RE: What qualifies Hilary to govern?

RE: What qualifies Hilary to govern? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

MasterJaguar01 -> RE: What qualifies Hilary to govern? (6/8/2015 8:59:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity quote: ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 Clearly, at least IMHO, Obama and Holder were pandering to African Americans. (I mean, it kind of seems obvious?) Not unlike the Executive amnesty to illegal immigrants. "Pandering" isnt the correct word, when we are observing the president and the justice department siding with violent racists At least I would hope that the majority of blacks wouldnt approve of that Well, I used "pandering". I do not know that they "sided" with violent racists. As you are probably aware, it is HARD to make a federal case. You have to prove civil rights were violated. If you can't, then it is a local police matter. Something tells me that Holder didn't try that hard.

Sanity -> RE: What qualifies Hilary to govern? (6/8/2015 9:23:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 Something tells me that Holder didn't try that hard. No he didnt, which makes him complicit my book. Black, browm, white, yellow or red, it was his job to come down hard on that kind of behavior, and likely due to their skin color he didnt do his job While you didnt come all the way over to where I stand on this you did acknowledge that you see a problem This is why I consider you one of the most reasonable forum members on your side of the aisle, if not the most reasonable. Your posts dont degenerate into fallacies in a knee-jerk fashion like so many of the others do, and you tend to leave the Kool-Aid on the table if its got that certain odd taste to it I appreciate that, and I respect that about you.

BamaD -> RE: What qualifies Hilary to govern? (6/8/2015 9:27:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Could it be that Hillary could be stirring up racial tension to get votes? Dear sweet Hillary? Could be (IS :)) I definitely support her calling BS on election rigging, but she is playing it for political gain. Not unlike Rand Paul's stand on the Patriot Act. Sure, I agree with him. But then he goes out and fund raises on it! Yep Paul takes a good stand and should hide that fact from his supporters.

BamaD -> RE: What qualifies Hilary to govern? (6/8/2015 9:28:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity quote: ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 Clearly, at least IMHO, Obama and Holder were pandering to African Americans. (I mean, it kind of seems obvious?) Not unlike the Executive amnesty to illegal immigrants. "Pandering" isnt the correct word, when we are observing the president and the justice department siding with violent racists At least I would hope that the majority of blacks wouldnt approve of that Well, I used "pandering". I do not know that they "sided" with violent racists. As you are probably aware, it is HARD to make a federal case. You have to prove civil rights were violated. If you can't, then it is a local police matter. Something tells me that Holder didn't try that hard. They had them on tape threatening whites and known black conservatives, Barney Fife could have made that case.

Sanity -> RE: What qualifies Hilary to govern? (6/8/2015 9:37:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Yep Paul takes a good stand and should hide that fact from his supporters. If he feels it is something positive that sets him apart from the crowd, why shouldnt he emphasize that (Oh yeah, because he is a conservative) (Doesnt Hillary and Barack fund-raise on such things?)

MasterJaguar01 -> RE: What qualifies Hilary to govern? (6/8/2015 9:49:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity quote: ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 Something tells me that Holder didn't try that hard. No he didnt, which makes him complicit my book. Black, browm, white, yellow or red, it was his job to come down hard on that kind of behavior, and likely due to their skin color he didnt do his job While you didnt come all the way over to where I stand on this you did acknowledge that you see a problem This is why I consider you one of the most reasonable forum members on your side of the aisle, if not the most reasonable. Your posts dont degenerate into fallacies in a knee-jerk fashion like so many of the others do, and you tend to leave the Kool-Aid on the table if its got that certain odd taste to it I appreciate that, and I respect that about you. I appreciate your comments. Although, I stand IN the aisle, rather than on a side of it. I call B.S. on Republicans when I see it. I call B.S. on Democrats when I see it. Yes, you can accuse me of having "filtered" news, but I see more B.S. and incompetence on the Republican side (I said Republican, not Conservative), and more plain old incompetence on the Democrat side. (Ya know how we can be bold? Let's adopt the metric system!) (sorry, couldn't resist) (Yes there is B.S. on the Democrat side too!) In this case, I see it as combined B.S. AND incompetence on the Democrat side. (Actually, that about sums up Hilary: B.S. AND incompetence) I agree with DS. I wish we could be more united, and simply call B.S. on either side when we see it, AND recognize GOOD ideas, regardless of from which party they came.

MrRodgers -> RE: What qualifies Hilary to govern? (6/8/2015 11:13:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HunterCA Dear MR, What???? Someone else just linked, as opposed to you saying with no link, that Bush raised the required loan rate for CRA type loans from 40% mandatory under Clinton to 55%. Which was discussed and determined Bush figured out it was a bad banking scheme and changed. Now you're reporting, with no links, it was just 5% of loans. What???? Sorry dude, your facts have been found hyperbole and wanting. Give it a good commie try in another thread. CRA loans were never a requirement in law or of any GSE's. There was no enforcement mechanism if ANY mortgage lender didn't make ANY CRA loans...i.e,, never mandatory at all. The 5% figure was the highest est. of ALL possible CRA loans that failed and most said 2-3%. This is exemplified by the FACT that a personal friend of mine who owns a mortgage co. for over 30 years, NEVER ever made a single CRA loan and never heard a word from the feds. And who BTW, never had a foreclosure. You are barking up the wrong tree when using any CRA loans as in any way having anything whatever to do with the meltdown as has been determined by many 3rd party studies and the attempt is as I wrote...grasping at straws to find ANY way to target the blame away from the scum on wall street and a few large mortgage cos. and to shift the blame to left wing or dem policies. Again, not even nice try. I have linked the above in more than one thread. I invite you to prove me wrong.

MrRodgers -> RE: What qualifies Hilary to govern? (6/9/2015 12:21:36 AM)
"The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA, P.L. 95-128, 91 Stat. 1147, title VIII of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1977, 12 U.S.C. § 2901 et seq.) is a United States federal law designed to encourage commercial banks and savings associations to help meet the needs of borrowers in all segments of their communities, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. Congress passed the Act in 1977 to reduce discriminatory credit practices against low-income neighborhoods, a practice known as redlining." How is it that it took over 25 years to only then be THE cause of a mortgage meltdown ? Grasping at straws. "The Act instructs the appropriate federal financial supervisory agencies to encourage regulated financial institutions to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered, consistent with safe and sound operation (Section 802.) To enforce the statute, federal regulatory agencies examine banking institutions for CRA compliance, and take this information into consideration when approving applications for new bank branches or for mergers or acquisitions." Wiki HERE A failure to be encouraged...is not a violation of this law.

MasterJaguar01 -> RE: What qualifies Hilary to govern? (6/9/2015 5:46:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers "The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA, P.L. 95-128, 91 Stat. 1147, title VIII of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1977, 12 U.S.C. § 2901 et seq.) is a United States federal law designed to encourage commercial banks and savings associations to help meet the needs of borrowers in all segments of their communities, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. Congress passed the Act in 1977 to reduce discriminatory credit practices against low-income neighborhoods, a practice known as redlining." How is it that it took over 25 years to only then be THE cause of a mortgage meltdown ? Grasping at straws. "The Act instructs the appropriate federal financial supervisory agencies to encourage regulated financial institutions to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered, consistent with safe and sound operation (Section 802.) To enforce the statute, federal regulatory agencies examine banking institutions for CRA compliance, and take this information into consideration when approving applications for new bank branches or for mergers or acquisitions." Wiki HERE A failure to be encouraged...is not a violation of this law. Excellent point. However, whether encouraged, or mandated, or something in-between, the loans were flowing like a river (and increased under Bush). "Bush figured out it was bad banking scheme"? Says who? The banks were making billions wrapping these loans in bad paper. Henry Paulson (Bush's Goldman Sachs guy (form GS CEO, no less) was protecting the banks.

DesideriScuri -> RE: What qualifies Hilary to govern? (6/9/2015 5:50:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers "The Act instructs the appropriate federal financial supervisory agencies to encourage regulated financial institutions to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered, consistent with safe and sound operation (Section 802.) To enforce the statute, federal regulatory agencies examine banking institutions for CRA compliance, and take this information into consideration when approving applications for new bank branches or for mergers or acquisitions." Wiki HERE A failure to be encouraged...is not a violation of this law. I wonder if the Federal financial supervisory agencies encourage like the IRS encourages people to pay their taxes. [8\|]

HunterCA -> RE: What qualifies Hilary to govern? (6/9/2015 6:17:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity quote: ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 Clearly, at least IMHO, Obama and Holder were pandering to African Americans. (I mean, it kind of seems obvious?) Not unlike the Executive amnesty to illegal immigrants. "Pandering" isnt the correct word, when we are observing the president and the justice department siding with violent racists At least I would hope that the majority of blacks wouldnt approve of that Well, I used "pandering". I do not know that they "sided" with violent racists. As you are probably aware, it is HARD to make a federal case. You have to prove civil rights were violated. If you can't, then it is a local police matter. Something tells me that Holder didn't try that hard. Nope, wrong yet one more time. The Bush Administration already had guilty verdicts. Holder dropped it after that.

HunterCA -> RE: What qualifies Hilary to govern? (6/9/2015 6:20:46 AM)
I quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: HunterCA Dear MR, What???? Someone else just linked, as opposed to you saying with no link, that Bush raised the required loan rate for CRA type loans from 40% mandatory under Clinton to 55%. Which was discussed and determined Bush figured out it was a bad banking scheme and changed. Now you're reporting, with no links, it was just 5% of loans. What???? Sorry dude, your facts have been found hyperbole and wanting. Give it a good commie try in another thread. CRA loans were never a requirement in law or of any GSE's. There was no enforcement mechanism if ANY mortgage lender didn't make ANY CRA loans...i.e,, never mandatory at all. The 5% figure was the highest est. of ALL possible CRA loans that failed and most said 2-3%. This is exemplified by the FACT that a personal friend of mine who owns a mortgage co. for over 30 years, NEVER ever made a single CRA loan and never heard a word from the feds. And who BTW, never had a foreclosure. You are barking up the wrong tree when using any CRA loans as in any way having anything whatever to do with the meltdown as has been determined by many 3rd party studies and the attempt is as I wrote...grasping at straws to find ANY way to target the blame away from the scum on wall street and a few large mortgage cos. and to shift the blame to left wing or dem policies. Again, not even nice try. I have linked the above in more than one thread. I invite you to prove me wrong. http://commonsensewonder.blogspot.com/2011/10/remember-janet-reno-threatening-banks.html

HunterCA -> RE: What qualifies Hilary to govern? (6/9/2015 6:23:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers "The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA, P.L. 95-128, 91 Stat. 1147, title VIII of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1977, 12 U.S.C. § 2901 et seq.) is a United States federal law designed to encourage commercial banks and savings associations to help meet the needs of borrowers in all segments of their communities, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. Congress passed the Act in 1977 to reduce discriminatory credit practices against low-income neighborhoods, a practice known as redlining." How is it that it took over 25 years to only then be THE cause of a mortgage meltdown ? Grasping at straws. "The Act instructs the appropriate federal financial supervisory agencies to encourage regulated financial institutions to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered, consistent with safe and sound operation (Section 802.) To enforce the statute, federal regulatory agencies examine banking institutions for CRA compliance, and take this information into consideration when approving applications for new bank branches or for mergers or acquisitions." Wiki HERE A failure to be encouraged...is not a violation of this law. Excellent point. However, whether encouraged, or mandated, or something in-between, the loans were flowing like a river (and increased under Bush). "Bush figured out it was bad banking scheme"? Says who? The banks were making billions wrapping these loans in bad paper. Henry Paulson (Bush's Goldman Sachs guy (form GS CEO, no less) was protecting the banks. Yesssss. There there. It was all Bush's fault. Don't let me upset your worldview with facts. Opps. http://sweetness-light.com/archive/bush-mccain-tried-to-reform-housing-finance

HunterCA -> RE: What qualifies Hilary to govern? (6/9/2015 7:06:58 AM)
http://www.wnd.com/2015/06/hillarys-plans-to-stuff-the-ballot-box/ quote: Hillary’s commitment to voting by “every citizen” is belied by her earlier promise to “go even further” than Obama on amnesty for illegal immigrants. By “go even further,” she explained, she would include all 11-plus million (not just Obama’s 5 million), and she would give them full citizenship with voting rights, not just “legal status” with permission to work.

mnottertail -> RE: What qualifies Hilary to govern? (6/9/2015 7:26:08 AM)
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/12/20031216-9.html http://www.businessinsider.com/the-cra-debate-a-users-guide-2009-6 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63odt264pR8 Sure enough, according to data published by the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, from 2001 through 2006, the share of all mortgage originations that were made up of conventional mortgages (that is, the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage that had always been the mainstay of the U.S. mortgage market) fell from 57.1 percent in 2001 to 33.1 percent in the fourth quarter of 2006. Correspondingly, sub-prime loans (those made to borrowers with blemished credit) rose from 7.2 percent to 18.8 percent, and Alt-A loans (those made to speculative buyers or without the usual underwriting standards) rose from 2.5 percent to 13.9 percent. Although it is difficult to prove cause and effect, it is highly likely that the lower lending standards required by the CRA influenced what banks and other lenders were willing to offer to borrowers in prime markets. Needless to say, most borrowers would prefer a mortgage with a low down payment requirement, allowing them to buy a larger home for the same initial investment. Read more at http://spectator.org/articles/42211/true-origins-financial-crisis So................................................

bounty44 -> RE: What qualifies Hilary to govern? (6/9/2015 9:28:34 AM)
this from the article: quote: That’s no surprise because, according to a recent Rasmussen survey, a majority (53 percent) of Democrats believe that non-citizens, including even illegal immigrants, should be allowed to vote. amazing...

HunterCA -> RE: What qualifies Hilary to govern? (6/9/2015 9:30:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 this from the article: quote: That’s no surprise because, according to a recent Rasmussen survey, a majority (53 percent) of Democrats believe that non-citizens, including even illegal immigrants, should be allowed to vote. amazing... Well, it certainly blows MJ's theories. It shows that to most democrats the only thing important is power. They have no moral imperative. To them all ethics and morals are relative. The only important thing is power.

mnottertail -> RE: What qualifies Hilary to govern? (6/9/2015 10:56:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 this from the article: quote: That’s no surprise because, according to a recent Rasmussen survey, a majority (53 percent) of Democrats believe that non-citizens, including even illegal immigrants, should be allowed to vote. amazing... It is rarmussen, which is to say total shitbreathing with no actual anything behind it. Just amazing that feeble minded people are taken in again and again like you are.

DesideriScuri -> RE: What qualifies Hilary to govern? (6/9/2015 2:12:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HunterCA quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 this from the article: quote: That’s no surprise because, according to a recent Rasmussen survey, a majority (53 percent) of Democrats believe that non-citizens, including even illegal immigrants, should be allowed to vote. amazing... Well, it certainly blows MJ's theories. It shows that to most democrats the only thing important is power. They have no moral imperative. To them all ethics and morals are relative. The only important thing is power. It might not just be power, but it's certainly a demonstration of their will to rewrite the Constitution any way they can.

mnottertail -> RE: What qualifies Hilary to govern? (6/9/2015 2:18:04 PM)
Ethics from rightwing shiteaters? Never gonna happen. http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/george_w_bush_s_compassionate_conservatism_charging_100_000_to_speak_at_homeless_shelter

Page: << < prev 13 14 [15] 16 17 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875