2012 debates

[Shady]

I do not. I think the Federal government we have right now is violating the Charter everyday. That doesn't mean the law doesn't exist and hasn't been tested. The Supreme court of Canada has already ruled the Charter applies to Health care Shady.

Obviously there's no point in discussing this with you. You have no idea what the Canada Health Act is, and how it pertains to the provincial health care system. The Charter has nothing to do with it. Just when I think kimmy's the dumbest member of forum, you step up and change my mind.

[Shady]

Your links just say polls say Romney wo, the debate. None of them ever address your lies.

I've started threads that are 3 years old on them. You've obviously ignored it all. Probably purposely.

[punked]

That's complete nonsense, as usual you have no idea what you're talking about. Government regulation lowered lending standards so that people that wouldn't otherwise qualify for mortgages, would qualify. In particular, it was government institutions like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae that were the chief architects of these new loans. Private banks had a choice to either compete with Freddie and Fannie, or lose business. That can't be debunked because it's fact. No matter how many times you wanna bury your head in your ass and refuse to accept the truth.

No the government mandated a certain percentage of loans should be a certain form to a certain type of person but that percentage at the crash was so much has higher then the government standard and done by institutions that weren't even subject to the standards of that no truthful person could make the argument you make Shady.

[msj]

I don't usually do this anymore, but I got a little curious about what that bastion for news accuracy, the Rolling Stone magazine, would have to say. First off, is anyone surprised that a liberal publication is not going to like Romney? Of course not.

The first "lie" they discusss is this nonsense about a 5 trillion tax cut. A simple look at the numbers shows that they use the time frame of an entire decade to sex up the number to a nice even 5 trillion. Second,they ignore that Romney's adjusting his numbers and instead go for the orginal percentages, because they can pad their numbers more this way. Third, Romney won't even be in power if he wins 2 elections for president, for the last 2 years, so the extrapolation is mere speculation. And the pont is, Romney can adjust his plan and change his mind, he's trying to make a proposal that gets him hired.

It is common to talk about budgets over 10 year cycles. Probably because it is common for the White House to present 10 year budget forcasts to Congress.

As for your other nonsense, well, even Forbes (that bastion of liberal bias ) is wondering what the heck Romney's policy is.

[snip for brevity]

5)This is just another case where Romney has the right to adjust his plan to make it more acceptable to his prospective employer, the American people. So to claim he's lying is just being obtuse.

The claim that Romney is a liar goes back way further than this debate as the link I had provided several pages ago clearly shows.

As for changing his policies, good for him. If only people will know which policies are the real ones.

Somehow I suspect that Republicans, with a wink and a nod, know, but anyone else will now have to guess which is the real Romney: uber conservative to please the Republican base during the primaries or more moderate in order to get elected.

Of course, once elected one usually falls in line with the party's base.

[punked]

I've started threads that are 3 years old on them. You've obviously ignored it all. Probably purposely.

Nope read all the threads and i have everyone of them you have misconstrued, that data and been debunked. I in all of them you retreat and leave those of us who are debunking you to assume you gave up in the face of the evidence. Apparently though you are just running away so you can pop up later and pretend you never saw what we posted. It is getting old dude.

[Guest American Woman]

Do they go into any of Obama's lies? Because he had some whoppers.

I would say that "whoppers" is in the eye of the beholder, but yes, the media did get into Obama's lies too, but it seems the consensus is that Romney strayed from the facts more often, and to a greater degree, than Obama did.

[punked]

Obviously there's no point in discussing this with you. You have no idea what the Canada Health Act is, and how it pertains to the provincial health care system. The Charter has nothing to do with it. Just when I think kimmy's the dumbest member of forum, you step up and change my mind.

I know what the Health care act is and that it could changed by a majority vote. I however also know what our Charter which is almost impossible to change says about services health care being one of them and that our government has to make sure it is equal across our country. You claiming that that is Romneys, plan is laughable, at best.

Edited October 6, 2012 by punked

[msj]

I would say that "whoppers" is in the eye of the beholder, but yes, the media did get into Obama's lies too, but it seems the consensus is that Romney strayed from the facts more often, and to a greater degree, than Obama did.

Bingo.

[Guest American Woman]

Do you get a sense of this talking to people and watching the news in the States?

Yes, I do - and of course many are also aware of the fact that Romney had all the time in the world to practice (and from what I heard on the news prior to the debate, practice he did!) while Obama has been dealing with some pretty serious issues. I have to wonder, if Obama had come across all smiles, bright-eyed and bushy tailed as if he didn't have a care in the world, if he would have been criticized by the media for that. Seems sometimes it's a matter of damned if you do, damned in you don't, but I never felt Obama's oratory skills were an indication of what kind of president he would be and I'm similarly not impressed by "performance" during these debates.

[Shady]

Nope read all the threads and i have everyone of them you have misconstrued, that data and been debunked.

Ah, the big lie continues. I guess I'll have to kick you in the teeth once again, along with kimmy, who actually has no teeth left to kick in.

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending

In 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, 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

...

'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.

The New York Times

Read that last part? That's the real kicker, and it was written in 1999! "In moving into this ne area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on SIGNIFICANTLY MORE RISK, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times, but MAY RUN INTO TROUBLE IN AN ECONOMIC DOWNTURN." Well, surprise, surprise, that's exactly what happened, all thanks to the so-called good intentions of the Democratic Party.

Oh, and just recently we found out one of the principle individuals most outspoken in initiating these lowering of lending standards. His name? BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA!

With landmark lawsuit, Barack Obama pushed banks to give subprime loans to Chicago’s African-Americans

President Barack Obama was a pioneering contributor to the national subprime real estate bubble, and roughly half of the 186 African-American clients in his landmark 1995 mortgage discrimination lawsuit against Citibank have since gone bankrupt or received foreclosure notices.

DC

After posting this undebunkable information, I don't wanna hear a peep out of you punked, or your misinformation, degenerate partner in crime kimmy. You guys don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.

[punked]

Ah, the big lie continues. I guess I'll have to kick you in the teeth once again, along with kimmy, who actually has no teeth left to kick in.

Read that last part? That's the real kicker, and it was written in 1999! "In moving into this ne area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on SIGNIFICANTLY MORE RISK, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times, but MAY RUN INTO TROUBLE IN AN ECONOMIC DOWNTURN." Well, surprise, surprise, that's exactly what happened, all thanks to the so-called good intentions of the Democratic Party.

Oh, and just recently we found out one of the principle individuals most outspoken in initiating these lowering of lending standards. His name? BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA!

After posting this undebunkable information, I don't wanna hear a peep out of you punked, or your misinformation, degenerate partner in crime kimmy. You guys don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.

So instead of listening to what experts and economists say about the 2008 ecomic crash in 2012 look back on the causes you want me to listen ato an article that was written 10 years before the crash happened?

As for your Obama article I just ask this: Do you Shady think that banks should be allowed to base their lending on the color of the person who who is asking for the loans skin? Wow you are a closest racist Shady.

Edited October 7, 2012 by punked

[Smallc]

I realize I know nothing, but, I think that the other two debates will be bad for Romney.

[Shady]

I realize I know nothing, but, I think that the other two debates will be bad for Romney.

Well, you could be right. But I don't think any of them will be as bad as the first one was for Obama. He looke half asleep, uninterested, and surprised somebody was talking to him in that fashion. The mainstream media did a big disservice to him treating him with kid gloves over the past 4 years. Wednesday was the first day since '08 that somebody didn't tell him how great he is.

[Smallc]

Well, you could be right. But I don't think any of them will be as bad as the first one was for Obama. He looke half asleep, uninterested, and surprised somebody was talking to him in that fashion.

I have a theory on that. I don't think he considered Romney a threat. He does now.

[punked]

I have a theory on that. I don't think he considered Romney a threat. He does now.

I just don't think he was expecting a presidential candidate for the United States of America to come out and lie his face off. He wasn't ready for Romney 5.0 he was expecting the 4.0 version that had been running on a competently different set of arguments. I guess the President just had to much faith in the system and that Mitt Romney was man of integrity. The debate fact checks are in and I don't think one thing Romney has said has come back as a true statement.

[BubberMiley]

Romney may be not naming names because it doesn't matter what specifics he uses, his opponent will claim it won't work, so now all Obama can claim is that Romney won't get specific.

You're saying that it is acceptable to refuse to take part in one of the basic tenets of democracy---that is, state your platform during an election and defend it in front of your opponent?

[punked]

You're saying that it is acceptable to refuse to take part in one of the basic tenets of democracy---that is, state your platform during an election and defend it in front of your opponent?

Yep only Liberals want evidence, plans, and to ask real informative questions. Conservatives just go with their gut.

[sharkman]

You're saying that it is acceptable to refuse to take part in one of the basic tenets of democracy---that is, state your platform during an election and defend it in front of your opponent?

That is not one of the basic tenets of democracy, but since you're interested in this, Obama did the very same thing. Parties do it from time to time for various reasons.

[punked]

That is not one of the basic tenets of democracy, but since you're interested in this, Obama did the very same thing. Parties do it from time to time for various reasons.

Don't ever remember Obama saying "Plans for that thing......Ummm....Come back to me after the election" in 2008. He had both plans and answers. You want to find me that moment?

[sharkman]

Don't ever remember Obama saying "Plans for that thing......Ummm....Come back to me after the election" in 2008. He had both plans and answers. You want to find me that moment?

I'm talking about when they made the congress vote on Obama care without being able to read the 1100 page bill. I believe Pelosi suggested that they needed to vote on it so they could see what was in it.

But what Romney is saying in part is this is what my plans are. I have to get with the congress and senate to work out some of the details. That's better than the smoke and mirrors job Obama pulled on the voting public last election.

[punked]

I'm talking about when they made the congress vote on Obama care without being able to read the 1100 page bill. I believe Pelosi suggested that they needed to vote on it so they could see what was in it.

But what Romney is saying in part is this is what my plans are. I have to get with the congress and senate to work out some of the details. That's better than the smoke and mirrors job Obama pulled on the voting public last election.

The democrats wrote the bill they knew what was in it and they were the only ones who voted for it anyway.

This is an election. If someone wants a mandate to do what they think is right they better lay those plans out to the People. Now maybe they get in office and their is politics to deal with but you can't even claim you have a mandate for your plans unless you let the people voting know what they are.

So if Romney wants to get in and just have more deadlock, running an election on no policy or details is a very good way to get that.

I can not believe I see conservatives on this board openly supporting what amounts to the most nontransparent candidate in modern politics. It is crazy upside down land. It seems Romney is great at getting Conservatives to show they hypocritical side at the very least.

Edited October 7, 2012 by punked

[sharkman]

That's the point about Obamacare. The congress was not allowed to read it before voting on it, and it only passed by 9 votes with 34 Dems voting against it. No wonder Obama wanted to ram it through. Giving time for debate would have sealed its fate.

Romney is doing a much better job of informing of his plans, and everyone is completely free to vote their conscience, unlike the kickbacks and arm twisting in the congress. He's not giving every detail, but there is a whole month to go. I'm sure more will be forthcoming. Bring on Biden! Do you think he will do well against Ryan?

Edited October 7, 2012 by sharkman

[jbg]

Hate to break it to you, but you are not a centrist in the Canadian context. Don't let me burst your bubble of delusion, though. Leftists love viewing themselves as pragmatic centrists. It's typical although perhaps you think you're unique and an original thinker.

Those positions are relative. I consider myself an extreme leftist but many on here disagree with that analysis.

[punked]

That's the point about Obamacare. The congress was not allowed to read it before voting on it, and it only passed by 9 votes with 34 Dems voting against it. No wonder Obama wanted to ram it through. Giving time for debate would have sealed its fate.

Romney is doing a much better job of informing of his plans, and everyone is completely free to vote their conscience, unlike the kickbacks and arm twisting in the congress. He's not giving every detail, but there is a whole month to go. I'm sure more will be forthcoming. Bring on Biden! Do you think he will do well against Ryan?

Again Obama had to ram it through Congress so that you know the two dying Senators that were wheeled in out of the hospitable (one of which this bill was his lifes work) could break the Republican filibuster because the Republicans wouldn't sit one of their members out for the dying guy.

Those who vote for it though knew what was in it because they wrote it.

I love how much Republicans rewrite history to suit their own needs.

Edited October 7, 2012 by punked

[jbg]

Oh and meanwhile Romney lied about Obama doubling the deficit

You are positively joking.