If you concentrate real hard, and click yo heels together 3 x, george wallace will rise from the grave and it'll be 1964 all over again. 😮
It would have to be '64. Because even Wallace figured out what a dumbass he had been by the time he died! 😮 😉
1. Muleman stays on topic and makes posts that are relevant to the subject at hand more than some others I could name. Numerous others.
😮 😮 😮 😛 😛 😛 😮 😮 😮
^^^Is that a worthless straw man or is it impugning the author? Gotta keep these things straight.
Maybe a snide comment? Do smileys count as comments?
It's so confusing being a member of the Left. So many standards to abide by!
Funniest thread in a long time.
And that is saying a lot! 
Funniest thread in a long time.
As soon as your laughter subsides, please tell us what you think about the AFFH.
The answer lies within this booklet:
If you concentrate real hard, and click yo heels together 3 x, george wallace will rise from the grave and it'll be 1964 all over again. 😮
It would have to be '64. Because even Wallace figured out what a dumbass he had been by the time he died! 😮 😉
That's right. That was 51 years ago and Wallace has been dead for quite a while, meaning that neither has a thing to do with the AFFH.
So what do you think about the AFFH? Nobody seems to want to talk about it.
[Edited on 6/18/2015 by alloak41]
Funniest thread in a long time.
As soon as your laughter subsides, please tell us what you think about the AFFH.
What for?
Funniest thread in a long time.
As soon as your laughter subsides, please tell us what you think about the AFFH.
What for?
For whatever reason you want to. You decide.
This is really weird. The AFFH has launched a website based only on an "opinion piece" written by a former Bush/Rumsfeld speechwriter...
Ok, so now you have confused me...who is the AFFH and what website have they launched? Or are you referring to this page that you have linked from the NFHA's website which is about "a goal that referred to as Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)"? Also, Muleman says in the 4th post of this thread (in quotes which implies he copied from someplace else but as usual did not include any source info which to me means that he probably made it up), that AFFH is a "new rule" that HUD is about to issue, but this website you have provided says it is a "goal" and that the rules were issued in 2013. So, what the heck are we supposed to be talking about again? A new rule called AFFH? A policy called AFFH? An organization with a new website called AFFH? You also referred to ACCH, is that something else?
Now, you may have read all the material on this site and have a full and complete grasp on what AFFH and/or ACCH is (although I doubt it since you don't really seem to know any more about it than I do), but until now I hadn't heard of AFFH nor ACCH nor NFHA nor have I read up on any of them, and the WSJ OpEd (looks like it is opinion/commentary piece, not an article, by the way) that you linked isn't much help because it can only be read if you have a subscription and can log in.
If you can copy/paste the WSJ article here for us all to read, then I can comment on that. If you can give us a brief on the AFFH without editorializing that would be helpful as well. Otherwise, I'm not sure what it is you are looking to discuss...maybe you should nail that down before lecturing the rest of the forum about what we post here.
[Edited on 6/17/2015 by gondicar]
1. Muleman stays on topic and makes posts that are relevant to the subject at hand more than some others I could name. Numerous others.
2. Did you read the WSJ link headline? Pretty reputable publication there.
3. The federal government often uses money and threats of withholding money to have their way.
4. See #3. True, bribery/blackmail are not policies. They are tactics.
1. LMFAO
2. I read the headline. The body of the commentary is subscription only.
3. The piece said "bribe or blackmail" and those are both illegal and done surreptitiously and are very different from the kind of tactics you are referring to (our governor is engaged in just such a money withholding tactic now, and it has been fun watching it backfire on him).
4. Again, the piece you linked said "bribe or blackmail" which are criminal activities not political tactics.
Want to try that again?
[Edited on 6/17/2015 by gondicar]
1. Muleman stays on topic and makes posts that are relevant to the subject at hand more than some others I could name. Numerous others.
2. Did you read the WSJ link headline? Pretty reputable publication there.
3. The federal government often uses money and threats of withholding money to have their way.
4. See #3. True, bribery/blackmail are not policies. They are tactics.
1. LMFAO
2. I read the headline. The body of the commentary is subscription only.
3. The piece said "bribe or blackmail" and those are both illegal and done surreptitiously and are very different from the kind of tactics you are referring to (our governor is engaged in just such a money withholding tactic now, and it has been fun watching it backfire on him).
4. Again, the piece you linked said "bribe or blackmail" which are criminal activities not political tactics.
Want to try that again?
[Edited on 6/17/2015 by gondicar]
Sorry, but alloak is right about one thing. He does stay on topic in every thread. The topic he stays on isn't the topic of the thread, but his own topic. That topic is "Liberals Suck".
1. Muleman stays on topic and makes posts that are relevant to the subject at hand more than some others I could name. Numerous others.
2. Did you read the WSJ link headline? Pretty reputable publication there.
3. The federal government often uses money and threats of withholding money to have their way.
4. See #3. True, bribery/blackmail are not policies. They are tactics.
1. LMFAO
2. I read the headline. The body of the commentary is subscription only.
3. The piece said "bribe or blackmail" and those are both illegal and done surreptitiously and are very different from the kind of tactics you are referring to (our governor is engaged in just such a money withholding tactic now, and it has been fun watching it backfire on him).
4. Again, the piece you linked said "bribe or blackmail" which are criminal activities not political tactics.
Want to try that again?
[Edited on 6/17/2015 by gondicar]
Sorry, but alloak is right about one thing. He does stay on topic in every thread. The topic he stays on isn't the topic of the thread, but his own topic. That topic is "Liberals Suck".
You are 99% accurate. You would have hit 100%, but you forgot to end your post with "a comma and son" as in "That topic is Liberals Suck, son".
1. Muleman stays on topic and makes posts that are relevant to the subject at hand more than some others I could name. Numerous others.
😮 😮 😮 😛 😛 😛 😮 😮 😮
X2.
Either alloak has either lost it, is delusional, or is trying his hand again at the crappy humor he's been trying to inject into this site as of late.
Whatever...to his statement - "ha ha ha ha ha ha". 😛 😛 😛 😛 😛 😛
Funniest thread in a long time.
As soon as your laughter subsides, please tell us what you think about the AFFH.
__________________________________________________________________________
You have recognized yet another truth: the liberals have no position on anything.
They hate but past that they have no idea what the thread is about.
Try to find one of their post putting forth an argument for something.
This is why it is so much fun to play with them.
It is generally not right to pick on the intellectually challenged bit in their case it is self inflicted.
As a very funny man once said, you can’t fix stupid.
Funniest thread in a long time.
As soon as your laughter subsides, please tell us what you think about the AFFH.
What for?
For whatever reason you want to. You decide.
I've decided to stop taking you seriously.
Funniest thread in a long time.
As soon as your laughter subsides, please tell us what you think about the AFFH.
What for?
For whatever reason you want to. You decide.
I've decided to stop taking you seriously.
_______________________________________________________________________
Another empty post.
Why can't liberals express their opinion of the subject of the thread?
I'm a liberal, and I did. Nobody has posted an accurate report of what the law proposes. Maybe the original poster should post an objective article about it so we can really dissect it.
Funniest thread in a long time.
As soon as your laughter subsides, please tell us what you think about the AFFH.
What for?
For whatever reason you want to. You decide.
I've decided to stop taking you seriously.
Did you ever?
Despite evidence to the contrary, the thread is not about me.
Alloak, we have to read the actual policy instead of an opinion piece, to get an accurate story. I find it hard to believe that a nice house in the suburbs will be cheaper for poor people or minorities, if I'm reading it correctly. . Money talks too loud for that to happen.
Based on what is written, I think the intentions are good, but probably an over-reach of the government. I wouldn't categorize this as some socialist agenda by the left. Good intentions, just not a good idea.
Hey, a legitimate policy-related response. Just out of curiosity, what compelled you to break from the pack and give a relevant answer? You should be proud.
Despite evidence to the contrary, the thread is not about me.
You like to say that. What you want is to have a discussion about a severely slanted opinion piece without knowing exactly how the law is worded. How is that reasonably possible?
Funniest thread in a long time.
As soon as your laughter subsides, please tell us what you think about the AFFH.
What for?
For whatever reason you want to. You decide.
I've decided to stop taking you seriously.
Did you ever?
Despite evidence to the contrary, the thread is not about me.
Actually, yes.
Not about you? Ok. Funny though, you've managed to make it about everyone else that you have so much scorn for.
"Whattayou stupid idiot low-info libs think of THIS? Why don't you defend THIS?"
Discussion of policy? As if that's the goal here.
Everyone gets it, Pat. You don't like the President, Democrats and liberals or anyone or anything else even remotely identified as being even remotely on the left of the spectrum.
No one is changing anyone's mind or point of view here, hardly worth taking seriously.
Was that too melodramatic? I've grown quite fond of the impending dismissal that is surely to come.
Despite evidence to the contrary, the thread is not about me.
You like to say that. What you want is to have a discussion about a severely slanted opinion piece without knowing exactly how the law is worded. How is that reasonably possible?
I think I understand. Even though the intentions of the proposal are spelled out and (seemingly) easy to comprehend, those factors can be ignored if the article also contains opinion, is written by someone you might not agree with, or is "slanted." Therefore, impossible to discuss. Simply can't be done. I understand now.
Despite evidence to the contrary, the thread is not about me.
You like to say that. What you want is to have a discussion about a severely slanted opinion piece without knowing exactly how the law is worded. How is that reasonably possible?
____________________________________________________________________
There is no “law”. It will be rules written by HUD (the Obama administration will do the actual writing).
This process has been ongoing for three years and leaks are floating around to gauge media reaction.
How do you label it a “severely slanted opinion piece” having read nothing officially released?
Despite evidence to the contrary, the thread is not about me.
You like to say that. What you want is to have a discussion about a severely slanted opinion piece without knowing exactly how the law is worded. How is that reasonably possible?
I think I understand. Even though the intentions of the proposal are spelled out and (seemingly) easy to comprehend, those factors can be ignored if the article also contains opinion, is written by someone you might not agree with, or is "slanted." Therefore, impossible to discuss. Simply can't be done. I understand now.
Oh, I thought you wanted to discuss the law. What you really want to discuss is the opinion piece. OK, i'll bite. The piece is pure bullshit. Your turn.
[Edited on 6/18/2015 by jkeller]
Despite evidence to the contrary, the thread is not about me.
You like to say that. What you want is to have a discussion about a severely slanted opinion piece without knowing exactly how the law is worded. How is that reasonably possible?
I think I understand. Even though the intentions of the proposal are spelled out and (seemingly) easy to comprehend, those factors can be ignored if the article also contains opinion, is written by someone you might not agree with, or is "slanted." Therefore, impossible to discuss. Simply can't be done. I understand now.
Oh, I thought you wanted to discuss the law. What you really want to discuss is the opinion piece. OK, i'll bite. The piece is pure bullshit. Your turn.
[Edited on 6/18/2015 by jkeller]
_____________________________________________________________________
And keller confirms he doesn't know his Obama from a hole in the ground.
Was that too melodramatic?
Yes, absolutely.
I've grown quite fond of the impending dismissal that is surely to come.
Is there anything here you've said that should be taken seriously? It's all snide comments. You SHOULD be dismissed. I guess it will be alloak's fault for taking the high road?
I have never seen you do anything here besides criticize and judge others. I guess you must have a pretty high opinion of yourself.
Despite evidence to the contrary, the thread is not about me.
You like to say that. What you want is to have a discussion about a severely slanted opinion piece without knowing exactly how the law is worded. How is that reasonably possible?
I think I understand. Even though the intentions of the proposal are spelled out and (seemingly) easy to comprehend, those factors can be ignored if the article also contains opinion, is written by someone you might not agree with, or is "slanted." Therefore, impossible to discuss. Simply can't be done. I understand now.
A one-sided view does not provide a basis for objective analysis or discussion.
Was that too melodramatic?
Yes, absolutely.
I've grown quite fond of the impending dismissal that is surely to come.
Is there anything here you've said that should be taken seriously? It's all snide comments. You SHOULD be dismissed. I guess it will be alloak's fault for taking the high road?
I have never seen you do anything here besides criticize and judge others. I guess you must have a pretty high opinion of yourself.
Unlike the folks I'm critical of, at least I'm not pretending to be above it all.
Hey look at us, we're the same.
If by saying you are not pretending you mean that you actually are above it all (or think you are), then I agree. You come off as a "holier than thou" type every time you post, as if you are the teacher and everyone else are your 1st grade students for you to wave your finger at.
Despite evidence to the contrary, the thread is not about me.
You like to say that. What you want is to have a discussion about a severely slanted opinion piece without knowing exactly how the law is worded. How is that reasonably possible?
I think I understand. Even though the intentions of the proposal are spelled out and (seemingly) easy to comprehend, those factors can be ignored if the article also contains opinion, is written by someone you might not agree with, or is "slanted." Therefore, impossible to discuss. Simply can't be done. I understand now.
A one-sided view does not provide a basis for objective analysis or discussion.
I have seen hundreds of "slanted" articles here of which the subject matter was discussed at great length. Apparently, that must depend entirely on who posts it. Strangely, the ability of the poster to sift through the "opinion" and zero in on the subject matter seems to vary. Don't worry, I get it. Noted for future reference.
1. Muleman stays on topic and makes posts that are relevant to the subject at hand more than some others I could name. Numerous others.
😮 😮 😮 😛 😛 😛 😮 😮 😮
^^^Is that a worthless straw man or is it impugning the author? Gotta keep these things straight.
Maybe a snide comment? Do smileys count as comments?
It's so confusing being a member of the Left. So many standards to abide by!
Judging by the quality of your posts lately, alloak has really gotten to you. Maybe take a vacation from this website and come back fresh? Just a suggestion.
My posts lately? Hmmmm. Interesting perspective.
alloak and I have been going back and forth here for years now. There's certainly no love lost but anything between us we can handle between us without a moderator or scorekeeper.
You never answered me the other day. Is this your first screen name here? Don't care if it is, but, man, you sound so familiar, and this is giving me a serious sense of deja vu.
