Report: Cronyism, political donations likely behind Obama, Holder failure to charge any bankers after 2008 financial meltdown

"A new report from the conservative..." Notice, that's a biased report. Try again.

So the judge didn't rule? Sorry, but try again.

What judge? Ruled what, exactly?

This is a report and nothing in it references a court ruling finding that Holder or Obama contributed to "cronyism."

What are you talking about?

Try looking up the facts they may enlighten you. But then again facts aren't a strong point for liberals.

If you can't present them, and they aren't in the article (which they aren't), I'm not inclined to look for your Reagan Unicorn.

Enjoy your fantasy world.

The only one in a fantasy world of denial would be you. But as I previously stated facts aren't something liberals deal with as it almost always proves them wrong and showcases their foolishness.

What facts have you presented? None.

Get serious. You just refuse to accept them. Typical of a liberal. Try reading the article, but then again you'll just try to redirect and deny. But I bet you believe Harry Reid don't you? The hypocrisy of the liberal/progressives know no bounds and you are proof of this beyond any doubt.

Point me to your facts in this thread that you've posted, when I've asked to see them. I'm waiting.

You need to get serious, if you care to talk about facts and present none.

Again, try reading the article. If you choose not to believe the points then that's up to you. I'll be waiting to hear your answer on Harry Reids statement about Romney's taxes. Because if you believe him that shows exactly where you are coming from and proves that trying to have a factual, worthwhile discussion with you is impossible.

The article said nothing about judge rulings. Unless you care to enlighten me, I'm not inclined to re-skim for your claims.

Let's take one issue at a time, here. I don't want you to lose focus.

"Despite Obama’s and Holder’s “heated rhetoric” against Wall Street (in 2009, Obama blamed the 2008 financial collapse on “reckless speculation of bankers” while Holder charged that “unscrupulous executives, Ponzi scheme operators and common criminals alike have targeted the pocketbooks and retirement accounts of middle class Americans”), they haven’t “filed a single criminal charge against any top executive of an elite financial institution,” GAI wrote in its report, exclusively obtained by The Daily Caller".

That is a fact and it lays a prima facia case for as to collusion by this administration. Couple this with the fact that many of these indviduals gave large amounts of money to Obama for his campaign makes it even more questionable.

So the facts and insinuations within the article hold more substance than Harry Reids claims regarding Romney's not paying taxes for ten years. So taking this into consideration I ask you again where do you stand on Reids remarks? And the only one having trouble with focus appears to be you. But then again it could very well be 'selective liberal blindness' which happens frequently when liberals can't refute facts about Obama's corruption.

Where is the judge ruling you were talking about? I still don't see it.

I'm waiting.

You're ridiculous. And it seems your hypocrisy won't let you address the Reid question I posed. You're not worth trying to have a worthwhile discussion with as you are incapable of doing so as you are blinded by the 'selective liberal blindness' I previously mentioned.

I'm still waiting to see what judge made what decision in what court of law. You need to stay focused.

The only thing that should be focused on is your blatant hypocrisy and 'selective liberal blindness'. So rather than lower myself to your level I will leave you to play with yourself (which you are more than likely used to). Have a nice day.

And you still can't supply me with the judgement that was made by what judge in what court over what decision?

Seems like you couldn't hold your focus at all.