Then your rant wasn't clear. For example:
I wrote: "The Republicans are not against ALL regulation, but are against OPPRESSIVE regulation and OVER REGULATION."
A disagreement would have been: "Yes, Republicans are against all regulation" or "They are not against oppressive regulation and over regulation." Instead you wrote, "What party...is in favour of oppressive and over regulation?" That doesn't refute what I wrote at all.
Again your argument is a NONSENSE. WHO is FOR Oppressive or OVER regulation? Who is NOT AGAINST Oppressive or OVER regulation?
If the Republicans are against Obsessive and over regulation are the Democrats for this? Of course not. So, again, pointless rhetoric.
I wrote: "On the Mafia being capitalist, I would disagree with that too. How is the Mafia in any sense free market? Lying, deception, fraud, cheating, threatening, bullying, robbing and murdering are not capitalist."
You wrote: "None of these things are Democrat either. None of these things are ANY political philosophy."
Since I didn't write anything about Democrats, how does that refute or even disagree with what I wrote?
Because you are comparing apples with oranges. My point was to illustrate that these actions are not political. Rendering your point moot. As I thought was wholly self evident.
It's not up to me to figure you out.
Thank God for that.
If we get a President who defends the Constitution and is overall good at his job, what difference does his religion make? ....I don't have to agree with the religion of any given President for him to do his job.
If you dont think that what someone belives in I dont know what to tell you. If someone believes in the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, Zeus, Pagan gods, Atlantis or the Easter Bunny thats all good with you?
What someone believes is an intrinsic part of their character and personality. And should concern the shit out of me and everyone else if they were to become President.
C. Deregulation is NOT what caused the crisis that occurred at the end of Bush's administration. It started with the housing crisis, which began in October 2005, and which led to the credit crisis that followed. It was spurred by the Community Reinvestment Act, which was a Jimmy Carter policy that was rewritten by Clinton. The Clintons not only permitted lending to underqualified borrowers, it often made banks and mortgage companies do the loans under threat -- very Mafia-like. That created the housing bubble, and as we all know, it's only a matter of time before bubble's burst. Greenspan's lending policy didn't help, but it wasn't the primary cause. If there had been no housing bubble then the low-interest Greenspan years would have made little difference. In the middle of his term Bush tried to rein in the Fannie Mae, but the Dems defended everything chairman Franklin Raines did. Added to the blame are Senator Chris Dodd and Congresspersons Barney Frank and Maxine Waters. You can read about them elsewhere, but there are plenty of books and articles out there that correct this left-wing piece of historical fiction.
Again I apologise for bringing economics into the thread. It was not my intent to open that can of worms.
This is one of the most misused and misattributed quotes out there. It's usually attributed to Albert Einstein, except he never said it. The original quote said that it was a sign of addiction, not insanity, and that's because the source was Alcoholics Anonymous. The legal of insanity is "mental illness of such a severe nature that a person cannot distinguish fantasy from reality, cannot conduct her/his affairs due to psychosis, or is subject to uncontrollable impulsive behavior." So on each point you don't know what you're talking about.
Thanks for the history lesson but my version works just fine to illustrate my point and Ill stick with it.
