Capt.Slog

Yes, we need clarity in presidential speech like: "There's an old saying in Tennessee I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee that says, fool me once, shame on shame on you. Fool me you can't get fooled again."

That wouldhave taken up much of his life at the time.. all the parties at the Officers club while he was defending it from the Cubans. Surely he was defending Texas from the Viet Cong. (Maybe we should have let them have it).

Sounds good to me. Why should anyone's contribution to running the country be reduced just because they want to give money to a megachurch or an art museum?

Apparently in your haste to whine you missed this part of the Constitution: Section 8 - Powers of Congress The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

I would think that freemen would be entitled to keep their personal property.The sad truth is that the US government regularly demands that we turn over our personal property without due compensation. Blues, Cliff The only personal property of mine ever demanded is tax money, and I'm compensated for that by being defended, having a police force, having roads to drive on, air traffic control to keep my flying safe, and nice parks to recreate in.

Glad you think that the murder of innocents is somehow amusing. I don't. But you have no objection to arming the shooters.

Plenty of blame to go around: The Fed, with its interest rate cuts fired up the bubble. Bush did nothing when warned and he had GOP control of both houses of Congress. Clinton signed the bill lowering regulatory standards, the investment banks VOLUNTARILY bought up the crap that Wall Street offered them, etc., etc.

Free-er than most, not so free as some. "Land of the Free" is becoming a bit of a misnomer. "Land of the mostly free" would be more accurate.

Maybe you would provide a link to explain what you're referring to. However, it is odd that the loudest whining about the stimulus comes from those who strongly supported pissing away a $Trillion or so in Iraq. Edited to add: This maybe? www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/29/eveningnews/main325985.shtml www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/620276/posts

THEN THEY SETTLED! That was about racial redlining, not about lowering standards. ***Try again. Sorry dude, I didn't realize you worked for ACORN The Key word for you is alleged, typical wording for a group of people looking to extort money from a bank. It would be nice to hear Citi Bank's response to get both sides. But, maybe its just class envy on your part, you might not be able to see that a group of people might be trying to play the system for their own benefit. A megabank settles with a community action group in a redlining suit after being forced by a judge to reveal its lending practices. THAT was Citi's response. You have not provided one iota of proof that ACORN forced any lender to change its lending standards.

Wrap the animals in bacon and bury them alive facing west. The Gitmo guards may have been guilty of cruelty and prisoner abuse, but they should be tried and convicted before going that far with them.

Yes, why bother to bring it up again? Because there are still many on this forum that want to deny it. Because it's irrelevant, as Marg and others have patiently explained. Don't you just love Marg's posts?

Those pesky facts AGAIN! PS, where do you jump?

THEN THEY SETTLED! That was about racial redlining, not about lowering standards. Try again.

The CRA was Carters deal. I'm referring to laws made in the 80/90's brought to us by Chris Dodd (who got a special "friends only" deal on his own mortgage from who else...Countrywide), Barney Frank, and their underlings in congress. These laws dictated dramatically reduced home lending standards, including such lunacy as no proof of income required, no down payment (can you say default risk?), and financing for more than 100% of the homes' value. It was an orchestrated housing bubble. In the name of "affordable housing", standards were lowered to moronic levels, lenders were "encouraged" to make the loans, and were strong-armed by ACORN and others if they tried to pass on loans they could clearly see were destined for failure. Then the government backed Fannie and Freddie with mine and some other Americans tax money to encourage lenders to continue the practice. Now Frank and Dodd blame predatory lenders for issuing the loans. Aren't they a laugh a minute? You have a remarkable talent for sticking to your theories in the face of overwhelming evidence that they are incorrect. Not one lender was FORCED to lower lending standards. They did that all by themselves, in the hope of making a big profit. Not one investor was FORCED to buy over leveraged crap. They chose to do that all by themselves in the hope of making a big profit. The lender (think investor) was Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, whose lending standards were lowered by Franklin Raines and his ilk in cooperation with Dodd and Frank in the name of "affordable housing".. Fannie and Freddie don't make decisions abpout whether or not a given individual is credit worthy. That is entirely up to the bank. Fannie and Freddie dictate the minimum lending standards for any loan they will buy (and they currently own 90% of all mortgages in the U.S). What you say is true ONLY when the bank is the lender (instead of a mortgage company) and the loan is conventional only. All VA, FHA, and other government program loans use Freddie and Fannie standards whether made by a mortgage broker or bank. Show us the data that VA, FHA etc. loans were the cause of the problems. I do not see anything in Fannie/Freddie standards that forces banks to make NINJA loans. Nor do I see anything that forces investment banks to buy securitized mortgages. Nor do I see anything that forces Moodys to rate them AAA. Nor do I see anything forcing anyone to engage in Credit Default Swaps. Try again.

Start with these two: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPSDnGMzIdo Pay particular attention starting at 1:27 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs&feature=related Fascinating, but not proof in any sense at all of what you have been claiming as the CAUSE of the current situation. Try again. Did you read the article from 1999 that I posted above? That about sums it up. No it does not. The ONLY congressional action influencing how banks loan money for housing to individual borrowers was CRA, and that has been shown definitively not be a cause of the financial shitstorm. Clicky

Start with these two: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPSDnGMzIdo Pay particular attention starting at 1:27 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs&feature=related Fascinating, but not proof in any sense at all of what you have been claiming as the CAUSE of the current situation. Try again.

Yes, why bother to bring it up again?

As they bloody well should be, having plunged the USA and the rest of the world into financial crisis. In earlier times bankers would have been hanged for the kind things they've done.

Judge not lest ye be judged. Anyone who sets themselves up to judge their fellow citizens deserves no sympathy when they do stuff like this.

Ex bankers aren't worth $10/hour. They'll just destroy your assets and demand a huge bonus.

Thats total bullshit to me... Where i live (Denmark) it is generally considered totally unacceptable to own a firearm for personal defense. And BTW... The lack of firearms in our homes doesn't make it any less safe for us. and your proof is.... Well... I know wikipedia insn't allways an exact source of information, but i think the following numbers prove my point: Homicide rates per 100,000 population by country, 2004: USA: 5.5 Denmark: 0.8 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_murder_rate No... You dont live in Denmark, but if Americans saved the money that they use on firearms, and invested it in crime fighting instead, they might be a lot safer than they are now. A high quality gun costs $500-800, with some much more, and some (shotgun) less. That doesn't pay for much crime fighting. Your wiki link proves that there is more crime in America than in Denmark. But that wasn't your claim, was it? It is a fact that if someone comes into your house with a gun, you're basically fucked. If you had a gun, you're better off. The end result is less clear - does you're having a gun at home mean bad people will too? Guns are among the favorite items stolen by people who break into houses. Maybe the gun will attract criminals and then arm them.

If you would reveal those misleading statements, we could discuss them on an issues basis. Fair enough. Never thought you'd ask! We'll just see about that! Highly speculative and highly doubtful as the NRA has made statements about this bill. It's certainly NOT "flying under the radar" and I can't in my wildest imagination believe that gun shop owners don't know about it. Or maybe the author believes that gun shop owners are illiterate, stupid, or both.

Thats total bullshit to me... Where i live (Denmark) it is generally considered totally unacceptable to own a firearm for personal defense. And BTW... The lack of firearms in our homes doesn't make it any less safe for us. So if law-abiding citizens don't have guns, doesn't that mean criminals by default are the only ones with guns? Wow - I bet those helpless law abiding Danes are being gunned down by criminals at a fantastic rate. I bet their gun homicide rate is way higher than ours.

Nope its not falling but your rights are slowly being taken away from you. More decisions are being made for you, not by you. Healthcare, retirement, schools for your kids. Obama's gun control voting record is beyond radical. His name may not be on this one but I would asure you he would support it. Do you? This may help: zapatopi.net/afdb/