No gun, no crime

Not really sure what he was thinking here but I've always like McClintock. He was a tea party type years before the tea party came about. He is one of the few people that spoke about fiscal conservatism and compared to most others actually practiced it.

He did go to UCLA though so based on that fact it is reasonable to challenge his judgment.
 
Last edited:
cawacko said:
Not really sure what he was thinking here but I've always like McClintock. He was a tea party type years before the tea party came about. He is one of the few people that spoke about fiscal conservatism and compared to most others actually practiced it.

He did go to UCLA though so based on that fact it reasonable to challenge his judgment.
Click to expand...

You're welcome to have him. He's a carpet bagger anyway - doesn't live in the district he's representing. You're welcome to him.

The few things we had in the works that would have helped our community he's killed. And he's an anti-environmentalist to the hilt.

He talks a good game, but he doesn't make sense if you listen closely, and he never listens.
 
I agree that the presence of a gun doesn't really mean anything. Nor does the lack of one. Truly, the presence if a gun is a complete non factor and doesn't even enter into the equation.
 
Thought Thieves said:
I agree that the presence of a gun doesn't really mean anything. Nor does the lack of one. Truly, the presence if a gun is a complete non factor and doesn't even enter into the equation.
Click to expand...

That's not really what was being said though.

I know, I saw the title and my blood started to boil, and then I read it and....well I was still pissed but for different reasons. Fuck banks.
 
Clovis said:
That's not really what was being said though.

I know, I saw the title and my blood started to boil, and then I read it and....well I was still pissed but for different reasons. Fuck banks.
Click to expand...

I believe he said let them fail. (I know you hate banks)
 
most people don't elect politicians based on their perceived intelligence, as evidenced by 95% of our representatives. this was a good example of why some people should stay silent and be thought a fool instead of opening his mouth and proving it.
 
cawacko said:
I believe he said let them fail. (I know you hate banks)
Click to expand...

Yes, he said let them fail. But he also said there was nothing criminal in what they did because they didn't use a gun. That they gave people higher loan rates than they qualified for- maybe you could say people aren't doing due diligence. But I call it fraud.

And definitely the way the banks packaged the loans and sold them off was fraudulent. The securities got rated much higher than they should have been.

But he says no gun was used, so no crime.

So next time your identity is stolen and someone rips off your bank account - no gun, no crime?

As STY said "this was a good example of why some people should stay silent and be thought a fool instead of opening his mouth and proving it."
 
Thought Thieves said:
I agree that the presence of a gun doesn't really mean anything. Nor does the lack of one. Truly, the presence if a gun is a complete non factor and doesn't even enter into the equation.
Click to expand...

Desperate nit picking...
Haven't you ever heard the term " 'smoking gun' ..... ?....thats what the guy meant....its a term used thousands of times in the past.....
To omit the word "smoking" doesn't alter the meaning his was trying to get across....its just poorly worded....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top