> Dana wrote:
> um, thank you I guess, but... is there a reason you're saying this? I've
> been on deadline and not payinng much attention to the debates here
Just cause I spent a lot of time telling you you were wrong and since
I hate it when people can't just say they were wrong I'm eating my ow
es on lots of stuff, many
> > times you coming down on the side of markets regulation and me not.
> >
> > I'll take this opportunity to say that I now agree with you more than
> > not. So ...
> >
> > Dana, you were right, and I was wrong.
> Sam wrote:
>
> Fannie and Freddie's Enablers
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121659681885068955.html?mod=djemITP
>
No doubts there - lots of blame. Of course the #1 perpetrator is Phil
Gramm in close association with Bush.
And the irony is, of course, further de-regulation is one of his
dome
Fannie and Freddie's Enablers
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121659681885068955.html?mod=djemITP
>> gMoney wrote:
>> What kind of market regulation are you after? If it's anything beyond
>> breaking up the Oil monopoly and capping obscene profit taking in the name
>> of national interest
> gMoney wrote:
> What kind of market regulation are you after? If it's anything beyond
> breaking up the Oil monopoly and capping obscene profit taking in the name
> of national interests.I might still battle you on them.
>
banking.
~~~
Over the years we've had passionate debates on lots of stuff, many
> times you coming down on the side of markets regulation and me not.
>
> I'll take this opportunity to say that I now agree with you more than
> not. So ...
>
> Dana, you were right, and I was wrong.
>
&
wn on the side of markets regulation and me not.
>
> I'll take this opportunity to say that I now agree with you more than
> not. So ...
>
> Dana, you were right, and I was wrong.
>
> (since you filter me, maybe someone would be kind eno
Over the years we've had passionate debates on lots of stuff, many
times you coming down on the side of markets regulation and me not.
I'll take this opportunity to say that I now agree with you more than
not. So ...
Dana, you were right, and I was wrong.
(since you filter me, may
