in the middle of this decade when they tried to play catch-up. Their shareholders and managers pushed them to recover the securitization market share they had lost to unregulated investment banks getting absurd AAA ratings for packaging subprime dross. From 2005 to 2008, Fannie Mae purchased or guaranteed $270 billion in loans to risky borrowers — triple the amount in all its earlier years combined. That was a serious mistake in risk management, but it was not driven by the desire to fulfill affordable housing goals set in the 1990s or by the Community Reinvestment Act."

6. The passage of Gramm, Leach, Bliley Act in 1999 is a much more reasonable explanation of the financial crisis than the CRA.

7. Alan Greenspan's easy money policy is also a much more reasonable explanation (than CRA).

8. President Bush's weak enforcement and lessening of regulation of the Thrift Industry in 2002 as well as his endorsement of zero down payment lending are more reasonable explanations (than CRA).

9. There is no relationship between the CRA and ARMs (adjustable rate mortgages), stated-income loans, negative amortization loans, predatory lending or jumbo subprime loans.

10. The fact that some CRA loans were securitized does not make them subprime, nor does it make the CRA function as a cause of the recession. CRA loans were absorbed by investors along with any other type of mortgage-backed security.

11. On the anecdotal side, I have read several periodicals over the last few months and have yet to find a corroborating story to the IBD line. One story in particular in Time dated February 9, 2009 in an article titled, Why Your Bank is Broke" made no mention of the CRA as having a contributory effect on the recession. Not only this, while at Barnes & Noble recently, I looked in the indexes of several books pertaining to the crisis and out of eight books, I only found two that even mentioned the CRA. And of those two, neither made a causal connection.

In the final analysis, the argument that the poorest people in our society, those represented by the CRA and ACORN, are to blame for one of this nation's greatest economic tragedies is, on one level, comical; paralleling the sophomoric antics of Rick Santelli. However, on another level, the argument is a cynical, manipulative and dangerously diversionary tactic to avoid casting blame on the right sources. In the same way that the S&L crisis in the early nineties could have also been blamed on the CRA, it's perfectly clear now that the real culprits resided in the deregulatory Garn-St Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982 (federal) and the Nolan Act of 1983 (California law).


Comically wrong.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Mon 14 Jun, 2010 09:00 am
Blaming Barney Frank is nonsense. First, he had no real power when the Reps controlled congress. In fact, he was just another vote. He never encouraged the easing of the requirements that individuals must meet in getting a loan. At one point, he did urge the easing of loan requirements for apartment houses, but this type of loan was never a problem.

It is just one more incidence of the Republican Big Lie campaign, which is now focused on Pelosi and Reid.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Mon 14 Jun, 2010 10:54 am


Jimmy Carter is the one and only American happy with Obama's performance thus
far because Carter is no longer considered the worst president of the United States.
ican711nm
 
  -1  
Mon 14 Jun, 2010 12:05 pm
TOTAL CIVIL EMPLOYMENT DECREASED IN MAY!
Odem lied!
Quote:

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea1.txt

Year………………………..USA Total Civil Employed
...
2001………………..............136,933,000 [BUSH43 2001 TO 2009]

2007...........................146,047,000

2008:
August........................ 145,273,000
September.................... 145,029,000
October....................... 144,650,007
November................... 144,144,000
December.................... 143,338,000

2009: [OBAMA 2009 TO ?]

January.................... 142,221 ,000
February................... 141,687 ,000
March......................140,854,000
April...................... 140,902,000
May........................ 140,438,000
June....................... 140,038,000
July....................... 139,817,000
August..................... 139,433,000
September................ 138,768,000
October.................... 138,242,000
November................... 138,381,000
December................... 137,792,000

2010:
January (3)................ 138,333,000
February................... 138,641,000
March...................... 138,905 ,000
April......................... 139,455,000
May…………….......….139,420,000

That is a 35,000 decrease, not an increase.

IT ISN'T WHAT PEOPLE SAY THEY ARE FOR.
IT'S WHAT PEOPLE DO THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE ACTUALLY FOR.

Rightists (e.g., conservatives) are working to achieve equal liberty for everyone under the law.

Leftists (e.g., liberals) are working to achieve equal wealth for everyone regardless of the law
.
ican711nm
 
  0  
Mon 14 Jun, 2010 12:38 pm
Here is more evidence that the Odem (i.e., Obama democrats) are lying thieving gangsters working to reduce our Liberty under the rule of law, reduce our Constitutional Government, and reduce our Capitalist Economy.

Quote:

http://www.atlassociety.org/cth-33-2330-Carbon_Cults_Control.aspx
Carbon, Cults, and Control Freaks
by Edward Hudgins

June 13, 2010 – A scramble by Democrats on Capitol Hill to prevent a particular vote on a particular bill highlights for us two of the most pernicious threats to our liberties. Here’s the story.

In 2009 the Obama administration’s Environmental Protection Agency classified carbon dioxide gas—what you exhale from your lungs and what all plants breathe in—as a dangerous pollutant that the federal government can regulate. This means the EPA can regulate automobiles, manufacturing facilities, and pretty much every activity necessary for the support of human life.

But under the Congressional Review Act, passed as part of the Republicans’ Contract for America in the 1990s, a simple majority vote of both houses of Congress can overturn an executive branch regulation. And Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski has introduced just such a bill, which could garner support from Democratic Sen. Jay Rockefeller from coal-producing West Virginia and a few others of his party who worry about voter backlash against President Obama.

Obama would certainly veto such a bill, and Republicans as yet do not have enough votes to pass it. Still, Democratic leaders are trying to prevent a vote from being taken because even a losing vote could be an embarrassment to Obama. But the real embarrassment is the anti-carbon regulation itself. Consider the two pernicious ideas that, combined with human irrationality, are behind this regulation.

The new sacrilege

To begin with, for decades environmental cultists have been indoctrinating Americans to see the environment—that is, everything that isn’t us or isn’t made by us—as somehow of value not to us but, rather, above, beyond, and independent of us. Trees aren’t of value because their owners can enjoy walking through a forest of them or cut them down to make their houses. Those trees are sacred! They deserve respect. They have "rights." We should feel guilty about harming them.

A generation has been raised on this anti-human dogma. Few dare to object or to explore its implications. Many are as scared to raise questions about environmentalism today as a skeptic would have been to raise questions about religious dogma in Dark Age Europe—or would be in many Islamic countries today. Sacrilege is a terrible charge for many.

Al Gore, the Savonarola of this cult, has declared carbon to be satanic. It must be sequestered! It must be exorcized! And those indoctrinated in the cult will let themselves be driven to frenzy, to abrogate their minds, to follow the dictates of their deity.

Playthings for politicians

Enter the other idea found in a small group of elites who believe that most adults are simply incapable of running their own lives and, in any case, don’t deserve to. These elite politicians see people as their playthings to be remolded, along with the world in which they live, in light of elite dogmas, including the environmental ones.

The eco-cult has given them the perfect excuse to claim unrestricted authority over every aspect of our lives. If they control everything that has to do with carbon, they control everything that has to do with life. And any individuals who might otherwise speak up in defense of their own right to life will be self-silenced for fear of being accused of heresy about the environment by the cult.

Silencing sacrilege

In Congress the move to take the power to control carbon emissions from the EPA will likely fail. But the debate could indeed be damaging to the cult and its political proponents. It could expose the hell-on-earth that such regulation will bring. It could expose the malevolent, anti-individual, and anti-human premises on which the regulation is based. And that could put Obama and the Democrats in a very awkward political position.

But that’s just why those who oppose the EPA regulation should force the debate, even though they’ll likely lose this time around. They need to educate the public and the upcoming generations about what is behind such controls. Just as Enlightenment thinkers in the past prepared the ground for individual liberty, so those dedicated to a human-centered philosophy must prepare the ground for the reestablishment of individual liberty in the future.

------

Hudgins directs advocacy and is a senior scholar at The Atlas Society, the center for Objectivism.

We shall lawfully remove the Odem from our federal government.
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Mon 14 Jun, 2010 12:39 pm
@ican711nm,


Objectivist bullshit

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Mon 14 Jun, 2010 01:35 pm
@morell,
http://www.shorpy.com/images/photos/possum.jpg
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Mon 14 Jun, 2010 01:48 pm
@ican711nm,
Surprise! Ican has found someone as nutty as him.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  -1  
Mon 14 Jun, 2010 03:20 pm
Odem malign those with whom they disagree when they cannot make a credible argument to support what they believe.
Here's some evidence:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Objectivist bullshit

JTT wrote:
Surprise! Ican has found someone as nutty as him.
morell
 
  1  
Mon 14 Jun, 2010 03:28 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Here is more evidence , Cyclopitchorn. I am fairly certain that you will not try to rebut it. No matter. Those reading my post will realize that;



Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, each officially a "Government-Sponsored Enterprise" (GSE), also found themselves on the receiving end of federal heat. Starting in 1993, pursuant to new federal statutes, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's regulator, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO), established new "affordable housing" goals. Each GSE now would have to expand their purchases of mortgages made to low- and moderate-income households, especially members of racial minority groups. Civil-rights leaders such as Jesse Jackson, nonprofit radical activist groups such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), and congressional allies such as Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass. , were adamant about using the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 to punish primary and secondary lenders who allegedly "redlined" (unjustly denied credit) black and Hispanic neighborhoods. They found willing accomplices in the Clinton administration. In 1999, HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo announced a historic "agreement": Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would buy $2.4 trillion in mortgages over the next 10 years to create affordable housing for 28.1 million low- and moderate-income households. At least 50 percent of all mortgages would have to meet affordability standards of such borrowers, up from 42 percent.


l. The evidence showing you are in error is clear.

2. You cannot rebut the evidence.

**********************************************************************
Readers will then have to judge which posts are more correct
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Mon 14 Jun, 2010 03:29 pm
@ican711nm,
I wrote that, because Objectivists - like those at the Ayn Rand society - only care about their personal wealth and greed, and nothing they say is worth listening to.

You can think whatever you like about my motivations, Ican, but I doubt you will convince anyone here by cutting and pasting screeds from greedy bastards.

Cycloptichorn
morell
 
  -1  
Mon 14 Jun, 2010 03:44 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Yes, Ican- I don't like to say this but this time you are wrong. And Cycloptichorn is correct. He is a very moral person. You can read it in everyone of his posts. He is for Justice and Equality and, above all, intolerant of greed.

That is why, Ican, he became( according to his post) a "financial advisor".

He may be unique, Ican, since I am certain that if he earns a large fee from a client, he will not be greedy. He will, of course, contribute at least half of his fee to a needy group like ACORN which fights for Justice and Equality.

You really have to admire Cyclopitchorn, Ican. He may be the first living financial advisor to come four square against Greed!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 1679
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.18 seconds on 07/11/2025 at 12:30:06