# Oops! Bristol Palin did it again!



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/bristol-palin-announces-birth-child-35947613

I guess we can all see how well abstinence is working for the Palins...


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

Got a beautiful family there. Nothing wrong with that. Especially after 7 years of no pregnancy since her abstinence statement. Nice attack though.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

As Hillary would say.. What does it really matter? She's an adult.... Not my business..


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Got a beautiful family there. Nothing wrong with that. Especially after 7 years of no pregnancy since her abstinence statement. Nice attack though.





simi-steading said:


> As Hillary would say.. What does it really matter? She's an adult.... Not my business..


She tried to push her morality on the rest of us, but it evidently wasn't her morality. I guess I really don't know what all that abstinence talk was about -- politics I suppose.

You consider going 7 years without an unwanted pregnancy a success? :umno:


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

The country is moving Liberal.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

Must be a slow news day if this is all we can chase.. I'm SOooooo over the Palins..


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Sad but like any unwed mother she needs her families support. 
While I condemn her action. I know she will suffer for it and feel no need to add to that suffering.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

AmericanStand said:


> Sad but like any unwed mother she needs her families support.
> While I condemn her action. I know she will suffer for it and feel no need to add to that suffering.


I hope she gets support from her family (and the father) and wish her the best. I don't even condemn her actions. That's her business.

What I condemn is the hypocrisy, and I hold this up as a classic example of why abstinence doesn't work. She probably had good intentions, but good intentions & abstinence aren't going to prevent teen pregnancy.


----------



## Miss Kay (Mar 31, 2012)

She's not a teen anymore and since this is her second child she knows what causes this. She could go by planned parenthood and pick up some pills - oh but mama wants to shut them down. Her family doesn't believe in that so they just pretend she's above the rest of us sinners until it happens and then they just say they forgive her. funny they never seem to forgive or understand anyone else who commits what they call a sin.


----------



## Agriculture (Jun 8, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> Sad but like any unwed mother she needs her families support.
> While I condemn her action. I know she will suffer for it and feel no need to add to that suffering.


Unwed mothers don't suffer for it any more. That is part of the problem. They are praised, celebrated and rewarded with numerous amounts of welfare money and programs that decent people pay for. Silence is implied consent.

The breakdown of the traditional nuclear family, and unwed mothers who bear illegitimate children are a scourge on society and are responsible for most of our biggest problems. Prisons are full of the results of their choices. Good girls from good families make the appropriate choice of adoption or abortion depending on their beliefs, but like so much that is decent today, that attitude is all too rare any more.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Nevada said:


> I hope she gets support from her family (and the father) and wish her the best. I don't even condemn her actions. That's her business.
> 
> What I condemn is the hypocrisy, and I hold this up as a classic example of why abstinence doesn't work. She probably had good intentions, but good intentions & abstinence aren't going to prevent teen pregnancy.


How does anyone here know for certain this young woman was not using birth control, it does fail.


----------



## light rain (Jan 14, 2013)

I agree with Nevada about the hypocrisy. And I wonder how much she was paid to promote her views while living a different lifestyle. I watched a tv show several years ago on the Palins and I was not impressed with how one of the little ones was speaking to her mother and Sarah made no attempt to chastise her. 

Why would she need to go to Planned Parenthood for birth control? I feel pretty sure she could acquire the pill or some device from her own doctor.

I give her credit for not aborting her child but I will go out on a limb and say that getting pregnant without a commitment/marriage from the father of the baby to love and stand by them is either foolish, selfish and not looking at the road that lies ahead in the coming decades. Or all three combined...


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Hypocrisy huh ? So a alcoholic should never speak out against booze ? Never reveal it's problems ?


----------



## anniew (Dec 12, 2002)

Some must be hormone deficient to not understand the issue. The best laid plans....


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Lol. "Laid plans"


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

You talk about being a hypocrite as if it's a bad thing, but it's something we all are.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

It is my understanding that the focus of her campaign was based abstinence being a better option based on her firsthand experiences associated with teen pregnancy. 

She was engaged at the time she got pregnant and I'm sure she felt it was a forever relationship but I'm not sure that tabloid shaming will change her family's position on the subject. 

She's got a tough road ahead of her and I wish her and her small family nothing but the best.


----------



## light rain (Jan 14, 2013)

How many children are being parented by one adult or by grandparents and great grandparents? I wish them the best also BUT to approve this decision to get pregnant without the support of the other half of the dna contributor puts the mother and child at a disadvantage. Once you're pregnant I believe you are committed to having the child and raising it or giving it up for adoption. 

I believe birth control is pretty effective if used as prescribed. There are more forms of birth control available now than ever before. Yet we have had 55 mil. abortions. That does not make sense to me...

I know grandparents and great grandparents raising toddlers. It is taking a toll on them physically and emotionally. The grandmothers I know are able to do this because they were part of a two person paycheck and the grandfathers had stable jobs throughout their working years. What happens if the next generation gets pregnant (without marriage) and the grandmother cannot quit work to watch her grandchildren? The time to change this pattern is when the young women are growing up not when the test comes out the wrong color... 

It is wrong to condemn these young women as without a future for a good life but it is also so wrong to avoid looking at the truth of the effects of their decisions on future generations.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

light rain said:


> How many children are being parented by one adult or by grandparents and great grandparents? I wish them the best also BUT to approve this decision to get pregnant without the support of the other half of the dna contributor puts the mother and child at a disadvantage. Once you're pregnant I believe you are committed to having the child and raising it or giving it up for adoption.
> 
> I believe birth control is pretty effective if used as prescribed. There are more forms of birth control available now than ever before. Yet we have had 55 mil. abortions. That does not make sense to me...
> 
> ...


In many cases you may be right. But in Palins case she is financially stable with plenty of support and is not pawning off her kids. She was engaged at the time of the pregnancy. The father was at the birth and is in the child's life. She talked to youth about being abstinent for the betterment of their future but I never heard her claim she was. She is an adult. Her child is not a burden to the state like most children who are born to Nevadas constituents.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Perhaps, it was not an "oops"

According to reality, her situation is quite normal.

Besides, the Palin's have dough, so she probably won't even be a burden to the rest.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Liberals enjoy picking on young mothers and children. It make them feel tough.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

JJ Grandits said:


> Liberals enjoy picking on young mothers and children. It make them feel tough.


It almost seems, they are instead picking on _Conservatives_,which presumably, would make them feel tough as well. 

Palin having another illegitimate child, is her business, but if she needs to announce to the world, in her "blog", she opens up her world to _scrutiny_, as well as _praise_.

It's looks the Right is finally coming around, with acceptance, while the Left is preaching caution.

Nothing odd about that.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Illegitimate children are not a new invention. "Let he without sin cast the first stone".


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

If this was a poor minority mother who just had her second kid out of wedlock the right would be frothing and spitting that she shouldn't have gotten pregnant and they were not going to support the baby. All the while saying that abortion and food programs are evil.

The hypocrisy is overwhelming.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

I will begin frothing and spitting immediately when Mrs. Palin files for govt benefits. Until then, it's her body and her choice. She is free to have as many kids as SHE can afford to provide for without our tax dollars supporting her. But then that is the same position I have for anyone.


----------



## light rain (Jan 14, 2013)

I find the graph interesting. It brings up questions. 

Are the folks with the highest percentage of unmarried births affected economically by their choices? Are their children affected by their decisions? Are their parents and grandparents affected by their decisions? Society?

Yes, Ms. Palin has every right to have a child/children as everyone else. And everyone else has the right to decide on the wisdom of her/his actions and their own. 

Were there any recorded speeches that she gave to the teens?

Did she get paid to promote a lifestyle that she did not find workable for herself?

Was this baby an oops or a premeditated decision? Because more folks are deciding to eschew marriage and have kids does the increase in numbers validate the wisdom of the decision? 

Both liberal and conservative families are and will be dealing with these situations for years to come. I think it is a shell game to pit the conservative against the liberal and serves no purpose but to hinder the search for truth. Maybe the approach of just batting the question back and forth like a tennis ball is more appealing and easier than looking at life and trying to understand what are the best paths to take...


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

I don't care all that much about the specifics of what Bristol Palin might have done. That's her business. If she has boxed herself into her own private hell then I'm sorry, but that's her problem to deal with.

My concern is the way Bristol and her mother used Christianity to set insane standards for other people to live up to. Then they used the failure to adhere to those standards against their political & social enemies, while having no intention of following those standards themselves.

Why is it that Bristol & Sarah can pass judgment on us, but others are out of line if they pass judgment on Bristol? If this is a "mind our own business" issue, then why didn't Bristol & Sarah mind their own business when they were pushing abstinence on the rest of us?


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Nevada said:


> I don't care all that much about the specifics of what Bristol Palin might have done. That's her business. If she has boxed herself into her own private hell then I'm sorry, but that's her problem to deal with.
> 
> My concern is the way Bristol and her mother used Christianity to set insane standards for other people to live up to. Then they used the failure to adhere to those standards against their political & social enemies, while having no intention of following those standards themselves.
> 
> Why is it that Bristol & Sarah can pass judgment on us, but others are out of line if they pass judgment on Bristol? If this is a "mind our own business" issue, then why didn't Bristol & Sarah mind their own business when they were pushing abstinence on the rest of us?


I look at the abstinence comments the same way I look at most comments made by politicians or pseudo politicians, most of the time I ignore them based on their irrelevance. If someone wants to include the comments in their lives go for it. 

But by and large I feel most people are not so ignorant as to be led by the nose by political comments. They are simply playing to a base and that can change day to day.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

light rain said:


> Were there any recorded speeches that she gave to the teens?
> 
> Did she get paid to promote a lifestyle that she did not find workable for herself?
> 
> Was this baby an oops or a premeditated decision?


There are tons of recordings of her speeches. You'll find them at youtube.com.

Yes, she was paid $262,500 in 2009 and another $70,000 the following year.
http://radaronline.com/celebrity-news/bristol-palin-paid-abstinence-speeches/

Whether Bristol's second pregnancy was deliberate isn't the point. Here's why.

_In 2009, she told Good Morning America, &#8220;regardless of what I did personally, I just think that abstinence is the only &#8230; 100 percent foolproof way to prevent pregnancy,&#8221; and promised a magazine in that year, &#8220;*I&#8217;m not going to have sex until I&#8217;m married: I can guarantee it.*&#8221;_
http://radaronline.com/celebrity-news/bristol-palin-paid-abstinence-speeches/

She didn't say she would wait until it was planned, she said she would wait for marriage. I didn't set that standard, she did. Her reported values were to not have sex outside of marriage. I'm not aware of a moral exception for having sex outside of marriage because you wanted to get pregnant. Did I miss that in a Palin speech?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

no really said:


> I look at the abstinence comments the same way I look at most comments made by politicians or pseudo politicians, most of the time I ignore them based on their irrelevance. If someone wants to include the comments in their lives go for it.
> 
> But by and large I feel most people are not so ignorant as to be led by the nose by political comments. They are simply playing to a base and that can change day to day.


Are you suggesting that anyone who followed Bristol's & Sarah's moral advice is a fool? Do conservatives pretend to have moral values just for political gain?


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Are you suggesting that anyone who followed Bristol's & Sarah's moral advice is a fool?



I'm suggesting anyone that was affected by the comment deeply whether negative or positive are over reacting. It is silly to get so upset and some feeling threatened by someone's views or opinions. How does it become so big a deal?


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Are you suggesting that anyone who followed Bristol's & Sarah's moral advice is a fool? Do conservatives pretend to have moral values just for political gain?


Sorry I'm not a conservative but I do think all politicians pretend to have values for political gain.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

no really said:


> Sorry I'm not a conservative but I do think all politicians pretend to have values for political gain.


I've been thinking that all along. I think this is the first time I've seen it in print.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

I'm glad your life is so boring that an adult woman having children becomes huge news. Talking to people about the benefits of abstinence is alot different than taking that vow yourself. She was paid to tell of the hardships of a single young motherhood. She did that. She never claimed abstinence was her lifestyle.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

no really said:


> I'm suggesting anyone that was affected by the comment deeply whether negative or positive are over reacting. It is silly to get so upset and some feeling threatened by someone's views or opinions. How does it become so big a deal?


Let me be clear here. I find nothing wrong with Bristol Palin having sex with anyone she wants as often as she wants. I don't have any moral hangups about that. What she did in bed (or wherever they did it) was consistent with my moral code.

What I have a problem with is her setting moral standards for the rest of us, particularly when she couldn't meet that standard herself.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Let me be clear here. I find nothing wrong with Bristol Palin having sex with anyone she wants as often as she wants. I don't have any moral hangups about that. What she did in bed (or wherever they did it) was consistent with my moral code.
> 
> What I have a problem with is her setting moral standards for the rest of us, particularly when she couldn't meet that standard herself.


I was never affected by her moral prognostications. Just smiled as I read it and went about my merry way. 

How were you affected? Did her mistakes cause you harm? 

Thing is I am no more affected by her than by politicians that cheat on their wives. I may think wow, what an idiot, but that is about it.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Vahomesteaders said:


> I'm glad your life is so boring that an adult woman having children becomes huge news. Talking to people about the benefits of abstinence is alot different than taking that vow yourself. She was paid to tell of the hardships of a single young motherhood. She did that. She never claimed abstinence was her lifestyle.


That's not a bad point. Educating young people about the consequences of pregnancy is a valuable service. Again, I have no problem with that.

But she took it one step farther by pledging that behavior for herself. I could even forgive her for falling off the wagon, but that's not how she handled it. She moved the goalpost, suggesting that getting pregnant on purpose was consistent with her moral pledge.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

no really said:


> I was never affected by her moral prognostications. Just smiled as I read it and went about my merry way.
> 
> How were you affected? Did her mistakes cause you harm?
> 
> Thing is I am no more affected by her than by politicians that cheat on their wives. I may think wow, what an idiot, but that is about it.


Seriously, I would think long and hard about taking a moral pledge in front of a national audience. If I did take such a pledge then I would expect to answer to ridicule if I failed to live up to that pledge.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Seriously, I would think long and hard about taking a moral pledge in front of a national audience. If I did take such a pledge then I would expect to answer to ridicule if I failed to live up to that pledge.


It was a pledge maybe she felt or not at the time, lots of pledges fly around at election time. But those made by a teenager not running for any kind of office kinda pales in comparison in importance to those made by politicians running for office.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

JJ Grandits said:


> Liberals enjoy picking on young mothers and children. It make them feel tough.


I've found it interesting that a few articles I've read lately talk about how liberals are bullying the world to accept them.. such as how the LBGT community has pressured and forced the world to accept their life style and create laws to allow them to marry.

I have no issue with that, but what the article was saying was, they are forcing their lifestyles into the faces of others... How the heterosexual community doesn't go talking about their sex lives all the time... 

It really was interesting.. 

Students on campus bullying others with protests to give them "safe zones" on the campus, where they won't have to hear things that offend them... Now that one blows me away, because they offend me, by wanting to take other's 1st amendment... which ironically, if they got what they were asking for.. would take their rights... Talk about one big infinite loop that one is... 

Then another was about how the gun control people are bullying the gun owners into accepting laws that do nothing to control shootings or killings.. 

Another article was about how pro life people are harassing right to life people so hard, where as the right to life people don't go around harassing the pro lifers near as much.. 

And now that I think about it.. I don't have Atheists, or agnostics knocking on my door telling me how bad it is to go to church, yet "Christians" want to stop by and tell me how bad a sinner I am because I don't attend their church.. 

Yep.. Liberals are sounding a lot like bullies by speaking out so loud, and taking so much to court.. 

Sounds to me like the meek are hard at work...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Why is it that Bristol & Sarah can *pass judgment* on us


I'm confident neither of them has ever done so in regards to me, but I can't say that about some here who claim to be "Christians"


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Wow a young girl was weak and failed her moral test. 

I'm totally stunned.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

AmericanStand said:


> Wow a young girl was weak and failed her moral test.
> 
> I'm totally stunned.


That's why abstinence doesn't work.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Nevada said:


> That's why abstinence doesn't work.


Not my cup of tea but to be truthful talking about probably doesn't but actually doing would. :lookout:


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

light rain said:


> I find the graph interesting. It brings up questions.
> 
> Are the folks with the highest percentage of unmarried births affected economically by their choices? Are their children affected by their decisions? Are their parents and grandparents affected by their decisions? Society?


The answers to your questions, IMO, is _probably_.

The reason I chose that graph, is to show that _overall_, single mother births, are way up and becoming a common trend.

It's really not just poor, minority, teenager girl, going this route, anymore.

It's also older, middle class, women, maybe thinking, if divorce is 60% and men often don't make squat, or are too lazy to work at all, maybe they might as well go it alone.

Besides, the Government being setup only to assist single mothers and their children, does not help matters at all.



> The real question here isn't "Why so many babies?" It's "Why so few marriages?" And we have an answer.





> Low-skill men have had a rough two generations. The evaporation of manufacturing work has gutted their main source of employment, while globalization has held down their wages. Marriage has declined the most among men whose wages have declined the most. Here's a remarkable graph from the Hamilton Project comparing change in earnings (the RED LINE) and change in likelihood to be married (the BLUE BARS).
> In a dating pool where poor women are more likely to be surrounded by men with low and falling fortunes, more women have ditched a union for good economic reasons: It could be a financial drain. In _The Truly Disadvantaged_, William Julius Wilson, argued that "high rates of unemployment and incarceration meant that the local dating pool was populated by unmarriageable men--and the result was that women chose to live independently."


http://www.theatlantic.com/business...-of-unwed-mothers-an-economic-mystery/274111/


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

AmericanStand said:


> Wow a young girl was weak and failed her moral test.
> 
> I'm totally stunned.


Maybe the criticism comes, because that very "moral test", has been administered countless times - to others, by Conservative Christians, who now appear to be fully content, on grading Bristol Palin, _on the curve_.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

no really said:


> Not my cup of tea but to be truthful talking about probably doesn't but actually doing would. :lookout:


That's how abstinence is judged; advocates don't count falling off the wagon to be a failure. They consider it to be not applying abstinence. But, of course, that's the problem with abstinence, too many fall off the wagon.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Nevada said:


> That's how abstinence is judged; advocates don't count falling off the wagon to be a failure. They consider it to be not applying abstinence. But, of course, that's the problem with abstinence, too many fall off the wagon.


Yeah, but again it effects how I live my life in no way. Don't care about judgements by others about my decisions. There is not much when it comes to birth control that is 100% unless it's sterilization.


----------



## light rain (Jan 14, 2013)

The statement that the women choose to live independently is very seldom accurate. When the father isn't available during sickness, poverty, guidance of children etc someone has to pick up the slack. Sometimes it is family, sometimes friends, sometimes the social welfare system and sometimes the LEO. 

There was/is a biological and moral reason why it takes 2 people to procreate. There is security safety net in this approach. Does it work for everyone? No. But the push to encompass the new definitions of family is not gathering accolades/successes either. The problem with adopting new lifestyles is that to see the long range results may take several generations. By that time many, many lives will be changed for better or for worse. The only undeniable truth with this statement is that they will be changed.


----------



## OffGridCooker (Jan 29, 2010)

She tried to push her morality on the rest of us and you condem the hypocrisy?
Advocating for abstinence is pushing morality?
And she did not pretend to be something she is not. Why are you saying her advocacy is hypocrisy?
Are you trying to poison her brand?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

OffGridCooker said:


> Advocating for abstinence is pushing morality?


I feel comfortable saying that advocating abstinence is one of the ways the Palins push their brand of Christian morality on the rest of us.


----------



## light rain (Jan 14, 2013)

I do think her advocacy is hypocrisy and very well paid hypocrisy at that!

Over three hundred thousand in two years. Could the promise of monetary gain have been more of a impetus than guiding the young women of America to a better way of life... :hohum:


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Nevada said:


> I feel comfortable saying that advocating abstinence is one of the ways the Palins push their brand of Christian morality on the rest of us.


And has it affected your thinking, morality or life style? There is always some group or other pushing their way as the only way. 

Why does what one group or another's ideas make anyone else uncomfortable? As long as they are legal, who cares?


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

Nevada said:


> ....one of the ways the Palins push their brand of Christian morality on the rest of us.


They don't push squat on me.. I ignore them.. 

Seriously Nevada, I can't figure out why this has your panties so bunched up... ?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Nevada said:


> I feel comfortable saying that advocating abstinence is one of the ways the Palins push their brand of Christian morality on the rest of us.



Oh come on how have they pushed anything on you ? The only thing I've seen the Palins push was hard work on their children. 
If them saying something about what they believe in makes you uncomfortable it's not that they are pushing it's that you know they are right.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> That's why abstinence doesn't work.


*Abstinence* works 100% of the time.
Talking about while not sticking to it is what doesn't work


----------



## OffGridCooker (Jan 29, 2010)

light rain said:


> I do think her advocacy is hypocrisy and very well paid hypocrisy at that!
> 
> Over three hundred thousand in two years. Could the promise of monetary gain have been more of a impetus than guiding the young women of America to a better way of life... :hohum:


She collected money advocating abstinence and then has an unplanned pregnancy?
You rained on my parade!
Now I have to tell Navada I agree!


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

Heck.. Hillary lies and makes a fortune too.... and we still are looking at electing her...

Everyone loves a spectacular train wreck...


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Many here advocate self sufficiency yet we are all not totally so does that make us all hypocrites. ?


----------



## Nimrod (Jun 8, 2010)

I don't understand why so many people are having a conniption fit over this. 

The reality is that a young girl decided to not have sex until she was married. Six years later she had grown up and matured some more and changed her mind. Big deal.

I don't care what she did as long as I don't have to support it.

Could be she just got horny after 6 years of abstinence. (time for Gomer to chime in here)


----------



## light rain (Jan 14, 2013)

If we change the "young girl" to a 40 yr. old mother on welfare there are still some things that remain the same. 

The child will not probably be brought up in a stable, 2 parent relationship. The child may not have access to their medical history derived from extended family on the father's side. The child will not have the economic support and "hopefully" emotional support and guidance from the father's side of the family. 

Encouraging more young women to chose single parenthood flies in the face of economic and survivability reason. The two parent family is the basic unit, building block of our society. 

If a person sees an elderly person planting pumpkins in August in zone 7 is it pushing some agenda to tell that person, I'm sorry, they will not have time to make fruit before the cold is here? To me, trying to share the truth in a matter is kinder than supporting a misconception. While I agree with folks saying it is Bristol's life she can do what she wants I disagree with the notion that what other folks do doesn't affect us. It does. Ask the people who have bought lemons of cars, people who thought their dream home was without defect, people who trusted their spouses to honor their pledges. We do not live in a vacuum. Wishing we did does not change the reality...


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

plowjockey said:


> Perhaps, it was not an "oops"
> 
> According to reality, her situation is quite normal.
> 
> Besides, the Palin's have dough, so she probably won't even be a burden to the rest.


I wonder what happened, in the early to mid 60's that caused such an upswing in the numbers of unwed mothers. You all don't suppose it could have been some silly "war" on something that removed responsibility for ones actions, do you?


----------



## susieneddy (Sep 2, 2011)

Oh I wonder what the comments would be if Chelsea Clinton had her child out of wedlock.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

susieneddy said:


> Oh I wonder what the comments would be if Chelsea Clinton had her child out of wedlock.


Ding Ding Ding. :thumb:


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

susieneddy said:


> Oh I wonder what the comments would be if Chelsea Clinton had her child out of wedlock.


 I can't speak for everyone, but, as long as I don't have to pay for it, it is not my concern.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Um ---- but still no concern of mine. 

Now if it happened that I thought Hillary had a chance to get elected id point out how Hillary was not capable of raising children properly and that should point out how she isn't suitable to guide a country. 

But those events are not likely to happen and Sarah Palin isn't running for anything.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Neither Bristol Palin or her family have any lasting effect on my world but it does seem that if you're going to market yourself via public speaking engagements and reality TV, you can probably expect a certain amount of public scrutiny.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

wr said:


> Neither Bristol Palin or her family have any lasting effect on my world


Sarah Palin's political career ended when she resigned as governor. But I don't think she cared. She saw an opportunity to trade a political career for fame & money, and she took it.

Sarah had a realistic chance at a political career but for whatever reason she wasn't interested in coming up to speed on history and current world events. Learning about those things seemed like a small price to pay, but she wasn't interested.

If fame and money was what she was after then she did everything right.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

susieneddy said:


> Oh I wonder what the comments would be if Chelsea Clinton had her child out of wedlock.


See post #25. It would be exactly the same.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Nevada said:


> Sarah Palin's political career ended when she resigned as governor. But I don't think she cared. She saw an opportunity to trade a political career for fame & money, and she took it.
> 
> Sarah had a realistic chance at a political career but for whatever reason she wasn't interested in coming up to speed on history and current world events. Learning about those things seemed like a small price to pay, but she wasn't interested.
> 
> If fame and money was what she was after then she did everything right.



What makes you think she wasn't up to speed on history and current events ?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

AmericanStand said:


> What makes you think she wasn't up to speed on history and current events ?


Because of the things she said.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oS4C7bvHv2w[/ame]


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

I think she's a lot smarter than people give her credit for but I do think she's maybe not the best impromptu speaker.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

wr said:


> I think she's a lot smarter than people give her credit for but I do think she's maybe not the best impromptu speaker.


She's smart. She just had a lot of information to come up to speed on. I've thought all along that she would come up to speed eventually, but apparently she has no interest.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Sarah Palin is just another one of those people... A celebrity. It's almost like people draw straws to find out what they're going to say. "Oh she's smarter than people give her credit for." "Oh she couldn't be a bigger dummy if she got knocked up like her daughter."

She's a politician from Alaska. ALASKA. Her political game was strong enough up there, the image she created was plenty refined enough for up there. It isn't about her overall intelligence. Maybe she got great grades in school. Good for her. But anyone who says, out loud in front of the entire nation, that she has foreign policy experience because she can see Russia from her house; because she sends trade missions (like every other governor in the country); and because the US Military operates in Alaska, has to be one of the stupidest candidates of all time. You would really have to be in order to believe it was a worthy answer. People love her, but she could very well be THEE REASON why John McCain couldn't stop Obama in 2008. 

The Palin image was 100% BS, and anyone still clinging to them really needs to wake up.

Just go ahead and start this video at 38 seconds to remind yourselves what could have been in office.... What a joke.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gk8moOxzlGQ[/ame]


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Sarah Palin's political career ended when she resigned as governor. But I don't think she cared. She saw an opportunity to trade a political career for fame & money, and she took it.
> 
> Sarah had a realistic chance at a political career but for whatever reason she wasn't interested in coming up to speed on history and current world events. Learning about those things seemed like a small price to pay, but she wasn't interested.
> 
> If fame and money was what she was after then she did everything right.


Geez the bitterness just oozes out of that post. Not healthy!

It was a win-win-win for Palin. She could still wield influence over the political arena without the confines of holding one particular office, and make megabucks doing it, on her own schedule. Who wouldn't take that deal?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

wiscto said:


> Sarah Palin is just another one of those people... A celebrity.


What makes her stand out from the rest of celebrities is that she had a realistic shot at becoming vice president, and even president. As I said, boning-up on history and world events seemed to be a small price to pay to attain a high office like that.

She seemed to really want a political career back in 2008. Maybe not...


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

wiscto said:


> Sarah Palin is just another one of those people... A celebrity. It's almost like people draw straws to find out what they're going to say. "Oh she's smarter than people give her credit for." "Oh she couldn't be a bigger dummy if she got knocked up like her daughter."
> 
> She's a politician from Alaska. ALASKA. Her political game was strong enough up there, the image she created was plenty refined enough for up there. It isn't about her overall intelligence. Maybe she got great grades in school. Good for her. But anyone who says, out loud in front of the entire nation, that she has foreign policy experience because she can see Russia from her house; because she sends trade missions (like every other governor in the country); and because the US Military operates in Alaska, has to be one of the stupidest candidates of all time. You would really have to be in order to believe it was a worthy answer. People love her, but she could very well be THEE REASON why John McCain couldn't stop Obama in 2008.
> 
> ...


 She could have been a brain dead vegetable and still would have been better than that mistake that was thrust upon us by the "hope and change" idiots.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Farmerga said:


> She could have been a brain dead vegetable and still would have been better than that mistake that was thrust upon us by the "hope and change" idiots.


No.... She absolutely wouldn't. Because the woman is completely unremarkable in every way that matters to the presidency, except for the ones where she comes off as a complete imbecile. You believe what you believe. I believe that you aren't being objective. I believe the same people who have convinced you to blame everything and anything on Obama are the same people who tried to brainwash you into believing that Sarah Palin is worth more than the tiniest fraction of one second of your time....because it made them money.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

wiscto said:


> No.... She absolutely wouldn't. Because the woman is completely unremarkable in every way that matters to the presidency, except for the ones where she comes off as a complete imbecile. You believe what you believe. I believe that you aren't being objective. I believe the same people who have convinced you to blame everything and anything on Obama are the same people who tried to brainwash you into believing that Sarah Palin is worth more than the tiniest fraction of one second of your time....because it made them money.


 I could give two rips about Sarah Pallin. The person who convinced me to blame, not everything, but, a lot on Obama, was Obama. He is a criminal and no one would be a better President than he has been. Let me re-phrase. We would be better off if we had no one in office rather than the Criminal Obama. The damage, that he has done to the Republic, will likely never be healed.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Farmerga said:


> I could give two rips about Sarah Pallin. The person who convinced me to blame, not everything, but, a lot on Obama, was Obama. He is a criminal and no one would be a better President than he has been. Let me re-phrase. We would be better off if we had no one in office rather than the Criminal Obama. The damage, that he has done to the Republic, will likely never be healed.


Sensationalist BS, and completely blind to the damage everyone else is and has been doing for decades. Sorry, but it's more complex than "Obama did it!" And that won't change no matter how fiercely you "debate." But what could happen is that we could elect an even bigger imbecile because half the country has been convinced....by a bunch of imbeciles....that it's all Obama.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

wiscto said:


> Sensationalist BS, and completely blind to the damage everyone else is and has been doing for decades. Sorry, but it's more complex than "Obama did it!" And that won't change no matter how fiercely you "debate." But what could happen is that we could elect an even bigger imbecile because half the country has been convinced....by a bunch of imbeciles....that it's all Obama.


And before Obama, there was Bush who still gets the blame. Hah, it's all a show to keep the voters sniping back and forth. If it wasn't how in the world could we as a nation have the 2 front runners we have now? 

The 2 parties play their games and the voters are oblivious to what is going on.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

wiscto said:


> Sensationalist BS, and completely blind to the damage everyone else is and has been doing for decades. Sorry, but it's more complex than "Obama did it!" And that won't change no matter how fiercely you "debate." But what could happen is that we could elect an even bigger imbecile because half the country has been convinced....by a bunch of imbeciles....that it's all Obama.


 I just blame Obama for what Obama has done. He has created a giant new entitlement that, like the rest of them will eventually cause the our country to loose financial stability, even more than currently. Under his administration, we have seen the national debt double to nearly $20 trillion. We have seen him ignore the Constitution on many occasions. (a phone and pen indeed). The list goes on and on. 

I don't know what the chances of electing Hillary next time, but, there are a bunch of imbeciles who will vote for her. I simply hope there isn't enough.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> I just blame Obama for what Obama has done.


He's going to leave the economy in a lot better shape than GWB left it. When GWB left office we were bleeding jobs at a rate of 800,000/month, trillions in residential real estate equity had evaporated, and we were stuck in a military quagmire in Iraq that had killed more than 4,000 US troops. You're going to compare all that to healthcare insurance reform?


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

no really said:


> And before Obama, there was Bush who still gets the blame. Hah, it's all a show to keep the voters sniping back and forth. If it wasn't how in the world could we as a nation have the 2 front runners we have now?
> 
> The 2 parties play their games and the voters are oblivious to what is going on.


I agree completely. There is a long list of things Obama has done that makes me grind my teeth angrily, mainly involving drone strikes and the TPP. Bush...do I even need to give details after all I've said about him on this site so far? Clinton helped turn up the heat on average Americans when he signed NAFTA and pimped it out as the greatest thing since sliced bread. I honestly kind of hate all of them, but at least presidents like Kennedy and Reagan instilled, as a huge part of their personal missions, a sense of fairness to Americans even as they were ushering us down this long road to collapse. Trickle down economics was not meant to provide the .1% with the means to horde masses of wealth and cut jobs/salaries/rights...it was meant to TRICKLE DOWN. The mission to the moon was intended to give Americans confidence in our society and our people as a whole, and the Peace Corps was meant to make friends around the world and show them that capitalism didn't have to leave them out in the cold. Civil Rights was meant to....you know.....protect Americans' rights. They were trying to make the world better.

Tell me what any of these other jokers have done besides give the corporations what they want when they want it and work toward reelection? The only thing they haven't done yet, although they are certainly trying, is to completely deregulate the fools so they can do to us what they've done to people who _aren't_ us.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

Nevada said:


> He's going to leave the economy in a lot better shape than GWB left it. When GWB left office we were bleeding jobs at a rate of 800,000/month, trillions in residential real estate equity had evaporated, and we were stuck in a military quagmire in Iraq that had killed more than 4,000 US troops. You're going to compare all that to healthcare insurance reform?


Boy you fell off the liberal sheep talking points wagon. We were bleeding jobs because of a housing bubble rescission that the Democrats created. Bush begged them for 3 years to address the issue and they says the regulations were fine. Add to that a war supported by democrats as well and it's amazing we came out as good as we did. Welfare recipient's have quadrupled under Obama. The jobs market in reality is over 16% unemployment if you include those who quit looking for work. We are far less safe as a nation. His pulling of troops too soon and arming Syrian rebels created isis and gave them a stronghold and weaponry to attack us. Obamacare has cost millions of people they're Healthcare insurance and options. I could go on and on. But it wouldn't matter. Science proves liberalism is a disease and the only cure is common sense reasoning. Something most dont realize was discovered years ago. Lol


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

https://youtu.be/cMnSp4qEXNM


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Boy you fell off the liberal sheep talking points wagon. We were bleeding jobs because of a housing bubble rescission that the Democrats created. Bush begged them for 3 years to address the issue and they says the regulations were fine. Add to that a war supported by democrats as well and it's amazing we came out as good as we did. Welfare recipient's have quadrupled under Obama. The jobs market in reality is over 16% unemployment if you include those who quit looking for work. We are far less safe as a nation. His pulling of troops too soon and arming Syrian rebels created isis and gave them a stronghold and weaponry to attack us. Obamacare has cost millions of people they're Healthcare insurance and options. I could go on and on. But it wouldn't matter. Science proves liberalism is a disease and the only cure is common sense reasoning. Something most dont realize was discovered years ago. Lol


No, regulation of Freddie & Fannie wouldn't have avoided the mortgage crisis. Only 6% of the defaulted subprime mortgages were underwritten by Freddie & Fannie. 94% were conventional loans.

The mortgage crisis happened because derivative securities were unregulated. In fact all of the factors that went into the making of the crisis are still not corrected. Derivative securities are still unregulated, the banks that were too big to fail are even bigger, and toxic assets are still on banks' books. It could happen again.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

Nevada said:


> No, regulation of Freddie & Fannie wouldn't have avoided the mortgage crisis. Only 6% of the defaulted subprime mortgages were underwritten by Freddie & Fannie. 94% were conventional loans.
> 
> The mortgage crisis happened because derivative securities were unregulated. In fact all of the factors that went into the making of the crisis are still not corrected. Derivative securities are still unregulated, the banks that were too big to fail are even bigger, and toxic assets are still on banks' books. It could happen again.


It was Clinton who deregulated the banks for those conventional loans to fail. They were giving loans for 500k homes on stated income. Bush tried for years to get congress to do something. Unlike this president, bush did not use EO on such large issues. He tried to go through the powers that be as the constitution declared. Maybe he shouldn't have. But it's in the past. Fact is under 8 years of Bush Americans made more household income. It dropped almost 10k per household under obama. Their were far less acts of domestic terrorism and mass shootings which speaks volumes to the state of mind and quality of life people had then compared to now. Small business grew by 59% under bush and dropped to a measly 21% under obama. And of the ones that started under bush , a whopping 95% made it to 5 years and beyond. Under obama, only 31%. Big differences there.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Vahomesteaders said:


> It was Clinton who deregulated the banks for those conventional loans to fail.


No, derivative securities have never been regulated. The SEC doesn't have jurisdiction because they aren't offered to the public. Derivative securities are only traded among banks, so it falls under banking regulation. The Fed isn't inclined to regulate that.

The repeal of Glass-Steagall had little impact, since the line between deposit banks and investment banks had become blurred. The mortgage crisis would have happened with or without Glass-Steagall.

But you know that the repeal of Glass-Steagall was a republican sponsored bill, don't you?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Nevada said:


> No, regulation of Freddie & Fannie wouldn't have avoided the mortgage crisis. Only 6% of the defaulted subprime mortgages were underwritten by Freddie & Fannie. 94% were conventional loans.
> 
> The mortgage crisis happened because derivative securities were unregulated. In fact all of the factors that went into the making of the crisis are still not corrected. Derivative securities are still unregulated, the banks that were too big to fail are even bigger, and toxic assets are still on banks' books. It could happen again.


I think most people fell for the hype that it was all those bad home mortgages that caused the crash. Simple math would tell you otherwise but some people won't bother to listen.
The home mortgages in total are a small drop in a big bucket of the economy and Wall St.





Nevada said:


> No, derivative securities have never been regulated. The SEC doesn't have jurisdiction because they aren't offered to the public. Derivative securities are only traded among banks, so it falls under banking regulation. The Fed isn't inclined to regulate that.
> 
> The repeal of Glass-Steagall had little impact, since the line between deposit banks and investment banks had become blurred. The mortgage crisis would have happened with or without Glass-Steagall.
> 
> But you know that the repeal of Glass-Steagall was a republican sponsored bill, don't you?



I think you mean OTC derivatives. The futures market has been regulated since the Civil War.

http://www.commodityonline.com/news...es-regulation-culprit-otcs-29636-3-29637.html




******But I'm wondering?*********

Was there a future's bet on Bristol having another child?
Is that how we got on this tangent?
LOL


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> He's going to leave the economy in a lot better shape than GWB left it. When GWB left office we were bleeding jobs at a rate of 800,000/month, trillions in residential real estate equity had evaporated, and we were stuck in a military quagmire in Iraq that had killed more than 4,000 US troops. You're going to compare all that to healthcare insurance reform?


 Come on, you are smarter than that. The American economy is bigger than the President. It is natural for the economy to ebb and flow. What surprised me is that Obama has done enough to keep the economy in such a malaise for the past 7 years. The recovery should have looked like a hockey stick, not a gentle slope.


----------



## light rain (Jan 14, 2013)

I wonder if devolving into yet another conservative vs. liberal battle is easier than looking at and discussing the single parent dilemma... 

Most of us regardless of our nationality, economic status and religious belief are experiencing this lifestyle within our own families and/or circle of friends. Yet no one thinks it is worthy of discussion...


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Everything seems to devolve into a political battle, signs of a complete split in our society.


----------



## light rain (Jan 14, 2013)

And it does not bode well for things improving here in America...


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> What surprised me is that Obama has done enough to keep the economy in such a malaise for the past 7 years. The recovery should have looked like a hockey stick, not a gentle slope.


7 years isn't a long time for an economic downswing. The Great Depression lasted 12 years.

Why should the recovery look like anything in particular? Where did you get your 'hockey stick" theory?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> 7 years isn't a long time for an economic downswing. The Great Depression lasted 12 years.
> 
> Why should the recovery look like anything in particular? Where did you get your 'hockey stick" theory?


It is simply how recovery from recessions generally go. The economy retracts, then springs forward. Unless, of course, you have vast amounts of government interference, then you have a long, drawn out recovery like the ones we suffered through in the 1930's and the 2010's.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> It is simply how recovery from recessions generally go. The economy retracts, then springs forward. Unless, of course, you have vast amounts of government interference, then you have a long, drawn out recovery like the ones we suffered through in the 1930's and the 2010's.


I'm guessing that you didn't live through the 1930s great depression, and we're still in the 2010s recession. You have nothing to compare it to through personal experience, since this is the worst economic downturn of your lifetime.

I think your suggestion of a "hockey stick" shaped recovery is nothing more than wishful thinking.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> I'm guessing that you didn't live through the 1930s great depression, and we're still in the 2010s recession. You have nothing to compare it to through personal experience, since this is the worst economic downturn of your lifetime.
> 
> I think your suggestion of a "hockey stick" shaped recovery is nothing more than wishful thinking.


 Recessions, where the government didn't try to spend our way out, tended to be shorter lived and not as deep. In cases where government did try to spend our way out, the results have been catastrophic.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> Recessions, where the government didn't try to spend our way out, tended to be shorter lived and not as deep. In cases where government did try to spend our way out, the results have been catastrophic.


Again, you don't offer examples, only theory.

The primary motivation for creating the Fed was to prevent banking panics. With a strong central bank we don't see many bank runs, and the Fed has become a model that has been duplicated in one form or another in all industrialized countries.

Government intervention in the economy has probably saved your bacon more times than you'll ever know. You need to study the economy, not Fox News.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Again, you don't offer examples, only theory.
> 
> The primary motivation for creating the Fed was to prevent banking panics. With a strong central bank we don't see many bank runs, and the Fed has become a model that has been duplicated in one form or another in all industrialized countries.
> 
> Government intervention in the economy has probably saved your bacon more times than you'll ever know. You need to study the economy, not Fox News.


 
I don't watch Fox News. The creation of the Fed directly resulted in the Great Depression. Government interference, in the housing market, directly resulted in the Great Recession. What the Fed has done is to set up our economy for a constant and worsening boom/bust cycle.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> Government interference, in the housing market, directly resulted in the Great Recession.


If not Fox News, where did you learn that?

It's not even close. The great recession was caused by lack of regulation of derivative securities. That regulation would have fallen to the Fed, since they regulate banks. The securities in question were only traded among banks.

Without regulation there was nothing to prevent fraud. The fraud was on a massive scale, large enough to create systemic damage.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> If not Fox News, where did you learn that?
> 
> It's not even close. The great recession was caused by lack of regulation of derivative securities. That regulation would have fallen to the Fed, since they regulate banks. The securities in question were only traded among banks.
> 
> Without regulation there was nothing to prevent fraud. The fraud was on a massive scale, large enough to create systemic damage.


 There was no great loss of regulation. That is just a government line they trot out when they are found with their pants down. What do you think made up those derivative securities? Mortgages given to people who should never have had a mortgage. Who forced the requirements, on the banks, to provide those mortgages? The Federal Government. Look below the surface and you will see that the Government is the major player in the fraud game.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> What do you think made up those derivative securities? Mortgages given to people who should never have had a mortgage. Who forced the requirements, on the banks, to provide those mortgages?


As I said earlier, 94% of failed subprime mortgages were not government backed. Those loans were made by banks for the purpose of creating product to be bundled into derivative securities. Banks did it because they wanted to, so they could make a lot of money selling the loans. They weren't concerned about whether borrowers might default. After all, they intended to sell the loans.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> As I said earlier, 94% of failed subprime mortgages were not government backed. Those loans were made by banks for the purpose of creating product to be bundled into derivative securities. Banks did it because they wanted to, so they could make a lot of money selling the loans. They weren't concerned about whether borrowers might default. After all, they intended to sell the loan.



No matter if they were government backed or not. The regulations, placed on banks by the Federal Government forced them towards giving sub-prime mortgages.

Here is some info on the matter:

http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/subprime.htm

You will notice that the Clinton administration sought to use Freddie and Fannie as welfare institutions and were successful, for a time.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> No matter if they were government backed or not. The regulations, placed on banks by the Federal Government forced them towards giving sub-prime mortgages.


No. Banks made 94% of the subprime loans because it was the only way to shoehorn unqualified buyers into mortgages that could be sold as product. There was no government requirement to make those loans.

You still haven't told me where you learned all of this. Most of this misinformation is spread on Fox News.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> No. Banks made 94% of the subprime loans because it was the only way to shoehorn unqualified buyers into mortgages that could be sold as product. There was no government requirement to make those loans.
> 
> You still haven't told me where you learned all of this. Most of this misinformation is spread on Fox News.


 Reading different sources. Here is one. I have already given you another that states the same thing. Pay particular attention to the "90's" section.:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Mae

This is from the section about the sub prime crisis. 


> As recently as 2008, Fannie Mae and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) had owned or guaranteed about half of the U.S.'s $12 trillion mortgage market


 These are GSE (Government Sponsored Entities), so, yes, the government was neck deep in the Sub-prime crisis.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> Reading different sources. Here is one. I have already given you another that states the same thing. Pay particular attention to the "90's" section.:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Mae
> 
> ...


But you know that Freddie and Fannie loans only account for 6% of the failed subprime mortgages. 94% of the problem wasn't caused by that.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> But you know that Freddie and Fannie loans only account for 6% of the failed subprime mortgages. 94% of the problem wasn't caused by that.


https://www.totalmortgage.com/blog/...ie-mac-own-24b-worth-of-foreclosed-homes/9579

Funny. This article states that 1/3 of foreclosed homes, in 2011 belonged to Freddie and Fannie. Where do you get the 6% number? You know that, through bully tactics, the Government forced banks to loan to "underprivileged" people. They then tried to divert attention away from their actions by blaming the banks. That is the natural results of people, who can run a place that sells booze and women into the ground, running rough shoed over the economy


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> https://www.totalmortgage.com/blog/...ie-mac-own-24b-worth-of-foreclosed-homes/9579
> 
> Funny. This article states that 1/3 of foreclosed homes, in 2011 belonged to Freddie and Fannie. Where do you get the 6% number? You know that, through bully tactics, the Government forced banks to loan to "underprivileged" people. They then tried to divert attention away from their actions by blaming the banks. That is the natural results of people, who can run a place that sells booze and women into the ground, running rough shoed over the economy


I was talking about failed subprime loans only, since that's where the original trouble was. Freddie & Fannie took on a lot more bad loans in the years following the mortgage crash to help banks. But a lot of those loans were properties that dropped in value, so owners walked away from them. You can't count those loans because they probably wouldn't have foreclosed if the housing market hadn't already collapsed.

Look, I'm retired and I read about this stuff all day long. I have a very good idea of what went wrong.

I ran away from Las Vegas and built a northern Nevada depression shelter in 2006 when I fore saw serious trouble. Conservatives in this forum laughed, and even accused me of saying there was a financial crash coming just to discredit Bush. In 2006 they saw the stock market high, housing prices were up, and we had low unemployment. Who could ask for more?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Farmerga said:


> https://www.totalmortgage.com/blog/...ie-mac-own-24b-worth-of-foreclosed-homes/9579
> 
> Funny. This article states that 1/3 of foreclosed homes, in 2011 belonged to Freddie and Fannie. Where do you get the 6% number? You know that, through bully tactics, the Government forced banks to loan to "underprivileged" people. They then tried to divert attention away from their actions by blaming the banks. That is the natural results of people, who can run a place that sells booze and women into the ground, running rough shoed over the economy


 And just how many times did President Bush try to put regulations Back On the banking system? Many times. But the D's seemed to think they KNEW what was good for the economy.
Well we SAW how well THAT worked out didn't we? LOL
And NOW it is a flipping Nightmare for banks. Small banks are even adding on to their buildings to Handle all the BS that the government THINKS is the correct way to handle things. What a mess they have made out of the banking system. And making it worse with this carp with Dodd Frank. What a horrible nightmare THAt has turned into.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> And just how many times did President Bush try to put regulations Back On the banking system? Many times. But the D's seemed to think they KNEW what was good for the economy.
> Well we SAW how well THAT worked out didn't we? LOL


The Fed has complete control over banking regulations not covered by federal law. The Fed could have regulated derivative securities at any time and the democrats couldn't have stopped it.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Nevada said:


> The Fed has complete control over banking regulations not covered by federal law. The Fed could have regulated derivative securities at any time and the democrats couldn't have stopped it.


BUT, the real question is................

Could the Fed have stopped Bristol Palin's out of wedlock pregnancy?
And if so, how?
:icecream:


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> I was talking about failed subprime loans only, since that's where the original trouble was. Freddie & Fannie took on a lot more bad loans in the years following the mortgage crash to help banks. But a lot of those loans were properties that dropped in value, so owners walked away from them. You can't count those loans because they probably wouldn't have foreclosed if the housing market hadn't already collapsed.
> 
> Look, I'm retired and I read about this stuff all day long. I have a very good idea of what went wrong.
> 
> ...


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

farmrbrown said:


> BUT, the real question is................
> 
> Could the Fed have stopped Bristol Palin's out of wedlock pregnancy?
> And if so, how?
> :icecream:


 If the Fed made condoms, the condoms wouldn't stop an evil thought, much less anything else!!! :heh:


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Farmerga said:


> If the Fed made condoms, the condoms wouldn't stop an evil thought, much less anything else!!! :heh:



Lol funny not true but still funny
I've used government sourced condoms and I think they are made from industrial grade inner tubes. I know you can repair a 100 psi line with them !


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> Lol funny not true but still funny
> I've used government sourced condoms and I think they are made from industrial grade inner tubes. I know you can repair a 100 psi line with them !


 No, not the Federal Government, the Fed. 

Condoms made by the Federal Government cost 10x what they should and do nothing to facilitate a pleasurable experience.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

AmericanStand said:


> Lol funny not true but still funny
> I've used government sourced condoms and I think they are made from industrial grade inner tubes. I know you can repair a 100 psi line with them !


Dang!! Spew alert please!! I gotta change my clothes now coffee all over the place. :bow:


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

AmericanStand said:


> Lol funny not true but still funny
> I've used government sourced condoms and I think they are made from industrial grade inner tubes. I know you can repair a 100 psi line with them !


Thank you! :hysterical:


----------



## Alaska (Jun 16, 2012)

Quit following what the lame stream media spews about the Palins and do some real research. They are good genuine folks. Sarah dared to dabble in politics believing she could make a difference and was dragged through the mud. 
She did make a difference in Alaska. As mayor of Wasilla the GOP saw her as an up and comming politician and offered a cozy job with oil and gas commission thinking she would fall into line like all good politicians (left and right) do. Well when she saw the corruption and could not change from within she resigned and exposed the crooks. Some of whom are still spending time. Then she took on both parties and beat all the odds and whupped Frank the Bank Murkowski and the oil compannies ass to become Governor and continued to take on the oil companies. At the time politicians in Alaska were so corrupt they dared to wear caps that had the initial on it CBC (corrupt bastards club) in public. Both Parties. But with the help of the lame stream media and the dems they made life for her and her family unbearable. 100's of charges against her all unproven and dismissed. 
Yes, I have some first hand knowledge of Palins. They are all good people warts and all. But they dont have any skeletons in the closet and that is what drives the left and a lot on the right nuts. 
It just chaps my ass when people spout off when they have no idea what they are spouting off about.
So Bristol is having another out of wedlock child. Not a mistake as some would call it. 
Would it be better for to have an abortion? At least the child will stand a chance. And I would bet my bottom dollar the child will be supported by the family not the village.
_* I am pro choice, BUT I believe life is the right choice*_


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Alaska said:


> Quit following what the lame stream media spews about the Palins and do some real research. They are good genuine folks. Sarah dared to dabble in politics believing she could make a difference and was dragged through the mud.
> She did make a difference in Alaska. As mayor of Wasilla the GOP saw her as an up and comming politician and offered a cozy job with oil and gas commission thinking she would fall into line like all good politicians (left and right) do. Well when she saw the corruption and could not change from within she resigned and exposed the crooks. Some of whom are still spending time. Then she took on both parties and beat all the odds and whupped Frank the Bank Murkowski and the oil compannies ass to become Governor and continued to take on the oil companies. At the time politicians in Alaska were so corrupt they dared to wear caps that had the initial on it CBC (corrupt bastards club) in public. Both Parties. But with the help of the lame stream media and the dems they made life for her and her family unbearable. 100's of charges against her all unproven and dismissed.
> Yes, I have some first hand knowledge of Palins. They are all good people warts and all. But they dont have any skeletons in the closet and that is what drives the left and a lot on the right nuts.
> It just chaps my ass when people spout off when they have no idea what they are spouting off about.
> ...



Quote of the year award.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Alaska said:


> Quit following what the lame stream media spews about the Palins and do some real research. They are good genuine folks. Sarah dared to dabble in politics believing she could make a difference and was dragged through the mud.
> She did make a difference in Alaska. As mayor of Wasilla the GOP saw her as an up and comming politician and offered a cozy job with oil and gas commission thinking she would fall into line like all good politicians (left and right) do. Well when she saw the corruption and could not change from within she resigned and exposed the crooks. Some of whom are still spending time. Then she took on both parties and beat all the odds and whupped Frank the Bank Murkowski and the oil compannies ass to become Governor and continued to take on the oil companies. At the time politicians in Alaska were so corrupt they dared to wear caps that had the initial on it CBC (corrupt bastards club) in public. Both Parties. But with the help of the lame stream media and the dems they made life for her and her family unbearable. 100's of charges against her all unproven and dismissed.
> Yes, I have some first hand knowledge of Palins. They are all good people warts and all. But they dont have any skeletons in the closet and that is what drives the left and a lot on the right nuts.
> It just chaps my ass when people spout off when they have no idea what they are spouting off about.
> ...


Ding ding ding.


----------

