Originally Posted By Mr X ***And when the rubber meets the road, as in elections (he's not going to run again, but some Republican will, and the 2006 Congressional elections are coming up), a lot of those people unhappy with Bush's handling of things are going to vote for the Republican over the Democrat.*** And...RC Collins wins the prize for WORST prediction of the past half-decade. lmao.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***here are large sections of Oklahoms that haven't been turned into barren wastelands yet. Let's drill there!*** And in further developments, DlandDug was apparently once a liberal!
Originally Posted By donnyaz there are thousands of drill sites in Norhern California that take up 40 feet by 20 feet lots and the oil is pumped by an underground pipe so unless you are right next to it you would never know its there.My point is drill baby drill
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt Reading these old posts in light of November's landslide victory for Obama is interesting indeed.
Originally Posted By patrickegan How will the repub's ever make a comeback without giving away stuff?
Originally Posted By donnyaz The truth about bush and Barney Frank <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&NR=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...XNM&NR=1</a>
Originally Posted By Dabob2 "The truth" my butt. The truth is that Fannie and Freddie were a relatively small part of this problem, and the supposition that Fox and Hume (no surprise) put out at the beginning is erroneous. And when you start with an erroneous supposition, you reach erroneous conclusions. Fannie and Freddie are not blameless, but they (and particularly the CRA) were relatively small players in the mess. But conservatives love to distort this and say they were largely to blame, because they're the one area where Republicans in general wanted more regulation than Democrats. The truth is that Gramm-Leach-Bliley (a Republican bill foolishly signed by Clinton, so even there there's blame to go around) is far more responsible, along with the divorce of risk from lending and decreased regulation/oversight in general, more often pushed by Republicans (but some Democrats too) as an unalloyed good.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << But conservatives love to distort this and say they were largely to blame, because they're the one area where Republicans in general wanted more regulation than Democrats. >> I wouldn't depict it as Republicans wanting more regulation in this area. Rather, they wanted to change the rules so that the investment banks that lobby them heavily would get a bigger piece of the mortgage business. Can you imagine how much worse things would be if we let the corporate bankers package even more bad mortgages than they already did?
Originally Posted By patrickegan Yeah, but that is the inconvenient truth. And that runs counter to the Repub's bad Dem's good mentality here :-(
