Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

False charge exposed

Posted By: with facts. sm on 2008-10-09
In Reply to: Well, first of all - Chele

RE: Obama filed lawsuit that "bullied" banks into giving risky loans.

Buycks-Roberson vs CitiBank Federal Savings Bank 1994. This was a class action lawuit which sought to challenge the practice of redlining, based on the 14th Amendment requirement of "fair and equal treatment for all citizens." The lawsuit charged that CitiBank rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories. This was settled out of court. Some class members received cash payments and CitiBank revised its discriminatory lending practice policies.

The action was brought against a single bank…CitiBank, though redlining was a widespread practice at the time. Obama DID NOT FILE this lawsuit. He was a junior member of an 8-member team that worked on the case. The lead attorney for CitiBank does not recall ever seeing Obama in the court during the proceedings. Obama charged a total of 2 hours and 50 minutes for his work on the case for reviewing some documents before a deposition and appeared ONCE before the judge to request an extension of time for filing a response to a motion in the case.

This decision did not "force banks" to do anything except to process minority loan applications the same as they were processing loans to white applicants. If this outcome in any way contributed to the mortgage crisis some 14 years later, it would be based on the fact that the banks were already handing out those "bad loans" hand-over-fist to the white applicants…a practice they agreed to extend to ALL applicants as "fair and equal treatment" under the 14th Amendment.

Once the facts get a thorough look-see, it becomes evident that the charges the McCain camp are trying to lay on Obama are (surprise, surprise) patently false.



Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

Hillary Exposed? Not quite....

I took the time to watch the trailer of Peter Paul's Hillary Exposed trailer again this morning, took a few notes, and did a little internet research.  It is my conclusion that this is mostly fabrication with a stab at Hillary because he is angry that his investment/ideas didn't go as he had planned.


The 2000 Hollywood Gala was a farewell for Bill to garner his favor in supporting him on a business venture, with the added benefit as a fundraiser for Hillary.  Paul also gave fundraisers for others.  For whatever reason, this didn't go as he had planned.  Paul specifically stated that he only gave the fundraiser for Hillary to get to Bill.  There is no evidence suggesting that Clinton told Levin to seduce Oto to oust Paul to destroy him and SLM. 


The phone call to SLM from Hillary says nothing other than that she is pleased with what they are doing for her and thanking them.  I do not believe that she helped plan the gala whatsoever nor knew the full details. 


Is being a fundraiser the same as campaign contributor?  If you are shelling out money for the affair, is that considered a campaign contribution?  I didn't have time to dig into that this morning.


As David Rosen was Hillary's finance director, if he falsified documents, whether on his own or told by someone else to do it, he is the one culpable.


Digging into Peter F. Paul's past doesn't lend much to his credibility.  I am loath to believe anything from such a person.  I think he is just trying to save his own butt and trying to get back at Bill through Hillary. His stint in Brazil and being put in jail was of his own doing.


In essence, there is just not much substance here when you start digging.  This is the first of many attacks that are just beginning for Hillary as well as the other presidential candidates and should not be taken at face value.  


Liberals exposed in all their glory. SM
Ain't it grand.
Ron Paul exposed, literally!
This is priceless! Ron Paul being backed by pimp Denis Hof and traveling with Tucker Carlson. OMG! Could this get any better? Per Huffington:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/11/20/nevada-brothel-owner-pimp_n_73633.html?load=1&page=5
Exposed urban myth. nm
.
Ashley Todd exposed as HOAX.
x
What facts support that the "left" exposed this news as you say?
get the information that it came directly from the left? A left-leaning media doesn't count, either. When you say it came from the "left," it insinuates Barack's camp was responsible somehow. Is that the case?
Why aren't you getting it - Snopes is not a credible source. They've been exposed - link inc
They are not credible for putting out truthful information. It is a site run by a couple from California, Barbara and David Mikkelson. They met at an alt.folklore.urban newsgroup. This by no means is a site to find out truth or fiction, especially since the couple is very liberal and choose to put their opinion up rather than fact, and site things as hoaxes when they are not. They are a very liberal couple and of course liberals love this as it always puts their viewpoint in a favorable light, but again this is in no way a credible source. It was recently found that snopes had many things listed as a hoax, when in fact they've been proven to be true. There is another site with better sources and it is called truth or fiction. Attached is an about.com link for info about snopes. But for your everyone's information, do not take snopes to be the truth. Research for yourself with many other links out there.

http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/internet/a/snopes_exposed.htm




Exposed: Prop. 8 part of 'Christian Taliban's' move to make Bible the law

The Protect Marriage Coalition, which led the fight to pass an anti-gay marriage initiative in California, is now suing to shield its financial records from public scrutiny.


The lawsuit claims that donors to Protect Marriage and a second group involved in the suit have received threatening phone calls and emails. It asks for existing donation lists to be removed from the California secretary of state's website and also seeks to have both plaintiffs and all similar groups be exempted in the future from ever having to file donation disclosure reports on this or any similar campaigns.


Although public access advocates believe this sweeping demand for donor anonymity has little chance of success, it does point up the secretive and even conspiratorial nature of much right-wing political activity in California.


Howard Ahmanson and Wayne C. Johnson


The man who more than any other has been associated with this kind of semi-covert activity over the past 25 years is reclusive billionaire Howard Ahmanson.


Ahmanson is a Christian Reconstructionist, a devout follower of the late R.J. Rushdoony, who advocated the replacement of the U.S. Constitution with the most extreme precepts of the Old Testament, including the execution -- preferably by stoning -- of homosexuals, adulterers, witches, blasphemers, and disobedient children.


Ahmanson himself has stated, "My goal is the total integration of biblical law into our lives."


As absurd as this Reconstructionist agenda may seem, the success of Proposition 8 demonstrates the ability of what is sometimes called the "Christian Taliban" to pursue its covert objectives behind the screen of seemingly mainstream initiatives and candidates.


Ahmanson's role in promoting Proposition 8 has drawn a lot of attention, but he appears to serve primarily as the money man, leaving his associates to carry out the practical details. One name in particular stands out as Ahmanson's chief lieutenant: political consultant Wayne C. Johnson, whose Johnson Clark Associates (formerly Johnson & Associates) coordinated the Proposition 8 campaign.


Johnson has spent many years working for Ahmanson-funded causes -- such as the battle against a 2004 initiative to promote stem cell research -- and organizations, like the anti-spending California Taxpayer Protection Committee.


Johnson Clark has also operated PACs for many candidates supported by Ahmanson. It ran Rep. John Doolittle's leadership PAC, which became notorious for sending a 15% commission to Doolittle's wife out of every donation received. It currently runs the PAC for Rep. Tom McClintock, a strong Proposition 8 supporter who was narrowly elected last fall to succeed the scandal-plagued Doolittle.
Proposition 8


The series of events leading to the approval of Proposition 8 began in 2000 with the passage of Proposition 22, which defined marriage in California as being solely between one man and one woman -- but did so only as a matter of law and not as a constitutional amendment.


Proposition 22 was quickly challenged in court, leading to the creation by its supporters of the the Proposition 22 Legal Defense Fund. In 2003, Johnson Clark Associates registered the domain ProtectMarriage.com on behalf of that fund.


ProtectMarriage.com began campaigning in early 2005 for an initiative that would add its restrictive definition of marriage to the California constitution, but it failed to gather sufficient signatures and was terminated in September 2006.


In 2008, however, a reborn ProtectMarriage.com, flush with nearly a million dollars in funding from Howard Ahmanson and tens of millions from other doners, succeeding in getting Proposition 8 placed on the ballot and approved by 52% of the voters.


Proposition 8 is now California law -- at least for the moment, pending challenges to its constitutionality -- and ProtectMarriage.com has turned its attention to demanding that all 18,000 existing same-sex marriages be declared invalid.
The Ahmanson-Johnson Strategy


The partnership between Ahmanson and Johnson, however, did not begin in 2003 or even in 2000. It goes back to at least 1983, if not earlier, and has been a continuing factor in California politics for the last 25 years.


In a 1994 article on Christian Reconstructionism, Public Eye described Johnson's central role in an Ahmanson-financed attempt by the Christian Right to take control of the California state legislation. The strategy involved first pushing through a term limits initiative, which was accomplished in 1990, and then promoting its own candidates for the seats this opened up:


"The practical impact of term limits is to remove the advantage of incumbency ... which the extreme Christian Right is prepared to exploit. ... At a Reconstructionist conference in 1983, Johnson outlined an early version of the strategy we see operating in California today. ... The key for the Christian Right was to be able to: 1) remove or minimize the advantage of incumbency, and 2) create a disciplined voting bloc from which to run candidates in Republican primaries, where voter turn out was low and scarce resources could be put to maximum effect. ...


"Since the mid-1970s, the extreme Christian Right, under the tutelage of then-State Senator H. L Richardson, targeted open seats and would finance only challengers, not incumbents. By 1983, they were able to increase the number of what Johnson called 'reasonably decent guys' in the legislature from four to 27. At the Third Annual Northwest Conference for Reconstruction in 1983, Johnson stated that he believed they may achieve 'political hegemony. . .in this generation.'"


The mention of H. L. "Bill" Richardson as the originator of the Johnson-Ahmanson strategy is both eye-catching and significant. Richardson, a former John Birch Society member, was considered to be one of the most extreme right-wing politicians of his time. In 1975, he co-founded Gun Owners of America (GOA), an organization which is widely regarded as being well to the right of the National Rife Association.


Wayne Johnson began his political career in 1976 by working for Richardson -- and Johnson Clark Associates still operates a PAC for GOA's state affiliate, the Gun Owners of California Campaign Committee.


In 1992, Johnson and Ahmanson managed to help send a batch of conservative Republicans to Congress. Foremost among these was Richard Pombo, one of whose first acts after taking office was to introduce a resolution of commendation for the Reconstructionist Chalcedon Foundation.


In 2004, Johnson told an interviewer that Pombo's election was a high point of his political career. "There have been a lot of great moments, but Richard Pombo's 1992 upset victory in his first congressional primary has got to be near the top. The television stations didn't even have his name listed on their pre-programmed screens election night. Today, he's chairman of the House Resources Committee."


Two years after Johnson's enthusiastic declaration, Pombo was defeated by a Democratic challenger, following wide-ranging allegation of corruption, including being named as the Congressman who had received more donations from Jack Abramoff than any other.
The Anti-Homosexual Agenda


Although the Christian Right never achieved its original goal of taking over California state government -- which may be why Ahmanson and Johnson have turned their attention to passing socially conservative initiatives instead -- it has been far more successful in establishing dominance over that state's Republican Party.


In 1998, Mother Jones reported:


"First they packed the then-moderate California Republican Assembly (CRA), a mainstream caucus with a heavy hand in the state party's nominating process, with their Bible-minded colleagues. By 1990 they controlled the CRA, and since then the CRA's clout has helped the religious conservatives nominate and elect local candidates and—crucially—catapult true believers into state party leadership slots. ...


"From radical fringe to kingmakers in a decade — how did they do it? 'Basically, there's two places you have influence: one is in the nominating process in the primaries, where you can elect people in ideological agreement with your views, and the other is in the party structure,' says former CRA vice president John Stoos, a former gun lobbyist, member of the fundamentalist Christian Reconstructionist movement, and senior consultant to the State Assembly."


Stoos appears to come out of precisely the same background as Johnson and Ahmanson. He served as the executive director of Gun Owners of California and was also the chief of staff and a legislative advisor to Tom McClintock from 1998 until 2003, when he got into trouble for his over-the-top Reconstructionist sentiments.


In the Mother Jones interview, Stoos referred to Christian politicians as God's "vice-regents ... those who believe in the Lordship of Christ and the dominion mandate" and pointed to the repeal in the 1970's of laws against homosexual acts as an example of the need for rule by "biblical justice."


"The proof is in the pudding," Stoos told Mother Jones. "Since we lifted those laws, we've had the biggest epidemic in history."


To many who voted for it, Proposition 8 may have been no more than a nostalgic attempt to keep a changing world more like the way it used to be. But for Reconstructionists like Ahmanson, Johnson, and Stoos, it clearly represents something else -- a dramatic first step towards "the total integration of biblical law into our lives."


Who put you in charge?
Just because you decided to commemorate 9/11 by not posting on the forum today does not mean that we all have to follow your orders. Maybe some of us have more pertinent ways to commemorate this day. We are all free to choose whether we want to post on the forum today or not. Apparently, you felt free to post a message chastising others.
he is not in charge right now ....looks like it is up to us to help each other
And I am sure that those people will be counting on the charities that are already in place to get through the winter and holidays.
Exactly! O wants to be in charge, yet be
nm
Is Ted Kennedy in charge..
of how many evacuees his state takes in?  I guess I didn't realize that!  Could you explain that further?
Ted Kenney in charge

we'd all end up dead in a watery grave!  


What I want to know is who left you in charge?
nm
Who put you in charge of sway?
nm
We are not in charge of the world, sam.
nm
Has Obama ever been in charge of anything that
nm
Who has been in charge of the economy for the

Democrats own congress....... they are the ones responsible for the complete mess of this economy.   But because there is a republican president, the republicans get the blame. 


Republican president really can't get anything done with an all democrat congress. 


Who put you in charge of focus, Sam?
x
I am glad you are not in charge of that
right where it should. You are admitting to being a smoker now. You really should look back over your posts for the past few months and see what a profile you have painted of yourself!
Looks like Rush is still in charge...LOL

Rush Limbaugh critic Kevin Stevenson ousted as Marathon County Republican Party spokesman



By Robert Mentzer • Wausau Daily Herald • June 2, 2009


The Republican Party of Marathon County has stripped its spokesman of his title less than three months after he wrote a column critical of conservative talk radio star Rush Limbaugh.





Kevin Stevenson said he believes his March guest column in the Wausau Daily Herald criticizing Limbaugh turned local party members against him.

"They felt I was too moderate in what I was speaking and printing," he said.


Stevenson, who characterizes himself as a "John McCain-type of Republican," said the conflict was a microcosm of a national debate about what political message to put forward. A debate at a local Republican meeting on Thursday "got hostile and it got personal," he said.


When Stevenson criticized Limbaugh for saying he wanted President Barack Obama to fail, other local Republicans wrote to the newspaper, arguing that conservatives ought to want Obama's policies to fail.


"This is just part of what you're seeing nationwide," he said. "(Party members) know that I don't agree with Rush Limbaugh. Rush Limbaugh is hurting us more than helping us."


Kevin Hermening, the local Republican Party treasurer and a past president, said although Stevenson's columns were circulated among the party's executive committee, they did not always represent the views of most members.


“He was sharing a moderate view in his columns, which I think is terrific,” Hermening said. "If the leadership had wanted a more moderate position, we would have let him (continue)."


Stevenson, who lives in Lincoln County, was removed when the party adopted a new interpretation of residency -- but he said he considered that an excuse. Stevenson had previously been included because he owns land in neighboring Marathon County.


Party Chairman Joe Wachtel said he disagreed with the decision to remove Stevenson as spokesman, but that he also disagreed with a moderate position.


"I don't think the Republican Party and the conservative movement is going to be served by being Democrat-lite," Wachtel said.


___________________________


Side note:  I wonder if Rush is going to kick Nancy Reagan out of the party since she said nice things about Pelosi......ROFL.


Pretty weak charge if you ask me.

It'll probably be dropped in a few days but not until the media is allowed to have their way with them, and the liberal bloggers tar and feather him.  Does anyone remember travelgate and the Clinton land deal scandals.  I'm sure you dems/liberals don't recall that at all....


Before you start condemning one Republican politician to hell you better take a look into your own party's closet.


JM is totally innocent of this same charge?
publically stepped up and appealed to his supporters to rein it in. O at least tries to do this when he sees tings getting out of hand.
Who do you propose should be in charge of deciding
You are not in charge of punishing Dr. Ayers...it is a legal matter that evidently was resolved 4 decades ago. Since that time he has become a contributing member of society and it would be a waste of talent to shun him and brand him with a scarlet letter.
Where is it documented that the man in charge of the bailout...
is Muslim? He's Indian-American by all I can find out. Would not matter if he was Muslim; however, I can't find anything credible saying that he is.
Palin is very intelligent and actually been in charge
nm
Whose in charge of this anti-IQ crusade?
An ineffective tactic to use to try to excuse a sitting president's white matter deficit.
Really? Then why are they all still in charge of the purse strings?
They are set to dig us into a bigger, bottomless pit of liberal pet programs and bailouts and stimulus.
It will only get much worse with Obama in charge
He promotes that divide.....he just has a sneaky way of doing it. He lets others do their talking up there, while he says nothing against their racist remarks. The NAACP for instance was formed way back when but really has no place in our society today. Now think about this......if there were a group for ONLY whites (and I don't mean the KKK) which is no doubt where many minds will go, wouldn't there be an uproar about that. They would be called racists....how dare they promote WHITE opportunities, jobs, educations, etc. You're right, forming special interest groups does nothing to promite equality, but I can guarantee you will see more and more racists things coming down the pike; just hide and watch.

So far, they have singled out white males to not give jobs to.....now if a leader sat up there and said those same words about blacks, it would hit the fan and you know it.....

Funny how the liberals just sit up and there and keep their mouths shut, most of them all the way to being without a job, as they are white males as well.
Once again, class, WHO is in charge of the military?
.
Matters not one whit....he is now in charge of
.
Just wondrin' Patty: Who put you in charge . . .
of deciding what is a "sound" law or not?  LOL
As long as Obama is in charge, you better believe it
nm
No, both plus yours are false.
On intercountry adoption you will find the following: "...the laws of the child’s country of birth govern all activity in that country including the adoptability of individual children as well as the adoption of children in the country in general"...that country of birth being the United States. It does not matter in the slightest the hoops Obama's mom and adopted father had to jump through to satisfy INDONESIAN immigration law, designation of religion or school admission requirements. Dual citizenship, triple citizenship...whatever...does NOT and WILL NEVER cancel his US citizenship.
False Ad

Obama Continues Airing False Ad


heritage.org


this was not false
This was on the news, it is online and this comment was not false.  Do you not keep up with the latest?
Agreed 100%. If McCain can't take charge of his own campaign
!
Bush is NOT in charge of the stock market

Wall Street,. Nancy Pelosi, Barney Fife, and the others are making it worse with all their stupid ideas.


They WANT this to happen and give more stimulus checks to people so the people will think they are the greatest since apple pie. 


I don't see any of them trying to figure out what to do that will help us except throw money away to the groups that are keeping the money to pay their bonuses and take trips.


I read your post and thank goodness you are not in charge sm
Do you not understand that it is not okay to imprison people who are innocent? Do you not understand that his is a human rights issue that affects each and every one of us on this planet? Do you think beyond your own fears?
Answer me!

false accusations
You know, back in the late 1990's, I belonged to a political group and there was one person who started off posting okay, as the hours went on, her posts grew more and more illogical, like how yours do.  Well, when I finally befriended her, she confided she was an alcoholic and when she first sat down, she was okay, as she drank, her posts did not make sense.  Kind of like your posts.  I have told you over and over, I NEVER wished rotting in hell to anyone on any of these boards, I wish it still for Bush and all that got us into this never-ending war against *terrorism*.  Then you state I called the three cohorts three stooges, nope, not me.  The thing that cracks me up, is the proof is in the pudding.  The posts are here for anyone to read and see that your accusations are false.  So, why dont you just put that bottle down, its only gonna give you major organ damage in the long run.  A nice cup of green tea can be just as relaxing.
False beliefs
On the flip side, what good will the war do us when we lose our house, our jobs, can no longer afford the food in the stores, can't buy gas to get to work (if you still have a job), you and your family now have to find a campground or shelter to live at (or worse) and the banks close and now you can't get any of your money out that you may have in there (this has already happened somewhere - would have to research again to find the exact location but its here in the US). This is exactly the scare tactics/agenda McCain is trying to push (gotta keep up the war, keep up the war, everyone is the enemy, lets keep it going for 100 years) - give me a break! They are trying to get enough people to be afraid (which is in itself a form of terrorism) that we are going to be attacked again. You know what...get our troops home and we will have more troops to protect our borders and increase security here in the US) Well first the economy is the most important issue (at least to me), unless of course you plan to pack up your stuff and go join the service and fight over there. If the economy collapses where are you going to be. How bout your parents/grandparents who cannot just pick up so easily and move to another area. McCain keeps pushing the war issue because he has no clue about the economy. He doesn't even remain consistent with his issue on gay marriage. My feeling is I don't care if George & John down the street or Mary & Sue down the road want to get married - that will not effect my day-to-day life however the economy does, my job does, eating and paying bills does affect me each day. McCain was at a meeting and he said he was for gay marriage, then 11 minutes later he said he was not for gay marriage. He's too old and out of touch with reality. Do you really want someone with his temper ready to hit the launch button in in whim? He is not a stable man (in my opinion).
false. Throw something

else against the wall, may be it will stick.


 


True and false
True - last 8 years were not good (including the last two with a democratic congress). With that said I was glad there were two new people running and not Bush again.

Attractiveness is a major component for success.

Charisma can be successful but very very dangerous. Charisma mesmerizes people. When people are mesmerized they don't think clearly. They fall into a hypnotic state (which Obama is very good at), and you can tell them anything and they will believe it. Just look at all the people who actually believe Obama is the Messiah or Moses.

As for the qualifications. Obama doesn't have any unless you call being a charismatic speaker experienced. After all he got a lot of people to believe that being a community organizer was enough experience to be president. I also found it interesting Joe Biden and Bill Clinton both said he lacked the experience to be president.
This is a false rumor
Check out emails like this that you get on snopes.com.  If you go to snopes website and type in AIG bailout congress pension you will get the real truth.  So many emails I get are totally false I never forward anything until I check it out on snopes. 
This is false per www.truthorfiction.com. sm
I think it is a good letter fake or not.

Ms. Kathleen Lyday is a real person, works for Grandview Elementary School in Hillsboro, MO but told TruthorFiction.com that she did not author this letter.

We have not found who actually wrote this.

Below is the disclaimer from ToF.

School teacher wrote a letter to President Obama criticizing his actions on a 2009 overseas trip -Fiction!



Who put the libs on this board in charge of free speech?
Joe has the right of free speech too. He asked a simple question, which Obama freely answered outlining socialism 101, and what did Joe get for that? A background check! And you can hail free speech and be okay with that in the same breath? Your hypocrisy is showing...and showing...and showing.

And you keep trying, and unsucessfully, to deflect from the true point. Understandably, because your focus is the big "O", the truthgiver, the one who will save the world. LOL. Free speech indeed. You don't believe in free speech unless it benefits you and the big "O."

Nothing in my post said anything about free speech. It just tried (and in vain I understand)...to stay on point...Obama's ANSWER.
guess that's not as bad as 'VP is in charge of the Senate' ...Palin NM
x
my paper said highest number in 14 years - who was in charge then?
x
Really? Pubs in charge of the purse strings? What planet
...no wonder we're in this mess, and it will only get worse.
making false statements
Well, if someone posts that I have called them a bigot TEN TIMES and all I see is the heading of my post talking about bigotry..what do you call it?  I call em as I see em..Liar is someone putting out false and misleading statements.  Stating that I called you a bigot 10 times is false and misleading..hence, liar..
Your "quotes" of what I said in my post are false. - sm
I said nothing about suing a Christian wearing a cross, nor did I mention the ACLU. I also said nothing about 'not going near the
White House'. And I basically know nothing of the Mt. Soledad cross, nor do I really give a rip about it.

If you're going to use this forum to try to push your faith on people, and if you're going to 'quote' me, then you better first:
a) Actually READ the post,
and
b) Quote me verbatim, without making up a lot of garbage that I never said.