Democrats in general oppose this bill but then overwhelmingly pass it????

[patientlywaiting]

[quote=Djshakes]
You are dumber than you sound if you actually believe that any politician (no matter what party) is looking out for anyone other than themselves. Bottom line, if a polictician comes up with an economic policy…normall it is crap. For example, the community reinvestment act. Sure, those “bleeding hearts” had well intentions….but just because ideological intentions were good, doesn’t mean the implementation is going to create good results. [/quote]

The difference is that at least one side has good intentions.

I would admit that the conservative side is smarter in that the singular focus on the pocketbook is a much easier approach.

It’s much easier to focus on your bank account here and now that trying to save the world. You don’t have to think about anything but your personal interest.

So why do you think that Paulson and Bush asked for this bailout if Republicans believe that government involvement is so bad?

[Djshakes]

[quote=patientlywaiting][quote=Djshakes]
You are dumber than you sound if you actually believe that any politician (no matter what party) is looking out for anyone other than themselves. Bottom line, if a polictician comes up with an economic policy…normall it is crap. For example, the community reinvestment act. Sure, those “bleeding hearts” had well intentions….but just because ideological intentions were good, doesn’t mean the implementation is going to create good results. [/quote]

The difference is that at least one side has good intentions.

I would admit that the conservative side is smarter in that the singular focus on the pocketbook is a much easier approach.

It’s much easier to focus on your bank account here and now that trying to save the world. You don’t have to think about anything but your personal interest.

So why do you think that Paulson and Bush asked for this bailout if Republicans believe that government involvement is so bad?

[/quote]

The only difference between Republican and Democratic intention is that Democrats make their intentions seem like they are good for the people. Much like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton claim to want to eradicate racism…all the while promoting and instigating it. At least with a Republican you know where you stand.

[Djshakes]

[quote=patientlywaiting][quote=Djshakes]
You are dumber than you sound if you actually believe that any politician (no matter what party) is looking out for anyone other than themselves. Bottom line, if a polictician comes up with an economic policy…normall it is crap. For example, the community reinvestment act. Sure, those “bleeding hearts” had well intentions….but just because ideological intentions were good, doesn’t mean the implementation is going to create good results. [/quote]

The difference is that at least one side has good intentions.

I would admit that the conservative side is smarter in that the singular focus on the pocketbook is a much easier approach.

It’s much easier to focus on your bank account here and now that trying to save the world. You don’t have to think about anything but your personal interest.

So why do you think that Paulson and Bush asked for this bailout if Republicans believe that government involvement is so bad?

[/quote]

The only difference between Republican and Democratic intention is that Democrats make their intentions seem like they are good for the people. Much like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton claim to want to eradicate racism…all the while promoting and instigating it. At least with a Republican you know where you stand.

[Djshakes]

[quote=patientlywaiting][quote=Djshakes]
You are dumber than you sound if you actually believe that any politician (no matter what party) is looking out for anyone other than themselves. Bottom line, if a polictician comes up with an economic policy…normall it is crap. For example, the community reinvestment act. Sure, those “bleeding hearts” had well intentions….but just because ideological intentions were good, doesn’t mean the implementation is going to create good results. [/quote]

The difference is that at least one side has good intentions.

I would admit that the conservative side is smarter in that the singular focus on the pocketbook is a much easier approach.

It’s much easier to focus on your bank account here and now that trying to save the world. You don’t have to think about anything but your personal interest.

So why do you think that Paulson and Bush asked for this bailout if Republicans believe that government involvement is so bad?

[/quote]

The only difference between Republican and Democratic intention is that Democrats make their intentions seem like they are good for the people. Much like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton claim to want to eradicate racism…all the while promoting and instigating it. At least with a Republican you know where you stand.

[Djshakes]

[quote=patientlywaiting][quote=Djshakes]
You are dumber than you sound if you actually believe that any politician (no matter what party) is looking out for anyone other than themselves. Bottom line, if a polictician comes up with an economic policy…normall it is crap. For example, the community reinvestment act. Sure, those “bleeding hearts” had well intentions….but just because ideological intentions were good, doesn’t mean the implementation is going to create good results. [/quote]

The difference is that at least one side has good intentions.

I would admit that the conservative side is smarter in that the singular focus on the pocketbook is a much easier approach.

It’s much easier to focus on your bank account here and now that trying to save the world. You don’t have to think about anything but your personal interest.

So why do you think that Paulson and Bush asked for this bailout if Republicans believe that government involvement is so bad?

[/quote]

The only difference between Republican and Democratic intention is that Democrats make their intentions seem like they are good for the people. Much like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton claim to want to eradicate racism…all the while promoting and instigating it. At least with a Republican you know where you stand.

[Djshakes]

[quote=patientlywaiting][quote=Djshakes]
You are dumber than you sound if you actually believe that any politician (no matter what party) is looking out for anyone other than themselves. Bottom line, if a polictician comes up with an economic policy…normall it is crap. For example, the community reinvestment act. Sure, those “bleeding hearts” had well intentions….but just because ideological intentions were good, doesn’t mean the implementation is going to create good results. [/quote]

The difference is that at least one side has good intentions.

I would admit that the conservative side is smarter in that the singular focus on the pocketbook is a much easier approach.

It’s much easier to focus on your bank account here and now that trying to save the world. You don’t have to think about anything but your personal interest.

So why do you think that Paulson and Bush asked for this bailout if Republicans believe that government involvement is so bad?

[/quote]

The only difference between Republican and Democratic intention is that Democrats make their intentions seem like they are good for the people. Much like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton claim to want to eradicate racism…all the while promoting and instigating it. At least with a Republican you know where you stand.

[Coronita]

[quote=patientlywaiting]In order to understand what is happening, you have to understand politics.

Democrats did the right thing for the country, even though that meant siding with Bush. Republicans didn’t.

Guys, it’s actually very admirable of you to admit that you’re voting your pocketbooks.

Unfortunately, the majority of Republican voters in the heartland (or in Lakeside) don’t vote their pocketbooks. They vote on issues such as faith, abortion, gay marriage, etc…

As a progressive, I should be kinder but as far as I’m concerned, those “poor” Republican voters are simply hopeless. I say “let them eat cake”. But liberals have “bleeding hearts” and can’t do that.

I can understand people in Carmel Valley or La Jolla voting their pocketbooks but those Republican voters in rural Mississippi are simply dumb.

So FLU, as a well-to-do professional, you should be happy that idiots are born everyday.

[/quote]

Since this is a friday, and I’m feeling pretty sick (really, I have a cold) and don’t feel like working as much as I should…. I’ll bite.

[quote]
Unfortunately, the majority of Republican voters in the heartland (or in Lakeside) don’t vote their pocketbooks. They vote on issues such as faith, abortion, gay marriage, etc…
[/quote]

Which for me it totally fine. There are plenty of pro-union, pro big spending democrats that vote for their beliefs too. Again, my vote it always for the losing (or soon to be losing side). In a landslide election which one party controls all of government it does me no good.

Yes, there are probably a lot of hicks and hill billy bible humpers in the south. I can’t police them and tell them their thoughts are wrong. Nor would I ever imagine living there. But frankly, if they’re happy doing and thinking in their own world, that’s all the more power to them. It is a free country. If the majority of the people in america are bible humpers such that the bible is required reading in school, well my choices would be either to go with the majority or move out of the country.

Point is, my vote is always to try to balance the party, so god forbid such a ridiculous policy ever gets passed.

I do have a problem with Obama’s proclaimed “tax on wealthy”, because I would fit in that category, and by far I’m not wealthy. Not that I really would mind paying more taxes if it went to say, roads , schools, etc. But, it’s going to go to these homeowners and banks who were the cause of this problem to begin with. Even so, if we had a republican control congress, I would still vote for obama, simply because despite what he would want, it wouldn’t happen. Congress would shoot it down, and or some negotiation would take place.

I fully support voting out all the incumbents who voted for this bailout. If that really were to happen, all the sudden, you’d have a republican controlled congress. And given that obama would be at the helm (most likely), that would be ideal for me. Similar to clinton times (I voted for clinton by the way).

Anyway, it doesn’t really matter in CA anyway. CA is a democrat state, unless the prez candidate comes from CA.

For me, I’ll be honest. This election for me, much more so than any other election, is all about the money, and none about the politics or social issues. Perhaps it’s shallow of me, but my ideology of things (such as gay marriage,abortion rights,etc) takes a backseat in this election. I need to vote to ensure my daughter doesn’t get stuck footing a larger tax bill in the future. She can solve whatever conservative social backlash issues later if there are any, but without an economic future here, there’s no point in debating anything else.

And I will vote against ever congressman(woman) that voted for this bailout bill, irrespective of political affiliation.

[Coronita]

[quote=patientlywaiting]In order to understand what is happening, you have to understand politics.

Democrats did the right thing for the country, even though that meant siding with Bush. Republicans didn’t.

Guys, it’s actually very admirable of you to admit that you’re voting your pocketbooks.

Unfortunately, the majority of Republican voters in the heartland (or in Lakeside) don’t vote their pocketbooks. They vote on issues such as faith, abortion, gay marriage, etc…

As a progressive, I should be kinder but as far as I’m concerned, those “poor” Republican voters are simply hopeless. I say “let them eat cake”. But liberals have “bleeding hearts” and can’t do that.

I can understand people in Carmel Valley or La Jolla voting their pocketbooks but those Republican voters in rural Mississippi are simply dumb.

So FLU, as a well-to-do professional, you should be happy that idiots are born everyday.

[/quote]

Since this is a friday, and I’m feeling pretty sick (really, I have a cold) and don’t feel like working as much as I should…. I’ll bite.

[quote]
Unfortunately, the majority of Republican voters in the heartland (or in Lakeside) don’t vote their pocketbooks. They vote on issues such as faith, abortion, gay marriage, etc…
[/quote]

Which for me it totally fine. There are plenty of pro-union, pro big spending democrats that vote for their beliefs too. Again, my vote it always for the losing (or soon to be losing side). In a landslide election which one party controls all of government it does me no good.

Yes, there are probably a lot of hicks and hill billy bible humpers in the south. I can’t police them and tell them their thoughts are wrong. Nor would I ever imagine living there. But frankly, if they’re happy doing and thinking in their own world, that’s all the more power to them. It is a free country. If the majority of the people in america are bible humpers such that the bible is required reading in school, well my choices would be either to go with the majority or move out of the country.

Point is, my vote is always to try to balance the party, so god forbid such a ridiculous policy ever gets passed.

I do have a problem with Obama’s proclaimed “tax on wealthy”, because I would fit in that category, and by far I’m not wealthy. Not that I really would mind paying more taxes if it went to say, roads , schools, etc. But, it’s going to go to these homeowners and banks who were the cause of this problem to begin with. Even so, if we had a republican control congress, I would still vote for obama, simply because despite what he would want, it wouldn’t happen. Congress would shoot it down, and or some negotiation would take place.

I fully support voting out all the incumbents who voted for this bailout. If that really were to happen, all the sudden, you’d have a republican controlled congress. And given that obama would be at the helm (most likely), that would be ideal for me. Similar to clinton times (I voted for clinton by the way).

Anyway, it doesn’t really matter in CA anyway. CA is a democrat state, unless the prez candidate comes from CA.

For me, I’ll be honest. This election for me, much more so than any other election, is all about the money, and none about the politics or social issues. Perhaps it’s shallow of me, but my ideology of things (such as gay marriage,abortion rights,etc) takes a backseat in this election. I need to vote to ensure my daughter doesn’t get stuck footing a larger tax bill in the future. She can solve whatever conservative social backlash issues later if there are any, but without an economic future here, there’s no point in debating anything else.

And I will vote against ever congressman(woman) that voted for this bailout bill, irrespective of political affiliation.

[Coronita]

[quote=patientlywaiting]In order to understand what is happening, you have to understand politics.

Democrats did the right thing for the country, even though that meant siding with Bush. Republicans didn’t.

Guys, it’s actually very admirable of you to admit that you’re voting your pocketbooks.

Unfortunately, the majority of Republican voters in the heartland (or in Lakeside) don’t vote their pocketbooks. They vote on issues such as faith, abortion, gay marriage, etc…

As a progressive, I should be kinder but as far as I’m concerned, those “poor” Republican voters are simply hopeless. I say “let them eat cake”. But liberals have “bleeding hearts” and can’t do that.

I can understand people in Carmel Valley or La Jolla voting their pocketbooks but those Republican voters in rural Mississippi are simply dumb.

So FLU, as a well-to-do professional, you should be happy that idiots are born everyday.

[/quote]

Since this is a friday, and I’m feeling pretty sick (really, I have a cold) and don’t feel like working as much as I should…. I’ll bite.

[quote]
Unfortunately, the majority of Republican voters in the heartland (or in Lakeside) don’t vote their pocketbooks. They vote on issues such as faith, abortion, gay marriage, etc…
[/quote]

Which for me it totally fine. There are plenty of pro-union, pro big spending democrats that vote for their beliefs too. Again, my vote it always for the losing (or soon to be losing side). In a landslide election which one party controls all of government it does me no good.

Yes, there are probably a lot of hicks and hill billy bible humpers in the south. I can’t police them and tell them their thoughts are wrong. Nor would I ever imagine living there. But frankly, if they’re happy doing and thinking in their own world, that’s all the more power to them. It is a free country. If the majority of the people in america are bible humpers such that the bible is required reading in school, well my choices would be either to go with the majority or move out of the country.

Point is, my vote is always to try to balance the party, so god forbid such a ridiculous policy ever gets passed.

I do have a problem with Obama’s proclaimed “tax on wealthy”, because I would fit in that category, and by far I’m not wealthy. Not that I really would mind paying more taxes if it went to say, roads , schools, etc. But, it’s going to go to these homeowners and banks who were the cause of this problem to begin with. Even so, if we had a republican control congress, I would still vote for obama, simply because despite what he would want, it wouldn’t happen. Congress would shoot it down, and or some negotiation would take place.

I fully support voting out all the incumbents who voted for this bailout. If that really were to happen, all the sudden, you’d have a republican controlled congress. And given that obama would be at the helm (most likely), that would be ideal for me. Similar to clinton times (I voted for clinton by the way).

Anyway, it doesn’t really matter in CA anyway. CA is a democrat state, unless the prez candidate comes from CA.

For me, I’ll be honest. This election for me, much more so than any other election, is all about the money, and none about the politics or social issues. Perhaps it’s shallow of me, but my ideology of things (such as gay marriage,abortion rights,etc) takes a backseat in this election. I need to vote to ensure my daughter doesn’t get stuck footing a larger tax bill in the future. She can solve whatever conservative social backlash issues later if there are any, but without an economic future here, there’s no point in debating anything else.

And I will vote against ever congressman(woman) that voted for this bailout bill, irrespective of political affiliation.

[Coronita]

[quote=patientlywaiting]In order to understand what is happening, you have to understand politics.

Democrats did the right thing for the country, even though that meant siding with Bush. Republicans didn’t.

Guys, it’s actually very admirable of you to admit that you’re voting your pocketbooks.

Unfortunately, the majority of Republican voters in the heartland (or in Lakeside) don’t vote their pocketbooks. They vote on issues such as faith, abortion, gay marriage, etc…

As a progressive, I should be kinder but as far as I’m concerned, those “poor” Republican voters are simply hopeless. I say “let them eat cake”. But liberals have “bleeding hearts” and can’t do that.

I can understand people in Carmel Valley or La Jolla voting their pocketbooks but those Republican voters in rural Mississippi are simply dumb.

So FLU, as a well-to-do professional, you should be happy that idiots are born everyday.

[/quote]

Since this is a friday, and I’m feeling pretty sick (really, I have a cold) and don’t feel like working as much as I should…. I’ll bite.

[quote]
Unfortunately, the majority of Republican voters in the heartland (or in Lakeside) don’t vote their pocketbooks. They vote on issues such as faith, abortion, gay marriage, etc…
[/quote]

Which for me it totally fine. There are plenty of pro-union, pro big spending democrats that vote for their beliefs too. Again, my vote it always for the losing (or soon to be losing side). In a landslide election which one party controls all of government it does me no good.

Yes, there are probably a lot of hicks and hill billy bible humpers in the south. I can’t police them and tell them their thoughts are wrong. Nor would I ever imagine living there. But frankly, if they’re happy doing and thinking in their own world, that’s all the more power to them. It is a free country. If the majority of the people in america are bible humpers such that the bible is required reading in school, well my choices would be either to go with the majority or move out of the country.

Point is, my vote is always to try to balance the party, so god forbid such a ridiculous policy ever gets passed.

I do have a problem with Obama’s proclaimed “tax on wealthy”, because I would fit in that category, and by far I’m not wealthy. Not that I really would mind paying more taxes if it went to say, roads , schools, etc. But, it’s going to go to these homeowners and banks who were the cause of this problem to begin with. Even so, if we had a republican control congress, I would still vote for obama, simply because despite what he would want, it wouldn’t happen. Congress would shoot it down, and or some negotiation would take place.

I fully support voting out all the incumbents who voted for this bailout. If that really were to happen, all the sudden, you’d have a republican controlled congress. And given that obama would be at the helm (most likely), that would be ideal for me. Similar to clinton times (I voted for clinton by the way).

Anyway, it doesn’t really matter in CA anyway. CA is a democrat state, unless the prez candidate comes from CA.

For me, I’ll be honest. This election for me, much more so than any other election, is all about the money, and none about the politics or social issues. Perhaps it’s shallow of me, but my ideology of things (such as gay marriage,abortion rights,etc) takes a backseat in this election. I need to vote to ensure my daughter doesn’t get stuck footing a larger tax bill in the future. She can solve whatever conservative social backlash issues later if there are any, but without an economic future here, there’s no point in debating anything else.

And I will vote against ever congressman(woman) that voted for this bailout bill, irrespective of political affiliation.

[Coronita]

[quote=patientlywaiting]In order to understand what is happening, you have to understand politics.

Democrats did the right thing for the country, even though that meant siding with Bush. Republicans didn’t.

Guys, it’s actually very admirable of you to admit that you’re voting your pocketbooks.

Unfortunately, the majority of Republican voters in the heartland (or in Lakeside) don’t vote their pocketbooks. They vote on issues such as faith, abortion, gay marriage, etc…

As a progressive, I should be kinder but as far as I’m concerned, those “poor” Republican voters are simply hopeless. I say “let them eat cake”. But liberals have “bleeding hearts” and can’t do that.

I can understand people in Carmel Valley or La Jolla voting their pocketbooks but those Republican voters in rural Mississippi are simply dumb.

So FLU, as a well-to-do professional, you should be happy that idiots are born everyday.

[/quote]

Since this is a friday, and I’m feeling pretty sick (really, I have a cold) and don’t feel like working as much as I should…. I’ll bite.

[quote]
Unfortunately, the majority of Republican voters in the heartland (or in Lakeside) don’t vote their pocketbooks. They vote on issues such as faith, abortion, gay marriage, etc…
[/quote]

Which for me it totally fine. There are plenty of pro-union, pro big spending democrats that vote for their beliefs too. Again, my vote it always for the losing (or soon to be losing side). In a landslide election which one party controls all of government it does me no good.

Yes, there are probably a lot of hicks and hill billy bible humpers in the south. I can’t police them and tell them their thoughts are wrong. Nor would I ever imagine living there. But frankly, if they’re happy doing and thinking in their own world, that’s all the more power to them. It is a free country. If the majority of the people in america are bible humpers such that the bible is required reading in school, well my choices would be either to go with the majority or move out of the country.

Point is, my vote is always to try to balance the party, so god forbid such a ridiculous policy ever gets passed.

I do have a problem with Obama’s proclaimed “tax on wealthy”, because I would fit in that category, and by far I’m not wealthy. Not that I really would mind paying more taxes if it went to say, roads , schools, etc. But, it’s going to go to these homeowners and banks who were the cause of this problem to begin with. Even so, if we had a republican control congress, I would still vote for obama, simply because despite what he would want, it wouldn’t happen. Congress would shoot it down, and or some negotiation would take place.

I fully support voting out all the incumbents who voted for this bailout. If that really were to happen, all the sudden, you’d have a republican controlled congress. And given that obama would be at the helm (most likely), that would be ideal for me. Similar to clinton times (I voted for clinton by the way).

Anyway, it doesn’t really matter in CA anyway. CA is a democrat state, unless the prez candidate comes from CA.

For me, I’ll be honest. This election for me, much more so than any other election, is all about the money, and none about the politics or social issues. Perhaps it’s shallow of me, but my ideology of things (such as gay marriage,abortion rights,etc) takes a backseat in this election. I need to vote to ensure my daughter doesn’t get stuck footing a larger tax bill in the future. She can solve whatever conservative social backlash issues later if there are any, but without an economic future here, there’s no point in debating anything else.

And I will vote against ever congressman(woman) that voted for this bailout bill, irrespective of political affiliation.

[Veritas]

Patiently waiting wrote: “I’m ideologically progressive, but, just like Conservatives, I believe that the end justifies the means.” Hitler believed in the same thing. Does that make him progressive or conservative?

Like Flu, my pocketbook trumps my ideology as well. My family comes first.

[Veritas]

Patiently waiting wrote: “I’m ideologically progressive, but, just like Conservatives, I believe that the end justifies the means.” Hitler believed in the same thing. Does that make him progressive or conservative?

Like Flu, my pocketbook trumps my ideology as well. My family comes first.

[Veritas]

Patiently waiting wrote: “I’m ideologically progressive, but, just like Conservatives, I believe that the end justifies the means.” Hitler believed in the same thing. Does that make him progressive or conservative?

Like Flu, my pocketbook trumps my ideology as well. My family comes first.

[Veritas]

Patiently waiting wrote: “I’m ideologically progressive, but, just like Conservatives, I believe that the end justifies the means.” Hitler believed in the same thing. Does that make him progressive or conservative?

Like Flu, my pocketbook trumps my ideology as well. My family comes first.

[Author]

Posts