IHOPSkins Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 It only matters because I've seen numerous people SAY that all demographics were represented at these events and have not seen any evidence that this is true. At all.....Post 254 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G.A.C.O.L.B. Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 Post 254 Lmao. First off that looks like some office worker who stepped out to see what the deal was. Not a protester. But whatever. I'll give it to you. You found one. Congratulations. I guess I am wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 Insulting phraseFigures Hah. As soon as I posted it, I knew I would regret using it. Yes, it is silly and childish, but it gave me a chuckle and I know it was too late to take it back. Ah, such is life. But hey, they were the ones first using it! He was, of course, referring both to the conservative anti-tax tea bagging protests and to the sex act. Cooper is the latest in a long line of cable news hosts to mock the tea baggers for their choice of terminology.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/15/anderson-cooper-its-hard_n_187318.html When do you get your next Left Wing "Talking Point"? Mimic Umm....I play FPS games - I have known about "tea bagging" since the 90's. (At least used in the context of "tea bagging" an opponent - I actually didn't know it was a real sex act.) The phrase has been around LONG before 2009, my friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IHOPSkins Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 Lmao. First off that looks like some office worker who stepped out to see what the deal was. Not a protester......Post 242She might be working the recall desk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 It only matters because I've seen numerous people SAY that all demographics were represented at these events and have not seen any evidence that this is true. At all.There is no implied racism. I don't think minorities didn't attend because they were scared or didn't feel welcome. It's that these events really only appealed to one demographic of society despite people pushing the idea that the ENTIRE nation is in an uproar. That's bogus and I'm still waiting for something other than "I was there man" to show me that I'm wrong. These events were heavily covered--by Fox at least--so there should be something, anything out there that people can put forth as proof. I also believe the actual turnout (which interestingly enough I heard Rush today actually put at 100k less than what fivethirtyeight thinks it was) also shows that really there was only a small demographic of society who cared and participated. (And I echo luckydevils sentiment of feeling sorry that your ideas and movement were hijacked this way SS. I find a lot of your movement's ideas interesting and agree with some of them.) Exactly. After looking at all of the images, I haven't see ONE single person of color (or whatever is the non-PC term), so I know these events didn't represent a wide ethnic demographic range. I also have sympathies with some of the ideas of the Tea Parties ideas as well - it's unfortunate that the original libertarian positions were overshadowed by the political opportunists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 Post 242She might be working the recall desk How is the Obama quote in your signature a lie? The government aid for mortgages DOES target responsible homeowners, i.e., those people who are current on their payments. How do I know? Go to http://makinghomeaffordable.gov/ and find out for yourself. Me thinks that your own statement may not be true, which is ironic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IHOPSkins Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 ..... I actually didn't know it was a real sex act....I didn't eitherBut the Hosts on CNN/MSNBC that did, should not have used it to mock But, I expect nothing less Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IHOPSkins Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 How is the Obama quote in your signature a lie? The government aid for mortgages DOES target responsible homeowners.....1) I am a responsible homeowner and it didn't help me2) The administration admited this program might indeed help some irresponsible 3) The continuous line about "Losing a Job" and "Preditory Lending" is hollow Foreclosures hit before the wave of job losses Home buyers agreed to the Preditory lending with a wink and a nod to get that Bigger House 4) People can't affored their mortgage because they wanted a Bigger House (and went ARM...THEIR RISK) or Took a second mortgage (THEIR RISK)....why help them?--- by definition they were irresponsible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 I didn't eitherBut the Hosts on CNN/MSNBC that did, should not have used it to mock But, I expect nothing less Sure, I can agree that it wasn't always in the best taste. Like I said, I regretted using the phrase since it was just a cheap shot on my behalf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IHOPSkins Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 Sure, I can agree .....We are Cool Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 1) I am a responsible homeowner and it didn't help me2) The administration admited this program might indeed help some irresponsible 3) The continous line about "Losing a Job" and "Preditory Lending" is hollow Foreclosures hit before the wave of job losses Home buyers agreed to the Preditory lending with a wink and a nod to get that Bigger House 4) People can't affored their mortgage because they wanted a Bigger House (and went ARM...THEIR RISK) or took a second mortgage (THEIR RISK)....why help them? There appears to be a few conditions to what does or doesn't quality to receive assistance, such as a "loan owned or guaranteed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac." Also, there was a thread a while back in which a few Extremeskins members indicated they were having mortgage trouble. Here's the reality - everyone who is having mortgage trouble isn't a "loser" or "irresponsible." A LOT of people have lost their jobs, especially since the downturn. This has nothing to do with a "bigger house" if someone loses their job, does it? Considering that hundreds of thousands of people have been fired or had their job evaporate, how can you continue to push this notion that "People can't afford their mortgage because they wanted a Bigger House (and went ARM...THEIR RISK) or took a second mortgage." Example: A friend of mine is an electrician. He's had a stable job for five years, owns a relatively modest home, and he just got laid off. (He told me about his situation yesterday.) Now he's facing a situation where he's scrambling to figure out how to make his ends meet and keep his home. That's why people, such as Rick Santelli or Michelle Malkin, calling people like my friend "losers" or "unworthy of sympathy" really shows how out-of-touch, and heartless, they are to their fellow Americans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 We are Cool Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IHOPSkins Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 .....everyone who is having mortgage trouble isn't a "loser" or "irresponsible." A LOT of people have lost their jobs, especially since the downturn......AgreeI specifically mention other reasons besides Job loss as being irresponsible And I support a plan that would help those ALONG WITH those that are just making it. Why is there a $5,000 (over 5 years) government grant to those people and not the rest of us? Why do Mortageg lenders get $1,000 to refinance those people and not the rest of us? Would'nt that serve to help stimulate the economy? ARMs allowed larger house purchases...and the buyer assumed risk....why should I pay for somebody else's extra bedroom? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 :hysterical: I would have loved to see someone go home from the protests and typed this bad boy in their browser. Do not go to that website. Seriously! It isn't safe for anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 AgreeI specifically mention other reasons besides Job loss as being irresponsible And I support a plan that would help those ALONG WITH those that are just making it. Why is there a $5,000 (over 5 years) government grant to those people and not the rest of us? Why do Mortageg lenders get $1,000 to refinance those people and not the rest of us? Would'nt that serve to help stimulate the economy? ARMs allowed larger house purchases...and the buyer assumed risk....why should I pay for somebody else's extra bedroom? With a doubt, some people were irresponsible, for the reasons you specified. But the issue is that these irresponsible folks are lumped in with the responsible ones, resulting in the "your mortgage is not my problem!" sentiment. A sentiment that is not entirely fair nor accurate; after all, some of the Tea Party anger was directed towards this exact issue. But I understand that you do realize that, so I won't keep harping the point. In regard to the $5,000 grant, I can readily agree that any bailout should have been geared towards a wider margin of folks. That is, the average homeowner citizen - you, Joe Citizen - as opposed to the banks. There's a lot of political realities involved, and unfortunately I don't know enough details to give you a useful answer in that regard. I do believe that the extra funds would have helped the economy, but it's possible that many irresponsible homeowners still would have been "bailed out." As far as ARMs are concerned, some people who were simply trying to purchase a house assumed those sort of mortgages. I think part of the issue is that ARMS can be pretty complex, and some people did not realize, ultimately, what they were undertaking. Here is my personal issue with blaming homeowners: Considering many of the financial problems started in 2007 and took place over a relatively short period of time, we'd have to think there were a number of factors, often larger in scope, which were responsible for the economic downturn. Obviously since TARP was a bipartisan effort, both parties need to assume responsibility for the bailouts. Unfortunately, I am not an economic expert by far, so I probably can't provide the answers we need in this debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselPwr44 Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 "Why its unamerican to not want to pay taxes" I would say most people don't have any problem helping the helpless. We're just tired of paying for incompentence. Also, all this BS about Obama cutting your taxes is basically "bait and switch". I'll cut your income taxes but what I'm not telling you is that with Cap and Trade,I'm raising the price of your electric bill,home heating oil,natural gas and your gasoline. Then, I'm going to tax your alcohol and soft drinks in a means to control your personal habits. So by the time that all goes through,what little money you get back is spent and then some. I fully expect him at his next address to Congress to bring out a cardboard box and start a game of 3 card monty to explain his next tax policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.