Just playing around with this site ... TODAY

https://secure.bestratesfrom.us/cash-2a/aboutus.html

I asked for a $400,000 interest only home loan with no money down and income of $36,000 per year.  That's $3,000 per month before taxes and union dues.

Said there were 12 lenders that would consider me ... Yikes.

Interest alone will be $1,667 per month at 5%.  Buy this house and eat ramen noodles, but no money left to heat the house.  No wonder the country is bankrupt. 

Edited to add... Interest only means, NEVER buying the home.  One is only paying the interest, nothing on principle balance.  Who came up with with this crap sandwich??

LOL ...  I play at small town politician.  I kinda doubt HWbar is on Wall street with the whiskey and all.

Both Obama and MCCain have said that their respective parties would shed themselves of special interests and lobbyists. Yet the senate, in formulating a bail out bill that will be the "best for our interests", couldn't get it passed without the inclusion of 1.5 BILLION DOLLARS in "incentives", (PORK) to various members that wouldn't previously agree to its provisions.

Neither candidate, who both made special trips back to DC for the vote and photo ops, objected to the additions and agreed to the plan. I wonder what the house does with it today?

Is it any wonder the public has no confidence in our leadership and the lip service we are constantly served? We will never be free of special interest groups and their affects on our government and our pocket books? Will every politician always have one hand out, palm up while shaking yours with his other? Anyone need some wooden arrows?

Gard

gard- special interest groups are NOT the problem. There is nothign wrong with a group of people wanting to share views to their congressmen/senators. Otherwise, the biggest "special interest group" in the world is the NEA and the democrats sit firmly in their back pocket- you don't hear liberals crying about that. Obama himself recieved over $ 300,000 from fannie Mae/freddy mac. Did he give that back? Nope- he profited from bad liberal soical policies. Don't think for a minute it would be any different if Obama becomes the first muslim president. No its no the "special interests"- its the corrupt politicans that cater to them as long as the money is there.

Here is something- Obama has a liberal track record of failure as all liberal inspired legislation fails. name one liberal policy, either a domestic issue or national security, that worked? ( chrip chrip chrip) Joe Biden isn't any better,in fact, given he has served much longer, is worse. he oppsed the Alaskan pipline for petes sake.

How did we get into this mess? easy- bad liberal economic policies defended and supported by liberals themselves. Jimmy carter started it in 1978. president Clinton expanded it in 1995..liberal made millions ( including the democrats running for pres/VP),ignored GOP who warned them giving loans to people who couldn't afford it was a bad idea and now- this. Why is the GOP to fault? They didn't have the balls to raise holy hell when liberals started insisting people on welfare were good credit risks. The GOP should have raised holy hell when democrats( two of which are in the Obama campaign) started reaping millions and millions in bonuses from Fannie and Freddie and proceeded to run it into the ground.

Gard- it been well documented why we are in this mess. its not captialism. Its not Bushs fault. Its not a result of greed on wall Street ( wall street firms are big democrat supporters BTW) but we are looking at a mess created by the very people who now want 1 trillion bucks to fix it. Where is the money going? Who is getting it? In true liberal fashion, it will line the pockets of the same people responsible,buy some off voters and never solve a thing. You have fallen for the weak and simplistic lip service all polticans play towards "special interests". How about demanding those polticians who started this mess ( barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Obama and Clinton ) be held accountable?

One of the largest contributors in the buying of the government is the US Chamber of Commerce led by chief lobbyist Bruce Joston. They gave over $40 million to both parties.

As long as greed corrupts, as long as everything is for sale including integrity, we will always have problems. I noticed that although I spoke of both parties in generalities and equal blame, you have to start the singular fault scenario. One person, one party didn't create this mess. But then again Farmbabe, everyone that disagrees with you is dumb.

Gard

Guys ... My original post is equal parts serious and humorous.

Please keep to the facts

Farmbabe ... Obama's Religion or race means nothing.  That he has consistently supported uber liberal policy is most important.

Gard... Both partys taking money or support is not an excuse for the current crisis.  That argument is not relevant.  The issue I see, is TOO easy credit to poor borrowers (pun intended)  My OP is an example of bad banking practice.  We should debate why banks would engage in suicidal practices.

Because they know that the government will "Bail" them out. Didn't turn out so bad for them after all, did it?

Not only will the Gov bail them out, but if they don't lend the money they will get sued for not following policy.

Gard:  You wrote "The answer is simple   Greed, by the execs, by the stock holders, by legislators. A bank exec making $20 - $70 million and paying regulators to look the other way when any legislation is being developed? It's very relevant."

You left out the point of my original post.  Greedy home buyers.  Buying an inflated home with the intention of flipping it or walking away from it after trashing the house.

Also, It wasn't the regulators.  (that's easily disproved with the facts.  The GSE's weren't covered by SOX regulations.  And the regulators were pleading to be authorized by congress to inject some sense into Fannie & Freddie.

Remember this ??   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

Watch them ripping the shorts off the regulator guy asking for oversight of the GSE's

It's the mega crap sandwich with earmark toppings. Plus wooden arrows as a side dish.

Mark my words, in the coming months you will be reading how this bailout cash has been turned into a political ATM.

Worst mistake in the history of the USA.

IMO- the fact Obama is a muslim makes a big diffreence to me. Muslims hate this country. Its very relevant point to make which is why the Obama camp and the liberal leaning press have NOT made it an issue.Keep in mind- Obama has made a trek to Europe to slam this country. Everything he proposes will change the face of this great nation.

Here are the facts- it was and has been democratic party led policies which created this mess- its called " affordable housing" in which people who cannot afford a conventional mortgage are then given loans by govt backed instiutions. It was democratically led policies that pressured banks ( even passing laws requiring banks to make bad loans) to ignore standard banking pratices and give loans to those who couldn't make the payments ( PS Clinton even made welfare payments to be considered "income:). It was democrats in congress that IGNORED many warnings about the impending disaster by GOP ( who IMO should have gone to the mat to make this known in 2003-2005) It is now the democrats in congress that want another 1 trillion of your money to "fix" it but where are the details about who the money will be spent and since when was the US govt obligated to bail anyone out? Ignore this lesson at your own peril gard- Democrats cannot be trusted to manage anything. They have proved it each and everytime they try.

I ask you again- name one demcratic program that actually solved the problem it targeted?

Gee, what if this bailout doesn't work? Do the taxpayers get reimbursed??????? After all, it's only money. It's pretty sad when I can't even be in charge of my own bus. Is there going to be an itemized statement of exactly where this money is going? It is OUR money. We have a right to know.

Well I need to go. I have to get to the bank and default on my house so I get it back for free in a few months thank to American politics and the power of greed!!!

Seriously though, I need to go get right with the Lord cuz the end is near!!!!!..........

Today in Ohio, a ninety year old woman tried to commit suicide, by shooting herself as her home was being foreclosed by the authorities. Fanny Mac held the mortgage. How many millions did its board members pay themselves in compensation?

Paulson now has the authority to commit one trillion dollars in funds to whomever with no public oversight hearings. Think Chenny and Haliburton were tight? Lets see what Paulson does with Goldman Sacks.

Is Paulson going to give any money to the mortgage holders? Will that Ohio woman benefit in any way? Not on your life. It will go to the same people that created this mess with little oversight. Government bought and paid for. Greed Greed Greed

Gard

Gard: Your anecdote raises some questions and illuminates your thought processes.

Why does a 90 year old women have a mortgage?  Did she just buy the house? (with a 30 year interest only mortgage perhaps, an extreme optimist!)  Did she have an income to pay a mortgage?  So Fannie Mae held the mortgage... Was she competent to enter into a contract?  Why do you imply that her actions are connected to the Fannie Mae Board members.  I have an issue with FM's Board compensation too.  But it has nothing to do with your example.

If you want sympathy, it's in the dictionary. 

Sub - Prime borrowers are sub prime for a reason.  They don't have the earnings to repay a loan.  Misplaced sympathy and greed are emotions that got us here.  Votes should not be placed in the same way, else the mess spreads.

So are every other legitimized words. This particular one is what helps determine the difference between animals and mankind. It also resides between two words people won't want to read in this forum.

Gard

Very funny!  I wish had thought of that!

Marla

The reason that banks engage in suicidal practices is that the federal government passed a law requiring them to do so.  When Citicorp and others tried to ignore the law in the best interests of the American people, Obama sued  in federal court, forcing the banks to extend credit to un-creditworthy borrowers.  I am so disgusted with politics and politicians that I could just spit.  I think it is genetically impossible for a politician to tell the truth, be they black or white, male or female, democrat or republican.  We would be better served by a bunch of trained chimpanzees.

Marla

From someone interested in facts, A lot of innuendo about GWB is being spewed.

I remember a certain vote in Congress authorizing that same war.  How can it be "Unilateral" ??

I only blame GWB for a poor job of educating the public of "Why we fight".

I want to take a moment to thank Dave for allowing a free exchange of Off-topic comments.  It takes expensive bandwidth. But our country is better for the discussion, if facts are spread and ideas are tested...

I Appreciate everybody for keeping it civil and friendly.

Marla ... Forgive my butt-in-sky ... If I overstep, you may feel free to push me back.

Rose:   Marla never said a court order was issued forcing the banks to make imprudent loans.  What actually happened was a settlement between two parties.  Obama was a lawyer for the plaintif that alleged Citibank was engaging in "red-lining"  The case never came to trial.  The "settlement" was agreed to by Citibank.

Like a lot of law suits, the corporation is more concerned with costs over principle.  You'll find your insurance company will settle a few thousand $$ on a injured tresspasser in your pasture even though they were unlawfully on your property.  So Citibank settled and proceeded to make loans they really didn't want to do to avoid further "COST" & hassle

Here's a site that quotes the specific case citation for you to look up.  

http://www.redcounty.com/sarasota/2008/10/obama-sued-citibank-under-cra/

Bottom line is Obama sued Citi-bank and won. Forcing Citi-Bank to make loans they didn't want to. Welcome to America.

So Rose ...  Citibank was in a position of damned if they do and damned if they don't by Obama et al.    

So they placed money into areas they didn't want to place their money.   I consider that getting forced to make loans.

As you know (judging from your posts) a fair price is determined by a willing seller and a willing buyer.  If any party is forced by a third party, the price is skewed in some direction...  Ergo SUB-PRIME LOANS or known to the taxpayer as a "Crap" Sandwich

So by that.. You mis-spoke.  You meant America's unilateral war.

A key distinction is being ignored.  War is different that Crime.  Crime is only responded to by society after the fact.  A person can say mean things to you all day, But you can't stop him.  Only after that person says something that steps over the lawful line can society act.

In a war (And we are at WAR.  More Americans were killed 9/11 than the other sneak attack at Pearl Harbor) society MUST act preemptively to protect us.  A primary purpose of the gov't as written in the preamble of US CONSTITUTION is to protect us from enemies.  That is fact, not opinion.

Would you rather our gov't do nothing until a mushroom cloud appears over your city?  There is no Liberty for anyone when your throat is slit on Youtube.com.  Our CONSTITUTION places a duty on the gov't to ACT.  That is fact, not opinion.

What the law, however imperfect, attempted to do was to take race, religion, marital status etc out of the loan business.  It also attempted to reverse a tendency of financial institutions to steer certain ethnicities to certain areas of a city.

Now I have no problem with closing out the lending business.  Let everyone pay cash for whatever they want to purchase.  That way, everyone's money would be the same.  If you have the cash, you can buy the item.  Unfortunately, most people in this country cannot pay cash for big ticket items, such as homes, vehicles and so forth. 

hosspuller:  When you did your experiment with the request for a $400,000 loan, and received the information that 12 lenders would consider making this loan, did you feel sorry for the lenders?  Did you feel you were taking advantage of the lenders?  Or that they were willing to take advantage of you?

What this "imperfect" law tried to do was to ensure that every American who wanted to own their own home could do so, whether they could pay for it or not.  When all those people who overreached their abilities failed to pay, me and you and every other responsible American got to pay for them.  I resent the HELL out of that.

Marla

Hello Rose ... "The Road the Hell is paved with good intentions."  That was a saying way before my years on Earth ... Humanity hasn't changed much in thousands of years.  Our technology has greatly amplified our efforts, but the controller between our shoulders is still the same.

While the law attempts to "take race, religion, marital status etc out of the loan business" current events have shown where it has lead. 

Do we still want to tread the same path or attempt a correction?

That's the whole point of my experiment with that site.  Months after the first banking debacle, lender are still willing to deal in "CRAP" sandwiches.  I choose the loan criteria to specifically make it CRAP.  I wouldn't lend money to myself under those criteria.  Yet, the financial system is still making it attractive for lenders to eat it.  The recently passed "CRAP" legislation hasn't changed anything. (well,  maybe added a earmark garnish or dozens.)

Further... Your last question to me seems to imply that "taking advantage" is unseemly. 

Rose, are you a lawyer or skilled as one?  The Law system is essentially adversarial.  Everybody gets to court and battles against each other.  Each struggling for some advantage over each other.  Justice is not fair.  It's what a skilled lawyer can make it to be.  Why not banking then??

I can't explain it, but I can tell you that profiling works 90% of the time, the other 10% of the time people get their feelings hurt, I would guess all these laws are for those 10% that get caught up in a bad profile, you know, the guy with the tatoo on his neck not being considered for the receptionist job.

Rose... your question is a non sequitur.  It doesn't automatically follow that your two borrowers are equal with the exception of marital status.  Do both men have equal job tenure? Job stability? How many residences in the past ten years?  Tenure in the area?  Assets vs liabilities.  Previous home owner?

These questions are asked on the Uniform Residential Loan Application of Fannie Mae form 1003 10/92

What about the declarations of that same form?

"Priced in line with income" what does that mean to you?  It meant to me a home loan I could carry with ZERO income for 1/2 year when I relocated to Atlanta...  That durn realtor keep trying to up sell my wife and I.  (finally fired her! and found another realtor that listened to the price range I wanted) 

The borrower in my on-line experiment would have to default on the mortgage loan when the paperboy collected for the month.

Yep, that is me for sure...I have been trying to drink myself rich for years now...maybe it will now pay off.

Thanks!  Feel free to 'but in' anytime!

Marla

From my too long of a post above:

It has been my experience from both sides of the courtroom (representing plaintiffs and defendant insurance co/companies, as of now for 29 years) that most corporations do not settle "nuisance" suits because that encourages other "nuisance" suits. I have also participated as a witness for a barn owner in a lawsuit against the barn owner of horse, that a prospective purchaser involuntarily dismounted receiving a rather serious injury. The prospective purchaser stated a riding history of "barrel-racing." Further, the claimant could not describe what the horse did wrong. That case was ultimately withdrawn by the plaintiff, after pending for over 5 years. The barn owner's insurance company did not offer a settlement on the case. IMO CitiBank knew it had liability, and contained its potential loss. This is a far cry from "forcing" banks to make imprudent loans.

I assume this was a joke, any enemy of the USA is hoping to get Obama for a president. I'll bet alot of cash on this one. There is a big difference between a Court Room and a Battlefield. One takes a combination of lies and trickery, one takes courage and might.

Ah ...  Rose ... You're a slippery one.  lol...  I too have represented companies, just not as a lawyer or legal counsel ...

Rose .. As I read about the case, Obama  played a small part in the Citibank case. 

What about Obama makes you expect Iran to run & hide if Obama were to be President?  (On the contrary, Iraq is an ally of the USA at the moment.   We have no desire for them to run or hide)

Edited for syntax

Originally written by FrancaV on 2008-10-05 10:45 PM

Yes, we will not agree on this distinction.  Don't be like a lot of the generals in the early years of this war.  Fighting the last war.  It is not the same. There is no war between countries as you said. 

But let's test some ideas.  Without a safe base of some kind to train, recruit, finance, plan, etc.  The people that attacked on us 9/11 would be just a bunch of nuts yelling words of hate.  Without resources, their words have no meaning.   So, any country that uses or allows their sovereignty to protect attackers are subject to attack.  This is a basic principle of war, deny your enemy sources of supply & support. 

As criminals... The 19(?) perpetrators of the attack were killed in the attack.  Who should be prosecuted??  Their families?  Their mother?

You spoke of "This network of "fringe fanatics ... unfound and unpunished"  They didn't do anything criminal in the United States.  They are outside the USA border.  Our laws do not apply.  Especially ... if they are in a country that doesn't "Like" our life style or "whatever"   How should America find and punish them?  Secret hit squads? (I'm kidding)

On this we agree.  President BUSH has done a piss poor job of labeling cause and educating people in the war.

As for the bombing, our military has done their very best to keep from killing non-combatants.  That's the purpose of the Geneva conventions.  Clearly identify the combatants to prevent collateral killing.  Atomic, gas, bio, warfare is clearly not able to selectively fight.   Any hostile force not clearly identified is subject to summery execution.  That we have Gitmo is a Testament to our intent.  According to the Geneva Conventions most of the inmates could have been executed with their weapon in hand.

As for the connection, the blindest are those that don't wish to see.

Our biggest problem is the thing our forefathers feared and that was a large oppressing government. That is what they fought so hard to separate from in the revolution. We need political reform, where the people actually have a say in government. Not you elected me, so what I say is what you want. We need to get rid of ridiculously high pensions for people that serve a term or two in any office. If they expect me to work until I'm at least 62 and they would prefer that to be 72 before I retire, guess what buddy I expect the same of you. If social security and medicaid is good enough for me, it should be good enough for them.

Common, they (and I mean all of them) deregulate that which should be regulated then strive to regulate that which doesn't need to be.

BTW the riders on the bail out piss me off too. Something that important should not have any riders attached to it. From what I've been able to fathom BOTH sides are guilty of that. Adding, not that I think it's going to make one iota of difference in the long run.

If they really want to stabilize the economy they need to stabilize fuel and energy costs. People are not going to spend when they don't know how much they are going to need to keep warm, cool, get to work and eat. Threats of $10 a gallon fuel, does not make one want to go out and buy a new car or especially truck, does it? Especially when people are losing jobs at an alarming rate.

Edited by Yvette 2008-10-05 9:50 PM

Yes... I've expressed my thanks to the site for allowing an off-topic discussion.  Those that don't wish to participate may ...

To say Iraq under SH had nothing to do with 9/11 is false if you can allow a single point.  Aiding and abetting a criminal involves a person in a crime.  So, aiding and abetting any of the conspirators to 9/11 involved Iraq in 9/11.  I can say there is ample proof AQ people were in Iraq in the period leading to 9/11.  Google it.

Mc Cain wasn't my first choice either.  Voting this November is like leadership.  You have to make a clear choice...  "Present" isn't one of them.

Basically:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5L00TQ-DhlI

Well I am never one shy about voicing my opinion even if I get berated.

All I have to say is that anyone who is working and paying taxes better think twice about voting for Obama and his "Economic Justice".   On the other hand, if you don't want to work and have the government pay for everything - welfare, food stamps, and free health insurance then by all means vote for Obama.

The words for this thread are civil discussion.  There will be some back and forth exchanges, but I hope, no berating

The markets are taking another plunge today.  Everybody with a 401K and such is wondering why their retirement pool looks like a toilet.   This is just another way the sub-prime mess is robbing the prudent savers.

I read this on another site. ..."Middle America was mugged by irresponsible loan practices sanctioned by the federal government before the bailout legislation was passed. They are being robbed again. With the passage of the bailout legislation, the potential for the middle class to be robbed again is very real."... 

If this war with Iraq had been based on truth instead of lies I would wholeheartedly support it.  It was not based on truth, and as a result we took our eyes off the real threat, which was Afganistan.  Now the Taliban and Alqeida are making a comeback in Afganistan, leading to more US casualties.  Alqeida was never in Iraq before America destroyed the country and left a vacuum for the terrorists to fill.  Not that Saddam and his sons didn't need killing, they did.

Marla

Marla .. In the same tack as I quoted before, Iraq was in contact with AQ prior to 9/11.   This person has signed her name to a story.  There is some credibility to signed pieces, in my mind.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1133186/posts

What can you point to that says Iraq was not in contact(aiding and abetting) with AQ prior to 9/11.   ( I realize the issue of proving a negative, consider it a push-back for WMD)

A phrase comes to mind for your hossies plowing as a team... "Unequally yoked".

My family and I went to northern Ohio on vacation last year to Amish country. These people are not dumb, I look around at all the people in my area, and I think back to when I was a child. There are a few major differences. When I was a child, every back yard had a clothesline, and a garden. Every tobacco patch was being worked by young Americans. People also kept a car/truck about 10 years. The bottom line is we are spoiled, we want what we want, and we want it now. When I was a child we would go to the house for lunch and my mother would have a sit down lunch prepared, now we have french fries under the seat in our cars/trucks. We will have to change our ways in the future, pay down our debts and live within our means. I think better times are ahead.

Rose, I would consider an in-line harness setup for your hossies.

There's a news column that printed The following more or less quote: In a study they found that 47% of Americans believe Iraq was involved in the nine eleven attack. Now we know how many people aren't paying attention.

Yvette ... Why do you say that "Iraq neither aided nor abetted the conspirators of 9-11."  What published information says so.  Can you give an example?   (Other than "it's a Bush lie")

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/11/AR2007091102316.html

More Bush slight of hand. There may have been contact, but there was NO collaboration.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50679-2004Jun17.html

http://www.truthout.org/article/iraq-and-911-the-truth-is-out

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/attack/140133_bushiraq18.html

BTW, remember who funded Osama Bin Laden from the start? That would have been Reagan and Bush Sr. So, you may say they collaborated with al Qaeda as well in that context.

Edited by Yvette 2008-10-09 10:16 PM

Originally written by Yvette on 2008-10-09 9:12 AM

Yvette ... Thanks for the links.. reading through them. I agree that Iraq was not involved in the actual 9/11 attack. 

BUT that is not the issue.  Sleight of hand on your part indeed ! 

Here's a quote from one of your links.  "President says Saddam had ties to al-Qaida, but apparently not to attacks"

Remember my post ?

AQ is the attacker and Iraq under SH was aiding and abetting AQ.    SO Iraq under SH was involved.  Not the attacker. But involved as a supporter.  Then, in your proposed criminal justice response to terror attacks, this linkage is appropriate and customary.

As for your last response.  American support to Osama Bin Laden and the Afghan resistance was not aid to AQ.  Nor was aid to Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war.   It was aid to an enemy of America's enemy (at the time... USSR and then Iran)  Situations change.  Obama has demonstrated he doesn't change when the facts change.  He still believes America should precipitously withdraw from Iraq.  He was wrong about the surge strategy (I couldn't restrain myself from that dig)

That OBS attacked America is just the nature of the dog that bites the hand that fed it.

Originally written by Yvette on 2008-10-12 2:39 AM

Originally written by hosspuller on 2008-10-09 11:12 PM

Yvette ... Thanks for the links.. reading through them. I agree that Iraq was not involved in the actual 9/11 attack. BUT that is not the issue.

Actually, that was the issue. No slight of hand on my part at all, mere truth. OK, perhaps a bit of cynicism and sarcasm. Remember who was shakiing Saddam's hand and selling him weapons and chemicals and helicopters in the eighties and I can tell you it wasn't Carter. OK, we were also arming Iran and Afghanistan back then too. When you make your bed you best be prepared to sleep in it. We can only hope someone washes the sheets soon.

We'll just have to agree to disagree... I hope there will be sheets to wash if a President Obama allows the defense of the country to join the taxpayers in the hand basket.  

FrancaV ... I'm glad you agree that we are engaged in a "War" as differentiated from a criminal "action"

I made a mistake when I said the preamble requires action.  It isn't law since it doesn't require anything.  It just provides context.

What does require action... Is the President's oath of office.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

He is required to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and by inference the US of A.  If he/she doesn't, then he is negligent or worse.

Neither you or I get to determine what action is required.  Only the President as COC.  I am supporting the only person with the legal right to make the decisions for preemptive action.

How does your interpretation of the Constitution, says the Iraq actions were improper?

Genebob ... I wouldn't care if Obama swore on a stack of pancakes if he chose.  Or if he wore a turban as he recited the oath of office.  Or he doesn't "look" like me (He doesn't, nor likely you look like me either.) Obama played the "Race" card ...

I do care that his past actions indicate a level of gov't way beyond my comfort.  He has been associated with ACORN, A group whose actions trend toward the illegal.  There are other reasons I judge him to be the least choice in this election.  (I welcome Private Messages if anyone cares to know)

FrancaV  ... Your last post is a bit scary.    I can agree with most of it (quoted above)

For your rhetorical questions... Definitely research stuff on your own.  The media has it's own filter and bias.  Bias is not bad.  But to act out and speak one's bias while proclaiming otherwise is dishonest. 

I don't deny some of our freedom has been lost via the terror war.  I make sure my socks don't have holes when flying now.  In the war against Islamic-fascism some freedoms must be restricted.  Otherwise those same freedoms, like the airplanes in 9/11, will be commandeered to harm us.

As to your last question... The Islamic terrorists have a vision of everybody living like the 8th century.  There was no need for a gov't or wide spread transport or communication.   Everyone was living dirt poor in the dirt around them. 

No one has to run anything.  Except the local Mullahs, they will run or ruin your life. 

I have bee gone for a few days and am just now catching up on the debate.  I really don't give a rat's eyelash what someone's religious beliefs are.  This nation was founded on the premise of religious freedom.  That to me means whatever floats your boat, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. I don't care if the President takes the oath of office with his hand on the bible or a roll of toilet paper, it is all the same to me.  What does matter is that he uphold the Constitution, that he puts America's welfare above all else.  I sincerely doubt that the attack on Iraq was in our best interests.  It is amazing to me that the US supplied the equipment, knowledge, and money to allow Saddam to use biological weapons on innocent civilians as long as those civilians were his own people or Iranians.  Then when Bush wanted to justify his war he was suddenly opposed to biological warfare and used that as his excuse.  And what is even more obnoxious it the fact that we bought into his game lock, stock and barrel.  Go figure!

Marla

Okay  Marla ... Until you wrote "sincerely"  I could support and agree with you.   Your post just begs for confirmation.  Credibility is all we have on the Internet.  Please post some verifiable source for your statement.

"...US supplied the equipment, knowledge, and money to allow Saddam to use biological weapons on innocent civilians as long as those civilians were his own people or Iranians. "   

Was it American gov't policy that you accuse of providing Bio weapons or are you speaking of medical equipment? 

There is a huge difference.  I can use a machine center to make farm machinery or use the same to make a weapon.

As stated by Marla, FrancaV and myself based on fact the USA supported Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan with weapons of both the conventional and chemical type until Saddam made the mistake of invading Kuwait, which was a bad move, but somewhat understandable since they were drilling oil on his side of the boarder by angling under the boarder. However he should have taken it up diplomatically before invading a UN nation.

It is very scary what people will believe. I nearly died of laughter by the look of embarrasment he had when that WT lady told him after reading things on the internet that she was afraid of Obama because he's an Arab. LOL Yup, gotta love the well informed. Anyone tell these people he grew up in Hawaii? Hello?

Yup,..........That's what the Kool-Aid kids think.

Yvette ... It is indeed, very scary to me what you believe about our country without verified fact.

The Internet has been  invaluable to me in separating hearsay from fact. 

Help me see the facts to which Marla, FancaV and yourself believe in.  As for conventional weapons, they were supplied at different times to either our allies or enemy of our enemy.  People, places, and regimes change.   We trade today with Germany, Japan and Vietnam... Don't keep fighting the last war. 

What chemical weapon was supplied to anyone??

I don't remember anyone on this thread saying that Saddam and his henchmen were decent human beings.  Just the opposite has been stated many times.  They were brutal, disgusting excuses for humans, but were they a threat to American security?  The following websites may prove enlightening for some regarding the influence of America, Britian, and Italy in arming Saddam.  This is not hearsay, this is fact.  The US has been crapping in it's own nest for many years.  The same thing that happened with Saddam happened in Somalia, and US troops were killed by the very weapons our government supplied to the warlords.  And as long as the CIA needed the funds from the Nicaraguan drug trade, things were just peachy, but when the scheme was uncovered and Noriega was no longer an asset, he wound up in an American prison.  The pattern just keeps repeating itself.  The people who dream up these policies are as morally bankrupt as the regimes they work against.  I can't help but wonder : If those policymakers children were likely to face the business end of a weapon, would they make the same decisions?  And before anyone accuses me of being un-American, let me tell you that I know very well the sacrifices required to keep this nation free and assure me the freedoms I cherish.  I come from a family of 10 sons who have all served in the military.  My father served in the south pacific in WWII, two of my brothers served in Vietnam, one in Panama and in Grenada, another in Korea, and the rest in the two Gulf wars and in Afganistan.

WWW.counterpunch.org

www.greenleft.org.au

www.breitbart.com

www.iranchamber.com

www.globalpolicy.com

Marla

Marla, you might want to go give your brothers and other family members that served a big hug, because someone with your anti-government views living under the dictatorships that you defend would be dead. You can thank all veterans for your right to stand up and just be wrong. I'll just say that 14 times Sadam broke the UN resolution pertaining to him. You think that is OK, I don't.

Marla .. Each of those links had nothing on Chemical weapons supplied by the US to IRAQ under SH.

I would characterize most of them as kool-aid for the deranged.   I'm still asking and looking for verifiable facts.

OK the made up dialog is goofy, but there are links to real factual information.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43U6ebNYEBI

Yvette ...  I would not consider these verifiable sources.  There are no links presented.  (except to theyoungturks.com)

"The Young Turks" is the anti-Rush Limbaugh show.   It is an entertainment.  Rush says he's an entertainer.  I would just as well watch a Mickey Mouse cartoon for information on rodent control as use the links you've posted.

"Goofy" is an apt description of these sources.

 You're really scaring me ...with your voting opinions formed from false thinking

Hi Hosspuller

As my ol Pappy used to day, you can't believe something just because it is in the newspaper  (now that should be updated;  just because it is on the 'net)

Thank you Rose... For the supporting remark...  That's exactly the reason I 've asked Yvette or anyone else for verifiable sites suggesting USA supplied chem weapons to Iraq.

According to Wikipedia Obama lived in Hawaii until the age of 8 and then moved to Indonesia where he stayed until graduating from high school. The 10 years that he was there he was exposed to the Islamic faith and the ways of Islam.

Just fyi.

I don't trust Obama. I don't know that his allegiance is to this country at all. With John McCain, I know that he is loyal to America and has put his blood, sweat and tears on the line for America. That goes a long way in my book. Also his morals and beliefs are more in line with mine, and that is very important to me.

McCain is not Bush and shouldn't be compared to him.

Just because they are from the same party doesn't mean that they can't have different ways of running this country. I know that McCain disagreed with Bush many times.

Our country is in a Big mess. Whoever is elected has a tough road ahead!!

McCain gets my vote!!!

Back to the original post...

More "crap" is bubbling up!  Now the taxpayer is on the line for someone's shiny new car.  This I can't abide.  I've always driven either old cars or kept the new vehicle until the wheels fell off.  (A lot of my experience, shared here, comes from working with broken cars) 

It is so unfair! ... that somebody gets a new car at your and my expense.

  Finance Firms Want Govt to Buy Bad Auto Loans

Here's the link ...  http://www.cnbc.com/id/27193257

stablemom... (Quote) According to Wikipedia.... Be careful what you read and believe over on that site. Anyone can go over there and edit, add or delete sentences or phrases. You can make it what ever you want it to be until someone else comes along and changes it..... Not alot of policing on there.

hoss.... All the banking crooks are coming out of the woodwork with their hands held out.... They're all sitting around like a bunch of baby birds in their nest waiting for Uncle Sam to pitch on the nest and puke up some cash to fatten their bellies!!!

I get my "factual info" from......The old guys sitting around the spitune or the tin heater at the "Jacks" country store.... More fact there than fiction and much more "colorful" to boot!!

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq31.pdf

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEB
82/iraq31.pdf

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq42.pdf

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq47.pdf

http://www.democra
iv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq47.pdf

http://www.democracynow.org/2004/6/9/remembering_the_dead_reagan_armed_iraq

Search
ed_iraq

Search
for your own unclassified documents at George Washington University.http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/#docs

Obama shouldn't frighten anyone. He is an American, born in America that loves America. He really does.

I served in the US Air Force during Desert Storm and fully supported the action. I was all for going to Baghdad then, but Bush Sr, Cheney, et al didn't think it was a good idea, because they didn't have a viable exit plan. OK, maybe because it was too close to their buddy, buddy days with Saddam. I said I understood why Saddam was upset that Kuwait was stealing oil from him, but never understood why he thought he could just invade Kuwait, a UN country, without consequences. As for our invasion several years ago, there was no real reason to invade Iraq except to get rid of an oil competitor that was not going with their price fixing program.

What does frighten me is the the Right's hate and fear spewing Machine, and BTW why I won't listen to your misinformed fear drivel is I don't do fear well. I caught some of an AM band radio show on the way home last night that was so off the wall with blatant lies and truth twists it's hard to believe anyone would believe anything coming out of his fear mongering mouth.( Not Rush this time) I know people do listen, because someone I would have never expected to hear such a thing from actually said, "Obama is an ignorant N-----!" Where the hell did that come from? And why would he think that was a good thing to say to me? :-/ More important Obama isn't an ignorant anything and certainly not that word. He grew up at his grandparents in Hawaii, hello. Went to college and did very well there.

Is Obama a politician, sure, but he has shown that his interests are for the majority not just the top 10 percent or the fearful Americans that would have followed Hitler into fascism if it meant they could walk around saying they are superior just cause.

Best advice I can give no matter who wins is find where their interests lie and buy stock. I so wish I had money when Bush the draft dodger got elected, because, duh, no brainer about oil.

Yvette ... Thanks for that first link.  It proves my point.  Iraq has purchased Chemical weapon capability.

You keep saying America gave Iraq Chem weapons.  All your verifiable links say NOT.   They DO say Saddam tried to produce chem weapons himself.  I don't understand how you can understand the exact opposite of your own evidence.   The US Gov't didn't give him any Chem weapons.  With the fraud ridden "oil for food" program money, Saddam bought anything and anybody he could.  With enough money, anything can be bought.  Even a Nuke. 

The current effort is to stop the sale and purchase of weapons to kill American cities.

AS for the hate and lies you write about, look at your own posts.  They are full of opinion and speculation made up to be fact. 

Shall I highlight them?

edited to add the timeline from the first video those links came from. Mores the point that while publicly condemning Saddam, Rumsfield was being chummy with him.

From: CapitalistHolocaustAdded: June 27, 2008(more info)(less info)Want to Subscribe?Sign in to YouTube now!Sign in with your Google Account!Declassified U.S. Documents show that American offic...Declassified U.S. Documents show that American officials KNEW that Saddam was USING CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST THE KURDS & the Iranians, but decided to support Saddam anyway...first in secret, then formal relations were restored in November 1984.

Not only that, they secretly okayed shipments of CHEMICAL PRECURSORS TO IRAQ andinstructed the American UN Delegate to garner support from the Western Countries for a motion of 'NO DECISION' on a draft UN Resolution to condemn Iraqi use of Chemical Weapons...or failing that to ABSTAIN (& EFFECTIVELY VETO THE RESOLUTION) !!!!

**********************************

A United States Declassified Document from Nov 1, 1983 states:

"We have recently received additional information confirming Iraqi use of Chemical Weapons."

"in order to maintain the credibility of US policy on CW," it would be a good idea to mention these measure to Iraq in an effort to "reduce or halt, what now appears to be Iraq's almost daily use of CW"

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/N...

**********************************

In December 1983 Donald Rumsfeld (in full knowledge that Iraq was using chemical weapons on a daily basis & had gassed the Kurds) met & shook hands with Saddam:

Rumsfeld has since claimed he mentioned US dissatisfaction with Iraqis use of Chemical Weapons at the meeting - HOWEVER - there are no mentions in the detailed notes of the meeting:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/N...

**********************************

On March 4, 1984, a Dept of State Cable from George P.Shultz to the U.S. Interests Section in Iraq shows that a shipment of 22,000 pounds of phosphorous fluoride being sent to Iraq via Europe was being held back pending further advice;

It requests the interests section advises the Iraq Ministry of Foreign Affairs that;

"We anticipate making a public condemnation of Iraqi use of Chemical Weapons in the near future"

On Iraqi use of U.S. chemicals to make CW:

"When we become aware of attempts to do so, we will act to prevent their export to Iraq."

(Something the American's know fine well that Saddam is doing)

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/N...

**********************************

The Iranians drafted a UN Resolution condemning Iraqi use of Chemical Weapons.

The Dept. of State sent a cable to the Mission to the European Office of the UN instructing the U.S. delegate to;

"work to develop general Western position in support of a motion to take 'No Decision' on Iranian draft resolution on use of chemical weapons by Iraq."

Failing to get support for such a motion, the U.S. "should abstain" (effectively vetoing the resolution).

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/N...

**********************************Reagan took Saddam off list of States sponsoring Terror:

THE WORLD IN SUMMARY; Readjustments In the MideastNew York TimesFebruary 28, 1982

"Apparently without consulting Congress, the Administration has quietly dropped Iraq, a virulent foe of Israel, from a list of countries barred from receiving American weapons because they 'have repeatedly supported acts of international terrorism'.''

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage...

**********************************

Remembering the Dead: Reagan Armed Iraq and Iran in 1980s War That Killed Over 1 MillionDemocracy NowJune 09, 2004

"First on Hussein's shopping list was helicopters—he bought 60 Hughes helicopters and trainers with little notice. However, a second order of 10 twin-engine Bell "Huey" helicopters, like those used to carry combat troops in Vietnam, prompted congressional opposition in August, 1983... Nonetheless, the sale was approved."

"In 1988, Saddam's forces allegedly attacked Kurdish civilians with poisonous gas from Iraqi helicopters and planes. U.S. intelligence sources told The LA Times in 1991, they "believe that the American-built helicopters were among those dropping the deadly bombs."

http://www.democracynow.org/2004/6/9/...**********************************

Check out the more of the Declassified Documents at the George Washington University:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/N...

Edited by Yvette 2008-10-15 3:30 PM

Any of you see this yesterday? He says he's going to "spread the wealth around". Did he really mean that? Why would anyone want to keep working (Making $250.000+ a year, gross) just for it to be taken away and given to someone to sit on his ass on the front porch too lazy to count the cars passing by. McCain better hit the floor tonight breathing fire, look him straight in the eye and ask him to interpret that statement!! Sounds alot like "SOCIALISM"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDVM7ODUBn8&feature=related

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/13/obama-plumber-plan-spread-wealth/