Gingrich: ‘Final collapse of the Bush administration’

[kg_veteran]

I'll add more later, but I loved this quote from Jonah Goldberg:

Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, has spent the last few years ridiculing Alan Greenspan, John McCain and others who sought more regulation for Fannie Mae's market-distorting schemes -- the fons et origo of this financial crisis. Now he says "the private sector got us into this mess." His partner in crime, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), a chief beneficiary of Fannie Mae lobbyists' largesse, claims this mess is the result of poor oversight -- without even hinting at the fact he is in charge of oversight of banks. They sound like pimps complaining about the prevalence of STDs among prostitutes.

[mary]

Can someone explain the alternative proposal to me? Some of you guys do a much better job than the media of explaining things.

I understand that it would offer FDIC-type insurance. That actually sounds like a pretty good idea.

But I'm a little confused here. We already know the assets are bad.

Wouldn't this be like offering life insurance to a person with a gaping head wound?

[mary]

Has anyone read Krugman's proposal? He is suggesting that we just directly injecting financial capital into the banking system by buying equity in the banks. There seems to be alot of agreement among economists that this is a good idea.

Thoughts?

[mcsluggo]

Yeah Mary....

I fail to see what the benefit of the insurance is. If you are insuring a burning building... how is that different from a bailout? ..... Except for the fact that it completely avoids the one key component of the asset purchase plan, actually establishing a price up-front for these assets that the market can latch on to. One of the key problems here isn't just that these morgage-backed securities (and all the other collateralized obligations) have lost vaue, but nobody knows HOW MUCH value they have lost. The market for these products isn't functioning. Lots of firms want to sell... very few firms want to buy, and you cannot establish a market clearing equilibrium with only one curve (the supply curve) we need to establish a demand curve. THe governmetn would step in and buy some of these assets. That immediately establishes a price. at that point firms can determine whether or not to sell at that price, and the market can begin to act like a market again.

the insurance scheme seems (to me) to be an attempt to pretend like you aren't actually bailing out firms by buying their questionable assets.. instead you are just "insuring" those questionable assets. <wink wink> If the assets prove to be valuable, then the government doesn't pay out onthe insurance (of course if the assets prove to be valuable... the governmetn sells the assets it purchased, perhaps for a profit). On the other hand if the assets prove to be worth less ... then the insurance is called and the governmetn pays out (in much the same way as the govt would be hosed if they had outright bought those assets)

Insurance is an ex-ante product. You provide insurance to a pool of insurees BEFORE the fact to smooth out uncertain future risk within the pool. Insuring a pool AFTER the risk is revealed is not insurance at all... it is a bailout.

[Flacolaco]

Originally Posted by mary

Can someone explain the alternative proposal to me? Some of you guys do a much better job than the media of explaining things.

I understand that it would offer FDIC-type insurance. That actually sounds like a pretty good idea.

But I'm a little confused here. We already know the assets are bad.

Wouldn't this be like offering life insurance to a person with a gaping head wound?

I think the difference is that the bailout as proposed before is like just giving the money away for the funeral of the guy with the gaping head wound even though he's not dead yet, and the insurance based plan is more of a wait and see thing. If there's a chance the money doesn't need to be spent, then it's better to wait and be sure.

That's what it sounds like to me...but then I can barely tie my shoes.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by mary

Has anyone read Krugman's proposal? He is suggesting that we just directly injecting financial capital into the banking system by buying equity in the banks. There seems to be alot of agreement among economists that this is a good idea.

Thoughts?

that is the basic idea that is most appealing to me, overall.

the counterargument (that Paulson has outlined several times) is that this doesn't force the bad assets into the light of day.. it leaves them festering on the books with still uncertain and fluctuating value. In Japan the governemtn just kept on injecting capital into their floundering banking system after 1988, without ever forcing the banks to come to grios with their shitty assets... the reslut was that the banking system sort of limepd along festering for 2 decades (and Japan overall did as well)

[mcsluggo]

my thought is that the purchase of the assets can be a component... but it SHOULD be in a way that provides the govt with an upside equity share (like Krugman suggests, and like yesterday's broad plan suggested... but kinda vauguely) Furthermore this govet equity share needs to come at the expense of existing equity (punish existing owners somewhat) rather than simply bailiing them out, so that you have incentive compatibility in the long run

[mcsluggo]

Another KEY thing to me... is that this rescue should DEFINATELY just stay as a rescue... do NOT try to reinvent HERE how to regulate the industry. Come back to that question in the coming months... with cooler heads and and some serious debate. don't try to do ANY of that here... or we will REALLY farck things up.

[Janett_Reno]

Originally Posted by jefelump

Dude, focus. I wasn't talking only about Obama and McCain. We all know they both supported the bill. I'm talking about EVERYONE who is up for election in Nov., which includes every single member of the House of Reps. It will be interesting to see how many of them are re-elected, who voted Yes on this bill. I'm sure a great many will be returning to the House in the next Congress, but I'm curious to see how many are unelected because of this vote, if any. It seems to follow that if the incumbent pisses off enough of their electorate, then they won't be back in January. This vote came a little too close to Nov. 4 to pass by and be forgotten.

Oh, and it's quite convenient for both Obama and McCain that this bill died in the House and never made it to the Senate. They don't have to go on the record now. Obama can't even vote Present.

The American people are fed up with Bush and this adm. They don't trust them. So the American people probably think the fat cats are getting anoher 700 billon dollar credit card check to go out and party with. This whole thing is very sad. I do not blame the American people getting furious. Bush does not explain what it's for but a bailout. Just untill lately, some financial experts are explaining to the public, if nothing is done, you will have no more credit cards, done. You most likely won't have a house if you owe money and are struggling, you are not going to borrow any money for a car, house, go to college because you will not get to borrow any money from the banks. Your 401k and pensions will crash and already have started. We are going into recession regardless of the bailout or not.

What some have done is what Bush and none of his adm has done and told the public what all this means and just lately have a few reps and dems in congress came out and told us. We can do no bailout and let everything crash, alot of crime, people on the street, many banks and bussinesses going bankrupt and no money flow at all. No jobs and many will lose their jobs.

This bill is very unpopular. The American people are very much against it. They are tired of Bush credit cards and spending and the fat cats on wall street busting us and then asking for their money back. The bad, it effects us to. Now let's cut to the chase.

The dems and reps had a talk and both agreed to pass this bill but also both agreed, we want to let our people in close races vote NO, to say their political seat in congress. It was made up between the two parties that everyone in a close race and up for election, get to vote no. So the others on both sides, reps and dems wouldvote yes to get it passed. This bill came from George W Bush. It's not a good thing but it is the right thing and a moral thing. It is no good way to get out of what this adm has done to us. This adm has alot to do with what the fat cats have done to us.

Among 38 incumbent congressmen in races rated as "toss-up" or "lean" by Swing State Project, just 8 voted for the bailout as opposed to 30 against: a batting average of .211. Now if you ask me, people that really stood up and voted for what they felt was right, i know it was one republican from az that voted yes to try to save us and they say he could very well get kicked to the curb and get beat because he tried to do the right thing. I know cnn mentioned another republican also and i forget where he was from but just because of his yes vote in a swing election, he might now lose. You must respect someone that tried to do right, even if they lose.

By comparison, the vote among congressmen who don't have as much to worry about was essentially even: 197 for, 198 against. So the people that had nothing to worry about, they voted for it. It was a political stunt by both parties to try to save seats and pass the bill and it failed. It has come to where politics is more important than your country. On both sides for many. This isn't right.

The bill is going to fly thru the senate with hardly no one voting against it. Why? Because it is only about 8 to 10 seats in question that will have to play politics and vote no on it.

In the end, the bill will probably pass later this week and they might tweek it a lil. The public isn't going to like it. If you own your house, if you have money, if you don't need the banks to much to borrow, if you haven't got alot of money in 401k and pension plans or stocks, if you can pay high price for gas, food, and aford to keep your business going without any help of the banks and you are completely out of debt and you can hang on to the job you have, then it won't hurt you as bad if the bill doesn't pass. We are going into recession regardless. If the bill is not passed and you are on the other side of that fence, then most likely you will get busted without the bill. Your life is going to change. Banks would call in loans busting so many people. I am talking the small person. It has now trickled down from the fat cats and what this adm has done and they both have done a great job at bankrupting us.

Everything a republican says he stands for, Bush has busted them on it. Faith, what faith in politicians? Values? Any values the last 7 years? Morals. What a joke. A republican is suppose to stand for less restrictions on business and gov stay out of business. So this adm loosened everything on business from pollute the water and air if you want, we don't care. Loosen restrictions on all fat cats on wall street, banks, lenders, borrowers, and let it run wide open. I mean even casinos have more restrictions than our gov, as they took all restrictions off.

So now what is Bush asking for? For us to bail out the fat cats that went busted and all that are fixing to go bust. It is going to trickle down to your local banks. So now this adm is asking for gov to Run Businesses. In return make the tax payers pay for it. I have been told this is what republicans don't stand for and get furious about. If Bush didn't do anything, China, Saudi and Russia would buy up many more of our big fat cat financial big players, even with their debt companies. They are trying to take us over by money, us in debt to them, them buying our land and our big time companies, plus us importing trillons of dollars of things from them as we export nothing to them.

It comes to a time and point where you try to love and save your country and not sell it out. To care and even work with a guy and adm that hardly anyone likes, Bush. Yes he is a puppet and he is a big reason we are where we are now but atleast he tried to do something and no he doesn't know how to sell anything or tell what it's for and no i don't like it at all but i know it's the right thing to do, to try to save our country.

In the end, you and i will like a check from the usa than China. We will both like going to the bank and borrowing money from someone who speaks English and not having to worry we will be thrown in jail if we walk in a public place and forget we have a bible in our pocket. We have to save the USA and put it back in the hands of Americans. The fat cats and people that abuse our system, like Enron, then they need to go after them and put them in the pen. Not loosen restrictions on the fat cats. We have found out, the fat cats don't like it tricklin' down.

In the end, this bail out bill is about many congressmen trying to save their jobs and voting the way they are suppose to to get re elected. Both reps and dems. Neither party is gonna take blame, so both parties want it a 50/50, where no one loses their job. Politics isn't pretty and it isn't nice.

[Janett_Reno]

I have also read where some have said, the heck with out fat cats and let the banks go bust and business. Root them out and let's start over. I also understand where these people are comming from and mad at the coruption that has gone on and now want's help.

It would be scarry to do nothing and have no bail out and let everything fold, with crime shooting up and Americans living on the street trying to make it. Atleast alot of Americans. It would root alot of bad out but it would be scarry going thru those times and can we? Maybe we can. I know i sure don't have the answer. The dollar would collapse, our banks and markets.

If they do pass this bill and give them 700 billon, it can't be a blank check for parties and getting the cats out partying again. It will have to be regulated. This is a very bad word for republicans because they do not like restrictions in or on business. Then again, you can't go give fat cats 700 billion and let them do what they wish with the money and not be held responsible. They might decide to blow another 700 billion and then when it's time to pay off their debt, just say we fold, we are done. Like Enron and robbing what they can and not pay anything back. That is why they will have to be held responsible for this 700 billion. This isn't play money.

[Janett_Reno]

While we ae spending why not another 25 billon. This guy amazes me. This guy can spend more than Paris Hilton on a good day. I guess he thinks, what the heck, i am out of here soon and i won't have to deal with it. If they give this 700 billion away without much restrictions and i do think they will have alot of restrictions and they should, but look at companies lining up.

Think maybe we should go to the casino and go to the roulette table, pile everything on red and hope it doesn't hit black or 0 or 00? If we lose, let's go stand in line and ask for a return. Tell em we had tough luck in this crappy economy. Check this out...


Bush approves $25 billion loan package for auto makers

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081001/...ngress_funding

Then some of these republicans in here say they are for no big spending, no big borrowing, no goverment getting involved with business but also tell me they are in love with George W Bush. Come on now, if i want spin, i go to Fox News but don't try to pull the wool over Ms Janett's eyes.

To top this off, a few in here and especially one has told me if Obama get's in watch out for big spending and gov getting involved with business. Are you sure you are not talking about your beloved republican George W Bush?

I haven't looked who voted yes and who voted no but the congress at some point is going to have to step in and say no to some big time spenders in this adm. I know they did on the bail out and again it didn't hurt my feelings one bit they did this. It has to stop somewhere but i also know it was going to be rough on everyone if they didn't pass it or even down to the middle class and poor. The problem is, where do they draw the line?

I promise you many more are going to come crying and begging for money before W leaves. Do you blame them or anyone?

[Evilmav2]

"The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling! This is the Final Collapse of the Bush Administration! The Sky is Falling! This is All Bush's Fault! Awwwerrrrkk, Awwwerrrrk! AWK!!!"

[chumdawg]

If you're asking the public at large, the Bush administration had its final collapse a long time ago. Just sayin'.

[Evilmav2]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

If you're asking the public at large, the Bush administration had its final collapse a long time ago. Just sayin'.

Flapping, Squawking, Anti-Bush Chicken-Head heartily agrees with you, and adds to your points: "SQuawk! SQAUAWK! AWWWErrrRK! AWK!!! Awkkk... "

[Flacolaco]

I wonder...just for grins...who of those who post here on a regular basis have significantly worse day to day lives than they did 8 years ago, and how many of those can attribute it to the many hundreds in the current administration rather than through their own fault?

[Evilmav2]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

I wonder...just for grins...who of those who post here on a regular basis have significantly worse day to day lives than they did 8 years ago, and how many of those can attribute it to the many hundreds in the current administration rather than through their own fault?

Eight years ago it was much easier for me to dunk on people while playing pick-up basketball than it is today, and it was more socially acceptable for me to do things like drink directly out of pitchers and do keg stands at social events, so I would say that the quality of my day to day life has definitely, significantly diminished during the interim period spanning the end of those halcyon days and today. I'm not sure if that's all the Bush administration's fault though...

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Evilmav2

Flapping, Squawking, Anti-Bush Chicken-Head heartily agrees with you, and adds to your points: "SQuawk! SQAUAWK! AWWWErrrRK! AWK!!! Awkkk... "

Is that really the response to the notion that Bush is unpopular across the nation?

I mean, really?

If it's a good response, you'd expect to see the Republican candidate using it. But the Republican candidate in this case can't run away from Bush fast enough. What do you gather from that, besides proclaiming that some folks think the sky is falling?

[Evilmav2]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Is that really the response to the notion that Bush is unpopular across the nation?

I mean, really?

If it's a good response, you'd expect to see the Republican candidate using it. But the Republican candidate in this case can't run away from Bush fast enough. What do you gather from that, besides proclaiming that some folks think the sky is falling?

Fair enough, CD... Bush is very unpopular at the moment, and I certainly wouldn't attempt to make an argument with you or anybody else that he is not, but the reflexive tendency of so many folks coming from the left to blame the Bush administration for darned near everything that ever goes wrong in this country, or around the world in general, is grating and tiresome to me, so I compare their squawkings and bleatings to those of squawking chickens...

I've been drinking box wine tonight, so I think the grape may have helped to impair my sense of online-posting judiciousness, as it was definitely, patently unfair of me to answer your post with a chicken post, if only because you were raising a very valid point, and for that I do apologize...

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Evilmav2

Fair enough, CD... Bush is very unpopular at the moment, and I certainly wouldn't attempt to make an argument with you or anybody else that he is not, but the reflexive tendency of so many folks coming from the left to blame the Bush administration for darned near everything that ever goes wrong in this country, or around the world in general, is grating and tiresome to me, so I compare their squawkings and bleatings to those of squawking chickens...

I've been drinking box wine tonight, so I think the grape may have helped to impair my sense of online-posting judiciousness, as it was definitely, patently unfair of me to answer your post with a chicken post, if only because you were raising a very valid point, and for that I do apologize...

No need to apologize to me, as A) I'm always interested in healthy debate, B) I'm not at all offended by the chicken post, and C) I do get your point of view (even if I think it is overstated in this case).

I just don't think you will find too many cases--and I know that history is your specialty--of leaders who were unpopular for good reason. Am I mistaken?

I'm coming from the perspective of a guy who was All Bush All The Time the last couple cycles, but who is disaffected by the Republican brand this cycle. No, I don't want to blame the Republicans for everything. Likewise I don't fear the Democrats for everything that hard-line Republicans might fear them for. I think a little shaking up of things this time around could do both parties a lot of good.

You and I both grew up in the Reagan era. Sadly, Bush did not--in my view--turn out to be another Reagan, despite the hope I had for him. And John McCain--in my view--is about as far removed from Reagan as anyone wearing the Republican pin could legitimately pass off.

Maybe what the Republican party needs in this election is a good, swift kick in the ass. It hurts to take one for the team, but it is what it is.

[Evilmav2]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Maybe what the Republican party needs in this election is a good, swift kick in the ass. It hurts to take one for the team, but it is what it is.

Here I might be inclined to agree with you, if it wasn't for the fact that I dread seeing just what kind of a supreme court our nation will be left with if the One gets elected. Four years under Obama and a Dem house/(perhaps) senate majority will more than likely leave the nation shackled and sentenced to a devastating 20 year reign by an activist, internationalist supreme court majority, that would likely never allow a staggered and wounded United States judicial system to ever recover the kind of limited government, citizen-centric jurisprudence that informed all of our earliest, English common-law-influenced, judicial traditions...

[Janett_Reno]

I agree with chum. Let's just hope when a new pres get's in they will try to work together for the better of the country and do the right things.

[Janett_Reno]

Originally Posted by Evilmav2

Here I might be inclined to agree with you, if it wasn't for the fact that I dread seeing just what kind of a supreme court our nation will be left with if the One gets elected. Four years under Obama and a Dem house/(perhaps) senate majority will more than likely leave the nation shackled and sentenced to a devastating 20 year reign by an activist, internationalist supreme court majority, that would likely never allow a staggered and wounded United States judicial system to ever recover the kind of limited government, citizen-centric jurisprudence that informed all of our earliest, English common-law-influenced, judicial traditions...

staggered and wounded united states judicial system to ever recover, limited government.

So you are happy with what you got now? No wonder you drink wine everynight. You need to get something a little stronger in Lynchburg, where you can think like Palin.

[Janett_Reno]

Originally Posted by Evilmav2

Here I might be inclined to agree with you, if it wasn't for the fact that I dread seeing just what kind of a supreme court our nation will be left with if the One gets elected. Four years under Obama and a Dem house/(perhaps) senate majority will more than likely leave the nation shackled and sentenced to a devastating 20 year reign by an activist, internationalist supreme court majority, that would likely never allow a staggered and wounded United States judicial system to ever recover the kind of limited government, citizen-centric jurisprudence that informed all of our earliest, English common-law-influenced, judicial traditions...

Let's get down to brass tax. Are you for the bail out or not? 700 billon? Give me a yes or no.

[Evilmav2]

Originally Posted by Janett_Reno

So you are happy with what you got now? No wonder you drink wine everynight. You need to get something a little stronger in Lynchburg, where you can think like Palin.

Need something stronger? Your Mom doesn't, and I've always been more than happy to drink whatever she wants and do the best that I possibly can to help her forget the hard knocks that she's had over this hard knock life of hers...

[Evilmav2]

Originally Posted by Janett_Reno

Let's get down to brass tax. Are you for the bail out or not? 700 billon? Give me a yes or no.

Let's get down to brass tacks, indeed. Are you for or against federal intervention in this credit crisis?

[Janett_Reno]

That is what i figured. I hope your mother catches you drinking wine and sends you back to your room without any milk and cookies.

I just wanted to expose you for who you are. Enough said.

[Janett_Reno]

evilmav2, maybe tomorrow or next week someone will tell you how to answer. Sometimes it's hard to answer when we have had to much wine and we might have a Sarah Palin moment.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Janett_Reno

That is what i figured. I hope your mother catches you drinking wine and sends you back to your room without any milk and cookies.

I just wanted to expose you for who you are. Enough said.

What are you, twelve?

[Janett_Reno]

I just wanted to see if he could answer if he was for the bail out on his own. I knew he couldn't answer because he has to be told what he believes in.

[Evilmav2]

Originally Posted by Janett_Reno

evilmav2, maybe tomorrow or next week someone will tell you how to answer. Sometimes it's hard to answer when we have had to much wine and we might have a Sarah Palin moment.

Are you rambling about Sarah Palin again, even though she has nothing at all to do with the credit crisis intervention that is the nominal topic of this thread? It seems to me, that it just might be you who might have had a bit too much of the grape tonight, considering your seeming inability to stay on topic in this here thread... That said, it's getting a tad bit late, and I've got to put your mom to bed the hard way- the way she likes it- so I'll have to defer talking to you until a later time... Night, night ...


"SQuawk! SQAUAWK! AWWWErrrRK! Depression! Bush! PaLIN! PAlin Bad! AWK!!! AWWWKK!!!"

[Janett_Reno]

Originally Posted by Evilmav2

Are you rambling about Sarah Palin again, even though she has nothing at all to do with the credit crisis intervention that is the nominal topic of this thread? It seems to me, that it just might be you who might have had a bit too much of the grape tonight, considering your seeming inability to stay on topic in this here thread... That said, it's getting a tad bit late, and I've got to put your mom to bed the hard way- the way she likes it- so I'll have to defer talking to you until a later time... Night, night ...


"SQuawk! SQAUAWK! AWWWErrrRK! Depression! Bush! PaLIN! PAlin Bad! AWK!!! AWWWKK!!!"

We are talking about the bail out and you couldn't answer if you was for it or not. Why don't you come along and ride around in my pick up and i bet you would learn about the hard way. Why don't you private message me and we will stay on topic as we can get to know each other better. As far as who gives it to the other, the hard way, and about each other's mother, maybe you need to sleep on that one because you couldn't keep up.

[Evilmav2]

Originally Posted by Janett_Reno

We are talking about the bail out and you couldn't answer if you was for it or not. Why don't you come along and ride around in my pick up and i bet you would learn about the hard way. Why don't you private message me and we will stay on topic as we can get to know each other better. As far as who gives it to the other, the hard way, and about each other's mother, maybe you need to sleep on that one because you couldn't keep up.

Huh? You want me to take a ride with you in your pick up?

[Janett_Reno]

Yes, i figure you could use a good ride and you might have a better understanding on kepping your mind on the question.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Janett_Reno

I just wanted to see if he could answer if he was for the bail out on his own. I knew he couldn't answer because he has to be told what he believes in.

You should be more clever if you think that's what you were trying to accomplish. And also pay more attention.

Cheap rhetorical stunts never work outside of a junior-high setting, and they certainly won't skate among the seasoned thinkers such as we have here in this fine forum.

[Janett_Reno]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

You should be more clever if you think that's what you were trying to accomplish. And also pay more attention.

Cheap rhetorical stunts never work outside of a junior-high setting, and they certainly won't skate among the seasoned thinkers such as we have here in this fine forum.

Yes, evilmav2 and i will pay each other more attention.

[Janett_Reno]

He could very well become a favorite of mine, i see.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Janett_Reno

Yes, evilmav2 and i will pay each other more attention.

I'm not sure I would recommend that.

As Bill Parcells used to say when he was here: "I've got to keep my own house from burning down first."

The minute you see it all in black and white is probably the same moment the issue passes you by.

[Evilmav2]

Originally Posted by Janett_Reno

Yes, i figure you could use a good ride and you might have a better understanding on kepping your mind on the question.

Ha! Now that's fun... Considering the fact that you post under a girl's name, my disposition toward's your preceding statement would vary greatly depending upon whether or not you actually were a girl...

Consider... Some girl who said she wanted to 'ride' me on an online forum would be a bit strange, but amusing, and certainly tolerable, whereas some dude posting under a girl's name, saying that he wanted to 'ride' me would be pretty disgusting, and it would be the kind of of thing that would be sure to lead to black disaster for any idiot dude who tried to act upon such a desire to do such a thing in real life. Oh well...

I was making cracks about your mom, so I'm not trying to throw too many stones in a glass house... But, that said, I still think your earlier arguments in this thread are fairly nonsensical, but that's OK- most of the folks reading and posting on this forum are lucky enough to live in the United States of America, and are thusly able to vote however they want, and do things like post whatever crazy political philosophies they happen to subscribe to online, without fear of being shot, re-educated, or placed in slave-labor gulags, so I'll say more power to you and your leftist arguments- it is indeed good that we live in a society where we can argue about such things without fear of monstrous governmental repercussion...

[Evilmav2]

And I should perhaps clarify what I meant in the above post. A girl talking smack on forums is fun. A dude talking smack is pathetic, because in real life such a dude talking about 'riding' would not say such a thing to my face, and if he did, he would more than like come to regret it pretty darned surely...

[Janett_Reno]

It's great evilmav2 to live in the best country in the world. That is why we will rise up and be on top again. I think we will and things will get back right after a little time. As far as talking smack, i also should clarify i meant what i said also. Maybe someday you will get the pleasure of riding in my pick up and see if i was talking smack or not.