0
   

Cars: Another Way in Which Democrat Racism Costs YOU Money

 
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jan, 2006 08:40 am
UnScom and our own Scott Ritter were saying that for years before GW had us march into Iraq. All it got Ritter was the "GOP gang bang" as they tried to wreck his credibility .

Well, this is a point thats been made and proven .Youre just in some kind of denial reserved for the politically challenged gunga. The Dems have taken a major step to make the 006 elections a referendum on whether we should move back to some degree of honor, accountability, and truthfulness, or continue letting the Cheney Bush cabal keep dragging this country into becoming a corrupt plutocracy like the banana republics of old.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jan, 2006 08:57 am
Scott Ritter wrecked his own credibility by telling too many lies.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jan, 2006 08:58 am
gungasnake wrote:
Scott Ritter wrecked his own credibility by telling too many lies.

I beleive you have scott confused with george.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jan, 2006 09:30 am
Scott Ritter has been shown to have been correct in everything hes told us. Its your "Head up George's Ass" posture that fails to allow the light to shine on your ramblings
0 Replies
 
Slappy Doo Hoo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jan, 2006 10:01 am
gungasnake wrote:
Roxxxanne wrote:
Gungasnake,

Are you ready to retract your statement about lending institutions being foreced to give loans to credit criminals? You have not responded or tried to document your absurd claim whatsover. You have zero crediblity.


The term "credit criminal" is common in the auto trade and I'd assume that term or something like it is common in the housing market as well. If I were making this up, the term would not exist.


How to avoid the question.

You seriously have NO clue to what you're talking about.

Wow..pat yourself on the back, you know some auto lending lingo. "Credit criminal." What does that prove?

Back to your "point." Truth in lending absolutely, nowhere, does not play any role in forcing lenders to give loans to these people. It's about disclosing lending terms to the consumer.

The loans that do go to credit criminals aren't costing you dick, because the banks that give these loans structure them in a way where they really can't lose...they've made their money before the customer makes(if any) their first payment.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jan, 2006 10:29 am
Slappy Doo Hoo wrote:

Back to your "point." Truth in lending absolutely, nowhere, does not play any role in forcing lenders to give loans to these people..



I corrected myself at least once here. It's basically the equal lending opportunity laws which came out at roughly the same time as truth in lending. The two get confused sometimes.
0 Replies
 
Slappy Doo Hoo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jan, 2006 10:43 am
And?

That prohibits discrimination in giving loans. For example, there was a lawsuit(or multiple) in NY where some black people claimed the dealer gave them higher rates because they were black.

The lender will approve a loan at X rate, and the dealer is allowed, legally, to mark up the rate and the reserve profits go in his pocket. Most states set a cap on how much the loan can be marked up, typically up to 3 points, but in NY they could mark it up a ton. I think they've already changed that.

Still, the EOCA doesn't force lenders to give loans to anyone either. In fact, when you buy a car, lenders don't know what color your skin is when you or the dealer send a credit application, unless they want to guess from your last name.

And it's kind of funny because the true credit criminals will only get approved from lenders who give astronomical rates anyway, and typically the dealer is paid a flat fee from the lender for processing these loans, opposed to the opportunity to mark the rate up. And these banks, again, will have no effect on the auto manufacturer's overhead.

You still don't know what you're talking about.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jan, 2006 11:01 am
farmerman wrote:
Scott Ritter has been shown to have been correct in everything hes told us. Its your "Head up George's Ass" posture that fails to allow the light to shine on your ramblings



http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=45344

(article apparently no longer available on Financial Times server)

Scott Ritter, formerly the top United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq, has long argued that claims that Saddam Hussein possessed biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programmes were massively exaggerated.

His public campaign against the US-led invasion of Iraq made him a hated figure of the American right, which still demonises him as an apologist for the ousted Baghdad regime.

Now, at the very moment when the absence of weapons of mass destruction in post-Saddam Iraq should make Mr Ritter feel vindicated, he faces new questions about his relationship with Baghdad after he quit his UN job in 1998.

Mr Ritter has admitted accepting $400,000 from Shakir al-Khafaji, an Iraqi-born Detroit businessman, in order to finance a documentary film titled In Shifting Sands. The film's principal theme - highly controversial when it was released in 2001 - was that UN weapons inspectors had "defanged" Iraq.

Today, an investigation by the Financial Times and Italian daily business newspaper Il Sole 24 Ore reveals that Mr Khafaji belonged to a select group to whom the Baghdad regime awarded "allocations" for millions of barrels of oil under the UN oil-for-food programme between 1995 and 2002. These allocations were then sold on to international traders for profit.

The oil-for-food programme was set up in such a way that beneficiaries' names were not recorded by the UN. This allowed them to claim they had not received money from the Iraqi government.

Mr Ritter insists he never received any money from the Iraqi government.

"I would never take any money from anyone that was derived from any business relationship with the Iraqi government, whether a legal business relationship or an illegal business relationship," he added.

There is no evidence Mr Ritter did receive any money from oil allocations. Mr Khafaji told the FT/Il Sole that he never mentioned the allocations to Mr Ritter. But, by his own admission, Mr Khafaji or his family did profit from the sale of oil allocations awarded at the same time that he was financing Mr Ritter's film. Without Mr Khafaji's money Mr Ritter's film would never have been made.

Mr Khafaji told the FT/Il Sole that he sold allocations to Augusto Giangrandi, the head of an Italian company called Italtech. Italtech resold the oil to a Houston oil trading company called Bayoil, or its subsidiaries.

Bayoil "lifted" - that is to say, collected from Iraqi oil terminals - almost 30m barrels from Italtech in only three months in 2001.

The relationship between the two companies was the subject of an Il Sole/FT investigation published last week. The article also documented the ties between the owners of Italtech and Bayoil, and Carlos Cardoen, a renowned Chilean arms dealer who was involved in arms trafficking to Iraq in the 1980s.

A copy of a fax from Italtech files, dated November 4 2000, shows that David Chalmers, the owner of Bayoil, entered into communication with "Mr Shakir" over fees related to the oil allocations.

"As per my conversation with Augusto, you may indicate to your associates in Jordan we have an interest to purchase their allocations as follows: 1 million barrels Kirkuk destination Europe; 2 million barrels Basrah light destination US; 500,000 barrels Basrah light destination US," it reads.

"We would indicate a premium of $0.26 per barrel for Kirkuk and $0.30 per barrel for Basrah light. Payment: $0.15 per barrel against nomination of vessel and date accepted by Somo [Iraq's state oil marketing organisation]. Balance net 10 days after lifting."

The deal would have earned $1.1m.

Shakir al-Khafaji was a ruthless negotiator who aggressively pursued his payments when the company fell behind, according to Italtech executives. The Italians say that one day he arrived unannounced at Mr Giangrandi's office in Abu Dhabi, accompanied by bodyguards. "It was a surprise visit: he wanted his commission. It was, let's say, unusual," says Mr Giangrandi. Another Italtech executive adds: "He knocked at the door with two tough guys. Augusto was terrified and arranged for Shakir to be paid in Geneva."

Mr Khafaji acknowledges that he had problems with the payment of the commission and that he went to Abu Dhabi, but says he went there alone. A copy of an Italtech accounting document shows that on November 17 2000, Bayoil transferred $1m to Italtech's Geneva account. On the same day, it records Italtech made a "payment" of the same amount; a note, hand-written by an Italtech executive, identifies the recipient as "Shaker Al Khafagi". The original document is in the hands of the Italian authorities.

Mr Khafaji says he worked alone when he sold the allocations and that he was selling them on behalf of his family. He also now says he did not have any associates in Jordan. But Mr Giangrandi says that Mr Khafaji introduced himself as Mr Ritter's "partner" and that he was "representing his allocations". Mr Giangrandi says he never met Mr Ritter.

A copy of a handwritten fax dated July 10 2000, the same month that Mr Khafaji began funding Mr Ritter's film, shows Mr Giangrandi passing on Mr Khafaji's contact details to Mr Chalmers.

The note says: "Dear David. This is the partner of S. R. with whom I am negotiating now the 5M B-L. He is a very influential person here, and we can do many things in the future with him. Regards, A. G."

Mr Giangrandi confirmed that "S. R." referred to Mr Ritter.

Mr Ritter insists he was never offered any allocations by the Iraqi government. But he does relate an incident when an Iraqi official from the UN mission in New York said he might be able to get funding for his film by "sending an oil contract through a French oil company". Mr Ritter says he "terminated the conversation at this point".

Mr Ritter was having trouble finding a backer for his documentary until he met Mr Khafaji at a congressional hearing.

Mr Ritter says it was agreed there would be no quid pro quo for the production. He says he told Mr Khafaji: "If you are willing to underwrite this film, the money can have no connection to the Iraqi government" and he agreed.

Last January, a list of alleged beneficiaries of Iraqi oil allocations began to circulate widely, and Mr Khafaji's name was on it. He was one of only two US nationals mentioned.

"I called him and asked him," says Mr Ritter. "He said he had never received any money. He said it's all BS. He said he doesn't know why his name is on there."

"I choose to believe [him] over anyone else . . . Until someone demonstrates this man has done something wrong, he is a hero in my book."

Asked how he would characterise anyone suggesting that Mr Khafaji was offering allocations in his name, Mr Ritter replied: "I'd say that person's a f**king liar. Quote unquote. And tell him to come over here so I can kick his ass."

"The concept of Khafaji running around saying that allocations belonged to me: that is bulls**t. How could Shakir even say that?"

However, he added: "If he received allocations in November 2000, I would be very upset. I would be extremely upset."

Reporting by Mark Turner, Claudio Gatti and Lionel Barber in New York Claudio Gatti is a New York-based reporter with Il Sole 24 Ore, Italy's leading business daily


I'll say it again: lining ones own pockets with money meant to feed hungry children is the sort of **** people like Scot Ritter go to hell for.
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jan, 2006 04:37 am
The Vice President or the President of Vice?


http://www.cagle.com/working/060106/matson.gif
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jan, 2006 08:41 am
http://www.hall4bc04.org/CBS_DanPurpleHeart.gif
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jan, 2006 08:43 am
http://www.photopile.com/photos/dead/auctions/232167.jpg
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jan, 2006 08:45 am
http://lang.dailybulletin.com/opinions/cartoon/archive/1105/14/gordon450.gif
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jan, 2006 08:57 am
The fact that Scott Ritter was right is always a reason to try to discredit him. He had a film made (I didnt see it) this was after he left UNSCOM and was unemployed except as a speechmaker. Whats yer point? Bush didnt want to buy anything that didnt come from his passle of "yes" men.
Hopefully the American electorate will see how the absolute corruption of a state can occur when we have one party control.Wheres all the GOP reformers now?
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jan, 2006 10:09 am
Slappy Doo Hoo wrote:
And?


And it's kind of funny because the true credit criminals will only get approved from lenders who give astronomical rates anyway, and typically the dealer is paid a flat fee from the lender for processing these loans, opposed to the opportunity to mark the rate up. And these banks, again, will have no effect on the auto manufacturer's overhead.

You still don't know what you're talking about.


My experience is that dealers diidn't get a cut from the sub-prime lender, they most certainly did on prime loans but that might vary from state to state. Other than that your exactly right, gunga doesn't know whta he is talking about. If lending institutions were forced to give auto loans to "credit criminals" Buy here, pay here lots would not exist.

The term "credit criminal" simply refers to someone who has previous charge-offs and maybe even repos. If one reads back over gunga's posts on this matter, any lucid person will see how gunga completely destroyed his credibilty. Gunga refuses to admit error or to retract these absurd claims.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jan, 2006 07:33 pm
I'll say it again. In a rational society or a society free of racism and bullshit policies, a term like "credit criminal" would not exist. I wouldn't be able to use it to bash pinkos and de-moker-rats because I'd never have heard of it and the idea would never have occurred to me. The term "credit criminal" is an artifact of de-moker-rat racism and of racist policies enacted into law by de-moker-rats.
0 Replies
 
Slappy Doo Hoo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jan, 2006 07:36 pm
What race is "credit criminal" putting down?

And it's not a term used in a professional setting, it's a slang word.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jan, 2006 09:13 am
Slappy Doo Hoo wrote:
What race is "credit criminal" putting down?

And it's not a term used in a professional setting, it's a slang word.


Of course, there is nothing racial about it. Making a link from this term to a racial situation and politics is bizarre and delusional.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jan, 2006 05:24 pm
Quote:
Making a link from this term to a racial situation and politics is bizarre and delusional.

Well now, in that short clip youve summarized gunga pretty well Id say.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jan, 2006 06:36 pm
its a shame to lose these words of gungas wisdom to the que of more important threads
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/13/2021 at 03:36:07