ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: Obama 7 - now what?
It's a Seinfeld reference.
I'm usually pretty good with euphemisms, but...
It's a Seinfeld reference.
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Obama 7 - now what?
- Thread starter joecct
- Start date
- Status
SPIN CONTROL
is in charge
Re: Obama 7 - now what?
According to TMZ, she was alone on the sex tape.
You can connect the dots from there.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/11/04/miss.california.usa.settlement/index.html
I'm usually pretty good with euphemisms, but...
According to TMZ, she was alone on the sex tape.
You can connect the dots from there.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/11/04/miss.california.usa.settlement/index.html
Last edited:
Re: Obama 7 - now what?
Polygamy is illegal for the same reason that when you were 6, your mother wouldn't let you eat your entire bag of halloween candy. It's to save us from ourselves.
Polygamy is illegal for the same reason that when you were 6, your mother wouldn't let you eat your entire bag of halloween candy. It's to save us from ourselves.
ScottM
**** it feels good to be a bankster
Re: Obama 7 - now what?
I read something on E-online! over lunch that said some pron website even refused to buy it for $10,000 because it's "too graphic" ... which means it should be really, really "interesting".
According to TMZ, she was alone on the sex tape.
You can connect the dots from there.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/11/04/miss.california.usa.settlement/index.html
I read something on E-online! over lunch that said some pron website even refused to buy it for $10,000 because it's "too graphic" ... which means it should be really, really "interesting".
Re: Obama 7 - now what?
Verify this one. I'm not finding anything where the Bush Admin weakened the CRA. In '03, there were findings that the CRA had been weakened by the changing financial landscape, but there wasn't anything specifically done by the Bush Administration. If anything, the Bush Administration weakened the enforcement of the CRA.....which would lead to fewer CRA loans being made.
Here's some light reading for you. It illustrates how Fannie/Freddie were in the business of guaranteeing subprime/non-traditional mortgages:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_house_hearings&docid=f:92231.wais
Not quite.
In November 2000 Fannie Mae announced that the Department of Housing and Urban Development would soon require it to dedicate 50% of its business to low- and moderate-income families." It stated that since 1997 Fannie Mae had done nearly $7 billion in CRA business with depository institutions, but its goal was $20 billion. In 2001 Fannie Mae announced that it had acquired $10 billion in specially-targeted Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) loans more than one and a half years ahead of schedule, and announced its goal to finance over $500 billion in CRA business by 2010, about one third of loans anticipated to be financed by Fannie Mae during that period.
November 2000 = Clinton era. Yes, half of subprime/non-traditional loans were made by lenders outside of CRA regulation.....but what about the other half?
And you still have yet to answer as to why Fannie/Freddie were amongst the first of the lenders to face going under. There's a reason: It was because they were jumping in to the subprime/non-traditional mortgage market.
Verify this one. I'm not finding anything where the Bush Admin weakened the CRA. In '03, there were findings that the CRA had been weakened by the changing financial landscape, but there wasn't anything specifically done by the Bush Administration. If anything, the Bush Administration weakened the enforcement of the CRA.....which would lead to fewer CRA loans being made.
Here's some light reading for you. It illustrates how Fannie/Freddie were in the business of guaranteeing subprime/non-traditional mortgages:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_house_hearings&docid=f:92231.wais
Not quite.
In November 2000 Fannie Mae announced that the Department of Housing and Urban Development would soon require it to dedicate 50% of its business to low- and moderate-income families." It stated that since 1997 Fannie Mae had done nearly $7 billion in CRA business with depository institutions, but its goal was $20 billion. In 2001 Fannie Mae announced that it had acquired $10 billion in specially-targeted Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) loans more than one and a half years ahead of schedule, and announced its goal to finance over $500 billion in CRA business by 2010, about one third of loans anticipated to be financed by Fannie Mae during that period.
November 2000 = Clinton era. Yes, half of subprime/non-traditional loans were made by lenders outside of CRA regulation.....but what about the other half?
And you still have yet to answer as to why Fannie/Freddie were amongst the first of the lenders to face going under. There's a reason: It was because they were jumping in to the subprime/non-traditional mortgage market.
gojackets
New member
Re: Obama 7 - now what?
but my mom did let me eat the whole bag...thats why i weigh 300 pounds
but my mom did let me eat the whole bag...thats why i weigh 300 pounds
Terrierbyassociation
Fight Cancer, Wherever You Find It
Re: Obama 7 - now what?
Priceless has two accounts?
but my mom did let me eat the whole bag...thats why i weigh 300 pounds
Priceless has two accounts?
Re: Obama 7 - now what?
I know - I just wish everyone understood that the government never "provides" anything to anyone. This goes way beyond gun control. The only thing the government can do is take things/rights/privileges away (whether or not you agree with their right to do so in certain instances). The loss of the distinction has led to the mess we're in today.
I know - I just wish everyone understood that the government never "provides" anything to anyone. This goes way beyond gun control. The only thing the government can do is take things/rights/privileges away (whether or not you agree with their right to do so in certain instances). The loss of the distinction has led to the mess we're in today.
dropthatpuck
In Vino Veritas
Re: Obama 7 - now what?
How did I ever miss this.
Sure, it's a "government provided privelege" so long as you also agree that speaking freely and wiping your *** are in the same category.
How did I ever miss this.
Sure, it's a "government provided privelege" so long as you also agree that speaking freely and wiping your *** are in the same category.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: Obama 7 - now what?
The government doesn't give you rights, but governments are instituted among men to protect certain rights that otherwise would otherwise have no practical means, and might as well not exist.
There are no "rights" at all in nature red in tooth and claw. Governments don't give us rights, but the the existence of some sort of agreement between people -- government -- is the practical sine qua non of all rights.
The government doesn't give you rights, but governments are instituted among men to protect certain rights that otherwise would otherwise have no practical means, and might as well not exist.
There are no "rights" at all in nature red in tooth and claw. Governments don't give us rights, but the the existence of some sort of agreement between people -- government -- is the practical sine qua non of all rights.
Re: Obama 7 - now what?
Sincerely, I'd like you to convince me, without the use of any latin, that the defense of life, liberty and the pursuit of cheeseburgers are not "natural". I think these rights exist whether or not we formally recognize them, or achieve them.
Or, is there a latin-free ("Human rights for dummies"?) book you could recommend?
Sincerely, I'd like you to convince me, without the use of any latin, that the defense of life, liberty and the pursuit of cheeseburgers are not "natural". I think these rights exist whether or not we formally recognize them, or achieve them.
Or, is there a latin-free ("Human rights for dummies"?) book you could recommend?
Last edited:
Re: Obama 7 - now what?
IMO, they exist only because we humans choose to decide that they exist - they're nothing more than a pact we've made with ourselves. There's nothing natural about them.
I'd be sincerely interested in hearing you describe the origin of these "natural" rights without mentioning a "supernatural" being.
IMO, they exist only because we humans choose to decide that they exist - they're nothing more than a pact we've made with ourselves. There's nothing natural about them.
Re: Obama 7 - now what?
Outside of some sort of polity/community/government, "rights" have no meaning.
You have a right to my daughter. I have a right to put a spear in your head. Of course, your angry buddy has a right to kill me in my sleep. Etc.
Your God says you have a right to the land you occupy . . . but mine doesn't. So outta the way before I have to kill you.
Rights/Obligations/Duties/Rules/Laws - all these are inherently social things.
Outside of some sort of polity/community/government, "rights" have no meaning.
You have a right to my daughter. I have a right to put a spear in your head. Of course, your angry buddy has a right to kill me in my sleep. Etc.
Your God says you have a right to the land you occupy . . . but mine doesn't. So outta the way before I have to kill you.
Rights/Obligations/Duties/Rules/Laws - all these are inherently social things.
Re: Obama 7 - now what?
This perfectly illustrates my point about the purpose of governments. They exist not to provide things, but to take away rights/privileges/opportunities (whether to put a spear in my head, drink & drive or "keep all my own money")... no?
In this context, a deer has the right to eat my crops, and I have the right to put up a fence to keep it out (or shoot it and eat it)... unless we agree for the good of all to make shooting the deer or owning a gun or building a fence illegal. But the deer, being outside the law, maintains his right to browse.
This perfectly illustrates my point about the purpose of governments. They exist not to provide things, but to take away rights/privileges/opportunities (whether to put a spear in my head, drink & drive or "keep all my own money")... no?
In this context, a deer has the right to eat my crops, and I have the right to put up a fence to keep it out (or shoot it and eat it)... unless we agree for the good of all to make shooting the deer or owning a gun or building a fence illegal. But the deer, being outside the law, maintains his right to browse.
Last edited:
walrus
Wind up workin' in a gas station
Re: Obama 7 - now what?
I caught a blurb on the radio that Lehman Bros, AIG execs and other NY banker types got H1N1 shots 3 weeks ago, anyone else hear this? Nurses and other Medical folks around me haven't gotten them yet so why would these guys them first?
I caught a blurb on the radio that Lehman Bros, AIG execs and other NY banker types got H1N1 shots 3 weeks ago, anyone else hear this? Nurses and other Medical folks around me haven't gotten them yet so why would these guys them first?
Re: Obama 7 - now what?
I didn't mean those things were literally rights. I was using the word to (try to) show the absurdity of the notion of rights outside some social setting. That, taken to its extreme, the meaning of "rights" absent some social/political order is meaningless.
Maybe a better word would have been freedom or license.
I didn't mean those things were literally rights. I was using the word to (try to) show the absurdity of the notion of rights outside some social setting. That, taken to its extreme, the meaning of "rights" absent some social/political order is meaningless.
Maybe a better word would have been freedom or license.
Re: Obama 7 - now what?
We have the best health care in the world. Don't question its workings.
On another note, just to get the righties up in arms, Joe (you lie) wilson's spouse has H1N1. Olbermann weighs in with characteristic kindness.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKwW_AXgzes (NSFW warning, contains bad word)
We have the best health care in the world. Don't question its workings.
On another note, just to get the righties up in arms, Joe (you lie) wilson's spouse has H1N1. Olbermann weighs in with characteristic kindness.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKwW_AXgzes (NSFW warning, contains bad word)
Re: Obama 7 - now what?
About everyone here has/has had H1N1. Overrated. It's quite a bit milder than the normal flu for most people. Although my bro-in-law was laid up for over a week and finally needed treatment for pneumonia.
We have the best health care in the world. Don't question its workings.
On another note, just to get the righties up in arms, Joe (you lie) wilson's spouse has H1N1. Olbermann weighs in with characteristic kindness.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKwW_AXgzes
About everyone here has/has had H1N1. Overrated. It's quite a bit milder than the normal flu for most people. Although my bro-in-law was laid up for over a week and finally needed treatment for pneumonia.
Re: Obama 7 - now what?
It's probably just a question of semantics. I take it that most of you wouldn't agree a deer has a "right" to browse? Or did we decide to grant it to him?
It's probably just a question of semantics. I take it that most of you wouldn't agree a deer has a "right" to browse? Or did we decide to grant it to him?
Re: Obama 7 - now what?
Overrated for adults, as I understand it.
Most of us have decent immunity built up because we've had one or another form of the flu several times in our lives. More dangerous for the kids. Unless I'm mistaken (highly possible).
Overrated for adults, as I understand it.
Most of us have decent immunity built up because we've had one or another form of the flu several times in our lives. More dangerous for the kids. Unless I'm mistaken (highly possible).
- Status