Bloomberg to Protesters: Congress, Not Banks, to Blame for Mortgage Crisis Read more

A) 1995 Obama/ACORN threaten Citibank occupy offices for 3 days to force subprime loans to unqualified people!

That's not even true.
Citibank was sued because they were denying loans to black applicants with qualifications similar to or better than the white applicants who they granted loans. The suit forced them to make loans to QUALIFIED people (even the black ones) - which is pretty much the OPPOSITE of what you just said. I swear to God you're a moron.
 
Last edited:
A) 1995 Obama/ACORN threaten Citibank occupy offices for 3 days to force subprime loans to unqualified people!

That's not even true.
Citibank was sued because they were denying loans to black applicants with qualifications similar to or better than the white applicants who they granted loans. The suit forced them to make loans to QUALIFIED people (even the black ones) - which is pretty much the OPPOSITE of what you just said. I swear to God you're a moron.

Obama definately at least was involved in the lawsuit against them.


http://www.bing.com/search?q=1995+acorn+citibank&form=DLCDF8&pc=MDDC&src=IE-SearchBox
 
Last edited:
Both sides are at fault. For 12 years, the GOP could have fixed it. At one time, Dems were all for helping to fix it. Neither did.

Either we work together as a country, or we fail.

No, you mindless hack, "both sides' are not at fault, YOUR SIDE, created this mess. The Republicans tried repeatedly to reign the mess in, but you scumbags screamed "RACIST" at them and blocked any attempts at reform.

Now that you got caught with your pants down and your dick actually in the dog, you claim "Well both sides do it..."

AHhhh hahahahahahahahaha.


This post here is wonderfully ironic.
 
A) 1995 Obama/ACORN threaten Citibank occupy offices for 3 days to force subprime loans to unqualified people!

That's not even true.
Citibank was sued because they were denying loans to black applicants with qualifications similar to or better than the white applicants who they granted loans. The suit forced them to make loans to QUALIFIED people (even the black ones) - which is pretty much the OPPOSITE of what you just said. I swear to God you're a moron.

Obama definately at least was involved in the lawsuit against them.


1995 acorn citibank - Bing

I didn't say he wasn't. The "not even true" claim is with reference to the claim that they were forced to make loans to unqualified applicants - and you would have figured this out if you had bothered to READ THE REST OF THE FUCKING POST.
 
Last edited:

That's not even true.
Citibank was sued because they were denying loans to black applicants with qualifications similar to or better than the white applicants who they granted loans. The suit forced them to make loans to QUALIFIED people (even the black ones) - which is pretty much the OPPOSITE of what you just said. I swear to God you're a moron.

Obama definately at least was involved in the lawsuit against them.


1995 acorn citibank - Bing

I didn't say he wasn't. The "not even true" claim is with reference to the claim that they were forced to make loans to unqualified applicants - and you would have figured this out if you had bothered to READ THE REST OF THE FUCKING POST.

But thats the thing, the lawsuits were to force banks to make loans to applicants that would have otherwise been disqualified........if you bothered to comprehend the situation being discussed you would not have made that error.
 
But thats the thing, the lawsuits were to force banks to make loans to applicants that would have otherwise been disqualified........



WRONG STILL
Citibank was sued because they rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories.


It had nothing to do with forcing them to make loans to unqualified people.
 
WRONG STILL
Citibank was sued because they rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories.

Bullshit - prove it.

It had nothing to do with forcing them to make loans to unqualified people.

It had everything to do with relaxing the requirements for minority applicants.
 
Prove it, Uncensored. You can't. Your side's OP, a false one, but try to prove it. You can't.
 
hmmm... forgot the american dream act of 2003 where republicans were taking taxpayer money and giving it to people with bad credit for loans on houses......

not to mention the bush admin leaning on feddie and fannie to increase minority home ownership at any cost........

the crash started when arms started kicking in and people could no longer afford their mortgages......


funny how freddie and fannie are blamed on frank and dodd during a republican controlled congress and dems could not even hold meetings during "the hammer" years.......

a republican congress....

a republican presidency......

and who do republicans blame? dems.......

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPSDnGMzIdo&feature=youtube_gdata_player]Democrats were WARNED of Financial crisis and did NOTHING - YouTube[/ame]

2003 (the year of your clip)


108th United States Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
108th congress:

Senate President: Dick Cheney (R)
Senate Pres. pro tem: Ted Stevens (R)
House Speaker: Dennis Hastert (R)
Members: 100 Senators
435 Representatives
5 Non-voting members
Senate Majority: Republican Party
House Majority: Republican Party


the same year where a republican sponosored bill with 9 republican consponsores signed by a republican president that gave taxpayer money to people with bad credit for down payments on houses they could not afford.........


like i said, a republican controlled congress where dems were not even allowed to hold meeting to even consider introducing a bill to committee.......


and who do repubs blame? dems........

Was this before or after 0bama the lawyer sued to make sure people that couldn't qualify for mortgages got them anyway???
 
That's not even true.

Your partisanship does not trump reality.

It has been proven in this thread.


Maybe in LA LA land
This is a civil action brought by Selma S. Buycks-
Roberson, Renee Brooks and Calvin R. Roberson on behalf of
themselves and all other African-Americans whose home loan
applications to citibank originated from the Chicago metropolitan
area and whose applications were rejected because of their race
or color or because of the racial composition of the neighborhood
in which their properties were located..
http://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/FH-IL-0011-0003.pdf

But in the actual court case that occurred in factual reality (and I know you've got a problem with factual reality) - that's not the case.
 
Last edited:

2003 (the year of your clip)


108th United States Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
108th congress:

Senate President: Dick Cheney (R)
Senate Pres. pro tem: Ted Stevens (R)
House Speaker: Dennis Hastert (R)
Members: 100 Senators
435 Representatives
5 Non-voting members
Senate Majority: Republican Party
House Majority: Republican Party


the same year where a republican sponosored bill with 9 republican consponsores signed by a republican president that gave taxpayer money to people with bad credit for down payments on houses they could not afford.........


like i said, a republican controlled congress where dems were not even allowed to hold meeting to even consider introducing a bill to committee.......


and who do repubs blame? dems........

Was this before or after 0bama the lawyer sued to make sure people that couldn't qualify for mortgages got them anyway???


They didn't.

Please go and learn what English words mean. Then read this:

http://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/FH-IL-0011-0003.pdf
 
Last edited:
2003 (the year of your clip)


108th United States Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
108th congress:

Senate President: Dick Cheney (R)
Senate Pres. pro tem: Ted Stevens (R)
House Speaker: Dennis Hastert (R)
Members: 100 Senators
435 Representatives
5 Non-voting members
Senate Majority: Republican Party
House Majority: Republican Party


the same year where a republican sponosored bill with 9 republican consponsores signed by a republican president that gave taxpayer money to people with bad credit for down payments on houses they could not afford.........


like i said, a republican controlled congress where dems were not even allowed to hold meeting to even consider introducing a bill to committee.......


and who do repubs blame? dems........

Was this before or after 0bama the lawyer sued to make sure people that couldn't qualify for mortgages got them anyway???


They didn't.

Please go and learn what English words mean. Then read this:

http://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/FH-IL-0011-0003.pdf

She won't. She knows what she knows, and that on faith.
 
WRONG STILL
Citibank was sued because they rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories.

Bullshit - prove it.

Prove what? That that's what the plaintiff claimed?

Read the fucking case.

http://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/FH-IL-0011-0003.pdf


It had everything to do with relaxing the requirements for minority applicants.

Would it be too much to ask you to actually READ something?


9. On or about April 4, 1992, Plaintiff Selma BuycksRoberson
applied for a home loan of approximately $43,700 from
citibank.

....

12. Ms. Buycks-Roberson provided to citibank extensive
financial documentation concerning her financial ability and the
property, including documents showing annual income of over
$47,000.


....

15. On or after July 10, 1992, Ms. Buycks-Roberson received
from citibank a letter that informed her that her mortgage loan
application had been denied because her "income [did] not support
the amount of credit requested."


Sorry, but banks give out loans in amounts far greater than people's annual income all the time. Just in this case Citibank didn't want to make the loans to blacks. If you make 47k a year you can afford a 44k home loan. That's just common fucking sense. My wife and I (white) got a loan that is more than DOUBLE our annual income - just the past summer.


Mr. Roberson
23. On or about July 9, 1993, Plaintiff Calvin Roberson
applied for a home loan of approximately $43,000 from citibank.
24. The purpose of the loan was to refinance an existing
mortgage of approximately $43,000 on Mr. Roberson's home, located
at 2847 West 85th Street in Chicago, Illinois.
25. The property which Mr. Roberson attempted to refinance
is loc~ted in a neighborhood in which the African-American
representation is growing.
26. Mr. Roberson provided citibank with all documentation
that citibank requested, including documents showing an annual
income of approximately $69,000
from his management position at
AT&T, and the equity in his home valued at approximately $75,000.


This guy wanted a 43k loan which would be 57% LTV - and his income was over 1.5 times GREATER than the loan amount.


Really - is it too much to ask that you read something - or are you just gonna go with whatever other righties tell you must be true?
 
WRONG STILL
Citibank was sued because they rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories.

Bullshit - prove it.

Prove what? That that's what the plaintiff claimed?

Read the fucking case.

http://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/FH-IL-0011-0003.pdf




Would it be too much to ask you to actually READ something?


9. On or about April 4, 1992, Plaintiff Selma BuycksRoberson
applied for a home loan of approximately $43,700 from
citibank.

....

12. Ms. Buycks-Roberson provided to citibank extensive
financial documentation concerning her financial ability and the
property, including documents showing annual income of over
$47,000.


....

15. On or after July 10, 1992, Ms. Buycks-Roberson received
from citibank a letter that informed her that her mortgage loan
application had been denied because her "income [did] not support
the amount of credit requested."


Sorry, but banks give out loans in amounts far greater than people's annual income all the time. Just in this case Citibank didn't want to make the loans to blacks. If you make 47k a year you can afford a 44k home loan. That's just common fucking sense. My wife and I (white) got a loan that is more than DOUBLE our annual income - just the past summer.


Mr. Roberson
23. On or about July 9, 1993, Plaintiff Calvin Roberson
applied for a home loan of approximately $43,000 from citibank.
24. The purpose of the loan was to refinance an existing
mortgage of approximately $43,000 on Mr. Roberson's home, located
at 2847 West 85th Street in Chicago, Illinois.
25. The property which Mr. Roberson attempted to refinance
is loc~ted in a neighborhood in which the African-American
representation is growing.
26. Mr. Roberson provided citibank with all documentation
that citibank requested, including documents showing an annual
income of approximately $69,000
from his management position at
AT&T, and the equity in his home valued at approximately $75,000.


This guy wanted a 43k loan which would be 57% LTV - and his income was over 1.5 times GREATER than the loan amount.


Really - is it too much to ask that you read something - or are you just gonna go with whatever other righties tell you must be true?

Really?? Really?? In His Activist Days Obama Sued Banks to Ease Lending Practices… Now He’s Suing Banks For Risky Mortgages | The Gateway Pundit
 
NatureGirl,

Critical and objective thinking requires you to read all the major literature involving the case. I doubt that you have even read a brief of the case.

You must read more than those with whom you agree, because on this you are dead wrong.
 
Bullshit - prove it.

Prove what? That that's what the plaintiff claimed?

Read the fucking case.

http://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/FH-IL-0011-0003.pdf




Would it be too much to ask you to actually READ something?





Sorry, but banks give out loans in amounts far greater than people's annual income all the time. Just in this case Citibank didn't want to make the loans to blacks. If you make 47k a year you can afford a 44k home loan. That's just common fucking sense. My wife and I (white) got a loan that is more than DOUBLE our annual income - just the past summer.


Mr. Roberson
23. On or about July 9, 1993, Plaintiff Calvin Roberson
applied for a home loan of approximately $43,000 from citibank.
24. The purpose of the loan was to refinance an existing
mortgage of approximately $43,000 on Mr. Roberson's home, located
at 2847 West 85th Street in Chicago, Illinois.
25. The property which Mr. Roberson attempted to refinance
is loc~ted in a neighborhood in which the African-American
representation is growing.
26. Mr. Roberson provided citibank with all documentation
that citibank requested, including documents showing an annual
income of approximately $69,000
from his management position at
AT&T, and the equity in his home valued at approximately $75,000.


This guy wanted a 43k loan which would be 57% LTV - and his income was over 1.5 times GREATER than the loan amount.


Really - is it too much to ask that you read something - or are you just gonna go with whatever other righties tell you must be true?

Really?? Really?? In His Activist Days Obama Sued Banks to Ease Lending Practices… Now He’s Suing Banks For Risky Mortgages | The Gateway Pundit



Sorry, but I don't know who Jim Hoft is or why his word is better than the actual court documents, but from the link he posted in his own article:
Plaintiffs filed their class action lawsuit on July 6, 1994, alleging that Citibank had engaged in redlining practices in the Chicago metropolitan area in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 15 U.S.C. 1691; the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601-3619; the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and 42 U.S.C. 1981, 1982. Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant-bank rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories. Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, actual damages, and punitive damages.U.S. District Court Judge Ruben Castillo certified the Plaintiffs’ suit as a class action on June 30, 1995. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 322 (N.D. Ill. 1995). Also on June 30, Judge Castillo granted Plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery of a sample of Defendant-bank’s loan application files. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 338 (N.D. Ill. 1995).
LiveLeak.com - Obama: Giving loans to people that cant afford them A good Idea!

Its called checking sources. When you actually bother to check someone's sources, you often find out, as in this case, they are full of shit. To check someone's sources, it takes actual effort on your part, and may require you think critically and doubt what you consider to be common knowledge.

There's no evidence at all that Obama was attempting to force Citibank to make loans to unqualified people. What we have evidence of is that he was involved in a class action lawsuit in which the plaintiffs claimed that Citibank was denying them loans - in spite of the fact they were qualified - based on race. The parties settled out of court.


The rest of what you consider "factual" knowledge is just a bunch of whiny racist bloggers who hate it whenever anyone sues under a racial claim
 
NatureGirl,

Critical and objective thinking requires you to read all the major literature involving the case. I doubt that you have even read a brief of the case.

You must read more than those with whom you agree, because on this you are dead wrong.

The level of intentional stupidity on the right is astounding. What they are told - they believe - so long as its a rightie telling it to them - and there's no need to check actual facts.
 

Forum List

Back
Top