Trains

ST wrote:

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


Are you able to square the "personal responsibility" angle with the
massive gov't bail-out of financial institutions that's going on? I'm
curious as to how that's done.

Howard Kveck wrote:
In article ,
Fred Fredburger wrote:

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
pointless stuff

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

http://www.theagitator.com/2008/10/1...ssy-dan-riehl/

And check the 'Update' on this one:

http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=12325


Right! Obama is a drunken pervert!

But that second link was written by someone who's skeptical. Or maybe
they're just being ironic? Yeah, that's probably it!

Gunner wrote:
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?

http://theweaselking.livejournal.com/3075443.html
http://www.gorillasushi.com/?q=node/906

And everyone SMILES while he does it!

On Oct 16, 2:53*am, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:

PS - the problems in Florida were about voter supression, not fraud by
the voters. *

Yes, voter suppression is very simple. Just make sure the lines to
vote are a block long in the neighborhoods where you want to suppress
the vote. Piece of cake. "Sure, you can vote, just stand in that line
for a couple of hours."
-Paul

On Oct 16, 1:40*am, "
wrote:
On Oct 15, 6:42*pm, SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:







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.

Dude,

Here is what I don't get. *You argue that the Federal
Reserve system is fundamentally illegitimate and
bad economics besides. *Why then do you give a
rat's ass about the CRA? *

If you are going to comment, it would be best for you to know what the
pivot point is.

Read the thread. My response was about Howard's bogeyman accusations
of racism, which have been exposed as silly and unfounded. It was
typical "YOU MUST BE A RACIST AND FURTHER, YOU HATE THE
CHILDREN!!!!!!!!!" commie tripe, for lack of ability to objectively
examine reality when it comes to pet leftist programs that are hoped
to buy leftist politicians elections. I could not care less who gets
loans -- I know I didn't get one. I just don't want to pay for
someone else's house, whether a McMansion or "cozy cottage on B-
Street." You want me to pay for both.

I do think the whole structure, far beyond CRA, is bull****, and have
been saying it before the collapse. The reason you are unable to be
objective on its influence is because you got a cause and goal,
reality be damned. CRA simply is off-limits for examination to you
because examination interferes with your goals of getting power over
other people, including me. You and Howard make it off-limits by the
PC bogeyman of "RACISM!!!!!!" That just makes you dishonest. Is that
what you want to be?



It's a pimple on the ass of
bad credit, a tiny element of a vast federal monetary
system, and a mere fraction of the books of Fannie
and Freddie. *

You are basically denying that CRA law had any effect on lending
practices notwithstanding that to poor people. I can only say that
isn't what I've been reading. My reading is that it affected
*overall* lending practice, far beyond that to "poor" people, whatever
precisely that is.

Politicians love to brag about home ownership rates, credit problems
be damned. It is in the bullet point list of "here is why you should
elect me." If you could step into the light of day for a moment and
be willing to examine reality, including your off-limits CRA, maybe
this concept would not be so difficult for you. But you're in the
tank, so it just isn't possible.


When the whole system is, by your
lights, corrupt, why are you fixing on this one piece
of it for, as far as I can tell, not being correctly corrupt?
It's sort of like the old joke about "The food here is terrible!
And such small portions!"

It would be like Lafferty arguing that the pro cycling is
ethically bankrupt and should be ignored because of
rampant doping, and then spending weeks ranting
against Mike Creed's decision to use a fixed gear in the
nats TT. *I mean, that actually happened, but I didn't
understand that either.

Ben

On Oct 16, 7:14*am, Fred Fredburger
wrote:
ST wrote:
UNTIL THEN.... I will continue to believe in that golden rule "personal
responsibility"

Are you able to square the "personal responsibility" angle with the
massive gov't bail-out of financial institutions that's going on? I'm
curious as to how that's done.

I can understand why "they" did it, but for me, I would have gone "all-
in." I would have let the chickens come to roost. I saw how rich
some mortgage brokers got on all this, because I personally know
some. I was astounded at the money they were making. (And I new it
was all built off the inherently corrupt and unconstitutional Federal
Reserve System.) Now I am paying for the mortgages they wrote, but
yet can't afford to own a house myself.

BTW, if some mortgage broker is determined by someone to be a member
of a "minority," then my above critique of the obscene rigged profits
of mortgage brokers necessarily must mean that I am a racist.

On Oct 15, 4:41 pm, Howard Kveck wrote:

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**, ...

I do not believe you can say that it is just low income people (racist
codeword for "minorities") who are too stupid to understand banking
and the banking industry. This sounds very racist to me because I
know a lot of people who I don't believe are "poor" (?), and they have
no clue of how fractional reserve banking works, even though the basic
aspect is fairly simple. Go down the street and ask random well-
heeled individuals what the difference between a time-deposit and
demand deposit are, for example.

Why do you hate minorities? Are you a racist?

But aside from that, who propagandized the idea that one can trust
banks? You got it: guvmint. I guarantee you that if you let them
fail, people will get smarter about which bank and banker to trust,
and which not to trust. They'll get a clue why it is important. BTW,
poor people, in a more natural order, have less need for banks, and so
their exposure is naturally less. In the crash of '29 it was Wall
Streeters jumping out of windows commiting suicide, not poor people.

"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly, is to
fill the world with fools."--Herbert Spencer

On Oct 16, 12:00*pm, SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:

*Now I am paying for the mortgages they wrote, but
yet can't afford to own a house myself.

What a loser! Maybe you should waste less time posting here and
instead get off your ass and make some money. Hey, Joe Plumber
allegedly works 10 to 12 hrs a day, 7 days a week. Bet he doesn't
waste any time fooling around on the internet.

-Paul

On Oct 16, 11:49*am, SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:

Read the thread. *My response was about Howard's bogeyman accusations
of racism, which have been exposed as silly and unfounded. *It was
typical "YOU MUST BE A RACIST AND FURTHER, YOU HATE THE
CHILDREN!!!!!!!!!" commie tripe, for lack of ability to objectively
examine reality when it comes to pet leftist programs that are hoped
to buy leftist politicians elections. *I could not care less who gets
loans -- I know I didn't get one. *I just don't want to pay for
someone else's house, whether a McMansion or "cozy cottage on B-
Street." *You want me to pay for both.

At no point in this thread, or the previous one in which
CRA was raised, have I called you a racist, implied it,
or asked you to think of the children. I won't now, either.

I don't own a house. Do you? If you do, I'm subsidizing
your house through the mortgage tax credit, BTW.

It's a pimple on the ass of
bad credit, a tiny element of a vast federal monetary
system, and a mere fraction of the books of Fannie
and Freddie. *

You are basically denying that CRA law had any effect on lending
practices notwithstanding that to poor people. *I can only say that
isn't what I've been reading. *My reading is that it affected
*overall* lending practice, far beyond that to "poor" people, whatever
precisely that is.

Politicians love to brag about home ownership rates, credit problems
be damned. It is in the bullet point list of "here is why you should
elect me." *If you could step into the light of day for a moment and
be willing to examine reality, including your off-limits CRA, maybe
this concept would not be so difficult for you. *But you're in the
tank, so it just isn't possible.

CRA was developed to address a problem that
actually existed (redlining). Maybe it caused other
problems. I haven't seen any real evidence that
the other problems it caused were significant in terms
of the overall size of this cluster****. I think
the idea that CRA affected overall lending practice
is Tooth-Fairy-ism. Banks (and non-bank lenders)
are supposed to be in the business of evaluating loans
and they did not do that. CRA has nothing to do
with the vast tracts of crap homes way out in the Arizona
desert. There were other reasons for that.

If you want to say that Fannie and Freddie caused
the whole cluster****, I think that would be a defensible
position - possibly wrong, but defensible. However,
saying CRA is a major part of the cluster**** seems
not defensible by the percentages. There are people
whose political position makes it attractive to bash CRA.
Many of these people do not say, for example, that the
Federal Reserve is bad, or reject the idea that originally
motivated Fannie and Freddie. They have a more
narrowly political reason to harp on CRA.

Because your beliefs are more stringent, it seems to me that
would make CRA less significant as part of your argument.
I think focusing on it is detracting from the argument -
arguing about CRA is arguing about _how_ the govmint
should regulate the financial system, while conceding that
it should. I'd expect you to argue about whether it should
regulate the system at all.

Ben

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 17:28:41 -0700 (PDT), Bill C
wrote:

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.

Well, if that's your standard of evidence I can't help you.

The liberal media conspiracy is now saying that the ACORN stuff is
overblown:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/st...6049529&page=1

It's just like that time Gwen Ifill pulled a switchblade on Sarah Palin
on national TV and the liberals in the media covered it up! Fox News
predicted it, but no one covered it.

Fool me once, shame on the liberals. Fool me twice, shame on the
liberals. Fool me three times, shame on the liberals. Fool me four times...