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

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

Something tells me that Holder didn't try that hard.

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!

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Yep Paul takes a good stand and should hide that fact from his supporters.

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.

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.

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.

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.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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...

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.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)