Comments on: Home Foreclosures Up 121 Percent

One In 171 U.S. Households Received At Least One Foreclosure Notice In The 2nd Quarter

[ubrew12]

hungry1968 said: "In short, [the Iranians] held [their American hostages] long enough to "prove" Carter a FAILURE at getting the hostages home - In short - the Iranians held them long enough to make Carter look like a fool."

A sure sign of an otherwise smart people taken over by religious fundies with no knowledge of statecraft: Iran smeared mud over the face of the ONE American most likely to give them a fair hearing, and helped install an entire American movement dedicated to hating Iran [and other muslims] and everything it stood for. If Iran someday soon disappears in a puff of nuclear smoke, it''ll be in no small portion thanks to the Ayatolla and his merry band of religious freaks.

That''s what happens when religious fundies, steeped in ''God-knowledge'' from ancient, archane texts, but with no knowledge of the present or the people in it, take over a goverment.

A blight on Iran. A blight on America...

[cg37102006]

So, 170 out of every 171 homes is NOT in foreclosure, yet this is a crisis? Huh....

[daysrnumbrd]

I don''''t oppose regulation, but it can only go so far. Regulation has to go-exist within the scope of a free market, and cannot be so stifling it has effect of quashing that free market.

Posted by erichsh at 10:07 PM : Jul 25, 2008
..................

Sure. There has to be a compromise with how much regulation the government can impose. However, it is quite clear (as demonstrated over the past 8 years) that corporate "America" cannot police itself either.

So there has to be a watchdog group that ensures that there is enough regulation to keep the corporations in check and enough oversight to ensure that the government is in check.

But that watchdog group is the American people! And we have failed our duties as Americans (most of us at least). So what does the government and the corporations do to ensure the "watchdog group" (us) are kept "in check"....

...they give us high speed internet, 500+ TV channels, a broken education system, and an incompetent news media, all to ensure we are dumbed down to the nth degree.

Mission Accomplished.

[hungry1968]

Nice try hungry1968. I factually cited a specific source verbatim, from people who who were actually involved in the rescue effort, about the the very probable likelihood of Reagan''''''''s involvement. And all you can do is angrily spout your own completely unsubstantiated opinion denying it. Got anything better to back you up?

Posted by erichsh at 10:53 PM : Jul 25, 2008





In short, they held them long enough to "prove" Carter a FAILURE at getting the hostages home - as soon as Carter was out of office, they gave him the UTIMATE SLAP in the face, by releasing them AFTER he was out of office.

In short - the Iranians held them long enough to make Carter look like a fool.

[hungry1968]

Posted by erichsh at 10:53 PM : Jul 25, 2008



(cont.)

Finally, in September, Khomeini''s government decided it was time to end the matter. There was little more advantage to be gained from further anti-American, anti-Shah propaganda, and the ongoing sanctions were making it harder to straighten out an already chaotic economy. Despite rumors that Carter might pull out an "October Surprise" and get the hostages home before the election, negotiations dragged on for months, even after Republican Ronald Reagan''s landslide victory in November. Carter''s all-night effort to bring the 52 hostages home before the end of his term, documented by an ABC television crew in the Oval Office, fell short; the Iranians released them minutes after Reagan was inaugurated."


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/peopleevents/e_hostage.html

[hungry1968]

Nice try hungry1968. I factually cited a specific source verbatim, from people who who were actually involved in the rescue effort, about the the very probable likelihood of Reagan''''s involvement. And all you can do is angrily spout your own completely unsubstantiated opinion denying it. Got anything better to back you up?

Posted by erichsh at 10:53 PM : Jul 25, 2008





"Factually cited a specific source verbatim"?

From wikipedia? A site that ANYONE can edit?

Try this:

"The Hostages'' Release
Relatively little happened during the summer, as Iranian internal politics took its course. In early July, the Iranians released hostage Richard Queen, who had developed multiple sclerosis. In the States, constant media coverage -- yellow ribbons, footage of chanting Iranian mobs, even a whole new television news program, ABC''s Nightline -- provided a dispiriting backdrop to the presidential election season. As Carter advisor and biographer Peter Bourne put it, "Because people felt that Carter had not been tough enough in foreign policy, this kind of symbolized for them that some bunch of students could seize American diplomatic officials and hold them prisoner and thumb their nose at the United States."

[whitemale08]

Think about it:

Jimmy Carter never faced GM, Chrysler, and Ford Motor Co. going out of business,

Jimmy Carter never faced Fannie and Freddie Mac going bankrupt,

Jimmy Carter never faced all of the major banks going into receivership or bankruptcy,

Never!

The economy under Jimmy Carter was going absolutely GANG BUSTERS IN COMPARISON TO GEORGE W. BUSH.

Americans have never been as fearfull of the economy under Jimmy Carter as they have been under Bush.

At least people who had manufacturing jobs back in the 70''s and 80''s were making $25 to $30. Hell, I made $15.00 hr in the late 80''s and can barely make $10.00 hr now.

And you never heard of people having to commute by bicycle to work and living out of their cars under Jimmy Carter. So I dare any Republican to malign Jimmy Carter. I wish we had it as good back then under Jimmy Carte!

[mcv57]

U.S. regulators seize two more banks

Sat Jul 26, 2008 3:31am BST Email | Print | Share| Single Page| Recommend (0) [-] Text [+] Market News
Amgen shares rise on osteoporosis trial results
ADR Report-ADRs mixed, U.S. data offset by insurers
Short sales in financials dry up after rule
More Business & Investing News... By John Poirier

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. regulators took over two banks on Friday and sold them to Mutual of Omaha Bank, the sixth and seventh bank failures this year as financial institutions struggle with a housing bust and credit crunch.

Two weeks after the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp seized IndyMac Bancorp (IDMC.PK: Quote, Profile, Research), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency said it closed First National Bank of Nevada and First Heritage Bank NA of California.

McInsane''s economic advisor said it was in our heads ... I think he is an overdose case. 6th bank to go belly-up this year.

[whitemale08]

lost in the pursuit of victory. Reagen thought that spending 1000 dollars on a toilet seat and 500 for a bolt was the best way to beat Russia. We are lucky the idiot did not bankrupt us before the Soviet Union.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by curse914 at 10:29 PM : Jul 25, 2008---

Well said, and George Bush and John McCain think they can bankrupt the terrorists before we go bankrupt.

This the fantasyland we live in today because we are already bankrupt!!!

[whitemale08]

And, in the background, he was arming the Mujahadeen to embroil the Soviets in their own private Vietnam, from which they would never recover. Carter was a military man: neither Reagan or Bush Jr were, and it showed in their behavior as Commander in Chief.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by ubrew12 at 10:38 PM : Jul 25, 2008--

Well said, right now we need an "appeaser" and not a cowboy so we can focus on this economy.

[erichsh]

Nice try hungry1968. I factually cited a specific source verbatim, from people who who were actually involved in the rescue effort, about the the very probable likelihood of Reagan''s involvement. And all you can do is angrily spout your own completely unsubstantiated opinion denying it. Got anything better to back you up?

[hungry1968]

This is from people involved. So maybe Reagan did have something to do it...

Posted by erichsh at 10:36 PM : Jul 25, 2008





Right.....

The guy WASN''T EVEN in office, he DIDN''T have access to the intelligence, he had NOTHING to do with the UN negotiations that were on going, but it was ALL REAGAN that got them released.

Uh huh.

Got it.

[ubrew12]

I remember during the Iran hostage crisis, college dorms at my university had student-made banners that read, "Rape an Iranian Today!"

Carter''s soft-touch on Iran killed his reelection hopes. That was especially true when his Desert rescue mission collapsed in the Iranian desert. I knew then he had no hope. But, juxtaposed with Reagans hard-talk (which killed 200+ Americans in Lebanon and invaded Grenada for no good reason I can think of) and Bush, Jr''s hard-talk (which has killed 4000 Americans, so far...), Carters ''wussy'' patience got the job done.

And, in the background, he was arming the Mujahadeen to embroil the Soviets in their own private Vietnam, from which they would never recover. Carter was a military man: neither Reagan or Bush Jr were, and it showed in their behavior as Commander in Chief.

[erichsh]

From Wiki re: the Iranian hostage crisis:

"However, special ops personnel involved in the preparations for the second rescue attempt believed that incoming President Ronald Reagan was involved in the planning and timing of the second rescue attempt, and that these intentions were either implied or made known to the de facto Iranian government, leading to the hostages'' release just minutes after Reagan''s inauguration. This was reinforced by the fact that the personnel involved were on alert status, ready to go at a moment''s notice, in the days leading up to the inauguration, and that the required equipment was already packed up and waiting to be shipped."

This is from people involved. So maybe Reagan did have something to do it...

[hungry1968]

ubrew12 - I remember the "malaise" gripping this country when Carter was President. That''''s one of the reasons why Reagan won. And didn''''t those hostages come home under Reagan''''s watch, within days (or weeks) of him taking office?

Posted by erichsh at 09:46 PM : Jul 25, 2008





You''re not going to realistically suggest that Reagan had anything to do with the hostages being released, are you?

They came home the same day, before he had ANYTHING to do with the office of the president.

[hungry1968]

I could just see Rush Limbaugh ride into battle.

Posted by curse914 at 10:09 PM : Jul 25, 2008





He''d be arrested for animal cruelty - no horse should have someone that FAT (and useless) on their back.

(Though he could always give it a blood transfusion to drug the living hell out of it!!)

[erichsh]

I don''t oppose regulation, but it can only go so far. Regulation has to go-exist within the scope of a free market, and cannot be so stifling it has effect of quashing that free market. Hugo Chavez is for regulation too - 100% regulation, that is, because he "nationalized" (read: socialized) the oil industry. If not you, then many in your camp actually embrace socialism.

So if I''m being coy, it''s because I want to see if you or other posters will actually use a word that''s so loaded - like "socialism" - when you come to express what you''re actually in favor of. When all you do is rail bitterly against the status quo, but refuse to take a stand on what you''re in favor of, then that refusal needs to be explored.

For example, on another post, after I flat-out asked a seething mad liberal what he believes after his anti-Bush tirades, he actually came out and said he believed Bush ordered the 9/11 attacks. That was a fun thread.

[daysrnumbrd]

So I have to infer what the solutions would be, based on what you obviously DON''''t like.

Posted by erichsh at 09:49 PM : Jul 25, 2008
........

Well that''s quite simple:

1. End the wasteful spending... first by stopping the war in Iraq (for starters)

2. Increase tax revenue (by removing all the tax cuts for the wealthy, for starters) to help begin paying for the debt caused by the wasteful spending from the Bush regime.

[erichsh]

Here I will clarify what Walt is talking about so you can understand, erichsh.

Posted by curse914

More of the same Republican-bashing, there curse, not a word on what you/Walt are actually FOR. It''s always something that''s puzzled me about the far left. Constant bashing, constant complaints, no solutions. So I have to infer what the solutions would be, based on what you obviously DON''t like.

[whitemale08]

do or something you''''re actually for. Usually the far left only blathers out screeds about how terrible Republicans are. Come to think of it, that''''s about all Obama himself does.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by erichsh at 09:28 PM : Jul 25, 2008--

Look, as much as I like Obama I know he''s only going to be a 1 term president but it''s neccessarry to save the nation.

It will be painfull because he will inherit ther worse economy since the Great Depression.