What does the Republican party stand for?

[Jill]

James, part of the problem is the regulations on lenders not to "discriminate" really forced the lenders to do those loans. To not participate in the Government programs would have deprived those that Uncle Sam was trying to "help". Another part of the problem is the dishonest way the mortgages were bundled and sold / presented to investors. The trouble seems to have started by turning the "American Dream" into a handout and nothing good followed. That's what I gather from Mark, and also what I gather from my own reading and observations.

 

[andi]

I don't think it was Marks article, but I did read somewhere recently about the government funded "incentives" to loan to minorities. Almost like affirmative action for loans. I missed that in Marks talks, but agree totally that it does a lot more harm than good, and could be a large cause for the problem. The whole idea is a revolving door of frustration. Loan the money to people who can't afford it and look like a snake for taking advantage of them when you forclose, or don't, and be treated like you aren't supportive of the minorities. Hmmm

I have heard alot of talk about the bundleing and reselling of morgages, but honestly don't quite understand it. More reading for me ...

 

[Jill]

Most mortgages are sold by the banks, especially the long term fixed ones (vs balloon notes). Don't feel bad for nit undstanding it. I'm sure most people don't. When I used to present motprtgae loans to my old bank's executive committee (bank board members), I was very nervous at first because I was young and not use to public speaking. You always had to state if the bank was keeping the loan or selling it to freddie Mac. So about the first question I was sake was "who s Freddie Mac?" And the guy was serious and didn't know. It was hard not to laugh if nothing else from nerves

 

[tagalong]

2minis, you don't understand the different meanings of the words "of" and "from"?

That was uncalled for, Jill. She was asking about your views about this - and the meaning behind your words (even if it is just a tired slogan that some have been tossing around for years). Instead of explaining your feelings and discussing the points, you went for a cheap shot that you seemed to think was quite clever.

That is why many of these discussions go off the rails. Can we not try harder to keep it civil - and drop the sneering and insults?

 

[Jill]

That was uncalled for, Jill. She was asking about your views about this - and the meaning behind your words (even if it is just a tired slogan that some have been tossing around for years). Instead of explaining your feelings and discussing the points, you went for a cheap shot that you seemed to think was quite clever.

That is why many of these discussions go off the rails. Can we not try harder to keep it civil - and drop the sneering and insults?

That's sincerely not the way I see it, Tag, on neither part of the exchange. I responded as I meant to, and was not out of line.

If you actually want to keep it civil, and it surely has been, why would you dig up something days past that you claim to think was an issue? Kinda contradictory IMO.

 

[andi]

In all honesty, the only reason those previous comments are still aggravating tagalong, myself and I am sure some silent others, is they went "unresolved" because the person insulted got bullied off the topic.

I do not disagree Jill, and actually suspect that 2Minis may have understood your comment completely, but was looking for you to clarify, possibly to express her own counterpoint, but didn't want to "assume" what you meant, she wanted clarification first. It is endlessly frustrating to know exactly what someone meant, disagree with them, and then be told, "Don’t put words in my mouth". She was most likely trying to avoid that. I would assume you could tell her intent, so you got overly defensive, belittling her by asking if she knows the difference between "of" and "from". Then insulting her further when she says she is just going to ignore your posts from now on, something you have said to me before. This is someone who may have been a valuable addition to the conversation, but is most likely just scared off now. For me personally, I would love some more involvement in this conversation, but I think the biggest reason they are not here is a the fear of being "attacked".

For me personally, I have been trying my hardest to ignore it, hoping to salvage some sort of conversation about the actually topic, but can't blame people for feeling "bothered" still.

 

[Jill]

Well, I know you hate the "whatever" deal but it's sometimes a great way to look at things when others want to assign meanings or motives to you when they're simply incorrect. Sometimes it's just not worth taking the time to defend wrong assumptions. And too, I said just what I meant, plain and simple. Not trying to argue here ar all, just the opposite, but if this is going to be the fall back tactic, I'm not sure why we should continue what I thought, or hoped, was really a straight forward discussion. Maybe it's just not worth it, all things considered... especially if you honestly feel you've been struggling or something to salvage the discussion... its not supposed to be a homework assignment or unpleasant effort.

 

[andi]

Jill, did you honestly think that she did not understand the difference between of and from? Again, this is just someone asking for clarification, to AVOID assuming.

ETA:

I went back to clarify, reread what had been said. You actually said, "Don't be confused by the difference, freedom of religion and freedom from religion". She asked, "What do you mean?". Looking at that, you had already assumed that the concept is confusing, the simple difference between "of" and "from". Your statement admits that you expect people to need clarification. But then belittle them when they ask for it? After rereading it, I actually answered her confusion before you had even replied. I might say, in a pretty convincing, though disagreeing with you, way. It almost seemed like the aggression that may have been felt towards me was just transferred to someone else, my comments were completely ignored and dismissed.

 

[Jill]

James, I honestly thought 2Minis was being sarcastic. It's hard for me to get how someone doesn't understand the meaning behind not confusing "freedom of with freedom from,"

But, regardless, I'm just not going to go "there" with you anymore James. All you seem to want to do is nit pick and argue. I put forth a sincere conversation, and if this is where you keep wanting to go, you just have to go there without me.

It's this way every time we say more than a few words with each other. It's useless, annoying, and I am once again thinking that you just should be content with picking YOUR own words, and leave mine to me. You repeatedly try (here and other conversations) to get me to reword what I've said, or to "take it back" what I said. You project onto me your opinion of what my motives are (and, as usual, you miss the mark). I need no help saying what I mean, and don't need to be cross examined by you (again) about if I really meant this or that statement. I've been here long enough for everyone to know I say what I mean and mean what I say -- plain and simple / like it or not.

Really do not know what's going on but, "really dude", it's just strange the way you want to manipulate my words and rework them. You've done this stuff repeatedly, and I was silly to think you had moved off that odd quirk but clearly you've not.

 

[Carriage]

" Is this a RP reference?"

Yes it is Andi. The Constitution is the most primary measuring stick by which a Candidate SHOULD be judged. IF it is not, you end up with what we have and it happens no matter which "party" has the ball.

 

[ozymandias]

I'd like you all to just make a list of several things that you think of when you think of the Republican party. It doesn't matter if you're a liberal, independent, libertarian, or republican. Just make a list.

I have a reason for asking for your "lists" of things you identify the Republican party with. I'll tell you what my reason is after I see some of the things on your lists! They can be positive or negative things.

I had a weird experience the other day, which has something to do with the reason I'm asking for your lists! I hope y'all can help me out!

I've always voted Republican at the National and local level. Their fiscal policies, Nat. Security policies, illegal immigration policies all align with my own. The next election will be the first time in my life that I will not be voting for whoever gets the Republican nomination for one reason only - religion. Like many American's, I'm disgusted by the current front running candidates allowing not only the flaunting of their extreme Christianity but allowing it to cross the line between separation of church and state when it comes to politics. This election is like no other I can remember when it comes to the religious right.

I wholeheartedly support your right to believe anything you want to believe in the privacy of your home or the privacy of a community building on Saturday or Sunday mornings. But, IMO, that's where it should end. Don't bring it into the policy making public forum.

I'll go one step further because I wholeheartedly align myself with the Four Horsemen, Richard Dawkins , (the now passed) Christopher Hitchins et al. of this world. Very brilliant, educated fellows. I find religion to be a dangerous pursuit and the thought of someone believing in a book that says the world is 7000 years old with no more evidence than "faith" to me is so ludicrous that it scares me that they could have their finger on a nuclear launch button if they are this easily duped!

It scares me as a fiscal Republican that Obama more than likely will be reelected. But it scares me more to have such radical right wing Christians take us back generations of progress with their beliefs. After all it was Christianity (not the Visigoths) that caused the Dark Ages. I think it's time we crossed into the light

So to answer your question weebiscuit. The Republican part I see today is not the Republican part I have grown up aligning myself with and I see many of todays candidates putting their "faith" above the Constitution and Law.

 

[2minis4us]

Jill, just for the record I was not trying to be sarcastic. BUT I do find your political post pointless to anyone but youself since they are always made so you can toot your own horn.

 

[Shari]

That was very well written, Thank you!

I've always voted Republican at the National and local level. Their fiscal policies, Nat. Security policies, illegal immigration policies all align with my own. The next election will be the first time in my life that I will not be voting for whoever gets the Republican nomination for one reason only - religion. Like many American's, I'm disgusted by the current front running candidates allowing not only the flaunting of their extreme Christianity but allowing it to cross the line between separation of church and state when it comes to politics. This election is like no other I can remember when it comes to the religious right.

I wholeheartedly support your right to believe anything you want to believe in the privacy of your home or the privacy of a community building on Saturday or Sunday mornings. But, IMO, that's where it should end. Don't bring it into the policy making public forum.

I'll go one step further because I wholeheartedly align myself with the Four Horsemen, Richard Dawkins , (the now passed) Christopher Hitchins et al. of this world. Very brilliant, educated fellows. I find religion to be a dangerous pursuit and the thought of someone believing in a book that says the world is 7000 years old with no more evidence than "faith" to me is so ludicrous that it scares me that they could have their finger on a nuclear launch button if they are this easily duped!

It scares me as a fiscal Republican that Obama more than likely will be reelected. But it scares me more to have such radical right wing Christians take us back generations of progress with their beliefs. After all it was Christianity (not the Visigoths) that caused the Dark Ages. I think it's time we crossed into the light

So to answer your question weebiscuit. The Republican part I see today is not the Republican part I have grown up aligning myself with and I see many of todays candidates putting their "faith" above the Constitution and Law.

 

[andi]

That is what I was assuming Carriage. I was watching the debate were foreign policy was brought up and RP dared say that we should apply the golden rule, (not to be confused with his feeling about needing us to convert to a gold standard), more often when considering our issues in the Middle East. The booing and uproar was so disappointing. What really amazed me and was so refreshing was that RP has been around for a long time, he has experts, just like the rest of the Candidates, who tell him what not to say, no matter how true. I am sure he knew that the audience would not love that statement, but he said it. It is the way he believes, and the debates are meant to show your views, not what research tells you the audience will like. It really did show a disconnect between how we Americans and the other candidates view the war, compared to RP and the people actually over there fighting in it. RP gets unbelievable support from active military members, I believe at one point it was double the rest of the candidates combined. I am sorry, but if the Men and Women on the front line support him and his views, how can any of us, at home sitting on our couches, boo him and treat him like a coward or traitor. Unbelievable.

I believe it was the debate in SC, where Newt was pretty much handfed the opportunity to turn his private issues into some sort of noble holier than though opportunity. I was watching the debate and they kept mentioning a pole they were doing during the debate were viewers were able to text and tweet in. It was after each question, and the viewer was able to vote on whether or not each candidate was eluding or answering the questions directly. They had all this buildup for the results, kept mentioning. At the end they started bringing up all the results, grouped together by what type of question, education, foreign policy, economy etc. Every single time it was the same, RP was winning by a large margin every time. They acted surprised and quickly scrolled threw, never mentioned it again. The next umpteen hours was spent reviewing the debates, reanalyzing the responses, the numbers and people’s reactions. Every other chart was pulled up over and over again. That one, showing that the people trusted and respected RP, didn’t show up again. It was truly unbelievable.

Jill, me asking you to explain what you said, venturing a guess and ASKING if this is what you meant, is not me twisting your words. It is me asking you to explain. That is not a tough concept or confusing, no matter how many times you use the excuse, I know you are smart enough to understand this concept.

As I have mentioned before Jill, call me weird, ignore me, insult me, I am going to question you and explain my thoughts when you seem mean and bullying to someone, whether or not you are agreeing with me. At the end of the day I know we all lose our temper or misspeak. If you hurt someone and someone questions you it is understandable, we should all be adult enough to admit it. What you said was mean, because, as you admitted, you thought she was being sarcastic. Maybe YOU shouldn't assign thoughts and feelings to other people’s words and then you wouldn't speak out of turn and insult people so often?

 

[Carriage]

Will try to make this my last.

I truly am seeking to reach out to everybody left, right, in between, everybody. To think critically. To ask obvious questions. Then to seek logical and truthful answers. If I have a grating animosity, it is with those from my own party. "They" should know better and yet somehow do not. I get more traction and along better with FAR more from the dem party. They seem to think critically, logically and exhibit FAR more intellectual honesty than my own "party". This as also an attribute of R.P and why so many from the dem party are also voting for him.

Seeking the simple truth of a matter, no matter which one should always rule the day in everything.

R.P.'s stance on "foreign policy" is never really fully explained. Heck he isn't even allowed to explain it. At best he is given a very brief soundbite and then promptly buried. Because of the lack of Constitutional education these days, he needs more than the brief soundbite to fully teach about and explain his purely Constitutional position. There is a reason that his "foreign policy positions" never see the light of day and are never really explored. It all surrounds one issue and one issue ONLY. Another curious point is that on the rare occasion when it is covered, he draws many thousands, while the bankers choice Romney might squeak out a couple of hundred in attendance. Won't examine that curiosity right now so as to stay on point......

On another note, did you know that if he had a Constitutionally minded Congress operating with him that he would abolish the IRS and the "income" tax? Further do you know why?

The income tax was tied to the Aldrich plan and then the latter, VERY similar, Federal Reserve Act. You see the American People of the time KNEW the banker wolves intimately and wanted no part of them because they had always caused economic destruction in whatever country they set up shop. EVERY country! So the Aldrich plan didn't really have a prayer of a chance and a "different approach" and bill would be necessary in order to get the fed in place. Funny thing was, there was very little difference in the two "plans". Both featured an "income tax" as a necessary component of the "currency" bill. Ah, but why would an income tax be necessary to an seemingly unrelated currency bill you "might" ask? (you will start to see why questions and then truthful answers are so critical) Because the European banking houses who would administer "our" fed (through their "American" conduits) simply had to have a means of payment for the interest only of the debt they planned to use to control us. But it wasn't just payment that they were focused on. It was complete control THOUGH and because of the debt the sought to enslave us with.

I just love when movie's reveal a truths about our masters. The movie "The International" reveals the plan in the space of a 30 second sound-bite that even a republican can grasp (As one, I feel that I can speak truthfully about my "party"). However the true gem in this sound bite is delivered in one sentence. "He who controls the debt, controls EVERYTHING" The simplicity is stunning. Further because of its simplicity, it follows the first rule of law "Truth is simple", The second law? Fraud is complex. Always beware of those who complicate issue's and especially simple issue's I won't bore with rules three and four even though they apply in spades. The fed creates debt, PERIOD. Lawful or Constitutional money never creates debt PERIOD. Now, just like in math class, we need to check our work to make sure that our answer is correct. (didn't ya always hate that part?...) To wit, I will give you two quotes in paraphrase, both from a couple of Rothschild dudes,

1) Give me control of a countries currency and I care not who makes the laws

2) Those impudent American upstarts! If they realize that the can coin mint and set the value of their own currency, they will become wildly prosperous and it will spread through-out Europe like a wildfire. We cannot have that!

One point on the former quote, Um.... isn't this what has happened?........

Two points on the latter quote

1) and then started the war of 1812 which had several goals.

2) EVERY time we have freed ourselves form the "money changers" (8 times in American history) we WERE wildly prosperous.

Without a fed, there simply is no need for an "income" tax.

Lack of debt always equals prosperity, freedom and Liberty for ALL.

Debt always equals slavery and eventual destruction, and again, for ALL.

This flies in the face of my "party's" current positions of both debt and greed being good.

I am fully trainable, if you think me wrong on any point and can prove it with fact, I will eagerly accept said correction. Be observable folks, the lack of response, especially from those who think themselves intellectually "superior" is ALSO very revealing.

In the end, two parties serve to divide. That is the purpose. The very simple purpose. Truly there should be only one party and at its core should be the adherence to the Constitution in minutia. Anything else is destructive of our Liberty and will make all of us, left and right, slaves.

thanks for your time and consideration,

Bb

 

[andi]

Uh Oh, I am beginning to understand about 60% of your posts Carriage, that is a vast improvement for me. LOL 6 months ago I thought I might need some "medicinal assistance" to get on the same wave length, but a little education is doing the trick.

 

[Jill]

I've said honestly exactly what I wanted to say, and didn't use any big words. Those who want to understand what I've said shouldn't have any trouble doing so. I'm simply not going to get into the personal back and forth and insults which is where some members always want to take hot or political discussions. Life's too short (and busy!) and I'm not running for office here on LB

 

[ozymandias]

Lack of debt always equals prosperity, freedom and Liberty for ALL.

Debt always equals slavery and eventual destruction, and again, for ALL.

So simple and oh so true!

 

[tagalong]

If you actually want to keep it civil, and it surely has been, why would you dig up something days past that you claim to think was an issue? Kinda contradictory IMO.

Huh? Someone has a concern and yet you and only you get to decide when and where it is okay for them to voice it? Jill - not all of us read the forum every day. I read the whole thread when I saw it and commented on it without bothering to check the dates of the posts - and yet you seem to think that is an offense of some kind and sneer-worthy.

There was really nothing civil about your response to 2minis - or your snide response to me. THAT is contradictory to your claims of how civil the discussion has been.

I've said honestly exactly what I wanted to say, and didn't use any big words. Those who want to understand what I've said shouldn't have any trouble doing so. I'm simply not going to get into the personal back and forth and insults which is where some members always want to take hot or political discussions.

Seeing as you are the one who usually starts the back and forth and "insults" and continue in the same vein here with your comments about not using any "big words" {could you be any more condescending??!!} ... etc. - that ^ comes across as completely disingenuous. You always seems to view any concerns that do not match your own as "insults" or something to be sneered at and scorned. You seem to relish that at times.

Hardly the foundation for a civil political discussion of any kind.

So to answer your question weebiscuit. The Republican part I see today is not the Republican part I have grown up aligning myself with and I see many of todays candidates putting their "faith" above the Constitution and Law.

Well said - and exactly right.

As far as the Republican Party goes, I am not sure that they even know what they stand for anymore - they seem to be all over the map.

 

[Jill]

It's interesting to see how frequently political discussions on LB get turned into focus groups about my opinions. Time and time again. Year after year. And, I'm pleased to report that your opinion of my opinion... doesn't change my opinion (nor my desire, likelihood and ability to share it)