Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Feb 23, 2015, at 7:01 PM:
It was funny to see the liberal press try to cover up the Giuliani statements. Regular folks have tired of the continual bashing of America by it's so called leader. Democrats cried foul so Giuliani doubled down. Love it.
-- Posted by scheuwlfz on Mon, Feb 23, 2015, at 10:04 PM
Another nut case,,,,,Julie,,,just sink back into your hole.
-- Posted by Dexterite1 on Tue, Feb 24, 2015, at 5:15 AM
Another nut case,,,,,Julie,,,just sink back into your hole.-- Posted by Dexterite1 on Tue, Feb 24, 2015, at 5:15 AM
Dexter: America's mayor has more Leadership and patriotism than Pres. Pinky will ever have. Can't prove it just my opinion.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Tue, Feb 24, 2015, at 9:20 AM
Everything Dexter knows in his sentence of the day.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Feb 24, 2015, at 9:50 AM
Another little side-bar to the "economic recovery" that Obama supporters claim:
"U.S. Homeownership Rate Hits 20-Year Low: The homeownership rate in the United States dropped to a 20-year low of 64.5 percent in 2014, according to new data released by the Census Bureau."
I know... it's Bush's fault.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Feb 24, 2015, at 11:01 AM
No it was the Democrats led by Barney Fwank that caused that. Bush tried to pull it in but......
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Feb 24, 2015, at 6:54 PM
And they are pushing for more of the same calling it more of the same, banking regulations. It was regulations making banks give loans to people that couldn't make the payments and government encouragement via guarantee of the loans making those loans a commodity to be traded that created the unsustainable bubble.
Of course liberals claimed it wasn't enough regulation.
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Feb 24, 2015, at 7:16 PM
IMO, America under the domestic economic policies of Pres. Pinky is headed for Socialism and his domestic political thinking is right down the Communism path. His foreign policies are nonexistent so I can't assign a label to it.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Tue, Feb 24, 2015, at 8:22 PM
"It was regulations making banks give loans to people that couldn't make the payments ..."
Nice that you have such a vivid imgination. Mr W says you need proof. Perhaps you can find a copy of the "regulation" that forces banks to make loans to people that cannot pay it back.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Feb 24, 2015, at 8:47 PM
Common, We have been through all this over and over. This crap started late in Carter's watch with regulation. Proof has been offered an you were the champion of blaming it on republicans for deregulation.
Get Mr. Wilson and Dennis to explain it to you again. They were sneaking in extra gas in his car and he kept bragging about his gas mileage. When they started stealing it back he cried foul at the dealership so loudly that value of like cars went down so quickly the dealership collapsed and the car owners loans were called in.
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Feb 24, 2015, at 9:05 PM
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Feb 24, 2015, at 8:47 PM
Common: The name of the Bill which was passed on Bill Clinton's watch was titled - "Give the poor blood sucking freeloaders a free house to tear up and then give back to the banks with no money value left".
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Tue, Feb 24, 2015, at 9:06 PM
Not too many o Ruby's friends are supporting his theory,,,,,what say ye now???????
-- Posted by Dexterite1 on Wed, Feb 25, 2015, at 7:21 AM
Maybe it's Jeff Ruby? He makes one hell of a steak!
-- Posted by BonScott on Wed, Feb 25, 2015, at 8:36 AM
""These inducements incentivize the brokers to make recommendations that generate the best returns for them but not necessarily the best return for you.""
Yes and we know all Americans are too dumb to act on their own and need "Mama Government" to tell us what to do...... since we know the government from the top down is staffed with people like Community Organizers.
With the governments success ratio on health care, do we really want them guarding our finances also?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Feb 25, 2015, at 9:11 AM
Dexterite1 is a candidate for that new vaccine for Liberals with warped minds.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Wed, Feb 25, 2015, at 9:12 AM
I believe I figured Dexter's riddle out...... could it have been he was speaking of Rudy G.?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Feb 25, 2015, at 9:14 AM
"We have been through all this over and over."
Correct, and none of you have been able to find the law that says "Banker, you must lend money to that person who cannot pay it back."
Then why do you keep bringing it up?
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Feb 25, 2015, at 9:17 AM
-- Posted by BonScott on Wed, Feb 25, 2015, at 9:38 AM
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Feb 25, 2015, at 9:17 AM
Common: I gave you the answer with my post of 9:06pm last night.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Wed, Feb 25, 2015, at 9:45 AM
A life time savings is up to the person who chooses to save , not the Government's to tell them how much , or how , to save .
The dude is a socialist , a straight up socialist .
-- Posted by ▪Rick on Tue, Feb 24, 2015, at 8:02 PM
Ummmm...less than 12 hours after this you posted an article about what the president is actually proposing (which is regulations on brokers, not savers).
Should I hold my breath until you admit you were wrong?
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Wed, Feb 25, 2015, at 9:52 AM
This thread contains perfect examples of why I left this site and why I'll probably leave again.
Rudy Guiliani makes horrible accusations against the president of the United States...and people here (the so-called "personal responsibility" crowd) are blaming anything and everything except Guiliani!
The anti-Obama crowd here is a bunch of dirty hypocrites. They're for "personal responsibility" until it means they or someone they like have to be personally responsible. They're for "small government" until they want the government to do something they like.
In truth, the anti-Obama crowd here is a bunch of bigots who try to use conservative catchphrase to disguise their hatred of anything unfamiliar.
You all need to grow up.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Wed, Feb 25, 2015, at 9:59 AM
Well, apparently the vacation is over. It sure was nice while it lasted....
-- Posted by BonScott on Wed, Feb 25, 2015, at 10:02 AM
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Wed, Feb 25, 2015, at 9:59 AM
Mic2: ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Wed, Feb 25, 2015, at 10:14 AM
Giuliani does not love New York.
In the midst of the former mayor's ranting, he inferred that President Obama doesn't love America (which is an absurd assertion in any case) and gave as one of his explanations a claim that the President said that he "wants to transform this country," and therefore he "couldn't love it."
Go back a few years when the Mayor was campaigning and one of his promises was that he wanted to "transform New York City," ....
Therefore former Mayor Giuliani must "hate New York City."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Feb 25, 2015, at 1:34 PM
Rudy Guiliani makes horrible accusations against the president of the United States...and people here (the so-called "personal responsibility" crowd) are blaming anything and everything except Guiliani!
The anti-Obama crowd here is a bunch of dirty hypocrites.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Wed, Feb 25, 2015, at 9:59 AM
Obama called Bush "unpatriotic" when he was running for office.
Where were you then MicCheck999? HYPOCRITE... the perfect reason why you don't need to return.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Feb 25, 2015, at 1:44 PM
-- Posted by ▪Rick on Wed, Feb 25, 2015, at 12:53 PM
Thank God I didn't hold my breath!
You know, buddy, making mistakes is fine...we all do it. However, when you learn you are incorrect AND still allow refuse to correct yourself...that's when your mistake becomes a lie.
As always, I'll give you one more chance to change your statement before I point out that you're a liar.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Wed, Feb 25, 2015, at 1:48 PM
Obama called Bush "unpatriotic" when he was running for office.
-- Posted by Dug on Wed, Feb 25, 2015, at 1:44 PM
And that's a horrible thing to say, no matter who says it.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Wed, Feb 25, 2015, at 1:49 PM
Miccheck, I see you're still living in your parents basement and still being picked last in kickball. All of that pinned up anger is not good...If you would break free from the government oppression and all of the entitlement programs, I think you could turn the corner...
-- Posted by BonScott on Wed, Feb 25, 2015, at 2:35 PM
-- Posted by BonScott on Wed, Feb 25, 2015, at 2:35 PM
Sorry, buddy, I'm an adult with his own house, never been part of any welfare program. I haven't played kickball in probably 25 years.
I know you hate that someone can be self-supporting and still care for others, but someone of us are selfless enough that we can do it.
I'd suggest you try it sometime, but first you'd have to admit you don't know everything; unless something's changed in the past couple of months, I know that won't happen. You still think your interpretation of the Constitution is the only possible correct interpretation?
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Wed, Feb 25, 2015, at 2:48 PM
Lol...keep trying mic2, it can get better.
PS...You're to easy:)
-- Posted by BonScott on Wed, Feb 25, 2015, at 2:56 PM
-- Posted by BonScott on Wed, Feb 25, 2015, at 2:56 PM
I take this to mean that you still won't entertain the notion that your interpretation of the Constitution isn't necessarily the correct interpretation?
And you have the nerve to try to insinuate that I'm immature?
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Wed, Feb 25, 2015, at 2:58 PM
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Wed, Feb 25, 2015, at 2:58 PM
Tell me what I'm wrong about on the Constitution and show me where I called you immature...
-- Posted by BonScott on Wed, Feb 25, 2015, at 3:19 PM
Tell me what I'm wrong about on the Constitution
-- Posted by BonScott on Wed, Feb 25, 2015, at 3:19 PM
I haven't said you're wrong about the Constitution. You may very well be right in every area. However, you refuse to admit there's even a possibility your interpretation might not be correct.
show me where I called you immature...
-- Posted by BonScott on Wed, Feb 25, 2015, at 3:19 PM
You insinuated (my actual word) when you said I lived in my parent's basement.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Wed, Feb 25, 2015, at 3:29 PM
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Wed, Feb 25, 2015, at 3:29 PM
Mic2, that's a figure of speech. You just seem to fit the profile, that's all...
-- Posted by BonScott on Wed, Feb 25, 2015, at 3:35 PM
Is there part of the constitution I missed that says the constitution is written to be subject of each individual's interpretation?
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Feb 25, 2015, at 3:47 PM
Is there part of the constitution I missed that says the constitution is written to be subject of each individual's interpretation?
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Feb 25, 2015, at 3:47 PM
Anything written is subject to the reader's interpretation. That's how language works.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Wed, Feb 25, 2015, at 4:15 PM
"You know, buddy"
I'm not your ******* buddy .
-- Posted by ▪Rick on Wed, Feb 25, 2015, at 3:40 PM
I guess that means you're holding to you lie.
And now you'll get upset that I called you a liar, even though I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you simply made a mistake.
Oh well, you're an unabashed liar...nothing I say will change that.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Wed, Feb 25, 2015, at 4:17 PM
Is there part of the constitution I missed that says the constitution is written to be subject of each individual's interpretation?
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Feb 25, 2015, at 3:47 PM
OJ, I've tried for two years to get that across to Boy Wonder, but apparently he still can't figure it out. I wouldn't waste your time...
-- Posted by BonScott on Wed, Feb 25, 2015, at 5:47 PM
OJ, I've tried for two years to get that across to Boy Wonder, but apparently he still can't figure it out. I wouldn't waste your time...
-- Posted by BonScott on Wed, Feb 25, 2015, at 5:47 PM
I've tried for years to explain to you that everyone who reads anything is interpreting. You are so arrogant, though, that you maintain YOUR interpretation is absolutely right and everyone else is wrong.
What does the sentence "I didn't leave the dog outside" mean?
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Wed, Feb 25, 2015, at 5:50 PM
What does the sentence "I didn't leave the dog outside" mean?
It means you have been confused by the disease of liberalism to the point of no return.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Feb 25, 2015, at 5:57 PM
It means you have been confused by the disease of liberalism to the point of no return.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Feb 25, 2015, at 5:57 PM
What? My sentence had nothing to do with politics, liberal, conservative or otherwise.
Now, it's a pretty simple question...when someone says "I didn't leave the dog outside", what do they mean.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Wed, Feb 25, 2015, at 6:01 PM
Mischick, If you were up to your shoulders in shat and someone threw a bucket of snot at you, would you duck?
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Feb 25, 2015, at 6:06 PM
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Feb 25, 2015, at 6:06 PM
What are you talking about? If you didn't want to have a conversation with me, why did you respond to my post?
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Wed, Feb 25, 2015, at 6:08 PM
What are you talking about?
We adults were having a conversation when you broke in to call someone a liar and change the subject to your confusion about the constitution. Then you interject some childish question about a dog.
To answer your question, if 'someone' is Obama, it means the dog is outside and Bush left him out there where dogs belong. If 'someone' is an Obama defender, it means Obama saved the dog from republican budget cuts.
My question makes more sense than yours considering your position.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Feb 25, 2015, at 6:56 PM
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Wed, Feb 25, 2015, at 6:08 PM
Mic2: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Wed, Feb 25, 2015, at 8:38 PM
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Wed, Feb 25, 2015, at 9:59 AM
Misschick,
Rudy G. is an American and free to speak his peace regarding anyone he pleases.
And Rudy G. and only Rudy G. is responsible for what he says and to spout off as you did about Posters on Speak Out is immature and ridiculous on your part.
At lease it is comforting to know your puppet master brings you back in your same arrogant, conceited know it all demeanor. Give her a big hug for all of us before she folds you up and puts you back in the drawer.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Feb 25, 2015, at 8:50 PM
Oh shut up Mic!
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Wed, Feb 25, 2015, at 9:18 PM
BTW Common The Community Reinvestment Act hog tied banks into making those loans.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Wed, Feb 25, 2015, at 9:20 PM
Regret, I think common knows that, he just doesn't want to admit it.
-- Posted by BonScott on Wed, Feb 25, 2015, at 10:25 PM
Seems like 95% of the lending is unaffected, and 85% did not default more often.
"We find that adherence to the act led to riskier lending by banks: in the six quarters surrounding the CRA exams lending is elevated on average by about 5 percent every quarter and loans in these quarters default by about 15 percent more often."
Come back when you've found the clause in the act that says, "Banks must lend money to people that are not able to repay the loan."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Feb 25, 2015, at 10:54 PM
Common, do you know any bankers well enough to go ask them that question? If you do, I suggest you do it.
-- Posted by BonScott on Wed, Feb 25, 2015, at 11:27 PM
Rick, common knows everything, just ask him.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 5:13 AM
To answer your question, if 'someone' is Obama, it means the dog is outside and Bush left him out there where dogs belong. If 'someone' is an Obama defender, it means Obama saved the dog from republican budget cuts.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Feb 25, 2015, at 6:56 PM
The question had nothing to do with politics.
Interesting that you "interpreted" it as such, even after I explicitly stated politics had nothing to do with my question.
The sentence "I didn't leave the dog outside" can mean various things. If you are speaking and put the emphasis on the word "I", it means that the dog was left outside, but *I* didn't do it.
If you put the emphasis on the word *dog*, it means there are multiple animals outside, but don't blame the dog on me.
That emphasis is not available in the written language, however. That means the reader HAS to interpret the words to decipher the meaning.
If my simple sentence about leaving a dog outside can have multiple interpretations, how many more do you think a complex document like our Constitution can have?
Thousands of people spend their entire career dedicated to figuring out which interpretation of the Constitution is "correct" and even they can't agree on what it really means (e.g. Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia). That's why I think it's so arrogant for people like Bon Scott to say that their interpretation of the Constitution is not only "correct", but isn't even an interpretation at all, as if he's been given some gift from the Lord on High where the meaning has been directly inserted into his mind.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 7:02 AM
Thanks Mic2. My mother always said I was a gift from God...
Oh, and by the way. You can't interpret the constitution and that's not what the Supreme Court was created for.
-- Posted by BonScott on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 7:24 AM
"These are the parts of law I won't ever understand..."
The extracted quotation is not part of the law, it's part of a conservative economic group's attempt to spin the intent of the law.
One of the main objectives was to prevent banks from drawing an outline on a map and deciding that they would not lend to anyone inside that "red line" regardless of their having an income that would allow them to repay the loan.
But nowhere is there language that says, "Banks, you must lend money to those who cannot pay it back."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 8:00 AM
You're splitting hairs as usual common. I know you probably won't do it, but if you get a chance, talk to a banker who you know well...You just might get the answer your virgin ears doesn't want to hear.
-- Posted by BonScott on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 8:12 AM
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 7:02 AM
Mic2: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 9:07 AM
You can't interpret the constitution
-- Posted by BonScott on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 7:24 AM
What do you mean by "interpret"? To me, interpreting simply means to understand what the text is saying, to understand. That's why I used the dog sentence as an example. A seemingly straightforward sentence in writing can have many interpretations.
and that's not what the Supreme Court was created for.
-- Posted by BonScott on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 7:24 AM
Where does the Constitution say that?
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 9:14 AM
"The extracted quotation is not part of the law, it's part of a conservative economic group's attempt to spin the intent of the law."
I take that as a personal opinion and not necessarily a fact .
-- Posted by ▪Rick on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 9:15 AM
No. Either the quote is in the law or it isn't. It's not a matter of opinion.
(note: I'm not saying it is or isn't in the law...I have no idea. I'm merely commenting that yet again Rick thinks that if he's wrong about something it's merely his "opinion". And people call me a know-it-all!)
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 9:22 AM
Mic2, be honest here. You've never read the Constitution have you?
-- Posted by BonScott on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 9:27 AM
You've never read the Constitution have you?
-- Posted by BonScott on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 9:27 AM
I have. I don't remember a part saying that the Supreme Court couldn't interpret the Constitution.
What part were you referring to when you said that wasn't what the Supreme Court was for?
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 9:35 AM
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 9:22 AM
Mic2: Glad you are back gives me more time to zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 9:37 AM
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 9:35 AM
I'm not going over this again with you. Figure it out yourself.
-- Posted by BonScott on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 9:37 AM
I'm not going over this again with you. Figure it out yourself.
-- Posted by BonScott on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 9:37 AM
BonScott, I'm trying to understand your point of view. You are asserting the Constitution says something that I am not aware it does.
However, I don't know everything. If there's something I've missed in my reading of the Constitution, please point it out to me.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 9:43 AM
But nowhere is there language that says, "Banks, you must lend money to those who cannot pay it back."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 8:00 AM
Common,
Even you are not simple enough to believe Washington would ever put that kind of wording into a law. There are ways and words to put people/bankers/whomever into a position of having to do something with a law that is never specifically stated. Surely you are bright enough to see that?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 9:52 AM
Wheels: Don't call "Common" Shirley.☺☺
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 10:09 AM
Wheels: Don't call "Common" Shirley.☺☺
-- Posted by semo471 on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 10:09 AM
Semo471,
I have known some Shirleys that were as block headed as Common. "Surely" you are not suggesting that Commmon is of another Gender than claimed to be? ;-)
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 10:22 AM
-- Posted by ▪Rick on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 11:30 AM
Rick,
As it was in WW II, Americans are not eager to get involved again. It took the Pearl Harbor attack to whip up support.
Will we have another "major incident" to change Americans so they want to go kick some arse? And will that "major incident" be a "contrived incident" to gather this support and protect the politician's collective derrieres?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 11:43 AM
And will that "major incident" be a "contrived incident" to gather this support and protect the politician's collective derrieres?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ÁÙ on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 11:43 AM
Like weapons of mass destruction?
-- Posted by Reasoning on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 11:50 AM
"Freedom costs more then it is to keep .
America , we were warned ."
~~ Judge Andrew Napolitano
-- Posted by ▪Rick on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 11:30 AM
Do you have a source for that quote, because the first sentence doesn't make sense. Keep what?
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 11:58 AM
Dexter: America's mayor has more Leadership and patriotism than Pres. Pinky will ever have. Can't prove it just my opinion.
-- Posted by semo471 on Tue, Feb 24, 2015, at 9:20 AM
You appear to know nothing about this guy. No way could you make that statement if you did.
-- Posted by Reasoning on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 12:02 PM
Like weapons of mass destruction?
-- Posted by Reasoning on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 11:50 AM
Yes like weapons of mass destruction. Congress and the President bought into that didn't they?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 12:38 PM
You appear to know nothing about this guy. No way could you make that statement if you did. -- Posted by Reasoning on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 12:02 PM
Who would believe that from you? Like you have more credibility than semo? Please.
What do YOU know with all your great knowledge that makes Rudy Giuliani a bad leader? Or less of a leader than the wimp-in-Chief we have?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 1:57 PM
We all saw what leadership he had when Rudy tried to get the repub nomination for president. He was a joke then and is still a joke. Raised by a felon...some had to rub off.
-- Posted by left turn on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 2:09 PM
It is the 6th quote down on the page . You can count to 6 , I hope .
-- Posted by ▪Rick on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 2:22 PM
To WIN than to keep...that makes much more sense.
Anyone on Speak Out who continuously wages a character assassination against one single poster on a daily basis with no other civil communications are jealous of the posters they try to character assassinate .
Such a small , small , person with nothing but jealousy admits the person they try to assassinate are better then them .
-- Posted by ▪Rick on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 2:22 PM
Rick, you're a liar. I've show it repeatedly.
Stop lying and I'll stop pointing it out! As long as you (or anyone else) lies, I will point it out.
Now, will you act like a man and apologize to everyone for lying, or are you going to cry a little more?
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 2:31 PM
"...position of having to do something with a law that is never specifically stated."
Are you implying that banks don't have lawyers that specialize in successfully keeping them from having to do something that is not in the law? The "banks must lend to those who can't pay back" claim is purely a conservative fable that they are attempting to repeat often enough so that gullible, low-information conservatives (GLIC's) will believe it.
"Surely you are bright enough to see that?"
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 4:11 PM
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 4:11 PM
I see you still haven't talked to a banking friend...
-- Posted by BonScott on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 4:42 PM
"The Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 established an affordable housing loan purchase mandate for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and that mandate was to be regulated by HUD. Initially, the 1992 legislation required that 30 percent or more of Fannie's and Freddie's loan purchases be related to affordable housing. However, HUD was given the power to set future requirements. In 1995 HUD mandated that 40 percent of Fannie and Freddie's loan purchases would have to support affordable housing. In 1996, HUD directed Freddie and Fannie to provide at least 42% of their mortgage financing to borrowers with income below the median in their area. This target was increased to 50% in 2000 and 52% in 2005. Under the Bush Administration HUD continued to pressure Fannie and Freddie to increase affordable housing purchases -- to as high as 56 percent by the year 2008. In addition, HUD required Freddie and Fannie to provide 12% of their portfolio to "special affordable" loans. Those are loans to borrowers with less than 60% of their area's median income. These targets increased over the years, with a 2008 target of 28%.
"To satisfy these mandates, Fannie and Freddie announced low-income and minority loan commitments. In 1994 Fannie pledged $1 trillion of such loans, a pledge it fulfilled in 2000. In that year Fannie pledged to buy (from private lenders) an additional $2 trillion in low-income and minority loans, and Freddie matched that commitment with its own $2 trillion pledge. Thus, these government sponsored entities pledged to buy, from the private market, a total of $5 trillion in affordable housing loans."
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 4:54 PM
This is the basis for much of the claim. The government wanted people buying homes. There is a long-standing belief that homeownership is good for the economy, and thus the government has encouraged it through tax policies, lending guarantees, etc., for decades.
I agree with the premise, except that I believe an artificially-supported homeownership market is not good for the economy. I think the "housing bubble collapse" supports my view, even though the government-sponsored commission disagrees. Not unsurprisingly, the government-sponsored commission determined that government policies were not primarily at blame. Who saw that one coming?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 4:58 PM
Raised by a felon...some had to rub off.-- Posted by left turn on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 2:09 PM
Left: Using your logic, guess since Pres. Pinky was raised by a Muslin then some had to rub off - thus a closet Muslin. Thanks for helping to make my previous point a few days ago.
You appear to know nothing about this guy. No way could you make that statement if you did.-- Posted by Reasoning on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 12:02 PM
Reason: Were you not alive at the time of 9/11, Rudy Giuliani was a source of national inspiration not unlike our current Leader of the Free World.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 2:31 PM
Mic2: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 5:03 PM
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 4:11 PM
Believe what you want to believe Common. People a lot smarter than you have come to the conclusion that banks were literally forced into lending to those unable, unwilling or absolutely dedicated to not repaying.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 5:07 PM
Common
The government pushed for greater mortgage securitization in an effort to increase CRA loans. Fannie and Freddie (Barneys Bud's) promised to take 2 trillion of fair mortgages. The government intentionally decreased the risks to the banks in order to increase loans to low-income borrowers and minorities.
This was to help banks increase CRA loans. BTW Clinton promised to lower the boom on banks that didn't follow his demand of more lending.
BTW this was started for and because of the Community organizers in the 70's. It only took 30 years to blow sky high.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 5:10 PM
banks were literally forced into lending to those unable, unwilling or absolutely dedicated to not repaying.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 5:07 PM
Then when the finally got them out many of the houses were stripped or heavily damaged. It was all the rich mans fault.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 5:41 PM
I'm glad to hear Obama was a source of national inspiration after 9/11.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 5:45 PM
I'm just glad he wasn't president during 9/11...He would have had to throw out the first pitch at Yankee Stadium when they resumed baseball, and my 6 year old daughter throws better.
-- Posted by BonScott on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 5:53 PM
"Rudy Giuliani was a source of national inspiration not unlike our current Leader of the Free World."
Who is currently the "Leader of the Free World"?
The world has all the appearances of floating aimlessly with no direction... totally rudderless.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 5:53 PM
The government pushed for greater mortgage securitization ...."
I don't disagree at all. My contention all along was only that this statement, "It was regulations making banks give loans to people that couldn't make the payments..." is totally false. And no one has found the "regulation" that says that. End of discussion, OK.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 6:00 PM
Wheels: S/B Leader of the Free World Pres. Pinky ☺☺
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 6:02 PM
So, Common, if "making banks" was replaced with 'caused banks to", you agree.
As I indicated, this has all been hashed out before and you come back with your revision of history again thinking there may be someone you can convince it was all republican deregulation at fault.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 6:12 PM
"Wheels: S/B Leader of the Free World Pres. Pinky"
By his own words, we are no longer special.... which leaves him out as the leader. We had 43 leaders before him, then we ran out of talent. Now we have nothing for a President.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 6:28 PM
By his own words, we are no longer special....
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 6:28 PM
Source, please.
I searched and saw some people claiming Obama said the U.S wasn't "exceptional" based on a 2009 speech at a NATO summit, but the text of Obama's quote completely debunks those claims. Are you referring to a different quote?
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 6:56 PM
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 6:56 PM
Source please
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 7:11 PM
My contention all along was only that this statement, "It was regulations making banks give loans to people that couldn't make the payments..." is totally false. And no one has found the "regulation" that says that. End of discussion, OK.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 6:00 PM
Not the end.
The CRA had set a plan to action and it fell into place when the circumstances were right.
The CRA was used to force the banks to give loans they usually wouldn't give. If they wanted the good interest money they had to give in on qualifications threshold that the government set seriously low.
So yes the regulations did it.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 7:24 PM
Also if you wanted to build a bank in a area you had to make a percentage of loans in the same neighborhood.
As you know there are properties banks use that are at a strip mall or along a highway to serve people that use that area. But two blocks back could be a blighted area that would be hard to make any qualifying loans in. The bank would have to make those loans if they wanted to have a branch there.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 7:31 PM
Source, please.
I searched and saw some people claiming Obama said the U.S wasn't "exceptional" based on a 2009 speech at a NATO summit, but the text of Obama's quote completely debunks those claims. Are you referring to a different quote?
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 6:56 PM
I never used a direct quote. My comment comes from some of the verbiage that I have heard from Obama's lips at various times over the past several years.
If you don't believe that is his feeling perhaps you need to start paying more attention. Pretty sure I am not the only one who has heard those type conversations from Obama. Heard it somewhere with in the past week, but do not remember the station or the program.
If you haven't heard it.... do your own research.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 7:40 PM
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 6:56 PM
Source please
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 7:11 PM
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 7:40 PM
I never used a direct quote. My comment comes from some of the verbiage that I have heard from Obama's lips at various times over the past several years.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 7:40 PM
Various times? Why, then it should be easy for you to give an example. One is fine.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 7:43 PM
Wheels, A white house press secretary has how much credibility? Wonder what happens to those people when Obama replaces them.
I can't see much reason anyone would have to continue to respond to someone who's whole purpose and thrill is to convince himself he was right in calling people liars.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 7:54 PM
"Various times? Why, then it should be easy for you to give an example. One is fine."
As I stated before, if you are that uninformed you should do a little reading. Since I am not your Lackey, do your own reading and research.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 7:56 PM
I guess Common knows when he is beat......
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 9:59 PM
"....banks to give loans they usually wouldn't give."
Yes, the practice of "red-lining" was eliminated. But no one ever said to make loans to people that can't pay back.
Please explain that to OJ because he seems still to not comprehend that.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 10:39 PM
Source please...(in case you never got down to it)
President Obama: "I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.
"I'm enormously proud of my country and its role and history in the world. If you think about the site of this summit and what it means, I don't think America should be embarrassed to see evidence of the sacrifices of our troops, the enormous amount of resources that were put into Europe postwar, and our leadership in crafting an Alliance that ultimately led to the unification of Europe. We should take great pride in that.
And if you think of our current situation, the United States remains the largest economy in the world. We have unmatched military capability. And I think that we have a core set of values that are enshrined in our Constitution, in our body of law, in our democratic practices, in our belief in free speech and equality, that, though imperfect, are exceptional.
"Now, the fact that I am very proud of my country and I think that we've got a whole lot to offer the world does not lessen my interest in recognizing the value and wonderful qualities of other countries, or recognizing that we're not always going to be right, or that other people may have good ideas, or that in order for us to work collectively, all parties have to compromise and that includes us.
"And so I see no contradiction between believing that America has a continued extraordinary role in leading the world toward peace and prosperity and recognizing that that leadership is incumbent, depends on, our ability to create partnerships because we create partnerships because we can't solve these problems alone."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 10:50 PM
Common,
You are the one that needs it explained to him. In those "red lined" areas it would put you to the test to find very many people worthy of a loan on a house. And that is not being racially prejudiced.... in some areas they are dirt poor and cannot make the payments as has been proven.
Of course some fine neighborhoods with 300,000 and 400,000 dollar homes you find the same thing. Everybody's ability to obtain a loan should stand on their ability to pay, with no outside pressure to give them a loan if or not they can afford it.
Anybody with a brain knows what happened before the housing collapse.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 10:50 PM
So now you're both wrong. That's funny.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 11:07 PM
So now you're both wrong. That's funny.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 11:07 PM
Says who???
If you were honest you would do as suggested, speak to a banker and find out the truth.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 11:29 PM
"Various times? Why, then it should be easy for you to give an example. One is fine."
As I stated before, if you are that uninformed you should do a little reading. Since I am not your Lackey, do your own reading and research.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 7:56 PM
I did my own research and I didn't find anything like you claim exists. However, I know I don't know everything and at have missed something. Please, point me to one of these serious examples I may have missed.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Fri, Feb 27, 2015, at 4:18 AM
Actually, "Red lining" made sense, because the values of homes are generally dependent upon geography. It does not matter whether the prospective homeowner is capable of affording the payments, since the home (if forced into foreclosure) may not be saleable because of its location.
That is to say, in certain geographical areas, property values are expected to decrease, rather than increase, over time. Home investments in these neighborhoods are thus considered a bad deal, and a law which prohibits "redlining" does, in fact, mandate bad loans, as it requires lenders to lend money on homes whose value can reasonably be expected to fall below the mortgage value.
There is more to lending than simply being able to repay the loan, the value of the collateral is also important. It does not matter if you can afford to repay a $50,000 loan. If you are borrowing against $60,000 of perishable goods, it is a bad loan. If you are borrowing it against $30,000 worth of property, it is a bad loan. If you are borrowing it against $60,000 worth of property that has a high probability of being worth only $30,000 in the near future, it is a bad loan.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Feb 27, 2015, at 8:29 AM
Redlining alone is not the culprit, as there were (and are) many overvalued homes on the market, and lenders were (and are) encouraged to extend mortgages on them based on flawed assessments of their value and pie-in-the-sky projections of value increases. The old argument that real-estate values will continue to increase because "they aren't making any more land" is flawed, because there remains significant amounts of land available for sale, and there remains also an ever-increasing number of factors which can render valuable land practically valueless. Many of these factors are geographical in nature.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Feb 27, 2015, at 8:34 AM
"These are gifts from Mother Nature to all."
The recipient of a gift is the owner thereof. The "all" cede their ownership through the establishment of governments, and those governments set rules for the disposition of the properties under their authority. It has always been thus.
When governments are overthrown, agreements established regarding ownership are generally null and void, and those wishing to retain their title must renegotiate those terms with their new lords. Many a title has been lost by those who were not able to gain favour with the new lords, or as a punishment for standing with the old ones.
Some government retain a sense of the collective ownership of the land, yet even there they generally hold that they (the government) are the lawful owners of it, and not the people themselves.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Feb 27, 2015, at 8:51 AM
-- Posted by ▪Rick on Fri, Feb 27, 2015, at 8:45 AM
Rick: When did Mother Nature become the Federal Government.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Fri, Feb 27, 2015, at 8:56 AM
But even in instances in which is not considered the owner of the land, they can be the owner of that which is built upon it.
The value of the structures can thus be affected by the terms under which the land is leased. A condominium in Hawaii can costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. However, if the land upon which the condominium is built is nearing its expiration, the value can plummet, as the purchase of such is considered a high risk. If the property lease is not renewed, the value of the condominium is forfeit, as the land owner is not obligated to uphold the agreement between the former owner of the structure and the tenants.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Feb 27, 2015, at 8:58 AM
Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Feb 27, 2015, at 8:51 AM
Are children gifts from mother nature?
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Feb 27, 2015, at 9:02 AM
There are 20 RV lots on the street I live on 3 months of the year. I own two of those lots. There are two other owners that each have two of the 20 lots. Everybody else owns one each. I was the first owner to own two of the lots. Does that make me a "Majority" owner?
What happens if one of the other owners that has 2 lots, buys another lot and then has 3, will he then be the "Majority" owner.
Will this new "Majority" owner be able to control the vote at the annual property owners association?
I am so confused this morning.... wonder if I could get Reasoning and Theorist to clear the confusion they have created?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Feb 27, 2015, at 9:20 AM
"Are children gifts from mother nature?"
I prefer to think of them as gifts from God, but "Yes" is the answer.
In some jurisdictions, the government claims "ownership" or authority over the children born within their jurisdiction. Our government is moving in that direction, with the increased involvement of the state in parental decision making, and their claim is determinant in many cases that were previously the realm of parents.
We generally do not think of children as the property of their parents, their guardians, or of the state, but rather as "wards" thereof.
Thus, while we think of children as a "gift from God", we are actually accepting that the privilege of raising them is the gift, as God retains ownership of his children, and reserves the right to recall them at His discretion.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Feb 27, 2015, at 9:23 AM
Are children gifts from mother nature?
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Feb 27, 2015, at 9:02 AM
Old John,
I have most often heard them described as a gift from God..... but there has been a time or two with three of them in the back seat and in heavy traffic where I might have questioned if they were gifts or punishment.
"He's touching me, make him move over!"
Aaaeeehh, yah, yayeee!!!
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Feb 27, 2015, at 9:27 AM
You have to stop Wheels. I haven't started drinking yet...😊
But I am going to drink the "majority" of the beer in my fridge tonight.🍻
-- Posted by BonScott on Fri, Feb 27, 2015, at 9:28 AM
-- Posted by BonScott on Fri, Feb 27, 2015, at 9:28 AM
Bon: Now count the number of beers that you have, divide the total by 2, and drink one more than the answer was would be the majority. However if the answer is an odd number than drink one of them and repeat the first step. It's 5 o'clock somewhere.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Fri, Feb 27, 2015, at 9:37 AM
-- Posted by semo471 on Fri, Feb 27, 2015, at 9:37 AM
Lol...You got that right!!🍻
-- Posted by BonScott on Fri, Feb 27, 2015, at 10:16 AM
Dear Boss:
You asked for an explanation as to why I was not at work yesterday, and so I have attempted to explain it here:
I had twelve bottles of whiskey in the house, and my wife told me to empty the contents of each bottle in the sink, or else.
So I proceeded with the unpleasant task. I withdrew the cork from the first bottle and poured the contents down the sink, with the exception of one glass, which I drank.
I withdrew the cork from the second bottle and did likewise, with the exception of one glass, which I drank.
I withdrew the cork from the third bottle and poured the whiskey down the sink ,with the exception of one glass which, which I drank.
I pulled the cork from the fourth sink and poured the bottle down the glass, which I drank.
I pulled the bottle from the cork of the next and drank the sink out of it, and threw the rest down the glass.
I took the sink out of the glass, bottled the drink, and drank the pour.
When I had everything emptied, I steadied the house with one hand, and with the other four hands, I counted the bottles, corks, glasses, and sinks. As the house came by, I counted them again.
I finally had all the houses in one bottle, which I drank.
I was not half so think as you might drunk, but I felt so feelish I didn't know who was me. And the drunker I stood there the longer I got.
Sincerely,
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Feb 27, 2015, at 10:24 AM
So what happened to the majority of the drink?
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Feb 27, 2015, at 10:28 AM
Clinton won it.
-- Posted by Reasoning on Fri, Feb 27, 2015, at 11:16 AM
I wonder if it was bought with money donated to his wife's campaign funds.
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Feb 27, 2015, at 11:18 AM
Reasoning, you're starting to teeter over into Mic2 territory. Please don't do that...:)
-- Posted by BonScott on Fri, Feb 27, 2015, at 11:19 AM
Why, are you saying three is a crowd, BS?
-- Posted by Reasoning on Fri, Feb 27, 2015, at 11:22 AM
Clinton won it. -- Posted by Reasoning on Fri, Feb 27, 2015, at 11:16 AM
Finally a truthful statement. Refreshing...
-- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, Feb 27, 2015, at 11:26 AM
I always heard "Three's Company"...just ask Jack Tripper.:)
-- Posted by BonScott on Fri, Feb 27, 2015, at 11:42 AM
Clinton won it.
-- Posted by Reasoning on Fri, Feb 27, 2015, at 11:16 AM
No kidding.... I didn't know that.
He still did not win a "Majority". Just admit it.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Feb 27, 2015, at 11:42 AM
So what happened to the majority of the drink?
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Feb 27, 2015, at 10:28 AM
It became a "minority" as it hit the sewer main at the street and mingled with the flush of two toilets up the street.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Feb 27, 2015, at 11:45 AM
Reasoning,
There is a mass murder in Texas County to use in you cause.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Feb 27, 2015, at 12:14 PM
I know. It is horrible. I am not commenting because so little is known or released.
-- Posted by Reasoning on Fri, Feb 27, 2015, at 12:39 PM
I am not commenting because so little is known or released. -- Posted by Reasoning on Fri, Feb 27, 2015, at 12:39 PM
I believe that a gun was used. That is usually all you need to know, right?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, Feb 27, 2015, at 12:43 PM
I believe that a gun was used. That is usually all you need to know, right?
-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Feb 27, 2015, at 12:43 PM
That was what I was thinking Dug.... it has never stopped him/her before. Ready, Fire..... Aim!
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Feb 27, 2015, at 12:49 PM
Right Dug. At least he didn't have a rope.
Well, Ms. Wheels, your fired.
-- Posted by Reasoning on Fri, Feb 27, 2015, at 1:01 PM
-- Posted by ▪Rick on Fri, Feb 27, 2015, at 12:46 PM
Rick,
I think we need to put this on a computer model and analyize and theorize what might have happened since mankind first inhabited North America. Then we can truly understand to what degree (not temperture) that your people may have been considered to be a government unto themselves and in what year they first started to gather into villages therefore needing to be governed.
Then, we can calculate to what degree the temperature of government is rising, the speed at which it reaches critical mass and how many years down the road it will be before each and every one of us is appointed a personal government guardian to watch our every move. And to keep us from getting our feet dirty as the oceans of BS rise. Kind of a personal "Government Guardian Angel" so to speak.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Feb 27, 2015, at 1:04 PM
dang, I didn't mean that, you are fired! Now, better
-- Posted by Reasoning on Fri, Feb 27, 2015, at 1:05 PM
"Well, Ms. Wheels, your fired."
Sorry Reasoning... that would be "you're" as in you are.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Feb 27, 2015, at 1:07 PM
Already corrected Ms. Wheels, you're a might slow today too!
-- Posted by Reasoning on Fri, Feb 27, 2015, at 1:10 PM
"Mother Natural has no need for establishment of governments nor will She cede herself to any Government."
Her approval is not needed. Once a gift is given, it is the property of the recipient. If they wish to cede it over to authority (or if it is taken from them by authority), that is a matter between them and the authority to sort out.
Every now and then we hear of someone who complains that they were not consulted before a gift they gave is regifted, sold, or otherwise disposed of. Some believe that, in giving a gift, they retain some sort of power of the use or disposition of the gift by the recipient. That is not the normal understanding of gift giving. They often end up writing to Dear Abby asking if they should have been consulted before giving up the gift. Dear Abby's usual answer is "no".
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Feb 27, 2015, at 1:11 PM
Already corrected Ms. Wheels, you're a might slow today too!
-- Posted by Reasoning on Fri, Feb 27, 2015, at 1:10 PM
Yeah, I know.... still mulling over the "Majority" issue.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Feb 27, 2015, at 1:13 PM
Already corrected Ms. Wheels, you're a might slow today too!
-- Posted by Reasoning on Fri, Feb 27, 2015, at 1:10 PM
And it is a "Minority" of the time that I am that slow.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Feb 27, 2015, at 1:14 PM
The tribe is one of the most basic forms of government - they typically have a tribal chief and typically some form of counsel of elders. They establish rules - written or unwritten, and are the authority for deciding disputes.
Even in the "untamed West", the various tribes established territorial claims among themselves, did they not?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Feb 27, 2015, at 1:14 PM
"Would this be territorial ?"
Not as I understand the term.
But it is my understanding that long-standing treaties existed (verbally, not written) establishing what was common ground and what was tribal land. These treaties were established only after conflicts occurred long before written history, probably during in the interim after the great migration, though such conflicts would arise any time a peoples were forced to relocate (drought, floods, climatic changes, overpopulation, etc.).
Accounts exist of these in the South Pacific Islands. The tribes there were not nomadic, for the most part, though they would set sail for distant islands when their own islands became to populous, or they were driven off by invaders from other islands, or from other parts of their own islands.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Feb 27, 2015, at 2:10 PM
Safe travels!
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Feb 27, 2015, at 2:10 PM
Drive careful.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Feb 27, 2015, at 2:18 PM
I don't remember that one. I remember the occupation of Alcatraz, though I was a rather young man at the time.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Feb 27, 2015, at 3:23 PM
Yes, the practice of "red-lining" was eliminated. But no one ever said to make loans to people that can't pay back.
Please explain that to OJ because he seems still to not comprehend that.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 10:39 PM
No... They just made a law that eventually caused it.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Fri, Feb 27, 2015, at 3:39 PM
-- Posted by ▪Rick on Fri, Feb 27, 2015, at 1:59 PM
Rick: Have a safe trip....BTW, take Mic2 along for a road trip he/she needs to be enlightened.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Fri, Feb 27, 2015, at 5:07 PM
SEMO
Good idea.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Fri, Feb 27, 2015, at 6:15 PM
Rick
Which one is you?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Feb 27, 2015, at 6:54 PM
Wheels
The one with the peace pipe........
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Fri, Feb 27, 2015, at 10:40 PM
-- Posted by ▪Rick on Sat, Feb 28, 2015, at 7:36 AM
Thought that might be you. You was just a pup yet back then. :-)
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Feb 28, 2015, at 9:56 AM
Rick: 42 yrs. ago, I remember reading and seeing the accounts that were going on....only from the media sources at that time and not from the A.I.M.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sat, Feb 28, 2015, at 10:26 AM
Another little side-bar to the "economic recovery" that Obama supporters claim:
"U.S. Homeownership Rate Hits 20-Year Low: The homeownership rate in the United States dropped to a 20-year low of 64.5 percent in 2014, according to new data released by the Census Bureau."
I know... it's Bush's fault.
-- Posted by Dug on Tue, Feb 24, 2015, at 11:01 AM
Menu
It was funny to see the liberal press try to cover up the Giuliani statements. Regular folks have tired of the continual bashing of America by it's so called leader. Democrats cried foul so Giuliani doubled down. Love it.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/02/20/giuliani-defends-obama-criticism-says...
Replies (154)