Yeah she really does. The funny thing is that her position on cross-border attacks is one of the best positions she holds... ><
Yeah she really does. The funny thing is that her position on cross-border attacks is one of the best positions she holds... ><
Muslim Children Gassed at Dayton Mosque After "Obsession" DVD Hits Ohio
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/20...697/536/613742
._.
Oh Christianity how I love thee, let me count the ways.
I didn't see this before I made another thread - mods can delete my thread if needed.
I read a very obscure comment that was interesting, although I'll admit it's of a conspiratory nature. Namely, along the lines of the Republican's aiming to lose the elections so that the Democrats would be forced in dealing with the ongoing, and ensuing problems, both economic and foreign. Now, I stress that this was just an intriguing comment I read, and I don't for a second think the Republicans would just "throw in the towel," but then I hear Palin talk and think twice...\
ahahaha
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=jO6dmB...eature=related
Seriously, worst VP pick ever.
EDIT:
She said this before being picked - which is worse. Look at how she rehashes talking points (Change, Hope). It's no different from when she rehashes those of the McCain campaign (Maverick).
This chick just wants to please people it seems. What does she actually believe in? Other than dinosaurs and humans playing tag in the Garden of Eden with Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.
I literally can't listen to her talk any more, between the folksy shit and flat-out stupidity, it's just too much. On the specific topic of that clip, just... wow... if Alaska is up for grabs. It's not just "a little red", Alaska is one of the most consistently Republican states in the country.
How about we punish the people who bought homes they could not afford?
Doesn't their credit go to the crapper?
I think its funny how much McCain has failed this past week.
Palin
Economy
Suspending campaign
Debates
Bailout not going through
Palin again
Honestly, they may be trying to do that but I think if Obama delivers on even a quarter of his big promises which seems likely given overwhelming democratic majority in the house and an almost guaranteed filibuster proof senate come 2010 he'll be re-elected in 2012. Also, many of the foreign problems will likely be easier to fix given the fact that most of the world has a hard on for Obama and is holding their breath in anticipation for his election. Economically, I think as soon as he can get a clean energy bubble going he'll be fine(provided that this bailout doesnt saddle him with almost a trillion in additional debt...)
Also, it seems that the social conservative and more libertarian or moderate factions within the GOP are growing more and more separated from eachother(hence why Palin was picked over more qualified and less evangelical women), so an Obama victory may help complete this schism, leaving the GOP in the wilderness for a little while. I dont think it'll last as long as they went from 1948-1994 out of Congressional power or until the 60s brought out modern conservativism, but definitely like 1994-2006 like the democrats needed to reinvent themselves. Along those same lines, imo there is no rising star on Obama's level in the GOP to reinvent it, in the same way that Obama, Sebellius, Salazar and Schweitzer were all visible 4 years ago.
Gingrich suggested Palin or Jindal, as the future stars of the party and I think to an extent they are trying to position them that way, but if McPalin loses this election, I bet she gets impeached/loses her next election cause Alaska seems more and more pissed with her, and as for Jindal... hes just apeshit crazy (he thinks he has actually exorcised someone possessed by a demon).
edit: on a lighter note anybody else see Keith Olbermann name Obama one of the worst people in the world? lol
Sorry going to take it back to the bailout for just a second. I still disagree with it. Aurik I do understand the points you have made but the fact still stands that they don't NEED the bailout. No more than the big 3(Chevy, Ford, and Dodge) needed their 22 billion bailout. They've frozen the market themselves for their own greed. They CAN move their assets, but they choose not to. Same thing with Wall Street. They were having a normal day UNTIL they found out that the bailout plan wasn't going to go through, then that's when things took a dive(around 1-2pm). Then things went back up slightly until around closing when they took another dive. All of this is nothing more than the banking system and Wall street doing it to themselves. If there is going to be no REAL kind of reform under this bill to make sure this can never happen again such a thing does not need to pass. I just disagree with the government having to bail them out.
*awaits the usual comments*
You know, I had a nice big post written up explaining why it's ridiculous to blame home buyers for the actions of lenders and investment banks, but honestly, it'd be wasted on you, because if you don't understand the very basic ideas behind the current situation, no amount of explaining is going to help. You can't fix stupid.
Let it suffice to say that out of all the people who fucked up to cause this situation, home buyers are pretty much the only ones who can claim that it was an honest mistake made out of ignorance. They're also the ones getting hardest hit by "punishment" at the moment. If you default on your mortgage, you get foreclosed on and kicked out on the street. Not harsh enough for you? Maybe we should start chopping off fingers or something, really make those people think before taking out another mortgage, assuming their credit ever recovers.
Going to agree with Zosi about 95% of the way through. Most of this was not the buyers fault. The predatory lenders and other institutions basically suckered people in a lot of this. They were basically in many cases made to believe that they could afford the house that they bought. It was usually through non-fixed loans that would increase the interest rate over the years. Or something like an interest rate only payments for the first couple years. Getting a loan for something is a lot to understand, if the person loaning the money doesn't explain it properly then it's very difficult for the person who's receiving the loan to understand every part of it(without a lot of research).
Since i don't know a ton about economics (read that as none) why is it that we're helping these corporations when the government is to blame for it in the first place.
Didn't Carter start the whole housing act? That was supported 10x more by Clinton along with organizations like Acorn that made it even easier for Freddy and Fannie to give money to people who couldn't afford a house?
Why are people like Franks saying two years ago this wasn't a problem when Pres Bush and other Senators asked for more regulations on this housing debacle. Why are we now bailing them out when they're the ones that put us into this mess to begin with? Why are the people running these corporations still making zillions of dollars (ok maybe not that much) when the tax payers are now paying for it.
Could someone please explain this to me in simple terms so that I can understand this not a Bush said this, McCain said this Obama did this. I just don't understand how this is a good thing with us giving them money. OK the Dow fell yesterday, but it was only 6.8% I believe (something along those lines)
Let me get this straight first. Interest rates went down from 6.5% to something like 1.4 to 2 % in between 2001 and 2002. The mortgage rate pretty much declined to a an all-time low. I would assume low rates caused more loans to be created and borrowed and most of that in housing loans. Pretty much commercial banks doubled the amount of loans they created. The interest rates had to be given to people with shitty "credit ratings" which made an increase in the demand for homes and real estates.
At what point does the part where the people with shitty "credit ratings" assume that they can afford the homes that were expensive, in the first place? My assumption is you should be homeless. Can call be whatever you want, but you should be homeless.
They didn't necessarily know they were only paying interest is the thing. A lot of these loans were so shady they just signed them on at closing. As someone who is buying a house the amount of paperwork involved with this process is a ton. The amount of times you sign your name to things. If it wasn't explained that their ARM will adjust from that 3.8% to 16% or whatever then obviously they will be foreclosed.
The thing that pisses me off about it is how the government supported this "everyone should own a home" crap.
There are alot of people to "Blame" and "Punish", but that won't help with fixing the problem with the Stock Market.
That's where the 5% comes in. I'm not saying they're not at fault, but it was their own choice to go into something that seemed all nice and pretty with low numbers to start off with. Proper research on things need to be done(most people don't do the research before buying a car for instance). But if they don't the lender should try and give them as much PROPER info as possible. People should only buy what they can afford. But most don't. Hence why most people are in huge amounts of credit card debt. People don't understand how much money interest actually adds.