Obama/Biden vs. McCain/Palin

[1bad65]

Thou hypocrite,...

Then show me where McCain has given money to a group who has had multiple employees convicted for voting fraud as ACORN has.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110009189
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/new...0?OpenDocument

[1bad65]

If you provide the above evidence, I will take the bet.

[BoulderDawg]

FYI, I don't believe every poll on this election. I think McCain is gonna win by a fairly large margin.

There ya go. Straight from the man himself.....He thinks McCain will "win by a fairly large margin" yet is afraid to back those words up.

Liberals have the strenght of conviction and are willing to back up what they say.....Looks like conservatives might be lacking in that department.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised .

[1bad65]

Provide the evidence to prove your claims and I'll bet. It's quite simple.

If you are so confident, just say you'll leave if Obama loses no matter what I do.

[1bad65]

I guess I shouldn't be surprised .

Gee, I won't play on a crooked table. Yeah, what a wuss I am.

[BoulderDawg]

Provide the evidence to prove your claims and I'll bet. It's quite simple.

If you are so confident, just say you'll leave if Obama loses no matter what I do.

Claims about what? I haven't made any.

I'm just saying I see no justification for saying that the "game is rigged" in this election (Anyone who is saying that is so far in outer space that it's not even funny).

I'm willing to leave the board with absolutely no conditions if Obama loses. However the only thing is you have to agree to leave if McCain loses. It's as simple as that.

You should take responsibility for your statements. Are you afraid to agree to this? By expecting me to take a unilateral stance you are showing the traditional conservation position of reward without risk. No backbone is what it amount to,

How many other conservatives out there feel the Democrats have somehow...someway rigged the election? I want to get an accurate count of the number.

[1bad65]

Claims about what? I haven't made any.

Read your own post, #973. Now, show where McCain gave money to a group who has had members convicted of voting fraud. Then I'll bet.

I'm just saying I see no justification for saying that the "game is rigged" in this election (Anyone who is saying that is so far in outer space that it's not even funny).

I never said it was rigged, I said one side was cheating before it even started. Still learning reading comprehension from Tom Fox, huh.

You should take responsibility for your statements. Are you afraid to agree to this? By expecting me to take a unilateral stance you are showing the traditional conservation position of reward without risk. No backbone is what it amount to,

I do. I provide proof. Of course it 'doesnt count', but that's another story.

I've said my conditions. Pony up the proof. Again, if your so confident, just say you'll leave if Obama loses.

[1bad65]

Ron Paul.

Not only is he against the bailouts, he shows how Government's meddling caused the mess in the first place.

"Laws passed by Congress such as the Community Reinvestment Act required banks to make loans to previously underserved segments of their communities, thus forcing banks to lend to people who normally would be rejected as bad credit risks."

Let's FORCE the private sector to make bad business decisions!


http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/...out/index.html

[BoulderDawg]

Read your own post, #973. Now, show where McCain gave money to a group who has had members convicted of voting fraud. Then I'll bet.

I think you're the one that needs to take the reading course. Go back, or better yet have someone else do it, and review Post #973 then come back on the board and tell me about "My post".

Your conditions???? A man who has conditions has no conviction. Either agree or admit you're afraid to...it's as simple as that.

[Reality_Check]

Ron Paul.

Not only is he against the bailouts, he shows how Government's meddling caused the mess in the first place.

"Laws passed by Congress such as the Community Reinvestment Act required banks to make loans to previously underserved segments of their communities, thus forcing banks to lend to people who normally would be rejected as bad credit risks."

Let's FORCE the private sector to make bad business decisions!


http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/...out/index.html

"More than half of subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies not subject to comprehensive federal supervision; another 30 percent of such originations were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts, which are not subject to routine examination or supervision, and the remaining 20 percent were made by banks and thrifts."

I.e., the majority of the subprime loans were made by companies not subject to CRA.

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/heari...barr021308.pdf

Janet Yellin, President of the San Francisco Federal Reserve Board:

"There has been a tendency to conflate the current problems in the subprime market with CRA-motivated lending, or with lending to low-income families in general. I believe it is very important to make a distinction between the two. Most of the loans made by depository institutions examined under the CRA have not been higher-priced loans, and studies have shown that the CRA has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households. We should not view the current foreclosure trends as justification to abandon the goal of expanding access to credit among low-income households, since access to credit, and the subsequent ability to buy a home, remains one of the most important mechanisms we have to help low-income families build wealth over the long term."

"According to the 2006 HMDA data, 19 percent of the conventional first lien mortgage loans originated by depository institutions were higher-priced, compared to 23 percent by bank subsidiaries, 38 percent by other bank affiliates, and more than 40 percent by independent mortgage companies. Robert B. Avery, Kenneth P. Brevoort, and Glenn B. Canner, “The 2006 HMDA Data,” Federal Reserve Bulletin, Volume 94 (2007), p. A89."

http://www.frbsf.org/news/speeches/2008/0331.html

As I noted above, independent mortgage companies are not subject to the CRA.

[1bad65]

20% of mortgages is not an insignificant number.

[1bad65]

Your conditions???? A man who has conditions has no conviction. Either agree or admit you're afraid to...it's as simple as that.

Yeah, yeah. I'm terrified.

Just show me it's a fair game, ie BOTH sides are employing convicted cheaters, and I'll bet.

And fyi, you came up with this nonsense first and you are unwilling to do it on your own accord just to show your faith. You can do that without the reward of me betting....

[1bad65]

In 2003 Bush proposed ammending the Community Reinvestment Act by tightening Gov't supervision over their risky lending. He was opposed by Democrats.

Lets see what Barney Frank (D-MA) had to say on the matter:

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...gewanted=print


Idiocracy and pandering at its finest.

[Reality_Check]

20% of mortgages is not an insignificant number.

Yet it's still less than 80%.

[Reality_Check]

In 2003 Bush proposed ammending the Community Reinvestment Act by tightening Gov't supervision over their risky lending. He was opposed by Democrats.

Lets see what Barney Frank (D-MA) had to say on the matter:

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...gewanted=print


Idiocracy and pandering at its finest.

And yet with Republican majorities in both houses, he still couldn't get it passed.

"Instead, voices inside the administration for tougher policing of Wall Street found themselves with few supporters. William H. Donaldson, a former Wall Street executive with respected Republican credentials who became chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission under Mr. Bush, quit after facing resistance from the White House and Republican members of the agency, who criticized his support for stiffer regulations on mutual funds and hedge funds."

"The administration’s push to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was stymied by Congress. But the administration’s intense focus on fending off what it foresaw as a looming housing crisis did not include an effort to curb the proliferation of fiendishly complex mortgage-backed securities, said Harvey S. Rosen, an economist who served on Mr. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, briefly as chairman."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/20/bu...0prexy.html?hp

Looks like both parties are to blame.