Cars: Another Way in Which Democrat Racism Costs YOU Money

Forums: Politics, American-Politics, U S-Politics, Us-Politics, Opinion Piece
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Consider that the entire stock in trade of today's de-moker-rats consists of bitching and moaning, i.e. that they have no solutions to any particular problem.

Not only is the concept of actually solving a problem (any problem) hateful to the rats and essentially detrimental to their basic cause, but they have a disturbing pattern of working to undo situations in which a problem is either altogether or largely solved, and to create entirely new problems out of thin air with policies which manifestly harm the nation.

Consider that in 1960, the super pesticide DDT had largely wiped things like malaria and polio off the planet and that over 90,000,000 (ninety million) people have needlessly died in consequence to the liberal/tree-hugging program to eradicate DDT.

Consider the insane policy of releasing wolves in the south 48, or of Virginia's commie bastard governor dynamiting the Rappahannock river dam at Fredericksburg for the benefit of one stupid fish which was unable to deal with it and whose demise would have been entirely in keeping with darwinian laws.

Or, consider racism, which was legally dead and buried in America in 1964. That was too good for the rats; they had to re-invent it. Things like school bussing and AA are well known. Consider however what YOU pay for new cars, and how much of that price goes to pay for things such as you see on "Desperate Housewives" (in fact for whole industries which resemble stuff which you see on Desperatte Housewives) in consequence of more de-moker-rat policies.

Since the enactment of the so-called "truth in landing" laws, lending institutions, particularly those associated with the auto manufacturers, have been forced to finance cars for people who never would have qualified for car loans 30 years ago and who have no concept of dealing with credit in a rational manner. People in the auto trade refer to such as "credit criminals" and whole organizations and industries now exist to deal with them and the havoc they create. Lending instututions have lists of cars and the repo bounties on them, and the repo business has come to resemble the business of the bounty hunter in the old west, i.e. it is booming to an extent which nobody would have pictured 30 years ago.

The cost to the manufacturers and lending firms is enormous and is simply added to the price of all cars, including cars which YOU buy. In other words, when you pay 20,000 for a car, you can figure that a thousand or more of that price amounts to the cost of dealing with credit criminals, and de-moker-rat policies.

A friend in the car trade (an auto wholesaler) had a car coming in a few days ago (a stickshift 05 Honda Accord) which I'd asked him to show me and it didn't turn up because a repo man had actually taken it from the lot of one of the D.C. areas more major car dealers, and what had basically happened is that the credit criminal who owned the car had traded it in because it was on the edge of being repopped and one of the girls at the credit company involved was sleeping with the repo man (Desperate Housewives) and alerted him to what she figured was an easy $500 and a car sitting at a dealer lot. The car legally belongs to the dealer at this point of course and the repo man and the bank are in the process of having their educations upgraded.

THAT is the sort of thing which your consumer dollars are paying for these days, thanks to the rogue de-moker-rat party. Next time you go to buy a car, think of the $1000 - $3000 part of the price-tag which goes to keep the people I just described in business, and what other sort of things you might could use it for.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 2,943 • Replies: 58

No top replies

Some of your post remind me of those old Saturday Night Lives skits where Gilda Radner, acting as Emily Litella would get all worked up over something like "America wants to make Puerto Rico a steak. The next thing you know they'll want a baked potato."

The skits always ended with her being corrected at which point she'd say "Never mind.".

0 Replies

Gunga Din admits of no correction . . . it would not matter to him if one could demonstrate that every single detail of his latest, hysterical, hate-motivated partisan rant were completely false--after all, his object is sneering slander, not truth.

0 Replies

Oh.

Never mind.....

0 Replies

Re: Cars: Another Way in Which Democrat Racism Costs YOU Mo

gungasnake wrote:

Consider the insane policy of releasing wolves in the south 48, or of Virginia's commie bastard governor dynamiting the Rappahannock river dam at Fredericksburg for the benefit of one stupid fish which was unable to deal with it and whose demise would have been entirely in keeping with darwinian laws.

Great post, Gunga.

0 Replies

Gunga, if what you say is true <suppresses rolling of eyes and tries very hard to look serious in a concerned way>, would you please be good enough to answer me this:-

1. Which party is in power at the moment?

2. How long have they been in power?

3. How long does it take for them to face up to these terrible things you describe, and change the relevant laws?

4. Are you on any medication at the moment?

0 Replies

Re: Cars: Another Way in Which Democrat Racism Costs YOU Mo

gungasnake wrote:

Or, consider racism, which was legally dead and buried in America in 1964.

I think the reports of racism's death have been greatly exaggerated.

0 Replies

i don't think the truth in lending act of 1968 has much to do with the cost of cars or anything else. the equal credit opportunity act of 1974 might have something to do with it, but a Republican president signed it, either Nixon or Ford.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Gunga Din admits of no correction . . . it would not matter to him if one could demonstrate that every single detail of his latest, hysterical, hate-motivated partisan rant were completely false--after all, his object is sneering slander, not truth.

Hate???

EVERYBODY should hate the idea of being forced to waste money.....

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

Setanta wrote:
Gunga Din admits of no correction . . . it would not matter to him if one could demonstrate that every single detail of his latest, hysterical, hate-motivated partisan rant were completely false--after all, his object is sneering slander, not truth.

Hate???

EVERYBODY should hate the idea of being forced to waste money.....

Interesting. What about the hundreds of billions of dollars we waste on a war in Iraq, a country with no WMDs and connections to terrorism that are tenuous at best?

Let me guess: that doesn't count, right?

0 Replies

Killin' folk never does.

0 Replies

IronLionZion wrote:

gungasnake wrote:
Setanta wrote:
Gunga Din admits of no correction . . . it would not matter to him if one could demonstrate that every single detail of his latest, hysterical, hate-motivated partisan rant were completely false--after all, his object is sneering slander, not truth.

Hate???

EVERYBODY should hate the idea of being forced to waste money.....

Interesting. What about the hundreds of billions of dollars we waste on a war in Iraq, a country with no WMDs and connections to terrorism that are tenuous at best?

Let me guess: that doesn't count, right?

No need to guess: I'll break it straight down for you.

It does not take hundreds of tons of anthrax spores to create havoc. The sum total which was used was a few teaspoons full. In other words, a lifetime supply of that sort of thing for a guy like Saddam Hussein could easily amount to a hundred pounds worth, and I guarantee that I could hide that in a country the size of Iraq so that it would not be found.

The question of whether or not Hussein had 1000 tons of anthrax powder is simply the wrong question. The right questions are, did the guy have the motive, the technical resources, the financial wherewithal, the facilities, and the intel apparatus to play that sort of game, and the answers to all of those questions are obvious.

The first case of anthrax after 9-11 (Bob Stevens) showed up within miles of where several hijackers stayed JUST BEFORE 9/11, a very unlikely coincidence considering that they could have stayed anywhere in the country.

The last previous case of anthrax in a human in the United States prior to 9-11 had been about 30 years prior to that.

There are other coincidences. For instance, the wife of the editor of the sun (where Stevens worked) also had contact with the hijackers in that she rented them the place they stayed.

Atta and the hijackers flew planes out of an airport in the vicinity and asked about crop dusters on more than one occasion. Indeed, Atta sought a loan to try and modify a crop duster.

Atta and several of the hijackers in this group also sought medical aid just prior to 9/11 for skin lesions that the doctors who saw them now say looked like anthrax lesions.

Basically, you either believe in the laws of probability or you don't. Anybody claiming that all these things were coincidences is either totally in denial or does not believe in modern mathematics and probability theory.

While the anthrax in question originally came from a US strain, it isn't too surprising that Iraq might have that strain since that strain was mailed to laboratories around the world years earlier.

http://www.aim.org/publications/media_monitor/2004/01/01.html

Nonetheless, it was highly sophisticated, and went through envelope paper as if it weren't even there; many thought it to be not only beyond the capabilities of Hussein but of anybody else on the planet as well including us. Nonetheless, later information showed Husseins programs to be capable of such feats:

Basically, the anthrax attack which followed 9/11 had Saddam Hussein's fingerprints all over it. It was particalized so finely it went right through envelop paper and yet was not weaponized (not hardened against antibiotics). It was basically a warning, saying as much as:

Quote:

"Hey, fools, some of my friends just knocked your two towers down and if you try to do anything about it, this is what could happen. F*** you, and have a nice day!!"

There is no way an American who had had anything to do with that would not be behind bars by now. In fact the one American they originally suspected told investigators that if he'd had anything to do with that stuff, he would either have anthrax or have the antibodies from the preventive medicine in his blood and offered to take a blood test on the spot. That of course was unanswerable.

The basic American notion of a presumption of innocence is not meaningful or useful in cases like that of Saddam Hussein. Even the Japanese had the decency to have their own markings on their aircraft at Pearl Harbor; Nobody had to guess who did it. Saddam Hussein, on the other hand, is like the kid in school who was always standing around snickering when things went bad, but who could never be shown to have had a hand in anything directly. At some point, guys would start to kick that guy's ass periodically on general principles. Likewise, in the case of Saddam Hussein, the reasonable assumption is that he's guilty unless he somehow or other manages to prove himself innocent and, obviously, that did not happen.

At the time, the US military was in such disarray from the eight years of the Clinton regime that there was nothing we could do about it. Even such basic items as machinegun barrels, which we should have warehouses full of, were simply not there. Nonetheless, nobody should think they would get away with such a thing and, apparently, Hussein and his baathists didn't.

Bob Woodward's book "Bush at War" documents some of this:

Quote:

'Cheney?s chief of staff, Scooter Libby, quickly questions the wisdom of mentioning state sponsorship. Tenet, sensitive to the politics of Capitol Hill and the news media, terminates any discussion of state sponsorship
with the clear statement:

Quote:
"I'm not going to talk about a state sponsor."

'Vice President Cheney further drives the point home:

Quote:

"It's good that we don't, because we're not ready to do anything about it."</blockquote>

Even simple things like body armor, ammunition, and machinegun barrels which we should have warehouses full of simply weren't there, i.e. they'd been sold off at 40 cents on the dollar for DNC money. A friend of mine called up one of the nation's premier barrel makers about a barrel for a target rifle in early 02 and was told that they were working
24/7 making machinegun barrels and didn't have time for any sort of civilian firearm business.

Now, a president in W's position taking over after the 8 years of total mismanagement and abuse of this perverted Klintler administration had about two choices after 9/11: He could do what he actually did, or he could do what many Americans probably have done, which would be to nuke Mecca, Medina, Rihyad, Falluja, and every other den of slammite
terrorism on the planet and ban the practice of I-slam throughout the world.

A reasonable person would probably like to at least try what W. has first.

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

Now, a president in W's position taking over after the 8 years of total mismanagement and abuse of this perverted Klintler administration had about two choices after 9/11: He could do what he actually did, or he could do what many Americans probably have done, which would be to nuke Mecca, Medina, Rihyad, Falluja, and every other den of slammite
terrorism on the planet and ban the practice of I-slam throughout the world.

You're right, nuking those places probably would save time and money. Saving face, however, is another question altogether.

How can we take someone as hate-filled as you seriously?

If we ignore you, you'll think you've come up with an argument so good we can't reply against it and will assume that you're right and that you've won the argument. If we counter-argue, you'll just dismiss our arguments as irrelevant, incorrect, biased, spin or any combination thereof. If we suddenly lose our temper because of the above, you'll think you've won because you'll think we've run out of arguments and are now resorting to low-brain name-calling etc.

However, we argue this, you will think you are right and you will think you have won the argument. And you will deny this, because everyone is capable of double-think.

While your first argument linking the anthrax attacks to the 9/11 suicide bombers may have some credulence, you cannot claim that they were Iraqi or that Saddam helped them in anyway, especially seeing as the majority of them were Saudi.

The anthrax was US strain, yet you give no evidence that Saddam could have had the anthrax. Without any evidence, you claim that Saddam had his fingerprints all over it.

While I do not doubt he wouldn't have done it, I doubt that he could have.

As for the Democrats ruining the US Military, I will have to wait for someone else to counter that, as I have no information on that whatsoever.

Quote:

Benedict Arnold: The first democrat

By the way, this is wrong. Democrats are left-wing. Left-wing has traditionally been against Monarchy and the Aristocracy. Benedict Arnold was clearly not against the Monarchy.

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

How can we take someone as hate-filled as you seriously?

If you subscribe to some sort of pinko mantra of logic = hate, you can't.

The thing I mention is sufficiently simple and you don't need to be Albert Einstein to grasp it.

The first anthrax cases in humans in North America in 30 years turn up in the very neighborhood of the 9-11 hijackers a week after 9-11 and then the US senate office bldg gets poisoned along with a major postal station, that part of it just isn't hard to figure out.

Likewise, GIVEN that the 9-11 hijackers were also responsible for the anthrax attacks, and that clearly IS a given, who other than Saddam Hussein were they going to go to for anthrax and, particularly for the most sophisticated anthrax in the world?

I mean, that's not something every swinging dick in the world is good at or specializes in. Hussein's anthrax program was the most sophisticated in the world and the guy was an immediate neighbor of theirs. Anything else they might have done to obtain anthrax would have vastly more difficult and problematical, and all of that's before you even start to consider the clearly evidence of meetings in Prague between Atta and Saddam's spy masters.

People are convicted of crimes in America on far less evidence every day.

0 Replies

Re: Cars: Another Way in Which Democrat Racism Costs YOU Mo

gungasnake wrote:

Consider that in 1960, the super pesticide DDT had largely wiped things like malaria and polio off the planet and that over 90,000,000 (ninety million) people have needlessly died in consequence to the liberal/tree-hugging program to eradicate DDT.

It also came close to eradicating that pesty American Bald Eagle.
And you might not have gotten the news down in your bunker, but we developed a vaccine for polio.

0 Replies

Re: Cars: Another Way in Which Democrat Racism Costs YOU Mo

Green Witch wrote:

gungasnake wrote:

Consider that in 1960, the super pesticide DDT had largely wiped things like malaria and polio off the planet and that over 90,000,000 (ninety million) people have needlessly died in consequence to the liberal/tree-hugging program to eradicate DDT.

It also came close to eradicating that pesty American Bald Eagle.

That part of it turns out to be utter BS. A buddy of mine actually studied under America's greatest expert on that sort of thing, Heinz Meng, and has that from no less an authority. Raptors were nearly destroyed in the 50s and 60s by lead-poisoning, i.e. by farmers shooting them with shotguns. Once they outlawed that, the raptors all came back.

Pretty amazing isn't it.

There were guys who fell into vats of DDT who are still walking around, one guy who ate the stuff to demonstrate its safety who never suffered from it, and every one of the people saved from nazi death camps after WW-II was sprayed with the stuff and they never suffered from it either; without it, they'd all have died of typhus. The ONLY thing DDT is harmful to is insects. They needed to stop using it as an area agricultural pesticide at some point, but its use for protecting areas where humans go and for killing mosquitos where they breed should be legal everywhere.

0 Replies

Argument here is futile.

0 Replies

Green Witch wrote:

Argument here is futile.

There are situations in which arguing a case might make sense and, then again, there are situations (like this one) in which you thought you knew something and didn't, and then simply have the nature of reality explained to you.

0 Replies

Re: Cars: Another Way in Which Democrat Racism Costs YOU Mo

gungasnake wrote:

Since the enactment of the so-called "truth in landing" laws, lending institutions, particularly those associated with the auto manufacturers, have been forced to finance cars for people who never would have qualified for car loans 30 years ago and who have no concept of dealing with credit in a rational manner. .

That is absolute nonsense. There is sub-prime financing but lending institutions are not forced to grant credit to anyone.

Cars: Another Way in Which Democrat Racism Costs YOU Money

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know