Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on October 30, 2009, 07:52:50 PM
-
[
-
White House Releases Visitors List...Ayers, Wright, Soros, ACORN/SEIU and others
White House/The Lid ^ | 10/30/09 | The Lid
Posted on Friday, October 30, 2009 6:37:59 PM by Shellybenoit
________________________ ________________________ ___________-
The White House has been barraged with requests to release the names of its visitors. Today they release the first 500 visits, all from the period of Jan 20-July 31. Some of the Names you can find on the list are Bill Ayers 2x, George Soros 4x, Michael Moore 8X, the head of the ACORN affiliated Union the SEIU Andrew Stern 20x,Jeremiah Wright, GE/NBC head Jeff Immelt 5x, Jesse Jackson 6x, John Edwards2x, Al Sharpton 2x, and of course television goddess Oprah Winfrey.
Strangely each party's house leader Pelosi, and Boehner were only at the WH once. The Senate leadership weren't there even once. I will be spending some time investigating the list, but in the meantime, an embeddable version of the list is below. If you have any knowledge of some of these names, please contact me and let me know:
(Excerpt) Read more at yidwithlid.blogspot.com ...
________________________ ________________
Nice job Obama - NOW GO FUCK YOURSELF!
Is this shit for real ?
unbeleivable
-
Yeah right - like there are more bill ayeres and jeremiah wrights out there who also visited the WH.
;D
-
was this guy on the list too?
-
I have no idea Straw, but it is plainly clear to me who runs this WH.
-
I have no idea Straw, but it is plainly clear to me who runs this WH.
Getting pretty hard for anyone to refute that Obama consistently surrounds himself with Far-left radicals. Amazing that this could happen to America.
-
I have no idea Straw, but it is plainly clear to me who runs this WH.
who would that be?
-
Getting pretty hard for anyone to refute that Obama consistently surrounds himself with Far-left radicals. Amazing that this could happen to America.
which ones are the far left radicals?
-
who would that be?
Go read the list, I posted it.
GE
GS
Soros
Citi
BOA
Acorn/SEIU
and a nice little splash of Rev. Wright and Ayeres.
-
Getting pretty hard for anyone to refute that Obama consistently surrounds himself with Far-left radicals. Amazing that this could happen to America.
Not really. You had a former president who abused the power given to him after 9/11. It caused a swing opening the door for the extreme opposite side to come in.
-
Go read the list, I posted it.
GE
GS
Soros
Citi
BOA
Acorn/SEIU
and a nice little splash of Rev. Wright and Ayeres.
I read the list and the article. Did you?
You might recall that Obama has been dealing with a banking crisis and a collapse of the auto industry - hence the visits from CEO's of banks and car makers.
I'm guessing you missed this paragraph from the artcle you posted:
The White House warns that many names that may appear familiar — and controversial —do not in fact refer to the most famous people to carry those names. Jeremiah Wright is on the list, but it's not the president's former pastor. Michael Jordan is not the basketball player. This Michael Moore is not a filmmaker. William Ayers, who took a group tour of the White House, isn't the former radical from Chicago. And the Angela Davis on the list has a different middle initial than the activist and former fugitive.
-
I read the list and the article. Did you?
You might recall that Obama has been dealing with a banking crisis and a collapse of the auto industry - hence the visits from CEO's of banks and car makers.
I'm guessing you missed this paragraph from the artcle you posted:
The White House warns that many names that may appear familiar — and controversial —do not in fact refer to the most famous people to carry those names. Jeremiah Wright is on the list, but it's not the president's former pastor. Michael Jordan is not the basketball player. This Michael Moore is not a filmmaker. William Ayers, who took a group tour of the White House, isn't the former radical from Chicago. And the Angela Davis on the list has a different middle initial than the activist and former fugitive.
This might be true. I would think bringing some of these people to the white house might cause a political brush fire.
-
This might be true. I would think bringing some of these people to the white house might cause a political brush fire.
what might be true?
-
I read the list and the article. Did you?
You might recall that Obama has been dealing with a banking crisis and a collapse of the auto industry - hence the visits from CEO's of banks and car makers.
I'm guessing you missed this paragraph from the artcle you posted:
The White House warns that many names that may appear familiar — and controversial —do not in fact refer to the most famous people to carry those names. Jeremiah Wright is on the list, but it's not the president's former pastor. Michael Jordan is not the basketball player. This Michael Moore is not a filmmaker. William Ayers, who took a group tour of the White House, isn't the former radical from Chicago. And the Angela Davis on the list has a different middle initial than the activist and former fugitive.
he copies and paste the article and conveniently misses that paragraph in the middle of the other two. here's how it was printed on the page 333386 got his article from
The White House has been barraged with requests to release the names of its visitors. Today they release the first 500 visits, all from the period of Jan 20-July 31. Some of the Names you can find on the list are, George Soros 4x, the head of the ACORN affiliated Union the SEIU Andrew Stern 20x, Scott Levenson (ACORN's spokesman who was thrown off of the Glenn Beck Show), GE/NBC head Jeff Immelt 5x, Jesse Jackson 6x, John Edwards 2x, Al Sharpton 2x, and of course television goddess Oprah Winfrey.
Note: According to the White House In September, requests were submitted for the names of some famous or controversial figures (for example Michael Jordan, William Ayers, Michael Moore, Jeremiah Wright, Robert Kelly ("R. Kelly"), and Malik Shabazz). The well-known individuals with those names never actually came to the White House. Nevertheless, we were asked for those names and so we have included records for those individuals who were here and share the same name
Strangely each party's house leader Pelosi, and Boehner were only at the WH once. The Senate leadership weren't there even once. I will be spending some time investigating the list, but in the meantime, an embeddable version of the list is below. If you have any knowledge of some of these names, please contact me and let me know:
-
what might be true?
When some one reads the article they might think, "yeah sure i bet those people really were the actual people". But it's probably true that they weren't.
-
When some one reads the article they might think, "yeah sure i bet those people really were the actual people". But it's probably true that they weren't.
I think anyone who reads the article can understand the information in that paragraph
and unless the author is being misled by the White House or just lying then the "Ayers" "Moore" etc.. are not the same people
-
Not really. You had a former president who abused the power given to him after 9/11. It caused a swing opening the door for the extreme opposite side to come in.
I don't see anything in the Patriot act that would disturb the average American citizen who isn't a suspected terrorist or Islamic radical sympathizer (or ACLU type). No, it was the economic meltdown that caused the extreme reaction and wanting anything but republicans. Of course, the average person isn't aware of Clinton's policies that forced banks, mortgage companies to lower their lending standards and extend loans to the worst and most uncreditworthy factions of society. A major part of the sub-prime crisis that is seldom mentioned. Much more convenient to place 100% blame for the economy on Bush.
-
I don't see anything in the Patriot act that would disturb the average American citizen who isn't a suspected terrorist or Islamic radical sympathizer (or ACLU type). No, it was the economic meltdown that caused the extreme reaction and wanting anything but republicans. Of course, the average person isn't aware of Clinton's policies that forced banks, mortgage companies to lower their lending standards and extend loans to the worst and most uncreditworthy factions of society. A major part of the sub-prime crisis that is seldom mentioned. Much more convenient to place 100% blame for the economy on Bush.
Bush abused the power given to him in war time by the preemptive invasion of Iraq based on WMD Propaganda. That combined with a irresponsible after invasion plan that embroiled us in a insurgency, billions in war debt, thousands of US soldiers dead, more thousands wounded, and negative world standing, opened the door for a diplomacy leaning lefty president to get elected.
You can blame Clinton for the housing debacle all you want, but the republican controlled white house and congress had no problem dipping their beaks into the soup for 4 or more years. If what Clinton did was such a bad thing why didn't BUSH and company put a stop to it? I'll tell you why. Money, power and votes. Blaming Clinton for it is stupid. Instead Blame all the whore politicians, dem and repub because they all have dirty hands.
Had the republican party (when they had the power to do so) had the integrity to reverse Clinton's flawed policies and the wisdom not get caught up in war fever, there wouldn't be a socialist in the WH now.
-
Bush abused the power given to him in war time by the preemptive invasion of Iraq based on WMD Propaganda. That combined with a irresponsible after invasion plan that embroiled us in a insurgency, billions in war debt, thousands of US soldiers dead, more thousands wounded, and negative world standing, opened the door for a diplomacy leaning lefty president to get elected.
You can blame Clinton for the housing debacle all you want, but the republican controlled white house and congress had no problem dipping their beaks into the soup for 4 or more years. If what Clinton did was such a bad thing why didn't BUSH and company put a stop to it? I'll tell you why. Money, power and votes. Blaming Clinton for it is stupid. Instead Blame all the whore politicians, dem and repub because they all have dirty hands.
Had the republican party (when they had the power to do so) had the integrity to reverse Clinton's flawed policies and the wisdom not get caught up in war fever, there wouldn't be a socialist in the WH now.
You make some good points. The fact is I don't put 100% blame on Clinton or Bush. You have to read between the political spin to get to some of the truth.
-
Bush abused the power given to him in war time by the preemptive invasion of Iraq based on WMD Propaganda. That combined with a irresponsible after invasion plan that embroiled us in a insurgency, billions in war debt, thousands of US soldiers dead, more thousands wounded, and negative world standing, opened the door for a diplomacy leaning lefty president to get elected.
You can blame Clinton for the housing debacle all you want, but the republican controlled white house and congress had no problem dipping their beaks into the soup for 4 or more years. If what Clinton did was such a bad thing why didn't BUSH and company put a stop to it? I'll tell you why. Money, power and votes. Blaming Clinton for it is stupid. Instead Blame all the whore politicians, dem and repub because they all have dirty hands.
Had the republican party (when they had the power to do so) had the integrity to reverse Clinton's flawed policies and the wisdom not get caught up in war fever, there wouldn't be a socialist in the WH now.
I love how ppl come on here and slam bush for listening to intel about iraq yet slam him for not listening to intel about 9/11...very hindsight is 20/20 of you ;)
-
I don't see anything in the Patriot act that would disturb the average American citizen who isn't a suspected terrorist or Islamic radical sympathizer (or ACLU type). No, it was the economic meltdown that caused the extreme reaction and wanting anything but republicans. Of course, the average person isn't aware of Clinton's policies that forced banks, mortgage companies to lower their lending standards and extend loans to the worst and most uncreditworthy factions of society. A major part of the sub-prime crisis that is seldom mentioned. Much more convenient to place 100% blame for the economy on Bush.
How did Clinton force banks to lower their lending standards. If you're talking about the Community Reinvestment Act (not sure that you are) those loans have actually performed quite well in comparison to subprime/Alt-A stuff.
The reason we have a problem in the credit markets is because we deregulated the commodities market (thanks to Clinton and some key Repubs) and allowed banks to get involved the securities biz. That's caused 95% of the problem
Bush's only culpability in the subprime crisis was not doing something about it early on, but then he had his venerated Fed Chairman who thought everything was peachy and Bush is not exactly a deep thinker
The undeniable fact is that Bush came into office with a surplus and left office with 2 wars (not even included in the regular budget) which continue to be black holes of out tax dollars. Obama has to live with the horrible choices made by the Bush Administration while also having to try to do something to address the worst financial crisis in our country and also trying to achieve some of the goals of his own party.
-
I love how ppl come on here and slam bush for listening to intel about iraq yet slam him for not listening to intel about 9/11...very hindsight is 20/20 of you ;)
he didn't "listen" to the Intel.
One part of his administration made it up and he pretended it was real and ever since has tried to make us all believe it was raining when he was actually pissing on our shoes
Ignoring all that, the same people who made up the (Rummy and Wolfie) were also the ones who ignored the recommendations of the generals for a much larger ground force.
He's also the one who diverted troops from Afghanistan to go into Iraq
-
he didn't "listen" to the Intel.
One part of his administration made it up and he pretended it was real and ever since has tried to make us all believe it was raining when he was actually pissing on our shoes
Ignoring all that, the same people who made up the (Rummy and Wolfie) were also the ones who ignored the recommendations of the generals for a much larger ground force.
He's also the one who diverted troops from Afghanistan to go into Iraq
right i guess he made up intel from other countries too huh? face it bro there was conflicting intel, im not arguing which was right or which was wrong. The fact stands though you condemn him for ignoring it in one situation and following it in another...hind sights 20/20 i guess ;)
-
I love how ppl come on here and slam bush for listening to intel about Iraq yet slam him for not listening to intel about 9/11...very hindsight is 20/20 of you ;)
I don't know that I have ever slammed bush for not listening to intel before 9/11. In fact, I believe I've defended him in that regard on the basis of the thousands of bits of vague intel agencies have to process each day and the trouble of not knowing which are valid threats or not.
The WMD intel was indeed crap, And even if Saddam had WMD's it didn't warrant a preemptive invasion. It was simply a golden opportunity for BUSH to justify invading Iraq in the mists of fear hysteria brought about by 9/11. I was against the war before it happened for a number of reasons and very critical of it in the aftermath.
-
I don't know that I have ever slammed bush for not listening to intel before 9/11. In fact, I believe I've defended him in that regard on the basis of the thousands of bits of vague intel agencies have to process each day and the trouble of not knowing which are valid threats or not.
The WMD intel was indeed crap, And even if Saddam had WMD's it didn't warrant a preemptive invasion. It was simply a golden opportunity for BUSH to justify invading Iraq in the mists of fear hysteria brought about by 9/11. I was against the war before it happened for a number of reasons and very critical of it in the aftermath.
you may not have but many on here certainly have, Like i said im not arguing which intel was correct or not but to say that there was no intel lending itself to iraq possesing wmd is ignorant. I agree about the justifying I think it was probably more to gain a foothold in the region and closer to iran but the reason doesnt really matter.
I am critical of the aftermath as well even though i wasnt opposed to it at the start. It was an obvious mistake no doubt about it but lets be clear there was conflicting intel.
-
right i guess he made up intel from other countries too huh? face it bro there was conflicting intel, im not arguing which was right or which was wrong. The fact stands though you condemn him for ignoring it in one situation and following it in another...hind sights 20/20 i guess ;)
give me some examples
Are you talking about the yellow cake from guy or are you talking about the Downing Street memo's where the British Intelligence was saying that the Bush Admin was trying to fit the intelligence around the already predertmined goal to invade Iraq.
Maybe you're referring to the Czech intelligence officials who informed their European counterparts that there is no credible evidence of the alleged meeting between Sept. 11 hijacker Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer (the one the Cheney still refers to even though it's been totally refuted)
Maybe you're referring to the "intel" from Rumsfelds Strategic Support Branch that took raw data and molded into fake intel to fit the goal of invading Iraq
Maybe you're referring to Rumsfeld Office of Strategic Influence which simply made up propaganda to support the administrations goal of invading Iraq.
-
ayers has no business there - he's an admitted terrorist. i'm sure it was "dude, stop talking!' kind of interview... but still... when a guy admits setting off bombs, you don't let him near you anymore.
On the other hand, they are gonna take heat for the list - but they are offering more info than any other previous admin did? Some credit due there for teh transparency, even if the list owns them and make them look bad.
"No previous administration has released such a list, though the information out so far is incomplete"
-
They stated its not the same ayers or wright...I'm sure that can be easily proven....if not barry is fucked!!!!
-
They stated its not the same ayers or wright...I'm sure that can be easily proven....if not barry is fucked!!!!
ah gotcha. he'd be insane to have them visit him. Hopefully rush won't "satire" it, and report it as news they were visitors... then joke he was "just kidding" later.
I understand not every guest can be announced for obvious reasons, but a list like this is good and keep an admin semi-honest. I hope the R that wins in 2012 does the same.
-
give me some examples
Are you talking about the yellow cake from guy or are you talking about the Downing Street memo's where the British Intelligence was saying that the Bush Admin was trying to fit the intelligence around the already predertmined goal to invade Iraq.
Maybe you're referring to the Czech intelligence officials who informed their European counterparts that there is no credible evidence of the alleged meeting between Sept. 11 hijacker Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer (the one the Cheney still refers to even though it's been totally refuted)
Maybe you're referring to the "intel" from Rumsfelds Strategic Support Branch that took raw data and molded into fake intel to fit the goal of invading Iraq
Maybe you're referring to Rumsfeld Office of Strategic Influence which simply made up propaganda to support the administrations goal of invading Iraq.
dude weve had this argument as many times as weve had the abortion or parental rights arguments. Face it bro there was conflicting intel whether it was credible or not is pretty clear, but to say there wasnt is idiotic.
-
How did Clinton force banks to lower their lending standards. If you're talking about the Community Reinvestment Act (not sure that you are) those loans have actually performed quite well in comparison to subprime/Alt-A stuff.
The reason we have a problem in the credit markets is because we deregulated the commodities market (thanks to Clinton and some key Repubs) and allowed banks to get involved the securities biz. That's caused 95% of the problem
Bush's only culpability in the subprime crisis was not doing something about it early on, but then he had his venerated Fed Chairman who thought everything was peachy and Bush is not exactly a deep thinker
The undeniable fact is that Bush came into office with a surplus and left office with 2 wars (not even included in the regular budget) which continue to be black holes of out tax dollars. Obama has to live with the horrible choices made by the Bush Administration while also having to try to do something to address the worst financial crisis in our country and also trying to achieve some of the goals of his own party.
From Forbes magazine:
As we try to shake off the financial crisis, here's a bright idea. Take a law that has led to the writing of an enormous amount of bad mortgages and expand it. Then take enforcement away from bank examiners and give it to housing activists.
Sound like a poisonous cocktail? Well, it is what the Obama administration and Democrats are currently stirring up on Capitol Hill.
The White House and Congress want to expand a 30-year-old law--the Community Reinvestment Act--that helped to fuel the mortgage meltdown. What the CRA does, in effect, is compel banks to seek the permission of community activists to get regulatory approval for bank expansions and mergers. Often this means striking a deal with activist groups such as ACORN or unions like the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and agreeing to allocate credit to poor and minority areas that are underserved.
In short, the CRA encourages banks to make loans they would not ordinarily make. What's more, these agreements often require that banks offer no-money-down mortgages and remove caps on how much debt a borrower can take on. All of this is done in the name of "financial democracy."
Liberals pooh-pooh the idea that a 30-year-old law could have contributed to the current subprime crisis and credit crunch. But what they ignore is the massive expansion of CRA-commitments forced on banks in the run-up to the 2008 financial crisis.
According to the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, in the first 20 years of the act, up to 1997, commitments totaled approximately $200 billion. But from 1997 to 2007, commitments exploded to more than $4.2 trillion. (Keep in mind this is more than four times the size of the current health bill being debated in Congress.) The burdens on individual banks can be enormous. Washington Mutual, for example, pledged $1 trillion in mortgages to those with credit histories that "fall outside typical credit, income or debt constraints," and was awarded the 2003 CRA Community Impact Award for its Community Access program. Four years later it was taken over by the Office of Thrift Supervision. In 2004 Bank of America ( BAC - news - people ) agreed to provide $750 billion in CRA loans to applicants with poor credit who had previous difficulty obtaining a mortgage. By 2008 Bank of America was reporting that CRA loans represented only 7% of its portfolio but 29% of its losses. Numerous large banks are now in the middle of enormous CRA commitments. In 2004 J.P. Morgan Chase ( JPM - news - people ) agreed to provide $800 billion of such loans over the course of 10 years.
-
For all the talk of unsold condos in Miami and foreclosed McMansions in California, the epicenters of the mortgage crisis are inner-city urban areas--precisely those areas where the CRA was most applicable. As the Boston Federal Reserve put it in a massive 2008 study, "In the current housing crisis foreclosures are highly concentrated in [urban] minority neighborhoods." The study found that borrowers in these areas were seven times more likely to be foreclosed on than the general population. Analysis by the Pew Research Center and another by The New York Times found that mortgage holders in these areas had foreclosure rates four times higher than the national average.
In short, the CRA is compelling banks to make trillions in loans to individuals who have poor credit and who often can't or won't make their payments.
Now comes Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Texas, and 50 other co-sponsors (all Democrats) of H.R. 1479 the "Community Reinvestment Modernization Act of 2009," who want to expand the CRA to include not just banks but also credit unions, insurance companies and mortgage lenders. Congressman Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, has supported the idea in the past. The SEIU and ACORN, along with a host of other activist groups, are also behind the effort.
President Obama has been a staunch supporter of the CRA throughout his public life. And his recently announced financial reforms would make the law even more onerous and guarantee an explosion in irresponsible lending. Obama wants to take enforcement of the CRA away from the Federal Reserve, the FDIC and other financial regulators who at least try to weigh bank safety and soundness when enforcing the law, and turn it over to a newly created Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA). This agency's core concerns would not be safety and soundness but, in the words of the Obama administration, "promoting access to financial services," which is really code for forcing banks to lend to those who would not ordinarily qualify. Compliance would no longer be done by bank examiners but by what the administration calls "a group of examiners specially trained and certified in community development" (otherwise called community activists). The administration says, in its literature about the reforms, that "rigorous application of the Community Reinvestment should be a core function of the CFPA."
For good measure, Obama's plan also calls for the CFPA to work closely with the Department of Justice to combat perceived discrimination in lending.
Obama's battle against banks has a long history. In 1994, freshly out of Harvard Law School, he joined two other attorneys in filing a lawsuit against Citibank, the giant mortgage lender. In Selma S. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank, the plaintiffs claimed that although they had ostensibly been denied home loans "because of delinquent credit obligations and adverse credit," the real culprit was institutional racism. The suit alleged that Citibank had violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Fair Housing Act and, for good measure, the 13th Constitutional Amendment, which abolished slavery. The bank denied the charge, but after four years of legal wrangling and mounting legal bills, elected to settle. According to court documents, the three plaintiffs received a total of $60,000. Their lawyers received $950,000.
The CRA is not about community development; it is, essentially, affirmative action in lending. Trillions in loans are now to be made not on the basis of whether they can be paid back but to meet CRA goals. This is precisely what we need to get away from. Drinking this potent cocktail would be dangerous to our financial health.
-
So basically, as you can see from the article above, The Community re-investment act did heavily contribute to the meltdown,,,and the genius Obama wants to expand it even more. Him and his lackeys don't have a clue.
-
From Forbes magazine:
As we try to shake off the financial crisis, here's a bright idea. Take a law that has led to the writing of an enormous amount of bad mortgages and expand it. Then take enforcement away from bank examiners and give it to housing activists.
Sound like a poisonous cocktail? Well, it is what the Obama administration and Democrats are currently stirring up on Capitol Hill.
The White House and Congress want to expand a 30-year-old law--the Community Reinvestment Act--that helped to fuel the mortgage meltdown. What the CRA does, in effect, is compel banks to seek the permission of community activists to get regulatory approval for bank expansions and mergers. Often this means striking a deal with activist groups such as ACORN or unions like the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and agreeing to allocate credit to poor and minority areas that are underserved.
In short, the CRA encourages banks to make loans they would not ordinarily make. What's more, these agreements often require that banks offer no-money-down mortgages and remove caps on how much debt a borrower can take on. All of this is done in the name of "financial democracy."
Liberals pooh-pooh the idea that a 30-year-old law could have contributed to the current subprime crisis and credit crunch. But what they ignore is the massive expansion of CRA-commitments forced on banks in the run-up to the 2008 financial crisis.
According to the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, in the first 20 years of the act, up to 1997, commitments totaled approximately $200 billion. But from 1997 to 2007, commitments exploded to more than $4.2 trillion. (Keep in mind this is more than four times the size of the current health bill being debated in Congress.) The burdens on individual banks can be enormous. Washington Mutual, for example, pledged $1 trillion in mortgages to those with credit histories that "fall outside typical credit, income or debt constraints," and was awarded the 2003 CRA Community Impact Award for its Community Access program. Four years later it was taken over by the Office of Thrift Supervision. In 2004 Bank of America ( BAC - news - people ) agreed to provide $750 billion in CRA loans to applicants with poor credit who had previous difficulty obtaining a mortgage. By 2008 Bank of America was reporting that CRA loans represented only 7% of its portfolio but 29% of its losses. Numerous large banks are now in the middle of enormous CRA commitments. In 2004 J.P. Morgan Chase ( JPM - news - people ) agreed to provide $800 billion of such loans over the course of 10 years.
Find me some references for those stats on CRA loans.
I know something about this program and those loans were made within traditional underwriting guidelines (i.e. - they were full documentation, reasonable debt ratios, only for owner occuppied properties etc...)
Here's a link to a study on CRA loans, default ratios, etc...: http://college.unc.edu/features/october2008/article.2008-10-14.9010133371/
The majority of the problem in the mortgage industrty were the Stated Income, No Doc, No Ratio loans and the securities that were created by these pools of loans. None of these loans were CRA.
-
dude weve had this argument as many times as weve had the abortion or parental rights arguments. Face it bro there was conflicting intel whether it was credible or not is pretty clear, but to say there wasnt is idiotic.
I gave you examples of all the bogus or flawed intel
why don't you show me some examples to support your premise
-
I gave you examples of all the bogus or flawed intel
why don't you show me some examples to support your premise
again the issue isnt whether the intel was credible or not i think its clear where the jury stands at that point...the point is there was conflicting intel...
-
again the issue isnt whether the intel was credible or not i think its clear where the jury stands at that point...the point is there was conflicting intel...
really - according to the Bush Admin there was no conflict at all and there was virtually no dissenting info
I remember the weeks leading up to the invasion of Iraq when all the weapon investigators were saying Saddam didn't have WMD's yet Bush insisted that he not only had them but an attack was imminent.
It was only after the invasion did the public learn how much dissenting info their actually was regarding Iraq's culpability in the attacks on 911 and then further along how much the Bush Admin was just making up the Intel or fitting the Intel to fit the goal of invading Iraq.
-
The weapons investigators can't be trusted...the UN has its own agenda and that that doesn't include the US. The UN has failed in Iran. Saddam did everything in his power leading up to the invasion to make it look like he had WMD's...then when it became clear that Bush was'nt a paper tiger and was going to crush him..he allowed the inspectors more access...nobody believed anybody at that point. Everybody on both sides thought he had WMDs.
-
The weapons investigators can't be trusted...the UN has its own agenda and that that doesn't include the US. The UN has failed in Iran. Saddam did everything in his power leading up to the invasion to make it look like he had WMD's...then when it became clear that Bush was'nt a paper tiger and was going to crush him..he allowed the inspectors more access...nobody believed anybody at that point. Everybody on both sides thought he had WMDs.
News Flash - the weapons investigators were on the ground in Iraq for years and were correct
Additionally, Saddam and many members of his administration denied he had WMD's
The only people saying he did were guys like that con man Chalabi (aka Curve Ball) and he was paid handsomely to do so (and or course Rummy who was just making up his own shit out of thin air). Colin Powell got sucked into being their shill and greatly damaged his own credibility.
-
The weapons investigators can't be trusted...the UN has its own agenda and that that doesn't include the US. The UN has failed in Iran. Saddam did everything in his power leading up to the invasion to make it look like he had WMD's...then when it became clear that Bush was'nt a paper tiger and was going to crush him..he allowed the inspectors more access...nobody believed anybody at that point. Everybody on both sides thought he had WMDs.
So what if he fucking did? He wasn't gonna use them.
-
really - according to the Bush Admin there was no conflict at all and there was virtually no dissenting info
I remember the weeks leading up to the invasion of Iraq when all the weapon investigators were saying Saddam didn't have WMD's yet Bush insisted that he not only had them but an attack was imminent.
It was only after the invasion did the public learn how much dissenting info their actually was regarding Iraq's culpability in the attacks on 911 and then further along how much the Bush Admin was just making up the Intel or fitting the Intel to fit the goal of invading Iraq.
what does this have to do with my point brain child?
there was conflicting intel whether the intel was accurate is another story...
you cannot dispute the fact that there was conflicting intel...
-
what does this have to do with my point brain child?
there was conflicting intel whether the intel was accurate is another story...
you cannot dispute the fact that there was conflicting intel...
wellllllllllllllllllllll ll
How much validity you assign to the intel is another thing.
UN got their inspection and didn't find jack.
So was there 50% intel saying YES, he had WMD, and 50% intel saying NO?
I doubt it. Probably 5% of handpicked sources saying he had WMD, and 95% agreeing with the UN - that he didn't have them.
Cheney met with the oil company execs before 911 to divy up the iraqi oil fields - do you deny this tony?
-
wellllllllllllllllllllllll
How much validity you assign to the intel is another thing.
UN got their inspection and didn't find jack.
So was there 50% intel saying YES, he had WMD, and 50% intel saying NO?
I doubt it. Probably 5% of handpicked sources saying he had WMD, and 95% agreeing with the UN - that he didn't have them.
Cheney met with the oil company execs before 911 to divy up the iraqi oil fields - do you deny this tony?
again this has nothing to do with my point 240, you guys keep wanting to go on tangents...
Fact there was conflicting intel on wmd and iraq as well as terrorist activities in iraq, youve agreed to this.
Fact you condemn bush for ignoring intel about 9/11 and then condemn him for following intel on Iraq...very 20/20 of you ;)
My point is not whether there was alternative motives or whether or not the intel was correct or not it is that you condemn him for not following intel in one instance and condemn him for following it in another.
Honestly 240 how probable would you have said a 9/11 style attack was prior to 9/11?
there are tons of intel on terrorist attacks all over the world, hind sight is 20/20 240 and straw and it biases you.
-
yeah, but I think we're all failing to see the bigger picture.
Was intel picked and chosen based upon the ability to set up bases on pipeline routes?
If you stop 911, there's no afghan bases now.
If you don't stop Saddam, no bases there.
Plus, the 911 intel simply required the FBI to go interview the guys and see if they had flight plans that day. Easy and cheap.
I'm under the belief - like many americans - that Bush knew and just didn't stop it. So of course that will skew my view. you may be under another impression.
-
yeah, but I think we're all failing to see the bigger picture.
Was intel picked and chosen based upon the ability to set up bases on pipeline routes?
If you stop 911, there's no afghan bases now.
If you don't stop Saddam, no bases there.
Plus, the 911 intel simply required the FBI to go interview the guys and see if they had flight plans that day. Easy and cheap.
I'm under the belief - like many americans - that Bush knew and just didn't stop it. So of course that will skew my view. you may be under another impression.
dude how many pieces of intel do you think these guys get? seriously yes its laid out in black and white but to think it was really that black in white again is 20/20 bias.
I think Iraq, Iran, or Pakistan would have needed to be dealt with after invading afghanistan. You really think us just going in there with terrorist being able to run across the border to pakistan or Iran was going to do much?
the points you bring up are valid, but again they dont address my point they are tangents
Fact: there was conflicting intel as to Iraq and wmd and terrorism
Fact: you guys condemn bush for ignoring intel in one instance yet condemn him for following it in another.
Its really as simple as that
-
wellllllllllllllllllllllll
How much validity you assign to the intel is another thing.
UN got their inspection and didn't find jack.
So was there 50% intel saying YES, he had WMD, and 50% intel saying NO?
I doubt it. Probably 5% of handpicked sources saying he had WMD, and 95% agreeing with the UN - that he didn't have them.
Cheney met with the oil company execs before 911 to divy up the iraqi oil fields - do you deny this tony?
I doubt it was 50/50, but there was conflict. We know for certain that at some point in time he had WMD's - Chemical Ali made sure the world knew about that. As for an imminent threat, not likely.
I remember reading a book by a government analyst where one of his duties was to watch Iraqi satellite footage. He would see the atrocities committed by Saddam and he spoke about the sickening feeling of being powerless to help people. Analysts, being human, it wouldn't surprise me that they may have had a bias in their briefings to Bush, I don't know. Bush may have been aware of this footage and thought of himself as a heroic "saviour", but again, I don't know. But I certainly think there was conflicting intel.
As for Cheney's Energy Task Force, no I think it's just CT, but I can see how you would feel otherwise.
-
in 30 or 40 years, we'll have our answers when that 911 memo form august is released. we'll see the details that Bush blacked out. We might all be old men saying "Dude, really?"
By then it'll just be boring history to a bunch of punk kids.
-
what does this have to do with my point brain child?
there was conflicting intel whether the intel was accurate is another story...
you cannot dispute the fact that there was conflicting intel...
your point was the Weapon Inspectors couldn't be trusted (that's the post to which I was responding).
My point was that they could be trusted and they were in fact correct that Hussein had no weapons.
Does anyone here remember we had inspectors on the ground who couldn't find shit yet at the same time somehow Bush knew they not only had WMD's but were about to "launch" and we literally couldn't wait one more day. We had that guy in a box with inspectors crawling all over his country yet somehow he was managing not only to hide everything but also somehow was launch ready as well
-
It is kind of funny that people would actually state that the Weapons Inspectors couldn't be trusted and yet they were EXACTLY FUCKING RIGHT!
Not, kind of right, not sort of right, but dead on the money.
Yet, "Bush" and company all had intel saying there was WMD's there.
This has had to be the single most MONSTER FUCK UP in American intelligence history.
So based on the results who ended up being more trust worthy in this case? The UN or BUSH?
I wish i could make an eye roll that covered the whole page.
-
Does anyone here remember we had inspectors on the ground who couldn't find shit yet at the same time somehow Bush knew they not only had WMD's but were about to "launch" and we literally couldn't wait one more day. We had that guy in a box with inspectors crawling all over his country yet somehow he was managing not only to hide everything but also somehow was launch ready as well
I remember it well, Straw. But, it wasn't nearly as cut and dry as your making it out now. The weapons inspectors were endlessly crying about how their efforts were being stymied. Always qualifying answers with stuff like, "....but we were not allowed in this facility." and, "....but they didn't let us look over here.".
It's easy to look back now and try and say that the inspectors were giving a definitive yea or nay, but there were always questions surrounding the inspections.
-
I remember it well, Straw. But, it wasn't nearly as cut and dry as your making it out now. The weapons inspectors were endlessly crying about how their efforts were being stymied. Always qualifying answers with stuff like, "....but we were not allowed in this facility." and, "....but they didn't let us look over here.".
It's easy to look back now and try and say that the inspectors were giving a definitive yea or nay, but there were always questions surrounding the inspections.
I find it hard to believe that we so inept that we didn't have the foresight or ability to place or have a contact with the inspectors that what telling exactly what was going on.
But then again we had "our" intel and we went to war over it, invaded a sovereign country, incurred thousands of deaths and billions of debt, and our INTEL was totally wrong.
Good thing America gets to write the history books on that one.
-
I remember it well, Straw. But, it wasn't nearly as cut and dry as your making it out now. The weapons inspectors were endlessly crying about how their efforts were being stymied. Always qualifying answers with stuff like, "....but we were not allowed in this facility." and, "....but they didn't let us look over here.".
It's easy to look back now and try and say that the inspectors were giving a definitive yea or nay, but there were always questions surrounding the inspections.
I recall them being pretty definitive but maybe you can show me something that would change my mind.
I was actually paying a lot more attention to politics then and I remember many interviews with these guys saying Hussein had nothing
-
your point was the Weapon Inspectors couldn't be trusted (that's the post to which I was responding).
My point was that they could be trusted and they were in fact correct that Hussein had no weapons.
Does anyone here remember we had inspectors on the ground who couldn't find shit yet at the same time somehow Bush knew they not only had WMD's but were about to "launch" and we literally couldn't wait one more day. We had that guy in a box with inspectors crawling all over his country yet somehow he was managing not only to hide everything but also somehow was launch ready as well
I never said they couldnt be trusted that was HH6 get your shit straight
Fact: there was conflicting intel about wmd and terrorist activity in iraq, dispute that straw...
-
I never said they couldnt be trusted that was HH6 get your shit straight
Fact: there was conflicting intel about wmd and terrorist activity in iraq, dispute that straw...
I already did in prior post. Go back and read them or just read this or not. I don't really care either way. Believe whatever you want.....just like the Bush Administration did
http://intelligence.senate.gov/press/record.cfm?id=298775
-
I already did in prior post. Go back and read them or just read this or not. I don't really care either way. Believe whatever you want.....just like the Bush Administration did
http://intelligence.senate.gov/press/record.cfm?id=298775
LOL no you proved certain pieces wrong, thats not the question of course they were wrong or there would have been wmd found. ::)
you citing sources is proof there was conflicting intel
-
LOL no you proved certain pieces wrong, thats not the question of course they were wrong or there would have been wmd found. ::)
you citing sources is proof there was conflicting intel
the "intel" bush used was proven false yet he continued to present it as true (Cheney still does)
believe whatever you want.
who gives a shit at this point
we're (you and me and the rest of us) are going to be paying for Bush's lies for a long long time
-
Wow. Another thread of 333 that blew up in his face.
Who would have thought it?
-
the "intel" bush used was proven false yet he continued to present it as true (Cheney still does)
believe whatever you want.
who gives a shit at this point
we're (you and me and the rest of us) are going to be paying for Bush's lies for a long long time
QFT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Wow. Another thread of 333 that blew up in his face.
Who would have thought it?
How did it blow up in my face? The names of these disgusting vermin who Obama surrounded himself with are on the WH logs. Just because he says these are not the same people you believe him? what are the odds that in such a short period of time two people with these same names just happened to got to the WH? Did someone inside juice op the log book to create a false flag?
How about the leader of Acorn/SEIU showing up there so many times? Is that fake too?
Or the leader of NARAL? Is that fake too?
-
How did it blow up in my face? The names of these disgusting vermin who Obama surrounded himself with are on the WH logs. Just because he says these are not the same people you believe him? what are the odds that in such a short period of time two people with these same names just happened to got to the WH? Did someone inside juice op the log book to create a false flag?
How about the leader of Acorn/SEIU showing up there so many times? Is that fake too?
Or the leader of NARAL? Is that fake too?
So those names couldn't have been identical? Just the fact he released the names shows how different he is from the last Administration. How many visitors were named Bin Laden while bush was there?
-
So those names couldn't have been identical? Just the fact he released the names shows how different he is from the last Administration. How many visitors were named Bin Laden while bush was there?
;D
-
So those names couldn't have been identical? Just the fact he released the names shows how different he is from the last Administration. How many visitors were named Bin Laden while bush was there?
Whatever, keep buying into the garbage from this WH.
-
Whatever, keep buying into the garbage from this WH.
As if the previous recent WH's had no Garbage.
-
As if the previous recent WH's had no Garbage.
Fine - so Bush and obama are nearly the same. I will accept that.
-
Fine - so Bush and obama are nearly the same. I will accept that.
That's the thing, some of what you point out isn't concrete or is a given.
This isn't concrete.
Don't forget Clinton.... :D
-
Imagine the gnashing of teeth if Obama had been like little bush and prohibited the visitor logs from being released.
Oh...the horror.
-
That's the thing, some of what you point out isn't concrete or is a given.
This isn't concrete.
Don't forget Clinton.... :D
How can I? This is a story where the WH has only released partial data.
BTW - Bush is not in office anymore. If you want to compare thats fine, but at a certain point that gets stale and you have to look at obama's actions on their own, not with a reflexive "But Bush did it to".
Obama was supposed to be about "Change", not Bush III.
-
How can I? This is a story where the WH has only released partial data.
BTW - Bush is not in office anymore. If you want to compare thats fine, but at a certain point that gets stale and you have to look at obama's actions on their own, not with a reflexive "But Bush did it to".
Obama was supposed to be about "Change", not Bush III.
Did you vote for Obama? Is this why you are on such a crusade over this? Did you really expect "real" change in Washington?
All these people from Obama's past visiting the WH? So what? Are you theorizing that they are really in control because they visited the white house?
-
\
BTW - Bush is not in office anymore. If you want to compare thats fine, but at a certain point that gets stale and you have to look at obama's actions on their own, not with a reflexive "But Bush did it to".
Name: 333386
Posts: 13674 (11.788 per day)
Position: Getbig V
Date Registered: August 29, 2006, 10:15:06 AM
Unless your feelings has changed about the ISSUE you are crying about, I am sure you have some posts condemning Bush for not releasing records. Perhaps you can link one of those comments you made about the ISSUE you are crying about here. Then we can see it just isn't an "Obama" thing and you can claim you actually are concerned about the ISSUE (that you are crying about.)
I am looking at Obama's action as being NOT what Bush did. Obama released the records, Bush didn't. So who really has something to hide?
But let me guess.... you can't. Because it isn't really the issue that you are crying about that matters, it's OBAMA. And you are just the online equivalent of the B-girl over it.
-
BTW - Bush is not in office anymore. If you want to compare thats fine, but at a certain point that gets stale and you have to look at obama's actions on their own, not with a reflexive "But Bush did it to".
Obama was supposed to be about "Change", not Bush III.
I remember Bush's first term...
About 3 weeks after being sworn in critics were already blaming him for various states of affair - completely ignoring the guy who ran the show for the 8 years prior.
I'm not a Bush fan/supporter, but the guy's a scapegoat - being blamed for things he hadn't yet had a chance to F up, and still being blamed for other people's F-up's almost a whole year after he's been gone.
Yes, we're still faced with problems Bush created, but O's created plenty of SIZABLE problems on his own, and it's only been a year!
-
Did you vote for Obama? Is this why you are on such a crusade over this? Did you really expect "real" change in Washington?
All these people from Obama's past visiting the WH? So what? Are you theorizing that they are really in control because they visited the white house?
I would shoot myself before voting for Obama. He represents everything I am deadset against.
The ones who run this WH are Goldman Sachs, Acorn, and SEIU.
-
Name: 333386
Posts: 13674 (11.788 per day)
Position: Getbig V
Date Registered: August 29, 2006, 10:15:06 AM
Unless your feelings has changed about the ISSUE you are crying about, I am sure you have some posts condemning Bush for not releasing records. Perhaps you can link one of those comments you made about the ISSUE you are crying about here. Then we can see it just isn't an "Obama" thing and you can claim you actually are concerned about the ISSUE (that you are crying about.)
I am looking at Obama's action as being NOT what Bush did. Obama released the records, Bush didn't. So who really has something to hide?
But let me guess.... you can't. Because it isn't really the issue that you are crying about that matters, it's OBAMA. And you are just the online equivalent of the B-girl over it.
What I find hysterical is that the people who raised red flags about ***** are being proven right by the day, while deniers like yourself still have no clue about what is going on. Communists in the WH? no problem!
Radical Czars who advocate insane things? No problem!
Tax Cheat running the Treasury? no problem!
Passing bills no one gets to read? No problem!
Here you go Lurker:
-
Wow. Another thread of 333 that blew up in his face.
Who would have thought it?
Wow, another worthless post from you.
Who would have thought it?
-
Wow, another worthless post from you.
Who would have thought it?
Look, someone better at math than myself can probably come up with the odds that it is not these people.
In my mind, the odds are probably slim to none unless someone doctored the records in the WH.
-
Wow, another worthless post from you.
Who would have thought it?
Certainly not you. Seeing that self thought process and basic logic have eluded you so far.
-
Ayeres bombed the Pentagaon
-
Ayeres bombed the Pentagaon
And got hired as a professor Bernadine Dorn killed a cop and got hired.....as a professor.