Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

The Sweet Jesus I Hate Bill O'Reilly page sm

Posted By: LVMT on 2006-08-08
In Reply to: For Liberals - Sad

is a great idea. O'Reilly, Hannity, Coulter, and Malkin are at the top of my list for rabid vermin. There are some other great links there too, some funny.


Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

Bill Maher Takes On Bill O'Reilly

BILL O'REILLY, HOST: In the "Personal Story" segment tonight, political humorist Bill Maher (search), he has a new book out called "New Rules: Polite Musings from a Timid Observer." Of course, Mr. Maher is about as polite as I am and as timid as Dracula. He joins us now from Los Angeles.


You know, you've had some celebrities on your HBO show, "Real Time," which begins again on Friday, talking about policy and war on terror and stuff like that. I get the feeling they don't know very much, but you do. So I'd like to make Bill Maher, right now, the terror czar. Bill Maher, the terror czar. Could be a series.


How would you fight this War on Terror? How would you fight it?


BILL MAHER, HOST, HBO'S "REAL TIME": I think the first and most important thing is to get the politics out of the War on Terror. You know, maybe I'm a cockeyed optimist, Bill, maybe I'm naive, but I thought that 9/11 was such a jarring event that nobody would dare return to business as usual on that one subject after that.


But of course, we found out that nothing could be further from the truth. And your president, my president too, but the one you voted for...


O'REILLY: You don't know that. Were you looking over my shoulder there? I could have voted for Nader. I could have voted for Kerry, but Kerry wouldn't come on the program, so I wouldn't vote. But I could have gone for Ralph. Ralph's a friend of mine.


MAHER: Yes. Anyway, I said the guy you voted for, President Bush, you know, how come this guy, who was supposed to be such a kick-and-take- names kind of guy, how come he has not been able to get the politics out of this?


You know, as a guy who's been accused of treason, I'll tell you what real treason is: Treason is when legislators vote against homeland security measures because it goes against the wishes of their political or financial backers. Treason is the fact that, as a terrorist, you could still buy a gun in this country because the NRA (search) lobby is so strong.


O'REILLY: OK. But you're getting into the political, and I agree with you. I think that the country should be united in trying to seek out and kill terrorists, who would kill us.


But I'd like to have some concrete things that you, Bill Maher, the terror czar — and take this seriously, this could be a series — what would you do?


All right, so you've got bin Laden. You've got Al Qaeda (search). You've got a bunch of other lower-level terrorist groups. What do you do to neutralize them?


MAHER: OK. Well, first of all, you discounted my answer, which is get the politics out, but OK.


O'REILLY: Well, assume you can do that. They're gone.


MAHER: We'll let that go. Keep going. I wouldn't worry that much about bin Laden. I mean, capturing bin Laden at this point, it doesn't really matter whether he's dead or alive. He's already Tupac to the people who care about him and work for him. Capturing bin Laden, killing him would be like when Ray Kroc died, how much that affected McDonald's.


O'REILLY: It would be a morale booster. But I understand. You're not going to send...


MAHER: A morale booster, right. Well, we've had plenty of morale boosting. We've had plenty of window dressing. What we need is concrete action.


In the book I wrote before this one about terrorism, I suggested that we have a Secret Service for the people. I said whenever the president goes anywhere, he has very high-level, intelligent detectives who look around at a crowd. They know what they're looking for. They're highly paid. They're highly trained.


We don't have that in this country. We should have that. We should have a cadre of 10,000 highly trained people who would guard all public events, bus stations, train stations, airports — and stop with this nonsense that this robotic sort of window dressing...


O'REILLY: OK, so you would create a homeland security office that was basically a security firm for major targets and things like that. It's not a bad idea. Costs a lot of money. Costs a lot of money. It's not a bad idea.


MAHER: Costs a lot of money compared to what? If you paid 10,000 people a salary of $100,000 a year, that would, I think, cost $10 billion or something. That's nothing. There's that much pork in the transportation bill before you get...


O'REILLY: Yes, 10,000 wouldn't do it, but I get your drift.


MAHER: Whatever it costs.


O’REILLY: You would create a super-security apparatus. OK, that's not bad. That's not bad. How about overseas now?


MAHER: What we need to do is what I call get Israeli about this. Because the Israelis are not afraid of profiling. The Israelis are not afraid to bury politics in the greater cause of protecting their nation. We don't act that way. You know, I'm afraid 9/11 really changed nothing.


O'REILLY: Boy, your ACLU (search) pals aren't going to like that. You're going to lose your membership card there.


MAHER: I'm not a member of the ACLU.


O'REILLY: Oh, sure you are, just like I voted for Bush. You're a member of the ACLU. I can see the card right in your pocket there.


MAHER: Bill, I'm not a joiner. I'm not a joiner. I don't like organizations.


O'REILLY: They won't have you, Maher, let's be honest about that. All right, now, in your book, which is very amusing, by the way — if you want a few laughs buy Maher's book.


MAHER: Thank you.


O'REILLY: You take some shots at FOX News, which is your wont, and I just want to know why you think we're so fabulously successful here.


MAHER: Well, I think that question has been answered many times. It's because the conservative viewer in this country, or on radio the conservative listener, is very predictable. They like to hear what they like to hear. They like to hear it over and over again.


O'REILLY: All the surveys show that the viewers are all over the map. They're not conservative in a big bloc. Some of them are moderate. Some of them are Democrats. Some of them are Moroccans. I mean, they're everywhere. That's your analysis? That just the conservatives watch us?


MAHER: Well, I think mostly the conservatives do watch you. That's not to take anything away from what you guys have achieved over there. It's a very well-produced broadcast, and they have excellent personalities like yourself, Bill. Who could resist watching you when you get home from work at night?


O'REILLY: Whoopi Goldberg, maybe? I don't know.


MAHER: Yes.


O'REILLY: Anyone who doesn't watch here is misguided. We identify them as such.


But look, I think there's more to it than — you're in TV. You know the ratings game. I mean, if you don't provide a product that is satisfying people, no matter what your ideology, they tell you to take a hike.


There's a guy over at MSNBC. He's a very conservative guy. He was hired and nobody's watching him. They hire liberals. Nobody watches them. Air America (search). Nobody's listening to it.


I mean, there's got to be a reason why we're No. 1, a punch line for you, and No. 2, you know, becoming the most powerful news network in the world.


MAHER: Well, I think, as I say, it's a well-produced product. You know, your program moves along, always at a clip that never seems to bore. You know, you move along to the next topic, the next guest. It never sort of drags. I don't think a lot of people know how to produce that stuff that way.


O'REILLY: All right. It's bells and whistles and my charming personality. That's what I thought it was.


Last thing: You know, one thing I like about Maher is he's not a hypocrite. He drives a little hybrid vehicle. Right? You putter around there. Does it have training wheels? What's it like?


MAHER: Actually, I had the Prius hybrid for three years. I was one of the first ones to get it right after 9/11. And I traded it in a few months ago for the Lexus hybrid.


O'REILLY: I think we should all cut back on our energy consumption, and I think we should all get these hybrids as fast as we can.


Hey, Bill, always nice to see you. Thanks very much. Good luck with the season on the TV show.


MAHER: Continued success there, Mr. No. 1.


O'REILLY: All right. Thank you.


Watch "The O'Reilly Factor" weeknights at 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. ET and listen to the "Radio Factor!"


Content and Programming Copyright 2005 Fox News Network, L.L.C. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Transcription Copyright 2005 eMediaMillWorks, Inc. (f/k/a Federal Document Clearing House, Inc.), which takes sole responsibility for the accuracy of the transcription. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material except for the user's personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon Fox News Network, L.L.C.'s and eMediaMillWorks, Inc.'s copyrights or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.


900 page bill

Hyperbole, anyone? Seriously, if the bill itself is 900 pages long, then how could the Republicans have added "thousands of pages of amendments" to it so it wouldn't pass? Unless you're talking Obama Math, of course....


obviously Bill O'Reilly or Rush

Humboldt is spoon feeding the FOLKS this federal reserve nonsense.  Sign. Blink. Startle. Jerk.


 


Yeah, like when Bill O'Reilly had this to say sm

He first said this about the Spears situation:


"On the pinhead front, 16-year-old Jamie Lynn Spears is pregnant. The sister of Britney says she is shocked. I bet. Now most teens are pinheads in some ways. But here the blame falls primarily on the parents of the girl, who obviously have little control over her or even over Britney Spears. Look at the way she behaves. And by the way, the mother, Lynne Spears, has reportedly already sold pictures of the upcoming baby of her 16-year-old for a million bucks. Incredible pinhead."


And this is what he had to say about the Palin situation:


"Millions of families are dealing with teen pregnancy, and as long as society doesn't have to support the mother, father or baby, it is a personal matter. Some Americans will judge Governor Palin and her family, and she will have a hard time running for vice president if there is much more chaos. For the sake of her and her family, we hope things calm down. This country needs a vibrant policy debate, not a soap opera."


I am not defending Spears at all, but that is 1 example of a pinhead. 


Also Rep. Hoekstra was on Bill O'Reilly

last night.


What I believe is this is going to be one world government with the U.N. being the governing body.  Yet, the U.N. owes the U.S. millions of dollars for the building and land they meet in. They haven't paid in years (at least since some time in the 1990s).


Saw O getting off the plane and he didn't look very happy. First time I didn't see him with that big smile on his face. He looked a bit worried. Could it be that he now realizes being Prez is not so easy?  That not everyone in the world is wowed by his charm?


Actually Bill O'Reilly debunked this.
ACORN is not taking over the census for entire states or the entire US......however, they will be conducting the census for certain areas.  So they won't be in charge of the whole shebang, but they will be doing this for some areas.....which in itself is scary considering the fraud that went on during this past presidential election.
Bill O'Reilly is not right-winged.

He is in independent and he does lean to the conservative side.  I basically state something that happens to be similar to what O'Reilly says and it instantly makes what I said stupid, huh?  Is that how it works? 


I couldn't care less how ACORN competes for grants, etc.  If they are dishing out money to the dems, you don't think the dems will push for them to get said tax money.  Just like the unions and the dems pushing for more union control.....why.....because unions pay big bucks to democrats and their campaigns....duh. 


As for ACORN...there are people within ACORN itself who don't like what is going on.  I truly feel that there is something seriously wrong going on with that organization.  What exactly it is....I don't know, but I sure has heck know the news media won't even try to uncover it.  They are too busy kissing Barry's mixed butt.


He is afraid of Bill O'Reilly, it's as easy as that....
Obama can handle the butt kissing and egg shell walking of Olbermann and Matthews but when it comes down to it, Obama can't answer real questions that would be poised to him by Bill.
Karl Rove, Bill O'Reilly, et al. sm

Hilariously shows how the hipocrasy knows no bounds: 


http://www.indecision2008.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184086


This above is a link to the Daily Show with John Stewart.  I love his show, and Stephen Colbert's.  I'm not a political junkie (yet) so I need a *lot* of comic relief with my politics in order to stomach it. 


Both sides are hypocrites, it's true.  But I swear, the Republicans are so much funnier.  The mental gymnastics they're having to go through in order to claim SP has "experience" alone is a sight to see.  (Watch the clip above if you don't believe me.  Oh, and you can see S. Palin making a good point near the end of it for all of you who are fans of hers.)  In fact, Jon Stewart said he's putting "county first" in supporting Obama, because McCain being the pres. would make his job (as a comedian) so much easier...


Oh, and have no fear, anyone.  I balance out the political comedy with a healthy dose of serious political coverage too.  The most serious I can find lately is the stuff on PBS.  You know, the calm, old-style journalism type, free of the crawl at the bottom of the screen, free of all the hype and wild graphics at the bottom of the screen, free of people shouting because they actually take turns letting each other talk.  Anybody else miss that kind of reporting, where it's kinda boring to watch and you have to actually listen and pay attention to more than sound bites?  Ah, well.  I'm rambling...


I caught a clip of Bill O'Reilly
chewing Barney Frank a new butt during an interview.  He basically told him to claim the blame instead of trying to push it on others and called him a coward.  I was just sitting on the couch with my mouth open in shock.  I'm glad someone told the stupid SOB though.  Needless to say, Barney Frank didn't get to say much.  Also, if Barney Frank got all that money from these banks, why can't he afford to get some dentures on the top?  I can't stand to hear him talk.  PUT SOME TEETH IN!  SHEESH.
OMG! Bill O'Reilly was on the View today!!!

Joy was hateful through the whole thing. I used to like her but not anymore.


She's always arguing with Liz and now she even told Bill that she doesn't hate him, she just dislikes him. You know why? He tells it like it is and she even seemed furious that he and Barney Fife got into it on his program. It makes her sound like she likes Barney and she definitely doesn't believe he had anything to do with the downfall of FM/FM.  Bill tried to explain it but you think she would listen? Heck no.  I just can't believe how hateful she can be!


 


Bill O'Reilly did not promote violence.

Liberals don't promote violence, huh?  How about the gay rights protestors who physically knocked a cross out of an older woman's hands because how dare she oppose their opinion? 


8 October 2005, Seattle, WA:
Veteran's Home Vandalized
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/jamieson/243...html?source=rss

4 September 2005, Louisiana:
Democrat Senator Threatens Violence Against Bush
Mary Landrieu: I'll Punch Bush, 'Literally'

1 September 2005, National:
Leftist Radio Host Encourages Looting
Sean Hannity

25 April 2005, National:
Leftist Radio Threatens to Assassinate Bush
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadA...le.asp?ID=17878

17 February 2005, Portland, OR:
Former Pentagon Adviser Assaulted at University
Protester throws shoe at Richard Perle - Politics - MSNBC.com

24 January 2005, Milwaukee, WI:
Five Democrats Charged with Election-Day Tire Slashing
JS Online: 5 charged in GOP tire slashings

8 November 2004, San Francisco, CA:
Muslim/Democrat Mob Attacks College Republicans
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadA...le.asp?ID=15855

30 October 2004, Durango, CO:
Liberal Professor Assaults Conservative Student
http://www.durangoherald.com/asp-bin/artic...ews041030_1.htm

22 October 2004, Tuscon, AZ:
Conservative Commentator Assaulted at University
http://www.azcentral.com/12news/news/artic...ch22-ON-CP.html

5 October 2004, Orlando, FL:
Democrat Mob Storms GOP HQ, Injures Staffers
Protestors Ransack Bush/Cheney Headquarters In Orlando - Politics News Story - WKMG Orlando

October 2004, National:
A Pattern of Leftist Hatred
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=40898

17 September 2004, Huntington, WV:
3-Year-Old Girl Attacked by Democrat Thugs
Washington Times - Democrats accused of ripping Bush signs

20 March 2003, Madison, WI:
Republican Heaquarters Vandalized
JS Online: GOP headquarters in Madison hit with bricks, paint bombs


11 March 2003, Los Angeles, CA:
Peaceniks Destroy 9-11 Memorial
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=31473

1 April 2005
Violent leftist/Democrat physically assaults conservative Pat Buchanan at Western Michigan University
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/002026.html

13 February 1996
Liberals steal press run of conservative newspaper Carolina Review in an effort to preserve victory for their liberal candidate
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/colu.../16/12704.html

1 March 2002
Liberals steal entire press run of a monthly conservative publication at the University of California-Berkeley and harass and intimidate its staff
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=26652

30 November 2004
Entire run of the November issue of the Yale Free Press, a conservative student publication, was stolen over the Thanksgiving break
Yale Daily News - Editors say Yale Free Press stolen

October 1999
Liberals at California State University at Sacramento stole 3,000 copies of the student newspaper. They were enraged because the paper, The State Hornet, had published the picture of a Hispanic man being arrested and charged with resisting arrest at a football game.
Nat Hentoff

1992
Liberals vandalize offices of The Collegian at the University of Massachusetts
http://collegefreedom.org/95press.htm


Happy Hanukkah, Bill O'Reilly! (see article)















Happy Hanukkah, Bill O'Reilly!
Barbara Ann Radnofsky, Texan for U.S. Senate 2006
No lyin'
No cheatin'
No stealin'

Phil Donahue is the man. Had Bill O'Reilly shaking in his boots.nm
He makes good points and the only thing you get from his stance is that he doesn't want to fight the taliban, which is unfortunate for you NOT true.

Give a quote where he says the US should not fight the taliban.
According to Bill O'Reilly...Obama moving ahead in polls! (nm)

Hate to break this to you, but the male page thing....
x
I hate the bill as it is, just s you do....
but I think it is too late not to do something to stabilize things. If we don't, and just let nature take its course, I am afraid we will go from recession to depression and nobody wants that. In defense of both Obama and McCain (can't believe I am saying that), they are just 2 votes and they could not make that much difference. It would have passed the senate without either of them, no matter which way they voted. I wish that Congress had stepped up, though, and kept the bill to stabilization ONLY and it should have been a lot less than 700 billion. sigh.
HATE CRIMES BILL......

The Hate Crimes Bill S.909 (HR1913) will make 30 sexual orientations federally-protected.   Now, since so many think that ONLY has to do with "protection" of homosexuals, then you are fooling yourself.  It's time you get involved in your country.  Now read this carefully and for those that think Obama is such a saint, tell me why he would support this bill..... Please read ALL before you start bashing!!  Sad to think our president would approve of such perversion....


Among those sexual orientations being protected by S.909 (and HR1913) are these:

Apotemnophilia - sexual arousal associated with the stump(s) of an Amputee
Asphyxophilia - sexual gratification derived from activities that involve oxygen deprivation through hanging, strangulation, or other means
Autogynephilia - the sexual arousal of a man by his own perception of himself as a woman or dressed as a woman
Bisexual - the capacity to feel erotic attraction toward, or to engage in sexual interaction with, both males and females
Coprophilia - sexual arousal associated with feces
Exhibitionism - the act of exposing one’s genitals to an unwilling observer to obtain sexual gratification
Fetishism/Sexual Fetishism - obtaining sexual excitement primarily or exclusively from an inanimate object or a particular part of the body
Frotteurism - approaching an unknown woman from the rear and pressing or rubbing the penis against her buttocks
Heterosexuality - the universal norm of sexuality with those of the opposite sex
Homosexual/Gay/Lesbian - people who form sexual relationships primarily or exclusively with members of their own gender
Gender Identity Disorder - a strong and persistent cross-gender identification, which is the desire to be, or the insistence that one is, or the other sex, "along with" persistent discomfort about one’s assigned sex or a sense of the inappropriateness in the gender role of that sex
Gerontosexuality - distinct preference for sexual relationships primarily or exclusively with an elderly partner
Incest - sex with a sibling or parent
Kleptophilia - obtaining sexual excitement from stealing
Klismaphilia - erotic pleasure derived from enemas
Necrophilia - sexual arousal and/or activity with a corpse
Partialism - A fetish in which a person is sexually attracted to a specific body part exclusive of the person
Pedophilia - Sexual activity with a prepubescent child (generally age 13 years or younger). The individual with pedophilia must be age 16 years or older and at least 5 years older than the child. For individuals in late adolescence with pedophilia, no precise age difference is specified, and clinical judgment must be used; both the sexual maturity of the child and the age difference must be taken into account; the adult may be sexually attracted to opposite sex, same sex, or prefer either
Prostitution - the act or practice of offering sexual stimulation or intercourse for money
Sexual Masochism - obtaining sexual gratification by being subjected to pain or humiliation
Sexual Sadism - the intentional infliction of pain or humiliation on another person in order to achieve sexual excitement
Telephone Scatalogia - sexual arousal associated with making or receiving obscene phone calls
Toucherism - characterized by a strong desire to touch the breast or genitals of an unknown woman without her consent; often occurs in conjunction with other paraphilia
Transgenderism - an umbrella term referring to and/or covering transvestitism, drag queen/king, and transsexualism
Transsexual - a person whose gender identity is different from his or her anatomical gender
Transvestite - a person who is sexually stimulated or gratified by wearing the clothes of the other gender
Transvestic Fetishism - intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving cross-dressing
Urophilia - sexual arousal associated with urine
Voyeurism - obtaining sexual arousal by observing people without their consent when they are undressed or engaged in sexual activity
Zoophilia/Bestiality - engaging in sexual activity with animals

To protect a "sexual orientation" under S.909 (and HR1913) - while leaving that term undefined -- is to protect this whole range of bizarre sexual behaviors. It is to normalize by federal law what are still considered to be mental disorders (paraphilias) by the American Psychiatric Association.



     



     


    Hate crimes bill
    I haven't had time to read your link yet but just wanted to interject an opinion from someone effected by the bill. I have seen state level hate crime legislation in action. What I've seen happen is that a capital crime is reduced, basically, to a crime of passion offense and punished as a 2nd degree offense instead of capital murder (big difference between 12-20 and life). For this reason, I've been totally against the hate crimes bill. While gay hysteria exists in crimes against us, I don't think it should be able to be used as a defense in order to get reduced sentences. Friends have tried to explain that the hate crimes bills were created to try to prevent that from happening but I have not seen that. Perhaps I'm missing something.
    I must be misreading the Hate Crime Bill
    Nothing I've read says that any of the things that are crimes now (such as pedophilia) will be considered any less of a crime...pedophilia is still an arrestable offense. My interpretation of what I've read is that the only thing this bill does is expand the group of people who it is okay to assault/kill simply based on their lifestyle changes. In other words, you can't kill someone just because they're gay, Buddhist, Belgian, short, or ugly. It doesn't decriminalize any behavior to my reading. That concept seems to be a figment of somebody's imagination, and much like the game of telephone we played as small children, the actual facts of the bill have gotten more twisted with each telling.
    I haven't reviewed the Hate Crimes bill....... sm
    but I believe it is a load of horse manure. Murder, rape, etc., are hateful crimes and should be punished to the full extent of the law regardless of a victim's sexual orientation. A human being is a human being.

    However, I believe that this bill pertains to more than just murder. It apparently protects persons with various sexual orientation from being spoken against in any way. A good example would be the thread below concerning gay marriage. Heterosexuals would or could be prosecuted for speaking out against same sex marriage. Preachers could be prosecuted for teaching what the Bible says in church if it speaks against a protected group's characteristics. At least, that is my understanding of the bill.

    The fact that Obama is standing, pen in hand, ready to sign this bill speaks volumes about him and his agenda. If passed, I shudder to think what will become of America. Prostitutes on every corner, flashers running loose in the parks where our children play, pedophiles allowed in schools and daycare where young children could fall prey to their lasciviousness.

    But, hey, it does also protect heterosexuals! LOL
    this is a really sweet one too
    x
    wow--that was sweet!
    x
    sweet neocons
    Love the Rolling Stones, always have, but I think the name of the song should have been..Lying sack of dirt, warmonger, murdering, chickenhawk neocons..but I guess since the Rolling Stones are a commercial band and have contracts with the NFL, they had to keep their song a bit low key..
    No more venemous than you, sweet pea.


    Sweet! Sadly, I think you are right. I need a better job. LOL nm
    x
    Aren't you sweet.
    Did Liberals Cause the Sub-Prime Crisis?

    Conservatives blame the housing crisis on a 1977 law that helps-low income people get mortgages. It's a useful story for them, but it isn't true.


    Robert Gordon | April 7, 2008 | web only



    The idea started on the outer precincts of the right. Thomas DiLorenzo, an economist who calls Ron Paul "the Jefferson of our time," wrote in September that the housing crisis is "the direct result of thirty years of government policy that has forced banks to make bad loans to un-creditworthy borrowers." The policy DiLorenzo decries is the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act, which requires banks to lend throughout the communities they serve.

    The Blame-CRA theme bounced around the right-wing Freerepublic.com. In January it figured in a Washington Times column. In February, a Cato Institute affiliate named Stan Liebowitz picked up the critique in a New York Post op-ed headlined "The Real Scandal: How the Feds Invented the Mortgage Mess." On The National Review's blog, The Corner, John Derbyshire channeled Liebowitz: "The folk losing their homes? are victims not of 'predatory lenders,' but of government-sponsored -- in fact government-mandated -- political correctness."

    Last week, a more careful expression of the idea hit The Washington Post, in an article on former Sen. Phil Gramm's influence over John McCain. While two progressive economists were quoted criticizing Gramm's insistent opposition to government regulation, the Brookings Institution's Robert Litan offered an opposing perspective. Litan suggested that the 1990s enhancement of CRA, which was achieved over Gramm's fierce opposition, may have contributed to the current crisis. "If the CRA had not been so aggressively pushed," Litan said, "it is conceivable things would not be quite as bad. People have to be honest about that."

    This is classic rhetoric of conservative reaction. (For fans of welfare policy, it is Charles Murray meets the mortgage mess.) Most analysts see the sub-prime crisis as a market failure. Believing the bubble would never pop, lenders approved risky adjustable-rate mortgages, often without considering whether borrowers could afford them; families took on those loans; investors bought them in securitized form; and, all the while, regulators sat on their hands.

    The revisionists say the problem wasn't too little regulation; but too much, via CRA. The law was enacted in response to both intentional redlining and structural barriers to credit for low-income communities. CRA applies only to banks and thrifts that are federally insured; it's conceived as a quid pro quo for that privilege, among others. This means the law doesn't apply to independent mortgage companies (or payday lenders, check-cashers, etc.)

    The law imposes on the covered depositories an affirmative duty to lend throughout the areas from which they take deposits, including poor neighborhoods. The law has teeth because regulators' ratings of banks' CRA performance become public and inform important decisions, notably merger approvals. Studies by the Federal Reserve and Harvard's Joint Center for Housing Studies, among others, have shown that CRA increased lending and homeownership in poor communities without undermining banks' profitability.

    But CRA has always had critics, and they now suggest that the law went too far in encouraging banks to lend in struggling communities. Rhetoric aside, the argument turns on a simple question: In the current mortgage meltdown, did lenders approve bad loans to comply with CRA, or to make money?

    The evidence strongly suggests the latter. First, consider timing. CRA was enacted in 1977. The sub-prime lending at the heart of the current crisis exploded a full quarter century later. In the mid-1990s, new CRA regulations and a wave of mergers led to a flurry of CRA activity, but, as noted by the New America Foundation's Ellen Seidman (and by Harvard's Joint Center), that activity "largely came to an end by 2001." In late 2004, the Bush administration announced plans to sharply weaken CRA regulations, pulling small and mid-sized banks out from under the law's toughest standards. Yet sub-prime lending continued, and even intensified -- at the very time when activity under CRA had slowed and the law had weakened.

    Second, it is hard to blame CRA for the mortgage meltdown when CRA doesn't even apply to most of the loans that are behind it. As the University of Michigan's Michael Barr points out, half of sub-prime loans came from those mortgage companies beyond the reach of CRA. A further 25 to 30 percent came from bank subsidiaries and affiliates, which come under CRA to varying degrees but not as fully as banks themselves. (With affiliates, banks can choose whether to count the loans.) Perhaps one in four sub-prime loans were made by the institutions fully governed by CRA.

    Most important, the lenders subject to CRA have engaged in less, not more, of the most dangerous lending. Janet Yellen, president of the San Francisco Federal Reserve, offers the killer statistic: Independent mortgage companies, which are not covered by CRA, made high-priced loans at more than twice the rate of the banks and thrifts. With this in mind, Yellen specifically rejects the "tendency to conflate the current problems in the sub-prime market with CRA-motivated lending.? CRA, Yellen says, "has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households."

    Yellen is hardly alone in concluding that the real problems came from the institutions beyond the reach of CRA. One of the only regulators who long ago saw the current crisis coming was the late Ned Gramlich, a former Fed governor. While Alan Greenspan was cheering the sub-prime boom, Gramlich warned of its risks and unsuccessfully pushed for greater supervision of bank affiliates. But Gramlich praised CRA, saying last year, "banks have made many low- and moderate-income mortgages to fulfill their CRA obligations, they have found default rates pleasantly low, and they generally charge low mortgages rates. Thirty years later, CRA has become very good business."

    It's telling that, amid all the recent recriminations, even lenders have not fingered CRA. That's because CRA didn't bring about the reckless lending at the heart of the crisis. Just as sub-prime lending was exploding, CRA was losing force and relevance. And the worst offenders, the independent mortgage companies, were never subject to CRA -- or any federal regulator. Law didn't make them lend. The profit motive did.

    And that is not political correctness. It is correctness.

    Im back, sweet peas
    To those who have posted..where is gt??  I have been relaxing in Mexico..NOT BANNED..as Im sure many have wished or prayed..nope..IM HERE..Just took a few days off to enjoy my Mexican friends and shop at their so inexpensive shops..IM BACK.
    I would be calm sweet and caring too
    if I had her money. Her outfit the other night was said to be worth over $300K. Minus the 3-carat diamond earrings, the outfit was only valued at around $30K. Laura Bush's outfit was estimated to be valued at less than $5K. Michelle Obama's was probably in that ballpark too.

    Even if this stuff was donated by the designers, etc., I can't relate to any of these people. You will find me cruising the aisles of my local thrift shop looking for a bargain
    sweet - more like sour and rotten LOL LOL LOL
    x
    His sweet little Kenyan grandmother was there....
    and she said herself that she is so proud to have witnessed the birth IN KENYA of her grandson who will be the next POTUS. Can't deny that one.
    When Bill Clinton was in office, OHHH you better believe Bill and Carter have had..sm
    their day of mudslinging matches, at the pleasure of a many conservatives. So, no there's not a double standard here.
    Success is sweet.. jealousy is ugly
    he won! hahaha
    Oh it's so sweet you're concerned, you do have a heart!...nm
    x
    Bill Clinton and his ties to India (yes, Bill),...
    and China (yes, Bill) sent a lot of our jobs their way. Google it some time. Even I was amazed.

    Look, it is simple economics. The big bad corporations everyone hates...first of all, it is not 5 or 6 rich guys and that's it. They employee thousands of people just like us...and when the government puts those huge taxes on them, if they want to stay in business, they are forced to move offshore. Higher taxes are responsible for more jobs going overseas than "greed." The DNC has told its members for years that "corporations" and "the rich" are the cause of all their problems and they have bought that Marxist rhetoric hook, line, and sinker. Corporations are not the cause of ill in this country. They are the backbone of the economy in this country. That is simple economics 101. And I am certainly not rich...and I certainly am not on the upper echelon of a corporation, but I do understand reality and I understand how the economy works. Yes, there is wrongdoing by some upper level folks in corporations. There is wrongdoing in the government. Where there is power, there will be wrongdoing. But for every Enron there are thousands of other good, solid companies that employ thousands of Americans, but the DNC does not share the success stories, because it does not promote their agenda. In order to control people they want them beholden to government and hating free enterprise. They want big government, total power, and control. And following Alinksy's program...you have to instill class warfare. You have to make corporations the enemy. You have to make classes envy the next rung up. Classic Marxist socialism. It is being played out in this country every day.

    It is just that some of us have not bought the myth and jumped on the socialism train.
    Did you read the bill? It was a regulatory reform bill...
    asking them to regulate, not de-regulate. But Democrats blocked it...no wonder. Fannie was greasing a lot of Democratic palms...and Frederick Raines, the Dem CEO at the time...was in the Clinton administration. They were taking care of their own...and we are paying for it.
    if abe is on the $5 bill & george is on the $1 bill, what is Obama on?
    ****censored****
    English not so good. Sad for you. So much hate. Life too short hate.
    x
    Oh I see....you hate small town folks, you hate Christians...
    and you hate the military...you are also coming into real clear view.
    Sheesh, you not only hate Bush, you hate PEOPLE!
    x
    CBS has taken the page down. Probably...
    had a lot of complaints.
    EVERY page, lol!
    :)
    Go to the top of the page for the ...
    refundable language everyone has been looking for.
    Looks like we were on exactly the same page! :-) nm

    Second page...(sm)
    about the 4th topic down starts under the subject of *Link to Comm...*  I've done a lot worse than that...LOL
    Down the page is an even more

    upsetting one that I read. The Vets are fighting to keep a cross in memory of all who lost their lives on a piece of property that used to be federal land. It was traded for acreage that the vets owned.


     


    http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=564946


    O'reilly

    I cant stand to watch O'Reilly, he tries to portray that he knows everything and yet he is just a blow-hard..Someone who professes to know all but knows nothing..


     


    I


    He was on O'Reilly
    last night and he didn't say he wanted the elderly to fend for themselves.  He said that their benefits should be cut back because people are drawing out much more than what they paid in and it is going the bankrupt the whole thing.  I know it doesn't exactly sound pleasant to say but he is right in the fact that some people are getting twice as much as what they paid in and there won't be anything left for those of us paying into the system now.  Yes, the elderly paid their dues but why should they get twice as much what they paid in when the working class who is contributing to it now for when we get older...we WILL have to fend for ourselves because there will be nothing.
    This page alone looks like there are more conservative.sm
    posts on here than liberal, if not the number would be pretty darn close.
    page has been removed...wonder why?
    nm
    I'm on the page, I'm looking at the result
    http://www.gallup.com/Home.aspx

    OP said Likely voters 49/47. That's what it states. You can decide to pick and choose which ones you want, but drudge said of likely voters 49/47. That is what OP said. Also OP said "for anyone who believes in polls". The dems are all are so he!! bent on choosing only what benefits Obama. This poll still benefits Obama so what's the problem. Yes you can still site the other two which are not a true representation but they are 49/43 and 51/45. You are still only talking about a 6 point lead. That is not a heck of a large lead to claim victory. When there are still about 3 weeks to go.

    Man I hope McCain wins then I'll come back and listen to you all whine. The race is not over yet. If Obama wins I will not be happy, but I will come on and admit I was wrong, but if McCain wins prepare for the other.