What to do in an Obama World

By definition a conservative is one who favors traditional views and values and oppose change while a lberal is one who is not limited to established or traditional values and favors reform. So the terms are very culturly dependent. They have nothing to do with exactly what one is in opposition to or for but rather how the culture of that time veiws them. So, as hard as it is for us conservatives to understand, you term Christ a liberal since he was changing the establish religous traditions. However, if your point of view is from God's perpective, you could call him a consevative because he was preserving the established order setup from before time.

 

Also in today's vernacular, I think a good general difference in liberal vs conservative is that liberals tend to act/judge/choose based on emotion whereas conservatives tend to do all that based on observable facts.

Why else would a liberal government want to solve a debt problem by creating more debt?

 

Nope, The Pharisees are the ones who changed the established laws of God.

 

Yes, but the esablished laws of man were changed by Christ.

If you read the WHOLE post. It states that Christ could be a conservative or liberal depending on your POV.

In other words it is useless to argue the point one way or the other.

 

If I recall right, the debt sure did not go down during the Bush presidency.

 

And, just like the Democrats propose to do, he was just spending money on meaningless pork projects too, huh?

There wasn't a massive attack on our nation's financial capital that forced us to wake up and shake up our military and intelligence styles, and engage in wars around the world, including funding small democracies' own fights against terrorists. Just pointless pork spending that drove the deficit up under Bush, right?

I'm all for a deficit for the right reasons.

 

That's not the case. There are smart people on both sides who analyze the facts and come up with different decisions.

 

We must not forget that is done everywhere there is not accountability. It is done in religious groups too when there is a lack of accountability.

 

Just to be clear... my statement was sarcasm. The point was, G.W. Bush was spending money on things I consider a heckuva lot more worthy than what's now being listed in the "stimulus package".

I don't know if you guys have been following the contents of the thing, but about 90 percent of it isn't likely to stimulate intelligent thought, much less the economy. 25 Mill for ATV trails?!! I'm a fan of quads as much as the next guy, but come ON.

And remember... that's 25 Million out of 1.2 TRIllion of what is OUR MONEY! Any Dems in power for the next 50 years will have to vote to raise taxes whenever possible to pay for their "messiah's" stimulus package, and I don't think the same people who caused the problem in the first place, id est Barney Frank and his gay accomplice in Fanny Mae, etc. oughta be allowed to mortgage my child's and grandchildren's economic futures, in a lousy, flawed attempt to fix THEIR OWN MISTAKES.

A person can try to claim it was "Bush's economy" but without question, undebatably, the financial crisis we now face began in risky loans to unqualified borrowers, forced on banks, then subsidized by the government... WHICH CLINTON INITIATED, AND WHICH REPUBLICANS DECRIED MULTIPLE TIMES SINCE, INCLUDING JOHN MCCAIN WHO WOULD'VE BEEN A BETTER CHOICE FOR PRESIDENT!!!

 

History has repeated itself in America. Remember the depression?

 

M<ost of the sub-prime loans (about 90% I think or more) were initiated during the Bush administration. It was his failure to adequately oversee the financial sector that brought on this depression.

 

pffft. please. I've seen footage of a hearing on Fanny and Freddy convened at Bush's request. Frank out and out lied about the status of their solvency and another senator all but threatened the guy who was raising the questions.

here's a synopsis http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y56lGWvVsrc

The fact is, Republicans NEVER had a super majority that would've allowed them to unilaterally create the regulatory agency called for by Bush's guy... they were reliant on Democrats seeing the light and voting their way, but Frank LIED

LIED, then LIED some more.

We have the Dems to thank ENTIRELY for this mess, and just because your idol Obama is one of them, doesn't make it any less true.

[EDIT] Here's the other one I was thinking of in which Maxine Waters, Democrat, says "we've had a dozen meetings, trying to fix something that wasn't broken." That means that, up to that point, there'd been at least 12 meetings, called at Bush's request, to deal with Fanny and Freddy. Then, watch about a minute in, you'll hear the guy get violent toward the regulator...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs&feature=related

THESE are the people who are to blame for the economic collapse... Notice the little letter by each of their names? Is that a "D"? That looks like a "D" to me. What do you think, guys? Are those little "D"s next to their names? Huh. I wonder what all those little "D"s stand for...

 

Unlike you I don't pull the party lever. I don't think much of Barney Frank. He doesn't represent all Democrats and he certainly doesn't represent me. The Republicans had comfortable majorities in the House and Senate from 2003 through 2006 with a one seat Democratic advantage in the Senate 2001-2002. They held the presidency. Tell me again why you blame the Democrats for not acting to provide adequate oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Your party was in power.

 

Sorry... you obviously didn't watch the video, nor do you understand the concept of super-majority. The Dems BLOCKED the legislation at EVERY turn... Exclusively! They, YOUR duly elected Democrat representatives, some of whom needed to change their votes in order to pass the legislation, did not do so.

Sorry bud, but you're just plain wrong.

 

What about us moderates? The ones who don't belong to either party and win in every election? Where we vote is who wins... It doesn't mean we agree 100% with either party. When we give them our vote, it means we feel they are best for the time. If we agreed with them, we'd join the party.

Look at another thing, while the GOP and the LIB fought all week over the airwaves, look who went behind closed doors and got something done. The moderates...

You are all our pawns. You jump at our command just so you can have our vote.

 

Yes, they did get something done. Something that will hurt the economy and prolong the recession maybe even cause depression. The govt. has you fooled into thinking the govt is putting in money when what they are doing is spending your money in order to redistribute your wealth. That should be your decision on when and where to do that.

 

The comments/replys from the libs (call yourself moderate if it makes you feel warm & fuzzy, but your posts scream "LIBERAL!" all the way) convince me that they are going to have to see the demise of this nation before they will ever (?) acknowledge the damage that the Ds can/will do to this country.

IOW John, don't expect any coherent answers from them, only a defense of his worshipfulness!

 

I know what you are saying. I have seen very little coherency from the Obama cult and those who seem to worship Obama's actions over God's Word.

 

Imagine what it would be like if we did not have two opposing parties in America. Any one party who remains in control eventually loses power because the focus stays on one thing in one direction. Very few people are truly balanced. I do not think anyone would want a country run by the Taliban. Few if any religious groups are honest enough to let them control anything without any accountability and eventually becoming corrupt.

 

Just to be clear and NOT change the subject... Has it been sufficiently proven that the Democrats are to blame for the financial crisis? Did everyone watch the video?

"Just Christian"? Did you watch the video?

What is that... crickets?