info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Gender Ideology Harms Children
117 views
Skip to first unread message
David Hartung
Mar 8, 2016, 8:02:36 AM3/8/16
to
http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/gender-ideology-harms-children
For those who try to claim that science supports the transsexual position.
For those who try to claim that science supports the transsexual position.
Mitchell Holman
Mar 8, 2016, 8:34:30 AM3/8/16
to
David Hartung <d_ha...@h0tmail.com> wrote in
news:aI6dnRvdAqH3UEPL...@giganews.com:
> http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/gender-ide
This time last year you are all over the gay
marriage issue, now you are posting article after
article on transgender stories, somtimes several
per day.
Is this a crisis for you? Do you have a personal
stake in this issue?
news:aI6dnRvdAqH3UEPL...@giganews.com:
> http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/gender-ide
> ology-harms-children
>
> For those who try to claim that science supports the transsexual
> position.
>
Why are you so fixated on this topic, Hartung?
>
> For those who try to claim that science supports the transsexual
> position.
>
This time last year you are all over the gay
marriage issue, now you are posting article after
article on transgender stories, somtimes several
per day.
Is this a crisis for you? Do you have a personal
stake in this issue?
Tom Sr.
Mar 8, 2016, 8:35:45 AM3/8/16
to
On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 8:02:36 AM UTC-5, David Hartung wrote:
> http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statement/gender-ideology-harms-children
----------
http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/sexuality-issues
*Sexuality Issues*
Sexual activity can have significant short and long term consequences in the life of a young child or adolescent. For this reason, the American College of Pediatricians has produced the following official position statements on sexuality issues involving children and adolescents.
Abortion and the Risk of Breast Cancer: Information for the adolescent woman and her parents
Emergency Contraception - Not the Best for Adolescents
Empowering Parents of Gender Discordant and Same-Sex Attracted Children
Homosexual Parenting: Is It Time For Change?
Abstinence Education
Gender Identity Issues in Children and Adolescents
Psychotherapy for Unwanted Homosexual Attraction Among Youth
On the Promotion of Homosexuality in the Schools
Sexual Risk Avoidance (SRA - traditionally called 'Abstinence') Education
The College addresses many issues related to sexual activity during adolescence in the Sexual Responsibility section.
----------
----------
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_College_of_Pediatricians
*American College of Pediatricians*
The American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds) is a socially conservative association of pediatricians and other healthcare professionals in the United States. The College was founded in 2002 by a group of pediatricians including Joseph Zanga, a past president of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), as a protest against the AAP's support for adoption by gay couples.[1][2] The group's membership has been estimated at between 60 and 200 members.[1][3] ACPeds describes itself as "a national organization of pediatricians and other healthcare professionals dedicated to the health and well-being of children... committed to fulfilling its mission by producing sound policy, based upon the best available research, to assist parents and to influence society in the endeavor of childrearing."[4]
----------
----------
https://www.aclu.org/re-gill-about-american-college-pediatricians
*In re: Gill - About the American College of Pediatricians*
When the American Academy of Pediatrics passed its policy statement supporting second-parent adoptions by lesbian and gay parents in 2002, a fringe group of approximately 60 of the AAP's more than 60,000 members formed the "American College of Pediatricians."1 This group has been described by one of its charter members as a "Judeo-Christian, traditional-values organization," that is open to pediatric medical professionals of all religions "who hold to [the ACP's] core beliefs," which are that "life begins at conception, and that the traditional family unit, headed by an opposite-sex couple, poses far fewer risk factors in the adoption and raising of children."2 This group issued a position statement in January 2004 supporting the "age-old prohibition on homosexual parenting, whether by adoption, foster care, or by reproductive manipulation."3
----------
----------
https://www.truthwinsout.org/pressrelease/2010/04/8136/
"TWO Exclusive: Researcher Reprimands Sham Pediatric Group For Distorting Research*
----------
----------
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/anti-gay-doctors-group-aids-result-practicing-sexual-act-goes-against-our-natural-design
"Anti-Gay Doctors' Group: AIDS Is Result Of 'Practicing A Sexual Act That Goes Against Our Natural Design'"
Back in 2002, a small fringe group of pediatricians called the American College of Pediatricians (ACP) broke off from the country's main pediatric group, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), in protest of the AAP's support for LGBT adoption rights . Since then, the ACP has been a go-to source for right-wing activists and news outlets looking for anti-LGBT pseudoscience to counteract the views of mainstream groups like the AAP. One example of how extreme ACP really is came in an interview that its president, Den Trumbull, gave last week to VCY America's "Crosstalk" program, where he disparaged efforts to find a vaccine for HIV or encourage condom use to prevent the virus' spread because HIV and AIDS are really a product of "practicing a sexual act that goes against our natural design."
----------
You truly are just So Fucking STUPID, Hartung.
. . .
> http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statement/gender-ideology-harms-children
>
> For those who try to claim that science supports the transsexual position.
For those (you know who you are!) who get their "information" from far-right-wing-biased, homophobic group sites such as the "American College of Pediatricians":
> For those who try to claim that science supports the transsexual position.
----------
http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/sexuality-issues
*Sexuality Issues*
Sexual activity can have significant short and long term consequences in the life of a young child or adolescent. For this reason, the American College of Pediatricians has produced the following official position statements on sexuality issues involving children and adolescents.
Abortion and the Risk of Breast Cancer: Information for the adolescent woman and her parents
Emergency Contraception - Not the Best for Adolescents
Empowering Parents of Gender Discordant and Same-Sex Attracted Children
Homosexual Parenting: Is It Time For Change?
Abstinence Education
Gender Identity Issues in Children and Adolescents
Psychotherapy for Unwanted Homosexual Attraction Among Youth
On the Promotion of Homosexuality in the Schools
Sexual Risk Avoidance (SRA - traditionally called 'Abstinence') Education
The College addresses many issues related to sexual activity during adolescence in the Sexual Responsibility section.
----------
----------
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_College_of_Pediatricians
*American College of Pediatricians*
The American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds) is a socially conservative association of pediatricians and other healthcare professionals in the United States. The College was founded in 2002 by a group of pediatricians including Joseph Zanga, a past president of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), as a protest against the AAP's support for adoption by gay couples.[1][2] The group's membership has been estimated at between 60 and 200 members.[1][3] ACPeds describes itself as "a national organization of pediatricians and other healthcare professionals dedicated to the health and well-being of children... committed to fulfilling its mission by producing sound policy, based upon the best available research, to assist parents and to influence society in the endeavor of childrearing."[4]
----------
----------
https://www.aclu.org/re-gill-about-american-college-pediatricians
*In re: Gill - About the American College of Pediatricians*
When the American Academy of Pediatrics passed its policy statement supporting second-parent adoptions by lesbian and gay parents in 2002, a fringe group of approximately 60 of the AAP's more than 60,000 members formed the "American College of Pediatricians."1 This group has been described by one of its charter members as a "Judeo-Christian, traditional-values organization," that is open to pediatric medical professionals of all religions "who hold to [the ACP's] core beliefs," which are that "life begins at conception, and that the traditional family unit, headed by an opposite-sex couple, poses far fewer risk factors in the adoption and raising of children."2 This group issued a position statement in January 2004 supporting the "age-old prohibition on homosexual parenting, whether by adoption, foster care, or by reproductive manipulation."3
----------
----------
https://www.truthwinsout.org/pressrelease/2010/04/8136/
"TWO Exclusive: Researcher Reprimands Sham Pediatric Group For Distorting Research*
----------
----------
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/anti-gay-doctors-group-aids-result-practicing-sexual-act-goes-against-our-natural-design
"Anti-Gay Doctors' Group: AIDS Is Result Of 'Practicing A Sexual Act That Goes Against Our Natural Design'"
Back in 2002, a small fringe group of pediatricians called the American College of Pediatricians (ACP) broke off from the country's main pediatric group, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), in protest of the AAP's support for LGBT adoption rights . Since then, the ACP has been a go-to source for right-wing activists and news outlets looking for anti-LGBT pseudoscience to counteract the views of mainstream groups like the AAP. One example of how extreme ACP really is came in an interview that its president, Den Trumbull, gave last week to VCY America's "Crosstalk" program, where he disparaged efforts to find a vaccine for HIV or encourage condom use to prevent the virus' spread because HIV and AIDS are really a product of "practicing a sexual act that goes against our natural design."
----------
You truly are just So Fucking STUPID, Hartung.
. . .
David Hartung
Mar 8, 2016, 8:43:37 AM3/8/16
to
On 03/08/2016 07:34 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
> David Hartung <d_ha...@h0tmail.com> wrote in
> news:aI6dnRvdAqH3UEPL...@giganews.com:
>
>> http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/gender-ide
>> ology-harms-children
>>
>> For those who try to claim that science supports the transsexual
>> position.
>>
>
>
>
> Why are you so fixated on this topic, Hartung?
>
> This time last year you are all over the gay
> marriage issue, now you are posting article after
> article on transgender stories, somtimes several
> per day.
My guess is that you will get over it.
> David Hartung <d_ha...@h0tmail.com> wrote in
> news:aI6dnRvdAqH3UEPL...@giganews.com:
>
>> http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/gender-ide
>> ology-harms-children
>>
>> For those who try to claim that science supports the transsexual
>> position.
>>
>
>
>
> Why are you so fixated on this topic, Hartung?
>
> This time last year you are all over the gay
> marriage issue, now you are posting article after
> article on transgender stories, somtimes several
> per day.
David Hartung
Mar 8, 2016, 8:45:41 AM3/8/16
to
wy
Mar 8, 2016, 10:26:25 AM3/8/16
to
On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 8:02:36 AM UTC-5, David Hartung wrote:
> http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/gender-ideology-harms-children
>
> For those who try to claim that science supports the transsexual position.
ACP is a right wingnut outfit that only began in 2002. Haven't pediatricians been around long before that? Why yes, they have been, and they're the ones that belong to the American Academy of Pediatricians, which isn't a disgruntled right wingnut outfit.
>
> For those who try to claim that science supports the transsexual position.
wy
Mar 8, 2016, 10:27:28 AM3/8/16
to
Beam Me Up Scotty
Mar 8, 2016, 11:09:18 AM3/8/16
to
that must NOT be conclusive.
--
That's Karma
Josh Rosenbluth
Mar 8, 2016, 11:16:57 AM3/8/16
to
On 3/8/2016 5:02 AM, David Hartung wrote:
> http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/gender-ideology-harms-children
>
>
> For those who try to claim that science supports the transsexual position.
This organization has a history of distorting science for ideological
> http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/gender-ideology-harms-children
>
>
> For those who try to claim that science supports the transsexual position.
purposes. They stand as a minority in the scientific community.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/2010/04/19/another-look-at-francis-collins-rebuke-of-the-american-college-of-pediatricians/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_College_of_Pediatricians#Positions
Moon-bat
Mar 8, 2016, 11:35:00 AM3/8/16
to
On 3/8/2016 10:29 AM, koo...@maricaibo.com wrote:
> Most loser religious zealots finally end up like Hartung----unable to
> accept change, clinging to a strict interpretation of
> (unproven/unprovable) religious dogma.
>
> Dealing with people like him---is historically a waste of time
>
> Fortunately, that side keeps losing ground generation after
> generation.
I ran across an article explaining this which I thought I'd share.
http://www.thenation.com/article/why-todays-gop-crackup-is-the-final-unraveling-of-nixons-southern-strategy/
To grasp the GOP’s dilemma, it helps to understand that the modern
Republican Party was founded on some basic contradictions. It has been
an odd-couple coalition that unites the East Coast Republican
establishment with the hardscrabble segregationists of the white South.
Richard Nixon brokered the deal with Dixiecrat leader Strom Thurmond at
the ’68 convention in Miami, wherein states of the old slave-holding
Confederacy would join the Party of Lincoln. It took two election cycles
to convert the “Solid South,” but Nixon and GOP apparatchiks made it
clear with private assurances that Republicans would discreetly retire
their historic commitment to civil rights.
Scott Lilly, a liberal Democrat who for many years was the sagacious
staff director of the House Appropriations Committee, explained the
GOP’s intra-party fracas in that context. Boehner’s resignation, Lilly
wrote in The Washington Spectator, “was, in fact, about the steady
unraveling of a coalition that has allowed the Republican Party to hold
the White House for 27 [sic: 28] of the past 47 years and maintain a
seemingly solid base for continuing control of the U.S. House of
Representatives.”
“The country clubbers don’t care about prayer in the public schools, gun
rights…abortion and immigration.”
Nixon’s reconfiguration brought together “polar opposites among White
Americans,” Lilly noted. The traditional wing of the party—“country
club” Republicans, who include corporate leaders, financiers and
investors—became partners with poor, rural, church-going voters, among
them the Southern “segs” who had previously always voted for Democrats.
Black Southerners didn’t count in the equation, since they were still
mostly being blocked from voting.
After Congress enacted the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Lyndon Johnson
confided to a White House aide, “I think we just delivered the South to
the Republican Party for a long time to come.” Nixon’s new Republicans
became a formidable national party, Lilly explained, but they always
straddled the tension between rich and poor. “The problem,” Lilly said,
“is that this latter group has almost nothing in common with the country
club wing.… The country clubbers don’t care about prayer in the public
schools, gun rights, stopping birth control, abortion and immigration.”
On the other hand, common folks don’t worry over marginal tax rates,
capital formation, or subsidies for major corporations. “If they ever
fully understood that their more prosperous party brethren were
contemplating deep cuts in Medicare and Medicaid to pay for those
policies, they would be in open rebellion,” Lilly observed.
Nixon and his successors hid behind ideology and obscured the
contradictions by pursuing a strategy I would call “no-fault bigotry.”
Every now and then, especially in election seasons, the Republicans
played the race card in dog-whistle fashion to smear Democrats, with
savage effect. The GOP never attempted to repeal civil-rights
legislation but sought cheap ways to undermine enforcement and remind
whites, South and North, that the party was on “their” side.
In his first term, Nixon himself made a memorable gesture by supporting
federal tax subsidies for the private “seg academies” springing up
across the South. He didn’t prevail, but he won lots of political
loyalty among Southern whites—a generation of voters who had been raised
to vote Democratic, but who were beginning to switch parties.
In 1980, Ronald Reagan opened his presidential campaign at the Neshoba
County Fair in Mississippi—a few miles from where three civil-rights
workers had been murdered in the 1960s. Reagan announced his intention
“to restore to the states and local communities functions which properly
belong there.” That is Dixie’s euphemism for opposing racial
integration. In 1988, George H.W. Bush smeared Michael Dukakis with his
notoriously racist “Willie Horton” ads. In 1990 in North Carolina,
Senator Jesse Helms ran for reelection against Harvey Gantt, a black
former mayor of Charlotte, with a provocative ad attacking affirmative
action.
In 2008, when Americans elected our first black president, most of the
heavy smears came after Barack Obama took office. Grassroots
conservatives imagined bizarre fears: Obama wasn’t born in America; he
was a secret Muslim. Donald Trump demanded to see the birth certificate.
GOP leaders like Senator Mitch McConnell—who had been a civil-rights
advocate in his youth—could have discouraged the demonizing slurs.
Instead, McConnell launched his own take-no-prisoners strategy to
obstruct anything important Obama hoped to accomplish.
> accept change, clinging to a strict interpretation of
> (unproven/unprovable) religious dogma.
>
> Dealing with people like him---is historically a waste of time
>
> Fortunately, that side keeps losing ground generation after
> generation.
I ran across an article explaining this which I thought I'd share.
http://www.thenation.com/article/why-todays-gop-crackup-is-the-final-unraveling-of-nixons-southern-strategy/
To grasp the GOP’s dilemma, it helps to understand that the modern
Republican Party was founded on some basic contradictions. It has been
an odd-couple coalition that unites the East Coast Republican
establishment with the hardscrabble segregationists of the white South.
Richard Nixon brokered the deal with Dixiecrat leader Strom Thurmond at
the ’68 convention in Miami, wherein states of the old slave-holding
Confederacy would join the Party of Lincoln. It took two election cycles
to convert the “Solid South,” but Nixon and GOP apparatchiks made it
clear with private assurances that Republicans would discreetly retire
their historic commitment to civil rights.
Scott Lilly, a liberal Democrat who for many years was the sagacious
staff director of the House Appropriations Committee, explained the
GOP’s intra-party fracas in that context. Boehner’s resignation, Lilly
wrote in The Washington Spectator, “was, in fact, about the steady
unraveling of a coalition that has allowed the Republican Party to hold
the White House for 27 [sic: 28] of the past 47 years and maintain a
seemingly solid base for continuing control of the U.S. House of
Representatives.”
“The country clubbers don’t care about prayer in the public schools, gun
rights…abortion and immigration.”
Nixon’s reconfiguration brought together “polar opposites among White
Americans,” Lilly noted. The traditional wing of the party—“country
club” Republicans, who include corporate leaders, financiers and
investors—became partners with poor, rural, church-going voters, among
them the Southern “segs” who had previously always voted for Democrats.
Black Southerners didn’t count in the equation, since they were still
mostly being blocked from voting.
After Congress enacted the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Lyndon Johnson
confided to a White House aide, “I think we just delivered the South to
the Republican Party for a long time to come.” Nixon’s new Republicans
became a formidable national party, Lilly explained, but they always
straddled the tension between rich and poor. “The problem,” Lilly said,
“is that this latter group has almost nothing in common with the country
club wing.… The country clubbers don’t care about prayer in the public
schools, gun rights, stopping birth control, abortion and immigration.”
On the other hand, common folks don’t worry over marginal tax rates,
capital formation, or subsidies for major corporations. “If they ever
fully understood that their more prosperous party brethren were
contemplating deep cuts in Medicare and Medicaid to pay for those
policies, they would be in open rebellion,” Lilly observed.
Nixon and his successors hid behind ideology and obscured the
contradictions by pursuing a strategy I would call “no-fault bigotry.”
Every now and then, especially in election seasons, the Republicans
played the race card in dog-whistle fashion to smear Democrats, with
savage effect. The GOP never attempted to repeal civil-rights
legislation but sought cheap ways to undermine enforcement and remind
whites, South and North, that the party was on “their” side.
In his first term, Nixon himself made a memorable gesture by supporting
federal tax subsidies for the private “seg academies” springing up
across the South. He didn’t prevail, but he won lots of political
loyalty among Southern whites—a generation of voters who had been raised
to vote Democratic, but who were beginning to switch parties.
In 1980, Ronald Reagan opened his presidential campaign at the Neshoba
County Fair in Mississippi—a few miles from where three civil-rights
workers had been murdered in the 1960s. Reagan announced his intention
“to restore to the states and local communities functions which properly
belong there.” That is Dixie’s euphemism for opposing racial
integration. In 1988, George H.W. Bush smeared Michael Dukakis with his
notoriously racist “Willie Horton” ads. In 1990 in North Carolina,
Senator Jesse Helms ran for reelection against Harvey Gantt, a black
former mayor of Charlotte, with a provocative ad attacking affirmative
action.
In 2008, when Americans elected our first black president, most of the
heavy smears came after Barack Obama took office. Grassroots
conservatives imagined bizarre fears: Obama wasn’t born in America; he
was a secret Muslim. Donald Trump demanded to see the birth certificate.
GOP leaders like Senator Mitch McConnell—who had been a civil-rights
advocate in his youth—could have discouraged the demonizing slurs.
Instead, McConnell launched his own take-no-prisoners strategy to
obstruct anything important Obama hoped to accomplish.
wy
Mar 8, 2016, 11:53:14 AM3/8/16
to
Beam Me Up Scotty
Mar 8, 2016, 12:21:16 PM3/8/16
to
have considered the damage and done something different.
But That's how Nations crumble, they take a wrong path and people
diverge from the forced party line that is taken by the few with power.
--
That's Karma
wy
Mar 8, 2016, 12:42:06 PM3/8/16
to
On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 12:21:16 PM UTC-5, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
> On 03/08/2016 11:53 AM, wy wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 11:09:18 AM UTC-5, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
> >> On 03/08/2016 10:26 AM, wy wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 8:02:36 AM UTC-5, David Hartung wrote:
> >>>> http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/gender-ideology-harms-children
> >>>>
> >>>> For those who try to claim that science supports the transsexual position.
> >>>
> >>> ACP is a right wingnut outfit that only began in 2002. Haven't pediatricians been around long before that? Why yes, they have been, and they're the ones that belong to the American Academy of Pediatricians, which isn't a disgruntled right wingnut outfit.
> >>>
> >> And having doctors leave their AAP means they are on a disputed path
> >> that must NOT be conclusive.
> >
> > Right, they're leaving in droves. AAP has over 60,000 members, the right wingnut ACP only 200. AAP is really devastated.
> On 03/08/2016 11:53 AM, wy wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 11:09:18 AM UTC-5, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
> >> On 03/08/2016 10:26 AM, wy wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 8:02:36 AM UTC-5, David Hartung wrote:
> >>>> http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/gender-ideology-harms-children
> >>>>
> >>>> For those who try to claim that science supports the transsexual position.
> >>>
> >>> ACP is a right wingnut outfit that only began in 2002. Haven't pediatricians been around long before that? Why yes, they have been, and they're the ones that belong to the American Academy of Pediatricians, which isn't a disgruntled right wingnut outfit.
> >>>
> >> And having doctors leave their AAP means they are on a disputed path
> >> that must NOT be conclusive.
> >
> >
> The path they took created the schism. If they were concerned they would
> have considered the damage and done something different.
ACP is made up of a bunch of malcontent, deranged, right wingnut spoiled brats who feel that the only way they can be heard is by starting a new outfit that only other malcontent, deranged, right wingnut spoiled brats would join. Misery loves company and they found their misery unwelcomed among the sane masses within AAP, which makes their misery psychologically abnormal.
> The path they took created the schism. If they were concerned they would
> have considered the damage and done something different.
Beam Me Up Scotty
Mar 8, 2016, 1:40:51 PM3/8/16
to
On 03/08/2016 12:41 PM, wy wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 12:21:16 PM UTC-5, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>> On 03/08/2016 11:53 AM, wy wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 11:09:18 AM UTC-5, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>>>> On 03/08/2016 10:26 AM, wy wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 8:02:36 AM UTC-5, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>> http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/gender-ideology-harms-children
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For those who try to claim that science supports the transsexual position.
>>>>>
>>>>> ACP is a right wingnut outfit that only began in 2002. Haven't pediatricians been around long before that? Why yes, they have been, and they're the ones that belong to the American Academy of Pediatricians, which isn't a disgruntled right wingnut outfit.
>>>>>
>>>> And having doctors leave their AAP means they are on a disputed path
>>>> that must NOT be conclusive.
>>>
>>> Right, they're leaving in droves. AAP has over 60,000 members, the right wingnut ACP only 200. AAP is really devastated.
>>>
>> The path they took created the schism. If they were concerned they would
>> have considered the damage and done something different.
>
> ACP is made up of a bunch of malcontent, deranged, right wingnut spoiled brats who feel that the only way they can be heard is by starting a new outfit that
Actually represents their agenda?
> On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 12:21:16 PM UTC-5, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>> On 03/08/2016 11:53 AM, wy wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 11:09:18 AM UTC-5, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>>>> On 03/08/2016 10:26 AM, wy wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 8:02:36 AM UTC-5, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>> http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/gender-ideology-harms-children
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For those who try to claim that science supports the transsexual position.
>>>>>
>>>>> ACP is a right wingnut outfit that only began in 2002. Haven't pediatricians been around long before that? Why yes, they have been, and they're the ones that belong to the American Academy of Pediatricians, which isn't a disgruntled right wingnut outfit.
>>>>>
>>>> And having doctors leave their AAP means they are on a disputed path
>>>> that must NOT be conclusive.
>>>
>>> Right, they're leaving in droves. AAP has over 60,000 members, the right wingnut ACP only 200. AAP is really devastated.
>>>
>> The path they took created the schism. If they were concerned they would
>> have considered the damage and done something different.
>
> ACP is made up of a bunch of malcontent, deranged, right wingnut spoiled brats who feel that the only way they can be heard is by starting a new outfit that
--
That's Karma
wy
Mar 8, 2016, 2:00:44 PM3/8/16
to
David Hartung
Mar 8, 2016, 3:49:14 PM3/8/16
to
David Hartung
Mar 8, 2016, 3:50:51 PM3/8/16
to
addressing what they said, and addressing it with verifiable fact.
David Hartung
Mar 8, 2016, 4:00:23 PM3/8/16
to
On 03/08/2016 10:16 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> On 3/8/2016 5:02 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>> http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/gender-ideology-harms-children
>>
>>
>>
>> For those who try to claim that science supports the transsexual
>> position.
>
> This organization has a history of distorting science for ideological
> purposes. They stand as a minority in the scientific community.
>
> http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/2010/04/19/another-look-at-francis-collins-rebuke-of-the-american-college-of-pediatricians/
From where I sit, the "majority" opinion is based far more on politics,
> On 3/8/2016 5:02 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>> http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/gender-ideology-harms-children
>>
>>
>>
>> For those who try to claim that science supports the transsexual
>> position.
>
> This organization has a history of distorting science for ideological
> purposes. They stand as a minority in the scientific community.
>
> http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/2010/04/19/another-look-at-francis-collins-rebuke-of-the-american-college-of-pediatricians/
than it is on research.
Mitchell Holman
Mar 8, 2016, 4:38:33 PM3/8/16
to
koo...@maricaibo.com wrote in
news:gbvtdblf4ss1jdvcf...@4ax.com:
https://blogs.lcms.org/2015/synod-leaders-assess
http://www.newsweek.com/2014/02/28/martin-luthers-church-pastor-asks-where-
have-all-protestants-gone-245572.html
news:gbvtdblf4ss1jdvcf...@4ax.com:
> Most loser religious zealots finally end up like Hartung----unable to
> accept change, clinging to a strict interpretation of
> (unproven/unprovable) religious dogma.
>
> Dealing with people like him---is historically a waste of time
>
> Fortunately, that side keeps losing ground generation after
> generation.
>
Hartung hates to be reminded of how fast his church is shrinking.
> accept change, clinging to a strict interpretation of
> (unproven/unprovable) religious dogma.
>
> Dealing with people like him---is historically a waste of time
>
> Fortunately, that side keeps losing ground generation after
> generation.
>
https://blogs.lcms.org/2015/synod-leaders-assess
http://www.newsweek.com/2014/02/28/martin-luthers-church-pastor-asks-where-
have-all-protestants-gone-245572.html
wy
Mar 8, 2016, 4:40:37 PM3/8/16
to
wy
Mar 8, 2016, 4:42:18 PM3/8/16
to
wy
Mar 8, 2016, 4:44:31 PM3/8/16
to
David Hartung
Mar 8, 2016, 4:47:43 PM3/8/16
to
On 03/08/2016 03:38 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
> koo...@maricaibo.com wrote in
> news:gbvtdblf4ss1jdvcf...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Tue, 8 Mar 2016 07:27:27 -0800 (PST), wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 8:43:37 AM UTC-5, David Hartung wrote:
>>
>>>>> Why are you so fixated on this topic, Hartung?
>>>>>
>>>>> This time last year you are all over the gay
>>>>> marriage issue, now you are posting article after
>>>>> article on transgender stories, somtimes several
>>>>> per day.
>>>>
>>>> My guess is that you will get over it.
>>>
>>> You haven't seemed to have gotten over it. In fact, you've got a real
>>> anal fixation on the topic.
>>
>> Most loser religious zealots finally end up like Hartung----unable to
>> accept change, clinging to a strict interpretation of
>> (unproven/unprovable) religious dogma.
>>
>> Dealing with people like him---is historically a waste of time
>>
>> Fortunately, that side keeps losing ground generation after
>> generation.
>>
>
>
>
>
> Hartung hates to be reminded of how fast his church is shrinking.
Were we discussing my church?
> koo...@maricaibo.com wrote in
> news:gbvtdblf4ss1jdvcf...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Tue, 8 Mar 2016 07:27:27 -0800 (PST), wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 8:43:37 AM UTC-5, David Hartung wrote:
>>
>>>>> Why are you so fixated on this topic, Hartung?
>>>>>
>>>>> This time last year you are all over the gay
>>>>> marriage issue, now you are posting article after
>>>>> article on transgender stories, somtimes several
>>>>> per day.
>>>>
>>>> My guess is that you will get over it.
>>>
>>> You haven't seemed to have gotten over it. In fact, you've got a real
>>> anal fixation on the topic.
>>
>> Most loser religious zealots finally end up like Hartung----unable to
>> accept change, clinging to a strict interpretation of
>> (unproven/unprovable) religious dogma.
>>
>> Dealing with people like him---is historically a waste of time
>>
>> Fortunately, that side keeps losing ground generation after
>> generation.
>>
>
>
>
>
> Hartung hates to be reminded of how fast his church is shrinking.
David Hartung
Mar 8, 2016, 4:49:13 PM3/8/16
to
2. Given the fact that these people are credentialed, practicing
professionals, it is beyond a doubt that they are smarter and less
idiotic than you.
DoD
Mar 8, 2016, 4:49:23 PM3/8/16
to
"Mitchell Holman" <noe...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA5C59EE686D...@216.166.97.131...
the one insuring it.
David Hartung
Mar 8, 2016, 4:50:17 PM3/8/16
to
wy
Mar 8, 2016, 4:59:36 PM3/8/16
to
>
> 2. Given the fact that these people are credentialed, practicing
> professionals, it is beyond a doubt that they are smarter and less
> idiotic than you.
wy
Mar 8, 2016, 5:02:11 PM3/8/16
to
First Post
Mar 8, 2016, 6:35:19 PM3/8/16
to
untreatable or he simply refuses to deal with.
I have met what could be described as devout atheists who are less
hateful when addressing a religious person, much less a
pastor/minister.
Tom must have some very serious problems for him to be so quick to try
to be as vile and insulting as he can.
Who else on this entire planet responds to someone who basically
wishes them well, as you recently did, with pure hate filled vitriol?
It is really sad that someone who has allegedly lived as long as Tom
has nothing to show the world but just plain rage and hatred.
And the fact that he has chosen to intentionally focus on you and you
alone because you are of the church is proof positive that the man
does indeed have honest to goodness real psychological problems.
Heck even wy doesn't project the level of hatred that Tom does.
Tom is the only nutcase poster here that I honestly believe would try
to engage in a physical confrontation or fight if he were to come into
contact with you, me or anyone else regardless of political or
religious beliefs.
I have personally known a couple of folks that behaved similar to Tom
Sr. over the years. Neither came to what you would call a good end.
One committed suicide after having been institutionalized for several
years and the other was found dead in their apartment only after the
neighbors noticed the odor. And none of those other residents came
remotely close to even shedding a single tear. In fact they were
actually glad the guy was finally gone as he had been making their
lives a living hell for his last few years.
And even now, just a few miles from where I live, there is a lonely
old pissed off man living in a ratty little house with junk piled up
in his yard that has called the sheriff on his neighbors for
everything from their grill smoke blowing in his direction to their
kids riding their four wheelers on their own property.
He has been known to throw rocks at passing cars because he simply
didn't like them driving down the road in front of his house and
"spoiling his view". And no one dares to even speak to the guy when
they occasionally see him at the local store because he always
launches into a screaming rant and threatens folks if spoken to or
even acknowledged with a nod.
My brother in law says that the old fool has been that way for as long
as he can remember and no one knows why as far as any kind of life
changing events go.
But he's not completely in la la land for when the sheriff's deputies
show up he always behaves very meekly with them.
I'm afraid Tom Sr. may very well be a kindred soul to the lunatic.
As stated before, thank goodness he lives way up north and nowhere
near here.
Mitchell Holman
Mar 8, 2016, 6:47:24 PM3/8/16
to
David Hartung <d_ha...@h0tmail.com> wrote in
news:DtmdnWGvAfCbSkPL...@giganews.com:
> On 03/08/2016 07:34 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>> David Hartung <d_ha...@h0tmail.com> wrote in
>> news:aI6dnRvdAqH3UEPL...@giganews.com:
>>
>>> http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/gender-ide
>>> ology-harms-children
>>>
>>> For those who try to claim that science supports the transsexual
>>> position.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> position.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Why are you so fixated on this topic, Hartung?
>>
>> This time last year you are all over the gay
>> marriage issue, now you are posting article after
>> article on transgender stories, somtimes several
>> per day.
>
> My guess is that you will get over it.
>
>
Just answer the question. You are the one
>>
>> This time last year you are all over the gay
>> marriage issue, now you are posting article after
>> article on transgender stories, somtimes several
>> per day.
>
> My guess is that you will get over it.
>
>
creating multiple notesteams about transgender
issuse. Why?
David Hartung
Mar 8, 2016, 8:42:26 PM3/8/16
to
On 03/08/2016 05:47 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
> David Hartung <d_ha...@h0tmail.com> wrote in
> news:DtmdnWGvAfCbSkPL...@giganews.com:
>
>> On 03/08/2016 07:34 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>> David Hartung <d_ha...@h0tmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:aI6dnRvdAqH3UEPL...@giganews.com:
>>>
>>>> http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/gender-ide
>>>> ology-harms-children
>>>>
>>>> For those who try to claim that science supports the transsexual
>>>> position.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Why are you so fixated on this topic, Hartung?
>>>
>>> This time last year you are all over the gay
>>> marriage issue, now you are posting article after
>>> article on transgender stories, somtimes several
>>> per day.
>>
>> My guess is that you will get over it.
>>
>>
>
> Just answer the question. You are the one
> creating multiple notesteams about transgender
> issuse. Why?
Because I choose to.
> David Hartung <d_ha...@h0tmail.com> wrote in
> news:DtmdnWGvAfCbSkPL...@giganews.com:
>
>> On 03/08/2016 07:34 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>> David Hartung <d_ha...@h0tmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:aI6dnRvdAqH3UEPL...@giganews.com:
>>>
>>>> http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/gender-ide
>>>> ology-harms-children
>>>>
>>>> For those who try to claim that science supports the transsexual
>>>> position.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Why are you so fixated on this topic, Hartung?
>>>
>>> This time last year you are all over the gay
>>> marriage issue, now you are posting article after
>>> article on transgender stories, somtimes several
>>> per day.
>>
>> My guess is that you will get over it.
>>
>>
>
> Just answer the question. You are the one
> creating multiple notesteams about transgender
> issuse. Why?
David Hartung
Mar 8, 2016, 8:43:58 PM3/8/16
to
wy
Mar 8, 2016, 9:07:44 PM3/8/16
to
Mitchell Holman
Mar 8, 2016, 9:56:18 PM3/8/16
to
David Hartung <d_ha...@h0tmail.com> wrote in
news:rq-dndlty6Id4kLL...@giganews.com:
Mitchell Holman
Mar 8, 2016, 10:00:47 PM3/8/16
to
David Hartung <d_ha...@h0tmail.com> wrote in
news:3vOdnVblscxK1ULL...@giganews.com:
>
> 2. Given the fact that these people are credentialed, practicing
> professionals, it is beyond a doubt that they are smarter and less
> idiotic than you.
"credentialed, practicing professionals" in the
fields of climatology, geology, paleontology,
history and evolutionary biology whose findings
you ignore because they prove you wrong.
David Hartung
Mar 8, 2016, 10:57:20 PM3/8/16
to
realize that it is possible to disagree with someone, while at the same
time recognizing that the person with whom you disagree is highly
intelligent? Wy isn't simply disagreeing with the position of the ACPEDS
people, he is claiming that because they do not agree with him, they are
stupid.
wy
Mar 8, 2016, 11:07:22 PM3/8/16
to
NoBody
Mar 9, 2016, 6:43:26 AM3/9/16
to
On Tue, 08 Mar 2016 17:47:22 -0600, Mitchell Holman
<noe...@verizon.net> wrote:
>David Hartung <d_ha...@h0tmail.com> wrote in
>news:DtmdnWGvAfCbSkPL...@giganews.com:
>
>> On 03/08/2016 07:34 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>> David Hartung <d_ha...@h0tmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:aI6dnRvdAqH3UEPL...@giganews.com:
>>>
>>>> http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/gender-ide
>>>> ology-harms-children
>>>>
>>>> For those who try to claim that science supports the transsexual
>>>> position.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Why are you so fixated on this topic, Hartung?
>>>
>>> This time last year you are all over the gay
>>> marriage issue, now you are posting article after
>>> article on transgender stories, somtimes several
>>> per day.
>>
>> My guess is that you will get over it.
>>
>>
>
> Just answer the question. You are the one
>creating multiple notesteams about transgender
>issuse. Why?
>
Mitchie is the only person on Usenet who doesn't know that
<noe...@verizon.net> wrote:
>David Hartung <d_ha...@h0tmail.com> wrote in
>news:DtmdnWGvAfCbSkPL...@giganews.com:
>
>> On 03/08/2016 07:34 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>> David Hartung <d_ha...@h0tmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:aI6dnRvdAqH3UEPL...@giganews.com:
>>>
>>>> http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/gender-ide
>>>> ology-harms-children
>>>>
>>>> For those who try to claim that science supports the transsexual
>>>> position.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Why are you so fixated on this topic, Hartung?
>>>
>>> This time last year you are all over the gay
>>> marriage issue, now you are posting article after
>>> article on transgender stories, somtimes several
>>> per day.
>>
>> My guess is that you will get over it.
>>
>>
>
> Just answer the question. You are the one
>creating multiple notesteams about transgender
>issuse. Why?
>
"notestreams" are called "threads".
>
NoBody
Mar 9, 2016, 6:46:55 AM3/9/16
to
NoBody
Mar 9, 2016, 6:52:43 AM3/9/16
to
that just says 200 without proof. Typical Wy "thinking".
NoBody
Mar 9, 2016, 6:53:17 AM3/9/16
to
Mitchell Holman
Mar 9, 2016, 8:11:44 AM3/9/16
to
David Hartung <d_ha...@h0tmail.com> wrote in
news:AMydnZKCKImDAkLL...@giganews.com:
and expertise of the people agreeing with you in
between bouts dismissing reports from people with
equal authority when they disagree with you.
That is a double standard, Hartung.
David Hartung
Mar 9, 2016, 8:29:50 AM3/9/16
to
wy
Mar 9, 2016, 10:46:51 AM3/9/16
to
Beam Me Up Scotty
Mar 9, 2016, 10:54:43 AM3/9/16
to
On 03/08/2016 04:00 PM, David Hartung wrote:
> On 03/08/2016 10:16 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> On 03/08/2016 10:16 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>> On 3/8/2016 5:02 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>> http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/gender-ideology-harms-children
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> For those who try to claim that science supports the transsexual
>>> position.
>>
>>> http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/gender-ideology-harms-children
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> For those who try to claim that science supports the transsexual
>>> position.
>>
>> This organization has a history of distorting science for ideological
>> purposes. They stand as a minority in the scientific community.
>>
>> http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/2010/04/19/another-look-at-francis-collins-rebuke-of-the-american-college-of-pediatricians/
>>
>
> From where I sit, the "majority" opinion is based far more on politics,
> than it is on research.
>
And yet it's a consensus among those in the ACP.
>> purposes. They stand as a minority in the scientific community.
>>
>> http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/2010/04/19/another-look-at-francis-collins-rebuke-of-the-american-college-of-pediatricians/
>>
>
> From where I sit, the "majority" opinion is based far more on politics,
> than it is on research.
>
And if it's politics, then the 60,000 are discriminating against the
minority that has decided that there is a real problem with using
children as guinea pigs in a GRAND Liberal social experiment.
What's to say that expiration won't collapse society and hurt a plethora
of children?
We see how the Governments Mortgage market "experiment" into sub-prime
loans worked out.
--
That's Karma
Beam Me Up Scotty
Mar 9, 2016, 11:19:23 AM3/9/16
to
On 03/08/2016 04:00 PM, David Hartung wrote:
> On 03/08/2016 10:16 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>> On 3/8/2016 5:02 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>> http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/gender-ideology-harms-children
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> For those who try to claim that science supports the transsexual
>>> position.
>>
>> This organization has a history of distorting science for ideological
>> purposes. They stand as a minority in the scientific community.
>>
>> http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/2010/04/19/another-look-at-francis-collins-rebuke-of-the-american-college-of-pediatricians/
>>
>
> From where I sit, the "majority" opinion is based far more on politics,
> than it is on research.
>
And yet it's a consensus among those in the ACP.
And if it's politics, then the 60,000 are discriminating against the
minority that has decided that there is a real problem with using
children as guinea pigs in a GRAND Liberal social experiment.
What's to say that experiment won't collapse society and hurt a plethora
> On 03/08/2016 10:16 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>> On 3/8/2016 5:02 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>> http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/gender-ideology-harms-children
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> For those who try to claim that science supports the transsexual
>>> position.
>>
>> This organization has a history of distorting science for ideological
>> purposes. They stand as a minority in the scientific community.
>>
>> http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/2010/04/19/another-look-at-francis-collins-rebuke-of-the-american-college-of-pediatricians/
>>
>
> From where I sit, the "majority" opinion is based far more on politics,
> than it is on research.
>
And yet it's a consensus among those in the ACP.
And if it's politics, then the 60,000 are discriminating against the
minority that has decided that there is a real problem with using
children as guinea pigs in a GRAND Liberal social experiment.
Brent Hasselback
Mar 9, 2016, 11:20:32 AM3/9/16
to
On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 7:02:36 AM UTC-6, David Hartung wrote:
As does the clergy...
As does the clergy...
Unknown
Mar 9, 2016, 11:57:37 AM3/9/16
to
Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
> We see how the Governments Mortgage market "experiment" into sub-prime
> loans worked out.
What we see is you lying again.
> loans worked out.
The reckless lending that drove house prices up
and ended in record defaults was financed through
private investment channels.
Loans financed through government sponsored lending
channels were the loans that failed the least often.
Loans financed by private investors through
private lending channels failed 10 times more often.
Beam Me Up Scotty
Mar 9, 2016, 12:18:03 PM3/9/16
to
their CRA legislation it's their fault.... and if government didn't stop
the reckless loans that collapsed the system it's still the government's
fault.
You keep telling us there was no regulation to stop it, but who's fault
was that? It was the Legislators. And Democrats stopped any NEW
regulation of Fannie/Freddie.
It was Barnie Frank and the Liberals fault.
The problem for you is that you chose to tell us that Government has the
power to make those laws and then you tell us that it's NOT their
responsibility to make those laws.
If you claim the power then you are responsible for the lack of using it
as well as the abuse of the power... that's why the constitution
delegates powers. SO that the government is responsible for what it's
delegated and nothing more..... and in this case the government had
taken the power and whether it was delegated is up for discussion.
That makes it abuse of power or a lack of responsibility.
But we know the government created the problem because you told us that
they have the power to regulate the mortgage markets.
--
That's Karma
Rudy Canoza
Mar 9, 2016, 12:20:46 PM3/9/16
to
On 3/9/2016 8:57 AM, jim wrote:
> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>> We see how the Governments Mortgage market "experiment" into sub-prime
>> loans worked out.
>
> What we see is me lying again.
> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>> We see how the Governments Mortgage market "experiment" into sub-prime
>> loans worked out.
>
Exactly.
>
> The reckless lending that drove house prices up
> and ended in record defaults was financed through
> private investment channels.
mortgage market: CRA and the disastrous "affordable housing" mandate
imposed on the GSEs by the Clinton administration.
That's what caused the bubble, scrotum. This is documented beyond all
dispute. Stop lying about it.
Rudy Canoza
Mar 9, 2016, 12:21:23 PM3/9/16
to
On 3/8/2016 7:26 AM, wy wrote:
fuck off.
> On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 8:02:36 AM UTC-5, David Hartung wrote:
>> http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/gender-ideology-harms-children
>>
>> For those who try to claim that science supports the transsexual position.
>
>> http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/gender-ideology-harms-children
>>
>> For those who try to claim that science supports the transsexual position.
>
> ACP is a right wingnut outfit that
ad hominem.
fuck off.
Rudy Canoza
Mar 9, 2016, 12:22:06 PM3/9/16
to
On 3/8/2016 8:16 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
purely due to *your* ideology.
> On 3/8/2016 5:02 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>> http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/gender-ideology-harms-children
>>
>>
>>
>> For those who try to claim that science supports the transsexual
>> position.
>
>> http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/gender-ideology-harms-children
>>
>>
>>
>> For those who try to claim that science supports the transsexual
>> position.
>
> This organization has a history of distorting science for ideological
> purposes.
Bullshit. You just don't like their conclusions, and your dislike is
> purposes.
purely due to *your* ideology.
DoD
Mar 9, 2016, 12:27:58 PM3/9/16
to
"Rudy Canoza" <c...@philhendrie.con> wrote in message
news:NXYDy.44881$1A2....@fx37.iad...
> On 3/9/2016 8:57 AM, jim wrote:
>> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>>> We see how the Governments Mortgage market "experiment" into sub-prime
>>> loans worked out.
>>
>> What we see is me lying again.
>
> Exactly.
>
>>
>> The reckless lending that drove house prices up
>> and ended in record defaults was financed through
>> private investment channels.
>
> Cut the shit, scrotum.
LOL....
>> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>>> We see how the Governments Mortgage market "experiment" into sub-prime
>>> loans worked out.
>>
>> What we see is me lying again.
>
> Exactly.
>
>>
>> The reckless lending that drove house prices up
>> and ended in record defaults was financed through
>> private investment channels.
>
> Cut the shit, scrotum.
Beam Me Up Scotty
Mar 9, 2016, 12:35:34 PM3/9/16
to
On 03/09/2016 11:57 AM, jim wrote:
Ted&Alice
Mar 9, 2016, 12:41:58 PM3/9/16
to
DoD
Mar 9, 2016, 12:54:39 PM3/9/16
to
"Ted&Alice" <ted.s...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dfe6fa28-16ac-4df9...@googlegroups.com...
are brilliant.. In fact, they quote dead people more than Christians do.
Beam Me Up Scotty
Mar 9, 2016, 1:06:45 PM3/9/16
to
error in that.
--
That's Karma
Vandar
Mar 9, 2016, 1:11:49 PM3/9/16
to
> news:aI6dnRvdAqH3UEPL...@giganews.com:
>
>> http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/gender-ide
> stake in this issue?
The left ensures that everyone has a personal stake in it, as anyone who
doesn't openly acknowledge and accept the left's position is subject to
ridicule and hostility.
>
>> http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/gender-ide
>> ology-harms-children
>>
>> For those who try to claim that science supports the transsexual
>> position.
>>
>
>
>
>>
>> For those who try to claim that science supports the transsexual
>> position.
>>
>
>
>
> Why are you so fixated on this topic, Hartung?
>
> This time last year you are all over the gay
> marriage issue, now you are posting article after
> article on transgender stories, somtimes several
> per day.
>
> Is this a crisis for you? Do you have a personal
>
> This time last year you are all over the gay
> marriage issue, now you are posting article after
> article on transgender stories, somtimes several
> per day.
>
> stake in this issue?
The left ensures that everyone has a personal stake in it, as anyone who
doesn't openly acknowledge and accept the left's position is subject to
ridicule and hostility.
Vandar
Mar 9, 2016, 1:13:34 PM3/9/16
to
On 3/8/2016 4:47 PM, David Hartung wrote:
> On 03/08/2016 03:38 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>> koo...@maricaibo.com wrote in
>> news:gbvtdblf4ss1jdvcf...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Tue, 8 Mar 2016 07:27:27 -0800 (PST), wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
>>>> anal fixation on the topic.
>>>
>>> Most loser religious zealots finally end up like Hartung----unable to
>>> accept change, clinging to a strict interpretation of
>>> (unproven/unprovable) religious dogma.
>>>
>>> Dealing with people like him---is historically a waste of time
>>>
>>> Fortunately, that side keeps losing ground generation after
>>> generation.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Hartung hates to be reminded of how fast his church is shrinking.
>
> Were we discussing my church?
Of course not, but you have dared once again to express disagreement
with some ridiculous issue the left holds dear, so every aspect of your
existence is now being targeted.
> On 03/08/2016 03:38 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>> koo...@maricaibo.com wrote in
>> news:gbvtdblf4ss1jdvcf...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Tue, 8 Mar 2016 07:27:27 -0800 (PST), wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 8:43:37 AM UTC-5, David Hartung wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Why are you so fixated on this topic, Hartung?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This time last year you are all over the gay
>>>>>> marriage issue, now you are posting article after
>>>>>> article on transgender stories, somtimes several
>>>>>> per day.
>>>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 8:43:37 AM UTC-5, David Hartung wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Why are you so fixated on this topic, Hartung?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This time last year you are all over the gay
>>>>>> marriage issue, now you are posting article after
>>>>>> article on transgender stories, somtimes several
>>>>>> per day.
>>>>>
>>>>> My guess is that you will get over it.
>>>>
>>>> You haven't seemed to have gotten over it. In fact, you've got a real
>>>>
>>>> anal fixation on the topic.
>>>
>>> Most loser religious zealots finally end up like Hartung----unable to
>>> accept change, clinging to a strict interpretation of
>>> (unproven/unprovable) religious dogma.
>>>
>>> Dealing with people like him---is historically a waste of time
>>>
>>> Fortunately, that side keeps losing ground generation after
>>> generation.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Hartung hates to be reminded of how fast his church is shrinking.
>
> Were we discussing my church?
Of course not, but you have dared once again to express disagreement
with some ridiculous issue the left holds dear, so every aspect of your
existence is now being targeted.
Unknown
Mar 9, 2016, 1:17:41 PM3/9/16
to
Rudy Canoza wrote:
> On 3/9/2016 8:57 AM, jim wrote:
>> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>>> We see how the Governments Mortgage market "experiment" into sub-prime
>>> loans worked out.
>>
>> What we see is me lying again.
>
> Exactly.
>
>>
>> The reckless lending that drove house prices up
>> and ended in record defaults was financed through
>> private investment channels.
>
> Cut the shit, scrotum. It was created by government meddling in the
> mortgage market: CRA and the disastrous "affordable housing" mandate
> imposed on the GSEs by the Clinton administration.
The evidence shows conclusively that is a lie.
> On 3/9/2016 8:57 AM, jim wrote:
>> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>>> We see how the Governments Mortgage market "experiment" into sub-prime
>>> loans worked out.
>>
>> What we see is me lying again.
>
> Exactly.
>
>>
>> The reckless lending that drove house prices up
>> and ended in record defaults was financed through
>> private investment channels.
>
> Cut the shit, scrotum. It was created by government meddling in the
> mortgage market: CRA and the disastrous "affordable housing" mandate
> imposed on the GSEs by the Clinton administration.
The GSEs financed mortgages that originated from 1995-2005
had an exceptionally low default rates. The loan losses for
mortgages from that period are much lower than the losses
from GSE financed mortgages that originated in the 1980's.
> http://www.americanbanker.com/bankthink/gse-critics-ignore-loan-performance-1059187-1.html
The only time that any significant amount home mortgages were financed
through private investment channels was during the housing
bubble. During the bubble private investors financed $6 trillion
worth of mortgages. Of that amount only 10% survive.
Compare that to Freddie and Fannie. Most of their mortgages
are still performing well, which is why Freddie and Fannie have made
10's of billions of dollars in profits in the last several years.
Unknown
Mar 9, 2016, 1:56:28 PM3/9/16
to
Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
> On 03/09/2016 11:57 AM, jim wrote:
>> >Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>>> >>We see how the Governments Mortgage market "experiment" into sub-prime
>>> >>loans worked out.
>> >
>> >What we see is you lying again.
>> >
>> >The reckless lending that drove house prices up
>> >and ended in record defaults was financed through
>> >private investment channels.
>> >
>> >Loans financed through government sponsored lending
>> >channels were the loans that failed the least often.
>> >Loans financed by private investors through
>> >private lending channels failed 10 times more often.
> *It's a paradox* , if government created the need for the loans with
> their CRA legislation it's their fault....
The govt did not create any need for loans.
> On 03/09/2016 11:57 AM, jim wrote:
>> >Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>>> >>We see how the Governments Mortgage market "experiment" into sub-prime
>>> >>loans worked out.
>> >
>> >What we see is you lying again.
>> >
>> >The reckless lending that drove house prices up
>> >and ended in record defaults was financed through
>> >private investment channels.
>> >
>> >Loans financed through government sponsored lending
>> >channels were the loans that failed the least often.
>> >Loans financed by private investors through
>> >private lending channels failed 10 times more often.
> *It's a paradox* , if government created the need for the loans with
> their CRA legislation it's their fault....
You are just plain lying.
During the bubble, private investors who held the
foolish belief that they would make huge profits
financed some of the stupidest loans ever conceived.
Loans were given to people with bad credit scores,
who were not required to put any money down and were
not required to show they had any assets or income.
And if that is not stupid enough, the mortgage contract
provided
that the lender would loan the borrower money each month
for the first few years so that the borrower could make
payments. Of course this meant that it was impossible
for these loans to last beyond the point when the
mortgage payments ballooned sky high.
And they didn't last.
These loans did make money as long as house
prices were rising rapidly and because millions
of these stupid loans were being financed by private
investors house prices did skyrocket for a while.
wy
Mar 9, 2016, 2:24:42 PM3/9/16
to
On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 12:18:03 PM UTC-5, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
> On 03/09/2016 11:57 AM, jim wrote:
> > Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
> >> We see how the Governments Mortgage market "experiment" into sub-prime
> >> loans worked out.
> >
> > What we see is you lying again.
> >
> > The reckless lending that drove house prices up
> > and ended in record defaults was financed through
> > private investment channels.
> >
> > Loans financed through government sponsored lending
> > channels were the loans that failed the least often.
> > Loans financed by private investors through
> > private lending channels failed 10 times more often.
>
> *It's a paradox* , if government created the need for the loans with
> their CRA legislation it's their fault.... and if government didn't stop
> the reckless loans that collapsed the system it's still the government's
> fault.
>
>
> You keep telling us there was no regulation to stop it, but who's fault
> was that? It was the Legislators. And Democrats stopped any NEW
> regulation of Fannie/Freddie.
>
> It was Barnie Frank and the Liberals fault.
It was Repugnants who killed the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999 and replaced it with the Gramm, Leach and Bliley Act that opened the floodgates for banks to merge with non-banks to engage in things like subprime loans. Coincidentally, that's when the subprime problem began to see its slow rise until Bush came along with his free down payment plan for home buyers in 2003 and the SEC removed the net capital rule on banks and other mortgage lenders in 2004, both of which opened the Pandora's Box as subprimes began to skyrocket over the next few years until - boom, crash!
> On 03/09/2016 11:57 AM, jim wrote:
> > Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
> >> We see how the Governments Mortgage market "experiment" into sub-prime
> >> loans worked out.
> >
> > What we see is you lying again.
> >
> > The reckless lending that drove house prices up
> > and ended in record defaults was financed through
> > private investment channels.
> >
> > Loans financed through government sponsored lending
> > channels were the loans that failed the least often.
> > Loans financed by private investors through
> > private lending channels failed 10 times more often.
>
> *It's a paradox* , if government created the need for the loans with
> their CRA legislation it's their fault.... and if government didn't stop
> the reckless loans that collapsed the system it's still the government's
> fault.
>
>
> You keep telling us there was no regulation to stop it, but who's fault
> was that? It was the Legislators. And Democrats stopped any NEW
> regulation of Fannie/Freddie.
>
> It was Barnie Frank and the Liberals fault.
Ted&Alice
Mar 9, 2016, 2:25:41 PM3/9/16
to
Ted&Alice
Mar 9, 2016, 2:36:13 PM3/9/16
to
DoD
Mar 9, 2016, 2:36:18 PM3/9/16
to
news:a15870f4-8940-4966...@googlegroups.com...
???? So you can't name a brilliant alt.atheism personality, but you claim
they are brilliant? Well, allrighty then.
they are brilliant? Well, allrighty then.
Ted&Alice
Mar 9, 2016, 2:40:00 PM3/9/16
to
DoD
Mar 9, 2016, 2:41:23 PM3/9/16
to
news:7a9e5bdf-0a1a-4368...@googlegroups.com...
You just said that you think alt.atheism personalities are brilliant, but
you can't name one, and I am the moron?
you can't name one, and I am the moron?
Vandar
Mar 9, 2016, 2:42:40 PM3/9/16
to
On 3/8/2016 11:32 AM, koo...@maricaibo.com wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Mar 2016 07:45:39 -0600, David Hartung
> <d_ha...@h0tmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> You truly are just So Fucking STUPID, Hartung.
>>
>> At this point, it is you who is being stupid, you may wish to get over it.
>
> It isn't very smart to keep offering "belief" as evidence for any
> given position for, or against something that tweaks yer nose.
That's what you do with nearly everything.
> On Tue, 8 Mar 2016 07:45:39 -0600, David Hartung
> <d_ha...@h0tmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> You truly are just So Fucking STUPID, Hartung.
>>
>> At this point, it is you who is being stupid, you may wish to get over it.
>
> It isn't very smart to keep offering "belief" as evidence for any
> given position for, or against something that tweaks yer nose.
That's what you do with nearly everything.
Ted&Alice
Mar 9, 2016, 3:00:52 PM3/9/16
to
DoD
Mar 9, 2016, 3:08:01 PM3/9/16
to
news:f25fcb40-5fc5-4e05...@googlegroups.com...
Probably because you would be embarrassed by making statements like
alt.atheism has brilliant personalities
but you can't name a single one.... Maybe your dog would understand your
line of thinking....
> Btw, what does "DoD" mean? (Yes, I'm trying to change the subject.)
You can't work through what DoD stands for, and yet you say that I am a
moron? Maybe you can ask your dog..
alt.atheism has brilliant personalities
but you can't name a single one.... Maybe your dog would understand your
line of thinking....
> Btw, what does "DoD" mean? (Yes, I'm trying to change the subject.)
moron? Maybe you can ask your dog..
Ted&Alice
Mar 9, 2016, 3:31:01 PM3/9/16
to
Gunner Asch
Mar 9, 2016, 4:32:43 PM3/9/16
to
try to blame someone else..anyone else..desperately...
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
David Hartung
Mar 9, 2016, 5:05:18 PM3/9/16
to
Rudy Canoza
Mar 9, 2016, 5:09:44 PM3/9/16
to
On 3/9/2016 10:17 AM, scrotum lied:
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 3/9/2016 8:57 AM, scrotum lied:
happened, scrotum.
You, scrotum, have never seen any evidence.
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 3/9/2016 8:57 AM, scrotum lied:
>>> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>>>> We see how the Governments Mortgage market "experiment" into sub-prime
>>>> loans worked out.
>>>
>>> What we see is me lying again.
>>
>> Exactly.
>>
>>>
>>> The reckless lending that drove house prices up
>>> and ended in record defaults was financed through
>>> private investment channels.
>>
>> Cut the shit, scrotum. It was created by government meddling in the
>> mortgage market: CRA and the disastrous "affordable housing" mandate
>> imposed on the GSEs by the Clinton administration.
>
> The evidence shows conclusively that is a lie.
No, the evidence shows conclusively that that is *exactly* what
>>>> We see how the Governments Mortgage market "experiment" into sub-prime
>>>> loans worked out.
>>>
>>> What we see is me lying again.
>>
>> Exactly.
>>
>>>
>>> The reckless lending that drove house prices up
>>> and ended in record defaults was financed through
>>> private investment channels.
>>
>> Cut the shit, scrotum. It was created by government meddling in the
>> mortgage market: CRA and the disastrous "affordable housing" mandate
>> imposed on the GSEs by the Clinton administration.
>
> The evidence shows conclusively that is a lie.
happened, scrotum.
You, scrotum, have never seen any evidence.
David Hartung
Mar 9, 2016, 5:10:19 PM3/9/16
to
On 03/09/2016 01:24 PM, wy wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 12:18:03 PM UTC-5, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>> On 03/09/2016 11:57 AM, jim wrote:
>>> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>>>> We see how the Governments Mortgage market "experiment" into sub-prime
>>>> loans worked out.
>>>
>>> What we see is you lying again.
>>>
>>> The reckless lending that drove house prices up
>>> and ended in record defaults was financed through
>>> private investment channels.
>>>
>>> Loans financed through government sponsored lending
>>> channels were the loans that failed the least often.
>>> Loans financed by private investors through
>>> private lending channels failed 10 times more often.
>>
>> *It's a paradox* , if government created the need for the loans with
>> their CRA legislation it's their fault.... and if government didn't stop
>> the reckless loans that collapsed the system it's still the government's
>> fault.
>>
>>
>> You keep telling us there was no regulation to stop it, but who's fault
>> was that? It was the Legislators. And Democrats stopped any NEW
>> regulation of Fannie/Freddie.
>>
>> It was Barnie Frank and the Liberals fault.
>
> It was Repugnants who killed the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999 and replaced it with the Gramm, Leach and Bliley Act
Which Clinton obviously signed, thus the Democrats share any blame which
> On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 12:18:03 PM UTC-5, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>> On 03/09/2016 11:57 AM, jim wrote:
>>> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>>>> We see how the Governments Mortgage market "experiment" into sub-prime
>>>> loans worked out.
>>>
>>> What we see is you lying again.
>>>
>>> The reckless lending that drove house prices up
>>> and ended in record defaults was financed through
>>> private investment channels.
>>>
>>> Loans financed through government sponsored lending
>>> channels were the loans that failed the least often.
>>> Loans financed by private investors through
>>> private lending channels failed 10 times more often.
>>
>> *It's a paradox* , if government created the need for the loans with
>> their CRA legislation it's their fault.... and if government didn't stop
>> the reckless loans that collapsed the system it's still the government's
>> fault.
>>
>>
>> You keep telling us there was no regulation to stop it, but who's fault
>> was that? It was the Legislators. And Democrats stopped any NEW
>> regulation of Fannie/Freddie.
>>
>> It was Barnie Frank and the Liberals fault.
>
> It was Repugnants who killed the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999 and replaced it with the Gramm, Leach and Bliley Act
may be appropriate.
Rudy Canoza
Mar 9, 2016, 5:11:26 PM3/9/16
to
On 3/9/2016 10:56 AM, scrotum lied:
obliging them to buy no-down-payment mortgages, that's exactly what the
government did, scrotum. By holding a gun to the head of the commercial
banks and forcing them to make loans to inner city deadbeats, that's
exactly what they did, scrotum.
Stop lying, scrotum.
> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>> On 03/09/2016 11:57 AM, scrotum lied:
>>> >Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>>>> >>We see how the Governments Mortgage market "experiment" into
>>>> sub-prime
>>>> >>loans worked out.
>>> >
>>> >What we see is you lying again.
>>> >
>>> >The reckless lending that drove house prices up
>>> >and ended in record defaults was financed through
>>> >private investment channels.
>>> >
>>> >Loans financed through government sponsored lending
>>> >channels were the loans that failed the least often.
>>> >Loans financed by private investors through
>>> >private lending channels failed 10 times more often.
>
>> *It's a paradox* , if government created the need for the loans with
>> their CRA legislation it's their fault....
>
> The govt did not create any need for loans.
They sure did, scrotum. By holding a gun to the head of the GSEs and
>>>> >>We see how the Governments Mortgage market "experiment" into
>>>> sub-prime
>>>> >>loans worked out.
>>> >
>>> >What we see is you lying again.
>>> >
>>> >The reckless lending that drove house prices up
>>> >and ended in record defaults was financed through
>>> >private investment channels.
>>> >
>>> >Loans financed through government sponsored lending
>>> >channels were the loans that failed the least often.
>>> >Loans financed by private investors through
>>> >private lending channels failed 10 times more often.
>
>> *It's a paradox* , if government created the need for the loans with
>> their CRA legislation it's their fault....
>
> The govt did not create any need for loans.
obliging them to buy no-down-payment mortgages, that's exactly what the
government did, scrotum. By holding a gun to the head of the commercial
banks and forcing them to make loans to inner city deadbeats, that's
exactly what they did, scrotum.
Stop lying, scrotum.
wy
Mar 9, 2016, 5:13:47 PM3/9/16
to
Unknown
Mar 9, 2016, 5:16:30 PM3/9/16
to
Gunner Asch wrote:
>>
>> But we know the government created the problem because you told us that
>> they have the power to regulate the mortgage markets.
>
> Lefties like Jim are unable to admit they fucked up. And they always
> try to blame someone else..anyone else..desperately...
>
You guys are lying and you know it.
>>
>> But we know the government created the problem because you told us that
>> they have the power to regulate the mortgage markets.
>
> Lefties like Jim are unable to admit they fucked up. And they always
> try to blame someone else..anyone else..desperately...
>
The government does not tell private investors
where they can place their investments.
If investors put money into foolish investments
there is nothing the govt can do to prevent
it.
Its called free enterprise.
Look it up. It actually does exist.
There is nothing preventing private
investors from financing the same mortgages
today that they financed before the 2008 collapse.
The only reason investors financed $6 trillion
worth of mortgages during the bubble and today
they finance close to zero is because back then
they thought it was a clever investment and
today they regard it as a stupid investment.
Unknown
Mar 9, 2016, 5:21:50 PM3/9/16
to
Rudy Canoza wrote:
> n 3/9/2016 10:17 AM, scrotum lied:
>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> On 3/9/2016 8:57 AM, scrotum lied:
>>>> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>>>>> We see how the Governments Mortgage market "experiment" into sub-prime
>>>>> loans worked out.
>>>>
>>>> What we see is me lying again.
>>>
>>> Exactly.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The reckless lending that drove house prices up
>>>> and ended in record defaults was financed through
>>>> private investment channels.
>>>
>>> Cut the shit, scrotum. It was created by government meddling in the
>>> mortgage market: CRA and the disastrous "affordable housing" mandate
>>> imposed on the GSEs by the Clinton administration.
>>
>> The evidence shows conclusively that is a lie.
>
> No, the evidence shows conclusively that
You snip and run from Evidence.
> n 3/9/2016 10:17 AM, scrotum lied:
>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> On 3/9/2016 8:57 AM, scrotum lied:
>>>> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>>>>> We see how the Governments Mortgage market "experiment" into sub-prime
>>>>> loans worked out.
>>>>
>>>> What we see is me lying again.
>>>
>>> Exactly.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The reckless lending that drove house prices up
>>>> and ended in record defaults was financed through
>>>> private investment channels.
>>>
>>> Cut the shit, scrotum. It was created by government meddling in the
>>> mortgage market: CRA and the disastrous "affordable housing" mandate
>>> imposed on the GSEs by the Clinton administration.
>>
>> The evidence shows conclusively that is a lie.
>
> No, the evidence shows conclusively that
Mortgages financed by Freddie and Fannie, that originated from
1995-2005, had an exceptionally low default rates. The loan losses
for mortgages from that period are much lower than the losses
from GSE financed mortgages that originated in the 1980's.
http://www.americanbanker.com/bankthink/gse-critics-ignore-loan-performance-1059187-1.html
The only time that any significant amount home mortgages were financed
through private investment channels was during the pre-2008 housing
from GSE financed mortgages that originated in the 1980's.
http://www.americanbanker.com/bankthink/gse-critics-ignore-loan-performance-1059187-1.html
The only time that any significant amount home mortgages were financed
bubble. During the bubble private investors financed $6 trillion
worth of mortgages. Of that amount only 10% survive today.
Rudy Canoza
Mar 9, 2016, 5:26:33 PM3/9/16
to
On 3/9/2016 2:21 PM, scrotum lied:
I snip your bullshit every time. Yes.
> Mortgages financed by Freddie and Fannie, that originated from
> 1995-2005, had an exceptionally low default rates.
1. Bullshit
2. The GSEs *still* caused the bubble, regardless of their default rate.
Stop lying, scrotum. This isn't about the GSEs' default rate, and it
never was. It's about what caused the bubble, scrotum, and what caused
it was the GSEs and CRA. This is not in dispute.
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> n 3/9/2016 10:17 AM, scrotum lied:
>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> On 3/9/2016 8:57 AM, scrotum lied:
>>>>> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>>>>>> We see how the Governments Mortgage market "experiment" into
>>>>>> sub-prime
>>>>>> loans worked out.
>>>>>
>>>>> What we see is me lying again.
>>>>
>>>> Exactly.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The reckless lending that drove house prices up
>>>>> and ended in record defaults was financed through
>>>>> private investment channels.
>>>>
>>>> Cut the shit, scrotum. It was created by government meddling in the
>>>> mortgage market: CRA and the disastrous "affordable housing" mandate
>>>> imposed on the GSEs by the Clinton administration.
>>>
>>> The evidence shows conclusively that is a lie.
>>
>> n 3/9/2016 10:17 AM, scrotum lied:
>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> On 3/9/2016 8:57 AM, scrotum lied:
>>>>> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>>>>>> We see how the Governments Mortgage market "experiment" into
>>>>>> sub-prime
>>>>>> loans worked out.
>>>>>
>>>>> What we see is me lying again.
>>>>
>>>> Exactly.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The reckless lending that drove house prices up
>>>>> and ended in record defaults was financed through
>>>>> private investment channels.
>>>>
>>>> Cut the shit, scrotum. It was created by government meddling in the
>>>> mortgage market: CRA and the disastrous "affordable housing" mandate
>>>> imposed on the GSEs by the Clinton administration.
>>>
>>> The evidence shows conclusively that is a lie.
>>
>> No, the evidence shows conclusively that that is *exactly* what
>> happened, scrotum.
>>
>> You, scrotum, have never seen any evidence.
>
> You snip and
>> happened, scrotum.
>>
>> You, scrotum, have never seen any evidence.
>
I snip your bullshit every time. Yes.
> Mortgages financed by Freddie and Fannie, that originated from
> 1995-2005, had an exceptionally low default rates.
2. The GSEs *still* caused the bubble, regardless of their default rate.
Stop lying, scrotum. This isn't about the GSEs' default rate, and it
never was. It's about what caused the bubble, scrotum, and what caused
it was the GSEs and CRA. This is not in dispute.
Unknown
Mar 9, 2016, 5:33:36 PM3/9/16
to
Rudy Canoza wrote:
> On 3/9/2016 10:56 AM, scrotum lied:
>> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>>> On 03/09/2016 11:57 AM, scrotum lied:
>>>> >Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>>>>> >>We see how the Governments Mortgage market "experiment" into
>>>>> sub-prime
>>>>> >>loans worked out.
>>>> >
>>>> >What we see is you lying again.
>>>> >
>>>> >The reckless lending that drove house prices up
>>>> >and ended in record defaults was financed through
>>>> >private investment channels.
>>>> >
>>>> >Loans financed through government sponsored lending
>>>> >channels were the loans that failed the least often.
>>>> >Loans financed by private investors through
>>>> >private lending channels failed 10 times more often.
>>
>>> *It's a paradox* , if government created the need for the loans with
>>> their CRA legislation it's their fault....
>>
>> The govt did not create any need for loans.
>
> They sure did, scrotum. By holding a gun to the head of the GSEs and
> obliging them to buy no-down-payment mortgages,
You are lying.
> On 3/9/2016 10:56 AM, scrotum lied:
>> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>>> On 03/09/2016 11:57 AM, scrotum lied:
>>>> >Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>>>>> >>We see how the Governments Mortgage market "experiment" into
>>>>> sub-prime
>>>>> >>loans worked out.
>>>> >
>>>> >What we see is you lying again.
>>>> >
>>>> >The reckless lending that drove house prices up
>>>> >and ended in record defaults was financed through
>>>> >private investment channels.
>>>> >
>>>> >Loans financed through government sponsored lending
>>>> >channels were the loans that failed the least often.
>>>> >Loans financed by private investors through
>>>> >private lending channels failed 10 times more often.
>>
>>> *It's a paradox* , if government created the need for the loans with
>>> their CRA legislation it's their fault....
>>
>> The govt did not create any need for loans.
>
> They sure did, scrotum. By holding a gun to the head of the GSEs and
> obliging them to buy no-down-payment mortgages,
The federal statutes limit the amount
exposure to risk that the Freddie and Fannie are allowed
to 80% of the value of the mortgaged property.
To qualify for financing or loan guaranteed from
F&F the borrower must put a down payment of at
least 20% or get other financing for the remaining
20% because F&F are not and have never been allowed
to finance more that 80%.
If you want to know who financed the reckless loans look
where the losses occurred. The loans financed by F&F
had the lowest loss rate. No other source of mortgage
financing even comes close to doing as well.
wy
Mar 9, 2016, 5:37:54 PM3/9/16
to
Unknown
Mar 9, 2016, 5:38:44 PM3/9/16
to
Rudy Canoza wrote:
> 2. The GSEs *still* caused the bubble, regardless of their default rate.
Their default rate is evidence that shows conclusively
> 2. The GSEs *still* caused the bubble, regardless of their default rate.
that you have been lying when you claimed F&F were financing
the bad loans
The default rate of the loans financed by private investors
is evidence of who was really financing the bad loans.
Vandar
Mar 9, 2016, 5:44:39 PM3/9/16
to
On 3/9/2016 4:55 PM, koo...@maricaibo.com wrote:
> So---telling you what YOU say you believe is (typical) ignorant,
> rightwing, bullshit is a "belief"--to you?
No. Your beliefs are bullshit, to everyone.
> I point out the historical evidence of what your ideology has done to
> america, did to various nations of the world, and today, continues to
> ruin america.
It isn't my ideology and they aren't the only people responsible.
> I can cite the "evidence" to back a claim that CONSERVATIVES used,
> defended, fought wars, continue to venerate those who did---in the
> public history of America
And it can be countered with the exact same thing used by liberals.
It's pointless to only acknowledge one side of reality.
Doing so, one could point out that it's the left that shoots presidents
and drops atomic bombs.
> By extension--those who defend, support, and continue to aid and abet
> conservative(ism) today--are complicit in past, present,and future
> bad.
And for all the time and energy you expend whining and lying, you will
accomplish exactly nothing.
> rightwing, bullshit is a "belief"--to you?
No. Your beliefs are bullshit, to everyone.
> I point out the historical evidence of what your ideology has done to
> america, did to various nations of the world, and today, continues to
> ruin america.
It isn't my ideology and they aren't the only people responsible.
> I can cite the "evidence" to back a claim that CONSERVATIVES used,
> defended, fought wars, continue to venerate those who did---in the
> public history of America
And it can be countered with the exact same thing used by liberals.
It's pointless to only acknowledge one side of reality.
Doing so, one could point out that it's the left that shoots presidents
and drops atomic bombs.
> By extension--those who defend, support, and continue to aid and abet
> conservative(ism) today--are complicit in past, present,and future
> bad.
And for all the time and energy you expend whining and lying, you will
accomplish exactly nothing.
wy
Mar 9, 2016, 5:53:56 PM3/9/16
to
Ted&Alice Street
Mar 9, 2016, 6:32:00 PM3/9/16
to
koo...@maricaibo.com wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Mar 2016 11:36:10 -0800 (PST), "Ted&Alice"
> <ted.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Leftists and brilliance in the same sentence.... there has to be an
> >> error in that.
> >>
> >
> > Judging by what I see here, I'd have to agree.
>
> a) your "judgement" isn't reall that impotant
>
> b) the fact that nothing in any religious document or tome is
> predicated on facts and evidence--but merely "belief" and the "faith"
> that it's truth.
>
> c) Backing any argument on a, or b, is rather pretentious---and wrong.
>
> (does not include references to historical facts and evidence--but
> they are sometimes in the wrong era, or borrowed from oral tradition
> handed down thru centuries---LONG before the advent of a "single-god"
> universe)
I can't say I disagree with what you just said. Were you expecting me
to?
> On Wed, 9 Mar 2016 11:36:10 -0800 (PST), "Ted&Alice"
> <ted.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Leftists and brilliance in the same sentence.... there has to be an
> >> error in that.
> >>
> >
> > Judging by what I see here, I'd have to agree.
>
>
> b) the fact that nothing in any religious document or tome is
> predicated on facts and evidence--but merely "belief" and the "faith"
> that it's truth.
>
> c) Backing any argument on a, or b, is rather pretentious---and wrong.
>
> (does not include references to historical facts and evidence--but
> they are sometimes in the wrong era, or borrowed from oral tradition
> handed down thru centuries---LONG before the advent of a "single-god"
> universe)
I can't say I disagree with what you just said. Were you expecting me
to?
Beam Me Up Scotty
Mar 9, 2016, 7:10:13 PM3/9/16
to
the subject is skewed after that. It's a common tactic of losers to
change the subject when Liberals are wrong (which is why almost every
discussion ends with a Liberal calling someone a racist or homophobe).
Liberals are always wrong.
--
That's Karma
wy
Mar 9, 2016, 7:31:45 PM3/9/16
to
Boy, you're stupid.
Rudy Canoza
Mar 9, 2016, 8:03:35 PM3/9/16
to
On 3/9/2016 2:33 PM, jim wrote:
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 3/9/2016 10:56 AM, scrotum lied:
>>> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>>>> On 03/09/2016 11:57 AM, scrotum lied:
>>>>> >Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>>>>>> >>We see how the Governments Mortgage market "experiment" into
>>>>>> sub-prime
>>>>>> >>loans worked out.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >What we see is you lying again.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >The reckless lending that drove house prices up
>>>>> >and ended in record defaults was financed through
>>>>> >private investment channels.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >Loans financed through government sponsored lending
>>>>> >channels were the loans that failed the least often.
>>>>> >Loans financed by private investors through
>>>>> >private lending channels failed 10 times more often.
>>>
>>>> *It's a paradox* , if government created the need for the loans with
>>>> their CRA legislation it's their fault....
>>>
>>> The govt did not create any need for loans.
>>
>> They sure did, scrotum. By holding a gun to the head of the GSEs and
>> obliging them to buy no-down-payment mortgages,
>
>
> You are lying.
No, you are lying, scrotum.
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 3/9/2016 10:56 AM, scrotum lied:
>>> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>>>> On 03/09/2016 11:57 AM, scrotum lied:
>>>>> >Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>>>>>> >>We see how the Governments Mortgage market "experiment" into
>>>>>> sub-prime
>>>>>> >>loans worked out.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >What we see is you lying again.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >The reckless lending that drove house prices up
>>>>> >and ended in record defaults was financed through
>>>>> >private investment channels.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >Loans financed through government sponsored lending
>>>>> >channels were the loans that failed the least often.
>>>>> >Loans financed by private investors through
>>>>> >private lending channels failed 10 times more often.
>>>
>>>> *It's a paradox* , if government created the need for the loans with
>>>> their CRA legislation it's their fault....
>>>
>>> The govt did not create any need for loans.
>>
>> They sure did, scrotum. By holding a gun to the head of the GSEs and
>> obliging them to buy no-down-payment mortgages,
>
>
> You are lying.
> The federal statutes limit the amount
> exposure to risk that the Freddie and Fannie are allowed
> to 80% of the value of the mortgaged property.
GSEs Officially Lower Down Payment to 3 Percent for Qualifying
First-Time Homebuyers
http://www.dsnews.com/news/12-08-2014/gses-officially-lower-down-payment-to-3-percent-for-qualifying-first-time-homebuyers
Oh, and why are they doing it?
By lowering the down payment down to 3 percent, leaders from the
GSEs and the Federal Housing Finance Administration (FHFA) hope to
increase homeownership and particularly household formation by
offering loans to those who can afford mortgages but lack resources
to make a 20 percent down payment plus closing costs.
Same as the last time: to "help" deadbeats buy houses they can't afford.
Meanwhile, let's look at some GSE default rates from the last fiasco:
Down payment size as
percent of house price
Year FICO >= 20% 10-20% 5-10% 3-5%
2004 <=700 7.7 11.3 12.5 13.1
701-750 3.4 6.4 6.8 7.3
> 750 1.4 3.8 4.3 4.1
2007 <=700 20.9 30.7 30.8 35.6
701-750 11.1 19.7 18.2 21.3
> 750 11.9 23.2 22.7 27.8
The higher the loan to value, the more defaults. The GSEs are once
again causing a bubble by buying low-down-payment mortgages issued to
deadbeats, and the default rate will be another catastrophe.
Stop lying about it, scrotum. The GSEs cause the bubbles - not in dispute.
Rudy Canoza
Mar 9, 2016, 8:06:28 PM3/9/16
to
On 3/9/2016 2:38 PM, scrotum lied:
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>> 2. The GSEs *still* caused the bubble, regardless of their default rate.
>
> Their default rate is evidence that shows conclusively
> that you have been lying when you claimed F&F were financing
> the bad loans
>
> The default rate of the loans financed by private investors
No.
>
>> 2. The GSEs *still* caused the bubble, regardless of their default rate.
>
> Their default rate is evidence that shows conclusively
> that you have been lying when you claimed F&F were financing
> the bad loans
>
> The default rate of the loans financed by private investors
David Hartung
Mar 9, 2016, 8:43:39 PM3/9/16
to
This ought to be interesting
On 03/09/2016 03:55 PM, koo...@maricaibo.com wrote:
> I can cite the "evidence" to back a claim that CONSERVATIVES used,
> defended, fought wars, continue to venerate those who did---in the
> public history of America
What is your definition of conservative.
On 03/09/2016 03:55 PM, koo...@maricaibo.com wrote:
> I can cite the "evidence" to back a claim that CONSERVATIVES used,
> defended, fought wars, continue to venerate those who did---in the
> public history of America
David Hartung
Mar 9, 2016, 8:45:26 PM3/9/16
to
override a veto would have required a 60% vote in each house of Congress.
wy
Mar 9, 2016, 8:49:15 PM3/9/16
to
wy
Mar 9, 2016, 8:58:25 PM3/9/16
to
Mitchell Holman
Mar 9, 2016, 9:50:43 PM3/9/16
to
Vandar <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:nbpora$oid$1...@dont-email.me:
> On 3/8/2016 8:34 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>> David Hartung <d_ha...@h0tmail.com> wrote in
>> news:aI6dnRvdAqH3UEPL...@giganews.com:
>>
>>> http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/gender-ide
>> stake in this issue?
>
> The left ensures that everyone has a personal stake in it, as anyone who
> doesn't openly acknowledge and accept the left's position is subject to
> ridicule and hostility.
>
>
You want some cheese to go with whine?
> On 3/8/2016 8:34 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>> David Hartung <d_ha...@h0tmail.com> wrote in
>> news:aI6dnRvdAqH3UEPL...@giganews.com:
>>
>>> http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/gender-ide
>>> ology-harms-children
>>>
>>> For those who try to claim that science supports the transsexual
>>> position.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> For those who try to claim that science supports the transsexual
>>> position.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Why are you so fixated on this topic, Hartung?
>>
>> This time last year you are all over the gay
>> marriage issue, now you are posting article after
>> article on transgender stories, somtimes several
>> per day.
>>
>> Is this a crisis for you? Do you have a personal
>>
>> This time last year you are all over the gay
>> marriage issue, now you are posting article after
>> article on transgender stories, somtimes several
>> per day.
>>
>> stake in this issue?
>
> The left ensures that everyone has a personal stake in it, as anyone who
> doesn't openly acknowledge and accept the left's position is subject to
> ridicule and hostility.
>
>
You want some cheese to go with whine?
Mitchell Holman
Mar 9, 2016, 10:03:12 PM3/9/16
to
Beam Me Up Scotty <There-are-no-Int...@nebulax.com> wrote
in news:DX2Ey.23081$GB1....@fx28.iad:
>
> Liberals are always wrong.
>
Except when liberals agree with conservatives.
In which case they are wrong as well.
GOP Opposes Their Own Ideas — If Obama Backs Them
Tue, 26 Jun 2012
One idea Republicans had been pushing was a proposal
for a bipartisan commission to recommend tough deficit-
reduction measures. But then the Obama administration
decided to embrace the idea.
And, lo and behold, as Mike Allen reported in Politico,
the Republicans promptly turned on their heels and
repudiated it. Six of the bill's Republican co-sponsors
voted against it. The justification was that mumble mumble
tax increases mumble.
Obama:
"This law failed by seven votes when seven Republicans
who had co-sponsored the bill — had co-sponsored the
idea — suddenly walked away from their own proposal after
I endorsed it"
http://tinyurl.com/9dy4ybz
Mitchell Holman
Mar 9, 2016, 10:06:50 PM3/9/16
to
David Hartung <d_ha...@h0tmail.com> wrote in
news:cL6dnf9kIanVTH3L...@giganews.com:
- favouring the preservation of established
customs, values, etc, and opposing innovation
- tending to be moderate or cautious
- a person who is reluctant to change or consider
new ideas; conformist
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conservative
Easy to see why every new idea or attempt
at progress is opposed by conservatives.....
Unknown
Mar 9, 2016, 10:28:37 PM3/9/16
to
The law forbids Freddie and Fannie from covering
more than 80% of the value of the mortgaged property.
U.S. Code › Title 12 › Chapter 11A › § 1454
Any amount over that is risk that someone else
is taking.
David Hartung
Mar 10, 2016, 12:10:34 AM3/10/16
to
1. Clinton had the choice, he always had a choice.
2. For a presidential veto to be overridden, requires a two thirds vote
in each house of Congress, not just one.
David Hartung
Mar 10, 2016, 12:11:31 AM3/10/16
to
On 03/09/2016 10:55 PM, koo...@maricaibo.com wrote:
> continued conservative dominated government in America
Talk about believing a fairy tale.
> On Wed, 9 Mar 2016 19:45:24 -0600, David Hartung
> <d_ha...@h0tmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> It was Repugnants who killed the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999 and replaced it with the Gramm, Leach and Bliley Act
>>>>
>>>> Which Clinton obviously signed, thus the Democrats share any blame which
>>>> may be appropriate.
>>>
>>> He only signed it because he didn't have the votes to veto it.
>>
>> The act was passed in the Senate with only a 53 vote majority, to
>> override a veto would have required a 60% vote in each house of Congress.
>
> There is NO doubt--the demise of the national economy was/is due to
> <d_ha...@h0tmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> It was Repugnants who killed the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999 and replaced it with the Gramm, Leach and Bliley Act
>>>>
>>>> Which Clinton obviously signed, thus the Democrats share any blame which
>>>> may be appropriate.
>>>
>>> He only signed it because he didn't have the votes to veto it.
>>
>> The act was passed in the Senate with only a 53 vote majority, to
>> override a veto would have required a 60% vote in each house of Congress.
>
> continued conservative dominated government in America
Talk about believing a fairy tale.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages