It makes me wonder why people would even consider Obamabiden....

if it was an article, i might read it. as it was presented, there was no way to verify anything that was in there. it was made extremely fast so all you could see was the little blurbs that they wanted you to see and come to the logical conclusion that it was backed completely by fact.

i'm not saying any of it was false, but i wouldn't consider it the most credible presentation.
 
lulz ... I love these idiots who aren't smart enough to figure out that banks gave out subprimes far beyond any government recommendations.

Banks found a way to make huge profits from subprimes. It doesn't take more than a few brain cells to figure out that they damn sure didn't need any government to tell them to do it at that point. Once the way to profit was found, clearly banks had their own incentives to give out shitty subprimes.

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

The video actually tries to knock Obama for having some dealings with a guy that hadn't worked with Fannie in 8 years.


That's pretty ironic, seeing as McCain's top campaign manager was getting payments to lobby for Fannie/Freddie just last month.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/161218


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

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=did_liberals_cause_the_subprime_crisis....the lenders subject to CRA have engaged in less, not more, of the most dangerous lending. Janet Yellen, president of the San Francisco Federal Reserve, offers the killer statistic: Independent mortgage companies, which are not covered by CRA, made high-priced loans at more than twice the rate of the banks and thrifts. With this in mind, Yellen specifically rejects the "tendency to conflate the current problems in the sub-prime market with CRA-motivated lending.? CRA, Yellen says, "has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households."
 
i stopped watching after he used the wrong form of "to/too" 30 seconds in.

if you don't get simple grammatical concepts, why should i believe you're an authority on anything?
 
Lol was that a music video or something? Jesus, if you want to get info across and make a legitimate point how about you let someone actually read and digest facts and figures instead of flashing shit across the screen to mood music
 
that is done on purpose. if you throw together some seemingly meaningful headlines and stuff and then have it go fast enough so the viewer can't really get anything but the most superficial view of it.
 
That is like saying if someone trips they must not be a good athlete. Errors happen, it doesn't mean shit...now if you spotted a rolling avalanche of grammatical inconsistencies that is a different story.
 
it was a lame propaganda video with nothing but headlines and quickly thrown together "facts" that lead you to a specific interpretation that may or may not actually be what happened. in other words, it was garbage and they probably used some song without permission (i don't remember what song it was).
 
Back
Top