Guess who sued Citbank for not giving risky mortgages?

[Guest]

Obama successfully sued Citbank in 1994 for not giving risky mortgages to minorities. What role has risky mortgages played in the current crisis?

This is just the tip of the iceberg regarding Obama's legal and political commitment and efforts to expand homeownership through subprime, risky loans. Democrats and some Republicans fought Bush and McCain efforts in 2003 and 2005 to pull back the throttle on these loans through regulatory legislation....and were handsomely rewarded with generous campaign contributions. Obama was one of the most highly rewarded.

Obama represented Calvin Roberson in a 1994 lawsuit against Citibank, charging the bank systematically denied mortgages to African-American applicants and others from minority neighborhoods.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/700499,CST-NWS-Obama-law17.article

[Guest]

Obama successfully sued Citbank in 1994 for not giving risky mortgages to minorities. What role has risky mortgages played in the current crisis?

This is just the tip of the iceberg regarding Obama's legal and political commitment and efforts to expand homeownership through subprime, risky loans. Democrats and some Republicans fought Bush and McCain efforts in 2003 and 2005 to pull back the throttle on these loans through regulatory legislation....and were handsomely rewarded with generous campaign contributions. Obama was one of the most highly rewarded.

Obama represented Calvin Roberson in a 1994 lawsuit against Citibank, charging the bank systematically denied mortgages to African-American applicants and others from minority neighborhoods.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/700499,CST-NWS-Obama-law17.article
And this is a surprise??? Check out retiredguy's utube today.

[Guest]

TVQueen, not a surprise, just needed to stand on its own and not buried in UTube with complete attribution and context. Thanks for responding though.

[Guest]

Cabo - you know I never agree with you on anything, but I hadn't seen you post in awhile and was afraid you were ill or somelthing. Now I see you were just reasearching - glad you are back!

[Guest]

But if you really read history, as your screen name suggests, you should take a little longer view of the political landscape in the U.S. before you indict one political party for being the "bad guys" and annoint the other as the "good guys".

I submit that both political parties can share the blame for our current state of affairs. There are lots of elements to the deterioration of the U.S. situation and thorough study shows that the Democrats can be assigned the principal blame for some and the GOP for others. If you want to begin with the financial situation our country finds itself in, consider that in 2001 the Chairman of the Federal Reserve was actually spending time worrying that our federal surplus might be getting too big! Under our current administration and Congresses since then, they have permitted the law that required a balanced federal budget to expire and have overspent our federal revenues to the tune of almost $1 trillion dollars. One party was in control of both the Congress and the White House for six of the eight years during which this occurred. And that party doesn't happen to be the one you are so vehemently criticizing.

I could easily study a little history and give equally damning examples of terrible governance by the other party, as well. And of course, there are many examples where the development of bad governance bridged the administrations of both political parties.

I'd suggest that we all calm down and rather than annoint one side and castigate the other, that we listen to what both are telling us, examine what both have done, and choose our political leadership not on slickly managed campaigns and misleading advertising, but on what the record shows and what campaign platform makes the most sense for our country.

I truly believe that such study and consideration can be accomplished calmly and without histrionics that upsets both ourselves as well as others.

[Guest]

Bet you never hear about this on mainstream tv shows !!! I have attached links about Sen Obama and folks onhere just ignore it as if it never happened.

Great post....but doubt if any of those who support Sen Obama will post here or you will ever hear about this on any of the news channels !

[Guest]

I have been waivering, but this information has made me decide to vote for McCain. Thank you for posting it. I am so sick that we responsible people have to pay.

[Guest]

I've heard all the bombastic BS that I want to hear and I am not in any mood to listen to any banker these days, retired or otherwise. None of them are to be trusted, Democrap or Republican. Shame on them all!

I am with you. I am so sick of giveaways to everybody....yes folks in banking and investment are getting rich...WHY...because they had a vehicle....this country saying we will GIVE a mortgage even if you cant afford it..even if you arent working...never mind earning !

We want to GIVE to people free everything..no more earning anything...we are imploding because what we are making is a very weak nation.

[Guest]

And yet, another tip of the iceberg for Obama that will turn out to be nothing at all.
I expect more because the Republicans are running scared.

Tom Brokaw, this morning on Meet The Press, commented that this all started back with The Reagan Trickle Down Theory. McCain has always been known as The De-Regulator Guy! Get a grip! When he went to Washington in his last theatrical trip before the debate, his plan had more deregulation in it and more corporate tax breaks! More! What a joke.

http://www.oliverwillis.com/2008/09/25/mccain-offers-deregulation-as-solution-to-deregulation-based-fiscal-crisis/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUJ_Qn0AHTU

http://forums.timesdaily.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/6501027316/m/4781038377/r/7681048377

[Guest]

What was that, HistoryBuff?

"I've heard all...that I want to hear and I am not in any mood to listen."

Hey, that'll work. That's exactly the response the spinmeisters in the campaign offices were attempting to elicit. Get the voters to ignore the facts and vote with the elevated emotions that they create with soundbites, carefully edited YouTube videos and misleading advertising.

That's exactly how we've gotten to where we are.

Good luck.

[Guest]

What was that, HistoryBuff?

"I've heard all...that I want to hear and I am not in any mood to listen."

Hey, that'll work. That's exactly the response the spinmeisters in the campaign offices were attempting to elicit. Get the voters to ignore the facts and vote with the elevated emotions that they create with soundbites, carefully edited YouTube videos and misleading advertising.

That's exactly how we've gotten to where we are.

Good luck.

That is not fair Kahuana...he said BANKER...he did not and never said anything about candidates !!!!!! There have been a lot of FACTS on the tube, the net and everywhere......you can ignore it as you seem to want to do and throw your spin out but I listen ...and I am sure that HistoryBuff does also. BOTH PARTIES are guilty of a lot.....I am not defending any side or any candidate but you say both parties are guilty in one post and then come down on somebody because they stepped on your toes and your candidate.

[Guest]

I don't think so, Bucco. What I responded to was someone who said he had heard all that he wanted to hear and was no longer willing to listen. And I'll repeat, getting people to vote only based on their emotions is exactly the response the campaign strategists would like to elicit from the public.

If we do that and shut down on the idea of listening to the arguments and positions on the issues presented by the candidates for elected office, good luck to all of us.

If you think that's unfair...so be it.

[Guest]

And yet, another tip of the iceberg for Obama that will turn out to be nothing at all.
I expect more because the Republicans are running scared.

Tom Brokaw, this morning on Meet The Press, commented that this all started back with The Reagan Trickle Down Theory. McCain has always been known as The De-Regulator Guy! Get a grip! When he went to Washington in his last theatrical trip before the debate, his plan had more deregulation in it and more corporate tax breaks! More! What a joke.

http://www.oliverwillis.com/2008/09/25/mccain-offers-deregulation-as-solution-to-deregulation-based-fiscal-crisis/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUJ_Qn0AHTU

http://forums.timesdaily.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/6501027316/m/4781038377/r/7681048377

As you said, with Reagan it was "THEORY" The law that allowed this mess was passed in 1999 under Pres. Clinton's term. The Republicans, like all politicians, then didn't have the courage to change it and loose the votes from all the idiots that took out mortgages without the means to pay the loans. Guilty on all sides.

[Guest]

"I've heard all the bombastic BS that I want to hear and I am not in any mood to listen to any banker these days, retired or otherwise." was his quote Kahuana..he was referring to you and not the candidates !!!!

I have heard enough also.....as said in this post by someone...."And yet, another tip of the iceberg for Obama that will turn out to be nothing at all."

This is a man in his 40's with more "tips of icebergs" that a man who has been around for 70 years and yet it is not important...pooh...pooh....doesnt count...ridiculous !

[Guest]

Kahuna or anyone else that has the patience and courage to view and listen to the video (C-Span), beginning to end, from a 2004 hearing on Fanny Mae. Barney Frank and Maxine Waters were especially charming. You may be surprised at Slick Willy's assessment at the end. Warning, if you are already angry, this will not help you maintain cool, objective detachment like many defenders of the democrats would prefer. I speak through the lips of an old democratic supporter whose party was hijacked by the left. I'm getting a little weary from those that profess that the blame needs to be shared. This whole thing was the product of a democratic liberal initiative to redistribute the wealth, give away mortgages to people who could not afford them and continue to pit the classes against each other for votes, consequences be damned. That being said, I concede a few Republicans were also in the tank with Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and the other leemings.


No speculation here. The democrats and republicans are clearly identified. Kahuna, let me know who the good guys and bad guys were at this hearing.

Caution - remove objects within arms length that can harm your computer before viewing. God bless C-Span.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs&eurl=

[Guest]

Bucco, all the "tips of the icebergs" poke out because the Republicans are notorious for smear campaigns. They just love to not only titillate, but now, with McCain and Bush, they just out and out lie.

As I read and re-read this article, I find it amazing that anyone would find this earth shattering. Obama was fresh out of Law School working for a huge firm. He worked on cases given to him. Lots of research. Guess what? Lawyers are billed for that. Always have been, always will be. I'm trying to see in this exactly what Cabo's point is and somehow it's just not jelling for me.

BTW, being from Chicago, I know that reading the Sun Times is as productive as watching Fox News. Not! :doh:

[Guest]

Right you are. There is enough blame to go around. While this crisis had its genesis in the Carter administration, no succeeding administration did anything to correct the problem. The Dems attempt to blame the Bush administration, and by extension, John McClain, is just spin with no substance. It makes me sick.

[Guest]

Bucco, all the "tips of the icebergs" poke out because the Republicans are notorious for smear campaigns. They just love to not only titillate, but now, with McCain and Bush, they just out and out lie.

As I read and re-read this article, I find it amazing that anyone would find this earth shattering. Obama was fresh out of Law School working for a huge firm. He worked on cases given to him. Lots of research. Guess what? Lawyers are billed for that. Always have been, always will be. I'm trying to see in this exactly what Cabo's point is and somehow it's just not jelling for me.

BTW, being from Chicago, I know that reading the Sun Times is as productive as watching Fox News. Not! :doh:

You know....you call everything that you dont agree with smear. I have posted articles from CBS.....the Chicago papers and you still call them smear. Any source that you dont agree with is a bad place. By the way the Oliver Willis link you supplied is amusing. He describes himself as a socialist :)

[Guest]

Hi Chels,

This whole thing was the product of a democratic liberal initiative to redistribute the wealth, give away mortgages to people who could not afford them and continue to pit the classes against each other for votes, consequences be damned. Cabo35, 9/28/08

See video, turn up volume, to enhance "jelling".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs&eurl=

Conn8757, thanks, somehow I don't think Chelsea appreciated my return as much as you.

[Guest]

Using your favorite word again Bucco? Socialist! No matter how many times you use it, it won't make Obama a Socialist. It's that simple. Yes, he has programs that will help the community as a whole, like Universal or National Health Care, but that doesn't make him a Socialist.

Thought you might like to read this:

http://zillow.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=159&item=71

Interesting. :thumbup:

Cabo, I'm happy to see you back. Just think this post is a lot of crap! :welcome:

[Guest]

So after reading all of the posts in this thread...I can see that we are blaming, Reagan, Carter, Clinton and Bush for this crisis that we are in. I guess I would say to everyone "IT REALLY DOESN'T MATTER ANYMORE"....

Because here we are...in the midst of the crisis....as well as in the midst of an election....

As for the "crisis" we are in...the government will do something...somehow or another it will send some money to the banks to some how make sure that the money so many people have worked so hard for....does not disappear. WE may not have any say over the final decision on how to fix this crisis...so we will all move on with our lives....just as we always do. I hope none of you have been affected...or are in danger of being affected. My point is that no matter what the outcome is...it really doesn't matter where, when and with who it started. We all have differing opinions on it and we can argue until we are blue in the face. It will not change our opinions...it will not change the crisis or the outcome...so just stop fighting about it....is it really worth it.

As for the election....we are all scared of the outcome for one reason or another....even the parties themselves are scared of their own nominees for VP! How scary is that!! :duck:

[Guest]

Wow!! Good to see that everyone is finally hitting the nails on the head. There is hope for us yet if we can eradicate all the Democrats and part of the Republicans. :popcorn:

Eradicate all Democrats and part of of the Republicans. Wow! Shades of Hitler! :shocked:

Eradicate, hmmm, did you know this word was orignated in the Middle East and means to destroy? A little dramatic, don't you think?

[Guest]

Gosh chels you are too smart for me, must be because you are from chicago, you are from chicago, right?:a040:

Yes I am and . . . yes I am. See there, we agree on something. :1rotfl:

[Guest]

Right you are. There is enough blame to go around. While this crisis had its genesis in the Carter administration, no succeeding administration did anything to correct the problem. The Dems attempt to blame the Bush administration, and by extension, John McClain, is just spin with no substance. It makes me sick.

So far I have heard.....

It was Carter....It was Clinton...It was Barney Frank.

But the people in charge during the last 8 years had absolutely nothing to do with it.

:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[Guest]

It wasn't more than 8 months ago I signed up with a financial advisor who kept giving me the same old formula of selling higher risk stuff on up days (selling gains) and buying higher risk stuff on down days. Obviously, since most days have been DOWN days over the past several months, he would have had me stock up in higher risk stuff. He said NOTHING about preparing for this mess. Was he ill informed? Or was he complicit in the massive scheming? Fortunately, I asked too many questions, took up too much of his time and he dropped me.:rant-rave:

Trust in the financial industry and in our government leaders is deservedly at an all time low.

Unfortunately, many if not most Americans are still attracted to promises of getting something for nothing. :a040::coolsmiley: They are still looking for the easy way out. And Obama is the candidate with the best sounding promises: Cut taxes for 95% of all Americans while providing a large number of new expensive social programs for the lower and middle class. Isn't this the kind of thinking which over the past 16 years what got us into this mess? :cus:

[Guest]

Cassie, it matters a lot. If we are to prevent historical catastrophes like this from recurring we have to peel back the layers and find out when it started, how it started, who contributed to it, and why it was allowed to get as far as it did. We need to know so we can give it more than a quick $700B fix to soothe the nerves of the American people and call it a cure. That is not enough. It will not be over. The greatest lessons in life are learned by going through hardship, tough decisions and sacrifice, not by going around them. But, that's just me.

There are many who are complicit in perpetuating this travesty on the American taxpayer and they would like nothing more than to hear, "IT REALLY DOESN'T MATTER ANYMORE"..... You will know them because they all read from the same playbook. You've heard the signals often. Stop the blame and finger pointing, let's move on, share the blame, let's remain calm and rational. You will hear these terms from partisans, politicians and media moguls who do not, under any circumstances want to be exposed as complicit in the perpetrating of this economic disaster. They do not want the onion to be peeled. They would love to see the American taxpayer raise the surrender flag. I don't think that's going to happen this time. The Internet has become a powerful tool that can shed light on those that would prefer the light of day not shine on them.

Our differences are that you trust the government to do the right thing....I don't. As always, I enjoy your thoughtful input and the occasional differences of opinion that make life interesting. Thanks.

[Guest]

As far as I'm concerned, there were no "good guys" pictured in that YouTube video, Cabo. The Democrats were bad guys because they ignored the financial facts of life in favor of pandering for the votes of their lower socio-economic constituents who were taking all the sub-prime mortgage money they could get at the time.

The Republicans pictured were also bad guys. Their party was in control of both houses of Congress and the White House at the time of the hearing. Instead of reporting the problem out of committee with the recommendation for some legislative repair of the problem, which clearly could have been enacted, they remained silent and let the issue die in committee.

The Republicans are as complicit in letting this happen as the Democrats. They all ought to be thrown out with the garbage.

[Guest]

As far as I'm concerned, there were no "good guys" pictured in that YouTube video, Cabo. The Democrats were bad guys because they ignored the financial facts of life in favor of pandering for the votes of their lower socio-economic constituents who were taking all the sub-prime mortgage money they could get at the time.

The Republicans pictured were also bad guys. Their party was in control of both houses of Congress and the White House at the time of the hearing. Instead of reporting the problem out of committee with the recommendation for some legislative repair of the problem, which clearly could have been enacted, they remained silent and let the issue die in committee.

The Republicans are as complicit in letting this happen as the Democrats. They all ought to be thrown out with the garbage.

Finally Kahuna...something I can agree with. I hope you are able to continue this thought process !!

[Guest]

Obama successfully sued Citbank in 1994.

The original message in this thread is "uninformed". That's not the word I was thinking of, but it'll do in polite company.

The message and the link were obviously designed to get prospective voters shorts in a knot, clearly the clear objective of the posting. Here's why it is uninformed...

In 1994 Barack Obama was only a couple of years out of law school and was employed as an Associate at a mid-sized Chicago law firm. He was not a partner, nor did he have any client responsibility. Associates in law firms are those that work the long hours, prepare the legal briefs and the filings and generally operate in the background, following the instructions of the firm's partners. Associates are never assigned responsibility for litigating cases in court. Beyond that, law forms are in the business of representing clients in legal actions. Unless there's a conflict of interest or if a case is out of their practice specialty, a law firm will seldom turn down a client assignment.

So, for the original poster in this thread to suggest that "Obama sued Citibank" is ridiculous. It's like creating a headline describing the guy who sold the gun that was used to kill President Kennedy...Gunowner Kills Kennedy.

But hey, if the objective was to get people riled up and take their eyes off the real issues of this political campaign and make a decision based on emotion, the posting probably did have an effect on some people. If you think that will be in the long-term best interest of the U.S., I feel sorry for all of us.

[Guest]

Cassie, it matters a lot. If we are to prevent historical catastrophes like this from recurring we have to peel back the layers and find out when it started, how it started, who contributed to it, and why it was allowed to get as far as it did. We need to know so we can give it more than a quick $700B fix to soothe the nerves of the American people and call it a cure. That is not enough. It will not be over. The greatest lessons in life are learned by going through hardship, tough decisions and sacrifice, not by going around them. But, that's just me.

There are many who are complicit in perpetuating this travesty on the American taxpayer and they would like nothing more than to hear, "IT REALLY DOESN'T MATTER ANYMORE"..... You will know them because they all read from the same playbook. You've heard the signals often. Stop the blame and finger pointing, let's move on, share the blame, let's remain calm and rational. You will hear these terms from partisans, politicians and media moguls who do not, under any circumstances want to be exposed as complicit in the perpetrating of this economic disaster. They do not want the onion to be peeled. They would love to see the American taxpayer raise the surrender flag. I don't think that's going to happen this time. The Internet has become a powerful tool that can shed light on those that would prefer the light of day not shine on them.

Our differences are that you trust the government to do the right thing....I don't. As always, I enjoy your thoughtful input and the occasional differences of opinion that make life interesting. Thanks.

Thank you for the reponse....however I would say that I DO NOT trust the government to do the right thing...but feel that there is really nothing I can do about it. I can call our congressional representatives, write letters to the governor and yell and scream at the top of my lungs.....but I honestly don't feel there is much difference that will make. Sad I know.

I would say that there are many things about the government the scare the you know what out of me...but I have to go with what I think is the lesser of two evils.

As far as "peeling back the onion"...I can understand your point. However...regardless of who it started with...it is obvious that their successors did not fix...so I suppose in reality it was everyone's fault...

No one could really for see that we were going to have a crisis...and if they did they saw it too late...and reported it too late...and still no one reacted.

I don't blame one president or another. It is the executive and legislative branches of our governments fault...all of them. One person does not make this happen. Most of the time it is not the president who makes the changes...he just signs it...depending on what his advisor's have said. So I suppose we should blame all of them....

Let's peel back the onion and figure out where it started....fine....but you know as well as I do that we will all have differing ideas about where to stop peeling...and we won't agree on that either! :a20:

So in point to my last post...we will never really know or agree on who is to really blame...so why bother? :shrug: Sorry to be so pesimistic...

Just my initial thought in response to peeling back the onion....

[Guest]

Kahuna, your partisan spin is enough to make a top dizzy. You apparently didn't read the article thoroughly or you would have realized that it was a pro-Obama fluff piece. I'm sure they didn't anticipate in 2007 that this economic disaster could reveal an embarrassing connection to Obama and his law firm. Glad you appreciated my headline, it was right out of the NY Times school of headline writing. Thought you would appreciate that.

Obama represented Calvin Roberson in a 1994 lawsuit against Citibank, charging the bank systematically denied mortgages to African-American applicants and others from minority neighborhoods.

On Feb. 23, 1995, Obama billed 2 hours and 50 minutes for an appearance before Judge Ruben Castillo on behalf of his client, and also for reviewing some documents in advance of a deposition. That cost Citibank -- which ultimately had to pay the winning side's fees -- $467 at Obama's hourly rate of $165.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/700499,CST-NWS-Obama-law17.article

If you need more credible confirmation, perhaps you will feel more comfortable with the actual Civil Docket on the Roberson v. Citibank case I have attached hereto. Of course you could also spin that it is another Barack H. Obama or that, to use your parlance, the United States District Court Northern District of Illinois is "uninformed".


http://74.125.45.104/search?q=cache:oDDllLfOQQUJ:clearinghouse.wustl.ed u/chDocs/public/FH-IL-0011-9000.pdf+obama+calvin+roberson+citibank&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=19&gl=us

You seem to be saying he was only a little involved in the lawsuit against Citibank. That's like saying someone is only a little pregant. Nice spin job though.

I wasn't going to follow-up on this gem from the same article but, your post inspired me.

Obama was also recruited in law school by developer Antoin "Tony" Rezko, who back then had a reputation as "a star" of the urban renewal movement in Chicago. More recently, Rezko was indicted for allegedly using his clout with elected officials to amass taxpayer funds for self-enrichment.

Rezko was a client of the Miner firm, and Obama worked on some of his redevelopment projects. Miner says Obama put in six to seven hours of work on Rezko projects. He has not produced detailed records of Obama's billings on the cases. Gee...I wonder why he won't produce the billings? Then there is that annoying little house deal with Rezko.

I guess you would say he was only a little involved with Rezko. Hmm.....maybe this needs its own thread. So much ammunition...so little time.

Always a pleasure to spar with the great one....in a friendly way. Good cerebral exercise. Thanks for responding.

Did I mention Obama represented ACORN also?

[Guest]

I didn't intend to "spin" anything in my response. But having retained dozens of attorneys in my career, I understand very clearly the role of the various levels of people in a law firm. Even in the article itself, both Obama and the judge said that he didn't say much in court. The judge was quoted that all Obama said was that he would need more time to prepare or revise a brief. If that's true, who was doing the talking in court? Was there a chance that the partner with the client relationaship was there doing most of the arguing before the judge? And is it possible that Obama was there, accompanying the partner for both learning and billing purposes, in only a support role? Just maybe?

As far as who wanted to hire Obama as he came out of Harvard Law, I'm certain he had dozens of offers and could pretty much name his price. Maybe most here don't realize how prestigious it is to graduate from Harvard Law magna cum laude and be the Editor of the Law Review. It doesn't suprise me at all that lots of people tried to hire Obama, including Tony Rezko. At the time, Rezko was highly thought of as a developer of low-income housing in Chicago. The law firm that Obama worked for represented Rezko. In that sense, I'm certain Obama grew to know Rezko quite well. It wasn't until recently that Rezko was indicted for fraud and something to do with a teacher's pension fund. Is that the description of a relationship that should tarnish Obama's character?

Instead of accepting any of higher-paying offers, Obama chose to return to Chicago where he had worked as a community organizer before going to law school, to work for the former law firm of Chicago's first black mayor, a law firm which specialized in civil rights cases, non-profit low income housing development, voters rights cases, predatory lending, whistleblower cases, etc. Clearly, Obama could have accepted a job paying a mutiple of his salary at the Chicago firm. Equally clearly, the Chicago firm practiced on the far edge of the liberal spectrum, representing mostly the "little guys" in their practice areas. But was that inconsistent with what Obama had done in his life until then? Doesn't seem that way to me.

The bottom line here is a couple of questions. First, is there anything that Obama did as a young man that was inconsistent with his lifelong commitment to uplifting the people of his race? And is that bad? Secondly, are the relationships that Obama had later in his life, after he began to have some acclaim politically, significant enough to tarnish his character? When some of the people he knew and counted as friends began to speak and act in ways offensive to Obama, did he sever those relationships?

What it boils down to is a question of how important some of these incidents are in assessing the qualifications of a candidate for the U.S. presidency. John McCain has some equally damning experiences and relationships in his past as well. But I might suggest that neither candidate should be disqualified by any of them. Voters should examine all the facts and experiences of the candidates, understand the political issues being discussed, and then choose the candidate that seems to best serve their personal needs and desires. But I would implore everyone to ignore some of the vitriol being purposely circulated by partisans and concentrate on learning as much as you can about the candidates, their qualifications, experience and what they stand for before making your decision in the voting booth.

[Guest]

Did I mention Obama represented ACORN also?

Did you provide any proof of him representing ACORN? And even if he did represent ACORN can you prove that Obama had anything to do with submitting false voter registration forms?

The topic of the post is also misleading it does appear he was on a legal team who sued Citibank..but the word risky seems out of place. You are trying to tie Obama to the current problem by using this word. The subprime mortgage issue began long after 1994...the Glass Steagall act wasn't repealed until 1999 which open the flood gates.

The worm is turning and now the attacks will get worse. Palin looked like an idiot during the interviews with Katie Couric. The polls say McCain lost the Foreign policy debate to Obama. The economy is in the Crapper and 60% of the people say Obama can better handle that. And the majority of the public blame the Republicans for the Wall Street trouble....by the polls.

The McCain camp said they were going to go on the attack....Geez I thought they started out that way given the negative ads we have in Colorado...but it is going to get nasty.

John McCain has misplaced his honor during this campaign.

[Guest]

No, the Bush administration made the problem worse, but to read some news reports you would have thought that the problem started during the last eight years.

[Guest]

Did I mention Obama represented ACORN also?

Did you provide any proof of him representing ACORN? And even if he did represent ACORN can you prove that Obama had anything to do with submitting false voter registration forms?

The topic of the post is also misleading it does appear he was on a legal team who sued Citibank..but the word risky seems out of place. You are trying to tie Obama to the current problem by using this word. The subprime mortgage issue began long after 1994...the Glass Steagall act wasn't repealed until 1999 which open the flood gates.

The worm is turning and now the attacks will get worse. Palin looked like an idiot during the interviews with Katie Couric. The polls say McCain lost the Foreign policy debate to Obama. The economy is in the Crapper and 60% of the people say Obama is can better handle that. And the majority of the public blame the Republicans for the Wall Street trouble....by the polls.

The McCain camp said they were going to go on the attack....Geez I thought they started out that way given the negative ads we have in Colorado...but it is going to get nasty.

John McCain has misplaced his honor during this campaign.

I think neither candidate has acted in a civil and honorable manner. And polls due to the weighting factors applied to them are "figures lie and liars figure" toys.

How Sen. Obama can better handle the economy is questionable, if the current Democratic Leadership all voted to kill Glass-Stegall (check the voting records for GLBA of 1999) and are the biggest recipients from Financial Institution campaign contributions since then? The GLBA opened the floodgates, and this is one time John McCain was smart to be a "Not Voted" for that bill.

[Guest]

But I would implore everyone to and concentrate on learning as much as you can about the candidates, their qualifications, experience and what they stand for before making your decision in the voting booth.

How marvelously cavalier of you. I take exception with your representation that the subscribers to this forum, regardless of political persuasion, need to be "implored" to think for themselves as you suggest. It makes them sound incapable of understanding the King's English. It at least can be viewed as mildly condescending don't you think.

To the contrary, I have found everyone, including those of opposing views, to be articulate, thoughtful, and intelligent. They state their positions and convictions with clarity. I enjoy interacting with them, respect them and would never ignore them because they view the world from a different perspective. Some have even swayed my own pot stirring views. I would never dismiss them, or "ignore" them as you suggest because they made a "vitriolic" post supporting their belief. I sincerely appreciate the exchange of views inconsistent with my own. Even yours. I am a big fan of your economic posts in both forums, for the most part. I respect and give great deference to your professional expertise.

You said, "ignore some of the vitriol being purposely circulated by partisans". Are you suggesting we only read posts on your approved list? Who will you designate as the "vitriol" police so that we can ignore it? Who will determine what is "vitriol" and what is not?

I believe it is a superior attitude that would suggest that posters in this forum need to be "implored" and better informed to cast our vote. We are perfectly capable of separating 'vitriol' from fact and drawing our own conclusions without the suggestion we are incapable of making the distinction.


Have a great day in the Villages.

[Guest]

Cologal, Chelsea, its in the same Chicago Times article...surprised you missed it.

Obama sued on behalf of ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/700499,CST-NWS-Obama-law17.article

Lots of interesting articles from the National Review, the rights version of the NY Times. You would have to view it with an open mind because if your coming from the left, it might be "vitriolic".

Have a great day.

[Guest]

Re: Thread...Obama, Acorn..Today's News

[Guest]

Re: Thread...Obama, Acorn..Today's News

Cabo.....Democrats come in different shapes and sizes....I happen to be one of those moderate Democrats. Fiscally conservative and socially liberal but before you do to much with that I believe in equal rights for everyone and some reasonable safety nets should be provided by the government.

So if I vote for Obama I will vote for him based on several issues:


Women on average make 77 cent on the $1.00 as compared with men. I still work and I am a college graduate with 30+ years experience.

John McCain voted against the Equal Pay for Women bill just recently and he was quoted as saying the reason was:

Women needed more education and training as compared with men.

I have 2 nephews in the military...one has been to Iraq 4 times and wounded the last time.

John McCain opposed the new GI Bill saying it was to generous. He voted against mental health and brain injury services for veterans. Vote 343 2005 and vote 222 2006

He voted against funding for troops safety equipment and vehicles. See vote 248 2005 and vote 376 2003. That was equipment for my nephew he voted against. My nephew needed equipment to go to Iraq, he called me so I bought it for him and if he had needed it I would have bought him the absolute best armored vest money could buy.

He received a 20% rating from the Disabled American Veterans in 2006 while Obama received an 80% rating.

When I vote I will vote on the issues.

[Guest]

Women on average make 77 cent on the $1.00 as compared with men. I still work and I am a college graduate with 30+ years experience.

John McCain voted against the Equal Pay for Women bill just recently and he was quoted as saying the reason was:

Women needed more education and training as compared with men.



John has it right.

In my experience having worked for a dozen or so organizations, when they hire people they look for job skills, compatible temperament with the organization, and likelihood of retention.

Most women hired stayed for a relatively short duration due primarily to husbands' job change and secondarily because of pregnancy (priority of being a "mom"). These are facts of life in this culture; it is not bias against women. Employers value the ability to retain workers. It costs lots of money to hire and train employees.

When women go in and out of the work force because of changing lifestyle conditions, there is additional training required - even when they have college educations. Every employer and position has different needs.

It is too simplistic to have "equal pay for equal work" be the sole criteria because there are several other characteristics that are valuable to employers, like consistency and likelihood of being around awhile. Women aren't as likely to stick around as long and as consistently as men in this culture.

So, with a little social engineering that the dems would like to do, this too can change. Men, man your aprons!:police:

[Guest]

John has it right.

In my experience having worked for a dozen or so organizations, when they hire people they look for job skills, compatible temperament with the organization, and likelihood of retention.

Most women hired stayed for a relatively short duration due primarily to husbands' job change and secondarily because of pregnancy (priority of being a "mom"). These are facts of life in this culture; it is not bias against women. Employers value the ability to retain workers. It costs lots of money to hire and train employees.

When women go in and out of the work force because of changing lifestyle conditions, there is additional training required - even when they have college educations. Every employer and position has differenct needs.

It is too simplistic to have "equal pay for equal work" be the sole criteria because there are several other characteristics that are valuable to employers, like consistency and likelihood of being around awhile. Women aren't as likely to stick around as long and as consistently as men in this culture.

So, with a little social engineering that the dems would like to do, this too can change. Men, man your aprons!:police:

This might have been true in the 50's and 60's but now not so much. Even Palin went back to work quickly.

I have worked at the same company for 19 years and my last company for 14 years.

This is comment is totally sexist....

[Guest]

There are so many issues in this thread now I don't know where to begin.
Cabo - so Obama sued Citi Bank - he did his job for his client. I know you know all attorneys don't like their clients or agree with their objectives. Most of them just need the clients. If he was affiliated with ACORN, so what? If there was anything to come of the Rezco connection, believe me there would have been a commercial to smear it all over television. Also, you and Kahuana are two posters I really enjoy to read. Maybe I should just say, "Can't we all just get along?" 37 days and it will be over and half of us will have to live with the choice. Truly, everyone on this forum has made up their minds.

[Guest]

John has it right.

In my experience having worked for a dozen or so organizations, when they hire people they look for job skills, compatible temperament with the organization, and likelihood of retention.

Most women hired stayed for a relatively short duration due primarily to husbands' job change and secondarily because of pregnancy (priority of being a "mom"). These are facts of life in this culture; it is not bias against women. Employers value the ability to retain workers. It costs lots of money to hire and train employees.

When women go in and out of the work force because of changing lifestyle conditions, there is additional training required - even when they have college educations. Every employer and position has differenct needs.

It is too simplistic to have "equal pay for equal work" be the sole criteria because there are several other characteristics that are valuable to employers, like consistency and likelihood of being around awhile. Women aren't as likely to stick around as long and as consistently as men in this culture.

So, with a little social engineering that the dems would like to do, this too can change. Men, man your aprons!:police:

Mucci! You iddy biddy woofer! STOP! Tell that to your wonderful wife (a saint in my eyes) and your daughter! I absolutely know you can't mean what you're saying. :duck:

[Guest]

Cabo.....Democrats come in different shapes and sizes....I happen to be one of those moderate Democrats. Fiscally conservative and socially liberal but before you do to much with that I believe in equal rights for everyone and some reasonable safety nets should be provided by the government.

So if I vote for Obama I will vote for him based on several issues:


Women on average make 77 cent on the $1.00 as compared with men. I still work and I am a college graduate with 30+ years experience.

John McCain voted against the Equal Pay for Women bill just recently and he was quoted as saying the reason was:

Women needed more education and training as compared with men.

I have 2 nephews in the military...one has been to Iraq 4 times and wounded the last time.

John McCain opposed the new GI Bill saying it was to generous. He voted against mental health and brain injury services for veterans. Vote 343 2005 and vote 222 2006

He voted against funding for troops safety equipment and vehicles. See vote 248 2005 and vote 376 2003. That was equipment for my nephew he voted against. My nephew needed equipment to go to Iraq, he called me so I bought it for him and if he had needed it I would have bought him the absolute best armored vest money could buy.

He received a 20% rating from the Disabled American Veterans in 2006 while Obama received an 80% rating.

When I vote I will vote on the issues.



COLOGAL...thought you might enjoy the link below

http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2008/09/26/obama-women-compensation-oped-cx_cb_0926bolick.html

[Guest]

This might have been true in the 50's and 60's but now not so much. Even Palin went back to work quickly.

I have worked at the same company for 19 years and my last company for 14 years.

This is comment is totally sexist....

Reality is sexist.

[Guest]

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/loans.asp
Obama sued CitiBanks for Redlining not for mortgages for people who could not pay.

[Guest]

I am with you. I am so sick of giveaways to everybody....yes folks in banking and investment are getting rich...WHY...because they had a vehicle....this country saying we will GIVE a mortgage even if you cant afford it..even if you arent working...never mind earning !

We want to GIVE to people free everything..no more earning anything...we are imploding because what we are making is a very weak nation.

One of the problems is that no one action stands alone.

With the "free mortgages" came a boom in housing construction to meet the demand. That resulted in greater orders for durable consumeer goods (e.g, refridgerators, washing machines, etc.), more staffing in the services industry (e.g, pest control, supermarkets), more municipal employees (e.g., water & sewage providers, police, fire, inspectors, etc.) and so on, and so on.

Our economic elements are interdependent, and when you mess with one, there is a daisy-chain effect to some degree on others.

What makes this latest debacle so untasteful is its handling.

[Guest]

Let's see -- Obama was an associate at the Miner firm when the Roberson case came about. It was not about getting sub-prime loans, it was about redlining -- a much different issue. Redlining has nothing to do whether an applicant is credit worthy. It is about banks refusing to do ANY loans in certain neighborhoods.

Mr. Roberson did have the points to qualify for a loan. As a matter of fact, he was an A+ borrower. Had he applied for a loan in another neighborhood, he would have had no problem qualifying and getting a loan. However, Citibank deemed his neighborhood to be unworthy and refused to give him a loan on that basis.

From the sound of the article, Obama really was nothing more than a flunky at the Miner firm -- that's what associates are, until they are close to becoming a partner. They do the grunt work. They rarely appear in court except to carry the boxes (the paralegal is the one who pulls the papers out of those boxes -- not the associate). They do the research, do the frst few drafts of a pleading or appeal, take the depositions, draft the settlement agreemnt. They don't decide which cases they will or will not work on. They don't decide what position to take. They are the gofers and God love 'em -- they put in incredible hours with few rewards and sometimes for cases that they totally disagree with but they understand it is doing well on those cases that will give them the option as a partner to do the work they want.

That Obama even spoke before the Court of Appeals is pretty impressive. This is something associates rarely do. They must have had a lot of confidence in him even then. Being a behind-the-scene negotiator is a good thing and it sounds like Obama was good at it.

Sorry, I don't see your issue on this article. At least use the correct brush when you tar him.

[Guest]

Great post Red! :agree:

Why don't the people of the Republican persuasion address all the De-regulation votes by McCain that got us to the mess we are in today? Why all this cherry picking, slanting and spin about Obama? I have yet to hear any of you EVER state that McCain did one wrong thing in his entire 26 years in government. Try addressing those things for a change.

[Guest]

Great post Red! :agree:

Why don't the people of the Republican persuasion address all the De-regulation votes by McCain that got us to the mess we are in today? Why all this cherry picking, slanting and spin about Obama? I have yet to hear any of you EVER state that McCain did one wrong thing in his entire 26 years in government. Try addressing those things for a change.


Its only going to get worse now that the worm appears to have turned...the ads in Colorado have been stepped up a notch..the usual tax and spend liberal. Today I heard, on CNN or MSNBC, that perhaps the McCain campaign will try an link Obama to OJ Simpson. :1rotfl:

Maybe Palin should try a few more of these ;);)

[Guest]

Great post Red! :agree:

Why don't the people of the Republican persuasion address all the De-regulation votes by McCain that got us to the mess we are in today? Why all this cherry picking, slanting and spin about Obama? I have yet to hear any of you EVER state that McCain did one wrong thing in his entire 26 years in government. Try addressing those things for a change.

Well, you have to read a bit further perhaps....I am livid with Sen McCain for the vote on the bail out filled with all the pork. I disagree on any number of issues with him.

If you think the any deregulation by Sen McCain got us into this mess, you are not trying to find out facts. What first comes to my mind is a comment by Jim Cramer on MSNBC the other morning, a Democrat and Obama supporter...he said and I am paraphrasing that he was impressed although not supporting Sen McCain (and he did make that very clear) when Sen McCain came out and called for the firing of the SEC head. Now Sen McCain was verbally abused for that, but a person that at least I trust in Jim Cramer, said it was the only sane voice he heard....anyway, the mess we are in.....if you go back two years...Sen McCain said there was a problem with Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac...laughed at again...there were committe hearings where the Democrats said that it was a personal lynching...but lo and behold they were wrong and had the chance two years ago to fix it.

As far as Sen Obama is concerned, you know how I feel so your thrust certainly isnt aimed at me..I have been very clear...and I think you are the one who called him an "empty suit" during the primary....he is, at this point anyway, an "empty suit" to most folks who oppose him...I dont think as many people SUPPORT Sen McCain as are.....searching for a word so you dont come at me....apprehensive (hows that) about Sen Obama.

I dont know if this reponds to you...but there are many many things I disagree with Sen McCain on but I can see his record of over 20 years very very clearly and cannot say that about Sen Obama. And I am not saying we never take a chance, but to repeat my theme....I consider Sen Obama to be a radical left wing politician who believes in big government and having a Democratic congress at his whim is for me something to be "apprehensive" about. And remember I said with a Democratic Congress so you keep what I say in context !

When you have a candidate with no clear public record and lets say some
gray" areas in his background, this is what you have to expect !

[Guest]

Its only going to get worse now that the worm appears to have turned...the ads in Colorado have been stepped up a notch..the usual tax and spend liberal. Today I heard, on CNN or MSNBC, that perhaps the McCain campaign will try an link Obama to OJ Simpson. :1rotfl:

Maybe Palin should try a few more of these ;)

:1rotfl: Yes, maybe she can wink her way to the White House. I heard she came out like a viper today against Obama. OK. Now it's time for us to take our gloves off.

http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm63/chelsea24_photos/boxing-palin.jpg