Recreating America under Obama.

[jackson33]

Buffy;

Disenfranchise or intimidation of voters can have the same results and both illegal. 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. 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...

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. Even today, most areas around this country are reporting less than 2% default rates, the common norm. Add to this the effects of the 1989 Savings and Loan problem (similar to today) and the 2000 Tech bubble burst and those minor effects on the overall economy, then YES, I could summarize this should have been no worse than those two periods. IMO, GWB was advised of rising default rates building with a rising concerns on immigration (Phoenix) and pursued his Reform Act, which at the time and today I believe should have been passed. No housing collapse, no recession and then no crisis...

As for lending practices or loaning to folks that had no business trying to buy homes or bought homes over their current incomes, you have an entirely different issue, with very different causes for defaulting, all of which had/have been problems since people first bought into the home market and will be forever.

As for economist agreeing, think you would have a problem finding one to disagree...

Guess in trying to over simplifying inequalities, by using States, should have just stuck to California. You have probably 30 districts that control the State, all of which are in and around SD/LA or SF. Yes, they make up the majority of people, but all those that live in the other 23 districts covering 80% of the area live under laws designed for urban areas or their needs. Where this might be OK at the State level, I hardly think it acceptable to those States with virtually no interest in common with the few that represent the majority.

The US, today IMO remains socially conservative or center right. They believe in Motherhood, Church and Family Values and their rights to fail or succeed in life and want as little government involvement as possible, especially taxes. I'll go a couple steps further and suggest those demographics that are increasing, Latinos and 1st generation Americans (up to 10 million from everywhere) are further right than you might think and
will be dominate voting blocks in 2-4 and eight years from now.

Thunderbird, is from small town USA and no doubt republican. He is concerned with the results of this election as are all thinking republicans or even those wanting to maintain the two party system or as you say keeping a check on which ever variation may hold the Executive or Legislative Branch. Back on track, probably has less meaning than your giving and certainly half of those 85% thinking about getting on track, have opposite views of what 'on track' means. In my mind getting on track is keeping the Federal on its intended track and out of State issues.

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? I hope he is successful, even in proving me wrong but at the first sign of socialism, he will be criticized by me and with all the effort I can gather...

[Southtown]

Originally Posted by Turtle

As in religious fundamentalism I presume?

No. Actually, I would like to see less civil regulation and more corporate. I think that would save money and hinder corruption at the same time.

[Buffy]

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):

Source: Pew Research

But the people who are doing it aren't just Marxist kids and black folks:

Source: Pew Research

In fact fear of being "threatened" by "students," "blacks" or anyone else is nowhere on the list of reasons why people were doing it:

Source: Pew Research

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.

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":

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...

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?

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)

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?

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

[Thunderbird]

Originally Posted by jackson33

Buffy;


Thunderbird, is from small town USA and no doubt republican. He is concerned with the results of this election as are all thinking republicans or even those wanting to maintain the two party system or as you say keeping a check on which ever variation may hold the Executive or Legislative Branch. Back on track, probably has less meaning than your giving and certainly half of those 85% thinking about getting on track, have opposite views of what 'on track' means. In my mind getting on track is keeping the Federal on its intended track and out of State issues.

...

Actually Jackson I’m a Liberal Democrat community organizer that campaigned for Obama along with two ministers and handful dedicated “Church ladies” we won our rural county by 8 votes.

[Zythryn]

Well, at least Jackson33 is consistently wrong

I can't believe you actually said that Rush's 'discussion' of democrats didn't use personal attacks? Thank you Buffy for a few of the many examples.

[jackson33]

Originally Posted by Thunderbird

Actually Jackson I’m a Liberal Democrat community organizer that campaigned for Obama along with two ministers and handful dedicated “Church ladies” we won our rural county by 8 votes.

Had mixed you up, with whoever was from a small SE Missouri Town. Would seem to me the recreation of America, should be a closed scenario issue as presented by your candidate. Hope you enjoy what I fear is to come, but grats are in order for you efforts and victory.

Z; I am not sure Limbaugh would have voted for McCain, over Ms. Clinton.
Think you will find he has been very critical of McCain's POLICY, certainly more so than hers. I am sure I would have and many otherwise conservatives, for a perceived acceptance of interest and experience. Also hope she accepts the Secr. of State job, which she is the best available for these times.

As for consistency, there seems to be plenty around here, which only shows me conviction/passion in posters, not something bad...

[jackson33]

Buffy; It was early voting where my concerns drew from, where little control was present and most the stories came from. The issue itself will probably not be as bad as
I presented and did watch the Oregon results where 'mail in ballots' used. The outcomes very much along National Trends. Also thought you might argue back, what we did to blacks in the past, which we did, but neither acceptable.

If you really want to continue taking statements taken out of contents or made to amplify some point, I'll look up a few and we can spend months concluding nothing. I would start with Reverend Wright, who would seem to have nothing good to say about Obama, Clinton or even the country he lives in, but certainly doesn't agree with American Policy, who ever makes it. Since you do seem to have some knowledge in American History, you might note our founders really got along quite well socially, but had very different ideas on policy. Franklin, deplored slavery and Virginia's policy, but was able to draw many together into drafting our Constitution, Adams and Jefferson, with nothing in common except attorney's not only worked together, served together, but were friends, on and on.

'Absurd talking points of the week'; Thanks, didn't realize I kept up on those things, but if you check them out many become the talking points. I appreciate your comments, understand where you come from and only visit this site for its members. I have said this before, but there is a commonality here of like minded posters and/or management. Also as said before this is understandable. My only argument with policy is some apparent reprimand made to some not understanding this and the relative high number of banning toward those disagreed with. Other than this, its a good place to offer opinions and argue points.

No, recreating America is anything but complex. America is our law and Constitutional foundation, which is firmly established in our laws today, Federal and all States. It is what it is and change has to come slow or what is America will be something entirely different. Today I live in a small SE NM town, but have lived in many places and no two were alike. I personally have changed some ideas to conform to each place, they didn't change to my ideas or should they. This to me is America and the greatness of diversity and all under those principles that have set this country apart from so many others. There will be change under Obama, some you will perceive good and I will probably disagree or the reverse, but 99.9% of us will change along with it, so long as slowly implemented.

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by jackson33

It was early voting where my concerns drew from, where little control was present and most the stories came from.

Um, what stories? Not even Drudge seems to have published any, and even if it had been anecdotal I'm sure Fox would have been non-stop with it.

Conversely, we've got months worth of major newspaper coverage of the US Attorney's scandal.

No doubt what you claim might have happened in a place or two. Those black folks--especially the ones that go to the trouble of voting early--certainly are scary looking!

Originally Posted by jackson33

Also thought you might argue back, what we did to blacks in the past, which we did, but neither acceptable.

Sure, and I'm actually not at all calling you racist here!

The relevant Right Wing Talking Point is that Obama being elected is proof that there is no racism any more. I would hope that's true, and apparently so do you. Unfortunately, if this point you're making about White people being scared of getting in the polling booth lines simply because there were Black people in them is a *counter proof* to this argument!

Moreover, it does not take much demographic data to show that the only counties--early voting typically takes place in county offices--that are integrated enough to actually have mixed lines are actually quite liberal already (Alameda County in California is a great example, and we had oodles of well integrated lines, including old White folks voting alongside young Black folks).

The only logical conclusions here are that either lots of folks still harbor unconscious racism, or your claims are false.

Originally Posted by jackson33

If you really want to continue taking statements taken out of contents or made to amplify some point, I'll look up a few and we can spend months concluding nothing. I would start with Reverend Wright, who would seem to have nothing good to say about Obama, Clinton or even the country he lives in...

As I said in my last post, folks like Reverend Wright hold no sway on the Democratic Party. Conversely, Dick Cheney has given relatively few interviews, but has made special time for folks like Rush Limbaugh.

Its a matter of closeness and scale that's important, not just "did-did not" have any point of contact. Same with that Big Boogieman Bill Ayers that Sarah is *still* bringing up.

Sure we could do tit for tat on this, but the examples on the right are so feeble as to be absurd.

Go ahead. Make my day. Just do it in another thread.

Originally Posted by jackson33

Since you do seem to have some knowledge in American History, you might note our founders really got along quite well socially, but had very different ideas on policy.

Absolutely! And that's what we have to do to Recreate America!

We have got to stop the Gingrich's and Delay's and Cheney's that insist on political polarization.

When even centrist Republican's like Schwarzenegger get tarred as "not real Republicans" like you did in an earlier post, where is there room for *any* accommodation or compromise?

The hallmark of the Bush administration was to get elected on a soft "Compassionate Conservatism" sound bite which immediately morphed into the "overwhelming mandate" of the 2000 election while now some of the same conservative pundits that proclaimed it so are saying that Obama "has no mandate."

That's just polarizing, politically-motivated hate, not even friendly social discourse.

Originally Posted by jackson33

I have said this before, but there is a commonality here of like minded posters and/or management. Also as said before this is understandable. My only argument with policy is some apparent reprimand made to some not understanding this and the relative high number of banning toward those disagreed with.

That's certainly a matter of perception.

What's certainly a truism is that those that spend time in their posts claiming unfair persecution rather than actually backing up their assertions are usually busy claiming that Einstein was wrong or that gravity doesn't exist, and I think you're a much more logical fellow than that.

Originally Posted by jackson33

No, recreating America is anything but complex. America is our law and Constitutional foundation, which is firmly established in our laws today, Federal and all States. It is what it is and change has to come slow or what is America will be something entirely different.

So you'd agree that inventing new branches of government that are beyond the purview of the Constitution, or suspending whole sections of it, or abrogating treaties that are "inconvenient" without the approval of Congress like the outgoing administration has done is a bad thing? Great!

We're then in complete agreement as to how to move forward!

All we have to do is move away from this notion that we can declare that suspending our hard won freedoms and Constitutional rights is necessary because we're "at War" and go back to actually defending those freedoms and responsibilities!

And most importantly, stop accusing the other half of the citizens of this country as being anti-American simply on the basis of who they vote for.

But as long as there are folks think that nothing the President does can be considered illegal or can even be stopped (only if it's a Republican President of course!), and that anyone who disagrees with a particular party's platform is a "Marxist" then unfortunately, I disagree: it is going to be hard.

Fortunately, I don't think there are actually that many of those people, although they are all the leaders of the Conservative movement, and they've hijacked true Conservatism in America.

When even Barry Goldwater disagrees with this trend, you know that the party is indeed too radical:

Originally Posted by Barry Goldwater, Interview with Lloyd Grove, The Washington Post, 28 July 1994

The big thing is to make this country, along with every other country in the world with a few exceptions, quit discriminating against people just because they're gay. You don't have to agree with it, but they have a constitutional right to be gay. And that's what brings me into it.

The oldest philosophy in the world is conservatism, and I go clear back to the first Greeks. ... When you say 'radical right' today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party away from the Republican Party, and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye.

Oh, but I'm sure Barry Goldwater had no right to call himself a Republican either....


I think every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass,
Buffy

[Galapagos]

If yall' are like me and you enjoy shocking humor, check out the Conservapedia(wiki page) on Barack Obama:
Barack Obama - Conservapedia

For those who don't know, Conservapedia is like a wiki where creationist, Republican, Conservative Christians can post blatantly hateful, pseudoscientific, or false wikipedia articles without having to meet wikipedia standards.
I want to quote or post some highlights, but the entire thing is just so insane. It almost reads like a satire or parody.

[jackson33]

Originally Posted by Galapagos

If yall' are like me and you enjoy shocking humor, check out the Conservapedia(wiki page) on Barack Obama:
Barack Obama - Conservapedia

For those who don't know, Conservapedia is like a wiki where creationist, Republican, Conservative Christians can post blatantly hateful, pseudoscientific, or false wikipedia articles without having to meet wikipedia standards.
I want to quote or post some highlights, but the entire thing is just so insane. It almost reads like a satire or parody.

Since I am still a somewhat politically active Republican, I follow several sites and a member of a couple 'Political Conservative'. Nothing in that one article is new to many members of the opposition. Well over a year ago in more than one article and well before Obama gained the nomination, I suggested those arguments if anything would get him the nomination. It played right into the Anti-Bush, American and Intrernation Mainstream press, giving them the 'Story of the Century', in their minds and my opinioin.

Insane; I don't think so and you should note the very same attacks (in many cases) have been used against Ms. Palin....There are a good many contradictions to his history, which is pretty much from his own books and short political history. This would really be off topic, but I have and may continue to question his understanding of the US Constitution and/or the History of the US, from a Harvard Graduate in Constitutional Law and the required knowledge of US History...