Yes, but after the transaction fees are done, they are losing money every day that money is not paid off. Not just in lost opportunity to loan to other customers, not just in losing ground to inflation, but also in overhead.

There is a world a difference between Obama’s loan, which no one can show is even unusual given his credit rating, and McCain’s 0% credit card, which smells like an illegal campaign contribution.

You are a liar. You are ignoring Obama’s credit rating to come up with the ‘fair market value’ figure. Because you don’t know his credit rating, you can not claim it was below market value.

Obama just cashed a book deal cheque that was worth twice what his loan was worth. You have to take that into account when judging fair market value.

“The rich, famous, and well connected sometimes get these type of deals. It’s very similar to the deal the McCains got on those credit cards you guys have been railing about.”

It’s not even close. The bank is going to make a nice profit on Obama’s loan. The credit card company is going to LOSE MONEY on the McCain deal.

If you can’t figure out what the difference is, then you are truly a Republican.

Shorter Marty (and no dis intended): Nothin’ to see here, folks. Let’s move along.

On the contrary Duros. Obama’s loan wasn’t a mere .275% below market. It truly was a “sweetheart deal” more like a full percentage point below market for a $1,000,000 super jumbo loan at the time, which with the add-ons for various factors (size of loan, loan-to-value, etc.) would have been much higher (closer to 7%). The loan would normally have cost him an extra 20k-35k (roughly) on top of the normal fees (which were also waived).

The rich, famous, and well connected sometimes get these type of deals. It’s very similar to the deal the McCains got on those credit cards you guys have been railing about.

But you all seem to be O.K. for the Obamas, which is a source of humor for me.

If Jay actually wanted to talk about what Obama said, he would’ve quoted him verbatim. But he didn’t.

And unless he’s the only one who had anything to do with 9/11 who is still at large, then Obama is at least partially correct. Since the majority of the people who are responsible for 9/11 are still out there, then Obama is correct under the normal rules of grammar. In other words, unless you want to play Semantic Wars(TM), those who want to argue Obama is wrong don’t have a case here.

Any questions?

And you fail. It is not implied. It is not even the most logical interpretation given the context. (The context being the next part of the statement that Jay didn’t feel the need to quote.”

“* The people who won Super Bowl XLII retired last week.
* The people who starred in “Brokeback Mountain” are in the new Batman movie.
* The people who formed The Beatles got divorced from Heather Mills.
* The people who worked for NBC News died of a heart attack.”

You seem to have a problem with negatives and plurals. Is English your second language?

Here’s an example:

http://www.oliverwillis.com/index.php/2007/11/20/skin-cells-stem-cells/

Oliver writes this:
“If this skin cell research works, great. But I don’t think that it makes any sense to stop pursuing all avenues of research into this life-saving innovation.”

Farris quotes it like this:
“But I don’t think that it makes any sense to stop pursuing all avenues of research.”

Note the period he uses to cut off Oliver’s qualifying statement.

So Farris can, based on his version of what Oliver said, rant like this:

“Please tell me you’re just posturing. Do you REALLY believe there should be *no* ethical boundaries when it comes to medical research? That we should experiment on the poor and infirmed? That we should take organs from prisoners? That we should allow dangerous and experimental surgeries on the mentally deficient? Because that’s what you just advocated with your “all avenues of research””

It’s easy to understand how Farris has no problem with Jay bungling a quote and changing it’s meaning.

Jay: “Repeating something over and over again does make you right.”

That’s right. But we’ve already shown where your mistake was. Over and over again.

“Not one single person here has been able to explain at all how what I wrote is any different from what Obama’s exact words were.”

This is a lie. It has been pointed out before that, “The people who…” does not mean, ‘none of the people were not brought to justice’, as you said it does. It means, ‘not all of the people were brought to justice.’ This has been explained in the past.

Do you understand now?

“It’s funny CS that you keep accusing me of seeing things in black and white, and that’s just absurd. I say that Obama’s statement is wrong and immediately people ask ,”Oh so you’re saying __________??” claiming that if Obama is wrong, then the EXACT OPPOSITE of what he said must be what I am saying. That’s just dumb.”

Again, it’s the exact opposite of YOUR INTERPRETATION. Not the exact opposite of what was actually said.

YOUR worldview is black and white, so much so that you can’t even account for others having a different interpretation.

“The man can do absolutely no wrong to them… Look at the shrugs with his reversal on the retroactive immunity issue in the new FISA bill.”

You are a liar. Or completely stupid. … No, you are both.

No, SaveFarris, the problem lies with you and your kind. The English language is full is ambiguities and possible interpretations. Demanding he speak in a way where there is absolutely only one interpretation, lest you call him a fool if one interpretation turns out to be incorrect, is not a worthy standard to try and attain. It would also result in a style of speech that is not fit for real communication.

The “None of” is implied.

Then perhaps Jay could have mentioned that it was implied, and not a direct quote from Barack Obama, as he seems to be inferring it was, earlier.

Otherwise, these sentences would be just as valid:

* The people who won Super Bowl XLII retired last week.

* The people who starred in “Brokeback Mountain” are in the new Batman movie.

* The people who formed The Beatles got divorced from Heather Mills.

* The people who worked for NBC News died of a heart attack.

And, not to call you on your semantic innaccuracies above, but each of the sentences you said that “None of” is implied would not be accurate if you put “None of” in front of them. They would all be accurate if you put “At least one of” in front of them (and/or said that “At least one of” is implied/inferred), but they would all be completely innaccurate if the inferences you made about them were included within the statements.

SaveFarris, Jul 3rd, 2008 at 7:23 am

For such a gifted communicator, Obama sure does make some “inartful” statements.

If Obama MEANT not all of them, he would have SAID “Not all those who were responsible …”. But he didn’t.

Wait – you are saying that something is implied in one of Obama’s statements, and then you say that he should say what he means and mean what he says? Can you explain to the studio audience why you have multiple standards for Obama to follow, and you hammer him both for doing something and also for not doing something?

You call that a scandal? Not really, no.

“I’m happy to tell you that we probably agreed to an increase in educational benefits for our veterans that not only gives them increase in their educational benefits, but if they stay in for a certain period of time than they can transfer those educational benefits to their spouses and or children. That’s a very important aspect I think of incentivizing people of staying in the military.”

Do you think McCain was using the “we” as in congress as a whole, or “we” as a member of a group that worked to pass the bill? Either way, it certainly looks as if McCain wants credit for it. Which is strange because he was vocal in opposition and didn’t bother to vote.

And no Farris, I didn’t re-state what you wrote, in any way shape or form. I asked a question, pointed out relative context that I felt you missed. Then I posted several analogies that I thought would be more relevant than yours. My examples were in no way attributed to you. I didn’t even paraphrase.

In closing, I’d like to say that the Obama mortgage story (that this post was originally about) is only, like, the 3rd or 4th most egregious real-estate related scandal when it comes to Obama anyway. “Big” news in June, bupkis in November.

Do you win, like, a GOP tote bag or something?