Report: Pelosi won’t allow a “witch hunt” into who caused the Fannie/Freddie crisis (http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13967)

Further, according to House Oversight Committee staff, Emanuel has received assurances from Pelosi that she will not allow what he termed a “witch hunt” to take place during the next Congressional session over the role Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac played in the economic crisis.

Emanuel apparently is concerned the roles former Clinton Administration members may have played in the mortgage industry collapse could be politically — or worse, if the Department of Justice had its way, legally — treacherous for many.

Why aren't videos like this leading the news everynight!!??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

Sadly, we know the answer.... even those who will argue that the MSM has no agenda or bias secretly know why...

Because the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few... :)

Because the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few... :)

Alright, Spock... ;)

Shouldn't the "many" be informed who caused this (in part or in whole), to better make a decision on how to deal with this and who to trust in dealing with this?

However, I feel a new sense of empowerment - at least until election day and we get a new group of wackos in Congress.

Call (I did for the bailout bill, lots and lots of people did) or write your representative - demand some action - right now they are running scared.

I think the whole country wants to find out who is at fault -and we want retribution!!!

We need to enjoy our 5 weeks of power that is remaining... flex your voter muscles... Tell them you are 'mad as hell and won't take it anymore'.

I think I have moviequoteitis, sorry...

Perhaps I was mistaken.
I dismissed you're posts, Foxpaws, as among those of the handful of liberals who think they have a strong arugment, then run into MonsterMark, Fossten, Shagdrum, and myself, and suddenly find themselves avoiding this forum.

I appear to be wrong. You seem adept at dodging the counterblows and then responding, not with a haymaker, but instead with a flurry of jabs that can easily go unresponded to.

I'm not sure what you're opinion on this is, but I'd like to get some clarification...

So, just to be fair, let me express mine- so that you can attack something or be critical, or if nothing else, post something that contrasts it....

the problems we are facing today are NOT an issue of free markets. It's a matter of federal intervention providing the natural inclanations of the freemarket to find a refuge.. Unfortunately, the intervention of the feds led to a NEGATIVE and UNNATURAL reaction from the market.

The order to supply loans to those unble to pay. the perceived protections surrounding Fanny and Freddy, led to this liability being spread through out the industry. Watch dogs, like McCain and guys like Paul, were unable to stimulate action when the writing was on the wall (between 03, 05, and now) because the politicians in D.C. certainly didn't want to make waves, and those who were being bankrolled by Freddy/Fanny and the like didn't want to lose those hundreds of thousands of dollars pouring into their campaigns.

the problems todays isn't a specifically a LACK of regulation, but the intervention of the feds and the perceived security associated with Freddy and Fannie.... and it's compounded by the dubious economic situation the country was in because of the huge defecit spending associated with BOTH political parties.

.......let's make sure we are on the same page.

So which one do you fancy yourself on Calabrio, the pale horse?

I do have a question, there's a clear bias to blame the Left in this forum, yet you said this problem was/is caused by both sides, which is it?

So which one do you fancy yourself on Calabrio, the pale horse?

I do have a question, there's a clear bias to blame the Left in this forum, yet you said this problem was/is caused by both sides, which is it?

You're asking me a loaded question.

Here's the reality... I've studied both American history and American political philosophy in great detail. Doing so at the University certainly hurt my GPA, but not my understanding and ability to debate it. I'm sure Shagrum is experiencing a similar thing (when do you pull the trigger on the professor, how many points are you willing to give up in order to influence the class, ect.)

The problems we experience aren't because of free markets.... it's because of the free market RESPONSE to a market operating with FEDERAL influence.

To pretend that the markets are deregulated and operating under the pure principles expressed by Adam Smith isn't just stupid, it's dishonest.

The influence of the feds are at the root cause of our problems.
The response of the free markets to the interference adds the next layer.
The lack of sufficient response by the feds, and Democrats DESPITE the whistle blowing by prominent republicans, is the next layer.
And it's all compounded by the generations of defecit spending by the government necessary to fund the social engineering and welfare programs advanced by liberals with guilty, lazy, consciouses is to blame.

I'm increasingly convinced that Bush made a critical mistake appointing ANOTHER Goldman Saks guy to a federal office. Those guys are notoriously leftist and wield FAR too much power. If I need to explain I will, but you'll see THAT firm influencing policy for the past decade or so, particularly during the Clinton Years....

And I think his appointiees were FAR too late in informing him of the impending problems. In doing so, they shifted infinitely TOO MUCH power into the hands of the treasurey and the federal government.

I'm disappointed with everyone in D.C.

Wasn't intended to be loaded, I do see that it came off that way. Thanks for the honest precise response, though.

I agree our free market(s) is more of diet-version of one. I also think the government should step-away and let the 'free market' solve many of our woes, let them come up with viable solutions to say alternate energy sources; if anything, make it profitable by offering massive tax cuts to those that come up with the best solutions. I believe Monster said something similar to this a year+ ago; eitehr way, it makes sense.

In an unregulated world, how do you stop/curb unethical practices though, as hoping everyone plays nice simply isn't going to guarantee they will?

Information has been the traditional way to curb unethical practices.
Unfortunately our media, with increasingly overt political agendas, have dramatically FAILED us as a people.

But the mere intervention of the federal government, or the perception that they were going to keep a risky investment like Freddy Mac or Fannie May afloat is enough to undermine the system.

I don't take issue with the idea of reexamining the markets and the 20th century regulations that are in place. It's a global market and a 24 hour one at that. But I don't want congressmen determining salaries... that always leads to more problems.. as it did in the 90s.

I feel so special, being summarily dismissed because you felt that I am among the “handful of liberals who think they have a strong argument.” Wow – really? :rolleyes:

At least if nothing, I hope I am beginning to break down a barrier or two about ‘pigeonholing’ people.

You think it odd that someone could be here on the power of her convictions? That perhaps I am not going to run from you, Bryan, David, Shag, or the other more conservative members of the forum? And that there are going to be times that I agree with you?

I may argue differently, but I feel effectively. You don’t always have to carry a big stick (this is in reference to Shag – who rather enjoyed my ‘big stick’ comment) to get your point across.

And you may discredit my ‘cutesy panter’ (still don’t have a clue on what panter is…), but many times people will remember what they laugh at rather than a long dissertation on political thought. (but, ignore that last bit - because what follows is long, somewhat dissertation like, and obviously political)

So, you are looking at my ‘opinion’ on the bailout?

I love the free market system – capitalism and communication (the media) is changing the world far more effectively than wars ever could. It ended the cold war, and if we allowed it, it could end the war in the middle east.

But, I digress….

Economics is my real weak point – I currently allow others to have control over my own money…

I believe however for the free market system to work, it pretty much has to retain that “free” aspect. Minimal interference from government. However, there are some common sense safeguards that probably should be put into play.

Because I also believe in greed. Good and bad. Greed can play towards good, but too often it goes down the path of bad.

Human nature. And I believe that the founding fathers wanted us to be better than what our ‘nature’ tends to be. They weren't afraid of invoking laws that aimed us down a path that would let us be better 'humans'.

So, perhaps in this case – human nature got the better of a few individuals, and that is where I feel that either watchdogs with power, or 'real' regulations need to be set up.

But, money makes the world go around… All that money, powerful people, regulation that was wrong, being ignored, or just broken, and no penalties other than a slap on the wrist (I sort of equate this with the S&L bailout in the 80s). A really bad mix.

And we, the people, were left with a false sense of security that things were all right – the government was ‘watching over it’.

So yes, when you state that regulation could be at fault, you are probably right. But, I think it is also the perception that some people in power have that the rules don’t apply to them, that they know better, that they are looking out for number one (human nature). If the regulations are never enforced, enforced badly, or onesidely, then they are bad. NO matter what the original intention of the regulation was.

I think there are good regulations out there – and that there needs to be some (once again, that nasty old human nature). But, they also need to be enforced, fairly, without prejudice. And reviewed often, because yes, the world is changing, and fast.

I do believe that the government will end up doing something – to release the credit stranglehold. But, a 3/4 trillion dollar check, controlled by the same group that got us into this mess – no way.

And of course there needs to be an investigation with clout.

This time there needs to be more than a slap on the wrist – we need to make real penalties, things that mean something to the people that were responsible. I don’t care if they are friends of the Clintons, Bushes, Cheneys, whatever – I bet there are ties to many.

This problem will go across all parties – so let’s not drag that into this right now. They all spend too much, they all have agendas that have nothing to do with the people they represent, they all bow down to the pressing need of money in the current election system.

And we have let them do it.

Fox, maybe you could just bold the part that states your actual point...

aren't you suppose to gently charm me into this?

And my responses will be shorter now - this evening Paul Newman, Boodles and popcorn are in store...

And we, the people, were left with a false sense of security that things were all right – the government was ‘watching over it’.

So yes, when you state that regulation could be at fault, you are probably right. But, I think it is also the perception that some people in power have that the rules don’t apply to them, that they know better, that they are looking out for number one (human nature). If the regulations are never enforced, enforced badly, or onesidely, then they are bad. NO matter what the original intention of the regulation was.

I think there are good regulations out there – and that there needs to be some (once again, that nasty old human nature). But, they also need to be enforced, fairly, without prejudice. And reviewed often, because yes, the world is changing, and fast.

I do believe that the government will end up doing something – to release the credit stranglehold. But, a 3/4 trillion dollar check, controlled by the same group that got us into this mess – no way.

And of course there needs to be an investigation with clout.

This time there needs to be more than a slap on the wrist – we need to make real penalties, things that mean something to the people that were responsible. I don’t care if they are friends of the Clintons, Bushes, Cheneys, whatever – I bet there are ties to many.

This problem will go across all parties – so let’s not drag that into this right now. They all spend too much, they all have agendas that have nothing to do with the people they represent, they all bow down to the pressing need of money in the current election system.

And of course there needs to be an investigation with clout.

This time there needs to be more than a slap on the wrist – we need to make real penalties, things that mean something to the people that were responsible. I don’t care if they are friends of the Clintons, Bushes, Cheneys, whatever – I bet there are ties to many.Are you proud of the person two heartbeats from the Presidency, the Democrat Speaker of the House, who says there will be no investigation? Does that not seem fishy to you?

I think she is a terrible speaker...

But, she isn't any worse than the man that is just one heartbeat away from the presidency...

There are many dems I don't like...

You know both sides in Congress have their share of bad apples... it just isn't Republicans:)

tiny list...
Vern Buchanan
Ken Calvert
William J. Jefferson
Mary Landrieu
Jerry Lewis
Alan B. Mollohan
Charles B. Rangel
Rick Renzi
Don Young

I think she is a terrible speaker...
Honesty...
But, she isn't any worse than the man that is just one heartbeat away from the presidency...

There are many dems I don't like...

You know both sides in Congress have their share of bad apples... it just isn't Republicans:)

tiny list...
Vern Buchanan
Ken Calvert
William J. Jefferson
Mary Landrieu
Jerry Lewis
Alan B. Mollohan
Charles B. Rangel
Rick Renzi
Don Young Red Herring...

Maybe too much honesty? ;)

Maybe too much honesty? ;)I just tire of the same old canard that "both sides are to blame" for this crap going on.

It's a 100% probability that if a Republican were to blame for this collapse, he'd already be hoisted on the nearest lanyard in public view on all major networks. The fact that this hasn't happened, along with the very obvious Speaker refusing to do any investigations, is a MASSIVE RED FLAG that proves to me that the Democrats are the ones who f'ed this up and she's trying to cover it. Plain and simple.

So the old "both sides do it" argument is a straw man, and I'm rather fed up with it. And it won't fly this time.

I am waiting to be convinced that we need a bailout bill. My general inclination is to say no, but reality needs to trump ideology here. Still, I have a reasonable economic background and all I am getting from Congress, the administration and the MSM is, "Holy :q:q:q:q! The sky is falling and we are going into a depression!! Look, even the experts are saying so!!". Well, why is this happening? Just because they are experts doesn't mean they are right (appeal to authority). What is so bad? How will this effect me (or will it)? I am getting bits and peices; connect the dots for a dunce like me.

Unless and until Congress and the President do that, I don't think the public is going to support this. Bush did try to do that in his speech last week, but he is no great communicator, and it obviously wasn't enough. They need to get someone else. Hell, Obama, with his verbal and communicative skills could very well be an asset in communicating this to the layman, if partisan politics are taken out of it.

Pull a Reagan. Go directly to the American people and explain in very simple easy to understand terms why this is bad, how it is directly going to effect them, and what the solution will specifically do to fix this. Don't just tell us "this bill will fix this mess" and expect our support.

People don't trust the government for a reason. You always hear politicians saying how the government needs to be transparent; well do so! Don't just try to slip this huge bill past us.

I think if it were a Dem that was 100% responsible - the same things would go for him/her as the Rep.

I am with you Foss - find who did this. I don't care which side of the aisle they are on, but I suspect you will find guilty parties everywhere. It is just too big. Bush is just too anxious to force feed us this whole bill, and Pelosi is too anxious to brush it aside. I think there is a whole lot of dirt here.

It was sort of sad to watch Bush trying to explain this - obviously he isn't a Reagan or Ciinton, or as Shag said- even an Obama.

i have heard this has dropped McCain's numbers - I guess I should go look...

I think if it were a Dem that was 100% responsible - the same things would go for him/her as the Rep.

What if it was more then just one person? Maybe...the majority of the Democratic leadership in both Congress and the Senate? Would the media cover it? I don't see how you could reasonably think that they would.

One person is much different the a large portion of one side of the political isle. We know from video, audio and transcripts, that the Dems ignored this problem (focusing on ideological and political concerns instead) for years, while Republicans tried to call attention to this problem. The MSM carried the Democrats water during all that time.

When this bailout was first debated last week, the Democrats gave lipservice to the need for this bailout and putting politics aside, but their actions again put political concerns ahead of any percieved need to pass a solution to the problem. Again, the MSM carried the water for the Democrats.

Going back to the Keating Five scandal... the democrats refused to release McCain from the investigation so their party could save face, even though he didn't do anything wrong.

How can you trust the democrats when they consistently exhibit so much corruption and blatant political manuvering instead of doing the peoples work and get away with it due to the accomplises in the MSM?

Who didn't pass this bill - the Dems - if they held together, they could have passed it -

Now, it might have more to do with upcoming elections - but, the Dems held the power in this case.

And don't forget, if the Republicans were blowing the whistle in '03 and '05 as Calabrio said (I don't know, big numbers hurt my head) who held the hill at that point? It wasn't the Dems. Who hushed it up - probably not just the Dems...

Now, as far as the media covering it - I think they will - if they can get the ratings...

And you trust any of them? There are a few good ones, but career politicians - whoa - bad idea...

Who didn't pass this bill - the Dems - if they held together, they could have passed it -

I think that was more to Pelosi being stupid and calling a vote when she didn't have a lock on the votes....

And don't forget, if the Republicans were blowing the whistle in '03 and '05 as Calabrio said (I don't know, big numbers hurt my head) who held the hill at that point? It wasn't the Dems. Who hushed it up - probably not just the Dems...

Yes, but did they have ever actually have the votes to do anything about it and counter any attempt by the dems to stand in their way?

And you trust any of them? There are a few good ones, but career politicians - whoa - bad idea...

Never said I trusted any of them, especially career polticians...but what is the track record of the dems in the legislature vs. the republican's in the legislature; specifically, the leadership?

Sam Rayburn
Carl Albert
Tip O'Neil

I think it has more to do with the rank and file Dems being scared for their jobs, than Nancy's terrible speech.

Yes, the Republicans had the votes, in the 2000 - 2006 time frame, the executive branch and even the court for part of that... sort of a triple threat if you ask me.

Now, since I had to edit this post severely, (I often referred to Shag endearingly - nibble, confection, nacreous, and casaba to name just a few), caused no doubt because Paul Newman and I enjoyed just oodles of Boodles (it was a double feature), it is off to bed to dream of Newt, Nancy P. and Nougat.

Sam Rayburn
Carl Albert
Tip O'Neil

Where are you going with this? What does this demonstrate?

I think it has more to do with the rank and file Dems being scared for their jobs, than Nancy's terrible speech.

I didn't say anything about her speech

Yes, the Republicans had the votes, in the 2000 - 2006 time frame,

To do what? It wasn't a large enough of a majority to counter any form of obstruction or political stunt the Democrats would do to stand in their way? I think not...

Look at how Bush's judicial nominations were held up.

Sam Rayburn
Carl Albert
Tip O'Neil

I think it has more to do with the rank and file Dems being scared for their jobs, than Nancy's terrible speech.

Yes, the Republicans had the votes, in the 2000 - 2006 time frame, the executive branch and even the court for part of that... sort of a triple threat if you ask me.

Now, since I had to edit this post severely, (I often referred to Shag endearingly - nibble, confection, nacreous, and casaba to name just a few), caused no doubt because Paul Newman and I enjoyed just oodles of Boodles (it was a double feature), it is off to bed to dream of Newt, Nancy P. and Nougat.Alcohol-influenced post...:D

Well, at least in a Boodle induced haze, I did get the Dem speakers right...

but what is the track record of the dems in the legislature vs. the republican's in the legislature; specifically, the leadership?

Shag, you asked about Dem leadership vs Rep leadership in the house - those men I listed were darn good.

And I even gave you a tease of the Newt... Other than the Newt, the Reps have been pretty weak at the top of the house...

Nope you didn't talk about Nancy's speech - it was her lack of persuasion, and that she brought it to vote before she had them locked up - sorry, my error...

And yes, if the Republicans wanted to take action about the things that McCain was blowing the whistle on, they could have easily looked into it, and yes, they could have overrode the Dems on this - they did neither - they didn't even bother to look into it, let alone take it to the floor in some manner.

And why not? The Reps love to drag the Dems through the muck (and the other way around). I think it was because there was plenty of underhanded stuff, on both sides of the aisle.

W. got judicial nominations through - just think we will be stuck with Roberts for another 30 years...

Sorry about the hazy post;)

I think it was because there was plenty of underhanded stuff, on both sides of the aisle. Again, the same old bullsh## line...

Utter crap.

Again, rather than blame the Dems for being responsible for this, you include the Republicans for failing to override the Dems blockage of their attempt to investigate?

I must be living in Bizarro World.

1. Democrats create scandal.
2. Republicans try to investigate, fix scandal.
3. Democrats block fix attempt, bury and suppress investigation.
4. Republicans blamed for not succeeding.
5. Democrats get away scot free again due to red herring perpetrated by Obama shill foxpaws.

Unbelievable.

This scandal has Dem fingerprints all over it, and you know it.

You're in abject denial.

There are plenty of scandals that have Dem written all over them...

This one doesn't - this one has POLITICS written all over it...

Equal opportunity, everyone gets a cut of the action, lets go for it across the board, money grabbing politicans.

Heck, I think the FBI is now investigating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers, and American International Group. Good - let's see who is at fault - if it JUST Dems Foss - I will eat my words.

From the Senate Lobbying Database ( cool place - http://soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=choosefields ), Charlie Black, one of McCain's top aides, his firm made over $820,000 from Mac from 1999 to 2004. McCain's campaign's vice-chair Berman pocketed $1.14 million working for Mae at the lobbying firm Ogilvy Government Relations. Arther B. Culvahouse Jr., who helped John McCain chose Sarah Palin, earned $80,000 from Mae while working with O'Melveny & Myers LLP.

Rick Davis (McCain's campaign MANAGER and he was his campaign manager in 2000) headed the Homeownership Alliance, a lobbying association that included Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, homebuilders and real estate agents. The Alliance opposed the McCain proposal for reform in 2003 and sent their lobbyists in to battle it. Davis went on record in 2003 and insisted that no further reform of the lenders was necessary. I can't find out how much he made from Mae and Mac - but I bet it wasn't pocket change...

All of these men are Republicans...

Just Dems - in your words Foss "Utter Crap"

There are plenty of scandals that have Dem written all over them...

This one doesn't - this one has POLITICS written all over it...

Equal opportunity, everyone gets a cut of the action, lets go for it across the board, money grabbing politicans.

Heck, I think the FBI is now investigating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers, and American International Group. Good - let's see who is at fault - if it JUST Dems Foss - I will eat my words.

From the Senate Lobbying Database ( cool place - http://soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=choosefields ), Charlie Black, one of McCain's top aides, his firm made over $820,000 from Mac from 1999 to 2004. McCain's campaign's vice-chair Berman pocketed $1.14 million working for Mae at the lobbying firm Ogilvy Government Relations. Arther B. Culvahouse Jr., who helped John McCain chose Sarah Palin, earned $80,000 from Mae while working with O'Melveny & Myers LLP.

Rick Davis (McCain's campaign MANAGER and he was his campaign manager in 2000) headed the Homeownership Alliance, a lobbying association that included Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, homebuilders and real estate agents. The Alliance opposed the McCain proposal for reform in 2003 and sent their lobbyists in to battle it. Davis went on record in 2003 and insisted that no further reform of the lenders was necessary. I can't find out how much he made from Mae and Mac - but I bet it wasn't pocket change...

All of these men are Republicans...

Just Dems - in your words Foss "Utter Crap"More red herrings...I wasn't referring to people "earning" money by "working" for Fannie/Freddie. I was referring to the Democrat POLICIES that caused this mess. But since you mention it, where is Frank Raines and Jamie Gorelick today? :rolleyes:

And yes, if the Republicans wanted to take action about the things that McCain was blowing the whistle on, they could have easily looked into it, and yes, they could have overrode the Dems on this - they did neither - they didn't even bother to look into it, let alone take it to the floor in some manner.

History shows otherwise. The Dems from 2000 tp 2006 were notoriously obstructionist. Bush couldn't get any judicial nomination through unless the Dems agreed to allow a vote on it.

W. got judicial nominations through - just think we will be stuck with Roberts for another 30 years...

Again, the Dems had to agree to allow a vote on this...

W. got judicial nominations through - just think we will be stuck with Roberts for another 30 years...
Yes, what a tragedy...:rolleyes:

Darn him and his view that the Constitution should be interpreted instead of rewritten!

Frank Raines and Jamie Gorelick are up to their necks in this mess too... And working for the Obama campaign.

I never said that Dems weren't a part of this - they are, and I bet, when the fur stops flying, there probably will be as many Dems involved as Reps.

And, suddenly it is not about 'people' but 'policy'? Heck, if it weren't for 'people' misusing the system we wouldn't need 'policy'. Is it because now you see that there are Republicans just as deep in this bunch of crap as their counterparts that you have changed it to 'policy' Foss?

History shows otherwise. The Dems from 2000 tp 2006 were notoriously obstructionist. Bush couldn't get any judicial nomination through unless the Dems agreed to allow a vote on it.


Why are we talking justices - oh well... maybe I should have screamed out some point of debate... what is it? Non sequitor, red herring, run away, run away (abduco, abduco)?


Look at how Bush's judicial nominations were held up.

Supreme Court nominations that go through a 'friendly' congress usually have to be 'agreed' to by the minority party... Look at Clinton's 2 picks - both went through the same process.

Supreme Court nominations that go through a 'friendly' congress usually have to be 'agreed' to by the minority party... Look at Clinton's 2 picks - both went through the same process.
Are you kidding? Go back and look at the vote count and the transcripts of the hearings, and then compare Clinton's to those of Bork, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito. And then STFU. ;)

I never said that Dems weren't a part of this - they are, and I bet, when the fur stops flying, there probably will be as many Dems involved as Reps.

I doubt there will be anywhere near as many (if any) republicans involved as democrats.

Why are we talking justices - oh well... maybe I should have screamed out some point of debate... what is it? Non sequitor, red herring, run away, run away (abduco, abduco)?

If it wasn't an accurate "scream" of some "point of debate" you would come across as a fool. Considering the fact that it is a very accurate example to my point and the argument I am making is valid, I would be suprised if you tried that tactic...

Supreme Court nominations that go through a 'friendly' congress usually have to be 'agreed' to by the minority party... Look at Clinton's 2 picks - both went through the same process.

Did I say "Supreme Court nominations"? I thought I was only talking about judicial nominations. News to me. :rolleyes:

Ever hear of Miguel Estrada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_Estrada#Nomination_as_federal_judge)?

http://icons.iconator.com/592/ICONATOR_e2de7f645bbf5992122e652bfce55369.gif
I am not allowed to talk...per foss... Sorry shag...

http://icons.iconator.com/592/ICONATOR_e2de7f645bbf5992122e652bfce55369.gif
I am not allowed to talk...per foss... Sorry shag...Sorry for drowning out your arguments with facts. ;)

Sorry for drowning out your arguments with facts. ;)

Does this mean I get to play again:confused:

Does this mean I get to play again:confused:
Don't be silly. Didn't you see the smilie by my STFU?

woo hoo - I get to play, ;)

So, I'll be back with this later - especially about my guy Bill's judicial appointments and nominations (across the benches Shag...:) )