[quote who="lulapilgrim" reply="44" id="3026815"]Quoting Smoothseas, reply 33

Romney has the problem that he had to run campaigns in Mass., most recently for Gov. The people there are fairly liberal on some social issues so at that time he had to assure them he wouldn't go against the popular opinion of the residents of that state on certain issues.[/quote]

You said Romney was liberal on some social issues and I agree. I identified one of the social issues as Romney's beingsoft on homosexuality and advancing it in Massachusetts..something that would continue across this land if he were elected president.

So how is that bigotry and ignorance?

You're homophobic and a religious bigot Lulu. Just look at the definition of bigot and you may understand why you are being called one. It shows in many of your posts. You have little if any tolerance for others who do not share your religious views and think this country's law books should mirror your interpretation of the bible. I have no problem with someone believing that homosexuality is wrong. I understand why the Bible says it is, and understand why the bible says be fruitful and multiply, I do have a problem however with people trying to impose their religious views on society through law.  Unfortunately you always seem to skip the parts of the bible that teach tolerance. Romney is not pro homosexuality as you suggest. He simply does not try to impose his religious views through law.  He is tolerant of others who do not share his his religious views.

Stating things like this is what shows your ignorance. You seem to think the world is simply black and white. You have no concept of grey. There is no center to you . You seem to think even moderates must believe the exact opposite of what you believe or be out to get you. You don't understand the concept of tolerance nor do you understand discrimination.

Actually it is dead on.  The only difference is in the size of the individual institutions.  However, it hit the housing market hard (since S&Ls at the time were the primary lenders) and the total dollar value of losses was the same.  In 2008, we had a handful of banks go belly up (relatively speaking).  In 1989, we saw an industry fail.

The "solution" was to let them go belly up.  And the republicans were for it then (just not in 08).

I fail to see where I stepped in anything.  You asked for an example, and I am very familiar with that one.  Yes, deregulation played a part.  But the bigger player was the fact they had been propped up for a long time when in fact their usefulness was gone.  And that is solely a democrat policy (keeping those buggy whip manufacturers in business).  The deregulation was a desperate, and bad, attempt to give them a reason for existing.

I really do not care what you see me as.  I do not WANT you to see me as an economist.  I AM an economist.  If it suits your fancy to belittle my profession, that is your problem, not mine.  I am not blinded by any propaganda.  I do not think republicans are perfect, or democrats perfectly evil.  But the direction of each party, is what I look at.  I recognize and understand the warts on the former, and the lilies on the later - few as they are.  So what you think you know or think I think is immaterial.  And irrelevant.  Try sticking to what I say, and not what you want me to say.

And here is where you use a general statement that is patently false.  Because again, we are not talking all regulations, and the biggest recipient of those lobbyists is the current occupant of the white house.  in other words, as I have said before, there is big difference between big and small business.  Big business seeks power, period.  Small business seeks opportunities.  The latter is what is being killed by democrats with the regulations.  The former thrives on it.  And the former is where the vast majority of lobbyist come from.

You say many things about Lula, but you are reflecting yourself in this comment.  We have already seen where government has tried to stick its nose into religion after passing laws so they can do just that.  from the mandate that Catholic Hospitals perform abortions, to the desire of the Justice department to set rules of ministry in the Lutheran Synod.  Gays have all the rights of straights at this point, the only thing a new "law" would do would be to give the government more control over religion.

Unfortunately the size and effects of this crisis is much greater. Not to mention the way in which is has been handled is most likely going to cost the taxpayer far more. The losses are not the same. You can't figure out the total cost yet since we are still amidst the crisis. You initially posted that larger crisis were over in months however this one is already larger and the S&L crisis lasted far longer than just a few months. The housing market took over 5 years to correct itself back then. The Fed funds rate was higher back then when it started so the Fed had a lot more room to help ease the foreclosure rate. Not so today.

I was commenting on what the candidates were saying along the campaign trail not what I think of any particular party or those who are not involved in the current republican primary. When someone like Rick Perry for example says that the Energy Dept. should be dissolved and that the EPA should be totally reconfigured he is not talking about easing the red tape for small businesses.

I think both parties are evil. Unlike you I look at the individual not the direction of a party because the only direction either party goes in is the one that protects their own interests.

No you just added yourself to those who might see things as black and white. I don't agree with either extreme of the issue. I don't think doctors in catholic hospitals should be forced to perform abortions. But I also disagree with the extremist on the other end of the spectrum who want to redefine the viability of life through their own religious terms as opposed to medical capability.

I'm guessing that your opinion will be proven wrong as the court system rules on certain cases involving these issues. If you're talking about marriage. A marriage license is a civil contract not a religious decree. If you are talking about the extreme left's definition of hate speech as I said before I don't agree with them. Gays do not have the same rights as others. Maybe they do in your state and maybe in some other states, but certainly not in all 50.

Geez I almost missed this sweet piece of incorrect information. Solely a Democratic Policy? Who was the president who served from '81-89? And as far as the solution to the problem who was the president that followed? Keep stepping in your own shit please. You make it so very easy for me.

That article does not present the facts of the case. The case did not establish or alter any law. It found the states ban on same sex marriage to be unconstitutional and directed the states legislature to make the necessary changes within 180 days. Mitt Romney simply adhered to the decision handed down by the court. He then tried to get the states constitution amended in order to overturn the courts ruling but was dogged by the state legislature.  He next tried for a referendum to allow an amendment which would allow for civil unions as opposed to marriages and the state legislature voted it down.

As to Romney not adhering to the advice of the above stated letter....Why would he? I believe using the advice and direction of his states attorney generals office would be more appropriate don't you? DOH

As far as Robert Bork's comments I question whether they actually exist or whether this is something taken out of context. Why do I have doubts on this.....Because Bork endorsed Romney in 2007 and endorses him again for this election.

Do you do anything to sift through internet information to figure out what is fact and what is fiction? Or do you simply find something that you agree with and decide to present it as fact? There is a lot of crap on the internet and you seem to repost quite a bit of it. 

Because it is the right thing to do.

Massachusetts people were dealing with an aggressive force of men and women who want to change the moral structure of their state and ultimately the nation. There is no right to homosexual "marriage" in Massachusetts Constitution which Romney had taken an oath to uphold. He preferred to do the wrong thing. 

Romney's instituting "Romneycare"  and facilitating homosexual "marriage" was abysmal and a show that he has no problem moving to the Left if he thinks it will help politically. 

Then I guess you do not believe in the rule of law. You are so afraid of some fictitious world dictatorship yet not only choose to live your own life under a dictatorship, but advocate that others do it as well. Ooh the hypocrisy!

Cain couldn't overcome the steady drumbeat of sexual misconduct allegations. He's out of the running, but not going away. 

He announced the formation of CainSolutions.com, a kind of Plan B. 

Why would he go away? He can still collect campaign contributions by suspending his campaign as opposed to dropping out. It will be interesting to see how much he is going to be able to legally pocket.  Politics can be a very lucrative business.

I do firmly believe in the rule of law and your insinuating that I don't shows you lack understanding and knowledge of the events in Massachusetts which led up to Romney's decision on May 17, 2004 to do the wrong thing by ordering town clerks to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples as per the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's ruling,

Concerning marriage, here is the rule of law.

Marriage is the union of a man and a woman is the most fundamental institution and rule of law not only in America but all over the world. The State, the Law, does not create marriage, it merely recognizes it. 

In 1780, the Massachusetts legislature did just that when they adopted the Mass.Constitution. In it, the term marriage meant the God-ordered union of a man and a woman. The rule of law established that marriage is between a man and a woman and the concept of a man marrying another man was considered preposterous if not insane.

Enter the fruits of the 60's sexual revolution and the militant homosexual lobby.....

In 2002, Superior Court Judge Thomas E. Connolly relying on the history of Massachusetts marriage laws and constitutional provisions, Judge Connolly determined that no fundamental right to homosexual "marriage" existed. He denied Goodridge claims for recognition of homosexual "marriage" and said that the issue should be handled by the legislature.

But no, instead of properly handling the issue through the Massaachusetts legislature, Goodridge continued with the highest court in Massachusetts, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. (MSJC).

With its Nov. 2003 Goodridge decision, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 4 of the court's 7, imo, socially mad judges, circumvented the constitutional process and arbitrarily imposed homosexual  "marriage" on the people of Massachusetts in a brazen and contemptuous act of judicial activism.  It ordered the State legislature to change the law and gave it 180 days to do so.

 By April, 2004, "Legislative action to change the laws still has not occurred. “He [Romney] placed the blame for the confusion on the Legislature, which has yet to follow a directive from the SJC to change the state’s marriage laws to reflect the legalization of same-sex matrimony." ‘‘I believe the reason that the court gave 180 days to the Legislature was to allow the Legislature the chance to look through the laws developed over the centuries and see how they should be adjusted or clarified for purposes of same-sex marriage; the Legislature didn’t do that,’’ Romney said. Senator Bruce E. Tarr (R) of Gloucester, said he believes the Legislature will ultimately pass bills that will insert genderneutral language into the state’s marriage laws in time for the May 17 deadline. ‘‘No one should interpret inaction thus far with the idea that no action is forthcoming,’’ he said."

So, on May 17, 2004, Gov. Romney ordered town clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples as per the Supreme Judicial Court's ruling, 180 days after it was issued, without the legislative action called for by the actual ruling. 

EDIT: We are done discussing Romney as far as this particular issue is concerned. We've each had a chance to make our case and I want to move on.  

Please explain what you mean when you say that I choose to live under a dictatorship.What dictatorship is that?

I don't understand how he can hold a state of the Union address, as he has been kicked out for corruption so blatant it made politicians blush.  He is not allowed in the U.S. House for the rest of his life, so would have to hold the State Address somewhere else. 

He disgraced his wife,er wives; disgraced his Party; disgraced the House, Believe me you'll feel disgraced if you'd vote for him KNOWING his desgraceful history

Hello Damitman,

welcome to the discussion.

I didn't know Newt was kicked out of the US Congress for corruption. Why hasn't this been mentioned by his opponents? Can you cite some actual sources so I may check that out?

This has already been brought up earlier in the discussion. Read my reply #6 in which we discuss Newt's sins.

We still have plenty of time for all of Newt's opponents to air out his so called  "disgraceful" history.

You can claim anything you want.  And you can toss around insults until you are tired of it.  But I notice in all your hyperbole, obfuscation, and misdirection, you have not addressed what I said at all.  I understand that.  You have no retort, just talking points.  That is fine if all you want is to be led.

I do not.  So perhaps instead of creating strawmen out of what I say, you can actually offer something substantive in rebuttal.  Sorry, I have not been on in a couple of weeks, but I see I missed nothing with your replies.

I noticed. Glad you're back and fired up as usual.

It was totally addressed. You were just too blind to see it so let me spell it out for you. Banking regulations are not set in stone. In light of this much in regards to banking regulations is left up to the the executive branch (which sets the tone for and appoints the regulators) and much is left to the FED. So when you go back to the S&L crisis and look at the timeline as to changes in such things as asset caps and allowable investments, as well as who made those decisions and who sat in charge of the executive branch then it becomes obvious that what you try to claim as "democratic policy" is "blatantly" false. 

The voting has finally begun and I am glad to get the process going.

We should know who New Hampshire picks in a few hours.    

Of the four still standing, I still like Newt the best.

I live in Florida and the campaign calls and the mail is starting to pile up. One of Newt's callers told me to check out   Newt.org 

There are lots of reasons why I would never vote for Newt and I could go down the line, but one reason is fairly obvious to anyone and hard to dispute. Take a good hard look at Newt and Caliste... they turn Barack Obama and the Democrats into the party of family values and that's unacceptable. I know Romneys Mormonism turns off lots of Christians and secular minded people, but I would go with him over Santorum or Paul. I wouldn't vote for Newt under any circumstances.

Earlier in the discussion I responded to this saying

Yes, Newt's sins became public. And yes, we can judge his behavior and as a result, decide not to vote for him. 

I probably would feel the same way as you had Newt NOT publicly acknowledged his offenses against Almighty God.  But he did.  He said he has repented and gained forgiveness and with that I think of Our Lord's prayer and the Sacrament of Confession.

Of the four, Romney is last for me. The reasons are many but his being politically expedient on abortion, donating to Planned Parenthood and instituting RomneyCare are front and center. To my knowledge, Newt has always been pro-life both in and out of office, never donated to PP, and understands as well as Santorum that RomneyCare was a blueprint for Obamacare.

I've never been a huge fan of Romney, but he seems to be the only reasonable candidate who has a fairly good shot at defeating Obama. Just look at those who endorse Newt. Mostly the same forces who brought the Republican party brilliant candidates like Sharron Angle and Christine "I'm not a witch" O'Donnell. I'm not quite sure why Pailn and others want to run a guy like Gingrich with his unfavorables and baggage.

I disagree that Romney is the ONLY reasonable candidate who has a fairly good chance at defeating Obama. I think that's media and the Republican Establishment spin.

People are just so sick and tired of being trampled on by Obama and his band of Lefties. Many of the Liberals I know are coming to understand they've been hoodwinked and another four years would have us straight down in the sewers. As a result, I think whoever wins the GOP nomination will get support from all sides of the political spectrum. 

No matter who gets the nomination, I will support him...depends on who he has for VP as to the type and amount of support. 

These forces you speak of would be the Tea Party, right? From what I know both Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell are staunch conservatives and not likely to be RINO's if ever elected.

That's why the Republican Establishment is beside themselves over the Tea Party and it's candidates.

I used to live in Maine who has two RINO's, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins (also a Catholic hypocrite).