Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Busted... Republican woman in Obama ad has been a registered Democrat since 2006

page: 3
19
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by MsAphrodite
 



Originally posted by MsAphrodite
The topic of this thread is:
Busted... Republican woman in Obama ad has been a registered Democrat since 2006


I wonder why they don't post the proof that this woman is registered Democrat. Are we just believing this because "Buzzfeed" said it?

And if it's true, before she was a Democrat, she was a ... REPUBLICAN!


I don't get the problem. She changed parties because of the right's shift to the FAR right. That's the message of the ad, right?
edit on 8/27/2012 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 09:46 AM
link   
The VERY first words out of the first woman's mouth are, "I was a Republican most of my life." Clearly, these are women who have identified as Republican in the past, but now, they don't, for whatever reason.

Yep. Grasping at straws.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by MsAphrodite
 



Originally posted by MsAphrodite
The topic of this thread is:
Busted... Republican woman in Obama ad has been a registered Democrat since 2006


I wonder why they don't post the proof that this woman is registered Democrat. Are we just believing this because "Buzzfeed" said it?

And if it's true, before she was a Democrat, she was a ... REPUBLICAN!


I don't get the problem. She changed parties because of the right's shift to the FAR right. That's the message of the ad, right?
edit on 8/27/2012 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)


First of all, it was two of the women. Second, they went from the right to the far left then, because those groups they support are all fringe left wing groups. Of course you defend them and down play the lies. You've been a lock stop partisan democrat for as long as I've been reading these forums. You excuse many things that you raged about on these forums under Bush. You're a hypocrite.
edit on 27-8-2012 by PvtHudson because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by buster2010
reply to post by PvtHudson
 





Better than having Hollywood and the MSM backing you.


So it's better to have the people who crashed the economy behind you so they can crash the economy again other than people who had nothing to do with the crash. When you have voters who think like this it's easy to see why the GOP is still in business.


The crash was caused in large part by the housing bubble, which was caused by Democrats like Bill Clinton and Obama pressuring banks to give out loans that low income people couldn't afford.
edit on 27-8-2012 by PvtHudson because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by PvtHudson
The crash was caused in large part by the housing bubble, which was caused by Democrats like Bill Clinton and Obama pressuring banks to give out loans that low income people couldn't afford.
edit on 27-8-2012 by PvtHudson because: (no reason given)

It is fun to just say things, isn't it?
I joined this site for the ardent fact checking that goes on here but I see you just post whatever bullcrap you want.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by PvtHudson
 



Originally posted by PvtHudson
First of all, it was two of the women.


Well, so I've heard... And like I said, these are clearly women who USED to be Republicans.



You've been a lock stop partisan democrat for as long as I've been reading these forums.


I'm not ANY kind of Democrat. Never have been.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by PvtHudson
 


PvtHudson, I know you're spot on when it comes to economic history. The others cannot accept reality.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by PvtHudson
 


If you think that banking cartels are better than hollywood actors then I don't know what kind of reality you live in. Were you alive in 2008?


The crash was caused in large part by the housing bubble, which was caused by Democrats like Bill Clinton and Obama pressuring banks to give out loans that low income people couldn't afford.


Lie.

If you really think that then you need to stop reading Breibart.


edit on 27-8-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 06:14 PM
link   
An excerpt from Time: 25 People to Blame for the Financial Crisis:

"In 1995 Clinton loosened housing rules by rewriting the Community Reinvestment Act, which put added pressure on banks to lend in low-income neighborhoods."

www.time.com...



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Hillary Clinton used to be a Republican. Maybe they should have included her in this ad. You are grasping.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 12:21 AM
link   
are you that gullible to think that TV ads only tell the truth?



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 01:54 AM
link   
You mean political ads? Usually they do a much better job disguising their lies.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 02:00 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 03:22 AM
link   
I'm actually not at all surprised. Obama's campaign has lacked a lot, including truth.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 03:28 AM
link   
reply to post by matted
 




are you that gullible to think that TV ads only tell the truth?

There is truth mixed with lies. The truth is everywhere in tv ads, show broadcasting, everywhere you look. You just have to be smart enough to know what is false, mixed with the truth, or vice versa. Which ever way you want to go with it. There's no need to have a tone, and especially to just attack for no reason.
edit on 28-8-2012 by TheBeatMasta because: added quote



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 04:07 AM
link   
reply to post by SamLuv
 


its still a lie



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 06:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Endorra

Originally posted by PvtHudson
The crash was caused in large part by the housing bubble, which was caused by Democrats like Bill Clinton and Obama pressuring banks to give out loans that low income people couldn't afford.
edit on 27-8-2012 by PvtHudson because: (no reason given)

It is fun to just say things, isn't it?
I joined this site for the ardent fact checking that goes on here but I see you just post whatever bullcrap you want.


What is it you're disputing?


Originally posted by RealSpoke


If you really think that then you need to stop reading Breibart.


Same question to you. What exactly are you claiming is wrong?




www.nytimes.com...

n a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.



These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. '



In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''



So, back in September 1999, the Times was expressing concern that this move by Fannie Mae, prompted by pressure from the Clinton administration, could lead to a government rescue. Yet now, almost eleven years later, the media blame Bush, Republicans, Wall Street, greed, and anybody that doesn't have a "D" next to his or her name.
edit on 28-8-2012 by PvtHudson because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by PvtHudson
What is it you're disputing?

The entire premise that you have presented. Even your own link shows the banks were not saddled with this by Clinton but were begging for the ability to do it. The banks wanted this, not the other way around. As far as that being the sole reason for current economy woes, well I am going to need to see your math.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Endorra

Originally posted by PvtHudson
What is it you're disputing?

The entire premise that you have presented. Even your own link shows the banks were not saddled with this by Clinton but were begging for the ability to do it. The banks wanted this, not the other way around. As far as that being the sole reason for current economy woes, well I am going to need to see your math.


You're either being purposely dense, or you didn't read anything. Clinton didn't pressure banks? Are you serious? It's was one of the main platforms of his administration. When Obama was a lawyer for ACORN, he joined them in protesting at bankers houses. For what you ask? To pressure banks to give out those loans.

It's like the guy protesting the bank in this movie clip. He's protesting because the bank wouldn't give him a loan. All through the 90's this was a running theme. That the banks were racist and wouldn't give loans to low income people. That's why Clinton stepped in and declared that "everyone deserves to own a home".



So kindly piss off until you know some recent history.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 09:21 PM
link   
I know its an election year and lies will be flying from all sides but this thread is a far reaching grasp at best.
And all this "FAR LEFT" rhetoric has to cease.
Warning, I state this As a lefty with libertarian leanings who listens to all the AM radio turd polishers.
FAR left would be totalitarian communism which Obama is NOT.
On the other hand I tend to agree with the epithet of FAR RIGHT for many of today's republicans.
Take the abortion issue. the opposite of NO ABORTIONS NO MATTER WHAT would be FORCED ABORTIONS FOR ALL......yet choice is deemed as FAR LEFT......really? that makes no sense.
The opposite of ENDING UNIONS would be FORCED UNIONS........once again some Unions would be the middle position.
The opposite of NO REGULATION on finance and banks would be TOTAL REGULATION for finance companies. Once again Obamas no where near this.

The far right has to decide whether OBAMA is an idiot or a mastermind..........
Frankly the far right sickens me with their hypocrisy.
No the fiscal conservatives as much as the social conservative hypocrites who hide behind religion at every turn to ensure the rube vote.

To quote the great punk band Reagan Youth:
"Jesus was a communist, Jesus was a pacifist, Jesus didnt like the rich" ......all verifiable to anyone with a bible.

I'm not even sure I care anymore.........

edit on 28-8-2012 by clearlight808 because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
19
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join