As we were saying…

 

Nattering Naybob: Hello Red Ranger and Happy New Year! I hope you and your wonderful family had a great Holiday season.

I guess it’s fair to say that it’s been a while since our last exchange of ideas. A lot has happened between then and now. I stipulate right here and now that the interruption in our little blog has been all my fault…. mostly. Let me explain. Since our start in July 2012, we were guilty of foisting, by my count, 79 separate blogs on our small but loyal (and re-forming) followers. Due to all the horrible, false, and scurrilous negative propaganda that The Red Ranger had spewed forth during this time, in this space, upon our dear and resolute soon-to-be departed President, I found it necessary to retire for eighteen months to a silent retreat at a monastery in a remote section of Kenya (none of the many elders I spoke to can remember anyone named Barack Obama being born there). Only after an intensive program of self-reflection, meditation, and study, was I able to clear my mind and overcome the deleterious effects of your often well-intentioned but wholly misguided analysis of our society and our body politic. So let’s hit the re-set button and light this candle again! There’s a lot to catch up on and there will be even more to talk about during the year(s) ahead. At the risk of getting sued for trademark infringement by ring announcer Michael Buffer…let’s get ready to RUMMM-BULLLLLLLLLLL !!!!!

The Red Ranger: Great day to start up Second Grade Minds again.  The President is clearly over stepping his bounds and acting as a dictator in his efforts to restrict gun purchases.  Much like when Hillary says Trump is the best recruiter for ISIS (or ISIL, if you are Obama), Obama is the best gun salesman.  His efforts will probably spur gun sales tenfold from what they would have been if no action had been taken.  Even my wife is seriously considering joining a gun club and perhaps purchasing a piece of her own.  Hopefully, it is not to take me out.  You do not realize what you have until it is taken away or is threatened to be taken away.

The biggest issue I have with Obama’s actions are the inability to come to some sort of compromise with Congress rather than taking Executive Action (EA).  His MO seems to be to refuse to compromise in any way and then take EA.  I know you are going to say it is the Republicans who will not compromise but he had a Democratic congress for his first four years.

That being said, I believe some of the changes (I do not know all of the aspects of the bill yet) are reasonable.  If you are on Social Security and unable to manage your own finances then you probably shouldn’t own a gun nor should you be able to vote or drive a car. So if EA is taken on voting and driving also, then I think it makes sense.

Just so many things to discuss my mind is a jumbled mess right now but this is the topic of the day. Glad to have you back to pummel.

Nattering Naybob: I am not sure when we became a nation of scaredy-cats where everyone has to go out and buy a gun to protect themselves from “varmints” in response to a proposal to increase common-sense gun safety. Obama has been in office exactly 7 years minus 15 days. Please tell me when, during that time he has enacted or signed into law, ANY restrictions on the sale or ownership of guns. To my recollection there has not been a single such act (which incidentally is a black mark against him, from my perspective). But to hear the Lunatic Right (i.e., all Republicans who are not supporting John Kasich for President), Obama has “taken our guns away”. Boulder-dash, I say!!

If your wife (whose name I obviously know full well, yet am withholding due to privacy reasons– would she really want to be associated with these rantings of ours?) has any plans to brandish a gun in your direction to help keep you in line, that is a use of a firearm which I think is totally reasonable and has my complete support.

But I digress. I see nothing has changed, Red Ranger. You continue to cling to the fantasy of the Republican-led Congress being willing to work with this President. They are not, never have been, and never will be. Secondly, your criticism that Obama should have rammed thru this kind of legislation while Democrats were still in control of both houses of Congress during his first two years in office, is patently absurd. You know darn well that HAD he done that, you and the rest of your band of anarchic progress-blockers, would be assailing him for being a dictator. So put that metaphorical gunpowder in your metaphorical gun barrel and smoke it, The Red “LaPierre” Ranger.

The Red Ranger: I do not believe that we are a nation of scaredy-cats, I believe that we are a nation of rational individuals who see an uptick in crime due in part to weakened policing efforts and an influx of illegal aliens.  Therefore, they are doing what any rational person would do to try to protect themselves when the government seems to be failing in that regard.

How can you honestly say that the Republican Congress is unwilling to work with the President?  Wasn’t it just a few short weeks ago that they approved the Omnibus bill to keep the government functioning.  Didn’t this bill include funding for that aborted baby part selling organization, Planned Parenthood one of Obama favorites.  As I say before I think it is the exact opposite that Obama is unwilling to compromise on anything and when he doesn’t get his way just takes Executive Action.

I see that during the absence of Second Grade Minds you have failed to broaden your horizons and continue to get your talking points from MSNBC (which I am surprised is still on the air).

Nattering Naybob: I think it may be useful to narrow down the reason why you think it is rational for a person to go out and buy a gun. Is it because President Obama shows indications of “taking away people’s guns” or is it because of your anecdotal claims that there is an uptick in crime due to “weakened policing and an influx of illegal aliens”? Or maybe a combination of all these reasons that you deploy strategically to fit the needs of whatever situation you are focusing on at the time? Do your Republican friends share any blame from you for sponsoring the bill you referenced below that you find so odious? Or is it all Obama’s fault as per usual?

 

 

 

Breaking news: Black kid killed, white killer goes free. Again.

Nattering Naybob: Excuse my rather blunt post title, Red Ranger but I think it justified, given the verdict that was handed down on Saturday night. If I were African-American, I would be pretty pissed off right now. What do you suppose would have happened if a black security guard (or whatever Zimmerman’s title was), targeted a white kid who had no apparent intention of committing any criminal activity, and, ignoring his supervisor’s orders to stand down, caused an unnecessary confrontation that resulted in the black security guard’s shooting of the white kid. I’m sure FOX News and all its adherents would be just as anxious to give the security guard “his day in court”. I doubt it.

I do not watch FOX News. I would rather be tasked to find a lost dime from the muddy ground inside a nest of hungry Komodo Dragons. So since I know you do watch FOX News, maybe you can answer this: Did you ever see anyone on that station, between the time of the initial killing of Martin, up to the present moment, ever express the slightest remorse or condolence for the death of an innocent teenager? Rather than their exclusive focus on Trayvon Martin’s Facebook page or the fact that he was caught smoking marijuana?

The Red Ranger:  I am starting to think that you are just writing these blurbs in an effort to keep our blog vibrant.  You cannot honestly believe what you are writing here.

The only thing that I agree with here is that if I were an African-American I would be pretty pissed off right now.  That anger would be directed at my fellow African-Americans who only seemed to get riled up when a fellow African-American is killed by a white, Hispanic or even a white-Hispanic.  The dozens of black on black murders committed daily do not seem to cause any amount of angst in the black community.  They are just accepted and people move on.  Perhaps a little more concern within their own community could lead to a reduced level of crime and violence.  Instead, of worrying about the rare instance where an armed white-Hispanic is viciously beaten by a drug addled black man and then defends himself they should turn their attention inward and focus on their own community but as is the case within the liberal Democratic world it is always someone else’s fault and no one needs to take responsibility.

I am sure there are numerous instances where a black person shoots an innocent white person every day but this does not make the headlines in the MSM since it does not fit their narrative.  I would love to see a statistical breakout of every solved murder to see how many of the killers were white/black vs. whether the victims were white/black.   I am fairly certain that the numbers would show a larger proportion of black on white murders than white on black.

I know that you have fallen prey to the MSM’s portrayals in this case but let’s face the facts.  A jury found Zimmerman innocent so via the transitive property Martin must have been guilty of attacking him to allow him to defend himself with immunity.  Therefore, you cannot call Martin an innocent victim.  Perhaps if Martin were not high on drugs he could have handled the situation in a more mature manner.  Instead of violently attacking Zimmerman he could have just as easily introduced himself, thanked Zimmerman for trying to protect his neighborhood and maybe shared some Skittles with him.

In regard, to FOX News they certainly have had commentators come on who have said that this was a tragedy for all involved and  have expressed remorse over the situation.

If the DOJ seeks civil rights charges against Zimmerman the people of this country will need to take a long hard look at where this country is heading.

Nattering Naybob: Just as you cite cases of same-race murder or murders of whites by blacks, so can I cite many many instances of black suspects being railroaded over the years for victimizing whites. Last time I checked my history (a topic ignored by most Republicans except in the rare cases it suits their needs), very few whites were lynched over the past hundred or so years and if there were, I doubt that any all-black jurors failed to convict the black lyncher(s) despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I might also add as a point of fact that the vast majority of lynchings of blacks in the 20th century took place in the Deep South, which is also a Republican stronghold. I’m just sayin’.

The bottom line is that Zimmerman has a history of targeting African-Americans, he was told by his supervisor to stand down and not pursue Martin, and he ignored that direct order, and it was his gun, shot by his hand, that killed an unarmed teenager. And he walked away totally free on Saturday night, probably into a waiting job at FOX News as a criminality or security analyst.

The Red Ranger: Like any good Democrat you try to paint southern Republicans as the root of all things racist.  Weren’t some of the most racist figures in southern history democrats (George Wallace for example).   By the way did you see the instance on either CNN or MSNBC where when showing a clip of George Wallace they labeled him a Republican.  Of course, I am sure that any card-carrying liberal believed that since there this is no way a democrat could ever be a racist.  I think that this shows either the complete incompetence in the staff of these networks or indicates the total lack of ethics they have as they try to distort history to a gullible American public.

Southern democrats and southern Republican all voted against the civil rights act so it is not just a Republican thing.  A Republican wrote the voting rights act..  A Democrat put the Japanese in internment camps.  I could go on and on but history has time and again shown the Democrats to be the more racist party.  However, the MSM has taken it upon themselves to re-write history and portray the Democratic party as some long standing champion of minorities and immigrants when they were historically anything but that.

To me the bottom line is you have Trayvon Martin with a history of drug abuse and violent behavior viciously attacking someone who was just trying to make their neighborhood a safer place.  Martin misjudged his victim as I am sure he thought he could beat up some overweight white guy.  I am sure that if he Zimmerman was not legally carrying a weapon he would have become just another victim of black on white crime and Trayvon would have boasted on his Facebook page about how he beat up some “Cracker”.

Nattering Naybob: We have a fundamental disagreement on this one. Zimmerman and his family, especially his brother, have a history of racist attitudes that indicate a proclivity on George’s part to target out an African-American teenager. How in God’s name is it pertinent whether he had a “history of drug abuse”, meaning he was caught smoking pot. I guess that makes Zimmerman’s murder, justifiable homicide in your eyes. Yet Zimmerman was not even charged with that.  This article lays out a report released by the city of Sanford, which summarizes serial instances of Zimmerman acting recklessly and focusing much of his suspicions on African-Americans, some of whom may be he imagined. I find the whole thing disgusting.

Finally, your portrayal of Zimmerman as am “overweight white guy” is a little mis-leading. It is true that right now he probably could stand to ignore the recipes in the latest Paula Deen cookbook, but on the night he murdered Trayvon Martin he actually looked very fit.

The Red Ranger:  Martin not only had a history of drug abuse he had drugs in his system on the night of the incident.

What is your definition of fit?  He was described by someone during the trial as being a .5 and a scale of 1 to 10 in regard to fitness. I cannot comprehend how you reference everything in Zimmerman’s past but fail to recognize anything in Martin’s past as being integral to this case. Clearly, you are having a hard time accepting the fact that you are wrong in this instance since the jury found him not guilty. Why do you constantly fall victim to the MSM and liberal manipulation of the facts?

In the last paragraph Zimmerman did not call to report a black male.  He only identified Martin as potentially being a black male when asked by the dispatcher.  This is the exact misrepresentation of the facts that has gotten NBC, etc. into hot water.

The Nattering Naybob: I submit forthwith a before and after image of George Zimmerman. Compared to how he looks  now, I feel confident stating that he was “fit” immediately after the shooting. As an apologist for a de-facto law enforcement agent who deliberately disobeyed his supervisor’s orders, resulting in the murder of an unarmed teenager, I know that you will do anything to portray Zimmerman as being at a physical disadvantage on the night of the shooting. If he was in fact at a fitness level of “0.5” on a scale of 1 to 10, as you state, he should not have been on duty in the first place. I think we should give our small but loyal band of readers time to digest all our comments above, then we can continue with another posting during which I will respond to your latest “blame the victim” whining.

Reflections on the Boston Marathon bombings

A note to our readers: The below is an amalgam of several emails that The Red Ranger and Nattering Naybob exchanged starting on the day that the two Boston Marathon terrorists were killed and captured, Friday April 19^th. The Red Ranger is employed in Boston and after Nattering Naybob confirmed that no harm had come to him or his family, they resumed their usual bickering about the aftermath of the attack. Our thoughts and prayers go out to those who lost their lives and our wishes for a continuing recovery to those many who were seriously injured.

The Red Ranger: Wow, what a night and day here in Boston.  I just happened to wake up about 12:30 last night and turned on the news and saw all the craziness going on.  I am actually in my office today.  Now I think I am on lockdown in the office.  Who knows when I will get home. I was off work the day that the explosions were a couple of blocks from my office.  I walk by those locations often on my lunch hour in my search for sustenance.  The explosions were near where the boys and I watched the marathon last year.

Nattering Naybob: Friday was one of the most bizarre news days I have ever seen. You have to give credit to the FBI, police, etc. It was amazing how they were able to connect all the dots so soon. Althought these two brothers were not exactly criminal masterminds.

The Red Ranger: I agree they did a good job after the fact but it looks like there may have been some shoddy work before the fact as the US was told by Russia that Tamerlan had turned radical but let him slip through the cracks.  While I understand that there is a fine line of how much can be done to monitor someone, he was not a US citizen and could have been deported quite easily I believe.  However, as usual it seems like we failed to take the hard line approach and you can see what the results are.

Separately, the day after the attack I was in a conference room that overlooked Boylston Street and the finish line of the marathon.  There were three other people in the room looking out and one woman nonchalantly blurts out that it must be some right-wing radical who did this.  As you can guess my blood pressure immediately shot up and it took a lot of self-control on my part not to get into a heated discussion with her about her viewpoints.  Obviously, she was a devotee of MSNBC where as soon as something like this bombing happens they try to link it to some right-wing group as has been the case with the Gabby Giffords shooting, the Aurora shooting and the recent murder of the Texas DA.

Being in Boston with its long history of liberalism I would have thought that the bombing may have been the work of some OWS or Bill Ayers type.  I do not believe Boston has many right-wing extremists running around.

Nattering Naybob: Leave it to the Red Ranger to use a terrorist atack on US soil to dredge up tired Republican talking points like Bill Ayres and MSNBC. I know that you are fond of implying that the less well-off and minority segment of our population are the biggest offenders when it comes to handouts, wanting free things, etc. so I was interested whether you saw this video of a swarm of obviously well-off white people helping themselves to an abandoned supply of Boston Marathon running wear and souveniers, in the immediate aftermath of the bombings. To use the vernacular of your home region, “that’s WICKED bad!”

The Red Ranger: I am not sure how you could discern from this video that these people were well-off.  I guess you were just stereotyping and racial profiling and assuming that because these people were white they were well-off.  Funny how you libs are allowed to do this but not conservatives.

I do not condone this behavior in any way and all of the people in this video should be prosecuted as there was no reason for this behavior.  They are no different than those who loot during a blackout or any other event.

Did you attend any May Day rallies yesterday?  Notice how some of them turned violent with arrests.  Funny how that happens with all these so called peace loving liberals but never at the war-mongering, gun-toting Tea Party events.

By the way next time I see you and Elizabeth I have a couple of Boston marathon jackets for you.

Nattering Naybob: I could tell that they were affluent because I have an instinct for that kind of thing. I was born with it. Trust me, they were all high-level business executives, probably all Republican, who thought they were justified in taking the jackets because they pay too high of a tax rate and a free jacket is the least they can pilfer to level the playing field.

I would not attend a May Day protest even if I knew that Salma Hayek would also be attending while wearing a bikini. I think the people who attend those protests and engage in violence are a sad echo of the 1960s radicals who gave true Liberalism a bad name. And have you ever noticed how a lot of the most violent protests of these kind, usually take place in old sleepy, laid-back Pacific Northwest?

We will be looking forward to our Boston Marathon jackets, I hope they still had our correct size.

…And he wanted to President !

The Red Ranger: What is up with Al Gore?  He is working hard to solidify his place as the biggest, pompous buffoon in the Democratic Party.  So he goes and allows the TV network that he has a stake in to be sold to Al-Jazeera network, which is anti-American.  In addition, the timing of the deal is suspect since it was completed at the last minute before capital gains taxes went up as part of the fiscal cliff deal.  He has to be one of the most hypocritical people in the public eye today.

All I can say is thank God he invented the internet or else I wouldn’t be able to rant about him.

Nattering Naybob: To say that Al-Jazeera is “anti-American” is probably a knee-jerk reaction that is typical of most Republicans these days (I say “probably” because I have to stipulate I have never seen Al Jazeera and know little of it except what I have read about it in various newspapers and online resources.) The reputation of Al-Jazeera was cemented largely by George W. Bush’s passive-aggressive fear mongering following 9/11. Would your opinion of Al Jazeera be changed if you knew that Colin Powell said that it is the only cable news network that he watches? Al Jazeera has established a reputation for straight, penetrating journalism without the “fluff” that many on the Right, including Mr. Red Ranger of Massachusetts, has decried ad nauseum, regarding the American “MSM” (Main Stream Media).

I cannot document that there has never been any stories or reporting on Al Jazeera that could conceivable be deemed “anti-American” (Conservatives’ threshold for something being “Anti-American” is notoriously low), but I agree with Mohammed el-Nawawy of Queens College in Charlotte, NC when he was quoted in this article from the Los Angeles Times: “Average Americans will say Al Gore is not going to embrace a terrorist network…He may be boring, but he’s not a terrorist.”

It looks like Gore and Current TV co-owner Joel Hyatt are desperate to unload Current TV which was founded with good intentions but never took hold. Its hiring of increasingly paranoid Keith Olbermann as the centerpiece of its network a couple years ago, ended in flames and Current has never recovered. The former icon of MSNBC was probably Current’s best and only shot and unfortunately Olbermann let his personal demons get in the way of his undeniable talent and unique take on events of the day.

The Red Ranger: Wow, if Mohammed el-Nawawy of Queens College in Charlotte, NC said it, it must be true!  Love how you Libs fawn over anything said by a college professor (I am assuming he is a professor although your reference doesn’t identify his connection with the college, for all I know he could be the head of food services).

What was Keith Olbermann’s undeniable talent?

Nattering Naybob: Mr. el-Naway is in fact a professor at Queens College, although even if I had identified him as such, you probably would have rejected the legitimacy of that title since all intellectuals are Socialists or worse, according to modern Republican doctrine.

Keith Olbermann, was, at the height of his tenure at MSNBC, the modern-day equivalent of H.L. Mencken. His show was a compelling summary of the days’ events, crisply edited with insightful guests and incisive, courageous commentary. The fact that this commentary usually exposed the complete absurdity of the modern Republican party, probably renders it impossible for you to grasp or acknowledge Olbermann’s talent as a broadcaster.

Here is a link to one of Olbermann’s most famous “Special Comments” on MSNBC, about the dangers of Tea Party candidates just prior to the 2010 Election, which turned out to be the final nail in the coffin for the electoral viability of moderate, sane Republicans.

Round 1

The Red Ranger:  Romney romps in Round 1.  Pretty much a unanimous decision.  Even your comrades on MSNBC  so say except for Rev. Al of course

Next week Ryan will annihilate Biden.

I hope you can get some sleep tonight.  You may be waking up with nightmares given Obama’s dreadful performane.

Nattering Naybob: How about those Yankees, huh? Despite all their injuries and runners left on base all year, they still wound up with the AL East, best record in the American League, and home field in the AL playoffs.

Romney did OK too I guess. Don’t get cocky, my Republican friend..

The Red Ranger: Yes, it was great to see both the Yankees and Romney win last night

Did you see Chris Matthew’s meltdown on MSNBC last night?  I hope he does not consider himself a journalist.

Nattering Naybob: I am surprised that you are questioning the journalistic viability of Chris Matthews because he actually was very complimentary of Mitt Romney last night. He said that Mittens was the more organized and cogent candidate and that he tried to “win” the debate, as he should have. If the scenario were reversed, and it was Obama who had the unexpectedly strong performance, Fox News would be saying that it was because the moderator (JIm “no, no, your time is up, ah, OK, go ahead) Lehrer, was to blame. That is the key difference between MSNBC and Fox News

I too thought that Romney was the more “organized” candidate. Obama looked tired and distracted. I believe he will do much better in the next two debates. The recent history of the modern debate (since 1976), tells us that an incumbent president seeking a second term, often turns in a lackluster debate performance in the first debate (Reagan 1984, Bush Sr. 1992, and Bush Jr. in 2004).

I first thought it might be a long night for Obama as early as the end of the first segment when both candidates were talking over each, and when Jim Lehrer said they were already going past their allotted time, Romney said “It’s fun, isn’t it?” That typified Romney’s level of comfort last night; he seemed to exude a much more positive energy. However. I expect that this will be the “high water” mark for the Romney campaign, especially since the “substance” of Romney’s performance is now being vetted by the fact checkers, and much of what Romney said, is being proven to be almost comically incorrect, especially in terms of what Romney said he believes is and does not believe in. What I want to know is what in the world was going on during Obama’s debate prep, it seemed like he had no plan and not prepared for some of the charges directed towards him by Romney. Hopefully this will be a wake-up call for Obama.

London Olympiad: Opening Blog-emonies

Red Ranger: By the way, I have to say the Olympics have been pretty watchable so far this year.  Other than gymnastics, which I cannot stand, I have actually enjoyed the events.  I have really tried not to hear results before watching the events.  Can’t wait for track and field to start.  I hope the weather is good for the track events.

Nattering Naybob: I have not seen much of the Olympics so far. I hope to see more as they progress. I think NBC (which as you know, I am a big fan of), has done a remarkable job of covering them (my only complaint is that the coverage has cut into some of MSNBC’s progressive programming). Still, I have to admit I prefer the old-school ABC coverage, when there was just one channel and no more than 8 hours a day of coverage. The era of Dave Wottle and Jim Ryun and Erich Segal yelling that the guy who ran into the stadium is not Frank Shorter but an imposter and get him off the track. More on this soon…

Community Reinvestment Act: How government policies impact a stable market environment

The Red Ranger: While the United States is currently in the midst of the Great Recession, much of the blame for the core problems that ail us today can be placed squarely at the feet of past Democratic presidents. Three main legislative failures come to mind. They are 1) the passage of the Community Reinvestment Act by Jimmy Carter, 2) the signing of NAFTA, and 3) the repeal of Glass-Steagal by Bill Clinton.

The CRA, which was initially intended to eliminate redlining (a process which I do not support) by banks, was an early example of the government trying to expand home ownership to a larger percentage of the population because they felt everyone deserved to own a home. This was clearly an example of the government enacting a policy that upset the equilibrium of the free market. By forcing banks to lend to less credit-worthy individuals (those that would not have normally qualified for a loan) the government caused a larger than normally acceptable amount of capital to flow into the housing market.

Over time this artificially raised the prices for homes and the demand for home loans bringing less scrupulous lenders into the mortgage business who were not as highly regulated as the standard bank lenders. Every Tom, Dick and Harry was more than willing to refinance their home time and again to withdraw cash from the inflated equity balances to fund a new car or fancy vacation. However, once the prices of homes reached their breaking point (as always happens in a bubble) these folks were left with mortgage balances which were substantially more than their homes were worth and banks and mortgages lenders were left with loans that would never be repaid thus causing the financial meltdown that started the Great Recession.

Nattering Naybob: First, Red Ranger (hope you don’t mind that I drop the “The” when addressing you directly), it’s great to finally be putting our thoughts in blog form. It was chiefly your idea to take the plunge, so I salute your entrepreneurial spirit. I would expect nothing less from a die-hard Republican. Over the coming weeks and months, I am going to try and look under Red Ranger’s “hood”, if you don’t mind a metaphor there, to finally see what form your Republicanism takes– Eisenhower? Reagan? Bush? Cain? Bachmann? After all these years, I still can’t figure it out.

I have no doubt that your analysis is credible regarding who-did-what, and when, but at the same time I am curious as to why you dredge up presidential acts from the era of Disco Demolition Night. What’s next, an attack on Harry Truman as a “jobs killer” for invoking the Taft-Hartley Act? But beyond that, Red Ranger, even if I stipulate that Jimmy Carter tore himself away from managing the White House tennis court schedule long enough to pass the CRA, what about the bankers and investment “specialists” that facilitated these loans? Do they not share any blame, and if so, how much?

Passing legislation that at the time was honestly thought to open home ownership to a wider segment of Americans is like the “apple” to the “orange” represented by the predatory bankers who should have known better.

The Red Ranger: Where were these bankers and investment specialist before the CRA was passed? Were they just sitting around collecting unemployment waiting for the government to pass the CRA? No, they did not exist because there was not a government-created artificial demand for mortgage products that needed to be funded via the redirection of capital. Their existence only came about due to the government’s passage of this legislation. Unless these bankers and investment specialists held guns to homeowners heads forcing them to take on these loans that they knew they could not afford I do not see how you can blame them.

Like any true liberal you are ignoring the need for any personal responsibility. It was the greedy homeowners who were forcing the bankers and investment specialist to devise new and increasingly complex mortgage products to allow the homeowners to borrow as much money as possible. Given the government requirements that they lend more money and the homeowners demanding more loans what else were they to do without bringing down the wrath of the government upon them. Over the years many people identified the eventuality of a housing bubble but they were disregarded by the MSM and probably called racists to rile up even greater hatred toward them.

Having worked for a large money center bank for many years I can clearly remember how anytime a merger or acquisition was announced, a certain organization (your beloved ACORN or some other similar organization, I believe) would almost immediately require the companies to commit a large dollar amount (Usually $500 million or more) to increased low-income lending or face a legal challenge to the merger based upon the CRA. This was nothing more than government sponsored extortion.

Nattering Naybob: You say that the “greedy homeowners” forced bankers to “devise new and increasingly complex mortgage products”? I can see it now: Mr. and Mrs. Front Porch, sitting nervously in the cubicle of a poor, innocent banker who is skeptical of lending so much money, and Mr. Front Porch saying, ‘Aw, c’mon Jim! We go way back. I just know that you’re capable of devising a new and complex mortgage product for me and the Missus to buy that old Williams place on the corner of Maple and 5th!”

Really, blaming the Carter administration for the mortgage crisis is like saying that Henry Ford is responsible for all vehicular homicides that have occurred since the dawn of the horseless carriage. And let me guess: This “government-sponsored extortion” only occurred during the Carter, Clinton and Obama administration, right? Not during Reagan, Bush I and Bush II ? Red Ranger, I have a feeling you have more to say on this topic, care to wait for your next time at bat or do you have any closing remarks?

The Red Ranger: I never said or implied that the issue only occurred during Democratic administrations just that the whole thing started from the enactment of legislation by a Democratic president. However, whenever a Republican raised concerns about the burgeoning crises they were roundly viewed as unintelligent and unable to accurately grasp the complexities of the situation or they were denying affordable housing to the masses. Typical liberal strategy– Just say whatever you want regardless of the issue.

Frankly, I was expecting a little more than fictional situations and references to non-existent events from the Nattering Naybob. I will chalk this to up to his inexperience and his diminished mental capacity due to years of watching one-sided discussions on MSNBC. Hopefully, he can rebound in the next round and this blog will be something that people can read for intelligent discussions of today’s issues.

Nattering Naybob: Well, had I known your first blog topic was going to involve so many acronyms, I would have called my research staff back from vacation to do some ghostwriting. Since Republicans usually hate intellectuals, I am surprised at the depth and breadth of your arguments (fundamentally specious though they be). I guess now I know why you chose to remain anonymous. Nattering Naybob signing off.

The Red Ranger: I anxiously await your first topic.