"Too big to fail"

JTsyo

Lifer
Nov 18, 2007
11,249
465
126
It seems to me that if companies are too big to fail, then the government should ensure that companies don't get that big that they have to be bailed out by the government. But what we see now is that financial institutions are buying others and merging. Isn't this the wrong direction to go to to prevent this in the future?
 

frostedflakes

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2005
7,925
1
0
After this whole fiasco, they may look into breaking the large banks up. For now, though, the priority is probably stabilizing the market, and if that means letting some of the failing banks be bought up by larger institutions, so be it.

Then again, you have to wonder how much good it will do. Look at how successful breaking up AT&T back in the 80s has been. They just bought up most of the RBOCs and are as big as ever. :p
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
12,325
7,235
136
I had pretty much the same thought a while back. Too much consolidation and not enough regulation.
 

Duwelon

Golden Member
Nov 3, 2004
1,058
0
0
It doesn't matter if it's a big company or a small company, because the source of the problem is government meddling in the private economy.

The reason these banks are failing is because the bleeding heart liberals had this brilliant idea of forcing them to give loans to unworthy borrowers. Well, guess what, now they default on their loans and you have that idiot pelosi saying "dont' look at us!". What a MORON.

Had capitalism been allowed to do it's thing without communist idiots in the left butting in we wouldn't be in this mess today.

Liberals are so damn economically stupid it's horrifying. They have all these awesome ideas about giving OTHER PEOPLE's money away that always turn out burning everyone in the end.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
346
126
Originally posted by: JTsyo
It seems to me that if companies are too big to fail, then the government should ensure that companies don't get that big that they have to be bailed out by the government. But what we see now is that financial institutions are buying others and merging. Isn't this the wrong direction to go to to prevent this in the future?
DING DING DING (we have a winner).

The question to ask now is, how do we *prevent* getting into the nation held over a barrel?
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
346
126
Originally posted by: Duwelon
It doesn't matter if it's a big company or a small company, because the source of the problem is government meddling in the private economy.

The reason these banks are failing is because the bleeding heart liberals had this brilliant idea of forcing them to give loans to unworthy borrowers. Well, guess what, now they default on their loans and you have that idiot pelosi saying "dont' look at us!". What a MORON.

Had capitalism been allowed to do it's thing without communist idiots in the left butting in we wouldn't be in this mess today.

Liberals are so damn economically stupid it's horrifying. They have all these awesome ideas about giving OTHER PEOPLE's money away that always turn out burning everyone in the end.
The irony of you saying democrats are ignorant. Why don't you go learn the basic about which party the economy does far better under? You're not even a good parrot.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
49,305
11,282
136
Originally posted by: Duwelon
It doesn't matter if it's a big company or a small company, because the source of the problem is government meddling in the private economy.

The reason these banks are failing is because the bleeding heart liberals had this brilliant idea of forcing them to give loans to unworthy borrowers. Well, guess what, now they default on their loans and you have that idiot pelosi saying "dont' look at us!". What a MORON.

Had capitalism been allowed to do it's thing without communist idiots in the left butting in we wouldn't be in this mess today.

Liberals are so damn economically stupid it's horrifying. They have all these awesome ideas about giving OTHER PEOPLE's money away that always turn out burning everyone in the end.
You mean like the idiots who got all their political and economic education off talk radio? :roll:

I've seen oversimplification and spin before, but this about takes the cake. It's too bad, not only that this is not how this crisis came about, but that your party's leaders, who you are oh-so-faithful to, do not even share your own free market views.


On topic though, who will be bailing out the federal govt when it's too big to fail?
 

Duwelon

Golden Member
Nov 3, 2004
1,058
0
0
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Duwelon
It doesn't matter if it's a big company or a small company, because the source of the problem is government meddling in the private economy.

The reason these banks are failing is because the bleeding heart liberals had this brilliant idea of forcing them to give loans to unworthy borrowers. Well, guess what, now they default on their loans and you have that idiot pelosi saying "dont' look at us!". What a MORON.

Had capitalism been allowed to do it's thing without communist idiots in the left butting in we wouldn't be in this mess today.

Liberals are so damn economically stupid it's horrifying. They have all these awesome ideas about giving OTHER PEOPLE's money away that always turn out burning everyone in the end.
The irony of you saying democrats are ignorant. Why don't you go learn the basic about which party the economy does far better under? You're not even a good parrot.
Why don't you respond to what I wrote instead of spouting off random BS, just to say that you replied?
 

Butterbean

Banned
Oct 12, 2006
918
1
0
Factions in the gov. want these institutions to fail - that way they get to save them in socialist manner. It's called "hurt and rescue" principle.

Clinton changed the Community Reinvestment Act so that banks essentailly had quotas. Banks were reviewed by treasury and had to prove they were making loans to a risky segment of a banks population. The subprime crisis was generated by the gov forcing banks to make loans to people. Financial instotutions were medddled with and made to serve catastrophic social engineering goals that could only hurt long run - and they did.

PERHAPS the greatest scandal of the mort gage crisis is that it is a direct result of an intentional loosening of underwriting standards - done in the name of ending discrimination, despite warnings that it could lead to wide-scale defaults.

At the crisis' core are loans that were made with virtually nonexistent underwriting standards - no verification of income or assets; little consideration of the applicant's ability to make payments; no down payment.

Most people instinctively understand that such loans are likely to be unsound. But how did the heavily-regulated banking industry end up able to engage in such foolishness"



THE REAL SCANDAL
HOW FEDS INVITED THE MORTGAGE MESS

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02...ndal_243911.htm?page=0


The Community Reinvestment Act
http://www.federalreserve.gov/...raunstein20080213a.htm


The same hurt and rescue can be seen in energy (US forced to use foreign oil) and health care (more laws passed to make more treatments mandatory for more populations - while protectiing trail lawyers who were driving MD's and hospitals out of biz). It's no co-incidence Obama is number 2 in donations from Fannie and Freddie and that he never talks about tort reform in any meaningful way to lower health costs.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Duwelon

The reason these banks are failing is because the bleeding heart liberals had this brilliant idea of forcing them to give loans to unworthy borrowers.

Liberals are so damn economically stupid it's horrifying.
Sorry this all happened on your heroes watch.

You can say it's the liberals fault at the top of your lungs but history books will show you are lying along with the rest of your Republican cabal that hate America.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
49,305
11,282
136
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Duwelon
It doesn't matter if it's a big company or a small company, because the source of the problem is government meddling in the private economy.

The reason these banks are failing is because the bleeding heart liberals had this brilliant idea of forcing them to give loans to unworthy borrowers. Well, guess what, now they default on their loans and you have that idiot pelosi saying "dont' look at us!". What a MORON.

Had capitalism been allowed to do it's thing without communist idiots in the left butting in we wouldn't be in this mess today.

Liberals are so damn economically stupid it's horrifying. They have all these awesome ideas about giving OTHER PEOPLE's money away that always turn out burning everyone in the end.
The irony of you saying democrats are ignorant. Why don't you go learn the basic about which party the economy does far better under? You're not even a good parrot.
Why don't you respond to what I wrote instead of spouting off random BS, just to say that you replied?
Since the 70s, Republican administrations have grown the federal budget at almost twice the rate as Democratic administrations, while during the same period, GDP has grown at a faster under Democratic administrations than under Republican administrations.

I discussed this in a fact-based thread just last week - Text
 

Duwelon

Golden Member
Nov 3, 2004
1,058
0
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Duwelon

The reason these banks are failing is because the bleeding heart liberals had this brilliant idea of forcing them to give loans to unworthy borrowers.

Liberals are so damn economically stupid it's horrifying.
Sorry this all happened on your heroes watch.

You can say it's the liberals fault at the top of your lungs but history books will show you are lying along with the rest of your Republican cabal that hate America.
Keep watching the news, it will be exposed in the MSM hopefully before the election. Look at butterbeans post above. THere is a lot of meddling by socialist democrats in the economy and while it might sound great to point at the president and blame him for everything, it's just not possible he's responsible for everything.

By the way, i dig the whole "Republicans hate America" trip you seem to be on lately, are you aware that it makes you look like a total fraud though?
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
49,305
11,282
136
Originally posted by: Butterbean
Factions in the gov. want these institutions to fail - that way they get to save them in socialist manner. It's called "hurt and rescue" principle.

Clinton changed the Community Reinvestment Act so that banks essentailly had quotas. Banks were reviewed by treasury and had to prove they were making loans to a risky segment of a banks population. The subprime crisis was generated by the gov forcing banks to make loans to people. Financial instotutions were medddled with and made to serve catastrophic social engineering goals that could only hurt long run - and they did.

PERHAPS the greatest scandal of the mort gage crisis is that it is a direct result of an intentional loosening of underwriting standards - done in the name of ending discrimination, despite warnings that it could lead to wide-scale defaults.

At the crisis' core are loans that were made with virtually nonexistent underwriting standards - no verification of income or assets; little consideration of the applicant's ability to make payments; no down payment.

Most people instinctively understand that such loans are likely to be unsound. But how did the heavily-regulated banking industry end up able to engage in such foolishness"



THE REAL SCANDAL
HOW FEDS INVITED THE MORTGAGE MESS

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02...ndal_243911.htm?page=0


The Community Reinvestment Act
http://www.federalreserve.gov/...raunstein20080213a.htm


The same hurt and rescue can be seen in energy (US forced to use foreign oil) and health care (more laws passed to make more treatments mandatory for more populations - while protectiing trail lawyers who were driving MD's and hospitals out of biz). It's no co-incidence Obama is number 2 in donations from Fannie and Freddie and that he never talks about tort reform in any meaningful way to lower health costs.
Why are you blaming the CRA when most subprime loans were financed through investment firms, who only had the ability to dabble in mortgage banking because of the GLBA?

Oh wait, that's because Phil Gramm is McCain's key economic adviser and 1st-in-line to made the Treasury secretary if McCain wins, right?

:roll:

edit: BTW, I do agree with your linked article that HMDA may have played an unintended role, but that's because it applied to EVERYONE who originated mortgage loans, while CRA only applied to banks lending their own monies (actual deposits from bank customers) and most of those funds typically go into commercial lending (and the bank's own home equity lines), while 1st mtg paper is almost always sold on the secondary market (Wall Street, Fannie, Freddie, etc) so CRA didn't apply to those.
 

Duwelon

Golden Member
Nov 3, 2004
1,058
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Duwelon
It doesn't matter if it's a big company or a small company, because the source of the problem is government meddling in the private economy.

The reason these banks are failing is because the bleeding heart liberals had this brilliant idea of forcing them to give loans to unworthy borrowers. Well, guess what, now they default on their loans and you have that idiot pelosi saying "dont' look at us!". What a MORON.

Had capitalism been allowed to do it's thing without communist idiots in the left butting in we wouldn't be in this mess today.

Liberals are so damn economically stupid it's horrifying. They have all these awesome ideas about giving OTHER PEOPLE's money away that always turn out burning everyone in the end.
The irony of you saying democrats are ignorant. Why don't you go learn the basic about which party the economy does far better under? You're not even a good parrot.
Why don't you respond to what I wrote instead of spouting off random BS, just to say that you replied?
Since the 70s, Republican administrations have grown the federal budget at almost twice the rate as Democratic administrations, while during the same period, GDP has grown at a faster under Democratic administrations than under Republican administrations.

I discussed this in a fact-based thread just last week - Text
We're talking about why banks are failing because of sub-prime mortgage forclosures are going through the roof and I don't know if you're aware of this or not, but the president does not micro-manage every detail of the economy.
 

Butterbean

Banned
Oct 12, 2006
918
1
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Butterbean
Factions in the gov. want these institutions to fail - that way they get to save them in socialist manner. It's called "hurt and rescue" principle.

Clinton changed the Community Reinvestment Act so that banks essentailly had quotas. Banks were reviewed by treasury and had to prove they were making loans to a risky segment of a banks population. The subprime crisis was generated by the gov forcing banks to make loans to people. Financial instotutions were medddled with and made to serve catastrophic social engineering goals that could only hurt long run - and they did.

PERHAPS the greatest scandal of the mort gage crisis is that it is a direct result of an intentional loosening of underwriting standards - done in the name of ending discrimination, despite warnings that it could lead to wide-scale defaults.

At the crisis' core are loans that were made with virtually nonexistent underwriting standards - no verification of income or assets; little consideration of the applicant's ability to make payments; no down payment.

Most people instinctively understand that such loans are likely to be unsound. But how did the heavily-regulated banking industry end up able to engage in such foolishness"



THE REAL SCANDAL
HOW FEDS INVITED THE MORTGAGE MESS

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02...ndal_243911.htm?page=0


The Community Reinvestment Act
http://www.federalreserve.gov/...raunstein20080213a.htm


The same hurt and rescue can be seen in energy (US forced to use foreign oil) and health care (more laws passed to make more treatments mandatory for more populations - while protectiing trail lawyers who were driving MD's and hospitals out of biz). It's no co-incidence Obama is number 2 in donations from Fannie and Freddie and that he never talks about tort reform in any meaningful way to lower health costs.
Why are you blaming the CRA when most subprime loans were financed through investment firms, who only had the ability to dabble in mortgage banking because of the GLBA?

Oh wait, that's because Phil Gramm is McCain's key economic adviser and 1st-in-line to made the Treasury secretary if McCain wins, right?

:roll:
I know what went first the cart or the horse. Its easy to figure out even and if you have struggled so far - you can get there vic - yes you can!

 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
49,305
11,282
136
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Duwelon
It doesn't matter if it's a big company or a small company, because the source of the problem is government meddling in the private economy.

The reason these banks are failing is because the bleeding heart liberals had this brilliant idea of forcing them to give loans to unworthy borrowers. Well, guess what, now they default on their loans and you have that idiot pelosi saying "dont' look at us!". What a MORON.

Had capitalism been allowed to do it's thing without communist idiots in the left butting in we wouldn't be in this mess today.

Liberals are so damn economically stupid it's horrifying. They have all these awesome ideas about giving OTHER PEOPLE's money away that always turn out burning everyone in the end.
The irony of you saying democrats are ignorant. Why don't you go learn the basic about which party the economy does far better under? You're not even a good parrot.
Why don't you respond to what I wrote instead of spouting off random BS, just to say that you replied?
Since the 70s, Republican administrations have grown the federal budget at almost twice the rate as Democratic administrations, while during the same period, GDP has grown at a faster under Democratic administrations than under Republican administrations.

I discussed this in a fact-based thread just last week - Text
We're talking about why banks are failing because of sub-prime mortgage forclosures are going through the roof and I don't know if you're aware of this or not, but the president does not micro-manage every detail of the economy.
So are you adding DUH-version on top of your previous DUH-version then?

Unlike you, I know what I'm talking about here. I'm an actual banker.
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,890
641
126
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Duwelon
It doesn't matter if it's a big company or a small company, because the source of the problem is government meddling in the private economy.

The reason these banks are failing is because the bleeding heart liberals had this brilliant idea of forcing them to give loans to unworthy borrowers. Well, guess what, now they default on their loans and you have that idiot pelosi saying "dont' look at us!". What a MORON.

Had capitalism been allowed to do it's thing without communist idiots in the left butting in we wouldn't be in this mess today.

Liberals are so damn economically stupid it's horrifying. They have all these awesome ideas about giving OTHER PEOPLE's money away that always turn out burning everyone in the end.
You mean like the idiots who got all their political and economic education off talk radio? :roll:

I've seen oversimplification and spin before, but this about takes the cake. It's too bad, not only that this is not how this crisis came about, but that your party's leaders, who you are oh-so-faithful to, do not even share your own free market views.


On topic though, who will be bailing out the federal govt when it's too big to fail?
China, or maybe The United Arab Emirates.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: Duwelon
It doesn't matter if it's a big company or a small company, because the source of the problem is government meddling in the private economy.

The reason these banks are failing is because the bleeding heart liberals had this brilliant idea of forcing them to give loans to unworthy borrowers. Well, guess what, now they default on their loans and you have that idiot pelosi saying "dont' look at us!". What a MORON.

Had capitalism been allowed to do it's thing without communist idiots in the left butting in we wouldn't be in this mess today.

Liberals are so damn economically stupid it's horrifying. They have all these awesome ideas about giving OTHER PEOPLE's money away that always turn out burning everyone in the end.
Actually, TRUE liberals believe in personal responsibility as much as personal freedom.

But you don't get that because you are too wound up in politics that you have been taught are right or wrong.

That conservatives do this way more than any liberal organisation ever has done, even in the US doesn't bother you at all, you just keep spewing your ignorant bullshit that you have been indoctrinated with like you had no mind of your own.

Pretty fucking pathetic.
 

Duwelon

Golden Member
Nov 3, 2004
1,058
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Duwelon
It doesn't matter if it's a big company or a small company, because the source of the problem is government meddling in the private economy.

The reason these banks are failing is because the bleeding heart liberals had this brilliant idea of forcing them to give loans to unworthy borrowers. Well, guess what, now they default on their loans and you have that idiot pelosi saying "dont' look at us!". What a MORON.

Had capitalism been allowed to do it's thing without communist idiots in the left butting in we wouldn't be in this mess today.

Liberals are so damn economically stupid it's horrifying. They have all these awesome ideas about giving OTHER PEOPLE's money away that always turn out burning everyone in the end.
The irony of you saying democrats are ignorant. Why don't you go learn the basic about which party the economy does far better under? You're not even a good parrot.
Why don't you respond to what I wrote instead of spouting off random BS, just to say that you replied?
Since the 70s, Republican administrations have grown the federal budget at almost twice the rate as Democratic administrations, while during the same period, GDP has grown at a faster under Democratic administrations than under Republican administrations.

I discussed this in a fact-based thread just last week - Text
We're talking about why banks are failing because of sub-prime mortgage forclosures are going through the roof and I don't know if you're aware of this or not, but the president does not micro-manage every detail of the economy.
So are you adding DUH-version on top of your previous DUH-version then?

Unlike you, I know what I'm talking about here. I'm an actual banker.
Could have fooled me, you've done nothing but show off yoru "Must Reply" complex with stupid sniping posts that provided little relavent information or actual responses to what people wrote. Just because you quote butterbean doesn't mean your oh so whitty remark actually holds any water.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
49,305
11,282
136
Originally posted by: Butterbean
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Butterbean
Factions in the gov. want these institutions to fail - that way they get to save them in socialist manner. It's called "hurt and rescue" principle.

Clinton changed the Community Reinvestment Act so that banks essentailly had quotas. Banks were reviewed by treasury and had to prove they were making loans to a risky segment of a banks population. The subprime crisis was generated by the gov forcing banks to make loans to people. Financial instotutions were medddled with and made to serve catastrophic social engineering goals that could only hurt long run - and they did.

PERHAPS the greatest scandal of the mort gage crisis is that it is a direct result of an intentional loosening of underwriting standards - done in the name of ending discrimination, despite warnings that it could lead to wide-scale defaults.

At the crisis' core are loans that were made with virtually nonexistent underwriting standards - no verification of income or assets; little consideration of the applicant's ability to make payments; no down payment.

Most people instinctively understand that such loans are likely to be unsound. But how did the heavily-regulated banking industry end up able to engage in such foolishness"



THE REAL SCANDAL
HOW FEDS INVITED THE MORTGAGE MESS

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02...ndal_243911.htm?page=0


The Community Reinvestment Act
http://www.federalreserve.gov/...raunstein20080213a.htm


The same hurt and rescue can be seen in energy (US forced to use foreign oil) and health care (more laws passed to make more treatments mandatory for more populations - while protectiing trail lawyers who were driving MD's and hospitals out of biz). It's no co-incidence Obama is number 2 in donations from Fannie and Freddie and that he never talks about tort reform in any meaningful way to lower health costs.
Why are you blaming the CRA when most subprime loans were financed through investment firms, who only had the ability to dabble in mortgage banking because of the GLBA?

Oh wait, that's because Phil Gramm is McCain's key economic adviser and 1st-in-line to made the Treasury secretary if McCain wins, right?

:roll:
I know what went first the cart or the horse. Its easy to figure out even and if you have struggled so far - you can get there vic - yes you can!
Okay, you answered nothing here. And please see my edit above. Looks like you're copying and pasting from blogs again, eh? Too bad this one lied to you.

If you want to blame Clinton for the mortgage crisis, then you need to focus not on the CRA but on his decision in 1995 to allow Fannie and Freddie to purchase subprime loans. However, it was under Bush that HUD ramped up the requirements for this, specifically in decisions made in 2001 and 2005.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Duwelon
It doesn't matter if it's a big company or a small company, because the source of the problem is government meddling in the private economy.

The reason these banks are failing is because the bleeding heart liberals had this brilliant idea of forcing them to give loans to unworthy borrowers. Well, guess what, now they default on their loans and you have that idiot pelosi saying "dont' look at us!". What a MORON.

Had capitalism been allowed to do it's thing without communist idiots in the left butting in we wouldn't be in this mess today.

Liberals are so damn economically stupid it's horrifying. They have all these awesome ideas about giving OTHER PEOPLE's money away that always turn out burning everyone in the end.
The irony of you saying democrats are ignorant. Why don't you go learn the basic about which party the economy does far better under? You're not even a good parrot.
Why don't you respond to what I wrote instead of spouting off random BS, just to say that you replied?
Since the 70s, Republican administrations have grown the federal budget at almost twice the rate as Democratic administrations, while during the same period, GDP has grown at a faster under Democratic administrations than under Republican administrations.

I discussed this in a fact-based thread just last week - Text
We're talking about why banks are failing because of sub-prime mortgage forclosures are going through the roof and I don't know if you're aware of this or not, but the president does not micro-manage every detail of the economy.
So are you adding DUH-version on top of your previous DUH-version then?

Unlike you, I know what I'm talking about here. I'm an actual banker.
Could have fooled me, you've done nothing but show off yoru "Must Reply" complex with stupid sniping posts that provided little relavent information or actual responses to what people wrote. Just because you quote butterbean doesn't mean your oh so whitty remark actually holds any water.
You got fucked up by someone who knows better and you should apologise, but your type never does that, you keep believing what the fuck you have been indoctrinated to believe and reality does not stand in your way.

Son, do you think that maybe you do NOT know everything, that someone who IS involved like Vic can teach you something if you just shut up and listen for one fucking moment?

Vic is an intelligent man, you're not, listen up and you might learn something, son.
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,890
641
126
A lot of these threads here serve to remind me why Congress has so much trouble accomplishing anything. Every issue degrades down to partisanship and name-calling.

Edit: spelling
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
49,305
11,282
136
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Could have fooled me, you've done nothing but show off yoru "Must Reply" complex with stupid sniping posts that provided little relavent information or actual responses to what people wrote. Just because you quote butterbean doesn't mean your oh so whitty remark actually holds any water.
Have you even read my replies in this thread? :confused:

I'm a HUGE proponent of free market ideologies, but you realize that he's talking about FDIC-insured banks here, right? You can't say something like, well without the CRA we'd have a free market! because the deposits would still be federally-insured among a gazillion other regulatory issues that also intervene on the free market. At the same time, these banks made the voluntary decision to comply with these kinds of regulations when they agreed to accept FDIC protection.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: boomerang
A lot of these threads here serve to remind me why Congress has so much trouble accomplishing anything. Every issue degrades down to partisanship and name-calling.

Edit: spelling
Well, in the case of Duwelon, he's anti-evolution, anti-abortion and a creationist, i think that speaks for itself.

He seems to treat politics in the same way he treats his faith, damned be the facts and reality.

Personally, i'm British so i don't have a stake in this election, it's just my observation.
 

Duwelon

Golden Member
Nov 3, 2004
1,058
0
0
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: boomerang
A lot of these threads here serve to remind me why Congress has so much trouble accomplishing anything. Every issue degrades down to partisanship and name-calling.

Edit: spelling
Well, in the case of Duwelon, he's anti-evolution, anti-abortion and a creationist, i think that speaks for itself.

He seems to treat politics in the same way he treats his faith, damned be the facts and reality.

Personally, i'm British so i don't have a stake in this election, it's just my observation.
You're a hateful bigot who has absolutely nothing to add to this thread what so ever.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY