Here comes the dirty part of the campaign.

[Thump553]

I always get a chuckle out of neocons that call 1960's radicals "terrorists" as it is a gross misuse of that term. Some (by all means not all) of persons who could be considered '60s radicals used violent means in an effort to acheive their goals (an effort which failed miserably and generally turned off their constituency-even John Lennon). They never intended to terrorize a population-like the KKK did.

Labeling washed up 1960s radicals-even if they were violent-as terorists just doesn't fly with people who lived through that era. Maybe younguns like Palin can be fooled though. But in posts like BB's, with his scattershot sexual perversion/gay/marxist claims I'm sure it's not the least bit persuasive to 99% of the population.

 

[Jhhnn]

Neither McCain nor Palin are fooled one bit, Thump553. Snakeoil salesmen never are- they know their product is crap, and they get a thrill out of telling the chumps what they want to hear. Make no mistake- anybody who actually buys this is a chump, and the McCain people know it, depend on it.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Butterbean
Obama does associate and feel comfy with terrorists and radicals. Heck the mysterious mentor "Frank" in his autobiography was Frank Marshall Davis a member of Communist Party. Obama has worked for the criminal ACORN (lots of convictions folks - and doing the same voter fraud this year) and he was trained in (and has taught) Alinsky community organization tactics (attack people not institutions, look middle class and not radical, use ridicule as a weapon and keep attacking etc). Of course Obama did go to a very racist lib theology church (neo Marxism at its most illustrative). Only a real psychotic could believe BO when he said he didnt know what was up. These are reasons people like Daniel Ortega like BO and say he is laying foundations for "revolutionary change" (Danny's words). BO is a real stinker that you have to be lost in your head to support (and lots of faux "Americans" are). BO was once trying to say he was for a new type of politics but he and the media have taken things to new lows by accusing people of racism for not voting for this weirdo and for things like "truth squads" and donor intimidation. Heck even the NY Slimes writes openly about these things and still people hold on to desperate rationalizations. It was so obvious today that the NY Times is doing propaganda for BO by saying he didn't really know "that bomber" when its plain he did. Their whitewash of the Annenberg Foundation program in Chicago with Obam/Ayers was spectacular prevarication. Obama wants to be our Chavez and the NY Times wants to help. Good Americans cant vote for Obama - dont let them fool you kids

You forgot about the Space Aliens and Satan.

That was Kucinich.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: Farang
these new attacks have the chance of making McCain fall flat on his face.

Ya, I have that feeling too. McCain is struggling already with the "this campaign will be honorable and all about the issues" and he has been so negative and ... distortional. Going hardcore negative may just backfire and insure his loss.

Then again, based on his actions in the past few weeks, maybe he wants Obama to win. He seems to be handing victory to him. =)

I felt the same in 2004. And 2000.

Unfortunately, the Republican attack machine works, even when it's lying. And this time they're not even lying, they're just making a mountain (Everest) out of a molehill (more like a flat bit of terrain really).

I think Obama is much stronger than Gore or Kerry, however. He already has so much public favor that I don't think the Republican attack machine can quite change the outcome like it has in the past. I'm looking forward to 8 years of Obama.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: Butterbean
Obama does associate and feel comfy with terrorists and radicals. Heck the mysterious mentor "Frank" in his autobiography was Frank Marshall Davis a member of Communist Party. Obama has worked for the criminal ACORN (lots of convictions folks - and doing the same voter fraud this year) and he was trained in (and has taught) Alinsky community organization tactics (attack people not institutions, look middle class and not radical, use ridicule as a weapon and keep attacking etc). Of course Obama did go to a very racist lib theology church (neo Marxism at its most illustrative). Only a real psychotic could believe BO when he said he didnt know what was up. These are reasons people like Daniel Ortega like BO and say he is laying foundations for "revolutionary change" (Danny's words). BO is a real stinker that you have to be lost in your head to support (and lots of faux "Americans" are). BO was once trying to say he was for a new type of politics but he and the media have taken things to new lows by accusing people of racism for not voting for this weirdo and for things like "truth squads" and donor intimidation. Heck even the NY Slimes writes openly about these things and still people hold on to desperate rationalizations. It was so obvious today that the NY Times is doing propaganda for BO by saying he didn't really know "that bomber" when its plain he did. Their whitewash of the Annenberg Foundation program in Chicago with Obam/Ayers was spectacular prevarication. Obama wants to be our Chavez and the NY Times wants to help. Good Americans cant vote for Obama - dont let them fool you kids

WALL OF TEXT + TIN FOIL HAT = REALLY SHITTY POST

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: OFFascist
Obama and Biden both support an new assault weapon ban, so I would vote against them for no other reason than that.

However I'm also voting against them because I'm no fan of bigger government and more socialism. I'm also against the current Wall Street bailout that has been passed by this Democrat controlled congress.

IMO the issue of the economy is not important to me. Yes some people are being hurt by it but they should have better prepared for this and not mismanaged their money. As long as you have food, water, and shelter everything else to some degree is a luxury. It will eventually correct itself after some time, and hopefully people will have learned from their mistakes.

With a "popular" Obama and a democrat congress I see negative consequences and restrictions on our gun rights, which in general once they are restricted it becomes alot harder to get them unrestricted. Remember the Heller case was a narrow 5 - 4 victory.

The Republicans voted for the bailout, too. Let's never forget that. The Democrats control the House by ~ 30 seats, and no one controls the Senate, but the bill passed with Republican favor.

I think a new assault weapons ban is fine if it's better constructed than the last one. I don't know where the line is between sane gun ownership and insane gun ownership. I know that it's insane to own (and operate) a .50 cal machine gun. I know that some of the guns that were considered 'assault weapons' seemed fine for personal ownership.

But yes, if you are against gun restrictions, that is definitely part of Obama's platform and you should vote against him. Thank you for being a reasonable voter who is informed regarding issues that are important to you; there are few of you left.

 

[Jhhnn]

But yes, if you are against gun restrictions, that is definitely part of Obama's platform and you should vote against him. Thank you for being a reasonable voter who is informed regarding issues that are important to you; there are few of you left.

Meh. If owning assault weapons is your overriding concern, that might make sense. Otherwise, it really should be a non-issue for the vast majority of gun owners, other than when they get whipped into a frenzy by NRA FUD. And it should only be one of many considerations for most voters, anyway.

I'm personally not for another assault weapons ban, anyway. Their role in gun violence in this country is miniscule, and the rules of the previous ban were stupid. The real issues wrt gun violence center around handguns, but there's no way for America to even begin to start a rational discussion of that topic, so there's no point in going there.

Just keep 'em, OK? Take care of them, take care that little kids can't get ahold of them and that they're kept safe from burglars, too. Remember that loaded weapons can turn from a perceived asset into an instant liability in the blink of an eye. Try to avoid shooting other people with them, while you're at it. That's about the best we can do, right?

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Butterbean = REALLY SHITTY POST

I used the power of substitution to simply your equation..

 

[OrByte]

the GOP devoted and blessed really think that Obama has these skeletons in his past that makes him unamerican and a terrorist.

when have we EVER had such horrible accusations leveled at a Presidential candidate?

it is a really serious turn off to anything republican. I hope that the next 8 years the republican brand can be repaired and cleaned up.

This is getting sickening and we still have 4 weeks left.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Butterbean
Obama does associate and feel comfy with terrorists and radicals. Heck the mysterious mentor "Frank" in his autobiography was Frank Marshall Davis a member of Communist Party. Obama has worked for the criminal ACORN (lots of convictions folks - and doing the same voter fraud this year) and he was trained in (and has taught) Alinsky community organization tactics (attack people not institutions, look middle class and not radical, use ridicule as a weapon and keep attacking etc). Of course Obama did go to a very racist lib theology church (neo Marxism at its most illustrative). Only a real psychotic could believe BO when he said he didnt know what was up. These are reasons people like Daniel Ortega like BO and say he is laying foundations for "revolutionary change" (Danny's words). BO is a real stinker that you have to be lost in your head to support (and lots of faux "Americans" are). BO was once trying to say he was for a new type of politics but he and the media have taken things to new lows by accusing people of racism for not voting for this weirdo and for things like "truth squads" and donor intimidation. Heck even the NY Slimes writes openly about these things and still people hold on to desperate rationalizations. It was so obvious today that the NY Times is doing propaganda for BO by saying he didn't really know "that bomber" when its plain he did. Their whitewash of the Annenberg Foundation program in Chicago with Obam/Ayers was spectacular prevarication. Obama wants to be our Chavez and the NY Times wants to help. Good Americans cant vote for Obama - dont let them fool you kids

You forgot about the Space Aliens and Satan.

That was Kucinich.

:laugh: oops, my bad

 

[dbk]

Obama is hitting back

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: OFFascist
Obama and Biden both support an new assault weapon ban, so I would vote against them for no other reason than that.

However I'm also voting against them because I'm no fan of bigger government and more socialism. I'm also against the current Wall Street bailout that has been passed by this Democrat controlled congress.

IMO the issue of the economy is not important to me. Yes some people are being hurt by it but they should have better prepared for this and not mismanaged their money. As long as you have food, water, and shelter everything else to some degree is a luxury. It will eventually correct itself after some time, and hopefully people will have learned from their mistakes.

With a "popular" Obama and a democrat congress I see negative consequences and restrictions on our gun rights, which in general once they are restricted it becomes alot harder to get them unrestricted. Remember the Heller case was a narrow 5 - 4 victory.

Eh, at least they're not fascists. We all know that the only good fascist is a dead one.

Edit: Don't get me wrong, I'm completely behind gun rights, but taking guns away from the people isn't a socialist act... It's a fascist one. SO MAYBE OBAMA IS A FASCIST!

 

[IronWing]

Dang, I'm having trouble keeping up. Obama is now a Marxist, Muslim, radical Christian, racist, terrorist, faux middle class, liberation theologian? All in one post? Wow, I never knew!

Incidentally, wasn't Daniel Ortega the freely elected president of Nicaragua? The one that Ronald Reagan tried to oust via violent, criminal means?

 

[AllWhacked]

Originally posted by: techs

Funny, but I heard the loans made for low income workers under the Community Reinvestment Act have turned out to be fantastically good performers with a LOWER rate of delinquincies and defaults than regular home loans. IIRC I heard it from about 5 different sources. I also heard that the HUGE bulk of the loans that are the problem were made during the last 7 years, so blame Bush.

It still doesn't change the fact that many of the defaulting loans were made to individuals who could ill afford the sub-prime mortgages they were given. This scam works so long as housing keeps going up in value, since the borrower can keep refinancing every 5 or so years, but like anything, history does not happen in a vacuum. The CRA laid the groundwork that forced lenders to make loans to high risk borrowers. Everything is fine so long as housing kept going up in value (the borrower would just keep refinancing), but it's ridiculous to think that housing can keep going up indefinitely.

Now that the housing bubble has burst, those who failed to get fixed 30 year loans are now defaulting as interest rates go up and their low interest, introductory rates expire. If you want to blame Bush, go ahead. But at least he tried to fix the problem in 2003. But his attempts were voted down by the Democrats. Of course, people will argue that it was a Republican congress and administration and therefore it's all there fault, but as we all know a minority party in the senate can hold up key legislation if it wants to. And in the case of reforming FM/FM, it was voted down strictly by party lines. The Repubs. tried to reform FM/FM 12 separate times and they were stopped. Even Clinton admitted that his attempts to reform FM/FM were blocked by those in his party.

Anyway, I'm not saying the the CRA is a bad idea. I'm just saying that the Dems keep making the argument that it was the lack of regulation that led to this mess. Yet, when regulation was proposed and pushed to fix this before it became a $200 Billion bailout of FM/FM + $700 Billion bailout of Wall Street, we got jerks like Barney Frank saying there is no problem. And now he has the gall to blame everyone but himself.

We also have Pelosi saying the Dems have no share in the blame--she literally said this when questioned about sharing responsibility in this mess. She then says there is not going to be a witch hunt to determine how we got into this mess. I bet that if this had republican finger prints on it, she would be demanding a 9/11 style hearing to investigate this, but she knows that the Democrats have played a big part in creating this mess as well as blocking attempts to fix it because of partisan politics.

Obama keeps saying its the failed economic policies of the Bush administration that caused this, but it was lefty social engineering policies that caused the sub-prime mortgage meltdown. If Bush and the republicans had had their way, perhaps we wouldn't be in this mess. Because I know for a fact that since the Democrats DID have their way, FM/FM were not regulated and as a consequence they took on more bad loans than they should have.

 

[Balt]

Originally posted by: dbk
Obama is hitting back

haha, now watch next week when Palin and McCain continue to claim that Obama is the one running a dirty, negative campaign.

 

[seemingly random]

As georgie would put it, "bring it on".

 

[First]

Everyone saw this one coming, though still nothing compared to the despicable swiftboating from 04.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: AllWhacked

Originally posted by: techs

Funny, but I heard the loans made for low income workers under the Community Reinvestment Act have turned out to be fantastically good performers with a LOWER rate of delinquincies and defaults than regular home loans. IIRC I heard it from about 5 different sources. I also heard that the HUGE bulk of the loans that are the problem were made during the last 7 years, so blame Bush.

It still doesn't change the fact that many of the defaulting loans were made to individuals who could ill afford the sub-prime mortgages they were given. This scam works so long as housing keeps going up in value, since the borrower can keep refinancing every 5 or so years, but like anything, history does not happen in a vacuum. The CRA laid the groundwork that forced lenders to make loans to high risk borrowers. Everything is fine so long as housing kept going up in value (the borrower would just keep refinancing), but it's ridiculous to think that housing can keep going up indefinitely.

Now that the housing bubble has burst, those who failed to get fixed 30 year loans are now defaulting as interest rates go up and their low interest, introductory rates expire. If you want to blame Bush, go ahead. But at least he tried to fix the problem in 2003. But his attempts were voted down by the Democrats. Of course, people will argue that it was a Republican congress and administration and therefore it's all there fault, but as we all know a minority party in the senate can hold up key legislation if it wants to. And in the case of reforming FM/FM, it was voted down strictly by party lines. The Repubs. tried to reform FM/FM 12 separate times and they were stopped. Even Clinton admitted that his attempts to reform FM/FM were blocked by those in his party.

Anyway, I'm not saying the the CRA is a bad idea. I'm just saying that the Dems keep making the argument that it was the lack of regulation that led to this mess. Yet, when regulation was proposed and pushed to fix this before it became a $200 Billion bailout of FM/FM + $700 Billion bailout of Wall Street, we got jerks like Barney Frank saying there is no problem. And now he has the gall to blame everyone but himself.

We also have Pelosi saying the Dems have no share in the blame--she literally said this when questioned about sharing responsibility in this mess. She then says there is not going to be a witch hunt to determine how we got into this mess. I bet that if this had republican finger prints on it, she would be demanding a 9/11 style hearing to investigate this, but she knows that the Democrats have played a big part in creating this mess as well as blocking attempts to fix it because of partisan politics.

Obama keeps saying its the failed economic policies of the Bush administration that caused this, but it was lefty social engineering policies that caused the sub-prime mortgage meltdown. If Bush and the republicans had had their way, perhaps we wouldn't be in this mess. Because I know for a fact that since the Democrats DID have their way, FM/FM were not regulated and as a consequence they took on more bad loans than they should have.

You have no idea whatsoever what you're talking about. More than 80% of subprime loans in recent years were non-CRA. Those that were CRA were regulated by the govt so as to be offered with attractive (non-predatory) terms. The so-called "toxic" mortgages, with adjustable rates, stated income, etc. were ALL non-CRA. No bank or lender was ever forced to do a bad loan. Period.

I read your earlier post, and let me tell you, don't be upset with McCain because he doesn't bring this or pursue this. He doesn't because it is bullshit. Nonsense race-baiting spin from the Rush Limbaugh crowd. Any seasoned mortgage professional would laugh at it, saying they did countless subprime deals in the boom and not one was CRA.

 

[Budarow]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: AllWhacked
Whoever is running McCain's campaign is retarded. The Republican base is pissed that McCain is not bringing up the Community Reinvestment Act and how the Dems blocked attempts to regulate FMae/FMac, even when it was clear something was wrong with them.

I read that the McCain campaign thinks that the argument to link the two is TOO complex and that it would turn off voters. Personally, I think going after the Ayers and Rezko linkage is even more complex and will do nothing to help him. In fact, my friends who are Democrat were shocked to learn of the CRA and now might vote Republican because of it.

Anyway, back to Obama. Even if he regularly has beers with Ayers, it's not like we expect Obama to blow up the Pentagon. Also, Ayers did this crap 30+ years ago. That's old news. No one gives a crap that he hangs with commies and terrorist A-holes! People who are already inclined to vote for Obama, will probably feel more justified for voting for him for just those same reasons.

What bothers me is that I keep hearing Biden and Obama slam the Republicans on the economy and blaming deregulation for causing this mess. While I won't blame just the Dems, because the Republicans have a hand in it too, McCain's populist bullshit response about greed in WallStreet is a lame argument that is going to lose him the election.

On the flip side to McCain's campaign being retarded, I've also heard the rumor that all this talk about going after Ayers and Rezko is secretly a ploy by McCain to pretend to attack Obama on this, while in fact attacking the Dems on their involvement in FMae/FMac. During the first debate and the VP debate, McCain and Plain never once mentioned the Community Reinvestment Act and how it drove local banks to become predatory lenders. Nor did he mention how the Bush Administration tried to reform it in 2003 or how McCain himself tried to reform it in 2005, but in both cases was blocked by the Democrats.

If you buy into his theme of country first and his promise to make famous people who add pork, etc... McCain had to hold his tongue until the bailout was passed before going on the attack (Unlike Pelosi). I noticed how the RNC finally ran a web ad linking the Dems to FM/FM right after the bailout was passed, and I found it affective. However, many in the base are fearful that McCain will disappoint us like he normally does and try to be bi-partisan. The thing about McCain's bi-partisanship credentials, is that he got that by attacking Republicans--that's why the press used to love him.

Now he's just taking his lumps and that's pissing off the base. If he doesn't change his strategy around soon, I'm going to organize as many republicans to vote 3rd party or vote Obama, so this jerk goes down in history as the next Bob Dole. In fact, I hope the vote is close (like 10 votes) and then I can say I personally screwed this guy.

Whoever is running McCain's campaign is retarded. The Republican base is pissed that McCain is not bringing up the Community Reinvestment Act and how the Dems blocked attempts to regulate FMae/FMac, even when it was clear something was wrong with them.

Funny, but I heard the loans made for low income workers under the Community Reinvestment Act have turned out to be fantastically good performers with a LOWER rate of delinquincies and defaults than regular home loans. IIRC I heard it from about 5 different sources. I also heard that the HUGE bulk of the loans that are the problem were made during the last 7 years, so blame Bush.

I spoke with a couple of acquaintances last week and both commented how all this mortgage mess started with Clinton. Funny how the guy gets all the blaim for everything no matter how many years it was since he left office.

Here's an interesting link regarding how "brokerages" were allowed via the SEC to take on more debt back in 2004. Also interesting how Henry M. Paulson Jr. was at the root of the problems when he was with Goldman Sachs and now he crafts the framework of a bill to "solve" the problem. What a joke.

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/...0/sec-deregulatio.html

Hey peeps...this problem is going to sink the stock market (even more than it has already) as well as the rest of the world's economy. If you're afraid of pulling out $$ due to losing some already and not wanting to sell "low" just in case the market turns around, protect your total investments by putting some $$ in short stocks (~10%-20%) via ETFs like QID, SRS and the like (they go up sharply when the Nasdaq100 and DOW U.S. Real Estate markets go down). I put some $$$ in last week but am loading up tomorrow. Kinda ticks me off cause I had to wait 3 business days for my brokerage account funds to settle and now I missed out on ~$10k of gains in 3 days.

Still time to make some money as we may just see DOW 6,000 within a year and I really don't think it will snap back for a LONG time. What's also strange is about 18 months ago, Bill Gross with Pimco was calling for the Dow to hit 5,000 then the front running SOB says to sell bonds and buy stocks. His early call for DOW 5,000 may be right on, but he's still a front running SOB

 

[retrospooty]

You guys all going back and forth about which side is to blame for the mortgage crisis need to just stop. Here is the truth of the matter. Its both, and its neithers fault. There are 3 main causes, and a whole slew of smaller ones.

1. Reps massivley deregulating the industry and fighting dems attempts to regulate.
2. Clinton and dems lowering standards to allow loans to less qualified borrowers.
3. The massive and unprecedented (and unforeseen) drop in housing prices.

There are your causes. Subprime loans were being gladly offered with little or no money down, because the housing prices were climbing so fast, that even if the borrower couldnt pay, they would sell the house and get their money back. Suddenly, prices dropped sharply and that parachute no longer existed. Suddenly there were loans out there that were owed more than the value of the home.

Lets stop blaming reps, and/or dems, and do what even most our totally partisaned govt. seems to have done and agree its everyone's fault.