Well, it either shows you that the liberal agenda really is progressive globalism. Or that they are pretty darned bored

Actually, repayment rates are highest among low-income people, they're often better bets than rich people.
The CRA didn't force credit rating agencies to put high ratings on less-than solid debt. It made absolutely no mention of debt trading.
The CRA didn't force hedge funds or invenstment banks to run insane leverage ratios.
THe CRA didn't force homeowners to see a housing bubble as a rock-solid rise in value, and take on high-interest loans in the belief that they could remortgage later.
What it did do was extend lending to lower-income households, which often have lower default rates than higher-income households, partly because the sums invested are lower, and easier to manage.
You can't say that this was started by a single political party in a single country.

Not a single country. No. In Tancredo's district alone over 100,000 foreclosure alone to illegals. I disagree, the majority of foreclosure are people who would have never qualified with A. Good credit and B. 20% down.

So you don't like globalism? I don't see white people lining up to pick vegetables.

Yeah, I viewed that on the tv news last night. Not much love out there on the ice for Governor Palin.

Just read this article in the Times today: McCain tussles with Palin over whipping up a mob mentality

Can't disagree with that.

Hairsplitting for nothing. For me, campaigners and their campaign is the same. If it isn'T, they have a problem with trustworthiness.

Which is a very widespread problem in politics indeed.

That's the problem, Sky. The point is that that's the way American politics are. It's never about policies, it's about selling yourself. And it works that way on both sides, so pointing the finger at McCain's camp for telling the truth about the way it is doesn't prove anything except that, on at least this point, they are being honest.

That doesn't make it any better, or less unacceptable. that way, the basics of a political culture that are needed and essential to give democracy any chance to maike sense, get raped and abused. the result is the micky mouse party that the whole political and mudthrowing is.

That hardly can serve as an argument why this kind of democracy should serve as an example for the world to follow. It is a good argument why one should make sure to reject it.

Politicians that do not act and tell like they mean it, are not meaning what they say and what they do. Such persons do not deserve neither respect, nor trust. they are liars, and voting for them deserves laughs and ridicule: who is the greater fool: the fool, or the fool following him, voluntarily?

I never said it was acceptable, sir, I just said that's the way it is. I never argued that this kind of democracy (which really isn't what it is since the US is not a democracy) should serve as one for the world to follow. As for the fool thing, what choice is there when confronted between a choice between two liars?

Your first statement is false. Neither the United States nor Germany is a democracy. Democracy is two cats and a mouse voting over what's for dinner. We are in Republics, ruled by laws, not democracies ruled by the whims of men. The essence of a republic is protection of minorities from the tyranny of the majority. Only in a republic could a Barack Obama ever be a candidate for president. In a democracy, he would be a slave. All the bull about democracy came up in the US around 1900 when the socialists wanted to push for a so-called progressive income tax. The constitution did not give them the right to make that change, so the idea that the US was a democracy was created, along with the fantasy that the constitution is a "living, breathing document" meaning nothing but what the majority choose for it to mean today.

The result is a country where well over 40% pay no federal income taxes at all, but who for some insane reason have the right to vote money out of the pockets of those who do. It is a grab-fest of non-productive people voting themselves money from the pockets of those who have worked hard to earn it. It is a country where a leading presidential candidate without laughing, proposes to fix the problems of wage earners by crippling the wage payers. It is a country willing to accept that the sole source of our energy, the corporations that generate it and distribute fuel to everyone, are evil and must have half of their profits (they have tinier profit margins that Wal-Mart!) confiscated. It has created a suicidal majority with no stake in the country they unwittingly seek to destroy. It is as if all the stockholders of Toyota attended a General Motors stockholders meeting and were permitted to vote, forcing GM to pay Toyota $200 million. We need to destroy the income tax system and substitute a national sales tax, the Fair Tax, to make all citizens contributers to the government they vote for. No representation without taxation!

In your second point you are spot on. Obama made a big pro woman show at Bethune Cookman College, where he made a huge "women should be paid as much as a man for the same work and government should REQUIRE it!!!" song and dance, while he pays his women $1,900 less for the same job as he pays his men in his personal campaign organization. McCain, who Obama portrayed as anti-woman, seeking to enslave them, is paying his women $9,100 more than the men in the same job description. Who really supports women? Your point is brilliant! Obama deserves neither respect nor trust. And that's only the beginning.

Obama does not have the confidence in his beliefs to tell the truth about them. Why?

Sorry for that quote mining, but I've found something, although I wouldn't know where to look for to verify it, that is really interesting. Especially the last part of the editorial.

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/commen...talk_hertzberg