Can someone please point me to something that gives a concise yet factual account of how these housing acts "forced" lenders to give risky loans?  One thing I constantly hear about the housing crisis is that it was mainly caused by liberal government forcing the private sector to give out risky loans to minorities.  I'd like to know if the "forced" part is factual, misleading because the issue is more complex, or simply false.

I've scanned wikipedia on these but quickly got lost in details, and I'm not about to go read the actual legislation :)

Is it just me? What does this little joke, offered by McCain last night on Letterman, say about McCain?

Isn't he the one who gets angry when questioned about his POW years?

Isn't he the one who doesn't like to talk about it?

But it is okay to use it as a joke to assuage his guilt and to smooth over the derision of the public for his own colossal fuck up?

This man is a despicable piece of shit.

Linked on O'Reilly's main page.

Can't get this danged bbcode to work:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09292008/news/politics/docs_detail_barack_ties_to_radical_131209.htm

What is up with this?

Here is an post from a thread on a forum that is entirely unrelated to politics, yet always gets heated off-topic threads: ************* [QUOTE=Moe]this is a hostile interview, Charlie is digging to pin down Palin in a way that Obama has yet to suffer through. The "Experience Interview" is (hysterically) straight out of the dem playbook, but above their pay grade.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Larry]You know what was funny, when Gibson had the opportunity to interview John Edwards last time around in 04, he got the weak ass questions. Nothing like what Palin got. Not to mention the sexism by the libs, dems and the media is flat out astonishing. They are treating her like some "dumb chick." "Really? You believe that?" :lol:[/QUOTE] It appears that all of you dumbfuck asshats that rely on the "libs vs repubs" mantra have forgotten the Dem debate hosted by Gibson/Stephanopoulos. Go watch it again. Yeah. Convenient. As usual. Gibson is a tool. No question. But Palin is a fucking joke. And to see a fucking slack-jawed hack like Gibson give it to Palin, and her not being able to deal with it, should make everyone sit back and question her abilities. Again, I hope there are enough intelligent people in my country to see past this shit. I had the same hope the last two times so at this point I don't have much confidence in half my country. *************

The Right asserts that Obama is responsible for the words/actions of Wright. That his attendance of that church indicates that Obama fully supports everything that Wright says and does. Should Palin be held to the same standard of judgement regarding the AIP and other "fringe" groups to which she is now being tied? Are these similar circumstances, or are they different? I argue that the circumstances are similar, and both people should be judged by the same rules.

Wright has a history of extreme racial views. That is a fact. He also has a history of great social service. That is a fact, too. One can't take a single fact and make a blanket judgement - you have to consider the whole and do it in context. You have to consider his history, what he went through in life, and use empathy to gain an understanding of the motives behind the extremes. I can see how Wright developed such extreme racial views: he lived through some very bad times for his race. Knowing the source doesn't offer an excuse, though. And I don't offer any excuses for it.

Obama attended Wrights church for a long period of time. That is a fact. However, in everything that Obama has done, written, and said you will find no indication of the extreme racial views of Wright. From what I have seen, Obama has taken the extreme racial views offered by Wright, along with the great social services and messages, and integrated them into a far more complex, empathetic understanding of race in our culture (I believe that most Obama supporters view it this way). This is evident in everything he has said. If there is some evidence that contradicts this, other than "Obama attended Wrights church", then I would like to see it.

Using unabashed cynicism you can suspect that a person silently belongs to an offensive organization, believing and supporting the agenda of that organization privately, while publicly offering a different face. We have all been giving plenty of reason to sink to such levels of cynicism. Personally, I don't believe this about Obama. His words and actions eroded my initial doubts about him and so far he hasn't really done anything to severely damage it. I might be wrong, though.

The same rules of forming an opinion based on facts, history, circumstance, empathy, and personal actions/words must also be applied to Palin. Time may prove these things wrong, but the facts look to be that she attended/supported AIP and other "fringe" organizations in some form. However, that is not enough to condemn her to holding the same views. She could have been using the experiences to further her world view, to balance it, empathize, to attempt to understand and put in a broader context things she experienced. We know some of the facts but what about the rest of it?

I now hear The Right making the same arguments in defense of Palin/AIP that were made in defense of Obama/Wright. And I see The Left pouncing on this just like the The Right did.  I'm just concerned that The Left won't play fair like they demanded of The Right.

It is really nice to see McCain spending his money playing sleazy commercials in the good ol' Heart of Texas.

And in late August instead of late October.  FTMFW.

I didn't see anything in that article that wasn't simple illumination on a lot of truth.  Cripes, this kind of stupidity on the part of voters is what sank Gore & Kerry.  McClatchy is simply showing us what is out there.  Isn't that what journalism is all about?

It is interesting to watch how the term "swift boating" is now being used by the very people who invented it.  Used against Kerry, "swift-boating" was a deliberate, carefully planned campaign smearing the authenticity of his military service claims.  Everyone knows the term implies smear & lies about the factual claims of military service. 

Now, in response to a question on the relevance of military service to the ability to hold office (*not* the details of the military service), we see the inventors of swift-boating applying the term, out of context, as a negative against Clark.  They're counting on the fact that everyone knows it has negative connotations.  They know the action was despicable and now they're using it in an even more twisted manner:  saying someone else is bad for doing it when they weren't.  They're even trotting out the original liars.

IMO, people need to quit being scared of being labeled "soft on war/crime/terror/etc", stand up, and tell such purveyors of lies to FUCK OFF.  It needs to be done.  Loudly.

In the Democratic primary, the "popular vote" is a meaningless measure on its own.  The popular vote does not represent all primary delegate electoral processes - caucus vote totals must be counted as well.  Regardless of what people think of caucuses they are a legitimate part of the process.  Yet, Clinton & Co consistently use popular vote alone as a basis for argument.  It isn't like Clinton & Co don't know how this process works, so it must be a deliberate choice to do this.  Why is this *not* disenfranchising caucus voters?

Xenophobia and false patriotism.  They're lining up for it again.  They're goose-stepping right up to that line.

The first shots have been fired and there will be many, many more to come.  It is going to get disgusting.  It is going to get very, very ugly.

Fortunately, it appears that we have enough momentum to overcome it this time.  And I have some hope that finally enough people will open their eyes to this nonsense that we can really make a difference.  My infallible cynicism is at risk here :)

But wait... maybe it isn't.  As sure as the sun will set tomorrow, when the Dems get the Presidency & a vast majority in Congress the temptation to go right back to '92 will be immense.  It will take one hell of a strong Prez to make sure that doesn't happen.  At this point I think Obama is strong enough.  He may disappoint, though.

And to think I used to have a decent opinion of Mr. McCain.

May 15, 2008

I just heard Lanny Davis on the Ed Schultz show saying that they were disappointed in Edwards & Obama for denying Hillary at least one victory lap on Wednesday.  So, one of the main Hillary arguments against Obama is that he isn't tough enough to win in the general.  He then steps up and bludgeons her with an amazingly effective tactical move and now they're all touchy-feely about how that wasn't nice.

If you can't take the heat then get out of the kitchen :)

Does the Link feature work?