Barack Obama, our next President

[PDUPONT]

carol wrote:

Why we are where we are today:
1999 - Bill Clinton put CRA on steroids pushing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase number of sub-prime loans.
1999 - New York Times published an article “Fannie Mae Eases Credit to Aid Mortgage Lending” warning of coming crisis due to lax lending policies of the Clinton administration.
2003 - White House called Fannie and Freddie a “systemic risk” and Bush administration pushed Congress to enact new regulations.
2003 - Rep. Barney Frank said Fannie and Freddie are “not in a crisis,” bashed Republican-sponsored regulation legislation.
2005 - Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan voiced warning over F&F accounting, saying,“We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.”
2005 - Sen. Charles Schumer said F&F “over the years have done an incredibly good job and are an intrinsic part of making America the best-housed people in the world.”
2006 - Sen. John McCain again called for reform of regulatory structure governing F&F. And again Democrats blocked reform legislation.
2008 - The housing market collapsed.
2008-Present - Democrats blamed the Republicans.

Sure Carol, you're still trying to blame the CRA, Fannie and Freddie for the subprime mortgage mess when in fact they had nothing to do with it. The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission stated;
The Commission concludes the CRA was not a significant factor in subprime lending or the crisis. Many subprime lenders were not subject to the CRA. Research indicates only 6% of the high cost loans - a proxy for subprime loans - had any connection to the law. Loans made by CRA-regulated lenders in the neighborhoods in which they were required to lend were half as likely to default as similar loans made in the same neighborhoods by independent mortgage originators not subject to the law.[The Financial Crisis Inquiry Report, January 2011]
The Federal Reserve stated;
We find little evidence that either the CRA or the GSE goals played a significant role in the subprime crisis. Our lender tests indicate that areas disproportionately served by lenders covered by the CRA experienced lower delinquency rates and less risky lending. Similarly, the threshold tests show no evidence that either program had a significantly negative effect on outcomes.[Federal Reserve, 8/3/11]
But what the heck Carol, you've never let actual facts stand in your way before.

[PDUPONT]

flack wrote:

<quoted text> One would think on any decent forum they would have been banned a long time ago. It's really a shame we have to put up with it.

Yeah it's a real shame that guys like you can't turn it into an ignorant racist echo chamber without someone calling you out on your lies.

[shinningelectr0n]

Yeah wrote:

<quoted text>lol! No son. Assigning what others are makes the con argument.
Compromise is something unfamiliar to your group.

Compromise has many differing and conflicting definitions. Giving a black mugger my watch and wallet can be viewed by a suckazz progressive like you as being a great compromise on my part to help alleviate the wrongs done to someone 6 generations ago by someone anonymous to everyone alive today.

Progressives use the term "compromise" to steal with.

[PDUPONT]

carol wrote:

Why we are where we are today.
~Nobody checked the hundreds of millions of packaged loans carefully enough.
~Government regulation was scaled back - nobody in a position of authority overseeing process to insist loans were made according to standards.
~Banks made them to homeowners and quickly resold them to people on Wall Street who sold them again to investors.
~Everyone assumed somebody else was minding the store but nobody was scrutinizing these loans.
~Loans were made to people who should never have been approved in the first place and mortgage companies and investors profited immensely from those loans, temporarily.

Hey stupid! The mortgage lenders like Countrywide and Indy Mac who made those toxic loans were never under any regulations. Are you all of a sudden a proponent of bigger government?

[sonicfilter]

John Galt wrote:

CABLE NEWS RACE
THURS. JAN 10, 2013
FOXNEWS O'REILLY 3,162,000
FOXNEWS BAIER 2,152,000
FOXNEWS FIVE 2,129,000
FOXNEWS HANNITY 2,005,000
MTV BUCKWILD 1,920,000
CMDY DAILY SHOW 1,880,000
FOXNEWS SHEP 1,704,000
FOXNEWS GRETA 1,401,000
CMDY COLBERT 1,220,000
MSNBC SCHULTZ 1,035,000
MSNBC MADDOW 982,000
MSNBC MATTHEW 954,000
MSNBC O'DONNELL 914,000
MSNBC SHARPTON 805,000
CNN PIERS 783,000
CNN COOPER 611,000

A Very Merry Christmas For MSNBC – A Very Unhappy Holiday For Fox News

The Christmas Wars:
It has suddenly become clear why Fox News has been so fixated on inciting a “War on Christmas.” It must be because the Christmas season has been devastatingly cruel to Fox News. This year the Nielsen ratings left a smoldering lump of coal in Fox’s stocking despite all the pandering they did to Old St. Nick. Apparently Fox was very naughty. Santa doesn’t approve of lying and, perhaps, viewers are getting tired of it as well (see Fox News Fux Up: The 12 Worst Wrongs Of 2012).

Maddow and O’Donnell Jingle Fox’s Bells:
For the month of December, two-thirds of the Fox News primetime lineup came in second to MSNBC (in the critical 25-54 year old demographic). The Rachel Maddow Show’s monthly average came in 4% above the formidable Fox fixture, Sean Hannity. Lawrence O’Donnell had an even better advantage of 11% over his weaker competition, Greta Van Susteren.

This was a stark difference from last year when Hannity comfortably led Maddow by 46% and Van Susteren outpaced O’Donnell by the same amount. Those leads have now completely evaporated. Only Bill O’Reilly has managed to keep his fat head above water, although his 69% December 2011 lead over Ed Schultz was cut nearly in half in 2012 to 40%.

December 2012 was an affirmation of the superior performance MSNBC has shown since the election in November. Maddow and O’Donnell have consistently defeated Hannity and Van Susteren since President Obama did the same thing to Mitt Romney. This can no longer be explained away by Fox defenders as mere depression on the part of conservative viewers who tuned out after an electoral spanking. That excuse may have made sense for a week or two, but not a full two months later with high profile news events like the “fiscal cliff,” new cabinet appointments, Benghazi hearings, the Petraeus scandal, and the Newtown school shooting dominating news coverage.

http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/...

[sonicfilter]

Covering Up Climate Change

Jill Fitzsimmons delivers the results of a Media Matters study on climate change coverage in 2012:

Together, the nightly news programs on ABC, CBS and NBC devoted only 12 segments to climate change in 2012. PBS' coverage stood out, with its nightly news program dedicating 23 segments to the issue.

Sunday morning was even worse:

Since 2009, climate coverage on the Sunday shows has declined every year. In 2012, the Sunday shows spent less than 8 minutes on climate change, down from 9 minutes in 2011, 21 minutes in 2010, and over an hour in 2009. The vast majority of coverage -- 89 percent -- was driven by politics, and none was driven by scientific findings.

This video is the first mention of the record-setting 2012 temperatures on Fox News - "before [host] Gutfeld interjected by shouting:'Lies.'" One day, I suspect, people will look back on that attitude and wonder why this kind of denialism only exists in any serious institutional form on the American right - anywhere in the world. No other major party of the right in the West is that crazy.

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2013/...

[carol]

Oh my goodness! I've just got my period for the first time in five years! It's good news and bad news all at the same time!

[Lincoln]

John Galt wrote:

CABLE NEWS RACE
THURS. JAN 10, 2013
FOXNEWS O'REILLY 3,162,000
FOXNEWS BAIER 2,152,000
FOXNEWS FIVE 2,129,000
FOXNEWS HANNITY 2,005,000
MTV BUCKWILD 1,920,000
CMDY DAILY SHOW 1,880,000
FOXNEWS SHEP 1,704,000
FOXNEWS GRETA 1,401,000
CMDY COLBERT 1,220,000
MSNBC SCHULTZ 1,035,000
MSNBC MADDOW 982,000
MSNBC MATTHEW 954,000
MSNBC O'DONNELL 914,000
MSNBC SHARPTON 805,000
CNN PIERS 783,000
CNN COOPER 611,000

Obama-Biden win in 2012

[Lincoln]

maddmaxx7 wrote:

<quoted text>
gotta be real humiliating to be beat by Sharpton.

Sharpton's candidates won

[carol]

Thank GOD! Thank God, it's a miracle!

[carol]

VeganTiger wrote:

Me and my wife had a longer discussion today about this (just finished). We got two kids and otherwise have had to think this looong over. If it should come to confrontations with the feds starting to kill and shoot tens of thousands or more, we will both join any resistance and be taking care of all the GSW'S. Just working without all the federal paperwork would be enough incentive to take up the trade again.
(Last time I took care of one was December 31st of last year. I have taken care of hundreds of them and trust me, there are MANY of us that would join in here. One thing is for sure. The feds can only park so many of THEIR wounded at the University hospitals as probably half or more of the trauma surgeons have gone as well.
This will be a total conflict and I think my best role would be to preserve lives (That the feds will try to take) and if they kill me for that, there is nothing I can do.....

It's, "My wife and I" I think? Otherwise you are relegating her (ungrammatically) to a secondary role in the conversation.

[Grey Ghost]

EasyEed wrote:

<quoted text>
"nutsucker"
The only thing "real dumb" beats is his meat. He is much like you, lies a lot ASSumes a lot, and runs off his mouth. I will add you are birds of a feather, cookoo coo birds.
Peace
KMA

Poor old repetitive lame azzed Eed, seemingly totally unaware of his degree of backwoods dumbness. If intelligence was gas that idiot couldn't even fart. Daily he repeats the very same child like verbal nonsense, one can almost hear his boastful psychotic laughter and lung deprived coughing after every mindless post.

[RealDave]

DBWriter wrote:

<quoted text>
Ok. I think I've got it now.
Money is taken from Social Security and put into the general fund, then Social Security is paid back from the general fund.
I think you should begin with something a lot simpler, like where money comes from. How money is manipulated in government obviously confuses you. So, let's begin with a very simple question:
Where will the money come from to pay for Obama's government?
To answer this question, you actually have to identify a source of money.
If you can't answer this simple question, any other discussion about government expenditures will be beyond your ability to understand.

You really are an idiot.

With a 2% tax reduction on the payroll tax, the general fund gets nothing & SS fund revenues are reduced. This reduction is replaced by monies from he general fund.

Do you know what a tax cut means?? Evidently not.

Why bother telling you where Obama gets his funding when you don't know where Bush got his. When you find out where Bush got his, you will know where Obama will get his.

BTW, You haven't thanked me for subsidizing your salary.

[RealDave]

maddmaxx7 wrote:

<quoted text>
Clinton had the Fannie regs re written to allow them to accept sub prime mortgages, that's what really opened the flood gates. You really should get educated. I don't give greedy bankers a pass, I will maintain until my dying day government interference and coercion made it all possible.
Why would the Dimwitted Dave Mortgage Co. make bad loans? Why would you do that?

Another uninformed right whiner who has no clue about the CRA.

[RealDave]

Eman wrote:

<quoted text>
Dumbass dave was talking about 1 position, i was talking about his cabinet as a whole. I understand that's beyond your comprehension level, stupid fck.
But lets talk about why someone in your field had to ask what an eir is. Hahahaha

How many women were on Obama's original cabinet? You want to tell us it was all white men?

Out of the 4 recent nominations, one would have been a women if Republicans did not have a fit.

You are really pathetic.

[RealDave]

Eman wrote:

<quoted text>
Has he nominated a woman? Would haves are what fairy tales are made of.

He would have nominated Rice.

Republicans said they would block Rice.

I guess its Republicans that hate women.

[OldRaider]

The argument that civilians need assault weapons to protect themselves from the government is absurd. Who, exactly, are you going to shoot? A police officer? A Marine? There is no Palace Guard. Politicians aren't going to knock on your door to take your gun. Some of you have said our military will turn on the government and support "the people". Who are the people? And if that is correct then why did you need the assault rifle?
If, as many of you claim, there is a civil war then you will be taking on the full force of the United States military with your rifles. That should thin out the idiot gene pool.

[carol]

PDUPONT wrote:

<quoted text>
Hey stupid! The mortgage lenders like Countrywide and Indy Mac who made those toxic loans were never under any regulations. Are you all of a sudden a proponent of bigger government?

Bill Clinton deregulating the Community Reinvestment Act in 1995 started this mortgage crisis.

Lenders were pressured into giving home loans to unqualified people under the name of "Affordable Housing" or else get a visit from the ACLU.

You can search "Community Reinvestment Act" on YouTube and see video of Bush, McCain & Greenspan warning of serious problems while democrats Barney Frank, Maxine Waters and Chris Dodd are defending the CRA and Fannie Mae.

Both sides are guilty of allowing to happen.

But you should think twice before calling someone stupid.

[carol]

Yeah wrote:

<quoted text>lol! Yes son. That's because cons feel they are above the heap!
Bravo on the recognition!

You just congratulated debil pretending to be me. He stole my name and my location.

Proving he's making a fool out of all of you.

FYI.

[sonicfilter]

Why Republicans should watch their language

This coming week, House Republicans will gather in Williamsburg, Va., to discuss what went wrong in 2012. I’ve attended more than a dozen such congressional retreats since 1993, and I can already imagine how the conversations will go. Someone will undoubtedly come to the microphone to declare that what the GOP needs is a better brand, missing the essential point that candidates and political parties are about reputation, trust and ideas. You can’t sell them like soap or detergent.

But what you say in defense of those ideas matters, and what people hear matters even more.

Congressional Republicans are currently defined as nothing more than opponents of the president and friends of the powerful. This isn’t my opinion — it’s America’s opinion. My polling firm asked voters nationwide on election night to identify who or what the GOP was fighting for. Twice as many said “the wealthy” and “big business” than “hardworking taxpayers” or “small business.”

Their image is even worse today. The congressional Republicans’ message during the “fiscal cliff” debate last month was confused and chaotic. The debt-ceiling vote next month and the budget debate after that promise more of the same — unless House and Senate Republicans stop bickering and start coordinating and talking differently.

Just saying “no” to the president has its limits. House Republicans, since they have a megaphone that Senate Republicans don’t , will continue to be diminished until they start defining and stop being defined.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-re...

remember during the campaign when the nutjobs kept saying Obama was Wall Street even though Wall Street was supporting Mitt?

it's no wonder Mitt lost with all of that 'help' from the right wing 'media'.