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

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

ted

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?

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

"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.

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

"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

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

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.

"Twibil" wrote in message
...
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.

His reply essentially eats away at the principles of civilization. If you
look at FOIA laws and policies, the notion of due process, the right to
question one's accusers, etc.; it all hinges on the supposition that
"because I said so" is not a wholly satisfactory reply.

That being said, his point of view seems to be not easily provable outside
the neo-Nazi meetings at the trailer park, i.e. from Wikipedia:

BEGIN QUOTE
Some legal and financial experts note that CRA regulated loans tend to be
safe and profitable, and that subprime excesses came mainly from
institutions not regulated by the CRA. In the February 2008 House hearing,
law professor Michael S. Barr, a Treasury Department official under
President Clinton,[64][108] stated that a Federal Reserve survey showed that
affected institutions considered CRA loans profitable and not overly risky.
He noted that approximately 50% of the subprime loans were made by
independent mortgage companies that were not regulated by the CRA, and
another 25% to 30% came from only partially CRA regulated bank subsidiaries
and affiliates. Barr noted that institutions fully regulated by CRA made
"perhaps one in four" sub-prime loans, and that "the worst and most
widespread abuses occurred in the institutions with the least federal
oversight".[109] According to Janet L. Yellen, President of the Federal
Reserve Bank of San Francisco, independent mortgage companies made risky
"high-priced loans" at more than twice the rate of the banks and thrifts;
most CRA loans were responsibly made, and were not the higher-priced loans
that have contributed to the current crisis.[110] A 2008 study by Traiger &
Hinckley LLP, a law firm that counsels financial institutions on CRA
compliance, found that CRA regulated institutions were less likely to make
subprime loans, and when they did the interest rates were lower. CRA banks
were also half as likely to resell the loans.[111] Emre Ergungor of the
Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland found that there was no statistical
difference in foreclosure rates between regulated and less-regulated banks,
although a local bank presence resulted in fewer foreclosures.[112]
END QUOTE

I want to see him stopped for a traffic violation. That would have to be a
YouTube video moment. I can see him tracing his ticket to Jews and African
Americans in the police department.

Datesfat

Long Ranger wrote:

You are using the classic liberal foil.

You're using the typical right-wing pack of lies. Go you.