RE: Do republicans even have a conscience? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


slvemike4u -> RE: Do republicans even have a conscience? (11/6/2012 7:52:25 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Bigots on my side of the fence are denounced and dis-encouraged in their ways.

Really? That's odd. I've never seen you denounce or "dis-encourage" yourself in the slightest. [:D]

K.


There you are !
I was afraid you got yourself lost [:D]

by the way congrats...another nonsensical post.How many "post about nothing" in a row is that ?




kdsub -> RE: Do republicans even have a conscience? (11/6/2012 7:54:31 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Bigots on my side of the fence are denounced and dis-encouraged in their ways.

Really? That's odd. I've never seen you denounce or "dis-encourage" yourself in the slightest. [:D]

K.



He is not a bigot…that’s for you nasty republicans… He is just righteous in the eyes of the God of liberalism...It’s just those eyes can‘t turn left or right as needed. [:D]




slvemike4u -> RE: Do republicans even have a conscience? (11/6/2012 8:15:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Bigots on my side of the fence are denounced and dis-encouraged in their ways.

Really? That's odd. I've never seen you denounce or "dis-encourage" yourself in the slightest. [:D]

K.



He is not a bigot…that’s for you nasty republicans… He is just righteous in the eyes of the God of liberalism...It’s just those eyes can‘t turn left or right as needed. [:D]

Congrats....you,unlike your brethren,got at least one thing right in your post [:D]




stef -> RE: Do republicans even have a conscience? (11/6/2012 9:27:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

You're not a man of principle, are you!

More irony? Willbur, you're absolutely priceless.




Kirata -> RE: Do republicans even have a conscience? (11/6/2012 10:19:27 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

How many "post about nothing" in a row is that ?

For you? Probably quite a few. A lot of things seem to go over your head. [:)]

K.




slvemike4u -> RE: Do republicans even have a conscience? (11/6/2012 10:43:35 AM)

Lol
Might I ask you a question ?
Do you really think any of this is bothering me,or of concern to me ?
As you say,it all goes over my head anyway,so your silly pathetic attempts to get under my skin is nothing more than mental masturbation on your part....and of course entertainment for those assholes who happen to think like you .
But please do continue,at the least it keeps you from any other mischief [:)]




DesideriScuri -> RE: Do republicans even have a conscience? (11/6/2012 7:16:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn
If you consider the Garn - St Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982 and the resultant S&L 'crisis' 5 years later, the firing of the FDA commissioner at the behest of G.D. Searle's Donald Rumsfeldt , the letting go of Volker from the Fed after he did the dirty work of subduing high inflation, to bring in a reliably hands-off Greenspan, The free marketeers Rubin and Summers brought in by Clinton, the Phil Gramm-sponsored and spearheaded Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and Commodities Futures trading Act, with disastrous results that we'll be dealing with for rears to come, etc., to be "bullshit talking points," as opposed to actual recorded events, then that would go a long way towards explaining the problem here.


Initial limits to the interest rate Congress set on S&L's all but destroyed them. Banks could offer higher rates to attract more customers. S&L's cried foul and Congress lifted that rate limitation. They also opened up some types of loans for S&L's that they didn't have before. There were some S&L's that jumped into shady transactions. When things started to look like they were about to spin out of control, Congress came back in and immediately reset the limitations and took away the new loan types. Additionally, they forced fire sales of the now-illegal loans, which were more profitable than the other loan types. That destroyed the S&L's.

All done by Government regulations.

quote:

quote:

And, we both agree that we need to separate Government from Big Money. Cutting the influence of money in DC is of prime importance, and much of that can be done by reducing the amount of money Government controls.

Even more could be done to that end by reducing the amount of money that controls Government.


Huh?!? More could be done to separate Big Money from Government by reducing the money that controls Government?!? Isn't that saying that your pain will go away when it stops hurting?




graceadieu -> RE: Do republicans even have a conscience? (11/6/2012 9:28:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

Republicans are not interested in donating to charities that help poor people. This is simply fact. So if we relied solely on private charity, we would have huge issues in this country that could not be addressed adequately.


I don't think that's fair. Plenty of Republicans give to charities that help poor people.

They just don't give enough, that's all. Giving $5 and some can goods every week to your church so they can operate a food bank for your community is really good and definitely helps people, but that's teaspoons when the need is for gallons. If everyone can commit to giving 5x their current charitable givings to broad-based national secular charities and health organizations, then I bet we'll be able to cut back on welfare and health spending. But then how would that be different from taxes, really?




graceadieu -> RE: Do republicans even have a conscience? (11/6/2012 9:45:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

Good Lord, we do need to spend less on Defense. And, we need to stop playing World cop. And, we need to close our foreign bases and get our troops home. But, if they took that money and spent it on healthcare, that money will still be spent, and we'd still be running deficits. That's the BS the Democrats here are relying on people not noticing.



Ah, but that's the rub, isn't it? Developed countries with universal health care (i.e. all of them but us) typically spend half as much per capita on health care as the US does, and still manage to cover everyone and have better health stats.

Now, I think some that has to do with things like their governments bargaining with drug companies over prices, which AFAIK the ACA doesn't provide for, and that insurance companies in a lot of those countries are required to be non-profits. So I don't think we'll be seeing a 50% savings in health spending from the ACA as is. But a lot of it is that you save a lot of money when people get regular preventative care instead of waiting until they're in the ER getting a double bypass (and then going into bankruptcy because they can't pay for it), and there are a lot of cost-control measures in the ACA, and hopefully the exchange will mean that plans have to actually compete with each other and that will bring costs down.

So in the end, I don't think the ACA will raise the deficit much at all. We might even save some money, who knows.




Edwynn -> RE: Do republicans even have a conscience? (11/7/2012 3:19:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn
If you consider the Garn - St Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982 and the resultant S&L 'crisis' 5 years later, the firing of the FDA commissioner at the behest of G.D. Searle's Donald Rumsfeldt , the letting go of Volker from the Fed after he did the dirty work of subduing high inflation, to bring in a reliably hands-off Greenspan, The free marketeers Rubin and Summers brought in by Clinton, the Phil Gramm-sponsored and spearheaded Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and Commodities Futures trading Act, with disastrous results that we'll be dealing with for rears to come, etc., to be "bullshit talking points," as opposed to actual recorded events, then that would go a long way towards explaining the problem here.


Initial limits to the interest rate Congress set on S&L's all but destroyed them. Banks could offer higher rates to attract more customers. S&L's cried foul and Congress lifted that rate limitation. They also opened up some types of loans for S&L's that they didn't have before. There were some S&L's that jumped into shady transactions. When things started to look like they were about to spin out of control, Congress came back in and immediately reset the limitations and took away the new loan types. Additionally, they forced fire sales of the now-illegal loans, which were more profitable than the other loan types. That destroyed the S&L's.

All done by Government regulations.

quote:

quote:

And, we both agree that we need to separate Government from Big Money. Cutting the influence of money in DC is of prime importance, and much of that can be done by reducing the amount of money Government controls.

Even more could be done to that end by reducing the amount of money that controls Government.


Huh?!? More could be done to separate Big Money from Government by reducing the money that controls Government?!? Isn't that saying that your pain will go away when it stops hurting?




What ARE you talking about?

The S&Ls destroyed themselves, there is no factual account that says otherwise.

As for the money controlling government, I mean not just the lobbying and non-lobby and PR efforts and political contributions (or, "free speech" as the SCOTUS so euphemistically calls it), I mean direct corporate control. George Shultz, Sec. of State, Caspar Weinberger, Sec. of Defense, both from Bechtel, a major defense contractor, Shultz later serving on the board of Chevron; Donald Rumsfeldt, CEO of G.D. Searle, who got Reagan to appoint a FDA chief who added another panel member to rule in favor of approving Searle's Aspatrame sweetener against the recommendation of the FDA's scientific panel, and along with Cheney, primary liar and agitator for the invasion of Afgahnistan and Iraq, Sec. of Defense; Dick Cheney, CEO of Haliburton, Sec. of Defense, then VP of the US; Robert Rubin, Goldman Sachs, Sec. of Treasury, then CEO of Citigroup, his deputy, Larry Summers; Wendy Gramm (Phil Gramm's wife), who, as head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, removed rules for energy futures contracts at the behest of Enron, whereupon she was rewarded with a seat on their board, as Enron employees and shareholders were rewarded by having their retirement and holdings wiped out; her husband Phil, who sponsored and spearheaded the two Acts mentioned in the previous and other posts, primary movers in the financial meltdown, subsequently rewarded with a VP job at USB; Condoleeza Rice, on the board of Chevron, Transamerica, et al., Natl. Security Advisor, Sec. of State, Chevron showing appreciation for her efforts on their behalf by naming a super tanker The Condoleezza Rice; Henry Paulson, from CEO of Goldman Sachs to Sec. of the Treasury, architect of the bailout that sent billions of taxpayer money to AIG and Goldman to fund billions in bonuses to their executives ...

Lots more where that came from, but no use in wasting bandwidth required for the rest of a very long list; it doesn't matter. You don't want to believe, so you don't.



Quit wasting everybody's time. As demonstrated in the discussion of a proper single-payer universal healthcare system, you ignore and deny those in the field who know what they're talking about, you ignore the financial and outcome statistics, you ignore reality, as you are doing here, to suit your fantasy world. It doesn't matter the facts, you believe or don't believe as you choose.






thishereboi -> RE: Do republicans even have a conscience? (11/7/2012 3:28:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u


quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi


quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u


quote:

ORIGINAL: ElChupa

to answer the stupid topic... why you found us out! I want to take away obama phones. There, I said it. Now the bloods will have to shout or walk over to their drug dealers to make a deal instead of using free phones. There. I said it. Now go riot. YEEE hawwww!

I would rather cut my own throat than be on the same side of an aisle or an issue as this character.
And yet there are scores of folks,a few right here at collarme,who feel they are wholly reasonable and yet this is their ideological brother.
How do they live with that ?


How do you live with the bigots on your side of the fence?



Bigots on my side of the fence are denounced and dis-encouraged in their ways.
Your side embraces and encourages it's bigot up till the point they forget the dog whistle code phrases and come right out with their bigotry and biases.....when that happens y'all just stay silent.
See the difference ?
(by the way,this is the second time you have engaged me,both times ,in my opinion,the answer was not were you were looking for.As a matter of fact I believe the term is "got your fingers burned"...why don't you just stop,unless of course you enjoy verbal spankings.
I mean if that is your kink.....all good and all [:)])



No I don't see the difference. I see a sad little boy trying really hard to prove his side is good by making the other side look bad. Not sure what you get out of that, but I have to give you credit for being consistent.




Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 5 [6]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125