When a dog returns to it's vomit pile.
 

http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.o...gage-meltdown/

This is a useful site worth forwarding. Note article Economics of
Mass Deportation.

ted

When a dog returns to it's vomit pile.
 

wrote:
http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.o...gage-meltdown/

This is a useful site worth forwarding. Note article Economics of
Mass Deportation.

ted


Dog? Vomit? White supremacist? Herring, is that you?

When a dog returns to it's vomit pile.
 

wrote in message
...
http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.o...gage-meltdown/

This is a useful site worth forwarding. Note article Economics of
Mass Deportation.

Um ... has it been demonstrated that the mortgage meltdown is due to
minority lending (as is claimed in the article)?

Any citations there?

It was my impression that the issue was racially diverse.

Without that linchpin, you're just quacks blaming minorities for everything.
("Why is it raining today, daddy? Because of Rosa Parks ...")

Datesfat

When a dog returns to it's vomit pile.
 

"Datesfat Chicks" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.o...gage-meltdown/

This is a useful site worth forwarding. Note article Economics of
Mass Deportation.

Um ... has it been demonstrated that the mortgage meltdown is due to
minority lending (as is claimed in the article)?

Any citations there?

It was my impression that the issue was racially diverse.

Without that linchpin, you're just quacks blaming minorities for
everything. ("Why is it raining today, daddy? Because of Rosa Parks ...")

Datesfat


You are using the classic liberal foil. Demanding "citations, and proof"
when in fact, you are challenging a stated position and need to approach it
with something more like, "I disagree with your claims because of
"___________________________________". Putting someone on the defensive and
making them do the leg-work to defend the ideas you are challenging is the
lazy man's way of co-opting an argument. Typically, when a conservative idea
is stated, and then defended with a citation, or a source, the liberal will
then move to assassinate the character or motivations of that source, and
leave the original idea behind. (Any source that contradicts liberal
horse**** is automatically labeled as "biased"). Then, we are one step off
of the original topic and eventually we get to a point that a side-issue is
agreed to by both sides, and liberal then pretends to have won an argument,
even though the original idea has not been contended with. So, since the
same information is available to us all, we are waiting here patiently for
you to go out and satisfy yourself with the available facts. If you can
contradict the article I would be very interested in that. Note that just
because some of the mortgage defaults come from white folks, that does not
mean that the article is not true.

When a dog returns to it's vomit pile.
 

Long Ranger wrote:
"Datesfat Chicks" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.o...gage-meltdown/

This is a useful site worth forwarding. Note article Economics of
Mass Deportation.
Um ... has it been demonstrated that the mortgage meltdown is due to
minority lending (as is claimed in the article)?

Any citations there?

It was my impression that the issue was racially diverse.

Without that linchpin, you're just quacks blaming minorities for
everything. ("Why is it raining today, daddy? Because of Rosa Parks ...")

Datesfat


You are using the classic liberal foil. Demanding "citations, and proof"
when in fact, you are challenging a stated position and need to approach it
with something more like, "I disagree with your claims because of
"___________________________________". Putting someone on the defensive and
making them do the leg-work to defend the ideas you are challenging is the
lazy man's way of co-opting an argument. Typically, when a conservative idea
is stated, and then defended with a citation, or a source, the liberal will
then move to assassinate the character or motivations of that source, and
leave the original idea behind. (Any source that contradicts liberal
horse**** is automatically labeled as "biased"). Then, we are one step off
of the original topic and eventually we get to a point that a side-issue is
agreed to by both sides, and liberal then pretends to have won an argument,
even though the original idea has not been contended with. So, since the
same information is available to us all, we are waiting here patiently for
you to go out and satisfy yourself with the available facts. If you can
contradict the article I would be very interested in that. Note that just
because some of the mortgage defaults come from white folks, that does not
mean that the article is not true.




It's a trick they learned as sophomores in college in the 1960's. A
sophomore, you will recall, is a wise fool.

-Raf

--
Misifus-
Rafael Seibert
Photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/rafiii
home: http://www.rafandsioux.com

When a dog returns to it's vomit pile.
 

"Misifus" wrote in message
...
Long Ranger wrote:
"Datesfat Chicks" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.o...gage-meltdown/

This is a useful site worth forwarding. Note article Economics of
Mass Deportation.
Um ... has it been demonstrated that the mortgage meltdown is due to
minority lending (as is claimed in the article)?

Any citations there?

It was my impression that the issue was racially diverse.

Without that linchpin, you're just quacks blaming minorities for
everything. ("Why is it raining today, daddy? Because of Rosa Parks
...")

Datesfat


You are using the classic liberal foil. Demanding "citations, and proof"
when in fact, you are challenging a stated position and need to approach
it with something more like, "I disagree with your claims because of
"___________________________________". Putting someone on the defensive
and making them do the leg-work to defend the ideas you are challenging
is the lazy man's way of co-opting an argument.

By your standard, anyone who demands more documentation about a
controversial statement is trying to co-opt an argument. That simply isn't
valid.

The Internet has made it easier than ever to provide information. You don't
have to provide the actual information: often, a URL is enough.

You made a controversial statement (that minority lending was responsible
for the financial meltdown). I asked for a citation. Rather than provide
one, you accused me of co-opting the argument.

Does anybody who authors web pages share this opinion so that you can
provide me a URL, or are you just a crackpot posting trash?

I'm guessing the latter.

Datesfat

When a dog returns to it's vomit pile.
 

By your standard, anyone who demands more documentation about a
controversial statement is trying to co-opt an argument. That simply
isn't valid.

Is that because you say so?

The Internet has made it easier than ever to provide information. You
don't have to provide the actual information: often, a URL is enough.

That the key ingredient here. It is so easy to verify things, yet you
persist in questioning people.

You made a controversial statement (that minority lending was responsible
for the financial meltdown). I asked for a citation. Rather than provide
one, you accused me of co-opting the argument.

It is not a controversial statement. Calling it that is just another attempt
at putting someone on the defensive. It is easily verified. Read up on The
Community Reinvestment Act, for instance. See what it was about, who it
targeted, and how many of those loans are in default. "It's that simple,
Larry". You never even heard of the CRA 'til now, huh?

Does anybody who authors web pages share this opinion so that you can
provide me a URL, or are you just a crackpot posting trash?

Here is another liberal ploy: Calling names and vilifying someone who calls
you on your game. If you can't refute something, at least try to demean the
opposition.

Now go out and do your own research.

I'm guessing the latter.

Datesfat

When a dog returns to it's vomit pile.
 

"Long Ranger" wrote in message
...
By your standard, anyone who demands more documentation about a
controversial statement is trying to co-opt an argument. That simply
isn't valid.

Is that because you say so?

The Internet has made it easier than ever to provide information. You
don't have to provide the actual information: often, a URL is enough.

That the key ingredient here. It is so easy to verify things, yet you
persist in questioning people.

You made a controversial statement (that minority lending was responsible
for the financial meltdown). I asked for a citation. Rather than
provide one, you accused me of co-opting the argument.

It is not a controversial statement. Calling it that is just another
attempt at putting someone on the defensive. It is easily verified. Read
up on The Community Reinvestment Act, for instance. See what it was about,
who it targeted, and how many of those loans are in default. "It's that
simple, Larry". You never even heard of the CRA 'til now, huh?

Does anybody who authors web pages share this opinion so that you can
provide me a URL, or are you just a crackpot posting trash?

Here is another liberal ploy: Calling names and vilifying someone who
calls you on your game. If you can't refute something, at least try to
demean the opposition.

Now go out and do your own research.

I'm aware of the CRA, but I wasn't aware that someone had traced this to the
financial meltdown. My impression from the faces on the news was that these
were mostly caucasian folks getting into a house too pricey for them.

I need to see traceability from the CRA to the financial crisis. Any URLs?

A second factor -- and no offense to any group intended -- is that inner
city properties typically ain't worth a lot. One $400K house owned by a
white person can do as much damage as eight $50K houses owned by minorities
(perhaps more damage, actually, because the price of the $400K property is
more volatile).

I found this URL (note the bookmark) interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communi...nc ial_crisis

However, it appears that the point you are trying to make is disputed by
most experts.

I find the discussion interesting. But painting my request for credible
information as a liberal tactic to co-opt the argument isn't helpful.

I'd hate to be the cop that pulls you over for speeding or even the judge in
traffic court. I have no doubt you could argue for at least 20 minutes.

Datefat

When a dog returns to it's vomit pile.
 

On Jun 30, 7:25*am, "Long Ranger" wrote:

You are using the classic liberal foil. Demanding "citations, and proof"
when in fact, you are challenging a stated position and need to approach it
with something more like, "I disagree with your claims because of
"___________________________________".


BUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

"I should be able to spout any lie I wish and you shouldn't be allowed
to question it's veracity." ("Er, unless I tell you exactly how you're
allowed to do so...")

Go back to your White Power websites and masturbate in privacy.

When a dog returns to it's vomit pile.
 

"Datesfat Chicks" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.o...gage-meltdown/

This is a useful site worth forwarding. Note article Economics of
Mass Deportation.

Um ... has it been demonstrated that the mortgage meltdown is due to
minority lending (as is claimed in the article)?

Any citations there?

You living under a rock, so that you haven't seen that in the news for the
past year?