2008 Presidential Candidates Comparison ( Side By side)... DOn't know what to think.

[kimmy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lizardprincesa "Them." "They." Words like those propogate racism, and all the other "ism's" in existence.

no, they don't. just like using words such as "him" or "her" do not promote sexism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lizardprincesa Next time you see "this" happening to "one of them," maybe you should ascertain if the person is actually an illegal immigrant. Murder, rape, and robbery happen on both sides of the border, and are committed by people of various races on both sides of the border. [/color]

you don't know what i do for a living, so before you get up on your high horse maybe you should rethink your position. i don't just pull these things out of the air...i base my views on what i have personally witnessed. i know for a fact that my local agency books at least one illegal immigrant every single day for a violent crime.

and yes, these crimes happen everywhere. but to say that none of these people are hurting anyone is a damn lie.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lizardprincesa Yes, violence around the border is *rampant.* No, not *all* people who commit violence around the US/Mexican border are illegal aliens.

i never said all the violence near the border was commited by illegal aliens, but i'm glad you're comfortable putting words in my mouth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lizardprincesa If you feel threatened for yourself and your family, I suggest you look to means other than pointing fingers at "them."

and i suggest you walk a mile in my shoes before you talk too much trash.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lizardprincesa You do realize you are making a generalized statement about an entire group of people. People have died because they had attitudes like yours.

just as people have died because of people who choose to ignore the problem and steer completely clear of dealing with any of it. but of course, i'm the big bad wolf because i don't want to hand my hard earned money over to people who are commiting a crime just by being here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lizardprincesa I cannot give sympathy to criminals either, but I definitely cannot give sympathy to you.

i don't recall asking anyone for sympathy, moreover i don't see why i would require any.

 

[PMBG83]

Quote:

Originally Posted by missworld So right! Those words are almost always used in a negative context,to demonize and vilify a group of people, so known really cares if their treated less than! missworld

Very True! Oh yes "I try not to live around them" or the one I love the most "Oh I have tons of them for friends". Or "They all do that".

 

[kimmy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PMBG83 Very True! Oh yes "I try not to live around them" or the one I love the most "Oh I have tons of them for friends". Or "They all do that".

i think the part you're all forgetting is that nobody in this thread has said any of those things.

using "them" or "they" is not derogatory in any way, shape or form. i would put money on the fact that everyone here uses those words on a daily basis. i think saying that using such words is some awful inhumane crime is kind of grasping at straws.

 

[PMBG83]

I was referring to what the person I quoted touched on. There are ways the words can be used in derogatory ways.

 

[kimmy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PMBG83 I was referring to what the person I quoted touched on. There are ways the words can be used in derogatory ways.

i suppose they can but i don't believe they were used in such a way here. i certainly did not use them in such a way.

oh look there i go with "them" and "they" again.

 

[PMBG83]

No not suppose the words can and are definitely used that way. Wasnt hinting at you, your being, or as a human etc etc. as having said it.

 

[kimmy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PMBG83 No not suppose the words can and are definitely used that way. Wasnt hinting at you, your being, or as a human etc etc. as having said it.

no, you weren't. i apologize if it seemed as though i had taken that you were.

 

[PMBG83]

Its ok, just getting stuff straight.

 

[missworld]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shimmer What pronoun would you suggest? Are criminals not criminals?

So why would you not use the noun (criminals) instead of the pronoun (they or them) ?

You are smart; you understand that pronouns like they and them are being used to group a whole race or nationality as violent criminals etc.
Most of the diverse group that comprises the illegal immigrant labor force have only broken immigration laws, in which crime farm owners are often knowingly complicit.


missworld

 

[Shimmer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by missworld So why would you not use the noun (criminals) instead of the pronoun (they or them) ? You are smart; you understand that pronouns like they and them are being used to group a whole race or nationality as violent criminals etc. Most of the diverse group that comprises the illegal immigrant labor force have only broken immigration laws, in which crime farm owners are often knowingly complicit. missworld

Probably because the noun (criminals) sounds is awkward to use in some syntax.

 

[kimmy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by missworld So why would you not use the noun (criminals) instead of the pronoun (they or them) ? You are smart; you understand that pronouns like they and them are being used to group a whole race or nationality as violent criminals etc. Most of the diverse group that comprises the illegal immigrant labor force have only broken immigration laws, in which crime farm owners are often knowingly complicit. missworld

please show me where i said that all illegal immigrants are violent criminals, because i don't recall that.

 

[missworld]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kimmy please show me where i said that all illegal immigrants are violent criminals, because i don't recall that.

HERE! In the context of the post you just quoted read:
Quote:

Originally Posted by kimmy what about next time i see one of them being arresting for murdering, raping or robbing someone?

missworld

 

[kimmy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by missworld HERE! In the context of the post you just quoted read: missworld

next time i see ONE, not ALL.

ps. i still don't see what the big deal is about using "they" and "them" to refer to a group of people.

 

[Shimmer]

IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- How A Clinton-Era Rule Rewrite Made Subprime Crisis Inevitable

How A Clinton-Era Rule Rewrite Made Subprime Crisis Inevitable

By TERRY JONES
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, September 24, 2008 4:30 PM PT

One of the most frequently asked questions about the subprime market meltdown and housing crisis is: How did the government get so deeply involved in the housing market?

The answer is: President Clinton wanted it that way.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, even into the early 1990s, weren't the juggernauts they'd later be.

While President Carter in 1977 signed the Community Reinvestment Act, which pushed Fannie and Freddie to aggressively lend to minority communities, it was Clinton who supercharged the process. After entering office in 1993, he extensively rewrote Fannie's and Freddie's rules.

In so doing, he turned the two quasi-private, mortgage-funding firms into a semi-nationalized monopoly that dispensed cash to markets, made loans to large Democratic voting blocs and handed favors, jobs and money to political allies. This potent mix led inevitably to corruption and the Fannie-Freddie collapse.

Despite warnings of trouble at Fannie and Freddie, in 1994 Clinton unveiled his National Homeownership Strategy, which broadened the CRA in ways Congress never intended.

Addressing the National Association of Realtors that year, Clinton bluntly told the group that "more Americans should own their own homes." He meant it.

Clinton saw homeownership as a way to open the door for blacks and other minorities to enter the middle class.

Though well-intended, the problem was that Congress was about to change hands, from the Democrats to the Republicans. Rather than submit legislation that the GOP-led Congress was almost sure to reject, Clinton ordered Robert Rubin's Treasury Department to rewrite the rules in 1995.

The rewrite, as City Journal noted back in 2000, "made getting a satisfactory CRA rating harder." Banks were given strict new numerical quotas and measures for the level of "diversity" in their loan portfolios. Getting a good CRA rating was key for a bank that wanted to expand or merge with another.

Loans started being made on the basis of race, and often little else.

"Bank examiners would use federal home-loan data, broken down by neighborhood, income group and race, to rate banks on performance," wrote Howard Husock, a scholar at the Manhattan Institute.

But those rules weren't enough.

Clinton got the Department of Housing and Urban Development to double-team the issue. That would later prove disastrous.

Clinton's HUD secretary, Andrew Cuomo, "made a series of decisions between 1997 and 2001 that gave birth to the country's current crisis," the liberal Village Voice noted. Among those decisions were changes that let Fannie and Freddie get into subprime loan markets in a big way.

Other rule changes gave Fannie and Freddie extraordinary leverage, allowing them to hold just 2.5% of capital to back their investments, vs. 10% for banks.

Since they could borrow at lower rates than banks due to implicit government guarantees for their debt, the government-sponsored enterprises boomed.

With incentives in place, banks poured billions of dollars of loans into poor communities, often "no doc" and "no income" loans that required no money down and no verification of income.

By 2007, Fannie and Freddie owned or guaranteed nearly half of the $12 trillion U.S. mortgage market — a staggering exposure.

Worse still was the cronyism.

Fannie and Freddie became home to out-of-work politicians, mostly Clinton Democrats. An informal survey of their top officials shows a roughly 2-to-1 dominance of Democrats over Republicans.

Then there were the campaign donations. From 1989 to 2008, some 384 politicians got their tip jars filled by Fannie and Freddie.

Over that time, the two GSEs spent $200 million on lobbying and political activities. Their charitable foundations dropped millions more on think tanks and radical community groups.

Did it work? Well, if measured by the goal of putting more poor people into homes, the answer would have to be yes.

From 1995 to 2005, a Harvard study shows, minorities made up 49% of the 12.5 million new homeowners.

The problem is that many of those loans have now gone bad, and minority homeownership rates are shrinking fast.

Fannie and Freddie, with their massive loan portfolios stuffed with securitized mortgage-backed paper created from subprime loans, are a failed legacy of the Clinton era.

 

[valabdalnabi]

1999 Gramm Deregulation Act: McCain Yes, Biden No!

by MazeDancer

Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 09:57:27 AM PDT

John McCain may be trying to pretend he's a big financial regulator fan now, but in 1999, when Phil Gramm created the legislation that started deregulation, John McCain voted FOR the bill. Joe Biden voted No.
Saying he's for bank regulation is a very big McCain lie.
And a big stick talking point when whipping the Republicans on the economy.
John McCain: Wrong on the economy when he voted to start this mess. Wrong for the economy now.

• MazeDancer's diary :: ::

In 1999, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act repealed 1930's legislation that had separated commercial and investment banks. Commercial banks, where people deposit their paychecks and do personal banking, have regulation. Investment banks didn't have that "fettering" as Republicans saw it.
John McCain voted for Gramm-Leach-Bliley. Joe Biden voted NO. The act passed 54-44, mostly a party line vote. Yes, Clinton signed the law. But Joe Biden was against it.
With the 1930's Glass-Steagall Act repealed, the theory was competition could happen now in financial services. The evil enemy of regulation was gone, free markets would reign. Mergers happened that couldn't before. A broader range of institutions could offer a broader range of products. Which grew to include obscure, unregulated financial products with no collateral to support them. Like sub-prime mortgages. Regulated banks couldn't take those kinds of risks. Unregulated companies could.
In March of this year, John McCain was reinforcing his "market solves everything" anti-regulation stance.

"I’m always for less regulation," he told The Wall Street Journal last March, "but I am aware of the view that there is a need for government oversight" in situations like the subprime lending crisis, the problem that has cascaded through Wall Street this year. He concluded, "but I am fundamentally a deregulator."
​

That same month Barack Obama gave his 21st Century Economics speech at Cooper Union not telling Wall Street what they wanted to hear. Including supporting new regulation of financial institutions:

First, if you can borrow from the government, you should be subject to government oversight and supervision.
​

The NY Times has a piece today comparing the candidate's POV's. (quote above from it) http://www.nytimes.com/...
No matter how much McCain sounds like a Democrat today, back when it counted, when vision matter, when understanding only making rich people richer doesn't help the economy, McCain listened to his good friend Phil Gramm. Joe Biden listened to reason.
Want Phil Gramm in control of the economy? Elect John McCain.
If you want more, economic blogger covering this:
http://econ4obama.blogspot.com/...
Video of Obama's Cooper Union Speech:
http://www.youtube.com/...

Daily Kos: 1999 Gramm Deregulation Act: McCain Yes, Biden No!

 

[valabdalnabi]

This tax calculator approximates your tax bill under each candidate's plans.

 

[PMBG83]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kimmy next time i see ONE, not ALL. ps. i still don't see what the big deal is about using "they" and "them" to refer to a group of people.

It can be a big deal, depending on the person saying it.

 

[*Stargazer*]

Here you go kimmy, a primer for you.

They/Them - unacceptable when talking about criminal illegal immigrants.
They/Them - acceptable when making sweeping generalizations about evil Republicans.

 

[kimmy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PMBG83 It can be a big deal, depending on the person saying it.

why is it okay to vilify me for using "them" and "they"?
am i not entitled to use the english language in its entirety?
it's okay to limit my free speech because why?

 

[missworld]

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Stargazer* Here you go kimmy, a primer for you. They/Them - unacceptable when talking about criminal illegal immigrants. They/Them - acceptable when making sweeping generalizations about evil Republicans.

The only republicans I would say were evil, without hesitation, are George W. Bush and Richard Bruce "Dick" Cheney.

McCain served his country with honor, but is in no way the right man for president of this great nation.

Palin, seems evil and crazy, but I hope not to find out.

Nothing you have written excuses Kimmy's generalizing, so deal.

missworld