Bush commutes sentences of former Border Patrol agents

No, politicians (democrats) believe that everyone should have a piece of the pie, regardless of whether or not they can afford it.

My suggestion is that you read the following article and study up on the CRA, since you obviously have no friggin clue what I am referring to.

http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080919/OPINION03/809190316/1322/OPINION0301

Actually, truth be told, Clinton is the second worst. Carter was the worst.

I'd only be repeating what most people already know. Why beat a dead horse.

 

How about the general public? They're the ones that signed into adjustable rate mortgages, and still decided they wanted new cards and expensive furniture.

Wow, that's article wasn't biased! (/sarcasm)... Maybe the reason you're taking this stance is that you're only reading articles like that, try broadening your horizons.

Wow! You changed your story that quick? How many more posts do I have to make before you start admitting that ex-pres Bush was bad for the country?

Really? Go ahead. Enlighten me.

Why is Clinton the worst president ever? (which now you're saying he's #2)

What was the economy like when he left office? I vaguely remember the word "surplus"...

 

These are the same people bitching that Bush Bad, Obama God.

See something wrong here?

Nothing biased. If you read the sources sited, and actually follow them to the letter, everything said is true.

I guess its because I don't really consider Carter a president. His presidency so lacked in substance its almost inconceivable to admit he once held the job.

Been there, done that.

I already answered that question. You might want to re-read the thread.

I could tell you that shit tastes like chocolate. Does that make it true?

When Clinton took office there was a recession. While that recession was in full swing, Clinton raised taxes. He did not stop there. He made his new tax hike retroactive, to the previous tax year. This mean many of us had to pay higher taxes for the previous year he was not President, as well as the ongoing recession years.

My guess is you're too young to fully understand the reality and instead relish in buzz words like "surplus".

 

Really? Then find me a qualified source for this:

Hmmm... Have you ever seen this?

A lacking of substance is better than a negative impact.

You said:

I said:

You said:

I said:

So you respond with:

...? I don't think I'm the one that needs to re-read the thread. Maybe if I talk slower, you'll understand

 

You implied it, not I.

http://www.ofheo.gov
"Report of the Special Examination of Fannie Mae"

No, you need to read slower so you will understand.

Kids...

 

I've already browsed that site, and did not find a single page that comes even close to proclaiming:

Please find the page that says something to that effect and post the URL, I'm definitely interested to see that. (if it exists)

 

You have to be old enough to have lived through it to realize this fact. I watched it son...

 

Wow, I can't believe some people are still defending Bush. After all the evidence tying him to the September 11th attacks? Open your eyes people. Or are you afraid you'll see the ugly truth, if you do?

 

So you're saying, you also could NOT find a source on that site? That's what I thought.

It doesn't exist. Now, please stop listing website homepages as a credible source for content that they don't contain.

 

Hilarious. There are still people that believe in that conspiracy theory?

That "homepage" was to the OFHEO an official US Government Web Site, hence the .gov.

I know you seem to think it was a like to some biased blog, but its the actual Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight. An actual US Government office/body.

That said, its obvious you never even bothered to look at the facts presented there.

I leave you with this quote: "If you wish to convince people of something, it is more useful to be entertaining than to be right."

You've certainly been entertaining alright.

 

I did look. I also did a google search of the domain, and was unable to find anything that made this claim on that website:

Mind pointing out what page it is on? Because after searching, I honestly don't think it exists. And I'm sure you wouldn't make something like that up, so please just point out the URL.

 

Call it a theory, and maybe the facts will go away. Do some research.

Bush has been manipulating the American people since he became president, and now you're defending him. I wish I could say that that's hilarious, but it's really sad.

 

http://www.ofheo.gov

Its a government site man, not some kids front page experiment.

http://www.ofheo.gov/about.aspx

You'd have to examine the CRA itself to see evidence of this. Or you could read the report. You never did, that's why you don't get it. Now, I understand you think that Fannie and Freddie are just mean nasty private bankers that screwed people, but the truth is they are government created bodies, intentionally unregulated and encouraged by legislators to make unguaranteed loans to under qualified applicants. SEE ALSO CRA!!!

This fact is evident not only in printed form both by the accounting of the OFHEO, but by reading the actual accusastions listed in the May 2006 report by the OFHEO.

We are talking about an independant governmentally created and funded oversight organization that studied the cause and affect of what brought this shit to a head.

In the report are details of senior managment in Fannie and Freddie receiving 7 figure bounuses while books were being cooked. It also found that mortgage lenders Fannie and Freddie made multi-million dollar donations to organizations like ACORN, and other Democratic think tanks and recruiting centers.

Fannie and Freddie also gave out generous campaign donations totaling hundreds of millions. The top three donations receipients where Democratic Senator Chris Dodd ($165,000), our President, then Senator Barrack Obama ($126,349) and John Kerry ($111,000).

You really need to read the report. Its quite evident that all you did was breeze through the news article and decided to skip reading the actual report from the OFHEO.

Something tells me you've got a lot of learning and growing up to do. The wool has been pulled way over your eyes. That or someone has been feeding you a big line of horse shit.

 

When I asked for a source to this:

You pointed out this website:

And now you're saying:

Fine, can you point out what part of the CRA states:

Looking forward to it...

 

You never read the article. Just save face and admit it. You never read the report either. Like I said, back out now. You're looking pretty foolish.

 

You stated that you had a source for this comment:

And now that you're not able to provide a URL where it states that, for some reason it's ME that's looking foolish?

All I'm asking for is a source for that statement, which you said exists on the http://www.ofheo.gov website.

Looking forward to it

 

I gave you the source, you refused to read it.

I did. You just refuse to read.

I can't help you anymore. I tried. Have a nice night.

 

Now you're getting upset and leaving?

You provided me with the URL:

Which, as far as I can tell, does not contain anything that would back up this claim:

All I'm asking for is the URL that states that. You claimed it exists. I don't think it does. You can't provide a link to the source.

That's okay, walk away from the thread knowing that you attempted to sound smart by providing a link to a government website and passing it off as a credible source.

Have a great night, Mia, and if you ever stumble upon the non-existent URL that backs up your claim, let me know!

 

That was Rumsfeld's doing. If Bush had Gates from the beginning things probably would have went differently.

 

Rumsfeld thought that he could win the war on the cheap.

Another problem that the US had was that the 4th Infantry Divison was in Turkey and Turkey wouldn't let the US forces transit the country.

It is what it is!