Is that the best you got KayKay?.......... Speaking of easy today. You must be slippin' these days.

He's never once voted for a bill with an earmark, not once.

Has he inserted earmarks into bills to ensure that his district receives federal dollars they put into the system to begin with when the bill inevitably passes? Absolutely. They pay federal taxes, they should get that money back.

He simply believes that the money never should have transfered hands in the first place. If it must, then they should get that money back.

What are you doing posting right now anyway,.....isn't Chris Matthews on?

Lets go Reading Rainbow on this since it is appearant that you only focus on what you can exploit.



No, that was just one of several reasons why I dont like JB... my opinion, nothing more, I was answering the question asked. I never said I blame him for everything nor am I saying anything more than that was the first thing that sparked my dislike for him...

got it?



No you were just so absolutly convinced that JB had nothing to do with prop 13 that was just for reference, you said it was bull$hit, didnt you? well, there are more articles out there about it and maybe I can get my grandmother on the line and you can tell her how wrong she is too.



Yes, I do know that, I also know it was a huge exploit of a JB's incompetence but the question wasn't about Harold Jarvis now was it... please take a ridlin and concentrate on the topic.



No, I just don't like a politician that can be run over. Once again, stay on topic... I did give other examples of what I dont like about JB but you seem to think this one goes with your eyes or something because you are WEARING IT OUT.



Yes, when I was 9 it sucked, I also thought girls were gross and bell bottom cords were cool... people change, get used to it.


Yes, see above.



No, I blame the Mayor for that... (he was mayor of Oakland at the time) and I am not blaming him for the killing, I blame him for not addressing devastating crime with more than a curfew and some cameras. If expecting a mayor to address the #1 problem in his city is ludicrous I guess you expect the rotary club to take the helm on that one?



ROFL is right... you are basically arguing that I should like Jerry Brown... I dont.... NEXT.

That's called anarchy dimbulb. Something even your most die hard RW'er wouldn't advocate.

But you already knew that didn't you? I could use an extreme example to paint a picture for your paradise too. How about Cuba? Government ownership of everything. Hospitals, business, schools, radio, tv, and print media. A paradise so wonderful it's inhabitants are willing to float 80 miles across shark infested waters using inflated rain jackets just to get to the good ole US of A.

Amazing a leftoid like you thinks that more government regulation is the answer when we could just simply enforce the laws we currently have on the books. It's called respecting the rule of law. Something that has been completely lost in this country.

Absolutely. Should he let his district pay into the system without ever seeing a dime in return?

Sometimes you have to play within the set parameters and work to change those parameters the best you can.

Really KayKay, if all you've got on him is the earmark thing you need to go back to the playhouse and start over.

KK don't you have a job? Seems like your on the net all day, maybe your just getting caught up on the real news on the Onion online

What exactly is it that gives you the impression that "I want mine"?

I wanted to go swimming and play sax when I was 9?

You can say I play the victim card all you want, it dont make it so. You also said my posts were BS, none of what I said happened and that I was wrong in my distaste for JB....

You say a lot of things.

and yes, JB will most likley win this election, I hope he fairs better this time around.

Didn't say that you did,........or perhaps that what you wanted to see out of what I posted.

I was simply pointing out that if we respected our current regulations and laws concerning fraud there wouldn't be much need for more regulations drafted by those they are intended to regulate. That game has been played long enough and hasn't been successful to date.

Well I'm no fan of Reagan's. Like a true actor, he was long on the sound bites and well short of any limited government substance. Even your most died in the wool capital "L" Libertarian, take Rothbard for example, routinely stated that government was a necessary entity for a civilized society.

Individuals are granted rights in the Constitution, not groups. The government doesn't grant those rights, the creator does. When the governemt grants rights to a collective they simutaneously take rights away from others, thereby infringing the rights of the indivual the gov't is there to protect.

Good for you, really. Starting a business and making it grow isn't easy.


Yes, it hurts so bad being stupid. If I could only rely on the government for everything including wiping my ass I'd be so much better off. Maybe if I just smoked some pot, quit paying my mortgage and health insurance, sent all my money to the undeserving underachiever members of society I'd feel better.

BS

What exactly did you mean by I "Matter of fact, I call bullsh!t on your entire post"? Usually when I state a fact and someone says its BS, I take it as assuming I am not being truthful...

Basing my evaluation and opinion on personal experience is far from blaming him for "personal issues", I didnt say the guy gave me herpes, I said I dont like him as a politician.

My holding a grudge is dwarfed by your need for self affirmation. I'm Scottish and Irish, we DO grudges.

I also will admit being wrong, and I dont think you do, it is much easier to just say its BS...

I did just fine, trust me.

Well if the gov't wasn't doing the job it was created to do in protecting the rights of individuals than that government is ineffective and the people have the right to start over.

You and I seem to have a different definition of just exactly what a "right" is.

Unfortunately, it's not against the law to be a bigot. Unless such bigotry infringed upon the life, liberty, or pursuit of hapiness of another individual.

A home loan is also something that is not a right. Though our governments attempts to make this so have resulted in the total collapse of the US housing and mortgage market.

In terms of marriage I would argue this the other way around. Marriage "rights" or benefits granted to heterosexual couples were never the governments to grant in the first place. Marriage is a religious ceremony, not something that the state has an exclusive monopoly over. By the state granting marriage "rights" to heterosexual couples they immediately alienated homosexual couples creating a serious conflict and unintended consequence. I personally have no problem with gay marriage. I just don't feel that the state has any place in deciding whether or not it's valid. That's up to the couple themselves.

I'd be happy to see those chicken-hawk cowards hang anyday and twice on Sunday. Too bad it'll never happen.

Bullsh!t

Oh calm down... dont disappoint me now.

That was a good response.

Oh, is the first term considered warm up? C'mon... it isnt like I am singling him out, just giving him his fair share.

Whatever makes you feel better I guess.

I do. Although discrimination in this sense is not something that is easily identified. Especially considering all the moving pieces and non-tangible factors that go into the acceptance of a credit arrangement. I would argue that no ones general pursuit of hapiness is infringed when they are denied a home loan. It may not be pleasant, but life does go on and they are free to rent.

Do store owners have the right to refuse service? I think so. Should be a basic tenant of property rights. Is someone's general pursuit of hapiness infringed if they are refused service based on the color of their skin? I don't think so. Doesn't mean I think it's right either. They then have the right to picket the bigot's business to ensure he suffers for being an a$$hole.

I didn't say I felt the creator endowed rights to individuals, read again. I simply stated that because that was the view of the founders. Personally I am not a religous man. I feel an individual has rights through existence. Governments were created to protect those rights. Not sure about "enforce".

Do you really think that's it Stink?

Minority folks defaultin' on loans that the gubmint MADE the banks give 'em caused the whole house of cards to fall... really?

Unregulated trading in exotic, mortgage-backed financial derivatives had nothin' to do with it?

Just checkin'...

Well I guess "enforce" implies to me that the government is the grantor of said rights. Which can take us down a slippery slope.

"Protect" on the other hand implies that the government is there to do just that. Protect the rights that are due every living human within it's borders.

I spent close to the last ten years securitizing mortgage debt until about 2yrs ago. I've spelled out all my opinions based on my working knowledge of the industry in previous threads. Feel free to go back and read away.

But yes,.....that was a piece of the puzzle in no uncertain terms, although crudely put.

I should add that those loans extended to them were also designed to fail from the get go. It's not my opinion that because minorities couldn't pay their bills that the mortgage and housing industries crumbled.

Classical liberal,.........big difference

Exact agreement, the reason for government existence. Otherwise we'd all still be serfs.

Don't get me started on the UN KK