Thread: So...who here is STILL proud to be a Democrat?

Originally Posted by Albany Rifles

Mr Bluesman

We are just going to have to agree to disagree.

Deal.

You and I have had our disagreements (as I have with several members of the WAB). Fine. I also think that ignore lists are not useful and don't use them

You should try it. Combined with the soothing thought that the idiot is actually dead is a balm to the soul.

What I DO NOT abide is that because we do not agree in our politics or how our government should operate I should therefore have my patriotism questioned or my love for my country besmirched.

It's not that we disagree so much as it is that you support and enable the vipers that have done so much to purposefully harm the country you say you love. It's not policy differences that make me think that you're an enemy; it's the fact that you wish for my enemies to overcome me and destroy what I've tried so hard to defend. You seem intelligent, and I simply don't know how you're capable of looking real patriots in the eye. Haven't you been paying attention to what your party has been doing for the past 50 years?

You and I have both served our country...you in the USAF as an NCO and I as an enlisted man and officer in the US Army.

I know, and I'm simply mystified that people like Pelosi and Reid and Obama are where they are...and you helped put 'em there. And you help keep 'em there. And you make all that they do possible. WHY?

I ain't pecker checking.

Me neither, colleague. Your service is beyond criticism. You'll never EVER get that from ME. I respect that you were THERE.

I just can't get past the fact that now...you're HERE, embracing an asp to your bosom.

You post a website stating that Congress has defunded ACORN...and then you ASSUME to say I think that is a bad thing. What makes you think that?

Because you're a DEMOCRAT. You want in their clubhouse, for whatever incomprensible reason, so you get to snuggle up with 'em.

And then you make this comment.

Uh-huh. I'm so sure.

Just who the hell are you to think you know what I think or what my beliefs are?

You're a DEMOCRAT, and I am well aware what that means. I'm sorry, but it's not something I'm prepared to show any respect for, not after all the crime and betrayal and treason and just plain destruction of America that they've wrought down through the years.

Remember what assuming does......

I'm also aware of what willful ignorance does. I'm prepared to go ahead and make an analytical leap and assume that you're a Democrat because you share certain philosophical principles with the Party's rank-and-file. I'm not obliged to give you any credit for associating with discreditable people.

And Armchair General......did you notice that an equal number of Democrats and Republicans voted AYE?

[/QUOTE]

Ah, but it is the 'No' votes - the ones that still are willing to go on record as supporting ACORN - that are truly interesting.

EVERY DAM' ONE IS A DEMOCRAT.

I find that interesting. Who else?

Originally Posted by Bluesman

You're a DEMOCRAT, and I am well aware what that means. I'm sorry, but it's not something I'm prepared to show any respect for, not after all the crime and betrayal and treason and just plain destruction of America that they've wrought down through the years.

How are the Dems any different from Republicans in that matter? Honestly? The Republican party has had plenty of blood on their hands too through the years.

Originally Posted by Bluesman

HOLY SMOKES, ANOTHER Democratic sweep! Who coulda seen THAT coming? ALL 75 'No' votes in the United States House of Representatives to support funding with tax dollars a completely corrupt and criminal organization that is a 100% Democratic Party owned and operated front crime syndicate came from...Democrats.

I KNOW; I'm just as gobsmacked as the rest of you.




[/sarc]

Blues- There is a clarification that is worth mentioning, though I agree 100% with what you are saying in principle.

The clarification is this:

The Senate vote was a recorded vote on the specific amendment to defund Acorn, so we have an actual breakdown. Those 7 Senators can hang their heads in shame.

The House vote was a voice vote on the amendment, and the recorded vote was on the bill under consideration. I watched the vote live on c-span, and there was no recorded vote on the amendment to defund ACORN.

So the 75 dissenters in the House were the ones who voted against the bill HR3221, which was the bill to strip student loans from banks. The number who voted against the bill due to the ACORN amendment can't be determined, but judging from the voice vote I heard, it was a pretty small number- certainly less than 75.

Just thought in the interest of fairness that was worth pointing out.

It's also worth noting that until one or the other of the bills are reconciled and signed into law by Obama, ACORN is still eligible for and receiving money from the Federal Government. So this one is not over yet.

Originally Posted by Rumrunner

How are the Dems any different from Republicans in that matter? Honestly? The Republican party has had plenty of blood on their hands too through the years.

In the service of a genuine good faith patriotic goal. Not so the Democrats.

I'm not talking about competence, here, although I could make a good case for GOP superiority, there, too. I'm talking about the Democrats' reflexive support for enemies, condemnation of allies, and seeking every opportunity to weaken the country, in every single creative and low way that they can think of. Some have been truly ingenious, and all have been damaging, and there is simply no parallel between the parties.

Originally Posted by Bluesman

In the service of a genuine good faith patriotic goal. Not so the Democrats.

I'm not talking about competence, here, although I could make a good case for GOP superiority, there, too. I'm talking about the Democrats' reflexive support for enemies, condemnation of allies, and seeking every opportunity to weaken the country, in every single creative and low way that they can think of. Some have been truly ingenious, and all have been damaging, and there is simply no parallel between the parties.

May I remind you that the involvement in WW2, Korea and Vietnam was begun by Democratic Presidents?

Originally Posted by highsea

Blues- There is a clarification that is worth mentioning, though I agree 100% with what you are saying in principle.

The clarification is this:

The Senate vote was a recorded vote on the specific amendment to defund Acorn, so we have an actual breakdown. Those 7 Senators can hang their heads in shame.

The House vote was a voice vote on the amendment, and the recorded vote was on the bill under consideration. I watched the vote live on c-span, and there was no recorded vote on the amendment to defund ACORN.

So the 75 dissenters in the House were the ones who voted against the bill HR3221, which was the bill to strip student loans from banks. The number who voted against the bill due to the ACORN amendment can't be determined, but judging from the voice vote I heard, it was a pretty small number- certainly less than 75.

Just thought in the interest of fairness that was worth pointing out.

It's also worth noting that until one or the other of the bills are reconciled and signed into law by Obama, ACORN is still eligible for and receiving money from the Federal Government. So this one is not over yet.

Okay, thanks for the clarification, although I think it's merely a difference of degree. And I'll back THAT with my money, too: who here wants to go ahead and bet on EVERY SINGLE VOTE being a Democrat that supports ACORN? When we get to a recorded vote to either support or de-fund that crew of Alinskyite gangsters, who here would like to put $20 against my $100 that ALL votes in support of ACORN will be cast by Democrats? I lose if they get a single Republican vote.

ANYBODY want that action?

Originally Posted by Silent Hunter

May I remind you that the involvement in WW2, Korea and Vietnam was begun by Democratic Presidents?

That is irrelevent, especially given the performance of each. It is even less relevent when one considers the fellow-travellers that Democrats aligned themselves with during each of those periods. Democrat presidents have employed traitors and people of questionable patriotism or even loyalty to the US down through history, and they have consistently managed to provide aid and comfort to competitors, adversaries, and even enemies while we were engaged with them in active combat.

Not so Republicans.

Kinda tells me a lot about the two parties. How 'bout you? Do you have any insights, other than the fact that for the past fifty years, Democrats are just awesome at getting us into wars that they then show no interest in winning?

Originally Posted by Bluesman

...ANYBODY want that action?

That's a fools bet.

Given that, I expect a couple of the liberals here will take you up on it....

Odd that no one has even given a second thought to the nationalization of the student loan business....

$68 Billion a year in student loans taken over by the Fed Gov't., 30,000 jobs stripped from the banking sector when it's signed into law by our Dear Leader.

Originally Posted by highsea

Odd that no one has even given a second thought to the nationalization of the student loan business....

$68 Billion a year in student loans taken over by the Fed Gov't., 30,000 jobs stripped from the banking sector when it's signed into law by our Dear Leader.

I read about it a couple of months ago, and Hewitt covered it briefly. And yeah, you got it: this administration, in addition to seizing car companies and banks, setting executive salaries, taking over health insurance, trying to set your house's thermostat, and a million OTHER things, now wants to be the hand that rocks the cradle, and be Sugar Daddy to all students that do not have independent means of going to college.

Part of a pattern.

highsea,

$68 Billion a year in student loans taken over by the Fed Gov't., 30,000 jobs stripped from the banking sector when it's signed into law by our Dear Leader.

why don't we illustrate the old system:

1. government gives money to banks
2. banks loans money to students
3. government guarantee money

how is this ANY WAY different (other than less efficient) than government giving money directly to students?

blues said the government wants to be "Sugar Daddy to all students that do not have independent means of going to college.", surprise surprise, they're doing that already.

there's definite areas where i'm critical of obama, such as protectionism and his inability to go after the farm lobby. i'm really not sure how this, though, counts.

Under fire, Democrats abandon ACORN in droves
By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
September 18, 2009
(AP File)
Back in February, during the Democrats' frenzied rush to pass the $787 billion economic stimulus bill, Republican Sen. David Vitter offered a simple, 28-word amendment: "None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used directly or indirectly to fund the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now." Vitter's amendment was shot down, 51-45, with all the votes coming from the Democratic majority. [Emphasis gleefully provided by me. - Bluesman]

At about the same time, GOP lawmakers introduced similar measures in the House. Those, too, were defeated by Democratic majorities.

Fast-forward to Monday, Sept. 14. A Housing Department appropriations bill was moving through the Senate, and Republican Sen. Mike Johanns offered an amendment that was nearly word-for-word identical to the one Vitter introduced back in February, barring all federal housing funds for ACORN. This time, the ACORN-defunding amendment passed, 83-7. The winning total included 50 -- yes, 50 -- Democrats. Liberals like Chris Dodd, Dianne Feinstein, Carl Levin, Charles Schumer and others who supported ACORN back in February all changed their votes to approve the cutoff of funds. [In other words, these Democrats that reversed themselves were either revealing their glaring lack of judgement, or their allies had to be abandoned because they were revealed to all to be the criminal gang that they've always been. Either way, they're not fit to hold the offices they currently occupy. -Bluesman]

That was just a preview of what would happen on Thursday, across the Capitol in the House of Representatives. Just 48 hours after Republican Leader John Boehner introduced the "Defund ACORN Act," which would ban all federal funds for the group, the House Democratic leadership agreed to a vote on the bill. Boehner's measure passed 345-to-75, with 172 Democrats voting to cut off funds [That is, TAXPAYER funds, supposedly only available for non-partisan purposes. - Bluesman] for an organization that had long worked on behalf of Democrats nationwide [Which would be ILLEGAL, under numerous Federal laws. -Bluesman].

It was an absolutely mind-blowing turn of events, a total collapse of longtime Democratic [and ONLY Democrats, EVER. -Bluesman] support for ACORN. Republicans had worked for years to reduce ACORN's influence [In order to bring the organization into at least apparent and grudging compliance with the law. -Bluesman], with little success. Now, in the span of a few days, the GOP scored major victories [And so did the rule of law, which I will now point out with some empahsis the Republicans UPHOLD, and the Democrats were trying, with all their might, to break. -Bluesman].

Everybody knows why. None of this would have happened had it not been for undercover videos, released on the new Web site BigGovernment, which caught ACORN employees in Baltimore, Washington, New York City and California in the act of encouraging tax fraud and prostitution, including prostitution involving underage girls. [Actually, it was way worse than that. Tax Fraud, from an organization that purports to offer 'free tax advice', was instead engaged in telling who-knows-how-many filers how to get away with tax cheating. One staffer even seems to have confessed to faking a self-defense scenario to shoot her husband in the face. -Bluesman] The videos, which were ignored by most big media organizations [We all know them as the MSM, and every dam' one of 'em is in the tank for Obama and are batshit-crazy liberal, which is why they tried to bury this story. -Bluesman] other than Fox News, had a huge effect on Capitol Hill.

"I was stunned by what I saw," says Johanns, who has had his eye on ACORN since joining the Senate in January. "I just could not believe that you could have a situation where people were so complacent, so complicit, in what was clearly activity that was not only illegal but just unbelievably wrong."[And every single person, every amoral, creepy, disgusting non-human on those tapes is a DEMOCRAT. -Bluesman]

The BigGovernment videos came in the wake of news that arrest warrants had been issued for 11 former ACORN workers in Florida accused of forging hundreds of voter registration applications. {and just WHICH PARTY do we think they were registering those fake voters for? -Bluesman] In light of those revelations, lawmakers who once felt confident voting on ACORN's behalf were forced to reconsider; a vote for ACORN was no longer safe. In literally hours, years of Democratic [There's that word again. -Bluesman] sponsorship of ACORN virtually disappeared. [Actually, no. It's still visible, in the votes of 82 Democrats at the national level. -Bluesman]

There are still many steps ahead. Johanns and others have introduced a new bill, the "Protect Taxpayers from ACORN Act," which would do the same thing as the total-defunding bill in the House. If it passes [and it may not, given the majorities Democrats enjoy. -Bluesman], there will be a conference committee to reach agreement on a final version of the bill, which will then have to pass the House and Senate before winning President Obama's signature [Even if it gets that far - no sure thing, given who controls the gavel - Obama won't sign it, because he IS ACORN, and ACORN is HIM. -Bluesman]. At any point along the way, Democrats might reverse themselves and again take up ACORN's cause. [Personally, I think that's the way to bet. Oh, there will be a name change and a promise of really, really strict oversight, and no-nonsense obedience to the rules. And if you buy that, your WAB handle is rooseveltrepublican]

Then there is what Republicans see as Part Two of the process. For the GOP, the goal is not just to cut off ACORN's federal money. It's to get to the bottom of all the allegations of corruption at ACORN and affiliated organizations around the country. On Tuesday, Johanns sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder urging a Justice Department investigation into the full range of ACORN allegations {Never gonna happen. Not in any serious way. -Bluesman]. Rep. Lamar Smith in the House made a similar request. No word yet on what Holder will decide. {Lemme clue y'all in on how that'll play out: window-dressing, and no teeth. Nobody goes to jail, unless Holder thinks that some CIA interrogator was also an ACORN employee. -Bluesman]

There's no way to know how it will end [Sure there is. Follow the money, which went to Obama, and now flows back to ACORN, and count the votes, which the Democrats win every time. I already know how this ends. -Bluesman]. But it's now a fact that there are on-the-record votes of large majorities of Democrats favoring the total cutoff of federal funds for ACORN -- a virtually unheard-of possibility just one week ago. What a difference a video can make.

We'll see. If they're allowed to audit themselves and a VERY compliant and friendly Attorney General, as far Left and Radical as we've had since Ramsey Clark (a Democrat, by the way, and please Wiki him to find out what a huge boon THIS guy has been to every single American enemy since the guy passed the Bar), then this goes absolutely NOwhere. And the Democrats continue to amass a record of obliviousness and/or outright approval to something so outrageous and indecent that any human being would be repulsed.

NOW then: any proud Democrats STILL want to argue how this doesn't indict every single thing about your rotten, disgusting political machine?

Originally Posted by astralis

highsea,



why don't we illustrate the old system:

1. government gives money to banks
2. banks loans money to students
3. government guarantee money

how is this ANY WAY different (other than less efficient) than government giving money directly to students?

#1 is incorrect, the Gov't doesn't provide the capital. #2 is correct. #3 is correct that the Gov't guarantees the loan. Not too many banks will loan to kids without some assurance of repayment.

This is what the bill will do: Banks will no longer make the loans, because the Gov't will not back them.

Banks will be out of the Student Loan business. Estimated 30K workers will lose their jobs. These aren't the bank CEO's, they are the people who handle the paperwork, work with the financial aid offices, the students and their families at the local level, etc.

The Democrats who pushed this bill through claim this will save $47 Billion over ten years, of which $10 Billion will be used to reduce the deficit.

What that really means is that the Gov't is going to spend an additional $37 Billion on various programs like Pell Grants and so on. The "PayFor" is the theoretical savings by making it more "efficient". There is no reason to think the default rate (around 6%) will change one iota.

The current system works. People like it, and the vast majority of student loans in the country go through this system with their local banks.

We'll see how well it's handled when the Federal beaurocracy is in charge and everything goes through Washington.

highsea,

#1 is incorrect, the Gov't doesn't provide the capital

nitpicky, but depends on the loan.

Student loans in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Federal Direct Student Loans, also known as Direct Loans or FDLP loans, are funded from public capital originating with the U.S. Treasury. FDLP loans are distributed through a channel that begins with the U.S. Treasury Department and from there passes through the U.S. Department of Education, then to the college or university and then to the student.

Federal Family Education Loan Program loans, also known as FFEL loans or FFELP loans, are funded with private capital provided by banking institutions (i.e., banks, savings and loans, and credit unions). Because the FFELP loans use private capital as their source, students who use FFELP loans are able to take advantage of payment options that are similar to those available to customers who take out a home loan or a consumer loan. For example, some institutions will allow a discount for automatic payments or a series of on-time payments. In 2005, approximately two-thirds of all federally subsidized student loans were FFELP.

We'll see how well it's handled when the Federal beaurocracy is in charge and everything goes through Washington.

people didn't complain when the FDLP came online. we'll see.