Trains

Bill C wrote:


More there, or can't these things be questioned?



Never ...... These Fruit Loops have all tasted the Kool Aid and will
follow the anointed one forever.

I like to think of it as "Brother Love's Traveling Salvation Show"


Bill - the other one

On Oct 14, 12:32*am, Howard Kveck wrote:
In article ,
*Howard Kveck wrote:

* I'm not sure how that addresses what I was saying. Right wingers are
explicitily saying that programs like CRA and others are responsible for getting
loans into the hands of people who were high risks and then didn't pay them
off. That is not backed up by the facts. Even banks aren't blaming CRA for the
problems. Here's a fairly good and simple explanation:

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?...s_cause_the_su....
isis

* *The Wall Street Journal reported in 2006 that 61% of all borrowers
receiving subprime loans had credit scores high enough to qualify for prime
conventional loans.

* *I forgot this link (it's a pdf):

http://www.traigerlaw.com/publicatio..._llp_cra_forec...
-08.pdf

http://tinyurl.com/3rkftb

Search either of the documents you linked for *minorities/minority*.
You threw in the idiot card.

Gordon references DiLorenzo, so here is a DiLorenzo article:
http://mises.org/story/2963

In any case, and however you judge the causes of the crisis, it isn't
about "minorities." You made that crap up.

On Oct 14, 12:47*am, Donald Munro wrote:
SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:

Note that Krugman never sez the ridiculous things about Friedman that
Klein Bottle sez. I bought Klein's book on your recommendation. *You jerk.
What a waste of money.

You should have bought a frame pump on credit.

Since I have actually read some stuff Friedman has written, I was in a
position to be able to critique claims of Klein Bottle without undue
effort. So that was why I was willing to go there where the prima
facie evidence otherwise said it was pure junk. (I almost never read
that kind of crap.) She'z disreputable, that is for sure. At the
NYT, Krugman has only risen to shill status; that is a lot more
respectable, as respectability is sacrificed in quest of The Ideology
of Wishful Thinking.

A frame pump and a ride are better than rbr any day, except maybe
during winter rains. I insist that I will learn! I need to
demonstrate behavior that will improve my credit.

Howard Kveck wrote:

* *'Ow bow dat Krugman?

And another:

http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2008/...bel-economics-
oped-cx_pb_1013boettke.html

Prior art excerpt:
"In addition to Krugman's scientific contributions in first-best trade
theory, he also re-established the field of economic geography and
location analysis in discussions of trade, growth and development. At
one level, his work on economic geography followed naturally from his
increasing-returns perspective, and focused attention on industrial
clustering in development. But Krugman's claim to originality in this
field is very muted, as he himself has admitted on numerous occasions.
Instead, Krugman is credited with bringing professional attention back
to an earlier literature that in fact had been forgotten in the
striving for precise equilibrium models.

To put this very simply, the formal tools used by economists for most
of the 20th century required smooth and continuous functions that are
twice differentiable. Lumpy and discrete phenomena defy such
representation, and it is arguably the lumpy and discrete things in
our world that make the economic world worthy of study--and provide
alternative arguments about the power of markets and the problems of
politics that are missed in the formal exercises of economic theory.
They are not missed, however, in the "appreciative theory" exercises
we employ in our classrooms and lunchroom conversations, and are
evident in the literary economics of classical political economists
such as Adam Smith or modern political economists such as F. A. Hayek
and James Buchanan.

But Krugman's rediscovery of economic geography did not focus our
efforts on the broader points of political economy. Instead, it sought
to provide novel ways to translate some aspects of the broader
argument into the formalistic exercise of standard economics. Krugman,
in fact, saw his role as a sort of economic theorist middleman, who
was able to buy low the ideas of economic geographers and sell them at
a higher price to modern economic theorists of trade and development."

Bill C wrote:
On Oct 13, 7:55 pm, Fred Fredburger
wrote:

You misunderstand. I'm not arguing with you. JT already did that. I'm
just telling you that JT won.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That's your judgement. Where, on facts, did JT, win? Just curious.
Bill C

You won it for him. Your own posts in this thread supply all the facts
he'd ever need.

Let's try this: If I said all cyclists are dopers and used Tyler, Vino,
Rasmussen et. al. as proof, would you notice a flaw in that reasoning?

How about if I claimed, as some do that Palin is a terrorist who hates
America. Supporting evidence would be her involvement with the Alaska
Independence Party and the history of that group.

Do either of those stimulate your internal BS detector at all?

How about Gwen Ifill, she did a pretty awful hatchet job on Palin,
didn't she?

The ACORN stuff is a tempest in a teapot. They're being criticized for
complying with the law by turning in ALL registrations received, for
crying out loud. Voter registration drives always **** people off,
there's nothing new here. Locally, Democrats have bitched for years
about Republican efforts to drive people to the polls and provide
babysitters on voting day. It's analogous to stuffing the ballot box,
they say. Grow the **** up, I say.

It's all just a bunch of crap to give people a reason to feel like the
victim of the other guy so they'll go vote against them. Swiftboat tactics.

Republican swiftboat tactics work on you every time. Read your own posts
in this thread for proof. Half this crap only makes sense if you start
from the assumption that Obama (Kerry, Gore) is nothing but PURE EVIL!

I just wasted 5 minutes of my life. Ah, well, I wasn't doing anything
with it anyway.

On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 13:27:03 -0700, Fred Fredburger
wrote:

wrote:
On Oct 11, 1:45 pm, Boater wrote:
Cliff wrote:
"The Candidates as Trains"
http://images.dailykos.com/images/us...tiontrains.jpg
That's just...hilarious.

Delightfully, I believe Palin's problems in Alaska are just beginning.

Maybe, but if not for the democrats blocking any investigation into
Freddie and Fannie until after the election, you'd see most of
Nobama's financial advisors being forced to resign in shame AND Nobama
himself dropping out of the race due to the humilation of being caught
with his hands in the cookie jar. Wait, no... that won't happen.
He's drunk the koolaid himself, and actually believes he's the
messiah.

What he is, is a thinly-veiled socialist who believes in telling the
same lie over and over until its accepted as true.

You left out the part about eating babies.


He eats babies? The socialist part is well proven, so how about a
cite to the eating baby thingy?

In article ,
SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:

On Oct 14, 12:32*am, Howard Kveck wrote:
In article ,
*Howard Kveck wrote:

* I'm not sure how that addresses what I was saying. Right wingers are
explicitily saying that programs like CRA and others are responsible for
getting loans into the hands of people who were high risks and then
didn't pay them off. That is not backed up by the facts. Even banks
aren't blaming CRA for the problems. Here's a fairly good and simple
explanation:

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?...s_cause_the_su...
isis

* *The Wall Street Journal reported in 2006 that 61% of all borrowers
receiving subprime loans had credit scores high enough to qualify for
prime conventional loans.

* *I forgot this link (it's a pdf):

http://www.traigerlaw.com/publicatio..._llp_cra_forec...
-08.pdf

http://tinyurl.com/3rkftb

Search either of the documents you linked for *minorities/minority*.
You threw in the idiot card.

Whether you can recognize it or not, those articles were backing up what I've
said, so the likleyhood they'd say wither of those words is small. Besides, even the
people who are pushing that line are unlikely to use those words either.

Gordon references DiLorenzo, so here is a DiLorenzo article:
http://mises.org/story/2963

His premise is ****ed up by the third graf:

"Gordon is a defender of the federal government's 1977 Community Reinvestment Act
(CRA) under which the Fed and other financial regulators have pressured/extorted
banks into making more loans to less-than-creditworthy borrowers than they would
normally be willing to risk."

Regulators didn't "pressure" banks into making loans to those people. And as I've
pointed out several times (and you just ignore, likely because it doesn't fi your
ideology), the overwhelming majority of those allegedly "less-than-creditworthy"
borrowers who got loans via CRA are doing fine. Gordon shoots holes in the argument:
__________________
"Second, it is hard to blame CRA for the mortgage meltdown when CRA doesn't even
apply to most of the loans that are behind it. As the University of Michigan's
Michael Barr points out, half of sub-prime loans came from those mortgage companies
beyond the reach of CRA. A further 25 to 30 percent came from bank subsidiaries and
affiliates, which come under CRA to varying degrees but not as fully as banks
themselves. (With affiliates, banks can choose whether to count the loans.) Perhaps
one in four sub-prime loans were made by the institutions fully governed by CRA."
__________________

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?...prime_c risis

Yeah, that is the article that DiLorenzo is tryingh to refute. I think Gordon is
correct.

In any case, and however you judge the causes of the crisis, it isn't
about "minorities." You made that crap up.

No, Greg, *I* didn't make that crap up - right wingers made it up. I'm just
telling you what they're saying. Go to Investor's Business Daily's oped pages, the
World's ****tiest Site (the Corner) or any number of right leaning sites. They start
in with saying that loans weren't made based on people's ability to pay but their
ethnicity or status (and that was by force). You may not see that as relating to
"minorities" but it is. It's called "dog whistle politics." You may not (want to) see
it but the people it's aimed at do see it: the right wing bloggers like Malkin and
her Hot Air clowns, Pajamas Media and a jillion others.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWEnqC1uPu0

--
tanx,
Howard

Abandon the Creeping Meatball!

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

On Oct 14, 7:56*pm, Fred Fredburger
wrote:


You won it for him. Your own posts in this thread supply all the facts
he'd ever need.

Let's try this: If I said all cyclists are dopers and used Tyler, Vino,
Rasmussen et. al. as proof, would you notice a flaw in that reasoning?

Nope, but when they are linked to Ferrari, Oil for Drugs, etc...then
I have some questions about them.

How about if I claimed, as some do that Palin is a terrorist who hates
America. Supporting evidence would be her involvement with the Alaska
Independence Party and the history of that group.

I want to know what they believe, what actions they've taken, etc...

Do either of those stimulate your internal BS detector at all?

They make me ask questions.

How about Gwen Ifill, she did a pretty awful hatchet job on Palin,
didn't she?

I already covered that, and said that She did a really good job with
the debate. That's not a given by any stretch of the imagination.

The ACORN stuff is a tempest in a teapot. They're being criticized for
complying with the law by turning in ALL registrations received, for
crying out loud. Voter registration drives always **** people off,
there's nothing new here. Locally, Democrats have bitched for years
about Republican efforts to drive people to the polls and provide
babysitters on voting day. *It's analogous to stuffing the ballot box,
they say. Grow the **** up, I say.

If activists, organizers, and get out the vote folks weren't also
fighting to block having to provide picture ID, or other positiver
identification, and if false documents weren't being generated for a
****load of people, as we saw in the Agriprocessors mess, and we
hadn't had a history of voter fraud, then I'd agree with you.
Providing rides, babysitting, whatever, that allows legal votes is a
great thing, and more power to them.
Using Illegals as an example here because it's easy. There are 11
States that issue licenses to illegals. Combine that with voter
registration fraud, and even a picture ID does no good at preventing
vote fraud. Lots of other places have extremelty easy to work around
ID systems, showing a piece of mail with your name and address is good
enough ID to vote. Pretty easy to vote a few times with that. We don't
have a good comprehensive system of checking the rolls, and a shortage
of people to do it, along with people trying very hard to block
tightening the system up.

It's all just a bunch of crap to give people a reason to feel like the
victim of the other guy so they'll go vote against them. Swiftboat tactics.

Republican swiftboat tactics work on you every time. Read your own posts
in this thread for proof. Half this crap only makes sense if you start
from the assumption that Obama (Kerry, Gore) is nothing but PURE EVIL!

Not that JT would believe it but here are local Democrats I do
support, and have voted for, and plenty I would support on a National
level: Stan Rosenberg, Peter V. Kocot, Dennis Gruyer, and there are
others locally, it depends on the individual, their positions and
voting records. Those folks have run against Republican candidates
here and I voted for them.

I just wasted 5 minutes of my life. Ah, well, I wasn't doing anything
with it anyway.

Not all talking points are garbage. Not all the Swifboat stuff was
garbage though 99% of it was. Kerry failed miserably to counteract it.
Go back and you'll see me blasting Kerry, but for his actions AFTER he
came back.
Not all of Air America, Maddow, Stewart, Moore, stuff etc...is wrong
by any means, and JT was absolutely correct that there is stuff they
bring up that noone else does, and important stuff, but like with
Drudge it's buried in a lot of other garbage.
Bill C

On 10/13/08 6:26 PM, in article
, "Howard Kveck"
wrote:

In article
,
SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:

On Oct 11, 6:16*pm, Howard Kveck wrote:

* *Sorry, but the facts get in the way of your attempt to lay the blame for
the current economic crisis on blacks, hispanics and other minorities. (Not
racist much, are y'all?):

Oh, shut the **** up with the idiot-talk. It makes you sound like an
idiot.

Greg, what do you consider "idiot-talk," the part about right wing cretins
trying
to blame it on minorities?

Dumb Howie,

This is why I am done with you east bloc assbags. (Bill C is getting his ass
beat by you jerks too! And he is one of the most open-minded rational people
I have ever read here)

UNTIL you jerks can tell me you are stupid enough to sign on to one of those
mortgages where you pay interest only for 2 years and then your payment
DOUBLES and you know your income will not THEN I will think you really
believe in you rhetoric.

UNTIL THEN.... I will continue to believe in that golden rule "personal
responsibility"

On Oct 15, 12:31*am, Howard Kveck wrote:
In article ,
*SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:





On Oct 14, 12:32*am, Howard Kveck wrote:
In article ,
*Howard Kveck wrote:

* I'm not sure how that addresses what I was saying. Right wingers are
explicitily saying that programs like CRA and others are responsible for
getting loans into the hands of people who were high risks and then
didn't pay them off. That is not backed up by the facts. Even banks
aren't blaming CRA for the problems. Here's a fairly good and simple
explanation:

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?...s_cause_the_su...
isis

* *The Wall Street Journal reported in 2006 that 61% of all borrowers
receiving subprime loans had credit scores high enough to qualify for
prime conventional loans.

* *I forgot this link (it's a pdf):

http://www.traigerlaw.com/publicatio..._llp_cra_forec...
-08.pdf

http://tinyurl.com/3rkftb

Search either of the documents you linked for *minorities/minority*.
You threw in the idiot card.

Whether you can recognize it or not, those articles were backing up
what I've said, ...

No they don't. You are in denial. That won't change. That's good
cuz I know I can drop out.