Here’s a link:
Chapters 2-3
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Polybius/6*.html

(open quote)

“The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets — including the New York metropolitan region — will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates — anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

”Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990’s by reducing down payment requirements,” said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae’s chairman and chief executive officer. ”Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.”

Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980’s.”

(close quote)

Sorry, but just as I’m not willing to condemn all women on the basis of generalities, I’m not going to excuse them on the basis of generalities. Women in the Old West didn’t refuse to fight the Indians until men fulfilled their Emotional Needs, and women today don’t need to fulfill their EN’s at the expense of the nation. However, most women–not all, but most–would be capable of seeing the light if men would grow a pair and be honest with them. If you press women on the consequences of things, most will see the light. See gun control for an example: as long as it’s framed as “oh, no, people are shooting people, many women will support it. Except for a man-hating minority, however, they won’t support it when you ask if men should lose their rights to defend their families.

There was actually a significant gender gap in the 1980’s. It always worked in favor of the GOP. Men voted overwhelmingly GOP, women were about even. What caused the GOP’s relative decline in terms of votes was not so much that Democrats gave reason for women to vote Democrat. It was that Republicans stopped giving men reason to vote Republican. They still usually did, but not to the same enthusiastic degree.

When the Republicans take an issue overwhelmingly supported by men–like gun rights–they clean up. When they try to seem effeminate, they get creamed. And, for the record, when Republicans do take up issues like guns–or, during the 1980’s, anti-Communism–women usually end up seeing which way the wind is blowing and hop along for the ride (to mix metaphors). Women don’t so much love leftists as they love winners.

“… you appear to be unaware of the demographics of Obama support. His largest demographic group are young, single females – something in the order of at least 80%.”

The Messiah is a demagogue after all. Young women tend to be emotional. Is it unreasonable that a demagogue appeals to emotional people?

Truth is, there are a lot of Sarah Palins out there. They are neither bitter feminists, nor are they some idealized wide-hipped obedient geisha girl who is SO HOHNY! They are willing to be a man’s woman, but not a latte-sipping gossipy half-man’s woman. Honestly, I think a lot of the woman-haters were just men who were remarkably unimpressive to those evil American women.

Yes, I know the overall women’s vote sucks. No excuses for them there. But keep in mind that that’s only since 1992; in other words, only since the Democrats toned down the far-left rhetoric on economics and played cultural wars instead. The votes for GOP and Democrats were virtually the same before that; I recall reading somewhere that Nixon actually carried the women’s vote in 1960 against Kennedy! (No, I can’t find any stats on it, but it was a very small plurality, so it was probably simply an indication of the fact that there were more very old, conservative women than very old, conservative men–since they lived considerably longer then.)

Wow.

I can see we come from different parts of the country. I’m in the State of Nevada, and you’re in the State of Anbar.

Two principles that will improve your life, if you choose to follow them:

Short skirts: good.

Crack pipe: bad.