What would happen to the United States if Conservatives left?

[GWV5903]

Well you have reality and then there is your version...

CRA had huge consequences...

Explain.

CRA is the root cause for the Housing Bubble / Mortgage Meltdown, period!

Ultimately it led to DPA FHA loans, then we created Sub Prime Hybrids, like ZERO DOWN 2/28 ARM's and 3/27 ARM's with no MI that accepted 560+ FICO's...

Millions purchased under these programs for 11 years, no risk no gain, these where the beginning of the end, we are just starting to come out of that tail spin...

Now today and for a very long time, USDA loans are Federally Funded / Insured loans with your tax payer funding, and guess what, they are ZERO DOWN NO MI LOANS...

What a deal, $500 dollars and you can own your own home...

They did it in the '80's and we just came out of it again, how much you wanta bet they will do it again????

 

[GWV5903]

The fact that most of the last administration are not still engaged in trials defending their criminal acts, that the heads of most major US investment banks aren't lined up on the dockets with them, that we still have troops in both Afghanistan and Iraq, that Gitmo is still open, that we don't have comprehensive federal legislation and international treaties to deal with climate change, that there is no carbon tax paying off the national debt and building efficient, sustainable energy infrastructure and that we have insurance company welfare rather than universal health care, speaks to the fact that the reasonable opposition did come to the table with compromise as the first belief, ...unfortunately, their generosity and willingness to work towards mutual goals has been met with "well, now that you gave-in to those demands here are the rest of our demands." Such an approach (unsurprisingly) has resulted in an atmosphere where the reasonable are no longer willing to give until they receive an equivalent yielding by the groups that don't even seem to realize what all they have already won in compromise.

Well you have reality and then there is your version...
Both parties voted for Afghanistan & Iraq...

and that is probably the primary reason that "compromise" resulted in no prosecutions for the criminal acts associated with those wars and such atrocities as the Patriot act, Gitmo, warrantless wiretapping, etc., by those in high positions of previous and current administrations

So you believe we should let Radical Islam burnout on its own? How do you believe that will turn out???


True, but none of those consequences had anything to do with the housing bubble or the economic collapse in 2007.

Sure it did, prior to CRA and the revisions Clinton made to it in the mid '90's, no one bought a home with zero down and no MI, no one! It is a very simple concept to understand, no risk, no gain...

These people walked in and purchased homes for as little as $150 and could not careless what happened afterwards, there is little unknown law called the Equal Housing Act, it covered all of their sins....

Get the lawyer's and the feds out of medicine and you don't need socialized medicine...

Provide that everyone who is sick or injured receives the care that they need to return to health as a basic obligation that all residents of this nation owe to each other and we can get rid of the insurers and profiteers who seek to earn obscene profits off the misery and infirmity of others.

Wrong, dead wrong. We have the finest health care system in the world, I don't believe a bit of the WHO opinion on our ranking, it is pure BS...

How is it that 36 years ago I paid less than $5 a month for the best insurance I've ever had? Let me assure you the Feds & Lawyers had very little influence at that time...

Between the two we are stuck on stupid...

And it really is that simple...

Outlaw and criminalize political parties and we would very simply and quickly eliminate 99% of the problems inherent to modern politics.

It's in the bill is a classic, and they elected her again after this, as a whole we have very few good leaders...

p

 

[JohnL.Burke]

The only word gymnastics are yours. The core of conservatism is resistance or hesitancy to change. It does not mean going back to slavery. conservatism is a political and social philosophy that promotes retaining traditional social institutions. A person who follows the philosophies of conservatism is referred to as a traditionalist or conservative.

Well, I'm glad you don't think conservatives want to go back to slavery. You're already making more sense than most of the liberal/progressives on this site.

While I don't believe a desire for slavery defines conservatism, I read into a lot of posts from specific conservatives that they wouldn't be opposed to it.

I read a lot of posts from specific liberals that are more than a little anti-semitic but like you, I wont judge a whole party because of the rhetoric of some posters.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

Definition of CONSERVATISM
2
a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established
b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change
3
: the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change

Conservatism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


con·ser·va·tism (kn-sûrv-tzm)
n.
1. The inclination, especially in politics, to maintain the existing or traditional order.
2. A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order.

conservatism - definition of conservatism by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.


con·serv·a·tism
[kuhn-sur-vuh-tiz-uhm]
noun
1.
the disposition to preserve or restore what is established and traditional and to limit change.

Conservatism | Define Conservatism at Dictionary.com

Conservatism (Latin: conservare, "to retain") is a political and social philosophy that promotes retaining traditional social institutions. A person who follows the philosophies of conservatism is referred to as a traditionalist or conservative.

Conservatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The disposition to preserve or restore what is established and traditional and to limit change".
Are you suggesting that conservatives want to bring back slavery because it was America's tradition at one time? The problem you are making is that you are using the widest definition of conservative to apply to an ever changing political landscape in a specific manner. In other words. One can call Reagan a conservative because of some ideas he had. He could also be called a moderate because of other ideas he had. Some people have called him too liberal because he provided amnesty for over a million illegal aliens. Just as Reagan does not fit the dictionary definition of conservative he did however call himself a conservative because he did fit the political definition of a conservative at the time. Dictionary definitions do not provide political context of a constantly changing societal paradigm. One more example. John F. Kennedy called himself a democrat. Using the dictionaries definition of democrat would not describe the full content of Kennedy's legacy. The shifting political dynamics of an ever changing world does not lend itself with one definition of one word that was written at one time.

Seems like an attempt to redefine the English language such that everything and everybody who is perceived as good is conservative. Everything perceived by anybody as bad is liberal.

I can see why such definitions would make one grasp at conservatism, but, words have meaning and work only when we all apply the same meaning to them. That's why we use the dictionary meaning not the self serving, what we wish was true meaning.

"... words have meaning and work only when we all apply the same meaning to them".

Yes, but we don't all apply the same meaning to them. I still hear Bush Jr. called a conservative even though he made the government bigger. I still hear some liberals call socialists like Mussolini and Hitler conservatives. Obviously the word "conservative" doesn't mean the same thing to everybody. I wish it did but it doesn't. It's silly and self serving to pretend otherwise.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

"That's as silly as me equating progressive with progress."

What's silly about that?

Progressivism does not support progress, It supports an attempt to reach back in history and resurrect a failed and disturbing idea that has been proven to not work and inevitably lead to genocide or poverty. Often both.

I have to call you on trying to appropriate the English language to justify your limited thinking.

Progress between the people in government and the citizens including the people in government is alway a matter of progress. Continuous improvement. Adaptation to the times.

What you describe is called conservatism. Reluctance to leave the past. Fear of the future. Fear of your fellow man.

Your definition of conservative is a bit odd. Since you bring up the dictionary definition of "conservative" as a way to support your myopic view of politics then let me ask. Can you tell me which dictionary definition of "conservative" talks about Fear of fellow man and fear of the future? Are you perhaps applying your own definition to the word "conservative"? At the same time insisting that the dictionary definition of "conservative" is the definition that you are wedded to. Are you not proving my point? Of course you are.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

I don't think that there's any difference between liberals and conservatives in terms of corruption. People are currupt or not, not worldviews.

I think that both worldviews are self fulfilling. I think that conservatives create scarcity and liberals, plenty, all other things being equal.

Liberals invest in growth. They are optimistic. They have faith in their fellow man and expect collaboration and cooperation.

Conservatives are suspicious of their fellow man and expect friction and selfishness.

Liberals want to change the present to create a better future.

Conservatives want to prevent the present from changing in order to avoid an even worse future.

You say that liberals are optimistic and have faith in their fellow man and expect collaboration and cooperation. Of course liberals believe no such thing which explains why liberals want enormous government along with an enormous bureaucracy to create the rules citizens have to obey and an enormous agency to enforce these rules. Police states are the product of a liberal agenda.

I know of no liberal in favor of enormous government.

Liberals want government the size it needs to be in order to fulfill it's responsibilities as defined by the contract between it and we the people, our Constitution. We insist on government of, by, and for, the people. All of the people.

That requires progress. That requires confidence. That requires investment.

We've learned since 2001 about the impact of a worldview of scarcity in terms of getting things done. Making progress. Solving problems.

Never again.

"I know of no liberal in favor of enormous government".

You need to get out more.

 

[JWBooth]

You say that liberals are optimistic and have faith in their fellow man and expect collaboration and cooperation. Of course liberals believe no such thing which explains why liberals want enormous government along with an enormous bureaucracy to create the rules citizens have to obey and an enormous agency to enforce these rules. Police states are the product of a liberal agenda.

I know of no liberal in favor of enormous government.

Liberals want government the size it needs to be in order to fulfill it's responsibilities as defined by the contract between it and we the people, our Constitution. We insist on government of, by, and for, the people. All of the people.

That requires progress. That requires confidence. That requires investment.

We've learned since 2001 about the impact of a worldview of scarcity in terms of getting things done. Making progress. Solving problems.

Never again.

"I know of no liberal in favor of enormous government".

You need to get out more.

I'd sure like to see what they think an enormous government is then.

 

[Bfgrn]

Well you have reality and then there is your version...

CRA had huge consequences...

Explain.

CRA is the root cause for the Housing Bubble / Mortgage Meltdown, period!

Ultimately it led to DPA FHA loans, then we created Sub Prime Hybrids, like ZERO DOWN 2/28 ARM's and 3/27 ARM's with no MI that accepted 560+ FICO's...

Millions purchased under these programs for 11 years, no risk no gain, these where the beginning of the end, we are just starting to come out of that tail spin...

Now today and for a very long time, USDA loans are Federally Funded / Insured loans with your tax payer funding, and guess what, they are ZERO DOWN NO MI LOANS...

What a deal, $500 dollars and you can own your own home...

They did it in the '80's and we just came out of it again, how much you wanta bet they will do it again????

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts"
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

GWV5903 is a prime example of the total failure of conservatism.

Q: What is conservatism?
A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.

When you understand that fact, it explains why the conservative world view MUST never be tainted or diminished, and why conservatives cannot accept any truth that blames their beloved hierarchy. There's an old saying: 'there are 2 types of Republicans, millionaires and suckers'. It is crucial to conservatism that the suckers must literally love the order that dominates them.

The financial crisis is also a prime example of how conservatives have created a narrative where they pin the blame on poor people and government. Neither were the cause.

Here is what we DO know:

1) The financial crisis was not caused by low and middle income families buying a home.

2) It was not caused by dead beat poor people.

3) Fannie and Freddie were not to cause.

4) The Community Investment Act was not the culprit either.

The crisis was caused by private lending, to mostly upper middle class and the wealthy. ONLY 6% of of all the higher-priced loans were extended by CRA-covered lenders to lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in their CRA assessment areas. The majority of those foreclosed on were wealthy and upper middle class, plus a huge segment of speculators; buyers who were wealthy home flippers looking for a fast buck. They strategically walked away from investments that went sour, not from their 'homes'. They never had any intent on living there.

Only a huge amount of mortgage defaults at once could cause a rupture of the housing market. And only a huge amount of speculators dumping 'bad' investments all at once could explain it. Because if it were honest citizens who were buying a homestead, they kept paying even when they should have walked away. If those were the people to blame, it would have been a slow leak, not a rupture.

AND, what really sucks for the right wing propaganda of lies, all the way back to the late '90's there was one very outspoken and vocal critic of predatory lending practices, they even held protests at companies like Wells Fargo and Lehman Brothers...ACORN

But, if you need to make government the scapegoat for the private sector, it brings us full circle...Bush.

Maybe you just FORGOT...

Bush's 'ownership society'

"America is a stronger country every single time a family moves into a home of their own," George W. Bush said in October 2004. To achieve his vision, Bush pushed new policies encouraging homeownership, like the "zero-down-payment initiative," which was much as it sounds—a government-sponsored program that allowed people to get mortgages without a down payment. More exotic mortgages followed, including ones with no monthly payments for the first two years. Other mortgages required no documentation other than the say-so of the borrower. Absurd though these all were, they paled in comparison to the financial innovations that grew out of the mortgages—derivatives built on other derivatives, packaged and repackaged until no one could identify what they contained and how much they were, in fact, worth.

As we know by now, these instruments have brought the global financial system, improbably, to the brink of collapse.

End of the ‘Ownership Society’

 

[PMZ]

Well you have reality and then there is your version...

CRA had huge consequences...

Explain.

CRA is the root cause for the Housing Bubble / Mortgage Meltdown, period!

Ultimately it led to DPA FHA loans, then we created Sub Prime Hybrids, like ZERO DOWN 2/28 ARM's and 3/27 ARM's with no MI that accepted 560+ FICO's...

Millions purchased under these programs for 11 years, no risk no gain, these where the beginning of the end, we are just starting to come out of that tail spin...

Now today and for a very long time, USDA loans are Federally Funded / Insured loans with your tax payer funding, and guess what, they are ZERO DOWN NO MI LOANS...

What a deal, $500 dollars and you can own your own home...

They did it in the '80's and we just came out of it again, how much you wanta bet they will do it again????

CRA had no impact on the mortgage originators due diligence for loaning money. CRA had no impact on the mortgage backed derivatives products that made it immensely profitable to reduce that due diligence, hide the risk, then sell it.

CRA also had no impact on greed.

 

[PMZ]

"The disposition to preserve or restore what is established and traditional and to limit change".
Are you suggesting that conservatives want to bring back slavery because it was America's tradition at one time? The problem you are making is that you are using the widest definition of conservative to apply to an ever changing political landscape in a specific manner. In other words. One can call Reagan a conservative because of some ideas he had. He could also be called a moderate because of other ideas he had. Some people have called him too liberal because he provided amnesty for over a million illegal aliens. Just as Reagan does not fit the dictionary definition of conservative he did however call himself a conservative because he did fit the political definition of a conservative at the time. Dictionary definitions do not provide political context of a constantly changing societal paradigm. One more example. John F. Kennedy called himself a democrat. Using the dictionaries definition of democrat would not describe the full content of Kennedy's legacy. The shifting political dynamics of an ever changing world does not lend itself with one definition of one word that was written at one time.

Seems like an attempt to redefine the English language such that everything and everybody who is perceived as good is conservative. Everything perceived by anybody as bad is liberal.

I can see why such definitions would make one grasp at conservatism, but, words have meaning and work only when we all apply the same meaning to them. That's why we use the dictionary meaning not the self serving, what we wish was true meaning.

"... words have meaning and work only when we all apply the same meaning to them".

Yes, but we don't all apply the same meaning to them. I still hear Bush Jr. called a conservative even though he made the government bigger. I still hear some liberals call socialists like Mussolini and Hitler conservatives. Obviously the word "conservative" doesn't mean the same thing to everybody. I wish it did but it doesn't. It's silly and self serving to pretend otherwise.

I'm thinking that you are the one that's out of step. In a parade, if almost everybody is on their right foot, and you are on your left, the fix falls on you, not them.

Rush and Rupert are counting cadence for you. The rest of us are marching to the news. The truth. We tried their way and it was and will be for generations a catastrophe. The learning from that isn't to redefine the world conservative, but rather to never empower them again with our votes. If you continue to sit on the sidelines, there is no harm in you fiddling with the definition of English words. Fiddle away Mr Nero.

We're back on the track of progress. The government fulfilling it's contract with we the people, not shirking from it.

 

[PMZ]

I know of no liberal in favor of enormous government.

Liberals want government the size it needs to be in order to fulfill it's responsibilities as defined by the contract between it and we the people, our Constitution. We insist on government of, by, and for, the people. All of the people.

That requires progress. That requires confidence. That requires investment.

We've learned since 2001 about the impact of a worldview of scarcity in terms of getting things done. Making progress. Solving problems.

Never again.

"I know of no liberal in favor of enormous government".

You need to get out more.

I'd sure like to see what they think an enormous government is then.

Is General Motors too big? The Atlantic Ocean? Elephants? Cockroaches? Bacteria?

 

[beagle9]

The point is conservatism is based on latitude, longitude and date of birth. A conservative in America wants to 'conserve' capitalism, nationalism and American parochial orthodoxy. A conservative in Russia wants to conserve communism, nationalism and Russian parochial orthodoxy. Left/right in this context is about as pertinent as whether the water in each country swirls down the drain clockwise or counterclockwise.


While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians

This is possibly the weirdest stretch of an idea forged yet. The rhetorical acrobatics are amazing. I'm not even trying to be sarcastic. You say an American conservative wants to conserve "capitalism" which is why he is like a conservative in Russia because Russian "conservatives" want to conserve communism. Does the fact that communism and conservatism are diametrically opposing concepts matter in this debate at all? Let me put it this way. Liberals and nazis are the same because they both wear pants. You keep equating conservative with conserve. That's as silly as me equating progressive with progress.

"That's as silly as me equating progressive with progress."

What's silly about that?

Because it all depends on what type of progress they are engaging in, where as they could be just progressing in a pro-abortion agenda or progressing a gay marriage agenda and on and on it all goes, but yet doing nothing for the country as a whole, especially keeping her strong and moral all at the same time. This is what a liberal does (imho), and when they do these things they are always thinking in numbers for a collective in which they back or support, but yet they are thinking within the wrong numbers for the country, because most times it is for the wrong reasons that they think in these ways, and therefore push forward their agenda's against the grain, but they care not about how far they push against this grain, because they are just libs in this way.

 

[beagle9]

Seems like an attempt to redefine the English language such that everything and everybody who is perceived as good is conservative. Everything perceived by anybody as bad is liberal.

I can see why such definitions would make one grasp at conservatism, but, words have meaning and work only when we all apply the same meaning to them. That's why we use the dictionary meaning not the self serving, what we wish was true meaning.

"... words have meaning and work only when we all apply the same meaning to them".

Yes, but we don't all apply the same meaning to them. I still hear Bush Jr. called a conservative even though he made the government bigger. I still hear some liberals call socialists like Mussolini and Hitler conservatives. Obviously the word "conservative" doesn't mean the same thing to everybody. I wish it did but it doesn't. It's silly and self serving to pretend otherwise.

I'm thinking that you are the one that's out of step. In a parade, if almost everybody is on their right foot, and you are on your left, the fix falls on you, not them.

Rush and Rupert are counting cadence for you. The rest of us are marching to the news. The truth. We tried their way and it was and will be for generations a catastrophe. The learning from that isn't to redefine the world conservative, but rather to never empower them again with our votes. If you continue to sit on the sidelines, there is no harm in you fiddling with the definition of English words. Fiddle away Mr Nero.

We're back on the track of progress. The government fulfilling it's contract with we the people, not shirking from it.

So many words, and yet so many different meanings within them, but people are not fooled by all of this, and there will be a huge push back coming so stay tuned is my opinion. People don't like venturing down the rabbit hole but so far, then they turn and get straight back out of there. The libs will be the ones who road the wave but for a little time, and then they will fall right off again, because their agenda's are always cutting against the grain in America, and this makes them very dull and broken in the end.

 

[beagle9]

Explain.

CRA is the root cause for the Housing Bubble / Mortgage Meltdown, period!

Ultimately it led to DPA FHA loans, then we created Sub Prime Hybrids, like ZERO DOWN 2/28 ARM's and 3/27 ARM's with no MI that accepted 560+ FICO's...

Millions purchased under these programs for 11 years, no risk no gain, these where the beginning of the end, we are just starting to come out of that tail spin...

Now today and for a very long time, USDA loans are Federally Funded / Insured loans with your tax payer funding, and guess what, they are ZERO DOWN NO MI LOANS...

What a deal, $500 dollars and you can own your own home...

They did it in the '80's and we just came out of it again, how much you wanta bet they will do it again????

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts"
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

GWV5903 is a prime example of the total failure of conservatism.

Q: What is conservatism?
A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.

When you understand that fact, it explains why the conservative world view MUST never be tainted or diminished, and why conservatives cannot accept any truth that blames their beloved hierarchy. There's an old saying: 'there are 2 types of Republicans, millionaires and suckers'. It is crucial to conservatism that the suckers must literally love the order that dominates them.

The financial crisis is also a prime example of how conservatives have created a narrative where they pin the blame on poor people and government. Neither were the cause.

Here is what we DO know:

1) The financial crisis was not caused by low and middle income families buying a home.

2) It was not caused by dead beat poor people.

3) Fannie and Freddie were not to cause.

4) The Community Investment Act was not the culprit either.

The crisis was caused by private lending, to mostly upper middle class and the wealthy. ONLY 6% of of all the higher-priced loans were extended by CRA-covered lenders to lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in their CRA assessment areas. The majority of those foreclosed on were wealthy and upper middle class, plus a huge segment of speculators; buyers who were wealthy home flippers looking for a fast buck. They strategically walked away from investments that went sour, not from their 'homes'. They never had any intent on living there.

Only a huge amount of mortgage defaults at once could cause a rupture of the housing market. And only a huge amount of speculators dumping 'bad' investments all at once could explain it. Because if it were honest citizens who were buying a homestead, they kept paying even when they should have walked away. If those were the people to blame, it would have been a slow leak, not a rupture.

AND, what really sucks for the right wing propaganda of lies, all the way back to the late '90's there was one very outspoken and vocal critic of predatory lending practices, they even held protests at companies like Wells Fargo and Lehman Brothers...ACORN

But, if you need to make government the scapegoat for the private sector, it brings us full circle...Bush.

Maybe you just FORGOT...

Bush's 'ownership society'

"America is a stronger country every single time a family moves into a home of their own," George W. Bush said in October 2004. To achieve his vision, Bush pushed new policies encouraging homeownership, like the "zero-down-payment initiative," which was much as it sounds—a government-sponsored program that allowed people to get mortgages without a down payment. More exotic mortgages followed, including ones with no monthly payments for the first two years. Other mortgages required no documentation other than the say-so of the borrower. Absurd though these all were, they paled in comparison to the financial innovations that grew out of the mortgages—derivatives built on other derivatives, packaged and repackaged until no one could identify what they contained and how much they were, in fact, worth.

As we know by now, these instruments have brought the global financial system, improbably, to the brink of collapse.

End of the ‘Ownership Society’

Ok, so lets say that George W. Bush was just a President who played along with what he saw in everything that was in motion when he took office, and he didn't want to be seen as a person who would be against the huge wheels that were put into motion over the last 30 years, so he was singing also to every ones tune right on with them, or up until it all came crashing down around him (literally). Then he was in fix it all mode, as best he could until the end of his run, but next he became a whipping post for all who had created these coming catastrophes in which unloaded right on top of the poor feller's head while he was in office. Now what should be done, and is being done, is the finding out of who the real culprits are in all of this, and to get the nation to know who they are so that the nation will not go down into these holes again hopefully.

 

[PMZ]

The blunt truth is that Bush did your bidding. What failed catastrophically was not him, he was a pawn, but conservatism. What the GOP has employed Rush and Rupert for a couple of decades to proselytize.

I realize how inconvenient a truth that is for their dittohead followers, but that's what happens to Dittoheads. They get misled.

Now, your only defense is portray liberalism as even worse than conservatism but President Obama's long string of successes deny you your only excuse.

Your choice is to go down with, or abandon, your ship. Tough for Fox News addicts who so count on their daily pat on the head from their entertainers.

But, the only Coice that matins any relevance for you.

 

[PMZ]

But, the only choice that maintains any relevance for you.

 

[Bfgrn]

But, the only choice that maintains any relevance for you.

You can go back and edit your post for a period of time instead of posting an edit. Look for the 'Edit' button on the bottom right...

 

[beagle9]

The blunt truth is that Bush did your bidding. What failed catastrophically was not him, he was a pawn, but conservatism. What the GOP has employed Rush and Rupert for a couple of decades to proselytize.

I realize how inconvenient a truth that is for their dittohead followers, but that's what happens to Dittoheads. They get misled.

Now, your only defense is portray liberalism as even worse than conservatism but President Obama's long string of successes deny you your only excuse.

Your choice is to go down with, or abandon, your ship. Tough for Fox News addicts who so count on their daily pat on the head from their entertainers.

But, the only Coice that matins any relevance for you.

Do you know why Obama is for gay's in the military, and Gay marriage, even when he is a father who has a wife and two daughters for whom came up in the church ? It's because he was willing to stoop to what ever level it took to get a following or a build up in a following for himself, and this was just to remain in office at all cost was his thinking , otherwise it's just how desperate the man was, because there is no way that this man can be for gay marriage or for openingly serving gay's in the military if calling himself a Christian (in which he does) and seeing himself also as a father with a wife and two children whom were brought up in the church. The man is morally bankrupt, and this makes this man corrupt in so many ways that it just isn't funny. How the Americans can be led by such a person is beyond me, but here we are being led by such a person in which is so sad for America.

 

[Bfgrn]

The blunt truth is that Bush did your bidding. What failed catastrophically was not him, he was a pawn, but conservatism. What the GOP has employed Rush and Rupert for a couple of decades to proselytize.

I realize how inconvenient a truth that is for their dittohead followers, but that's what happens to Dittoheads. They get misled.

Now, your only defense is portray liberalism as even worse than conservatism but President Obama's long string of successes deny you your only excuse.

Your choice is to go down with, or abandon, your ship. Tough for Fox News addicts who so count on their daily pat on the head from their entertainers.

But, the only Coice that matins any relevance for you.

Do you know why Obama is for gay's in the military, and Gay marriage, even when he is a father who has a wife and two daughters for whom came up in the church ? It's because he was willing to stoop to what ever level it took to get a following or a build up in a following for himself, and this was just to remain in office at all cost was his thinking , otherwise it's just how desperate the man was, because there is no way that this man can be for gay marriage or for openingly serving gay's in the military if calling himself a Christian (in which he does) and seeing himself also as a father with a wife and two children whom were brought up in the church. The man is morally bankrupt, and this makes this man corrupt in so many ways that it just isn't funny. How the Americans can be led by such a person is beyond me, but here we are being led by such a person in which is so sad for America.

WOW, YOU know the intentions of Obama or anyone else? What are you calling for a THEOCRACY?

It has nothing to do with religion and EVERYTHING to do with RIGHTS.

And this is EXACTLY why our founders put a No Religious Test Clause in the Constitution. Article VI, paragraph 3, and states that:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

 

[beagle9]

The blunt truth is that Bush did your bidding. What failed catastrophically was not him, he was a pawn, but conservatism. What the GOP has employed Rush and Rupert for a couple of decades to proselytize.

I realize how inconvenient a truth that is for their dittohead followers, but that's what happens to Dittoheads. They get misled.

Now, your only defense is portray liberalism as even worse than conservatism but President Obama's long string of successes deny you your only excuse.

Your choice is to go down with, or abandon, your ship. Tough for Fox News addicts who so count on their daily pat on the head from their entertainers.

But, the only Coice that matins any relevance for you.

Do you know why Obama is for gay's in the military, and Gay marriage, even when he is a father who has a wife and two daughters for whom came up in the church ? It's because he was willing to stoop to what ever level it took to get a following or a build up in a following for himself, and this was just to remain in office at all cost was his thinking , otherwise it's just how desperate the man was, because there is no way that this man can be for gay marriage or for openingly serving gay's in the military if calling himself a Christian (in which he does) and seeing himself also as a father with a wife and two children whom were brought up in the church. The man is morally bankrupt, and this makes this man corrupt in so many ways that it just isn't funny. How the Americans can be led by such a person is beyond me, but here we are being led by such a person in which is so sad for America.

WOW, YOU know the intentions of Obama or anyone else? What are you calling for a THEOCRACY?

It has nothing to do with religion and EVERYTHING to do with RIGHTS.

And this is EXACTLY why our founders put a No Religious Test Clause in the Constitution. Article VI, paragraph 3, and states that:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Has nothing to with a religious test, but everything to do with what the man's character is or a character analysis when he opens his mouth, and by what the man will stoop to just to gain supporters and voters no matter what supposedly his core values are, or what they are supposed to be according to what flies out of his own mouth. He ought to be ashamed in front of his family, but his character won't allow him to realize how ashamed he should be, because it has him blinded by having a character such as this that is found within such a man that he is.