O'reilly slays Barney Frank, a complicit democrat in this financial collapse

[Blues Fairy 0]

Say what you like - I've seen better journos than O'Reilly hold people up to ridicule, and they don't do it by shouting and screaming.

It also speaks to incredible bias - that Bill had already judged the man as "guilty" before he appeared on the show.

But the man IS as guilty as a sin, what ridicule are you talking about? He's beyond ridicule already, he deserves PUBLIC SLAPPING and that's exactly what O'Reilly delivers. Yes he is short-tempered, but wouldn't you get angry at a scumbag who's sitting in front of you, lying in your face and denying any kind of responsibility for the DOCUMENTED crime he has committed?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Say what you like - I've seen better journos than O'Reilly hold people up to ridicule, and they don't do it by shouting and screaming.

It also speaks to incredible bias - that Bill had already judged the man as "guilty" before he appeared on the show.

But the man IS as guilty as a sin, what ridicule are you talking about? He's beyond ridicule already, he deserves PUBLIC SLAPPING and that's exactly what O'Reilly delivers. Yes he is short-tempered, but wouldn't you get angry at a scumbag who's sitting in front of you, lying in your face and denying any kind of responsibility for the DOCUMENTED crime he has committed?

A professional newsman? No...

[Heracles 417]

They do it by giving their subjects enough rope to hang themselves.

This is actually a tactic of yours in these forums..

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

They do it by giving their subjects enough rope to hang themselves.

This is actually a tactic of yours in these forums..

Yes - and the noose fits you very well

[mawilson 2,133]

Say what you like - I've seen better journos than O'Reilly hold people up to ridicule, and they don't do it by shouting and screaming.

It also speaks to incredible bias - that Bill had already judged the man as "guilty" before he appeared on the show.

But the man IS as guilty as a sin, what ridicule are you talking about? He's beyond ridicule already, he deserves PUBLIC SLAPPING and that's exactly what O'Reilly delivers. Yes he is short-tempered, but wouldn't you get angry at a scumbag who's sitting in front of you, lying in your face and denying any kind of responsibility for the DOCUMENTED crime he has committed?

Seriously. O'Reilly played a video clip where Barney was asked about

Freddie and Fannie as recently as July 14, 2008:

Barney: "I think this is a case where Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally

sound, they are not in danger of going under. They are not the best investment

these days from the long-term standpoint going back, I think they are in

good shape going forward. They are in a housing market... I do think

their prospects of going forward are very solid."

Then two months later, Fannie and Freddie collapsed and were taken over

by the US Treasury. The shareholders lost BILLIONS overnight.

Barney is a goddamn liar and I'm glad O'Reilly gave him a good beating.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

People, you are missing the point. The purpose of those interviews was not to get information about the men. O'Reilly slaps them for the VILE things they have done, because they get away with these things so easily. O'Reilly doesn't want them to get away with it, and he's doing absolutely the right thing. Being publicly slapped is THE LEAST Barney Frank deserves. If he were CEO of a company, he'd be in jail by now - and he's still in Congress, smiling and triumphant about the horrendous bailout bill. And notice how he NEVER, EVER takes any responsibility for his actions! At least someone has balls enough to shove this responsibility in his face.

What exactly are you accusing Congressman Frank of doing? Do you really think this whole financial crisis can be pinned on one particular person? That's crazy talk. I'm curious if any Right Wingers here can actually pinpoint what exactly Frank had or hadn't done that led us to this current crisis and please site your sources. So many of you simply parrot what gets repeated among the Right Wing pundits without taking the time yourself to look into this issue deeper.

We got into this mess from deregulation....60 Minutes just ran a segment about Wall Street trading high risk mortgages where financial institutions were trading securities, which in essence were insurance or guarantees on those mortgages, but did they didn't call them that because it would have required regulation, so they bypassed the regulations by calling it something different.

One fact that needs to understood - 94 percent of home owners are paying their mortgages. The current financial crisis were in, started with the housing market, but Wall Street was trading in shady securities that nobody could really account for. So to lay blame on a single Congressmen like Frank or even the entire Congress is not understanding just how big this was and why it happened. The only thing that be said with fair certainty is that deregulation allowed this to happen. It happened during deregulation of the S&L debacle back in the 80's and this is no different except on a much larger scale. The Republican Party needs to own up to that reality - that laissez-faire economic policies don't work.

Edited October 6, 2008 by Jabberwocky

[mawilson 2,133]

People, you are missing the point. The purpose of those interviews was not to get information about the men. O'Reilly slaps them for the VILE things they have done, because they get away with these things so easily. O'Reilly doesn't want them to get away with it, and he's doing absolutely the right thing. Being publicly slapped is THE LEAST Barney Frank deserves. If he were CEO of a company, he'd be in jail by now - and he's still in Congress, smiling and triumphant about the horrendous bailout bill. And notice how he NEVER, EVER takes any responsibility for his actions! At least someone has balls enough to shove this responsibility in his face.

What exactly are you accusing Congressman Frank of doing? Do you really think this whole financial crisis can be pinned on one particular person? That's crazy talk. I'm curious if any Right Wingers here can actually pinpoint what exactly Frank had or hadn't done that led us to this current crisis and please site your sources. So many of you simply parrot what gets repeated among the Right Wing pundits without taking the time yourself to look into this issue deeper.

I am accusing him of lying. He said what he said in July and then when O'Reilly confronted him,

Barney tried to deny it. As in "no, I never said that". Come on.

Edited October 6, 2008 by mawilson

[one...two...tree 2,762]

People, you are missing the point. The purpose of those interviews was not to get information about the men. O'Reilly slaps them for the VILE things they have done, because they get away with these things so easily. O'Reilly doesn't want them to get away with it, and he's doing absolutely the right thing. Being publicly slapped is THE LEAST Barney Frank deserves. If he were CEO of a company, he'd be in jail by now - and he's still in Congress, smiling and triumphant about the horrendous bailout bill. And notice how he NEVER, EVER takes any responsibility for his actions! At least someone has balls enough to shove this responsibility in his face.

What exactly are you accusing Congressman Frank of doing? Do you really think this whole financial crisis can be pinned on one particular person? That's crazy talk. I'm curious if any Right Wingers here can actually pinpoint what exactly Frank had or hadn't done that led us to this current crisis and please site your sources. So many of you simply parrot what gets repeated among the Right Wing pundits without taking the time yourself to look into this issue deeper.

I am accusing him of lying. He said what he said in July and then when O'Reilly confronted him,

Barney tried to deny it. As in "no, I never said that". Come on.

I think Congressman Frank held his own by explaining where he was coming from. He's right that we need Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to function, but he was saying that tighter regulations were needed and had been needed for long time, which he fought for and couldn't get passed until the Democrats had the majority in Jan. 2007. What I'm troubled about is that those two programs are now publicly traded entities, yet the Fed Gov't. needs them to stay afloat.

[mawilson 2,133]

People, you are missing the point. The purpose of those interviews was not to get information about the men. O'Reilly slaps them for the VILE things they have done, because they get away with these things so easily. O'Reilly doesn't want them to get away with it, and he's doing absolutely the right thing. Being publicly slapped is THE LEAST Barney Frank deserves. If he were CEO of a company, he'd be in jail by now - and he's still in Congress, smiling and triumphant about the horrendous bailout bill. And notice how he NEVER, EVER takes any responsibility for his actions! At least someone has balls enough to shove this responsibility in his face.

What exactly are you accusing Congressman Frank of doing? Do you really think this whole financial crisis can be pinned on one particular person? That's crazy talk. I'm curious if any Right Wingers here can actually pinpoint what exactly Frank had or hadn't done that led us to this current crisis and please site your sources. So many of you simply parrot what gets repeated among the Right Wing pundits without taking the time yourself to look into this issue deeper.

I am accusing him of lying. He said what he said in July and then when O'Reilly confronted him,

Barney tried to deny it. As in "no, I never said that". Come on.

I think Congressman Frank held his own by explaining where he was coming from. He's right that we need Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to function, but he was saying that tighter regulations were needed and had been needed for long time, which he fought for and couldn't get passed until the Democrats had the majority in Jan. 2007. What I'm troubled about is that those two programs are now publicly traded entities, yet the Fed Gov't. needs them to stay afloat.

Oh cut the ####### man. Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound? Not in any danger of going under?

All he had to do was say "I fukced up" and O'Reilly would have left him alone.

[Amby 490]

I watched the interview last week and I would have flipped the #### out on him too if he lied like that to me

[one...two...tree 2,762]

People, you are missing the point. The purpose of those interviews was not to get information about the men. O'Reilly slaps them for the VILE things they have done, because they get away with these things so easily. O'Reilly doesn't want them to get away with it, and he's doing absolutely the right thing. Being publicly slapped is THE LEAST Barney Frank deserves. If he were CEO of a company, he'd be in jail by now - and he's still in Congress, smiling and triumphant about the horrendous bailout bill. And notice how he NEVER, EVER takes any responsibility for his actions! At least someone has balls enough to shove this responsibility in his face.

What exactly are you accusing Congressman Frank of doing? Do you really think this whole financial crisis can be pinned on one particular person? That's crazy talk. I'm curious if any Right Wingers here can actually pinpoint what exactly Frank had or hadn't done that led us to this current crisis and please site your sources. So many of you simply parrot what gets repeated among the Right Wing pundits without taking the time yourself to look into this issue deeper.

I am accusing him of lying. He said what he said in July and then when O'Reilly confronted him,

Barney tried to deny it. As in "no, I never said that". Come on.

I think Congressman Frank held his own by explaining where he was coming from. He's right that we need Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to function, but he was saying that tighter regulations were needed and had been needed for long time, which he fought for and couldn't get passed until the Democrats had the majority in Jan. 2007. What I'm troubled about is that those two programs are now publicly traded entities, yet the Fed Gov't. needs them to stay afloat.

Oh cut the ####### man. Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound? Not in any danger of going under?

All he had to do was say "I fukced up" and O'Reilly would have left him alone.

If Congressman Frank was lying back in July 2008, why didn't anyone catch him in the lie? This is a stupid O'Reilly tactic. The financial reports are public and investors look at those. They don't rely for the Chairman of the Finance Committee who oversees a plethora of financial issues.

This is from Fannie Mae's website: (feel free to look over the reports and you tell me if according to those reports, Congressman Frank was flat out lying?)

Cautionary Note Regarding Certain Previously Reported Financial Results - Investors and others should not rely on annual or quarterly financial information published prior to December 2004. For financial information for 2002, 2003 and 2004, investors and others should instead review and rely on Fannie Mae's 2004 Form 10-K as filed with the SEC on December 6, 2006.

http://www.fanniemae.com/ir/monthly/index....Monthly+Summary

[Heracles 417]

Very interesting article from 1999

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending

By STEVEN A. HOLMES

Published: September 30, 1999

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...;pagewanted=all

Edited October 6, 2008 by Aficionado

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

It seems a few here like to lick Barney's ### no matter wheather he wipes it first or not!

[HAL 9000 96]

Very interesting article from 1999

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending

By STEVEN A. HOLMES

Published: September 30, 1999

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...;pagewanted=all

Very interesting indeed. Sad to say that it is no surprise many subprime rates went out to more than just one economical ladder rung- yet one can always ask the question as to why better rates would not accompany those supposed economical empowerment mortgages. I have one answer that is more logical than blaming one political party.

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

ask barney frank how much money freddie and fannie have contributed to his political campaigns.