It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama supporters have become silent!

page: 9
20
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 05:33 AM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


What you and Neo do not seem to want to understand is that people, private individuals, along with private businesses, made the choices to bring about these loan agreements. Private individuals made those choices, private financial institutions made the choice to lend to anybody, the government did not force either side to make those choices.

Regarding fannie and freddie Mac alone, Clinton was doing exactly what many Republican, including libertarian leaning Alan Greenspan, were calling for, to allow fannie and freddie mac to start loaning to lower and middle income earners. Essentially your argument is, because regulations were lifted from fannie and freddie to lend to whom they wanted, the financial crises came about. You're parroting the point I'v been getting around in my previous posts, do you realise that? Deregulation was the core cause of the financial crises, it gave private businesses more power to decide whom they'd loan to, it gave fannie and freddie Mac more power to decide whom to loan to. You know Richard Syron? The CEO of freddie Mac? He was right in line with sub-prime plan back in the 90's that Clinton, the republicans and the democrats wanted to put in place, he wanted freddie Mac to have more freedom to lend to whom they want, it was a coorporative decision, not one that the government forced upon freddie Mac itself:


The chief executive of the mortgage giant Freddie Mac rejected internal warnings that could have protected the company from some of the financial crises now engulfing it, according to more than two dozen current and former high-ranking executives and others

www.nytimes.com...

Franklin Rains? CEO of Fannie May during the time that the sub-prime proposal was being floated around in congress in the 90's? He wanted the sub-prime proposal to go ahead so they could expand their powers upon whom they could lend to:
www.nytimes.com...

The sub-prime mortgage crises occurred because restraint, or in other words regulation, was taken lightly in the real estate industry many individuals in DC, including Clinton. In the end private individuals who knew full well what they could and could not afford decided to take advantage at the free lending reign DC lifted to Fannie, freddie Mac and other private financial institutions. Did the government force private american citizens to take up those loans? No. Were Libertarian and other conservatives groups against the measure? No, obviously not, Alan greenspan, one of the high upstanding figures of libertarianism, recommended that Clinton go ahead and deregulate.
articles.latimes.com...

Fannie and Freddie Mac should have been kept on a shorter leash, just as other private financial institutions that had a part to play in this crises, but that didn't happen. You made my point clearer in your previous point, I don't think you're aware though.




posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 05:44 AM
link   
They're not silent; they're just inhaling.

Andrew Jackson '012!



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 06:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by guitarplayer

Originally posted by Aggie Man

Originally posted by allprowolfy
Obama states he is only a one term president, BUT many on this sight are quit, and i want to know why


I support Obama, but I don't feel the need to praise him daily; where as those that dislike him seemingly feel the need to hate on him daily. It's just that simple.


Where you one of those people who daily trashed GW Bush calling him hitler and he's not my president?


Nope. I tolerated him for 8 years...he was still my president regardless of my views on his policy. I can't say I was sad to see him go though.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 06:50 AM
link   
The idea that one choice over the other in a Presidential race really makes a difference is laughable.


You should not be surprised to see Obama policies are much like Bush's policies. They take their orders from the same Powers That Be.

The last independent president in the US was JFK and you see what happened to him. Since Kennedy the screws have been ever more tightened on presidents and their freedom to make any decisions. The most recent resident at 1600 Penn Ave isn't even allowed to speak. He must read exactly what has been prepared for him and on his tele-prompter.

All those who think their vote for president will ever change anything are living in a fantasy world.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by romanmel
The idea that one choice over the other in a Presidential race really makes a difference is laughable.




Then we shall laugh together as warriors before tomorrow's battle! Today is a good day to die!

Kaplop!

-Non
edit on 25-6-2011 by TrypToNonymous because: Blaaaarrrrg



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 07:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrypToNonymous

Originally posted by romanmel
The idea that one choice over the other in a Presidential race really makes a difference is laughable.




Then we shall laugh together as warriors before tomorrow's battle! Today is a good day to die!

Kaplop!

-Non
edit on 25-6-2011 by TrypToNonymous because: Blaaaarrrrg


Wars for freedom are fought in the streets by patriots. Not in cyberspace by geeks.

No patriots
No hope for freedom
No war in the streets and
NO HOPE.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by romanmel
Wars for freedom are fought in the streets by patriots. Not in cyberspace by geeks.


The world has moved on and passed you by. And besides, they could be fought in the fnords by dissidents.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrypToNonymous

Originally posted by romanmel
Wars for freedom are fought in the streets by patriots. Not in cyberspace by geeks.


The world has moved on and passed you by. And besides, they could be fought in the fnords by dissidents.


So you are saying, "Fnord has a better idea."?

Perhumps, we shall see.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by wantsome
Obama is better then the prior president. Bush will go down as one of the worst presidents in american history.


I'm curious. In what ways is Obama better than bush?



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 08:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Are you trying to tell me that govt had the right to tell banks who to loan to and now they dont' and this caused the crisis? I've just posted that Bush tried to get some regulation but Democrats resisted and Barney Frank who was in charge of oversight said it was all good. It's so disingenuous to blame Republicans for deregulation when people like Barney Frank were the fox guarding the henhouse. If govt hadnt gotten involved in the first place trying to force banks to make risky loans, the crisis might not have happened, but the Democrats are the party of entitlements and govt intervention. Barney Frank was so responsible....
And you apparently missed the part where Obama sued to force loans.
I guess it all depends on what you perceive as regulation.

Here let me try again with a different article


Barack Obama, in his effort to blame his opponent for the current financial problem on Wall Street said "There's only one candidate who called himself, and I quote, 'fundamentally a deregulator,' when it was reckless deregulation and lack of oversight that's a big part of the problem on Wall Street right now."


Only, it was not the problem of de-regulation that caused the problem. The current melt-down that involves unsound mortgage lending was very directly caused by exactly the same thing that caused the melt-down of the Savings and Loan Industry that followed President Jimmy Carter's four years in office in the late 1970s. The cause was Congress itself. Congress, by law, REQUIRED Savings and Loans to give mortgages to risky borrowers. The demand for those laws often actually came from community organizers such as Barack Obama insisting that lending standards be lowered and that government, not individuals, solve the problems..

www.renewamerica.com...

Democrats have forced lending institutions against their own judgement. Now, to shift the blame they say the problem is all some kind of Republican deregulation. What Democrats call deregulation seems to be opposite of what it really is. They are the ultimate Orwellian liars.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Now you are trying to tell me that it was Republicans who were forcing lenders to give risky loans? Haw haw haw haw I am just amazed at how liberals turn everything upside down. If that were so, it would be Republicans who all the proletariat voted for last time and not the Democrats of Entitlement. It is so tiring when people turn everything upside down, but thats the Orwellian thing. Left is right and up is down. I will agree with you on Franklin Raines though.
edit on 25-6-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-6-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 08:07 AM
link   
reply to post by allprowolfy
 


I reckon anyone who voted for the chruslim, and has been watching their Constitution being slowly eroded (eg... www.abovetopsecret.com...) would be starting to have a Pole Shift affect happening between their rusty mouth and their buttocks by now.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Where was I when all this was going down? I was in school trying to better myself. It's not my fault all this nonsense was going on under everyone's nose. Unfortunately this stuff only comes out at election time when everyone tries to use it to their advantage. You totally ignored the fact of Fannie/Freddie giving Obama and Frank donations while turning their heads the other way. Then you whine about deregulations,and I posted that Bush tried to get some oversight.
Liberals must blame conservatives every time. It must be in the DNA.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 08:17 AM
link   
There seems to be a pattern here...Those that support Obama, and those that DON'T support Obama and question authority and motive.
I applaud you Obama supporters,I sincerely do. Not that you need or care I respect you.
I just don't get it. But that's me.
I didn't get Bush supporters either.
I guess I'm just so pissed off that no matter who get's elected,I listen to the opposing party's reason why the newly elected was the wrong choice. That's on me. But I don't like what I see.

When Springer and Semper announced they were running for President on April Fools Day, I fricking got duped by them too. Then? I felt so stooopid I really wanted them to run.

I guess it's the same thing.

I'm just gullible and I'm not alone. sigh



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 09:15 AM
link   
I find it quite humorous that people still subscribe to the two party paradigm. A democrat and a republican are the same thing, crooks. Guess what? No matter who you vote , you will always get the following things: A liar, a crook, a patsy, and a distraction. I don't care what side they claim, they don't care about you and yours and they most certainly don't care about preserving the constitution. Please wake up, you just seem silly with these kinds of threads.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by LexiconV
reply to post by allprowolfy
 


I reckon anyone who voted for the chruslim, and has been watching their Constitution being slowly eroded (eg... www.abovetopsecret.com...) would be starting to have a Pole Shift affect happening between their rusty mouth and their buttocks by now.



Skimming the thread and thanks your response has set everything in perspective


Thanks each and every-one for giving this thread your time, some have had trully enlightened points


My only hope is this coming up election for Potus, we the American people do not vote yet again for hope and change as this country does not have another 4 years left to wait



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   
If I actually thought voting was real and not some iraqi style election scam
then I would hang my head too if I voted in this commie



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 


Ok if you think being in the military is all about entitlements in the form of pay and equipment, you are sadly mistaken. It's more like a mandatory thing when you have to go to a foriegn land by orders of the commander and chief -no matter who it is- to do what ever the orders say upto and including do not engage even if being under enemy fire... No no that is not an entitlement, because someone decides to stand up and serve their country, making a check payable to the USA upto and including ones life, they better damn well give them the gear and the pay. Yes one volunteers to enlist, but there is compansation for it, and usually they still find a way to shaft you on that. And it is not the soldiers on the field that decided where to go, its the CIC, remeber that, the soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and coasties, all volunteered to defend the constitution the country but most importantly thier family, friends and countrymen.

Grim



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by allprowolfy
 


soetoronoids and obamatards never sleep. last tiem you could see them was when they were
"celebrating" in front of the white house, when cialaden was pronounced captured, sentenced,
killed and disposed of.

oh, 9/11 was an inside job. figures.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrypToNonymous

Originally posted by romanmel
The idea that one choice over the other in a Presidential race really makes a difference is laughable.




Then we shall laugh together as warriors before tomorrow's battle! Today is a good day to die!

Kaplop!

-Non
edit on 25-6-2011 by TrypToNonymous because: Blaaaarrrrg


Me too?








 
20
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join