mr_genius

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 14, 2008 -> 03:35 PM) What situation are you commenting on? I'm not really sure what you are asking. I thought the post was self-explanitory (not being a smartass, I don't understand what you are getting at).

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 14, 2008 -> 02:59 PM) "My 6 year old had her intestines sucked out by your faulty pool filter! And this was the 12th time it happened with your same design to a person, and yet you haven't fixed it!" "Ha! What ever happened to personal responsibility? This is just another case of a lawyer making up arguments to win cases for his clients. You don't really need your intestines anyway". Not even in the same ballpark as dumbasses buying stuff they can't afford and expecting taxpayers to bail them out. if someone buys a $100,000 car and they only make $20,000 a year, they deserve a bad credit rating. And if a bank finances it they deserve to take the hit. Taxpayers shouldn't be bailing either party out.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Feb 14, 2008 -> 01:37 PM) Caption this photo: in response to the "Who gave the David Duke supporters a ticket to this debate?" cheap shot, i admit it.

^^^ so annoying. and a horrible senator.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Feb 13, 2008 -> 10:25 AM) I'll see your Garofalo and raise you a Hannity

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 13, 2008 -> 04:32 PM) Here's the problem with that. The financers no longer are the ones holding the loans. It's moved on to hedge funds, things run by the real big shots, like Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, UBS, Citibank, the really big guys. Those are the companies that bought all of this worthless garbage, in some form or another, as investment vehicles. The argument that is going to be made is that the country can't afford to have those guys go under, and that's where the bailout talk will come in. Those are the guys currently left holding the bag, and they're the ones with the lobbying power to make a bailout happen. If the government is going to loan them money to help them out, fine. They NEED to pay that back (with interest), not a corporate welfare deal. And honestly, I still think it encourages bad borrowing policies.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 13, 2008 -> 04:25 PM) At the time, having thousands of Savings and Loans going out of business was judged to destroy our economy. Again, Kap, SS, or Bureau may be better at answering that. pfft, bereau voted for Ron Paul. don't listen to him

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 13, 2008 -> 04:14 PM) That's why I keep coming back to the lender/bank level in this, because that's a key element in this whole credit mess. If I'm running the ol Bailey building and loan, it's part of my job to make sure that the loans I write are going to get paid off, because otherwise my business goes under. But once I can sell off all these loans to some investor somewhere who bundles it and sells it off again, then I can make money by writing loans that will never in a million years be paid off. That's the breakdown that happened the last 5 years, and that's where we need something done to fix the system. Some of the borrowers or financers are going to take a hit. If they know that they won't get bailed out by taxpayers, they are going to have to think twice about giving out loans to people who can't afford them. Well, that or they can lose a bunch of money and go out of business.

Thats what I'm trying to get at, a bail out will only encourage more shady activity.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 13, 2008 -> 04:09 PM) Chrysler, Savings and Loan. Seems like it worked before. The US auto industry is still in trouble, basically we just paid them to keep making bad decisions. I'm not really familiar with Savings and Loan deal, but hey, we got another big Loan scandal. Is it really the best way to deal with it to bail em out again? and what about next time?

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 13, 2008 -> 04:00 PM) Kap pr SS could respond better, but what would the effects be if dozens of banks and lenders went bankrupt? I don't think that will happen, and if some do, that happens when a company makes poor decisions. If there is a bailout it will only serve as encouragement for more bad practices.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 13, 2008 -> 03:42 PM) We do you want to drop the FDA and food inspections. We do not want to drop product liability laws and let everyone decide on their own if that machine is safe? See, you are taking it to the extreme. If Kap is against a government bailout of bad loans, it is in no relation to a suggestion of removing the FDA. The government serves a purpose in protecting us from certain things, but not everything. If someone buys a bunch of junk on a credit card and don't pay, I sure as hell don't want to bail them out. They get bad credit, because they are a bad borrower. The borrower gets stiffed on the money they gave out because they made a bad credit decision. Having the private sector work this out is a much better solution. I think having a reasonable look at changing the loan process in the country could be useful, but those bad loans are done and the parties involved need to deal with them.

Thing is, if a lender gives out a bad loan they do pay for it. I don't think the government should use tax dollars to bail out bad lenders. They also shouldn't bail out greedy or stupid borrowers. I heard a recent Dem plan of the government buying out all these bad home loans, and then refinancing them for people... a horrible idea. The lender and borrower should pay, not tax payers who had nothing to do with these ridiculous deals. If someone bought a home they cannot afford, they are going to lose it. Time to rent something they can actually afford. Sounds cold hearted, but really the best solution.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Feb 12, 2008 -> 09:38 PM) Ignore every state for a month like Rudy did with Florida. She will go winless from Feb 5th through March 4th. At this rate she may not win anything on March 4th either. Oh, yea that has been shown to be a really bad strategy. I was wondering if Clinton will try to mix things up again with some attacks on Obama, one last desperate attempt to get back in the race.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Feb 12, 2008 -> 09:29 PM) You mean the hang low Rudy 9ui11iani approach? huh?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 12, 2008 -> 09:21 PM) I hope you're right (there's that word again) but I've seen Hillary written off before and she isn't out yet. Not by a long shot. Her last true "Firewall" states were New Hampshire and Nevada, the last 2 she really needed to dominate other than the Super Tuesday ones, and she won both of those. Her next firewall is Texas and Ohio. If she wins both of those then it's on to Pennsylvania. That is true. But she is on such a big losing streak, she needs to stop Obama's momentum. I wonder if she will go on the attack again, it seemed to work a lot better than her current approach.

I turned on FOX news about 3 hours ago and they all they talked about was how Huckabee got a huge win in the primaries today. I turn off the TV. Just turned on CNN and find out McCain trounced Huckabee... Nice call on that one, FOX.

I think it's over. Obama is going to beat Hillary, and probably win the White House. I don't think he is going to run a horrible campaign like Gore or Kerry. GW Bush pretty much handed the Dems this thing with the huge deficits he ran up and the Iraq war.

QUOTE(Chet Lemon @ Feb 11, 2008 -> 10:16 PM) Eh, I really don't know what the hell the far right wants. I wonder if McCain/Bauer would pass muster with those people. Yea, I have no idea either.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Feb 11, 2008 -> 09:43 PM) I guess it means that McCain only really supports campaign finance reform if it doesn't apply to him. But is what he's doing against the finance reform rules (seriously, i don't know)? How much has Clinton or Obama spent? I think the campaign finance reform he pushed was a big mistake.

QUOTE(Chet Lemon @ Feb 11, 2008 -> 07:47 PM) Hutchison (R-TX) Endorses McCain I think this endorsement is particularly salient b/c she could be an ideal running mate for McCain to choose. She has publicly stated she is not seeking re-election in 2010, Texas has a solidly conservative Governor to name her successor, and she's a conservative woman that can balance the ticket a little more. I think she would be considered too liberal to run with McCain. The far right wingers would go completely insane with rage. She basically has the same problems, with the same people, as McCain. from the article: Hutchison has had some disagreements with conservative Republicans. She's been criticized for her support of legalized abortions, embryonic stem cell research, her vote in favor of a children's health insurance bill that President Bush vetoed and recently for changes to a law requiring a 700-mile fence on the U.S.-Mexico border.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 11, 2008 -> 04:07 PM) It appears to be official...McCain is going to maneuver his way out of the federal matching funds system for the primaries to get himself out of the pre-convention spending limits.

Obama is leading Clinton by almost 20% points in Virgina polls? She isn't even coming close in these recent primaries. Anyone know what the Texas numbers look like? Why is Chelsea Clinton giving all these speeches? really, do any of you Dems care what she thinks?

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Feb 9, 2008 -> 10:49 PM) They showed a graphic on CNN tonight that showed just how unlikely that is. If Huckabee won every single state left (literally, every state) by a 50 percent to 40 percent margin, McCain would still have enough delegates to win the nomination before the convention. So, not only must Huckabee go perfect the rest of the way (and he might not, Lousiana and Washington are neck and neck right now, and he won't get the LA delegates tonight since he doesn't have 50 percent of the vote), but he must win by a lot. It's pretty much impossible, especially since quite a few states left are not republican only primaries. Yea, Huck doesn't have a chance. McCain will most likely win more delegates than Huckabee on Tuesday. Huckabee might not even get more delegates from here out, let alone sweep.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 10, 2008 -> 08:31 AM) What about Romney's delegates? With the hate of McCain in right wing circles, I could see a backroom deal for Mitt and Huck to team up as the "conservative ticket" and slip the nomination out from under McCain. I think Romney is siding with the GOP leadership and is looking for a future presidential run. The only way he would give Huckabee his delegates is if Romney gets to be President and Huckabee VP. I doubt Romney would be happy with being the losing VP on a Huckabee ticket.