9a909be5   
   XPost: alt.support.attn-deficit, alt.support.tourette   
   From: dawgface@ten.hut   
      
   "marcia"  wrote in message   
   news:9d9e7692-73b1-4636-800d-b75c06f30d5b@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com...   
   > On Nov 3, 12:48 am, "Frank"  wrote:   
   >> "marcia"  wrote in message   
   >>   
   >> news:dfb43eec-59ea-4f77-b570-f3852a05e537@x1g2000prh.googlegroups.com...   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> > I believe I've read, heard and watched more credible and reliable   
   >> > sources than you have during this election season, and NO, you're   
   >> > NOT   
   >> > going to change my vote.   
   >>   
   >> Didn't thinks so.   
   >>   
   >> > The Dems didn't cause the meltdown. I believe I agreed that some   
   >> > Dems   
   >> > were opposed to tightening regulation of Fannie MAE and Freddie   
   >> > MAC,   
   >> > which (imo) was a mistake, but I also said the legislation never   
   >> > made   
   >> > it out of committee, so you can't tell me the Dems in Congress   
   >> > rejected something they didn't even vote on.   
   >>   
   >> Just who do you think stifled it in committee, it was Democrats.   
   >> C'mon,   
   >> you are not that ignorant. Now you are saying you were for McCains   
   >> bill?   
   >> Meaning you are now agreeing that there was hanky panky going on?   
   >   
   > Uhm, no, Frank. The year was 2005: The Republicans held the majority   
   > in the Senate (where the bill originated). The REPUBLICANS CHOSE not   
   > to bring it to the floor. Not only did the Dems not have a chance to   
   > vote on it, but it was never put on the Republican-controlled agenda,   
   > so the Dems didn't even have an opportunity to filibuster. In other   
   > words, the Democrats couldn't block the bill because it was never   
   > presented to them. If the Republicans had brought it up for vote, it   
   > would have passed without the Dems because the Republicans controlled   
   > both the Executive and Legislative branches. Nice try, tho.   
   >   
   >   
   >> > The high price of oil was a consequence of high demand, combined   
   >> > with   
   >> > overzealous speculation because the value of the dollar was so low.   
   >> > This was also compounded by expectations that projected demand   
   >> > would   
   >> > dramatically out-pace supply because OPEC was refusing to meet   
   >> > early   
   >> > to discuss increasing output. The drop in the price of oil started   
   >> > with investors cashing out their profit, the value of the dollar   
   >> > rising, and demand for oil falling. The price dropped precipitously   
   >> > when the world economy started to tank, and demand fell   
   >> > dramatically   
   >> > lower than supply.   
   >>   
   >> BS, the demand wasn't that high, yes the dollar is low, but it was   
   >> the   
   >> housing crisis that created the banking and insurance failures and   
   >> subsequent bail outs. The whole world was invested in it, that is why   
   >> they all hurt. It was not the oil prices that caused Greenland to go   
   >> bankrupt, nor did it cause any of the rest of the worlds calamity.   
   >> You   
   >> are mixing apples and oranges here.   
   >   
   > You are simply wrong. Go do some research and get back to me. You're   
   > spouting off opinions like they are facts, without backing up your   
   > reasoning.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> > Oh, and the oil companies somehow managed to have four solid   
   >> > quarters   
   >> > of their greatest profit ever during this period, so I'm sure there   
   >> > was quite a bit of profiteering going on as well. Now, which party   
   >> > is   
   >> > directly linked to big oil companies? The Republicans, especially   
   >> > those in the Bush administration.   
   >>   
   >> Yes, they had profits thanks to specualtors. It was a natural cause   
   >> and   
   >> effect, the higher the volume of dollars spent the higher the volume   
   >> of   
   >> profit even at lower percentages of profit. They are the most   
   >> overtaxed   
   >> of all corporations, and as a consequense the poor suffer the higher   
   >> prices and the poorest fuel mileage which is amongst my earlies   
   >> contentions this go around.   
   >   
   > Provide some evidence for this BS. You like to talk a good game, but   
   > you don't seem to know anything about the situation.   
   >   
   >   
   >>   
   >> > John Palmer already posted a good article about the cause of the   
   >> > financial collapse, which reflects my understanding of the   
   >> > situation,   
   >> > too, so I won't belabor the point by repeating it here. Go back and   
   >> > read John's article for a fuller understanding.   
   >>   
   >> > Oh, here's a cookie for you: I don't like Nancy Pelosi. But I'm   
   >> > still   
   >> > voting for Obama.   
   >>   
   >> They are both cut from the same cloth. In fact Nancy is one of the   
   >> driving forces behind Obama.   
   >   
   > Nonsense. But no surprise you would believe that, given your obvious   
   > partisanship. None of your arguments is backed by evidence that I can   
   > find. Perhaps YOU can provide a link or two to a credible source that   
   > supports your claims.   
   >   
   Reform Act of 2005, S. 190   
      
   It never made it out of committee.  Chris Dodd, then the ranking member   
   of the Banking Committee and now its chair, was in the middle of   
   receiving preferential loan treatment from Countrywide Mortgage, one of   
   the companies gaming the system in the credit crisis.  Meanwhile, Barack   
   Obama took hundreds of thousands of dollars from the lobbyists McCain   
   mentions in this speech, making him the #2 recipient of Fannie/Freddie   
   money.   
      
   In May 2006, John McCain signed on as a co-sponsor of the stalled bill,   
   in the hopes of gathering more co-sponsors and getting a vote in the   
   109th Congress before the bill would die. McCain would state, "I join as   
   a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of   
   2005, S. 190,to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE   
   regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American   
   taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie   
   Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial   
   system, and the economy as a whole." The bill did not obtain any of the   
   necessary support from the Democrats, and once again, the bill died when   
   the 109th Congress ended.   
      
   The 109th Congress ended December 8, 2006, so you see Marcia all is as I   
   said. Again you were trying to set up a straw man and failed, again I   
   back up my statements. Oh, just in case you really don't know, Chris   
   Dodd is a Dem and under investigation along with several other people.   
   Also alluded to in my previous posts was that Obama was on the take as   
   well as friend of the conspirators.   
      
   I know you won't change your mind, neither will the facts. It is your   
   choice.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)