gee..., a DemoPublican politician doesn't deliver what his supporters believed he would!

who'd'a thunk it?

Frank is the anti-Larry Craig.

I think the reason there's so many bad actors in the lending
world is, well, well, because it's um, PROFITABLE? Gee, I
wonder why everyone wants to
go into all this investing
stuff, could it be, maybe, to
MAKE MONEY?!?!?!? Yeah, maybe,
and these guys and their
freddie/fannie scam-game
have been rakin' it in, and
this guy doesn't look like
he's missed a meal recently
either. These are the same
people that kind of stood there drinking coffee while
we passed the 9 trillion mark, too...guess you gotta
invest in it to get away
from it, or something...what a racket...

What you missed in the story was the absolute arrogance of Congressman Frank's staffers. They know full well that those legal aide lawyers CAN'T call their legislators, thanks to the Newt backed bill that pulled the teeth on legal aide lawyers and put gags in their mouths. Frank and the rest of the Democrats who promised to remove these restrictions from legal aide lawyers have refused to honor their commitments. Now they rub our faces in it too.

Even at my most cynical (and I'm a pretty cynical old bird) I didn't anticipate Frank's rush to join the establishment Bullyboy Clique with the likes of Murtha, Dingell, and Conyer in the House, and Schumer, Feinstein, Baucus in the Senate. If this is what the Democrats have to offer, we are lost!

Re-read the article.

It was a vision of the GOP that Frank would be the devil - it was not true and he is not what the GOP defined him to be.

Big surprise. The GOPhers lied again.

Yeah, re-read the article.

No doubt many Repubs have loved to cast Barney as The Devil, but then he doesn't seem to be quite The Consumer's Angel of Mercy his apologists make him out to be, either.

While you're re-reading the article, read this part:
["Frank is putting the finishing touches on a bill designed to rein in abusive lending, but the consumer lawyers think it's simply window dressing that won't solve the problem. They're primarily concerned that it would EVEN MAKE IT HARDER FOR CONSUMERS TO GET RELIEF when a lender breaks the proposed new law. That's because THE BILL WOULD INVALIDATE MANY OF THE STATE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACTS the lawyers rely on to help clients and hold big finance firms accountable for making predatory lending so profitable. Not only that, but THE BILL WOULD ACTUALLY DEFANG SOME NEW LENDING RULES coming down the pike from the Federal Reserve and provide aggrieved consumers with FEWER REMEDIES THAN THEY HAD BEFORE."]

Tell me Cap'n..., did you ever see a Democrat you wouldn't defend?

Frank is a real consumer advocate. He's not going to sell out to the banking industry for a payoff like the Republicans.

"did you ever see a Democrat you wouldn't defend?"

I would never defend anybody I thought was wrong. The party affiliation has no sway over right and wrong from my POV.

We disagree, that doesn't make me anything, especially not some kind of partisan defender.

A swing and a miss.

No reason to depart from the issue into personal crud.

Would you really care what I do or say in defense of anybody?

FYI

I am, in fact, a lilly livered white wine swilling, Volvo driving, quiche eating, alternative lifestyle accepting, womans choice supporting and defending fiscal conservative liberal and progressive American patriot and I will defend whomsoever I please with or without any other persons permission or concern.

Thanks

If that matters.

This article illustrates a serious problem that is being propagated in this country. The article is about a bill, concerning mortgages, that is being submitted by Barney Frank. Yet, at the very beginning of the article, the author states Mr. Frank is gay. This has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand so why even mention that fact. Perhaps it's time for the people to demand better journalism and less crap like this.

"the author states Mr. Frank is gay"

Good point, we never hear about "straight" congressman so-and-so.

What does his sexual orientation have to do with anything?? I don't see articles about, for example, John Kerry, the heterosexual senator from Massachusetts....

capt sez: "We disagree"

About what, Cap?

Are you saying Barney's bill is good for consumers?

What IS your position on the issue?

I'm just asking, because all you did was hammer Repubs without taking a position on Barney's bill, and that felt very much like an attempt to deflect some very justified criticism of Barney's abandonment of those who had supported him.

One of the GOP's most reliable fundraising pitches in the run-up to the 2006 mid-term elections was a vision of Democrat Barney Frank as the chair of the House Financial Services Committee. The gay congressman from Massachusetts was supposed to be the devil incarnate for the credit card and banking industry.

**** GOP fundraising ****

My position on the ISSUE is Barney Frank has a bill and he also has constituents.

He has not broken any promises not is he playing a game. Some laywers are not happy? They have their own recourse.

But enough about me, have you read the bill?

Why, no, Captain, I have not.
Have you?

Being a humble science officer I find Washington DC's legalese to be illogical.

If you wish to use the posted article in the discussion Captain, why confine your examination to just the preface?
Why not go to the point of this article, which contends that Congressman Frank is promoting a bill that would appear to injure those it purports to heal, and examine that logically?

One of the GOP's most reliable fundraising pitches in the run-up to the 2006 mid-term elections was a vision of Democrat Barney Frank as the chair of the House Financial Services Committee. The gay congressman from Massachusetts was supposed to be the devil incarnate for the credit card and banking industry.

**** GOP fundraising ****

My position on the ISSUE is Barney Frank has a bill and he also has constituents.

He has not broken any promises not is he playing a game. Some laywers are not happy? They have their own recourse.

We disagree on how stranger carry on civil conversation. You chose to try to paint be as the democrat defender? I take that as an insult to my personal integrity. That is why I posted that I would not defend anybody I thought was wrong. The fact that you think differently means we disagree. NBD

But enough about me, have you read the bill?

Shall we revisit when we can actually read a bill?

It is all so much meaningless blather until then.

Capt sez: "Shall we revisit when we can actually read a bill?
It is all so much meaningless blather until then."

You started it.

With your telling people to re-read the article and all, I thought your intent was to discuss what the article said.
Maybe you didn't mean to get into the parts that weren't showing Barney or his legislation in a very positive light..?
Maybe you just had in mind the two sentences that allowed you to criticize the Republican's rhetoric about Frank, and pretend the issue at hand is GOP fundraising?
That's clearly NOT who the article is referencing with it's title "Beating Up On Barney Frank", but go on and pretend it is if it comforts you.

AnyWho..., you want to read it?
Go For It!
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:1:./temp/~c110WgfkMX::

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:2:./temp/~c110WgfkMX::

OR..
Here's an analysis done by a law school prof:
http://pubcit.typepad.com/clpblog/2007/11/frank-bill-lets.html

Come back and explain it all if you want.

Capt sez: "Shall we revisit when we can actually read a bill?
It is all so much meaningless blather until then."

You started it.

With your telling people to re-read the article, I got the impression that you wanted to discuss what it actually said.

Maybe it was just the two sentences that could lead to criticism of the rhetoric the Republicans have used, which you wanted to consider?

Maybe you didn't intend to have the bulk of the article, which casts Congressman Frank and his bill in a poor light being discussed? Would rather pretend the issue at hand is GOP fundraising, when it clearly was NOT Republicans who were being referred to in the article's title "Beating Up On Barney Frank".

AnyWho...
You want to read the bill?
Have At It!
//thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:1:./temp/~c110NBuBzg::

//thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:2:./temp/~c110NBuBzg::

OR, here's an analysis by a law school prof:
//pubcit.typepad.com/clpblog/2007/11/frank-bill-lets.html

(you'll need to add the h-t-t-p-: in front of these. MoJo doesn't like it when you provide complete links)

After you read it, you can come back and explain what it'll do, if you like.

Capt sez: "Shall we revisit when we can actually read a bill?
It is all so much meaningless blather until then."

You started it.

When you told people: "Re-read the article", it seemed that you might want to have people consider and discuss the actual content of the article (I think that's what the message board Is FOR). Now you're calling it 'meaningless blather'?

Perhaps you wanted readers to confine their consideration to the two sentences that could be used as a launcing pad to attack the Republicans for their oft stated views of Congressman Frank? The two sentences you've first referenced and then quoted directly? The author's view of the situation being definitive.

The bulk of the article, however, and it's rather obvious point, concerns the projected negative impact of the bill Congressman Frank is forwarding, and how it would remove many remedies already in place while limiting additional remedies currently in the works.
It clearly wasn't the GOP being referred to in the article's title "Beating Up On Barney Frank". It was about the beating he is taking from those who have been serving the cause of victims of predatory lending practices. It's not about what the GOP has said during campaign season (though the article makes a passing remark about it), it's about what Congressman Frank is doing during 'legislation season'.
The Scarlet Pimpernel also makes an excellent point in this discussion about how and why the lawyers DON'T "have their own recourse" as what was suggested by Congressman Frank's staffers is prohibited!
Maybe that's just the author's view of the situation, and therefore not definitive.

AnyWho, if you're so hot to READ the bill, go the Thomas Library of Congress site, (thomas . loc . gov / cgi - bin / query / z? c110: H.R.3915: [edit out the spaces]) MoJo doesn't seem to want me to link you to the Library of Congress..., and have it display 'Text of Legislation'.

Then, if you're so inclined, you can come back and explain exactly what effect it'll all have, and you'll be able to tell us if the law school professer's analysis you can find at the 'here' link in the article above is off target, and how so.

If I started a discussion - that is bad?

read this *just one more time*

[...]
One of the GOP's most reliable fundraising pitches in the run-up to the 2006 mid-term elections was a vision of Democrat Barney Frank as the chair of the House Financial Services Committee. The gay congressman from Massachusetts was supposed to be the devil incarnate for the credit card and banking industry.

**** GOP fundraising ****

That is it.

That was what I was speaking to.

As far as the bill goes we can all read it when it is written until then I am not going to concern myself with some unhappy lawyers.

Oh, but the bill IS WRITTEN!!

I just GAVE you a link to the Library of Congress, so you CAN go Read the Bill that Mr. Frank has introduced in Congress!!
Did you purposely ignore that information, or simply read past it and not absorb what was being said?

As to the rest, you've confirmed what I thought.
The "discussion" you "started" didn't want to consider anything but the two sentences you keep quoting.
An opportunity to hammer the Repubs, those two sentences..., and nothing else in the article bears any importance to you.

You assume too much, I don't read blather.

"because all you did was hammer Repubs without taking a position on Barney's bill"

How am I suppose to take something like that seriously?

I didn't hammer anybody or anything and the content of the bill is not really something I care about. The content of the bill was never part og my commentary - that was all yours.

Read the bill yourself (you did say you had not read it) and file a report.

It is not a barn burner in my book but give me something other than complaints about me hammering the GOP.

If you want to be taken seriously you have to be a little less reactionary.

I have no time for hotheads. It is bad for my blood pressure.

All apologies.

Capt sez: "because all you did was hammer Repubs without taking a position on Barney's bill"
How am I suppose to take something like that seriously?

Why take it seriously when you can drag it out of context, in order to ignore the rest of the posting?
(vintage Capt..)

Capt sez: "I didn't hammer anybody..."

Shading the truth just a bit, are we?
Capt Previously Said: "The GOPhers lied again."

Capt sez: "Read the bill yourself (you did say you had not read it) and file a report."
No thanks.
I'll stick with the analysis of the law school professer and the legal-aid, consumer protection attorneys who have been dealing with the issues already (folks who might be able to sort out what it all says and means). I think you'll find that it was Science Officer Spock who said he hadn't read it, but no, I haven't either.
Anyway, you DID suggest we revisit the issue when we have a bill to read, and there's a bill to read.

Capt sez: "You chose to try to paint be as the democrat defender? I take that as an insult to my personal integrity. "
"...give me something other than complaints about me hammering the GOP."

No complaints, just Simple Observations Cap.
But if making like the aggrieved victim all the time (at the same time referring to specific information with links that someone else posted for you as "blather"), dragging one or two sentences out of a dozen or so questions so you can complain about how you're not being properly respected, if it lets you avoid dealing with uncomfortable questions that are asked, then heck, stick with it.

"It was a vision of the GOP that Frank would be the devil - it was not true and he is not what the GOP defined him to be."

Where am I wrong?

I didn't mean for the truth to hurt your feelings. The GOPhers that demonized Barney to raise money are the liars, not you. Unless you were doing so as well.

Again

All apologies.

Capt sez: "Where am I wrong?"

Well for starters, where you claim that you didn't hammer anybody (right or wrong notwithstanding)
Where you claim I said I hadn't read the bill, prior to my having said that, and oh..., on about a dozen other points that were brought up, which you've completely ignored.
I won't bother to list any more of them a second time, because your response will be exactly the same as before (zylch).

You don't have what it takes to hurt my feelings, but take a shot at it if it helps lower your bloodpressure.

"Where you claim I said I hadn't read the bill"

I am sorry, I thought it was you posting as Spock.

All apologies.