Are there any 'Centrists' here?????? ANYONE?????

[Rat in the Hat]

If it truely exsists that site claimed to have it.

i should have NEVEtr believed you about it in the foirst place without proof.


Now if you wish to claim I lied because its not there you have to first prove it exsisted for real and then prove its never appeared in the paper as you claimed.


either way your the one who would be proven a liar.

Since the article is not online, the only way I could prove it to your satisfaction would be to take a picture of the wall. And that is NOT going to happen. My college diploma and the wife's professional accreditation are on the wall next to it and you are definitely NOT going to see those on the internet.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

SEC Votes for Final Rules Defining How Banks Can Be Securities Brokers
Eight Years After Passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, Key Provisions Will Now Be Implemented
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2007-190
Washington, D.C., Sept. 19, 2007 - Ending eight years of stalled negotiations and impasse, the Commission today voted to adopt, jointly with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board), new rules that will finally implement the bank broker provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999. The Board will consider these final rules at its Sept. 24, 2007 meeting. The Commission and the Board consulted with and sought the concurrence of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Office of Thrift Supervision.




Now prove this is untrue

Nine. Nine spams in one thread. ha ha ha​

 

[saveliberty]

SEC Votes for Final Rules Defining How Banks Can Be Securities Brokers
Eight Years After Passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, Key Provisions Will Now Be Implemented
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2007-190
Washington, D.C., Sept. 19, 2007 - Ending eight years of stalled negotiations and impasse, the Commission today voted to adopt, jointly with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board), new rules that will finally implement the bank broker provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999. The Board will consider these final rules at its Sept. 24, 2007 meeting. The Commission and the Board consulted with and sought the concurrence of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Office of Thrift Supervision.




Now prove this is untrue

Prove it supports your claim.

 

[saveliberty]

idiot

^^^

You realize this is now a caption to your avie?

 

[emilynghiem]

Yanno, I don't believe I've started a thread here before....... But every time I open this one forum, I have had the same question. To wit:

Is there anyone who hasn't pretty well 'married' themselves to one party's platform or the other? And NO, I'm not looking for the ones who insist our democracy is all a sham.

Who else is out there willing to cry "A pox on both your fringes!" to the uber-partisans of both flavors?????

Hi MHunter: I am a Constitutionalist who believes in isonomy.

I try to work with anyone from any party to try to be more effective in achieving ultimate goals and projects we share in common WITHOUT imposing some biased political/religious agenda on other people or groups, which otherwise violates Constitutional laws on equal protection and equal religious freedom (where I interpret religious freedom to include political and secular beliefs that I believe should be equally protected as anyone else's beliefs under an institutionalized group; otherwise people would not be equally protected).

I get along with EVERYONE from EVERY party where I support taking direct responsibility respective policies and platforms WITHOUT imposing on others. I CLASH with each person or party where I start defending equal Constitutional protections BEYOND what people are willing to acknowledge or exercise. Most people are so biased about defending their own views, they don't stand up for the same defenses of others especially from opposing views.

I promote conflict resolution and consensus decision making in order to work around these issues that everyone has with everyone else, by nature of human free will and diversity.

Here are my serious writings about Constitutional enforcement and reforms:
ethics-commission.net
http://www.houstonprogressive.org
http://www.houstonprogressive.org
Here are my satirical songs and theatrical parodies, protesting church and state conflicts:
http://www.houstonprogressive.net
http://www.houstonprogressive.org
Juliet & Romeo: A Play on Life in America
===============================

 

[Rat in the Hat]

idiot

^^^

You realize this is now a caption to your avie?

Yes. Yes, it is.

 

[Toro]

heres a fact.

Bush crashed the entire world economy with his fiscal policies.

No he didn't.

 

[Staidhup]

A Centrist is viewed by the liberals as a conservative Bible toting nut case. A Centrist from the conservative viewpoint is a spineless compassionate progressive conservative that has no real message and will do and say anything to get elected.

So are there any centrists around anymore? nope, they either believe in freedom, themselves, and accept responsibility which translates to being a right wing nut case, or they are so dependent upon the liberal intelligentsia and power of the state that they are nothing more than socialists wearing a progressive coat.

 

[MHunterB]

idiot

Indeed you are. But most people wouldn't brag about it.

 

[MHunterB]

Hi Emily! It appears that you are very dedicated to actually trying to achieve some change for the better here. THANK YOU.

While any of us are so overly embedded in a particular ideology, it does indeed make it very difficult to even communicate, let alone achieve any cooperation. Which was exactly my point about the 'fringes' and 'national committees' and 'party platforms'.

As Spoonman has indicated about himself, I think many of us in the middle and appalled at both 'sides' do embrace certain aspects of each party's platforms - but are repulsed by others.

And there appears to be no party which supports enough of what we want to be enthusiastic about : ((

On a sad note, I see the word 'progressive' in your CV there - and having not read the contents yet, my hopes tend to diminish because I've seen that word approriated by agents of totalitarianism and intolerance far too often. I do not presume to judge without reading.....that will take me a while though. It took you time to write it all, I intend to invest some time in reading.
Thanks for including the info there.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Yanno, I don't believe I've started a thread here before....... But every time I open this one forum, I have had the same question. To wit:

Is there anyone who hasn't pretty well 'married' themselves to one party's platform or the other? And NO, I'm not looking for the ones who insist our democracy is all a sham.

Who else is out there willing to cry "A pox on both your fringes!" to the uber-partisans of both flavors?????

By international standards I'm a centrist. By Glenn Beck's standards I'm Joseph Stalin.

 

[MHunterB]

heres a fact.

Bush crashed the entire world economy with his fiscal policies.

No he didn't.

Hey!!! R U allowed to post without a green card or sumthin'???? You a Kinadijun, aintcha?


(never mind the fact that you're often correct, lol!)

 

[MHunterB]

A Centrist is viewed by the liberals as a conservative Bible toting nut case. A Centrist from the conservative viewpoint is a spineless compassionate progressive conservative that has no real message and will do and say anything to get elected.

So are there any centrists around anymore? nope, they either believe in freedom, themselves, and accept responsibility which translates to being a right wing nut case, or they are so dependent upon the liberal intelligentsia and power of the state that they are nothing more than socialists wearing a progressive coat.

I'm trying to get the others to come out of hiding - so we can unite in our disgruntledness and subvert the fringes into making some progress.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi MHunter:
It sounds like may we share the same doubts and disdain where party politics has failed, or even contradicts the original purpose of the parties where they become self-defeating!!!

As for "progressive" this is ironic, because the Green party person who co-launched the site with me, abandoned it after he researched the name "progressive," and found it originally started by conservatives who were intolerant. He didn't want to be misassociated with that.

Nowadays, people associate progressive with a coverup euphemism for liberal, and again, the perception that secularists have gone so far "fundamentalist" pushing for freedom from opposing views, that their own views are now imposed in an equally intolerant exclusive way!

So the shoe is on the other foot, where the "liberals" can become just as intolerant and oppressive/bigoted as the right-wing "conservatives." So "progressive" could bring up negative perceptions of BOTH the left and right. So incredibly ironic, the history here!

However, I kept the name, because I use it to mean seeking reforms that all people agree with, left and right. It is different from the liberals, though the same goals of protection of environmental and minority interests are there, and it is does align with conservative focus on Constitutional enforcement, but NOT by forcing it, but by civics education and free will.

So there is commonality with right and left, just minus the coercive/bullying/intolerant part.

I am so open Constitutionally to protecting both left and right approaches, both capitalism and socialism, both prochoice and prolife, that mediation would be required to either resolve issues to reach a consensus or "separate out" the opposing views or groups that can't agree.

So I absolute do not believe in imposing one's views, religious or political on others; and only accept majority rule to decide things if people AGREE to that standard. For abortion, gay marriage, and other such religious differences, I don't see that decided by majority rule, but separating policies and giving everyone equal freedom to fund the policies of their choice.

Interesting and thank you for your feedback.
I hope you can encourage more people like you to share
freely and honestly, and quit this trend of negativity.

If we don't learn how to discuss conflicting ideas and perceptions honestly and
constructively, how are we ever going to fix problems causing people and parties
to become so distressed and divided? We would stay stuck!

You give me hope, MH, so thank you and
please keep posting. This is very encouraging!

Yours truly,
Emily

Hi Emily! It appears that you are very dedicated to actually trying to achieve some change for the better here. THANK YOU.

While any of us are so overly embedded in a particular ideology, it does indeed make it very difficult to even communicate, let alone achieve any cooperation. Which was exactly my point about the 'fringes' and 'national committees' and 'party platforms'.

As Spoonman has indicated about himself, I think many of us in the middle and appalled at both 'sides' do embrace certain aspects of each party's platforms - but are repulsed by others.

And there appears to be no party which supports enough of what we want to be enthusiastic about : ((

On a sad note, I see the word 'progressive' in your CV there - and having not read the contents yet, my hopes tend to diminish because I've seen that word approriated by agents of totalitarianism and intolerance far too often. I do not presume to judge without reading.....that will take me a while though. It took you time to write it all, I intend to invest some time in reading.
Thanks for including the info there.

I believe in cultivating and building consensus that includes and protects each person.
I don't believe in this new abuse of consensus to mean imposing one against people's will!!!!!
Whatever THAT is, is NOT what I believe in; but after Obama did this with the health care bill, it gave consensus a bad name. The Greens come closest to practicing the consensus-decision making process; but even their system gets obstructed by people BLOCKING proposals without seeking solutions that would eliminate the conflict. So I would require that people agree to commit to forgiving and resolving any conflicts that come up during the negotiations process, in order for mediation/conflict resolution to work out for all sides a equally and not be obstructed by anyone abusing due process to deny, coerce or bully instead of correcting issues so that a reasonable solution can be formed to satisfy all parties.

People of all views should still contribute and give input, but only the people who AGREE to include and resolve all grievances to reach a consensus should be moderating that process.
Otherwise, it gets obstructed where people push the political bullying and coercion garbage!

 

[emilynghiem]

Yanno, I don't believe I've started a thread here before....... But every time I open this one forum, I have had the same question. To wit:

Is there anyone who hasn't pretty well 'married' themselves to one party's platform or the other? And NO, I'm not looking for the ones who insist our democracy is all a sham.

Who else is out there willing to cry "A pox on both your fringes!" to the uber-partisans of both flavors?????

By international standards I'm a centrist. By Glenn Beck's standards I'm Joseph Stalin.

Hi OohPPD: By your support of Unions and Obama's health care bill (am I right?) then for you to be centrist, are you comparing yourself to the far left who reject both due to the capitalist corruption they think is right wing influce?

From other people's scales or spectrums of the political range,
you would seem more leftwing, like the liberals who use the system to PUSH their
own agenda and not use govt to enforce and protect CONSTITUTIONAL principles "independent if personal/party agenda" which is what I would think is Centrist!

Some people saw Bill Clinton as Centrist.
Is that what you mean?

What Centrist would mean to me is someone who sticks to central Constitutional principles, where SOME of the left and SOME of the right agenda that coincides with the Constitution is enforced, while anything coloring "outside" those lines (left or right) would be nixed as unconstitutional and not including/supporting/protecting the views on the other side equally.

Is my definition off from yours?
You sound too far left of center to me.

I am slightly off center to the left, so you would have to be farther rightwing than I am to be CENTER. Is this fair, or no?

 

[Politico]

No such thing as a centrist. Only spinless people who drift whichever way the wind is blowing.

 

[saveliberty]

This is about where I came in. Call me if we get a TDM infestation again.

 

[MHunterB]

OK, Save - will do! : ))

 

[MHunterB]

Emily, thanks for your thoughtful reply - and for not simply being offended that I mentioned the possibly negative associations of 'progressive'. About any label can be tarnished by abuse, which is why I go for specifics on policy instead.

Aside from having paid off our ('03 Honda hybrid) car, I think I'd better get going on some of my 'domestic goddess' aspect here. And then I get to drive a couple of hours to return my poor chipmunk-faced son to his rightful abode.... I'll be back late this evening.

 

[francoHFW]

OP- The Dems ARE centrist. The Pub health reform they now call Marxist O-care is centrist. But thanks for the Pub cronyism and corruption world depression, alternate universe brainwashed dingbats....- and the stupidest wars EVER.