"Guilt By Association"?
Lifsabsurd
outlaw or is that just "guilt by association"?
Obama was a MEMBER of a black racist church for about 20 years. He
lied when he said he did not know what Rev. Wright stood for. He
OBVIOUSLY lied.
Obama was a MEMBER of the extremely corrupt group, ACORN. He trained
ACORN employees. He lied about it. He OBVIOUSLY lied.
Obama was a MEMBER of the radical Woods Foundation.
Obama was a MEMBER of the board with unrepentent communist Bill Ayres
for several years. Bill Ayers hired him. He lied about his
associations with Bill Ayres. He is still lying.
Obama was up to his nose in corrupt Chicago politics. He undoubtedly
helped the Shady Syrian, Tony Rezko, to rip off the poor.
But that is only guilt by association?
Riiiiiight. And bad is good. And up is down.
I honestly believe that there is so much insanity (a result of
jealousy/hatred of the rich by the poor, hatred of whites by
minorities, and hatred of men by liberal women - all manifestations of
group or class paranoia), especially among Demoncraps, that it is next
to impossible for many people to see the simple truth.
In fact, with the financial mess the Demoncraps created, people are
even more susceptible to falliing for the class paranoia. It is all
very Orwellian. Socialists/Marxists, egged on by their severe class
paranoia, try to give housing to the poor and just succeed in severely
damaging the country and the world. And it only engenders more class
paranoia and more socialist/Marxist thinking.
Mitchell Holman
18082f...@t65g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
> If someone is a MEMBER of the Jesse James gang for years is he an
> outlaw or is that just "guilt by association"?
>
> Obama was a MEMBER of a black racist church for about 20 years. He
> lied when he said he did not know what Rev. Wright stood for. He
> OBVIOUSLY lied.
>
> Obama was a MEMBER of the extremely corrupt group, ACORN. He trained
> ACORN employees. He lied about it. He OBVIOUSLY lied.
>
> Obama was a MEMBER of the radical Woods Foundation.
>
> Obama was a MEMBER of the board with unrepentent communist Bill Ayres
> for several years. Bill Ayers hired him. He lied about his
> associations with Bill Ayres. He is still lying.
>
> Obama was up to his nose in corrupt Chicago politics. He undoubtedly
> helped the Shady Syrian, Tony Rezko, to rip off the poor.
>
> But that is only guilt by association?
None of that BS mattered when Hillary trotted it
out, none of it matters now.
Did you hear that the Obama lead has jumped into
the DOUBLE DIGITS now?
Obama opens double-digit lead as Palin under fire
1 hour ago
JUNEAU, Alaska (AFP) — Democrat Barack Obama opened a double-
digit lead over rival John McCain in a key opinion poll on
Saturday while investigators found Republican vice presidential
nominee Sarah Palin had abused her powers as Alaska governor.
Just over three weeks from the November 4 vote, Obama leads
McCain 52 percent to 41 percent among registered voters, according
to the latest survey conducted by Newsweek magazine.
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hQjSGQVOy5FcXVixqU43QZZr9ldA
PALIN GUILTY!
"Mitchell Holman" <Noe...@comcast.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9B345B8B...@216.196.97.131...
> Lifsabsurd <bob...@att.net> wrote in news:907c5deb-dca0-43b7-a19a-
> 18082f...@t65g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
>
>> If someone is a MEMBER of the Jesse James gang for years is he an
>> outlaw or is that just "guilt by association"?
>>
>> Obama was a MEMBER of a black racist church for about 20 years. He
>> lied when he said he did not know what Rev. Wright stood for. He
>> OBVIOUSLY lied.
>>
>> Obama was a MEMBER of the extremely corrupt group, ACORN. He trained
>> ACORN employees. He lied about it. He OBVIOUSLY lied.
>>
>> Obama was a MEMBER of the radical Woods Foundation.
>>
>> Obama was a MEMBER of the board with unrepentent communist Bill Ayres
>> for several years. Bill Ayers hired him. He lied about his
>> associations with Bill Ayres. He is still lying.
>>
>> Obama was up to his nose in corrupt Chicago politics. He undoubtedly
>> helped the Shady Syrian, Tony Rezko, to rip off the poor.
>>
>> But that is only guilt by association?
>
>
>
> None of that BS mattered when Hillary trotted it
> out, none of it matters now.
>
> Did you hear that the Obama lead has jumped into
> the DOUBLE DIGITS now?
Watch these people:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjxzmaXAg9E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJghQMq49dw&NR=1
>
> Obama opens double-digit lead as Palin under fire
> 1 hour ago
>
> JUNEAU, Alaska (AFP) - Democrat Barack Obama opened a double-
libera...@gmail.com
him a terrorist.
Meanwhile, Palin is MARRIED to an anti-American!
Zigler
Who's that? Lieutenant Governor of Alaska, Todd Palin???
Lifsabsurd
> Lifsabsurd <bob...@att.net> wrote in news:907c5deb-dca0-43b7-a19a-
> http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hQjSGQVOy5FcXVixqU43QZZr9ldA- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Palin was found to have done nothing illegal. And the investigative
body was Democratic. In other words, this was a political ploy. In
fact, this was something most people saw coming for some time.
There are 2 reasons why Obama is ahead. First, what is called
mainstream media in this country is now de facto a propaganda organ of
the Demoncrap Party. The covering-up that has been done for Obama has
literally been a case of mass fraud perpetrated on the American
people. Secondly, in both our public and private educational
institutions, the American people have been for years conditioned to
believe in and accept the precepts of socialism, by a leadership of
sick intellectual elitists.
The elitists will rule for awhile. But it will not last. It will
fail for the same reasons that the Soviet Union failed. I doubt that
any form of government instituted by man can ever last more than a few
hundred years. There are always those looking for CHANGE. And the
CHANGE never really changes anything. The USSA will likely last less
long than the USSR. And even if we are headed for a sort of global
socialism, that will fail too.
Lifsabsurd
> him a terrorist.
You think that because board members hold a formal meeting only once a
year, they only talk and plan once a year?
> Meanwhile, Palin is MARRIED to an anti-American!
Ayers is an unrepentent communist. Ayres hired Obama to help him to
influence education. If you can't add 2 + 2....
Husky
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Palin was found to have done nothing illegal. And the investigative
> body was Democratic. In other words, this was a political ploy. In
> fact, this was something most people saw coming for some time.
law fired from the state police, a state investigator's report for the
bipartisan Legislative Council concluded Friday.
The Committee was Bipartisan with the majority, being Republicans
>
> There are 2 reasons why Obama is ahead. First, what is called
> mainstream media in this country is now de facto a propaganda organ of
> the Demoncrap Party. The covering-up that has been done for Obama has
> literally been a case of mass fraud perpetrated on the American
> people. Secondly, in both our public and private educational
> institutions, the American people have been for years conditioned to
> believe in and accept the precepts of socialism, by a leadership of
> sick intellectual elitists.
>
> The elitists will rule for awhile. But it will not last. It will
> fail for the same reasons that the Soviet Union failed. I doubt that
> any form of government instituted by man can ever last more than a few
> hundred years. There are always those looking for CHANGE. And the
> CHANGE never really changes anything. The USSA will likely last less
> long than the USSR. And even if we are headed for a sort of global
> socialism, that will fail too.
grandparents of modest means and happens to be of mixed race is an
elitist, by your standards?
Put away that "Chicken Little Book."
What's the color of the sky in your world?
*Poetic Justice*
> On Oct 11, 10:30 am, liberalgr...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Obama sat -- ONCE A YEAR -- on a board with Ayers and Palin is calling
>> him a terrorist.
Lived a few doors away, filed for grants that he and Obama used for
education, held a friendly little political meeting/rally for Obama....
it looks like they had a lot in common and that is where the truth is.
What does a Communist/Socialist and U.S. President have in common?
OBAMA
Ayers and Obama seem to be on a similar path, they are both pushing
Socialism. Ayers did it in the 1960's with Bombs and today Obama also
wants socialism But they want to try to get it via subversion this time.
> You think that because board members hold a formal meeting only once a
> year, they only talk and plan once a year?
>
>> Meanwhile, Palin is MARRIED to an anti-American!
How many building did he Bomb?
> Ayers is an unrepentent communist. Ayres hired Obama to help him to
> influence education. If you can't add 2 + 2....
--
*Liberal Commandments*
1. Thou shalt always be a victim.
2. Spend thy Neighbors money to keep your Brothers in the comfort zone,
that which makes him happy.
3. That which is not Liberal is Evil, use any means possible to promote
Liberal/socialist agenda.
4. Do not covet Success and achievement, teach others to strive for
mediocrity.
5. Show your enemy your Bluster, before whining like a child.
6. Government is the only religion of man, serve no other cause.
7. Tithe all you have and will have to our cause, for that which is not
spent, will come back.
8. Believe in unconditional Peace and Love, so then shall you become
self important and omnipotent.
9. The truth of everything is that which you make it.
10. Life is above all else... until it would interfere with ones choice.
Kevin Cunningham
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Palin was found to have done nothing illegal. And the investigative
> body was Democratic. In other words, this was a political ploy. In
> fact, this was something most people saw coming for some time.
>
> There are 2 reasons why Obama is ahead. First, what is called
> mainstream media in this country is now de facto a propaganda organ of
> the Demoncrap Party. The covering-up that has been done for Obama has
> literally been a case of mass fraud perpetrated on the American
> people. Secondly, in both our public and private educational
> institutions, the American people have been for years conditioned to
> believe in and accept the precepts of socialism, by a leadership of
> sick intellectual elitists.
>
> The elitists will rule for awhile. But it will not last. It will
> fail for the same reasons that the Soviet Union failed. I doubt that
> any form of government instituted by man can ever last more than a few
> hundred years. There are always those looking for CHANGE. And the
> CHANGE never really changes anything. The USSA will likely last less
> long than the USSR. And even if we are headed for a sort of global
> socialism, that will fail too.
Hey, don't run down Russia, that's were the soul of socialism is and
you repugs have gone socialist. Oh, now the Bush Boius have announced
they're going to socialize some banks. Wow, you just keep goin'!
By the way, Gov. Palin was found guilty of abusing her powers. In
other words in the last two years, the only time she has held state
wide office in a state of 630 thousand, she disgraced her self and her
state.
You go girl!
Jorge Duhbya Arbusto, POTUS (Retired)
>>
> Palin was found to have done nothing illegal.
Really? From the Branchflower report:
Finding Number One
For the reasons explained in section IV of this report, I find that Governor
Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the
Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act. Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) provides
http://community.adn.com/adn/node/132565
Jorge Duhbya Arbusto, POTUS (Retired)
http://community.adn.com/adn/node/132565
Finding Number One
For the reasons explained in section IV of this report, I find that Governor
Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the
Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act. Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) provides
The legislature reaffirms that each public officer holds office as a public
trust, and any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through
official action is a violation of that trust.
Lifsabsurd
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Palin was found to have done nothing illegal. And the investigative
> > body was Democratic. In other words, this was a political ploy. In
> > fact, this was something most people saw coming for some time.
>
> Palin violated state ethics law by trying to get her former brother-in-
> law fired from the state police, a state investigator's report for the
> bipartisan Legislative Council concluded Friday.
> The Committee was Bipartisan with the majority, being Republicans
"Bipartisan" my ass. Even the Republicans hate her because she tried
to eliminate the good old boys in the Alaskan GOP. And where is the
data that the majority were Republicans (not that it really matters,
since Alaskan Republicans also hate her for being a reformer)?
> > There are 2 reasons why Obama is ahead. First, what is called
> > mainstream media in this country is now de facto a propaganda organ of
> > the Demoncrap Party. The covering-up that has been done for Obama has
> > literally been a case of mass fraud perpetrated on the American
> > people. Secondly, in both our public and private educational
> > institutions, the American people have been for years conditioned to
> > believe in and accept the precepts of socialism, by a leadership of
> > sick intellectual elitists.
>
> Rush is serving Cool Aid from 12 - 3 Eastern.
>
> > The elitists will rule for awhile. But it will not last. It will
> > fail for the same reasons that the Soviet Union failed. I doubt that
> > any form of government instituted by man can ever last more than a few
> > hundred years. There are always those looking for CHANGE. And the
> > CHANGE never really changes anything. The USSA will likely last less
> > long than the USSR. And even if we are headed for a sort of global
> > socialism, that will fail too.
>
> So is a person coming from a 1 parent family, raised by his
> grandparents of modest means and happens to be of mixed race is an
> elitist, by your standards?
> Put away that "Chicken Little Book."
Absolutely. A person with a (supposed) IQ of 130, who graduated from
Harvard Law with honors, who taught at Harvard Law School, who was
editor of the Harvard Law Review, who associates with elitist
intellectual, socialist professors (and unrepentent communists) like
Bill Ayers, who was mentored as a child by a black elitist, and
communist, named Frank Marshall Davis, who worked for a prestigious
law firm in Chicago, who became a powerful politican and a US Senator,
and who is touted, even on this very newsgroup by some as an "elitist"
or an "expert." DUHHHH
> What's the color of the sky in your world?- Hide quoted text -
Mostly clear today. Thank you for asking.
Husky
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Palin was found to have done nothing illegal. And the investigative
> > > body was Democratic. In other words, this was a political ploy. In
> > > fact, this was something most people saw coming for some time.
>
> > Palin violated state ethics law by trying to get her former brother-in-
> > law fired from the state police, a state investigator's report for the
> > bipartisan Legislative Council concluded Friday.
> > The Committee was Bipartisan with the majority, being Republicans
>
> "Bipartisan" my ass. Even the Republicans hate her because she tried
> to eliminate the good old boys in the Alaskan GOP. And where is the
> data that the majority were Republicans (not that it really matters,
> since Alaskan Republicans also hate her for being a reformer)?
"The report, which was commissioned and released by a bipartisan state
legislative panel made up of 10 Republicans and 4 Democrats, said:
“The evidence supports the conclusion that Governor Palin, at the
least, engaged in ‘official action’ by her inaction if not her active
participation or assistance to her husband in attempting to get
Troooper Wooten fired [and there is evidence of her active
participation].”
http://minneapolis.craigslist.org/pol/874598663.html
Then, DUHH, by that definition, McCain is an elitist, too.
>
> > What's the color of the sky in your world?- Hide quoted text -
>
> Mostly clear today. Thank you for asking.
Since when is "clear" a color?
Lifsabsurd
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Palin was found to have done nothing illegal. And the investigative
> > body was Democratic. In other words, this was a political ploy. In
> > fact, this was something most people saw coming for some time.
>
> > There are 2 reasons why Obama is ahead. First, what is called
> > mainstream media in this country is now de facto a propaganda organ of
> > the Demoncrap Party. The covering-up that has been done for Obama has
> > literally been a case of mass fraud perpetrated on the American
> > people. Secondly, in both our public and private educational
> > institutions, the American people have been for years conditioned to
> > believe in and accept the precepts of socialism, by a leadership of
> > sick intellectual elitists.
>
> > The elitists will rule for awhile. But it will not last. It will
> > fail for the same reasons that the Soviet Union failed. I doubt that
> > any form of government instituted by man can ever last more than a few
> > hundred years. There are always those looking for CHANGE. And the
> > CHANGE never really changes anything. The USSA will likely last less
> > long than the USSR. And even if we are headed for a sort of global
> > socialism, that will fail too.
>
> Hey, don't run down Russia, that's were the soul of socialism is and
> you repugs have gone socialist. Oh, now the Bush Boius have announced
> they're going to socialize some banks. Wow, you just keep goin'!
To be more accurate, Bush was involved in the bailout plan, but
Paulson proposed it. Paulson is more Demoncrap than Republican. Bush
may have made a bad choice in picking him, or maybe it was with
knowledge. Time will tell.
Paulson is a former CEO for Goldman-Sachs. Guess who is one of the
largest contributors to Obama? So, many Demoncraps naively believe
that rich corporations or financiers, or Wall Street players, only
favor Demoncraps. Is Soros a Republican?
It is not clear whether the bailout will help or hurt. It is not
clear whether it was, as advertised, absolutely necessary. I doubt it
very much. What is clear is that Demoncraps caused the problem by
interfering in the free market, and that the overwhelming majority of
Demoncraps loved the socialist bailout plan. Why wouldn't they?
Do you know what corporate statism is, or corporatism? I doubt it.
Do you understand its association with the left, with socialism?
In any case, Marxism isn't the only form of socialism. Fascism and
Nazism are other forms. Read Jonah Goldberg's book, called Liberal
Fascism. I am just reading it now. I have made it through a couple
of chapters describing the rise of Mussolini and Hitler. No doubt
that they were of the left, socialists, something that I knew before.
But it is now much clearer. Try reading the Nazi Platform:
http://www4.stormfront.org/posterity/ns/25pts.html
That sound capitalist to you?
Nationalism is a force that opposes Marxism, because Marxist theory
postulates *international* (non-nationalistic) socialism. The Nazis
hated the Marxists mainly for that reason. They did not want to
sacrifice their national identity to an international workers'
revolution. Nevertheless a National Socialist is still an extreme
socialist. And so is a third way socialist. The Demoncraps have been
third way socialists, supposed centrists, for a very long time, at
least since FDR, and certainly the Clintons were/are self-described
advocates of the third way, or third way socialism.
Third way socialism, with its interference of government in free
market capitalism (hello Fannie Mae; hello, redistribution of wealth;
hello Carter, Clinton, Demoncraps) is what has just failed, not Wall
Street. The Demoncraps tried to use government to help the poor. The
poor NEEDED houses to be equal to others (radical egalitarianism), you
see. Wall Street, obviously, is the victim. The irony is that the
country will now very likely evolve into an even more extreme form of
socialism, because capitalism will be wrongly blamed, because people
are stupid, and because the SMSM is covering the truth up nicely.
We may become the USSA, or we may before long just become the American
State of the United Socialist World. Or perhaps, because of
nationalist feelings, we will just have a continuing, but more severe
form, of liberal fascism, or third way socialism with, likely, a
heavier dose of corporatism. Of course this ignores the real
possibility that a weakened world will be victims of Islamization.
All are possible.
In other words, it looks now like, when Marxism fails, we try third
way socialism, and then, when that fails, we try a more severe form of
liberal fascism. Or, maybe we really will have global socialism ala
the goals of earlier Soviets, Castro, Chavez, and many others who want
it. Or maybe we will have a sort of global liberal fascism.
In any case, I suspect that it is very likely that Americans can kiss
their cushy life goodbye. I don't believe that either corporatism, or
a more pure type of socialist economy from the top, will ever achieve
the prosperity of a more closely capitalist nation.
> By the way, Gov. Palin was found guilty of abusing her powers. In
> other words in the last two years, the only time she has held state
> wide office in a state of 630 thousand, she disgraced her self and her
> state.
>
> You go girl!- Hide quoted text -
Lifsabsurd
In one sense, yes. And you might explain that to those in this
newsgroup who worship elitists. But McCain is not a socialist,
intellectual elitist, which is what socialists idolize, and, more
importantly, which is what I was referring to in my comments that are
being referenced. And, I will add this. Obama's type of intellectual
elitism carries with it typically an attitude. And the ObaMessiah but
definitely has that attitude. He is SMART. And you better worship
his brilliance.
>
> > > What's the color of the sky in your world?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > Mostly clear today. Thank you for asking.
>
> Since when is "clear" a color?- Hide quoted text -
You always take a joke this way? You remind me of students who could
not understand much beyond a literal interpretation of words.
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Lifsabsurd
Here is a somewhat larger portion from that reference. One that puts
your quote in context:
____________
For the reasons explained in section IV of this report, I find that
Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute
39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act. Alaska Statute
39.52.110(a) provides
The legislature reaffirms that each public officer holds office as a
public trust, and any effort to benefit a personal or financial
interest through official action is a violation of that trust.
Finding Number Two
I find that, although Walt Monegan's refusal to fire Trooper Michael
Wooten was not the sole reason he was fired by Governor Sarah Palin,
it was likely a contributing factor to his termination as Commissioner
of Public Safety. In spite of that, Governor Palin's firing of
Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her
constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive
branch department heads.
--------------
You might want to read the last line again with one word capitalized:
In spite of that, Governor Palin's firing of Commissioner Monegan was
a proper and LAWFUL exercise of her constitutional and statutory
authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads.
A statute is not necessarily a criminal statute. She was found to
have done nothing illegal.
robw
wouldn't have this problem.
"Lifsabsurd" <bob...@att.net> wrote in message
news:1641b1f3-77d5-4765...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...
robw
"Lifsabsurd" <bob...@att.net> wrote in message
news:88383cc2-a0a3-42bf...@t41g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Husky
socialist premise. Please, explain, exactly what is Obama's type of
elitism?
I admire his brilliance, I don't worship it.
>
>
>
> > > > What's the color of the sky in your world?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > Mostly clear today. Thank you for asking.
>
> > Since when is "clear" a color?-
>
> not understand much beyond a literal interpretation of words.
Do you always take a joke that way? I was playing along.
So, are you a fan of grading on a curve? ;-)
bval...@aol.com
> > Palin was found to have done nothing illegal. And the investigative
> > body was Democratic. In other words, this was a political ploy. In
> > fact, this was something most people saw coming for some time.
.
> Palin violated state ethics law by trying to get her former brother-in-
> law fired from the state police,>
Hows that work, exactly? Every prior reported Ethics Act violation
involved financial motives and financial 'potential gain, or the
avoidance of a potential loss.' Here, there is no accusation, no
finding and no facts that money or financial gain to the governor was
involved in the decision to replace Monegan."
"Governor Palin's firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and
lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire
and fire executive branch department heads".
Steve
Branchflower.
>...a state investigator's report for the
> bipartisan Legislative Council concluded Friday.
.
The Branchflower Report is a series of guesses and insupportable
conclusions drawn by exactly one guy, and it hasn't been approved or
adopted or endorsed by so much as a single sub-committee of the Alaska
Legislature, much less any kind of commission, court, jury, or other
proper adjudicatory body.
Husky
> .> > Palin was found to have done nothing illegal. And the investigative
> > > body was Democratic. In other words, this was a political ploy. In
> > > fact, this was something most people saw coming for some time.
> .
> > Palin violated state ethics law by trying to get her former brother-in-
> > law fired from the state police,>
>
> .
> Hows that work, exactly? Every prior reported Ethics Act violation
> involved financial motives and financial 'potential gain, or the
> avoidance of a potential loss.' Here, there is no accusation, no
> finding and no facts that money or financial gain to the governor was
> involved in the decision to replace Monegan."
>
> "Governor Palin's firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and
> lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire
> and fire executive branch department heads".
> Steve
> Branchflower.
>
> >...a state investigator's report for the> bipartisan Legislative Council concluded Friday.
>
> .
> The Branchflower Report is a series of guesses and insupportable
> conclusions drawn by exactly one guy, and it hasn't been approved or
> adopted or endorsed by so much as a single sub-committee of the Alaska
> Legislature, much less any kind of commission, court, jury, or other
> proper adjudicatory body.
Then perhaps you should read it, in its' entirety, for yourself before
you jump to those conclusions!
http://download1.legis.state.ak.us/DOWNLOAD.pdf
robw
<bval...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:57bf9c2c-cb3a-4f1f...@25g2000prz.googlegroups.com...
Lifsabsurd
> Perhaps if you had been intelligent enough to answer "blue skies" you
> wouldn't have this problem.
This from a guy who loves dadaism?
robw
"Lifsabsurd" <bob...@att.net> wrote in message
news:52edf2aa-7a2d-4d03...@v30g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
Lifsabsurd
His idea to buy up mortgages *seems* socialist, yes. But, this is
already essentially a part of the bailout law, to the best of my
knowledge. At least there is much in it, besides the other pork, that
attempts to help those who got subprime loans to be able to retain
them.
In any case, it looks to me like a downward spiral of socialist
thinking is going on. The way I see it, people don't understand that
socialism caused this in the first place and that more socialism is
only like pouring fuel on the fire. And politicians tell people what
they want to hear. Right now, people want to hear that government is
going to take care of them. The truth is that now is exactly the time
for government to get off our backs.
One of my friends refers to McCain's policies as - socialism lite.
But Obama is a heavy duty socialist, elitist snob. Which one is
likely to throw more fuel on the fire? Remember Obama wants to "tax
the rich." Translation - tax small businesses and prevent them from
helping as much as they should in a capitalist economic recovery.
There are many people, including myself, who believe that the great
depression was just prolonged by socialist policies.
> > > > > What's the color of the sky in your world?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > Mostly clear today. Thank you for asking.
>
> > > Since when is "clear" a color?-
>
> > You always take a joke this way? You remind me of students who could
> > not understand much beyond a literal interpretation of words.
>
> Do you always take a joke that way? I was playing along.
> So, are you a fan of grading on a curve? ;-)- Hide quoted text -
Funny you should bring up that topic. As a retired teacher, I have
some strong feelings about the actually practice of "grading on a
curve."
Lifsabsurd
> She was found to have abused her powers.
Ho Hum. You abuse my sensibilities every time you post.
> have done nothing illegal.- Hide quoted text -
Lifsabsurd
> Did you ever study the dada movement?
"Study" it? Hardly. I think I would rather count raindrops on a
sunny day.
Husky
Can you please show me what you are referring to? I don't see "tax
the Rich" translating to "Tax small business" He put the $250K number
out as his baseline.
The way I see it, the US Govt, has by the nature of the bailouts,
quasi socialized banking, Insurance and has already started down the
road to socialization, intentional or not. AND, more is coming,
regardless of the party in power. The way the govt. is propping up
these Industries, there will be very little that they aren't vested
in, in a short time.
Whew, I got so used to interacting with the crazies that I find a
civil dialog, most refreshing.
>
> > > > > > What's the color of the sky in your world?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > Mostly clear today. Thank you for asking.
>
> > > > Since when is "clear" a color?-
>
> > > You always take a joke this way? You remind me of students who could
> > > not understand much beyond a literal interpretation of words.
>
> > Do you always take a joke that way? I was playing along.
> > So, are you a fan of grading on a curve? ;-)- Hide quoted text -
>
> Funny you should bring up that topic. As a retired teacher, I have
> some strong feelings about the actually practice of "grading on a
> curve."
Please expand. I think it's "welfare for the lazy students," but
that's JMHO.
robw
comments.
"Lifsabsurd" <bob...@att.net> wrote in message
news:5dc440f2-b6a1-4e07...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
robw
But the ruling just gave us more ammo against the bitch.
"Lifsabsurd" <bob...@att.net> wrote in message
news:f706f342-8486-4ba1...@q35g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Lifsabsurd
> So if you don't know what you're talking about you should not make stupid
> comments.
LOL. And you think dadaists know what they are talking about?
Mitchell Holman
c4c568...@v53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:
Proving "Lifsabsurd" wrong would be fun
if it weren't so easy..........;)
robw
then you're making an ass out of yourself.
"Lifsabsurd" <bob...@att.net> wrote in message
news:3482d454-e532-441e...@d31g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Lifsabsurd
I think McCain has tried to explain it. And many economists seem to
agree. Many small business owners have an income higher than 250K.
The way they file, Obama's plan will hit them with higher taxes. They
will tend to pass this on through business practices, and that will
likely result in fewer jobs, etc., in other words, in an even slower
economy. Many feel that the small businesses that fall into this
category are some of the most important generators of jobs in the
nation.
Besides, hitting the richest now will definitely hit investment
capitalism and hurt the economy. And Obama is talking about an
increase in capital gains taxes as well. Soaking the rich at this
time is absolutely insane. I think Obama's stated economic plans are
feel-good plans to be soaked up by gullible, dependent people, who
want to be taken care of. But they are not going to work through a
capitalist system. Unless Obama plans to direct the economy himself
by taking over essentially ALL businesses and industry, his economic
plans make no sense whatsoever. Furthermore, many, including myself,
believe that that is why the market is tanking. Smart investors
believe Obama is winning, and they see that as the death knell of
capitalism.
> The way I see it, the US Govt, has by the nature of the bailouts,
> quasi socialized banking, Insurance and has already started down the
> road to socialization, intentional or not. AND, more is coming,
> regardless of the party in power. The way the govt. is propping up
> these Industries, there will be very little that they aren't vested
> in, in a short time.
Yes. Exactly. But, I don't know about the phrase - "regardless of
the party in power." The Demoncraps are the socialists. Bush
himself, the old "compassionate conservative" may lean heavily to the
socialist side. But, I don't think that McCain and Republicans in
general are nearly as socialist-leaning as Obama and the Demoncraps in
general.
The majority of the Demoncraps wanted the bailout. And why should
they not, since it was an attempt to bail their third way socialism
out as much as anything else? The House Republicans knew very well
that this was socialism. They resisted. Newt Gingrich tried
initially to resist it. The real questions in my mind are ones like
these: Was the bailout really necessary? Had it really come to the
point that this was the only way to save the economy? Is this all
reversible?
There is also the somewhat conspiratorial idea that we are headed for
a sort of corporate statism. Is Bush really a part of that? Who
knows? But he is gone in a few months. Is McCain? I sure the hell
doubt it. In fact, I am hoping that this whole idea is just wrong.
BUT...
If I wanted to believe a conspiracy theory in which a sort of "liberal
fascism"
http://liberalfascism.nationalreview.com/
involving some sort of corporate statism is evolving, I would more
easily believe that Obama would be happy to be a part of it than
McCain.
In any case, as I see it, the basic problem with America is that we
have too many dependent people. When people vote to be taken care of,
when they vote out of fear, when they expect government to be their
economic daddy, when they accept the concept of a welfare state, then,
by virtue of that fact alone, IMHO, the state is not going to long
survive. It's time for some tough love.
> Whew, I got so used to interacting with the crazies that I find a
> civil dialog, most refreshing.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > > What's the color of the sky in your world?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > Mostly clear today. Thank you for asking.
>
> > > > > Since when is "clear" a color?-
>
> > > > You always take a joke this way? You remind me of students who could
> > > > not understand much beyond a literal interpretation of words.
>
> > > Do you always take a joke that way? I was playing along.
> > > So, are you a fan of grading on a curve? ;-)- Hide quoted text -
>
> > Funny you should bring up that topic. As a retired teacher, I have
> > some strong feelings about the actually practice of "grading on a
> > curve."
>
> Please expand. I think it's "welfare for the lazy students," but
> that's JMHO.
You teach? Therefore 90% chance you are a liberal Democrat? But you
think that grading on a curve is welfare for the lazy? Surely you are
not one of the rare conservative teachers in the world? I thought I
was the last one.
You teach economics?
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
Lifsabsurd
> I could give a rat's ass about you.
>
> But the ruling just gave us more ammo against the bitch.
Your ammo's wet.
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Lifsabsurd
> If you know nothing about the dada movement (go. fast. wikipedia (grins))
> then you're making an ass out of yourself.
LOL You're still a dada dodo.
Kevin Cunningham
>
So once again a repug is willing to defend the rich. Wow, I'm
impressed by your courage. Screw the poor, they don't have the
problems the rich do. Geez, the rich need help with alimony, lets
give them another tax break.
If a person has an income of over $250,000 it should be taxed at a
higher rate. Simple and easy to do. What you won't talk about is our
national debt. Were do you think the money is coming from to pay for
all the bail outs?
As for nationalizing industries, you repugs have been busy little
beavers haven't you? You have already nationalized 4 companies all on
your own. Socialism is now a part of repug thinking and actions.
Lifsabsurd
Orwell lives. Unlike you, I am not paranoid about rich people. I
don't envy them their money. And I understand that most of that money
is invested. It is capital, driving the economic engines. Soaking
the rich will just destroy the economy faster.
You have been reading too much of the prototypical class paranoid,
Karl Marx.
> If a person has an income of over $250,000 it should be taxed at a
> higher rate. Simple and easy to do. What you won't talk about is our
> national debt. Were do you think the money is coming from to pay for
> all the bail outs?
Let's see. National debt. Yeah. And you think that is going to go
down when Obama and the Demoncraps try to give taxpayer money to
everyone and her brother? Who is it that is demanding that we rein in
spending? And you think that all the welfare money that Demoncraps
are going to give out is going to lower the national debt? ROTFLMAO
Oh, and BTW, I was and am 100% against the bailouts. Government
should not be givng taxpayer money to either rich or poor.
> As for nationalizing industries, you repugs have been busy little
> beavers haven't you? You have already nationalized 4 companies all on
> your own. Socialism is now a part of repug thinking and actions.
It is certainly NOT a part of the thinking of conservatives, nor the
majority of Republicans either. And, if you think that I personally
liked the consequences of the socialist bailout, you have the IQ of a
kumquat. Paulson is hardly a conservative, and he is hardly a
Republican.
Hard to believe you could be that stupid. More likely, you are just a
paid political spinmeister for the Demoncrap Party.
Husky
well. (There should be some deferment plan for profits which are
reinvested into the business, IMHO)
>
> Besides, hitting the richest now will definitely hit investment
> capitalism and hurt the economy. And Obama is talking about an
> increase in capital gains taxes as well. Soaking the rich at this
> time is absolutely insane. I think Obama's stated economic plans are
> feel-good plans to be soaked up by gullible, dependent people, who
> want to be taken care of. But they are not going to work through a
> capitalist system. Unless Obama plans to direct the economy himself
> by taking over essentially ALL businesses and industry, his economic
> plans make no sense whatsoever. Furthermore, many, including myself,
> believe that that is why the market is tanking. Smart investors
> believe Obama is winning, and they see that as the death knell of
> capitalism.
'conservative GOP regime" may make that a "fait complete".
Everything the Govt has done so far hasn't sparked the economy.
They've accrued debt and have spent money they don't have. If an
individual ran his private life that way, they'd be out on the street
or in jail!
>
> > The way I see it, the US Govt, has by the nature of the bailouts,
> > quasi socialized banking, Insurance and has already started down the
> > road to socialization, intentional or not. AND, more is coming,
> > regardless of the party in power. The way the govt. is propping up
> > these Industries, there will be very little that they aren't vested
> > in, in a short time.
>
> Yes. Exactly. But, I don't know about the phrase - "regardless of
> the party in power." The Demoncraps are the socialists. Bush
> himself, the old "compassionate conservative" may lean heavily to the
> socialist side. But, I don't think that McCain and Republicans in
> general are nearly as socialist-leaning as Obama and the Demoncraps in
> general.
McCain wrote in HIS book,
Worth Fighting For, that he runs for President not to institute reform
or even out of a
grand notion of patriotism, but for his own personal ambition. He'd
be a lame duck in Jan. '09.
>
> The majority of the Demoncraps wanted the bailout. And why should
> they not, since it was an attempt to bail their third way socialism
> out as much as anything else? The House Republicans knew very well
> that this was socialism. They resisted. Newt Gingrich tried
> initially to resist it. The real questions in my mind are ones like
> these: Was the bailout really necessary? Had it really come to the
> point that this was the only way to save the economy? Is this all
> reversible?
they're going to cut taxes.
In reality, he bailout money doesn't exist! It's a promisory note
from the govt.
>
> There is also the somewhat conspiratorial idea that we are headed for
> a sort of corporate statism. Is Bush really a part of that? Who
> knows? But he is gone in a few months. Is McCain? I sure the hell
> doubt it. In fact, I am hoping that this whole idea is just wrong.
> BUT...
>
> If I wanted to believe a conspiracy theory in which a sort of "liberal
> fascism"
>
> http://liberalfascism.nationalreview.com/
>
> involving some sort of corporate statism is evolving, I would more
> easily believe that Obama would be happy to be a part of it than
> McCain.
>
> In any case, as I see it, the basic problem with America is that we
> have too many dependent people. When people vote to be taken care of,
> when they vote out of fear, when they expect government to be their
> economic daddy, when they accept the concept of a welfare state, then,
> by virtue of that fact alone, IMHO, the state is not going to long
> survive. It's time for some tough love.
Banking Firms saw that, they ran amok. What they did makes the Mafia
look like angels! They practiced fraud under a the guise of "creative
investing"
This video, while quite funny says it better than I ever could.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x684wa_the-last-laugh-george-parr-subprime_
>
> > Whew, I got so used to interacting with the crazies that I find a
> > civil dialog, most refreshing.
>
> > > > > > > > What's the color of the sky in your world?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > Mostly clear today. Thank you for asking.
>
> > > > > > Since when is "clear" a color?-
>
> > > > > You always take a joke this way? You remind me of students who could
> > > > > not understand much beyond a literal interpretation of words.
>
> > > > Do you always take a joke that way? I was playing along.
> > > > So, are you a fan of grading on a curve? ;-)- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > Funny you should bring up that topic. As a retired teacher, I have
> > > some strong feelings about the actually practice of "grading on a
> > > curve."
>
> > Please expand. I think it's "welfare for the lazy students," but
> > that's JMHO.
>
> You teach? Therefore 90% chance you are a liberal Democrat? But you
> think that grading on a curve is welfare for the lazy? Surely you are
> not one of the rare conservative teachers in the world? I thought I
> was the last one.
couldn't hold on to the better workers, and couldn't get rid of the
lesser ones fast enough! I was truly amazed at the differences in
attitude, amongst them. Some couldn't do or learn enough and some
only regretted they couldn't do less.
Small business owners are saddled with a ton of mandates that bleed
them. Workman's Comp, (The state is Gestapo Like in it's
enforcement) And a heavy leaning towards employees, which bordered on
insanity. (We caught an employee stealing merchandise, fired her, and
PAID HER her due, minus the merchandise's value, at our cost. She
went to the State and they forced us to pay her the full salary, then
take her to court for the merchandises value.)
Marking on a curve and ridiculous interpretation of rules and laws
give some people a sense of entitlement.
>
> You teach economics?> > > -
No, those who can, do, those who can't, teach! :-)
*Poetic Justice*
Most people never get the education you did....
I picture someone from NYPD as a Liberal and voting for every tax and
every regulation and every Democrat.
All this Liberalism has created the half of the population that just
don't care, they treat life like(you and the rest of working America)
Owe them a paycheck for causing nothing but problems.
I've also owned my own and run businesses for others.... It's funny that
you can explain this to a Liberal and they'll blame you for being greedy
and yet if the businesses I was running didn't make some profit, not
only were the useless employees out of work, but the good workers were
out along with me.....
I decided to retire early and get out of running any small business....
Does anybody really wonder why we are at this point of economic crash.
The Socialist encroachment on the capitalist system is breaking the
bank.(Literally)
--
*Liberal Commandments*
1. Thou shalt always be a victim.
2. Spend thy Neighbors money to keep your Brothers in the comfort zone,
that which makes him happy.
3. That which is not Liberal is Evil, use any means possible to promote
Liberal/socialist agenda.
4. Do not covet Success and achievement, teach others to strive for
mediocrity.
5. Show your enemy your Bluster, before whining like a child.
6. Government is the only religion of man, serve no other cause.
7. Tithe all you have and will have to our cause, for that which is not
spent, will come back.
8. Believe in unconditional Peace and Love, so then shall you become
self important and omnipotent.
9. The truth of everything is that which you make it.
10. Life is above all else... until it would interfere with ones choice.
Lifsabsurd
Even if it is net, I don't see how it matters. The net for a typical
private businessman doesn't go into expanding his business? And if he
nets less then his business is going to expand more?
> > Besides, hitting the richest now will definitely hit investment
> > capitalism and hurt the economy. And Obama is talking about an
> > increase in capital gains taxes as well. Soaking the rich at this
> > time is absolutely insane. I think Obama's stated economic plans are
> > feel-good plans to be soaked up by gullible, dependent people, who
> > want to be taken care of. But they are not going to work through a
> > capitalist system. Unless Obama plans to direct the economy himself
> > by taking over essentially ALL businesses and industry, his economic
> > plans make no sense whatsoever. Furthermore, many, including myself,
> > believe that that is why the market is tanking. Smart investors
> > believe Obama is winning, and they see that as the death knell of
> > capitalism.
>
> Truth be told, What's transpired these last few weeks (Under a
> 'conservative GOP regime" may make that a "fait complete".
> Everything the Govt has done so far hasn't sparked the economy.
> They've accrued debt and have spent money they don't have. If an
> individual ran his private life that way, they'd be out on the street
> or in jail!
And yet you want more and bigger government under the Demoncraps?
Besides, I don't buy for a second that Republicans caused the crisis.
At the core of the problem was Fannie and Freddie and that is 100%
around the necks of the Demoncraps. Franklin Raines, Jim Johnson, and
Daniel Mudd are hardly Republicans. And the Black Caucas that loved
them?
> > > The way I see it, the US Govt, has by the nature of the bailouts,
> > > quasi socialized banking, Insurance and has already started down the
> > > road to socialization, intentional or not. AND, more is coming,
> > > regardless of the party in power. The way the govt. is propping up
> > > these Industries, there will be very little that they aren't vested
> > > in, in a short time.
>
> > Yes. Exactly. But, I don't know about the phrase - "regardless of
> > the party in power." The Demoncraps are the socialists. Bush
> > himself, the old "compassionate conservative" may lean heavily to the
> > socialist side. But, I don't think that McCain and Republicans in
> > general are nearly as socialist-leaning as Obama and the Demoncraps in
> > general.
>
> IMO, McCain has no great plan, just the ambition to become President.
> McCain wrote in HIS book,
> Worth Fighting For, that he runs for President not to institute reform
> or even out of a
> grand notion of patriotism, but for his own personal ambition. He'd
> be a lame duck in Jan. '09.
You know what. The less government the better. I wish McCain had no
plans at all to interfere with economy.
> > The majority of the Demoncraps wanted the bailout. And why should
> > they not, since it was an attempt to bail their third way socialism
> > out as much as anything else? The House Republicans knew very well
> > that this was socialism. They resisted. Newt Gingrich tried
> > initially to resist it. The real questions in my mind are ones like
> > these: Was the bailout really necessary? Had it really come to the
> > point that this was the only way to save the economy? Is this all
> > reversible?
>
> I wish I knew. They're accruing huge, unmanageable debt and saying
> they're going to cut taxes.
> In reality, he bailout money doesn't exist! It's a promisory note
> from the govt.
Sure. And you think that is going to be made better by electing
socialists to spend even more? Have you been listening to all the
welfare giveaways that Obama has proposed?
> > There is also the somewhat conspiratorial idea that we are headed for
> > a sort of corporate statism. Is Bush really a part of that? Who
> > knows? But he is gone in a few months. Is McCain? I sure the hell
> > doubt it. In fact, I am hoping that this whole idea is just wrong.
> > BUT...
>
> > If I wanted to believe a conspiracy theory in which a sort of "liberal
> > fascism"
>
> >http://liberalfascism.nationalreview.com/
>
> > involving some sort of corporate statism is evolving, I would more
> > easily believe that Obama would be happy to be a part of it than
> > McCain.
>
> > In any case, as I see it, the basic problem with America is that we
> > have too many dependent people. When people vote to be taken care of,
> > when they vote out of fear, when they expect government to be their
> > economic daddy, when they accept the concept of a welfare state, then,
> > by virtue of that fact alone, IMHO, the state is not going to long
> > survive. It's time for some tough love.
>
> The Govt deregulated, but never called for accountability. Once the
> Banking Firms saw that, they ran amok. What they did makes the Mafia
> look like angels! They practiced fraud under a the guise of "creative
> investing"
> This video, while quite funny says it better than I ever could.http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x684wa_the-last-laugh-george-parr-su...
I have seen a lot of videos. And I have read much. Watching a single
video, esp. if it is made by a spinmeister, can be misleading. One
has to consider cause and effect, and esp. that which initiated the
problem. I think these paragraghs are key. Clinton and his
administration had far, far more to do with this than is being told.
In effect Clinton and Demoncraps used their administrative powers to
try to help get housing for the poor:
-----------------------
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's mortgage
policies fueled the trend towards issuing risky loans.[87][88] In
1995, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac began receiving affordable housing
credit for purchasing mortgage backed securities which included loans
to low income borrowers. This resulted in the agencies purchasing
subprime securities.[89] Subprime mortgage loan originations surged by
25% per year between 1994 and 2003, resulting in a nearly ten-fold
increase in the volume of these loans in just nine years.[90] As of
November 2007 Fannie Mae held a total of $55.9 billion of subprime
securities and $324.7 billion of Alt-A securities in their portfolios.
[91] As of the 2008Q2 Freddie Mac had $190 billion in Alt-A mortgages.
Together they have more than half of the $1 trillion of Alt-A
mortgages.[92] The growth in the subprime mortgage market, which
included B, C and D paper bought by private investors such as hedge
funds, fed a housing bubble that later burst.
A September 30, 1999 New York Times article stated, "... the Fannie
Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans... The
action... will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to
individuals whose credit is generally not good enough... Fannie Mae...
has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to
expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people...
borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good
enough... Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk... the
government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble... prompting a
government rescue... the move is intended in part to increase the
number of... home owners who tend to have worse credit
ratings..." [93]
On September 10, 2003, U.S. Congressman Ron Paul gave a speech to
Congress where he said that the then current government policies
encouraged lending to people who couldn't afford to pay the money
back, and he predicted that this would lead to a bailout, and he
introduced a bill to abolish these policies. [94]
-------------------
You will note, that, paradoxically, even the ultra-liberal NYTs saw
this coming - IN 1999. They predicted it based on what Clinton did.
Also Fannie Mae came under Republican scrutiny around 2004-5.
Franklin Raines, Demoncrap, was forced out as head of Fannie Mae.
Sununu, Dole, Hagel - Republicans - introduced in senate committee,
bill S.190, to try to put an end to this nonsense. Democraps voted
against it along party lines, thereby signalling that they would
filibuster and prevent any regualtion of Fannie Mae. The bill died.
McCain (surprise) tried to resurrect it in 2006, but Demoncraps took
congress in 2007.
And then there is the BS about so-called "predatory lending." The
truth is that Demoncraps loved this. Obama worked for ACORN. ACORN
pressured loan orginators to make these subprime loans to the poor.
The overwhelming majority of these subprimes went to blacks and
Hispanics, highly disproportionate to their numbers in the population.
Look. Don't try to tell me that later (after the horses were already
out of the barn) Republican deregulation did this. I don't believe it
for a moment.
Demoncraps did this. Socialists did this. What is called third way
socialism did this. Government interfered in a market economy. And
it is completely insane to be putting Obama, quintessential socialist/
probable Marxist in the driver's seat now. Obama and his community
organizing, an his corrupt ACORN buddies were on the front liens of
PUSHING these loans to people, NOT protecting them from these loans
that they never could pay back. And why not? Socialists expect us
all to pay for this housing.
I honestly have to wonder. Are you fully informed? Have you been
listening to too many socialist mainstream media deceivers? Are you a
shill for the Demoncraps? Who knows?
Just out of curiosity, do you ever watch FoxNews?
How ironic this is. And you want more government control under a
socialist!
> > You teach economics?> > > -
>
> No, those who can, do, those who can't, teach! :-)
And those who can't teach, teach teachers. And those who can't teach
teachers, become school administrators. And those who can't do well
as school administrators become liberal politicians.
Mitchell Holman
3d6bbd...@75g2000hso.googlegroups.com:
>
>
> Orwell lives. Unlike you, I am not paranoid about rich people. I
> don't envy them their money. And I understand that most of that money
> is invested. It is capital, driving the economic engines. Soaking
> the rich will just destroy the economy faster.
That is the same prattle we heard from Conservatives
when Clinton raised taxes. Instead the economy boomed,
the stock market tripled in value and the budget deficit
became a budget SURPLUS.
Facts one, rightwing paranoia zero.
Lifsabsurd
> Lifsabsurd <bob...@att.net> wrote in news:488ae9e6-2827-4ea3-8749-
>
>
>
> > Orwell lives. Unlike you, I am not paranoid about rich people. I
> > don't envy them their money. And I understand that most of that money
> > is invested. It is capital, driving the economic engines. Soaking
> > the rich will just destroy the economy faster.
>
> That is the same prattle we heard from Conservatives
> when Clinton raised taxes. Instead the economy boomed,
> the stock market tripled in value and the budget deficit
> became a budget SURPLUS.
>
> Facts one, rightwing paranoia zero.
What a pile of crap. Is that why people put Republicans into congress
in 1994, after two years of Clinotonomics? And exactly when did the
economy improve? Clinton's first two years? Or after a Republican
congress was elected?
Husky
Dog.com> wrote:
> Husky wrote:
> > On Oct 11, 8:06 pm, Lifsabsurd <bob...@att.net> wrote:
> >> On Oct 11, 6:06 pm, Husky <Cyns...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I retired from the NYPD and opened a small business. We found that we
> > couldn't hold on to the better workers, and couldn't get rid of the
> > lesser ones fast enough! I was truly amazed at the differences in
> > attitude, amongst them. Some couldn't do or learn enough and some
> > only regretted they couldn't do less.
> > Small business owners are saddled with a ton of mandates that bleed
> > them. Workman's Comp, (The state is Gestapo Like in it's
> > enforcement) And a heavy leaning towards employees, which bordered on
> > insanity. (We caught an employee stealing merchandise, fired her, and
> > PAID HER her due, minus the merchandise's value, at our cost. She
> > went to the State and they forced us to pay her the full salary, then
> > take her to court for the merchandises value.)
> > Marking on a curve and ridiculous interpretation of rules and laws
> > give some people a sense of entitlement.
>
> Most people never get the education you did....
> I picture someone from NYPD as a Liberal and voting for every tax and
> every regulation and every Democrat.
Personally, I am an Independent with Libertarian NOT Liberal
leanings. The best person for the job was Ron Paul, but the
Republicans kicked him under the bus, in less than honorable fashion.
Now you have McCain who is seeking the office as a trophy. He's a
Lame Duck the day he takes office. He uses Vets for a prop and has
received extremely low marks from Votevets.org I don't trust him or
his judgment.
>
> All this Liberalism has created the half of the population that just
> don't care, they treat life like(you and the rest of working America)
> Owe them a paycheck for causing nothing but problems.
>
> I've also owned my own and run businesses for others.... It's funny that
> you can explain this to a Liberal and they'll blame you for being greedy
> and yet if the businesses I was running didn't make some profit, not
> only were the useless employees out of work, but the good workers were
> out along with me.....
>
> I decided to retire early and get out of running any small business....
>
> Does anybody really wonder why we are at this point of economic crash.
> The Socialist encroachment on the capitalist system is breaking the
> bank.(Literally)
Govt oversaw, Freddie and Fanny, and the Sec the "Market Makers",
accounting wise, was criminal.
Greed, outright fraud and thievery, sans any sort of government
oversight had something to do with it. This whole economic disaster
IS man made and the ones who perpetrated it should be tried. Laws
were broken, and they should be applied.
It was deregulation without accountability that caused this, and no
one party is guilty or innocent in regard to complicity!. Still, the
bankers, etc who finagled, shoul be held answerable and prosecuted if
reasonable cause exist. JMHO
Mitchell Holman
895d73...@v28g2000hsv.googlegroups.com:
OK, Pinky, answer us this one: if a GOP Congress is
all that is needed to balance the budget explain why
the deficit MUSHROOMED under the GOP congress from
2000 - 2006?
Then explain why "fiscal conservative" Bush failed
to veto a SINGLE spending bill in his entire first term.
Then explain what happened to the budget surplus
Bush inherited.
Mitchell Holman
"Our children are ultimately going to have to pay for it"
- GOP Senator Bill Frist, regarding the massive debts being
run up by Pres. Bush and the GOP Congress, 9/23/05
Lifsabsurd
> Lifsabsurd <bob...@att.net> wrote in news:6c1848c9-80ac-4a23-89cc-
> 895d73d11...@v28g2000hsv.googlegroups.com:
The technology bubble, another one that developed under Clinton, burst
early in the Bush administration. That destroyed much of the paper
wealth in the so-called surplus. Only Bush's tax cut stimulus
prevented that from becoming worse.
And, Bush tried to be a good compassionate conservative. Translation
- he leaned left. He gave away too much welfare in an attempt to get
Demoncrap support.
But the most important factor can be given in one date - 9/11/2001.
It changed the world.
> Mitchell Holman
>
> "Our children are ultimately going to have to pay for it"
> - GOP Senator Bill Frist, regarding the massive debts being
> run up by Pres. Bush and the GOP Congress, 9/23/05- Hide quoted text -
Husky
conservative spent and
ineptly handled the affairs of this Nation, it's hard to believe
ANYONE wouldn't be better. And of the two
choices I have left, McCain comes in #2.
>
> Besides, I don't buy for a second that Republicans caused the crisis.
> At the core of the problem was Fannie and Freddie and that is 100%
> around the necks of the Demoncraps. Franklin Raines, Jim Johnson, and
> Daniel Mudd are hardly Republicans. And the Black Caucas that loved
> them?
didn't. Their acts of omission allowed this to happen. The Govt
accountants picked up on how bad it was, the first day they looked at
the books. Of course, by then, it was way too late.
Once they saw what they could get
away with, they ran wild, like a bunch of kids with a sheepish
substitute teacher
The Republicans hands are as dirty as anyone's!
>And I have read much. Watching a single
> video, esp. if it is made by a spinmeister, can be misleading. One
> has to consider cause and effect, and esp. that which initiated the
> problem. I think these paragraghs are key. Clinton and his
> administration had far, far more to do with this than is being told.
> In effect Clinton and Demoncraps used their administrative powers to
> try to help get housing for the poor:
to kill 25 people.
Are their deaths my fault?
Many of those mortgages were fraudulently constructed, as were the
markets selling them as "Insured" items.
And he was right. BUT Crooked lenders and Market Makers took the
situation to a whole new level.
Bad loans, alone would not have made this mess, sans the creative
marketing of mortgages by Wall Street.
Please, watch the video, if only for laughs!
> -------------------
>
> You will note, that, paradoxically, even the ultra-liberal NYTs saw
> this coming - IN 1999. They predicted it based on what Clinton did.
>
> Also Fannie Mae came under Republican scrutiny around 2004-5.
> Franklin Raines, Demoncrap, was forced out as head of Fannie Mae.
> Sununu, Dole, Hagel - Republicans - introduced in senate committee,
> bill S.190, to try to put an end to this nonsense. Democraps voted
> against it along party lines, thereby signalling that they would
> filibuster and prevent any regualtion of Fannie Mae. The bill died.
> McCain (surprise) tried to resurrect it in 2006, but Demoncraps took
> congress in 2007.
>
> And then there is the BS about so-called "predatory lending." The
> truth is that Demoncraps loved this. Obama worked for ACORN. ACORN
> pressured loan orginators to make these subprime loans to the poor.
> The overwhelming majority of these subprimes went to blacks and
> Hispanics, highly disproportionate to their numbers in the population.
Cite, please. TIA
>
> Look. Don't try to tell me that later (after the horses were already
> out of the barn) Republican deregulation did this. I don't believe it
> for a moment.
I said this before, but here goes; It was the failure by the GOVT. to
monitor these people
that allowed this to get so out of hand!
>
> Demoncraps did this. Socialists did this. What is called third way
> socialism did this. Government interfered in a market economy. And
> it is completely insane to be putting Obama, quintessential socialist/
> probable Marxist in the driver's seat now. Obama and his community
> organizing, an his corrupt ACORN buddies were on the front liens of
> PUSHING these loans to people, NOT protecting them from these loans
> that they never could pay back. And why not? Socialists expect us
> all to pay for this housing.
And Republicans lied to the American people to get us into an unjust
"War", cost us nearly a trillion dollars on this boondogle and most
importantly, Cost the Lives of, and mistreated our troops who had, and
have to do their dirty work for them. Heck, they even sent Powell to
the UN with a pack of lies, by lying to him!
Sorry, Charley, there's enough blame to go around for everyone.
The irony is that everyone was calling Ron Paul a "loony" before this
happened. Crazy like a Fox!
>
> I honestly have to wonder. Are you fully informed?
Fully as can be, and comparable to you, I'd say.
>Have you been listening to too many socialist mainstream media deceivers?
No, But I find it interesting that you tend to label any news source
other than Fox as socialist.
>Are you a shill for the Demoncraps? Who knows?
I Know! Google my Account for "Ron Paul"
>
> Just out of curiosity, do you ever watch FoxNews?
Not regularly, but yes.
You're jumping to wrongful conclusions. GIGO
What I don't want is McCain. I, like many other Independents and
Republicans don't trust him or his like politics.
Votevets.org!
>
> > > You teach economics?> > > -
>
> > No, those who can, do, those who can't, teach! :-)
>
> And those who can't teach, teach teachers. And those who can't teach
> teachers, become school administrators. And those who can't do well
> as school administrators become liberal politicians.
As I can, I guess, I'll just stick with doing!
Lifsabsurd
And you trust the judgement of a guy who goes to a black racist church
for 20 years and is hired by a communist to help influence school
curricula?
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1511
The truth about Obama and Bill Ayers is there.
And there is much more. Have you read it?
In a 1995 case known as Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank, Obama and his
fellow Davis Miner attorneys charged that Citibank was making too few
loans to black applicants, and they won the case.[3]
Bankers wanted to give out these loans? Or bankers were threatened
with being called racists if they did not? Obama was a lawyer for
ACORN, one of the most corrupt, socialist groups in the nation. And
ACORN wanted these loans to minorities.
Click on the link above and read it. The site is run by David
Horowitz. Then come back and tell me you don't care about all that.
> > All this Liberalism has created the half of the population that just
> > don't care, they treat life like(you and the rest of working America)
> > Owe them a paycheck for causing nothing but problems.
>
> And Bush with a Rep Congress for 6 years did even worse.
>
> > I've also owned my own and run businesses for others.... It's funny that
> > you can explain this to a Liberal and they'll blame you for being greedy
> > and yet if the businesses I was running didn't make some profit, not
> > only were the useless employees out of work, but the good workers were
> > out along with me.....
>
> > I decided to retire early and get out of running any small business....
>
> > Does anybody really wonder why we are at this point of economic crash.
> > The Socialist encroachment on the capitalist system is breaking the
> > bank.(Literally)
>
> Deregulation and accountability are different things. The way the
> Govt oversaw, Freddie and Fanny, and the Sec the "Market Makers",
> accounting wise, was criminal.
>
> Greed, outright fraud and thievery, sans any sort of government
> oversight had something to do with it. This whole economic disaster
> IS man made
As far as I am concerned it's 90% Democrat made.
and the ones who perpetrated it should be tried. Laws
> were broken, and they should be applied.
> It was deregulation without accountability that caused this, and no
> one party is guilty or innocent in regard to complicity!. Still, the
> bankers, etc who finagled, shoul be held answerable and prosecuted if
> reasonable cause exist. JMHO- Hide quoted text -
Husky
lauded someone for shooting a Doctor.
>
> http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1511
Nah, I stick to factchecks.org
>
> The truth about Obama and Bill Ayers is there.
>
> And there is much more. Have you read it?
>
> In a 1995 case known as Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank, Obama and his
> fellow Davis Miner attorneys charged that Citibank was making too few
> loans to black applicants, and they won the case.[3]
>
> Bankers wanted to give out these loans? Or bankers were threatened
> with being called racists if they did not? Obama was a lawyer for
> ACORN, one of the most corrupt, socialist groups in the nation. And
> ACORN wanted these loans to minorities.
>
> Click on the link above and read it. The site is run by David
right.
> Horowitz. Then come back and tell me you don't care about all that.
>
>
>
> > > All this Liberalism has created the half of the population that just
> > > don't care, they treat life like(you and the rest of working America)
> > > Owe them a paycheck for causing nothing but problems.
>
> > And Bush with a Rep Congress for 6 years did even worse.
>
> > > I've also owned my own and run businesses for others.... It's funny that
> > > you can explain this to a Liberal and they'll blame you for being greedy
> > > and yet if the businesses I was running didn't make some profit, not
> > > only were the useless employees out of work, but the good workers were
> > > out along with me.....
>
> > > I decided to retire early and get out of running any small business....
>
> > > Does anybody really wonder why we are at this point of economic crash.
> > > The Socialist encroachment on the capitalist system is breaking the
> > > bank.(Literally)
>
> > Deregulation and accountability are different things. The way the
> > Govt oversaw, Freddie and Fanny, and the Sec the "Market Makers",
> > accounting wise, was criminal.
>
> > Greed, outright fraud and thievery, sans any sort of government
> > oversight had something to do with it. This whole economic disaster
> > IS man made
>
> As far as I am concerned it's 90% Democrat made.
>
> and the ones who perpetrated it should be tried. Laws
Mitchell Holman
d9f253...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
After the deregulation bill that Clinton vetoed and
the GOP Congress overrode.
> burst
> early in the Bush administration. That destroyed much of the paper
> wealth in the so-called surplus. Only Bush's tax cut stimulus
> prevented that from becoming worse.
>
Show us a single balanced budget that Bush submitted
to Congress.
> And, Bush tried to be a good compassionate conservative.
By starting TWO quagmire wars, going a spending
spree that would make a drunken sailor blush and
creating even more federal agencies.
> Translation
> - he leaned left. He gave away too much welfare in an attempt to get
> Demoncrap support.
Like Bush gives a rats ass what Democrats think.
Are you serious.
>
> But the most important factor can be given in one date - 9/11/2001.
And what was Bush DOING on 9/11/01?
Reading a childrens book.
Way to go, Shrub.
Kevin Cunningham
It's just wonderful to watch a brave conservative standing up for the
rich. Most of them are rich for hereditary reasons of course, they
picked just the right womb to wind up in. Doesn't that show you how
smart they are? They picked the right womb and I didn't. I guess I'm
just eaten up with shame and anger. Yeah, sure, giving the rich all
your money is the smart thing to do. And better yet give it to the
hereditary rich, those people have been rich longer so they know
more! And the poor? They just piss their money away on food and
medicine.
What I love is your inability to think of anything longer than a
football game. For instance you just don't remember that the last
great assault on the national debt was done by the Clinton. Alan
Greenspan wrote his biography recently. He thought that the problems
of the national debt were about to disappear, Bush was smart enough,
he thought, to run a tight ship.
Wrong. The national debt has never been higher.
Then you magic repugs changed your whole philosophy. You went from
free market to socialism in a matter of months. And you didn't bat an
eye. Your a right winger whether that means a devotion to the free
market or to socialism.
You go you socialists!
Lifsabsurd
Factchecks is owned by Annenberg. The same Annenberg Obama used to be
head of.
> > The truth about Obama and Bill Ayers is there.
>
> Truth? See above for the truth.
Factchecks? You trust them despite their obvious association with
Obama? Despite their association with Ayers? So you trust Ayers
then?
> > And there is much more. Have you read it?
>
> > In a 1995 case known as Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank, Obama and his
> > fellow Davis Miner attorneys charged that Citibank was making too few
> > loans to black applicants, and they won the case.[3]
>
> Was the judge who ruled on the EVIDENCE a Liberal Pinko, too?
The point is that Obama was pushing these subprime loans that caused
the problem. If this financial mess comes down to giving subprime
loans to people who could not afford them, and Obama was up to his
ears in doing that, then, obviously, he bears serious responsibility
for it.
> > Bankers wanted to give out these loans? Or bankers were threatened
> > with being called racists if they did not? Obama was a lawyer for
> > ACORN, one of the most corrupt, socialist groups in the nation. And
> > ACORN wanted these loans to minorities.
>
> > Click on the link above and read it. The site is run by David
>
> Click in Factcheck.org for the truth! They're not aligned, left or
> right.
You don't know that factcheck is run by Annenberg. That fact too is
on the site I have referenced and on many others. Google it.
>
>
> > Horowitz. Then come back and tell me you don't care about all that.
>
> > > > All this Liberalism has created the half of the population that just
> > > > don't care, they treat life like(you and the rest of working America)
> > > > Owe them a paycheck for causing nothing but problems.
>
> > > And Bush with a Rep Congress for 6 years did even worse.
>
> > > > I've also owned my own and run businesses for others.... It's funny that
> > > > you can explain this to a Liberal and they'll blame you for being greedy
> > > > and yet if the businesses I was running didn't make some profit, not
> > > > only were the useless employees out of work, but the good workers were
> > > > out along with me.....
>
> > > > I decided to retire early and get out of running any small business....
>
> > > > Does anybody really wonder why we are at this point of economic crash.
> > > > The Socialist encroachment on the capitalist system is breaking the
> > > > bank.(Literally)
>
> > > Deregulation and accountability are different things. The way the
> > > Govt oversaw, Freddie and Fanny, and the Sec the "Market Makers",
> > > accounting wise, was criminal.
>
> > > Greed, outright fraud and thievery, sans any sort of government
> > > oversight had something to do with it. This whole economic disaster
> > > IS man made
>
> > As far as I am concerned it's 90% Democrat made.
> That's one opinion!
>
> > and the ones who perpetrated it should be tried. Laws
>
> Yes, the businessmen who committed fraud.
So, you are a businessman who wants more socialism. Well, good luck.
>
>
>
>
> > > were broken, and they should be applied.
> > > It was deregulation without accountability that caused this, and no
> > > one party is guilty or innocent in regard to complicity!. Still, the
> > > bankers, etc who finagled, shoul be held answerable and prosecuted if
> > > reasonable cause exist. JMHO- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Kevin Cunningham
So now we get into your racism. The case styled Buycks-Roberson v.
Citibank, has nothing what so ever to do with "... Obama and his
fellow Davis Miner attorneys charged that Citibank was making too few
loans to black applicants, and they won the case.". The cause of
action alleged was not that a bank had to make any loan to any African-
American but that Citibank didn't loan by design to people who could
repay the loans. Got that racist? Citibank was accused of redlining
areas in violation of a bunch of laws including the 13th amendment.
And that's why you are a racist. You haven't read the case. Heck, I
doubt that you've read any case. You take the word of a racist as a
racist. You would rather lie than tell the truth. You just don't
like African-Americans.
Find another country, racist.
See, you haven't read the case and
Bugman
It is not. Where did you come up with that nonsense?
Lifsabsurd
Your hatred and class paranoia show through clearly.
> What I love is your inability to think of anything longer than a
> football game. For instance you just don't remember that the last
> great assault on the national debt was done by the Clinton. Alan
> Greenspan wrote his biography recently. He thought that the problems
> of the national debt were about to disappear, Bush was smart enough,
> he thought, to run a tight ship.
Clinton, in his first two years, raised taxes and hurt the economy.
He later admitted raising taxes was a mistake. Republicans were
elected into congress in 1994 as a result. From then on one should
not give Clinton sole credit for anything.
> Wrong. The national debt has never been higher.
>
> Then you magic repugs changed your whole philosophy. You went from
> free market to socialism in a matter of months. And you didn't bat an
> eye. Your a right winger whether that means a devotion to the free
> market or to socialism.
Republicans leaned to socialism, yes. Demoncraps ARE socialists.
> You go you socialists!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Orwell lives. Like Demoncraps are not the socialists and Republicans
are. This is most likely a deliberate attempt at getting away with a
lie. No one could be so stupid. Obama is not only a socialist, he is
an extremely radical one.
What is the most stupid is believing that more socialism is the answer
to America's problems.
Kevin Cunningham
Show us were Sen. Obama urged banks to give sub prime loans. Explain
to us one case that Mr. Obama participated in that was supposed to
force lenders to lend to people who couldn't repay.
And lets talk about your racism. You have this bizarre idea that you
can confuse people with sick little lies like insisting the case of
Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank had any thing to do with sub prime
lending. Then explain to us what Mr. Obama had to do with it.
And lets talk some more about your racism. Your willing to accuse
Sen. Obama of doing things he never did. On the other hand your
unwilling to tell every one that your a liar and a racist. Of course
most racists are liars.
Oh, by the way Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank closed in 1998. Idiot.
Husky
snip
>
> > More than McCain who sat silently through a rally where the presenter
> > lauded someone for shooting a Doctor.
>
> > >http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1511
>
> > Nah, I stick to factchecks.org
>
> Factchecks is owned by Annenberg. The same Annenberg Obama used to be
> head of.
What else do you know about Annenberg?
>
> > > The truth about Obama and Bill Ayers is there.
>
> > Truth? See above for the truth.
>
> Factchecks? You trust them despite their obvious association with
> Obama? Despite their association with Ayers? So you trust Ayers
> then?
I trust the veracity of the site. Do you trust www.discoverthenetworks.org
BTW, Annenberg doesn't endorse Obama.
>
> > > And there is much more. Have you read it?
>
> > > In a 1995 case known as Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank, Obama and his
> > > fellow Davis Miner attorneys charged that Citibank was making too few
> > > loans to black applicants, and they won the case.[3]
>
> > Was thejudgewho ruled on the EVIDENCE a Liberal Pinko, too?
>
> The point is that Obama was pushing these subprime loans that caused
> the problem. If this financial mess comes down to giving subprime
> loans to people who could not afford them, and Obama was up to his
> ears in doing that, then, obviously, he bears serious responsibility
> for it.
Let's talk about the judge and why he/she ruled in favor or Obama's
client.
>
> > > Bankers wanted to give out these loans? Or bankers were threatened
> > > with being called racists if they did not? Obama was a lawyer for
> > > ACORN, one of the most corrupt, socialist groups in the nation. And
> > > ACORN wanted these loans to minorities.
>
> > > Click on the link above and read it. The site is run by David
>
> > Click in Factcheck.org for the truth! They're not aligned, left or
> > right.
>
> You don't know that factcheck is run by Annenberg. That fact too is
> on the site I have referenced and on many others. Google it.
She's also a McCain supporter!
FORMER U.S. AMBASSADORS FOR MCCAIN-PALIN
Weston Adams, Malawi -- Columbia, S.C.
Lenore Annenberg, Chief of Protocol -- Radnor, Penn.
http://www.johnmccain.com/informing/news/PressReleases/1b838127-b4a0-4868-9906-62f555376089.htm
The silly guilt by association ploy can work both ways, not that I
endorse it.
i.e. One could ask, why did McCain accept her endorsement when she
associates with terrorist?
You're stating "facts", not in evidence. I never said that.
Why are you so enthusiastic about a guy who followed Bush 90% of the
time? Good Luck!
nys999
ab82-0b5...@v30g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:
Greenspan thought Bush was "smart enough"? Well don't that 'splain a lot
a'stuff. Greenspan: an example of how high an idiot savant can rise in
America.
Lifsabsurd
> On Oct 12, 5:17 pm, Lifsabsurd <bob...@att.net> wrote:
>
> snip
>
> > > More than McCain who sat silently through a rally where the presenter
> > > lauded someone for shooting a Doctor.
>
> > > >http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1511
>
> > > Nah, I stick to factchecks.org
>
> > Factchecks is owned by Annenberg. The same Annenberg Obama used to be
> > head of.
>
> What else do you know about Annenberg?
>
> > > > The truth about Obama and Bill Ayers is there.
>
> > > Truth? See above for the truth.
>
> > Factchecks? You trust them despite their obvious association with
> > Obama? Despite their association with Ayers? So you trust Ayers
> > then?
>
> I trust the veracity of the site. Do you trustwww.discoverthenetworks.org
> BTW, Annenberg doesn't endorse Obama.
Yes. I do trust the site in question and it is irrelevant that
Annenberg does not endorse Obama. It is also irrelevant that Lenore
Annenberg, wife of the former philanthropist that started the
Annenberg Foundation, endorses McCain. She is not an unrepentent
communist and terrorist. Did she get hired by Ayers, who *is* an
unrepentent communist and terrorist, and serve with him in CAC?
And I trust Stanley Kurtz, who examined the CAC archives. From the
site:
"Ayers founded CAC and was its guiding spirit," Kurtz wrote in
September 2008. "No one would have been appointed the CAC chairman
without his approval." According to Kurtz, the CAC archives show that
Obama and Ayers worked as a team to advance the foundation's agenda --
with Obama responsible for fiscal matters while Ayers focused on
shaping educational policy. The archived documents further reveal that
Ayers served as an ex-officio member of the board that Obama chaired
through CAC's first year; that Ayers served with Obama on the CAC
governance committee; and that Ayers worked with Obama to write CAC's
bylaws.
--------------
They also gave out money to ACORN. I suppose you are going to tell me
that ACORN is not a radical left-wing group? Since I have had some
personal experience with them years ago in St. Louis, I have my own
opinion on that. And they ARE a radical socialist group. This then
is reforming education? Giving money to ACORN?
> > > > And there is much more. Have you read it?
>
> > > > In a 1995 case known as Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank, Obama and his
> > > > fellow Davis Miner attorneys charged that Citibank was making too few
> > > > loans to black applicants, and they won the case.[3]
>
> > > Was thejudgewho ruled on the EVIDENCE a Liberal Pinko, too?
>
> > The point is that Obama was pushing these subprime loans that caused
> > the problem. If this financial mess comes down to giving subprime
> > loans to people who could not afford them, and Obama was up to his
> > ears in doing that, then, obviously, he bears serious responsibility
> > for it.
>
> Let's talk about the judge and why he/she ruled in favor or Obama's
> client.
In terms of the point that Obama worked for a crooked organization I
do not see how either the judge or the verdict is relevant. Nor do I
see how either is relevant with respect to the question of whether
ACORN and Obama were in favor of, or were against, these bad loans
being made. Clearly, they were in favor of these bad loans being
made. In other words, the charge that such loans were being pushed on
minorities as "predatory loans" is not consistent with ACORN and Obama
suing to have more such loans made. Obama was up to his ears in the
front lines of giving loans to people who could not afford them.
>
>
> > > > Bankers wanted to give out these loans? Or bankers were threatened
> > > > with being called racists if they did not? Obama was a lawyer for
> > > > ACORN, one of the most corrupt, socialist groups in the nation. And
> > > > ACORN wanted these loans to minorities.
>
> > > > Click on the link above and read it. The site is run by David
>
> > > Click in Factcheck.org for the truth! They're not aligned, left or
> > > right.
I know that Obama had a working association with Annenberg. Why
should I want to give any group funded by Annenberg my vote of
confidence *in lieu of* other *conflicting* reports? And why should I
not give more weight to someone who looked at the archives of the
group in question independently? You think I should trust a
foundation to rat on itself, so to speak?
> > You don't know that factcheck is run by Annenberg. That fact too is
> > on the site I have referenced and on many others. Google it.
>
> She's also a McCain supporter!
> FORMER U.S. AMBASSADORS FOR MCCAIN-PALIN
Good. Lenore Annenberg is not an unrepentent communist terrorist. So
what?
> Weston Adams, Malawi -- Columbia, S.C.
>
> Lenore Annenberg, Chief of Protocol -- Radnor, Penn.http://www.johnmccain.com/informing/news/PressReleases/1b838127-b4a0-...
> The silly guilt by association ploy can work both ways, not that I
> endorse it.
> i.e. One could ask, why did McCain accept her endorsement when she
> associates with terrorist?
She associates with terrorists because Annenberg funded the CAC? Did
she personally pick Ayers?
> time? Good Luck!- Hide quoted text -
Lifsabsurd
>
> - Show quoted text -
http://www.factcheck.org/about/
It is not the CAC, if that is what you mean. But the same foundation
funds it.
Lifsabsurd
The case in question is here:
The pressure brought on Citibank by this lawsuit, was to force them to
give loans to minorities, alleging racial discrimination. It is
reasonable to believe that the loans that were pressured to be given
included subprimes to high risk borrowers. Do you have evidence
otherwise?
> And lets talk about your racism. You have this bizarre idea that you
> can confuse people with sick little lies like insisting the case of
> Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank had any thing to do with sub prime
> lending. Then explain to us what Mr. Obama had to do with it.
It had to do with pressuring lenders to give loans to minorities by
playing the race card. You know, like you are playing the race card
now. Playing the race card is getting to be very old, and I am fed up
with it.
See above link.
> And lets talk some more about your racism. Your willing to accuse
> Sen. Obama of doing things he never did. On the other hand your
> unwilling to tell every one that your a liar and a racist. Of course
> most racists are liars.
This bullshit of shouting RACIST has done one helluva lot of damage to
this country. One cannot tell the truth if it involves anything
negative about a black person. You expect me to back down because of
it? Think again.
> Oh, by the way Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank closed in 1998. Idiot.
And?
Lifsabsurd
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Here is an article by Stanley Kurtz:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122212856075765367.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
You might want to read it and compare it to what Annenberg says. And
yes, I believe Kurtz. If is clear that Obama has changed his story
with respect to Ayers. First Ayers was just a guy in the
neighborhood. Then he was someone he knew, but didn't know was a
terrorist. Then it was that he did know he was a terrorist but
thought he had been rehabilitated. Obama clearly lied about Ayers.
Plus, all this has to be put in the context of the other things one
knows about Obama. And there is much that does not look good.
You can believe what you want, and, obviously you will. But, for me,
when there is this much smoke........
Not that it will likely change anyone's mind, but I once favored Alan
Keyes for president, and I am sure I wrote as much on this very
newsgroup, although some time ago. One could google it on Google
Groups advanced search facility.
Husky
them being a radical left wing group. Do you have a cite saying
that's what they are?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACORN
>
>
>
> > > > > And there is much more. Have you read it?
>
> > > > > In a 1995 case known as Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank, Obama and his
> > > > > fellow Davis Miner attorneys charged that Citibank was making too few
> > > > > loans to black applicants, and they won the case.[3]
>
> > > > Was thejudgewho ruled on the EVIDENCE a Liberal Pinko, too?
>
> > > The point is that Obama was pushing these subprime loans that caused
> > > the problem. If this financial mess comes down to giving subprime
> > > loans to people who could not afford them, and Obama was up to his
> > > ears in doing that, then, obviously, he bears serious responsibility
> > > for it.
>
> > Let's talk about the judge and why he/she ruled in favor or Obama's
> > client.
>
> In terms of the point that Obama worked for a crooked organization I
> do not see how either the judge or the verdict is relevant.
most often
work for people with legal problems, That's what they do!
>Nor do I
> see how either is relevant with respect to the question of whether
> ACORN and Obama were in favor of, or were against, these bad loans
> being made. Clearly, they were in favor of these bad loans being
> made. In other words, the charge that such loans were being pushed on
> minorities as "predatory loans" is not consistent with ACORN and Obama
> suing to have more such loans made. Obama was up to his ears in the
> front lines of giving loans to people who could not afford them.
Well, if there were that many, perhaps you could name a few, please
>
>
>
> > > > > Bankers wanted to give out these loans? Or bankers were threatened
> > > > > with being called racists if they did not? Obama was a lawyer for
> > > > > ACORN, one of the most corrupt, socialist groups in the nation. And
> > > > > ACORN wanted these loans to minorities.
>
> > > > > Click on the link above and read it. The site is run by David
>
> > > > Click in Factcheck.org for the truth! They're not aligned, left or
> > > > right.
>
> I know that Obama had a working association with Annenberg. Why
> should I want to give any group funded by Annenberg my vote of
> confidence *in lieu of* other *conflicting* reports? And why should I
> not give more weight to someone who looked at the archives of the
> group in question independently? You think I should trust a
> foundation to rat on itself, so to speak?
That's you choice but it doesn't negate the veracity of he site. Have
you any verifiable statements or proof that the site isn't exactly
what it say it is?
>
> > > You don't know that factcheck is run by Annenberg. That fact too is
> > > on the site I have referenced and on many others. Google it.
>
> > She's also a McCain supporter!
> > FORMER U.S. AMBASSADORS FOR MCCAIN-PALIN
>
> Good. Lenore Annenberg is not an unrepentent communist terrorist. So
> what?
She also sponsored the Group of which Ayers part of. Her association
with Ayers must be questioned if you question Obamas'.
And while your at it, playing the silly association game, question
McCain's relationship with Liddy. A convicted felon and more.
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/steve_chapman/2008/10/mccain-has-his.html
"Liddy, advising Branch Davidians how to defend themselves from ATF
agents during a radio show:
"If the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms insists upon a
firefight, give them a firefight. Just remember, they're wearing flak
jackets and you're better off shooting for the head.""
http://74.125.45.104/search?q=cache:FvqHLzUM_vEJ:www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/05/g-gordon-liddy-john-mccai_n_100134.html+liddy+mccain&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us&client=firefox-a
>
> > Weston Adams, Malawi -- Columbia, S.C.
>
> > Lenore Annenberg, Chief of Protocol -- Radnor, Penn.http://www.johnmccain.com/informing/news/PressReleases/1b838127-b4a0-...
> > The silly guilt by association ploy can work both ways, not that I
> > endorse it.
> > i.e. One could ask, why did McCain accept her endorsement when she
> > associates with terrorist?
>
> She associates with terrorists because Annenberg funded the CAC? Did
> she personally pick Ayers?
Did Obama? Who else was on that panel?
Lifsabsurd
Personally, I don't need a site to tell me that. I once had a long
conversation with a leader of ACORN in St. Louis.
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > And there is much more. Have you read it?
>
> > > > > > In a 1995 case known as Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank, Obama and his
> > > > > > fellow Davis Miner attorneys charged that Citibank was making too few
> > > > > > loans to black applicants, and they won the case.[3]
>
> > > > > Was thejudgewho ruled on the EVIDENCE a Liberal Pinko, too?
>
> > > > The point is that Obama was pushing these subprime loans that caused
> > > > the problem. If this financial mess comes down to giving subprime
> > > > loans to people who could not afford them, and Obama was up to his
> > > > ears in doing that, then, obviously, he bears serious responsibility
> > > > for it.
>
> > > Let's talk about the judge and why he/she ruled in favor or Obama's
> > > client.
>
> > In terms of the point that Obama worked for a crooked organization I
> > do not see how either the judge or the verdict is relevant.
>
> It's relevant because the Judge upheld their position. BTW lawyer
> most often
> work for people with legal problems, That's what they do!
The case in question pressured a lender that did not want to give out
loans to give them out under the pressure of being labeled racist. Do
you really believe that capitalist pigs would not give out loans to
minorities and the poor if there were money to be made without serious
risk?
It certainly looks to me like such race-card-pressuring of lenders,
along with the development of the subprime loan (hello Demoncraps
Herbert and Marion Sandler), and the changes in HUD and Fannnie Mae
(Demoncrap led) made during the Clinton administration, led to
extremely risky loans being made to the poor, and disproportionately
to minorities. I don't see how such loans would ever have developed
or been made in a free market economy. They were made because of
pressure coming from liberal lawyers (hello Obama) and from the
Clinton administration. They were made because a socialist government
set up a way to take the risk out of making such loans off the necks
of the capitalist lenders. In other words, the capitalists didn't do
this. The socialists did.
> >Nor do I
> > see how either is relevant with respect to the question of whether
> > ACORN and Obama were in favor of, or were against, these bad loans
> > being made. Clearly, they were in favor of these bad loans being
> > made. In other words, the charge that such loans were being pushed on
> > minorities as "predatory loans" is not consistent with ACORN and Obama
> > suing to have more such loans made. Obama was up to his ears in the
> > front lines of giving loans to people who could not afford them.
>
> Well, if there were that many, perhaps you could name a few, please
Obama worked to get more loans to the poor, esp. minorities. Subprime
mortgages were designed to do the same thing. Government ultimately
took the risk in this case. We now know that many of the people who
got such loans could not afford them. Obama, being liberal lawyer-
shit, was up to his ears in the front lines. And he continued to be.
Only late did he object to so-called "predatory lending." And even
when the problem became obvious, around 2003 - 2006, Obama did little
or nothing to put an end to the problem. McCain (hello S.190) tried
to control the insanity.
You claim that you supported Ron Paul? Ron Paul was one of the first
to call attention to this and related problems.
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > Bankers wanted to give out these loans? Or bankers were threatened
> > > > > > with being called racists if they did not? Obama was a lawyer for
> > > > > > ACORN, one of the most corrupt, socialist groups in the nation. And
> > > > > > ACORN wanted these loans to minorities.
>
> > > > > > Click on the link above and read it. The site is run by David
>
> > > > > Click in Factcheck.org for the truth! They're not aligned, left or
> > > > > right.
>
> > I know that Obama had a working association with Annenberg. Why
> > should I want to give any group funded by Annenberg my vote of
> > confidence *in lieu of* other *conflicting* reports? And why should I
> > not give more weight to someone who looked at the archives of the
> > group in question independently? You think I should trust a
> > foundation to rat on itself, so to speak?
>
> That's you choice but it doesn't negate the veracity of he site. Have
> you any verifiable statements or proof that the site isn't exactly
> what it say it is?
Have you any proof that Stanley Kurtz isn't who he says he is?
> > > > You don't know that factcheck is run by Annenberg. That fact too is
> > > > on the site I have referenced and on many others. Google it.
>
> > > She's also a McCain supporter!
> > > FORMER U.S. AMBASSADORS FOR MCCAIN-PALIN
>
> > Good. Lenore Annenberg is not an unrepentent communist terrorist. So
> > what?
>
> She also sponsored the Group of which Ayers part of. Her association
> with Ayers must be questioned if you question Obamas'.
> And while your at it, playing the silly association game, question
> McCain's relationship with Liddy. A convicted felon and more.http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/steve_chapman/2008/10/mccain-has-...
>
> "Liddy, advising Branch Davidians how to defend themselves from ATF
> agents during a radio show:
>
> "If the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms insists upon a
> firefight, give them a firefight. Just remember, they're wearing flak
> jackets and you're better off shooting for the head.""http://74.125.45.104/search?q=cache:FvqHLzUM_vEJ:www.huffingtonpost.c...
McCain has been around for years. He has a record on which to judge
him. I have watched McCain for many years, and, although he would not
have been my choice for president, it is clear that he is not a
radical socialist. Obama has very little record at the federal level.
The public has not really seen him in action before the last 2 years.
He has not been properly vetted. And what is coming out about him is
very bad indeed.
> > > Weston Adams, Malawi -- Columbia, S.C.
>
> > > Lenore Annenberg, Chief of Protocol -- Radnor, Penn.http://www.johnmccain.com/informing/news/PressReleases/1b838127-b4a0-...
> > > The silly guilt by association ploy can work both ways, not that I
> > > endorse it.
> > > i.e. One could ask, why did McCain accept her endorsement when she
> > > associates with terrorist?
>
> > She associates with terrorists because Annenberg funded the CAC? Did
> > she personally pick Ayers?
>
> Did Obama? Who else was on that panel?
There is good reason, as Kurtz indicates, to believe that Obama could
never have been chosen without the personal approval of Ayers. Did
Lenore Annenberg personally choose Ayers?
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Kevin Cunningham
> On Oct 12, 4:31 pm, Kevin Cunningham <sms...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > Show us were Sen. Obama urged banks to give sub prime loans. Explain
> > to us one case that Mr. Obama participated in that was supposed to
> > force lenders to lend to people who couldn't repay.
>
> The case in question is here:
>
> http://clearinghouse.wustl.edu/detail.php?id=10112&search=source%7Cge...
>
> The pressure brought on Citibank by this lawsuit, was to force them to
> give loans to minorities, alleging racial discrimination. It is
> reasonable to believe that the loans that were pressured to be given
> included subprimes to high risk borrowers. Do you have evidence
> otherwise?
>
> > And lets talk about your racism. You have this bizarre idea that you
> > can confuse people with sick little lies like insisting the case of
> > Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank had any thing to do with sub prime
> > lending. Then explain to us what Mr. Obama had to do with it.
>
> It had to do with pressuring lenders to give loans to minorities by
> playing the race card. You know, like you are playing the race card
> now. Playing the race card is getting to be very old, and I am fed up
> with it.
>
> See above link.
>
> > And lets talk some more about your racism. Your willing to accuse
> > Sen. Obama of doing things he never did. On the other hand your
> > unwilling to tell every one that your a liar and a racist. Of course
> > most racists are liars.
>
> This bullshit of shouting RACIST has done one helluva lot of damage to
> this country. One cannot tell the truth if it involves anything
> negative about a black person. You expect me to back down because of
> it? Think again.
>
> > Oh, by the way Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank closed in 1998. Idiot.
>
> And?
>
Typical repug response. This racist insisted that Mr. Obama directly
was a part of an action that made banks loan money to African-
Americans, irresponsible people. There was a perverted attempt by
this racist to confuse a case of redlining into a case of liberals
trying to take money from the rational conservatives. The case had
nothing at all to do with this. It was a case settled by agreement
about Citibank redlining areas, it didn't go to the jury, it wasn't
decided by a judge.
This racist continues to lie about this case. He has never read it.
He doesn't know what a cite, a can, a brief is. He makes it up as he
goes.
So why does he do this? Because he is a racist. Because he hates all
African-Americans.
One of the few good things McCain has done in this election is take
the microphone from one of the racists in the audience who had started
to make a racists statement. Shutting down racists, letting them die
on their own, should be one of the goals of the repugs.
Lifsabsurd
>
> - Show quoted text -
This was to be expected. The last refuge of a liberal liar in America
is to play the race card.
Indeed, I did not know as much about the case as I should have. But I
have taken the trouble to learn.
The case was indeed about redlining. The case put pressure on
Citibank to make loans to minorities, and, by extension, the poor.
The case was settled, apparently to the satisfaction of Obama and the
other liberal lawyers. At about the same time the Clinton
administration was effectively doing the same thing (putting pressure
out for more housing for the poor, esp. minorities), as well as
arranging for taxpayers to assume the risks. Apparently, once the
government/Clinton/Demoncraps, through manipulation of HUD and Fannie
Mae, started covering the risks for private lenders in making loans to
people with poor credit ratings, the gates were opened. That
minorities statistically have poorer credit ratings than whites, to
the best of my knowledge, is simply a fact. That minorities got a
disproportionately high percentage of the subprime types of loan is
also generally agreed upon. In other words, it is likely that
subprimes, at least initially, became one of the more important
vehicles for trying to extend mortgages to high credit risk people,
who were disproportionately minorities, at least in the beginning.
The bottom line, as I have stated, is that this whole financial mess
can be traced to a misguided socialist policy of trying to help the
poor, especially minorities. But, to be sure, it wasn't all about
blacks. The role of Hispanic minorities, even of illegal alien
Hispanics is also very clear. And, it is true, that a very
substantial number of whites were also given mortgages that they could
not afford. The role of single (many of them white) women also seems
to come into play here, since everything I have read indicates that
there was a marked increase in bad loans being given to women over
these years, another Demoncrap support group.
http://www.homeloansforwomen.net/GetEducated/
http://www.usatoday.com/money/2006-02-14-women-houses-usat_x.htm
No surprise then that liberal women are now likely to support even
more socialism (hello Obama). In this regard it might be interesting
to consider the role of women historically in supporting socialists,
including Hitler, Mussolini, and some "smiley-faced" socialists like
Wilson and FDR. And the role of female socialists in the teaching
profession can not be ignored. No surprise that so many young, female
teachers support Obama and believe he will be their savior. Hitler
was going to save them too.
The bottom line: Socialism was the problem. Government interfering in
the free market. And now the solution will be some version of so-
called "liberal fascism," i.e., more socialism? We seem to be playing
the very same game America played after the Great Depression, only
this time one wonders if anything even close to free market capitalism
will survive for the next few decades. No wonder the stock market is
tanking.
It looks like pressure from below and assumption of risk by the
taxpayer from above are the dual elements of what set this ball
rolling down the hill. Obama was liberal lawyer-shit doing his thing
to bring this about. Liberal lawyers are the Don Quixote types I have
talked about before. Trying to do good. Destroying the nation.
Husky
experience to label them a "radical socialist" org.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > > And there is much more. Have you read it?
>
> > > > > > > In a 1995 case known as Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank, Obama and his
> > > > > > > fellow Davis Miner attorneys charged that Citibank was making too few
> > > > > > > loans to black applicants, and they won the case.[3]
>
> > > > > > Was thejudgewho ruled on the EVIDENCE a Liberal Pinko, too?
>
> > > > > The point is that Obama was pushing these subprime loans that caused
> > > > > the problem. If this financial mess comes down to giving subprime
> > > > > loans to people who could not afford them, and Obama was up to his
> > > > > ears in doing that, then, obviously, he bears serious responsibility
> > > > > for it.
>
> > > > Let's talk about the judge and why he/she ruled in favor or Obama's
> > > > client.
>
> > > In terms of the point that Obama worked for a crooked organization I
> > > do not see how either the judge or the verdict is relevant.
>
> > It's relevant because the Judge upheld their position. BTW lawyer
> > most often
> > work for people with legal problems, That's what they do!
>
> The case in question pressured a lender that did not want to give out
> loans to give them out under the pressure of being labeled racist. Do
> you really believe that capitalist pigs would not give out loans to
> minorities and the poor if there were money to be made without serious
> risk?
>
> It certainly looks to me like such race-card-pressuring of lenders,
> along with the development of the subprime loan (hello Demoncraps
> Herbert and Marion Sandler), and the changes in HUD and Fannnie Mae
> (Demoncrap led) made during the Clinton administration, led to
> extremely risky loans being made to the poor, and disproportionately
> to minorities. I don't see how such loans would ever have developed
> or been made in a free market economy. They were made because of
> pressure coming from liberal lawyers (hello Obama) and from the
> Clinton administration. They were made because a socialist government
> set up a way to take the risk out of making such loans off the necks
> of the capitalist lenders. In other words, the capitalists didn't do
> this. The socialists did.
As you've mentioned disproportionate subprime lending to minorities,
do you have the statistics, numerically and percentage wise, of the
racial make up loan recipients and of defaulters? That would help me
get a better understanding of your assertions. TIA
>
> > >Nor do I
> > > see how either is relevant with respect to the question of whether
> > > ACORN and Obama were in favor of, or were against, these bad loans
> > > being made. Clearly, they were in favor of these bad loans being
> > > made. In other words, the charge that such loans were being pushed on
> > > minorities as "predatory loans" is not consistent with ACORN and Obama
> > > suing to have more such loans made. Obama was up to his ears in the
> > > front lines of giving loans to people who could not afford them.
>
> > Well, if there were that many, perhaps you could name a few, please
>
> Obama worked to get more loans to the poor, esp. minorities. Subprime
> mortgages were designed to do the same thing. Government ultimately
> took the risk in this case. We now know that many of the people who
> got such loans could not afford them. Obama, being liberal lawyer-
> shit, was up to his ears in the front lines. And he continued to be.
> Only late did he object to so-called "predatory lending." And even
> when the problem became obvious, around 2003 - 2006, Obama did little
> or nothing to put an end to the problem. McCain (hello S.190) tried
> to control the insanity.
Lawyers work for clients. Many of them are on the right side and
many on the wrong. You automatically place Obama on the wrong side
because you've labeled him a Liberal. \
>
> You claim that you supported Ron Paul? Ron Paul was one of the first
> to call attention to this and related problems.
And a lot of other govt abuses. I favor his drug policy too. It's a
ridiculous waste of money and resources and has caused more harm than
good. He is the only well known Pol. to come out and say what they
all know to be true, but they berated him endlessly. He wasn't for
sub prime lending AND he wasn't for getting into war in Iraq. How do
you feel about his views on the latter and his drug position?
You keep mentioning socialism, but what is it when government spends
huge chunks of money where only a few well chosen companies get to
reap the windfall?
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > > Bankers wanted to give out these loans? Or bankers were threatened
> > > > > > > with being called racists if they did not? Obama was a lawyer for
> > > > > > > ACORN, one of the most corrupt, socialist groups in the nation. And
> > > > > > > ACORN wanted these loans to minorities.
>
> > > > > > > Click on the link above and read it. The site is run by David
>
> > > > > > Click in Factcheck.org for the truth! They're not aligned, left or
> > > > > > right.
>
> > > I know that Obama had a working association with Annenberg. Why
> > > should I want to give any group funded by Annenberg my vote of
> > > confidence *in lieu of* other *conflicting* reports? And why should I
> > > not give more weight to someone who looked at the archives of the
> > > group in question independently? You think I should trust a
> > > foundation to rat on itself, so to speak?
>
> > That's you choice but it doesn't negate the veracity of he site. Have
> > you any verifiable statements or proof that the site isn't exactly
> > what it say it is?
>
> Have you any proof that Stanley Kurtz isn't who he says he is?
I asked first, and you made claims about factcheck.org first, so you
should respond first.
When you do, I'll gladly reciprocate.
>
>
>
> > > > > You don't know that factcheck is run by Annenberg. That fact too is
> > > > > on the site I have referenced and on many others. Google it.
>
> > > > She's also a McCain supporter!
> > > > FORMER U.S. AMBASSADORS FOR MCCAIN-PALIN
>
> > > Good. Lenore Annenberg is not an unrepentent communist terrorist. So
> > > what?
>
> > She also sponsored the Group of which Ayers part of. Her association
> > with Ayers must be questioned if you question Obamas'.
> > And while your at it, playing the silly association game, question
> > McCain's relationship with Liddy. A convicted felon and more.http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/steve_chapman/2008/10/mccain-has-...
>
> > "Liddy, advising Branch Davidians how to defend themselves from ATF
> > agents during a radio show:
>
> > "If the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms insists upon a
> > firefight, give them a firefight. Just remember, they're wearing flak
> > jackets and you're better off shooting for the head.""http://74.125.45.104/search?q=cache:FvqHLzUM_vEJ:www.huffingtonpost.c...
>
> McCain has been around for years. He has a record on which to judge
> him. I have watched McCain for many years, and, although he would not
> have been my choice for president, it is clear that he is not a
> radical socialist. Obama has very little record at the federal level.
> The public has not really seen him in action before the last 2 years.
Neither did JFK, T. Rooseevelt, Truman, or Reagan.
>
> He has not been properly vetted. And what is coming out about him is
> very bad indeed.
Well, asinine smear campaigns fueled with half truths and lies is a
problem. The Clinton Political Machine is sharper than McCains, and
they couldn't nail Obama. Why was that? You know if there was a
real, damning skeleton in his closet. she would have dragged it out.
> > > > Weston Adams, Malawi -- Columbia, S.C.
>
> > > > Lenore Annenberg, Chief of Protocol -- Radnor, Penn.http://www.johnmccain.com/informing/news/PressReleases/1b838127-b4a0-...
> > > > The silly guilt by association ploy can work both ways, not that I
> > > > endorse it.
> > > > i.e. One could ask, why did McCain accept her endorsement when she
> > > > associates with terrorist?
>
> > > She associates with terrorists because Annenberg funded the CAC? Did
> > > she personally pick Ayers?
>
> > Did Obama? Who else was on that panel?
>
> There is good reason, as Kurtz indicates, to believe that Obama could
> never have been chosen without the personal approval of Ayers. Did
> Lenore Annenberg personally choose Ayers?
Cite it, please.
I don't know if she personally picked Ayers. Do you? I do know he
was chosen to be on a panel she funded.
>
>
Kevin Cunningham
>
> The case was indeed about redlining. The case put pressure on
> Citibank to make loans to minorities, and, by extension, the poor.
> The case was settled, apparently to the satisfaction of Obama and the
> other liberal lawyers. At about the same time the Clinton
> administration was effectively doing the same thing (putting pressure
> out for more housing for the poor, esp. minorities), as well as
> arranging for taxpayers to assume the risks.
The case had nothing what so ever to do with loaning money to the
unqualified. Nothing to do. You have lied repeatedly about this
case. You have lied with each post and it was a new lie as you got
beaten down.
It would help if you knew any thing at all about the law. Got to your
local high school and take a course in business law. It would
actually help. Well not with your personal racism but with your
primitive understanding of the law.
Of course you won't attend a class, you already know enough. You know
that African-Americans, jews, women and any one else who doesn't look
like you.
Ok, your an ignorant racist.
Lifsabsurd
The real issue is this. Was Citibank actually discriminating on the
basis of racism or were they acting financially soundly.
Unfortunately, it is true that minorities have statistically poorer
credit scores.
The pressure brought against lenders was resisted even when the race
card was played. Why? Don't capitalists want to make money?
If the lenders were discriminating because of race and not risk, then
what would happen when the risk was removed, as Clinton and his
adminstration helped to do? Would they continue to discriminate by
race?
Apparently, after the risk was taken away by government, did these so-
called racist institutions continue to resist giving loans to
minorities? Or were they all too happy to make loans so long as their
risk was minimized? What happened to the supposed racism when there
was money to be made?
> It would help if you knew any thing at all about the law. Got to your
> local high school and take a course in business law. It would
> actually help. Well not with your personal racism but with your
> primitive understanding of the law.
> Of course you won't attend a class, you already know enough. You know
> that African-Americans, jews, women and any one else who doesn't look
> like you.
>
> Ok, your an ignorant racist.
It seems that anyone who opposes the stupidity of a socialist is a
racist, or a sexist, or a capitalis pig.
But Demoncraps never demonize, never play the race card, never exhibit
rage? You are one sick guy. Cry racist all day long. I think people
are getting fed up with that crap.
Lifsabsurd
Where do you get your news?
> > > > > > > > And there is much more. Have you read it?
>
> > > > > > > > In a 1995 case known as Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank, Obama and his
> > > > > > > > fellow Davis Miner attorneys charged that Citibank was making too few
> > > > > > > > loans to black applicants, and they won the case.[3]
>
> > > > > > > Was thejudgewho ruled on the EVIDENCE a Liberal Pinko, too?
>
> > > > > > The point is that Obama was pushing these subprime loans that caused
> > > > > > the problem. If this financial mess comes down to giving subprime
> > > > > > loans to people who could not afford them, and Obama was up to his
> > > > > > ears in doing that, then, obviously, he bears serious responsibility
> > > > > > for it.
>
> > > > > Let's talk about the judge and why he/she ruled in favor or Obama's
> > > > > client.
>
> > > > In terms of the point that Obama worked for a crooked organization I
> > > > do not see how either the judge or the verdict is relevant.
>
> > > It's relevant because the Judge upheld their position. BTW lawyer
> > > most often
> > > work for people with legal problems, That's what they do!
>
> > The case in question pressured a lender that did not want to give out
> > loans to give them out under the pressure of being labeled racist. Do
> > you really believe that capitalist pigs would not give out loans to
> > minorities and the poor if there were money to be made without serious
> > risk?
>
> Do you have a link to the transcript. TIA
I have already posted a link to a summary of the case. The case was
about redlining. The defendent, Citibank, was being pressured not to
do it. In other words, they were being pressured to give more loans
to minorities.
> > It certainly looks to me like such race-card-pressuring of lenders,
> > along with the development of the subprime loan (hello Demoncraps
> > Herbert and Marion Sandler), and the changes in HUD and Fannnie Mae
> > (Demoncrap led) made during the Clinton administration, led to
> > extremely risky loans being made to the poor, and disproportionately
> > to minorities. I don't see how such loans would ever have developed
> > or been made in a free market economy. They were made because of
> > pressure coming from liberal lawyers (hello Obama) and from the
> > Clinton administration. They were made because a socialist government
> > set up a way to take the risk out of making such loans off the necks
> > of the capitalist lenders. In other words, the capitalists didn't do
> > this. The socialists did.
>
> Lawyers are paid to give legal council to whoever hires them.
> As you've mentioned disproportionate subprime lending to minorities,
> do you have the statistics, numerically and percentage wise, of the
> racial make up loan recipients and of defaulters? That would help me
> get a better understanding of your assertions. TIA
I have been addressing that issue in another thread which can be found
in this newsgroup. That thread is enititled something like: Even
Saturday Night Live is Waking Up. It was started 10/7 and is no
longer active. There are links in that thread showing that a
disproportionate number of subprimes went to minorities. And also
links alluding to the involvement of bad loans to women.
> > > >Nor do I
> > > > see how either is relevant with respect to the question of whether
> > > > ACORN and Obama were in favor of, or were against, these bad loans
> > > > being made. Clearly, they were in favor of these bad loans being
> > > > made. In other words, the charge that such loans were being pushed on
> > > > minorities as "predatory loans" is not consistent with ACORN and Obama
> > > > suing to have more such loans made. Obama was up to his ears in the
> > > > front lines of giving loans to people who could not afford them.
>
> > > Well, if there were that many, perhaps you could name a few, please
>
> > Obama worked to get more loans to the poor, esp. minorities. Subprime
> > mortgages were designed to do the same thing. Government ultimately
> > took the risk in this case. We now know that many of the people who
> > got such loans could not afford them. Obama, being liberal lawyer-
> > shit, was up to his ears in the front lines. And he continued to be.
> > Only late did he object to so-called "predatory lending." And even
> > when the problem became obvious, around 2003 - 2006, Obama did little
> > or nothing to put an end to the problem. McCain (hello S.190) tried
> > to control the insanity.
>
> Lawyers work for clients. Many of them are on the right side and
> many on the wrong. You automatically place Obama on the wrong side
> because you've labeled him a Liberal. \
*I* have labeled him a liberal? He was rated as having the MOST
liberal voting record in the senate. You are going to tell us that he
is not a liberal? Are you joking again?
> > You claim that you supported Ron Paul? Ron Paul was one of the first
> > to call attention to this and related problems.
>
> And a lot of other govt abuses. I favor his drug policy too. It's a
> ridiculous waste of money and resources and has caused more harm than
> good. He is the only well known Pol. to come out and say what they
> all know to be true, but they berated him endlessly. He wasn't for
> sub prime lending AND he wasn't for getting into war in Iraq. How do
> you feel about his views on the latter and his drug position?
> You keep mentioning socialism, but what is it when government spends
> huge chunks of money where only a few well chosen companies get to
> reap the windfall?
I am a strong social and moderate fiscal conservative, not a
libertarian. I agree with Ron Paul when it comes to most of his
fiscal policy positions, and not much else. I am not for government
subsizing the rich any more than I am for them subsidizing the poor.
>
>
> > > > > > > > Bankers wanted to give out these loans? Or bankers were threatened
> > > > > > > > with being called racists if they did not? Obama was a lawyer for
> > > > > > > > ACORN, one of the most corrupt, socialist groups in the nation. And
> > > > > > > > ACORN wanted these loans to minorities.
>
> > > > > > > > Click on the link above and read it. The site is run by David
>
> > > > > > > Click in Factcheck.org for the truth! They're not aligned, left or
> > > > > > > right.
>
> > > > I know that Obama had a working association with Annenberg. Why
> > > > should I want to give any group funded by Annenberg my vote of
> > > > confidence *in lieu of* other *conflicting* reports? And why should I
> > > > not give more weight to someone who looked at the archives of the
> > > > group in question independently? You think I should trust a
> > > > foundation to rat on itself, so to speak?
>
> > > That's you choice but it doesn't negate the veracity of he site. Have
> > > you any verifiable statements or proof that the site isn't exactly
> > > what it say it is?
>
> > Have you any proof that Stanley Kurtz isn't who he says he is?
>
> I asked first, and you made claims about factcheck.org first, so you
> should respond first.
> When you do, I'll gladly reciprocate.
My claims are based on the links to be found at the David Horowitz
site that you don't trust.
>
>
> > > > > > You don't know that factcheck is run by Annenberg. That fact too is
> > > > > > on the site I have referenced and on many others. Google it.
>
> > > > > She's also a McCain supporter!
> > > > > FORMER U.S. AMBASSADORS FOR MCCAIN-PALIN
>
> > > > Good. Lenore Annenberg is not an unrepentent communist terrorist. So
> > > > what?
>
> > > She also sponsored the Group of which Ayers part of. Her association
> > > with Ayers must be questioned if you question Obamas'.
> > > And while your at it, playing the silly association game, question
> > > McCain's relationship with Liddy. A convicted felon and more.http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/steve_chapman/2008/10/mccain-has-...
>
> > > "Liddy, advising Branch Davidians how to defend themselves from ATF
> > > agents during a radio show:
>
> > > "If the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms insists upon a
> > > firefight, give them a firefight. Just remember, they're wearing flak
> > > jackets and you're better off shooting for the head.""http://74.125.45.104/search?q=cache:FvqHLzUM_vEJ:www.huffingtonpost.c...
>
> > McCain has been around for years. He has a record on which to judge
> > him. I have watched McCain for many years, and, although he would not
> > have been my choice for president, it is clear that he is not a
> > radical socialist. Obama has very little record at the federal level.
> > The public has not really seen him in action before the last 2 years.
>
> Neither did JFK, T. Rooseevelt, Truman, or Reagan.
Can you tell me what Obama did at Columbia?
http://www.nysun.com/new-york/obamas-years-at-columbia-are-a-mystery/85015/
> > He has not been properly vetted. And what is coming out about him is
> > very bad indeed.
>
> Well, asinine smear campaigns fueled with half truths and lies is a
> problem. The Clinton Political Machine is sharper than McCains, and
> they couldn't nail Obama. Why was that? You know if there was a
> real, damning skeleton in his closet. she would have dragged it out.
Not necessarily. What if they both have skeletons?
> > > > > Weston Adams, Malawi -- Columbia, S.C.
>
> > > > > Lenore Annenberg, Chief of Protocol -- Radnor, Penn.http://www.johnmccain.com/informing/news/PressReleases/1b838127-b4a0-...
> > > > > The silly guilt by association ploy can work both ways, not that I
> > > > > endorse it.
> > > > > i.e. One could ask, why did McCain accept her endorsement when she
> > > > > associates with terrorist?
>
> > > > She associates with terrorists because Annenberg funded the CAC? Did
> > > > she personally pick Ayers?
>
> > > Did Obama? Who else was on that panel?
>
> > There is good reason, as Kurtz indicates, to believe that Obama could
> > never have been chosen without the personal approval of Ayers. Did
> > Lenore Annenberg personally choose Ayers?
>
> Cite it, please.
> I don't know if she personally picked Ayers. Do you? I do know he
> was chosen to be on a panel she funded.
Look. You keep asking for citations. I have already directed you to
the Horowitz site where there are links that lead to this
information. And you have summarily indicated that you do not trust
them.
*Poetic Justice*
Obama is as guilty as....
Anyone who has been donating to the KKK and sitting in on their meetings
for 20 years.
Any of our leaders that have been hangigng out with Socialist and
Communist friends that promote making the USA into a communist Nation.
Any Of our Generals that are hanging out with NAZI groups and leaders in
those groups Who think America needs CHANGE.
CHANGE communist
CHANGE KKK Racist
CHANGE NAZI Nationalist
CHANGE Obama
OBAMA Socialist
--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YL36nwCSYUM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJFO6COAMCY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUEQz5dltmI
Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know where the nuts are?
-Gump that-
Husky
Sorry if I missed it. Were you referring to this?
The case was based upon;
"Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant-bank rejected loan applications
of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by
white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit
histories."
The key to the case is, "filed by white applicants with similar
financial characteristics and credit histories."
If the banks refused the white applicants, (Which, perhaps, they
should have) he wouldn't have had a case! The premise was that is
whites qualified for loans, all things being equal, so should have
minorities.
The issue wasn't that Citibank wouldn't lend to minorities, rather
that they wouldn't lend to minorites who had similar records to whites
who they did lend to
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/housing_ecoa.htm
Case Name
Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank Fair Housing/Lending/
Insurance
Docket / Court 94 C 4094 ( N.D. Ill. ) FH-IL-0011
State/Territory Illinois
Case Summary
Plaintiffs filed their class action lawsuit on July 6, 1994, alleging
that Citibank had engaged in redlining practices in the Chicago
metropolitan area in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act
(ECOA), 15 U.S.C. 1691; the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601-3619; the
Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and 42 U.S.C. 1981,
1982. Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant-bank rejected loan
applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications
filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and
credit histories. Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, actual damages,
and punitive damages.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081005160457AAi5KYC
>
>
>
> > > It certainly looks to me like such race-card-pressuring of lenders,
> > > along with the development of the subprime loan (hello Demoncraps
> > > Herbert and Marion Sandler), and the changes in HUD and Fannnie Mae
> > > (Demoncrap led) made during the Clinton administration, led to
> > > extremely risky loans being made to the poor, and disproportionately
> > > to minorities. I don't see how such loans would ever have developed
> > > or been made in a free market economy. They were made because of
> > > pressure coming from liberal lawyers (hello Obama) and from the
> > > Clinton administration. They were made because a socialist government
> > > set up a way to take the risk out of making such loans off the necks
> > > of the capitalist lenders. In other words, the capitalists didn't do
> > > this. The socialists did.
>
> > Lawyers are paid to give legal council to whoever hires them.
> > As you've mentioned disproportionate subprime lending to minorities,
> > do you have the statistics, numerically and percentage wise, of the
> > racial make up loan recipients and of defaulters? That would help me
> > get a better understanding of your assertions. TIA
>
> I have been addressing that issue in another thread which can be found
> in this newsgroup. That thread is enititled something like: Even
> Saturday Night Live is Waking Up. It was started 10/7 and is no
> longer active. There are links in that thread showing that a
> disproportionate number of subprimes went to minorities. And also
> links alluding to the involvement of bad loans to women.
If you have access to the numbers, please post them, here, or give a
cite, please.
>
>
>
> > > > >Nor do I
> > > > > see how either is relevant with respect to the question of whether
> > > > > ACORN and Obama were in favor of, or were against, these bad loans
> > > > > being made. Clearly, they were in favor of these bad loans being
> > > > > made. In other words, the charge that such loans were being pushed on
> > > > > minorities as "predatory loans" is not consistent with ACORN and Obama
> > > > > suing to have more such loans made. Obama was up to his ears in the
> > > > > front lines of giving loans to people who could not afford them.
>
> > > > Well, if there were that many, perhaps you could name a few, please
>
> > > Obama worked to get more loans to the poor, esp. minorities. Subprime
> > > mortgages were designed to do the same thing. Government ultimately
> > > took the risk in this case. We now know that many of the people who
> > > got such loans could not afford them. Obama, being liberal lawyer-
> > > shit, was up to his ears in the front lines. And he continued to be.
> > > Only late did he object to so-called "predatory lending." And even
> > > when the problem became obvious, around 2003 - 2006, Obama did little
> > > or nothing to put an end to the problem. McCain (hello S.190) tried
> > > to control the insanity.
>
> > Lawyers work for clients. Many of them are on the right side and
> > many on the wrong. You automatically place Obama on the wrong side
> > because you've labeled him a Liberal. \
>
> *I* have labeled him a liberal? He was rated as having the MOST
> liberal voting record in the senate. You are going to tell us that he
> is not a liberal? Are you joking again?
. http://voteview.ucsd.edu/Clinton_and_Obama.htm
The point IS that you automatically assume that because he's a
liberal, he's wrong on the issues.
>
> > > You claim that you supported Ron Paul? Ron Paul was one of the first
> > > to call attention to this and related problems.
>
> > And a lot of other govt abuses. I favor his drug policy too. It's a
> > ridiculous waste of money and resources and has caused more harm than
> > good. He is the only well known Pol. to come out and say what they
> > all know to be true, but they berated him endlessly. He wasn't for
> > sub prime lending AND he wasn't for getting into war in Iraq. How do
> > you feel about his views on the latter and his drug position?
> > You keep mentioning socialism, but what is it when government spends
> > huge chunks of money where only a few well chosen companies get to
> > reap the windfall?
>
> I am a strong social and moderate fiscal conservative, not a
> libertarian. I agree with Ron Paul when it comes to most of his
> fiscal policy positions, and not much else. I am not for government
> subsizing the rich any more than I am for them subsidizing the poor.
The Irony is if you subsidize the poor, you're a liberal, but if you
subsidize the rich, you're a conservative. It's two sides of the same
coin! McCains' tax plan subsidizes the rich, with our money!
I'm for less Govt. intrusion in our lives than you, which puts you
more left than me.
The Benefit for Large Oil Companies
The McCain plan would deliver approximately $170 billion a year in tax
cuts to corporations,
including some corporations that are very large and profitable. Just
one of the proposals—
cutting the corporate rate from 35 percent to 25 percent—would cut
taxes for five largest
U.S. oil companies by $3.8 billion a year (see table below). The five
corporations analyzed—
ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Valero Energy, and Marathon—are
the five largest oil
companies as ranked by Fortune Magazine. All are members of the
Fortune 50.
4
Together, they
earned $80 billion worldwide in 2007
http://74.125.45.104/search?q=cache:5jYaTD022xwJ:www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2008/pdf/oil_tax.pdf+McCain+tax+cut+corporations&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&client=firefox-a
>
>
>
> > > > > > > > > Bankers wanted to give out these loans? Or bankers were threatened
> > > > > > > > > with being called racists if they did not? Obama was a lawyer for
> > > > > > > > > ACORN, one of the most corrupt, socialist groups in the nation. And
> > > > > > > > > ACORN wanted these loans to minorities.
>
> > > > > > > > > Click on the link above and read it. The site is run by David
>
> > > > > > > > Click in Factcheck.org for the truth! They're not aligned, left or
> > > > > > > > right.
>
> > > > > I know that Obama had a working association with Annenberg. Why
> > > > > should I want to give any group funded by Annenberg my vote of
> > > > > confidence *in lieu of* other *conflicting* reports? And why should I
> > > > > not give more weight to someone who
>
> ...
>
> read more »
znuybv
> On Oct 11, 11:51 am, Lifsabsurd <bob...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 11, 8:59 am, Mitchell Holman <Noem...@comcast.com> wrote:
>
> > > Lifsabsurd <bob...@att.net> wrote in news:907c5deb-dca0-43b7-a19a-
> > > 18082f468...@t65g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
>
> > > > If someone is a MEMBER of the Jesse James gang for years is he an
> > > > outlaw or is that just "guilt by association"?
>
> > > > Obama was a MEMBER of a black racist church for about 20 years. He
> > > > lied when he said he did not know what Rev. Wright stood for. He
> > > > OBVIOUSLY lied.
>
> > > > Obama was a MEMBER of the extremely corrupt group, ACORN. He trained
> > > > ACORN employees. He lied about it. He OBVIOUSLY lied.
>
> > > > Obama was a MEMBER of the radical Woods Foundation.
>
> > > > Obama was a MEMBER of the board with unrepentent communist Bill Ayres
> > > > for several years. Bill Ayers hired him. He lied about his
> > > > associations with Bill Ayres. He is still lying.
>
> > > > Obama was up to his nose in corrupt Chicago politics. He undoubtedly
> > > > helped the Shady Syrian, Tony Rezko, to rip off the poor.
>
> > > > But that is only guilt by association?
>
> > > None of that BS mattered when Hillary trotted it
> > > out, none of it matters now.
>
> > > Did you hear that the Obama lead has jumped into
> > > the DOUBLE DIGITS now?
>
> > > Obama opens double-digit lead as Palin under fire
> > > 1 hour ago
>
> > > JUNEAU, Alaska (AFP) — Democrat Barack Obama opened a double-
> > > digit lead over rival John McCain in a key opinion poll on
> > > Saturday while investigators found Republican vice presidential
> > > nominee Sarah Palin had abused her powers as Alaska governor.
> > > Just over three weeks from the November 4 vote, Obama leads
> > > McCain 52 percent to 41 percent among registered voters, according
> > > to the latest survey conducted by Newsweek magazine.
>
> > >http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hQjSGQVOy5FcXVixqU43QZZr9ldA-Hidequoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > body was Democratic. In other words, this was a political ploy. In
> > fact, this was something most people saw coming for some time.
>
> Palin violated state ethics law by trying to get her former brother-in-
> law fired from the state police, a state investigator's report for the
> bipartisan Legislative Council concluded Friday.
> The Committee was Bipartisan with the majority, being Republicans
>
Firing a police officer for tasering a 10 year old boy is a breach of
the state ethics law?
Or is it just that firing a police officer for tasering a 10 year old
boy if the officer is your brother in law is against the ethics law?
Husky
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Palin was found to have done nothing illegal. And the investigative
> > > body was Democratic. In other words, this was a political ploy. In
> > > fact, this was something most people saw coming for some time.
>
> > Palin violated state ethics law by trying to get her former brother-in-
> > law fired from the state police, a state investigator's report for the
> > bipartisan Legislative Council concluded Friday.
> > The Committee was Bipartisan with the majority, being Republicans
>
> Firing a police officer for tasering a 10 year old boy is a breach of
> the state ethics law?
> Or is it just that firing a police officer for tasering a 10 year old
> boy if the officer is your brother in law is against the ethics law?
There's a right way and a wrong way of doing things. She did it the
wrong way, according to law. It's about method, not motive!
Mitchell Holman
93d5db...@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com:
That is the job of police chiefs and mayors,
not governors.
> Or is it just that firing a police officer for tasering a 10 year old
> boy if the officer is your brother in law is against the ethics law?
Ask the Republicans who dominated both the
investigating committee and the legislature
that appointed them.
*Poetic Justice*
And when they fail to do their job?
>> Or is it just that firing a police officer for tasering a 10 year old
>> boy if the officer is your brother in law is against the ethics law?
>
> Ask the Republicans who dominated both the
> investigating committee and the legislature
> that appointed them.
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
*Liberal Commandments*
1. Thou shalt always be a victim.
2. Spend thy Neighbors money to keep your Brothers in the comfort zone,
that which makes him happy.
3. That which is not Liberal is Evil, use any means possible to promote
Liberal/socialist agenda.
4. Do not covet Success and achievement, teach others to strive for
mediocrity.
5. Show your enemy your Bluster, before whining like a child.
6. Government is the only religion of man, serve no other cause.
7. Tithe all you have and will have to our cause, for that which is not
spent, will come back.
8. Believe in unconditional Peace and Love, so then shall you become
self important and omnipotent.
9. The truth of everything is that which you make it.
10. Life is above all else... until it would interfere with ones choice.
Mitchell Holman
news:QPOIk.49466$vX2....@bignews6.bellsouth.net:
Then you elect Democrats instead. Of course.
znuybv
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > Palin was found to have done nothing illegal. And the investigative
> > > > body was Democratic. In other words, this was a political ploy. In
> > > > fact, this was something most people saw coming for some time.
>
> > > Palin violated state ethics law by trying to get her former brother-in-
> > > law fired from the state police, a state investigator's report for the
> > > bipartisan Legislative Council concluded Friday.
> > > The Committee was Bipartisan with the majority, being Republicans
>
> > Firing a police officer for tasering a 10 year old boy is a breach of
> > the state ethics law?
>
> No, but that's not what the charge was about.
>
> > Or is it just that firing a police officer for tasering a 10 year old
> > boy if the officer is your brother in law is against the ethics law?
>
> There's a right way and a wrong way of doing things. She did it the
> wrong way, according to law. It's about method, not motive!
What is the right way to get a police officer that tasered a 10 year
old boy fired?
znuybv
> znuybv <thowil...@gmail.com> wrote in news:8b58258f-5411-4f0a-912d-
> 93d5dbe06...@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com:
I did. They were clueless.
znuybv
> *Poetic Justice* <@http://Poetic-Justice.Talk-n-Dog.com> wrote innews:QPOIk.49466$vX2....@bignews6.bellsouth.net:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Mitchell Holman wrote:
> >> znuybv <thowil...@gmail.com> wrote in news:8b58258f-5411-4f0a-912d-
> >> 93d5dbe06...@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com:
>
*Poetic Justice*
Elect Libertarians.
Husky
>
> > > > > Palin was found to have done nothing illegal. And the investigative
> > > > > body was Democratic. In other words, this was a political ploy. In
> > > > > fact, this was something most people saw coming for some time.
>
> > > > Palin violated state ethics law by trying to get her former brother-in-
> > > > law fired from the state police, a state investigator's report for the
> > > > bipartisan Legislative Council concluded Friday.
> > > > The Committee was Bipartisan with the majority, being Republicans
>
> > > Firing a police officer for tasering a 10 year old boy is a breach of
> > > the state ethics law?
>
> > No, but that's not what the charge was about.
>
> > > Or is it just that firing a police officer for tasering a 10 year old
> > > boy if the officer is your brother in law is against the ethics law?
>
> > There's a right way and a wrong way of doing things. She did it the
> > wrong way, according to law. It's about method, not motive!
>
> What is the right way to get a police officer that tasered a 10 year
> old boy fired?
That's a strawman argument! BUT, to answer your question, it would be
in accordance with the prescribed procedure, and not through a heavy
handed, abusive manner she chose to employ Two wrongs don't make
right! She used poor judgment in handling the case.
*Poetic Justice*
At that time, you have failed.
The Democrats caused the Mortgage Meltdown.
>>>> Or is it just that firing a police officer for tasering a 10 year old
>>>> boy if the officer is your brother in law is against the ethics law?
>>> Ask the Republicans who dominated both the
>>> investigating committee and the legislature
>>> that appointed them.
>
>
>
Husky
Ron Paul should have got the GOP nomination, but the Republicans
failed to see the diamond in the rough!
Mitchell Holman
>
>
>
> The Democrats caused the Mortgage Meltdown.
Of course. Democrats are to blame for everything.
Didn't you get the memo?
"Conservatives have never caused a single problem in America"
"MF Ogilvie", 9/6/02
*Poetic Justice*
> *Poetic Justice* <@http://Poetic-Justice.Talk-n-Dog.com> wrote in
> news:yrPIk.49493$vX2....@bignews6.bellsouth.net:
>
>>
>>
>> The Democrats caused the Mortgage Meltdown.
>
>
>
> Of course. Democrats are to blame for everything.
>
> Didn't you get the memo?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YL36nwCSYUM
>
>
>
>
> "Conservatives have never caused a single problem in America"
> "MF Ogilvie", 9/6/02
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJFO6COAMCY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUEQz5dltmI
Being Liberal means, never knowing that, you are your own worst enemy.
r wiley
"Mitchell Holman" <Noe...@comcast.com> wrote in message news:Xns9B36A4E0...@216.196.97.131...
>> the state ethics law?
>
>
> That is the job of police chiefs and mayors,
> not governors.
>
>
Alaska State Troopers do not answer to mayors or police chiefs. They
answer to the Alaska Public Safety Director who serves at the pleasure of
the Governor of Alaska.
rw
TigerLuck
> "Mitchell Holman" <Noe...@comcast.com> wrote in message news:Xns9B36A4E0...@216.196.97.131...
>> znuybv <thow...@gmail.com> wrote in news:8b58258f-5411-4f0a-912d-
>>> Firing a police officer for tasering a 10 year old boy is a breach of
>>> the state ethics law?
>>
>> That is the job of police chiefs and mayors,
>> not governors.
He was a *state* trooper. How is that the job of mayors?
--
I personally know William "Bill" Ayers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOkyixdTnM4
McCain calls for greater deregulation - March 25, 2008
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gofe1QDlAD8
Sinatra & Sarah do Witchcraft
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqs_2CVcWb0
Meet Pastor Muthee -- the man who laid hands on Sarah Palin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsnrIVj9IbM
Bugman
"TigerLuck" <TigerLuck@wild_kingdom.afr> wrote in message
news:BAQIk.2471$W06...@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com...
>r wiley wrote:
>> "Mitchell Holman" <Noe...@comcast.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9B36A4E0...@216.196.97.131...
>>> znuybv <thow...@gmail.com> wrote in news:8b58258f-5411-4f0a-912d-
>>>> Firing a police officer for tasering a 10 year old boy is a breach of
>>>> the state ethics law?
>>>
>>> That is the job of police chiefs and mayors,
>>> not governors.
>
>
> He was a *state* trooper. How is that the job of mayors?
It's not a job for a governor.
Mitchell Holman
news:BAQIk.2471$W06...@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com:
> r wiley wrote:
>> "Mitchell Holman" <Noe...@comcast.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9B36A4E0...@216.196.97.131...
>>> znuybv <thow...@gmail.com> wrote in news:8b58258f-5411-4f0a-912d-
>>>> Firing a police officer for tasering a 10 year old boy is a breach
>>>> of the state ethics law?
>>>
>>> That is the job of police chiefs and mayors,
>>> not governors.
>
>
> He was a *state* trooper. How is that the job of mayors?
>
>
"Znuybv" said police officer. Not trooper. Police
officers are city employees.
r wiley
"Mitchell Holman" <Noe...@comcast.com> wrote in message news:Xns9B36CE08...@216.196.97.131...
>
> "Znuybv" said police officer. Not trooper. Police
> officers are city employees.
>
Which was a nonsequitur.
"Mitchell Holman" <Noe...@comcast.com> wrote in message news:Xns9B36A4E0...@216.196.97.131...
> znuybv <thow...@gmail.com> wrote in news:8b58258f-5411-4f0a-912d-
>>>
>> Firing a police officer for tasering a 10 year old boy is a breach of
>> the state ethics law?
>
>
> That is the job of police chiefs and mayors,
> not governors.
>
The discussion was over the cause of Palin firing Alaska's Public Safety
Director, allegedly because the Public Safety Director refused to fire
a state trooper who tasered his stepson among numerous other violations.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/17/palin.probe/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/03/AR2008090303210_pf.html
rw
Mitchell Holman
news:gd1a8b$avc$1...@news.netins.net:
>
> "Mitchell Holman" <Noe...@comcast.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9B36CE08...@216.196.97.131...
>>
>> "Znuybv" said police officer. Not trooper. Police
>> officers are city employees.
>>
>
> Which was a nonsequitur.
>
> "Mitchell Holman" <Noe...@comcast.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9B36A4E0...@216.196.97.131...
>> znuybv <thow...@gmail.com> wrote in news:8b58258f-5411-4f0a-912d-
>>>>
>>> Firing a police officer for tasering a 10 year old boy is a breach of
>>> the state ethics law?
>>
>>
>> That is the job of police chiefs and mayors,
>> not governors.
>>
>
>
> The discussion was over the cause of Palin firing Alaska's Public Safety
> Director, allegedly because the Public Safety Director refused to fire
> a state trooper who tasered his stepson among numerous other violations.
>
"Znuybv" asked about police officers. The response was about
police officers. He clearly changed the subject one time too many.....
Lifsabsurd
Same. But there is so much misinformation out there it is hard. Do
you ever watch FoxNews? I find them to be a source of infomation one
does not get in the socialist MSM.
> who they did lend tohttp://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/housing_ecoa.htm
>
> Case Name
> Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank Fair Housing/Lending/
> Insurance
> Docket / Court 94 C 4094 ( N.D. Ill. ) FH-IL-0011
> State/Territory Illinois
> Case Summary
> Plaintiffs filed their class action lawsuit on July 6, 1994, alleging
> that Citibank had engaged in redlining practices in the Chicago
> metropolitan area in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act
> (ECOA), 15 U.S.C. 1691; the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601-3619; the
> Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and 42 U.S.C. 1981,
> 1982. Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant-bank rejected loan
> applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications
> filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and
> credit histories. Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, actual damages,
> and punitive damages.http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081005160457AAi5KYC
Well. The socialists won. They got Citbank and other banks to make
loans to those who were bad credit risks. Clinton and his HUD were
key, by shifting the risk off the backs of the lenders and, ultimately
on to you, the taxpayer. Now you are happy with the result?
Try viewing this for the full 8 minutes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lr1M1T2Y314
My opinion is that this comes pretty close to describing where and how
this problem started.
That minorities received subprime loans in numbers disproportionate to
their numbers in the population is clear. In fact, Demoncrap media
have been complaining about it for some time now. In their
interpretation this is a manifestation of discriminatory lending, of
the making of "predatory loans" to minorities. In other words the
media has tried to play the race card here too. Ironic because the
race card was played to get this sort of lending to uncreditworthy
people to be done in the first place. Clinton set it up so that
subprimes could be used and the risk for such riciculous loans would
be shifted to the taxpayer through Fannie and Freddie. This caused
lenders to love making such loans. Funny, whatever happened to the
racism, when it became finanicially profitable? When it all got out
to hand, the Democraps continued to support Fannie and Freddie, but
liberal media started hollering - these subprime loans are racist!!!
Indeed, they were racist. They were minority-racist loans. That is
how they got started in the first place.
Here is one reference of the liberal media complaining about the fact
that giving loans disproportionately to minorities was racist:
An excerpt:
---------------
In 2004 minorities received a share of subprime loans that were
greater than their share of the nation’s households but received a
share of prime loans that were smaller than their share of
households. Minority neighborhoods also received a disproportionate
amount of subprime loans.1
---------------
And:
-------------
Disproportionate to their population, African Americans received 20.1
percent of the subprime purchase loans issued during 2004. Although
they represented 12 percent of the population, only 5.5 percent of the
conventional prime home purchase loans were issued to African-American
homebuyers.2
_________
The truth is more likely that the real explanation is that minorities
have a statisitically lower average credit rating.
In this reference, and many others like it, liberals admit, they even
emphasize, the fact that these bad loans are being given
disproportionately to minorities. They call it racism. But it
started as a sort of affirmative action BY DEMONCRAPS. Clinton and
Democraps set up rules that assumed the risk for mortgage lenders who
would not otherwise have lent to low credit score applicants. What
should one expect to have happened?
First I am wrong because I assume he is a liberal, which he is. Now I
am wrong because I assume liberals are wrong on the issues? Yes.
Liberals are wrong on fiscal issues, and Ron Paul would say so. You
like them because of social issues? I say they are wrong on social
issues also.
> > > > You claim that you supported Ron Paul? Ron Paul was one of the first
> > > > to call attention to this and related problems.
>
> > > And a lot of other govt abuses. I favor his drug policy too. It's a
> > > ridiculous waste of money and resources and has caused more harm than
> > > good. He is the only well known Pol. to come out and say what they
> > > all know to be true, but they berated him endlessly. He wasn't for
> > > sub prime lending AND he wasn't for getting into war in Iraq. How do
> > > you feel about his views on the latter and his drug position?
> > > You keep mentioning socialism, but what is it when government spends
> > > huge chunks of money where only a few well chosen companies get to
> > > reap the windfall?
>
> > I am a strong social and moderate fiscal conservative, not a
> > libertarian. I agree with Ron Paul when it comes to most of his
> > fiscal policy positions, and not much else. I am not for government
> > subsizing the rich any more than I am for them subsidizing the poor.
>
> The Irony is if you subsidize the poor, you're a liberal, but if you
> subsidize the rich, you're a conservative. It's two sides of the same
> coin! McCains' tax plan subsidizes the rich, with our money!
I am not in favor of subsidizing either the rich or the poor. But I
do understand one thing, which I will state this way. Wealth does not
trickle down from the poor. If money is stolen from the rich it is
stolen from the investors who make the economy run. Money given to
the poor from the rich does not have the same strong effect on
stimulating the economy. I am in favor of free market capitalism. In
fact, as I already wrote, I largely agree with Ron Paul's economic
ideas.
> I'm for less Govt. intrusion in our lives than you, which puts you
> more left than me.
Hardly. I too am for less government intrusion in our lives.
> The Benefit for Large Oil Companies
The problem is that American oil companies don't control oil. OPEC
does. And it is absolutely necessary to get off foreign oil.
Democraps see "big oil" as American. It is not. It is OPEC.
> The McCain plan would deliver approximately $170 billion a year in tax
> cuts to corporations,
> including some corporations that are very large and profitable. Just
> one of the proposals—
> cutting the corporate rate from 35 percent to 25 percent—would cut
> taxes for five largest
> U.S. oil companies by $3.8 billion a year (see table below). The five
> corporations analyzed—
> ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Valero Energy, and Marathon—are
> the five largest oil
> companies as ranked by Fortune Magazine. All are members of the
> Fortune 50.
I assume you mean the five largest AMERICAN oil companies. What about
OPEC? You want to remain dependent on foreign oil?
> 4
> Together, they
> earned $80 billion worldwide in 2007http://74.125.45.104/search?q=cache:5jYaTD022xwJ:www.americanprogress...
How much did all the OPEC oil companies earn? How much did Hugo get
in Venezuela? How much did Russia make? You prefer foreign oil?
What percentage of oil in America comes from America?"
Kevin Cunningham
See, you still haven't read the case. You change your mind at every
post because in each post your proved wrong.
Once again, racist, there was nothing in the case about giving money
to the unqualified. Citibank agreed that they redlined, did not
provide loans to the qualified borrowers. Citibank settled because
they knew they were wrong.
This is the kind of filthy, racist crap that racists provide. It
would help if the poster would read but reading the case might make
Homo Limbaugh angry with him and he couldn't stand to have Homo
Limbaugh angry with him. He just wants to snuggle.
And by the way, you repugs have become socialists, now your buying
parts of banks!
"Solidarity forever....."
Lifsabsurd
Redlining just means not giving by neighorhood. If the neighborhood
correlates with a high percentage of bad credit risk people, it makes
financial sense, and it is easier to do. But the race card can be
played to get loans to be made here. Fine. It is harder to do, but
fairer, yes. IF, one still only gives to qualified, credit-worthy
people. But what happens when banks are pressured to give loans to
minorities and then the Clinton administration establishes a way to
give to non-credit-worthy individuals without assuming risk?
> This is the kind of filthy, racist crap that racists provide. It
> would help if the poster would read but reading the case might make
> Homo Limbaugh angry with him and he couldn't stand to have Homo
> Limbaugh angry with him. He just wants to snuggle.
Playing the race card was a large part of the cause of this problem.
Playing the race card is not going to be the solution.
> And by the way, you repugs have become socialists, now your buying
> parts of banks!
This brings up a very good question, yes, concerning the bailout. Was
this absolutely necessary? Does anyone really know the answer to
that?
I would just note this, that House Republicans were really the only
large group that initially resisted this bailout. Did they give in
because the truth is that it *was* absolutely necessary? Of that they
were convinced that it was? Who knows?
But, some things are clear. This was all caused by socialist
thinking. It was started by Clinton and Demoncraps. Demoncraps are
the socialists. Demoncraps are the social engineers. I don't want
more socialism. And you do.
> "Solidarity forever....."- Hide quoted text -
Husky
>
> > > Where do you get your news?
>
> > Eclectic sources. And you?
>
> Same. But there is so much misinformation out there it is hard. Do
> you ever watch FoxNews? I find them to be a source of infomation one
> does not get in the socialist MSM.
On occassion, but I must say that their taking of their Editorial
position into their News reporting
leaves me with the impression that they aren't Being Fair and
Balanced.
Did they report Palin's remarks on the Branchflower report, and
question how she came to that conclusion?
I didn't watch so if you did, please tell me. TIA
>
>
The ECOA was signed in 1774 By Ford.
You said that Blacks received 20.1% of the loans but only make up 12 %
of the population. How many of those loans went into foreclosure?
The issue wasn't that Citibank wouldn't lend to minorities, rather
that they wouldn't lend to minorites who had similar records to
whites
who they did lend tohttp://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/housing_ecoa.htm
IOW, Citibank lowered the bar for all subprime loans by lending to
whites with less than
good credit.
> Try viewing this for the full 8 minutes:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lr1M1T2Y314
>
> My opinion is that this comes pretty close to describing where and how
> this problem started.
>
> > If you have access to the numbers, please post them, here, or give a
> > cite, please.
>
> That minorities received subprime loans in numbers disproportionate to
> their numbers in the population is clear. In fact, Demoncrap media
> have been complaining about it for some time now. In their
> interpretation this is a manifestation of discriminatory lending, of
> the making of "predatory loans" to minorities. In other words the
> media has tried to play the race card here too. Ironic because the
> race card was played to get this sort of lending to uncreditworthy
> people to be done in the first place. Clinton set it up so that
> subprimes could be used and the risk for such riciculous loans would
> be shifted to the taxpayer through Fannie and Freddie. This caused
> lenders to love making such loans. Funny, whatever happened to the
> racism, when it became finanicially profitable? When it all got out
> to hand, the Democraps continued to support Fannie and Freddie, but
> liberal media started hollering - these subprime loans are racist!!!
>
> Indeed, they were racist. They were minority-racist loans. That is
> how they got started in the first place.
>
> Here is one reference of the liberal media complaining about the fact
> that giving loans disproportionately to minorities was racist:
>
> http://www.opportunityagenda.org/site/c.mwL5KkN0LvH/b.1563171/k.B43A/...
Again, Citibank and others opened that door by lending to whites with
low credit scores.
Minority attorneys used that as the cornerstone of their case.
Perhaps it was their greed to sell loans that made them lower the
standards.
Did the banks bother to assess the value of the properties they were
lending on?
> > . http://voteview.ucsd.edu/Clinton_and_Obama.htm
> > The point IS that you automatically assume that because he's a
> > liberal, he's wrong on the issues.
>
> First I am wrong because I assume he is a liberal, which he is. Now I
> am wrong because I assume liberals are wrong on the issues? Yes.
> Liberals are wrong on fiscal issues, and Ron Paul would say so. You
> like them because of social issues? I say they are wrong on social
> issues also.
The point is, regardless of his political leanings, the Citibank case
was won on merit, in accordance with the law.
Furthermore, banks aggressively sought making loans and carelessly
pushed through loans. They weren't forced in most instances, they
sought to make the loans.
The Federal govt. is using archaic drug laws to prevent states from
allowing medical marijuana.
Our jails are holding over 1 million people, on drug charges at a cost
of appx $40g per, per year
Do you support the "War on Drugs." which is nearing 40 years?
>
> > The Benefit for Large Oil Companies
>
> The problem is that American oil companies don't control oil. OPEC
> does. And it is absolutely necessary to get off foreign oil.
> Democraps see "big oil" as American. It is not. It is OPEC.
Regardless, it's their profits that are taxed.
>
> > The McCain plan would deliver approximately $170 billion a year in tax
> > cuts to corporations,
> > including some corporations that are very large and profitable. Just
> > one of the proposals—
> > cutting the corporate rate from 35 percent to 25 percent—would cut
> > taxes for five largest
> > U.S. oil companies by $3.8 billion a year (see table below). The five
> > corporations analyzed—
> > ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Valero Energy, and Marathon—are
> > the five largest oil
> > companies as ranked by Fortune Magazine. All are members of the
> > Fortune 50.
>
> I assume you mean the five largest AMERICAN oil companies. What about
> OPEC? You want to remain dependent on foreign oil?
We're talking about giving large, rich oil companies tax breaks!
If McCain wanted to become Independent of foreign oil, he wouldn't
have voted against the alternative energy bills.
(The best source of alternative energy, presently is nuclear) We have
the technology, right now)
>
> > 4
> > Together, they
> > earned $80 billion worldwide in 2007http://74.125.45.104/search?q=cache:5jYaTD022xwJ:www.americanprogress...
>
> How much did all the OPEC oil companies earn? How much did Hugo get
> in Venezuela? How much did Russia make? You prefer foreign oil?
We have no choice but to use foreign oil, based upon our current
usage! We have 3% of the worlds oil production, and use 25% of the
oil.
NOW, to the threads title:
What about McCain's association with Liddy. He calls him friend, yet
Liddy is a convicted Felon, and told the Davidians, on his Radio
Program, to "Shoot for the head of the ATF agents, as they would be
wearing body armor."
He's plotted or at least advocated the murder of a journalist, also.
He's been known to operate outside the law on many fronts, and willing
to use violence towards that end.
Of course I don't condemn McCain for knowing him, as I don't condemn
Obama for knowing Ayers, but if one plays the "Guilt by Association"
card, the McCain Liddy relationship is, at least, on par with Ayers.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/05/g-gordon-liddy-john-mccai_n_100134.html
Lifsabsurd
> On Oct 14, 8:50 am, Lifsabsurd <bob...@att.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > > Where do you get your news?
>
> > > Eclectic sources. And you?
>
> > Same. But there is so much misinformation out there it is hard. Do
> > you ever watch FoxNews? I find them to be a source of infomation one
> > does not get in the socialist MSM.
>
> On occassion, but I must say that their taking of their Editorial
> position into their News reporting
> leaves me with the impression that they aren't Being Fair and
> Balanced.
> Did they report Palin's remarks on the Branchflower report, and
> question how she came to that conclusion?
> I didn't watch so if you did, please tell me. TIA
It seems then that you don't watch FoxNews very much.
FoxNews certainly reported the Troopergate scandal and the findings of
the investigation that it was a violation of ethics. I remember
seeing a lawyer discuss the report in detail. Personally, I find the
whole incident to be a politically motivated pile of crap and I
completely disagree with the findings of the report. But, in any
case, the report found that she broke no law. That has already been
discussed in this newsgroup. FoxNews reported Palin's comments about
the incident. I think it is all a tempest in a teapot. The trooper
should have been fired and he has not been fired to this day.
From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis
"Certain minority groups received a higher proportion of subprime
loans and experienced a disproportional level of foreclosures.[129]
[130] Home related crimes including arson increased.[131]"
Consider the article one finds by following up on Ref. 129
It is from the NYTs, a liberal newspaper of course, and it points out
that a higher percentage of bad loans went to minorities despite the
income levels. It alleges that this was due to racial discrimination.
First of all, the article argues strongly that minorities got
proportionately more of the bad loans, AS I HAVE ARGUEd.
Secondly, it only stands to reason that minorities would then have a
proportionatley higher rate of foreclosure.
But, what about the question of whether this was due to racial
discrimination? The article makes the point that average incomes were
about the same in white vs minority communities, yet minorities got a
higher rate of bad loans. But does this mean racial discrimination?
What if there were other factors to explain this?
Note these paragraphs in the article:
----------------
The analysis provides only a limited picture of subprime borrowing in
New York City. The data does not include details on borrowers’ assets,
down payments or debt loads, all key factors in mortgage lending. And
comparing neighborhoods is inexact; the typical borrower in one may
differ from a typical borrower in another.
Jay Brinkmann, an economist with the Mortgage Bankers Association,
said there was not enough information in the Furman Center analysis
and other studies on the issue to draw conclusions about whether
subprime lenders were discriminating against minority home buyers. One
of the crucial missing pieces is the credit histories of individual
borrowers, he said.
------------
I have read that it is an accepted statistical fact that credit
ratings are lower for minorities. And this alone should explain the
data.
Following up on Ref. 131, one finds this article by USA Today:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/housing/2007-04-25-subprime-minorities-usat_N.htm
Take the time to read it for yourself. Here is one line,
"Concentrated foreclosures in minority neighborhoods could reduce
property values."
But it isn't that simple. The disagreement as far as I can tell is
NOT whether the really bad loans went to minorities. Everything I
have read seems to agree they did. But, whether this was because of
discrimination or because of statistically poorer credit ratings,
lower down payments, etc.
> The issue wasn't that Citibank wouldn't lend to minorities, rather
> that they wouldn't lend to minorites who had similar records to
> whites
> who they did lend tohttp://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/housing_ecoa.htm
> IOW, Citibank lowered the bar for all subprime loans by lending to
> whites with less than
> good credit.
The lending business is complicated. One should take into account
many things before making a loan. Credit scores, down payments, past
work histories, ability to maintain a house. It is risk versus gain.
Citibank was pressured to make bad loans. But the risk was taken out
of the picture for lenders by the Clinton administration. And then
the bad loans really began. Have you watched the video below to the
end?
Look at the video above and tell me that the Clintonistas did not open
the door for lending to those with bad credit scores and esp. to
minorities. Cuomo even referred to it as affirmative action and
admitted that loans would be defaulted upon.
> > > . http://voteview.ucsd.edu/Clinton_and_Obama.htm
> > > The point IS that you automatically assume that because he's a
> > > liberal, he's wrong on the issues.
>
> > First I am wrong because I assume he is a liberal, which he is. Now I
> > am wrong because I assume liberals are wrong on the issues? Yes.
> > Liberals are wrong on fiscal issues, and Ron Paul would say so. You
> > like them because of social issues? I say they are wrong on social
> > issues also.
>
> The point is, regardless of his political leanings, the Citibank case
> was won on merit, in accordance with the law.
> Furthermore, banks aggressively sought making loans and carelessly
> pushed through loans. They weren't forced in most instances, they
> sought to make the loans.
As I see it, after the risk was on the backs of the government or the
investors in the securities that were created from the loans, the
lenders were encouraged to make these bad loans. In other words,
government (Demoncraps) should never have interfered in the market.
IF any bank was making high risk loans to anyone prior to the shifting
of risk occurring, even if this was preferentially to whites, they
were stupid. But, the solution was not to use the race card and
shifting of risk to get more risky loans made.
The shifting of risk and the giving of these bad loans caused a
housing bubble. Once housing prices began going up things clearly got
way out of hand. But one has to look at the inciting cause.
I am not for legalizing drugs. But I am not going to get into that
discussion now.
> > > The Benefit for Large Oil Companies
>
> > The problem is that American oil companies don't control oil. OPEC
> > does. And it is absolutely necessary to get off foreign oil.
> > Democraps see "big oil" as American. It is not. It is OPEC.
>
> Regardless, it's their profits that are taxed.
This paranoia about American big oil seems way off the charts to me.
> > > The McCain plan would deliver approximately $170 billion a year in tax
> > > cuts to corporations,
> > > including some corporations that are very large and profitable. Just
> > > one of the proposals—
> > > cutting the corporate rate from 35 percent to 25 percent—would cut
> > > taxes for five largest
> > > U.S. oil companies by $3.8 billion a year (see table below). The five
> > > corporations analyzed—
> > > ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Valero Energy, and Marathon—are
> > > the five largest oil
> > > companies as ranked by Fortune Magazine. All are members of the
> > > Fortune 50.
>
> > I assume you mean the five largest AMERICAN oil companies. What about
> > OPEC? You want to remain dependent on foreign oil?
>
> We're talking about giving large, rich oil companies tax breaks!
> If McCain wanted to become Independent of foreign oil, he wouldn't
> have voted against the alternative energy bills.
> (The best source of alternative energy, presently is nuclear) We have
> the technology, right now)
Yes. And who has blocked nuclear energy? The environuts. And which
party represents them? Demoncraps. It is ironic that Americans are
going to vote for Democraps believing Demoncraps will help the
economy, when Demoncraps represent a freezing of the energy sources
(Pelosi is busy saving the planet) we need. At the very core of any
economyis energy. Do you understand the role of the increase in oil/
gasoline prices in escalating foreclosure rates? Do you understand
that we are over the barrel of foreign countries so to speak. Yet you
worry about American oil companies making too much money?
>
>
> > > 4
> > > Together, they
> > > earned $80 billion worldwide in 2007http://74.125.45.104/search?q=cache:5jYaTD022xwJ:www.americanprogress...
>
> > How much did all the OPEC oil companies earn? How much did Hugo get
> > in Venezuela? How much did Russia make? You prefer foreign oil?
>
> We have no choice but to use foreign oil, based upon our current
> usage! We have 3% of the worlds oil production, and use 25% of the
> oil.
Drilling for more of our own oil could only help.
>
> NOW, to the threads title:
>
> What about McCain's association with Liddy. He calls him friend, yet
> Liddy is a convicted Felon, and told the Davidians, on his Radio
> Program, to "Shoot for the head of the ATF agents, as they would be
> wearing body armor."
> He's plotted or at least advocated the murder of a journalist, also.
> He's been known to operate outside the law on many fronts, and willing
> to use violence towards that end.
>
> Of course I don't condemn McCain for knowing him, as I don't condemn
> Obama for knowing Ayers, but if one plays the "Guilt by Association"
> card, the McCain Liddy relationship is, at least, on par with Ayers.
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/05/g-gordon-liddy-john-mccai_n_...
Old story. Did McCain work on the same board of directors with Liddy
to radicalize school curricula?
Do you understand that ACORN was founded by a former SDS radical?
In other words, there is an order of magnitude difference between the
nature of the associations we are talking about - McCain vs. Obama.
Obama IS an extreme socialist radical. For all intents and purposes
he is a communist. And he is a black liberation theologist, meaning
he is an extreme black racist.
Apples and oranges.
Kevin Cunningham
Wow, that is English!
Redlining in legal English is rating borrowers by were they live.
Since neighborhoods tend to be segregated it's a simple way to
segregate borrowers. Customers should be rated by their income and
savings, not by were they live or the color of their skin.
Of course the above racist idiot can't get that through his head.
Just as he can't understand that a legal filing has to be
understandable. He can't get it through his head that a word, in
English, means what it means in the dictionary, not in the fevered
brain of a racist.
Blathering racist moron.
Kevin Cunningham
Aaahhh, racist idiot, the Alaskan House and Senate voted unanimously
to investigate Gov. Palin. Now the indictment will go to those houses
but it is doubtful that anything will be done.
Palin was and is guilty of ethical violations as the report said. If
you had any evidence why didn't you bring it up?