Obama supporters....
-
StangerBanger96;237412 wrote:
One funny thing I found recently is Nanci Pelosi saying "NO" when asked if the Dem's had ANY responsibility regarding the recent financial crisis...She's an idiot. Period.
Funny thing about it, McCain and several other Republican congressmen wanted Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac investigated about 3 years ago because they could see an issue. The Dem's felt that there was no problem and shot that idea down...One dem in particular was against it I do believe, but since it seems to be illegal to say anything bad about the "messiah" I wont
Source? I can also show you were he (McCain) was for the deregulation of that industry, but now has flip-flopped his stance and says there needs to be more gov't involvement and oversight.
Talk all the smack you want about Obama, it's a free country....unless you want to protest at a Bush rally, then they arrest you or turn you away.
Also in regards to taxes, I do believe the war that eventually got our Nation started was over taxes, and the rate they were being taxed at back then was MUCH lower than our current tax rates...Fundamentally, Republicans want small government in the hands of the people and Democrats want a large central/Federal government. Unfortunately as of recently the Republicans have been making the central government larger, making them almost the same as the Dem's in that regard. As for other beliefs, Dems lose hands down IMO.
-
tjamz;237416 wrote:
She's an idiot. Period.We can definitely agree on that.
tjamz;237416 wrote:
Source? I can also show you were he (McCain) was for the deregulation of that industry, but now has flip-flopped his stance and says there needs to be more gov't involvement and oversight.This is what McCain said in 2005, he seems to have been a oracle. lol
Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were "illusions deliberately and systematically created" by the company's senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.
The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae's former chief executive officer, OFHEO's report shows that over half of Mr. Raines' compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.
The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.
For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs--and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.
Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.
I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
Bassplayer;237215 wrote:
As long as they aren't bothering other people, any person should be allowed to do whatever they want. It's not our job to tell other people who they can be attracted to. If you can't deal with someone else being different then GTFO. That's a real shady thing to judge someone by their sexual orientation. I'll defend that til the day I die.Judging someone and not supporting thier lifestyle are two different things. What is real shady is the lack of moral fibers that the country is clinging to. The country was founded on wonderful principles and should not change because of people who want no rules and do anything as long as it makes them feel good.
-
-
Ron Paul, September 10, 2003:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul128.html
Perhaps the Federal Reserve can stave off the day of reckoning by purchasing GSE debt and pumping liquidity into the housing market, but this cannot hold off the inevitable drop in the housing market forever. In fact, postponing the necessary, but painful market corrections will only deepen the inevitable fall. The more people invested in the market, the greater the effects across the economy when the bubble bursts
As usual, Ron Paul 0wnz everyone at all things financial.
Fannie and Freddie have been great for democrats to reward supporters with cushy management jobs with zero accountability. Now we're paying the price.
-
00Ws6TransAm;237421 wrote:
Judging someone and not supporting thier lifestyle are two different things. What is real shady is the lack of moral fibers that the country is clinging to. The country was founded on wonderful principles and should not change because of people who want no rules and do anything as long as it makes them feel good.Basically, the rules of this country are as follows:
Do whatever you want so long as what you are doing does not infringe on the rights of others.
I don't see how gay rights affect me (either in a positive or negative manner).
Morality is great...but not everyone has the same morals. Some religions recognize and allow gay couples, others don't. Which set of morals are right? The one that says "Love everyone as you love yourself" or the one that says "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve"?
-
tjamz;237442 wrote:
Which set of morals are right? The one that says "Love everyone as you love yourself" or the one that says "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve"?You don't have to hate someone simply because you disagree with thier actions. You can still love someone (not in a kissy kissy way) and strongly disagree with what they are doing.
Speaking of strongly disagreeing, I can't wait for the debates to start! Especially the VP debates. I hope Biden wears a cup that nite.
:icon_rabbit:
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
I'd love to see an unscripted/unnegotiated debate between all candidates (VP and Pres) where any question goes. I think McCain would do better than Obama at that and that Biden would destroy Palin...heck let the two candidates ask each other a few questions even. That would be a fun debate to watch. Unfortunately what we are going to see is watered down questions that won't show the candidates true colors.
But having said that, even though a candidate "wins" a debate, it does not guarantee them a seat in the oval office.....Bush proved that.
Now for my take on Obama. He's not a messiah. I disagree with him on many issues, however I feel that he would be a good leader for this country.....but ONLY if he has a republican house/senate to challenge him. Clinton was best during his last six years and was subpar at best during his 1st two. I honestly think Bush would have been better if he had a democrat house and senate for the majority of his term...that way they would have had to challenge each other. Right now, the dems are giving him just enough rope to hang himself, which is too bad. I'd rather see a successful president from EITHER party than one who is not highly regarded. Unfortunately party line politics comes into play and no one gives a flying fuck what happens to our country so long as their party comes out smelling like a rose.
In reality, if both parties worked together more we would be far better off. I'm not saying that each side give in on everything, but at some point you have to do the right thing because it is the right thing to do....is that too much to ask from either party?
-
tjamz;237442 wrote:
Basically, the rules of this country are as follows:Do whatever you want so long as what you are doing does not infringe on the rights of others.
I don't see how gay rights affect me (either in a positive or negative manner).
Morality is great...but not everyone has the same morals. Some religions recognize and allow gay couples, others don't. Which set of morals are right? The one that says "Love everyone as you love yourself" or the one that says "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve"?
I'd like to see how long the human race would last if "Adam and Steve" type of morals prevailed. My guess it wouldn't last...wonder why...maybe "God" knew what he was doing.
-
ahaha oh man,, adam and steve
-
fallguy;237486 wrote:
I'd like to see how long the human race would last if "Adam and Steve" type of morals prevailed. My guess it wouldn't last...wonder why...maybe "God" knew what he was doing.I never said he didn't know what he was doing. I just fail to see how homosexuality affects me or anyone around me. Aren't we supposed to NOT judge others? Isn't that God's duty?
-
What if god isn't real???
I thought government wasn't supposed to be about religion? -
tjamz;237491 wrote:
I never said he didn't know what he was doing. I just fail to see how homosexuality affects me or anyone around me. Aren't we supposed to NOT judge others? Isn't that God's duty?Who is doing any judging here?
Personally, I don't care if they want to take it in the seat, the ear, the nose or whatever orifice they want when they are in the bedroom. It will all get sorted out in the end (pun intended). How it does affect me/you is when the laws of the land are affected to suit their lifestyle.
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
ah...but now the laws are suited to meet my lifestyle and the lifestyle of heterosexual couples. I fail to see how allowing gay marriage is going to affect my lifestyle one way or another. It's not going to make me or anyone else turn gay. It might bring a few more out of the closet, but that doesn't affect me either....other than seeing more rainbow bumper stickers.
Last time I checked it wasn't illegal to be in a homosexual relationship or partake in homosexual activities, so why is it illegal for them to marry (or enter a "civil union"...whatever...same thing) or why should they not be afforded the same rights as a hetero couple would receive (they don't even have the same rights as non-married hetero couples...for example, health insurance....I know many hetero couples who are not married but get family rate health coverage, and I know a few gay people who do not qualify for health coverage for their "life partner" even though they have been living together for 15+ years)
I really don't care one way or another about homosexuality, it's not something I'd ever partake in, but I think that they are humans/citizens like everyone else and they should be afforded the same basic rights as everyone else.
-
DaveH;237521 wrote:
How it does affect me/you is when the laws of the land are affected to suit their lifestyle.
Such as?tjamz;237537 wrote:
ah...but now the laws are suited to meet my lifestyle and the lifestyle of heterosexual couples. I fail to see how allowing gay marriage is going to affect my lifestyle one way or another. It's not going to make me or anyone else turn gay. It might bring a few more out of the closet, but that doesn't affect me either....other than seeing more rainbow bumper stickers.Last time I checked it wasn't illegal to be in a homosexual relationship or partake in homosexual activities, so why is it illegal for them to marry (or enter a "civil union"...whatever...same thing) or why should they not be afforded the same rights as a hetero couple would receive (they don't even have the same rights as non-married hetero couples...for example, health insurance....I know many hetero couples who are not married but get family rate health coverage, and I know a few gay people who do not qualify for health coverage for their "life partner" even though they have been living together for 15+ years)
I really don't care one way or another about homosexuality, it's not something I'd ever partake in, but I think that they are humans/citizens like everyone else and they should be afforded the same basic rights as everyone else.
I agree.
-
oh no...me and ethan agree....how gay is that?
-
tjamz;237537 wrote:
ah...but now the laws are suited to meet my lifestyle and the lifestyle of heterosexual couples. I fail to see how allowing gay marriage is going to affect my lifestyle one way or another. It's not going to make me or anyone else turn gay. It might bring a few more out of the closet, but that doesn't affect me either....other than seeing more rainbow bumper stickers..Actually the 1st ammendment is getting trampled on, why is the government involved in deciding who is allowed to get married in the first place? Marriage is a religious institution, religious entities should decide who does or does not get married. What happened to "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"?
tjamz;237537 wrote:
Last time I checked it wasn't illegal to be in a homosexual relationship or partake in homosexual activities, so why is it illegal for them to marry (or enter a "civil union"...whatever...same thing) ).Bzzzz. Wrong. Not the same thing. If gay folks want to set up their own "union" of sorts I could give a rats ass less.
tjamz;237537 wrote:
or why should they not be afforded the same rights as a hetero couple would receive (they don't even have the same rights as non-married hetero couples...for example, health insurance....I know many hetero couples who are not married but get family rate health coverage, and I know a few gay people who do not qualify for health coverage for their "life partner" even though they have been living together for 15+ years).Instead of trying to change the definition of marriage, gay activists should petition insurance companies to change their policies to include their lifestyle as one that gets the "family rate". Or they should petition hospitals to change their policies so they can visit their "partner" in the hospital. The solution is that simple. The "equal rights" thing is a bunch of crap. Family rate health insurance isn't a "right", it's a benefit that insurance companies came up with. Visitation in the hospital isn't a "right", it a rule that hospitals set up to keep unwanted visitors out.
tjamz;237537 wrote:
I really don't care one way or another about homosexuality, it's not something I'd ever partake in, but I think that they are humans/citizens like everyone else and they should be afforded the same basic rights as everyone else.Exactly, the same rights given all of us in the bill of rights (aka the first 10 ammendments to the constitution.
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login