Freddie and Fannie, circa 2004

[j2k4]

This whole thing is an arm's-length exercise for you, eh?

What does that mean?

D.A. has an aversion to acknowledging there is such a thing as the liberal persuasion:

'There is the right, and then there is the mainstream'

There is plenty of blame to share, but without the other components nobody is the sole culprit.

It appears you wish to single out one component as the villain and remove the guilt of your party.

Your presumption is incorrect.

The tale of Fannie and Freddie begins and ends with the dems.

The republicans ignored their custodial duties, however, until it was much too late.

That they didn't absolutely hammer Raines and force transparency in '04 is certainly their fault.

I would regard the subsequent failings and mergers/buyouts, etc., as demonstrative of roughly equivalent culpability between the two camps.

You even said

Call this propaganda if you like

So do you think your republican party has any hand in this?

The video speaks for itself, though my past experience with you leads me to state you would view it as propaganda, as it is otherwise indefensible.

I'll even do a preemptive rephrase and ask if you think any conservatives have a hand in it. Seeing as you want specific names named.

I asked you first; preemption disallowed.

[devilsadvocate]

What does that mean?

D.A. has an aversion to acknowledging there is such a thing as the liberal persuasion:

'There is the right, and then there is the mainstream'

I've never suggested there is no liberal persuasion. What I've argued is that there is more than just one or the other. You seem to think if one isn't a conservative, and your definition of that appears very exclusive and only includes those entirely in agreement with yourself, one has to be liberal. One or the other.

[j2k4]

D.A. has an aversion to acknowledging there is such a thing as the liberal persuasion:

'There is the right, and then there is the mainstream'

I've never suggested there is no liberal persuasion. What I've argued is that there is more than just one or the other. You seem to think if one isn't a conservative, and your definition of that appears very exclusive and only includes those entirely in agreement with yourself, one has to be liberal. One or the other.

I will then take this opportunity to clearly assert that you surely have created that impression, and for no reason at all apart from your consistent criticism of republicans, conservatives, and/or their ideals, as opposed to your total (as far as I could tell, and I was paying attention, I assure you) avoidance of criticism of anything left of middle-right.

Feel free to prove me wrong; also feel free (for purposes here)to forego referencing your last few posts in this thread, because they are as close as I've ever witnessed you come to confessing the existence of anything amiss on the left.

If you truly feel that I hew so rigidly to your perception of what constitutes a conservative, feel free to scare up anyone on this board who would term me a racist, a homophobe, chauvinist...whatever you like.

Bottom line:

You don't agree with me on anything at all.

You disagree in such a surpassing and thorough-going fashion as to defy definition of any view you hold as conservative at any juncture in your tenure here.

All of this leads me to conclude your unremitting contrarianism is habitual, and, as I class myself as conservative, your oppositional stance places you by default as a liberal.

It's just the maths of the situation, you see; you are a victim of your own geometry.

Sorry.

[devilsadvocate]

Which proves my point that you think there's only two options.

[j2k4]

Which proves my point that you think there's only two options.

Not true.

Not true for other people, but not true for you, either.

For you, there is only one option.