Your Billboard for Rush (Writerly)

[DesertPirate]

The Dems have controlled both houses of Congress for the past two plus years, including the last two years of W's term. Did they say anything or do anything? Even before that, they had members on the Banking Committees of both houses, and they knew anything the Reps knew. Did they say or do anything? Of course not. Neither did the Reps. because they were all getting bribes of one form or another. Most of them weren't as flagrant as the sweetheart mortgage deal that Chris Dodd got. I'm not saying the other payoffs were any less dishonest or dishonorable, just not as flagrant.

As far as I'm concerned, a pox on all politicians.

If a "real" investigation was ever done more than half of Congress would go to jail. That would include the leadership of both parties. Shame it won't ever happen.

 

[DeeZire]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021302783_pf.html

Here are quotes from an article written by Elliot Spitzer before he was taken down by the feds. To summarize: In 2003 the Bush administration stopped attempts by all 50 states to regulate predatory lending. This is but one example of the Bush administration's role in enabling the financial barons to rob our country blind.

Several years ago, state attorneys general and others involved in consumer protection began to notice a marked increase in a range of predatory lending practices by mortgage lenders. Some were misrepresenting the terms of loans, making loans without regard to consumers' ability to repay, making loans with deceptive "teaser" rates that later ballooned astronomically, packing loans with undisclosed charges and fees, or even paying illegal kickbacks. These and other practices, we noticed, were having a devastating effect on home buyers. In addition, the widespread nature of these practices, if left unchecked, threatened our financial markets.

Even though predatory lending was becoming a national problem, the Bush administration looked the other way and did nothing to protect American homeowners. In fact, the government chose instead to align itself with the banks that were victimizing consumers.

The administration accomplished this feat through an obscure federal agency called the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The OCC has been in existence since the Civil War. Its mission is to ensure the fiscal soundness of national banks. For 140 years, the OCC examined the books of national banks to make sure they were balanced, an important but uncontroversial function. But a few years ago, for the first time in its history, the OCC was used as a tool against consumers.

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.

But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks. In fact, when my office opened an investigation of possible discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed a federal lawsuit to stop the investigation.

 

[Boxlicker101]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021302783_pf.html

Here are quotes from an article written by Elliot Spitzer before he was taken down by the feds. To summarize: In 2003 the Bush administration stopped attempts by all 50 states to regulate predatory lending. This is but one example of the Bush administration's role in enabling the financial barons to rob our country blind.

This is an opinion by an extremely discredited Democrat. If things were this serious in 2003, they must have been going on for quite some time, at least as far back as the Clinton administration. Why was this opinion not presented at least five years ago, rather than just last year?

 

[Liar]

This is an opinion by an extremely discredited Democrat.

Because he shagged a hooker with his socks on?

Or was there some other discredit thing, relevant to the issue here, that I've missed?

 

[freshface]

Because he shagged a hooker with his socks on?

Or was there some other discredit thing, relevant to the issue here, that I've missed?

Well, that and being a Democrat.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Because he shagged a hooker with his socks on?

Or was there some other discredit thing, relevant to the issue here, that I've missed?

I don't know if he had his socks on or not, but he apparently violated The Mann Act.

ETA: The point is, it is strictly his opinion, and there seems to be no evidence to support it. I'm not saying there is no evidence, just that none was presented.

 

[Liar]

I don't know if he had his socks on or not, but he apparently violated The Mann Act.

ETA: The point is, it is strictly his opinion, and there seems to be no evidence to support it. I'm not saying there is no evidence, just that none was presented.

No, the point is, you're saying that Spitzer's opinion on those political/financial matters is less valid because he shagged a hooker (yep, with his socks on) and got caught. Why else mention that he's "an extremely discredited Democrat"?

However, I'll grant that it's pretty bad fiscal and political judgement for a New York politician to shag a hooker locally. An overnight trip to Canada, and the same class of hooker is legal, easily available, and much less expensive.

 

[freshface]

I don't know if he had his socks on or not, but he apparently violated The Mann Act.

ETA: The point is, it is strictly his opinion, and there seems to be no evidence to support it. I'm not saying there is no evidence, just that none was presented.

Google is your friend.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9904E2DA153EF932A3575BC0A9659C8B63

Since you've doubted the accuracy of the NY Times...

http://www.consumersunion.org/pub/core_financial_services/000770.html

Just in case you think that the Consumer's Union is allied with the devil, here's the news release from the OCC.

http://www.occ.treas.gov/toolkit/newsrelease.aspx?Doc=EMRDRG7D.xml

Note that all of them are from 2003. Note that there were serious questions being raised in 2003. Note that Clinton left the White House in 2001. Tell us again how this is Clinton's fault.

 

[DesertPirate]

Google is your friend.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9904E2DA153EF932A3575BC0A9659C8B63

Since you've doubted the accuracy of the NY Times...

http://www.consumersunion.org/pub/core_financial_services/000770.html

Just in case you think that the Consumer's Union is allied with the devil, here's the news release from the OCC.

http://www.occ.treas.gov/toolkit/newsrelease.aspx?Doc=EMRDRG7D.xml

Note that all of them are from 2003. Note that there were serious questions being raised in 2003. Note that Clinton left the White House in 2001. Tell us again how this is Clinton's fault.

Because he had the rules relaxed in 95!
Admit that he caused the problem.
Of course his former staffers were running Fannie and Freddie with Barney Franks lover and padding the books to get over $160 Million in bonuses.

Those were Dems, of course they can't go to jail

 

[Boxlicker101]

Google is your friend.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9904E2DA153EF932A3575BC0A9659C8B63

Since you've doubted the accuracy of the NY Times...

http://www.consumersunion.org/pub/core_financial_services/000770.html

Just in case you think that the Consumer's Union is allied with the devil, here's the news release from the OCC.

http://www.occ.treas.gov/toolkit/newsrelease.aspx?Doc=EMRDRG7D.xml

Note that all of them are from 2003. Note that there were serious questions being raised in 2003. Note that Clinton left the White House in 2001. Tell us again how this is Clinton's fault.

How about the fact that the bureaucrat cited by the NYT, John D. Hawkes Jr., was a Clinton appointee?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Hawke,_Jr.

ETA: That link might not work, but here are plenty more:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=images

 

[freshface]

How about the fact that the bureaucrat cited by the NYT, John D. Hawkes Jr., was a Clinton appointee?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Hawke,_Jr.

ETA: That link might not work, but here are plenty more:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=images

I never said Clinton was perfect. In 2003, Hawke was working for the Bush administration. That makes Bush responsible for his actions then, not Clinton.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I never said Clinton was perfect. In 2003, Hawke was working for the Bush administration. That makes Bush responsible for his actions then, not Clinton.

Actually, bureaucrats tend to do pretty much as they please. If this Clinton appointee thought there was something wrong with what he was ordered to do, if he was ordered by anybody, he would have resigned, if he had any integrity.

 

[freshface]

Actually, bureaucrats tend to do pretty much as they please. If this Clinton appointee thought there was something wrong with what he was ordered to do, if he was ordered by anybody, he would have resigned, if he had any integrity.

I never said Hawke wsa ordered to do this either. But all fifty states filed suit against the Federal government over this. Even someone as clueless as GWB must have noticed that. If he thought there was something wrong with what John Hawke was doing, he could have stopped him.

 

[DeeZire]

If this Clinton appointee thought there was something wrong with what he was ordered to do, if he was ordered by anybody, he would have resigned, if he had any integrity.

So if he was carrying out Bush's orders, it was Clinton's fault? Well, at least it wasn't Obama's fault...yet.

You all have fun with this thread. When I got the email with the final 5 choices for the billboard slogans, I lost interest.

Okay, here they are, in all their boring glory:

"Americans didn't vote for a Rush to failure"

"Hope and change cannot be Rush'd"

"Failure is not an option for America's future"

"We can fix America, just don't Rush it"

"Rush: Say yes to America"

I think "Rush is a hypocritical asshole getting rich off of hate speech" would be much more effective, but obviously I'm not in tune with the PC pussies who run the PR wing of the democratic party.

 

[Liar]

Wow. Those really, truly sucked.

 

[Boxlicker101]

So if he was carrying out Bush's orders, it was Clinton's fault? Well, at least it wasn't Obama's fault...yet.

You all have fun with this thread. When I got the email with the final 5 choices for the billboard slogans, I lost interest.

Okay, here they are, in all their boring glory:



I think "Rush is a hypocritical asshole getting rich off of hate speech" would be much more effective, but obviously I'm not in tune with the PC pussies who run the PR wing of the democratic party.

I don't watch or listen to Rush much. Hardly at all, in fact, although I did see him in an interview on O'Reilly. He might be an asshole, but I don't know that I would call him a hypocrite. He is outspoken and critical of those who disagree with him, but I think "hate speech" might be a bit too strong.

Yeah, those slogans did suck. How about: GIVE THE BUM'S RUSH TO RUSH?

 

[DesertPirate]

No, the point is, you're saying that Spitzer's opinion on those political/financial matters is less valid because he shagged a hooker (yep, with his socks on) and got caught. Why else mention that he's "an extremely discredited Democrat"?

However, I'll grant that it's pretty bad fiscal and political judgement for a New York politician to shag a hooker locally. An overnight trip to Canada, and the same class of hooker is legal, easily available, and much less expensive.

Don't forget the money he used to "do" her wasn't his personal account.

 

[Boxlicker101]

No, the point is, you're saying that Spitzer's opinion on those political/financial matters is less valid because he shagged a hooker (yep, with his socks on) and got caught. Why else mention that he's "an extremely discredited Democrat"?

However, I'll grant that it's pretty bad fiscal and political judgement for a New York politician to shag a hooker locally. An overnight trip to Canada, and the same class of hooker is legal, easily available, and much less expensive.

The hooker was from NY but she was brought to, I believe, WashDC, which would have been the violation of the Mann Act I mentioned. He was in DC on business, so he was on the taxpayer's dime, but I don't know how he paid the girl. I thought it was out of personal funds.

 

[DesertPirate]

The hooker was from NY but she was brought to, I believe, WashDC, which would have been the violation of the Mann Act I mentioned. He was in DC on business, so he was on the taxpayer's dime, but I don't know how he paid the girl. I thought it was out of personal funds.

It was the trip that was public money not the girl
Memory is fading

 

[Liar]

The hooker was from NY but she was brought to, I believe, WashDC, which would have been the violation of the Mann Act I mentioned.

Don't know what it is with the Mann Act in this regard that you find so terrible. It's a technicality, since it was never intended to target the individual rich and horny john, but outright trafficking. Guy already broke the law by shagging a hooker (and the law of good taste by keeping his socks on). Anything else is minutiae.

 

[Liar]

It was the trip that was public money not the girl
Memory is fading

Even it it was the girl, it wouldn't be the first crazy expense a top politician is indulding in on the taxpayer's dime. I'm sure you're not that easily shocked.

 

[DesertPirate]

Even it it was the girl, it wouldn't be the first crazy expense a top politician is indulding in on the taxpayer's dime. I'm sure you're not that easily shocked.

No, not at all. But the way things work here if your caught like that you are toast.

 

[WRJames]

Hey Rush, You Lost! Get Over It!