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

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

ted

<wismel@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:u30k459g4q774jg38odtkh6seqqaf3lt0q@4ax.com...
> http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.o...gage-meltdown/
>
> This is a useful site worth forwarding. Note article re: 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" <datesfat.chicks@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:lNqdnaU0JOhOidfXnZ2dnUVZ_hKdnZ2d@giganews.com ...
> <wismel@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:u30k459g4q774jg38odtkh6seqqaf3lt0q@4ax.com...
>> http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.o...gage-meltdown/
>>
>> This is a useful site worth forwarding. Note article re: 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
horseshit 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.

On Jun 30, 6:12*am, wis...@yahoo.com wrote:

Read it...interesting the author and you by extension are making
claims that you are capable of thiking. Such a concept is no possible
for people like you.

"Schiffner" <stevenkeith2@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:81c75877-a0c3-4862-a6ff-7fdc386bc9bb@j14g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 30, 6:12 am, wis...@yahoo.com wrote:

Read it...interesting the author and you by extension are making
claims that you are capable of thiking. Such a concept is no possible
for people like you.

I do lots of thiking. I'm a big-time thiker. Don't you tell me it's no
possible, mister!

Long Ranger wrote:
> "Datesfat Chicks" <datesfat.chicks@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:lNqdnaU0JOhOidfXnZ2dnUVZ_hKdnZ2d@giganews.com ...
>> <wismel@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:u30k459g4q774jg38odtkh6seqqaf3lt0q@4ax.com...
>>> http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.o...gage-meltdown/
>>>
>>> This is a useful site worth forwarding. Note article re: 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
> horseshit 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

"Datesfat Chicks" <datesfat.chicks@gmail.com> wrote
> Um ... has it been demonstrated that the mortgage meltdown is due to
> minority lending (as is claimed in the article)?
>
No, because the meltdown is not ... per se ... due to minorities. It is/was
caused by greedy financial exec.s eager to profit by loaning other peoples
money to folks who really could not afford to repay those loans. Adding the
latter to the pool of "buyers" created new demand that raised home prices,
attracting speculators who also got risky loans and drove prices up even
more .. and off we went.

That said, there is some justification for blaming "sharks" who profit off
real or imagined discrimination. These "sharks" claimed that the fact that
fewer black folk owned homes proved discrimination and, when banks pointed
out that the same rules had been applied to everybody, then (as usual) they
demanded reverse discrimination in the form of different loan criteria for
different races - and the government went along. But that reverse
discrimination didn't last - soon people of all races were getting easy
mortgages they couldn't pay.

Thus "sharks" like Jessie Jackson provided the grain of truth that allows
racists to blame it all on "niggers".

"Vito" <vito@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4a4a3579$0$11814$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosti ng.com...
> "Datesfat Chicks" <datesfat.chicks@gmail.com> wrote
>> Um ... has it been demonstrated that the mortgage meltdown is due to
>> minority lending (as is claimed in the article)?
>>
> No, because the meltdown is not ... per se ... due to minorities. It
> is/was caused by greedy financial exec.s eager to profit by loaning other
> peoples money to folks who really could not afford to repay those loans.
> Adding the latter to the pool of "buyers" created new demand that raised
> home prices, attracting speculators who also got risky loans and drove
> prices up even more .. and off we went.
>
> That said, there is some justification for blaming "sharks" who profit off
> real or imagined discrimination. These "sharks" claimed that the fact
> that fewer black folk owned homes proved discrimination and, when banks
> pointed out that the same rules had been applied to everybody, then (as
> usual) they demanded reverse discrimination in the form of different loan
> criteria for different races - and the government went along. But that
> reverse discrimination didn't last - soon people of all races were getting
> easy mortgages they couldn't pay.
>
> Thus "sharks" like Jessie Jackson provided the grain of truth that allows
> racists to blame it all on "niggers".
>
>How come this predation never happened before Clinton, and Carter insisted
>the loans to minorities be made?

"Misifus" <rafseibert@att.net> wrote in message
news:7aupuoF20bi40U3@mid.individual.net...
> Long Ranger wrote:
>> "Datesfat Chicks" <datesfat.chicks@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:lNqdnaU0JOhOidfXnZ2dnUVZ_hKdnZ2d@giganews.com ...
>>> <wismel@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:u30k459g4q774jg38odtkh6seqqaf3lt0q@4ax.com...
>>>> http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.o...gage-meltdown/
>>>>
>>>> This is a useful site worth forwarding. Note article re: 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
>

"Long Ranger" <worpylorp@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:h2dipb$2q0$1@news.motzarella.org...
>> 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...nancial_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

On Jun 30, 7:25*am, "Long Ranger" <worpyl...@comcast.net> 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.

"Datesfat Chicks" <datesfat.chicks@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:lNqdnaU0JOhOidfXnZ2dnUVZ_hKdnZ2d@giganews.com ...
> <wismel@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:u30k459g4q774jg38odtkh6seqqaf3lt0q@4ax.com...
>> http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.o...gage-meltdown/
>>
>> This is a useful site worth forwarding. Note article re: 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?

"Twibil" <nowayjose6@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7a22d35f-a571-4f7a-a2c5-d168c40a8063@r25g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 30, 7:25 am, "Long Ranger" <worpyl...@comcast.net> 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

"Wayne" <mygarbagecan@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:h2dqkj$3d8$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> "Datesfat Chicks" <datesfat.chicks@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:lNqdnaU0JOhOidfXnZ2dnUVZ_hKdnZ2d@giganews.com ...
>> <wismel@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:u30k459g4q774jg38odtkh6seqqaf3lt0q@4ax.com...
>>> http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.o...gage-meltdown/
>>>
>>> This is a useful site worth forwarding. Note article re: 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?

You haven't provided any credible evidence that the CRA loans contributed to
the crisis.

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>

The traceability between minorities, the CRA, and the meltdown just hasn't
been made by you or any material you are willing to cite.

Remember, us on the newsgroup have higher standards of proof than your
neo-Nazi colleagues at the trailer park ...

Datesfat.

In article <7a22d35f-a571-4f7a-a2c5-d168c40a8063@r25g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>, Twibil <nowayjose6@gmail.com> wrote:

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

or at least take it off the NASCAR group
that doesn't give a shit about any of it.


Dan
****************************************
What's the difference between roast beef and pea soup?
Anyone can roast beef.

"Long Ranger" <worpylorp@comcast.net> wrote
>>How come this predation never happened before Clinton, and Carter insisted
>>the loans to minorities be made?
>
Deregulation, similar to that which allowed the S&L scam under RR

"Datesfat Chicks" <datesfat.chicks@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:LuWdnYwLK6lmw9fXnZ2dnUVZ_qudnZ2d@giganews.com ...
> "Long Ranger" <worpylorp@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:h2dipb$2q0$1@news.motzarella.org...
>>> 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...nancial_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
And win, because I don't argue unless I know what I'm talking about.

In news:u30k459g4q774jg38odtkh6seqqaf3lt0q@4ax.com wismel@yahoo.com
wrote:

> http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/ ...
>
> This is a useful site worth forwarding.

If you're a white supremacist of some sort.

Judging by the OP's choice of newsgroups, it helps to be an
inconsiderate boor too.

http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/about-npi/

White Americans have been led to believe that “diversity” and
“multiculturalism” are sacred. We’re conditioned to be shy when
it comes to standing up for our own beliefs. But doesn’t every
race, ethnic subculture, and special interest—from left-handers
to lesbians—have all sorts of organizations working for them?
Isn’t it about time someone spoke for us?

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN bert@iphouse.com

"Long Ranger" <worpylorp@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:h2e1fd$6dt$1@news.motzarella.org...
>
> And win, because I don't argue unless I know what I'm talking about.

You STILL haven't provided any credible evidence that minorities were
responsible for the financial crisis. Most experts seem to believe they
were not ...

???

Datesfat

On 30 Jun 2009 21:53:51 GMT, Bert Hyman <bert@iphouse.com> wrote:

>In news:u30k459g4q774jg38odtkh6seqqaf3lt0q@4ax.com wismel@yahoo.com
>wrote:
>
>> http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/ ...
>>
>> This is a useful site worth forwarding.
>
>If you're a white supremacist of some sort.
>
>Judging by the OP's choice of newsgroups, it helps to be an
>inconsiderate boor too.
>
>http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/about-npi/
>
> White Americans have been led to believe that “diversity” and
> “multiculturalism” are sacred. We’re conditioned to be shy when
> it comes to standing up for our own beliefs. But doesn’t every
> race, ethnic subculture, and special interest—from left-handers
> to lesbians—have all sorts of organizations working for them?
> Isn’t it about time someone spoke for us?

Judging by your name you are a Jew, one of the most tribalistic of
groups. And yet you decry the message from an organization?
Is free speech only for minorities? What about a White Cacus in the
House?

ted

On Jun 30, 6:42*pm, wis...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On 30 Jun 2009 21:53:51 GMT, Bert Hyman <b...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Innews:u30k459g4q774jg38odtkh6seqqaf3lt0q@4ax.com wis...@yahoo.com
> >wrote:
>
> >>http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/...
>
> >> This is a useful site worth forwarding.
>
> >If you're a white supremacist of some sort.
>
> >Judging by the OP's choice of newsgroups, it helps to be an
> >inconsiderate boor too.
>
> >http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/about-npi/
>
> > * * * *White Americans have been led to believe that “diversity” and
> > * * * *“multiculturalism” are sacred. We’re conditioned to be shy when
> > * * * *it comes to standing up for our own beliefs. But doesn’t every
> > * * * *race, ethnic subculture, and special interest—from left-handers
> > * * * *to lesbians—have all sorts of organizations working for them?
> > * * * *Isn’t it about time someone spoke for us?
>
> Judging by your name you are a Jew, one of the most tribalistic of
> groups. And yet you decry the message from an organization?
> Is free speech only for minorities? What about a White Cacus in the
> House?
>
> ted

Poor pathetic racist. Aren't you actually your friend Hal Turner's lap
dog?

On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:58:23 -0700 (PDT), TopBassDog
<topbassdog@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Jun 30, 6:42*pm, wis...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On 30 Jun 2009 21:53:51 GMT, Bert Hyman <b...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >Innews:u30k459g4q774jg38odtkh6seqqaf3lt0q@4ax.com wis...@yahoo.com
>> >wrote:
>>
>> >>http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/...
>>
>> >> This is a useful site worth forwarding.
>>
>> >If you're a white supremacist of some sort.
>>
>> >Judging by the OP's choice of newsgroups, it helps to be an
>> >inconsiderate boor too.
>>
>> >http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/about-npi/
>>
>> > * * * *White Americans have been led to believe that “diversity” and
>> > * * * *“multiculturalism” are sacred. We’re conditioned to be shy when
>> > * * * *it comes to standing up for our own beliefs. But doesn’t every
>> > * * * *race, ethnic subculture, and special interest—from left-handers
>> > * * * *to lesbians—have all sorts of organizations working for them?
>> > * * * *Isn’t it about time someone spoke for us?
>>
>> Judging by your name you are a Jew, one of the most tribalistic of
>> groups. And yet you decry the message from an organization?
>> Is free speech only for minorities? What about a White Cacus in the
>> House?
>>
>> ted
>
>Poor pathetic racist. Aren't you actually your friend Hal Turner's lap
>dog?


Oh no, another Sunday School school star pupil.

ted

On 30 Jun 2009 21:53:51 GMT, Bert Hyman <bert@iphouse.com> wrote:

>In news:u30k459g4q774jg38odtkh6seqqaf3lt0q@4ax.com wismel@yahoo.com
>wrote:
>
>> http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/ ...
>>
>> This is a useful site worth forwarding.
>
>If you're a white supremacist of some sort.
>
>Judging by the OP's choice of newsgroups, it helps to be an
>inconsiderate boor too.
>
>http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/about-npi/
>
> White Americans have been led to believe that “diversity” and
> “multiculturalism” are sacred. We’re conditioned to be shy when
> it comes to standing up for our own beliefs. But doesn’t every
> race, ethnic subculture, and special interest—from left-handers
> to lesbians—have all sorts of organizations working for them?
> Isn’t it about time someone spoke for us?



Found this about a year ago:

...........................
There once was a time, not so many years ago, that mortgage lenders
would lend ONLY to those who were pre-determined to have a pretty good
chance of paying the money they were loaned back to the bank.

If you didn't have a sufficient - and VERIFIED - income - you didn't
get
the loan.
If you didn't have a sufficient - and VERIFIED - credit history, you
didn't get the loan.
If you didn't have sufficient cash to plunk down for a down payment -
you didn't get the loan.
That was the way prudent mortgage lending worked. And - for most who
qualified - it DID work.

But - starting around the Clinton era - some started saying that such
lending policies were "discriminatory", and, as it follows (regarding
certain ethnic groups), "racist". So banks were persuaded (more likely
pushed) into creating something called the "subprime" market. A
well-chosen word, for these were loans made without a real promise of
repayment.

Hence, "no-money-down" mortgages.
Hence, "interest only" mortgages (for the first several years).
Hence, "balloon" mortgages.

Once the banks made them, they quickly sold off the "paper", backed by
hoked-up schemes (derivatives) to give the impression that the risk
was
removed. But it was never removed, because the foundation upon which
these shaky loans were made was based on sand.

A few years back, I remember a big sign on I-95 in Bridgeport,
Connecticut:
Buy a house! No money down! We habla Espanol!

That told me all I needed to know about where those loans were going
to
end up: many of them, in the toilet. Not to mention those who DID have
good incomes, but bought 'way over their heads, figuring they could
"flip" the property if they couldn't pay.

Now, we have the spectre of millions of bad loans - loans that should
never have been made in the first place - coming home to roost. And
the
banks and investment firms that hold the paper are toppling over. The
most prudent thing to do here is simply let them fall, and fail. And -
go back to responsible mortgage lending to only those who have a good
chance at paying the loans BACK.

But don't blame banks for loaning money to people who were unlikely to
repay. They were FORCED into such schemes by liberals who didn't want
to
"discriminate".

That's what *responsible* lending IS - "discrimination" against those
who can't repay, plain and simple.
..............................

We didn't let them fail. No, now we have a stimulus bill and our
grandchildren will ultimately pay for the final economic meltdown
caused
by those bad loans.

Eddie

"Datesfat Chicks" wrote

> 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 ...")

So, the changes in policy and worldview that led to the gigantic
increases in mortgage lending to minorities seen over the last decade
(with total mortgage dollars written per year increasing [6] 691% for
Hispanics and 397% for blacks from 1999 to the peak of the Housing
Bubble in 2006) unsurprisingly led to world-historical levels of mortgage
defaults in 2007-2009. After all, blacks and Hispanics were still defaulting
at very high levels when they weren't getting as much mortgage lending.
The law of diminishing marginal returns suggests that throwing more
mortgage money at them wasn't going to improve their credit worthiness.

In 2004-2007, minorities received half of subprime mortgage dollars
handed out. A [7] new 2008 Boston Fed study shows minorities in
Massachusetts getting foreclosed on subprime loans at twice the race of
whites, suggesting that minorities accounted for a sizable majority of
subprime dollars defaulted.
http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives..._fha_mortg.php

"83LowRider" <83lowrider@noshitsherlockl.com> wrote in message
news:h2egta$tmu$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> "Datesfat Chicks" wrote
>
>> 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
>> ...")
>
> So, the changes in policy and worldview that led to the gigantic
> increases in mortgage lending to minorities seen over the last decade
> (with total mortgage dollars written per year increasing [6] 691% for
> Hispanics and 397% for blacks from 1999 to the peak of the Housing
> Bubble in 2006) unsurprisingly led to world-historical levels of mortgage
> defaults in 2007-2009. After all, blacks and Hispanics were still
> defaulting
> at very high levels when they weren't getting as much mortgage lending.
> The law of diminishing marginal returns suggests that throwing more
> mortgage money at them wasn't going to improve their credit worthiness.
>
> In 2004-2007, minorities received half of subprime mortgage dollars
> handed out. A [7] new 2008 Boston Fed study shows minorities in
> Massachusetts getting foreclosed on subprime loans at twice the race of
> whites, suggesting that minorities accounted for a sizable majority of
> subprime dollars defaulted.
> http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives..._fha_mortg.php

American Renaissance is a white supremacist rag. Got a credible source?

Datesfat

On Jun 30, 8:47*am, "Long Ranger" <worpyl...@comcast.net> wrote:
> "Schiffner" <stevenkei...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:81c75877-a0c3-4862-a6ff-7fdc386bc9bb@j14g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 30, 6:12 am, wis...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> Read it...interesting the author and you by extension are making
> claims that you are capable of thiking. Such a concept is no possible
> for people like you.
>
> I do lots of thiking. I'm a big-time thiker. Don't you tell me it's no
> possible, mister!

Okay I wont point out reality or facts. Keep living in a fantasy world
where you scum rule. Wont change the fact that you'll all be dead
before me....

On Jun 30, 6:44*pm, wis...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:58:23 -0700 (PDT), TopBassDog
>
>
>
>
>
> <topbass...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jun 30, 6:42*pm, wis...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> On 30 Jun 2009 21:53:51 GMT, Bert Hyman <b...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>
> >> >Innews:u30k459g4q774jg38odtkh6seqqaf3lt0q@4ax.com wis.__BEGIN_MASK_n#9g02mG7!__...__END_MASK_i?a63jf AD$z__@yahoo.com
> >> >wrote:
>
> >> >>http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/...
>
> >> >> This is a useful site worth forwarding.
>
> >> >If you're a white supremacist of some sort.
>
> >> >Judging by the OP's choice of newsgroups, it helps to be an
> >> >inconsiderate boor too.
>
> >> >http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/about-npi/
>
> >> > * * * *White Americans have been led to believe that “diversity” and
> >> > * * * *“multiculturalism” are sacred. We’re conditioned to be shy when
> >> > * * * *it comes to standing up for our own beliefs. But doesn’t every
> >> > * * * *race, ethnic subculture, and special interest—from left-handers
> >> > * * * *to lesbians—have all sorts of organizations workingfor them?
> >> > * * * *Isn’t it about time someone spoke for us?
>
> >> Judging by your name you are a Jew, one of the most tribalistic of
> >> groups. And yet you decry the message from an organization?
> >> Is free speech only for minorities? What about a White Cacus in the
> >> House?
>
> >> ted
>
> >Poor pathetic racist. Aren't you actually your friend Hal Turner's lap
> >dog?
>
> Oh no, another Sunday School school star pupil.

You do know Hal is a gay jew right? Has a black boyfriend who ghost
rights the mundane stuff for him.

On Jun 30, 6:47*pm, wis...@yahoo.com wrote:

Tell you what Teddy, I'll make you famous. A REAL famous a shining
example to others about what to say, who to say it to and best of all
WHEN to say it. Come on up to Montana and I'll teach you really,
really interesting things.

On Jun 30, 5:42*pm, wis...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On 30 Jun 2009 21:53:51 GMT, Bert Hyman <b...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >Innews:u30k459g4q774jg38odtkh6seqqaf3lt0q@4ax.com wis...@yahoo.com
> >wrote:
>
> >>http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/...
>
> >> This is a useful site worth forwarding.
>
> >If you're a white supremacist of some sort.
>
> >Judging by the OP's choice of newsgroups, it helps to be an
> >inconsiderate boor too.
>
> >http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/about-npi/
>
> > * * * *White Americans have been led to believe that “diversity” and
> > * * * *“multiculturalism” are sacred. We’re conditioned to be shy when
> > * * * *it comes to standing up for our own beliefs. But doesn’t every
> > * * * *race, ethnic subculture, and special interest—from left-handers
> > * * * *to lesbians—have all sorts of organizations working for them?
> > * * * *Isn’t it about time someone spoke for us?
>
> Judging by your name you are a Jew, one of the most tribalistic of
> groups. And yet you decry the message from an organization?
> Is free speech only for minorities? What about a White Cacus in the
> House?

Actually you poor uneducated piece of white trash he's NOT it's a non-
jewish germanic name. I have $100usd CASH says you are too cowardly to
come to montana and collect that $100. For that matter I bet you
aren't man enough to leave your own county.

--
Keith