OOTT://In case it is important to you.

Page 7 of 9  
[schnipferred]

But FIRST! . . . snow
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Robatoy" wrote:
But FIRST! . . . snow
And ICE
And ROAD SALT
And RUST
And SHORT DAYS
And JUST PLAIN CRAP.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
jo4hn wrote:

Please explain how there is anything at all slanted in the depiction of the facts that actually happened: the victim of an abortion survived that abortion and was left to die in a closet -- according to the whistle blower (people on your side of the aisle usually love whistle-blowers, howcome not this one?), this happened more than just once.
Good Lord! Don't you realize what you are defending here? Usually, the excuse of the left for over-reaching regulation is the limp argument, "if even one life is saved, the abrogation of freedom is worth it". Why isn't that argument being applied here? ... and the excuses your candidate offered for opposing that legislation, words to the effect of not wanting to second guess the decision of the woman and the doctor to terminate the pregnancy (ain't that such an wonderful euphemism for "kill a fetus"?) even when that fetus stubbornly refused to be killed, survived the abortion procedure and became a born baby.
... and thank you so much for your concern about your concern for my life of quiet desperation or "fear and trembling". I'm quite happy and have been very blessed, I do fear for my country though when its citizens can actually make excuses for such barbaric practices, particularly when the purpose for making those excuses is to make sure that nothing interferes with getting their candidate of choice elected.
Oh, and speaking of the excuses to get their candidate elected, where is the outrage in the media over the Tim Mahoney (D-FL) sex scandal? You know, the one where a congressman paid off his mistress and the Democrat leadership "sternly lectured" him on proper behavior. Seems like 2 years ago, a certain Republican congressman was forced to resign over much less and the 24/7 coverage led to the election of the Dem majority. Where's the coverage? The same template is present only on steroids -- blackmail, hush money, House leadership involved in covering it up? Nope, no bias here.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Bad pick....can't use the term abortion, not when "choice" is available.....see how much softer "choice" runs off the tongue than those other mean nasty terms like infanticide or abortion.....double speak is pretty much required for appropriately broad appeal. Rod
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Larry Blanchard wrote:

What else would you call leaving a born-alive infant left to die in a closet after a "botched" abortion? That was the subject of the legislation. That legislation was brought into consideration because these situations actually happened. You can call it what you want, but the fact that the victim of that "legal and safe abortion" could have survived had medical care been given doesn't leave a whole lot of wiggle room to call it anything other than infanticide.

Yeah, I know, the ugliness of the truth hurts that feel-good feeling about the "right to choose", doesn't it?

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
t wrote:

I used *exactly* the term I meant with full intention. Obama is a Marxist with a Leninist patina. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 19:20:15 -0500, Tim Daneliuk

I note that, as it was with the previous posting, you do not respond argument per argument but with a turn of phrase.
That truly demonstrates a position that has been given up.
Be an honorable man, Tim, and respond point by point.
tom watson
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
t wrote:

Marx favored the collective as an economic and social mechanism as a theoretical and intellectual matter.
Lenin gave it legs.
Obama is a collectivist in every sense of the word. He too wants to give Marxist ideals legs almost two decades after we swatted it to death elsewhere. He believes in the interest of the collective over the group. He is willing to collectivize significant aspects of the American landscape, starting with healthcare. He's already gone on record in support of the currently-underway collectivization of US banking (he is not alone in this, but this doesn't make him a saint).
He is willing to use the force of government to move wealth from those who have earned it to those who have not. He fundamentally believes in he right of government to intrude in all aspects of the private sector to dictate how companies should hire and fire and with whom and on what terms business is to be conduct.
If he were even slightly honest, Obama would acknowledge his radical progressive/liberal roots and admit that, at his core, he absolutely embraces "From each according to his abilities, to each according to their needs".
Is he overtly/declaratively a Marxist? No, only because he is either dishonest or stupid... and I don't think he's stupid. He comes from a community of radical collectivists, sings their tune, and dances their dance. When you live in a sewer you come out smelling like feces. The Obama camp reeks.
BTW, my honor is not in question. Your integrity is. I defend letting people alone, not interfering in their lives, money, or practices except when they demonstrate fraud, force, or threat. This is a pretty honorable position. You, OTOH, wring you hands in fear and loathing that free people should actually be allowed to be free. You defend one of the most evident political scoundrels of the past 20 years. You defend intervention in the private sector by government force because its suits your gooey social and political agenda. But you're never quite honest enough to admit that this is all conducted under threat of force - the force of government making it so. I want a free country - that means leaving *everyone* alone to do as they wish up to the limits of fraud/force/threat. You want a country where you and your gang of social engineers can use the thugs in government to jam your agenda down everyone's throat... Yeah, it's my honor that's the problem ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9KlQPX1qiE

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
t wrote:

A marvelous reference ... but Obama - while sharing the moral infirmity and duplicity of our fine Captain - could never pull off the role - notwithstanding his fine acting skills.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
jo4hn wrote:

Come to Canada, we vote Tuesday, the whole electoral process takes six weeks, but you have to see our choices this time around. Damn the two main candidates are diametrically opposed, one you can't trust what he says, and the other you can't understand what he says.
/me thumps head on workbench
--
Froz...

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"jo4hn" wrote:

Careful or you will raise the bar too high.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
jo4hn wrote:

But why would anyone like that _want_ the job?
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

LOL. I cannot find a glimmer of understanding why ANY sane person would want the job, period. Great for the ego at the start, with continuing deterioration over four or eight years, to the point where a total destruction of self esteem is possible...of course, the bucks after aren't bad. Ol' Ronnie started the modern flow, selling himself to the Japanese for five million bucks.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It's not so much a revelation as bullshit. The problems with subprime were not caused by the borrowers aimed at by Carter, but by lenders who over-valued houses and allowed people who obviously didn't have the means to buy immense houses. Almost wrote homes, but damned few of those places are homes or ever will be. The original act was aimed at allowing poorer borrowers a shot at the market. What happened was that lenders saw far more money in letting better off, but not better off enough, borrowers to grab mortgages beyond their means. Short term profits were immense. Now, you and I get to pay for that.
It really has little to do with political parties. There is sufficient shame and blame to go around.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

One may think of this revelation as bullshit, but it is "God's own truth". What we have here is probably an immutable law best paraphrased by Robbie Burns: The best laid plans of mice and men gang oft aglee.
What Carter signed and Clinton amended was never intended to come out the way it did (at least I hope they didn't).

I agree that the above statement defines what the acts were intended to address and I further agree that the following is exactly what happened. Just goes to show what immense greed can do for one. Those who could not afford one got a mansion they could not pay for and those who could jerrymandered the acts to gain unacceptable wealth to which I feel they were not due. Simple unadulterated GREED.

While I agree that there is sufficient blame to go arround, it still stands that the congress was and is controlled by the democrats who seem to be staying as far away from any ownership thereof as is possible. Must be they are cognizant of the biblical entreaty to "Let he who is without blame .....".
To quote Arte Johnson: Verrrrrrry Interrrrresting. And very dumb.
P D Q
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Charlie Self wrote:

Wrong. Forcing banks to lend money to people whose source of "income" is welfare is plainly insane. This contributed mightily to the unhinging of Freddy & Fannie. That fact that it is not the *only* reason we currently have a mess doesn't mean it wasn't a huge part of the underlying problem - it was.

Wrong. People who borrow money are assumed to be grown ups. When they are irresponsible, it is *their* fault. Only if someone can demonstrate that there was fraud or force (or threat) would the lender be morally/ethically on the hook. So far, no one has done so. Another major underpinning of the current mess: The greed and immense foolishness of borrowers.

It was a moral travesty then, it still is today. They did not *earn* the homes they got. Their "purchase" was built on stealing money from their fellow citizens, however indirectly.

Encouraged by a federal government with immense debts that was depressing interest rates to irrational levels to try and make its debt problem better. This cheap money made many people dive into highly risk leverage positions in their personal lives. This mess that you and I get to pay for starts and ends with government spending that is out of control - well over 50% of which is for *social entitlements* (like "helping" the poor buy homes they cannot afford by stealing the money from people who have it).

That's right - it begins/ends with a greedy and stupid population that wants what it has not earned, blames people of wealth and goes after them to steal their money. The end game of all irrational evil of this sort is ... evil results.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 17:08:45 -0700 (PDT), Charlie Self

Yes. The original intent of the Carter era legislation was an honorable one. It was aimed directly at the process of "Redlining" that was prevalent at the time and which excluded housing purchases in depressed areas without regard to the borrower's qualifications.
According to the Federal Reserve website the lending institutions were specifically precluded from making unsafe loans:
"The Community Reinvestment Act is intended to encourage depository institutions to help meet the credit needs of the communities in which they operate, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, consistent with safe and sound operations. It was enacted by the Congress in 1977 (12 U.S.C. 2901) and is implemented by Regulation BB (12 CFR 228). The regulation was substantially revised in May 1995, and was most recently amended in August 2005. Evaluation of CRA Performance The CRA requires that each depository institution's record in helping meet the credit needs of its entire community be evaluated periodically. That record is taken into account in considering an institution's application for deposit facilities.
Neither the CRA nor its implementing regulation gives specific criteria for rating the performance of depository institutions. Rather, the law indicates that the evaluation process should accommodate an institution's individual circumstances. Nor does the law require institutions to make high-risk loans that jeopardize their safety. To the contrary, the law makes it clear that an institution's CRA activities should be undertaken in a safe and sound manner."
http://www.federalreserve.gov/dcca/cra /
It is typical of the current adversarial environment that reality is not merely ignored but is vociferously denied.
tom watson
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
t wrote:

No it wasn't. It is based on theft to move money from those who are productive to those who are not. It is immoral.

Redlining was a very reasonable process that prevented people who were incapable of repaying a loan from ever being offered one.

It is typical of today's politically correct rewriting of history to ignore the fact that the CRA - as ammended by Clinton is one of the (but not the entire) reasons we are in trouble economically in the West.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 22:03:58 -0500, Tim Daneliuk

Do you even know what "Redlining" was about and how pernicious it was?

You demonstrate your Fascist tendencies. This is interesting, given your background.

Read more and try to understand more. In a more general sense, take your ass whipping and go home.
You responded poorly to the message in general and you ignored those areas that did not fit your view.
A shabby performance, sir.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.