- This topic has 1,076 replies, 26 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 6 months ago by
markmax33.
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 18, 2011 at 10:41 AM #722090August 18, 2011 at 10:48 AM #720882
aldante
ParticipantConcho,
I agree that RP will not win if everyone keeps buying the media story and does not try and educate themselves. If the Diebold card is played that will be one hell of a bad scenario.
BTW, if he is elected he will be blamed for how bad everything will get when he pulls the covers off.August 18, 2011 at 10:48 AM #720974ParticipantConcho,
I agree that RP will not win if everyone keeps buying the media story and does not try and educate themselves. If the Diebold card is played that will be one hell of a bad scenario.
BTW, if he is elected he will be blamed for how bad everything will get when he pulls the covers off.August 18, 2011 at 10:48 AM #721575ParticipantConcho,
I agree that RP will not win if everyone keeps buying the media story and does not try and educate themselves. If the Diebold card is played that will be one hell of a bad scenario.
BTW, if he is elected he will be blamed for how bad everything will get when he pulls the covers off.August 18, 2011 at 10:48 AM #721732ParticipantConcho,
I agree that RP will not win if everyone keeps buying the media story and does not try and educate themselves. If the Diebold card is played that will be one hell of a bad scenario.
BTW, if he is elected he will be blamed for how bad everything will get when he pulls the covers off.August 18, 2011 at 10:48 AM #722095ParticipantConcho,
I agree that RP will not win if everyone keeps buying the media story and does not try and educate themselves. If the Diebold card is played that will be one hell of a bad scenario.
BTW, if he is elected he will be blamed for how bad everything will get when he pulls the covers off.August 18, 2011 at 11:27 AM #720892curiousmind
ParticipantMy one wish here is that people that say they’d “never” vote from him – please do not close your eyes, keep looking keep your mind open.
Do I agree with everything Ron Paul says? No, but I mostly do.
What is the most valuable trait in giving my vote to Paul? What he says, he does.
Who in the heck is anyone going to vote for, based on matching beliefs- that will actually hold their word? When was the last time we’ve had a president that kept word on their talking points? There are 2 differences, Paul is principle based and has the track record to prove that he stands strong.
So what do you want? Someone that you agree with 100%, that can change their “beliefs” at any time – or someone that you agree with 25,50% that you know exactly what to expect?
Ron Paul is #1 for liberty. You see at these debates Santorum tried to bring up “polygamy”.. like oh the audience *gasps*. We live in America, we are actually supposed to be able to do what we want here if it does not infringe on the rights of others.. if it doesn’t fit your personal opinion, look at the core question and ask if you were part of a small group wouldn’t you want the masses to support your liberty?
August 18, 2011 at 11:27 AM #720984ParticipantMy one wish here is that people that say they’d “never” vote from him – please do not close your eyes, keep looking keep your mind open.
Do I agree with everything Ron Paul says? No, but I mostly do.
What is the most valuable trait in giving my vote to Paul? What he says, he does.
Who in the heck is anyone going to vote for, based on matching beliefs- that will actually hold their word? When was the last time we’ve had a president that kept word on their talking points? There are 2 differences, Paul is principle based and has the track record to prove that he stands strong.
So what do you want? Someone that you agree with 100%, that can change their “beliefs” at any time – or someone that you agree with 25,50% that you know exactly what to expect?
Ron Paul is #1 for liberty. You see at these debates Santorum tried to bring up “polygamy”.. like oh the audience *gasps*. We live in America, we are actually supposed to be able to do what we want here if it does not infringe on the rights of others.. if it doesn’t fit your personal opinion, look at the core question and ask if you were part of a small group wouldn’t you want the masses to support your liberty?
August 18, 2011 at 11:27 AM #721585ParticipantMy one wish here is that people that say they’d “never” vote from him – please do not close your eyes, keep looking keep your mind open.
Do I agree with everything Ron Paul says? No, but I mostly do.
What is the most valuable trait in giving my vote to Paul? What he says, he does.
Who in the heck is anyone going to vote for, based on matching beliefs- that will actually hold their word? When was the last time we’ve had a president that kept word on their talking points? There are 2 differences, Paul is principle based and has the track record to prove that he stands strong.
So what do you want? Someone that you agree with 100%, that can change their “beliefs” at any time – or someone that you agree with 25,50% that you know exactly what to expect?
Ron Paul is #1 for liberty. You see at these debates Santorum tried to bring up “polygamy”.. like oh the audience *gasps*. We live in America, we are actually supposed to be able to do what we want here if it does not infringe on the rights of others.. if it doesn’t fit your personal opinion, look at the core question and ask if you were part of a small group wouldn’t you want the masses to support your liberty?
August 18, 2011 at 11:27 AM #721742ParticipantMy one wish here is that people that say they’d “never” vote from him – please do not close your eyes, keep looking keep your mind open.
Do I agree with everything Ron Paul says? No, but I mostly do.
What is the most valuable trait in giving my vote to Paul? What he says, he does.
Who in the heck is anyone going to vote for, based on matching beliefs- that will actually hold their word? When was the last time we’ve had a president that kept word on their talking points? There are 2 differences, Paul is principle based and has the track record to prove that he stands strong.
So what do you want? Someone that you agree with 100%, that can change their “beliefs” at any time – or someone that you agree with 25,50% that you know exactly what to expect?
Ron Paul is #1 for liberty. You see at these debates Santorum tried to bring up “polygamy”.. like oh the audience *gasps*. We live in America, we are actually supposed to be able to do what we want here if it does not infringe on the rights of others.. if it doesn’t fit your personal opinion, look at the core question and ask if you were part of a small group wouldn’t you want the masses to support your liberty?
August 18, 2011 at 11:27 AM #722105ParticipantMy one wish here is that people that say they’d “never” vote from him – please do not close your eyes, keep looking keep your mind open.
Do I agree with everything Ron Paul says? No, but I mostly do.
What is the most valuable trait in giving my vote to Paul? What he says, he does.
Who in the heck is anyone going to vote for, based on matching beliefs- that will actually hold their word? When was the last time we’ve had a president that kept word on their talking points? There are 2 differences, Paul is principle based and has the track record to prove that he stands strong.
So what do you want? Someone that you agree with 100%, that can change their “beliefs” at any time – or someone that you agree with 25,50% that you know exactly what to expect?
Ron Paul is #1 for liberty. You see at these debates Santorum tried to bring up “polygamy”.. like oh the audience *gasps*. We live in America, we are actually supposed to be able to do what we want here if it does not infringe on the rights of others.. if it doesn’t fit your personal opinion, look at the core question and ask if you were part of a small group wouldn’t you want the masses to support your liberty?
August 18, 2011 at 12:52 PM #720912briansd1
Guest[quote=aldante]
http://www.mhmarketingsalesmanagement.com/downloads/mharr/HUDsSecretary-04-14-2010-testimony.pdf
Again I noticed you fail to mention that RP was right 5 years before the collapse. So annoying Brian1[/quote]
Do you read the transcript?
The GSEs did not cause the bubble. They did not lead the market in creating toxic mortgages. They followed.
Without government support housing would have crashed a lot deeper. The GSEs and FHA stepped in to fill gap, after the crash.
The GSEs-along with FHA and Ginnie Mae-stepped in to fill the vacuum, playing an indispensible role at a time of inadequate private capital. Indeed, few would disagree that, had they not played this increased role, the secondary market may well have shut down completely, which would have sharply constrained the availability of new mortgages and households’ ability to take advantage of the opportunity to buy a home or refinance at historically low rates. Any such shut down of the secondary market and lack of financing, in turn, would have reduced demand sharply, leading to a deeper fall in housing prices than we experienced.
August 18, 2011 at 12:52 PM #721004Guest[quote=aldante]
http://www.mhmarketingsalesmanagement.com/downloads/mharr/HUDsSecretary-04-14-2010-testimony.pdf
Again I noticed you fail to mention that RP was right 5 years before the collapse. So annoying Brian1[/quote]
Do you read the transcript?
The GSEs did not cause the bubble. They did not lead the market in creating toxic mortgages. They followed.
Without government support housing would have crashed a lot deeper. The GSEs and FHA stepped in to fill gap, after the crash.
The GSEs-along with FHA and Ginnie Mae-stepped in to fill the vacuum, playing an indispensible role at a time of inadequate private capital. Indeed, few would disagree that, had they not played this increased role, the secondary market may well have shut down completely, which would have sharply constrained the availability of new mortgages and households’ ability to take advantage of the opportunity to buy a home or refinance at historically low rates. Any such shut down of the secondary market and lack of financing, in turn, would have reduced demand sharply, leading to a deeper fall in housing prices than we experienced.
August 18, 2011 at 12:52 PM #721605Guest[quote=aldante]
http://www.mhmarketingsalesmanagement.com/downloads/mharr/HUDsSecretary-04-14-2010-testimony.pdf
Again I noticed you fail to mention that RP was right 5 years before the collapse. So annoying Brian1[/quote]
Do you read the transcript?
The GSEs did not cause the bubble. They did not lead the market in creating toxic mortgages. They followed.
Without government support housing would have crashed a lot deeper. The GSEs and FHA stepped in to fill gap, after the crash.
The GSEs-along with FHA and Ginnie Mae-stepped in to fill the vacuum, playing an indispensible role at a time of inadequate private capital. Indeed, few would disagree that, had they not played this increased role, the secondary market may well have shut down completely, which would have sharply constrained the availability of new mortgages and households’ ability to take advantage of the opportunity to buy a home or refinance at historically low rates. Any such shut down of the secondary market and lack of financing, in turn, would have reduced demand sharply, leading to a deeper fall in housing prices than we experienced.
August 18, 2011 at 12:52 PM #721762Guest[quote=aldante]
http://www.mhmarketingsalesmanagement.com/downloads/mharr/HUDsSecretary-04-14-2010-testimony.pdf
Again I noticed you fail to mention that RP was right 5 years before the collapse. So annoying Brian1[/quote]
Do you read the transcript?
The GSEs did not cause the bubble. They did not lead the market in creating toxic mortgages. They followed.
Without government support housing would have crashed a lot deeper. The GSEs and FHA stepped in to fill gap, after the crash.
The GSEs-along with FHA and Ginnie Mae-stepped in to fill the vacuum, playing an indispensible role at a time of inadequate private capital. Indeed, few would disagree that, had they not played this increased role, the secondary market may well have shut down completely, which would have sharply constrained the availability of new mortgages and households’ ability to take advantage of the opportunity to buy a home or refinance at historically low rates. Any such shut down of the secondary market and lack of financing, in turn, would have reduced demand sharply, leading to a deeper fall in housing prices than we experienced.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.