Messages

I am going to step in the hot water here, but if the people continue to elect them, then I think they should be able to run again.  If the people are unaware enough to continue to vote for people that are not serving their interest, then that is the risk we take in a democracy.  Furthermore, I don't think the Presidency should be term-limited, once again if the people vote to elect the person then that is the action to override the term limit.  You want a democracy, take with it the risks and allow the people to decide.

I don't think anyone was suggesting suiing someone for a good return on anything.  Rather, I believe their intent was to ensure that should a child be injured, or god-forbid, killed, that that driver would be punished sufficiently both criminally and financially.

LOL, SDM that is really amusing.  I'm a little concerned had I chosen to do this, that I would be probably be really sloshed with some of the ones listed, 

It is amazing how liberals are evil and the villain of the picture, so to speak, for the fact that they choose to object to things that don't agree with their ideals, however a conservative who chooses to object is patriotic.  It seems to me that the most common attack line of a conservative (per the OP) is to attack a liberal as unpatriotic or as not supporting the military.  Let me see if I can make this clear enough (as a liberal who are known for flip flopping and being vague) I SUPPORT OUR MILITARY'S ABILITY TO ACHIEVE THE ASSIGNED OBJECTIVE IF PROPERLY EQUIPPED, TRAINED, AND LED; none of the above means that I have to support the mission .  The previous is now fodder for you Warph, go right ahead, attack away and slay my patriotism.

Why am I not allowed to compare this country to other countries in the world?  That makes me unpatriotic because I hope for improvement in some of our ways, to assume that our nation is #1 in every category of measure is foolish and arrogant.  In fact, it is dangerous because it assures those that are ahead of us in whatever measure that we would be discussing that their lead is assured.

Why must I wear a flag pin?  It is interesting that one must wear a flag pin to demonstrate their patriotism.  That is the most ridiculous thing that I have ever heard.  In fact, the most patriotic and heroic person that I have every met died overseas doing their duty, and I will tell you what: They never wore a flag pin, they did their duty and they didn't need to be recognized for their achievements to be confident that they were doing the right thing.  If want to wear a flag pin, that is your choice, however don't attack someone for not wearing.

The last thought I will leave is: Why are we attacked, as liberals, for attacking the integrity, knowledge, and capability of our leaders?  Apparently, free speech is now decried unless you are speaking in agreement with the majority.... I must have missed that section of the Constitution, please refresh my memory which Amendment is that?  It is disturbing that the radical right that influences the author (and the author is one as well) can't handle dissension, if one were a true conservative they would applaud those that dissent as freedoms would be their convenants and they would protect the right of that person to say it without attacking their right to live in this country.  You want to attack us, attack what we say!  It is cowardly to suggest that we leave the country, perhaps you should just stand up and debate the issues instead.  Many liberals have said that they would leave it a conservative leader is elected because they are concerned that some of their rights as people and employees would be attacked should that President have the privilege of appointing a new USSC judge, however it isn't all liberals, in fact I would challenge that it isn't even a majority of liberals.

The point of most of this post is simple: you want to debate the issues, bring it on!  I would be glad to carry on a discussion on the issues, however, for one, Warph, who has posted a few different times that they wished partisanship would be over in Washington, all you are doing by posting this is perpetuating the cycle.

Sorry, I avoided posting for a long time in the politics b/c I had such divergent views from a good chunk of what is posted.  My last post wasn't just a response to Jo but also to some of the other statements made about democrats or liberals (obviously )

Making assumptions on who I am voting for merely because I agreed with SDM and the fact that the statement appeared to be a talking point?   

It is interesting that we can't disagree with the Republican's talking points without being branded a socialist/communist.  And while I am at it, what is wrong with a socialist if one bothered to look up what it actually means instead of running off half-cocked in a very McCarthy fashion after us with an ax screaming Communist at the top of your lungs!

It would be nice if we could have a idea discussion without branding those that we disagreed with "titles" to vindicate our ideas and positions.  Perhaps, we should state our opinion and what we would like to accomplish and justify what we saying with facts, figures, and other methods instead of vilifying the opposite side.  It is interesting that this election has had a lot of posts in this forum screaming for the need to end partisan politics, when in truth a good number of those posting are perpetuating the cycle.

Yes, I am a liberal.  Yes, I typically vote Democrat.  Yes, I am planning on voting for Obama.  This doesn't make me anything other than an American choosing whom is worthy of my vote the same as every other voting American.  This doesn't make me anything else and i refuse to have titles attached to me as a result.

I agree SDM, I wonder do you get these sent to you from the RNC?

Thanks, Pam .  I usually do express my opinions, however lately I've enjoyed the spot of watching other people and not getting yelled at (you can yell on the internet LOL).  However, we do need to resolve the current debate on the bailout, and we need to do it now before it drags us further down.  Granted even if this plan or another is enacted, we will have further to fall since home prices haven't stabilized yet and home sales are still declining.  There are currently two plans floating around:

1.purchase the distressed assets of the banks at a market price (still to be determined); restrict corporate pay for CEOs,etc; require an equity stake in the company for the bailout
2.the conservative republicans yesterday floated a plan to insure (much like FDIC) the distressed assets and charge an insurance fee to do so that would be scaled based on the assessed risks of the bank

In general, I've read several articles from various debt rating agencies, economic experts (which realize is always questionable) and other sources, and all have said the last plan is unworkable mostly because it doesn't directly inject liquidity into the market.  However, at this point those are the two plans that are being discussed, to some degree.  

Wilma, it is a case of all of the above.

1.Most of the loans the collateral would cover the loan when it was written.  There were unspoken agreements between appraisers and lenders that properties needed $x to meet a loan and appraiser (I'm sure) would take that into consideration, I've seen it happen, however that is a large percentage of the asset value.  What has occurred is that home sales have fallen so drastically that there is a glut on the market and that has dragged down home prices, destroying the collateral value.  Furthermore, foreclosures ALWAYS sell for less than the same home selling conventionally, thus the 50% average we are sitting at right now.
2.IT WOULD BE more logical for banks to choose to modify the term/interest rate/payment amount than to foreclose in the current situation, however, not all banks have (for some reason??) actually done so.
3.Sure its a country of free enterprise, however, I personally believe in the value of the FHA.  I believe that the government should have available a program to help consumers purchase a home.  Should you not believe that, fine, it is your own opinion, but is my belief.  Furthermore, as I said in my original post, if the federal government had structured this to allow the FHA to refinance the consumers, two things would have happened: yes, you would have an increase in default rate @ FHA, however that would be marginal against the net profit drawn through fees that the FHA charges to insure the loans, and secondly, we would have avoided a large portion of the foreclosures that have happened since FHA works harder to avoid foreclosure (this will have stabilized to some degree the decline in home sales as consumers avoid purchasing due to a fear of recession (consumer=2/3 of the economy))
4.Yes, our home prices were inflated due to the housing boom as that is normal for a boom/bust cycle, however they probably still have more to fall.

I certainly would have signed up for had it been correct.