Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Republican Agenda


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Republican Agenda Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Republican Agenda - 12/2/2013 4:12:54 PM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline
actually it is classed as rape...as it inserting an object into a vagina, without consent...which is what the transvaginal probes were going to be state mandated rape. And its why there has been an outcry about it. It is NOT a needed procedure unless there are issues with the fetus.
Much the same as if you chaps were mandated to have an analscope mandated
And people whine about the govmnt interfering in ones medical decisions, but apparently it doesnt matter when you are dealing with a woman who wants to not be pregnant anymore.

The new definition of rape is: “The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/attorney-general-eric-holder-announces-revisions-to-the-uniform-crime-reports-definition-of-rape
Attorney General Eric Holder Announces Revisions to the Uniform Crime Report’s Definition of Rape
Data Reported on Rape Will Better Reflect State Criminal Codes, Victim Experiences
U.S. Department of Justice
January 06, 2012

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 514-2007/TDD (202)514-1888
WASHINGTON—Attorney General Eric Holder today announced revisions to the Uniform Crime Report’s (UCR) definition of rape, which will lead to a more comprehensive statistical reporting of rape nationwide. The new definition is more inclusive, better reflects state criminal codes and focuses on the various forms of sexual penetration understood to be rape. The new definition of rape is: “The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.” The definition is used by the FBI to collect information from local law enforcement agencies about reported rapes.

“Rape is a devastating crime and we can’t solve it unless we know the full extent of it,” said Vice President Biden, a leader in the effort to end violence against women for over 20 years and author of the landmark Violence Against Women Act. “This long-awaited change to the definition of rape is a victory for women and men across the country whose suffering has gone unaccounted for over 80 years.”

“These long overdue updates to the definition of rape will help ensure justice for those whose lives have been devastated by sexual violence and reflect the Department of Justice’s commitment to standing with rape victims,” Attorney General Holder said. “This new, more inclusive definition will provide us with a more accurate understanding of the scope and volume of these crimes.”

“The FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Advisory Policy Board recently recommended the adoption of a revised definition of rape within the Summary Reporting System of the Uniform Crime Reporting Program,” said David Cuthbertson, FBI Assistant Director, CJIS Division. “This definitional change was recently approved by FBI Director Robert S. Mueller. This change will give law enforcement the ability to report more complete rape offense data, as the new definition reflects the vast majority of state rape statutes. As we implement this change, the FBI is confident that the number of victims of this heinous crime will be more accurately reflected in national crime statistics.”

The revised definition includes any gender of victim or perpetrator, and includes instances in which the victim is incapable of giving consent because of temporary or permanent mental or physical incapacity, including due to the influence of drugs or alcohol or because of age. The ability of the victim to give consent must be determined in accordance with state statute. Physical resistance from the victim is not required to demonstrate lack of consent. The new definition does not change federal or state criminal codes or impact charging and prosecution on the local level.

_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 61
RE: Republican Agenda - 12/2/2013 4:21:02 PM   
thishereboi


Posts: 14463
Joined: 6/19/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

those are ultrasounds, you do know the difference between being sodimized and having an ultrasound, right?

A transvaginal ultrasound involves a foreign object being inserted into the vagina. In these cases the woman does not desire that that object be inserted into her body. That is pretty much the definition of sodomy.

Stay tuned for more amazing and unbelievable facts.

What do you call it when an object is forcibly put into a woman's body against her will?

That's a cute dance step, but the issue here is what you call it. I made the words a pretty red for you, see?

any of various forms of sexual intercourse held to be unnatural or abnormal, especially anal intercourse or bestiality ~Houghton Mifflin
anal intercourse committed by a man with another man or a woman ~Collins
a sexual act in which a man puts his penis into another person's anus ~MacMillan
anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex; also: copulation with an animal ~Merriam Webster
the sexual act of putting the penis into another person's anus ~Cambridge

So no, a transvaginal ultrasound is not "pretty much the definition of sodomy".

Stay tuned for more amazing and unbelievable facts.

K.


such careful picking and choosing.
Sodomy
Sodomy /ˈsɒdəmi/ is generally anal sex, oral sex or sexual activity between a person and a non-human animal (bestiality), but may also include any non-procreative sexual activity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy
Any of various forms of sexual intercourse held to be unnatural or abnormal, especially anal intercourse or bestiality
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sodomy

So no it is not just anal sex. And when a women is raped with an object that is routinely called sodomized.

Why do you simply lie so much?



It is a medical procedure and no matter how much you try to spin it, it isn't sodomy. Why do you lie so much?

_____________________________

"Sweetie, you're wasting your gum" .. Albert


This here is the boi formerly known as orfunboi


(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 62
RE: Republican Agenda - 12/2/2013 4:24:25 PM   
thishereboi


Posts: 14463
Joined: 6/19/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

How is it that folks so opposed to government intrusion into health care(Obamacare),
are all warm and fuzzy about that same government inserting itself(transvaginal ultrasounds)into a woman's right to choose?



I don't feel warm and fuzzy about ultrasounds, in fact I really don't like them but at no time did I ever consider the same as sodomy. I also don't think they should be required for an abortion but that also does not make them the same as sodomy. Perhaps if he had stuck to the facts instead of trying to make it sound as awful as possible, he might have gotten a different response but I guess that's too much to ask.

_____________________________

"Sweetie, you're wasting your gum" .. Albert


This here is the boi formerly known as orfunboi


(in reply to slvemike4u)
Profile   Post #: 63
RE: Republican Agenda - 12/2/2013 4:26:04 PM   
thishereboi


Posts: 14463
Joined: 6/19/2008
Status: offline
If the patient does not consent then they won't do the procedure. Of course that also means she won't get the abortion (which is bullshit IMO) but they won't do it without the consent form signed.

_____________________________

"Sweetie, you're wasting your gum" .. Albert


This here is the boi formerly known as orfunboi


(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 64
RE: Republican Agenda - 12/2/2013 4:35:28 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

If the patient does not consent then they won't do the procedure. Of course that also means she won't get the abortion (which is bullshit IMO) but they won't do it without the consent form signed.

The woman doesn't want to have an object inserted into her body for no reason. Call it sodomy or call it rape it is still wrong. Saying "but she has to consent to it to get an abortion" is simply crap. Would you be equally sanguine if a potential employer said "you have to consent to having sex with me before I'll hire you?"

(in reply to thishereboi)
Profile   Post #: 65
RE: Republican Agenda - 12/2/2013 4:43:59 PM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

If the patient does not consent then they won't do the procedure. Of course that also means she won't get the abortion (which is bullshit IMO) but they won't do it without the consent form signed.

Being forced to sign a consent form before being forced to submit to having a long plastic rigid wand shoved up your vagina against your will and for no good medical reason doesn’t make this “consensual.” It’s unnecessary, illegal, immoral and reprehensible.

It's more than that - it’s rape.

_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to thishereboi)
Profile   Post #: 66
RE: Republican Agenda - 12/2/2013 5:07:23 PM   
thishereboi


Posts: 14463
Joined: 6/19/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

If the patient does not consent then they won't do the procedure. Of course that also means she won't get the abortion (which is bullshit IMO) but they won't do it without the consent form signed.

The woman doesn't want to have an object inserted into her body for no reason. Call it sodomy or call it rape it is still wrong. Saying "but she has to consent to it to get an abortion" is simply crap. Would you be equally sanguine if a potential employer said "you have to consent to having sex with me before I'll hire you?"



Either show me the post where I say I am ok with it or quit lying. Your choice.

_____________________________

"Sweetie, you're wasting your gum" .. Albert


This here is the boi formerly known as orfunboi


(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 67
RE: Republican Agenda - 12/2/2013 5:09:24 PM   
thishereboi


Posts: 14463
Joined: 6/19/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic


quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

If the patient does not consent then they won't do the procedure. Of course that also means she won't get the abortion (which is bullshit IMO) but they won't do it without the consent form signed.

Being forced to sign a consent form before being forced to submit to having a long plastic rigid wand shoved up your vagina against your will and for no good medical reason doesn’t make this “consensual.” It’s unnecessary, illegal, immoral and reprehensible.

It's more than that - it’s rape.



If that was true we would see doctors being arrested, but they are not because it is not. Now I agree it's unnecessary, immoral and reprehensible but it isn't illegal and it's not rape. And now because I know neither one of you will ever admit you are wrong, I am done with this discussion.

_____________________________

"Sweetie, you're wasting your gum" .. Albert


This here is the boi formerly known as orfunboi


(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 68
RE: Republican Agenda - 12/2/2013 5:27:36 PM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline
If it was mandated... it would be illegal, which is why most of them have been modified.
The original bill would have required women seeking an abortion to undergo whatever kind of ultrasound gets the best image of the embryo or fetus. In the early stages of pregnancy—when the vast majority of abortions occur—that's typically a transvaginal ultrasound, which is far more invasive than the abdominal kind (think jelly-on-the-belly). That requirement was scrapped at the eleventh hour, after a deluge of national attention. <snip>Eventually, McDonnell backtracked on his initial support, stating last week, "No person should be directed to undergo an invasive procedure by the state, without their consent, as a precondition to another medical procedure."
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/03/why-virginias-new-mandatory-ultrasound-law-still-sucks

_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to thishereboi)
Profile   Post #: 69
RE: Republican Agenda - 12/2/2013 6:41:54 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

If the patient does not consent then they won't do the procedure. Of course that also means she won't get the abortion (which is bullshit IMO) but they won't do it without the consent form signed.

The woman doesn't want to have an object inserted into her body for no reason. Call it sodomy or call it rape it is still wrong. Saying "but she has to consent to it to get an abortion" is simply crap. Would you be equally sanguine if a potential employer said "you have to consent to having sex with me before I'll hire you?"



Either show me the post where I say I am ok with it or quit lying. Your choice.

I responded to your post where you wrote it was ok because the woman had to, by law, consent to being involuntarily penetrated.

(in reply to thishereboi)
Profile   Post #: 70
RE: Republican Agenda - 12/3/2013 5:10:10 AM   
thishereboi


Posts: 14463
Joined: 6/19/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

If the patient does not consent then they won't do the procedure. Of course that also means she won't get the abortion (which is bullshit IMO) but they won't do it without the consent form signed.

The woman doesn't want to have an object inserted into her body for no reason. Call it sodomy or call it rape it is still wrong. Saying "but she has to consent to it to get an abortion" is simply crap. Would you be equally sanguine if a potential employer said "you have to consent to having sex with me before I'll hire you?"



Either show me the post where I say I am ok with it or quit lying. Your choice.

I responded to your post where you wrote it was ok because the woman had to, by law, consent to being involuntarily penetrated.


No you didn't because I never said it was ok. You did respond to the post where I called you on lying about it being sodomy but no where did I ever imply I thought the ultrasound was ok. I also mentioned that they required the women to sign a consent form before doing the procedure but again that does not mean I agree with the procedure. I guess option one was just to much to expect.

_____________________________

"Sweetie, you're wasting your gum" .. Albert


This here is the boi formerly known as orfunboi


(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 71
RE: Republican Agenda - 12/3/2013 6:14:51 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

If the patient does not consent then they won't do the procedure. Of course that also means she won't get the abortion (which is bullshit IMO) but they won't do it without the consent form signed.

The woman doesn't want to have an object inserted into her body for no reason. Call it sodomy or call it rape it is still wrong. Saying "but she has to consent to it to get an abortion" is simply crap. Would you be equally sanguine if a potential employer said "you have to consent to having sex with me before I'll hire you?"



Either show me the post where I say I am ok with it or quit lying. Your choice.

I responded to your post where you wrote it was ok because the woman had to, by law, consent to being involuntarily penetrated.


No you didn't because I never said it was ok. You did respond to the post where I called you on lying about it being sodomy but no where did I ever imply I thought the ultrasound was ok. I also mentioned that they required the women to sign a consent form before doing the procedure but again that does not mean I agree with the procedure. I guess option one was just to much to expect.

I didn't lie. It is sodomy. I even posted definitions.

You posted
quote:

If the patient does not consent then they won't do the procedure. Of course that also means she won't get the abortion (which is bullshit IMO) but they won't do it without the consent form signed.

Which is justification pure and simple. Now stop whining that you got called out on your trolling.

(in reply to thishereboi)
Profile   Post #: 72
RE: Republican Agenda - 12/3/2013 11:53:38 AM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi


quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

As brought to you by Doonesbury:

http://doonesbury.slate.com/strip






funny, when I read that comic I assumed they were slamming all politicians. Are assuming that they only meant republicans because that strip leans to the left or because you honestly believe the assholes on the left are any better than the assholes on the right.

Well when the left doesn't have the votes they understand and attempts to get them. When the right doesn't have the votes and as usual, it looks as if they will not have them for another year at least...they resort to this extortion. That's the obvious difference.

(in reply to thishereboi)
Profile   Post #: 73
RE: Republican Agenda - 12/3/2013 11:59:51 AM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

The woman doesn't want to have an object inserted into her body for no reason. Call it sodomy or call it rape it is still wrong. Saying "but she has to consent to it to get an abortion" is simply crap.

Yeah, I feel the same way every time I have to let some doctor shove a tongue depressor into my mouth. I don't care what they say the reason is, it's a very personal and disturbing intrusion to have to endure. Call it sodomy or call it rape.

K.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 74
RE: Republican Agenda - 12/3/2013 12:13:38 PM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


The Republican lack of economic oversight and regulation led to the great recession. As a party, its members have learned nothing either about economics or foreign policy. Instead of improving their ideas of government administration, they are actually doubling down on bad policies.


Bullshit.

The housing bubble was founded in policies established by under clinton - Community redevelopment act of 1993 that REQUIRED banks to make 20% of its loans subprime loans to disadvantaged minorities - knowing these loans could not be paid back.

Democratic action groups like ACORN had sit ins at Citibank, Bank of America, Chase and others - to the extent of camping on their CEO's lawn, and harassing them all hours of the day and night - demanding easier credit terms.

Mortgage lenders fannie and freddie - headed by two democrats - increased their purchases of subprime loans while increasing their contributions to democratic organizations including barry obama and Christopher Dodd, Barney Frank.

When these banks went broke on paper, TARP was instituted to float loans to these banks - and the fed quantitatevly eased giving billions of dollars to these banks every year.

After the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s more than 1170 people went to jail. This fraud - more than 3 times larger - no one has gone to jail - because they are political allies of the democratic party.




Unmitigated bull shit. Please show me how these lenders were REQUIRED to make these loans. I am not holding my breath.

Only about 2-3% of the bad loans were CRA loans anyway,so once and for all...give this shit up. There is NO legal enforcement regime for NOT making any CRA loans. A personal friend who has been in the mortgage business for well over 30 years has not made...a single fucking CRA loan in those 30 years. In that time he nor his firm as ever heard a single fucking word from the feds. How is it that such ignorant partisan tripe still gets even mentioned ?

The whole cause of the financial meltdown was regulators who instead of making $90k/yr for the feds, looked the other way on the AAA rating that shit-paper received. More typical corruption of capitalism, they wanted to go to work for the banks they didn't regulate for $300k a year.

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 75
RE: Republican Agenda - 12/3/2013 12:28:23 PM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


The Republican lack of economic oversight and regulation led to the great recession. As a party, its members have learned nothing either about economics or foreign policy. Instead of improving their ideas of government administration, they are actually doubling down on bad policies.


Bullshit.

The housing bubble was founded in policies established by under clinton - Community redevelopment act of 1993 that REQUIRED banks to make 20% of its loans subprime loans to disadvantaged minorities - knowing these loans could not be paid back.

Do you ever get tired of lying? A subprime mortgage is not a mortgage known to not be repayable. Most were. Strangely the recession was not caused by a bunch of loans issued between 1993 and 2000 going bad.

Only after W took office and the GOP controlled the whole of the federal government did these mortgage issuers start selling mortgages designed to be defaulted on. That's why the collapse occurred in 2008.



LOL.. These loans were not made originally because they did not meet the banks requirements for being a good risk. Ie., good credit score. Reasonable equity to value. Reasonable debt service margins.

And if you did *any* reading on this subject you would know that, yes, indeed, the banks knew this was a house of cards.
Jaime Dimon (sp) famously said it in hearings to congress.

The comment about "the republicans ..... mortgages to be defaulted on" is so fatuous as to not need to be further addressed.


I note that you did not dispute one iota either - that the community redevelopment was passed under clinton. That it mandated a volume of subprime loans. That democratic groups picketed banks and their ceo's. That fannie and freddie, headed by democrats increased purchases of these subprime loans.

And that these organizations overwhelmingly donated to democrats.

Nor do you dispute that there has been no criminal investigation.




Give it up man. There was no mandate to force anybody to make CRA loans. Where do you get this shit ? Fannie and Freddie have always been the taxpayer provided, central housing entitlement for investors. Where it went wrong was the again typical capitalist corruptions of a huge bonus that had already been in place and the they went out and borrowed money to buy that shit-paper.Then Raines walks with something like $30 million and a huge salary in retirement.

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 76
RE: Republican Agenda - 12/3/2013 12:34:14 PM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


The Republican lack of economic oversight and regulation led to the great recession. As a party, its members have learned nothing either about economics or foreign policy. Instead of improving their ideas of government administration, they are actually doubling down on bad policies.


Bullshit.

The housing bubble was founded in policies established by under clinton - Community redevelopment act of 1993 that REQUIRED banks to make 20% of its loans subprime loans to disadvantaged minorities - knowing these loans could not be paid back.

Do you ever get tired of lying? A subprime mortgage is not a mortgage known to not be repayable. Most were. Strangely the recession was not caused by a bunch of loans issued between 1993 and 2000 going bad.

Only after W took office and the GOP controlled the whole of the federal government did these mortgage issuers start selling mortgages designed to be defaulted on. That's why the collapse occurred in 2008.



LOL.. These loans were not made originally because they did not meet the banks requirements for being a good risk. Ie., good credit score. Reasonable equity to value. Reasonable debt service margins.

And if you did *any* reading on this subject you would know that, yes, indeed, the banks knew this was a house of cards.
Jaime Dimon (sp) famously said it in hearings to congress.

The comment about "the republicans ..... mortgages to be defaulted on" is so fatuous as to not need to be further addressed.

subprime loans were being made from 1993 to 2000. they were not being defaulted on en masse. After 2000 something changed, W was appointed, and predatory lenders destroyed the world economy.



So you agree the failed policy had its roots under clinton (1993). Good. We're starting to make progress.

So now - please tell me exactly what republican policy resulted in the mass defaults. I'm all ears.




I don't. The CRA thing as any informed person knows...is bullshit. As for real federal action that was responsible for these mortgages...look no further than the repubs and W when HE told the justice dept. to invoke an obscure 1863 law concerning the OCC and got the federal courts to STOP ALL 50 state's attorneys general to STOP enforcing state law. We can lay all of it the feet if the repubs and W. They knew exactly what was going on and made sure..it went on.

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 77
RE: Republican Agenda - 12/3/2013 12:36:54 PM   
thishereboi


Posts: 14463
Joined: 6/19/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

If the patient does not consent then they won't do the procedure. Of course that also means she won't get the abortion (which is bullshit IMO) but they won't do it without the consent form signed.

The woman doesn't want to have an object inserted into her body for no reason. Call it sodomy or call it rape it is still wrong. Saying "but she has to consent to it to get an abortion" is simply crap. Would you be equally sanguine if a potential employer said "you have to consent to having sex with me before I'll hire you?"



Either show me the post where I say I am ok with it or quit lying. Your choice.

I responded to your post where you wrote it was ok because the woman had to, by law, consent to being involuntarily penetrated.


No you didn't because I never said it was ok. You did respond to the post where I called you on lying about it being sodomy but no where did I ever imply I thought the ultrasound was ok. I also mentioned that they required the women to sign a consent form before doing the procedure but again that does not mean I agree with the procedure. I guess option one was just to much to expect.

I didn't lie. It is sodomy. I even posted definitions.

You posted
quote:

If the patient does not consent then they won't do the procedure. Of course that also means she won't get the abortion (which is bullshit IMO) but they won't do it without the consent form signed.

Which is justification pure and simple. Now stop whining that you got called out on your trolling.


How is stating a fact (they won't let her have the abortion if she doesn't consent to the MEDICAL PROCEDURE) and stating "which is bullshit IMO justifying anything. Maybe you would not sound like such a troll if you could comprehend simple english.

_____________________________

"Sweetie, you're wasting your gum" .. Albert


This here is the boi formerly known as orfunboi


(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 78
RE: Republican Agenda - 12/3/2013 12:40:41 PM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

As for "republican policies"

A proximate cause was the rise in subprime lending. The percentage of lower-quality subprime mortgages originated during a given year rose from the historical 8% or lower range to approximately 20% from 2004 to 2006, with much higher ratios in some parts of the U.S.[3][4] A high percentage of these subprime mortgages, over 90% in 2006 for example, were adjustable-rate mortgages.[5] These two changes were part of a broader trend of lowered lending standards and higher-risk mortgage products.[5][6] Further, U.S. households had become increasingly indebted, with the ratio of debt to disposable personal income rising from 77% in 1990 to 127% at the end of 2007, much of this increase mortgage-related.[7]

When U.S. home prices declined steeply after peaking in mid-2006, it became more difficult for borrowers to refinance their loans. As adjustable-rate mortgages began to reset at higher interest rates (causing higher monthly payments), mortgage delinquencies soared. Securities backed with mortgages, including subprime mortgages, widely held by financial firms globally, lost most of their value. Global investors also drastically reduced purchases of mortgage-backed debt and other securities as part of a decline in the capacity and willingness of the private financial system to support lending.[3]

etween 2004–2006 the share of subprime mortgages relative to total originations ranged from 18%–21%, versus less than 10% in 2001–2003 and during 2007.[28][29] The boom in mortgage lending, including subprime lending, was also driven by a fast expansion of non-bank independent mortgage originators which despite their smaller share (around 25 percent in 2002) in the market have contributed to around 50 percent of the increase in mortgage credit between 2003 and 2005.[30] In the third quarter of 2007, subprime ARMs making up only 6.8% of USA mortgages outstanding also accounted for 43% of the foreclosures which began during that quarter.[31]

By October 2007, approximately 16% of subprime adjustable rate mortgages (ARM) were either 90-days delinquent or the lender had begun foreclosure proceedings, roughly triple the rate of 2005.[32] By January 2008, the delinquency rate had risen to 21%[33] and by May 2008 it was 25%.[34]

According to RealtyTrac, the value of all outstanding residential mortgages, owed by U.S. households to purchase residences housing at most four families, was US$9.9 trillion as of year-end 2006, and US$10.6 trillion as of midyear 2008.[35] During 2007, lenders had begun foreclosure proceedings on nearly 1.3 million properties, a 79% increase over 2006.[36] This increased to 2.3 million in 2008, an 81% increase vs. 2007,[37] and again to 2.8 million in 2009, a 21% increase vs. 2008.[38]

By August 2008, 9.2% of all U.S. mortgages outstanding were either delinquent or in foreclosure.[39] By September 2009, this had risen to 14.4%.[40] Between August 2007 and October 2008, 936,439 USA residences completed foreclosure.[41] Foreclosures are concentrated in particular states both in terms of the number and rate of foreclosure filings.[42] Ten states accounted for 74% of the foreclosure filings during 2008; the top two (California and Florida) represented 41%. Nine states were above the national foreclosure rate average of 1.84% of households....


There are hundreds of causes: a huge run up in household debt; people using their houses as piggy banks. Shadow banks entering the mortgage markets. Moral hazard at the to big to fail banks.

But none of those are republican policies.

Please read for me the federal act that enforces the above and the penalties for violation. You will not be able to...because there is none. The CRA was entirely political and there is NO enforcement regime...NONE !!

The WHOLE CRA thing is unmitigated partisan BULLSHIT.

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 79
RE: Republican Agenda - 12/4/2013 8:41:39 PM   
mussorgsky


Posts: 44
Joined: 8/4/2011
From: Connecticut, USA
Status: offline
And this is why people like me oppose the state in, well, just about everything. Not only are they a gang of thieves and murderers, it turns out they also like rape (not a shock, especially not to anyone who understands what government actually does and/or hears the stories of police raping/sexually assaulting people).

_____________________________

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Also...
Semper ubi sub ubi - because not all Latin phrases need to mean something serious

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 80
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Republican Agenda Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.141