Tw: You keep using the "N" word, and I'll have to ignore your sad and racist posts.

I thought you'd get a real idea of Mitt, by watching the debate. He did a very fine job.

A hand up is any program that includes a central core protocol that stresses giving people a lift upward, in their ability to earn a living. Job retraining for disabled vets, is a good example.

A hand out is any program that lacks a central theme of lifting people upward in economic mobility, leading to regular dependency on the part of the recipient. Typically, they aren't even making an effort to get off the dole. Why should they?
Welfare recipients who could work but don't, living off welfare for decades, are a good example.

I'll post up something defining a true conservative, when I have more time to write.

The highly anticipated jobs stats for September came in this morning. Our "phoney" unemployment rate is now down a little bit, to 7.8%. Our real unemployment rate (which includes those who would work, but have now quit looking), is estimated by the WSJ (Wall Street Journal), to be 11.1% in preliminary estimates. (which are frequently revised).

Can you see the Presidential race, as a baseball game? It's the bottom of the ninth inning, and you NEED a double to bring around the winning score. Who will you send up as the designated hitter?

Obama, who has a dismal .190 batting average? Or Romney who has a huge .350 batting average?

Despite everything else, YOU KNOW that Romney runs RINGS around Obama, when it comes to business, and Ryan runs RINGS around Biden, without even trying, (as most of us do, <cough, cough>). You have to choose a batter, which one is your choice?

Mitt Romney is the only real choice for President. As I've said before, I'd like to have seen Obama have a great two terms, but he got hit by this recession, and he just hasn't been able to handle it.

Obama has no plans to handle it, if he is re-elected. Did you hear any new plans from him, during the 90 minute debate? Anything that sounded good to get us out of this economic downturn we've been caught up in for years now? Obama has nothing - nothing new, and he can't repeat the throw money at it solution he tried before, because we can't afford it.

BigV, thanks, and I know that some of those websites I linked to aren't the best for research, but others had the data in Excel spreadsheets and other formats, that I can't handle on this computer.

What the heck are you talking about?

He saw the word nigger and missed the context entirely.

Mitt 'did a fine job' in the debate. I keep hearing that and I wondered if I saw the same debate. Sure, he was aggressive, maybe 'presidential' but he still didn't actually say anything.

Obama asked him to explain how, if he's going to leave the rich taxes alone, how else can he fix a trillion in deficit without any impact to the middle class taxes. The most I heard was that he plans to cut from other programs. 'Other programs' is Rom-speak for ' programs that affect the poor and middle classes.' Careful, people, what you ask for. And, um, cutting funding to PBS? Yeah, there's a whopping .01 percent of the budget. Ha!

Mitt is so very sorry about his 47% comment, he was completely wrong. How sweet. Two days ago he staunchly supported his statement.

How in the hell are people buying this nonsense? Are we, as a nation, really that dumbed down?

Blah blah blah cherry pick cherry pick blah blah blah rhetoric be afraid blah blah, that's what!

Mitt Romney is an asshole conservative

*shakes etch-a-sketch*

Mitt Romney is a rational moderate

Props are probably against the rules, but it would have been great if Obama brought an etch-a-sketch to the debate.

Almost correct. I don't tolerate such offensive language. Like I said, been there (in the Deep South), saw that racist ideology, and it was sickening.

You want to have me reply to your post, you don't use words like that.

What if you are talking about racism? Simply using the word to make a point about racism isn't propogating racist ideology.

If you are so sensitized to the language and mechanisms of racism, then you really should be able to spot the parrallels in the anti-muslim rhetoric and action, in which some people are engaging, and which is tacitly endorsed by much western media and mainstream politics.

You've been "buying" Obama's sweet nothings, for years, what's the problem?

His statement was correct, but ONLY within the context of a political analysis. As a front page 10 second sound byte, with no context, yeah, it's something that should have remained in the room.

Everybody takes short cuts in their speaking which, if taken out of context, sound bad. We just don't have as many little ass-bites running around with hidden recorders, as the Democrats have.

And even if we did, the White House and Air Force One, is tough territory to eavesdrop on the President!

Even if you took EVERY PENNY, from the top 10% of our income earners, in taxes, you wouldn't begin to break even on the spending we're doing, versus our income to the gov't.

You MUST start trimming down the size of the federal gov't, or we are headed for a meltdown, and it won't be all that far off, either.

Give me a guess. What do you believe is our national debt, per day, hour, minute or second? Not the amount we spend that's covered, by income, but the amount ABOVE what we have coming into the federal gov't.

You WILL be shocked! :mad:

Does this scare anyone else?

Ha! What about that scares you?

No it wasn't. The 47% comment was wrong for so many reasons. It is a typical Republican (note that I do not mean conservative) argument that incites emotion and can be defended only because of how it was framed. Frame it any differently and it is completely wrong. The same goes for foreign policy and the stimulus.

If you actually break down the 47% who do not pay income taxes, it looks a hell a lot different than purely government parasites. If Mitt Romney wants to know why 47% of American will never vote for him, rewatch the Republican primary debates. Republicans (not necessarily conservatives) have gone completely off the deep end. Romney's campaign finally realized that and it explains his very quick switch in positions at the debate.

It certainly appears Adak has not yet watched the actual video of this event.
Romney's statement was in same context as the media and Dwellars here are stating.

How does Adak justify/rationalize saying it "should have remained in the room" ?

After Romney's statement about "not worried about" the poor,
I can easily believe his 47% statement is a good reflection of his true feelings.

As a public figure, if you don't want something made public by the media,
don't say it... even "in private"... or be prepared to be labelled a hypocrite.

Yeah, there's a risk people may come to know The Real Mitt Romney. :lol:

Got to take these one at a time...

You're welcome. What I had in mind was this link:

I offer this constructive criticism of this link. It is just a picture. It has a title, but there's little there to go on, not a link back to the article, no legends on the axes, nothing. I did follow up on this picture's title, "Publicly held federal debt 1790-2009", and read some material though.

You say it is an picture of the problem with Socialism. That's not what I found.

Here's a link that has much more actual information than just that picture. It's a CBO report titled The 2012 Long-Term Budget Outlook. Here's the money shot:

Attachment 41073

Let me break that down for you. First of all, the graph, the report, nothing at all has anything at all to do with Socialism, or its supposed problems. I *suspect* that scare word came from some partisan bloviator who saw a report and then took the six or seven words in it that suited his panicky mood at the time, and mashed up that graph and slapped the label Socialism somewhere in the title of the blog post. I think you cribbed it from something like that.

Now that that is out of the way, let's talk about what the CBO is actually saying. They consider two scenarios, they call them extended baselines because they look at their projections for the budget for the next twenty-five or so years.


******

*** the kind of reductions in payments to providers that comprise the hotly debated $176 billion dollars "stolen" from Medicare, according to Ryan/Romney.

So, you say that the problem with Socialism is ... something, but you point at the "extended alternative baseline scenario" as the scary bogeyman. It IS scary I agree. But if you read the CBO's own words, that scary prospect is what they project will happen if the tax cuts are permitted to stay in place.

...

Come on, Adak. This is Socialism? If you want to AVOID the "Socialist" outcome, fine--just keep extending the temporary Bush era tax cuts. This is what Comrade Romney has proposed, hasn't he? He won't increase anyone's taxes. "Absolutely." that was his *exact* statement on the issue, right? Socialist bastard. In fact, if you listen to him further, he says he will LOWER THE RATES. REALLY???? That scary graph was scary because the rates only stay the same, imagine how much faster and higher the Taxapolyse will hit if the rates are lowered? Oh, sure, Romney's gonna pay for them by eliminating funding for Big Bird and some other hand waving, but even taking him at his word, he's only aiming to make the changes "revenue neutral". He doesn't want to bring any more revenue to the Federal system. All cuts. No revenue increases.

You read the report. You look at the graphs. You listen to Romney's words. Then you come back and tell me which scenario his plan would take us to. And be prepared to substitute some numbers for his pitiful and unconvincing hand waving. You've shown your willingness and ability to support your statements to a degree far exceeding Romney's. Go on, convince me. I might vote for you.

Here's a link to a MUCH more informative graphic than the one line graph Adak posted.

It's big, you'll have to side scroll.

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43289

A program like this? TANF

When Clinton left office, we were on the verge of a surplus. We should restore the same people who ran up the debts this massive? Cheney said, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." So those same people will do something different if we elect Romney?

Extremist conservatives create debt messes. They did it under Nixon and George Jr. Republicans who were more moderate and responsible (Reagan, George Sr) raised taxes so as to not create massive debts.

We now have the "deficit that did not matter".

Clinton did one thing, very well. He freed up business from the bureaucratic nightmare that other administrations revel in. During his terms in office, our position in the scale of freedom to do business, increased significantly. We were in the #5 then. Those days are long gone now, of course. We rank about #20, now.

You're taking one sentence from Cheney, out of context, and pretending it's a Conservative Commandment. That's your argument, really?

Cheney saw, like everyone else, how Reagan used the increase in our spending, to counter the Soviets military build up, and thus compel them into bankruptcy by their need to feel ultra secure, which they are famous for.

Due to their history of invasions from the West (Germany, France, etc.), and their own propaganda, they thought we were going to invade or "conquer" them. Like we "conquered" the Philippines, Japan, West Germany, France, Morocco, Tunisia, Libya, Australia, The Solomon Islands, South Korea, and all the other countries we've had our troops land in.

That's not the same thing as saying that deficits don't matter - only that you have to be careful with it. Look at WWII - our national debt climbed to record high levels, but you would have to agree that it was a worthwhile reason to allow it to do so.

To have a Trillion dollar increase in our debt, year after year, is simply an irresponsible act that WILL crash our entire monetary system. Surely you know THAT much.

Let's base our decisions on facts, and not on out of context quotes from out of office politicians.

And you are lying about Reagan increasing taxes, as a whole. You've made that assertion, and have been shown incorrect with regard to individual income tax rates.

Do you want to investigate Corporate tax rates during Reagan's terms in office? Yeah, I thought not! ;)

When you're wrong, you should at least have the decency to admit it.

Reagan was our last conservative President. If you wanted to look at just the fiscal policy, you'd see that Clinton was the most conservative President, on economic policy, since Reagan.

Bush II was socially conservative, but not fiscally conservative, at all.
Bush I made an agreement with Congressional Leaders from the Democrats, to raise taxes now, and they would agree to support cutting spending, in the next session of Congress.

So he did raise taxes - which immediately branded him a liar to the public because of his famous pledge: "read my lips, no new taxes". Of course, the Democrats would not support cutting spending, as they had promised they would. They increased spending, instead! :eek: And George H. Bush was toast.

We've seen that over and over. We call it the "I'll be glad to pay you next Tuesday, for a hamburger today" promise, after the cartoon character who said it so often.

I get it that you like Obama. If his fiscal policies worked, I'd support him for another term, gladly.

But they don't work, and I don't want to see another 4 years of economic slow-down. A lot of people are suffering right now.

You can talk all your want about racism -- there is no need to use racial epithets, in your talk. Are you awake yet, or what?

Yes, using words like "N", incite discrimination, and racial hatred. That's one of the basic tenets of propaganda.

Of course I see the racism aimed at Muslims. Unfortunately, Muslims have famously acted in ways to incite that hatred, by committing hundreds of violent acts (like 9/11 here in the US).

Pretty hard to be seen as a likable religion while we see their incidents of gang rape, murder, and terror, all around the world, against both non Muslims, and other Muslims, don't you think? :rolleyes:

Islam does not teach equality with other religions and ethnic groups. As long as it teaches superiority over others, it is, by definition, a fascist organization.

Mind that Muslims have a GOOD REASON to hate the Jews, going back to a famous battle, where the Jewish army was pledged to fight with the Muslims, against a common enemy.

But the enemy captured the Jewish leader and his family, and the Jewish army, then refused to fight with the Muslims, breaking their pledge, and ensuring the defeat of the Muslims.

But the Muslims did, eventually prevail over the enemy army, in the battle. After that breaking of their pledge, (which could have easily resulted in the genocide of the Muslim people), the Muslims have had great disdain and dislike for the Jews, and never had them for allies, in battle (to my knowledge, but there have been tens of thousands of battles in the ancient Middle East, so it probably happened somewhere, sometime. But it's VERY rare).

Have the Muslims been mistreated? Yes. certainly in the case of the Palestinians.

Have the Muslims shot themselves in the foot too many times to be counted by their unwise actions in the Middle East?

Sadly, also yes.

We should STILL set up a state for the Palestinians, however. We may have to drag them kicking and screaming into their own country, but we should set it up. ( OK, no dragging ;) )

Keeping them in a ghetto like Gaza, is wrong.

So, because government required auto companies to design hybrids, then that was freeing the auto industry from regulation? Because Clinton required all legacy providers to make broadband available (1996 Federal Communication Act), that deregulated the communication industry?

You paint with a broad brush. And ignore where that brush applies. The economy prospered because some industries were identified as unproductive. Then 'inspired' to perform or permit innovation. Other industries needed no regulation because they were innovative. In all your propaganda, you never once mention the only thing that makes good economic times: innovation. Extremists believe solutions are in money games and deregulating an industry that must never be deregulated - finance.

"Reagan proved that deficits don't matter" is why extremist conservatives in George Jr's administration massively increased debt and spending. Strange how they converted a surplus into the worst debt. And then spin myths about free spending Democrats. "Deficits don't matter" is their philosophy. Lying about it is also acceptable. You repeatedly ignore what created the worst recession since 1929. "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter" was a major reason.

We are paying today for a $3 trillion Mission Accomplished war. Obama did not create those debts. Obama is now paying for that boondoggle. What political agenda created those debts?

Lying is hate promoted by extremist Republicans in the name of religion. And by completely misrepresenting Islam. You are posting that propaganda. Hate of Muslims. Equating Islam with fascism. Even forgetting a history of Islam - tolerance of other religions. Classic propaganda. You even misrepresented why Clinton was so successful by using a propaganda paint brush. And forget the obvious. Massive debts are created by extremist conservatives who even lied about tax cuts.

George Jr created massive debts that we will be paying even ten year later. He even invented a war against a nation that was never a threat. And then so mismanaged that war (no phase four planning) as to waste 5,000 American lives as well as massively increase the nation's debt. My god. He even surrendered to the Taliban to invent a second war. As a result we are still paying about $1million per soldier per year for that mistake. Did the extremist propaganda machine forget to mention those facts?

You even misrepresented what debts existed during Reagan's time ($0.55 trillion) by comparing 1984 money to 2012 money. But again, that is why propaganda works so well. Tell half truths. Then get snippy about the word 'nigger' to avoid your obvious mistake. $0.55 trillion then is more than $1.3 trillion today. A list of military hardware are more trophies to investments that had little productive return. But then military hardware is good for 'big dic' thinking that extremists so love. 'Big dic' thinking even makes possible 'good' wars against evil Muslims.

It is called propaganda. If thinking like a moderate, then you would have seen all facts. And not confused $0.55 trillion with the real number: $1.3 trillion. You would have seen how the economy prospered because Clinton increased regulations where necessary and decreased them where necessary.

Tax games do not create a recovery. Governments cannot make an economy better - despite the propaganda. Governments can only make problems worse or avert some of the worst problems. We now have maybe ten more years to undo the mess created after 2000.

Another fact extremists forget. Reagan was the only president to ever be reelected when unemployment was high. Many forget that after four years, Reagan's economy was quite bad. A legacy inherited from a president who also believed deficits and money games (fiscal mismanagement) do not matter: Nixon. It took well over ten years to undo his mismanagement. As it will to undo the "deficits don't matter" philosophy of George Jr's administration.

For some reason, many Americans want to bring back the people who created this mess. Because so many actually believe myths and half truths from extremist talk show hosts. So many even believe Reagan reduced taxes. And that Obama is a Muslim. Propaganda works because some are so easily brainwashed by extremist rhetoric. And forget the actual philosophy of extremist conservatives. "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter".

Extremists will even hype big buck military hardware (ie Nimitz class) as if that makes Americans economically stronger. Some still want to bring those problem extremists back into power. So they can invent more wars? So many never learn the lesson of history. Even foolishly equate Islam with fascism. Because hate inspired supporters. We don’t need extremist conservatives. We need moderates who ignore talk show host propaganda. And we need people who actually understand what makes jobs and growing economies - ie innovation. Extremist talk show hosts and their disciples never use that word.

Conservatives believe in the Constitution, as it was written, and support the more limited role it defines, for government. That includes all the Bill of Rights, not just a few of them.

Conservatives believe in a free market economy, rather than an economy tightly controlled and interfered with, by the government. Taxes, should be low, to allow the free market to expand and create jobs, and support a robust economy.

Conservatives believe in citizens supporting themselves, not citizens being dependent on the government for hand outs.

Conservatives believe a smaller government, dedicated to the roles defined for it by the Constitution, is best. Today, our federal government is too large, and spends far too much of the taxpayers money, far too inefficiently.

There are several values that are associated with conservatives:

Pro Life, Pro Family, Pro Business, Pro Strong Military, Con Gay Rights/Marriage, Pro Guns

Some of these are incorrect, and are NOT part of Conservatism, because they are NOT part of our Constitution.

Pro Life - hard to say you're AGAINST life, but it's not a part of the Constitution. I believe the decision to have an abortion is something the parents should discuss, and the woman should decide, in consultation with her doctor. The government should not be involved, PERIOD.**

Pro Family - it's hard to define EXACTLY what this means.

Pro Business - Without business, we lose our free economy, and cripple our country. The Constitution laid down the basics of commerce, but NOTHING like the intrusive governmental and union controls we have for nearly every business, today. Doesn't it just FEEL wrong that in many states, you can't work, unless you join a union first?

I especially loved it when the FAA Air Traffic Controllers all went out on a Union strike -- and Reagan promptly fired every one of them that refused to work.

It's pretty sad when you hear about the firemen on call at a burning house, but just now starting their strike - so they kick back and watch the house burn to the ground, refusing to fight the fire.

Pro Strong Military - Every country needs an adequate military, as we saw during our first war to get free from England. Still, there is no requirement that we have a military that can "bounce the rubble 10 times over". Strong? Yes. Absolutely overwhelming? No. We may get worried, and feel like we should have an overwhelmingly strong military, but that is NOT part of the Constitution, or of conservatism.

Gay Rights/Marriage - Homosexuals are not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. Therefore, they have the same rights as everyone else. As a practical matter, I believe in Gay Unions with equal rights to Marriages, but saving the term "Marriage" for heterosexual unions. Clearly, a partnership that is sanctioned by law, is a stronger union, and unions of some type, are the preferred state for most people to live and thrive in.

Gun Laws - The right to bear arms has been deemed to include gun ownership by individuals, by the Supreme Court. Conservatives support it, since it's right in the Constitution.

There are a LOT of people in the Republican party, who pose as conservatives. Maybe they're fanatics about one value - something like the abortion issue, or Gun ownership, etc. But one value in common, does not a true conservative, make.

**Let's be clear, Pro-Lifer's have no standing as conservatives, on this value. The Constitution doesn't mention it, AND abortions have been carried out with natural drugs and implements, since before recorded history. Abortions are horrid things, but to take away a woman's right to choose, is even worse.

Overall, Clinton made good policy, for commerce. Better than most of our Presidents, for sure.

Finance? Our entire melt down in the economy, was due to government interfering stupidly, with finance!

FHA loan buying FAMOUSLY was loosened up to promote home ownership, loan regulations forced banks into accepting applications for loans that NEVER should have been accepted - but now the gov't made it profitable to accept them, and they got sued if they did not.

Meanwhile, on Wall St., the ridiculous derivatives market, which is more gambling that anything in Las Vegas, was allowed to speculate with Billions of dollars, and subsequently sold, all around the world!

When I saw the loan applications for a home buyer, I was speechless at the obvious misrepresentations being made. But the gov't had a program to buy those loans, just that way, and you were in trouble if you failed to do so - so everyone got in line, and everyone made money.

And like most things that the gov't interferes with, it came crashing back down to earth, in a burning heap of shit. Barney Franks, and those other idiots, know next to NOTHING about how to run a business. How can they possibly make good laws for it?

Obama is in the same boat - never ran so much as a lemonade stand. Out of his entire cabinet, only a few had business experience.
This is the third time that you've beaten this dead horse of a sentence by an ex-politician, that you've taken out of context. Get a clue: Every politician lies. They wouldn't be elected without them.

It started with the attack on 9/11/2001. We followed the same "let's rebuild" philosophy that worked in rebuilding Germany & Japan., in WWII. They didn't work nearly as well, since the locals supported attacks against us, but we tried, and nation building is never cheap.

Islam: Read your Koran lately? Read up on Sharia Law?
No, you haven't. If you did, you would know that a Muslim is given privileges which non-Muslims are not allowed - like serving in the Army, for instance. A higher tax bracket (way higher), as well. Access to the courts, etc.

You can call it "Religious Aristocracy" or whatever, but at it's root, it's a form of Fascism. Muslim > Christian > Infidel > pig > Jew is how the Saudi Textbook put it, iirc.

Tax cuts:
True, according to government figures. If you have contrary evidence, I've asked you to post it. Crickets from you on supporting that argument, however.
George Jr. may have impressed you as a conservative. He was not, as his wild spending spree's proved. Yes, he was socially conservative, but I saw no reason to go to war with Iraq, and he lied about the reason we should go to war - and unfortunately, got all his administration to lie about it, as well.

No, George Jr. is not well liked among conservatives, for starting the Iraq war, and his out of control spending in general - but he is well liked for the tax cuts he passed. Those were significant.
Those were the actual "nominal" figures, from the gov't. If you want adjusted money values, just scroll up or down the page on the url I gave, to find them - for the income tax figures.

For the national debt figures, you'd have to look at the footer to see what dollar year they were representing.

Yes, politicians give you propaganda - count on it. It's cherry picked, it's misleading, it's distracting, it's "spun" to give it to you so they look to be Good and Wise. Yawn. And the sun rises in the East, what's new about it?

Yes, Clinton was generally well liked by conservatives, on business policies.

1) Reagan did cut taxes, and the economy did have a significant recovery during his two terms. No, it wasn't all sweetness and light, and pennies from heaven. There were set backs, especially in his first term. Still, our unemployment rate fell by the end of his first term.

With Reagan though, you knew it was going to work. You had confidence in his plans, because he spoke plainly about his philosophy of conservative government. Even people who didn't like him, knew his policies would work - damnit! :mad2:

I don't care if Obama is a Muslim. (And no, I don't believe he is a Muslim.) I would not support a candidate, because of his religion, or because he was an atheist. He's running for President, not to be a preacher, priest, or Iman.

This year, I'd prefer Obama run for Dog Catcher, however. Just because his policies have failed over the last 3 1/2 years.

It's clear that Obama and his Cabinet, don't know enough about business, to develop policies that will help us recover. That's just the plain truth.

And that's the plain reason, I want him out of the White House!

Yeah!!! << Go Mitt and Paul!! >>

:cool:

Classic overregulation, huh. Big, bad government going around allowing Wall St. to speculate.
The government had a program to buy loans "just that way".
Banks lied in order to make their loans look "just that way".
Amazingly, the lies turned out not to be true.

If only there had been less regulation, maybe they could have lied better.

Your every example are fraud, corruption, fiscal mismanagment, etc all made possible by deregulation or by subverting the regulators. My god. Glass Stegall was created to stop corrupt finance people from gaming the economy. What did America do to make this recession? We even recinded Glass Stegall so that corrupt finance people could enrich themselves at the expense of America. Extremist Republicans threatened to remove all SEC financing if the SEC enforced the laws (ie making possible Bernie Madoff). Why do you not even know these basics?

That reality is only disputed by wacko extremist talk show hosts and their disciples. I will not even try to list the details. Reams of previous posts here have described the corruption created by reducing regulation to enrich finance people. A corrupt admniistration literally permitted corrupt finance people to steal money from most all Americans.

Only a fool sees everything in terms or more regulation or less regulation. In some industries, little regulation makes a stronger America. In other industries (ie finance), we cannot regulate it enough to make a stronger American economy. That contradicts the broad paint brush (deregulation) advocated by extremist rhetoric. Is probably too complex for their extremist disciples (ie Tea Party) who need every answer in a soundbyte or 'liberal verses conservative' rhetoric.

A simple rule. A finance guy should be paid same as an equivalent worker in any utility. A stock broker or investment banker only does what an electric, gas, or water company employee does. Move money, electriciity, gas, or water. Nothing in finance creates jobs. But when we overpay a water company or finance company employee, then productive jobs are subverted or destroyed. Again, posted examples are longer than this entire thread. But that should have been obvious if ignoring extremist talk show hosts.

Did talk shows mention these realities? Of course not. They know where their money comes from. Better is to enrich at the expense of America. How curious. Exactly what happened during George Jr's tenure. Government removed or even subverted regulation to all but print money using CDOs, SIVs, and other derivatives. But again, all this was explained here previously and in great detail.

How uninformed were George Jr people? As the American economy was going over a cliff, where were any of George Jr's extremists? All were silent. Or did the moderates (Paulson, Bernake, etc) tell the wackos to shut up? George Jr had no idea what was happening. In a crisis meeting, he literally lost control and just walked out. His own people even yelling and accusing in panic. George Jr would make public statements saying our economy was sound. When at one point we were hours away from a meltdown that would have created 40% unemployment. Or did extremist talk show hosts forget to discuss this?

So after George Jr walked out and John McCain demonstrated no grasp of the problem, then who took over the meeting? Obama. Only he had been properly informed and understood the ongoing catastrophy on Wall Street. But again, did extremist talk show host forget to discuss that meeting?

The people in government who created this crisis by enriching Wall Street had no idea how bad they were making things even back in 2002. And had no idea what to do. Because they were not moderates.

A wacko extremist without a soundbyte is powerless; is left to confront reality. This recession obviously was created when wacko extremists removed or subverted finance industry regulations.

If your sources were honest, then you knew $0.55 trillion back then is more than $1.3 trillion today. That is the point. You keep posting half truths promoted by extremist talk show hosts. Do not even know who intentionally created this recession using blantant fiscal mismanagement and subverting regulations.

You are exactly correct!

And the wacko extremists were -- drum roll please -- the Dods Franks Bill, and other laws like it, that was signed into law by idiots in Washington, to promote home ownership for people who could NOT afford it, and then promoted derivatives which basically were gambling on whether the homeowner would go into default, or not.

There were BILLIONS of dollars made on these finance instruments, as they were sold for a profit, all around the world, in huge bundles.

Everybody made money at first - the Real Estate Agent, the Appraiser, the Bank or Savings and Loan, the Wall St. firm like Goldman Sachs, that bundled them up into large groups, and sold them world-wide.

The politicians loved it because it induced people to vote for, and support them.

Like Socialism itself, it all looked GLORIOUS - until the reality of the situation caused the money to start drying up, and people started defaulting. Like a house of cards, it all came crashing back down.

I'm in favor of early term abortions, if that is what the mother chooses. But late term abortions are clearly done after the fetus has become a fully aware individual. Really ugly.

Partial birth abortions are the worst of the lot. Here an infant is almost fully born - it's head is out of the birth canal. Then the "doctor" kills the baby by destroying the infant's brain, (usually by sucking out the brain), and finishes delivering the infant. Then tossing it's dead body into the medical waste bin, to be disposed of. :mad::mad::mad:

This is what Barrack has voted in favor of, and of course, it was kept quiet by nearly all the media. His so-called church, by the way, approves of this practice, as a member of the World Council of Churches.

I wonder how many of the regulars here, can support this practice of Partial Birth Abortion? Don't you wonder that Obama supports it?

Not only is it SO close to murder it's ridiculous, but it's the ugliest thing I can imagine. That baby could be adopted if the mother or father didn't want it!

Mitt Romney will NEVER support Partial Birth Abortion. Frankly, I'm shocked that anyone does. You watch a video of it, and you will be SICK SICK SICK.

Well that's just dumb. From the World Council of Churches, in a speech delivered to the UN in 2008:



But here's what I think: you're a troll in reverse. You spew retarded, obviously misinformed statements out there, but in a well-written form and backed by declarations of having moderate beliefs yourself. This encourages others to do the research and post the appropriate rebuttals, thinking you are not lost, you can be converted. And this whole back-and-forth process is out there on the internet for other moderates to read, and consider, and perhaps be swayed by the facts.

I think you do support Obama.

you give far too much credit Clodfobble. I take him at his contradictory,misinformed word. I think he fits perfectly the description of an ideologue as put forth by Bill Clinton. ideology or evidence--one driven by ideology starts with the CONCLUSION and the finds evidence to support that conclusion. when evidence is more important than ideology, it is the evidence that leads to the CONCLUSION

The "World Council Of Churches", says it doesn't support abortions, but it does not forbid it's member churces, from supporting them.

And Obama did vote to support a bill that allowed Partial Birth Abortions. I'm not one to pillory a politician (there's a nice alliteration, eh?), because they voted for a wacko bill once in a while, but voting for Partial Birth Abortion??

The Infant is half-way born, but they suck it's brain out? I'm speechless trying to describe how wrong that is.

Here's a research topic for you: Google the number of abortions in the US. Now compare the number of abortion done on Black mothers, to White and Chicano/Latino/, and other race mothers. Black mothers are having a *large* number of abortions. :(

And yes, I do support Obama in 2012 - For Dog Catcher! I've had enough of his policies that just don't work worth a damn.

If "born" just means "removed from the womb", then in all abortions, including IDX, the baby is completely "born" by the end of the procedure.

I don't support any laws that interfere with, control or legislate decisions made between a woman and her doctor about her own body. Period.

Government needs to stay the fuck out of my womb.

Born means that a live infant is out from the womb. A stillborn infant is "delivered", not born.

Partial Birth Abortion means that before the infant's feet are out of the birth canal, it's head is grabbed, and instead of being embraced by caring hands, a tool is used to remove the baby' s brain. This is not being done on a fetus, this is being done to a baby, that is perfectly viable.

IDX is another name for Partial Birth Abortion.

This is SO CLOSE to being murder of an infant, that in fact, it sometimes becomes murder, but it's not charged as such. Babies sometimes come out faster than expected, so the abortion doctor or nurse, has to then either kill the baby, or in some cases, it's just set aside to die from lack of care, by the staff and mother. (The mother may or may not be aware this is happening, since the staff try to shield her from that emotional pain, and their inability to perform the Partial Birth Abortion, correctly.)

I agree, but late term abortions without good medical cause, are something I'll never support.

And how many late term abortions are conducted 'without good medical cause'?

Oh, not many.

that's the real mitt tomney for ya

I don't know if that's a typo or if it means something, but 'mitt tomney' made me giggle. ;)

I agree. The last thing we need is more tea-party members.

Best to get all your giggling done, before the election, IM.

After that, if Obama wins, we'll all be quite a bit gloomier. That's the only "fair" way to endure Socialism. Everybody gets to cry and moan, because the private sector that drives our economy, will be even more crippled that it is now.

For his next term, from his many speeches and the debate, have you heard anything new from Obama? Anything that you thought was good? Because all I'm hearing from Obama is "stay the course" and "let's finish up what we started", etc.

And since what he started obviously failed, why do you support Obama? Do you really want more of the same policies that have failed so miserably to get our economy going again?

Two to four months premature is not viable without heroic medical effort.

Hey, troll. I was laughing at a typo. I don't want to discuss further, with you, my or your political beliefs. Is that not obvious? There, I've spelled it out for you.

Have your little "I'm so smart" discussions with those who are still banging their heads into the wall that is you.

Not only do I think you're trolling, I think you're so misguided as to be dangerous.

Buh-bye!

Yeah. So let's go back to the policies that got our economy in this shape to begin with. That's intelligent. :rolleyes:

You mean, despite fighting against a congress that would not let President Obama pass a universal cure for cancer if it meant one more person might vote for him, getting the country away from the cliff and having steady job growth for the last 30 months and going from 10% unemployment to 7.8, after the congress above voted against all the jobs bills, including the ones they proposed as well as the VETERANS Jobs bill.
Fuck Romney, Ryan, the right and the tea party. They would kill their own mothers to keep the black guy from getting another term/

Fuck yeah, Shel, say it like it is.

There were two critical changes that caused this economic crisis:

1) The change in the way the feds, through FAH ("Fanny Mae, and "Freddie Mac"), that loosened the restrictions on the loans that they would buy, from the banks/savings and loans.

What that amounted to was, the realtors, the banks, the appraisers, the investors, hell, even the termite exterminator, made money, as long as the feds would buy the loans. And with the restrictions removed, there was just a signature to say "I made $X about of dollars last year". <wink, wink>

The wink wink, was that the realtor or bank would tell you "that income figure is never verified". <wink, wink> There is your subprime mortgage market debacle. Why subprime? Because they brought in the highest returns.

2) The huge derivative market, and how it was unregulated, (I've marked it with bold font, below). This was a HUGE investment instrument, and affected investors (principally financial companies, world wide.

The Washington Post (not a conservative newspaper), had this to say, focusing mostly on the Wall St. finance angle. A bit long, but a good read.

Gas was at $1.84 per gallon, when Obama was sworn in. (Nationwide average).

Gas today is at $3.81 per gallon (Nationwide average).

Source: http://fuelgaugereport.aaa.com/?redi....com/index.asp

Of course, California has Democrats running our State, with no concern for working people, so our current gas price is $4.59 per gallon.

All prices are for regular gas.

How Biden can beat Ryan, in Thursday's big debate:

1) Be different! Have a Biden vs. Biden debate! ;)

2) Slip Ryan a roofie, before the debate!

3) Tell the moderator, his dog ate all his debate notes.

4) Get an earpiece from the secret service, and get coached by a roomful of government and debate experts, live.

5) Pray to St. Jude the Apostle, the patron saint of Lost Causes - REAL hard. :rolleyes:

Because Ryan is going to kick Biden's ass!! :D

Probably by using the Gish Gallop.

We'd be happy to have some of the unwashed anarchists from Occupy! spend some time around your house instead, what do you say? :eek:

If you actually READ the Declaration of Independence, and other documents our founding fathers wrote, you get a real feel for just how smart they were.

Conservatives don't focus on the poor, as much as the Liberals do. Our idea is to first, get a rousing economy working, and let the poor help themselves into the middle class, as much as possible. Those that still need help, try and make programs to give them a way OUT of being poor. We don't want to help the poor with a hand out, we want to help them stop being poor, with a hand up, when needed.
Paying healthy, working age people, a stipend every month for the rest of their lives, and dependent on the dole, is not a function of government.

However, Romney was discussing his demographics of likely voters in his speech. He wasn't talking about his policies.

Clearly, those who are on some form of welfare, are not likely to vote for Romney, no matter what he did in the campaign or debate. That's why "he doesn't worry about them" - he knows he can't get their votes.

Political strategy sessions should be kept secret from your political opponent. (of course) You have to say it, because it's a political strategy session fact, being shared with supporters at a fund raiser. Getting that "inside story", is what big supporters, love to hear.

I'd be happy to have the Occupy group over. THEY are at least fighting FOR something, not against someONE.

I have read the Declaration and the constitution several times. The founding fathers were extremely smart FOR THEIR TIME.

Times have changed and things are not the same as back then.
Do you think people from 250 years before the founding fathers would have been ready for the ideas the founding fathers came up with?

The founding Fathers didn't come up with those idea's for gov't. They had been proposed earlier by men like John Locke, etc. They were smart enough to see the wisdom in them, however.

The Republicans are fighting for something:

1) a smaller, and more efficient gov't:

It may sound wacko to a liberal, but even governments, can't keep spending more and more Trillions of dollars, beyond their means.

That WILL collapse the monetary system, no matter WHO you are.

Also, as the gov't gets larger, and has more and more control over everything, it's obvious that your personal freedoms evaporate faster than the dew on a warm Summer morning. If you want to keep your freedoms, you have to limit the power of the gov't, to usurp them. For instance, if the feds control the health care system, they may say, that you could keep your current doctor. That sounds good. But once they have control of the health care system, they can change it in a flash, so you can't keep your doctor, and there is NOTHING you can do about it.

Because unlike a health care company, you can't take threaten them with a lawsuit, you can't take them to court. They've changed the law, and it's all legal, and you're just OUT OF LUCK. The gov't has what no company can have - sovereign immunity.

That's the big difference - with a company, they usually have an oversight gov't official - like the Insurance commissioner, you can appeal to. If that fails, you can take them to court, and force them to live up to the terms of their contract with you. And EVERY treatment option for you, when you can be seen by what specialist, etc., it's all up to the gov't.

This is the same gov't that took 5 days to get bottled water to the Superdome, during Hurricane Katrina (while 15,000 people or more, waited), and thought it was a good idea to put burning tear gas canisters into the WOOD frame building where the residents were staying, in Waco, Texas - catching the structure on fire, and burning them all to death.

Is this REALLY who you want to be in charge of setting up your health care system? Senators who tell you they'll "vote for the health care bill, and write it later?"

Really? :eek:

Then why did a conservative get us into 2 UNPAID for wars that HAVE cost us trillions of dollars and then cut taxes for the richest among us?

And Romney has said it was a mistake to leave Iraq and Afganistan and also wants us to go to war with Iran.

Is this who you want in charge of ANYTHING? REALLY?!!! :eek:

Quote: "Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched; who ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. Let us follow no such examples, nor weakly believe that one generation is not as capable as another of taking care of itself, and of ordering its own affairs. Each generation is as independent as the one preceding, as that was of all which had gone before." -- Thomas Jefferson

Bush was not a conservative. Socially, he was conservative, but in his foreign policy with Iraq and Afghanistan, and his fiscal irresponsibility, he was anything BUT conservative.

Yes, we were attacked by Al-Qaeda, and yes, they were in Afghanistan, but that doesn't mean we have to go to war with all of Afghanistan. And it doesn't mean we have to build up their country and spend 10 years there, either. In 3 months, we should have been in and out.

We had Al-Qaeda's leaders trapped in Tora Bora you may recall, early on, but we didn't have the US troops needed to make the assault, and the Afghani's we had doing a lot of the fighting with us, didn't have the fighting skills, arms, and mettle, to do the job.

Jefferson was a real case study in never being satisfied. He wasn't satisfied with his wife, he also wasn't satisfied with his farm, his state, the federal gov't, the way the war was being fought, etc. He stated he didn't like slavery, but kept a number of slaves, all his adult life.
So why would he be satisfied with the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence, or much of anything?

You can find opinions against the constitution, all over the place, especially in the liberal and/or progressive followers. The problem is, if you made a Constitution that the liberals and the progressives really liked, your country wouldn't last 50 years.

FDR was a great progressive and liberal, and thought he should be able to "pack" the Supreme Court, to get what he wanted approved.
Was his idea a good one? I don't believe so. Lots of examples like this.

Read "The Naked Constitution" by Friedman, and you'll get past this "every generation should blah, blah, blah", progressive idiocy.

Romney is trying, for political purposes, to distance himself from Obama, on foreign affairs. And that's hard to do, because Obama has followed the path that Bush begun, very closely.

Romney will not be staying in Afghanistan, and we won't be going to war with Iran. It's not in our best interests to do that, if that makes sense to you. It IS in our best interests, to ACT LIKE we may choose to go to war with Iran.

Why? Because the Mullah's have still not decided on whether to pursue nuclear weapons. We want to "nudge" them away from doing it, with a bit of saber-rattling (something they understand very well).

It is FAR better to threaten them now, than face the alternatives, (either a war, or Iran with nuclear weapons), later. Also, the Iranian "rial" has gone right into the shitter, so they are starting to get civil unrest against their gov't, and they have a LOT less $$$ to spend on things like a nuclear weapons program.

Fixed it for ya. He's already had a lot of practice with Mitt.

Nope (from here)