‘Code Pink’ protesters leave Barney Frank seeing red

unphased said:
Thank you Bravo, it's always nice when you can point to the video of the fiddler fiddling while Fannie and Freddie we burning to prove your point to those operating under whatever form cognitive dissonance apologists for inept politicians operate under... :)
Click to expand...


yeap your a hack if you buy this crap.
 
Haha, welcome Unphased to the world of attempting to hold discussions with "I love my party" Desh. There are plenty of partisans on this site, myself included, however she takes party loyalty to that next level. This of course is not to state or imply she is in anyway a bad person. Strictly from a political perspective on this board even several liberals on the site have called her out for her blind loyalty to the Democratic Party. Thus discussions are boiled down to strictly R's vs. D's which turn into verbal pissing matches that have no real meaning. As you stated for her loyalty she should be on the Dem's payroll.
 
Go get for me any evidence FM and FM were in crisis in september of 2003?

Prove barney wrong instead of just putting up a couple of Faux Noise videos
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/b...annie-mae.html?scp=1&sq="barney+frank"&st=nyt


The administration's proposal, which was endorsed in large part today by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, would not repeal the significant government subsidies granted to the two companies. And it does not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enables them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. Nor would it remove the companies' exemptions from taxes and antifraud provisions of federal securities laws.



Note the new regulatory system Bush had set up for them is JUST what the FMs wanted.
 
Last edited:
[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freddy_Mac[/ame]


In 2003, Freddie Mac revealed that it had understated earnings by almost $5 billion, one of the largest corporate restatements in U.S. history. As a result, in November, it was fined $125 million--an amount called "peanuts" by Forbes. [4]

On April 18, 2006 Freddie Mac was fined $3.8 million, by far the largest amount ever assessed by the Federal Election Commission, as a result of illegal campaign contributions. Freddie Mac was accused of illegally using corporate resources between 2000 and 2003 for 85 fundraisers that collected about $1.7 million for federal candidates. Much of the illegal fund raising benefited members of the House Financial Services Committee, a panel whose decisions can affect Freddie Mac. Notably, Freddie Mac held more than 40 fundraisers for House Financial Services Chairman Michael Oxley, R-Ohio


They were trying to buy just the regulartory body they wanted.
 
evince said:
yeap your a hack if you buy this crap.
Click to expand...

Name calling appears to be a strong suit with you, huh?

So far I'm a :

1.) "Blatant partisan" (apparently of the republican variety)
2.) A "hack" (whatever that is, doesn't sound very pleasant though)

All because I committed the sin of not agreeing with every word you deign to put into print? that about sum it up ?

I really try to disagree with people while still maintaining some respect for them and their opinions but so far you're making it more than a bit of a challenge. :(
 
So I proved to you Barney was right , not only was FM fine in sept 2003 but the whole reason they were talking about them is they had UNDER reported their eranings by 5 bil.

Bush wanted to take the oversight from the banking committee and make a new regulartory angency to watcdh them, This is just want FM wanted and they were in trouble years later for illegally supporting R candidates who ran the banking commitee.

Your Frank story has crumbled under the facts.
 
evince said:
Only if you ignore the facts I've given
Click to expand...

I haven't seen you provide any "facts" , only opinions, conjecture and random hyperbole and on a whole slew of topics many of which have nothing to do with the topic at hand. .

It's obvious that you have successfully convinced yourself as to the truth of what you already believed, you may have convinced somebody else here I dunno, however you haven't done a thing to convince me that my original assessment of Mr. Franks performance wasn't spot on, but feel free to continue you trying, I will of course approach your arguements with the most amenable disposition I can muster. :dunno:
 
unphased said:
I haven't seen you provide any "facts" , only opinions, conjecture and random hyperbole and on a whole slew of topics many of which have nothing to do with the topic at hand. .

It's obvious that you have successfully convinced yourself as to the truth of what you already believed, you may have convinced somebody else here I dunno, however you haven't done a thing to convince me that my original assessment of Mr. Franks performance wasn't spot on, but feel free to continue you trying, I will of course approach your arguements with the most amenable disposition I can muster. :dunno:
Click to expand...


Did you not read what I posted and the links to the articles stating facts from the time and NOT the spin from later?

Did you not read about how in sept 2003 when Frank said that FM was fine it was fine and the only reasong they were talking about it that day is they FM undersrported its earnings by 5 bil?

Did you not read that the new regulartory body Bush wanted made for FM was JUST what FM wanted?

Did you not read about how they were caught giving illegally to the Bankin committes people who were R run at the time?


See this is what you people have to do to hold onto your beliefs , you have to ignore facts.

No wonder you love teabag parties.
 
evince said:
Did you not read what I posted and the links to the articles stating facts from the time and NOT the spin from later?

Did you not read about how in sept 2003 when Frank said that FM was fine it was fine and the only reasong they were talking about it that day is they FM undersrported its earnings by 5 bil?

Did you not read that the new regulartory body Bush wanted made for FM was JUST what FM wanted?

Did you not read about how they were caught giving illegally to the Bankin committes people who were R run at the time?


See this is what you people have to do to hold onto your beliefs , you have to ignore facts.

No wonder you love teabag parties.
Click to expand...

You've really lost it.
 
evince said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/b...annie-mae.html?scp=1&sq="barney+frank"&st=nyt


The administration's proposal, which was endorsed in large part today by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, would not repeal the significant government subsidies granted to the two companies. And it does not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enables them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. Nor would it remove the companies' exemptions from taxes and antifraud provisions of federal securities laws.



Note the new regulatory system Bush had set up for them is JUST what the FMs wanted.
Click to expand...



remember
 
evince said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freddy_Mac


In 2003, Freddie Mac revealed that it had understated earnings by almost $5 billion, one of the largest corporate restatements in U.S. history. As a result, in November, it was fined $125 million--an amount called "peanuts" by Forbes. [4]

On April 18, 2006 Freddie Mac was fined $3.8 million, by far the largest amount ever assessed by the Federal Election Commission, as a result of illegal campaign contributions. Freddie Mac was accused of illegally using corporate resources between 2000 and 2003 for 85 fundraisers that collected about $1.7 million for federal candidates. Much of the illegal fund raising benefited members of the House Financial Services Committee, a panel whose decisions can affect Freddie Mac. Notably, Freddie Mac held more than 40 fundraisers for House Financial Services Chairman Michael Oxley, R-Ohio


They were trying to buy just the regulartory body they wanted.
Click to expand...


and this
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top