DaVinci

You must love reading your own stuff then.

It is not a free market when the Govt steps in to prevent it from failing. The housing market was forced to lend to people who were questionable by the Community Reinvestment Act which was signed by Carter and given more power by Clinton. "Robert Rubin, the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, under President Clinton, explained that this was in line with President Clinton's strategy to "deal with the problems of the inner city and distressed rural communities"." And then you wanna talk about the mortgage meltdown???? You know that the Govt (Christopher Dodd and Charles E. Schumer and backed by Clinton) amended the "Federal Deposit Insurance Act" and that the act allowed banks to merge or expand into other types of financial institutions. So the Govts fingerprints are ALL over the market, housing and banks. And that clearly didn't work out.

You mean like these folks? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5p3OB6roAg "Are you more for Obama because he is prolife, or because he thinks we should stay in Iraq and finish this?" "I think because our troops should stay in Iraq and finish this war" Yeah, your guys seem to have the market on intellect.

You started this line of BS... Don't blame me for giving you what you tried to give others. Congratulations, you voted for the guy that didn't know there were only 50 States!

Nah, the people that elected Obama were just mad at Bush and fell in love with the image of Obama as opposed to Grandpa McCains image. They only cared about looking cool and getting back at Bush.

Amazing that all your "understanding" of the examples fall right down party lines.

Don't know..... I was not at the debate. Could have been along the lines of Reagan's, "There you go again" or more recently Alex Sinks, "We just can't trust anything from you". But the fact is Coons say's "one of those indispensable principals is the separation of Church and State" And she asked, "Where in the Constitution is the Separation of Church and State?" Fact is it is not in the Constitution. It may have been the intent, but those words are not in there. She may have been forcing him to expand on his opinion and admit that it is not actually in the Constitution (in those words).... I don't know. But people disagree on the Constitution all the time... Hell, the 2nd says "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", Jefferson is quoted saying he supports the right for people to have guns... Yet people claim that the right should be infringed. So knowing WHY people think the Constitution says what they think it says can tell you a lot about them. She may have been trying to trip him up.... Like I said I was not there... Hell she could have just slipped up and knew the exact text of the 1st. Lets not forget Coons could only name 1 of the 5 freedoms in the 1st.... So to claim he knows the first better than her is not exactly a slam dunk. Hey, I honestly think she is a twit... But I find it funny that people are so quick to jump on her, but just as quick to defend Obama for the 57 States comment.

No just poking fun at how some try to slam one person for making a mistake, but will defend to the death another person making a mistake based only on party lines. In this case.... O'Donnell was correct in text if not in intent... The US Constitution does not have the words "Separation of Church and State" anywhere in it. Her opponent was unable to name 4 of the 5 freedoms in the first. But even children know that the US only has 50 States. Obama flat out said "57 States". So in this case, O'Donnell was actually correct and Obama was wrong. Now rational people would just chock both cases up to a simple mistake... but some see to only want to dismiss one person's mistake and crucify the others based only on party affiliation. And I find that funny.

You have not said anything bad about him... even though he is doing the same things you bitch about Bush doing. Please show where I claim Bush as my hero? Go ahead prove your claim if you are able. And 100% correct. I did say it was just one data point. Still waiting for you to answer this one: Are you honest enough to admit that you bash Bush, but approve of Obama when he does the same things you bash Bush for? Now... care to actually answer why you seem to praise Obama for the same things you bash Bush for?

Sorry some of us don't live here. Ah, so you defend Obama for not knowing a basic fact but lambaste O'Donnell for knowing the the words "Separation of Church and State" is not actually in the Constitution. I see your political filter is on strong. As opposed to the moronitude that voted Obama in? You only see the party and are unable to be honest or balanced.

Are you honest enough to admit that you bash Bush, but approve of Obama when he does the same things you bash Bush for? I did better under Bush than I did under Obama. But that is just one data point. Now... care to actually answer why you seem to praise Obama for the same things you bash Bush for? The ball is in your court...

Elementary school kids know there are only 50 States. Good thing he is not running against O'Donnell! Lets not forget that Coons only came up with 1 of the 5 in the 1st.... She knew all 5. I fond it funny that you shrill for Obama making a mistake on a general knowledge question (50 States), but think a misstatement by another candidate is cause for crucifixion. Especially since the words "separation of Church and State" is NOT in the Constitution.

My outrage over some peoples double standards??? It is real. They cry and bitch and moan when it is their party being hurt.... Yet they have no outrage when it is the party they dislike.

And now your liberal hero's are doing the butt fucking and you seem to enjoy it and defend it. Except for the childish name calling.... Sounds exactly like Obama and his folks. Face it.... You are so politically simple that you can only use bumper stickers and insults to express an opinion. Fact is that you bash Bush, but then applaud the same actions when your party of choice does the SAME thing.

The one you read and then hit "reply" and added more posts. And then you come and instead of discussing the topic start discussing the people. Care to answer the OP in the original post? Would you have put up with all of that if Bush had done it?

Like someone already said.... It would be great if it was real not pandering. Were you one of the ones that went apeshit over the other fraud issues? If so, then where is your real outrage?

The local and State taxes would still be collected and the Federal Rules would not matter. The growers would be a good question (and the one you raised) but, we already have growers for the medical supply that is already out there.

You think an illegal is going to go back to the Country they came from? They came to the US because the job market sucked where they were from. Hey, let them go to school... Let them pay the highest rate. BUT the problem is we all know that once they can go to school.... They will soon get in State Tuition, then financial assistance. While I think education is a good thing... People should not be rewarded for breaking the law even if you think the law is stupid. If you think the law is stupid... Change the law, don't do an end run around it.

While I understand your opinion.... My question was real. Lefties love to claim that any voting issue is due to the right wingers trying to rig an election. So where are they now? Where is the rage?

Where is the outrage from the left?

You have any proof of that? Or are you just making things up? Bring proof, not fantasy's. BTW still waiting for you to acknowledge that Obama did pretty much the exact same thing in regards to who sits in his audiences.

You mean how you ignore that Obama does it as well, but you only bitch about Bush doing it? Those kind of facts you can't hang with?

No, I think you just allow your political leanings to cloud your opinion.... Ya know, kinda like the SC Justices do. But to claim that the 5 voted the way they did as a "giveback" is not, as you say, "intellectually honest", IMO.

You sure could use one. Most people don't try to start an "honest" conversation by starting off with slams and bigotry. "Is it true that not all right wingers are racists, but all racists are right wingers" Is a bigoted comment.... Yet you cry about others being a bigot? What I get is you think it is fine for YOU to act like a bigot, but think it is also fine to cry about anyone that you think is a bigot. AFTER you were called on being a bigot for posting it. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

And if Bush had done these things... You of all people would have been going off on him like there was no tomorrow. I guess you are addicted to bush?