WHO REGULATES THE REGULATORS?
America is Litigation Nation
One of the most insulting movies ever made was Oliver Stone’s “Wall Street.” In this movie, a young stockbroker played by Charlie Sheen cuts corners to achieve success. He becomes crooked. He is rightfully punished, and near the end of the movie lets his father know that he is about to begin a jail sentence. So far so good. Yet the father, played by the ever pious Martin Sheen, says something to his son that every financial professional should find deeply offensive. Rather than criticize the specific behavior of his son, he instead remarks that when his son gets out of jail, he should, “get a real job instead of living off of the buying and selling of others.”
Yes, in one fell swoop, an entire profession gets indicted, at least verbally.
In this warped view of the world, financial professionals are all thieves, crooks, and liars, while those that regulate them are pure white knights in shining armor. Yet the regulators are often more dangerous than the financial professionals. The financial professionals have to answer to the regulators.
Who regulates the regulators?
Financial firms are under attack from three different sources of regulation. The first source consists of fly by night operations in the form of “lawsuit firms” that operate outside the legal system. The second source consists of self regulatory agencies and government agencies. The third source consists of self aggrandizing politicians. All three of these entities have abused their public trust.
There was a time when the financial services industry needed to be cleaned up. Regulators came in, did their jobs effectively, and helped put crooked firms out of business. Yet at some point regulators became a victim of their own success. The firms that survived realized that they had to play by the rules to stay in business. So playing by the rules is exactly what most of them did. They hired Compliance Departments. They taught ethics. They helped combat money laundering. They fired their own bad apples to protect their reputations.
Most people would see this as positive. To regulators, this is a disaster. Regulators exist to get rid of the bad seeds. When too many of those bad seeds are removed, regulators then lack things to actually do. They become less necessary. Therefore, rather than fire themselves, they need to create problems that they can then solve.
Problems such as insider trading, churning, and unauthorized trading are simply less common among firms because they know that those infractions are potential death knells. Yet ask any Wall Street firm that is being harassed because one customer order might have three timestamps instead of four, or that a form is filled out with a fine point blue pen instead of a medium point black pen, and they will concede that the regulatory system is out of control.
The first group of unchecked regulators that are causing problems are firms specifically set up to sue financial services firms. A firm that my company regularly does business with has come under attack from the stockbrokerage equivalent of ambulance chasers.
I personally spoke to one of the employees of this “stockbrokerage recovery” firm. I asked him if he was an actual attorney. He said that did not matter. I asked him if he had a Series 7 stockbroker’s license. He said that was also immaterial, and became irritated with such probing questions. He made it clear that he wants to settle every single case. He has no desire to ever go to trial. He knows that big companies roll over (he used stronger language), and he freely admits targeting companies that have a history of paying.
This fellow criticizes organizations that engage in “cold-calling” to find clients. Yet the business model of this stockbrokerage recovery firm is cold-calling people. They buy leads, call people up, and actively try to solicit them into suing their stockbroker. The firm takes the case on contingency, and one client confessed to me that the firm receives 50% of any judgment. This is significantly higher than what most attorneys receive.
In speaking to this same employee, I pointed out that the statute of limitations on his case had already passed. I also pointed out that the firm he was suing had virtually nothing to do with the client, and that he was suing the wrong firm. I additionally pointed out that the client never purchased stocks in the account in question. He purchased options on commodities, which is a completely different financial product outside the jurisdiction of FINRA (formerly NASD). Therefore, he was trying to sue in the wrong court.
The employee seemed uninterested and uneducated as to how commodities worked, and made it clear that going after the stockbrokerage firm with deeper pockets in the hope of a settlement made more sense than going after the commodity brokerage firm that held the actual account. When I pointed out these facts to the client, their response was, “I am not paying any money for this service, so I don’t care.”
Lastly, this supposedly successful firm is located slightly away from Wall Street, in a place known as Coney Island. Now Coney Island is great if one wants to ride the Cyclone, walk on the Boardwalk, or eat a hot dog from the original Nathans. It is not a business district. The “office” of this stockbrokerage recovery firm was the equivalent of a shack. It had a paper sign on the door, which was partially obscured by the much larger sign of another company that apparently sells kitchenware.
Yet what is most troublesome about this firm is that they do not appear to answer to any professional organization. Attorneys and stockbrokers answer to the ABA and FINRA, respectively. Yet various stockbrokerage recovery firms such as this seem to have unchecked power.
The best way for firms to handle these firms is to refuse to negotiate with them. Once the person representing the firm filing the claim declines to state that they are an attorney, all conversation by the stockbrokerage firm being sued should cease.
If unlicensed stockbrokerage recovery firms are ants, then regulatory organizations are elephants. I have dealt with many regulatory agencies over the years, and they have truly become victims of their own success. Several examples of claims or suggestions that regulators have made are below.
1) My firm was told to have procedures in place for selling a specific type of financial product. Our firm explained that we do not transact in the type of financial product in question. We were told that this was still a “deficiency,” and that we had to have procedures in place so that we can regulate a financial product that we had never sold, and most likely would never sell. Imagine the reaction from the medical community if heart surgeons were told to have plastered on their office walls the solutions to all medical issues concerning podiatrists.
2) My firm was told that they overheard a broker discuss a goal of doubling the client’s money. The regulator then explained that they specifically heard the phrase “50%.” We explained that doubling is 100%, not 50%. As sheepish as the regulator was at this point, they included the error in their final report.
3) One branch office of my firm was told that we were in violation because we did not have a manager or supervisor on site. Employees must be monitored. We explained that the manager was in the bathroom. The regulators acknowledged this, and yet included it in their report as another deficiency.
4) One regulator asked loaded questions of our employees in an attempt to deliberately trick them into incriminating themselves and the firm. English was not the first language of the employee, and they were quite scared at being taken into a conference room with no windows. The broker was asked if they had ever been “disciplined,” meaning had they ever been found guilty of a regulatory violation. The broker answered in the affirmative. The regulators then tried to go onto the next question, but I intervened in the conversation. I explained to the broker that only compliance and regulatory issues mattered, not human resources sanctions. The broker then explained that they had been disciplined by the firm for tardiness, which is not a regulatory or compliance violation of any kind.
5) One client wrote a check to our firm that bounced. This caused the broker’s commissions to be taken away. The stereotype of wealthy stockbrokers with golf clubs and putting greens in their office taking advantage of poor elderly people on Social Security is not always the true picture. Often it is multimillion dollar clients on their own private golf courses trying to cheat rookie stockbrokers who are trying to survive on less than $24,000 per year. The particular wealthy aforementioned client kept promising to pay, and kept reneging. My firm sued in small claims court, and won a judgment. Only after this fact did the client then retaliate by going to regulators and claiming malfeasance by the firm. The regulators were aware of the facts in front of them, yet the case was allowed to proceed. Facts did not matter.
6) Some clients in the financial services industry have been actively solicited by regulators to file complaints. On more than one occasion, a client has informed me that they only filed a complaint because a regulator called them, and told them that they should. As an inducement, the client was given information regarding the company that was false. A thirty second trip to the internet would have verified this. As for why regulators do this, complaints require both sides to pay filing fees. These fees go in the pockets of the regulatory agencies. The regulatory agencies have a direct financial incentive to have more complaints. Lastly, the client was given information by the regulators regarding other clients, which is at best irregular, and possibly illegal. Firms know never to discuss a client account with another client without written permission. Regulators especially should respect this privacy issue.
I could write hundreds of pages alone on the examples listed above. When my firm needs help from the regulators, such as reviewing a one page document to make sure that it is in compliance, this can take several weeks. When the regulators have a document request from us, they demand an answer in 72 hours. This can be crippling to a financial institution from a productivity standpoint.
People who work on Wall Street should be trembling in fear at this. It is the equivalent of a slow bleed strategy, death by a thousand cuts. Some would say that FINRA (not the agency I am referring to, I am using them as an example) is regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), but this oversight is minimal. The SEC does answer to Congress, but firms will not bring a claim before Congress out of fear. Regulators are the good guys, corporations are the evil bad guys, and if the claim against the regulatory agency is unsuccessful, then the regulators will come back even more determined. This is analogous to trying to “kill the king.” If you only wound the king, he will come back after you with his entire regulatory army.
Yet if regulatory agencies are elephants, then crusading politicians are the equivalent of Godzilla. One example of this would be the former Governor of New York, Eliot Spitzer.
Mr. Spitzer wreaked havoc on Wall Street when he was the Attorney General of New York. He rode in on his stallion and built his career around the evil enemy of Wall Street. Yes, there was some corruption. Yes, Wall Street like any other organization had bad apples, as previously mentioned. However, those regulating and enforcing laws must stay within the confines of those very laws themselves.
Mr. Spitzer was alleged to have threatened Wall Street executives over the telephone. Either they “played ball,” or he would sue them. Finally, one CEO of a large insurance company had had enough of Mr. Spitzer’s bullying. He went public to the newspapers regarding Mr. Spitzer’s heavy handed tactics. His company stayed intact.
Yet how many companies roll over because they are scared to death of a Governor who is using his crucifixion of them to become President of the United States? The fact that Mr. Spitzer was brought down by a financial scandal (it was not about sex, it was about possible money laundering) does not change the fact that for too long he was unregulated, unchecked, and unrestrained. On a Federal level, the United States Government harassed IBM and Microsoft, and both companies caved. Only when Intel fought back hard did Attorney General Janet Reno back down.
Wall Street must start fighting back. The regulatory climate in the financial services industry has gotten out of control. I am not arguing that we stop regulating the industry. Regulation is necessary. I am advocating that more oversight be given to those providing the initial oversight.
The regulators must be more regulated themselves.
After all, financial services firms actually produce goods and provide services. They are the economic engine that drives America.
Stockbrokerage recovery firms, regulatory agencies, and Government officials do not produce anything. They exist solely because corporate America exists. They play an important role in society, but without corporations, there are no regulators. Destroying corporate America would destroy America itself. Productive people understand this. In tough economic times, corporations have to lay off employees. It is unfortunate, but a necessary evil of the business cycle. Regulators should be required to do the same. They should not be allowed to have bloated budgets pursuing frivolous and open ended investigations about non-matters just to stay employed.
In short, to paraphrase Oliver Stone, many of these regulatory employees need to get real jobs in the private sector learning how business benefits society, instead of living off of the buying and selling of others.
Guilty firms can and should be punished. No innocent person should ever be put in prison, and no falsely accused corporation should ever be put out of business. Firms that are innocent of accusations trumped up against them should fight back tooth and nail.
Otherwise, firms can roll over and continue to end up black and blue because they filled out a form in blue when it should have been filled out in black.
eric
You chose an awefully ironic time to post this.
Eliot Spitzer came to the fore when the Bush administration came to the White House. If you recall, between ’98 and 2000, Spitzer was relatively unknown. Why? Because the Clinton administration was not entirely asleep at the regulatory wheel. With the coming of Bush, Wall Street realized that it could do pretty much as it pleased, and now we have the mortgage debacle. We need more Spitzers (sans the hookers), not less.
JMJ
Yup.
Its all Bushs fault.
Always was, always is, always will be.
50 years from now ?
Yup, even then, just blame Bush.
Lets just infuse the whole government with Spitzers so that no one can sqeeze a penny out their rump without being taxed on it.
Spritzer needs to pay for his habit somehow.
Micky, the Bush administration came into DC with an expressed de- and non- regulatory policy. From the FDA to the FCC to the SEC to the USDA to the EPA to the MSHA to the CPSC to FEMA on and on and on the Bush administration intentionally neglected it’s regulatory responsibilities. Conflicted poltical appointments, institutionally corrupt policies, and blatant disregard of law and legal intent have rendered our nation at serious risks, many of which have come to terrible and quite predictable fruition. From the lack of responsible regulation from the FDA we got the Vioxx scandal, from the FCC, media monopolization, from the SEC, the mortgage collapse, from the UDSA, tainted foods, from the EPA, state lawsuits to force it to comply with the law, from the MSHA, horrific mine tragedies, from the CPSC, poisonous toys, from FEMA, the Katrina debacle.
The Bush administration is corrupt, conflicted, inept, and behaves as if it is above the law. They should all be put up on charges of malfeasance rising up in some cases to the level of treason.
JMJ
You got anything to back all that up ?
Or just BDS ?
Read a newspaper once in a while, Micky. The world is pasing you by.
To answer our good host’s question, “Who regulates the regulators” – We the people through our elected representatives.
JMJ
Thats all you got ?
What newspaper ?
New York times?
Huffington post?
Washington post ?
BDS Times ?
Good ole moonbats, lets regulate everything.
On one hand you say “we the people regulate the regulators through our elected reps.”
We the people also need to take responsability and not go around screwing up left and right and then try to impose regulations on corporations to make up for our stupidity.
As far as Katrina goes.
I established very well in the last post that Bush had little if nothing to do with that disater caused by a city whos “lack’ of regulation in any kind of public works was soley responsable.
The lax regulatory policies of the Bush administration have been a complete failure in every single respect. Period. Failure. Complete and total and utter failure. Worst. Administration. Ever.
JMJ
O.K. Jersey.
We’ll all take your word for it. Period, completely, totally.
Okay Micky, do a little work. Look up any given sector that has been deregulated (or unregulated) since ’01. How are they doing? Really.
Here, take one. The Sago disaster. http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/11/17/us-mine-safety-regulators-failed-to-conduct-inspections/
Here’s another. Unregulated financial markets. http://www.247wallst.com/2008/03/quants-gone-wil.html
Can you spot a few?
I’d try military contracting. That should be a blast.
JMJ
.
” U. S. mine safety regulators failed to conduct inspections required by federal law at more than one in seven of the country’s 731 underground coal mines last year, a year in which the number of worker deaths in mining accidents more than doubled to 47, a government report says.’
Jersey, whats yoiur point ?
Is it Bushs fault the mine managment and regulators couldnt or didnt follow the law ?
Give me huge freaking break !
I’m not even gonna approach regulated finacial markets.
it just goes hand in hand with lib philosophy so can get your grubby hands on everything and tax the crap out of it.
A free market with minimal regulation has always done better in any society. And by loosening up those regulations after 911 Bush did the country a favor.
F A C T !
You are gonna have to do waaaaaaay better job than that to convince me that the Bush administration was a “complete and utter” failure.
You have tried to make this ” complete and utter failure” arguement before and always have failed miserably.
You may not like Bush, granted.
But he is not a “complete and utter failure’
I have shown you lists of his many, many accomplisments and proven you to be absolutley wrong.
You may think repeating the same baseless accusations over and over again will make it true, but its been said here on this blog a million times now and hasnt worked too well for you now, has it ?
The comment, “They should all be put up on charges of malfeasance rising up in some cases to the level of treason.” should apply to all people who knowingly undermine the integrity of this country. Unfortunately, most Democrats could never be charged under this policy. They never knowingly do anything wrong because they are too naive to recognize the damage they cause.
Eagle and Micky – the Democrats aren’t much better then the Republicans. It’s a matter of very small degree. Micky, Bush is not some Boy King. When I refer to him, I refer to the entire Bush ADMINISTRATION. Eagle, the Democrats are NOT naive, they are just about as corrupted as the GOP.
Get real guys.
JMJ
Looks like someone is concieding a little.
I never said Bush was any kind of “king”.
I’ll say this for any newcomers;
Jersey, you know very well that I have blasted Bush on how the Iraq war was handled in the beggining and on the border issue.
So dont try to paint me as a mindless Bush puppet.
The fact of the matter is this.
Bush and his crew are no more complete and utter failures any more than the Dems that you just said werent any better.
I do not believe that any Dem administration has been a complete and utter failure, even Carters. I feel the same about all administrations.
And yes jersey, Dems are naive.
Most of them are supporting Obama because hes ” likeable”
Get real, the way I see reality.
JMJ, As usual, I was taking a wry shot at Dems – nothing personal. I have to go back to class and will engage later.
Well Micky, Dem voters can be somewhat naive, as their choices this year point up. But at least their hearts are in the right place. It’s not that they fall so much for likeability (I think GOP voters are more swayed by that than are the Dem voters), but that they tend to be a little pie-eyed and rosey about America and their fellow Americans. I have a more realistic, I think, understanding of our polity and therefore do not share the Democrats optimism about the electability of a black man or a woman with the rather inappropriate “liberal” tag on her forehead.
A point I’ve been trying to make to you is that I do not put all that much on the personal qualities of any candidate. I realize that they are all just cogs in much bigger machines. Obama’s lack of “experience,” for example, means nothing to me. That’s what the cabinet, advisors, lawyers, military, and all the rest of the massive executive branch of government are for. Clinton’s apparent lust for personal power means nothing to me as well. And McCains famous temper? Also nothing. These things can be controlled. Even Bush could have been a much better president had he been surrounded with better people, but the GOP had become drunk and crooked on power and filled the Bush administration with sleazy, criminal, inept hacks. When I refer to the failures of “Bush,” I am referring to his entire administration, not just him personally.
It’s cool, Eagle. No offense taken.
JMJ
JMJ;
“It’s not that they fall so much for likeability (I think GOP voters are more swayed by that than are the Dem voters),’
I doubt it.
The dems and leftys are a bunch of emotional whiners who want everything from an emotional standpoint instead of a practical means.
I doubt anyone is supporting McCain on his bubbly personality, his great speechs and abilty to dance.
Maybe he should pick up a saxophone, loose the tie, get a red corvette and a toupe` , learn how to rap and break dance
If that happened then you might stand a chance of being right.
I also look at all the factors involved in a mans capabilities and donr buy into the tags they egt by the media.
When someone refuses BS they have a temper ?
Can they hire better staff? Yea.
But they still need some degree of expertise to hire that staff.
Looking at how Clinton gave us a skeleton military, in combo with Rumsfeld insisting we could do it with lean military manpower was a mistake.
But most American people agree that we had every right to go in.
How it was executed and how we feel today is another story.
And I still stand by the fact that Carter and his administration was the most incompetent ever.
Harriet Myers, Michael brown etc…
All picks are not always the best, it happens in some administarations more than others. That is usually represented in the amount of scandal you see which is usually due to low character qualities and poor judgement.
Like the Clinton administration, which has been rocked by more scandal than I have ever seen in any administration.
Bill sure new how to pick a staff now didnt he ?
Shall we go down the list of all scandals involved with Clinton and his staff right up till today ?
“The dems and leftys are a bunch of emotional whiners who want everything from an emotional standpoint instead of a practical means.”
Now that’s just silly. Who are the whiners? How about the Religious Right and their endless complaints about everything? Or the the war hawks who think their penis gets bigger if they “support the troops?” Or how about the “reevrse racism” whiners, or the easy offended anti-“politically correct” babies? On and on. Dems are just as practical and emotional as GOPers. It’s just that Dems are a huge tent and Reps tend to stand in line. So GOPers tend to have very defined worldviews, whereas Dems tend to see more in shades of gray.
“I doubt anyone is supporting McCain on his bubbly personality, his great speechs and abilty to dance.”
No, but again, he’s the nominee, and so the GOP will stand in line. Most Reps don’t even like McCain, he’s to practical. He does not let ideology incessantly stand in his way. Reps tend to be ideologues, firmly convinced of simple rightnesses and wrongs, regardless of events on the ground. They rationalize what they already believe and rarely change their minds. McCain doesn’t fit that mold, entirely. On the other hand, McCain is a war hero, and therefore that aforementioned “penis” factor rises again (pun intended).
“I also look at all the factors involved in a mans capabilities and donr buy into the tags they egt by the media.”
Eh. Presidents who like the media play to it, presidents who do not simply avoid it. I wouldn’t worry all that much about that.
“When someone refuses BS they have a temper ?
Can they hire better staff? Yea.
But they still need some degree of expertise to hire that staff.”
Not really. They have the whole national party and preexisting instutitional expertise to help them with that. I doubt most presidents ever personally knew 99% of the executive brance before they came to office. They probably only knew half or so of the higher positions.
“And I still stand by the fact that Carter and his administration was the most incompetent ever.”
As a student of history, I can tell you flatly that Carter’s administration was a mess, but nowhere near the most incompetent. Of course, it depends on what you call “incompetent.” Now, if by that you more mean “impotent” – unable to get things done regardless of what you think of thise things – even Carter had some worse company. If you mean personally incompetent, then Carter would actually rank pretty high. His life has been pretty much the definition of competent – he has been exceptionally personally successful.
“Like the Clinton administration, which has been rocked by more scandal than I have ever seen in any administration.”
Eh. Most of the Clinton “scandals” were really just Rightwing trivial whining. If you want scandals, loook up the Teapot Dome, or the Grant administartion. Now those were scandalous times.
“Bill sure new how to pick a staff now didnt he?”
Some of his people were fantastic, some not. A lot of them should have been well-regarded by the Right, but once again they let their irrational rage get the best of them. They should have loved Rubin and Reich, for expample. And Reno was fantastic. Some others were not so great, especially some of the Arkansas yokels they brought along in the beginning. By they weeded most of them out by the second term.
“Shall we go down the list of all scandals involved with Clinton and his staff right up till today?”
Yeah right. And then I’ll watch an episode of Jerry Springer just to keep with the theme. Lowbrow nonsense, most of it. At least Springer isn’t just a vindictive moron like many of the silly anti-Clintontites.
Look, I don’t think Cliton was a very good presidency, but he certainly wasn’t the ridiculous cartoon you far-righties made him out to be.
JMJ
JMJ;
“Now that’s just silly. Who are the whiners? How about the Religious Right and their endless complaints about everything? Or the the war hawks who think their penis gets bigger if they “support the troops?” Or how about the “reevrse racism” whiners, or the easy offended anti-”politically correct” babies? On and on. Dems are just as practical and emotional as GOPers. It’s just that Dems are a huge tent and Reps tend to stand in line. So GOPers tend to have very defined worldviews, whereas Dems tend to see more in shades of gray. ”
Aww BS !
Democrats complain that the president has not cracked down forcefully enough on Al Qaeda, yet gripe about the administration’s lack of concern for civil liberties in its pursuit of combating this organization.
Also you guys complain about the war, guantanamo, Abu ghraib, you put out human shields, you complain about medical, trees, brown spotted owls,cigarette smoke,the use of plain english , trans fats, people worshiping, having to look at any religious display,recruiting centers. You complain about the rich,people who wear fur,not having footbaths, free enterprise,immigration laws.
And to top it all off, you complain and whine about T H E W E A T H E R !!!!
JMJ;
“No, but again, he’s the nominee, and so the GOP will stand in line. Most Reps don’t even like McCain, he’s to practical. He does not let ideology incessantly stand in his way. Reps tend to be ideologues, firmly convinced of simple rightnesses and wrongs, regardless of events on the ground. They rationalize what they already believe and rarely change their minds. McCain doesn’t fit that mold, entirely. On the other hand, McCain is a war hero, and therefore that aforementioned “penis” factor rises again (pun intended). ”
Not letting ideoligy stand in his way is why he is the nominee, and the exact reason is the opposite for Obama and Hillary.
Ideology is wishful thinking , “hope’ a thought from the heart,
Which proves my initial claim that Dems vote with heart and emotion instead of logic.
You said it and made my point for me;
Most reps dont like McCain, but out of realism we know he is the best of the three to get the job done.
I dont know too many people who resent boners.
JMJ:
“As a student of history, I can tell you flatly that Carter’s administration was a mess, but nowhere near the most incompetent. Of course, it depends on what you call “incompetent.” Now, if by that you more mean “impotent” – unable to get things done regardless of what you think of thise things – even Carter had some worse company. If you mean personally incompetent, then Carter would actually rank pretty high. His life has been pretty much the definition of competent – he has been exceptionally personally successful.’
I’m tired of you bragging about your historical studying.
I am a professional chef. And if I wanted to I could intentionally leave out one of the 21 ingredients in a Caesar salad if I wanted to just so you wouldnt like it.
Your historical reflections are subject to bias and interpretation and mean absolutley nothing to me.
Does it make your penis bigger to always say you are a student of history as it does the reps to say they support the troops ?
Carter probabaly makes just as good a salad as he did a presidency.
Ineffective is much in the same realm as incompetent.
The Clinton administartion has been looked at by independant council more than any in history.
You are a student of history , right ?
“Democrats complain that the president has not cracked down forcefully enough on Al Qaeda, yet gripe about the administration’s lack of concern for civil liberties in its pursuit of combating this organization.”
Sounds reasonable to me.
“Also you guys complain about the war, guantanamo, Abu ghraib, you put out human shields, you complain about medical, trees, brown spotted owls,cigarette smoke,the use of plain english , trans fats, people worshiping, having to look at any religious display,recruiting centers. You complain about the rich,people who wear fur,not having footbaths, free enterprise,immigration laws.”
You’re going to A) have to be a lot more specific, and B) realize that feelings among Democrats are quite varied about all those issues. As for me, I am not a Democrat, so “(my) guys” have nothing to do with this conversation.
“And to top it all off, you complain and whine about T H E W E A T H E R !!!!”
Me? No. I live in Florida. I love the weather.
“Not letting ideoligy stand in his way is why he is the nominee, and the exact reason is the opposite for Obama and Hillary.”
No, that’s what the three have in common. All are pretty pragmatic and non are hard to the left or right. The reason McCain won is that the GOP base realized that another Bush-esque ideologue wouldn’t win to Spongebob Squarepants in the national election.
“Most reps dont like McCain, but out of realism we know he is the best of the three to get the job done.’
Oh puh-lease!!! That’s the goofiest thing I’ve ever heard you say! They put McCain in there because he could win, not because he’s going to give them everything they want!
“I dont know too many people who resent boners.”
Yeah, but I know plenty who live for nothing but them – they’re known as Hawks.
“Does it make your penis bigger to always say you are a student of history as it does the reps to say they support the troops?”
No. Might make my head a little bigger, but not that one. I don;t have to prove my manliness by being a goofball, adolescent war hawk.
Most of the Clitnon “scandals” were lowbrow nonsense for the consumption of the barely sentient Fox “News” audience. The American people, thank God, weren’t stupid enough top concern themselves with most of it. The proof>? His ratings only rose with each new stupid “scandal.”
At least Clinton’s scandals didn’t kill and maime thousands of Americans and left the nation broke.
JMJ
Prisoners of war don’t get civil liberties Jersey, they’re not Americans. They get human rights.
JMJ;
“You’re going to A) have to be a lot more specific, and B) realize that feelings among Democrats are quite varied about all those issues. As for me, I am not a Democrat, so “(my) guys” have nothing to do with this conversation.
It still comes from the left, as you just concurred.
JMJ;
“And to top it all off, you complain and whine about T H E W E A T H E R !!!!”
Me? No. I live in Florida. I love the weather.”
Its called global warming, climate change,weather.
JMJ;
“No, that’s what the three have in common. All are pretty pragmatic and non are hard to the left or right. The reason McCain won is that the GOP base realized that another Bush-esque ideologue wouldn’t win to Spongebob Squarepants in the national election.”
All three ? As you would say “LOL”!
Ever take a look at Obamas intended policies ?
He’s been deemed the most liberal candidate ever by most reputable critics.
Hillary is right behind him.
Pragmatics can be applied at different levels. Some with a very low context of semantics, some applications are more sublime.
Really don’t see how the way the speak defines their ideas.
As far the other interpretation of pragmatics goes, a lot of Hillary’s and Obamas ideas are unrealistic and very idealistic.
Obama says he’ll bring all the troops home in a year.
Hillary was more vague about it and said; ” I’ll bring them home as quickly as is responsably possible”
That is wishful thinking bro, idealism, period.
So is universal medicine and ” green jobs”
JMJ;
“Oh puh-lease!!! That’s the goofiest thing I’ve ever heard you say! They put McCain in there because he could win, not because he’s going to give them everything they want!”
Goof this,
McCain has a better record of getting things done than both Hillary and Obama combined. Hillary has hardly ever done squat and usually takes credit for Bills accomplishments.
Most people on the street cant tell you one thing Obama has ever done. I saw the same survey on CNN and FOX
JMJ;
Yeah, but I know plenty who live for nothing but them – they’re known as Hawks.
Nothing but ?
Not even gonna touch the rest. (pun intended)
JMJ;
“No. Might make my head a little bigger, but not that one. I don;t have to prove my manliness by being a goofball, adolescent war hawk. ”
What is it with you and the manliness thing ? There you go again.
Get your hormones checked and put it to rest.
JMJ;
“Most of the Clinton “scandals” were lowbrow nonsense for the consumption of the barely sentient Fox “News” audience. The American people, thank God, weren’t stupid enough top concern themselves with most of it. The proof>? His ratings only rose with each new stupid “scandal.”
Typical and predictably weak response.
Fox has absolutely nothing in the world to do with this. But I guess in order to gather your manliness you need to ramble off a FOX accusation at least once a week in conjunction with your BDS.
American people are still concerned with the Clinton’s past scandals. Just like the Bosnia trip and a lot of other stuff that is not clearly in focus. The archives just released from the Clinton library? Almost half of the names and places have been omitted. What the hell is that all about ? Where’s the tax returns ?
And the point I was making and that you just confirmed for me is that the scandals were there.
JMJ;
“At least Clinton’s scandals didn’t kill and Maine thousands of Americans and left the nation broke.”
With as much due respect as I can gather, that is a really irresponsible and untrue statement.
The biggest scandal is Bill not handling Al Quean sooner.
Had he gone after Al Queda after being attacked 3 times by them I seriously doubt 911 would of happened.
Its easy to improve the budget when you don’t spend money protecting your country and its people and you widdle the military down to few boy scouts.
I’m sorry, its about this hawk/manliness thing.
I’m inclinded to believe that a true man would confront his enemies/problems rather than run around in the streets and bitch about it or ask someone else to handle it for them.
You can only talk so much untill its time to reach out and touch someone.
Especially when they have killed Americans and have vowed to continue doing so.
A real man does not hide from his responsabilities under the desk with an intern, or simply deny that it exists or live in a fantasy land where he believes he can sit down and talk peace with a rabid dog.
Even monkeys get it.
First you get a vebal warning, if you dont leave you get the treatment. If you keep coming back they will follow you and kill you.
( saw it on NG)