Wow. A country artist voting for an old white man? I am surprised.

Sean Hannity has been playing this on his radio show for a few weeks now...among others.

songs not at that link...

This isn't suprising,

This is news?

McCain is Bush 2.0

Here's some more Palin and McCain wit, on my blog:
http://avalkyriesayswhat.tumblr.com/post/56043771

McCain is Bush 2.0

This is news?

This whole "small town" and "pro and anti-american" shit being perpetuated by the McCain campaign is just inciting hate and dividing America.

Which as of right now is the only way McCain can win this election. Their whole ticket is a fucking disgrace. Last month Obama was a terrorist, now he is a socialist.

Fuck you, Hank Williams Jr., Sarah Palin, and John McCain. Fuck you all.

Country music really isn't doing anything for its image with this...
What's the betting that this guy doesn't even know about McCains policies,a nd just supports him cos he's a republican? Pretty high in my book.
Obama all the way!This Message Edited On 10.23.08

Well I wasn't sure who to vote for but now that McCain has celebrity backing... he's got my vote!

there are political forums, tny (in the rare case that you might want to discuss this with someone...)

This whole "small town" and "pro and anti-american" **** being perpetuated by the McCain campaign is just inciting hate and dividing America.

Hey, brandtweathers, this is an article about a musician backing a political candidate. What else could be commented on?

lol, williefisterbut probably doesn't like the liberal media.

Way to buy in to exactly what McCain is selling. Douchebag.

lol, williefisterbut probably doesn't like the liberal media.



Way to buy in to exactly what McCain is selling. Douchebag.

lol, williefisterbut probably doesn't like the liberal media.
Way to buy in to exactly what McCain is selling. Douchebag.

willie once again, ftl

The current political parties should be mowed down by the Metal Militia. Marcel Schmier in particular.

The system we learn says we're equal under law but the streets are reality the weak and poor will fall. Let's tip the power balance and tear down the crown. We'll educate the masses and burn the white house down. Speak to me TNY!

willie once again, ftl

Owned!

Its just that everything you post on sputnik reeks of shittiness and doucheness.

You just suck ass, Willie.

End of story.

old red neck backs a republican should anyone with half a brain be suprised

apparently you're surprised because you have less than half a brain

^^If you were referring to my first comment, I was being sarcastic..

and yes Bush started this war, but it's the Democratic congress and liberal affirmative-action-like-program in the banks that have us in the mess we're in at home

LOL are you really blaming the current economic crisis on affirmative action? Wow.

did you read what I wrote? the gov't forced banks to make bad loans to people who wouldn't deliver

Bush is a stupid person, but he doesn't represent the Republican party well and isn't responsible for everything.

I'm really not like uncovering some conspiracy theory. random article I just searched up: http://www.takimag.com/site/article/the_diversity_recession_or_how_affirmative_action_helped_cause_the_housing/
search for something else if that article isn't good.

Let's spread the wealth you unpatriotic sons of bitches

the gov't forced banks to make bad loans to people who wouldn't deliver

I don't mean they wanted to make the banks suck it, just that they wanted poor people to be able to have those loans and get houses.

"Which as of right now is the only way McCain can win this election. Their whole ticket is a ****ing disgrace. Last month Obama was a terrorist, now he is a socialist."

Except that Obama is a socialist.This Message Edited On 10.23.08

Sorry.
http://www.amspec.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13948
http://www.asianweek.com/2008/09/30/the-affirmative-action-economic-meltdown/

The government didn't force banks to do anything. It was the banks, who 10 years ago wouldn't loan out money to anyone who couldn't cover atleast 75% of it initially, now blindly let anybody borrow any amount without the "discrimination" of judging their ability to repay the loan based on their income, assuming that the housing they would spend the loans on would yield a higher pay, while thousands of condos in Florida have been built and bought like stocks with the intent to sell while in reality the supply is far above the demand for housing because of greedy and overly ambitious home builders, leaving lots of houses bought and built with loaned money essentially empty, along with the investor's pockets.
That's the glory of a free market. People can fuck up as much as they can succeed.

to this socialist

Err..

This Message Edited On 10.24.08

"LOL are you really blaming the current economic crisis on affirmative action? Wow."

I would imagine he's referring to Barney Frank, who heads the Housing Committee who laid down action in 2004 and earlier to encourage (heavily) banks to lend loans to lower income families to raise the home ownership rate in America, thus creating a situation where we have millions of people who received loans that shouldn't have.


"The US gov's policy of extending credit to minorities did contribute to the subprime collapse, but calling it "affirmative action" is kind of a misnomer and to say it caused the collapse is a bizarrely skewed perspective."

I wouldn't call it "racial affirmative action", but rather "Social Affirmative Action" because it's no secret that the standards for loan issues were lowered to allow lower income families buy into larger mortgages in order to raise home ownership.

Whether someone calls it "affirmative action" is irrelevant.

And whoever said that the government didn't "force the banks" to give loans...well maybe they didn't "force" them, but anyone who follows congress and more specifically the Housing Committee would clearly see that there was "encouragement" from Congress to the banks to take such action.

Do people not actually read into these issues, or just make ignorant (but funny) comments?This Message Edited On 10.24.08

yeah, because the government has NO control over the banks. are you kidding me? you really think even half of the banks had a choice?

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/1152b224a1

Funniest shit I've seen about McCain! Hilarious stuff.

That sort of "social affirmative action" is the type of thing "the most liberal man in the senate"/Barack Obama would be all for.

My real point was it isn't Republicans (or that Bush who is far from a real conservative) that were responsible for this as much as democrats are.

Finally whoever said taxes = spreading the wealth is a moron.

And I really don't read a lot of conservative blogs, those links I serached for off the cuff right now. I realize the second one was overtly biased, but you could glean the info I wanted you to I hope.

Britney, what you say is true...however there is more to the story.
In 2004 house and senate republicans were striving for an investigation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and Frank Raines however house Democrats insisted that the organization was practicing healthy mortgage lending, which we all know now is not true.

"Franklin Raines, while Chairman and CEO, began a pilot program in 1999 to issue bank loans to individuals with low to moderate income, and to ease credit requirements on loans that Fannie Mae purchased from banks. Raines promoted the program saying that it would allow consumers who were "a notch below what our current underwriting has required" to get home loans. The move was intended in part to increase the number of minority and low income home owners" - Wall Street Journal.

So what we have is a situation where this was approached by repubs. in 2004, however dems continually refused to acknowledge that there was a problem. Had the investigation and reprecussions been done and forseen in 2004, there is a very good possibility that none of this mess would have happened the way it has.

Keep in mind that this is also a person who Obama has used as a source of advice for managing the housing market...before Franklin Raines destroyed it that is...

"On 16 July 2008 The Washington Post reported that Franklin Raines had "taken calls from Barack Obama's presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters"

It seems to me that there was a bit too much governmental involvement; if the government wasn't there encouraging those situations then the banks would have been free to use their discretion, for ultimately the banks were the ones who bit the bullet with all the foreclosures.

And I think that sort of thing does follow the Democratic party pretty well. "Affirmative Action"-ish programs (I call it that because I can't think of a better way to word it) and government involvement. The bigger the government the sloppier the job, the bigger the bureaucracy and then you have ideas like this. It's nice to think that those people could get houses but it's not practical and ultimately you're feeding the problem. Bad loans don't help people, jobs do. When the government tries to help people it encourages irresponsibility. Stick to defending our rights America...
This Message Edited On 10.24.08

Britney, the government did have more of a role than you are representing.
Fannie mae and Freddie mac were not fully privatized, and were basically a subsidy of the government, more specifically the HUD. These organizations were given specific goals from the government regarding lower income housing and then given incentives from the government to reach these goals. Because of their subsidiary-like role with the government, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were able to offer subprime loans with rates lower than privately owned banks were able to offer.

If the government had not been so involved with the practices of these two organizations through goals and incentives, and had forced them to work at within the same regulations as other banks, this subprime collapse could have been avoided all together.

There is no better example of how the government played a direct role in the business practices of these two organizations.

http://www.stern.nyu.edu/eco/wkpapers/workingpapers04/04-02White.pdf

"Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac don't sell loans, they buy them from banks."

Close...they are involved in the secondary mortgage market and allow Home owners to pay lower rates when they renegotiate rates with the banks, which then pass those lower rates to the homeowners, often times through the dreaded "40-year loan".

So what we have is a Federally founded organization purchasing bank-issued loans in efforts to put lower income earners into a home ownership position.

But to say that the government had no role in the current housing market situation and they aren't to blame, despite the fact that the two major Federally founded organizations who caused the crash have passing subprime disaster loans through banks to home-owners all the while receiving federal incentives is just crazy.

""offer subprime loans with rates lower than privately owned banks were able to offer" which they didn't/couldn't."

They did, just through the banks and not directly to the homeowners....which allowed the banks to issue more loans than they previously were able to do, which created more business for the banks.
What I said is exactly what happened, they just used the banks as a middle man. And of course the banks took the business because they got a hell of a lot more business because FM&FM opened up the loan doors to a whole demographic of people in which the banks previously could not legally do business with.

"Could not legally do business with?"
...yes...as in writing mortgages with rates that are below the legal limit (as I stated in a post above) to those that they could not previously offer mortages to...this is what I was referencing when talking about the fact that FM's are not fully privatized organizations, therefore did not have to follow the same practices.

this whole story is like...duh.This Message Edited On 10.24.08

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/1152b224a1



Funniest **** I've seen about McCain! Hilarious stuff.

I found this video on youtube that I found realy funny
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=P4LzHcM_rho

I still dont get how anyone could vote for mccain. George bush was chosen over this guy 8 years ago. do you realy want a man who wasnt as good as George W Bush 8 years ago.

Also if you vote for mccain you arent voting for him your voting for Palin as we all know that Mccain could be assasinated by a mild winter. And Palin is everything that is gross about a pagent contestant but without the desire for world peace.

[QUOTE=Jamesheritage]
I still dont get how anyone could vote for mccain. George bush was chosen over this guy 8 years ago. do you realy want a man who wasnt as good as George W Bush 8 years ago.



Also if you vote for mccain you arent voting for him your voting for Palin as we all know that Mccain could be assasinated by a mild winter. And Palin is everything that is gross about a pagent contestant but without the desire for world peace.[/QUOTE]
The fact that you represent a large number of voters makes me hate my life. Both of those reasons are totally fucking retarded and irrelevant.

Actualy I dont represent a large number of voters for two reasons:
1. I'm English (so I cant vote in the American election)
2. I'm 15 years old (I cant vote in any election)

Also if you didnt understand my reasons should you really be labeling them retarded. If you didnt get the one about him not being as good as george bush 8 years ago it means that george bush is crap do you want someone worse. The reason about when you vote for McCain your voting for Palin to be president is because incase you havent noticed McCains old and is very likely to die during his presidency if elected therefore his vice president (Palin) would become president. And I dont feel I have to explain why that would not be good.This Message Edited On 10.25.08

1. Would you vote for Gore again? A lot of people would, and he wasn't good enough to beat 'ole Bushy. Bush was pretty popular back then.
2. McCain is not very likely to die during his presidency. Do you think everyone 72 years old is likely to die within 4 years? Obama's a smoker, he could get lung cancer!11omg