Liberal free for all coming to an end

[TracyCoxx]

It's happening more and more with each election. The republicans have to not only get enough votes to win, but get enough votes to overcome all the cheating that goes on with the democrats. Illegals are voting more often, Acorn is still around under different names signing up ineligable people to vote, Black Panthers are intimidating voters, and now it seems even voting machines are rigged. People have signed in to voting machines in Nevada only to find Harry Ried's name is already checked. How desperate is this guy?

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

It's happening more and more with each election. The republicans have to not only get enough votes to win, but get enough votes to overcome all the cheating that goes on with the democrats. Illegals are voting more often, Acorn is still around under different names signing up ineligable people to vote, Black Panthers are intimidating voters, and now it seems even voting machines are rigged. People have signed in to voting machines in Nevada only to find Harry Ried's name is already checked. How desperate is this guy?

I don't support the Democrats or Republicans, but members should know that the Black Panther allegation here has been shown conclusively to be a hoax. It's amazing what fear of the new will do to people's minds.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

I don't support the Democrats or Republicans, but members should know that the Black Panther allegation here has been shown conclusively to be a hoax. It's amazing what fear of the new will do to people's minds.

Oh that's good. So what did all that turn out to be?

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Oh that's good. So what did all that turn out to be?

I'm hearing crickets. Were you going to answer this?

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

I'm hearing crickets. Were you going to answer this?

I didn't answer because I cannot figure out what you are asking. Your question was: "So what did all that turn out to be?" I have absolutely no idea what "all that" is in the context of "turn out."

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

I didn't answer because I cannot figure out what you are asking. Your question was: "So what did all that turn out to be?" I have absolutely no idea what "all that" is in the context of "turn out."

The government was in the process of suing Black Panther members who were wielding a nightstick and intimidating voters at a Philadelphia polling place on an election day. The case was moving along and then Obama's newly staffed DOJ had the case dropped.
An article about it is here.

You said it was all a hoax. So what were the Black Panther guys doing there with nightsticks and who was perpetrating the hoax?

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

The government was in the process of suing Black Panther members who were wielding a nightstick and intimidating voters at a Philadelphia polling place on an election day. The case was moving along and then Obama's newly staffed DOJ had the case dropped.
An article about it is here.

You said it was all a hoax. So what were the Black Panther guys doing there with nightsticks and who was perpetrating the hoax?

I want to make clear that I am a supporter of neither the furthest left wing of the Democratic Party, the furthest right wing of the Republican Party, Libertarianism, or anything in between those poles. My interest in this issue has to do with truth and reasonable discourse about things that actually matter.

So, with that disclaimer, here is my response, Tracy.

You are correct about one thing, and it has to do with my use of the word "hoax." I misused that word by failing to make the context clear. What I meant was that the charge that the political appointees of Obama overruled "career attorneys" to have the case dropped is a hoax.

Anyone who wants to know the true story, based on full quotes that are contextual, would be wise to go beyond the Washington Times story to which you provide a link. That is a biased newspaper by any reasonable journalistic standards, and the headline of the story you linked to is proof. Why? Because it was "career lawyers" at DOJ who recommended dropping the case, and a federal judge who accepted the rationale for dropping the case. Obama political appointees only okayed the recommendation before it was passed on to the judge.

I suggest reading this Newsweek article for a fuller, less partisan, explanation: http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/14/t...ew-acorn0.html

Don't get me wrong: voter intimidation is wrong. I believe the lunatic fringe New Black Panther Party (denounced by the establishe BPP, by the way), sought to intimidate voters as part of its periodic publicity stunts. But your charge is about the Obama DOJ subverting the law and the constitution.

As a conservative member of the Commission on Civil Rights says at the end of the article to which I've linked, there is a plenty of stuff to criticize Obama about (I would add: from the left or the right). She aptly notes that to pin this incident on him only lessens the validity of conservative criticism.

Tracy, I feel that your points would be stronger if you stuck to substantive arguments about foreign policy, economic policy, and so on, and got away from the distractions that are pushed from both sides to avoid us, as Americans, having those important discussions.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

It's happening more and more with each election. The republicans have to not only get enough votes to win, but get enough votes to overcome all the cheating that goes on with the democrats. Illegals are voting more often, Acorn is still around under different names signing up ineligable people to vote, Black Panthers are intimidating voters, and now it seems even voting machines are rigged. People have signed in to voting machines in Nevada only to find Harry Ried's name is already checked. How desperate is this guy?

Oh My! The poor Republicans always abused by nasty Democrats and their evil buddies. We all know that Republicans always run fair honest campaigns, don't we?

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Oh My! The poor Republicans always abused by nasty Democrats and their evil buddies. We all know that Republicans always run fair honest campaigns, don't we?

Of course. See even Randolph agrees!

[randolph]

My portfolio is back where it was two years ago, thanks to the stimulus program.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

My portfolio is back where it was two years ago, thanks to the stimulus program.

So is mime. Unfortunately it's two years behind where it would have been if it weren't for the democrats policies of forcing banks to give loans to people they knew wouldn't be able to ay them back. And unfortunately they won't be what they could be in the future because the stimulus packages were a bandaid, not a fix. And that nasty problem of giving out loans to uncreditworthy people... still a problem. So we will have to do all this again.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

So is mime. Unfortunately it's two years behind where it would have been if it weren't for the democrats policies of forcing banks to give loans to people they knew wouldn't be able to ay them back. And unfortunately they won't be what they could be in the future because the stimulus packages were a bandaid, not a fix. And that nasty problem of giving out loans to uncreditworthy people... still a problem. So we will have to do all this again.

Do you really think the "Democrats" deliberately "forced" banks to make loans that would fail. This is very simplistic thinking. The banks that retained a conservative policy of making loans are still here, they were not "forced" to make bad loans. Greenspan's free for all policies along with rampant manipulation of mortgages into bonds by Wall street investment banks, were the major cause of the meltdown.
The entire financial industry came to believe that we had figured out how to make prosperity permanent. Consequently, risk was minimalized and loans which used to be considered risky were now okay.
Greed rules!

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Do you really think the "Democrats" deliberately "forced" banks to make loans that would fail.

We already went over this.

Originally Posted by CreativeMind

The Wall Street Journal would beg to differ with them...

Many monumental errors and misjudgments contributed to the acute financial turmoil in which we now find ourselves. Nevertheless, the vast accumulation of toxic mortgage debt that poisoned the global financial system was driven by the aggressive buying of subprime and Alt-A mortgages, and mortgage-backed securities, by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The poor choices of these two government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) -- and their sponsors in Washington -- are largely to blame for our current mess.

How did we get here?
Let's review:

In order to curry congressional support after their accounting scandals in 2003 and 004, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac committed to increased financing of "affordable housing." They became the largest buyers of subprime and Alt-A mortgages between 2004 and 2007, with total exposure eventually exceeding $1 trillion.

In doing so, they stimulated the growth of the subpar mortgage market and substantially magnified the costs of its collapse.

It is important to understand that, as GSEs, Fannie and Freddie were viewed in the capital markets as government-backed buyers (a belief that has now been reduced to fact). Thus they were able to borrow as much as they wanted for the purpose of buying mortgages and mortgage-backed securities. Their buying patterns and interests were followed closely in the markets. If Fannie and Freddie wanted subprime or Alt-A loans, the mortgage markets would produce them.

By late 2004, Fannie and Freddie very much wanted subprime and Alt-A loans. However, their accounting had just been revealed as fraudulent, and they were under pressure from Congress to demonstrate that they deserved their considerable privileges. Among other problems, economists at the Federal Reserve and Congressional Budget Office had begun to study them in detail, and found that -- despite their subsidized borrowing rates -- they did not significantly reduce mortgage interest rates.

In the wake of Freddie's 2003 accounting scandal, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan became a powerful opponent, and began to call for stricter regulation of the GSEs and limitations on the growth of their highly profitable, but risky, retained portfolios.

If they were not making mortgages cheaper and were creating risks for the taxpayers and the economy, what value were they providing?

The answer was their affordable-housing mission...

It was the CRA that had Fannie & Freddy backing loans to the poor. Banks would make the loans because Fannie & Freddy removed the risk. And also if they didn't, CRA would score then negatively and they wouldn't receive as much money from the government.