OT Sold It!!!!!!!!!!!!

Page 11 of 12  
Craig C. wrote:

Do just that and you'll find I haven't liked Bush JR. for years and didn't care for Sr. much as well. The problem you have is that anyone not agreeing with you must be a Bush lover and Republican party die hard. In reality I'm a conservative and proud of it. The current republican party is anything but conservative. But the Dems/Liberals seem to be even worse (look at what the current Dem empowered congress has done).

lol, you're attempting to define political conservatism your own way and doing a poor job of it. With regards to the environment most people from all parties want basically the same thing. We all want less smog for instance. The difference lies in how to achieve it and balance it with the costs and needs of the public.

Reagan was handed double digit inflation, unemployment and interest rates. Handed to him from a Democrat. The other two are anything but conservative and I have said that consistently all along. You're just on the bandwagon and view anyone not agreeing with your views as a bush loving ultra republican.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Once again ... I disagree with "the world according to miles" and I'm labeled a liberal democrat. Take the blinders off, boy.

Although Ron Paul had his warts, I respected his CONSERVATIVE stand on many issues.

Conservative compared to what/whom? Ron Paul? None. John McCain? Many.

There's the difference. I won't vote for any of them. I'll write in a name before I vote for any of these candidates. I refuse to play the "lesser of two evils" game any longer. If I can't think of a name to write in then my last option is grid-lock. Vote for opposing party's in congress and the white house. At least more legislation and bullshit spending will grind to a halt and prevent further damaging an already frail economy.

Unity would make it worse. Just imagine the ass raping we'd get if both party's united!

Thinning forests, although important, are merely child's play in regards to the current environmental nightmares that plague us.
Smog is worse now than ever, thanks to Mr. Bush. Lung cancer rates are up. Water quality is down. Once again, thanks to Mr. Bush's easing of water quality regulations. Now, miles, you can argue with me all day that Republicans are environmentally conscience, but the facts do not support your position. You profess to value "facts", so drop the argument. To put it simply, Republican's are more interested in the extra $$ generated from lax environmental policy. The current president has proved it time and time again.

I don't doubt that there are a *few* good Republicans (true conservatives). There are also a few good democrats. However, it's less about their party ideals and more about their personal values. That's why voting for or against a candidate based solely on party affiliation is my biggest issue with you.

Had money been put into R/D 7 years ago like some Dems tried to push, we'd be much further ahead. But no ... Mr. "Crude Oil' Bush felt that funding for alternative energy was a waste of tax payer dollars. You and I argued about this 3-4 years ago miles. You totally defended Bush cutting funding of alternative fuels. How ya feelin' about your argument now?

This is not a discussion about Democrats. It's about your innate need to defend a party that has failed you and I. If you were defending Dems like you are Republicans, we'd be having the same discussion. Only you'd be accusing me of being a right-winger.

You know how a third party candidate gains interest? Men of good conscience take a stand.
Craig C.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Craig C. wrote:

You're not labeled as anything. You're ranting about me being the republican or conservative or bush poster boy with disregard. That is exactly the echos of the rhetoric of the liberal left democrat. Just go with the flow. If the shoe fits!

You asked if I would vote for a conservative Democrat and I asked you to please tell me which candidate is conservative. There are none. There were conservative Republicans running. McCain is all thats left and he is not a conservative.

Thats saying you do not care who wins. I will vote for the one that agrees with more of my views than the other.

That I agree with. I feel things work better when the WH and Congress are not the same party.

It's just one example and its not childs play. Forest fires have wrecked havoc on the environment on a very large scale. You must be ONLY talking about air quality. I am all for taking steps to curb pollution, lower car emissions etc. However, I believe that can only happen through public demand rather than legislation. It costs money and the only ones to fund it is the public. High gas prices drive high demand for more efficient vehicles. Thats a start.

On Clintons last day in office he deliberately signed a bill to lower arsenic levels full aware it could not be achieved and would make the Reps look bad to over turn it as they did. If it was so important to Clinton to lower the levels then do tell me why he waited 8 years to the very last day in office? Concerned with water or a political move?

Public demand is the only way to get us to newer better technologies. Making a fuel efficient car nobody wants does nothing. The only reason its now becoming successful is because of public demand, not legislation. More companies are willing to put the money into R/D in amounts that dwarf anything that can be given by tax $ benefits.

Not so. Bush did not veto any alternative fuel bill 3 or 4 years ago. So tell me what Bush cut? There were some bills that failed in congress. While I was for the alternative fuel R/D part of the bills, they were loaded down with unrelated pork and is why they failed. It is the Dems that load them down and wonder why they fail. Education bills also failed for the same reason. Loaded with pork totally unrelated. The public cries foul because they see the title of the bill and not where the money goes, how its spent and who controls that spending.

Not any more. It takes millions to win the WH. It's all about power these days.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
TBone wrote:

lol, you ask for a source? You still refuse to tell me what Gov. sites you claimed to find that show unemployment stats are computed mostly from unemployment insurance claims.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

LOL, just about any of them Miles and it is simply just common sense. They get unemployment insurance reports every day. Sure, the gubberment knows that unemployment claims are no longer accurate and claim to be moving to other methods like you claim they use but those methods take time and are also not all that accurate. While they may attempt to make corrections from surveys that they send out, the primary daily adjustment comes from unemployment claims and probably always will.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
TBone wrote:

Any of them and yet you can't show ONE! Unemployment is NOT computed mostly from unemployment claims.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Show me one that claims that they are NOT used.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving

"Miles" < snipped-for-privacy@nopers.com> wrote in message
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tbone, just show us ANY statistic that backs your wild claims. Any at all.
Oh, and, do try to reply to the post where I gave you more stats and facts with more than a "those aren't accurate because I refuse to believe them."
--
Max

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, he is not entitled to his own
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
TBone wrote:

Never said that unemployment claims were NOT used. I said they were not the primary source of data used to compute unemployment stats. You did say just that.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'm sure that to some degree they are.

Yawn, back to the political BS again.

How exactly are they one of the most biased there is? Perhaps because they don't agree with your extreme right wing ideas. The fact that they don't report much right wing stories actually shows there attempt to reduce bias. When things are both good and bad according to their beliefs (and bias), they report it but unlike Fox, they do not attribute all good to one side and all bad to the other. Sure, they do bash Bush every now and then but the man is an idiot and will go down as one of our worst presidents and ranks right up there with Carter in how bad of a job he did.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
TBone wrote:

Huh? If they report left wing stories they aren't biased huh? Too funny! At least you just showed your own true bias!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yawn. That would be your bias Miles. According to you, if it isn't right wing then it must be left and there is nothing else. To me, there are right wing, left wing, and everything else which is neither. Unlike you Miles, I can see when something is right biased, left biased, or simply a story that is neither. What I was saying was unlike Fox, they don't accredit all good to one party and all bad to the other.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
TBone wrote:

Huh? I've said Fox is right wing biased. At least Fox does have a few liberal hosts and guest commentators on. CBS never has any right wing hosts. But CBS is VERY left wing biased and yet you claim otherwise. CNN, ABC are also left wing biased but you won't admit that because they agree with your views by leaving out the right wing side of stories.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
TBone wrote:

BULL. You seem to be of the type that believes the medias overblown talk about foreclosures being off the chart. In reality the foreclosures deal with subprime loans. They make up less than 5% of the mortgage market. Next, realize most that are going through foreclosure were perfectly capable of making the payments. They bailed because it was a financially good thing for them to do when they ended up owing far more than the house is worth. Take a hit on their credit record, put down 20% on a new home at far less than their prior one and they come out ahead. The idiots who decided to go with the subprimes and the lenders who sold them are to blame and should both take the fall without government bailing the lenders out.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Where do you come up with these bullshit numbers? Maybe a long. long, long time ago that may have been a valid number, it was far from it during the housing bubble. If we are only talking about 5%, why are the banks in such bad shape?

Where do you come up with this complete horseshit??? If you really think that it works that way or is that simple, then you know far less than even I accuse you of. If you stop making payments, they will simply begin hitting your credit rating for late and missing payments and begin assessing fines against you for late and missed payments. If you continue not to pay and don't pay the fines, then they will take you to court and sue the money out of you. Now a person could get out of much of that by declaring bankruptcy but that would be hard to do for a person who as you claim, were perfectly capable of making the payments. Not to mention that the credit hit along with the caution the banks are now taking against risk would prevent them from buying anything for the next 20 years, especially since it would be on record that they defaulted on a loan that they could afford.

LOL, and who exactly are the idiots that decided to go with subprimes? Do you even know what that means? Many of these people were conned into getting slimy loans that they didn't understand that quickly turned into loans that they couldn't afford. The real cause of the bubble were speculators that were buying homes site unseen to hold for a short time and sell at a high profit that drove the prices up to unrealistic levels. As for the lenders taking the fall without help, while I agree with you in principle, if that were done, this country would have gone into a full depression rather than a recession and you my friend, would probably be out of business.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
TBone wrote:

lol, you have no clue! The same thing happened in the 1980's when people took out high interest mortages (Thanks Carter!). When the rates dropped under Reagan they bailed, took a hit on their credit and bought a new house. I did it and so did many others. Your BS above is from someone who has no clue.
Take you to court? lol. Guess this whole foreclosure thing really is bogus since these homeowners are simply being sued instead.

Many of these people took a subprime not because of bad credit or low income. They took it because it allowed them to buy a far larger home than they could otherwise. Now they are facing reality from their own stupid decision. Yes, I blame the lenders too for conning them into buying more than they could afford.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving


>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well Miles, I guess that shows the kind of person that you really are? Your hand shake, word, or even signature ain't worth shit. Sure, some did but it was a very different time and many couldn't afford to get out or simply refinance at the lower rate. Things are very different now from what they were then both in the situation and how things are done. I would suspect that part of it is due to banks getting burned by people like you in the 80's. Many of these loans were grouped up and sold as securities and defaults cost them a lot of money so there is much more motivation to sue, especially if they know you have money.

LOL, what makes you think that they don't do both. They can and do forclose on the house and then sue for the difference between what you owe and what the house is wirth as well as payment of assessed fines.

Actually, many of them took these loans to buy a home, period. Sure, there were idiots that bought way more than they could afford but I blame the banks completely for that as well as they knew most couldn't afford to keep up these payments and fudged the figures to make these people qualify. The ones that I have no simpathy for are the specualtors as they knew what they were doing and the risks involved.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
TBone wrote:

That would be the minority except in your biased belief world! Most subprimes were not to high risk poor credit borrowers.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
WTF are you talking about Miles??? What exactly is your definition of subprime??? Sorry Miles, but there is a big difference between high risk and poor credit and they do not always go hand in hand.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving

"Miles" < snipped-for-privacy@nopers.com> wrote in message
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.