Quote:
Originally Posted by jackson33
The problem is where the voters become the intimidated and little can be done. This years we had up to 97% of Blacks and 80% of young voter, arguable indoctrinated (Students) which can be quite unruly to most anyone over 35-40.
|
So people who are over 35 are all so scared of "indoctrinated students" and Black People that they didn't vote?
Whoa.
Not sure I even know what to say about that, although it is hard to square with lots of data that's started floating around: for example,
in Florida, McCain actually won most of the votes registered on Election Day; Obama won the state because he won a much bigger percentage of absentee and early voting because people who are poor or students had been warned that they might find themselves purged from the voting rolls by the Republican administration so that they were better off voting early so that any irregularities could be fixed before election day!
In fact, early/absentee voting is going way up, in large part due to more states allowing it (numbers are far higher in California which has had it in place for a long time):
But the people who are doing it aren't just Marxist kids and black folks:
In fact fear of being "threatened" by "students," "blacks" or anyone else is nowhere on the list of reasons why people were doing it:
Of course facts refuting the notion that conservative voting is being suppressed by "intimidation" don't matter to anyone but the liberals in the Reality-Based Community, so they must be irrelevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackson33
If this trend were to continue, I think it will, voting will become a undesirable task, not worth the effort. Take this for what its worth, but true in many urban areas of this country today...
|
So I guess then that it's most certainly true that conservatism is doomed due solely to scary kids with Che Guevara t-shirts and nose rings and the even scarier Black People....
Okay....
So on to the "cause" of the "mortgage crisis":
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackson33
According to government statistics, up to 5 Million loans may have been issued to 'Illegal Aliens'. The areas hit hardest by your 'Housing Bubble' were Southern California, Nevada (Las Vegas), Florida and then rural areas around the Country, all of which have heavy concentrations of illegals....
|
And according to Rush, the only reason that those loans happened was that the Democrats *intimidated* the banks into making all those unsafe loans! And it was all *illegals*!
No the banks weren't at all motivated by the fact that they could write up loans with incredible upsides due to giant premiums that could be charged on "riskier" loans--made possible by deregulation of the home loan industry driven by the Republicans--and that the banks could turn around and "eliminate" the risk by selling the loans to others or by "insuring" them with options that were totally unregulated due to....Republican-driven laws allowing them to be traded without oversight! Don't want to unduly "restrain" any market!
Do you know what
Collateralized Debt Obligations or
Credit-Default Swaps are?
Warren Buffett--no namby pamby Liberal--was saying that CDS's are "financial weapons of mass destruction" way back in 2002, but did the Republican controlled government listen? Nope.
Do you realize that these are generally considered by every economist to be the real reason we both had a housing bubble and why it popped?
No, no. Obviously it was *solely* due to the Democrats forcing Freddie, Fannie and the banks to give illegals loans...
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackson33
I do not criticize people, nor does Limbaugh or do most people in politics at any level. We have differences in policy or the means to effect change or simply stated the functions and purpose of government in the US. You actually use specific names of people (personal level) more than anyone I have ever discussed politics with. Do you really think Chaney, Gonzales, GWB, Rove or anybody really hates their political opponent or thinks those folks WANT to destroy this country or that I hate Obama for some personal bias?
|
Calling the arguments against these people's policies and statements "personal attacks" is certainly an interesting rhetorical approach: it basically dismisses the arguments as to why the actions that these people are bad with out presenting any evidence to the contrary.
Shoe on the other foot: Can I say that all of the attacks against Bill and Hillary by the conservative wingnuts are just personal?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rush Limbaugh
She sounds like a screeching ex-wife. (on Hillary Clinton)
If you're Ted Kennedy and you call Bill Clinton to say, 'Look, you have to dial this down, this is not dignified', Clinton could come back and say, 'Hey, at least Monica is still alive.'
Will Americans want to watch a woman get older before their eyes on a daily basis?
Did you know there's a White House dog? (while displaying a picture of a 13-year-old Chelsea Clinton)
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Glenn Beck
Hillary Clinton is like the stereotypical -- excuse the expression, but this is the way to -- she's the stereotypical bitch, you know what I mean? She's that stereotypical nagging -- [screeching]. You know what I mean?
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ann Coulter
I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot--so....’
|
Nope. Conservatives are *never* "personal" in discussing liberals, they concentrate *solely* on debating issues and facts!
Do you agree with the very active policies of voter suppression pursued by Rove and Gonzalez? Is this a good idea or a bad idea? Will it contribute to how we want to Recreate America?
Or is disagreeing with their policies simply an example of irrational, personal hatred of these individuals?
- - -
Seriously, I wouldn't bother to debate you on this except for the fact that your posts adhere so closely to the downright silly and absurd wingnut talking points of the week, and they're so easy to shoot down because they're nothing but content-free rhetorical nonsense.
I have no doubt that you're sincere in your beliefs, but I would urge you to think through some of the things you're saying and what their implications really are. So many of these influential sources that you're repeating have ulterior motives--not personal actually! usually simply avaricious or power grubbing!--and what may be in both your interest and in line with your morals are not what these spokespeople of the far right are actually saying!
Now if you want to debate about what we ought to actually *do* about Recreating America, say so, rather than just making blanket, unsupported allegations that any policy supported by someone to the left of the Republican party platform is by definition bad for the country. "Raising taxes is always bad" is one of those oversimplifications that has no basis in reality but is a standard "conservative" talking point, and really doesn't make sense when you start to think about the details. Reagan hated government and yet grew it and raised taxes. Bush I knew it was irresponsible to go to war and then not raise taxes to pay for it, and was crucified by his own party for doing so, even though he was practicing one of the foundational principles of Fiscal Conservatism.
Recreating America is a complex topic, and while simplistic policies may seem satisfying, they're merely the same empty calories you get in cotton candy: you're going to end up fat and sclerotic if you go down that road...
For every problem there is a solution which is simple, clean and wrong,
Buffy
