"I'm GGG and I approve this message."

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
This post just bought you a two month moratorium on calling any other posters dumb, dummy.

my Austrian exchange student got excited when he just saw a sign for 8 Mile Road, and you think the whole city doesn't matter? I thought you fucks defer to the Europeans?

[Diane_Keaton]

I posted recently suggesting it was unfair to parse through the sermons of Obama's pastor, since nobody seemed to be running to find out the thoughts of McCain's pastor (that's now changed). But frankly... I'm now concerned. Obama has said the pastor is like an old uncle you don't always agree with but....you choose your pastor but not your uncle (I'm all about "choice" today). And this pastor has apparently been a big influence on Obama and is on some sort of leadership committee in Obama's circle. So to hear the pastor telling African Americans they should sing "God damn America" instead of "God Bless America", blaming America for 9/11, for persecuting Palestinians, etc. - to me this is scary stuff. I can't help but think about Obama sitting with his kids during these sermons and going back for more. Honestly, I think it's really jolting and is going to end up hurting him (though I don't have any suggestions on what he can do about it now). Not that he necessarily believes in 9/11 conspiracy theories or any of the rest, but that he is fine choosing to associate with someone like that. Someone who not only holds those views but actively tries to convince large masses of their truth in a huge forum - the Church and its congregation are very big. Should we be concerned, or not? I don't know.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
I posted recently suggesting it was unfair to parse through the sermons of Obama's pastor, since nobody seemed to be running to find out the thoughts of McCain's pastor (that's now changed). But frankly... I'm now concerned. Obama has said the pastor is like an old uncle you don't always agree with but....you choose your pastor but not your uncle (I'm all about "choice" today). And this pastor has apparently been a big influence on Obama and is on some sort of leadership committee in Obama's circle. So to hear the pastor telling African Americans they should sing "God damn America" instead of "God Bless America", blaming America for 9/11, for persecuting Palestinians, etc. - to me this is scary stuff. I can't help but think about Obama sitting with his kids during these sermons and going back for more. Honestly, I think it's really jolting and is going to end up hurting him (though I don't have any suggestions on what he can do about it now). Not that he necessarily believes in 9/11 conspiracy theories or any of the rest, but that he is fine choosing to associate with someone like that. Someone who not only holds those views but actively tries to convince large masses of their truth in a huge forum - the Church and its congregation are very big. Should we be concerned, or not? I don't know.

this offends me. ty can you delete it?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
my Austrian exchange student got excited when he just saw a sign for 8 Mile Road, and you think the whole city doesn't matter? I thought you fucks defer to the Europeans?

Sometimes post hoc is propter hoc.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Sometimes post hoc is propter hoc.

you only know this because of the West Wing, right?

[bling trade]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
In California, purchase money mortgages are non-recourse, but all refi debt instruments are not covered by the statute. Nearly everyone I know has refinanced at least once. Of course, the bank isn't going to sue for a $40K deficiency judgment, but what if the price collapse goes further and it's $200K? I'd be hesitant to say that a walk-away is categorically the best option for everyone who's upside down.

I was talking about the subprime borrowers. I'd guess most of the subprime borrowers are judgement proof, i.e., without assets in excess of the personal exemptions under california law and/or bankruptcy law.

[bling trade]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
What's your bet on when the securitized credit card receivables market explodes? BTW, who are the big insurers in that?

ETA: Constitutionally, how are states allowed to interfere in the insurance market and rewrite contracts? Is McCarran Ferguson coupled with some amendment I don't know about?*

I don't know when the credit card crisis will hit, but I'd guess within the next year, several months after the banks finish IPO'g VISA to the public. The banks are usually good about IPO'ing things close to the top.

The contracts clause prevents laws from messing with pre-existing contracts. States can pass laws regulating prospective contracts.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
how come only two people here, people who read tons of news, have heard about the Detroit mayor scandal? The guy stole 6 million dollars to hide his affair. and one of the two thought the scandal was "he fucked someone other than his wife." he is a democrat BTW.

I'd heard of the scandal -- researched it a bit after you first brought it up a while back. Sounds very bad for both Kwame and the city. That said, I mostly knew the salacious angle and was only vaguely aware of the improper settlement angle.

As to the why no one knows -- I think a lot of it is because, well, its about Detroit. How much would most of us know about a political/sex scandal involving the Mayor of Phoenix, or Birmingham, or Milwaukee?

S_A_M

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I'd heard of the scandal -- researched it a bit after you first brought it up a while back. Sounds very bad for both Kwame and the city. That said, I mostly knew the salacious angle and was only vaguely aware of the improper settlement angle.

As to the why no one knows -- I think a lot of it is because, well, its about Detroit. How much would most of us know about a political/sex scandal involving the Mayor of Phoenix, or Birmingham, or Milwaukee?

S_A_M

lots of the R scandals ggg is posting that make the news are from there.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
you only know this because of the West Wing, right?

I'm not at all a sports guy but I was always more of a SportsNight kind of guy. Meanwhile, I love policy but I found West Wing kind of preachy -- a jerk-off fantasy for libs during the dry Bush years.

But no, I learned the Latin rhetorical fallacies the old-fashioned way -- in seminary, not from TV.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
this offends me. ty can you delete it?

Yes.

[soup sandwich]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
lots of the R scandals ggg is posting that make the news are from there.

I'm not sure why everyone wastes so much time moaning about bias in the media. Isn't it pretty much a given that most of the folks who go into news reporting lean left? And if most reporters lean left, doesn't it stand to reason that their left bias will show through sometimes?

Everytime something anti-Republican is reported, there is always someone saying "consider the source". But how is this any different than the Clintons bitching about the VRWC? Aren't we all capable of gleaning the facts from a leftist opinion in an article?

I can see why it is frustrating, but I still think it's a waste of time.

On a related note I think that reports of scandalous actions by Republicans have more references to party affiliation than Democratic scandals because the Republicans have claimed to be the more moral party. Accordingly, when there is a Republican scandal there is greater hypocrisy. And hypocrisy is interesting to report. Spitzer's situation reeks of hypocrisy. But that's because of Spitzer's image, not the Democratic image.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by soup sandwich
I'm not sure why everyone wastes so much time moaning about bias in the media. Isn't it pretty much a given that most of the folks who go into news reporting lean left? And if most reporters lean left, doesn't it stand to reason that their left bias will show through sometimes?

Do you vote Dem, because if you do, we could move you up to be chief Dem here. If someone in charge of the Dems here would just admit what you just admitted we could move forward to discussing substantive issues. i believe we could actually make progress here, and (I may be being a bit pompous here) even help the country overall move forward.

Let me know if you vote Dem and i'll have RT close out a bunch of these other socks.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally posted by bling trade
You need federal involvement because the lenders won't do anything voluntarily, and the constitution prevents states from forcibly modifying mortgages or other contracts. The federal government, however, isn't bound by the contracts clause. And the takings clause doesn't stop the feds because loans and other contracts aren't "property".

Um, you need the federal gov't involved b/c they regulate the national banks and national banks are (or can be) exempt from most state regulation. See what happened with the 2002 Georgia Fair Lending Act--the national banks cried to the OCC who exempted them from complying (same thing with FSBs and the OTS). Georgia then gutted the mortgage-related protections of the Act, to protect state-chartered banks competitive position. If you don't involve the national banks (and FSBs), it's not much of a solution.

And how is the mortgage note not "property"?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

This sort of thing pretty much destroys the rationale for Chevron deference, I would think.