Trains

On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 05:40:08 -0700 (PDT), Bill C
wrote:


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,

I don't believe you'd vote for them for president and here's why.
Given what you know now, sure you'd vote for them. But in a
presidential election the RNC would out all the bogeymen that work on
you against these people and you'd pay attention to those rumours and
distractions. You have again and again. And they'd probably work on
you even for those people.

Or to be more charitable *maybe* it's *possible* for you to vote for
such a person but the only way you'd ever do it if you were so
familiar with their record that you could see through the bogeyman.
That is, it'd take particularly strong personal information on your
part to overcome the "normal" mud slinging that works on you and
again. If that's what it takes to overcome obvious BS in the wake of
what you yourself have admitted has been a disastrous 8 years, then
yeah, you're a right-winger.

[quoting out of order]

If activists, organizers, and get
out the vote folks weren't also
fighting to block having to provide
picture ID, or other positiver
identification,

Here's another bogeyman that works on Bill C: voter fraud.

In the Bush administration the Justice Department greatly expanded
attempts to find any significant or substantial voting fraud and as
far as I can tell they have had zero successful prosecutions. The fact
is, all the best evidence shows there isn't any voter fraud. None or
almost none.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/wa...n/12fraud.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...d-report_x.htm

Politicians nowadays have better and safer things to spend money on to
affect elections, and if they want to do anything illegal or
quasi-illegal it's way easier to spend it on voter suppression (as the
phone-jamming case in New Hampshire is showing).

[details of theoretical fraud snipped]
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,
Oh yeah, "it hasn't been checked." "It's slipping through."

We don't have comprehensive systems of checking for a lot of other
types of crimes and yet when the Justice Department wants to, it can
at least find *some* examples of the crime and win at least a case.
Where there's smoke there's fire.

But in this case, the only smoke is Rush and Rove. No reality. No
fire.

But the right-wing has been trumpeting voting fraud over and over and
now it works on Bill and guys like him. I can just see it -- some
local Dem he voted for for local office is trying to become president
and we start seeing ads linking him to nebulous voter fraud and
"progressive" groups and Bill starts to have doubts. But hey, he
considered voting democractic so he's really independent, right?

In article , ST wrote:

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.

Because the mortgage brokers told them that it would go up but only a little. They
were not telling people that their mortgage payment would double. The low income
people we're talking about overwhelmingly have not previously owned so they were
inexperienced in the process of the paperwork involved and (as I've said before)
since most people are raised to **trust banks and bankers**, they had no reason to
doubt it when the broker told them stuff that turned out to be bull****.

Richer people who got ARMs while buying McMansions or condos to flip should have
known better but were stupid enough to think the price of the homes they were buying
would always go up. They were wrong. And that is the group who are responsible for
the largest part of the foreclosures.

--
tanx,
Howard

Abandon the Creeping Meatball!

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
pointless stuff

Barack Obama said "Hi" to a child molester once. That's all that really
matters.

In article ,
SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:

On Oct 15, 12:31*am, Howard Kveck wrote:

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.

I guess this is like when you sniffed that the "The "middle class" is vague. *It
is code for growth of government." You decide how to define things and whether it has
anything to do with reality is right out the window. Very curious but whatever.

--
tanx,
Howard

Abandon the Creeping Meatball!

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 16:52:10 -0700, Fred Fredburger
wrote:

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
pointless stuff

Barack Obama said "Hi" to a child molester once. That's all that really
matters.

I don't mind that so much. I just wish he'd be more honest about it.
What's he hiding? We deserve to know.

On Oct 15, 4:52*pm, Fred Fredburger
wrote:
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:

pointless stuff

Barack Obama said "Hi" to a child molester once. That's all that really
matters.

Oh yeah?! John McCain used to pal around with communist torturers!
-Paul

On Oct 15, 6:15*pm, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 05:40:08 -0700 (PDT), Bill C

wrote:
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,

I don't believe you'd vote for them for president and here's why.
Given what you know now, sure you'd vote for them. *But in a
presidential election the RNC would out all the bogeymen that work on
you against these people and you'd pay attention to those rumours and
distractions. You have again and again. *And they'd probably work on
you even for those people.

Or to be more charitable *maybe* it's *possible* for you to vote for
such a person but the only way you'd ever do it if you were so
familiar with their record that you could see through the bogeyman.
That is, it'd take particularly strong personal information on your
part to overcome the "normal" mud slinging that works on you and
again. If that's what it takes to overcome obvious BS in the wake of
what you yourself have admitted has been a disastrous 8 years, then
yeah, you're a right-winger. *

[quoting out of order]

*If activists, organizers, and get
out the vote folks weren't also
fighting to block having to provide
picture ID, or other positiver
identification,

Here's another bogeyman that works on Bill C: voter fraud.

In the Bush administration the Justice Department greatly expanded
attempts to find any significant or substantial voting fraud and as
far as I can tell they have had zero successful prosecutions. The fact
is, all the best evidence shows there isn't any voter fraud. *None or
almost none.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/wa...n/12fraud.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...-fraud-report_...

Thanks for those links, but now do a google for vote fraud US
history, and you get 430,000 hits. The complaints come from both wings
and parties, depending on who thinks they got screwed.
Here's a good study:

http://www.demos.org/pubs/analysis_voter_fraud.pdf
It's not currently a huge problem, but how'd Florida work out for
Gore? How much does it take to sway an election?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...mostly-absent/
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/...150477,00.html

Bill C
Fair, open, accountable, and honest is what elections should be.

On Oct 15, 8:18*pm, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 16:52:10 -0700, Fred Fredburger

wrote:
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
pointless stuff

Barack Obama said "Hi" to a child molester once. That's all that really
matters.

I don't mind that so much. I just wish he'd be more honest about it.
What's he hiding? We deserve to know.

Here's a decent piece that sort of starts to sum up the ACORN bit:

http://tinyurl.com/5ybeyl

Evidence points to Acorn's sloppiness, but not fraud By Greg Gordon,
McClatchy Newspapers
1 hour, 6 minutes ago

That seems to be the reality of that particular situation from a bunch
of different sources.

So JT which Republicans, or moderates have you voted for and
supported?
Just asking. Might give you something better to do than throwing lies
about me at the wall until they stick. Seems you learned some things
from Rove.
Bill C

On Oct 15, 5:06 pm, Howard Kveck wrote:
In article ,
SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:

On Oct 15, 12:31 am, Howard Kveck wrote:
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.

I guess this is like when you sniffed that the "The "middle class" is vague. It
is code for growth of government." You decide how to define things and whether it has
anything to do with reality is right out the window. Very curious but whatever.

If you think you can claim Gordon debunked Dilorenzo and Liebowitz,
and really just for the point of deflecting all discussion to mean
evil racists, then you are simply in the tank and no amount of reason
or facts could possibly sway you. You are in the tank. Just admit it
-- you are not open-minded in the least bit.

The whole thing is a pyramiding of credit off the Fed. This is a
basic fact and it is always bound to crash, although all you partiers
are god damn drunk and stupid on credit when the cops show up. Fannie
and Freddie were undercapitalized, as were the credit default swaps.
The CRA did indeed help seed and drive the problem. You just don't
want to admit it because it is a pet special interest program that
buys your party votes in the pork wars.

You screech about "big bad corporations," but that is all the Fed is:
the realized dreams of big banking and credit interests. You support
policies that *cause* corporatization, not limit its damages, but yet
you cry "evil big business." A little cognitive dissonance goes a
long way. Due to things *you* support, now they are "too big to
fail." Next step: guvmint ownership of corporations because
"capitalism can't be trusted." You are going to get what you want.

Mises.org, along with Ron Paul have been warning about exactly this
for a long long time. You just didn't want to listen. It was
inevitable. Hayek, Mises, and Benjamin Anderson all warned about the
impending major crash before the Great Depression. No one listened.
You never will. There is the the guvmint pork market to win, that is
why you are in the tank. You are all a bunch of drunk idiots.

Liebowitz:
http://www.independent.org/pdf/polic...trainwreck.pdf

"Trainwreck" is a good title for a train thread. Really good for all
rbr political threads.

On 10/15/08 4:41 PM, in article
, "Howard Kveck"
wrote:

In article , ST
wrote:

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.

Because the mortgage brokers told them that it would go up but only a
little. They
were not telling people that their mortgage payment would double. The low
income
people we're talking about overwhelmingly have not previously owned so they
were
inexperienced in the process of the paperwork involved and (as I've said
before)
since most people are raised to **trust banks and bankers**, they had no
reason to
doubt it when the broker told them stuff that turned out to be bull****.

Richer people who got ARMs while buying McMansions or condos to flip should
have
known better but were stupid enough to think the price of the homes they were
buying
would always go up. They were wrong. And that is the group who are responsible
for
the largest part of the foreclosures.


Class warfare talking points.......

And McDonald's is responsible for all obesity??