Hey GOP! If you don't broaden the party...

[Old Rocks]

Xenophon is right ... and Chris is a case in point.

No really.

Phil Gramm put the amendment into a spending bill on the day before Christmas recess that allowed the creation of the financial derivatives that destroyed the banks.

George Bush cut taxes for the rich and increased the National Debt to fund the ridiculous invasion of Iraq.

... and who keeps pushing to force these banks to loan money to high risk people that can not nor have any intention of paying them back?

President Bush Mortgage Speech 2002(Helping those w bad credit buy houses)
youtube/twit273 ^ | September 24, 2008 | sickoflibs

Posted on Friday, May 01, 2009 8:51:06 PM by sickoflibs

GWB 2002 Speech :”More and more people own their homes in America today. Yet we have a problem here in America because fewer than half the Hispanics and African Americans own their own homes. That’s a home ownership gap; a gap that we got to work together to close. And by the end of this decade we’ll increase the number of minority homeowners (future Obama voters ) by 5.5 million families. “


“One of the major obstacles to minority home-ownership is financing. Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac (who I will bail out in 2008) have committed to provide more money for lenders, they committed to meet the shortage of capital available for minority home-buyers. Freddie Mac just began 25 initiatives around the country to dismantle barriers (like income requirements) and create better opportunities for home-ownership. One of the programs is designed to help families with bad credit histories to qualify for home ownership loans (by faking their income) . You don’t have to have a lousy home for first time home-buyers. You put your mind to it the first time low income home buyer can have just as nice a house as anyone else (till those adjustable rates go up). “

video at : economic crisis president bush mortgage speechhttp://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2242531/posts

 

[manu1959]

No, the Republicans are mostly to blame.

Phil Gramm and George Bush specifically.

Xenophon is right ... and Chris is a case in point.

No really.

Phil Gramm put the amendment into a spending bill on the day before Christmas recess that allowed the creation of the financial derivatives that destroyed the banks.

George Bush cut taxes for the rich and increased the National Debt to fund the ridiculous invasion of Iraq.

and clinton signed it into law an no one did anything about it for 15 years....

 

[jreeves]

other countries have lots of things the USE does not...handgun controls that would ignite a war here...socialized medicine (wink),,,parliamentary systems of government...

Where the hell is the USE?

The USE is in my pants...and no....


.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

you cannot view IT.

Maybe you should pass socialized medicine and handgun control laws in your pants and leave the rest of us the hell alone then.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Where the hell is the USE?

The USE is in my pants...and no....


.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

you cannot view IT.

Maybe you should pass socialized medicine and handgun control laws in your pants and leave the rest of us the hell alone then.

"the rest of us"????


the rest of us?

What the fuck is up with the royal we tactic?


friggin' doosh!

 

[jreeves]

The USE is in my pants...and no....


.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

you cannot view IT.

Maybe you should pass socialized medicine and handgun control laws in your pants and leave the rest of us the hell alone then.

"the rest of us"????


the rest of us?

What the fuck is up with the royal we tactic?


friggin' doosh!

Lmao, its unbelievable that you think that other people's rights should be violated in order to provide for a few...

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Maybe you should pass socialized medicine and handgun control laws in your pants and leave the rest of us the hell alone then.

"the rest of us"????


the rest of us?

What the fuck is up with the royal we tactic?


friggin' doosh!

Lmao, its unbelievable that you think that other people's rights should be violated in order to provide for a few...

bada-doosh! So you think curtailing rights is tantamount to violating rights?

I wonder what you think of the US Constitution, a document upon which this great country relies for cohesion and stability. And what about those damned founding fathers who wanted to limit and curtail rights right from the start?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

4 wing-nut puffs!

poor reeves


is ironic jreeves quotes these four men.

Will Rogers

Winston Churchill

JFK
-- Mark Twain

 

[jreeves]

"the rest of us"????


the rest of us?

What the fuck is up with the royal we tactic?


friggin' doosh!

Lmao, its unbelievable that you think that other people's rights should be violated in order to provide for a few...

bada-doosh! So you think curtailing rights is tantamount to violating rights?

I wonder what you think of the US Constitution, a document upon which this great country relies for cohesion and stability. And what about those damned founding fathers who wanted to limit and curtail rights right from the start?

I know the founding fathers intended to curtail everyone's rights.
The Declaration of Independence
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Lmao, its unbelievable that you think that other people's rights should be violated in order to provide for a few...

bada-doosh! So you think curtailing rights is tantamount to violating rights?

I wonder what you think of the US Constitution, a document upon which this great country relies for cohesion and stability. And what about those damned founding fathers who wanted to limit and curtail rights right from the start?

I know the founding fathers intended to curtail everyone's rights.
The Declaration of Independence
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Unlike the koolaid brigade (of which you are a fine specimen) I like my heroes warts and all.

The truth shall set you free:::

1) The U.S. Constitution was ratified with a clause equating slaves to 3/5ths of a white citizen.

2)

 

[DiveCon]

bada-doosh! So you think curtailing rights is tantamount to violating rights?

I wonder what you think of the US Constitution, a document upon which this great country relies for cohesion and stability. And what about those damned founding fathers who wanted to limit and curtail rights right from the start?

I know the founding fathers intended to curtail everyone's rights.
The Declaration of Independence
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Unlike the koolaid brigade (of which you are a fine specimen) I like my heroes warts and all.

The truth shall set you free:::

1) The U.S. Constitution was ratified with a clause equating slaves to 3/5ths of a white citizen.

2)

um, why did you number this when you only had one point?


come on dev

that point was poor anyway
that was to punish those states not the actual people
that way they didnt get to have representation equal to those they held as slaves

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I know the founding fathers intended to curtail everyone's rights.
The Declaration of Independence
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Unlike the koolaid brigade (of which you are a fine specimen) I like my heroes warts and all.

The truth shall set you free:::

1) The U.S. Constitution was ratified with a clause equating slaves to 3/5ths of a white citizen.

2)

um, why did you number this when you only had one point?


come on dev

that point was poor anyway
that was to punish those states not the actual people
that way they didnt get to have representation equal to those they held as slaves

so southern slave holders believed slaves were equal?

2) equals fill in the blank.

anything I've left you thinking about was meant as a free teaching point. Now get your head out of your ass and think!

 

[jreeves]

bada-doosh! So you think curtailing rights is tantamount to violating rights?

I wonder what you think of the US Constitution, a document upon which this great country relies for cohesion and stability. And what about those damned founding fathers who wanted to limit and curtail rights right from the start?

I know the founding fathers intended to curtail everyone's rights.
The Declaration of Independence
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Unlike the koolaid brigade (of which you are a fine specimen) I like my heroes warts and all.

The truth shall set you free:::

1) The U.S. Constitution was ratified with a clause equating slaves to 3/5ths of a white citizen.

2)

The Constitution provided an avenue for slaves to become free. Without the Constitution and the founding fathers we would be a nation of racial divisions. Fortunately our founding fathers had the fortitude to know the Constitution would need to change with the times. Hence, they allowed amendments, from that fortitude sprung the 14th amendment and the equal protection clause.

 

[DiveCon]

Unlike the koolaid brigade (of which you are a fine specimen) I like my heroes warts and all.

The truth shall set you free:::

1) The U.S. Constitution was ratified with a clause equating slaves to 3/5ths of a white citizen.

2)

um, why did you number this when you only had one point?


come on dev

that point was poor anyway
that was to punish those states not the actual people
that way they didnt get to have representation equal to those they held as slaves

so southern slave holders believed slaves were equal?

2) equals fill in the blank.

anything I've left you thinking about was meant as a free teaching point. Now get your head out of your ass and think!

no, dev
they didnt want them to use the slaves to get more represenitives in congress because they were slaves
you've lost it dev
this isnt partisan at all
you are showing its your head that is suffering from rectal/cranial inversion

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I know the founding fathers intended to curtail everyone's rights.
The Declaration of Independence
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Unlike the koolaid brigade (of which you are a fine specimen) I like my heroes warts and all.

The truth shall set you free:::

1) The U.S. Constitution was ratified with a clause equating slaves to 3/5ths of a white citizen.

2)

The Constitution provided an avenue for slaves to become free. Without the Constitution and the founding fathers we would be a nation of racial divisions. Fortunately our founding fathers had the fortitude to know the Constitution would need to change with the times. Hence, they allowed amendments, from that fortitude sprung the 14th amendment and the equal protection clause.

The Constitution did no such thing...activist judges did. The Supreme Court had to overturn itself.

And better not let those strict constructionists hear you say 'the constitution would need to change' pssst, they are always arguing over what the signers meant as if their thoughts and the federalist papers are cemented in law.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

um, why did you number this when you only had one point?


come on dev

that point was poor anyway
that was to punish those states not the actual people
that way they didnt get to have representation equal to those they held as slaves

so southern slave holders believed slaves were equal?

2) equals fill in the blank.

anything I've left you thinking about was meant as a free teaching point. Now get your head out of your ass and think!

no, dev
they didnt want them to use the slaves to get more represenitives in congress because they were slaves
you've lost it dev
this isnt partisan at all
you are showing its your head that is suffering from rectal/cranial inversion

It was and is partisan. You can dress a goat up like a princess, but...

The arguments from the northern and southern 'gentlemen' were all over the place on this one. One thing is a given...slave holders for the most part considered slaves to be chattel.

 

[jreeves]

Unlike the koolaid brigade (of which you are a fine specimen) I like my heroes warts and all.

The truth shall set you free:::

1) The U.S. Constitution was ratified with a clause equating slaves to 3/5ths of a white citizen.

2)

The Constitution provided an avenue for slaves to become free. Without the Constitution and the founding fathers we would be a nation of racial divisions. Fortunately our founding fathers had the fortitude to know the Constitution would need to change with the times. Hence, they allowed amendments, from that fortitude sprung the 14th amendment and the equal protection clause.

The Constitution did no such thing...activist judges did. The Supreme Court had to overturn itself.

And better not let those strict constructionists hear you say 'the constitution would need to change' pssst, they are always arguing over what the signers meant as if their thoughts and the federalist papers are cemented in law.

The Civil Rights Movement in this nation was fueled by the 14th amendment. If the original Constitution didn't have a provision for amendments, then we wouldn't have had the Civil Rights Movement in this country. I don't believe activist judges provided an avenue. Judges saw injustices and rectified them using our founding documents. I am not a strict constructionist....

 

[DiveCon]

so southern slave holders believed slaves were equal?

2) equals fill in the blank.

anything I've left you thinking about was meant as a free teaching point. Now get your head out of your ass and think!

no, dev
they didnt want them to use the slaves to get more represenitives in congress because they were slaves
you've lost it dev
this isnt partisan at all
you are showing its your head that is suffering from rectal/cranial inversion

It was and is partisan. You can dress a goat up like a princess, but...

The arguments from the northern and southern 'gentlemen' were all over the place on this one. One thing is a given...slave holders for the most part considered slaves to be chattel.

and how does that change anything i said?
it doesnt
they WERE chattle
thats why the founders from the north wanted to keep the south from benefiting from people the south kept as chattle

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

no, dev
they didnt want them to use the slaves to get more represenitives in congress because they were slaves
you've lost it dev
this isnt partisan at all
you are showing its your head that is suffering from rectal/cranial inversion

It was and is partisan. You can dress a goat up like a princess, but...

The arguments from the northern and southern 'gentlemen' were all over the place on this one. One thing is a given...slave holders for the most part considered slaves to be chattel.

and how does that change anything i said?
it doesnt
they WERE chattle
thats why the founders from the north wanted to keep the south from benefiting from people the south kept as chattle

Open your eyes. The Founding Fathers who were Southern Gentlemen, and who stood the most to gain, kept slaves while sometimes denouncing the institution...in private. IT was all about deceit, power, cowardice, morality and ethics. I do not judge them as harshly as their own words do, but at the same time I do not make excuses for them as most Americans do.

Slaves are not mentioned in the Articles of Confederation. They were considered property. Why would property be considered as equal to property owners?

 

[DiveCon]

It was and is partisan. You can dress a goat up like a princess, but...

The arguments from the northern and southern 'gentlemen' were all over the place on this one. One thing is a given...slave holders for the most part considered slaves to be chattel.

and how does that change anything i said?
it doesnt
they WERE chattle
thats why the founders from the north wanted to keep the south from benefiting from people the south kept as chattle

Open your eyes. The Founding Fathers who were Southern Gentlemen, and who stood the most to gain, kept slaves while sometimes denouncing the institution...in private. IT was all about deceit, power, cowardice, morality and ethics. I do not judge them as harshly as their own words do, but at the same time I do not make excuses for them as most Americans do.

Slaves are not mentioned in the Articles of Confederation. They were considered property. Why would property be considered as equal to property owners?

are you drunk?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

and how does that change anything i said?
it doesnt
they WERE chattle
thats why the founders from the north wanted to keep the south from benefiting from people the south kept as chattle

Open your eyes. The Founding Fathers who were Southern Gentlemen, and who stood the most to gain, kept slaves while sometimes denouncing the institution...in private. IT was all about deceit, power, cowardice, morality and ethics. I do not judge them as harshly as their own words do, but at the same time I do not make excuses for them as most Americans do.

Slaves are not mentioned in the Articles of Confederation. They were considered property. Why would property be considered as equal to property owners?

are you drunk?

Nope! and that my dear friend may be a problem. It is illegal to be drunk in public in California.