PDA

View Full Version : Obama/Biden Lowering Mortgage Principal?


lamberts-lost-tooth
10-04-2008, 04:18 PM
Been gone awhile so I apologize if this has been discussed....Did any one else hear this and raise an eyebrow?

Biden -"Number two, with regard to bankruptcy now, Gwen, what we should be doing now -- and Barack Obama and I support it -- we should be allowing bankruptcy courts to be able to re-adjust not just the interest rate you're paying on your mortgage to be able to stay in your home, but be able to adjust the principal that you owe, the principal that you owe."


WEEEEELLLLLLLL ALRIGHTY THEN!!!!!

Sign me up!!!!!....I no longer want to owe $120,000 on the remainder of my home loan...Lets say...Oh, about $75,000 sounds better to me.

What a load of :poop:....who in their right mind believes this!!!!!!!!!!!!???????????

I seem to remember the Left laughing forever about the "NO NEW TAXES" quote....This is LIGHT YEARS more ludicrous than that promise!!!:doh:

HometownGal
10-04-2008, 04:21 PM
I raised an eyebrow to most of what Biden said during the debate.

Sure - sign me up too! :thumbsup: How about 1 more payment and we call it a deal? :laughing::doh:

GBMelBlount
10-04-2008, 04:27 PM
I could not believe that either....That's what happens when you get two attorneys together. Unfortunately, it's just one more "good" reason for many democrats to vote for them. They care about the middle class, republicans don't....

SteelCityMan786
10-04-2008, 04:27 PM
I raised an eyebrow to most of what Biden said during the debate.

Sure - sign me up too! :thumbsup: How about 1 more payment and we call it a deal? :laughing::doh:

SCREW OBAMA/BIDEN!

McCain/Palin all the way.

lamberts-lost-tooth
10-04-2008, 04:37 PM
If Palin would have had a gaffe like that...she would have been crucified!!!!....There is absolutely NOWAY that is ever going to happen.

Its either a gaffe...or a lie.

cubanstogie
10-04-2008, 04:54 PM
If Palin would have had a gaffe like that...she would have been crucified!!!!....There is absolutely NOWAY that is ever going to happen.

Its either a gaffe...or a lie.

there is no accountability in these debates. Biden flat out lied or was wrong when he stated Hussein and McCain voted the same way in the budget resolution calling for tax increase in people making as little as 42,000 a year. McCain no , Hussein yes. Many more mistakes Biden made without accountability.

MACH1
10-04-2008, 05:00 PM
Just yet another example of oduma,drunken saying anything to get elected. It would be nice if the unbiased media would pick up on it.

Atlanta Dan
10-04-2008, 07:34 PM
I assume everyone here throwing rocks at any proposal to modify the terms of mortgages upon primary residences in Chapter 13 bankruptcies knows the provision of the Bankruptcy Code that it is proposed be modified. I also assume everyone mocking the proposal also is aware that section 1322(b)of the Bankruptcy Code currently permits modifications of most secured claims (including a mortgage on a second home) other than a mortgage upon a primary residence.

Then again maybe not, since for some posters it is more fun to spout off on any subject without knowing WTF you are talking about and just take shots at the evil Obama and Biden - I noted how Mosca's post on CNN debunking Palin rumors was received earlier today

If anyone is interested in reading what the dispute is about here are some links - believe it or not, there are good arguments for and against the proposal.


http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1195034646953

http://www.hklaw.com/id24660/PublicationId2317/ReturnId31/contentid49748/

http://www.arnoldporter.com/resources/documents/Subprime%20Newsletter_%20Bankruptcy%20Amendments_( NY_341022_1).pdf

:drink:

Preacher
10-04-2008, 07:45 PM
I assume everyone here throwing rocks at any proposal to modify the terms of mortgages upon primary residences in Chapter 13 bankruptcies knows the provision of the Bankruptcy Code that it is proposed be modified. I also assume everyone mocking the proposal also is aware that section 1322(b)of the Bankruptcy Code currently permits modifications of most secured claims (including a mortgage on a second home) other than a mortgage upon a primary residence.

Then again maybe not, since for some posters it is more fun to spout off on any subject without knowing WTF you are talking about and just take shots at the evil Obama and Biden - I noted how Mosca's post on CNN debunking Palin rumors was received earlier today

If anyone is interested in reading what the dispute is about here are some links - believe it or not, there are good arguments for and against the proposal.


http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1195034646953

http://www.hklaw.com/id24660/PublicationId2317/ReturnId31/contentid49748/

http://www.arnoldporter.com/resources/documents/Subprime%20Newsletter_%20Bankruptcy%20Amendments_( NY_341022_1).pdf (http://www.arnoldporter.com/resources/documents/Subprime%20Newsletter_%20Bankruptcy%20Amendments_% 28NY_341022_1%29.pdf)

:drink:

:rofl:

Now you know how I felt a few months ago...

GBMelBlount
10-04-2008, 07:46 PM
I'm sure you can make arguments Dan but I don't like the government trying to fix everything. They usually make things worse and create the exact opposite result of their stated intent. And we all know once the government gets a hold of something, they NEVER let go.

Atlanta Dan
10-04-2008, 07:57 PM
I'm sure you can make arguments Dan but I don't like the government trying to fix everything. They usually make things worse and create the exact opposite result of their stated intent. And we all know once the government gets a hold of something, they NEVER let go.

My point is the ship sailed a long time ago on loan terms being modified in bankruptcy

GBMelBlount
10-04-2008, 07:59 PM
You're right there....unfortunately.

Atlanta Dan
10-04-2008, 08:04 PM
:rofl:

Now you know how I felt a few months ago...

I apologize for interjecting facts into the discussion and departing from the consistent tone of bipartisanship and respect for the differing views of others that are the defining traits of all political posts on this board other than my own.:sofunny:

I certainly cannot blame my tone on my disappointment on how the election appears to be heading - if current trends continue, in a couple of weeks somebody may need to change the name for this section of the board from The Locker Room to The Bunker.:chuckle:

Preacher
10-04-2008, 08:13 PM
I apologize for interjecting facts into the discussion and departing from the consistent tone of bipartisanship and respect for the differing views of others that are the defining traits of all political posts on this board other than my own.:sofunny:

I certainly cannot blame my tone on my disappointment on how the election appears to be heading - if current trends continue, in a couple of weeks somebody may need to change the name for this section of the board from The Locker Room to The Bunker.:chuckle:


Like I said, now you know how I felt a couple months ago! :chuckle:

and personally... I believe this country is stronger than obama or McCain. Neither one can do too much destruction to this nation. So whoever is elected, we just muddle through for a few more years.

I was just hoping to get a team in there that I thought would spend a little more time cutting out pork spending and giving the govt. back to the people.... instead of getting more of the same... this time in health care amongst other things.

HometownGal
10-04-2008, 08:21 PM
I apologize for interjecting facts into the discussion and departing from the consistent tone of bipartisanship and respect for the differing views of others that are the defining traits of all political posts on this board other than my own.:sofunny:

I certainly cannot blame my tone on my disappointment on how the election appears to be heading - if current trends continue, in a couple of weeks somebody may need to change the name for this section of the board from The Locker Room to The Bunker.:chuckle:

Oh Dan - lighten up! We were just having a little fun. Relax, have a laugh, a beer, two beers - hell enjoy a cigar! Unfortunately, political campaigns and elections tend to tighten people up more than eating a block of . . . dare I say it . . .

http://espn.go.com/i/editorial/2006/0518/photo/ben_roethlisberger_cheese2_275.jpg

:chuckle::wink02:

I'm sure not disappointed with how the trend is going! :drink: :thumbsup:

Two little words . . . one big knee in the nanas to the Demos in 2004 - -

Straw Poll.

:toofunny::wink02::hug:

Atlanta Dan
10-04-2008, 08:31 PM
Oh Dan - lighten up! We were just having a little fun. Relax, have a laugh, a beer, two beers - hell enjoy a cigar! Unfortunately, political campaigns and elections tend to tighten people up more than eating a block of . . . dare I say it . . .

http://espn.go.com/i/editorial/2006/0518/photo/ben_roethlisberger_cheese2_275.jpg

:chuckle::wink02:

I'm sure not disappointed with how the trend is going! :drink: :thumbsup:

Two little words . . . one big knee in the nanas to the Demos in 2004 - -

Straw Poll.

:toofunny::wink02::hug:

Oh come on HTG - it was a typical the Dems are socialists thread and was too fat a pitch not to swing at:drink:

tony hipchest
10-04-2008, 08:43 PM
Two little words . . . one big knee in the nanas to the Demos in 2004 - -

Straw Poll.

too bad 4 more years of bush was a big knee in the nana's of america...

and now americans want one word-

change.

poor rublickans. they may lose to nothing more than a word. :sofunny: :wink02:

HometownGal
10-05-2008, 05:57 AM
too bad 4 more years of bush was a big knee in the nana's of america...

and now americans want one word-

change.

poor rublickans. they may lose to nothing more than a word. :sofunny: :wink02:

Americans also want a President who will safeguard them from harm and has more than 143 days of governmental experience.

And change they shall have . . . .

With McCain/Palin. :applaudit::tt03:

lamberts-lost-tooth
10-05-2008, 07:38 AM
I also assume everyone mocking the proposal also is aware that section 1322(b)of the Bankruptcy Code currently permits modifications of most secured claims (including a mortgage on a second home) other than a mortgage upon a primary residence.

Then again maybe not, since for some posters it is more fun to spout off on any subject without knowing WTF you are talking about

:bs:

Typical "Facts" from "Some Posters".....IF Biden meant that they would lower principle on a "2nd Home" then...

...He was not, in truth, talking to the "middle class" and should have been more straightforward in his pandering instead of trying to decieve Americans into a vote with the false promise of lowering their principle.

I wonder if Biden is a lawyer....because it sounds like lawyer double-speak to me and only a lawyer would take it as anything more than deception.

But then I guess the majority of the board doesnt "know WTF we are talking about"...right Dan? (Sounds like a veiled personal attack)

lamberts-lost-tooth
10-05-2008, 07:46 AM
too bad 4 more years of bush was a big knee in the nana's of america...

and now americans want one word-

change.

poor rublickans. they may lose to nothing more than a word. :sofunny: :wink02:

Change to what....Oh thats right...as you have so eloguently elaborated in regards to his credentials ....Obama has the "it" factor.

I agree with Preacher...this country is stronger than Obama or McCain....So either way I win....I get to spend the next four years gloating over McCain or poking fun at all the people who voted for a cardboard cutout.
:rofl::rofl:

lamberts-lost-tooth
10-05-2008, 07:50 AM
I apologize for interjecting facts into the discussion and departing from the consistent tone of bipartisanship and respect for the differing views of others that are the defining traits of all political posts on this board other than my own.:sofunny:



WHAT?????

Now thats comedy!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:rofl::rofl::rofl:

Godfather
10-05-2008, 11:01 AM
I don't like the bailout, but there is a benefit in reducing the principal on the bad mortgages.

The government is essentially buying the securities that are backed by the bad mortgages. Right now those securities are worthless...if you renegotiate these mortgages you end up losing some of the money but not all of it. Better to eat 15 or 20 percent and get the rest back.

tony hipchest
10-05-2008, 12:05 PM
So either way I win....I get to spend the next four years gloating over McCain or poking fun at all the people who voted for a cardboard cutout.
:rofl::rofl:

:cookie:

cause thats whats important right?

boy, the past 8 years as a bush follower musta been pretty rough on ya! :wink02:

thats ok. its perfectly normal and widespread for bushbackers to want exoneration for 8 years of support with the selection of McChange and Palin Comparisson.:chuckle:

:popcorn:

lamberts-lost-tooth
10-05-2008, 02:06 PM
:cookie:

cause thats whats important right?

boy, the past 8 years as a bush follower musta been pretty rough on ya! :wink02:

thats ok. its perfectly normal and widespread for bushbackers to want exoneration for 8 years of support with the selection of McChange and Palin Comparisson.:chuckle:

:popcorn:

I've got very little problem with Bush...more of a problem with a liberal congress that can be directly tied to the mortgage crises.

Tony...You gotta quit listening to those 15 second CNN soundbytes.

HometownGal
10-05-2008, 02:43 PM
thats ok. its perfectly normal and widespread for bushbackers to want exoneration for 8 years of support with the selection of McChange and Palin Comparisson.:chuckle:

:popcorn:

I'm with LLT on this one, Bartony. :wink02: I, too, have very little problem with the Bush Administration and he is right about the mortgage crisis and the lib Congress' huge role in it.

Hey - J-Mac isn't the one shoving the word "CHANGE" down our throats 24/7. That would be the unknown, do-nothing Senator Barack Hussein Obama himself. :flap:

tony hipchest
10-05-2008, 03:15 PM
I'm with LLT on this one, Bartony.of course you are. whats new? :wink:

no actually, i gotta stop listenning to you guys.

no problem with bush???? :toofunny:

holy cow, you guys REALLY are crazy! :screwy:

:chuckle:

Atlanta Dan
10-05-2008, 03:17 PM
I'm with LLT on this one, Bartony. :wink02: I, too, have very little problem with the Bush Administration and he is right about the mortgage crisis and the lib Congress' huge role in it.

Hey - J-Mac isn't the one shoving the word "CHANGE" down our throats 24/7. That would be the unknown, do-nothing Senator Barack Hussein Obama himself. :flap:

When I read W has a 22% approval rating my question is WTH is approving? - now I know:chuckle:

As for the "huge role" of Congress, who controlled the "lib Congress" from 1994-2006? Or are you saying this all fell apart in the last 2 years when W could veto anything Congress passed and it would be necessary to override the veto?

Just wondering.

lamberts-lost-tooth
10-06-2008, 10:07 AM
When I read W has a 22% approval rating my question is WTH is approving? - now I know:chuckle:

.

Typical "talking around the facts" arguement...(pssst...your liberal led congress has a 15% approval rating):rofl:

As for the "huge role" of Congress, who controlled the "lib Congress" from 1994-2006? Or are you saying this all fell apart in the last 2 years when W could veto anything Congress passed and it would be necessary to override the veto?

I am getting tired of handing you your ass in these debates...but here we go again...

John McCain partnered with three other Senate Republicans to reform the government’s involvement in lending three years ago.... after an attempt by the Bush administration died in Congress two years earlier.... McCain spoke forcefully on May 25, 2006, on behalf of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005

He said..." 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"

What Mccain and other senators saw was:

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight’s report ...which said that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives.... In the case of Franklin Raines,(now an Obama advisor) Fannie Mae’s former chief executive officer, OFHEO’s report shows that over half of Mr. Raines’ compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets.

The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator’s examination of the company’s accounting problems.


THE BILL NEVER MADE IT OUT OF COMMITTEE... Chris Dodd, (Democratic Senator from Connecticut) then the ranking member of the Banking Committee and now its chair, was in the middle of receiving preferential loan treatment from Countrywide Mortgage, one of the companies gaming the system in the credit crisis. Meanwhile, Barack Obama took hundreds of thousands of dollars from the lobbyists... making him the #2 recipient of Fannie/Freddie money...


But all this has been told ..over....and over.....and over.

Probably why Obama would rather make this an election where he is running against Bush...rather than man up and run against McCain.

RunWillieRun
10-06-2008, 10:30 AM
Typical "talking around the facts" arguement...(pssst...your liberal led congress has a 15% approval rating):rofl:



I am getting tired of handing you your ass in these debates...but here we go again...

John McCain partnered with three other Senate Republicans to reform the government’s involvement in lending three years ago.... after an attempt by the Bush administration died in Congress two years earlier.... McCain spoke forcefully on May 25, 2006, on behalf of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005

He said..." 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"

What Mccain and other senators saw was:

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight’s report ...which said that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives.... In the case of Franklin Raines,(now an Obama advisor) Fannie Mae’s former chief executive officer, OFHEO’s report shows that over half of Mr. Raines’ compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets.

The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator’s examination of the company’s accounting problems.


THE BILL NEVER MADE IT OUT OF COMMITTEE... Chris Dodd, (Democratic Senator from Connecticut) then the ranking member of the Banking Committee and now its chair, was in the middle of receiving preferential loan treatment from Countrywide Mortgage, one of the companies gaming the system in the credit crisis. Meanwhile, Barack Obama took hundreds of thousands of dollars from the lobbyists... making him the #2 recipient of Fannie/Freddie money...


But all this has been told ..over....and over.....and over.

Probably wht Obama would rather run and make this an election where he is running against Bush...rather than man up and run against McCain.



:applaudit: :applaudit: :applaudit:

Atlanta Dan
10-06-2008, 12:05 PM
LLT - I only get to read your wisdom when somebody quotes you since you are on my ignore list

When the bill you cite initially was proposed in 2005, which party controlled the Senate and the House? If the GOP wanted to fix Fannie & Freddie it had control of the Congress and the Presidency at the time. Hard to lay this mess solely or for that matter primarily on the Dems.

As far as Obama running against Bush, guess what - the party holding the presidency is held accountable and challenged for the incumbent Administration's performance even if the incumbent president is not running (e.g. - 1960, 1968, 2000). The 2000 Bush campaign (I know some posters get tired of hearing it, but I voted GOP that year) in large part was run against Clinton, not Gore. I know you wish this campaign would not involve any consideration of the GOP candidiates' (the reference is plural since W outsourced large portions of the presidency to Cheney) stewardship over the presidency since 2001, but wishing does not make it so.

As far as handing me my ass, this thread started out with you presumably taking some sort of shot at Obama & Biden about lowering mortgage "principle" [sic]. I posted on what section of the Bankruptcy Code is involved in the dispute and noted that some posters spout off on any subject without knowing WTF they are talking about - if your post evidenced the slightest reference of what issues are in play with regard to rewriting mortgages on residences and was anything other than an ad hominem attack on Biden, I apologize if you regard yourself to have been included among those who I stated post on subjects in The Locker Room while not knowng WTF they are talking about. Since nobody quoted your response to my post and links to the other observations on amending section 1322 of the Bankruptcy Code, please request someone to quote your learned response(s) to my post on the subject that started this thread so I can find out how you handed my ass to me on that subject.

In closing, I hope you are enjoying the way the campaign has played out over the last several weeks as much as I have.

:drink:

Dino 6 Rings
10-06-2008, 12:15 PM
my wife and I went into 35 houses with 3 different relators when we were looking for a home 2 years ago. We were offered a morgatge up to 350,000 but knew we couldn't afford it, even though it would have given us a dream home. We kept on looking, and finally found something more reasonable, over 100,000 grand less than what we were approved for. We Planned by saving for a year, a mortgage payment every month to determine what we could afford. We got ourselves a fixed mortgage rate, had the closing costs paid for by a willing seller and now make our payments every month, a little over the amount due, to pay down on our principle in the hopes of paying 20 year loan off in 15 or less. We are responsible and smart with our money, never spend what we don't have and live within our means.

So...who the FCK is going to bail me out?

yeah, thats what I thought.

lamberts-lost-tooth
10-06-2008, 02:29 PM
LLT - I only get to read your wisdom when somebody quotes you since you are on my ignore list




Proud to be on your ignore list...although the fact that you are constantly lurking through my member profile...(consistanly one of the "last 10 people to visit)....creeps me out a bit.


When the bill you cite initially was proposed in 2005, which party controlled the Senate and the House? If the GOP wanted to fix Fannie & Freddie it had control of the Congress and the Presidency at the time. Hard to lay this mess solely or for that matter primarily on the Dems.

Reading is fundemental....I am aware it was in 2005...I posted the facts...remember?:doh:

If you would take off the red-punch kool-aid colored glasses...you would see that it was ambushed "IN COMMITEE" by Chris Dodd....NIce how you refuse to give ANY acknowledge to McCains prediction and desire to fix the mortgage crises....:laughing::laughing:...


As far as Obama running against Bush, guess what - the party holding the presidency is held accountable and challenged for the incumbent Administration's performance even if the incumbent president is not running

LOL....OR...if ones party candidate is so weak in experience when compared to the others...its better to find a scapegoat..then to draw comparisons against ones betters?:thumbsup:


As far as handing me my ass, this thread started out with you presumably taking some sort of shot at Obama & Biden about lowering mortgage "principle" [sic]. I posted on what section of the Bankruptcy Code is involved in the dispute and noted that some posters spout off on any subject without knowing WTF they are talking about -

And I responded to your misleading arguement .....that since that section of the code deals with a SECOND home....then Biden was lieing when he said he was going to help the middle class....(how many middle calss people do you think are having problems with their 2nd home?)


Since nobody quoted your response to my post and links to the other observations on amending section 1322 of the Bankruptcy Code, please request someone to quote your learned response(s) to my post on the subject that started this thread so I can find out how you handed my ass to me on that subject.

Guess I need to post my responses to your weak arguements on my profile so that youll know when you have been schooled

In closing, I hope you are enjoying the way the campaign has played out over the last several weeks as much as I have.

I have enjoyed the fact that you skulk back to your corner after being called out....when this is all over...please feel free to continue the practice.:wave:

Dino 6 Rings
10-06-2008, 02:39 PM
I finally understand the story of the ant and the grasshopper.

cubanstogie
10-06-2008, 04:44 PM
do people actually really put others on the ignore list. Too funny, that is pretty close minded. Funny, libs cry freedom of speech but they are the ones protesting all the time in screwed up cities like Berkeley and Frisco. Ignore list is the same thing. What a bunch of hypocrites.

Dino 6 Rings
10-06-2008, 04:46 PM
there's an ignore list?

I wonder how many I'm on

LOL!

HometownGal
10-06-2008, 04:57 PM
do people actually really put others on the ignore list. Too funny, that is pretty close minded. Funny, libs cry freedom of speech but they are the ones protesting all the time in screwed up cities like Berkeley and Frisco. Ignore list is the same thing. What a bunch of hypocrites.

I dunno - to each his/her own I suppose. I think it's a little over the top myself, as if I don't want to read someone's posts, I simply DON'T. :noidea:

I know I'm not on anyone's ignore list - LOL! :chuckle:

To be quite honest, I'm getting fed up with the constant bitch slapping in this thread and the other political threads. The way I'm starting to look at things is this. I believe John McCain will prevail on election day and there are a whole lot of reasons I hold that belief (not just the Kerry straw poll circus in '04). :chuckle: If I am wrong and should Obama somehow come out on top (by Satan's hand :evil:), I believe this country will go to hell in a handbasket and be put at serious risk of being attacked again. If you think Mustafah, Raghib and Acccccccchmed aren't paying close attention to this race and election, you're sadly mistaken. They are Obama's biggest fans.

When I have to wait 6-9 months to see my doctor and my taxes skyrocket, I'll be knocking on every Libs door in my neighborhood and coming to every one of you Libs here and express my outrage. That's IF we're still among the living.

Mosca
10-06-2008, 05:02 PM
If I am wrong and should Obama somehow come out on top (by Satan's hand :evil:), I believe this country will go to hell in a handbasket and be put at serious risk of being attacked again.

I have a question. If Obama wins, will you work for, or against the will of the majority?

Preacher
10-06-2008, 05:04 PM
Ignore lists are ok.

I normally just use them for trolls. When I don't want to listen to them in game day threads... or if someone comes in and all they do is dump on th eteam.

Other than that... I don't usually use it.

cubanstogie
10-06-2008, 05:05 PM
I dunno - to each his/her own I suppose. I think it's a little over the top myself, as if I don't want to read someone's posts, I simply DON'T. :noidea:

I know I'm not on anyone's ignore list - LOL! :chuckle:

To be quite honest, I'm getting fed up with the constant bitch slapping in this thread and the other political threads. The way I'm starting to look at things is this. I believe John McCain will prevail on election day and there are a whole lot of reasons I hold that belief (not just the Kerry straw poll circus in '04). :chuckle: If I am wrong and should Obama somehow come out on top (by Satan's hand :evil:), I believe this country will go to hell in a handbasket and be put at serious risk of being attacked again. If you think Mustafah, Raghib and Acccccccchmed aren't paying close attention to this race and election, you're sadly mistaken. They are Obama's biggest fans.

When I have to wait 6-9 months to see my doctor and my taxes skyrocket, I'll be knocking on every Libs door in my neighborhood and coming to every one of you Libs here and express my outrage. That's IF we're still among the living.

I whole heartedly agree. The Canadians will lose out too, the really ill and soon to die won't be able to go to Cleveland and get the treatment they need. Instead they will have to stay in Canada and weight for an appointment. I have a feeling Canadians and Americans will be going to Costa Rica for medical treatment if Obama wins. It is really a lose , lose situation though, unless you are an illegal immigrant. They will get amnesty no matter who is elected, if we stopped spending so much money on them with welfare and healthcare we would probably afford to care for our elderly that are suffering. I am tired of talking about it also, especially since even though I am voting for McCain , its not like I am really happy about his postitions. Except for the War.

Preacher
10-06-2008, 05:06 PM
I have a question. If Obama wins, will you work for, or against the will of the majority?

That is a good question to as the dems in congress the first 6 years of the Bush presidency..

Atlanta Dan
10-06-2008, 05:24 PM
do people actually really put others on the ignore list. Too funny, that is pretty close minded. Funny, libs cry freedom of speech but they are the ones protesting all the time in screwed up cities like Berkeley and Frisco. Ignore list is the same thing. What a bunch of hypocrites.

Funny, libs cry freedom of speech but they are the ones protesting all the time in screwed up cities like Berkeley and Frisco

So libs cry freedom of speech all the time but exercise freedom of speech by protesting all the time "in screwed up cities like Berkeley and Frisco."

What exactly do you mean by the first part of your post and why exactly are Berkeley and Frisco "screwed up"?

And where pray tell do you live?

Finally, WTF (I am using that term a lot on this board these days) do you mean that the "ignore" list "is the same thing." Freedom of speech includes not only the freedom to speak but the freedom to change the channel. But since i need to be reminded how ignorant I am, perhaps I should be exposed to more points of view and reply to them.

Too bad i do not meet your high standards - I will try to carry on somehow:chuckle:

HometownGal
10-06-2008, 05:28 PM
I have a question. If Obama wins, will you work for, or against the will of the majority?

I don't believe I will have to answer that question, but for you, Tom, I will. :wink02:

In good conscience, I can't work for the "will" of the majority who would vote in a candidate who is of questionable character, imho, and whose morals, ideals and platform I oppose 99.99999%. I don't think I've ever felt so strongly opposed to and uncomfortable with a candidate since I began to vote at the age of 18.

Admittedly, I was not a fan of John Kerry in the least, but I could respect him for his years of service and hard work in the Senate and his service to our great country.

Atlanta Dan
10-06-2008, 05:32 PM
I don't believe I will have to answer that question, but for you, Tom, I will. :wink02:

In good conscience, I can't work for the "will" of the majority who would vote in a candidate who is of questionable character, imho, and whose morals, ideals and platform I oppose 99.99999%. I don't think I've ever felt so strongly opposed to and uncomfortable with a candidate since I began to vote at the age of 18.

Welcome to how some of us were feeling 4 years ago

cubanstogie
10-06-2008, 05:38 PM
Funny, libs cry freedom of speech but they are the ones protesting all the time in screwed up cities like Berkeley and Frisco

So libs cry freedom of speech all the time but exercise freedom of speech by protesting all the time "in screwed up cities like Berkeley and Frisco."

What exactly do you mean by the first part of your post and why exactly are Berkeley and Frisco "screwed up"?

And where pray tell do you live?

Finally, WTF (I am using that term a lot on this board these days) do you mean that the "ignore" list "is the same thing." Freedom of speech includes not only the freedom to speak but the freedom to change the channel.

Too bad i do not meet your high standards - I will try to carry on somehow:chuckle:

They try to block the speaker form speaking. That is the way they protest. It is hypocritical. Its perfectly legal to stand outside with the signs and so forth, but hindering someone else's speech, and or trying to persuade or stop others from going to the speech or listening to the speech is crossing the line. Do I really need to explain how Berkeley and Frisco screwed up. Homeless, liberals, druggies, crime, aids, Gavin Newsome. I find it comical that a liberal uses ignore. I don't agree with half of what Tony or Mosca say, but I read their posts to keep an open mind and also laugh. It just seems a bit hypocritical to me. I am sorry if you felt it was a slam, I just found hypocrisy in it. Maybe I am the only one seeing it that way.

cubanstogie
10-06-2008, 05:46 PM
Funny, libs cry freedom of speech but they are the ones protesting all the time in screwed up cities like Berkeley and Frisco

So libs cry freedom of speech all the time but exercise freedom of speech by protesting all the time "in screwed up cities like Berkeley and Frisco."

What exactly do you mean by the first part of your post and why exactly are Berkeley and Frisco "screwed up"?

And where pray tell do you live?

Finally, WTF (I am using that term a lot on this board these days) do you mean that the "ignore" list "is the same thing." Freedom of speech includes not only the freedom to speak but the freedom to change the channel. But since i need to be reminded how ignorant I am, perhaps I should be exposed to more points of view and reply to them.

Too bad i do not meet your high standards - I will try to carry on somehow:chuckle:

I forgot to answer the rest, I live 25 miles East of Sacramento my childhood friend is a cop in Berkeley so maybe my opinions are jaded due to his stories, I'll admit. My standards are not very high. I just want a level playing field thats all. I am not one of these religious far right wingers who thinks he is above the rest.

HometownGal
10-06-2008, 05:50 PM
Welcome to how some of us were feeling 4 years ago

All I can say to that is that we had 4 years of the Bush Administration prior to the '04 election and obviously, he must have done something right (like safeguarding our country perhaps :wink02:) to have garnered the majority vote. With Obama, he is a virtual unknown with strong ties to an admitted racist and has about as much on-the-job governmental experience as my roto-rooter man. :coffee::chuckle:

Apples and oranges.

P.S. As I think I mentioned before, I did not vote for Bush in the '00 election.

Atlanta Dan
10-06-2008, 06:03 PM
Proud to be on your ignore list...although the fact that you are constantly lurking through my member profile...(consistanly one of the "last 10 people to visit)....creeps me out a bit.

Reading is fundemental....I am aware it was in 2005...I posted the facts...remember?:doh:

If you would take off the red-punch kool-aid colored glasses...you would see that it was ambushed "IN COMMITEE" by Chris Dodd....NIce how you refuse to give ANY acknowledge to McCains prediction and desire to fix the mortgage crises....:laughing::laughing:...


LOL....OR...if ones party candidate is so weak in experience when compared to the others...its better to find a scapegoat..then to draw comparisons against ones betters?:thumbsup:


And I responded to your misleading arguement .....that since that section of the code deals with a SECOND home....then Biden was lieing when he said he was going to help the middle class....(how many middle calss people do you think are having problems with their 2nd home?)

Guess I need to post my responses to your weak arguements on my profile so that youll know when you have been schooled

In closing, I hope you are enjoying the way the campaign has played out over the last several weeks as much as I have.

I have enjoyed the fact that you skulk back to your corner after being called out....when this is all over...please feel free to continue the practice.:wave:

I have been shamed into taking you off my ignore list; reading your posts confirmed my suspicions I have not been missing much. Although I guess you miss me since I note you are one of the last 5 posters to visit my profile (if you want to throw rocks on that subject at least do not be so stupid that you forget to move out of your glass house first).:hug:

Amending the Bankruptcy Code

With regard to the first post in this thread - having now read it, you in fact do not know WTF you are talking about when it comes to the debate on amending the Bankruptcy Code and reducing principal (it's not principle - if you want to pass yourself off as being taken seriously try to learn the basic terminology) on a mortgage. If there was a crayon font I would post in that for you, but let me try to spell it out for you.

As currently written, section 1322 permits principal to be reduced on most loans other than a secured loan on a primary residence. So if you have a second home, the principal on that mortgage can be reduced in bankruptcy; if you are seeking to reduce the principal owed on a primary residence you cannot do it. If you do not believe me, here is a link to a Supreme Court case that decided the issue.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bi...=508&invol=324

Being able to write down the principal on a mortgage for a primary residence is presumably more likely to benefit the middle class than the law as currently structured, since owning a second home is more likely for individuals with an above middle class income. Biden is in favor of AMENDING the law to allow first residences to have principal reduced through bankruptcy. I apologize if that is too difficult for you to follow.

I apparently am out of space and will get back in another post on Johnnie Mac "fixing" the mortgage crisis.

Atlanta Dan
10-06-2008, 06:08 PM
All I can say to that is that we had 4 years of the Bush Administration prior to the '04 election and obviously, he must have done something right (like safeguarding our country perhaps :wink02:) to have garnered the majority vote. With Obama, he is a virtual unknown with strong ties to an admitted racist and has about as much on-the-job governmental experience as my roto-rooter man. :coffee::chuckle:

Apples and oranges.

P.S. As I think I mentioned before, I did not vote for Bush in the '00 election.

My point was not that Bush was not a legitimate President after the 2004 election - my point was welcome to the club when it comes to the possibility of a President being elected whom you regard as a horrible choice. :drink:

Atlanta Dan
10-06-2008, 06:13 PM
They try to block the speaker form speaking. That is the way they protest. It is hypocritical. Its perfectly legal to stand outside with the signs and so forth, but hindering someone else's speech, and or trying to persuade or stop others from going to the speech or listening to the speech is crossing the line. Do I really need to explain how Berkeley and Frisco screwed up. Homeless, liberals, druggies, crime, aids, Gavin Newsome. I find it comical that a liberal uses ignore. I don't agree with half of what Tony or Mosca say, but I read their posts to keep an open mind and also laugh. It just seems a bit hypocritical to me. I am sorry if you felt it was a slam, I just found hypocrisy in it. Maybe I am the only one seeing it that way.

Censorship would be me trying to ban someone from this board - getting weary of reading and responding to certain posts is not the same thing.

But you are right - i need to open closed doors and respond to those diverse views (at least until the mods shut me down).:chuckle:

tony hipchest
10-06-2008, 06:58 PM
Censorship would be me trying to ban someone from this board - getting weary of reading and responding to certain posts is not the same thing.

But you are right - i need to open closed doors and respond to those diverse views (at least until the mods shut me down).:chuckle:
:chuckle:eh, your discourse has always been civil. many times ive wished i could show a calm, cool, collected restraint. ive gotten hostile several times, and luckilly it has been mostly with trolls (in the blast furnace) and litp. thankfully the mods were and have been fair.

there was someone i thought about putting on my ignore list but i forgot who it was.:doh: maybe it was edman during the gameday threads. :laughing:

Atlanta Dan
10-06-2008, 07:59 PM
If you would take off the red-punch kool-aid colored glasses...you would see that it was ambushed "IN COMMITEE" by Chris Dodd....NIce how you refuse to give ANY acknowledge to McCains prediction and desire to fix the mortgage crises....:laughing::laughing:...

LOL....OR...if ones party candidate is so weak in experience when compared to the others...its better to find a scapegoat..then to draw comparisons against ones betters?:thumbsup:

Guess I need to post my responses to your weak arguements on my profile so that youll know when you have been schooled

I have enjoyed the fact that you skulk back to your corner after being called out....when this is all over...please feel free to continue the practice.:wave:

My original post that prompted your responses in this thread (now that I am reading them) was a reply to HTG casting blame on the "lib Congress." Any attempt to blame the 2006-2008 Congress as the prime mover on the financial mess is preposterous. The GOP ran the House from 1994-2006 and the Senate from 1994-2000 & 2003-2006. My point was if the GOP wanted to pass legislation it certainly could do have done so from 2003-2006 without a single Dem vote. And the GOP ran the Executive Branch when such brainstorms as the 2004 decision by the SEC to allow I-banks to increase the degree of leverage on debt were authorized. (Read the link - don't read it - I don't care - sorry I am not linking to Lyndon Larouche's home page to more closely track your apparent political preferences in source material)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/business/03sec.html?scp=2&sq=sec%20leverage&st=cse

So trying to tag the Dems as the villains is contradicted by reality once when you consider who has been driving the car most of this decade as we headed to the cliff..

With regard to your candidate, despite recent attempts to rewrite history the hallmark of McCain's "experience" typically has been to push for ever more deregulation. (I apologize for not linking to what Lyndon Larouche has to say about this - still linking to that crackpot's website in your posts?)

A decade ago, Sen. John McCain embraced legislation to broadly deregulate the banking and insurance industries, helping to sweep aside a thicket of rules established over decades in favor of a less restricted financial marketplace that proponents said would result in greater economic growth.

Now, as the Bush administration scrambles to prevent the collapse of the American International Group (AIG), the nation's largest insurance company, and stabilize a tumultuous Wall Street, the Republican presidential nominee is scrambling to recast himself as a champion of regulation to end "reckless conduct, corruption and unbridled greed" on Wall Street.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/16/AR2008091603732.html

If you look at McCain's body of work, his history has been to support deregulation that was initially needed in the 1980s and continue to support it as (like all movements) it overshot the mark. He is the equivalent of an early 1980s Dem liberal attempting to change his stripes now that the tide of history is going out on his views.

Reaganism (or, in its British form, Thatcherism) was right for its time....Like all transformative movements, the Reagan revolution lost its way because for many followers it became an unimpeachable ideology, not a pragmatic response to the excesses of the welfare state. Two concepts were sacrosanct: first, that tax cuts would be self-financing, and second, that financial markets could be self-regulating....

The unedifying response to the Wall Street crisis shows that the biggest change we need to make is in our politics. The Reagan revolution broke the 50-year dominance of liberals and Democrats in American politics and opened up room for different approaches to the problems of the time. But as the years have passed, what were once fresh ideas have hardened into hoary dogmas

http://www.newsweek.com/id/162401

To the extent McCain supported greater oversight of Fannie & Freddie, kudos to him - even a broken clock is right twice a day. But if anyone looks at his voting record over the last quarter-century in Congress (yeah - he's a real outsider), the idea that McCain is any champion of responsible government oversight of business is a crock, as evidenced by not only having a campaign manager who continues to get paid by Freddie (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/24/us/politics/24davis.html ) but this gem.

"Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/20/AR2008092001746.html

Too bad McCain is running away from what he apparently regarded as core economic principles (not principals - you might want to learn the difference between those terms if you are going to use them) in the past, assuming everything is not political expediency for The Maverick.

In response to other shots from you, based on the tone of the McCain-Palin campaign in recent days, you might want to consider dialing down any outrage about searching for scapegoats. Sounds like one campaign is getting a bit desperate, doesn't it?

And as far as experience goes, the Palin selection indicates McCain does not think it matters. And if it does, experience is not the only factor and not all experience is a positive. Although if I were you I also would be pushing the benefits of lemonade if all I had to sell were lemons..

After the last 8 years I will take my chances with the Dems. To the extent you disagree, bully for you, but don't flatter yourself that you are handing anyone their ass through your posts.

Glad to get that done - just wanted to relieve you of any misimpression that silence is agreement or an inability to craft a reply to your rants.

:wave:

Atlanta Dan
10-06-2008, 08:07 PM
:chuckle:eh, your discourse has always been civil.

I have decided to make an exception to that practice tonight:chuckle:

tony hipchest
10-06-2008, 08:31 PM
So trying to tag the Dems as the villains is contradicted by reality once when you consider who has been driving the car most of this decade as we headed to the cliff..



Too bad McCain is running away...
:wave:

:chuckle: looks like youve seen their new campaign poster....

McCain/Palin '08
http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q23/shortyshane_2006/Thelma--Louise.jpg

the hot and old gun totin' mavericks. good strategy i guess. :hunch:


:wink:.....:wink:.....:wink:.....:wink:....:wink:. ...:wink:

"thats hot"

LMAO

HometownGal
10-06-2008, 08:56 PM
:chuckle: looks like youve seen their new campaign poster....

McCain/Palin '08
http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q23/shortyshane_2006/Thelma--Louise.jpg

the hot and old gun totin' mavericks. good strategy i guess. :hunch:


:wink:.....:wink:.....:wink:.....:wink:....:wink:. ...:wink:

"thats hot"

LMAO

ROFLMAO!!!!!! :toofunny::toofunny::toofunny: That's some funny shit! (Sarandon reference is hilarious!). :rofl:

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/7/9/G/2/obama-dumb-and-dumber.jpg

tony hipchest
10-06-2008, 09:24 PM
ROFLMAO!!!!!! :toofunny::toofunny::toofunny: That's some funny shit! (Sarandon reference is hilarious!). :rofl:

hehehe :sly:

sarandon is the nutjob extemist right? i wish i could remember which one was "thelma" and which one was "louise".... i may have gotten my comparissons mixed up. oh well, its all the mcsame.

(geena davis is smokin hot though :naughty:...)

BTW OMG i didnt know you did photoshop. great job! :wink02:

:chuckle:

lamberts-lost-tooth
10-07-2008, 03:11 AM
....since i need to be reminded how ignorant I am, perhaps I should be exposed to more points of view and reply to them.


must.....resist....the urge....

Too bad i do not meet your high standards - I will try to carry on somehow:chuckle:

Way to go cubanstogie....now "someone" is going to be stalking you in YOUR member profile.
:couch:

lamberts-lost-tooth
10-07-2008, 03:40 AM
I have been shamed into taking you off my ignore list; reading your posts confirmed my suspicions I have not been missing much. Although I guess you miss me since I note you are one of the last 5 posters to visit my profile (if you want to throw rocks on that subject at least do not be so stupid that you forget to move out of your glass house first).:hug:

.

Poor Dan....He had to start out witha personal attack....Looks like things havent changed. Are you the one who just posted earlier in the week about how you respect other peoples opinion?:laughing:

Sure I visit your profile....never said I didnt...but I dont have you "on ignore"...and Its the easiest way for me to find all the posts you write and get a good laugh.

With regard to the first post in this thread - having now read it, you in fact do not know WTF you are talking about when it comes to the debate on amending the Bankruptcy Code and reducing principal

What?

you in fact do not know WTF you are talking about when it comes to the debate

I'm sorry... once again please.

you in fact do not know WTF you are talking about when it comes to the debate

...and why is that, Dan?

its principal (it's not principle - if you want to pass yourself off as being taken seriously try to learn the basic terminology) on a mortgage.

OHHHH,,,I dont know what I am talking about because I mispelled "principal"...
(siren noises)...pull the car over sir...this is the spelling police...in lieu of any real ability to argue the facts...I'm going to have to write you a spell-check citation.
(Hey Dan....if your going to be taken seriously...YOU may try and learn the correct terminology...I need to learn basic spelling....you on the other hand just used the word "terminology" wrong):rofl::rofl::rofl:


Being able to write down the principal on a mortgage for a primary residence is presumably more likely to benefit the middle class ....... since owning a second home is more likely for individuals with an above middle class income.

LMAO...I truly have missed those bits of wisdom in our debates...please read that again and YOU tell ME why its a silly comment.

This must be the core of your arguement...correct.

Since I dont "understand" that it will help the middle class... because its more likely to apply to those with above middle class income?

Only an attorney could believe that crap.

Biden is in favor of AMENDING the law to allow first residences to have principal reduced through bankruptcy. I apologize if that is too difficult for you to follow.

Hey now we are getting somewhere...you finally got around to the original post that EVERYONE ELSE understood and called Biden out as trying to feed us all a load of crap. You see...the problem was...YOU automatically thought that noone else "knew WTF they were talking about". NOW you have caught up with the rest of us.

WE understood that Biden was talking about lowering principle (hehehe) on ones mortgage on their first and (in the case of virtually ALL middle class taxpayers) ONLY home...and we called it out as B.S.

Its okay..I have a 13 year old daughter and I am very patiant with getting people out of "drama" and back on track.

Welcome back to being schooled....Bring an apple for the teacher tommorrow.

lamberts-lost-tooth
10-07-2008, 04:39 AM
My original post that prompted your responses in this thread (now that I am reading them) was a reply to HTG casting blame on the "lib Congress." Any attempt to blame the 2006-2008 Congress as the prime mover on the financial mess is preposterous.

As long as you ignore the facts?

If the Obama camp tries to wage an aggressive campaign to cast blame on McCain and the Republicans in Congress for the mortgage-related losses that forced the U.S. Treasury to take over the quasi-governmental mortgage giants....it will most probably explode in their lap....

The Federal Election Commission records... show that Obama in his three complete years in the Senate is the second largest recipient of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae campaign contributions, behind only Sen. Christopher Dodd, who happens to be the chairman of the Senate banking committee.

According to the records...from 1989 to 2008, Dodd received $165,400 in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac campaign contributions, including contributions from PACs and individuals, followed by Obama..... who received $126,349 in such contributions since being elected to the Senate in 2004.

In contrast to these Dems being in bed with the mortgage institutions... McCain warned of the coming mortgage crisis as he pressed in 2005 for regulatory reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

From the floor of the senate....McCain while speaking in favor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 said...

"For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – known as government-sponsored entities or GSEs – and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market,"

McCain pointed out that Fannie Mae's regulator had stated the company's quarterly reports of profit "illusions deliberately and systematically created" by the company's senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

The bill did pass the House but was never brought up for a vote in the Senate, largely because of Democratic opposition to change in the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac regulatory structure ....that remained in place until the Treasury takeover two weeks ago.

You talk about McCains "deregulation history" but typical in your debates you refuse to acknowlwdge how the Democrats in Congress have repeatedly fought back Republican Party efforts to reform the two mortgage banking giants....specifically John McCain and specifically the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005

Instead, Democrats in Congress have tried to preserve the status of the mortgage giants.... seeing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as places to locate former top Democratic Party operatives!!!!.... where they have earned millions in compensation, despite a continuing series of financial scandals ....and massive executive bonuses.

Now that the government has taken it over.... attention has focused on three Democrats with close ties to Obama who served as Fannie Mae executives..... Franklin Raines, former Clinton administration budget director; James Johnson, former aide to Democratic Vice President Walter Mondale; and Jamie Gorelick, former Clinton administration deputy attorney general.

All three are now Obama-related executives and all three earned millions in compensation from Fannie Mae.

Johnson earned $21 million in just his last year serving as Fannie Mae CEO from 1991 to 1998....... Raines earned $90 million in his five years as Fannie Mae CEO from 1999 to 2004....... and Gorelick earned an estimated $26 million ......serving as vice chair of Fannie Mae from 1998 to 2003

All three have been involved in mortgage-related financial scandals.

SPECIFICALLY....

In 1998 Gorelick, as Fannie Mae vice chairman, received a bonus of $779,625.....despite a scandal in which employees falsified signatures on accounting transactions to manipulate books so as to meet 1998 earning targets....The moves, in turn, triggered multi-million-dollar bonuses for top executives.

Raines and several other Fannie Mae top executives were ordered in a civil lawsuit to pay nearly $31.4 million for manipulating Fannie Mae earnings over a period of six years to trigger their massive bonuses.

Raines was also forced in the settlement to give up Fannie Mae stock options valued at $15.6 million.

Just last year..... the Securities and Exchange Commission alleged Freddie Mac had engaged in accounting fraud from 2000 to 2002, imposing a $50 million fine on the company and on four executives fines for amounts ranging from $65,000 to $250,000

SO WHERE ARE THEY NOW, DAN?

Raines currently advises Obama on housing policy.

Johnson was appointed to head Obama's vice presidential selection committee, until a controversy concerning an alleged $7 millions in questionable real estate loans he received on favorable terms from failed sub-prime mortgage lender Countrywide Financial surfaced and forced him to step down.

Obama has noted Gorelick as a possible attorney general cabinet appointment if he should be elected president.

Since Freddie and Fannie own or guarantee about $5.2 trillion worth of mortgages...The federal government takeover of Freddie and Fannie passes to U.S. taxpayers the possible ENTIRE liability for failures of the entire $5.2 trillion held by the two.

So please Dan....WITH THE FACTS BEFORE YOU....tell us again how the Dems and Obama are not Complicit or the "prime movers" of this mess.

Atlanta Dan
10-07-2008, 07:00 AM
Poor Dan....He had to start out witha personal attack....Looks like things havent changed. Are you the one who just posted earlier in the week about how you respect other peoples opinion?:laughing:

Sure I visit your profile....never said I didnt...but I dont have you "on ignore"...and Its the easiest way for me to find all the posts you write and get a good laugh.



What?



I'm sorry... once again please.



...and why is that, Dan?



OHHHH,,,I dont know what I am talking about because I mispelled "principal"...
(siren noises)...pull the car over sir...this is the spelling police...in lieu of any real ability to argue the facts...I'm going to have to write you a spell-check citation.
(Hey Dan....if your going to be taken seriously...YOU may try and learn the correct terminology...I need to learn basic spelling....you on the other hand just used the word "terminology" wrong):rofl::rofl::rofl:




LMAO...I truly have missed those bits of wisdom in our debates...please read that again and YOU tell ME why its a silly comment.

This must be the core of your arguement...correct.

Since I dont "understand" that it will help the middle class... because its more likely to apply to those with above middle class income?

Only an attorney could believe that crap.



Hey now we are getting somewhere...you finally got around to the original post that EVERYONE ELSE understood and called Biden out as trying to feed us all a load of crap. You see...the problem was...YOU automatically thought that noone else "knew WTF they were talking about". NOW you have caught up with the rest of us.

WE understood that Biden was talking about lowering principle (hehehe) on ones mortgage on their first and (in the case of virtually ALL middle class taxpayers) ONLY home...and we called it out as B.S.

Its okay..I have a 13 year old daughter and I am very patiant with getting people out of "drama" and back on track.

Welcome back to being schooled....Bring an apple for the teacher tommorrow.

Last edited at 5:05 A.M.?:sofunny::sofunny: - having trouble sleeping or did it take all night to draft the response?

You want to stay negative - bring it on

lamberts-lost-tooth
10-07-2008, 07:47 AM
Last edited at 5:05 A.M.?:sofunny::sofunny: - having trouble sleeping or did it take all night to draft the response?

You want to stay negative - bring it on

I was at work at 3 this morning....some of us middle class guys have to work extra hours to pay for that second house:rofl:
Unlike some..I am not so obsessed with certain posters that I have to ...ignore...not ignore...ignore...not ignore. You dont mean enought to me for me to care either way.

You saying "bring it on" is the equivelant of giving my grandmother a bikini....its just silly and rather funny.


Still waiting for you to actually dispute the facts on Obamas pals who are up to their earlopes in fault for the mortgage crises....

....or would you rather talk about the correct spelling of principal?:chuckle:

You are too easy...have you ever actually won a case?

tony hipchest
10-07-2008, 09:09 AM
Obamas pals who are up to their earlopes in fault for the mortgage crises....


:rofl:

and the big while elephant is still ignored. how convinient.

GBMelBlount
10-07-2008, 09:19 AM
:rofl:

and the big while elephant is still ignored. how convinient.

That's ridiculous Tony.

If you look at the bigger picture, it is much larger than simply Obama or McCain at fault.

Let's face it, this crisis is because of fannie & freddie. The GOVERNMENT created fannie and freddie, inserted it into the free market, and ran it. This is simply another collosal failure of the government getting their noses into something they don't belong in and ruining it. Add in the likes of socialist leaners like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd who put pressure to make loans to people who shouldn't qualify, and you have a receipe for disaster.

Sad thing is you walk into a mall today and ask the average uneducated and ignorant individual who is spoon fed their beliefs from the left wing media and they will solely blame capitalism and free markets.

As Ayn Rand perfectly pointed out in her fictional masterpiece "Atlas shrugged," government screws up everything they touch and capitalism gets blamed and wrongly creates a belief in more government to solve the problems they themselves created, and thus ushering in the likes of Obama to rule our great country.

THAT is why I still believe that Obama will win this election cycle.his

lamberts-lost-tooth
10-07-2008, 09:35 AM
:rofl:

and the big while elephant is still ignored. how convinient.

Hey Tony...how about not ignoring the facts that I specified on Raines and Johnson...tell us just how those facts about Obamas staff members are wrong....instead of deflecting?

Take your fingers our of your ears...quit singing LaLaLaLa at the top of your lungs and tell us just how Obama having the very people who caused this crisis ON HIS STAFF...is not important.

Dan wont discuss those facts...will you?

tony hipchest
10-07-2008, 10:36 AM
Hey Tony...

Dan wont discuss those facts...will you?

you mean play your silly little blame game? have you ever heard of mccains financial guru phil gramm?

LaLaLaLa

c'mon... just type out the letters p..h...i...l........g....r.....a....m....m

i wanna see if you can do it. i KNOW you can do it.

:chuckle: :coffee:

revefsreleets
10-07-2008, 11:39 AM
This started with Clinton in 1992 wanting to bolster homeownership, and has continued through the Bush Administration, and was not successfully addressed by either a Democratic or Republican congress. Everyone is to blame in Washington.

RIDICULOUS to claim otherwise...

lamberts-lost-tooth
10-07-2008, 11:40 AM
you mean play your silly little blame game? have you ever heard of mccains financial guru phil gramm?



c'mon... just type out the letters p..h...i...l........g....r.....a....m....m

i wanna see if you can do it. i KNOW you can do it.

:chuckle: :coffee:

...and that ladies and gentleman is called a deflection....give it up for the Hipcheese!! :applaudit: :applaudit: :applaudit:

tony hipchest
10-07-2008, 12:53 PM
...and that ladies and gentleman is called a deflection....give it up for the Hipcheese!! :applaudit: :applaudit: :applaudit:

:hatsoff:

still cant do it, huh?

:wink02:

lamberts-lost-tooth
10-07-2008, 01:00 PM
Here you go Tony...

Gramm was one of John McCain’s advisers from the summer of 2007 to July 18, 2008.

In a July 9, 2008 interview explaining McCain's plans in reforming the U.S. economy, Gramm explained the nation was not in a recession, stating, "You've heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession," and "We have sort of become a nation of whiners, you just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline."

McCain strongly denounced Gramm's comments. Gramm later attempted to spin his comment, explaining that he had used the word "whiners" to describe the nation's politicians rather than the public ....however On July 18, 2008 Gramm was asked by the McCain camp to step down from his position with the McCain campaign.


NOW...I have shown that Gramm is an idiot and the McCain denounced his bumbleheaded comments....and seperated Gramm completed from his campaign staff...BECAUSE OF COMMENTS.

I am sure since you laid down the gauntlet..that you will be happy to now explain to all of us why Obama is still employing/associating with Raines...Johnson...and Gorelick. who far exceeded mere comments by being the primary actors on the stage of this Financial disaster.

I wait with baited breath.:wave:

Betting you cant explain away Obamas associations...nor would you care to uncover your eyes to the obvious.

tony hipchest
10-07-2008, 01:22 PM
I wait with baited breath.:wave:

Betting you cant explain away Obamas associations...nor would you care to uncover your eyes to the obvious.

LLT EVERYBODY!!!! :applaudit::applaudit::applaudit: Take a bow!

ive already covered this with you in another thread and it comes to no suprise that you have deflected it completely out of your memory. :thumbsup: i have no need to explain myself twice to you (again, and again, and again).

look it up. :mg:

lamberts-lost-tooth
10-07-2008, 02:11 PM
LLT EVERYBODY!!!! :applaudit::applaudit::applaudit: Take a bow!

ive already covered this with you in another thread and it comes to no suprise that you have deflected it completely out of your memory. :thumbsup: i have no need to explain myself twice to you (again, and again, and again).

look it up. :mg:

Really....please remind us as to which thread you gave us your esteemed opinion of Mr. Raines and company....I am pretty sure I would remember if You or Dan ever conceded that Obama has the architects of financial destruction on his staff...

I put LaLaLaLa into the search box....mmmmmm....nope....nothing....I think you are being dishonest.

Please prove me wrong....I was able to man up about Gramm....show the forum that you can be more than a CNN parrot...and give us an opinion on Raines/Johnson/Gorelick....or has Dan not given you permission yet.
:toofunny:

Guess I should have said you wont explain away Obamas associations instead of cant,,,,or was I right to begin with?

lamberts-lost-tooth
10-07-2008, 02:16 PM
LOL....waiting.

(I am only here for another 45 minutes...so please ask Dan if its okay to reply)

tony hipchest
10-07-2008, 02:19 PM
....I think you are being dishonest.

what????

you really forget that plate full of LLT buttocks i served up and handed you? :thumbsup:

how convinient. :rolleyes:

i bet you forget that lesson i tought you on civil debate too.

too bad.

lamberts-lost-tooth
10-07-2008, 02:20 PM
what????

you really forget that plate full of LLT buttocks i served up and handed you? :thumbsup:

how convinient. :rolleyes:

i bet you forget that lesson i tought you on civil debate too.

too bad.

Empty words to hide a non-existant post....:coffee:

(Thank you Dan for allowing Tony to reply.)

lamberts-lost-tooth
10-07-2008, 02:21 PM
Still waiting for more than another empty bag of gummy bears....try again.:coffee:

Atlanta Dan
10-07-2008, 02:22 PM
Hey Tony...how about not ignoring the facts that I specified on Raines and Johnson...tell us just how those facts about Obamas staff members are wrong....instead of deflecting?

Take your fingers our of your ears...quit singing LaLaLaLa at the top of your lungs and tell us just how Obama having the very people who caused this crisis ON HIS STAFF...is not important.

Dan wont discuss those facts...will you?

Having jumped back in to reading your posts, I have been reminded that I regard arguing with you to be as enlightening as you apparently do with regard to arguing with me. I took off after you last night and temporarily enjoyed throwing trash right back at you (yeah I know - I am terribly disrespectful and you are running an intellectual salon through your posts here, but please note I am not the one that inserts a steaming pile of dung into posts when charcterizing positions with which I disagree).

But that quickly grows tiresome. At least give me credit for not calling you out by name and asking you to reply when I respond to another poster.

On the balance of their strengths and weaknesses (I admit Obama has both - does McCain?) I regard Obama to be better suited to assume the Presidency than McCain and after the trainwreck of the last 8 years have no inclination to cast my vote for the party that nominated Bush and Cheney. You disagree - fine with me - but the idea there is only one arguable choice in this election is nonsense.

I usually get paid for my time when I exchange vituperative electronic messages with someone who under most circumstances would have no interest in otherwise speaking with me, although since I usually end up dealing with those folks face to face at some point we both have some interest in maintaining a surface cordiality.

No such constraints here - eh?

lamberts-lost-tooth
10-07-2008, 02:25 PM
Having jumped back in to reading your posts, I have been reminded that I regard arguing with you to be as enlightening as you apparently do with regard to arguing with me. I took off after you last night and temporarily enjoyed throwing trash right back at you (yeah I know - I am terribly disrespectful and you are running an intellectual salon through your posts here, but please note I am not the one that inserts a steaming pile of dung into posts when charcterizing positions with which I disagree).

But that quickly grows tiresome. At least give me credit for not caling you out when I respond to other posts.

On the balance of their strengths and weknesses (I admit Obama has both - does McCain?) I regard Obama to be better suited to assume the Presidency than McCain and after the trainwreck of the last 8 years have no inclination to cast my vote for the party that nominated Bush and Cheney. You disagree - fine with me - but the idea there is only one arguable choice in this election is nonsense.


I usually get paid for my time when I exchange vituperative electronic messages with someone who under most circumstances would have no interest in otherwise speaking with me, although since I usually end up dealing with those folks face to face at some point we both have some interest in maintaining a surface cordiality.

No such constraints here - eh?



Well put and appreciated....Could you now please give me your take On Raines/Johnson/Gorelick and the fact that Obama holds them in his trust (At least that is how I see it)

tony hipchest
10-07-2008, 02:27 PM
Still waiting for more than another empty bag of gummy bears....try again.:coffee:
:blah:

psssssst..... *whispers*

heres a hint, phil gramm.











BOO!

do a search. :toofunny:

lamberts-lost-tooth
10-07-2008, 02:44 PM
:blah:

psssssst..... *whispers*

heres a hint, phil gramm.


psst....heres a hint....(I think I would have remembered THE astute political post you made)

Guessing it doesnt exist or it was the chinese food version of a political post....and I had forgotten it soon after reading.....

Naw...it doesnt exist

lamberts-lost-tooth
10-07-2008, 02:46 PM
Leaving in 15 minutes, Tony....are ya gonna man up and give your take on Obamas associates...or just keep referring to some obscure (or non-existant) past post on Gramm.

lamberts-lost-tooth
10-07-2008, 02:52 PM
Gotta go...I'll take that as a...can't!!:chuckle:

tony hipchest
10-07-2008, 02:52 PM
Leaving in 15 minutes, Tony....are ya gonna man up and give your take on Obamas associates...or just keep referring to some obscure (or non-existant) past post on Gramm.

http://forums.steelersfever.com/showthread.php?t=27456&highlight=phil+gramm

WHAP!

might wanna get that memory checked there bud. last person to accuse me of lying and being dishonest here was LLiTp.

congrats! :thumbsup::applaudit::thumbsup:

oh and learn how to do a search. enjoy that plate full of ass i whipped up for ya! :chuckle:

tony hipchest
10-07-2008, 02:55 PM
5 minutes to go...

still awaiting that apology :coffee:

or do you need to seek out permission? :wink:

Atlanta Dan
10-07-2008, 04:04 PM
Well put and appreciated....Could you now please give me your take On Raines/Johnson/Gorelick and the fact that Obama holds them in his trust (At least that is how I see it)

As far as being tied to Obama, Raines is a red herring and no close consultant (IMO he would not have been featured in the Mccain ad if he was white). He also is a crook.

Johnson is a [prostitute] and it is a disgrace that a former Deputy Attorney General of the United States such as Gorelick comprimised her ethics by cashing in at Fannie.

As far as future roles in an Obama Adminstration, no way any of them get anything serious. Even if she was confirmable, Gorelick would only come back as AG and that is going to be given to Eric Holder (former DAG in Clinton Justice/current Covington & Burling partner) if he wants it.

But as far as being tied to the current financial mess, none of those individuals are anywhere near as close to Obama as Gramm is to McCain. If you are a Maverick who wants to go after greed on Wall Street, you presumably would not have taken on as your chief economic adviser someone who lobbied in recent years against state regulation of predatory lending practices and while in the Senate: fought to shelter regulation of credit-default swaps by the CFTC or SEC; sponsored the Commodity Futures Modernization Act; and has his name on Gramm-Leach-Bliley, which repealed Glass-Steagall and tore down the walls between I-banks and commercial banks.

Does Obama have unfortunate assocaitions - yep? With regard to the current financial meltdown, are they as bad as those of McCain and the culture of corruption of a GOP Congress that was taken over by Tom Delay and the "K Street Project"? - IMO no

If you want to tie Obama to his associations, go for it. But if any McCain supporter (specifically his joke of a VP nomnee) contends all we need to do is "turn the page" and thereby disassociate McCain from the malfeasance of Bush-Cheney as well as the misdeeds of the GOP Congress, guess again.

Your turn - does McCain have any weaknesses?

revefsreleets
10-07-2008, 05:31 PM
http://forums.steelersfever.com/showthread.php?t=27456&highlight=phil+gramm

WHAP!

might wanna get that memory checked there bud. last person to accuse me of lying and being dishonest here was LLiTp.

congrats! :thumbsup::applaudit::thumbsup:

oh and learn how to do a search. enjoy that plate full of ass i whipped up for ya! :chuckle:


Since it's not fair to gang up on people (cough cough), I thought I'd toss in my 2 cents here...

All I saw in that referenced thread was you saying that Obama's associations don't matter. Now Dan DID address it directly in THIS thread, but technically LLT is correct. Pretty much your defense for Obama's associations has been an attack on McCain via his association with Phil Gramm, which really isn't a defense at all.

Atlanta Dan
10-07-2008, 06:02 PM
Since it's not fair to gang up on people (cough cough), I thought I'd toss in my 2 cents here...

All I saw in that referenced thread was you saying that Obama's associations don't matter. Now Dan DID address it directly in THIS thread, but technically LLT is correct. Pretty much your defense for Obama's associations has been an attack on McCain via his association with Phil Gramm, which really isn't a defense at all.

As opposed to the intellectual integrity of Palin's position last week that any attempt at seeking past accountability by the McCain-Palin campaign for its associations (he is the candidate of the Republican party, not the Maverick Party) is playing the blame game when we need to look forward rather than look back? I guess you need to be a Maverick to take that position.

Guilt by association is a two way street. Tag Obama with Johnson, Raines & Gorelick and McCain can deal with his associations with W & Cheney. I'll take my chances on how that plays with the voters. Tough luck for McCain that he thought justifying Iraq was going to be his toughest issue this fall and never knew Bush-Cheney could be at the wheel for once in a generation screw-ups in both foreign policy and the economy. The party holding the presidency gets tagged when it goes sour, even if the incumbent President is not running - whether that is fair or not that is reality.

As far as ganging up on people, I did not plan to return to the fray this afternoon until LLT repeatedly called out for me while responding to Tony's posts:chuckle:

revefsreleets
10-07-2008, 06:10 PM
Wait up a second? Did you just equate Tony's continued attempts to eat his cake and have it too with Sarah Palin's acumen at debating?

OK.

That is interesting. It all comes down to selective memory. This whole thread is filled with forgetfullness when it's "Your candidate" being called out, and perfect 20/10 hindsight when it's time to attack the opposition (and I'm not saying "you" in anything but the general sense).

But the bottom line is this really is a wash. There's blood all over ALL these guys hands. If you really want to look for the least culpable person in all this, it's Sarah Palin, with Barrack Obama running a distant second. Palin had NOTHING to do with this, and Obama had only about as much as a Jr. Senator could be expected to (although he's kind of disproportionality bloody given his short tenure)

Sometimes lack of experience can be a good thing...

Atlanta Dan
10-07-2008, 06:35 PM
Wait up a second? Did you just equate Tony's continued attempts to eat his cake and have it to with Sarah Palin?

OK.

That is interesting. It all comes down to selective memory. This whole thread is filled with forgetfullness when it's "Your candidate" being called out, and perfect 20/10 hindsight when it's time to attack the opposition (and I'm not saying "you" in anything but the general sense).

But the bottom line is this really is a wash. There's blood all over ALL these guys hands. If you really want to look for the least culpable person in all this, it's Sarah Palin, with Barrack Obama running a distant second. Palin had NOTHING to do with this, and Obama had only about as much as a Jr. Senator could be expected to (although he's kind of disproportionality bloody given his short tenure)

Sometimes lack of experience can be a good thing...

Nice try - not equating Tony with Sarah.

My point is the McCain campaign wants it both ways - trying to run away from the President and Vice-President (who stayed away from the GOP Convention - incredible) whom a candidate's party has twice nominated and whom McCain certainly supported in 2000 and 2004 is not only unprecedented in my memory but far more egregious and a different magnitude of significance than any associations of Obama that the Mccain-Palin campaign is braying about.

I agree Palin had nothing to do with this - her total lack of involvement in any national issue until being involved for "5 and 1/2 weeks" (her line last week not mine) indicates her total lack of readiness for any significant role in national government at this time (I stand by my post when she was picked that her selection is like bringing a AA pitcher up to pitch in the World Series - she might be ready but probably not yet)

OTOH I think she would be a great next door neighbor (as long as we steered away from any creationism discussions) - holding national office should require a little more in the way of qualifications than that. I feel bad she is being a good team player and in such role is being forced to trot out so many strident soundbites as the campaigns lurch for the gutter.

Although my admiration for her personal qualities would not go quite this far:

A very wise TV executive once told me that the key to TV is projecting through the screen. It's one of the keys to the success of, say, a Bill O'Reilly, who comes through the screen and grabs you by the throat. Palin too projects through the screen like crazy. I'm sure I'm not the only male in America who, when Palin dropped her first wink, sat up a little straighter on the couch and said, "Hey, I think she just winked at me." And her smile. By the end, when she clearly knew she was doing well, it was so sparkling it was almost mesmerizing. It sent little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of America. This is a quality that can't be learned; it's either something you have or you don't, and man, she's got it.
:sofunny:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDYzMGFiNjQ0MWRjNmI0ZTlkYjgwZTExMjA3MWNiZTk=

Preacher
10-07-2008, 06:57 PM
I love it.

Clinton had a lack of experience at the national and international level, but for him, it was ok. After all, he was in control of the national guard. But the VP? Nope. Never.

Obama has as much experience in national office as Palin has as governor (both about 150 days actually spent in office)... an even trade if you ask me. Yet, for the pres. cand. that is great, for the vp, that is horrible.

talking about wanting it both ways...

If the Palin doesn't have enough experience, then Obama doesn't have enough experience. And who's experience is more important.... the president's or the vp's?

revefsreleets
10-07-2008, 07:09 PM
But the Obama campaign is ALSO trying to have it both ways. In fact, Biden was perhaps a little reactionary, since the Russia/Georgian thing probably shaped him as the pick more than anything.

McCain needs more of a "Main Street Moderate" appeal?

Sarah Palin.

Obama needs some kind of experience and a foreign policy angle?

Joe Biden.

Atlanta Dan
10-07-2008, 07:27 PM
I love it.

Clinton had a lack of experience at the national and international level, but for him, it was ok. After all, he was in control of the national guard. But the VP? Nope. Never.

Obama has as much experience in national office as Palin has as governor (both about 150 days actually spent in office)... an even trade if you ask me. Yet, for the pres. cand. that is great, for the vp, that is horrible.

talking about wanting it both ways...

If the Palin doesn't have enough experience, then Obama doesn't have enough experience. And who's experience is more important.... the president's or the vp's?

Asked and answered in post #33 in the CBS poll thread earlier today as rev and i kicked the Palin/Obama experience issue around

http://forums.steelersfever.com/showthread.php?t=27852&page=4

Post here long enough and it gets like the story about telling a joke in prison - everything gets recycled eventually and rather than tell the joke you just call out the number of the joke and everyone laughs because they have heard it all before:chuckle:

tony hipchest
10-07-2008, 07:51 PM
All I saw in that referenced thread was you saying that Obama's associations don't matter. .

:sofunny: of course thats all you saw. :rolleyes: thanks for the cliff notes version of what i said.

But the bottom line is this really is a wash. There's blood all over ALL these guys hands.

LOL all i see is you paraphrasing what i said in quoted link, i served to LLT. how funny.

its this simple. i offered my take on the subject, he agreed with me "in principle". and then forgot a conversation that took place 2 weeks ago.

in the meantime, he wants to rehash what has already been discused and wanting to engage in a round of the "blame game" (again). i told him i had already addresed it and didnt need to go through it again. he could look it up himself (obviously he couldnt).

LLT was simply WRONG (not technically "right" as you suggest - why, i havent a clue).

so i engaged in a fun little game of "rope-a-dope". instead

i let him go off, and goad me, and bring dan into the convo, and sideswipe him in the process. basically i let him look the fool. it was really quite fun. i knew where the thread and "non existant" posts were and even dropped him hints as he proceded to call me a liar and being dishonest. :nono:

game. set. match.

he wants to talk about "manning up"? well it takes a real man to admit theyre wrong and apologize. i guess we will see.

revefsreleets
10-07-2008, 07:57 PM
"Rope a dope"?

You said Obama's associations don't matter to you. You SAID that. That's pretty much ALL you said.

And why would I EVER paraphrase you?

Now that Dan's back as Dan, you are back to making no sense.

But, hey, whatever...it's all good. The debate starts in a few...

tony hipchest
10-07-2008, 08:11 PM
But the bottom line is this really is a wash. There's blood all over ALL these guys hands. ...

there are rich crooks who make contributions all across the board.

dirty money is everywhere in america. you and i both know this.


beautiful paraphrase. :thumbsup: or do you deny your above quote from today?

across the board changed to "wash".

dirty money changed to "blood on hands"

beautiful.

so tell us, why would you paraphrase me?

:busted:

revefsreleets
10-07-2008, 08:13 PM
Geesh...this getting awful personal for you.

But not for me.

Two of you digging back for a few words here and there? Really?

Atlanta Dan
10-07-2008, 08:13 PM
Been gone awhile so I apologize if this has been discussed....Did any one else hear this and raise an eyebrow?




WEEEEELLLLLLLL ALRIGHTY THEN!!!!!

Sign me up!!!!!....I no longer want to owe $120,000 on the remainder of my home loan...Lets say...Oh, about $75,000 sounds better to me.

What a load of :poop:....who in their right mind believes this!!!!!!!!!!!!???????????
:

As of 9:05 EDT on October 7, apparently John McCain does:toofunny::toofunny::toofunny:

Under a McCain Administration we apparently will have the Treasury buy up all the bad mortgages and reamortize the principal down to FMV

No expalanation how to pay for it since Mccain will raise nobody's taxes, but Mavericks don't need to balance the books

Edman
10-07-2008, 08:16 PM
Why does this surprise any of you?

This is politics.

tony hipchest
10-07-2008, 08:20 PM
Geesh...this getting awful personal for you.

But not for me.

:busted:

why not let LLT fight his own battles? its a shame to see you trying to put cats back in the bag.

getting personal? if serving up a plate of your own words is personal, then so be it. but you might wanna preach to LLT not me. :wink02:

revefsreleets
10-07-2008, 08:46 PM
I just want to argue with people who make sense. That's all...

tony hipchest
10-07-2008, 09:06 PM
I just want to argue with people who make sense. That's all...thats simple then.

explain why you would paraphrase me and then act as if you didnt. :noidea:

it seems you would rather step into a debate and protect LLT when he was obviously exposed for calling me a liar.

argue away or step out.... :drink:

Atlanta Dan
10-07-2008, 09:23 PM
Why does this surprise any of you?

This is politics.

It presumably surprised some McCain supporters on this board

revefsreleets
10-07-2008, 09:25 PM
thats simple then.

explain why you would paraphrase me and then act as if you didnt. :noidea:

it seems you would rather step into a debate and protect LLT when he was obviously exposed for calling me a liar.

argue away or step out.... :drink:
Lordy lordy lordy....

I DIDN'T paraphrase you. I just asked why you would think that I did? You(as usual) took that and ran away with it.

Not even close.

You just spun that up like you always do, make things magically appear where they never did before.

Seriously dude, without Dan behind the scenes, you are not effective in this format. Of course there will be many words in response, but....eh, whatever....

Interestingly enough, though, now that Dan is posting again, HIS posts are pretty right on, and, even though we differ, I get what he's saying.

tony hipchest
10-07-2008, 09:53 PM
sure you did, and i showed exactly where.

ignorance is bliss though. :cheers:

tony hipchest
10-07-2008, 10:43 PM
Seriously dude, without Dan behind the scenes, .speaking of "behind the scenes" whose pulling your strings?

or better yet, whose strings are YOU trying to pull?

"HEY EVERYBODY! while suitanim was banned i was doing all his dirty work behind the scenes vs. LITP!"

puhleeeeze!

:toofunny: is that what youre getting at???? (of course its not true and i say that fecitiously to completely mock your absurd uber-paranoid assertions.)

i can think on my own, THANK YOU!

Mosca
10-08-2008, 07:37 AM
As of 9:05 EDT on October 7, apparently John McCain does:toofunny::toofunny::toofunny:

Under a McCain Administration we apparently will have the Treasury buy up all the bad mortgages and reamortize the principal down to FMV

No expalanation how to pay for it since Mccain will raise nobody's taxes, but Mavericks don't need to balance the books


So, to everyone who was all over Dan, this means one of two things...

1) Dan was right, and you were 11 pages of wrong (well, 8 pages if you take out the three pages of sniping),

or

2) Your candidate has a bad idea on how to help fix the economy.


Take your pick.

lamberts-lost-tooth
10-08-2008, 08:12 AM
http://forums.steelersfever.com/showthread.php?t=27456&highlight=phil+gramm

WHAP!

might wanna get that memory checked there bud. last person to accuse me of lying and being dishonest here was LLiTp.

congrats! :thumbsup::applaudit::thumbsup:

oh and learn how to do a search. enjoy that plate full of ass i whipped up for ya! :chuckle:

Wow...waited until after I left.

...I would ask everyone to go the link Tony left and if ANYONE can find a post where Tony "handed my ass to me"..please let me know which one it is....

...I have gone through them several times and ....seriously...have no idea which one it may be.

Nice try Tony, I can only imagine that you had hopes that noone would check the link....but as others have already pointed out....

THERE AINT NO ASS-HANDING IN THAT THREAD
:rofl::rofl::rofl:

I have SEEN you hand someone their ass....I have LAUGHED as you handed someone their ass....and NOWHWERE in that thread is there anything that anyone would call an ass whooping.

sorry....You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting.

I quess your political expertice stops at calling a candidates down syndrome's infant son...what was it Tony?

...retarted?

revefsreleets
10-08-2008, 08:22 AM
sure you did, and i showed exactly where.

ignorance is bliss though. :cheers:

You said politicians were dirty...wow...quite the revelation Captain Obvious.

I said that both sides of aisle are cuplable for the Wall Street mess and have been for years. You said one thing, and I said something completely different.

Ignorance is bliss...but let's see if we can help, in some small way, remedy yours:
par·a·phrase http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png /ˈpærhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngəˌfreɪz/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[par-uh-freyz] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -phrased, -phras·ing.
–noun 1.a restatement of a text or passage giving the meaning in another form, as for clearness; rewording. 2.the act or process of restating or rewording. –verb (used with object) 3.to render the meaning of in a paraphrase: to paraphrase a technical paper for lay readers. –verb (used without object) 4.to make a paraphrase or paraphrases.

lamberts-lost-tooth
10-08-2008, 08:46 AM
As of 9:05 EDT on October 7, apparently John McCain does:toofunny::toofunny::toofunny:

Under a McCain Administration we apparently will have the Treasury buy up all the bad mortgages and reamortize the principal down to FMV

No expalanation how to pay for it since Mccain will raise nobody's taxes, but Mavericks don't need to balance the books

Actually Dan...I hope that you are not being purposefully misleading...I will give you the benefit of a doubt.

Here is McCains quote...

You know that home values of retirees continues to decline and people are no longer able to afford their mortgage payments. As president of the United States, Alan, I would order the secretary of the treasury to immediately buy up the bad home loan mortgages in America and renegotiate at the new value of those homes -- at the diminished value of those homes and let people be able to make those -- be able to make those payments and stay in their homes.

I do not see anything about lowering principle.

As you know...alot of the bad loans were caused by institutions who talked ill-informed homebuyers into accepting loans with interest rates that would "balloon" after a certain amount of time.

Based on THAT quote...could he have been talking about ...buying up the loans, reappraise the home...and renegotiate the loan with a flat, more fair, much lower rate than the balloon rate?

again...politics aside...could that be possible.

Mosca
10-08-2008, 08:53 AM
I do not see anything about lowering principle.

" I would order the secretary of the treasury to immediately buy up the bad home loan mortgages in America and renegotiate at the new value of those homes -- at the diminished value of those homes... "

That is exactly what that means; the diminished value is the lower principal.

The difference is that under the changing bankruptcy laws, the mortgage holders would be on the hook for the lower value; in McCain's plan, the government would in effect BUY OUT the mortgages, guaranteeing the profit to the lender (a lender that may have acted unethically, btw), and putting the people on the hook for the difference in principal (diminished value). All the while lowering taxes.

Maybe Cindy is going to chip in a few dollars? :hunch:

lamberts-lost-tooth
10-08-2008, 09:39 AM
" I would order the secretary of the treasury to immediately buy up the bad home loan mortgages in America and renegotiate at the new value of those homes -- at the diminished value of those homes... "

That is exactly what that means; the diminished value is the lower principal.

The difference is that under the changing bankruptcy laws, the mortgage holders would be on the hook for the lower value; in McCain's plan, the government would in effect BUY OUT the mortgages, guaranteeing the profit to the lender (a lender that may have acted unethically, btw), and putting the people on the hook for the difference in principal (diminished value). All the while lowering taxes.

Maybe Cindy is going to chip in a few dollars? :hunch:

...look at my last post

....the question is...(and this is for Bidens comment and for McCains comment)....are they talking about a "reappraisal" (which could lower or raise a value)...and then banking on lowering the payments with a flat interest rate intead of the "ballooned rate?

The reason I ask is ....If EITHER candidate proposes an actual flat out lowering of a principal on a home REGARDLESS of value...then as I said before...SIGN ME UP!!!

It would be a stupid and irresponsible thing to do and would be a perfect setting for fraud and abuse.

Mosca
10-08-2008, 10:11 AM
I don't see how it could possibly mean what you propose. If the idea was to renegotiate the inflated rate, then there would be no need for reappraisal... unless the rate would be applied to a lower principal.

Godfather
10-08-2008, 11:20 AM
" I would order the secretary of the treasury to immediately buy up the bad home loan mortgages in America and renegotiate at the new value of those homes -- at the diminished value of those homes... "

That is exactly what that means; the diminished value is the lower principal.

The difference is that under the changing bankruptcy laws, the mortgage holders would be on the hook for the lower value; in McCain's plan, the government would in effect BUY OUT the mortgages, guaranteeing the profit to the lender (a lender that may have acted unethically, btw), and putting the people on the hook for the difference in principal (diminished value). All the while lowering taxes.

Maybe Cindy is going to chip in a few dollars? :hunch:

I read that as renegotiating the mortgage to reflect the fact that the home has declined in value (which would apply to markets like California and Florida where most of the problem came from). In other words, get the people out from being upside-down.

Mosca
10-08-2008, 11:22 AM
I read that as renegotiating the mortgage to reflect the fact that the home has declined in value (which would apply to markets like California and Florida where most of the problem came from). In other words, get the people out from being upside-down.


Exactly; lowering the principal.

Atlanta Dan
10-08-2008, 12:13 PM
...look at my last post

....the question is...(and this is for Bidens comment and for McCains comment)....are they talking about a "reappraisal" (which could lower or raise a value)...and then banking on lowering the payments with a flat interest rate intead of the "ballooned rate?

The reason I ask is ....If EITHER candidate proposes an actual flat out lowering of a principal on a home REGARDLESS of value...then as I said before...SIGN ME UP!!!

It would be a stupid and irresponsible thing to do and would be a perfect setting for fraud and abuse.

This is the Biden quote during the debate that lit the fuse for this thread

Number two, with regard to bankruptcy now, Gwen, what we should be doing now -- and Barack Obama and I support it -- we should be allowing bankruptcy courts to be able to re-adjust not just the interest rate you're paying on your mortgage to be able to stay in your home, but be able to adjust the principal that you owe, the principal that you owe.

That would keep people in their homes, actually help banks by keeping it from going under. But John McCain, as I understand it -- I'm not sure of this, but I believe John McCain and the governor don't support that.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/02/debate.transcript/

These are quotes from the McCain campaign on what he proposed last night - reads like a write down of principal to me

As Mr. McCain’s campaign described his program, it would be available to mortgagors for whom the property is their primary residence, who can prove they were creditworthy when the original loan was made and who made a down payment. “Lenders in these cases must recognize the loss that they’ve already suffered,” a McCain campaign summary said.

Under the plan, it added, the Treasury would buy unaffordable mortgages directly from mortgage servicers and, in a reflection of the properties’ diminished values, renegotiate “manageable, fixed-rate mortgages that will keep families in their homes.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/08/us/politics/08mortgage.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin

It is important that those families who have worked hard enough to finance homeownership not have that dream crushed under the weight of the wrong mortgage. The existing debts are too large compared to the value of housing. For those that cannot make payments, mortgages must be re-structured to put losses on the books and put homeowners in manageable mortgages. Lenders in these cases must recognize the loss that they’ve already suffered.

The McCain Resurgence Plan would purchase mortgages directly from homeowners and mortgage servicers, and replace them with manageable, fixed-rate mortgages that will keep families in their homes. By purchasing the existing, failing mortgages the McCain resurgence plan will eliminate uncertainty over defaults, support the value of mortgage-backed derivatives and alleviate risks that are freezing financial markets.

The McCain resurgence plan would be available to mortgage holders that:

- Live in the home (primary residence only)
- Can prove their creditworthiness at the time of the original loan (no falsifications and provided a down payment).

The new mortgage would be an FHA-guaranteed fixed-rate mortgage at terms manageable for the homeowner. The direct cost of this plan would be roughly $300 billion because the purchase of mortgages would relieve homeowners of “negative equity” in some homes.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/10/07/mccain-announces-homeownership-resurgence-plan/

As Tom points out, if you amend section 1322 of the Bankruptcy Code the lender would eat the loss in a principal writedown. In addition, at least a homeowner would need to put all assets on the table in a Chapter 13 workout to pay down all debts as a quid pro quo for getting a writedown on mortgage principal.

With Treasury buying out the loans, those of us who financed homes within our means apparently pay for the writedown rather than the borrowers and/or lenders who were responsible for entering into these idiotic mortgage agreements but now will get bailed out.

As I initially posted in this thread, there are good and bad arguments in favor of mortgages on first mortgages being rewritten in bankruptcy. However, McCain's proposal last night seems to take lenders and borrowers off the hook for losses that they would eat in bankruptcy proceedings and instead will now be borne by the Treasury.

Who knows where they come up with the estimated $300 billion price tag.

Mr. McCain proposes that the roughly $300 billion cost would be covered by the $700 billion bailout law.

That $700 billion total, however, was intended to give the Treasury the means to buy and hold troubled assets from financial institutions that might otherwise fail, so that those assets can be sold when markets recover and the assets regain value. But the McCain summary said that “by stabilizing mortgages, it will likely be possible to avoid some purposes previously assumed needed in that bill.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/08/us/politics/08mortgage.html?_r=2&ref=politics&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Hard to see how anyone attacking Biden's proposal last week as an infringement upon free market principles or an abandonment of being held accountable for the consequencs of your actions can support McCain's proposal last night.

tony hipchest
10-08-2008, 12:51 PM
You said politicians were dirty...wow...quite the revelation Captain Obvious.

I said that both sides of aisle are cuplable for the Wall Street mess and have been for years. You said one thing, and I said something completely different. :nono: :busted:

Ignorance is bliss...but let's see if we can help, in some small way, remedy yours:
.there you go again, either slipping up or intentionally misrepresenting my post and trying to put the words you wanna hear into my mouth. let me jog your memory- i said the money was dirty. you know... the money that was contributed to the campaigns and the people (many in the private sector = not politician) who contributed it?

stay on point. but i digress. sorry for calling you ignorant (as i know you arent). it was a poor choice of words.

(see how easy that was LLT?) :chuckle:

what i was really commenting on being "bliss" was this little tactic you use when you lose points or get trumped in a debate. "playing dumb" and pretending you dont know wtf the other party is talking about is an effective way to save a bit of face i guess.

but in reality you know exactly what im talking about because we shared almost the exact same stance on that particular subject (as the paraphrase exampled statements clearly show.)

to deflate all my posts into 1 twisted, molded, and incorrect sentence is about as effective as me saying all i saw from you on the matter is youre not a chad knauss fan. except i would atleast be correct.

:cheers:

tony hipchest
10-08-2008, 03:01 PM
Wow...waited until after I left.

?

really? is that so? :scratchchin:

lets examine as you foolishly goaded and mocked me while i was reeling you in.

timeline-

3:16- LLT announces hes leaving in 45 min. (= @ 4:01)
3:46- LLT announces hes leaving in 15 min (= @ 4:01)
3:52- i provide LLT with the requested link he denied existed.
3:52- LLT announces he is now leaving (wow, leaving so early?)
3:54- via "current users online" feature i see LLT is viewing provided link
3:55- i post to LLT he has 5 minutes left to apologize.
3:56- LLT still viewing
3:57- still viewing
3:58- still viewing...... and gone.
3:59- i begin :rofl:

now who is being "dishonest" here?

...I would ask everyone to go [through this thread]and if ANYONE can find a post where [I] "handed my ass to [Dan]"..please let me know which one it is....

...I have gone through them several times and ....seriously...have no idea which one it may be.

Nice try Tony, I can only imagine that you had hopes that noone would check the [thread]....but as others have already pointed out....

THERE AINT NO ASS-HANDING IN [THIS] THREAD
:rofl::rofl::rofl:

there you go. fixed that for ya!

hook.... line..... and sinker. :fishing:

the term "handing of ass" is relative and subjective. see i was doing it right under your nose. *fphew* :wink02:

anyways, it seems this thread is officially a dud. but the 3 pages of bickering were fun. :drink:

GBMelBlount
10-08-2008, 05:25 PM
I'm not sure Steelersfever registers everything in real time. What I mean is it is possible that somebody can log off or leave a thread and still appear to be online or viewing a thread.

revefsreleets
10-09-2008, 08:42 AM
Countrywide just lowered the interest rates on 150,000 loans. And they did that on their own.

Perhaps we don't need the politicians to do everything for us? And perhaps we are belaboring this point (or beating a dead horse into glue)?

HometownGal
10-09-2008, 08:46 AM
I'm not sure Steelersfever registers everything in real time. What I mean is it is possible that somebody can log off or leave a thread and still appear to be online or viewing a thread.

With the way things have been around here lately, I'd say anything is possible. :banging:

revefsreleets
10-09-2008, 08:50 AM
there you go again, either slipping up or intentionally misrepresenting my post and trying to put the words you wanna hear into my mouth. let me jog your memory- i said the money was dirty. you know... the money that was contributed to the campaigns and the people (many in the private sector = not politician) who contributed it?



Money's dirty, politicians are dirty...whatever. There's not much difference in my book.

BUT that's a hugely different statement than mine, which was that this has been a concerted failure with plenty of guilt spread between both parties for at least the last 16 years, which is VASTLY different than your statement.

Mine ditributes guilt between the parties, and you pretty much have stuck with the "Pelosi Doctrine" that all this countries ill's are 100% the responsibitiy of Bush and the GOP. Unfortuanetly for all of us, a LOT of people are buying into the bullshit, and it shows in the polls.

Who will she blame things on when this slowly listing ship finally sinks under a Democratically controlled house, senate and White House, a government with no checks on it? Who will YOU blame it on?

Atlanta Dan
10-09-2008, 09:28 AM
Countrywide just lowered the interest rates on 150,000 loans. And they did that on their own.

Perhaps we don't need the politicians to do everything for us? And perhaps we are belaboring this point (or beating a dead horse into glue)?

Mmmmm - if this is what you are referring to, not exactly purely altruistic behavior by Countrywide "on its own" - the company had its ass sued by state Attorneys General and settled up:

In a sweeping deal that could be worth more than $8.4 billion, Bank of America Corp. has agreed to settle claims brought by state attorneys general regarding certain risky loans originated by Countrywide Financial Corp.

Unlike McCain's proposal that was tossed out the other night, the government is not bailing out the predatory lenders under the terms of that settlement.

The cost of the program will be shared by Bank of America and investors who own securities composed of mortgages originated by Countrywide or by third parties who sold those loans to Countrywide. The eligible mortgages were originated prior to Dec. 31, 2007.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122326958041707133.html

lamberts-lost-tooth
10-10-2008, 11:33 AM
really? is that so? :scratchchin:

lets examine as you foolishly goaded and mocked me while i was reeling you in.

timeline-

3:16- LLT announces hes leaving in 45 min. (= @ 4:01)
3:46- LLT announces hes leaving in 15 min (= @ 4:01)
3:52- i provide LLT with the requested link he denied existed.
3:52- LLT announces he is now leaving (wow, leaving so early?)
3:54- via "current users online" feature i see LLT is viewing provided link
3:55- i post to LLT he has 5 minutes left to apologize.
3:56- LLT still viewing
3:57- still viewing
3:58- still viewing...... and gone.
3:59- i begin :rofl:

now who is being "dishonest" here?



there you go. fixed that for ya!

hook.... line..... and sinker. :fishing:

the term "handing of ass" is relative and subjective. see i was doing it right under your nose. *fphew* :wink02:

anyways, it seems this thread is officially a dud. but the 3 pages of bickering were fun. :drink:

1) When I said I was leaving is when I quit "viewing" the thread...not when I signed out...I was passing on information to my relief (who showed up early)...I figured you would at least see that I was not going to be able to respond and would wait to debate

...my bad for assuming you wouldnt be a coward, and wait for me to leave.

2) Again,,,have you found ANYONE who thought what you posted was anything more than the most shallow of posts filled with shallow facts? Like I said...I had to read through the whole thread because I thought maybe there was a good reply in the thread somewhere ...there is not....and EVERYONE sees that .:thmbup:

Your post and your crowing after I left is the high school equivelant of the "wedgied" nerd yelling "oh yeah?" at the school jock after he leaves the parking lot...pathetic.

The next time you hand my ass to me will be the first....:sofunny:

3) If by "relative" you mean that as long as YOU think you handed me my ass... well, then it still doesnt apply since I KNOW ...deep down....somewhere....you feel like Jeremy did whenever he handed back those weak-ass retorts.....:chuckle:

4) Who is being dishonest? ....well...you never produced this ..so-called...incredible ass-whooping post....you KNOW that the post you supplied doesnt meet anyones standard of an ass-whooping....AND you KNOW you posted it after I said I had to leave (by your own admission)....so....THAT WOULD BE YOU!!!

you may go now.
:wave: