America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 9 years ago by Abrignac. 49 replies replies.
New study confirms economy was destroyed by Democrat policies
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
jackconrad Offline
#1 Posted: Fri, Mar 13 2015, 10:17 PM EST
Joined: 06-09-2003
Posts: 67,461



Mar 13, 2015


We have been saying for ten years that the Clinton Administration’s championing of the Community Reinvestment Act is what created the huge mortgage bubble in the first place. Then the Clinton Administration Justice Department threatened banks that they would be prosecuted on charges of discrimination if the banks didn’t grant every loan as stated income, no questions asked.

From Investors Business Daily:

Democrats and the media insist the Community Reinvestment Act, the anti-redlining law beefed up by President Clinton, had nothing to do with the subprime mortgage crisis and recession.

But a new study by the respected National Bureau of Economic Research finds, “Yes, it did. We find that adherence to that act led to riskier lending by banks.”

Added NBER: “There is a clear pattern of increased defaults for loans made by these banks in quarters around the (CRA) exam. Moreover, the effects are larger for loans made within CRA tracts,” or predominantly low-income and minority areas.

To satisfy CRA examiners, “flexible” lending by large banks rose an average 5% and those loans defaulted about 15% more often, the 43-page study found.

The strongest link between CRA lending and defaults took place in the runup to the crisis — 2004 to 2006 — when banks rapidly sold CRA mortgages for securitization by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and Wall Street.

CRA regulations are at the core of Fannie’s and Freddie’s so-called affordable housing mission. In the early 1990s, a Democrat Congress gave HUD the authority to set and enforce (through fines) CRA-grade loan quotas at Fannie and Freddie.

It passed a law requiring the government-backed agencies to “assist insured depository institutions to meet their obligations under the (CRA).” The goal was to help banks meet lending quotas by buying their CRA loans.

But they had to loosen underwriting standards to do it. And that’s what they did.

“We want your CRA loans because they help us meet our housing goals,” Fannie Vice Chair Jamie Gorelick beseeched lenders gathered at a banking conference in 2000, just after HUD hiked the mortgage giant’s affordable housing quotas to 50% and pressed it to buy more CRA-eligible loans to help meet those new targets. “We will buy them from your portfolios or package them into securities.”
cacman Offline
#2 Posted: Fri, Mar 13 2015, 10:32 PM EST
Joined: 07-03-2010
Posts: 12,216
But the big "O"s administration still blames it all in Bush??? Even though the Clinton's bilked the saving & loans over shoddy real-estate deals.

We bought our 1st home under Clinton and through HUD. $1500 down and no questions asked. It was quite a different scenario when we bought our home last year. Practically had to give a blood sample, and guarantee our 2nd child. They wanted the 2nd child instead of the first since he is much younger and "potentially" has a higher earning power than our first who is in college and already working. Go figure.
fenderbendertex Offline
#3 Posted: Fri, Mar 13 2015, 10:32 PM EST
Joined: 08-17-2013
Posts: 1,139
Don't forget pushing toxic assets to other banks and mortgage companies and both sides making bonuses from it...
MACS Offline
#4 Posted: Fri, Mar 13 2015, 10:33 PM EST
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,809
Our economy was destroyed by the 9/11 attacks. Of course the dems like to blame Bush for the collapse... but sh*t was going smooth as butter until that.

Free enterprise needs to be encouraged, not taxed to hell. All of California's (liberal as f**k) money is going to Texas (conservative as f**k). Why? They encourage free enterprise and don't tax the sh*t out of it.

I realize it isn't quite THAT simple, but the business of business is making money. Government should not be putting their greedy little hands in it.

I recall this country being founded on people who were tired of being taxed. Yet... it seems we've come almost full circle.
Government is too involved in our lives, our business, and our freedom.
cacman Offline
#5 Posted: Fri, Mar 13 2015, 10:34 PM EST
Joined: 07-03-2010
Posts: 12,216
fenderbendertex wrote:
Don't forget pushing toxic assets to other banks and mortgage companies and both sides making bonuses from it...

With a little insider trading too perhaps???
cacman Offline
#6 Posted: Fri, Mar 13 2015, 10:37 PM EST
Joined: 07-03-2010
Posts: 12,216
MACS wrote:
Government is too involved in our lives, our business, and our freedom.

+1
Hear, Hear!
Let's throw another Tea Party at the Harbor.
Unfortunately we'd probably all be thrown in jail for conspiracy against the guberment.
fenderbendertex Offline
#7 Posted: Fri, Mar 13 2015, 10:43 PM EST
Joined: 08-17-2013
Posts: 1,139
Watched a three hour show on this crap after finding out the hard way what "underwater" means in mortgage terms. Was even more confused by the explanation...
fenderbendertex Offline
#8 Posted: Fri, Mar 13 2015, 10:47 PM EST
Joined: 08-17-2013
Posts: 1,139
lSpeak to the hand
MACS wrote:
Our economy was destroyed by the 9/11 attacks. Of course the dems like to blame Bush for the collapse... but sh*t was going smooth as butter until that.

Free enterprise needs to be encouraged, not taxed to hell. All of California's (liberal as f**k) money is going to Texas (conservative as f**k). Why? They encourage free enterprise and don't tax the sh*t out of it.

I realize it isn't quite THAT simple, but the business of business is making money. Government should not be putting their greedy little hands in it.

I recall this country being founded on people who were tired of being taxed. Yet... it seems we've come almost full circle.
Government is too involved in our lives, our business, and our freedom.

Where is all the California money in Texas going to? Certainly not the public schools...
frankj1 Offline
#9 Posted: Fri, Mar 13 2015, 11:02 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,223
yet everyone was cool with Reagan doing it?
teedubbya Offline
#10 Posted: Fri, Mar 13 2015, 11:18 PM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
Shhhh. They are on a roll.
MACS Offline
#11 Posted: Sat, Mar 14 2015, 12:04 AM EST
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,809
frankj1 wrote:
yet everyone was cool with Reagan doing it?


Reagan doing what? I wasn't in CA when Reagan was President. I was in RI. Which is infinitely worse than CA.

Frank... if you're cool with getting the living sh*t taxed out of you... you're in the right state. If you're okay with having the government control you, again, you're in the right state.

Personally, I think the gov't needs to be much less involved in our day to day activities and go back to being what it was when the country was founded... a representation of the people's will... not an enforcement of its own will.
cacman Offline
#12 Posted: Sat, Mar 14 2015, 1:53 AM EST
Joined: 07-03-2010
Posts: 12,216
MACS wrote:
Personally, I think the gov't needs to be much less involved in our day to day activities and go back to being what it was when the country was founded... a representation of the people's will... not an enforcement of the 0.5%er's

never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself
frankj1 Offline
#13 Posted: Sat, Mar 14 2015, 9:15 AM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,223
MACS wrote:
Our economy was destroyed by the 9/11 attacks. Of course the dems like to blame Bush for the collapse... but sh*t was going smooth as butter until that.

Free enterprise needs to be encouraged, not taxed to hell. All of California's (liberal as f**k) money is going to Texas (conservative as f**k). Why? They encourage free enterprise and don't tax the sh*t out of it.

I realize it isn't quite THAT simple, but the business of business is making money. Government should not be putting their greedy little hands in it.

I recall this country being founded on people who were tired of being taxed. Yet... it seems we've come almost full circle.
Government is too involved in our lives, our business, and our freedom.

thought I was referring to home loans.

and Texas has maybe the highest percentage of below poverty level families.
fenderbendertex Offline
#14 Posted: Sat, Mar 14 2015, 10:39 AM EST
Joined: 08-17-2013
Posts: 1,139
frankj1 wrote:
thought I was referring to home loans.

and Texas has maybe the highest percentage of below poverty level families.

+1 My school district is all free lunch
fenderbendertex Offline
#15 Posted: Sat, Mar 14 2015, 10:43 AM EST
Joined: 08-17-2013
Posts: 1,139
fenderbendertex wrote:
+1 My school district is all free lunch

To explain that last comment - the district's below-poverty-level percentage is so close to 100% the government waived the last remaining few...
frankj1 Offline
#16 Posted: Sat, Mar 14 2015, 12:29 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,223
^^
it's tough to use facts in a debate against hate. Personally, I don't care what politics people believe is superior, but I'd be bored only reading what I already believe.
MACS Offline
#17 Posted: Sat, Mar 14 2015, 2:41 PM EST
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,809
I'm not hating.

Businesses are leaving CA and going to states that are more business friendly. Texas was one of the states I read about where CA businesses were going. I don't know where in Texas they went, and I don't know how Texas uses its money.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-business-is-leaving-california-for-texas-174227275.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/dalebuss/2014/04/30/texas-v-california-this-aint-over-when-toyota-leaves/

The fact is, California's liberal policies are forcing the state to lose businesses and money.
frankj1 Offline
#18 Posted: Sat, Mar 14 2015, 3:24 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,223
MACS wrote:
I'm not hating.

Businesses are leaving CA and going to states that are more business friendly. Texas was one of the states I read about where CA businesses were going. I don't know where in Texas they went, and I don't know how Texas uses its money.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-business-is-leaving-california-for-texas-174227275.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/dalebuss/2014/04/30/texas-v-california-this-aint-over-when-toyota-leaves/

The fact is, California's liberal policies are forcing the state to lose businesses and money.

never worried about me being hated! just meant it's a waste to discuss political facts with one who hates the opposition, sort of blinds them to anything that might be positive.

However, I'm writing with lending practices in mind, not business taxes...
frankj1 Offline
#19 Posted: Sat, Mar 14 2015, 3:27 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,223
cacman wrote:
But the big "O"s administration still blames it all in Bush??? Even though the Clinton's bilked the saving & loans over shoddy real-estate deals.

We bought our 1st home under Clinton and through HUD. $1500 down and no questions asked. It was quite a different scenario when we bought our home last year. Practically had to give a blood sample, and guarantee our 2nd child. They wanted the 2nd child instead of the first since he is much younger and "potentially" has a higher earning power than our first who is in college and already working. Go figure.

so which Democrat administration handled it correctly?
Yup, I'm gyrating ya.
victor809 Offline
#20 Posted: Sat, Mar 14 2015, 11:44 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Gonna have to call bs on that MACS.
From where I stand I can't see anyone leaving the bay area, I wish some would. As a couple with two strong incomes we're practically poor here.

There's still a LOT of money and business coming into CA. At least in our area.

When a tiny 500sq ft condo is running 500-700k (and 400-700$ monthly maintenance fees) someone is working and earning money.
jetblasted Offline
#21 Posted: Sun, Mar 15 2015, 12:06 AM EST
Joined: 08-30-2004
Posts: 42,595
Just think what that money would buy you elsewhere. Man, I envision 100's of acres, and peace & quiet & happiness.

Scratch That.

Live in your box & fight the masses.
teedubbya Offline
#22 Posted: Sun, Mar 15 2015, 8:15 AM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
I'm with you there Jet.
fenderbendertex Offline
#23 Posted: Sun, Mar 15 2015, 10:09 AM EST
Joined: 08-17-2013
Posts: 1,139
MACS wrote:
I'm not hating.

Businesses are leaving CA and going to states that are more business friendly. Texas was one of the states I read about where CA businesses were going. I don't know where in Texas they went, and I don't know how Texas uses its money.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-business-is-leaving-california-for-texas-174227275.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/dalebuss/2014/04/30/texas-v-california-this-aint-over-when-toyota-leaves/

The fact is, California's liberal policies are forcing the state to lose businesses and money.

Don't get me wrong, MACS, I know about CA - my sister lives there. (Don't get the cost of living there.) Just talking about how the Texas corporations get out of using their money correctly (and there several big names with their home offices there for just the reason you mentioned). Only a couple of corporations seem to help the public.
And don't even get me started on billionaire high-profile pro team owners...
Gene363 Offline
#24 Posted: Sun, Mar 15 2015, 10:14 AM EST
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,834
jetblasted wrote:
Just think what that money would buy you elsewhere. Man, I envision 100's of acres, and peace & quiet & happiness.

Scratch That.

Live in your box & fight the masses.


Exactly!

MACS Offline
#25 Posted: Sun, Mar 15 2015, 1:57 PM EST
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,809
victor809 wrote:
Gonna have to call bs on that MACS.
From where I stand I can't see anyone leaving the bay area, I wish some would. As a couple with two strong incomes we're practically poor here.

There's still a LOT of money and business coming into CA. At least in our area.

When a tiny 500sq ft condo is running 500-700k (and 400-700$ monthly maintenance fees) someone is working and earning money.


Call BS all you want... I posted the articles for you to read.

SF is so pricey because of its location, bro. Always has been. The city is 49 square miles... THAT is why the real estate is so expensive.

Seattle is having a similar issue with liberal business policies. They have mandated an increase in minimum wage to $15 an hour to be phased in over 3 years for big business, and 7 years for small ones. Businesses are closing up shop or moving.

http://www.seattlemag.com/article/why-are-so-many-seattle-restaurants-closing-lately

So you HAD a job making $10 an hour, but now that the gov't is mandating how much a business owner has to pay his employees hourly... you have NO job because the business closed or moved. Brilliant.
fenderbendertex Offline
#26 Posted: Sun, Mar 15 2015, 7:32 PM EST
Joined: 08-17-2013
Posts: 1,139
MACS wrote:
Call BS all you want... I posted the articles for you to read.

SF is so pricey because of its location, bro. Always has been. The city is 49 square miles... THAT is why the real estate is so expensive.

Seattle is having a similar issue with liberal business policies. They have mandated an increase in minimum wage to $15 an hour to be phased in over 3 years for big business, and 7 years for small ones. Businesses are closing up shop or moving.

http://www.seattlemag.com/article/why-are-so-many-seattle-restaurants-closing-lately

So you HAD a job making $10 an hour, but now that the gov't is mandating how much a business owner has to pay his employees hourly... you have NO job because the business closed or moved. Brilliant.

so true... But of course, Seattle has a new tax base - "420"
fenderbendertex Offline
#27 Posted: Sun, Mar 15 2015, 7:40 PM EST
Joined: 08-17-2013
Posts: 1,139
fenderbendertex wrote:
so true... But of course, Seattle has a new tax base - "420"

In case any of you don't know - that's some sort of code for marijuana. But where are all the stoners going to go when they have the munchies when all the restaurants close?
frankj1 Offline
#28 Posted: Sun, Mar 15 2015, 9:35 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,223
fenderbendertex wrote:
In case any of you don't know - that's some sort of code for marijuana. But where are all the stoners going to go when they have the munchies when all the restaurants close?

Texas comes to mind...
kmesser Offline
#29 Posted: Sun, Mar 15 2015, 11:02 PM EST
Joined: 01-03-2015
Posts: 1
Sounds like a great place to live...for suckers! I'd avoid that like the plague. 700 sq ft for $700,000? I'd take a pay cut
victor809 Offline
#30 Posted: Mon, Mar 16 2015, 1:17 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
MACS wrote:
Call BS all you want... I posted the articles for you to read.

SF is so pricey because of its location, bro. Always has been. The city is 49 square miles... THAT is why the real estate is so expensive.



So I read the articles (I hadn't seen that post when I posted).
They're interesting. In many aspects they are accurate, but I think they do gloss over a few things.

1 - They focus mainly on the toyota loss. I'm sure that accounts for a hit, and yes, Texas has been increasing jobs. But losing one company doesn't actually mean CA is doing horribly. (perhaps some cities are, I certainly don't see them, but that doesn't mean they aren't there).
2 - The other article is talking about restaurant openings... specifically that one chain. That one I feel is a bit disingenuous. Restaurants are more a zero-sum game. For any location, the number of meals purchased/consumed is pretty much fixed (unless the area is completely underdeveloped). If a restaurant opens, the business it earns is literally taken away from a competing business (at absolute best case, it's taken away from a grocery store). That loss of business equates to a closing somewhere, or at least staffing-down. If it doesn't, then you'll find lower efficiency as more businesses with greater overhead are competing for the same amount of sales. Long story short - Opening a restaurant in a community is not an equivalent job improvement as opening a manufacturing facility, which sends its product out of the community to bring money in.
3 - Notice that restaurant chain specifically did NOT move the HQ (where the real income is)


Anyway, I'm sure texas is opening lots of restaurants and doing great. It isn't really a fight I care about. I DO care that there's way too f-ing much money in SF, and it doesn't seem to be abating. Rents are going up every quarter (they exceed nyc at this point), I pay $2400 a month for a 450sq foot apt, and another 325/mo to park my car. And I live in the dirtiest neighborhood in the city. Simply put, SF isn't looking to increase the number of restaurant or light manufacturing jobs. People working those jobs couldn't afford to live in the city. The only people who can afford to move in to SF right now have to be looking for jobs paying a minimum of 80k (apts won't even consider renting to you unless you can prove you're earning 2x the monthly rent... I'm not kidding)
victor809 Offline
#31 Posted: Mon, Mar 16 2015, 1:21 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
MACS wrote:

Seattle is having a similar issue with liberal business policies. They have mandated an increase in minimum wage to $15 an hour to be phased in over 3 years for big business, and 7 years for small ones. Businesses are closing up shop or moving.

http://www.seattlemag.com/article/why-are-so-many-seattle-restaurants-closing-lately

So you HAD a job making $10 an hour, but now that the gov't is mandating how much a business owner has to pay his employees hourly... you have NO job because the business closed or moved. Brilliant.


Yeah, this will be interesting. I don't agree with the minimum wage either... it simply will encourage tech solutions to reduce employment (which of course, means more people getting high paying jobs in SF to program that tech... which means even more expensive homes here. Dammit...) But, on the other hand, I'm totally ok with the cities doing it because I think it'll be really interesting to watch. One rarely gets an opportunity to observe whether real life is going to adhere to economic theory closely, or if we'll see some unexpected effects. I personally don't care if a couple cities have to burn to have the opportunity to watch something like this happen.
victor809 Offline
#32 Posted: Mon, Mar 16 2015, 1:25 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
kmesser wrote:
Sounds like a great place to live...for suckers! I'd avoid that like the plague. 700 sq ft for $700,000? I'd take a pay cut


You may be willing to. I'm not.
I value living in the city at the price I pay for it. You don't. While you may consider having more space for less money to be worthwhile, I would find that to be a waste of money to pay to live somewhere I don't want to be.
I'm Batman Offline
#33 Posted: Mon, Mar 16 2015, 1:40 PM EST
Joined: 01-08-2015
Posts: 394
I thought the economy was destroyed by Godzilla
MACS Offline
#34 Posted: Mon, Mar 16 2015, 2:38 PM EST
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,809
victor809 wrote:
You may be willing to. I'm not.
I value living in the city at the price I pay for it. You don't. While you may consider having more space for less money to be worthwhile, I would find that to be a waste of money to pay to live somewhere I don't want to be.


I don't even like the suburbs. The city would kill me if I had to live there. I've said this before, but my ideal neighbor would be just out of rifle range (i.e. - 2 miles away at a minimum).

It may sound antisocial, but I like animals more than I like most people. When I'm retired, I really don't want to be around a lot of people... but my wife doesn't like to be isolated, and I can adapt easier than she can, so I'll suffer through living in the 'burbs.

If, however, I should become single for any reason... I'm going off the grid.
Speyside Offline
#35 Posted: Mon, Mar 16 2015, 4:08 PM EST
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Who needs a study to know the Democrats ruined the economy? You can read that here every day!

BTW, MACS, it defiantly takes willpower to go cold turkey on Mcgriddles from MacDonald's.

Emily Littela.
MACS Offline
#36 Posted: Mon, Mar 16 2015, 5:38 PM EST
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,809
Speyside wrote:
Who needs a study to know the Democrats ruined the economy? You can read that here every day!

BTW, MACS, it defiantly takes willpower to go cold turkey on Mcgriddles from MacDonald's.

Emily Littela.


You spelled definitely and McDonald's wrong, Ms. Radner...
Speyside Offline
#37 Posted: Mon, Mar 16 2015, 5:44 PM EST
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Can something so wrong be so right?
Brewha Offline
#38 Posted: Wed, Mar 18 2015, 8:49 AM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
Me? I read the OP and thought; ever take a crap so big that your pants fit better?
pdxstogieman Offline
#39 Posted: Sun, Mar 22 2015, 2:41 PM EST
Joined: 10-04-2007
Posts: 5,219
MACS wrote:
I don't even like the suburbs. The city would kill me if I had to live there. I've said this before, but my ideal neighbor would be just out of rifle range (i.e. - 2 miles away at a minimum).

It may sound antisocial, but I like animals more than I like most people. When I'm retired, I really don't want to be around a lot of people... but my wife doesn't like to be isolated, and I can adapt easier than she can, so I'll suffer through living in the 'burbs.

If, however, I should become single for any reason... I'm going off the grid.


- Signed: Ted Kaczinsky
Brewha Offline
#40 Posted: Sun, Mar 22 2015, 6:37 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
MACS is the Uber Bomber???
MACS Offline
#41 Posted: Sun, Mar 22 2015, 6:49 PM EST
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,809
pdxstogieman wrote:
- Signed: Ted Kaczinsky


HAHA! The funny part is, I almost signed it that way.

I'm not crazy, and I don't want to harm anyone, I just prefer to choose my company.
pdxstogieman Offline
#42 Posted: Mon, Mar 23 2015, 9:22 AM EST
Joined: 10-04-2007
Posts: 5,219
MACS wrote:
HAHA! The funny part is, I almost signed it that way.

I'm not crazy, and I don't want to harm anyone, I just prefer to choose my company.


Go someplace simple, off the grid, where you can get your thoughts together and write your manifesto!
Speyside Offline
#43 Posted: Mon, Mar 23 2015, 10:15 AM EST
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Did we really need a new study to know this?
Buckwheat Offline
#44 Posted: Mon, Mar 23 2015, 10:17 AM EST
Joined: 04-15-2004
Posts: 12,251
MACS wrote:
HAHA! The funny part is, I almost signed it that way.

I'm not crazy, and I don't want to harm anyone, I just prefer to choose my company.


Then why do you still come here?

The common thread is that both parties want to legislate and dictate what you can and can not do. Both parties also want to tax you and yours. fog
MACS Offline
#45 Posted: Wed, Mar 25 2015, 11:49 AM EST
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,809
pdxstogieman wrote:
Go someplace simple, off the grid, where you can get your thoughts together and write your manifesto!


I'm coming to Florida. You better move now, before the home values drop.
MACS Offline
#46 Posted: Wed, Mar 25 2015, 11:53 AM EST
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,809
Buckwheat wrote:
Then why do you still come here?

The common thread is that both parties want to legislate and dictate what you can and can not do. Both parties also want to tax you and yours. fog


1. because of stand up brothers like you and a few others.

2. the smart folks know both parties are screwing us, but the dumb folks that toe party lines and are fooled by politicians tell us it's useless to vote for a third party and perpetuate the screw-fest.
wheelrite Offline
#47 Posted: Wed, Mar 25 2015, 1:03 PM EST
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
MACS wrote:
1. because of stand up brothers like you and a few others.

2. the smart folks know both parties are screwing us, but the dumb folks that toe party lines and are fooled by politicians tell us it's useless to vote for a third party and perpetuate the screw-fest.


"toe the line " ????????????
Is that some sicko prison sex thing ?

oh my d'oh!

wheel,
Abrignac Offline
#48 Posted: Wed, Mar 25 2015, 1:05 PM EST
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,306
MACS wrote:
1. because of stand up brothers like you and a few others.

2. the smart folks know both parties are screwing us, but the dumb folks that toe party lines and are fooled by politicians tell us it's useless to vote for a third party and perpetuate the screw-fest.


Applause
Abrignac Offline
#49 Posted: Wed, Mar 25 2015, 1:06 PM EST
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,306
wheelrite wrote:
"toe the line " ????????????
Is that some sicko prison sex thing ?

oh my d'oh!

wheel,


That would be camel toe the line.....

Noobs...
Users browsing this topic
Guest
Back to Top