DaVinci

You need to read what he was replying to.... The title of this thread.

My posts had nothing to do with Clinton either. You made the comment, "Now lying about why you killed someone? That MIGHT be a little different." referencing Zimmerman's WIFE. Zimmerman's wife didn't kill anyone so your comparison is not valid, and that is all I said. I have read them.... It seems you are confusing me with someone else since I didn't mention Clinton. And I will try to type this as slowly as I can so you can actually READ it: Fact is that if the race baiters didn't create the outrage that this case might have already been settled. There would have been no website to get donations to fight a court battle that would not have happened. Yet YOU and others wanted this case to go further than the law required. You wanted him to get arrested and have to hire a lawyer and face a jury. Yet you claim he had a good SD case? That makes zero sense.

He means you. You bought a house you didn't really want (the ex-wife wanted it) and paid more than the house was worth because you wanted it NOW at the top of the housing bubble. I didn't get killed. I bought less house than people told me to buy, I bought a house I could easily afford, and I saved up till I had 20% to put down. When I got laid off, I sold my house in a week and just about broke even. I then rented in the new area till I found a house that was smaller than what people told me to buy, that I could easily afford, and waited till I had the 20% down payment. PEOPLE made bad choices. YOU made a bad choice. You can blame people for making bad choices.

True, and I am glad you admit that. No GUN violence, but there would still be violence. 311 Million people live in the US. About 30K gun deaths in the US, HALF of which are suicides. So out of 311M people, 15k are killed by guns each year. Of those 15k: 1. Most were not legally owned weapons. 2. Most were people involved in other criminal activities. You earlier claimed that voter ID is not a big enough of a problem to implement since the cost of implementation would be greater than any benefit such as removing rights from law abiding citizens. Why is thinking that taking away rights from law abiding citizens to stop criminals from doing an illegal act with an illegality obtained object being a bad idea equal to "living in denial"? The US has a crime problem... The solution is not to take away rights from honest citizens. That is not equal to 'denial'. Give me a plan that removes the criminals from having guns but that does not hinder law abiding citizens in any way and I'll gladly discuss it.

I knew about that, but I do not know if it has been amended or overwritten since then. Clearly, England and Canada still do not follow that. What made it so the laws that contradict the 1689 Bill of Rights are legal?

OK, I agree religion should not be allowed to influence politics. AND that politics should not influence religion. Now about that voter ID issue?

Sorry, you are wrong. Australia has strict gun laws like you like, these are Australians.

If this is true: "During closing arguments, prosecutor Kelli Johnson said Rodriguez started the confrontation when instead of calmly asking Danaher to turn down the music he armed himself with a handgun and a camera and proceeded to harass people at the party. Johnson said Rodriguez lured and provoked Danaher and two other men to come out onto the street and threatened them by brandishing his gun." Then Rodriguez was an idiot. If this is true: "But defense attorney Neal Davis said he doesn't believe Rodriguez did anything illegal. He said Rodriguez went to complain and was confronted by Danaher and the two other partygoers, and that he didn't pull out his gun until he was standing in the street and Danaher approached him in a threatening manner." Then he was not. Still, a better course of action would have been to just call the police.

CRS REQUIRED banks to loan money to people who otherwise could not afford it and allowed people to get loans with no proof of income. You can try to claim that had nothing to do with it, but that does not make it true.

And that is the part I am discussing. And yet Canada does it and they seem to not have the problems you are talking about. So is Canada evil here? Please show anywhere where I said that was OK? You however, have stated that you are ok with illegal votes being cast. Yet you still try for 'free' HC for all. Some things, even difficult things, are worth fighting for. Part of the problem between our discussions is your (incorrect) beliefs that I fit into some mold that you want me to fit into.

Yep like normal, you can't debate with facts so you insult and lie. And if the best debate tactic you can use is childish insults..... Your opinions should be considered to have the same weight as you give to a child when he uses the same tactics.

*I* don't. But the Govt and other individuals think it does. My point is that if the Govt is going to meddle, it should make better more responsible choices. It sure is economical. Drs are needed in an area and this fulfills the need. We do not have an urgent need to get a piece of art out there. Fighting a war sure can be economical. It was much better for the US to enter WW2 than let Germany take over all of Europe. The US Revolution had a gigantic piece of economics... Taxation without representation. As part of the total cost of war (which can be a good economic choice) includes taking care of the wounded.

They have the right to do what they want in their Country. You get the Government you deserve. I would be against it in the US. I'll be honest, I don't agree with the flawed concept that banning something will make it go away (Prohibition here in the States, War on drugs, Gun bans in Chicago.... All failures). But I also do not know if Canada has/had something along the lines of the US Bill of Rights 2nd Amendment.

Yep, and McCain and others tried to regulate it and Frank and others said there was no issue. Again yes, greed at buying more house than you could afford. Greed at using your home as an ATM. Greed at bankers trying to make money. Greed at politicians trying to win votes. Yes, greed ALL around. Not just Republicans. Once you understand that, we may actually get somewhere.

Yep, please read it again, and pay attention to the part I put in bold. I agree. If student loans were treated like regular loans then the free market would actually work. It would be difficult to get a loan to go to culinary school since the job prospects are not great, but easier to get a loan for a degree in engineering if your grades were good. Put the Govt has stepped in and tried to 'help' making loans easier to get and with lower rates than normal. So Banks knowing that they have to give out loans they would normally not want to give out.... Well they ask for SOME protection for their risk. My choice would be to remove the protections AND the requirements and let banks loan what they want at the rate they want. But if the govt is going to force lower rates, etc... Then I can see some protections to the bank. Another example of unintended consequences from well meaning legislation. I wish the govt would get out of it... But since they will not, I understand the banks when they are forced to do something to want some protections.

About 50% of Congress are millionaires.... "The number of Americans who are millionaires is pretty low — about 1 percent of the population. Members of Congress who are millionaires? Nearly 50 percent......Of the 435 members of the House, "244 current members of Congress are millionaires" http://www.npr.org/2011/09/20/140627334/millionaires-in-congress-weigh-new-tax-on-wealthy

Point is they do. Your point that the govt does it more is valid... Just as my point that degrees in fields like engineering lead to better paying jobs than degrees in art history. No from an ECONOMICAL agenda. And how many Bill Gates and your friends vs regular society?

I knew it would not last. You just can't avoid making personal attacks. Hey look, you are supporting MY claim. 80k < 100k. Again supporting my claim. There is money in politics.

I agree. If student loans were treated like regular loans then the free market would actually work. It would be difficult to get a loan to go to culinary school since the job prospects are not great, but easier to get a loan for a degree in engineering if your grades were good. Put the Govt has stepped in and tried to 'help' making loans easier to get and with lower rates than normal. So Banks knowing that they have to give out loans they would normally not want to give out.... Well they ask for SOME protection for their risk. My choice would be to remove the protections AND the requirements and let banks loan what they want at the rate they want. But if the govt is going to force lower rates, etc... Then I can see some protections to the bank. Another example of unintended consequences from well meaning legislation.

While 100% true. You must admit that a 'National Association for the Advancement of White People' would be considered racist, while the NAACP is not. When if we are truly honest, both would be considered racist.

I polled some of my black friends. Discussions with some of my black friends. Observations of interactions between my black friends.

It IS, there is an amendment process.

And that might have been enough to swing the 2000 elections. Canada requires ID to vote... How many people are disenfranchised there? http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=ids&document=index&lang=e

Tough choice.... But imagine this: You are asleep at home and suddenly you hear a bang at the door and people start beating down your front door. It is 4AM and you are not totally awake and people are invading your house... You grab your gun since you have no idea what is going on and you shoot at the first guy that runs into your bedroom, breaking your door down. You miss, and thats good because it is the police trying to execute a warrant. Problem is that the police are looking for a 250 pound white supremacist biker that lives on Elk lane and you are a 170 pound 60 year old man that lives on Elm lane. The police now charge you with shooting at the police even though they were at the wrong address. You really should not be facing charges in that case. Of course... Shooting at a swat team will most likely end with you being dead.

Or you could look at the factors that led to the bust.... Community investment program started by Carter and supercharged by Clinton. How Barney Frank ignored warnings House Financial Services Committee hearing, Sept. 10, 2003: Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.): I worry, frankly, that there's a tension here. The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disaster scenarios. . . . Or maybe Maxine Watters: Rep. Maxine Waters (D., Calif.), speaking to Housing and Urban Development Secretary Mel Martinez: Secretary Martinez, if it ain't broke, why do you want to fix it? Have the GSEs [government-sponsored enterprises] ever missed their housing goals? Rep. Waters: However, I have sat through nearly a dozen hearings where, frankly, we were trying to fix something that wasn't broke. Housing is the economic engine of our economy, and in no community does this engine need to work more than in mine. With last week's hurricane and the drain on the economy from the war in Iraq, we should do no harm to these GSEs. We should be enhancing regulation, not making fundamental change. Mr. Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and in particular at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines. Everything in the 1992 act has worked just fine. In fact, the GSEs have exceeded their housing goals. . . . So you can try to take the easy road and blame the party you hate and ignore the real data....... But I doubt you would accept that kinda paper from your students. “Selling Fannie and Freddie as a purely partisan issue, it doesn’t really work,’’ said Jonathan Koppell, director of the School of Public Affairs at Arizona State University. “Both parties have plenty of responsibility.’’ Another analyst, University of Maryland economics professor Peter Morici, put it more succinctly. “This is a bipartisan mess,’’ he said.