Community | January 03, 2012 | 128 comments

Frank: Dems’ slogan should be ‘We’re not perfect, but they’re nuts’

KB723
By Andrew Jones
Tuesday, January 3, 2012

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) provided his party a colorful new campaign slogan for 2012 during an appearance on MSNBC Monday night.

Appearing on The Last Word, Frank reacted to a montage of lofty promise made by GOP presidential candidates on the campaign trail, labeling them “wacky.”

Targeting a contrast between the two parties, Frank continued his harsh assessment of Republicans.

“I suggested that maybe the Democratic slogan this year should be, ‘We’re not perfect, but they’re nuts,’” he said. “Essentially that’s what the president was saying. There’s no reason to expect a party that has so been taken over by the most extreme right wing elements in America to be able to cooperate with them.”

The congressman also placed blame on the American public for contributing to the current political climate.

“You blame the candidates, you blame the media, and I agree with both of this,” he said. “But you have to throw one party that’s partly responsible, and that’s the voters. I didn’t decide in 2008 to vote for one group and then in 2010 to vote for another group. And then be puzzled when you have two very different groups of people in power when they don’t get along with each other.”

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/01/03/frank-dems-slogan-should-be-were-not-perfe...

WATCH: Video from MSNBC, which was broadcast on January 2, 2012.

"Ironically, I agree!!!" =)
  1. groups:
    Community,   News and Politics,   Politics,   Culture,   30 more
  2. tags:
    Barack Obama GOP Democrats tea party 2 more
  3.     
    |

128 comments // Frank: Dems’ slogan should be ‘We’re not perfect, but they’re nuts’

  • warman1138
  • JangoFetish
  • TedBaiamonte_700
    • 0
      TedBaiamonte_700  
    • JangoFetish:

      Actually Republicans have been for a Balanced Budget Amendment since Jefferson founded the party in 1791 while Democrats have always opposed. Do you know what our debt would be today had we listened to Jefferson and modern Republicans like Newt who got his amendment through the House but fell just one vote short in the Senate?

    • 5 months ago
  • KB723
  • Ambill94
    • +1
      Ambill94  
    • TedBaiamonte_700:

      That would really have screwed up history...Jefferson would never have been able to buy the Louisianna Territory...not sure the Republicans of Jefferson's day were interested in a balanced budget amendment...

    • 5 months ago
  • Saladin
    • 0
      Saladin  
    • TedBaiamonte_700:

      Holy shit, are you seriously that ignorant?

      That was the DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLICAN party. The Republican party wouldn't exist until decades later and wouldn't start to resemble its modern incarnation until post Nixon.

      Jesus, partisan politics turns people into complete morons.

    • 5 months ago
  • TedBaiamonte_700
    • 0
      TedBaiamonte_700  
    • Saladin:

      Saladin:

      Holy shit, are you seriously that ignorant?
      That was the DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLICAN party.

      Ted:

      as I said Jefferson founded the "Republican" Party in 1791 to stand for freedom and liberty from government. When he won in 1800 he called it the second American Revolution because it established that the Revolution had been about freedon from all government, not just freedom from English government.

      If you have a primary source wherein Jefferson used the term "Democratic-Republican" in the 1790's I'll pay you $10,000. Bet or runaway again?.

      "Although people were still deeply ambivalent about political parties, although one party did not necessarily recognize the legitimacy of the other, and although men on both sides were nostalgic- at one time or another- for the imaginary golden age of political harmony, few people could be found in the early 1790's who believed the parties did not exist. The parties had names: Federalist and Republican."
      - Susan Dunn, Jefferson's Second Revolution

    • 5 months ago
  • TedBaiamonte_700
    • 0
      TedBaiamonte_700  
    • Ambill94:

      Ambill: That would really have screwed up history...Jefferson would never have been able to buy the Louisianna Territory..

      Ted: actually, Jefferson was for a very limited government, not a very limited country in terms of physical size. Sorry

      Ambill: not sure the Republicans of Jefferson's day were interested in a balanced budget amendment...

      as a liberal how could you be sure of anything?

      Jefferson wrote his letter to long time friend John Taylor,dated NOv.26, 1798, which was in fact advocating that such an amendment be added to the Constitution.Thomas Jefferson who, just two years after the Constitution had been in effect, argued for a Constitutional amendment: “I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government to the genuine principles of its Constitution; I mean an article, taking from the Federal government the power of borrowing.”

      When Jefferson assumed the Presidency, the crisis in France had passed. He slashed Army and Navy expenditures, cut the budget, eliminated the tax on whiskey so unpopular in the West, yet reduced the national debt by a third. He also sent a naval squadron to fight the Barbary pirates, who were harassing American commerce in the Mediterranean

    • 5 months ago
  • Ambill94
    • 0
      Ambill94  
    • TedBaiamonte_700:

      Right...Jefferson took Presidential power to a new level and did just what he had blamed the Feferalists for...broad Constitutional authority not given but taken by the Pres...he had no authority to buy Louisiana and reversed his original position on small government etc etc...he had no trouble spending money the government didn't have when it got in the way of what he wanted as President...he was philosophically against private banks and didn't want the federal government beholding to private investors and the potential for corruption...Andrew Jackson had the same fear and Lincoln as well...

      The Jefferson you referenced in the etter of 1798 was a strict Constitutionalist...soon after 1800 he realized how limiting the document was to the practical matters of running a country.

    • 5 months ago
  • TedBaiamonte_700
    • -1
      TedBaiamonte_700  
    • Ambill94:

      Ambill:
      Right...Jefferson took Presidential power to a new level and did just what he had blamed

      Ted:

      Jefferson was for a tiny government not a tiny president or a tiny country.

      Ambill:
      the Feferalists for...broad Constitutional authority not given but taken by the Pres...he had no authority to buy Louisiana and reversed his original position on small government etc etc...

      Ted:
      1) he stayed for small government, just not a small country. If he reversed I'll pay you 10,000. Bet?? 2) today all agree it was the perhaps the greatest move in American History.

      Ambill:
      he had no trouble spending money the government didn't have when it got in the way of what he wanted as President..

      Ted: When Jefferson assumed the Presidency, the crisis in France had passed. He slashed Army and Navy expenditures, cut the budget, eliminated the tax on whiskey so unpopular in the West, yet REDUCED the national debt by a third. Sorry.

      Ambill:
      The Jefferson you referenced in the etter of 1798 was a strict Constitutionalist...soon after 1800 he realized how limiting the document was to the practical matters of running a country

      Ted:

      Is that why he reduced debt by 1/3 despite purchase and wars???

    • 5 months ago
  • noxidereus
    • +3
      noxidereus  
    • Why not just go with the truth, "We'll screw you over just as bad or worse, but we'll spin it differently", or "We'll use manufactured fear against the crazy Republicans to get elected, but we'll still blame the Republicans while we rape your grandma. We'll say something like the Republicans are holding your grandpa hostage." Why not this: "You still think we're more on your side than the Republicans are? HAHAHAHAHA! You morons! This is too easy! Vote for us! Yay!", or "BEEP We can't talk right now because we are trying to see how many elite dicks we can fit in our mouths. Leave a message. BEEP"

    • 5 months ago
  • Leen61
  • noxidereus
  • PoliticalAmazon
    • -1
      PoliticalAmazon  
    • Leen61:

      Of course, since Obama uses his promises (especially those made during election season) as toiletpaper, the likelihood of him keeping that promise is inversely proportional to how much it benefits him to break it.

    • 5 months ago
  • Leen61
  • PoliticalAmazon
  • KB723
  • PoliticalAmazon
    • 0
      PoliticalAmazon  
    • KB723:

      Hey, KB. Howzit?

      I get busy during election cycles, and with this economy I have to take the work when I can get it.

      About a Dem challenger to Obama...IMO, doubtful, unless it's via Americans Elect.

    • 5 months ago
  • KB723
  • TedBaiamonte_700
    • -2
      TedBaiamonte_700  
    • It figures that liberals would prefer FDR to Jefferson. Maybe if Obama can keep the recession going for 10 years that culminate in world war he can be a liberal hero too.

    • 5 months ago
  • KB723
  • Saladin
    • +4
      Saladin  
    • TedBaiamonte_700:

      Jefferson wouldn't prefer himself to FDR.

      No, seriously, he believed his Presidency was a disaster.

      Everything else you said was so dumb it barely warrants refutation. It's truly a Conservative fantasy that FDR "extended" the Depression. What he did was save the Republic from what probably would have been a brutal fascist revolution.

      The Great Depression is the Great Refutation to Libertarian, "free-market" ideas. They caused it, their policies worsened it and no country, anywhere, in the whole world, got out of it without massive government intervention.

    • 5 months ago
  • TedBaiamonte_700
    • -1
      TedBaiamonte_700  
    • Saladin:

      "It's truly a Conservative fantasy that FDR "extended" the Depression."

      ****Here's what Henry Morgenthau, FDR's Secretary of the Treasury (the man who desperately needed the New Deal to succeed as much as Roosevelt) said about the New Deal stimulus: "We have tried spending money.We are spending more than we ever have spent before and it does not work... We have never made good on our promises...I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started... And an enormous debt to boot!"
      "The New Republic"( at the time a FDR greatest supporter") noted. In June 1939, the federal public works programs still supported almost 19 million people, nearly 15% of the population" [page 313]
      In fact in 1939, unemployment was at 17%, and there were 11 million additional in stimulus make work welfare jobs. Today when the population is 2.5 times greater we have only 8 million unemployed. Conclusion: legislation to make Democrats illegal
      is urgently needed

    • 5 months ago
  • joeredford
  • Saladin
    • 0
      Saladin  
    • TedBaiamonte_700:

      That's right, and it would have been 30%+ if FDR hadn't been around, as it was during Hoover's Presidency, when he called in the national guard on WWI veterans seeking their bonus payments.

      Investment was 1% of what it was in 1932 compared to what it was in 1929.

      Then, post-WWII, with a 90% tax bracket for those at the top and free education and cheap housing for returning vets, we had the greatest economic expansion in American history, and the biggest middle class.

      8 million unemployed? I have no idea where you got that number but it's way lower than the reality, which is at least 13.3 million, and that's the U3 number, not the U6.

      In addition, this recession was, once again, caused by free market stupidity, as was the dot-com crash of ten years ago and the savings and loans crash before that.

      But those who worship the market always find someone else to blame for their own fuckups.

    • 5 months ago
  • TedBaiamonte_700
    • 0
      TedBaiamonte_700  
    • Saladin:

      Saladin:
      That's right, and it would have been 30%+ if FDR hadn't been around, as it was during Hoover's Presidency, when he called in the national guard on WWI veterans seeking their bonus payments.

      Ted: 1) Hoover did liberal things like raise taxes and restrict trade 2) to compliment FDR as you did above for the Great Depression is beyond absurd but perfectly liberal

      Saladin:
      Then, post-WWII, with a 90% tax bracket for those at the top and free education and cheap housing for returning vets, we had the greatest economic expansion in American history, and the biggest middle class.

      Ted: Of course not one economist recommends a 90% rate today. And of course then we had 15 years of pent up demand, a return to capitalism, and, oh yes, the only ecnomy left standing in the entire world.

      Saladin:

      In addition, this recession was, once again, caused by free market stupidity,

      Ted : now who on earth could possibly say that with a straight face given that the much of the liberal federal government was organized so that everyone could have homes the free market said they could not afford? Have you even heard of Fanny/Freddie, FHA, CRA, etc etc

    • 5 months ago
  • jackshin
  • KB723
  • Imzadi
  • KB723
  • alexandrek
  • KB723
  • MSII
  • nikonwilly
    • 0
      nikonwilly  
    • alexandrek:

      I hear your pain and fear...This Country is very dangerous for every human being on the planet. It's not only the Republicans , but the Democrats are obviously as corrupt and insane....simply look at how Wall Street is allowed to scam and cheat every citizen around the Globe.
      I don't know what it's going to take to get the masses out into the streets protesting this corruption...it would seem as though the average citizen is far too ignorant to understand what is happening....It's a very small percentage of the population who acknowledges the problems we face or understands the depth this has reached. Many still trust this Government and believe every word the MSM feeds them every night...I fear many more have simply been brainwashed to not care.

    • 5 months ago
  • MSII
  • KB723
  • TedBaiamonte_700
  • alexandrek
  • TedBaiamonte_700
    • -2
      TedBaiamonte_700  
    • alexandrek:

      but why do you say that? Jefferson wanted freedom from governmet and so do modern Republicans while the Democrats are 100% opposed to the very concept of America?

      "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them".-Thomas Jefferson

    • 5 months ago
  • alexandrek
  • TedBaiamonte_700
  • alexandrek
  • TedBaiamonte_700
    • -1
      TedBaiamonte_700  
    • alexandrek:

      Actually it is the Republicans who take the pledge not to take the tax payers money!! Democrats are the opposite. Obama's spending will be more than other American presidents combined, if the Tea Party can't clip his wings. Do you follow the news at all?

    • 5 months ago
  • joeredford
    • 0
      joeredford [removed]  
    • TedBaiamonte_700:

      I much prefer the wisdom of a true Democrat and Progressive, Franklin Roosevelt, rather than the words of a slave owner and man who forced himself on his purchased chattle .

      " A conservative is a man with two legs who never learned how to walk forward."

      " I do not look upon these United Staes as a finished product. We are still in the making."

      " The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much,
      It is whether we provide enough for those who have little."

      " Organized money hates me...and I welcome their hatred."

      " Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A
      nation does not have to be cruel to be tough."

      " The republican leaders have not been content with attacks on me, or attacks on my wife, or
      attacks on my sons. No, not content with that, they now include my little dog Fala. Well, of
      course, I don't resent attacks, my family does not resent the attacks, but Fala does resent the
      attacks."

    • 5 months ago
  • moodyblue
  • PoliticalAmazon
    • 0
      PoliticalAmazon  
    • Image
    • alexandrek:

      Both the GOPers and the fool in the Oval Office are pretty much meme parrots. Some of the completely meaningless crap they spew is so obviously bullshit....yet the voters of both parties STILL will vote for these BSmeisters.

      I used to think the GOP was more gullible than the Democrats. It breaks my heart to say that is no longer true.

      After four years of Obama bending over for the GOP and stabbing his liberal/progressive/independent voters in the back, he has the nerve to start up with the same BS he spewed in the 2008 election...and Democrats are believing him!

      There is no hope if we cannot get a bloc of voters who are not gullible dufi.

    • 5 months ago
  • PoliticalAmazon
    • 0
      PoliticalAmazon  
    • alexandrek:

      There is little difference anymore between the Democrats and GOPers, especially when it comes to serving their corporate masters.

      We are living in an oligarchy now. The elections, the campaigning, the buffonery in Congress---all just window-dressing to keep the masses compliant with the will of the corporations as expressed through the president, congress and ussupreme court.

    • 5 months ago
  • TedBaiamonte_700
    • -1
      TedBaiamonte_700  
    • joeredford:

      joeredford:

      "I much prefer the wisdom of a true Democrat and Progressive, Franklin Roosevelt, rather than the words of a slave owner and man who forced himself on his purchased chattle ."
      _______________________________________________

      Ted: Historians call that presentism. You judge historical figures by modern standards. Its considered less than a rookie mistake.

      Jefferson and the others created and lived on the cusp of history. For them it was a huge revolution to believe that they themselves could be free, let alone real slaves after 1000's of years of slavery. But even so, Jefferson's original draft of the Constitution was more about slavery than taxes. He and the others knowingly fired the shot heard around the world even when they had no idea if it would hit its target or the personal consequences they would suffer would be deadly. To say that our Founders were born slave holders is true, but it is also true that they did more to set in motion freedom for slaves than all human beings or any other group in all of human history. Certainly they did more than any of us would have had the intelligence and courage to do given the times in which they lived and the consequences they faced; so lets all thank God for these incredible heroes who, most recently, freed 1.5 billion from communism with their undying influence.
      Those among us who imagine they are morally superior to the Founders are fools too stupid to know they inheritied their wisdom without so much as a drop of blood, a calorie of effort, the inkling of a thought, or an ounce of morality.

    • 5 months ago
  • TedBaiamonte_700
  • TedBaiamonte_700
    • -2
      TedBaiamonte_700  
    • PoliticalAmazon:

      Little difference???? Republicans, not Democrats, sign the Grover pledge so as to shrink the government, as Jefferson would have wanted, so it has less crony capitalist power. Moreover, Republicans are for the Balanced Budget Amendment and voted 100% against the bailouts! Little difference?

    • 5 months ago
  • joeredford
    • +2
      joeredford [removed]  
    • TedBaiamonte_700:

      You hold your heroes dear to your hreart no matter what atrocities they may have committed. I will
      have mine without being told by you or anyone who to hold in esteem and who to not.. Admiration is something earned, not forced on anyone. I don't happen to concur on your opinion of Mr. Jefferson. If I have any admiration for any of the founding fathers it is John Adams who never owned or abused a slave in his life.
      As for Jefferson, not only was Sally Hemmings his slave and his concubine, but his wife's half sister. The YUCK. factor alone makes my skin crawl.You are free to admire anyone you want, but you will have to excuse me if I find his perversity a little off putting.

    • 5 months ago
  • TedBaiamonte_700
    • -2
      TedBaiamonte_700  
    • joeredford:

      You hold your heroes dear to your heart no matter what atrocities they may have committed.

      *******as I said its called presentism; its a rookie mistake that you learn about in HS history . Our Founders created the greatest country in human history. Only a fool would not be able to understand that. Jefferson was the greatest hero of all having put more in the first draft of the Declaration about slavery than taxes. Would you have done as well if you had been born owning slaves? See, how hugely superior he is to you?

      I will
      have mine without being told by you or anyone who to hold in esteem and who to not..

      *****so that makes you a fool who wastes his time feeling morally superior to 99% of those who lived before him?

      Admiration is something earned, not forced on anyone. I don't happen to concur on your opinion of Mr. Jefferson.

      *******but now you know he was morally far far superior to you

      If I have any admiration for any of the founding fathers it is John Adams who never owned or abused a slave in his life.

      *****of course he was not born owning slaves was he? Did you know manumission was illegal in Virginia, and doubly so when you were in debt as Jefferson was.

      As for Jefferson, not only was Sally Hemmings his slave and his concubine, but his wife's half sister.

      *******if there is proof of that I'll pay you 10,000. Bet? or run away with liberal tail between your legs.

      The YUCK. factor alone makes my skin crawl.You are free to admire anyone you want, but you will have to excuse me if I find his perversity a little off putting.

      ******Yes a liberal will find our morally superior Founders and the country they created, perverse. Does this explain why they spied for Stalin?

    • 5 months ago
  • joeredford
  • TedBaiamonte_700
  • joeredford
    • +1
      joeredford [removed]  
    • TedBaiamonte_700:

      How curious that your interpretation of '' presentism" seems like such an exrtreme stretch from the actual ancient philosophy from which you are attempting to make your conclusions. No, they don't seem to correlate at all.
      But a certain condescending superiority seems extremely familiar to me....very, very familiar.

    • 5 months ago
  • coolplanet
  • KB723
  • TedBaiamonte_700
    • -3
      TedBaiamonte_700  
    • coolplanet:

      sanity?? He almost single handedly collapsed Westen Civilization

      Here's an example:Rep. Frank: I do think I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness that we have in OCC [Office of the Comptroller of the Currency] and OTS [Office of Thrift Supervision]. I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing. . .

    • 5 months ago
  • coolplanet
  • TedBaiamonte_700
  • PoliticalAmazon
  • PoliticalAmazon
  • TedBaiamonte_700
  • Leen61
    • +7
      Leen61  
    • I agree with most of what Barney Frank said here. The Reps are nuts but the Dems don't capitalize on it. They so frequently refuse to play a winning hand they are dealt because so many are so spineless or are so much like the GOP in their agenda.

    • 5 months ago
  • KB723
  • Saladin
    • +3
      Saladin  
    • Leen61:

      I'd say that's at least partially because a lot of them don't disagree with Republicans.

      There are a lot of Democrats, especially in the Senate, who essentially just want to be the Diet Republican party.

    • 5 months ago
  • Leen61
  • KB723
  • Leen61
  • Saladin
  • Leen61
  • Saladin
  • Leen61
  • Lisayou
  • Leen61
  • PoliticalAmazon
    • +2
      PoliticalAmazon  
    • Image
    • Leen61:

      Leen, I think it is more due to the fact that the Democrats in Congress and the Oval Office agree with the GOP agenda. They are just using the GOP as the boogeyman to convince the more gullible voters to vote Democrat--even though the Democrats have screwed us over nearly every step of the way through the last four years.

      What bothers me the most about Obama is the broken promises and the great expansion of presidential powers he has achieved during his administration. Four more years of Obama, without the threat of being a one-term president, and we'll be flying a full dictator flag.

      He has used our Constitution/BOR as toiletpaper. I really am shocked that so many Democrats are willing to vote for him again.

      Video: Barack Obama and the FISA Amendments Act Betrayal Video Comment
      Comment from progressive Democrats who will not stand Barack Obama's betrayal on government spying:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KjkyLFlqDw&feature=player_embedded

      ""Barack Obama voted for the FISA Amendments Act on July 9, 2008, breaking his solemn promise during the primaries, breaking faith with the American people and the Constitution of the USA.
      The FISA Amendments Act lets a presidential administration spy on and even search the home of anyone, anywhere for 67 days without a warrant, without justification to anyone at all. And even if a judge disapproves after those 67 days, the president can keep the information he gained, forever.
      That's a violation of the 4th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, which reads:
      ""The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.""
      Yes We Can Spy On You."

    • 5 months ago
  • Leen61
  • TedBaiamonte_700
    • -1
      TedBaiamonte_700  
    • Leen61:

      "I agree with most of what Barney Frank said here".

      Rep. Frank: Let me ask [George] Gould and [Franklin] Raines on behalf of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, do you feel that over the past years you have been substantially under-regulated?

      Mr. Raines?

      Mr. Raines: No, sir.

      Mr. Frank: Mr. Gould?

      Mr. Gould: No, sir. . . .

      Mr. Frank: OK. Then I am not entirely sure why we are here. . . .

      Rep. Frank: I believe there has been more alarm raised about potential unsafety and unsoundness than, in fact, exists.

    • 5 months ago
  • Leen61
  • remanns
  • MSII
    • +3
      MSII  
    • The democrats could use more people of his very high level of intelligence and frankness (and less of the "blue dog" scum).

    • 5 months ago
  • KB723
  • Joeydee44
    • +4
      Joeydee44  
    • MSII:

      Agreed. Of the Blue Dog senators who helped turn Health Care into the mess it became, Blanche Lincoln is gone, Ben Nelson and Joe Leibermann are retiring knowing they don't have a snowball's chance of being reelected (the latter having actually having lost his Democratic primary and getting reelected by sucking up to CT Republicans). Mary Landrau was in on it too but no one has heard a peep out of her since the health care vote. Now we got clowns like Wyden saying he supports Paul Ryan's plan. WTF?

    • 5 months ago
  • TedBaiamonte_700
    • -5
      TedBaiamonte_700  
    • Can we be honest about Barney Frank? He wanted to roll the dice on liberal subsidized housing and now he's afraid to roll the dice on another election.

      Rep. Frank: I do think I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness that we have in OCC [Office of the Comptroller of the Currency] and OTS [Office of Thrift Supervision]. I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing. . .

    • 5 months ago
  • joeredford
  • cmc101
  • TedBaiamonte_700
    • -2
      TedBaiamonte_700  
    • joeredford:

      Of course it was his reliable liberalism that led him to be one one of the most significant contributors to an economic collapse that almost destroyed Western Civilization. Now you know why he's afraid to run.

    • 5 months ago
  • joeredford
  • joeredford
    • +3
      joeredford [removed]  
    • cmc101:

      Wow! Bla, bla, bla. That was a well reasoned ,intelligent response. You know not of which you speak. Frank has been one of the most effective and influential representatives in history, not to mention an incredible wit who can destroy republicans with a caustic , devastating remark and a raising of an eyebrow. But , of course, they don't get it untill much later due to their incredibly slow mentalities and after they spend 5 minutes looking up the words" wit" and " sarcasm" in the dictionary.

    • 5 months ago
  • cmc101
    • 0
      cmc101  
    • joeredford:

      my reply was to the crap that ted was spewing
      the reason that Franks was not running
      The republicans redid his district so the democrats that voted for him was not in his district that he had represented

      TedBaiamonte_700:

      You haven't been keeping up with reasons that frank is not running

    • 5 months ago
  • joeredford
    • +1
      joeredford [removed]  
    • cmc101:

      That district is still heavily democratic. The republicans control nothing . The democrats control super majorities in both houses of the legislature and the governorship. The republicans had no control whatsoever in determining the outlines of those districts. I don't know where your are getting your information, but I would say it was time to find a more accurate source.

    • 5 months ago
  • cmc101
    • 0
      cmc101  
    • Image
    • joeredford:

      http://frank.house.gov/press-release/barney-frank-announces-he-plans-not-run-re-...

      There is another, equally important consequence of the fact that so many of the people in this district would be new constituents that help persuade me to announce my retirement. The obligation of a Member of Congress to work as an advocate for the people he represents on local and regional issues that require or involve Federal government response are of paramount importance. And I am proud of the work I have done in that regard for the people I have been privileged to represent over these years. But as in almost every case, where there were significant local or regional issues involving environmental matters, transportation matters, housing matters etc., it took more than two years to resolve them. The relevance is that running again for one more term, I would be asking 325,000 new constituents to give me the mandate to be their advocate with the federal government for only two years. Starting on a series of projects only to be passing them along in various stages of incompletion to a successor two years later is not a responsible way to act.

    • 5 months ago
  • joeredford
    • +1
      joeredford [removed]  
    • cmc101:

      Nice quote, too bad it has nothing to do with his ability to WIN re-election if he so chose. Also doesn't have a damned thing to do with the fact that you said the republicans were resposible for the redistricting , when they obviously did not.

    • 5 months ago
  • TedBaiamonte_700
    • -1
      TedBaiamonte_700  
    • joeredford:

      Joereford:
      Barney Frank has been one of the most effective and influential representatives in history:

      “These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

      Now we can understand why millions followed Hitler Stalin and Mao and why human history is what it is. Truth often does not matter to human beings. They follow their herd no matter what.

    • 5 months ago
  • joeredford
  • TedBaiamonte_700
    • -2
      TedBaiamonte_700  
    • joeredford:

      What you don't understand is that Frank is a liberal and so his support of many many destructive welfare programs like Fanny Freddie continues. He would have to apologize for liberalism to be truly repentant.

      Also, if you look at him on the O'Reilly Factor which is all over the net you'll see he is far far too angry and arrogant to be repentant about anything, except perhaps getting his lover a job at Fanny.

    • 5 months ago
  • joeredford
    • +2
      joeredford [removed]  
    • TedBaiamonte_700:

      What you call arrogance , I call wit.
      What you call angry, I call outrage at republican folly
      Barney Frank knows exactly how to push republican buttons and he cuts them no slack, that's why
      he pisses you off.
      I once found my significant other a job through my connections. B .... F.....D!
      And if anyone needs to "repent" it's the republican establishment for destroying the robust economy they inherited from Bill Clinton.
      Liberals owe you no apolgy for anything after the mess you left this country in for us to clean up after you. And now, you want to re-establish the same policies that put us in debt and decline, brilliant move!!!!!

      ' In this world of sin and sorrow there ia always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that am not a republican." --- H.L.Mencken

    • 5 months ago
  • joeredford
  • TedBaiamonte_700
    • -2
      TedBaiamonte_700  
    • joeredford:

      Joe:

      What you call arrogance , I call wit.
      What you call angry, I call outrage at republican folly
      Barney Frank knows exactly how to push republican buttons and he cuts them no slack,

      Ted:

      actually causing a huge housing collapse with pure liberal ignorance is more than pushing buttons I'm afraid.

      Joe:
      I once found my significant other a job through my connections. B .... F.....D!

      Ted:

      sorry but its illegal for him to do it, not you

      Joe: And if anyone needs to "repent" it's the republican establishment for destroying the robust economy they inherited from Bill Clinton.

      Ted:

      actually the President is not the government. The key liberal programs: Fanny Freddie CRA FHA all stayed after Clinton left. Social Security works the same way.

      Joe:

      Liberals owe you no apology for anything after the mess you left this country in for us to clean up after you.

      Ted:

      the mess was a housing collapse caused by many liberal programs designed to get people into homes the Republican free market said they could not afford. Please try to get past your brain washing on this.

      And now, you want to re-establish the same policies that put us in debt and decline, brilliant move!!!!!

      Joe:

      And now, you want to re-establish the same policies that put us in debt and decline, brilliant move!!!!!

      Ted: actually Republicans want to get rid of Fanny Freddie. Its been in all the papers Joe!! Sorry

    • 5 months ago
  • joeredford
    • +1
      joeredford [removed]  
    • Image
    • TedBaiamonte_700:

      Imaginary conversations with yourself? Wow you must be really, really lonely. Can't stop yourself from working your way back to Current , can you TED??????????????????? My name is Barack, Ted, er... no it's Newt...er, no it's Marilyn. Or maybe it's Peter, Paul, Mary, Jack, Aloysious, Jane or Cary, or maybe even Warren or Thomas or Greta.

    • 5 months ago
1 - 100 of 128
more from Community:

top videos