• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Palin's reckless views on obesity

No it's not. Unless you have some other explanation, as to why after decades of banking practices all these bankers started making bad loans, one day; loans that they knew wouldn't go to term. It wasn't until after CRA had passed.

And, no, "because they're all greedy", isn't an explanation.

for both you and maggie: i work for a bank, i know how banks work. most of the bad loans were not made by banks, the were made by companies like countrywide. CRA NEVER forced a bank to make a bad loan, that's just palin ridiculous. CRA ensured that banks applied equal criteria to potential borrowers when deciding whether or not to make a loan. Please link to the actual verbiage which forces banks to make bad loans, or to apply different standards to borrowers. I'll wait.

here's a link for you, just in case:

Community Reinvestment Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
You see I have brought my points to this thread though and they were not enough for you. You tell me I am insulting you, but you use terminology with insulting insinuation towards other forum members, myself included.

Let me reiterate what I have brought up on this thread, and other threads with similar subject manner, so that you can deny it has any point once again:

-Palin is an idiot and will attack anybody just so someone pays attention to her. She is a whore.


Calling a woman a whore because you disagree with her politically is low class. just sayin... I mean if you want to be all sexist about it, that's your call.
 
Calling a woman a whore because you disagree with her politically is low class. just sayin... I mean if you want to be all sexist about it, that's your call.

Publicity whores can be male, too. :roll:

IMO, regardless of her politics, there is no question that Ms. Palin IS a publicity whore.

All hat, and no cattle. :2no4:
 
No it's not. Unless you have some other explanation, as to why after decades of banking practices all these bankers started making bad loans, one day; loans that they knew wouldn't go to term. It wasn't until after CRA had passed.

And, no, "because they're all greedy", isn't an explanation.

A lender lends someone money (for a fee) even though it probably won't be repaid.

The original lender sells that loan to another company (for a fee), and all risk is transferred to that other company.

The original lender profited and carries no risk, so for its purposes the borrower could have been a shetland pony.

That's how it worked.
 
Calling a woman a whore because you disagree with her politically is low class. just sayin... I mean if you want to be all sexist about it, that's your call.
Calling a man "limp and impotent" for criticizing her politics is low class and sexist, but that is Palin's call, too. If she is going to dish it out, then she should expect to get the same in return.
 
Wow a graph that shows federal spending that doesn't take into account inflation, and that nearly all of that spending you are showing, shows that no matter what the party, they have all pretty much been assholes the past 25 years.

That was in 2003 dollars...
 
They were forced to give loans to people that can't afford them. When it came to minorities they were sued for not giving loans to them that they couldn't possiblity afford several times. This lead to them doing just that, but because the loan was trash and they knew it, they decided to give them higher interest rates. This is what everyone got of all races that couldn't afford what they were getting. High interest loans, but like I said, they had no choice.

As for your other claims here, sorry, but why don't you have links for them when you have a link for the above?

Sub-prime mortgages, anyone???
 
Back to the original point of this thread... The U.S. has a serious obeisity problem. I didn't see anything in the First Lady's comments that MANDATED government requiring parents to adhere to a specific regimin of diet and exercise for their kids. Public information to try to educate parents and get them to do the right thing is well within the tradition of what many first ladies have done... remember Nancy Reagan's "just say no" campaign regarding drugs? Was that unnecessary government intrusion? Of course not. The U.S. has a terrible obeisity problem. I don't expect government to go into every home to monitor the dietary customs of each family and check a daily exercise log... (though some parents perhaps would benefit from it), but public advocacy of this nature is well within the moral suasion that a first lady can bring to bear on an important public problem, in this case a health one...
 
I don't think anyone really thinks we're not spending too much money. But the real disagreement is over what we're spending it on. For example, I want us to stop spending so much money killing brown people. You probably want us to stop spending money on public services and assistance for the poor. Which in turn leads to more dead brown people. Really it all comes down to how many brown people you want in the world.

I want to government to be stuffed into the little box it was intended to be in. I want the spending to be Constitutional in nature. Socialist redistribution isn't in there.

Defense, war and national security... they are permitted under the Constitution.

As for brown people... I don't care what color terrorists come in. They need be stopped, offed if need be.

When it comes to these First Ladies interests... they need not be funded by government and government departments that should be shut or drastically cut. Just Say No could have been funded by the private sector. Of all the First Ladies interests, this message was probably the most memorable and effective.

.
 
Last edited:
I want to government to be stuffed into the little box it was intended to be in. I want the spending to be Constitutional in nature. Socialist redistribution isn't in there.

Defense, war and national security... they are permitted under the Constitution.

As for brown people... I don't care what color terrorists come in. They need be stopped, offed if need be.

When it comes to these First Ladies interests... they need not be funded by government and government departments that should be shut or drastically cut. Just Say No could have been funded by the private sector. Of all the First Ladies interests, this message was probably the most memorable and effective.

.

The 'Just Say No' message was effective? We thought is was simplistic and useless in my crowd. It certainly did not work.
 
The 'Just Say No' message was effective? We thought is was simplistic and useless in my crowd. It certainly did not work.

It was hoped to be effective, it had all the components of a successful program....
First, the slogan easily fit on a bumper sticker, second, the first lady was a respectable republican.
What Mrs. Obama needs is respect from the right for making an attempt, but that isn't going to happen. Next thing you know, the ubercons will be dissing the family dog for being a foreign breed...not yet naturalized, and with a suspect birth certificate....
 
It was hoped to be effective, it had all the components of a successful program....
First, the slogan easily fit on a bumper sticker, second, the first lady was a respectable republican.
What Mrs. Obama needs is respect from the right for making an attempt, but that isn't going to happen. Next thing you know, the ubercons will be dissing the family dog for being a foreign breed...not yet naturalized, and with a suspect birth certificate....

Yep, its much easier to repeat 'Just Say No' a lot than it is to convey that the traditional western diet is garbage to your system.
 
Yep, its much easier to repeat 'Just Say No' a lot than it is to convey that the traditional western diet is garbage to your system.

AND the best part is, the GOP can borrow the slogan to be their mantra for the next 2 years....no matter what the WH and/or DEMS come up with, the GOP can just chant "Just Say No".:2razz:
 
The 'Just Say No' message was effective? We thought is was simplistic and useless in my crowd. It certainly did not work.

You mean like... YES WE CAN?
Or... WE ARE THE ONES WE HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR?
Or... HOPE AND CHANGE?

OK... of you say so.

Just say no was aimed at the youth... The above were aimed at the youth, the ignorant and gullible.
Probably worked for you.

.
 
Last edited:
Palin's makin all our kids fat.... Damn moose girl!

Yeah.. she and her family look fat.

You'd think all those concerned leftists would do a story about how she has kept in such great shape, how her husband looks like a stud, and how their kids are so healthy.

And use her and her family as an example. But noooooooooooooooooo... Instead we get Oprah's latest diet report. How she went through the TSA grope-a-dope and got arrested for having 40 pounds of crack, felt ashamed and decided to crash it away.

.
 
Last edited:
What are the odds that Fat Albert's a Republican?
 
I haven't read the entire thread, so I am confused..

Do those of you siding with Palin 100%, think NOTHING should be done about childhood obesity?

I haven't read anything to the contrary, but I thought I'd ask and give the benefit of the doubt.

I haven't read any posts beyond this one (from page 11, post 101 down), so perhaps someone can enlighten me...

Has anyone who supports Palin in her objection to the First Lady's stand against childhood obesity suggested any alternate solutions other than "parents take charge of your kids" or "government, stay out of our business"? Seems to be there's more bickering going on from the opposing side of the political spectrum than there are better solutions to tackle the problem. For, if parents were "taking charge" our children wouldn't be so damned fat and lazy (over generalization, I know, but you get my drift...)
 
Back
Top Bottom