Lying Neocons revising history

bravo said:
Now what are you talking about...????

Rummy DID NOT contradict himself at any time......
Rummy DID NOT contradict what Panetta said......
Rummy DID NOT contradict what King said......

Rummy has been consistent about the intell obtained in Gitmo and waterboarding at Gitmo and that is the only location Rummy was ever referring to in all his statements....Guantanamo....
See post 76.....
Click to expand...

don't post when you're tired.......it causes you to miss the fact I'm agreeing with you, not arguing with you.....
 
Taichiliberal said:
bravo said:
All parties concerned concede the FACT that while torture did provide some actionable intel from some detainees on some level (and we're taking that at face value from the CIA folk), they DID NOT provide the name of the courier necessary to get to Bin Laden. All parties concerned concede the FACT that the name of the courier that provided the lead to Bin Laden was provided by KSM. All parties concerned concede the FACT that KSM did not give up that name after being tortured over 100 times! All parties concerned concede the FACT that KSM gave that name up under Standard Interrogation Procedures.

So to say that torture led to Bin Laden's capture is patently INCORRECT., thus making Peter King, Dick Cheney WRONG. Leon Panetta DOES NOT state that it was torture the resulted in the courier's name that led to Bin Laden. Period.

Rummy flip flops to keep to the party line, as documented.

So unless Rummy, Cheney, King and Panetta are going to state for the record in no uncertain terms that KSM gave up the courier's name by torture (harsh interrogation, waterboarding, etc.), and provide proof there of, then they are all just either blowing smoke or covering their/the Shrub legacy's ass.

I can't put it any more plain than that, folks. See Post #10, 30, 34, 60, 73, 78, 80 and check the info provided by the links. Bravo will just repeat himself ad nauseum, as Bravo is not only willfully ignorant but insipidly stubborn as well. I leave him to it.
Click to expand...

Moving right on to tactic 2 and 3 I see....the issue between us was not the accuracy of their statements, but did Rummy and King contradict each other....and they did not...Rummy was talking about Gitmo and King was referring to overseas interrogation....
.anything else is superfluous bullshit thrown in the help confuse the debate.....Cheney NEVER into the debate until now...

and no one ever claimed Panetta was talking about "the Courier" in particular...Panetta said in no uncertain terms.....intell gathered using enhanced interrogation was used in the killing of OBL....period....

And you are shown to be a pinhead once again, proving my comment about tactics is right on the mark.....and you don't have it in you man up and admit when you're mistaken about even a minor detail...you must claim you're in EVERY remark like a tenacious, spoiled child.....
and as always, its been fun helping you make as ass of yourself .
Click to expand...
 
bravo said:
That is my post Damo...not TCliberals's.....there is something wrong with your {quote} {/quote} commands....

What the fuck is going on...can't anyone keep anything straight.....
Click to expand...

Um... I know it was your post that I quoted. It was agreement, and an observation about TCL and "chronology". The first time TCL mentions "chronology" is the surest sign that TCL has lost an argument.
 
Bfgrn said:
YES, the wealthy were foreclosed on, but they had the luxury of being able to walk away from a bad debt. ONLY 6% of of all the higher-priced loans were extended by CRA-covered lenders to lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in their CRA assessment areas.

This was brought on by wealthy bankers and wealthy buyers. I was covering all of northern Florida for my company when the bottom fell out, the state of Florida was one of the hardest hit because half of the new home were being bought by wealthy people speculating. They had no intention of ever living in the homes, they were using it as a quick money making scheme.

Why are all you right wingers so fucking ignorant? EVERYTHING you believe is nothing but bullshit social propaganda spoon fed to you by the Fox News, right wing talking heads and every other mouthpiece for the elite. You constantly call people morons, but you don't even know your ass from a hole in the ground!

Educate yourself MORON...


WSJ - Fed’s Kroszner: Don’t Blame CRA

WSJ - Fed’s Kroszner: Don’t Blame CRA - The Sequel

Reuters - UPDATE 2-Lending to poor didn't spur crisis

Don't Blame the Community Reinvestment Act

Business Insider - Here's Why Fannie And Freddie Are Not At Fault For The Housing Bubble

Center for Responsible Lending - CRA is not to Blame for the Mortgage Meltdown

Don't blame Fannie and Freddie

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis

ForeclosureS.com - ACORN - Progress in the Fight Against Predatory Lending

Acorn Led Financial Sector With Warnings on Lending
Click to expand...

I love when idiots like you call me a MORON when it comes to economics and investments. I have a degree in economics you MORON. I also work in investments you MORON. You on the other hand post links to articles that you clearly do not understand. You quote stats yet you fail to grasp what they are saying.

YOU stated...

Poor lending practices (predatory) played a huge role, but not to low income and first time buyers. And Fannie and Freddie were not to blame either. The Community Investment Act was not the culprit. It was middle class and wealthy buyers who were mostly speculators.
Click to expand...

To which I replied.... "CRA was indeed a part of the problem" .... which YOUR links confirm. It was. You cling to the stat that 'only 6% were extended by CRA covered lenders (ie... the banks). That is true, but what that little stat doesn't tell morons like you is that the BANKS were also buying up loans from lenders of subprime debt and repackaging them as CDO's and selling them to investors (one of the biggest of those investors.... FANNIE and FREDDIE). So it doesn't matter who the loan ORIGINATED with, it matters that the banks and more importantly FANNIE AND FREDDIE, were buying up the loans that other lenders were originating. If they had not done so, then the other lenders would not have made the loans as they could not afford the risk on THEIR books. You MORON.

Your comment that Fannie and Freddie were not to blame is also completely incorrect. Why is it that they held so much sub prime debt MORON? Why is it that they had to be bailed out MORON? If they weren't such big buyers of CDO's, then again, the amount of loans in the subprime arena would have been less as the investment banks would not have wanted more of that debt on their balance sheets.

Your comment that it was mainly speculators and 'the wealthy' is also absurd. As your articles point out.... 60% went to middle class and 'wealthy'. Which means what about the other 40% MORON?

As I stated, Franks comments about Fannie and Freddie have NOTHING to do with his being gay. Your comments about it being racist have also been shown to be completely absurd you moron.

Bottom line, you idiots on the left who have no clue when it comes to economics or finance always resort to the 'you listen to Fox/Rush/Hannity' line of bullshit because you think that makes you seem intelligent. I don't listen to any of those sources as the talking heads are just about as ignorant on economics as you are. They are predominantly JOURNALISTS... not economists. Just like you, they have no clue. They simply parrot what they HOPE will make them seem intelligent.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Ahhh, but Rummy's "statement" is a contradiction of his previous one.....something Rummy had done numerous times during the Shrub's administration. I referring to what Rummy said during an interview to a neocon friendly interviewer (NewsMax).

Here's how I explained it to Bravo for the last time

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sho...845#post811845

I can't make it anymore clear than that.
Click to expand...


/shrugs....so far everyone, including Rumsfeld, has pointed out to you that Rumsfeld did not contradict himself....the fact that you keep claiming he did doesn't make it more "clear" it just makes it more amusing......
Click to expand...

If by "everyone" the PMFool means himself and Bravo, then that and a metro card will only get him on the bus.

As I said before Bravo (and now the Post Modern Fool) are just being insipidly stubborn with a healthy dose of willful ignorance. Both, like Rummy, are desperately trying to split a hair and then pretend there are two roots. Bottom line (again) All parties concerned concede the FACT that while torture did provide some actionable intel from some detainees on some level (and we're taking that at face value from the CIA folk), they DID NOT provide the name of the courier necessary to get to Bin Laden. All parties concerned concede the FACT that the name of the courier that provided the lead to Bin Laden was provided by KSM. All parties concerned concede the FACT that KSM did not give up that name after being tortured over 100 times! All parties concerned concede the FACT that KSM gave that name up under Standard Interrogation Procedures.

So to say that torture led to Bin Laden's capture is patently INCORRECT., thus making Peter King, Dick Cheney WRONG. Leon Panetta DOES NOT state that it was torture the resulted in the courier's name that led to Bin Laden. Period.

Rummy flip flops to keep to the party line, as documented.

So unless Rummy, Cheney, King and Panetta are going to state for the record in no uncertain terms that KSM gave up the courier's name by torture (harsh interrogation, waterboarding, etc.), and provide proof there of, then they are all just either blowing smoke or covering their/the Shrub legacy's ass.

I now leave the Post Modern Fool to join Bravo in their predictable maudlin exchanges and carry on in their repetitive lies, denials, regurgitations and childish insults.
 
Damocles said:
Um... I know it was your post that I quoted. It was agreement, and an observation about TCL and "chronology". The first time TCL mentions "chronology" is the surest sign that TCL has lost an argument.
Click to expand...

So Damo just joins in like some gleeful little kid to get "even"....while not having the guts to actually state whether the information I present is solid and it's conclusions valid. Or does Damo actually "agree" with buffoons like Bravo and the Post Modern Fool? I do hope Damo has the integrity to at least give a rational and honest answer.
 
Last edited:
Superfreak said:
Originally Posted by Bfgrn
YES, the wealthy were foreclosed on, but they had the luxury of being able to walk away from a bad debt. ONLY 6% of of all the higher-priced loans were extended by CRA-covered lenders to lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in their CRA assessment areas.

This was brought on by wealthy bankers and wealthy buyers. I was covering all of northern Florida for my company when the bottom fell out, the state of Florida was one of the hardest hit because half of the new home were being bought by wealthy people speculating. They had no intention of ever living in the homes, they were using it as a quick money making scheme.

Why are all you right wingers so fucking ignorant? EVERYTHING you believe is nothing but bullshit social propaganda spoon fed to you by the Fox News, right wing talking heads and every other mouthpiece for the elite. You constantly call people morons, but you don't even know your ass from a hole in the ground!

Educate yourself MORON...


WSJ - Fed’s Kroszner: Don’t Blame CRA

WSJ - Fed’s Kroszner: Don’t Blame CRA - The Sequel

Reuters - UPDATE 2-Lending to poor didn't spur crisis

Don't Blame the Community Reinvestment Act

Business Insider - Here's Why Fannie And Freddie Are Not At Fault For The Housing Bubble

Center for Responsible Lending - CRA is not to Blame for the Mortgage Meltdown

Don't blame Fannie and Freddie

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis

ForeclosureS.com - ACORN - Progress in the Fight Against Predatory Lending

Acorn Led Financial Sector With Warnings on Lending
Click to expand...


I love when idiots like you call me a MORON when it comes to economics and investments. I have a degree in economics you MORON. I also work in investments you MORON. You on the other hand post links to articles that you clearly do not understand. You quote stats yet you fail to grasp what they are saying.

YOU stated...

Poor lending practices (predatory) played a huge role, but not to low income and first time buyers. And Fannie and Freddie were not to blame either. The Community Investment Act was not the culprit. It was middle class and wealthy buyers who were mostly speculators.
Click to expand...

To which I replied.... "CRA was indeed a part of the problem" .... which YOUR links confirm. It was. You cling to the stat that 'only 6% were extended by CRA covered lenders (ie... the banks). That is true, but what that little stat doesn't tell morons like you is that the BANKS were also buying up loans from lenders of subprime debt and repackaging them as CDO's and selling them to investors (one of the biggest of those investors.... FANNIE and FREDDIE). So it doesn't matter who the loan ORIGINATED with, it matters that the banks and more importantly FANNIE AND FREDDIE, were buying up the loans that other lenders were originating. If they had not done so, then the other lenders would not have made the loans as they could not afford the risk on THEIR books. You MORON.

Your comment that Fannie and Freddie were not to blame is also completely incorrect. Why is it that they held so much sub prime debt MORON? Why is it that they had to be bailed out MORON? If they weren't such big buyers of CDO's, then again, the amount of loans in the subprime arena would have been less as the investment banks would not have wanted more of that debt on their balance sheets.

Your comment that it was mainly speculators and 'the wealthy' is also absurd. As your articles point out.... 60% went to middle class and 'wealthy'. Which means what about the other 40% MORON?

As I stated, Franks comments about Fannie and Freddie have NOTHING to do with his being gay. Your comments about it being racist have also been shown to be completely absurd you moron.

Bottom line, you idiots on the left who have no clue when it comes to economics or finance always resort to the 'you listen to Fox/Rush/Hannity' line of bullshit because you think that makes you seem intelligent. I don't listen to any of those sources as the talking heads are just about as ignorant on economics as you are. They are predominantly JOURNALISTS... not economists. Just like you, they have no clue. They simply parrot what they HOPE will make them seem intelligent.
Click to expand...

What is truly hysterical is how the Super Freak-ing Dunce likes to portray himself as someone with a superior understanding of the current economic mess in America....but the Super Freak-ing Dunce constantly just ignores what he doesn't like

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...-Neocons-revising-history&p=811049#post811049
 
Taichiliberal said:
If by "everyone" the PMFool means himself and Bravo, then that and a metro card will only get him on the bus. .
Click to expand...

I'm not selfish, I will share the credit with all the other people who've posted on this thread....

Taichiliberal said:
. Leon Panetta DOES NOT state that it was torture the resulted in the courier's name that led to Bin Laden. Period.
Click to expand...

that is true.....it took them years to put a name to the person identified by the "torture" you speak of......
 
Taichiliberal said:
What is truly hysterical is how the Super Freak-ing Dunce likes to portray himself as someone with a superior understanding of the current economic mess in America....but the Super Freak-ing Dunce constantly just ignores what he doesn't like

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...-Neocons-revising-history&p=811049#post811049
Click to expand...


LMAO.... it is funny that you constantly point back to your own posts as some sort of 'proof'. Tell us genius.... what exactly does the above post have to do with my comments? Your constant effort to continue deflecting the conversation onto pathetic 'gotcha' attempts is quite sad. As I stated from the beginning.... Franks comments on Fannie and Freddie have NOTHING to do with his being gay. To equate the CRA with poor=black is again... pathetic. Yet you continue to spin away.

The CRA most certainly played a part in the financial meltdown for the reasons I stated. Those reasons are ACTUAL economic reality.... points that you have not refuted in the least. Instead you link us all back to a previous post of yours that has little to do with my comments.

That shows how lost you are on this topic MORON.
 
Superfreak said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
What is truly hysterical is how the Super Freak-ing Dunce likes to portray himself as someone with a superior understanding of the current economic mess in America....but the Super Freak-ing Dunce constantly just ignores what he doesn't like

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sho...049#post811049
Click to expand...



LMAO.... it is funny that you constantly point back to your own posts as some sort of 'proof'. Tell us genius.... what exactly does the above post have to do with my comments? Your constant effort to continue deflecting the conversation onto pathetic 'gotcha' attempts is quite sad. As I stated from the beginning.... Franks comments on Fannie and Freddie have NOTHING to do with his being gay. To equate the CRA with poor=black is again... pathetic. Yet you continue to spin away.

The CRA most certainly played a part in the financial meltdown for the reasons I stated. Those reasons are ACTUAL economic reality.... points that you have not refuted in the least. Instead you link us all back to a previous post of yours that has little to do with my comments.

That shows how lost you are on this topic MORON.
Click to expand...

From the link I provided:


Since I assumed we were both talking about the CRA, SF little jab means little. However, I stand corrected in that the word 'encouraged' was used in the statement of the Act itself,
It is the purpose of this chapter to require each appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency to use its authority when examining financial institutions, to encourage such institutions to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions.
However, the SF is wrong if he thinks race had nothing to do with the CRA. Observe:
REPORT ON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LENDING Pub. L. 102-550, title IX, Sec. 910, Oct. 28, 1992, 106 Stat. 3874, provided that: ''(a) In General. - Not later than 12 months after the date of enactment of this section (Oct. 28, 1992), the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, in consultation with the Comptroller of the Currency, the Chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the Chairman of the National Credit Union Administration, shall submit a report to the Congress comparing residential, small business, and commercial lending by insured depository institutions in low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods to such lending in other neighborhoods. ''(b) Contents of Report. - The report required by subsection (a) shall - ''(1) compare the risks and returns of lending in low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods with the risks and returns of lending in other neighborhoods; ''(2) analyze the reasons for any differences in risk and return between low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods and other neighborhoods; and ''(3) if the risks of lending in low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods exceed the risks of lending in other neighborhoods, recommend ways of mitigating those risks.''
http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/comm...ity/12c30.html

I made NO accusation against the SF regarding Sen. Frank......I just took him to task regarding his interjection of the CRA into the discussion. That being resolved, we can now get back to acknowledging the FACT that the neocon cabal and all it's sub-groups are just losing their freaking minds over the FACT that Obama succeeded where the Shrub failed....and that success pokes a major hole in the hot air balloon of the Shrub's "legacy".

I leave our Super Freak-ing Clown to laugh, as all clowns do.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I'm not selfish, I will share the credit with all the other people who've posted on this thread....

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
If by "everyone" the PMFool means himself and Bravo, then that and a metro card will only get him on the bus. .
Click to expand...

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
. Leon Panetta DOES NOT state that it was torture the resulted in the courier's name that led to Bin Laden. Period.
Click to expand...

that is true.....it took them years to put a name to the person identified by the "torture" you speak of......
Click to expand...

:palm: The duplicitous nature of the Post Modern Fool once again rears it's ugly head. For those interested in the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, see the following:

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...-Neocons-revising-history&p=812337#post812337

Say goodnight, gracie....shows over for you.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
The duplicitous nature of the Post Modern Fool once again rears it's ugly head. For those interested in the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, see the following:

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sho...337#post812337

Say goodnight, gracie....shows over for you.
Click to expand...

I'm curious....weren't you embarrassed enough the first time you posted it?......why would you want to draw people's attention to it again?.....
Click to expand...

Isn't it sad folks, that the Post Modern Fool hasn't the courage or maturity to just admit he's wrong, let alone carry on a rational, fact based discussion even when his PMFool assertions are only partially correct?

Say goodnight, Gracie!
 
Taichiliberal said:
Isn't it sad folks, that the Post Modern Fool hasn't the courage or maturity to just admit he's wrong, let alone carry on a rational, fact based discussion even when his PMFool assertions are only partially correct?

Say goodnight, Gracie!
Click to expand...

Well,,, I'm a little late to this party, but if past history holds true,,,, you're the one who's lacking in credibility.

Just a big anti-jeffersonian bully trying to make sense of falsehoods.
 
Taichiliberal said:
From the link I provided:


Since I assumed we were both talking about the CRA, SF little jab means little. However, I stand corrected in that the word 'encouraged' was used in the statement of the Act itself,
It is the purpose of this chapter to require each appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency to use its authority when examining financial institutions, to encourage such institutions to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions.
However, the SF is wrong if he thinks race had nothing to do with the CRA. Observe:
REPORT ON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LENDING Pub. L. 102-550, title IX, Sec. 910, Oct. 28, 1992, 106 Stat. 3874, provided that: ''(a) In General. - Not later than 12 months after the date of enactment of this section (Oct. 28, 1992), the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, in consultation with the Comptroller of the Currency, the Chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the Chairman of the National Credit Union Administration, shall submit a report to the Congress comparing residential, small business, and commercial lending by insured depository institutions in low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods to such lending in other neighborhoods. ''(b) Contents of Report. - The report required by subsection (a) shall - ''(1) compare the risks and returns of lending in low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods with the risks and returns of lending in other neighborhoods; ''(2) analyze the reasons for any differences in risk and return between low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods and other neighborhoods; and ''(3) if the risks of lending in low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods exceed the risks of lending in other neighborhoods, recommend ways of mitigating those risks.''
http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/comm...ity/12c30.html

I made NO accusation against the SF regarding Sen. Frank......I just took him to task regarding his interjection of the CRA into the discussion. That being resolved, we can now get back to acknowledging the FACT that the neocon cabal and all it's sub-groups are just losing their freaking minds over the FACT that Obama succeeded where the Shrub failed....and that success pokes a major hole in the hot air balloon of the Shrub's "legacy".

I leave our Super Freak-ing Clown to laugh, as all clowns do.
Click to expand...

Which again moron, shows you have an inability to read. I know you did not make an accusation against Frank.... My comments on that were to inform you that is what Bfgrn DID do in the OP. My comments were to him and later to clarify to you that is what I was talking about. I also pointed out that his OP views of 'people are pissed because we loaned money to blacks' was incorrect as well. He was trying to make the case that poor=black. But rather than actually READ what people write, you instead interject your idiocy into the conversation and end up at this point, where you are once again looking like a complete retard.
 
That about makes it unanamous....TCL is a lying, pinhead, liberal that can't bring himself to admit being wrong on any level, ever....despite being wrong on just about EVERY level....
He is a MORON by unanamous decree, (except for topspin, who is a moron in his own right) and a joke to the entire board......
and we all look forward to pwning him again and again as we've been doing for months....:good4u:
 
Superfreak said:
the link I provided:


Since I assumed we were both talking about the CRA, SF little jab means little. However, I stand corrected in that the word 'encouraged' was used in the statement of the Act itself, It is the purpose of this chapter to require each appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency to use its authority when examining financial institutions, to encourage such institutions to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions.

However, the SF is wrong if he thinks race had nothing to do with the CRA. Observe:

REPORT ON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LENDING Pub. L. 102-550, title IX, Sec. 910, Oct. 28, 1992, 106 Stat. 3874, provided that: ''(a) In General. - Not later than 12 months after the date of enactment of this section (Oct. 28, 1992), the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, in consultation with the Comptroller of the Currency, the Chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the Chairman of the National Credit Union Administration, shall submit a report to the Congress comparing residential, small business, and commercial lending by insured depository institutions in low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods to such lending in other neighborhoods. ''(b) Contents of Report. - The report required by subsection (a) shall - ''(1) compare the risks and returns of lending in low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods with the risks and returns of lending in other neighborhoods; ''(2) analyze the reasons for any differences in risk and return between low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods and other neighborhoods; and ''(3) if the risks of lending in low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods exceed the risks of lending in other neighborhoods, recommend ways of mitigating those risks.''
http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/comm...ity/12c30.html

I made NO accusation against the SF regarding Sen. Frank......I just took him to task regarding his interjection of the CRA into the discussion. That being resolved, we can now get back to acknowledging the FACT that the neocon cabal and all it's sub-groups are just losing their freaking minds over the FACT that Obama succeeded where the Shrub failed....and that success pokes a major hole in the hot air balloon of the Shrub's "legacy".

I leave our Super Freak-ing Clown to laugh, as all clowns do.
Click to expand...

Which again moron, shows you have an inability to read. Whenever the Super Freak-ing Dunce leads off like this, it's usually a prelude to the neocon shuffle, which is just a regurgitation of the SOS that was addressed and/or disproven previously by others. Let's see if our SF-Fool stays true to form. I know you did not make an accusation against Frank.... Translation: The chronology of the posts shows why I stated as such.... the SF Fool consistently makes insinuations, innuendos and such and then denies everything when proven wrong. My comments on that were to inform you that is what Bfgrn DID do in the OP. Re-stating the obvious but NOT mentioning exactly to whom he's reffering to leads one to respond as I did. Again, the duplicitous nature or the SF Fool kicks in. My comments were to him and later to clarify to you that is what I was talking about. Not quite, as the chronology of the posts shows. I also pointed out that his OP views of 'people are pissed because we loaned money to blacks' was incorrect as well. An opinion that has NOT been corroborated by the documentation in the press. And as I stated, the SF Fool DID infer that race was NOT a factor in general...but as the law itself states, that was NOT the case. He was trying to make the case that poor=black. But rather than actually READ what people write, you instead interject your idiocy into the conversation and end up at this point, where you are once again looking like a complete retard.
Click to expand...

One Super Freaking dishonest and willfully ignorant neocon toadie here. As I said, he just ignores what doesn't fit into his SF-ing neocon delusions. But the chronology of the posts will ALWAYS be his undoing!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top