Been a lot of bread fuckery lately.
Well done!!!
Barney Frank
In 2003, a documentary film about Barney Frank entitled Let's Get Frank, directed by award-winning New York photographer and filmmaker Bart Everly, and executive produced by Jonathan Van Meter, the founding Editor-in-Chief of Vibe magazine, created by Quincy Jones, and contributing editor of American Vogue and regular contributor to The New York Times Magazine, was released. Ruth Rachel Anderson-Avraham (née Yvonne Michele Anderson) — financial lawyer, filmmaker, writer, artist, and fellow graduate of Harvard Law School, who had previously worked for Emmy Award-winning and Oscar-nominated filmmakers Rory Kennedy and Liz Garbus — co-produced the film.[citation needed] This documentary not only recounted Barney Frank's own struggle coming out in public and political life as a prominent gay man, the height of which was his reprimand following the Gobie scandal, but also documented Frank's dedicated defense of U.S. President Bill Clinton during his impeachment trial in January and February 1999. At the time of its release, Let's Get Frank received mixed reviews, some celebrating the film, as Ken Eisner did in Variety, and others struggling with Everly's distinct style and the dual telling of Frank's own personal story along with that of the Clinton Impeachment Trial through Frank's eyes, as Ed Halter did in the Village Voice.[46][47] In 2006, the film was broadcast on television by Logo TV and acquired by First Run Features.[48][49] Let's Get Frank has since become a part of the collections of the US Library of Congress (LOC) and the British Film Institute (BFI).[50][51]
Frank was criticized by conservative organizations for campaign contributions totaling $42,350 between 1989 and 2008. Bill Sammon, the Washington managing editor for Fox News Channel, claimed the donations from Fannie and Freddie influenced his support of their lending programs, and said that Frank did not play a strong enough role in reforming the institutions in the years leading up to the economic crisis of 2008.[61] In 2006, a Fannie Mae representative stated in SEC filings that they "did not participate in large amounts of these non-traditional mortgages in 2004 and 2005."[62] In response to criticism, Frank said, "In 2004, it was Bush who started to push Fannie and Freddie into subprime mortgages, because they were boasting about how they were expanding homeownership for low-income people. And I said at the time, 'Hey—(a) this is going to jeopardize their profitability, but (b) it's going to put people in homes they can't afford, and they're gonna lose them.'"[15]
In 2009 Frank responded to what he called "wholly inaccurate efforts by Republicans to blame Democrats, and [me] in particular" for the subprime mortgage crisis, which is linked to the financial crisis of 2007–2009.[63] He outlined his efforts to reform these institutions and add regulations, but met resistance from Republicans, with the main exception being a bill with Republican Mike Oxley that died because of opposition from President Bush.[63] The 2005 bill included Frank objectives, which were to impose tighter regulation of Fannie and Freddie and new funds for rental housing. Frank and Mike Oxley achieved broad bipartisan support for the bill in the Financial Services Committee, and it passed the House. But the Senate never voted on the measure, in part because President Bush was likely to veto it. "If it had passed, that would have been one of the ways we could have reined in the bowling ball going downhill called housing," Oxley told Frank. In an op-ed piece in The Wall Street Journal, Lawrence B. Lindsey, a former economic adviser to President George W. Bush, wrote that Frank "is the only politician I know who has argued that we needed tighter rules that intentionally produce fewer homeowners and more renters."[15] Once control shifted to the Democrats, Frank was able to help guide both the Federal Housing Reform Act (H.R. 1427 Archived 2008-11-29 at the Wayback Machine) and the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act (H.R. 3915 Archived 2012-12-13 at the Wayback Machine) to passage in 2007.[63] Frank also said that the Republican-led Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act of 1999, which repealed part of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933 and removed the wall between commercial and investment banks, contributed to the financial meltdown.[63] Frank stated further that "during twelve years of Republican rule no reform was adopted regarding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In 2007, a few months after I became the Chairman, the House passed a strong reform bill; we sought to get the [Bush] administration's approval to include it in the economic stimulus legislation in January 2008; and finally got it passed and onto President Bush's desk in July 2008. Moreover, "we were able to adopt it in nineteen months, and we could have done it much quicker if the [Bush] administration had cooperated."[citation needed]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barney_Frank
You ever notice how so many of these crazy corrupt people, seem to have, "issues?" Like dudes thinking they are girls and vice versa? Does the cabal use them because they are susceptible and more easily manipulated? There must be some reason the ratio is so high. Do they prey on them because they make easier targets? A psychology thing?
An embodiment (as of a concept or philosophy) often in a person
It might go deeper than that. Think it through. You need LOYAL minions who will pretty much do whatever you say or want. How do you get that? Several ways, but gratitude is one way. So, if you are shunned, confused, whatever, generally a social outcast, and feel alone, and along comes someone who, "befriends," you, tells you all the things you like to hear, helps you out etc, wouldn't you feel a sense of gratitude and loyalty to that person, even if they were lying through their teeth the whole time, and just using you for their own gains?
Eh, I dunno, look at history, people have suffered all kinds of bad situations, some may have scars, but deal with it, others, never really recover, but I suppose it does make a difference what exactly caused the scars, but in the end, it all really just comes down to, how do you respond to any given stimulus. We ALWAYS have a choice of how to respond, regardless of what we may think.
Kinda looks like he's gonna have marinated pork chops tomorrow night.
I have a feeling that wasn't water in that glass.
I don't think you understand what I am saying. No matter what the circumstances are, YOU choose how YOU respond to them. YOU make a choice, whether you realize it or not.
KEK. Exactly.
Well, I DIDN'T say they all make GOOD choices.
Ok, so if you are traumatized, and your, "solution," is to suck a dick, you made a choice. Stimulus, response. The response could be almost anything, and the point is, whatever response they CHOOSE, is STILL a choice, nobody forced them to pick the response.
There is a book, don't remember the name or author, but it had a part where it talked about how different people responded to being tortured by the Nazi's in the concentration camps. It was observed that some people despite being tortured, didn't react negatively, while others did. I'm not saying that those who responded negatively were unjustified, the POINT is, you have a situation where the stimulus is the same, but you got different responses. That tells me that those people made a CHOICE to respond how they did.
Exactly. An excuse to remove culpability for their choice.
Lazy critical thinker? I think not. I think you just want an excuse to misbehave and remove all blame for YOUR choices, or pawn them off onto someone, or something else.
==^^^^^ THIS
See? Now you just said, "is it as easy a choice." CHOICE. I never said they were easy or hard, but they are STILL choices.
You think being tortured by the Nazi's wasn't "trauma?" So why then did some react differently? I'll tell you why, because they ALL had a CHOICE how they responded. Unless you are nothing but an automaton, or vegetable, YOU make the choices. You keep citing the stimulus as the REASON for the response, but apparently completely miss the point that it's a CHOICE.
And exactly what choice are you talking about? Your logic makes no sense. You essentially just asked me if a question can be so difficult, that you need help to make the choice. Ok, so you get help, what happens next? Oh, YOU pick one and…MAKE A CHOICE?
There is both good and bad in the world. God did not make us robots. WE make the choices. Do we always get it right? No, of course not. Which is worse? A good choice, a bad choice, or making no choices at all?
Choosing not to choose, is STILL a choice.
Yeah, many don't want to be responsible for their choices.
Called to be punished? How much of the bible have you actually read and understood? ALL sin is punishable. ALL. You know, I think I know what your problem is, YOU haven't forgiven whoever fucked you up. Just let it go. God is the one who in charge of the punishing, NOT you. Leave it in His capable hands, and go your way. Stop living in the past. What's done is done, move on and stop beating yourself for something you apparently had no control over, assuming you are telling the truth.
Uh, control? Did you understand the context? I don't think you did.