Obama Releasing Birth Certificate Right Now

[ByeShea]

I love it. Right in the face of all those baseless, rhetorical racists.

The funniest part is he slow rolled all of them, it's like he had the Aces and waited until it stung the most. Look at all those republican commentators running into their caves now.

Really? Do these republican commentators have names?

Put down the bong.

[BiffTFinancial]

Dickhead: Obama is to blame for the crackdown on offshore gaming.

There's no better way to gauge the businesses health then by its affiliate activity and US affiliate activity has ground to a screeching halt over the past 5 months. When affiliates walk away from the game you don't even need to hear an operator's sentiment.

It was not like this under Bush, it was not like this earlier in Obama's administration.

The Obama DOJ is applying the heat. Maybe you can ask players and sportsbooks how they are now vs. 2006 or 2008?

And this topic you bring up is not a judgment on Obama, but a judgment on you being an amusing asslicker.

this is incorrect. UIGEA was passed under Bush by a Republican Congress. has the Obama DOJ enforced the law? yes. do i agree with the law? of course not. the Obama DOJ has caught a lot of heat for not defending the retarded Defense of Marriage Act. which would you prefer, that they enforce the laws on the books or not? again, i'm no Obama fan, but all the DOJ is doing is enforcing a law that's on the books, however stupid that law might be. that is their job. i wish that they'd abandon UIGEA just like DOMA given that i think that both are unconstitutional, but you can't act as if UIGEA is an Obama DOJ creation.

[crustyme]

Dickhead: Obama is to blame for the crackdown on offshore gaming.

There's no better way to gauge the businesses health then by its affiliate activity and US affiliate activity has ground to a screeching halt over the past 5 months. When affiliates walk away from the game you don't even need to hear an operator's sentiment.

It was not like this under Bush, it was not like this earlier in Obama's administration.

The Obama DOJ is applying the heat. Maybe you can ask players and sportsbooks how they are now vs. 2006 or 2008?

And this topic you bring up is not a judgment on Obama, but a judgment on you being an amusing asslicker.

what a myopic fool you are.

the assault on offshore gaming began long before 2011. back in 2006, executives of two offshore books were arrested for operating illegal books.

after the passage of -UIGEA- many books like pinnacle stopped taking action from us residents. the feds then seized nettellers funds and they too stopped operating in the us.

banking institutions were also forced to block transactions involving offshore gambling which made it nearly impossible to fund with ************.

so the assault on offshore gaming began long before obama. only a myopic idiot such as yourself would think otherwise.

blaming obama for the crackdown is like blaming cops for arresting you for smoking pot. they are only following the letters of the law, which neocons such as yourself were responsible for passing in the first place.

[ByeShea]

If you two would kindly drag yourself away from legislative proofs and simply ask people in the business what it's like now, what it was like in 2009, in 2007, in 2005, in 2002 - you will get a very clear picture that the Obama administration has proven to be the least friendly to offshore books/gamblers for US customers.

Did you not notice the poker blowup?

Can anyone's experience say otherwise?

Again, the best barometer is the affiliate business and it's dwindled into nothing in this very calendar year. (They've simply stopped - this says more about what's going on than even the testimony of an operator)

And the collapse of the affiliate business for US players is unprecedented, we're in uncharted waters - and it's because of exact and heavy pressure from the US gov't.

And here you are going to bat for Obama on this site. Nice combination of balls/brainlessness.

[BiffTFinancial]

If you two would kindly drag yourself away from legislative proofs and simply ask people in the business what it's like now, what it was like in 2009, in 2007, in 2005, in 2002 - you will get a very clear picture that the Obama administration has proven to be the least friendly to offshore books/gamblers for US customers.

Did you not notice the poker blowup?

Can anyone's experience say otherwise?

Again, the best barometer is the affiliate business and it's dwindled into nothing in this very calendar year. (They've simply stopped - this says more about what's going on than even the testimony of an operator)

And the collapse of the affiliate business for US players is unprecedented, we're in uncharted waters - and it's because of exact and heavy pressure from the US gov't.

And here you are going to bat for Obama on this site. Nice combination of balls/brainlessness.

nice combination of insults over logic. how you can possibly blame UIGEA on the Obama administration is beyond me, but like a lot of Obama haters, you hated him from the start, and nothing will dissuade you. i'm not defending Obama or his administration (i have little interest in doing so since i'm not an ardent supporter), i'm point out facts. my overarching point is that people like yourself hate Obama so much that you don't stick to facts when you attack him, undercutting your points. a great example was when you were all over Barney Frank without even realizing that he introduced legislation to repeal UIGEA that couldn't get through Republican Congress. i'm trying to demonstrate the flaws in your arguments, but you don't care about that. you only care about spewing vitriol, regardless of whether it has a proper basis or not. completely irrational people like you are as big a problem for this country as irrational people who mindlessly follow the political left.

to say that Obama is to blame for the crackdown on internet/offshore gambling is simply stupid. i'm not calling you stupid, but you'll take it that way and reply with some screed full of ad hominem attacks and insults that will reveal that you don't even read that to which you are responding. have at it, i can't wait not to read the response.

[falconticket]

Obama has ordered FEMA director to mosey on down to Alabama and Ga to see if we might need anything. Congrats Where the fuk were these guys yesterday. Emergency agency my ass. Just another tax consuming bureaucracy that cant do anything in a hurry.

[venice2222]

this is so racist. nobody would care about his birth certificate if he was and old white guy.

[falconticket]

this is so racist. nobody would care about his birth certificate if he was and old white guy.

Please be advised that your Race Card account has been closed. This decision was based on your account history of excessive over-limit spending. Please destroy your card immediately as it will no longer be honored.
Sincerely, The American People

[crustyme]

If you two would kindly drag yourself away from legislative proofs and simply ask people in the business what it's like now, what it was like in 2009, in 2007, in 2005, in 2002 - you will get a very clear picture that the Obama administration has proven to be the least friendly to offshore books/gamblers for US customers.

Did you not notice the poker blowup?

Can anyone's experience say otherwise?

Again, the best barometer is the affiliate business and it's dwindled into nothing in this very calendar year. (They've simply stopped - this says more about what's going on than even the testimony of an operator)

And the collapse of the affiliate business for US players is unprecedented, we're in uncharted waters - and it's because of exact and heavy pressure from the US gov't.

And here you are going to bat for Obama on this site. Nice combination of balls/brainlessness.

yeah lets ignore the landmark anti internet gambling law so you can continue your rant on how evil obama is.

you do know that once a law is passed, it has to be enforced whether they agree with it or not? or is that too advanced for you?

of course 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 were better cause you neocons didnt begin your assault until 2006 with the arrests and passing of UIGEA.

excuse me if i dont feel pity for poker players because we sports bettors have been going through this for the past 5 years. just because you were last on the list doesnt mean you werent on their radar from the start nor does it mean the assault just began.

ironic that you neocons always attack clinton yet dont know hes the reason neocons couldnt pass the anti internet gambling law back in the 90s.

also ironic that neocons think sports betting and poker are evil yet support horse racing, slot machines and card games as good wholesome family fun.

[falconticket]

Obama ordered the Justice department to ignore this law

[BiffTFinancial]

yeah lets ignore the landmark anti internet gambling law so you can continue your rant on how evil obama is.

you do know that once a law is passed, it has to be enforced whether they agree with it or not? or is that too advanced for you?

of course 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 were better cause you neocons didnt begin your assault until 2006 with the arrests and passing of UIGEA.

excuse me if i dont feel pity for poker players because we sports bettors have been going through this for the past 5 years. just because you were last on the list doesnt mean you werent on their radar from the start nor does it mean the assault just began.

ironic that you neocons always attack clinton yet dont know hes the reason neocons couldnt pass the anti internet gambling law back in the 90s.

also ironic that neocons think sports betting and poker are evil yet support horse racing, slot machines and card games as good wholesome family fun.

let's be honest: politicians on the left and the right supported UIGEA. a major reason is the respective power and resources of the horse racing, state lottery and casino lobbies. many a politician's vote is bought and paid for by lobbyists, and that's hardly a problem specific to just one party.

the bases of both parties are complete morons and lemmings. the Republican vote is easily secured by arguing that the vote is in accordance with God's wishes and/or furthers the pro life agenda and/or would combat the unseen insidious forces of socialism or communism (which, btw, are used incorrectly as terms 99% of the time). on the other side, the Dem vote is easily secured by arguing that the vote is necessary in response to some sort of racism or civil rights infringement or to fight "corporate greed." i feel great pity for anyone who thinks that either party actually has his/her best interests in mind. those are the truly stupid, and they deserve what they get.

[BiffTFinancial]

Obama ordered the Justice department to ignore this law

yes, and at this moment, DOMA has a much better chance of being declared unconstitutional in a court of law that UIGEA. i hate both, think that both are unconstitutional, but it's completely rational as an attorney (that's what the DOJ is) to make a decision to cuts one's losses on one issue (which, btw, is simply social legislation that has no chance of yielding any economic benefit to anyone) while upholding the other (and where that other actually has to potential to result in a financial gain for the US government). what, if the DOJ decides not to fight anymore over DOMA because the writing is on the wall that it's a losing case and a waste of time, it cannot then uphold any other law? come on, that's silly.

[falconticket]

No actually the DOJ encompasses the fbi and the federal marshalls, DEA, ATF and many other organizations. The DOJ's primary goal is to enforce federal law according to their charter. I was responding to the other posters accusation that the president cannot ignore laws. However I pointed out a law that is in fact being ignored. In fact the President has many avenues to ignore enforcement of Federal laws. I believe Obama could certainly had put a stop to the poker website shutdowns, had he wanted. That's all I was pointing out. I don't agree with either law. Would like to see virtually zero federal laws. I would rather states have the powers and not the feds. In fact that is how it was supposed to be from the start of the US.

[BiffTFinancial]

No actually the DOJ encompasses the fbi and the federal marshalls, DEA, ATF and many other organizations. The DOJ's primary goal is to enforce federal law according to their charter. I was responding to the other posters accusation that the president cannot ignore laws. However I pointed out a law that is in fact being ignored. In fact the President has many avenues to ignore enforcement of Federal laws. I believe Obama could certainly had put a stop to the poker website shutdowns, had he wanted. That's all I was pointing out. I don't agree with either law. Would like to see virtually zero federal laws. I would rather states have the powers and not the feds. In fact that is how it was supposed to be from the start of the US.

i agree, the DOJ encompasses more than just the AG. my point is that it's completely appropriate to pick and choose where you commit finite resources in defending federal law, and in fact, it's necessary and represents the kind of choices that the DOJ always has made. the DOJ caught flak for not defending DOMA, and would catch flak for not defending UIGEA (which i don't agree with, but which undeniably has a revenue generation component in contrast to DOMA). i agree, Obama could have called off the dogs on UIGEA, and i wish that he had, but to suggest that there's something wrong with enforcing UIGEA while not enforcing DOMA would be pretty naive.

i don't entirely agree re: states' rights. i'm from the South originally (thankfully i don't live in VA anymore with that asshat Cuccinelli as AG), and honestly, if certain matters (e.g., civil rights) are left to popular vote, we could still have segregated schools and bans on interracial marriage and the effective outlawing of abortion by rule of the majority, and the only recourse would be "don't like it? move to another state." if we want to go back to how it was supposed to be at the start of the US, slavery would still be legal and women wouldn't be able to vote. leaving things to the states generally means leaving them to popular vote, and let's face it, 80% of this country is too fkn stupid to be trusted to vote. isn't that why we fade the public?

[losturmarbles]

Why in the world would anyone think that a man could make it all the way to the US presidency without meeting the requirements. That's the first thing they check!

Except the Congressional Research Service admits they didn't check in a leaked Congressional memo.

Who does government work for? Who is suppose to check? Who is they?

[falconticket]

i agree, the DOJ encompasses more than just the AG. my point is that it's completely appropriate to pick and choose where you commit finite resources in defending federal law, and in fact, it's necessary and represents the kind of choices that the DOJ always has made. the DOJ caught flak for not defending DOMA, and would catch flak for not defending UIGEA (which i don't agree with, but which undeniably has a revenue generation component in contrast to DOMA). i agree, Obama could have called off the dogs on UIGEA, and i wish that he had, but to suggest that there's something wrong with enforcing UIGEA while not enforcing DOMA would be pretty naive.

i don't entirely agree re: states' rights. i'm from the South originally (thankfully i don't live in VA anymore with that asshat Cuccinelli as AG), and honestly, if certain matters (e.g., civil rights) are left to popular vote, we could still have segregated schools and bans on interracial marriage and the effective outlawing of abortion by rule of the majority, and the only recourse would be "don't like it? move to another state." if we want to go back to how it was supposed to be at the start of the US, slavery would still be legal and women wouldn't be able to vote. leaving things to the states generally means leaving them to popular vote, and let's face it, 80% of this country is too fkn stupid to be trusted to vote. isn't that why we fade the public?

Guess you missed my point. The previous poster said that potus cannot ignore laws, I simply stated that he can at will. I never suggested anything was wrong with it as you implied. As far as states rights. You are right if you do not like the laws in one state. Move. I'm not sure any state in the Union have matters you described left to popular vote, except certain laws that the state government decides to put up for a vote. My state is a representative republic, very similar to the federal government. I believe all states are. They are representative republics in one form or another. Popular vote would suggest a democracy. However no state government in this Union is a democracy. In fact to many peoples surprise the word "democracy" does not appear in the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution of The US, or any of the 50 state constitutions. Our founders intentionally tried to prevent a democracy, which is a mob rule style of government. So not sure what you mean by Popular vote. If you live in a state and disagree with the laws you can move to a more liberal or conservative state period. That was the intentions of the founders, and it is plainly written in the tenth amendment.

[ByeShea]

nice combination of insults over logic. how you can possibly blame UIGEA on the Obama administration is beyond me, but like a lot of Obama haters, you hated him from the start, and nothing will dissuade you.

Thank you.

Basically, when the rubber meets the road the US affiliate market (which is, again, the best barometer for the current health of the US players in offshore books) abruptly rolled over and died about 2 years after Obama took office. It had always been either blistering hot to robust enough to make it worthwhile. It's a dry riverbed today.

It could have happened in 2006 or in early 2009 - as the DOJ is an instrument of POTUS with a great deal of latitude. It's pretty clear that sometime since Obama took office someone, somewhere in the Executive branch turned up the heat.

Not sure any affiliate can tell you why biz dried up, but he will certainly be able to tell you when. This past winter, that's when.

What's more, while I can't stand Obama - I'm not indicting him for this. Maybe it's for the best.

But for an ardent Obama supporter to not own this stuff on a board like SBR is pure comedy.

[BiffTFinancial]

Guess you missed my point. The previous poster said that potus cannot ignore laws, I simply stated that he can at will. I never suggested anything was wrong with it as you implied. As far as states rights. You are right if you do not like the laws in one state. Move. I'm not sure any state in the Union have matters you described left to popular vote, except certain laws that the state government decides to put up for a vote. My state is a representative republic, very similar to the federal government. I believe all states are. They are representative republics in one form or another. Popular vote would suggest a democracy. However no state government in this Union is a democracy. In fact to many peoples surprise the word "democracy" does not appear in the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution of The US, or any of the 50 state constitutions. Our founders intentionally tried to prevent a democracy, which is a mob rule style of government. So not sure what you mean by Popular vote. If you live in a state and disagree with the laws you can move to a more liberal or conservative state period. That was the intentions of the founders, and it is plainly written in the tenth amendment.

my point is that, but for federal law, matters like school segregation, interracial marriage and abortion rights would be left to state law, which would be an abomination, particularly in the South. and you're right, most state laws are not determined by referenda but rather by legislative process of representative republic (although the fact that use of referenda is increasing is scary). my post was not very artfully worded. what i'm saying is, the state politicians who make such laws are completely beholden to the popular will of the citizens of their states so, hypothetically, the fact that 70% of, say, Alabamans were against interracial marriage in the 1980's would've ended up resulting in interracial marriage being outlawed in Alabama in the 1980's. that's a bad result, and where a representative republic resembles a democracy in fact. or, if the majority of people of a state generally think that it's okay to discriminate on the basis of race in employment, their popular will can essentially make it okay to do so, and there would be no reason for their legislators to change it, but a more civilized nation can force them to progress with federal legislation. i agree, true democracy is a terrible form of government. certain important issues like civil rights should be handled on a federal level.

so far as moving to another state, i disagree. i don't care to debate it, respect your opinion, and while i agree that your take jibes with the tenth amendment, i simply don't agree that this is the way that it *should* be. for one thing, i think that such a course leads to the further polarization of the nation politically. besides, the Constitution contains plenty of flaws, i'm comfortable picking and choosing those parts with which i agree (First Amendment) and those with which i do not (your take on the 10th; interpretation of the 2nd that says people can bring guns to NFL games now). frankly, i'm uncomfortable with the notion of "if you don't like the way it is here, leave" which seems to me to be very unamerican. there is another option to leaving: changing things where you are.

[BiffTFinancial]

Thank you.

Basically, when the rubber meets the road the US affiliate market (which is, again, the best barometer for the current health of the US players in offshore books) abruptly rolled over and died about 2 years after Obama took office. It had always been either blistering hot to robust enough to make it worthwhile. It's a dry riverbed today.

It could have happened in 2006 or in early 2009 - as the DOJ is an instrument of POTUS with a great deal of latitude. It's pretty clear that sometime since Obama took office someone, somewhere in the Executive branch turned up the heat.

Not sure any affiliate can tell you why biz dried up, but he will certainly be able to tell you when. This past winter, that's when.

What's more, while I can't stand Obama - I'm not indicting him for this. Maybe it's for the best.

But for an ardent Obama supporter to not own this stuff on a board like SBR is pure comedy.

Of course you're indicting him for it. that you can't own it on a board like SBR is pure comedy.

i said i'm NOT an ardent Obama supporter, genius. i have a lot of problems with Obama. my point to you is that your vitriol and emotion and factual distortions completely undercut any useful points that you have. but hey, if you want to continue to be bad at arguing and losing debates, be my guest.

[falconticket]

my point is that, but for federal law, matters like school segregation, interracial marriage and abortion rights would be left to state law, which would be an abomination, particularly in the South. and you're right, most state laws are not determined by referenda but rather by legislative process of representative republic (although the fact that use of referenda is increasing is scary). my post was not very artfully worded. what i'm saying is, the state politicians who make such laws are completely beholden to the popular will of the citizens of their states so, hypothetically, the fact that 70% of, say, Alabamans were against interracial marriage in the 1980's would've ended up resulting in interracial marriage being outlawed in Alabama in the 1980's. that's a bad result, and where a representative republic resembles a democracy in fact. or, if the majority of people of a state generally think that it's okay to discriminate on the basis of race in employment, their popular will can essentially make it okay to do so, and there would be no reason for their legislators to change it, but a more civilized nation can force them to progress with federal legislation. i agree, true democracy is a terrible form of government. certain important issues like civil rights should be handled on a federal level.

so far as moving to another state, i disagree. i don't care to debate it, respect your opinion, and while i agree that your take jibes with the tenth amendment, i simply don't agree that this is the way that it *should* be. for one thing, i think that such a course leads to the further polarization of the nation politically. besides, the Constitution contains plenty of flaws, i'm comfortable picking and choosing those parts with which i agree (First Amendment) and those with which i do not (your take on the 10th; interpretation of the 2nd that says people can bring guns to NFL games now). frankly, i'm uncomfortable with the notion of "if you don't like the way it is here, leave" which seems to me to be very unamerican. there is another option to leaving: changing things where you are.

This is simply your opinion, while I do not personally have a problem with any ones marriage , where as an American under our laws do you have a right to force your opinions on others. But your argument doesn't hold much water with me, if you go back in the history of the US you will see that these laws were first outlawed state by state, such as segregation, slavery, and the feds followed. It is just not accurate that a state like Alabama would have a law to prevent different races from marrying today. But I agree that our differences are more principle, and philosophical differences. I agree there is no need to debate these issues further.

[BiffTFinancial]

This is simply your opinion, while I do not personally have a problem with any ones marriage , where as an American under our laws do you have a right to force your opinions on others. But your argument doesn't hold much water with me, if you go back in the history of the US you will see that these laws were first outlawed state by state, such as segregation, slavery, and the feds followed. It is just not accurate that a state like Alabama would have a law to prevent different races from marrying today. But I agree that our differences are more principle, and philosophical differences. I agree there is no need to debate these issues further.

fair enough. however, i'm not sure how allowing interracial couples to marry in a state hurts anyone or forces one's opinion on someone else, while outlawing interracial marriage without question harms interracial couples. as for some states acting before federal government, of course that happened, but the point is that the federal government had to act because certain states may have never followed. anyway, enough on this, have a good weekend.

[19th Hole]

My gaming habits haven't been hampered one iota.
What's all of the alarmism all about??

[falconticket]

fair enough. however, i'm not sure how allowing interracial couples to marry in a state hurts anyone or forces one's opinion on someone else, while outlawing interracial marriage without question harms interracial couples. as for some states acting before federal government, of course that happened, but the point is that the federal government had to act because certain states may have never followed. anyway, enough on this, have a good weekend.

Yep it wouldn't hurt anyone if you allowed it in one state, however outlawing it in all states is a violation of states rights, I can pretty much guarantee you gay marriage would be legal pretty soon in Ga if not for the feds. Just take a stroll down 10th street and you can see the voting power for this. And not many people give 2 shits if two guys or girls get married. And those who are adamantly opposed to it are old baptist old timers. They are becoming less and less. My point is leave it to the states. I would rather a couple states not accept a few key issues than the gigantic powers the feds have now. There is no perfect system. But ours is broken. Good day

[ByeShea]

Of course you're indicting him for it. that you can't own it on a board like SBR is pure comedy.

i said i'm NOT an ardent Obama supporter, genius. i have a lot of problems with Obama. my point to you is that your vitriol and emotion and factual distortions completely undercut any useful points that you have. but hey, if you want to continue to be bad at arguing and losing debates, be my guest.

No I'm not. I'll explain it for the last time:

There is nothing inherently wrong or evil for an American president and/or gov't to try and stake its claim on economic activity which is arguably generated within the US.

On this site - a sports betting forum whose participants are well versed in the ways of off-shore books - I am "indicting", if you will, any clownhole who blindly defends Obama to the hilt on while being unable to acknowledge that it was the Obama DOJ's shoe that's finally dropped on the US player.

And it really started to drop, depending on who you talk to, sometime between this past November and February of 2011, cumulating with the poker's "Black Friday".

Anyone thinking a big book will be devoting serious capital and attentions to the US player now?

Sh*t, just read the industry forum, a fear-driven wasteland.

Keep blaming Bush though and think nothing of it. Your fellow Democrats blame him for the weather. Still.

[BiffTFinancial]

No I'm not. I'll explain it for the last time:

There is nothing inherently wrong or evil for an American president and/or gov't to try and stake its claim on economic activity which is arguably generated within the US.

On this site - a sports betting forum whose participants are well versed in the ways of off-shore books - I am "indicting", if you will, any clownhole who blindly defends Obama to the hilt on while being unable to acknowledge that it was the Obama DOJ's shoe that's finally dropped on the US player.

And it really started to drop, depending on who you talk to, sometime between this past November and February of 2011, cumulating with the poker's "Black Friday".

Anyone thinking a big book will be devoting serious capital and attentions to the US player now?

Sh*t, just read the industry forum, a fear-driven wasteland.

Keep blaming Bush though and think nothing of it. Your fellow Democrats blame him for the weather. Still.

not a Democrat, just as you're apparently not a reader.

[underthe total]

Contrary to some media commentary, there is no evidence that the Community Reinvestment Act was responsible for encouraging the subprime lending boom and subsequent housing bust. This Act only applies to depositories, and did not cover most of the important subprime lenders. Depositories showed a lesser tendency to write subprime loans than lenders not subject to the Act (Yellen 2008). When they put her name in quotes that is attributing the quote to her. You posted twice in error

cra lending practice did have an effect on the boom and crash in real estate....it introduced buyers that were not qualified to buy a home.

this allowed the people they bought from to buy bigger houses, then they bought bigger houses, then when these low income bad credit borrowers were eliminated due to delinquencies, who was left to buy the low to intermediate house? no one. and the builders where out there building the top of the pyramid faster than they could fill the bottom, it simply toppled over......

yall can quote all the bills that were passed and banking regualtions and de regulations, or whatever....

it is much simpler than that.... clinton introduced the CRA lending, Bush continued it. low credit score companies came in to the market to circumvent fannie and freddie back log. the loans were going to get done, by fannie and freddie. the sub loan companies just got it done faster....

the bottom line on this whole fair lending credit mess that the government is trying to control is simple.

Dumb people that do not have money do not deserve to buy a home....

the government geting involved and making it so easy Dumb and poor people can be home owners is what ****** it up.

[philswin]

cra lending practice did have an effect on the boom and crash in real estate....it introduced buyers that were not qualified to buy a home.

this allowed the people they bought from to buy bigger houses, then they bought bigger houses, then when these low income bad credit borrowers were eliminated due to delinquencies, who was left to buy the low to intermediate house? no one. and the builders where out there building the top of the pyramid faster than they could fill the bottom, it simply toppled over......

yall can quote all the bills that were passed and banking regualtions and de regulations, or whatever....

it is much simpler than that.... clinton introduced the CRA lending, Bush continued it. low credit score companies came in to the market to circumvent fannie and freddie back log. the loans were going to get done, by fannie and freddie. the sub loan companies just got it done faster....

the bottom line on this whole fair lending credit mess that the government is trying to control is simple.

Dumb people that do not have money do not deserve to buy a home....

the government geting involved and making it so easy Dumb and poor people can be home owners is what ****** it up.

Your are absolutly right on all points.Was not my quote above just copied point out how stupid it was. There is no need for human underwriting anymore enough automated systems out there, you are either qualified or not, no more special circumstances.

[jjgold]

It took him years to release certificate therefore it it fake

He is not a usa citizen

[underthe total]

i hope they impeach him

[eidolon]

what happened to this thread:

[scratbandit]

everyone go get a soda and lets go play some WOW..

[scratbandit]

gas is finally going back down at least we topped out for now..

[King Mayan]

Why do you keep bumping this?

[DwightShrute]

<style type="text/css"><!--td {border: 1px solid #ccc;}br {mso-data-placement:same-cell;}--></style>Link not Working-Removed

[BigdaddyQH]

Classic.