I haven't watched this one closely but I believe Jon Stewart the other night showed clips of it happening in three offices.

So when Michael Moore's movie comes out next week (no less a partisan filmmaker than those who stung ACORN), and he catches and illustrates all sorts of unethical and loathsome shenanigans at Wall Street investment banks, what will you recommend Congress do, sceagles?

Well, hopefully they aren't funding those banks. Right now all that is happening is removing the funding from ACORN, which I think is appropriate.

Also, Congress is already in process of throwing more regulations at the industry. The problem is, that for the unscrupulous (of which there are many on Wall Street), there is always some creative way around regulations. OI've heard wise financial advisors say the biggest problem with regulation is they are always regulating the last problem, with not real way to anticipate the next one.

Depressing but I bet you're on to something here.

I can't speak to anyone except those I know. I do know exactly two racists, one of which is a union member, so I'm really not sure which way they vote. I'm pretty sure the non union member is a republican, and one of the most offensive people I know (a relative by marriage....he hates watching basketball because there are too many black people on the court).

So regarding myself and the people I know, I can say that no, I do not believe the right is afraid of more minorities voting (as long as those minorities are here legally and voting legally). I have no doubt there are some.

Hmm, then it may indeed be a problem. Yeesh. Pretty appalling even once.

But still, neither Obama's fault, nor relevant to his performance as pres.

Again, you frame it in terms of racism. It is not racism to recognize that most minorities vote democratic; and that increase in minority voters decreases republican candidates' chances.

One or three, still doesn't make the whole orginization corrupt. Again, should we close down an entire company for the mistakes made in a few offices?

Not funding those banks?!?!? How would you define handing them $750 billion dollars such that they have gone from brim-of-bankruptcy to healthily-profitable? Is that not "funding?" It's not grants, yeah. But it was voted by Congress just the same.

Congratulations! You've successfully refuted something unsaid by me. You even knocked senseless an argument I didn't even attempt to slyly imply. And in the process you assume that which is (though not by me) being argued--which is just an empty rhetorical trick.

Let me see how this works.

Surely you'd agree that raping young girls is not nearly so fun as it sounds! And should we allow a thoroughly corrupt organization continue unpunished and unblemished access to the government teat?

Nah, I just don't have the knack for it.