Wednesday, July 2, 2008

Obama and his Sweetheart Mortgage Deal


Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

July 2, 2008 at 12:01 PM 
Anonymous r said...

Would you be so forgiving had, say, McCain enjoyed such a benefit that most common folks don’t, DD? Nah, didn’t think so. Spin on…
The rest of us are seeing that indeed Barry Hussein Obama is just another lying politician. And elitist one, at that.
Maybe he got this favor from a fellow brotha at da bank?

July 2, 2008 at 12:37 PM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

July 2, 2008 at 1:22 PM 
Anonymous r said...

You’re grasping, Dishonest Dave, when you try to compare this sweetheart deal the Obamas got with Cindy McCains back taxes. And what was that, for like $6 grand? Heck, I know people who owe that much and aren’t in jail. Besides, this non-issue has been closed. Turns out there was a mailing address mistake involved and she has since paid up. No foul.

The real point here is how you will grasp to the point of lying to defend your Affirmative Action Candidate at all cost. There is nothing –not a thing- that he could do or say at this point that would cause blind partisan apologist you to not support him or lie in defending him. And that doesn’t exactly speak of an open or objective mindset. Therefore I declare that every single thing you say on any matter concerning Obama is suspect and probably a lie.
See what happens when you get a rep for being a liar. The rest of us learned this from our moms as children. It’s looking like your mom sucked in the teaching her kids honor and integrity department.

July 2, 2008 at 2:15 PM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

July 4, 2008 at 12:26 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Obama's mortgage is worse than the violation of law associated with the Haverford commissioner. Remember, it was defined as illegal to use your public office for personal benefit. Why would we hold a local public official to a higher standard than the President of the United States?
Obama will save thousands of dollars over the course of this loan, while the Haverford commissioner was convicted for only receiving the questionable intangible benefit of "enhanced public reputation".
It's wrong any time a public official enjoys a financial benefit unavailable to the general public. Why do the Democrats keep selecting candidates for the White House who suffer from this inflated sense of entitlement?

July 5, 2008 at 11:12 AM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

July 6, 2008 at 12:42 AM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Respectfully, Mr. Diano, I disagree with your benign characterization of this sweetheart mortgage deal. Obama's savings on this loan are more than a "few hundred dollars". He saved thousands right away absent the points and fees, and will save thousands more over the course of the loan with the artificially low rate. This is not a loan available to the general public, no matter their wealth or creditworthiness.
Whether there is any indication he used his office is, frankly, irrelevant. There was certainly no indication the Haverford commissioner benefitted personally, like Obama has from this preferential treatment, yet that commissioner was convicted of a crime.
I ask again -- shouldn't we hold someone running for President to a higher standard than a local public official? And even your partisan viewpoint has to acknowledge that the Clintons, Gore, Kerrey and now Obama, all project a very annoying elitist attitude, an almost unrelenting sense of entitlement.

July 7, 2008 at 12:03 AM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

Hey, I believe Obama shopped around and did so in full detail, it explains what he was doing during his first term as senator to fill time.


July 7, 2008 at 9:08 AM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

July 7, 2008 at 9:49 AM 
Anonymous r said...

Mr. Anon, if you are new here, there is something you should know about Dave Diano. He is one of the most radical blind partisan hacks you will ever encounter. He will say absolutely anything -any thing- to defend even his indefencible Affirmative Action Candidate. At this point there is nothing -not a thing- that Obama could say or do that Dishonest Dave Diano would not spin and lie to defend. Nothing.

So that's what you're dealing with. Carry on.

July 7, 2008 at 11:13 AM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

July 7, 2008 at 1:51 PM 
Anonymous Jonas said...


I'm not saying who's side I agree with, but how is the public official supposed to know what mortgage company courts people with their type of job? Politicians know the least amount about how business and the real world works.

If anyone goes out looking for a mortgage and gets a 1/2% point better from Countrywide, why wouldn't they go with Countrywide? Does anyone really know the "true" calculations behind the rate you are given? You, Anon, R, or I could all walk in to buy a Nissan and be given multiple rates by multiple banks. How can I any of us say the lowest rate is artificial based on who we are? How do we know it's not a special rate the bank has going on at that point in time?

I just don't see how one is liable for Countrywide loans but not others (I'll admit I'm not on top of the Countrywide story outside of subprime)?

I just think if you are going to hold politicians liable for Countrywide low interest loans, you must hold them liable for lower than "average rates given by competitors" across the board. Thus, if Obama received 4 similar rates from 4 different banks and a lower rate with whoever he went with, he would be in violation.

I actually think this brings up a great debate for "independence" of politicians. When they go for a loan, they shouldn't be able to take the lowest rate available. There are many industries where the workers stay "independent" which causes them investment opportunities, etc.

July 7, 2008 at 3:20 PM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

July 7, 2008 at 11:43 PM 
Anonymous r said...

Yeah. "Real issues" like the historic inserting of your Affirmative Action Candidate to atone for long ago.
Some "change", that.

July 8, 2008 at 12:41 AM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

July 8, 2008 at 2:47 AM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Without getting drawn into the amusing by-play of the regular posters, it is disingenuous to suggest the lender was not aware of Obama's public office. He did make application for the loan along with being a visible public figure. We can also assume that Obama was fully aware of the preferential treatment he was receiving on his mortgage, after no doubt researching his options. Limiting the discussion to bank underwriting practices avoids the integrity issue most germane to inquiring voters.
The use of public office for personal benefit is self-evident. Unlike the Haverford commissioner who received no tangible benefits, Obama received thousands of dollars of personal benefit. In Delaware County, that was successfully prosecuted as a crime.
No doubt Obama and all involved have artfully circumvented any legal consequences. But doing wrong, even when it is done well, is still wrong. This personal benefit from public office reflects poorly on Obama's integrity, and seems more like politics as usual rather than "change we can believe in".

July 8, 2008 at 8:48 AM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

July 8, 2008 at 11:15 AM 
Anonymous randal said...

Nonsense, join on in, Anon. All are welcome to pile on Dopey Dave here! It’s fun! Watch as I once again expose his level of dishonesty for all to see…

To you, any Black candidate is automatically disqualified. You feel that blacks are so lucky to have been brought over as slaves, that they shouldn't act ungrateful by actually running for office.

Yet another Dishonest Dave Diano lie!
I have stated, as you well know since you’re so “smart”, that I would indeed vote for a black. My standing line on the matter is as follows. You have seen it here a number of times, ya liar:
“I would vote for a black or a woman, just not THAT black or THAT woman. Heck, I’d vote for a black AND a woman if Condi Rice were running. But I wouldn’t vote for just any black only because they were black, like the Apologist Libs are.”

Just once I’d like to see you respond to the humiliation I regularly serve you here with some intellectual honesty. Just once. Is that really asking so much?

And sheepishly backpeddling and admitting that Obama likely got a sweet deal from a fan is, well, kinda pathetic. Just admit that you were wrong, DDD.

July 8, 2008 at 12:39 PM 
Anonymous Jonas said...

Did anyone notice the ties to Rezko here? By purchasing "part" of the Rezko property, it deemed the Rezko property inhabitable which automatically drops the FV of that property. It also increases significantly the Obama's property value as their adjacent lot cannot be built upon. It's like having a national park next to your house.

Now why would Rezko sell at a discounted rate, a portion of his property which would make the rest of his property pretty much worth $0.00?

Seems like the Big O got a few deals here.

July 8, 2008 at 1:43 PM 
Anonymous r said...

Good stuff, J. Yeah, I'm guessing this debate is far from over. The more folks dig the more skeletons we're likely to find burried in Osama's lying America-hating black Muslim racist closet.
Some "change" that'll be.

July 8, 2008 at 2:30 PM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

July 8, 2008 at 6:50 PM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

and please don't say Lynn Swann. I think all of us are smart enough to have voted Rendell.

Diano, other than the governor's race in 2006, I don't recall having an option to vote for an A-A- candidate in an election (unless you count school boards, register of wills, etc.). I am not voting against Obama for race reasons, of course, but for policies and experience and I believe you trust my basis for doing so.

Not that it counts, but if I was a resident of Philadelphia in 2007, I would have re-registered as a D early on just to back Michael Nutter. I have to give the city credit; they didn't go with the money (Tom Knox) or the popular 'old boy' choices (fattah, brady), instead they voted with common sense and will be rewarded for the next 4 (or 8) years with a prosperous Nutter adminstration. I believe Nutter in his first term is more qualified than Rendell was in his first as mayor.

July 8, 2008 at 9:59 PM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

July 8, 2008 at 11:31 PM 
Anonymous r said...

Oh brotha. Dave would fawn over ANY black LibDem.

Me, I don’t play Lib racial scorekeeping games with my voting. So I won’t be answering your silly question, DDD.

Maybe Swann would have been better, S. Rendell has been a disaster.

July 8, 2008 at 11:44 PM 
Anonymous r said...

Oh, and Keyes is a good Rightie. Very bright. I know Apologist Dave really only likes him because he’s black but AK is a good guy. But a little too religious with his politics for me.

July 8, 2008 at 11:47 PM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...


Swann's opposition in the 2006 primary was Bill Scranton, and because of a major racial gaffe made by his campaign manager, I believe Scranton was nudged to exit before the primary. I'm sure Pittsburgh liked Swann on the ticket, but I'd rather vote for someone who's resume didn't include "Monday Night Football Sideline Reporter".

The GOP primary was over by the time it reached PA in 2000. I was a McCain backer from the start of the primary and he had long since stepped down by that point. I find Alan Keyes to be a little too extreme to the right for my taste.

I like Nutter a lot because I don't see him as a politician, rather, I see him as an individual who truly cares and carries a committment that isn't sullied by special interests or political concerns. And as a result, the city will benefit. Absolutely the right man for the job.

July 9, 2008 at 8:30 AM 
Anonymous r said...

Nutter is anudder brudder who benefited from the racial politics ever at play in da City of Brothaly Love, yo.

July 9, 2008 at 11:00 AM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

July 9, 2008 at 11:18 AM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

anyway, back to Obama's mortgage...

Obama found the deal of a lifetime because he wanted "change" in his pockets to pay for gas after his failed windfall profits taxes falter.

July 9, 2008 at 12:45 PM 
Anonymous r said...

Ah, more dishonest race baoting from Dishonest Dave Diano. Very nice. Like a true Obama supporter.

We already cleared that up, DDD.
See how you just go with repeating untruths as a "debate skill". Lol...
So much for honest debate from the Left. You actually end up doing your side more harm than good with your integrity lacking cheap and childish politics.


July 9, 2008 at 1:27 PM 
Anonymous r said...

"race baoting"

Lol... At least I didn't say "boat racing". Lol...

Although Dishonest Dave would prolly cheat at boat racing too. People who have no integrity generally aproach everything in the same dishonest way, as Dave does here with his "arguments".

July 11, 2008 at 11:06 AM 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home