1712 replies to this topic

[StrykerGamer]

i think you just bought into obama's propaganda there

why don't you read about the community reinvestment act... passed by carter, strengthened by clinton, and then later kept alive by democrats in congress *cough obama*

Propaganda? I'm not the one making ridiculous claims about a presidential candidate turning America into a socialist country. It sounds like someone got into st1dinoh's head using fear (a form a propaganda). I also didn't say that democrats like Carter and Clinton shouldn't be blamed partly for the state of things today. Of course, there are a bunch of people who messed up. But you forgot to mention that there were Republicans that kept the CRA alive as well. That's partly why the proposal to change it failed. This is all in the link you sent me.

lulwut?

so i should completely ignore all his socialist, communist, marxist, radical left leaning ties and just concentrate on what he wants me to hear?

are you fucking serious?

thats like saying the guy beating you all about the face and neck with a baseball bat likes you because he's saying "i like you, i like you a lot" as he bludgeons you to death.

you can't possibly be this naive.

rather than listen to the bullshit politicians spew you should try actually looking into thier record and who they collude with. just because someone can read a teleprompter doesn't mean the shit he's reading off of it is the truth.

Holy shit.

i'm looking at the obvious, which the media and the maobama campaign is trying desperatly to hide.

a person like myself, armed with the facts about maobama, gets labeled a redneck or a racist by these idiots.

it's funny how just because i don't like a guy who hangs with racists, terrorists, criminals, communists, and socialists i'm somehow narrow minded because the guy happens to be part black. i don't give a fuck what color he is he's still a massive pile of shit and i don't see how anyone armed with the facts could possibly consider voting for him.

Did I call you racist? No reason to bring this up. You really are just trying to find any place you can to throw out your anger. Seriously, I'm not being mean. It's the truth.

you have no fucking clue what you are talking about. the problem is there should be no regulation, as in the governments role in business should be to get the fuck out of the way and create an environment that encourages growth. thats what this country was founded on, see: the constitution.

the "fix" was "bi-partisan...yes, but the problem is 99.9 percent democrat bro.

as confrico just told you (great post btw) carter started this whole shit cyclone years ago with the "community reinvestment act". the result has been ever increasing pressure by democrats in the house and the senate to provide "affordable housing".

in this case, "affordable housing" was lingo for risky loans to people with shit credit. thier reasoning was that it was racist to deny a minority a loan for a home even if their credit was shit. so the banks started to buy up these fannie and freddie loans, taking the secured risk all on the backs of the taxpayer.

when the housing market and the economy "adjusted" people started to loose their jobs and their homes.

bottom line is if someone's credit is shit, banks shouldn't be forced to loan them money by the federal government...

There shouldn't be regulation in business?
I hope you realize that Capitalism has a real ugly side to it. When the economy is doing well, it's fine. But when things aren't doing so well... Look around you. Look at gas prices, st1dinoh. Do you really think they'd be like this if the government did anything? The government has to step in somewhere. If you're really just gonna be blind about this, I don't know what to say. Maybe try reading Grapes of Wrath, and get back to me.

let me explain it to you in a way i hope you can understand.

lets say you have a bunch of extra money and someone you know asks you to borrow, lets say, a hundred bucks.

before you say yes or no you would naturaly weigh this risk against several factors...

-does this person have a job?
-has he borrowed money in the past, and if so, has he re-payed his debts?
-does he have many outstanding debts?
-does he have anything to put up for colateral...like a personal possession of his you can hold on to for insurance

...

so lets say you look over all the criteria and you decide that this guy has no job, never pays back any of his loans, owes a shit ton of people money, and doesn't have anything to offer you up for colateral...

you tell him to go get fucked right?

well here is where the federal government steps in and calls you a racist, and forces you to loan him the money.

how the fuck is that fair?

now once word gets out that you are being forced to loan money, every hood rat in the country is hitting you up for money, and despite your better judgement, you are forced to loan all of them all your money.

this is what the dems in congress have been doing for 30 some years...forcing banks to make risky loans, backed by freddie and fannie...but when all the banks started getting stiffed there wasn't enough money to pay them back...

because there was far too many loans being given.

if you are in the loan busines you are in it to make money.

you put up your cash, they re-pay you over time much more than you fronted them.

the idea being that you will no doubt get stiffed every now and then, but the proffit you made off the good loans will cover your losses and still keep you in business.

the fed forced banks to make tons of risky loans.

you and i shouldn't have to pay for a failed socialist program.

A way you hope I can understand? Damn, this is so stupid. I really don't want to have to reply to every comment you make, because this is already a really nasty thread. So I'm not gonna say anything about that.

i don't watch "fox news" i pay attention to facts...

notice you couldn't come up with a single rebuttal to any of the facts i listed in my post, you just start parrotting some bullshit about fox news...

something you should know...

fox leans to the right, but every single other source of "news" out there (abc, cbs, nbc, msnbc, cnn, the times, the post, the blogs...) ARE ALL LIBERAL AS FUCK.

don't take my word for it, just pay attention, allthe other channels ever say is MAOBAMA GOOD MCCAIN BAD.

the media in this country is trying to get maobama elected, at least fox is up front about pulling for mccain, the rest of the media hacks act like they are objective when they most certianly are not.

Two of your pictures were from FOX. I was just telling you. As far as making rebuttals to your facts, it was mostly just "proof" that Obama is a Marxist, Communist, Socialist, etc. What the fuck do you want me to say? Oh, and the one about him not pledging to the flag. Well, I don't understand why he chose not to say the Pledge, but I really don't give a fuck. You're probably going to laugh at me for that, but I don't care. Seriously, he should have pledged, as he must have offended people, but as for me... it's just the Pledge. There are bigger problems in the world that need to be fixed.
I realize that most news channels are liberal, but FOX takes the cake as far as bias goes. I wouldn't call CNN "liberal as fuck". They just tend to lean toward the Democratic party a bit more. FOX is the one saying "MCCAIN GOOD" and "OBAMA BAD". I know this because I watch FOX from time to time. I just don't take everything they say as fact. Nor do I do that with any other news network.

I'm sorry, st1dinoh, but you are freaking out. Not only that, but you've offended me on multiple accounts. It's just childish. Listen, I like McCain. I also think Obama wouldn't do a bad job. Anything is better than our current president, tbh. Fuck, I can't believe I'm saying this, but I wouldn't even mind Hilary Clinton being president. I just don't like it when people are so extreme for one side. It's annoying.

[TubularLuggage]

this...

The problem, like I've said before. Isn't so much that Obama or Mccain are bad, it's that their parties in the congress are bad. On the whole, the democratic party will spend more money with a democratic president than the republican party will spend with a republican president.

That's why obama is dangerous. People need to understand that. I honestly think I am more qualified to make laws than Nancy.

The Democrats used to be bigger spenders by far. Then the Republicans got into spending a retardedly excessive amount of money on defense from Reagan on. Both are huge spenders now, making neither the Democrats or Republicans viable for fiscal conservatives.

I always thought the opposite. Democrats are on the far left and these new age Republicans are moving further from the right to the left, especially when it comes to economics. Calling the Republican party "conservative" is kind of a joke these days.

Socially, the Democrats are almost as far right as the Conservative party of Canada.

[way2lazy2care]

The Democrats used to be bigger spenders by far. Then the Republicans got into spending a retardedly excessive amount of money on defense from Reagan on. Both are huge spenders now, making neither the Democrats or Republicans viable for fiscal conservatives.

I know they spent a lot of stuff on defense, but I really would rather it be spent on that than a lot of the stuff democrats want to spend it on. Things that benefit everyone equally are good for the most part.

[Master C]

If your gonna support a government who who will suppposedly support the "defense" of you, you might as well support their attempts to keep you healthy. God knows it costs about as much with far less supidity or propaganda.

[TubularLuggage]

I know they spent a lot of stuff on defense, but I really would rather it be spent on that than a lot of the stuff democrats want to spend it on. Things that benefit everyone equally are good for the most part.

More defense spending led to even more interventionist foreign policy, which made the country less secure in the long run.
Also, how does defense funding directly help more Americans than health care?

[way2lazy2care]

More defense spending led to even more interventionist foreign policy, which made the country less secure in the long run.
Also, how does defense funding directly help more Americans than health care?

a lot of americans have health care already. I don't think many of us pay a privately owned military to protect us over the US armed forces.

[confrico]

there really is no satisfying way to defend US military spending. but as long as the US is going to play the world's swat team, spending is going to be high.

[TubularLuggage]

there really is no satisfying way to defend US military spending. but as long as the US is going to play the world's swat team, spending is going to be high.

Then they should stop playing the world's swat team and adopt a non-interventionist foreign policy.

[way2lazy2care]

snip

I saw this floating through the intertubes and thought of you...

"I believe the best social program is a job." - Ronald Reagan

[confrico]

I saw this floating through the intertubes and thought of you...

"I believe the best social program is a job." - Ronald Reagan

why, because unlike us st1dinoh has a job?

[BogusMeatFactory]

I'm voting for Mccain.

[confrico]

it's fucked up how all these banks are failing, and people on both sides of the aisle don't know whether to go with philosophy or practicality on the bailout bill. first of all, liberal philosophy brought us to this place when the government started mandated banks to lend money to poor people and punishing banks that didn't. that right there was nationalizing financial institutions. people are blaming the bailout, and people are blaming the presidential candidates for voting for the bailout, when they should be blaming socialist policies.

capitalism didn't bring us to this point. a bank doesn't make a business decision to fail. a bank makes decisions that will make their shareholders the most money, even under difficult circumstances.

[DHC]

Palin is raping Biden atm - im surprised by her eloquence

[cadetduke]

Palin is raping Biden atm - im surprised by her eloquence

And I want to rape Palin atm. Seriously, holy shit she's hot tonight.

Edit: Ah fuck, I forgot she's in town right now. I''ll be back in a few hours

[confrico]

joe biden is channelling bob dole

[Original Sin]

Palin sure smiles a lot.

....I'm not sure how that can contribute to this thread, but I was watching the debate, and that's the only good quality about her that I noticed.

[cadetduke]

Palin sure smiles a lot.

Biden did the same thing when she talked about him...

Looked like they were good friends and they just met for the first time.

Now that it's over I have to race down there and see if Palin wants to go party so I can slip her a roofie and take advantage of her.

[confrico]

Palin sure smiles a lot.

she's having a hell of a time.

lets see her smiling when she gets raped by sandra bernhard's big black friends, and cadetduke

[confrico]

so how did you like palin's letting down her hair and newly done red streaks?

[way2lazy2care]

it's fucked up how all these banks are failing, and people on both sides of the aisle don't know whether to go with philosophy or practicality on the bailout bill. first of all, liberal philosophy brought us to this place when the government started mandated banks to lend money to poor people and punishing banks that didn't. that right there was nationalizing financial institutions. people are blaming the bailout, and people are blaming the presidential candidates for voting for the bailout, when they should be blaming socialist policies.

capitalism didn't bring us to this point. a bank doesn't make a business decision to fail. a bank makes decisions that will make their shareholders the most money, even under difficult circumstances.

this