"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote

Are things really so emotional, or is it only the denizens of this site
that make it appear so?

Things used to be that emotional. However, years of rule by a party that
made creating such emotionalism and division a cornerstone of its plan for
looting the society has so discredited it that the predominant emotion is
shock and despair. However, you go to the waterfronts and backwoods and you
still find people who believe the earth is flat, God created the earth in 7
days 4000 years ago, and a democratic congress with a razor thin majority
and no ability to override a presidential veto created this mess in just two
years.

Of course, this group has a larger proportion of wacko's than the general
population. Why, we even have people creating sock puppets to accuse
themselves of being child molesters. How much crazier can it get than that?

On Sun, 1 Mar 2009 10:24:51 -0500, "Aragorn"
wrote:

"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote

Are things really so emotional, or is it only the denizens of this site
that make it appear so?

Things used to be that emotional. However, years of rule by a party that
made creating such emotionalism and division a cornerstone of its plan for
looting the society has so discredited it that the predominant emotion is
shock and despair. However, you go to the waterfronts and backwoods and you
still find people who believe the earth is flat, God created the earth in 7
days 4000 years ago, and a democratic congress with a razor thin majority
and no ability to override a presidential veto created this mess in just two
years.

Of course, this group has a larger proportion of wacko's than the general
population. Why, we even have people creating sock puppets to accuse
themselves of being child molesters. How much crazier can it get than that?

I suspect that one of the "liberals" will spring out of the woodwork
and stamp all over this conversation but before they do;

I have wondered about the "Democrats" shouting at the "Republicans"
about the "Bush" finances when the drive to allow poor people to
borrow money to buy housing seems hardly a "Republican" philosophy,
rather more lie the wild eyed liberal sector of the Democrats.

But then again, "history is written by the winners".


Cheers,

Bruce in Bangkok
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

On Mon, 02 Mar 2009 07:49:34 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:


I have wondered about the "Democrats" shouting at the "Republicans"
about the "Bush" finances when the drive to allow poor people to
borrow money to buy housing seems hardly a "Republican" philosophy,
rather more lie the wild eyed liberal sector of the Democrats.

Do you seriously think "poor people" piled up $trillions in debt?
Laughable.
And I can't count the times GWB mentioned "home ownership" as proof
"the fundamentals of the economy are sound."
I really think you're out of touch.
It took both Rep and Dem dickwads to get the economy in this mess.
And the people who voted for them.
What's nice about democracy is "the people" get exactly what they
deserve.
I like it.

--Vic

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 02 Mar 2009 07:49:34 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:


I have wondered about the "Democrats" shouting at the "Republicans"
about the "Bush" finances when the drive to allow poor people to
borrow money to buy housing seems hardly a "Republican" philosophy,
rather more lie the wild eyed liberal sector of the Democrats.

Do you seriously think "poor people" piled up $trillions in debt?
Laughable.
And I can't count the times GWB mentioned "home ownership" as proof
"the fundamentals of the economy are sound."
I really think you're out of touch.
It took both Rep and Dem dickwads to get the economy in this mess.
And the people who voted for them.
What's nice about democracy is "the people" get exactly what they
deserve.
I like it.

--Vic


I have to agree. There was definitely a "perfect storm" of liberals wanting
home ownership to be expanded and right-wingers wanting little or no
regulation and/or oversight. There was also the conservative element that
is, was, and will always be morally opposed to any gov't involvement in the
financial sector. But, to blame poor people is an easy out, and it's not
even close to the truth.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

On Sun, 01 Mar 2009 19:25:57 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Mon, 02 Mar 2009 07:49:34 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:


I have wondered about the "Democrats" shouting at the "Republicans"
about the "Bush" finances when the drive to allow poor people to
borrow money to buy housing seems hardly a "Republican" philosophy,
rather more lie the wild eyed liberal sector of the Democrats.

Do you seriously think "poor people" piled up $trillions in debt?
Laughable.
And I can't count the times GWB mentioned "home ownership" as proof
"the fundamentals of the economy are sound."
I really think you're out of touch.
It took both Rep and Dem dickwads to get the economy in this mess.
And the people who voted for them.
What's nice about democracy is "the people" get exactly what they
deserve.
I like it.

--Vic


No, poor folks didn't pile up all that debt. But Fanny May
underwriting poorly secured mortgages certainly sent a signal to the
loaning companies that practically anyone should be able to get a
mortgage.

This, by the way, was pointed out by the GAO some time ago (years) and
if I'm not mistakes the head of the agency was dismissed or had to
resign due to the policy.

So, yes. The idea that poor people who wouldn't qualify for a loan
under any sensible evaluation plan should be able to buy a house does
sound like a left of center Democratic idea. On the other hand letting
the lending agencies leverage their business to a ridicules level
sounds more like a Republican move.

My suspicions are that as a general statement, "politicians will
always do everything they can to get reelected" is probably a valid
premise.

Cheers,

Bruce in Bangkok
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

On Mon, 02 Mar 2009 07:49:34 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:

I have wondered about the "Democrats"

Wrong group, unless you mean "the cruising Democrats".

:-)

On Sun, 01 Mar 2009 21:46:06 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Mon, 02 Mar 2009 07:49:34 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:

I have wondered about the "Democrats"

Wrong group, unless you mean "the cruising Democrats".

:-)


Don't understand all these shades of meaning when y'all talk about
politics as in my formative years there were really two main versions
and a few wild eyed groups who didn't attract much notice.

Cheers,

Bruce in Bangkok
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

Oh brother!

Bruce in Bangkok wrote:
On Sun, 01 Mar 2009 21:46:06 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Mon, 02 Mar 2009 07:49:34 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:

I have wondered about the "Democrats"

Wrong group, unless you mean "the cruising Democrats".

:-)


Don't understand all these shades of meaning when y'all talk about
politics as in my formative years there were really two main versions
and a few wild eyed groups who didn't attract much notice.

Cheers,

Bruce in Bangkok
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)