Why I am not a Conservative

RoyalOrleans

New member
Ya think?
I guess we will see, I wonder if you can just as loudly eat crow, lol.

My guess is you will slink away from being wrong and never admit it.

2012 is gonna be a landslide with chumps like you thinking the way you do.. :cool: .

.

TRYING?
They are associated, all "modern" liberals including yourself believe in redistribution of wealth and social babysitting ran by the Government paid for through massive taxes on those you feel are "rich".

You said yourself, screw the insurance companies....well the insurance companies emply hundreds of thousands of people directly and indirectly so when you say screw insurance companies your really saying you want to get rid of hundreds of thousands of private sector jobs.

So screw the rich guys who are employing people, what do we need them for anyway..........

Chump?

Should I be devistated you resort to childish outbursts and insults?

What cost us the last two elections was the swing of the average voter to try and get more handouts, "give me free, give me free" is now the montra of the Democratic party, lol.

It is always harder to do what is right instead of what is popular. Your party is so stuck on your need to appease to maintain your power you have lost sight of what Liberal used to stand for.

There ya go again trying to associate socialist with welfare, and trying to associate socialist with a liberal.
It's what cost your party the election, chump.

.

.
The Republicans just don't seem to get it.

They are too busy fighting petty arguments and being "against" the Democrats, and they can't seem to get any freakin' ideas of their own. Why would Americans want to join a party that doesn't have any ideas, any purpose, any vision? Even if you don't agree with the Democrats' plans - universal healthcare, cap-and-trade, card check - at least they HAVE ideas.

Being in the "minority" is not an excuse. If anything, this should be THE time for Republicans to start coming up with innovative initiatives to its party energized.

 

hugo

New member
After having a Republican President who embraced expanding the federal government's role in medicine and education and who proposed massive budget deficits in a time of prosperity (making the current even more massive deficits in a recession both politically and economically (under the direction of Lord Keynes) inevitable and now we had the Republicans nominating a liberal in the last election and overwhelmingly rejected the one candidate whose words and votes actually show he is for not only fighting the expansionary plans of the socialists but actually reducing the size of government. Of course, he is an extremist. Let me quote Barry Goldwater "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice".

Now, of course, the Republicans seem infatuated with a governor who put a tax on oil companies, reducing employment, so she could give every Alaskan a welfare check.

 

eddo

New member
Being in the "minority" is not an excuse. If anything, this should be THE time for Republicans to start coming up with innovative initiatives to its party energized.
embracing the **** out of the Flat Tax would be an excellent start.

 

timesjoke

Active Members
Even if you don't agree with the Democrats' plans - universal healthcare, cap-and-trade, card check - at least they HAVE ideas.
Well I give them credit for the shotgun style of socialism. Flood massive amounts of crappy ideas with the hope a few of them stick to something then swear up and down the ones that get positive poll data were their true goals.

Let me ask you a question.......do you really think any of those things are "THEIR" ideas? Cap and trade was already put to use in Europe and is a dismal failure. All reports show that even if Americans froze current use levels instead of increase as we will do even with cap and trade, China's use will more than double in ten years so cap and trade is only one thing, a way to make money for the liberals who will be running it. Cap and trade will tripple energy costs for a very large segment of the poor in this Country when at the same time the poor are in tougher times every day. Why would an administration who ran on the idea of helping the poor turn around and hurt them instead?

Because Obama and company will make billions off of cap and trade, that is all that matters to them.

Universal healthcare was an old idea when Hillary Clinton promised it to us during Bill's first term in office.

Liberals do not have ideas, they have goals of creating a socialist Nation and making money for themselves, nothing else.

Being in the "minority" is not an excuse. If anything, this should be THE time for Republicans to start coming up with innovative initiatives to its party energized.
Innovative ideas like keeping what you earn?

What kind of ideas do you want them to come up with? When you say ideas you mean spend more tax money. Conservatives do not want to increase taxes so why would they want to make new programs that cost more money?

The idea was always to do what is right, not what is popular, at least that was the founding Father's idea.

I will say this, everyone is from one degree or another wanting to be socialist. Even you RO is talking about how Republicans have to buy votes with fancy or shiny ideas (welfare programs) to be popular.

And your right. No longer do people think self-reliance is the most important trait. It is all about what someone will give you or they suck.

Hugo,

Bush the latest was not a Conservative, he might have been a member of the Republican party but that same liberal you speak of who was run for office wrote the amnesty bill that Bush fully endorsed.

Bush was a Liberal at heart, that is why he presided over the largest increase in Government ever seen before Obama was in office for two months. Obama has outdone 8 years of Bush in just a couple months in wasted tax dollars and increase in Government powers over our every day lives.

We will get the health care bill, but most of the cost from that will not be seen until more and more people sign up for it. It is estimated to compound in cost over and over again in the 4 to 5 year range where it is expected to cost well over 10 trillion dollars and keep climbing more and more.

Right now China has requested a meeting that will happen the end of this month and many are saying they are scared Obama is going to bankrupt America with this healthcare bill and that means the debt their holding is in trouble.

The question is always, where will the money come from?

Right now they are talking about massive increases in taxes for the "rich" but that will take care of about 7% of the total cost, so where does the rest of the money come from? Who pays?

Everyone turn your pointer finger at yourself and you will see where the money is comming from.

 

hugo

New member
Timesjoke,

Sarah Palin is simply GW Bush in a skirt, yet "conservatives" here seem to support her.

 

phreakwars

New member
The Republicans just don't seem to get it.
They are too busy fighting petty arguments and being "against" the Democrats, and they can't seem to get any freakin' ideas of their own. Why would Americans want to join a party that doesn't have any ideas, any purpose, any vision? Even if you don't agree with the Democrats' plans - universal healthcare, cap-and-trade, card check - at least they HAVE ideas.

Being in the "minority" is not an excuse. If anything, this should be THE time for Republicans to start coming up with innovative initiatives to its party energized.
Exactly!! Republicans are too **** busy ******** about petty things to even come up with a decent idea. It re-emphasizes the point being made by the article hugo posted. Ole' TJ has no problem what so ever ******** and ******** and ******** about this alleged boogeymen future that his small (very very small) mind thinks is gonna happen based on shiit like Marx, or Stalin, or Hitler, or some other type of boogeyman persona he wants to associate with Democrats. He's also way too busy thinking Democrat=Socialist or Liberal to realize the Democrat party is mearly making changes to the norm he's so accustomed to. His fear shines like no other with the way he refers to the POTUS as a Messiah when NO DEMOCRAT HAS EVER referred to the man as such. He's too stupid to realize his Republican (not necessarily conservative) brothers even agree with the policy changes. This is why 2012' will be a landslide.
SANE Republicans will STILL vote for Obama because they know their own party has NOTHING to offer but complaints and prejudice.

Until the Republican party gets their shiit together and start coming up with a bi-partisan plan with the Democrats, or at least start working with Democrats instead of ******** about every little *** **** thing, the conservative movement will be a fukking joke. The only ones left in the true conservative movement, are racist, and idiots. It really wouldn't surprise me, if we see a NEW party formed for 2012 that isn't Republican, but then, isn't Democrat either. I don't think that party would win, but it would absolutely alienate TJ's retarded thinking into the same category as the WHIG party.

By by hard right leaning Republicans, you did it to yourself by being such arrogant self centered ********. Even your fellow Republicans can't stand you and think your fukking idiots.

.

.

 

timesjoke

Active Members
Timesjoke,
Sarah Palin is simply GW Bush in a skirt, yet "conservatives" here seem to support her.
Well that proves your completely misinformed. Your buying into the Liberal lies Hugo. Bush was a closet Liberal, let me give you an example, do you really think Sarah would have supported and voted for the Amnesty bill Bush pushed for?

Your only case for trying to make Sarah seem liberal is her getting money from the oil companies for the people......I can see how that might twist in some minds to mean that is similar to welfare but in reality it is much, much different.

The oil in Alaska belongs to the people of Alaska....right? Just having the ability to extract the pil from the ground does not mean it belongs to the oil companies "YET". The oil companies have to earn that oil and each State can set their own value for their own product. If the value Alaska set on their own resource was too high, no oil company would want it........Free markets Hugo, the oil companies have a choice.

Me as a taypayer paying into the welfare system, I do not have a choice.

I love the way Bender keeps up the pressure of insults, and that is the typical Liberal attack machine.

They know their biggest weakness for their agenda is if people look at it with the facts so anytime someone tries to break down things by the numbers they derail the discussion away from the facts with personal attacks.

Because they are too weak minded to do anything else.

Bender is a robot to their causes because there is something inside him that sees America as it was designed as bad so they will ignore the constitution, ignore the founding fathers, ignore even basic fiscal responsibility all in the name of turning America into a daycare facility with "THEM" controlling everyone.

But, they also know what they are doing is wrong. When they lash out at those who challenge their agends as Bender strikes out at me, it is because they really hate themselves and know no other way to conduct themselves.

Time and time again Bender has claimed the Republicans have never had any other ideas but that lie has been countered by IWS over and over again. Bender chooses to ignore the many examples IWS has shown like wearing blinders so he never has to admit to it. In the last 6 months Republicans have offered alternative bills and budget plans to those offered by the Democrats but because they do not involve turning socialist the Democcrats like Bender who only want to push a socialist agenda they will not even be looked at.

I bet Bender has not even read the many bills that were offered by Republicans for healthcare reform, but that does not restrain him from shooting off his mouth to claim they were bad....wait he claims they never existed.

I again say go back to the author of the piece being discussed and see what that man describes as a Liberal.

A Liberal most certainly does not force changes, what the author describes as socialists is what Bender, Obama, and every other Democrat is today.

 

snafu

New member
After having a Republican President who embraced expanding the federal government's role in medicine and education and who proposed massive budget deficits in a time of prosperity (making the current even more massive deficits in a recession both politically and economically (under the direction of Lord Keynes) inevitable and now we had the Republicans nominating a liberal in the last election and overwhelmingly rejected the one candidate whose words and votes actually show he is for not only fighting the expansionary plans of the socialists but actually reducing the size of government. Of course, he is an extremist. Let me quote Barry Goldwater "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice".
Now, of course, the Republicans seem infatuated with a governor who put a tax on oil companies, reducing employment, so she could give every Alaskan a welfare check.
Oh wait a minute....

It's not welfare and your a smart man, why would you even say such a thing? Again we rent our land and collect our rent. If that's not American I don't know what is.

Reducing employment? she's been a strong advocate on the new gas pipeline that would create hundreds of jobs if not more. Oh by the way in the lower 48 they have voted to open their resources but we were shot down by one vote.

Your quoting Gold Water (a Republican) but your not even giving Sarah the benefit of the doubt. She might be a Republican by name but only because as you know a third party wouldn't have a chance. She will change the Republican Party and help give it a new course. Ya know we all learn by our mistakes so try not to bring up Bush so much. She will cross party lines..

Also...

Palin stimulus veto prompts special session of Legislature: Legislature | adn.com

 

hugo

New member
Well, de ja vu, I remember having "conservatives" defending Bush in 2000 when I claimed he was a liberal. You nominate someone with conservative economic principles I just might vote Republican. Ya gonna need a few more Republicans. Nominate someone who taxes employment and rewards sloth (Palin) you will not get my vote.
 

snafu

New member
Well, de ja vu, I remember having "conservatives" defending Bush in 2000 when I claimed he was a liberal. You nominate someone with conservative economic principles I just might vote Republican. Ya gonna need a few more Republicans. Nominate someone who taxes employment and rewards sloth (Palin) you will not get my vote.
"Conservatives"... Yeah I was on the bandwagon and I still stand by Bush. He may not have been the Conservative that we perceived or wanted him to be but he's a whole lot better than any liberal as we perceive the term to be now anyday!

I just ask that you don't pass judgment on Sarah now and I won't put my vote in for her now either. What do you say?

 

hugo

New member
"Conservatives"... Yeah I was on the bandwagon and I still stand by Bush. He may not have been the Conservative that we perceived or wanted him to be but he's a whole lot better than any liberal as we perceive the term to be now anyday!
I just ask that you don't pass judgment on Sarah now and I won't put my vote in for her now either. What do you say?
Sarah's own words on an economic issue:

: Who is responsible for these failing institutions [such as AIG, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Lehman Bros., in the mortgage crisis] in your view?

A: I think the corruption on Wall Street--that is to blame. And that violation of the public trust. And that contract that should be inherent in corporations who are spending, investing other people?s money--the abuse of that is what has got to stop. And it?s a matter, too, of some of these CEOs and top management people and shareholders not holding that management accountable, being addicted to, we call it, O-P-M, ?other people?s money.? Spending that, investing that, not using the prudence that we expect of them. But here again, government has got to play an appropriate role in the stringent oversight, making sure that those abuses stop.

 

snafu

New member
Sarah's own words on an economic issue:
: Who is responsible for these failing institutions [such as AIG, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Lehman Bros., in the mortgage crisis] in your view?

A: I think the corruption on Wall Street--that is to blame. And that violation of the public trust. And that contract that should be inherent in corporations who are spending, investing other people?s money--the abuse of that is what has got to stop. And it?s a matter, too, of some of these CEOs and top management people and shareholders not holding that management accountable, being addicted to, we call it, O-P-M, ?other people?s money.? Spending that, investing that, not using the prudence that we expect of them. But here again, government has got to play an appropriate role in the stringent oversight, making sure that those abuses stop.
What happened after the bail out of AIG and Fannie Mac? Didn't the CEO's walk away under their golden umbrellas? Didn't they take a fancy vacation with bail out money? **** yeah they need to be held accountable?

 

snafu

New member
They're the s making the decisions and setting their own salary's. Yeah they need to be held accountable. If the government is going to bail them out then the government should regulate them. **** if we did and damed if we don't. To late we already did!!!! Thanks to the Dem's were already in the business!!!
 

timesjoke

Active Members
What happened after the bail out of AIG and Fannie Mac? Didn't the CEO's walk away under their golden umbrellas? Didn't they take a fancy vacation with bail out money? **** yeah they need to be held accountable?
What is the difference between a scam artist who steals money from an old lady or the scam artist who steals from a million old ladies?

The difference is the latter donates money to political campaigns.

 

snafu

New member
What is the difference between a scam artist who steals money from an old lady or the scam artist who steals from a million old ladies?
The difference is the latter donates money to political campaigns.
Thank you!

 

snafu

New member
I know you don't like to divulge much of your life hugo but it seems to me your more concerned about the top 1%. Although I agree with you all in almost every stance why are you changing your tune now? Are you concerned?
 

hugo

New member
A true classical liberal would not have failed to mention government forcing institutions to make high risk loans to minorities and housing in bad neighborhoods. A true classical liberal would not have put all the blame on corporations and only blamed government for not being active enough.

A little info Sarah should have mentioned:

In reality, regulatory policy has worked in the opposite direction. The government wanted more risky loans made, not fewer. For example, the Community Reinvestment Act pressured banks to make loans in poor neighborhoods. Banks (and I was a banker under the CRA) figured that making some bad loans was just another tax, a cost of doing business as a regulated company. In 1995, the Clinton administration revised the CRA to increase pressure on banks to make more loans to risky borrowers. In 1997, the first pool of subprime mortgages was securitized (by Bear Stearns!).
The law regulating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was rewritten to reduce their capital requirements, meaning they would become riskier. Some critics were concerned about the risk, but here is what Congressman Barney Frank had to say at the time:

“These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. “The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.” (New York Times, September 11, 2003)

At the height of the real estate boom, the United States set record home ownership rates. Politicians, including President Bush, bragged about their success at getting Americans into their own homes. As recently as August 2007, the President bragged that he was helping Americans get homes with lower down payments and higher loan limits. He also signed a law making it easier for homeowners to walk away from their mortgage obligations.Would more regulation have reduced the number of bad loans made? Most likely, more regulation would have increased the problem.

If I want someone who blames corporations for everything and believes in taxing corporations and handing out freebies with the revenue I can vote for Obama. Instead, I will be voting for a classical liberal on economic matters again. Maybe the Republicans will nominate one for the first time since 1984.

 

hugo

New member
Cong. Report Says Government Caused Financial Crisis; Sessions' Questions on Sotomayor

by Connie Hair

07/08/2009

In a stunning report (pdf) released yesterday by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the current financial crisis was traced back to government intervention in the U.S. housing market. Yes, you read that right.
The report issued by the Republican minority didn’t disclose the names of the culprit individuals, but it sure pointed a lot of fingers at organizations, politicians, lobbyists and Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac.

According to the report, government intervention “created ‘affordable’ but dangerous lending policies which encouraged lower down payments, looser underwriting standards and higher leverage. Finally, government intervention created a nexus of vested interests -- politicians, lenders and lobbyists -- who profited from the ‘affordable’ housing market and acted to kill reforms.”

Rep. Darrel Issa (R-Calif.), the ranking Republican on the committee, released a summary of key findings from the report that included:

• Political pressure led to the erosion of responsible lending practices:

In the early 1990s, Fannie and Freddie began to come under considerable political pressure to lower their underwriting standards, particularly on the size of down payments and the credit quality of borrowers. (p.6)

• Lower down-payments led to housing prices that outpaced income growth: Once government-sponsored efforts to decrease down payments spread to the wider market, home prices became increasingly untethered from any kind of demand limited by borrowers’ ability to pay. Instead, borrowers could just make smaller down payments and take on higher debt, allowing home prices to continue their unrestrained rise. (p. 11)

• Members of an “affordable housing” coalition shared profits with political allies to help legitimize their business practices: Fannie Mae created and used The Fannie Mae Foundation to spread millions of dollars around to politically-connected organizations like the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute. It also hired well-known academics to give an aura of academic rigor to policy positions favorable to Fannie Mae. (p.7)

• The Government Sponsored Enterprises led the way into the housing crisis: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were leaders in risky mortgage lending. According to an analysis presented to the Committee, between 2002 and 2007, Fannie and Freddie purchased $1.9 trillion of mortgages made to borrowers with credit scores below 660, one of the definitions of “subprime” used by federal banking regulators. This represents over 54% of all such mortgages purchased during those years. (p.24)

“The spin on the financial crisis by those who favored government efforts to erode lending standards is that the housing bubble didn’t cause this recession,” Issa said. “The findings in this report should remind this Congress that ignoring the role of politics and government in causing the housing crisis and the economic collapse while pursing other regulatory reforms will not fix the underlying problem.”

Has anyone told Barney Frank?
Has anyone told Sarah "Cut and Run" Palin?

 

timesjoke

Active Members
I don't see your point, the "Modern" liberals forced the irresponsible lending rules, Clinton signed the fist state of the program of forced loans into action and several attempts by the Republicans to rein this program back was stopped again, by the liberals. The biggest attempt was by the Republicans in 2004 where the Liberals said the Republicans were just "fear mongering" (sounds familure) and even accused a couple of the Republicans for being racist because they were trying to stop minorities from getting afordable loans.

That direct act from the liberals to force bad loans to be written did create the new atmosphere for loans and risk taking but at the same time, once the ball was rolling, many irresponsible groups decided to learn from the Government who was setting the example and took the ball and ran with it.

What this has to do with Sarah I have no idea, looks to me like your trying too hard to find fault where there is no fault Hugo. I am not saying she is the queen of perfection, just that she is an honest person in a field of dishonesty that politics have turned into.

 
Top Bottom