Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 19 Feb '10 12:56
    Hooray! I'm so happy to see Mittens Romney (Satan worshiper) reclaim Bush II for conservatives again at CPAC. I can't count the number of times I've heard the thinking-challenged call Bush a "progressive" since his disastrous presidency. But isn't that always the way? They want us to forget that he did everything that conservatism asked because the results were so bad. (Of course if you tell them our current troubles are his fault they'll tell you that things aren't so bad (as they head out the door to decry the imposition of socialism and gun confiscation on our fair land.)) My ex-wife once told me that when she told a lie it became the truth from then on (or at least until the next lie.) So the lie now is that Bush was a great conservative President. The "conservative" at least is true.
  2. 19 Feb '10 16:13
    Originally posted by TerrierJack
    Hooray! I'm so happy to see Mittens Romney (Satan worshiper) reclaim Bush II for conservatives again at CPAC. I can't count the number of times I've heard the thinking-challenged call Bush a "progressive" since his disastrous presidency. But isn't that always the way? They want us to forget that he did everything that conservatism asked because the resul ...[text shortened]... is that Bush was a great conservative President. The "conservative" at least is true.
    What was conservative about "W"?
  3. 19 Feb '10 17:14
    Originally posted by whodey
    What was conservative about "W"?
    Many things:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_George_W._Bush
  4. 19 Feb '10 17:27
    Originally posted by whodey
    What was conservative about "W"?
    Well, I'll admit it, he didn't appear to be a Klan member but he would have still had a beer with you.
  5. Standard member smw6869
    Granny
    19 Feb '10 17:47
    Originally posted by TerrierJack
    Well, I'll admit it, he didn't appear to be a Klan member but he would have still had a beer with you.
    Wah Wah Wah. To bad you've already been neutered otherwise you could hang yourself by your nads.

    GRANNY.
  6. Standard member DrKF
    incipit parodia
    19 Feb '10 17:49
    I wouldn't bother. The proponents of 'conservatism' these days are most like proponents of Marxism: challenge them over actual instances of their religion-as-ideology in practice and they will reply: 'well, he wasn't a real conservative/that wasn't a real communist society.' Just as Marxists do not realise the flaws in their religion-as-ideology will always lead to its 'corruption' and will shift terms to explain away the self-evident truth that what they desire is utterly unrealistic for modern human affairs, so to do their curious brethren the 'conservatives'
  7. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    20 Feb '10 01:42
    Originally posted by DrKF
    I wouldn't bother. The proponents of 'conservatism' these days are most like proponents of Marxism: challenge them over actual instances of their religion-as-ideology in practice and they will reply: 'well, he wasn't a real conservative/that wasn't a real communist society.' Just as Marxists do not realise the flaws in their religion-as-ide ...[text shortened]... alistic for modern human affairs, so to do their curious brethren the 'conservatives'
    AKA "No True Scotsman" fallacy. No, not you FMF. You're describing the fallacy.
  8. 20 Feb '10 01:53 / 2 edits
    I am not really interested in key phrases designed to label me or others. So by all means continue to throw out the terms "conservative" or "liberal" all you want. The bottom line for me is that "W" spent like a drunken sailor and created one of the largest entitlement programs in US history that Obama jokes about not being able to pay for. In addition, he started one of the most unpopular wars of our time. Then the credit crisis came due in large part to two government created entities Fannie and Freddie who's vision was to give mortgages to those who really could not afford them.

    So what does this all point to? It points to an out of control government extending its tentacles across the globe and at home and the public soundly rejected that government. So what do we have todeay? We have pretty much the same thing with Obama only on steriods. So label them what you will other than one of the next Presidents of the United States. Good riddens Barak and "W" its been swell!!!
  9. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    20 Feb '10 02:01
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    AKA "No True Scotsman" fallacy. No, not you FMF. You're describing the fallacy.
    I have never claimed to be from Scotland.
  10. 20 Feb '10 02:34 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    I am not really interested in key phrases designed to label me or others. So by all means continue to throw out the terms "conservative" or "liberal" all you want. The bottom line for me is that "W" spent like a drunken sailor and created one of the largest entitlement programs in US history that Obama jokes about not being able to pay for. In addition, he the next Presidents of the United States. Good riddens Barak and "W" its been swell!!!
    This just shows how misinformed you are. Fannie and Freddie were NOT allowed to make sub-prime mortgages. They collapsed not because of the mortgages that they made but because of investments they made with their profits in bundled securities that were backed by other lender's subprime mortgages. You voted for Bush twice because you were so badly informed about what was going on and you will no doubt compound that error by voting for the next drunken thief who wanders into your view blubbering about what a true conservative he is. You were rolled. And you're paws up waiting for it again - an easy mark.
  11. 20 Feb '10 03:00
    Originally posted by TerrierJack
    Well, I'll admit it, he didn't appear to be a Klan member but he would have still had a beer with you.
    that's right, most or all of the Klan members in Congress are Democrats.

    i wonder how many congressman have refused to shake Robert Byrd's hand?
  12. 20 Feb '10 03:04
    Nathan Bedford Forrest also turned his opinions around, but it doesn't appear he thought the country owed him a living after that, lavish or otherwise.
  13. 20 Feb '10 03:06 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by TerrierJack
    This just shows how misinformed you are. Fannie and Freddie were NOT allowed to make sub-prime mortgages. They collapsed not because of the mortgages that they made but because of investments they made with their profits in bundled securities that were backed by other lender's subprime mortgages. You voted for Bush twice because you were so badly inform ...[text shortened]... e conservative he is. You were rolled. And you're paws up waiting for it again - an easy mark.
    And why did they make such investments? In 1992 the Department of Housing and Urban Development pressured Fannie and Freddie into purchasing these securities for the conflicting purposes of diversifying the risk and making even more money available to banks to make risky loans. Congress also passed the Federal and Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act eventually mandating that these companies buy 45% of all loans from people of low and moderate incomes. And in 1995 the Treasury Dpartment established the Community Development Financial INstitutions Fund, which provided banks with tax dollars to encourage even more risky loans. Of course what got the ball rolling was not only the creation of Fannie and Freddie to be used by the government as they please, it was also the CRA act of 1977 that addressed alleged discrimination by banks in making loans to poor people and minorities in the inner cities. The act provided that banks have an affirmative obligation to meet the credit needs of communities in which they are chartered. In 1995 the Clinton administrations Treasury Department issued relugations tracking loans by neighborhoods, income groups, and races to rate the performance of banks. The ratings were used by regulators to determine whether the government would apporve bank mergers, acquisitions, and new branches. The regulations also encouraged groups like ACORN to file petitions with regulators or threaten to slow or even prevent banks from conducting business by challenging the extent to which banks were issuing these loans. With the all powerful leverage over banks, some groups were able to legally extort banks to make huge pools of money available to these groups, money they in turn used to make loans. The banks and community groups issued loans to low income individuals who often had bad credit or insufficient income. And these loans, which became known as sub-prime loans, made available 100% financing, did not always require the use of credit scores, and were even made without documenting income. Therefore, the government insisted that banks, particularly those that wanted to expand, abandon traditional underwriting standars. One estimate puts the figure of CRA-eligible loans at $4.5 trillion.

    BTW, the banking industry is good for the TARP money to be payed back to the tax payers with interest. However, Fannie and Freddie, on the other hand, will cost tax payers an additional $6 trillion.
  14. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    20 Feb '10 03:07
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    i wonder how many congressman have refused to shake Robert Byrd's hand?
    No credit then to Byrd for seeing the errors of his ways and changing his philosophy and his stance?
  15. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    20 Feb '10 03:08 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by whodey
    And why did they make such investments? In 1992 the Department of Housing and Urban Development pressured Fannie and Freddie into purchasing these securities for the conflicting purposes of diversifying the risk and making even more money available to banks to make risky loans. Congress also passed the Federal and Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and So ...[text shortened]... nal underwriting standars. One estimate puts the figure of CRA-eligible loans at $4.5 trillion.
    Why pass this writing off as you own? Just provide the link.

    I am starting to think your spelling mistakes are deliberately inserted to make google searches come up blank.

    "...regulators to determine whether the government would apporve bank mergers...". Of course there is no such word as apporve so you changing the spelling might disguise the fact that you have simply plagiarized the text from a blog and pretended that they are your own words.

    "...regulators to determine whether the government would approve bank mergers..." ...of course leads us to the blogs you cut and paste the text from, without actually citing it.

    Just one of several examples in this post alone.

    Whodey you're an artless fraud.