08 Nov, 2008, quixadhal wrote in the 101st comment:
Votes: 0
Ok, I'm feeling generous tonight. I'll feed the troll, but just this once! You'll have to look elsewhere for a more substantial meal.

lspiderl said:
but its not those people that elected him president it was the millions of sheeple that think he is some kinda combination rockstar /messiah without ever questioning anything about him and blindly ignoring any opposing viewpoints


That's called a democracy. If you want rule by the intellectuals, you're looking for an Oligarchy. Of course, the United States isn't a true democracy, it's a representative democracy – which is why we have electors who actually determine the President. They can, and have, gone against the popular vote on occasion, but not this time.

lspiderl said:
personaly even IF i were to ignore his NUMEROUS questionalbe relationships
AND I was willing to ignore his rampant socialist agenda

Of course, you are obviously guilty of anything that anyone you've ever associated with has ever done, or will ever do. Sins of the father and all that…

I also love how people toss words around as black and white objects. Socialism is 100% evil, except when your parents are old and have to rely on Social Security to pay their heating bills. Yeah, curse the State for taxing us to death, but why won't they fix the potholes in my road?

If you don't like socialism, perhaps you (oh mighty knight of Capitalism) should personally pay to have road crews come and fix the roads between your home and your place of work? No? I didn't think so.

lspiderl said:
AND i even managed to look past his blatant lies about reaching across the isle when he has never once opposed his party leaders and NEVER worked with republicans on anything


See the comments above about the notion of "enemy".

lspiderl said:
theres still teh simple fact that its proven economic folly to raise taxes in any way durring a ressesion and in spite of that and in spite of many many advisors strongly suggesting against it he still thinks it smart to hit the major buisnesses with higher taxes at a time like this ? it greatly explains why the day after the election the market plunged 600 points and numerous major companies annouced layoffs


Well, if he doesn't raise taxes on the wealthy, and on medium-to-large businesses, where else can all the revenue come from? I suppose we could just follow the republican tried-and-true methods of taxing the middle class. I mean, they'll just waste their money on food, clothing, and heat this winter. And all those small businesses are really only there to be purchased by big companies.

Of course! *thunk* Why didn't I think of the solution that might work that doesn't involve raising taxes? We just wave the magic wand of printing more money and then spend it before it becomes devalued (before the rest of the world realizes we diluted our currency)!

There, have I given you enough fuel to vent the rest of your frustrations? It's important to get all that out, you know.

I could try to make more serious answers, but there's no point. You have set your mind on believing that your opinions are right, and we all know the power of belief. Hope you enjoyed the snack!
08 Nov, 2008, lspiderl wrote in the 102nd comment:
Votes: 0
the problem is not that the less educated people are voting its that the less educated people are easly misled by the media that has an obvious bias and played favorites to elect obama
as far as the education system i wholeheartedly agree it needs some serious improvements
i beleive we shoudl follow the model that the phillipines and many other countrys have successfuly employed
testing to get into schools , if u want to start school u have to pass certain tests to do so
wanna get into middle school? again tests
ok high school ? you guessed it tests

it explains why the phillipines had a massivly dispraportionate number of successfull doctors , nurses , and other engeners(sp)


Of course, you are obviously guilty of anything that anyone you've ever associated with has ever done, or will ever do. Sins of the father and all that…
its not about guilt its about jugement
we are all juged by the company we keep if all our friends are muderers and theives and drug dealers we will be suspect
if all our friends are educated and polite we will be looked up too

and if all our friends are racsists , anti- americans ,former terrorists , and convicted criminals
well you get the idea
its not about having ONE questionable friend its about having a multitude of them
it at the least shows questionable judgement and at the worst well again you get the idea
Rember a republican was thrown out of office simply for being friends with someone who turned out to be a KKK guy


I also love how people toss words around as black and white objects. Socialism is 100% evil, except when your parents are old and have to rely on Social Security to pay their heating bills. Yeah, curse the State for taxing us to death, but why won't they fix the potholes in my road?

If you don't like socialism, perhaps you (oh mighty knight of Capitalism) should personally pay to have road crews come and fix the roads between your home and your place of work? No? I didn't think so.



first and foremost my parrents wont ahve to rely on social security because tehy planned for retirement and have a 401k and savings and lived VERY frugaly and didnt spend tons of money on frivolus things
as far as helping others goes i dont need the goverment to take my money to help other people that dont want to help themselves .If someone is working hard to improve themsellves and cant get out by them selves im glad to help but by MY choice not eh goverments recently my g/f and I bought 2 homes and rehabbed them for 2 low income families to get tehm out of a slum . a socialist nation tends to take money from hard working people and give it to people who dont do squat for a living



Well, if he doesn't raise taxes on the wealthy, and on medium-to-large businesses, where else can all the revenue come from? I suppose we could just follow the republican tried-and-true methods of taxing the middle class. I mean, they'll just waste their money on food, clothing, and heat this winter. And all those small businesses are really only there to be purchased by big companies.

Of course! *thunk* Why didn't I think of the solution that might work that doesn't involve raising taxes? We just wave the magic wand of printing more money and then spend it before it becomes devalued (before the rest of the world realizes we diluted our currency)!

EASY cut out all the unnessisary socialst programs that incourage people to not work

at least 5 women where i work have stoped working simply because they make more money on welfare ( not because they couldnt afford to live on teh income but because they made more money NOT working)
find all the people screwing the system and kick them off of it
bush proved in 01 that across the board tax cuts ( yes gasp the bush tax cuts were across teh board NOT just for the wealthy) can grow an economy
the economy recovered from 911 in record time
but the democrats in office prevented legislation in 05 that would have regulated fanny and freddy and other comapnies and preventing the housing market crash and the liberal media simply distorted the facts to put the blame on bush

and no we dont need to print more money we need to stop letting the fed cut interest rates to help irrisponsible home owners so that teh dollar can regain its value and people will invest in the sytem again

and those small buisnesses you so casualy dismiss make up 60-70% of all the buisnesses in the country hardly simply fodder for big buisness
08 Nov, 2008, lspiderl wrote in the 103rd comment:
Votes: 0
Chris Bailey said:
Consider the states that have chosen to prevent felons and handicapped individuals from voting. And then how some states moved on to disallow people without identification. If if a state chose to do so, they could prevent you from voting for any number of reasons, because it's governed by state law.


um i believe its FEDERAL law not state that makes removes a felons right to vote as being a convicted felon you loose most of your citizens rights ( not human rights but citizens )
as far as handicapped i know nothing about that but if someones mentaly handicapped and has a realy low intellegence then there vote could too easly be manupulated so i can see some reasing behind it even if i dont entirely agree
as far as identification i think tehre should be a federal mandate for identification simply to further prevent voter fraud after all if you dont need id to vote whats to stop you from gettign peoples information ( easy in this day and age) and going and voting in dozens and dozens of locations
08 Nov, 2008, Cratylus wrote in the 104th comment:
Votes: 0
spider wrote:
Quote
um i believe its FEDERAL law not state that makes removes a felons right to vote


It's an amendment to the constitution that permits
the states to do it, but it's the states that may
choose to do it at their discretion. I suggest reading
the entire constitutional law portion of the thread
before commenting on it, as well as the relevant articles
of the constitution and amendments.


quix wrote:
Quote
I'll feed the troll


:(

I swear I've been looking at the result for a while now,
trying to find a constructive angle, and it's just not
working. I was so close to chilling him out, dude.


Quote
Well, if he doesn't raise taxes on the wealthy, and on medium-to-large businesses, where else can all the revenue come from?


While I see your point here, my layman's research into
this suggests that upper crust taxes are a pretty weak
solution due to the negative side effects they incur.
AFAICT, even a deferral to 2010 may be too close.

I don't have an answer or a solution, just an observation
that much like the Afghanistan logjam we see now, the
economic seizing-up winds up requiring locked-up components
to move in order to loosen up other locked-up components.
It's damned, damned tough, and it's vastly easier to
just throw up our hands and blame someone, saying "well
we just shouldn't have got into this mess in the first place."

I think that's where some of the Democrats == Death stuff
is coming from. It's just easier to disclaim fault and
presage doom than it is to accept that everyone has to
take a bite of the shit sandwich that we all made for ourselves.

ALL of us.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net
08 Nov, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 105th comment:
Votes: 0
I don't really see the point in discussing anything seriously with somebody who basically says "I am right and everybody else is unquestioningly, unconditionally and absolutely stupid". I mean, there are fascinating discussions to have with people who disagree with you, but maybe not this time around.
08 Nov, 2008, Chris Bailey wrote in the 106th comment:
Votes: 0
lspiderl said:
but the democrats in office prevented legislation in 05 that would have regulated fanny and freddy and other comapnies and preventing the housing market crash and the liberal media simply distorted the facts to put the blame on bush


I invite you to read S.109 Federal Housing Enterprise Regulat... in it's entirety. Also interesting to note, since this is what a lot of McCain supports throw out as his "Supporting regulation of GSE's"… McCain didn't sign on as co-sponsor of the bill until 5/25/2006, when it was nearly dead. The ONLY work he did involving this bill was a short simple speech right before the bill died in the water. Another interesting thing to note is that McCain voted AGAINST the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 1992, which was nearly identical to the one he "semi-supported" in 2005. Also, you mention that the Act of 2005 was shot down by democrats… how did they do that in a committee of 20 members, 11 of which were REPUBLICANS and 9 of which were DEMOCRATS. This bill never even made it to the Senate, because it was voted against by Dem's AND Rep's.
08 Nov, 2008, Runter wrote in the 107th comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
McCain didn't sign on as co-sponsor of the bill until 5/25/2006, when it was nearly dead.


What a silly argument to make.

Even if true, which it's not really–He's always been a supporter of the bill even if not co-sponsoring it.

Additionally, 5/25/2006 is 2 years ago. That's not after everything crashed and he was trying to win political points.
This is when such a bill was opposed by generally everyone. (Which is why it makes political sense to co-sponsor it after it is nearly dead.)

Even furthermore, when did Obama co-sponsor such a bill? He wouldn't have. He would have been pushing for ridiculous regulatory practices that force banks to give bad loans.

Also, 1992 is a long time away from 2005.

In 1970's a national speed limit of 55 MPH was law. Situations change. What has changed? Well, a lot of things, but in this case specifically bigger interstate commerce and bigger safety measures which make it (and some would argue always made it) not worth the economic value it was saving on gas. (Of course, let's remember that the primary motivation from many of our liberal friends is green house gases, not the economy, when they come to making these laws.)
08 Nov, 2008, Chris Bailey wrote in the 108th comment:
Votes: 0
Well Runter, I never suggested that Obama co-sponsored a related bill, but it would have been a very democratic thing to do. Democrats are typically in favor of MORE government oversight and all. But you say that what I said about McCain is not true…how so?
08 Nov, 2008, Runter wrote in the 109th comment:
Votes: 0
Yes, democrats are always in favor of more regulation. Building an additional layer of bureaucracy. We all know this.

Fortunately for Democrats what not many people know is that the actual credit crisis we face is in large because of over regulation of the banking industry. Specifically mandating over the last 30 years started with Jimmy Carter all the way up to Bill Clinton and yes, even Barack Obama in Illinois–As well as president Bush–that we give a loan to anyone with a pulse as long as it is for home ownership.

It's what has caused the housing market to crash in the first place and it's what has caused the current credit crisis.


So when you put someone down for not sponsoring a bill earlier (when he did support it when others in the opposition would not even then) I don't see how you can legitimately say that it was a "democratic" thing to do. Considering democrats have controlled the lower and upper house with a super majority. I tend to blame the people in charge. I blame Bush and I blame the democrats.
08 Nov, 2008, Chris Bailey wrote in the 110th comment:
Votes: 0
I agree with you there Runter. I think our disagreement here is due to a minor misunderstanding in my post. I wasn't try to put down McCain, I was trying to point out that that the bill mentioned by lspiderl was not shot down by democrats, and point out the truth behind the "McCain has always been in favor of more regulation" bs that Palin spouted off about.
08 Nov, 2008, lspiderl wrote in the 111th comment:
Votes: 0
Chris Bailey said:
I agree with you there Runter. I think our disagreement here is due to a minor misunderstanding in my post. I wasn't try to put down McCain, I was trying to point out that that the bill mentioned by lspiderl was not shot down by democrats, and point out the truth behind the "McCain has always been in favor of more regulation" bs that Palin spouted off about.


i never stated the second half and as to the first have theres plenty of video of teh senate sessions in reguards to that particular bill try youtube or googling it you can watch the entire thing where major democrat after major democrat agrue to nearly the point of screaming about how fanny and freddie are doing such GREAT things helping people get houses etc. etc. and how they dont need more regulation they need to do even more of what there doing etc.
you state that im sooo unwilling to listen to teh other side well i HAVE listened i simply dont agree . I gave obama an open mind at the start and thought him highly preferable to clinton
, but as mroe and more information because avalible i slowly gained reservations but gave him teh benifit of the doubt
tthen as even more info came out yet the media did everything it could to repress any info that came out i grew increasingly disturbed
finaly the floodgates of information were being intentionaly dammed andand anything even remotely negative for obama was being spun off into a million happy little creeks drasticly distorting any hope of the main stream of the average citizen of seeing the truth i grew to understand teh scope of what was wrong not jsut with obama but wiht the intire false instituion trying to elect him

anyone whos ever read shakesperes julius ceasar understands teh ease with which the minds of the average pleabians can be turned for or against someone or something by the loudest voice
and when the majority of the media is artificialy increasing the volume of one mans voice over another its no suprize that tehy follow it

wether they be pleabians or ( my playful term ) sheeple the truth is still plain
the majority of teh population tends to follow those with the biggest voice and when the biggest voice is being artificaly enhanced theres a serious problem that needs addressed
08 Nov, 2008, Chris Bailey wrote in the 112th comment:
Votes: 0
I do agree that the masses are easily manipulated, but successful politicians of any party take part in this. It just comes down to who is better at it in the end. I don't rely on youtube video's for much proof of anything, I think the fact that the bill would have gone through just fine if all the republicans on the committee had approved of it tosses out the idea that it's dying can be blamed on democrats. You might have video of democrats arguing against it, but in the end republicans voted against it also. Neither party was in favor of that bill at the time. Also, I am completely unsure of what gave you this idea, unless you are speaking to someone else.
lspiderl said:
you state that im sooo unwilling to listen to teh other side well i HAVE listened i simply dont agree .


At no point in time have I mentioned which side you listen to, or which side you lean toward.
08 Nov, 2008, Cratylus wrote in the 113th comment:
Votes: 0
DH said:
Quote
I don't really see the point in discussing anything seriously with somebody who basically says "I am right and everybody else is unquestioningly, unconditionally and absolutely stupid".


Yup, pretty much.

I've had people insist that 2000 and 2004 did not truly reflect
the will of the people because of this and that, and democracy
was subverted, and yadda yadda. I'm getting the same noise
in my ear now, just from different people. If only this energy
could be harnessed, we could really be onto something.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net/anger_power.jpg
08 Nov, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 114th comment:
Votes: 0
Runter said:
Specifically mandating over the last 30 years started with Jimmy Carter all the way up to Bill Clinton and yes, even Barack Obama in Illinois–As well as president Bush–that we give a loan to anyone with a pulse as long as it is for home ownership.

Absolute and total FUD. You are referring to the CRA, presumably.

The Federal Reserve Board said:
Nor does the law require institutions to make high-risk loans that jeopardize their safety. To the contrary, the law makes it clear that an institution's CRA activities should be undertaken in a safe and sound manner.


Source: the Federal Reserve Board

So, the law itself is not responsible for forcing banks to make high-risk mortgages (a silly notion to begin with, hence FUD) – those responsible are the ones who started handing out high-risk mortgages left and right, thinking to make a profit off of it, and those who didn't do their due diligence when presented with a package of mortgages to look into them and see what the details were.

The mortgage crisis was caused by people who thought that housing prices would never fall. It's financially sound (from a certain point of view) to make these very high-risk mortgages if you believe that prices will always appreciate, because in the event of a default you're left with an asset whose value has increased. When housing prices did not increase, and in fact decreased, that is when the proverbial excrement hit the rotating blades. The credit crisis is far more complex and due to far more things than you (or many others for that matter) seem to realize.

Anyhow, saying that the subprime mortgage crisis is entirely due to the above law is FUD. Unfortunately, you chose to make it political FUD by saying it's pretty much the democrat's fault and only-oh-by-the-way Bush's too.


Where do I sign up??
09 Nov, 2008, Runter wrote in the 115th comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
Runter said:
Specifically mandating over the last 30 years started with Jimmy Carter all the way up to Bill Clinton and yes, even Barack Obama in Illinois–As well as president Bush–that we give a loan to anyone with a pulse as long as it is for home ownership.

Absolute and total FUD. You are referring to the CRA, presumably.


I'm mostly talking about the Federal National Mortgage Association.

What I think is most ridiculous is how people are trying to take away from this whole thing "We need more regulation" which is utterly ridiculous.

First let me just say this–This entire crisis has been great for Obama. This is the reason he's getting into power.

Furthermore, it's a fact. It's a fact that all of this was caused because homeowners could not (Or did not. It's not clear that they couldn't. Our lax laws associated with not paying your bills and bankruptcy make that very debatable.) make their payments on their home loans. They end up losing the homes and the property either goes up not sold or sold for a fraction of the original loans value. (Causing the value of homes to dramatically drop over the last few years.)

Of course, how you tell it, Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT), the chairman of banking, housing and urban affairs just had no reason to be alarmed. This was obviously all something nobody could see coming. Right? Wrong. That's what you call "FUD" my friend.
"If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole." – John McCain (R-AZ)

Senator McCain said that far before the crisis. About the same time Obama was still being a housing activist. Pushing for more and more risky loans throughout his career.

The whole point is that this is proof that this "more regulation" attitude didn't work in the first place. The people supposedly regulating and watchdogging this for the American people never sounded a warning. Instead they sat back, gave speech after speech about pushing for more poor people getting housing loans, and did nothing. Now they're making political hay subject, screaming for more reform. More democratic control. And more government bailout/handouts of course.

I'm sorry, but if you think that housing activists like Obama in his earlier years share no blame for this–when they threatened law suits on any bank that denied risky loans to minority groups– And if you think that the democrats controlling the committees that should have saw this crisis coming aren't to blame– Then you're just hopeless at this point.
09 Nov, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 116th comment:
Votes: 0
Runter said:
Of course, how you tell it [blablaDoddblabla]

My my, I do not believe I ever "told it" that way.

Runter said:
I'm sorry, but if you think that housing activists like Obama in his earlier years share no blame for this

My good sir, I do not believe I ever said something so preposterous. Shocking as it may seem to some (coughcough) I don't believe that it is so easy to lay blame on one sole group.

I see no real need to address the rest of your points because you are not arguing with things I said. My goal was to dispel crazy thought about the law forcing banks into bad mortgages, and I believe that was accomplished.
09 Nov, 2008, Runter wrote in the 117th comment:
Votes: 0
I never used the word law. I used the word mandate. Which is a fact, those things were mandated to government ran organizations which did the overseeing.

Quote
you chose to make it political FUD by saying it's pretty much the democrat's fault


It pretty much was the democrats fault. They've been in power for 2 years and run the committees supposed to be examining these problems.

The fact is there have been republicans sounding the alarm for a while. Our presidential candidate has been for years. The president-elect did not. Political "FUD". What an ironic thing to even bring up on the issue.
09 Nov, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 118th comment:
Votes: 0
If so many people knew it so certainly, how come it caught everybody by surprise? Hmm, I guess the Democrats must have had conspiracy agents in place to silence everybody… :rolleyes:
09 Nov, 2008, Runter wrote in the 119th comment:
Votes: 0
They certainly were silent on the issue except where to praise lower income people being given loans.
They certainly have benefited from the crisis more than the republicans.
They certainly were the ones who were for the 750 billion dollar bailout that eventually even many republicans came around to supporting after they pushed the idea that because the republicans voted it down it was now the republicans fault for the crisis. Political FUD? Naw, not in your eyes.

Considering the 750 billion dollars hasn't helped and it was another democratic handout (this time to corporations and banks, and fatcats) I'll still argue that we shouldn't have done it. In a free market when something fails because of whatever reason they have to be the ones that assume the risk.
09 Nov, 2008, Chris Bailey wrote in the 120th comment:
Votes: 0
I can't recall right now, whose idea was the bailout?
100.0/229