(06-13-2011, 11:09 PM)username Wrote:

(06-13-2011, 10:30 PM)sally Wrote: I caught the end of it. I like Ron Paul the most out of all of them.

Me too. He was the one who DIDN'T spout the whole conservative, evangelical, right-wing, republican party agenda. Liked him.

He was an option in 2008.

Are his views really new "news" to you?

And no . . . I'm not being a smartass.

I'm just a little bit . . . dumbfounded.

(06-13-2011, 11:56 PM)BlueTiki Wrote: He was an option in 2008.

Are his views really new "news" to you?

And no . . . I'm not being a smartass.

I'm just a little bit . . . dumbfounded.

In 2008 I was so SICK of anything resembling Republican (at the federal level) that I honestly didn't consider him. I wanted Hillary to win but settled for Obama.

I still don't think "cut personal income taxes" is the right approach (because gee, it didn't seem to work under George W.) but Ron Paul seems to be willing to tackle cutting entitlements and even defense spending. Cutting corporate taxes...maybe. He's just looking more appealing to me in this election.

I've said it before, I'm all about balance. I don't like any of the hard right/hard left candidates. I wish there was a viable middle party candidate.

One of the candidates (can't remember who) seemingly wanted to blame the housing bubble on democrats. Really?

(06-14-2011, 12:09 AM)username Wrote: I still don't think "cut personal income taxes" is the right approach (because gee, it didn't seem to work under George W.) but Ron Paul seems to be willing to tackle cutting entitlements and even defense spending. Cutting corporate taxes...maybe.
I wish there was a viable middle party candidate.

*sigh*

I'll never understand the anti "cut personal income tax" position.

Nor the anti "lower corporate tax" position.

Their arguments are so . . . so . . . intellectual. I guess I'm slow that way.

To increase the bottom line, three simple options exist:

1.) Increase Revenue

2.) Decrease Expenses

3.) Do both simultaneously

The balance, you and many others (including myself) crave, is in the above three options. And it exists without raising personal or corporate taxes.

Raising taxes is simple . . . and is the ol' "go to" strategy when funds are needed.

(06-14-2011, 12:31 AM)username Wrote: One of the candidates (can't remember who) seemingly wanted to blame the housing bubble on democrats. Really?

Give this a view . . . when you have some "free time".

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/

It might explain the comment. But hey . . . they all blame and lie.

With or without tweets and pictures.

(06-14-2011, 12:31 AM)username Wrote: One of the candidates (can't remember who) seemingly wanted to blame the housing bubble on democrats. Really?

You may want to look up the National Homeownership Strategy of 1994. It was the beginning of the NINJA/defaulters lending practice.

“In 1994, at the President’s request, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) began work to develop a National Homeownership Strategy with the goal of lifting the overall homeownership rate to 67.5 percent by the end of the year 2000. While the most tangible goal of the National Homeownership Strategy was to raise the overall homeownership rate, in presenting the strategy HUD pointed explicitly to declines in homeownership rates among low-income, young, and minority households as motivation for these efforts.” - U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Policy Development and Research website

"At the request of President Clinton, HUD is working with dozens of national leaders in government and the housing industry to implement the National Homeownership Strategy, an unprecedented public-private partnership to increase homeownership to a record-high level over the next 6 years.” - Urban Policy Brief Number 2, August 1995

“Federal institutions, policies, and programs alone cannot meet President Clinton's goal of record-high levels of homeownership within the next 6 years. HUD has forged a nationwide partnership that will draw on the resources and creativity of lenders, builders, real estate professionals, community-based nonprofit organizations, consumer groups, State and local governments and housing finance agencies, and many others in a cooperative, multifaceted campaign to create ownership opportunities” - The National Homeownership Strategy

Hmm. I can't imagine why anyone would accuse the Democrats of such a thing...

This is my favorite nugget of goodness:

"We just had a report come out last week asserting that it may be that up to one-third of our children are now born out of wedlock. You want to reinforce family values in America, encourage two-parent households, get people to stay home? Make it easy for people to own their own homes and enjoy the rewards of family life and see their work rewarded."


Source: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index....z1PE1M8yF6


Hahahahahaha! People will stop fucking everything that walks if you just let them buy a house, even if they can't afford it!

(06-13-2011, 09:05 PM)Maggot Wrote: Ron Paul is a smart guy.

You think he's too old?

After reading some of Tim Pawlenty's responses imagine my surprise to discover the Govt. forces people to accept union jobs.

If one doesn't want to be in a union, don't apply for a union job. Is that a difficult concept to grasp?

Back to reading...

(06-13-2011, 08:33 PM)username Wrote: She said something about getting rid of or slashing the EPA.

She wants to kill it completely.

I won't support anyone that doesn't care about the environment. Businesses need to have rules/guidelines in regards to that because their bottom line is money, I have no doubt they would forsake nature for a buck.

I don't like her but I was willing to put my personal feelings aside in order to see what she had to say. Fuck her, she's off my long list.

(06-14-2011, 01:28 AM)Cracker Wrote:

(06-14-2011, 12:31 AM)username Wrote: One of the candidates (can't remember who) seemingly wanted to blame the housing bubble on democrats. Really?

You may want to look up the National Homeownership Strategy of 1994. It was the beginning of the NINJA/defaulters lending practice.

“In 1994, at the President’s request, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) began work to develop a National Homeownership Strategy with the goal of lifting the overall homeownership rate to 67.5 percent by the end of the year 2000. While the most tangible goal of the National Homeownership Strategy was to raise the overall homeownership rate, in presenting the strategy HUD pointed explicitly to declines in homeownership rates among low-income, young, and minority households as motivation for these efforts.” - U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Policy Development and Research website

"At the request of President Clinton, HUD is working with dozens of national leaders in government and the housing industry to implement the National Homeownership Strategy, an unprecedented public-private partnership to increase homeownership to a record-high level over the next 6 years.” - Urban Policy Brief Number 2, August 1995

“Federal institutions, policies, and programs alone cannot meet President Clinton's goal of record-high levels of homeownership within the next 6 years. HUD has forged a nationwide partnership that will draw on the resources and creativity of lenders, builders, real estate professionals, community-based nonprofit organizations, consumer groups, State and local governments and housing finance agencies, and many others in a cooperative, multifaceted campaign to create ownership opportunities” - The National Homeownership Strategy

Hmm. I can't imagine why anyone would accuse the Democrats of such a thing...

Clinton contributed to it by pushing lenders to give mortgage loans to people who couldn't afford it, Bush continued with it, and Ron Paul predicted the housing bubble years before it happened.

(06-14-2011, 01:44 AM)Cracker Wrote:

(06-13-2011, 09:05 PM)Maggot Wrote: Ron Paul is a smart guy.

You think he's too old?

I was for him in 2008 even though he didn't have a shot and I thought he was too old then. But I'll take someone who is old, honest, understands the economy and is for limited goverment over the younger, typical shit talking puppet.

Ron Paul the Freemason?

(06-14-2011, 06:10 AM)Duchess Wrote:

(06-13-2011, 08:33 PM)username Wrote: She said something about getting rid of or slashing the EPA.

She wants to kill it completely.

I won't support anyone that doesn't care about the environment.

How does "killing" the EPA equate to not caring about the environment or permitting businesses to ride roughshod over the planet?

What is her alternative to the EPA?

(06-14-2011, 10:03 AM)BlueTiki Wrote:

(06-14-2011, 06:10 AM)Duchess Wrote:

(06-13-2011, 08:33 PM)username Wrote: She said something about getting rid of or slashing the EPA.

She wants to kill it completely.

I won't support anyone that doesn't care about the environment.

How does "killing" the EPA equate to not caring about the environment or permitting businesses to ride roughshod over the planet?

What is her alternative to the EPA?

Why answer a post with a question when you clearly have an opinion?

(06-14-2011, 10:03 AM)BlueTiki Wrote: How does "killing" the EPA equate to not caring about the environment or permitting businesses to ride roughshod over the planet?

What is her alternative to the EPA?

If you dismantle the Environmental Protection Agency who is there left to protect the environment?, Friends of the Earth?

We don't need the federal EPA, every state has their own EPA that is really much better equiped to regulate the environment within their respective states.

the federal agency is a redundant bureaucracy.

I disagree, Dick. Not to say that I have huge faith in the federal government to manage the environment, but I know I wouldn't trust it to the individual states.

Founder of the Tea Party Caucus in Congress, Bachmann has emerged as a sort of Rachel Carson-in-Reverse, damning environmentalists and making sweeping statements of denial about human-caused warming of the Earth.

“Carbon dioxide is natural, it is not harmful,” she said in a House floor speech of the greenhouse gas that is building in the atmosphere.

“It is part of Earth’s life cycle, and yet we’re being told that we have to reduce this natural substance, reduce the American standard of living, to create an arbitrary reduction in something that is naturally occurring in Earth.”

During Bachman’s first House reelection, in 2008, she declared: “The big thing we are working on now is the global warming hoax. It’s all voodoo, nonsense, hokum, a hoax.”

Big government? is what has gotten us to where we are, keep in mind it was freddie and fanny, government run lending that caused the housing bubble and the following collapse, the feds can't run shit efficiently.

we "the voters" have no control over the federal level agencies, we do have some say so about the state agencies.

That is where all of this stuff belongs, it does not belong out of touch of the voters.


I will vote for a shrinking federal presence in the states at every opportunity, and against an expanded federal presence in all places within the states.


by the way, can you show me anything that gives the federal government the mandate and authority to have a federal EPA. thank you so much, I just know that you have that info at your finger tips.

(06-14-2011, 11:02 AM)username Wrote: During Bachman’s first House reelection, in 2008, she declared: “The big thing we are working on now is the global warming hoax.

My mistake.

I didn't realize the EPA has GLOBAL authority and regulatory powers.

BTW - How's the "Cap and Trade" doing on the home front? That was Obama's environmental push during his election bid.

I can't remember how many jobs it's created, how many homes have been saved and how much it's contributed to deficit reduction.

But Bin Laden is dead. "Thank You!" Cap and Trade!