[ucodegen]

Some would argue that the evangelicals represent that ‘fringe’ portion of the GOP. Can the GOP win an election without the evangelicals?

Simply.. yes. That is if the GOP gets back to their original roots. If all you have is an evangelical position, that is almost all that you will have left to vote for you. Consider this, what if the GOP drops the fringe to embrace the center? Where are there more voters.. and who would the evangelicals end up voting for?

[ucodegen]

Some would argue that the evangelicals represent that ‘fringe’ portion of the GOP. Can the GOP win an election without the evangelicals?

Simply.. yes. That is if the GOP gets back to their original roots. If all you have is an evangelical position, that is almost all that you will have left to vote for you. Consider this, what if the GOP drops the fringe to embrace the center? Where are there more voters.. and who would the evangelicals end up voting for?

[ucodegen]

Some would argue that the evangelicals represent that ‘fringe’ portion of the GOP. Can the GOP win an election without the evangelicals?

Simply.. yes. That is if the GOP gets back to their original roots. If all you have is an evangelical position, that is almost all that you will have left to vote for you. Consider this, what if the GOP drops the fringe to embrace the center? Where are there more voters.. and who would the evangelicals end up voting for?

[ucodegen]

I do think it is hilarious about the canard of the Republican Party becoming more conservative. If anything under Bush, we got more liberal, as least with respect to government spending.

As to spending yes, but the GOP started pushing a more religious agenda which caused more collisions with the issue of separation of church and state. I also think that the media coverage of Bush’s expenditures were unbalanced, particularly when taken in contrast with Obama’s.
Real quick to end sniping:
*The TARP money spent on banks is a loan, the banks have to pay it back and are charged interest on the money.. about 3.5% (BofA just paid 403mil for 4 months on the money). It cost the fed about 2.5% interest on treasuries to loan the money. The fed is getting a skim of 1% on $700Bil because of the TARP – under the “baddie Bush”… Obama’s spending is not a loan, yet the amount is costing us about 2.5% interest.. which taxpayers not the banks are paying.
*Christian beliefs were not fundamental to this country when it was formed. The founders emphasized separation of Church and State. The phrase “in God We Trust” was added to our money around 1940, and was not placed there by the founders of this country.

[ucodegen]

I do think it is hilarious about the canard of the Republican Party becoming more conservative. If anything under Bush, we got more liberal, as least with respect to government spending.

As to spending yes, but the GOP started pushing a more religious agenda which caused more collisions with the issue of separation of church and state. I also think that the media coverage of Bush’s expenditures were unbalanced, particularly when taken in contrast with Obama’s.
Real quick to end sniping:
*The TARP money spent on banks is a loan, the banks have to pay it back and are charged interest on the money.. about 3.5% (BofA just paid 403mil for 4 months on the money). It cost the fed about 2.5% interest on treasuries to loan the money. The fed is getting a skim of 1% on $700Bil because of the TARP – under the “baddie Bush”… Obama’s spending is not a loan, yet the amount is costing us about 2.5% interest.. which taxpayers not the banks are paying.
*Christian beliefs were not fundamental to this country when it was formed. The founders emphasized separation of Church and State. The phrase “in God We Trust” was added to our money around 1940, and was not placed there by the founders of this country.

[ucodegen]

I do think it is hilarious about the canard of the Republican Party becoming more conservative. If anything under Bush, we got more liberal, as least with respect to government spending.

As to spending yes, but the GOP started pushing a more religious agenda which caused more collisions with the issue of separation of church and state. I also think that the media coverage of Bush’s expenditures were unbalanced, particularly when taken in contrast with Obama’s.
Real quick to end sniping:
*The TARP money spent on banks is a loan, the banks have to pay it back and are charged interest on the money.. about 3.5% (BofA just paid 403mil for 4 months on the money). It cost the fed about 2.5% interest on treasuries to loan the money. The fed is getting a skim of 1% on $700Bil because of the TARP – under the “baddie Bush”… Obama’s spending is not a loan, yet the amount is costing us about 2.5% interest.. which taxpayers not the banks are paying.
*Christian beliefs were not fundamental to this country when it was formed. The founders emphasized separation of Church and State. The phrase “in God We Trust” was added to our money around 1940, and was not placed there by the founders of this country.

[ucodegen]

I do think it is hilarious about the canard of the Republican Party becoming more conservative. If anything under Bush, we got more liberal, as least with respect to government spending.

As to spending yes, but the GOP started pushing a more religious agenda which caused more collisions with the issue of separation of church and state. I also think that the media coverage of Bush’s expenditures were unbalanced, particularly when taken in contrast with Obama’s.
Real quick to end sniping:
*The TARP money spent on banks is a loan, the banks have to pay it back and are charged interest on the money.. about 3.5% (BofA just paid 403mil for 4 months on the money). It cost the fed about 2.5% interest on treasuries to loan the money. The fed is getting a skim of 1% on $700Bil because of the TARP – under the “baddie Bush”… Obama’s spending is not a loan, yet the amount is costing us about 2.5% interest.. which taxpayers not the banks are paying.
*Christian beliefs were not fundamental to this country when it was formed. The founders emphasized separation of Church and State. The phrase “in God We Trust” was added to our money around 1940, and was not placed there by the founders of this country.

[ucodegen]

I do think it is hilarious about the canard of the Republican Party becoming more conservative. If anything under Bush, we got more liberal, as least with respect to government spending.

As to spending yes, but the GOP started pushing a more religious agenda which caused more collisions with the issue of separation of church and state. I also think that the media coverage of Bush’s expenditures were unbalanced, particularly when taken in contrast with Obama’s.
Real quick to end sniping:
*The TARP money spent on banks is a loan, the banks have to pay it back and are charged interest on the money.. about 3.5% (BofA just paid 403mil for 4 months on the money). It cost the fed about 2.5% interest on treasuries to loan the money. The fed is getting a skim of 1% on $700Bil because of the TARP – under the “baddie Bush”… Obama’s spending is not a loan, yet the amount is costing us about 2.5% interest.. which taxpayers not the banks are paying.
*Christian beliefs were not fundamental to this country when it was formed. The founders emphasized separation of Church and State. The phrase “in God We Trust” was added to our money around 1940, and was not placed there by the founders of this country.

[ucodegen]

I’d like a “no party” system, where you vote for an individual instead of a party. This whole notion that everyone has to fit neatly into a box is partly to blame for our govt’s demise (from a citizen’s standpoint), IMHO.

There were several discussions about what form the US gov should take within “The Federalists” papers.. some of the founders of this country were concerned that a strict two party system would result in the parties each vying for power to the detriment of the public.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_the_Founding_Fathers_want_a_two_party_system_of_government

#1. moderate Republicans regroup and form a new party of the center. GOP stays and linger on as a fringe party.

I think this would be the best solution. It has also been shown to occur in the past. It would leave the small fringe group out of direct power and only act as a spoiler. The problem with the fringe portion of the GOP is that it represents a minuscule portion of their constituents. I think one of the barriers to the formation of additional parties, is the cost of financing an election. To that end, I think Ron Paul demonstrated a way to get around a good portion of the cost {more grass routes, less main-stream media @ $300k/min(+/-)}

Interesting article:
http://www.matthewg.org/multiparty/ch1.pdf

[ucodegen]

I’d like a “no party” system, where you vote for an individual instead of a party. This whole notion that everyone has to fit neatly into a box is partly to blame for our govt’s demise (from a citizen’s standpoint), IMHO.

There were several discussions about what form the US gov should take within “The Federalists” papers.. some of the founders of this country were concerned that a strict two party system would result in the parties each vying for power to the detriment of the public.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_the_Founding_Fathers_want_a_two_party_system_of_government

#1. moderate Republicans regroup and form a new party of the center. GOP stays and linger on as a fringe party.

I think this would be the best solution. It has also been shown to occur in the past. It would leave the small fringe group out of direct power and only act as a spoiler. The problem with the fringe portion of the GOP is that it represents a minuscule portion of their constituents. I think one of the barriers to the formation of additional parties, is the cost of financing an election. To that end, I think Ron Paul demonstrated a way to get around a good portion of the cost {more grass routes, less main-stream media @ $300k/min(+/-)}

Interesting article:
http://www.matthewg.org/multiparty/ch1.pdf

[ucodegen]

I’d like a “no party” system, where you vote for an individual instead of a party. This whole notion that everyone has to fit neatly into a box is partly to blame for our govt’s demise (from a citizen’s standpoint), IMHO.

There were several discussions about what form the US gov should take within “The Federalists” papers.. some of the founders of this country were concerned that a strict two party system would result in the parties each vying for power to the detriment of the public.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_the_Founding_Fathers_want_a_two_party_system_of_government

#1. moderate Republicans regroup and form a new party of the center. GOP stays and linger on as a fringe party.

I think this would be the best solution. It has also been shown to occur in the past. It would leave the small fringe group out of direct power and only act as a spoiler. The problem with the fringe portion of the GOP is that it represents a minuscule portion of their constituents. I think one of the barriers to the formation of additional parties, is the cost of financing an election. To that end, I think Ron Paul demonstrated a way to get around a good portion of the cost {more grass routes, less main-stream media @ $300k/min(+/-)}

Interesting article:
http://www.matthewg.org/multiparty/ch1.pdf

[ucodegen]

I’d like a “no party” system, where you vote for an individual instead of a party. This whole notion that everyone has to fit neatly into a box is partly to blame for our govt’s demise (from a citizen’s standpoint), IMHO.

There were several discussions about what form the US gov should take within “The Federalists” papers.. some of the founders of this country were concerned that a strict two party system would result in the parties each vying for power to the detriment of the public.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_the_Founding_Fathers_want_a_two_party_system_of_government

#1. moderate Republicans regroup and form a new party of the center. GOP stays and linger on as a fringe party.

I think this would be the best solution. It has also been shown to occur in the past. It would leave the small fringe group out of direct power and only act as a spoiler. The problem with the fringe portion of the GOP is that it represents a minuscule portion of their constituents. I think one of the barriers to the formation of additional parties, is the cost of financing an election. To that end, I think Ron Paul demonstrated a way to get around a good portion of the cost {more grass routes, less main-stream media @ $300k/min(+/-)}

Interesting article:
http://www.matthewg.org/multiparty/ch1.pdf

[ucodegen]

I’d like a “no party” system, where you vote for an individual instead of a party. This whole notion that everyone has to fit neatly into a box is partly to blame for our govt’s demise (from a citizen’s standpoint), IMHO.

There were several discussions about what form the US gov should take within “The Federalists” papers.. some of the founders of this country were concerned that a strict two party system would result in the parties each vying for power to the detriment of the public.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_the_Founding_Fathers_want_a_two_party_system_of_government

#1. moderate Republicans regroup and form a new party of the center. GOP stays and linger on as a fringe party.

I think this would be the best solution. It has also been shown to occur in the past. It would leave the small fringe group out of direct power and only act as a spoiler. The problem with the fringe portion of the GOP is that it represents a minuscule portion of their constituents. I think one of the barriers to the formation of additional parties, is the cost of financing an election. To that end, I think Ron Paul demonstrated a way to get around a good portion of the cost {more grass routes, less main-stream media @ $300k/min(+/-)}

Interesting article:
http://www.matthewg.org/multiparty/ch1.pdf

[ucodegen]

After substantial prodding she admitted that the listing was an “in house deal”. When I said, oh you mean the buyer was represented by you or another agent in your office, she did not give a straight answer.

I suspect ‘in house’ was literally ‘in house’.. ie. someone from the brokerage bought it before the general public had a chance. This is why they were evasive on the followup question, and why it was on the market for such a short time. This type of behavior was rampant in the stock market of the 1920’s and helped cause the crash. The SEC was formed and one of the regulations they pushed had to do with broker’s fiduciary responsibility to their clients. The behavior of these RE brokers violates their fiduciary responsibility to whom they are representing the house. With the SEC, if a licensed stock/commodities broker breaks fiduciary responsibility in this manner, they can be held financially/criminally responsible. Unfortunately, RE brokers only have a ‘code of conduct’.. not much happens of they ‘violate’ this.

Personally, I think that the banks selling from the REO side should drop any broker who gets an immediate sale.. The banks should be watching their listings on the MLS.. and possibly have one of their reps spot check the process. A RE broker violates the trust and the bank can refuse to do any more sales through them.

[ucodegen]

After substantial prodding she admitted that the listing was an “in house deal”. When I said, oh you mean the buyer was represented by you or another agent in your office, she did not give a straight answer.

I suspect ‘in house’ was literally ‘in house’.. ie. someone from the brokerage bought it before the general public had a chance. This is why they were evasive on the followup question, and why it was on the market for such a short time. This type of behavior was rampant in the stock market of the 1920’s and helped cause the crash. The SEC was formed and one of the regulations they pushed had to do with broker’s fiduciary responsibility to their clients. The behavior of these RE brokers violates their fiduciary responsibility to whom they are representing the house. With the SEC, if a licensed stock/commodities broker breaks fiduciary responsibility in this manner, they can be held financially/criminally responsible. Unfortunately, RE brokers only have a ‘code of conduct’.. not much happens of they ‘violate’ this.

Personally, I think that the banks selling from the REO side should drop any broker who gets an immediate sale.. The banks should be watching their listings on the MLS.. and possibly have one of their reps spot check the process. A RE broker violates the trust and the bank can refuse to do any more sales through them.

[Author]

Posts