• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Anyone swayed voting Obama after the 3 debates?

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
48,474
9,422
126
Originally posted by: mikelish
how is the 2000 mccain different from 2008 mccain?
The 2008 McCain panders to the 2000 Bush supporters.
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,062
1
0
4) since they borrow government/fed money, they agree to operate by the fed/government rules. They didn't, so they go sued. This shit isn't that difficult.

this thread is pretty much vic beating cattlegod and jbourne77 with facts and them responding by covering their ears and screaming to drown it out. Go back to OT, at least porfjohn and others will talk bring up plausible counterpoints.
 

Mavtek3100

Senior member
Jan 15, 2008
524
0
0
Nope, he's still wrong on just about everything, although he's better than McCain regarding Foreign Policy.
 

Viditor

Diamond Member
Oct 25, 1999
3,290
0
0
Cattlegod, you need to review what has caused the economic problem...

The problem isn't that poor people have homes, it's that the process of acquiring the mortgages became less regulated. That means that there were fewer checks and documentations about the people who were engaging in these mortgages.

Remember that the guy writing the loan only got paid a commission when the loan was written, and then his company would immediately sell the loan off to a bank or other company. Many of those loans were written for 100% of the cost of the house because it was assumed that the value of the property would always go upwards.

The problem is that when housing prices dropped a little, people found that they owed more than the house was worth...so they walked away from the mortgage (especially when employment got tougher). This wasn't just the poor, it was the middle class to a greater extent who found themselves suddenly overextended.

In addition, many of these loans (at the suggestion of Alan Greenspan) were term variable loans, and the owners were unable to renogtiate a new loan at the end of their 7 years...
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,062
1
0
Originally posted by: Viditor
Cattlegod, you need to review what has caused the economic problem...

The problem isn't that poor people have homes, it's that the process of acquiring the mortgages became less regulated. That means that there were fewer checks and documentations about the people who were engaging in these mortgages.

Remember that the guy writing the loan only got paid a commission when the loan was written, and then his company would immediately sell the loan off to a bank or other company. Many of those loans were written for 100% of the cost of the house because it was assumed that the value of the property would always go upwards.

The problem is that when housing prices dropped a little, people found that they owed more than the house was worth...so they walked away from the mortgage (especially when employment got tougher). This wasn't just the poor, it was the middle class to a greater extent who found themselves suddenly overextended.

In addition, many of these loans (at the suggestion of Alan Greenspan) were term variable loans, and the owners were unable to renogtiate a new loan at the end of their 7 years...
excellent laymans summary
 

Born2bwire

Diamond Member
Oct 28, 2005
9,840
5
71
Originally posted by: Cattlegod
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Cattlegod
I'm watching a special right now on Fox Business on the recent crash. Obama was a big proponent to the sub-prime pressure lending in the 90s. I don't plan on voting for Obama because of this.
Too bad all of that is a lie.

Every single poster here with banking industry experience, including myself, has come out and exposed that crap as a ridiculous partisan lie a dozen times over, and yet you spoonfed wingnuts keep lapping up and puking out this ridiculous propaganda.

Originally posted by: Cattlegod
What the hell are you talking about? He was an avid supporter of ACORN in the 90s. Additionally, Obama was an attorney for one of the lawsuits against Citi. Besides, the slide started in the 70s with the government pressuring banks to make sub prime loans. Obama supported this path of destruction.

Additionally, a McCain's bill in 2006 to reform the government?s involvement in lending, the Democrats shot down (after the Democrats shot down a previous attempt two years prior to that from the Bush administration). Democrats were taking their eye off the potential problem because the 'middle class' was getting wealthy off of the housing boom.
Bull-fucking-shit.

Yaknow what ACORN has always called subprime lending? Predatory lending. 1They literally did coin that term. And fought lawsuit and lawsuit against the practice of lending to people more than they could afford.
The so-called "subprime" that ACORN did push for were 2relatively modest expansions of Fannie/Freddie and FHA approvals, usually in select neighborhoods and always for borrowers with 3solid documented income. These loans, called "My Community," "Timely Payment Rewards," and "Expanded Approval" perform today just as good as prime loans. IOW they have nothing in common with the so-called "toxic" subprime mortgage loans that caused all this.
That lawsuit that Obama played an incredibly minor role in the 90s was a case of 4DOCUMENTED racial discrimination, where Citi was caught routinely denying black applicants with identical qualifications to white applicants that they were approving. Are you saying you endorse such practices?

And additionally, it wasn't "McCain's bill," it was Hagel's bill. McCain co-sponsored it for all of like 3 days before withdrawing his support. It died in a Republican-dominated Senate committee, and its purpose was not to "reform" Fannie/Freddie but to almost completely deregulate them (in particular, to remove HUD as Fannie/Freddie's regulatory body).

Yaknow, anyone with a computer and internet access could find out the truth of these issues within minutes. The fact that these ridiculous crap lies just keep getting repeated over and over again from the McCain camp just goes to show why that ticket must not be allowed to win. Admittedly, I could be a much bigger fan of the other side, but the nuts fueling the McCain camp will believe and spread any lie that supports their agenda, and that kind of immorality does not deserve any influence in the White House.
1 - Do you have evidence that the coined the term predatory lending?

2 - Relative to what?

3 - What does 'solid documented income' mean? I can document weekly bottle returns, doesn't mean I should get a loan. Too bad banks have to give me a loan because the Dems want everyone in a house.

4 - Who cares? If I don't want to lend someone my money because they have a tattoo or any other reason, I shouldn't have to. It is my god damned money.
Are you shitting me? You're saying it's fine to be racist when it comes to banking and finances? Loans can be a powerful means of forcing discrimination and segregation. It can disenfranchise a group of people from expanding out into small business and better communities. During the middle of the 20th century, discriminatory loan practices help keep black communities in the cities by denying them housing loans in the suburbs.
 

Onceler

Golden Member
Feb 28, 2008
1,264
0
71
McCain is a typical Republican,always trying to please those who won't vote for him no matter what at the sacrifice of those who would vote for him(bipartisan=what repubs try to do to impress those on the left at the sacrifice of one's principals) if he had enough bravery to stand up to the left he'd be better supported
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
0
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: Cattlegod
I don't think it matters if he was in the senate or not. He was trying to get people in homes that shouldn't be. Granted, it is a noble effort, but it is not good business.
McCain, on the other hand, was a senator when he violated ethics standards in the Keating Five scandal.

And he's fought for deregulation for his entire 26 year career in the senate. Not a noble effort.
Damn you JP stop bringing up the past. McCain is the original maverick!

Originally posted by: Xellos2099
He was a lawyer with Acorn at the time and he tried suing Citibank for racial discrimination.
Fixed.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,830
2
0
Vic, since you know so much about this stuff why don't you write an article? No one has so far, and I have nothing to show to the Republicans who believe those Youtube videos.

I don't understand the lack of debunking of the right wing revisionism. Why am I having to learn this stuff on ATPN?
 

Stuxnet

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2005
8,403
1
0
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Vic, since you know so much about this stuff why don't you write an article? No one has so far, and I have nothing to show to the Republicans who believe those Youtube videos.

I don't understand the lack of debunking of the right wing revisionism. Why am I having to learn this stuff on ATPN?
Funny - you've already chosen which side to "believe", yet you can't even explain why.

CLASSIC!
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,830
2
0
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Vic, since you know so much about this stuff why don't you write an article? No one has so far, and I have nothing to show to the Republicans who believe those Youtube videos.

I don't understand the lack of debunking of the right wing revisionism. Why am I having to learn this stuff on ATPN?
Funny - you've already chosen which side to "believe", yet you can't even explain why.

CLASSIC!
I chose NOT to believe a clearly biased right wing video with an extreme agenda, especially since it was all about Frannie and Freddie. I'd do the same if there was a left wing video blaming Ronald Reagan.
 

Stuxnet

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2005
8,403
1
0
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Vic, since you know so much about this stuff why don't you write an article? No one has so far, and I have nothing to show to the Republicans who believe those Youtube videos.

I don't understand the lack of debunking of the right wing revisionism. Why am I having to learn this stuff on ATPN?
Funny - you've already chosen which side to "believe", yet you can't even explain why.

CLASSIC!
I chose NOT to believe a clearly biased right wing video with an extreme agenda, especially since it was all about Frannie and Freddie. I'd do the same if there was a left wing video blaming Ronald Reagan.
How about Pelosi pinning it squarely on Bush? I missed your post on that one.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,830
2
0
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Vic, since you know so much about this stuff why don't you write an article? No one has so far, and I have nothing to show to the Republicans who believe those Youtube videos.

I don't understand the lack of debunking of the right wing revisionism. Why am I having to learn this stuff on ATPN?
Funny - you've already chosen which side to "believe", yet you can't even explain why.

CLASSIC!
I chose NOT to believe a clearly biased right wing video with an extreme agenda, especially since it was all about Frannie and Freddie. I'd do the same if there was a left wing video blaming Ronald Reagan.
How about Pelosi pinning it squarely on Bush? I missed your post on that one.
I have no problem with GWB doing what he does best, being blamed.
 
Aug 23, 2000
15,511
1
81
Originally posted by: Chaotic42
Not me. The debates have made me like McCain a lot less, though.
Funny, I have the same feeling for Obama. The more he talks the less I like him.

especially since he likes to use legal maneuvers to get people discredited and removed from the ballot but when someone uses it against him he cries foul. Ala ongoing court case claiming he citizenship is in question.
 

Stuxnet

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2005
8,403
1
0
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Vic, since you know so much about this stuff why don't you write an article? No one has so far, and I have nothing to show to the Republicans who believe those Youtube videos.

I don't understand the lack of debunking of the right wing revisionism. Why am I having to learn this stuff on ATPN?
Funny - you've already chosen which side to "believe", yet you can't even explain why.

CLASSIC!
I chose NOT to believe a clearly biased right wing video with an extreme agenda, especially since it was all about Frannie and Freddie. I'd do the same if there was a left wing video blaming Ronald Reagan.
How about Pelosi pinning it squarely on Bush? I missed your post on that one.
I have no problem with GWB doing what he does best, being blamed.
Well, blaming him for this won't get you out of the hole, sorry. So while it might be fun to do when you don't even understand your own opinions, it's pretty unproductive.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,830
2
0
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Vic, since you know so much about this stuff why don't you write an article? No one has so far, and I have nothing to show to the Republicans who believe those Youtube videos.

I don't understand the lack of debunking of the right wing revisionism. Why am I having to learn this stuff on ATPN?
Funny - you've already chosen which side to "believe", yet you can't even explain why.

CLASSIC!
I chose NOT to believe a clearly biased right wing video with an extreme agenda, especially since it was all about Frannie and Freddie. I'd do the same if there was a left wing video blaming Ronald Reagan.
How about Pelosi pinning it squarely on Bush? I missed your post on that one.
I have no problem with GWB doing what he does best, being blamed.
Well, blaming him for this won't get you out of the hole, sorry. So while it might be fun to do when you don't even understand your own opinions, it's pretty unproductive.
What opinion are you talkign about that I don't understand?
Some time last week I made a post asking what the deal was with the "blame Democrats" Youtube videos. Blaming Republicans had already been countered by Bill Clinton, but it's taken this long for Salon and this guy to say anything about the blaming Democrats.

I'm not a financial expert, but I'll believe what makes sense, which in this case is that bipartisan deregulation is the root. Presumably if I explained something related to vegetation ecology, urban geography, or oil and gas leases, and what I said made sense, you'd believe me.
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,643
1,143
126
In the simplest terms, the right-wing shills who put all the blame on the left, and the left-wing shills who put all the blame on the right are BOTH wrong, with grains of truth to it all.

It was basically a perfect storm of variables that enabled a disaster. It succeeded because of greed and the 'profit today/this quarter - regardless of the cost' mentality, along with partisan politics at their worst.

Vic is the sanest person in this thread, which is unsurprising.

Obama has been winning moderates/independents, for two reasons :

(1)- A lot of them had no reference on Obama other than B.S. chain emails / Fox Propaganda (Obama is a Muslim, Extremist, etc), and by the time they finally get exposed to him, he's a calm, rational, friendly person.

(2)- McCain has rushed to the far right with the Palin pick, then confused everyone with his socialistic proposals (mortgage bailout by gov't, 100% opposite of a 'conservative' or personally-responsible position), so he's disenfranchising both true conservatives and moderates at the same time, leaving only party acolytes to follow his lead unquestionably. Considering the core partisans that support both sides blindly, that's unsurprising.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS