Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Mitt Romney Explain How Jesus Will Reign for 1,000 Years When He Returns, in Jerusalem... and Missouri

Expand Messages
  • Robert Karl Stonjek
    ... From: clarence_sonny_williams To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2012 11:33 PM Subject: Re: Mitt Romney Explain How
    Message 1 of 21 , Nov 4, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2012 11:33 PM
      Subject: Re: Mitt Romney Explain How Jesus Will Reign for 1,000 Years When He Returns, in Jerusalem... and Missouri

      Maarten,

      Yes, we are electing a new "administration," a turnover in the executive
      branch of government.  Nonetheless, my reference to the
      Constitutionally-mandated secular operation applies to not only all 3
      branches of the federal government, but to every single governmental
      entity from school districts to the Presidency.

      As you will learn when the votes are counted, it is incorrect to say
      that the "vast majority" of Americans mistrust Romney, that they believe
      he lies more than Obama.  The populace is split right down the middle.
      Yes, sadly, all politicians lie, or rather free themselves from earlier
      commitments once elected.

      Yes, I trust Romney more than Obama to handle the unexpected.  His
      experience vastly outweighs Obama's, whose experience is limited to
      social work at the street level...and in Chicago of all places.  I have
      lived and worked there, and it is a real viper pit.
       
      RKS:
      It is interesting that you would count only Obama's experience when he ran for the presidency the first time.  He now has four years experience of running the country as president so, as far as experience goes, a sitting president always has more experience than a candidate who has never been part of a presidential administration in any capacity.
       
      I note also that Mitt Romney was passed over in favour of Sarah Palin as the vice presidential running mate in the last presidential election, which seems to indicate how much confidence the Republican party hierarchy had in him at that time...
       
      It will be all over in a couple of days, thank goodness :)  (I hope you Americans are happy with your choice regardless of whom you choose :)
       
      Robert
    • Brad
      Robert said: I note also that Mitt Romney was passed over in favour of Sarah Palin as the vice presidential running mate in the last presidential election
      Message 2 of 21 , Nov 4, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Robert said:
        'I note also that Mitt Romney was passed over in favour of Sarah Palin as the vice presidential running mate in the last presidential election"


        The only reason the Republicans used Sarah Palin was because they needed a woman to compete. She ended up being more of an embarrassment than anything else however. The harsh reality was that no one was going to vote for the aging McCain while she was the next in line.
         
        Brad
        Chance Favors The Prepared Mind~ L Pasteur


        From: Robert Karl Stonjek <stonjek@...>
        To: Evolutionary-Psychology <evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Sunday, November 4, 2012 10:17 AM
        Subject: [evol-psych] Re: Mitt Romney Explain How Jesus Will Reign for 1,000 Years When He Returns, in Jerusalem... and Missouri

         
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2012 11:33 PM
        Subject: Re: Mitt Romney Explain How Jesus Will Reign for 1,000 Years When He Returns, in Jerusalem... and Missouri

        Maarten,

        Yes, we are electing a new "administration," a turnover in the executive
        branch of government.  Nonetheless, my reference to the
        Constitutionally-mandated secular operation applies to not only all 3
        branches of the federal government, but to every single governmental
        entity from school districts to the Presidency.

        As you will learn when the votes are counted, it is incorrect to say
        that the "vast majority" of Americans mistrust Romney, that they believe
        he lies more than Obama.  The populace is split right down the middle.
        Yes, sadly, all politicians lie, or rather free themselves from earlier
        commitments once elected.

        Yes, I trust Romney more than Obama to handle the unexpected.  His
        experience vastly outweighs Obama's, whose experience is limited to
        social work at the street level...and in Chicago of all places.  I have
        lived and worked there, and it is a real viper pit.
         
        RKS:
        It is interesting that you would count only Obama's experience when he ran for the presidency the first time.  He now has four years experience of running the country as president so, as far as experience goes, a sitting president always has more experience than a candidate who has never been part of a presidential administration in any capacity.
         
        I note also that Mitt Romney was passed over in favour of Sarah Palin as the vice presidential running mate in the last presidential election, which seems to indicate how much confidence the Republican party hierarchy had in him at that time...
         
        It will be all over in a couple of days, thank goodness :)  (I hope you Americans are happy with your choice regardless of whom you choose :)
         
        Robert


      • Don Zimmerman
        ... DWZ: A large part of the American electorate believes that the President is an independent actor who decisively takes charge of government upon being
        Message 3 of 21 , Nov 4, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Karl Stonjek" <stonjek@...> wrote:

          > It is interesting that you would count only Obama's experience when he ran for the presidency the first time. He now has four years experience of running the country as president so, as far as experience goes, a sitting president always has more experience than a candidate who has never been part of a presidential administration in any capacity.
          >
          > I note also that Mitt Romney was passed over in favour of Sarah Palin as the vice presidential running mate in the last presidential election, which seems to indicate how much confidence the Republican party hierarchy had in him at that time...
          >
          > It will be all over in a couple of days, thank goodness :) (I hope you Americans are happy with your choice regardless of whom you choose :)


          DWZ:
          A large part of the American electorate believes that the President is an independent actor who decisively takes charge of government upon being elected and whose inner personal qualities and force of will are responsible for the course of events. That is far from the truth. Actually, the composition of the Senate and the House of Representatives plays an equal role in what gets done. Without the cooperation of those bodies, the President is a "lame duck" at the beginning, not just at the end. Unfortunately, too many voters are not of aware of those facts.

          And the President from the first day in office is surrounded by a network of advisors, appointees, cabinet members, lobbyists, that also are most important in decision making. It is true that many of those advisors are chosen by the President, but the choice is not completely free and voluntary, because payback for financial contributions, the need for Senate approval, the public's perception of the other people in government, etc., also factor into the picture.

          Finally, circumstances in the world, completely beyond the President's control, also have a lot to do with the history of the nation during a term of office. The various wars around the world, unusual weather events, famines, earthquakes, shortages, epidemics of disease, uprisings in other nations, global warming, meteor strikes, etc., can shape many events apart from the determination and heroism of any President.

          The inner qualities of the mind and splendid personality of an elected President are more myth than reality and not the most important determinants of what is going to happen to the nation. Congress, the public will, environment, circumstances and context, local and global, and the flow of historical events in the entire world are hugely significant.

          Best regards,

          Donald W. Zimmerman
          Vancouver, BC, Canada
          dwzimm@...
          http://www3.telus.net/public/a7a82899
        • Anna
          Both candidates are bad, but Romney is a catastrophe. Economical and moral. Obama is better economist after all and he has no illusions. But at least he knows
          Message 4 of 21 , Nov 4, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            Both candidates are bad, but Romney is a catastrophe. Economical and moral.  Obama is better economist after all and he has no illusions. But at least he knows how to play his  cards.  Romney is a crook, he will drag this country into a deeper hole and a war at the same time too. Anyway, having a Mormon for a president  would be tragic for this country.  I lived in Utah. How any rational person can even be a Mormon beats me. Also, how can any rational person vote for him..... 
             
            Anna
             
            Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2012 8:17 AM
            Subject: [evol-psych] Re: Mitt Romney Explain How Jesus Will Reign for 1,000 Years When He Returns, in Jerusalem... and Missouri
             
             

            ----- Original Message -----
            Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2012 11:33 PM
            Subject: Re: Mitt Romney Explain How Jesus Will Reign for 1,000 Years When He Returns, in Jerusalem... and Missouri
             
            Maarten,

            Yes, we are electing a new "administration," a turnover in the executive
            branch of government.  Nonetheless, my reference to the
            Constitutionally-mandated secular operation applies to not only all 3
            branches of the federal government, but to every single governmental
            entity from school districts to the Presidency.

            As you will learn when the votes are counted, it is incorrect to say
            that the "vast majority" of Americans mistrust Romney, that they believe
            he lies more than Obama.  The populace is split right down the middle.
            Yes, sadly, all politicians lie, or rather free themselves from earlier
            commitments once elected.

            Yes, I trust Romney more than Obama to handle the unexpected.  His
            experience vastly outweighs Obama's, whose experience is limited to
            social work at the street level...and in Chicago of all places.  I have
            lived and worked there, and it is a real viper pit.
             
            RKS:
            It is interesting that you would count only Obama's experience when he ran for the presidency the first time.  He now has four years experience of running the country as president so, as far as experience goes, a sitting president always has more experience than a candidate who has never been part of a presidential administration in any capacity.
             
            I note also that Mitt Romney was passed over in favour of Sarah Palin as the vice presidential running mate in the last presidential election, which seems to indicate how much confidence the Republican party hierarchy had in him at that time...
             
            It will be all over in a couple of days, thank goodness :)  (I hope you Americans are happy with your choice regardless of whom you choose :)
             
            Robert
          • Julienne
            ... Not so much. Religion intrudes on every area of our lives in the U S., and is established there. In God We Trust . beginning every political event with
            Message 5 of 21 , Nov 4, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              At 07:27 AM 11/3/2012, clarence_sonny_williams wrote:
              >Absolutely, Mormonism entails bizarre beliefs. Doesn't all religion
              >entail such bizarre beliefs? That is why the U.S. Constitution affords
              >us the greatest protection from religious beliefs. Governments at all
              >levels must be perfectly secular. The U.S. Constitution affords far
              >less protection from governments doing things against our wishes
              >vis-a-vis "interstate commerce" and other economic affairs. That is why
              >one's vote should be cast for the administration you believe is taking
              >the correct course from an economic standpoint, not from some silly
              >notion of whose religion you least like.

              Not so much.

              Religion intrudes on every area of our lives in the U>S., and is established
              there. "In God We Trust". beginning every political event with thanks to God,
              "God bless the USA" at the end of every speech - it's everywhere.

              And below: even the IRS isn't maintaining the separation:

              Religion And Politics: IRS Not Enforcing Rules On Separation Of
              Church And State

              AP | By RACHEL ZOLL Posted: 11/03/2012 1:53 pm EDT Updated:
              11/04/2012 11:19 am EST
              http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/04/irs-church-state_n_2069009.html


              Julienne


              >--- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "Anna" <pantheon@...>
              >wrote:
              > >
              > > Watch Mitt Romney Explain How Jesus Will Reign for 1,000 Years When He
              >Returns, in Jerusalem... and Missouri
              > > Video emerges of Romney citing the thinking of a wildly fringe
              >conspiracy theorist and his belief in the strange intricacies of the
              >Mormon faith.
              > > November 2, 2012 | Watch Mitt Romney get in a heated exchange with a
              >radio host from a radio interview in 2008 about where Jesus will reign
              >and rule over the Earth for 1,000 years -- in Jerusalem and Missouri.
              >Romney displays deep familiarity with the thinking of a Mormon
              >hermit-conspiracy theorist Cleon Skousen, who was also Glenn Beck's
              >great inspiration.




              The selection of a Republican candidate for the presidency of this
              globalized and expansive empire is - and I say this seriously - the
              greatest competition of idiocy and ignorance that has ever been.
              Fidel Castro. January 2012
            • hibbsa
              ... he ran for the presidency the first time. He now has four years experience of running the country as president so, as far as experience goes, a sitting
              Message 6 of 21 , Nov 4, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "Don Zimmerman"
                <dwzimm@...> wrote:
                >
                > --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Karl Stonjek"
                stonjek@ wrote:
                >
                > > It is interesting that you would count only Obama's experience when
                he ran for the presidency the first time. He now has four years
                experience of running the country as president so, as far as experience
                goes, a sitting president always has more experience than a candidate
                who has never been part of a presidential administration in any
                capacity.
                > >
                > > I note also that Mitt Romney was passed over in favour of Sarah
                Palin as the vice presidential running mate in the last presidential
                election, which seems to indicate how much confidence the Republican
                party hierarchy had in him at that time...
                > >
                > > It will be all over in a couple of days, thank goodness :) (I hope
                you Americans are happy with your choice regardless of whom you choose
                :)
                >
                >
                > DWZ:
                > A large part of the American electorate believes that the President is
                an independent actor who decisively takes charge of government upon
                being elected and whose inner personal qualities and force of will are
                responsible for the course of events. That is far from the truth.
                Actually, the composition of the Senate and the House of Representatives
                plays an equal role in what gets done. Without the cooperation of those
                bodies, the President is a "lame duck" at the beginning, not just at the
                end. Unfortunately, too many voters are not of aware of those facts.
                >
                > And the President from the first day in office is surrounded by a
                network of advisors, appointees, cabinet members, lobbyists, that also
                are most important in decision making. It is true that many of those
                advisors are chosen by the President, but the choice is not completely
                free and voluntary, because payback for financial contributions, the
                need for Senate approval, the public's perception of the other people in
                government, etc., also factor into the picture.
                >
                > Finally, circumstances in the world, completely beyond the President's
                control, also have a lot to do with the history of the nation during a
                term of office. The various wars around the world, unusual weather
                events, famines, earthquakes, shortages, epidemics of disease, uprisings
                in other nations, global warming, meteor strikes, etc., can shape many
                events apart from the determination and heroism of any President.
                >
                > The inner qualities of the mind and splendid personality of an elected
                President are more myth than reality and not the most important
                determinants of what is going to happen to the nation. Congress, the
                public will, environment, circumstances and context, local and global,
                and the flow of historical events in the entire world are hugely
                significant.
                >
                > Best regards,
                >
                > Donald W. Zimmerman
                > Vancouver, BC, Canada
                > dwzimm@...
                > http://www3.telus.net/public/a7a82899
                >



                Certainly you're right (or I agree) in a lot of these observations. Kind
                of as an extension of what you say, I think it very difficult to judge a
                President who does not get a second term. The second term frees the Pre
                sident from some of these constraining factors at least to some extent.
                My overall impression of Obama's first term efforts is one that leaves
                me sufficiently intrigued to want to see what he would do with a second
                term. That's not to say I necessarily agree with, or even understand the
                underlying issues to, many of his policies. But rather, I do think that
                he made good efforts to implement the policies that he said that he
                would implement. I see that as a very important quality over and above
                agreeing or disagreeing with what the actual policies were. So..for
                me...Obama for President! (I also think he is going to win).
              • Julienne
                Well, Sonny, I suppose I have to say something here. How are we going to learn when the votes are counted that the populace trusts Romney more than Obama? Do
                Message 7 of 21 , Nov 4, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  Well, Sonny, I suppose I have to say something here.

                  How are we going to learn when the votes are counted that the
                  populace trusts Romney more than Obama?
                  Do you believe Romney will win?

                  Maybe he will, but I believe that if he does, it will only be because he has
                  managed to fool so many people, and managed to prevent an accurate vote
                  count with all the actions pushed to prevent people from being able to vote -
                  from the 4 hour and more waits some people are having to endure in Florida
                  and elsewhere where Republican governors or other Republicans in charge of the
                  voting machine are in charge. This is simply NOT happening where a Democratic
                  person is in charge. The Democrats are trying to open up the polls, keep the
                  hours as they were in the past, while the Republicans are trying to diminish
                  the process.

                  How do you trust such a machine?

                  How can you close your eyes to that, or approve of it?

                  Why, if you so trust Romney, hasn't he spoken out against this?

                  Republicans, as well as trying to limit the voters, have also been caught
                  throwing out Democratic votes and registrations. They are also trying to
                  scare people into thinking they will be arrested for "voter fraud", so that
                  many people are being scared into not going to vote.

                  I have had to pay $150 to acquire the "right kind" of identification
                  to be able to
                  vote this year - though I have had adequate ID every previous year.
                  It's not just
                  "I.D". - they demand - but specific kinds - and the kinds they want are most
                  difficult for people to get.- especially students, elderly people,
                  and the poor.
                  There is just no way to get an acceptable I.D. without having to pay for it.
                  Having to pay out money to vote is called a "poll tax". We haven't
                  seen this since
                  the days when blacks were made to guess how many jelly beans were in
                  a jar, and
                  other such outrageous "tests" in order to vote.

                  Obama's experience is not "limited to social work" - e has held government
                  office, and he has been president for 4 years. Further, he has international
                  experience - even from his early life in, after his birth in Hawaii, with his
                  mother in other parts of the world. he isn't as insular as too many American
                  presidents have been. Romney's international experience is non-existent -
                  except in business. He made an idiot of himself on his recent fund raising
                  visit to Israel, and his rudeness in England was completely embarrassing.
                  He is a tactless man with no warm connection to others - no empathy. His
                  foreign policy consists of a few monosyllabic wirds with an added threat
                  added. He is not a thinking man.

                  "All politicians lie" is a copout. Studies show all human beings lie -
                  one study I saw said 14 times a day, another 7 a day - and that's each
                  of us every day. But some are inveterate liars, and Romney seems to be
                  one of those.


                  Julienne
                  .

                  At 07:33 AM 11/4/2012, clarence_sonny_williams wrote:
                  >Maarten,
                  >
                  >Yes, we are electing a new "administration," a turnover in the executive
                  >branch of government. Nonetheless, my reference to the
                  >Constitutionally-mandated secular operation applies to not only all 3
                  >branches of the federal government, but to every single governmental
                  >entity from school districts to the Presidency.
                  >
                  >As you will learn when the votes are counted, it is incorrect to say
                  >that the "vast majority" of Americans mistrust Romney, that they believe
                  >he lies more than Obama. The populace is split right down the middle.
                  >Yes, sadly, all politicians lie, or rather free themselves from earlier
                  >commitments once elected.
                  >
                  >Yes, I trust Romney more than Obama to handle the unexpected. His
                  >experience vastly outweighs Obama's, whose experience is limited to
                  >social work at the street level...and in Chicago of all places. I
                  >have lived and worked there, and it is a real viper pit.
                  >
                  >--- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "Maarten"
                  ><m.aalberse@...> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > Unless I'm very mistaken, this is an election of a president, not of a
                  > > government...And what's striking to me in this video is not only hos
                  > > Moronic beliefs, but also how he responds to the interviewer.Sonny,
                  > > seriously, would you like this man handle unespected catastrophic
                  > > events?
                  > > Here's some folks of his own party think of him:
                  > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRJa2OaiwWw
                  > > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRJa2OaiwWw>
                  > > I know you think Obama is a lyer, and you're probably right (can't go
                  > > very far in politics without lying).But his lying pales (sorry, very
                  >bad
                  > > pun) in comparison to Romney's ; I think that a large majority would
                  >say
                  > > a similar thing.
                  > > Maarten
                  > >
                  ><snip>
                  >

                  The selection of a Republican candidate for the presidency of this
                  globalized and expansive empire is - and I say this seriously - the
                  greatest competition of idiocy and ignorance that has ever been.
                  Fidel Castro. January 2012
                • Julienne
                  ... Well, Anna - we agree on something. :))) The emperor has no clothes - this man is a horror. Romney has 5 wars in mind... What I find, in speaking to those
                  Message 8 of 21 , Nov 4, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    At 04:53 PM 11/4/2012, Anna wrote:


                    Both candidates are bad, but Romney is a catastrophe. Economical and moral.  Obama is better economist after all and he has no illusions. But at least he knows how to play his  cards.  Romney is a crook, he will drag this country into a deeper hole and a war at the same time too. (...) Also, how can any rational person vote for him..... 

                    Well, Anna - we agree on something. :)))

                    The emperor has no clothes - this man is a horror.

                    Romney has 5 wars in mind...

                    What I find, in speaking to those who support Romney, is that they can only create a case
                    for him which is based on deception and a kind of mental illness. I don't believe that
                    Romney is psychologically healthy. Even his wife said that she was worried about his
                    emotional health if he were to become president.  


                    Julienne



                     
                    Anna
                     
                    From: Robert Karl Stonjek
                    Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2012 8:17 AM
                    To: Evolutionary-Psychology
                    Subject: [evol-psych] Re: Mitt Romney Explain How Jesus Will Reign for 1,000 Years When He Returns, in Jerusalem... and Missouri
                     
                     

                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: clarence_sonny_williams
                    To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2012 11:33 PM
                    Subject: Re: Mitt Romney Explain How Jesus Will Reign for 1,000 Years When He Returns, in Jerusalem... and Missouri
                     
                    Maarten,

                    Yes, we are electing a new "administration," a turnover in the executive
                    branch of government.  Nonetheless, my reference to the
                    Constitutionally-mandated secular operation applies to not only all 3
                    branches of the federal government, but to every single governmental
                    entity from school districts to the Presidency.

                    As you will learn when the votes are counted, it is incorrect to say
                    that the "vast majority" of Americans mistrust Romney, that they believe
                    he lies more than Obama.  The populace is split right down the middle.
                    Yes, sadly, all politicians lie, or rather free themselves from earlier
                    commitments once elected.

                    Yes, I trust Romney more than Obama to handle the unexpected.  His
                    experience vastly outweighs Obama's, whose experience is limited to
                    social work at the street level...and in Chicago of all places.  I have
                    lived and worked there, and it is a real viper pit.
                     
                    RKS:
                    It is interesting that you would count only Obama's experience when he ran for the presidency the first time.  He now has four years experience of running the country as president so, as far as experience goes, a sitting president always has more experience than a candidate who has never been part of a presidential administration in any capacity.
                     
                    I note also that Mitt Romney was passed over in favour of Sarah Palin as the vice presidential running mate in the last presidential election, which seems to indicate how much confidence the Republican party hierarchy had in him at that time...
                     
                    It will be all over in a couple of days, thank goodness :)  (I hope you Americans are happy with your choice regardless of whom you choose :)
                     
                    Robert


                    The selection of a Republican candidate for the presidency of this globalized and expansive empire is - and I say this seriously - the greatest competition of idiocy and ignorance that has ever been. Fidel Castro. January 2012



                  • Maarten
                    I guess a lot of republicans are dreaming of Romney having an accident and Ryan taking over. Maarten ... moral. Obama is better economist after all and he
                    Message 9 of 21 , Nov 4, 2012
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I guess a lot of republicans are dreaming of Romney "having an accident" and Ryan taking over.


                      Maarten


                      --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "Anna" <pantheon@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > Both candidates are bad, but Romney is a catastrophe. Economical and moral. Obama is better economist after all and he has no illusions. But at least he knows how to play his cards. Romney is a crook, he will drag this country into a deeper hole and a war at the same time too. Anyway, having a Mormon for a president would be tragic for this country. I lived in Utah. How any rational person can even be a Mormon beats me. Also, how can any rational person vote for him.....
                      >
                      > Anna
                      >
                      > From: Robert Karl Stonjek
                      > Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2012 8:17 AM
                      > To: Evolutionary-Psychology
                      > Subject: [evol-psych] Re: Mitt Romney Explain How Jesus Will Reign for 1,000 Years When He Returns, in Jerusalem... and Missouri
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > ----- Original Message -----
                      > From: clarence_sonny_williams
                      > To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                      > Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2012 11:33 PM
                      > Subject: Re: Mitt Romney Explain How Jesus Will Reign for 1,000 Years When He Returns, in Jerusalem... and Missouri
                      >
                      > Maarten,
                      >
                      > Yes, we are electing a new "administration," a turnover in the executive
                      > branch of government. Nonetheless, my reference to the
                      > Constitutionally-mandated secular operation applies to not only all 3
                      > branches of the federal government, but to every single governmental
                      > entity from school districts to the Presidency.
                      >
                      > As you will learn when the votes are counted, it is incorrect to say
                      > that the "vast majority" of Americans mistrust Romney, that they believe
                      > he lies more than Obama. The populace is split right down the middle.
                      > Yes, sadly, all politicians lie, or rather free themselves from earlier
                      > commitments once elected.
                      >
                      > Yes, I trust Romney more than Obama to handle the unexpected. His
                      > experience vastly outweighs Obama's, whose experience is limited to
                      > social work at the street level...and in Chicago of all places. I have
                      > lived and worked there, and it is a real viper pit.
                      >
                      > RKS:
                      > It is interesting that you would count only Obama's experience when he ran for the presidency the first time. He now has four years experience of running the country as president so, as far as experience goes, a sitting president always has more experience than a candidate who has never been part of a presidential administration in any capacity.
                      >
                      > I note also that Mitt Romney was passed over in favour of Sarah Palin as the vice presidential running mate in the last presidential election, which seems to indicate how much confidence the Republican party hierarchy had in him at that time...
                      >
                      > It will be all over in a couple of days, thank goodness :) (I hope you Americans are happy with your choice regardless of whom you choose :)
                      >
                      > Robert
                      >
                    • clarence_sonny_williams
                      Yes, it will be over soon, and we must continue to muddle through whoever is elected. The very important issues that must be resolved, however, require
                      Message 10 of 21 , Nov 5, 2012
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Yes, it will be over soon, and we must continue to muddle through
                        whoever is elected. The very important issues that must be resolved,
                        however, require Congressional action. The President only has veto
                        power, and hopefully both candidates have learned from the torture and
                        closeness of this election that the American public demands that
                        Washington begin to get along. Most of Obama's election promises cannot
                        and, I predict, will not be enacted. The idea of hiring more teachers
                        as a way to stimulate the economic (one of the more idiotic proposals
                        ever put forth by a candidate) is DOA. All those union teachers who
                        want to perpetuate our deteriorating school systems because they insist
                        decision-making be centralized (a tactic used by unions and
                        environmentalists) will be disappointed if their paid hack wins.

                        --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Karl Stonjek"
                        <stonjek@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > ----- Original Message -----
                        > From: clarence_sonny_williams
                        > To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                        > Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2012 11:33 PM
                        > Subject: Re: Mitt Romney Explain How Jesus Will Reign for 1,000 Years
                        When He Returns, in Jerusalem... and Missouri
                        >
                        >
                        > Maarten,
                        >
                        > Yes, we are electing a new "administration," a turnover in the
                        executive
                        > branch of government. Nonetheless, my reference to the
                        > Constitutionally-mandated secular operation applies to not only all 3
                        > branches of the federal government, but to every single governmental
                        > entity from school districts to the Presidency.
                        >
                        > As you will learn when the votes are counted, it is incorrect to say
                        > that the "vast majority" of Americans mistrust Romney, that they
                        believe
                        > he lies more than Obama. The populace is split right down the middle.
                        > Yes, sadly, all politicians lie, or rather free themselves from
                        earlier
                        > commitments once elected.
                        >
                        > Yes, I trust Romney more than Obama to handle the unexpected. His
                        > experience vastly outweighs Obama's, whose experience is limited to
                        > social work at the street level...and in Chicago of all places. I
                        have
                        > lived and worked there, and it is a real viper pit.
                        >
                        > RKS:
                        > It is interesting that you would count only Obama's experience when he
                        ran for the presidency the first time. He now has four years experience
                        of running the country as president so, as far as experience goes, a
                        sitting president always has more experience than a candidate who has
                        never been part of a presidential administration in any capacity.
                        >
                        > I note also that Mitt Romney was passed over in favour of Sarah Palin
                        as the vice presidential running mate in the last presidential election,
                        which seems to indicate how much confidence the Republican party
                        hierarchy had in him at that time...
                        >
                        > It will be all over in a couple of days, thank goodness :) (I hope
                        you Americans are happy with your choice regardless of whom you choose
                        :)
                        >
                        > Robert
                        >
                      • clarence_sonny_williams
                        Julienne, Of course there is a constant strain on the Constitutional protections regarding freedom OF religion and freedom AGAINST the establishment of a
                        Message 11 of 21 , Nov 5, 2012
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Julienne,

                          Of course there is a constant strain on the Constitutional protections
                          regarding freedom OF religion and freedom AGAINST the establishment of a
                          religion. Like it or not, the original colonies were Christian
                          bastions. They borrowed from Calvinist principles, which also was
                          largely responsible for our tripartite form of government. When the
                          colonies decided to form a "more perfect union," they vigorously
                          defended their right to maintain state-level theocracies; the states
                          were still Christian bastions. Only after the Civil War did that
                          sentiment for Christian theocracies begin to erode. That legal erosion
                          only accelerated beginning around 1930, when the Supreme Court finally
                          enforced the 14th Amendment and required States to also be perfectly
                          secular.

                          So, America has only recently transformed itself from a virtual
                          theocracy. In light of that, it is easy to see why we have continuing
                          conflicts over the religion clauses.

                          --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, Julienne <julienne@...>
                          wrote:
                          >
                          > At 07:27 AM 11/3/2012, clarence_sonny_williams wrote:
                          > >Absolutely, Mormonism entails bizarre beliefs. Doesn't all religion
                          > >entail such bizarre beliefs? That is why the U.S. Constitution
                          affords
                          > >us the greatest protection from religious beliefs. Governments at
                          all
                          > >levels must be perfectly secular. The U.S. Constitution affords far
                          > >less protection from governments doing things against our wishes
                          > >vis-a-vis "interstate commerce" and other economic affairs. That is
                          why
                          > >one's vote should be cast for the administration you believe is
                          taking
                          > >the correct course from an economic standpoint, not from some silly
                          > >notion of whose religion you least like.
                          >
                          > Not so much.
                          >
                          > Religion intrudes on every area of our lives in the U>S., and is
                          established
                          > there. "In God We Trust". beginning every political event with thanks
                          to God,
                          > "God bless the USA" at the end of every speech - it's everywhere.
                          >
                          > And below: even the IRS isn't maintaining the separation:
                          >
                          > Religion And Politics: IRS Not Enforcing Rules On Separation Of
                          > Church And State
                          >
                          > AP | By RACHEL ZOLL Posted: 11/03/2012 1:53 pm EDT Updated:
                          > 11/04/2012 11:19 am EST
                          >
                          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/04/irs-church-state_n_2069009.html
                          >
                          >
                          > Julienne
                          >
                          >
                          > >--- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "Anna" pantheon@
                          > >wrote:
                          > > >
                          > > > Watch Mitt Romney Explain How Jesus Will Reign for 1,000 Years
                          When He
                          > >Returns, in Jerusalem... and Missouri
                          > > > Video emerges of Romney citing the thinking of a wildly fringe
                          > >conspiracy theorist and his belief in the strange intricacies of the
                          > >Mormon faith.
                          > > > November 2, 2012 | Watch Mitt Romney get in a heated exchange with
                          a
                          > >radio host from a radio interview in 2008 about where Jesus will
                          reign
                          > >and rule over the Earth for 1,000 years -- in Jerusalem and Missouri.
                          > >Romney displays deep familiarity with the thinking of a Mormon
                          > >hermit-conspiracy theorist Cleon Skousen, who was also Glenn Beck's
                          > >great inspiration.
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > The selection of a Republican candidate for the presidency of this
                          > globalized and expansive empire is - and I say this seriously - the
                          > greatest competition of idiocy and ignorance that has ever been.
                          > Fidel Castro. January 2012
                          >
                        • Phil Roberts, Jr.
                          ... As I mentioned earlier, I m currently an Obama man because I believe we are in the mess we are in because of two misguided policies favored heavily by
                          Message 12 of 21 , Nov 5, 2012
                          • 0 Attachment
                            clarence_sonny_williams wrote:
                            > Yes, it will be over soon, and we must continue to muddle through
                            > whoever is elected. The very important issues that must be resolved,
                            > however, require Congressional action. The President only has veto
                            > power, and hopefully both candidates have learned from the torture and
                            > closeness of this election that the American public demands that
                            > Washington begin to get along. Most of Obama's election promises cannot
                            > and, I predict, will not be enacted. The idea of hiring more teachers
                            > as a way to stimulate the economic (one of the more idiotic proposals
                            > ever put forth by a candidate) is DOA. All those union teachers who
                            > want to perpetuate our deteriorating school systems because they insist
                            > decision-making be centralized (a tactic used by unions and
                            > environmentalists) will be disappointed if their paid hack wins.

                            As I mentioned earlier, I'm currently an Obama man because I
                            believe we are in the mess we are in because of two
                            misguided policies favored heavily by Republicans:

                            1. Excessive deregulation (Wall Street) harkening back to the
                            Reagan years ("government is the problem") and
                            2. A move away from tax and spend (Democrats) to borrow and
                            spend (Republicans) under the guise of "starve the beast".

                            For those who might find these arguments wanting, here is another:

                            According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, here are the net increases in
                            private-sector employment under each president, chronologically by party:

                            Republicans

                            Richard Nixon: Increase of 7.1 million jobs
                            Gerald Ford: Increase of 1.3 million jobs
                            Ronald Reagan: Increase of 14.7 million jobs
                            George H.W. Bush: Increase of 1.5 million jobs
                            George W. Bush: Decline of 646,000 jobs

                            Total: Increase of 23.9 million jobs under Republican presidents

                            Democrats

                            John F. Kennedy: Increase of 2.7 million jobs
                            Lyndon B. Johnson: Increase of 9.5 million jobs
                            Jimmy Carter: Increase of 9.0 million jobs
                            Bill Clinton: Increase of 20.8 million jobs
                            Barack Obama: Increase of 332,000 jobs

                            Total: Increase of 42.3 million jobs.

                            http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/sep/06/bill-clinton/bill-clinton-says-democratic-presidents-top-republ/

                            PR
                          • Don Zimmerman
                            ... DWZ: It would be interesting to know the percentage of all psychologists who support Obama or Romney as opposed to the percentages of those who identify
                            Message 13 of 21 , Nov 5, 2012
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "hibbsa" <hibbsa@...> wrote:

                              > Certainly you're right (or I agree) in a lot of these observations. Kind
                              > of as an extension of what you say, I think it very difficult to judge a
                              > President who does not get a second term. The second term frees the Pre
                              > sident from some of these constraining factors at least to some extent.
                              > My overall impression of Obama's first term efforts is one that leaves
                              > me sufficiently intrigued to want to see what he would do with a second
                              > term. That's not to say I necessarily agree with, or even understand the
                              > underlying issues to, many of his policies. But rather, I do think that
                              > he made good efforts to implement the policies that he said that he
                              > would implement. I see that as a very important quality over and above
                              > agreeing or disagreeing with what the actual policies were. So..for
                              > me...Obama for President! (I also think he is going to win).


                              DWZ:
                              It would be interesting to know the percentage of all psychologists who support Obama or Romney as opposed to the percentages of those who identify themselves as evolutionary psychologists supporting one or the other. My guess is that relatively more "evolutionary psychologists" support Romney because of the current of Social Darwinism that remains within the discipline.

                              Romney appeals more to the everybody-for-themselves, smaller government, don't-tax-my-money-I-have-rightfully-earned philosophy As a wild guess, maybe 80% of all psychologists are for Obama, while among evolutionary psychologists it is more like 50-50.

                              If Galton, Haeckel, etc. were alive today, I would expect to see them at Romney rallies. Perhaps their ghosts were there anyway (in empty chairs somewhere behind the podium).

                              Best regards,

                              Donald W. Zimmerman
                              Vancouver, BC, Canada
                              dwzimm@...
                              http://www3.telus.net/public/a7a82899
                            • Julienne
                              ... I m not sure the Romneyites are for smaller government, though they claim to be. They just want government off their backs - deregulate the banks, credit
                              Message 14 of 21 , Nov 5, 2012
                              • 0 Attachment
                                At 12:32 PM 11/5/2012, Don Zimmerman wrote:
                                >--- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "hibbsa" <hibbsa@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > > Certainly you're right (or I agree) in a lot of these observations. Kind
                                > > of as an extension of what you say, I think it very difficult to judge a
                                > > President who does not get a second term. The second term frees the Pre
                                > > sident from some of these constraining factors at least to some extent.
                                > > My overall impression of Obama's first term efforts is one that leaves
                                > > me sufficiently intrigued to want to see what he would do with a second
                                > > term. That's not to say I necessarily agree with, or even understand the
                                > > underlying issues to, many of his policies. But rather, I do think that
                                > > he made good efforts to implement the policies that he said that he
                                > > would implement. I see that as a very important quality over and above
                                > > agreeing or disagreeing with what the actual policies were. So..for
                                > > me...Obama for President! (I also think he is going to win).
                                >
                                >
                                >DWZ:
                                >It would be interesting to know the percentage of all psychologists
                                >who support Obama or Romney as opposed to the percentages of those
                                >who identify themselves as evolutionary psychologists supporting one
                                >or the other. My guess is that relatively more "evolutionary
                                >psychologists" support Romney because of the current of Social
                                >Darwinism that remains within the discipline.
                                >
                                >Romney appeals more to the everybody-for-themselves, smaller government,

                                I'm not sure the Romneyites are for smaller government, though they
                                claim to be. They just want government "off their backs" - deregulate
                                the banks, credit cards, stock market, anything that helps them make
                                money for themselves. However, they want to load women up with
                                regulations, and gays, - and more.

                                >don't-tax-my-money-I-have-rightfully-earned philosophy

                                Yes - by whatever means. They still don't get that they didn't make
                                that money by themselves - but off the backs of their %7.25 an hour
                                workers. They don't get that they need the roads, trucks, trains,
                                etc., to movetheir products. Take away all those workers, and those
                                forms of transportation, and what would happen to their businesses.
                                They don't get it because they don't want to get it.

                                >As a wild guess, maybe 80% of all psychologists are for Obama, while
                                >among evolutionary psychologists it is more like 50-50.
                                >
                                >If Galton, Haeckel, etc. were alive today, I would expect to see
                                >them at Romney rallies. Perhaps their ghosts were there anyway (in
                                >empty chairs somewhere behind the podium).

                                Speaking of empty chairs - I had a robot call from Clint Eastwood.
                                Sad. And another one from the Romneyites ripping Obama apart. Not
                                nice. Also one from Bill Clinton - just talking about voting...

                                Julienne


                                The selection of a Republican candidate for the presidency of this
                                globalized and expansive empire is - and I say this seriously - the
                                greatest competition of idiocy and ignorance that has ever been.
                                Fidel Castro. January 2012
                              • clarence_sonny_williams
                                Phil, You forget to take into account the Democrat-induced effort to provide mortgages to previously unqualified people. Why should only the rich live the
                                Message 15 of 21 , Nov 6, 2012
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Phil,

                                  You forget to take into account the Democrat-induced effort to provide
                                  mortgages to previously unqualified people. Why should only the "rich"
                                  live the American dream of a single-residency in a quiet suburb? That
                                  appeals to the egalitarian principles driving Democrat politics, a
                                  principle that takes primacy over individual earning and the resulting
                                  disparities. Let's get everyone to share the American dream, and
                                  government (via Fanny Mae et al) would pave the way...whether the
                                  individual could afford it or not.

                                  Wall Street then took advantage of this build-up of unqualified
                                  house-owners and everything is fine...until house prices nudge down.
                                  When that happens, the house of cards begun by egalitarian Democrats
                                  falls down, quickly and with devastating results. Could regulations
                                  preventing the sale of mortgage bundling trading instruments have
                                  prevented the collapse? Possibly, but that still means you have
                                  forgotten the REAL driver behind the financial debacle of 2008: Democrat
                                  egalitarianism.

                                  --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "Phil Roberts, Jr."
                                  <philrob@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > clarence_sonny_williams wrote:
                                  > > Yes, it will be over soon, and we must continue to muddle through
                                  > > whoever is elected. The very important issues that must be resolved,
                                  > > however, require Congressional action. The President only has veto
                                  > > power, and hopefully both candidates have learned from the torture
                                  and
                                  > > closeness of this election that the American public demands that
                                  > > Washington begin to get along. Most of Obama's election promises
                                  cannot
                                  > > and, I predict, will not be enacted. The idea of hiring more
                                  teachers
                                  > > as a way to stimulate the economic (one of the more idiotic
                                  proposals
                                  > > ever put forth by a candidate) is DOA. All those union teachers who
                                  > > want to perpetuate our deteriorating school systems because they
                                  insist
                                  > > decision-making be centralized (a tactic used by unions and
                                  > > environmentalists) will be disappointed if their paid hack wins.
                                  >
                                  > As I mentioned earlier, I'm currently an Obama man because I
                                  > believe we are in the mess we are in because of two
                                  > misguided policies favored heavily by Republicans:
                                  >
                                  > 1. Excessive deregulation (Wall Street) harkening back to the
                                  > Reagan years ("government is the problem") and
                                  > 2. A move away from tax and spend (Democrats) to borrow and
                                  > spend (Republicans) under the guise of "starve the beast".
                                  >
                                  > For those who might find these arguments wanting, here is another:
                                  >
                                  > According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, here are the net
                                  increases in
                                  > private-sector employment under each president, chronologically by
                                  party:
                                  >
                                  > Republicans
                                  >
                                  > Richard Nixon: Increase of 7.1 million jobs
                                  > Gerald Ford: Increase of 1.3 million jobs
                                  > Ronald Reagan: Increase of 14.7 million jobs
                                  > George H.W. Bush: Increase of 1.5 million jobs
                                  > George W. Bush: Decline of 646,000 jobs
                                  >
                                  > Total: Increase of 23.9 million jobs under Republican presidents
                                  >
                                  > Democrats
                                  >
                                  > John F. Kennedy: Increase of 2.7 million jobs
                                  > Lyndon B. Johnson: Increase of 9.5 million jobs
                                  > Jimmy Carter: Increase of 9.0 million jobs
                                  > Bill Clinton: Increase of 20.8 million jobs
                                  > Barack Obama: Increase of 332,000 jobs
                                  >
                                  > Total: Increase of 42.3 million jobs.
                                  >
                                  >
                                  http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/sep/06/bill-clin\
                                  ton/bill-clinton-says-democratic-presidents-top-republ/
                                  >
                                  > PR
                                  >
                                • Robert Karl Stonjek
                                  ... From: clarence_sonny_williams To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 12:31 AM Subject: [evol-psych] Re: Mitt Romney
                                  Message 16 of 21 , Nov 6, 2012
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    ----- Original Message -----
                                    Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 12:31 AM
                                    Subject: [evol-psych] Re: Mitt Romney Explain How Jesus Will Reign for 1,000 Years When He Returns, in Jerusalem... and Missouri

                                    Phil,

                                    You forget to take into account the Democrat-induced effort to provide
                                    mortgages to previously unqualified people.  Why should only the "rich"
                                    live the American dream of a single-residency in a quiet suburb?  That
                                    appeals to the egalitarian principles driving Democrat politics, a
                                    principle that takes primacy over individual earning and the resulting
                                    disparities.  Let's get everyone to share the American dream, and
                                    government (via Fanny Mae et al) would pave the way...whether the
                                    individual could afford it or not.

                                    Wall Street then took advantage of this build-up of unqualified
                                    house-owners and everything is fine...until house prices nudge down.
                                    When that happens, the house of cards begun by egalitarian Democrats
                                    falls down, quickly and with devastating results.  Could regulations
                                    preventing the sale of mortgage bundling trading instruments have
                                    prevented the collapse?  Possibly, but that still means you have
                                    forgotten the REAL driver behind the financial debacle of 2008: Democrat
                                    egalitarianism.
                                    RKS:
                                    This is, in fact, quite wrong.  An incoming administration must and does take responsibility of ALL ongoing government programs regardless of who or when they were initiated.  In the last four years of the Bush administration the republicans also had control of Congress.
                                     
                                    Or are we saying that if, for instance, Mitt Romney gets elected he will only take responsibility for Republican initiatives and leave alone anything previously introduced by Democrats?
                                     
                                    There is a quite reasonable expectation that the legacy of previous administrations spans well into the new administration's tenure and this is true for both New Republican and Democrat administrations.  Wars can't suddenly be stopped, economies can't suddenly be changed and so on: same for both sides.
                                     
                                    But when an administration has been in power for eight years and done nothing then they are entirely responsible for the results.  The Republicans did not try to shut down the Sub-prime mortgage initiative, they were not blocked from making changes by the Democrats.  It was the Democrats who saw that the scheme had huge holes in it that were being exploited by shady individuals and it was the Democrats who attempted, and were repeatedly blocked, to close those loopholes.
                                     
                                    The excuse you have given is a much worse reflection on the Republicans than the Democrats.  You are saying that the Republicans, even when elected, are powerless to change Democrat initiatives, that they fail to take control of the country's legislation and administration and are compelled to watch disasters happen as powerless bystanders.
                                     
                                    I doubt that this is really the attitude of the Republican party.  I think that they are strong enough to take control if they so desire, especially when they are in power.  I think they made an error in not dealing with the looming sub-prime disaster but I do not think that they were powerless to take responsibility and control of EVERYTHING their administration was tasked with overseeing.
                                     
                                    Governments, of whatever kind (communist, dictatorships, US Presidential, Westminster etc) first and formostly take responsibility for everything the government does under their watch: those are the rules and probably one of the most basic things that ALL government share, willingly!!!
                                     
                                    Robert
                                  • Phil Roberts, Jr.
                                    ... Fannie Mae (and Freddie Mack) certainly played a role in the 2008-9 collapse, but probably not in the straightforward manner a lot of folks think. I ve
                                    Message 17 of 21 , Nov 8, 2012
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      clarence_sonny_williams wrote:
                                      > Phil,
                                      >
                                      > You forget to take into account the Democrat-induced effort to provide
                                      > mortgages to previously unqualified people. Why should only the "rich"
                                      > live the American dream of a single-residency in a quiet suburb? That
                                      > appeals to the egalitarian principles driving Democrat politics, a
                                      > principle that takes primacy over individual earning and the resulting
                                      > disparities. Let's get everyone to share the American dream, and
                                      > government (via Fanny Mae et al) would pave the way...whether the
                                      > individual could afford it or not.

                                      Fannie Mae (and Freddie Mack) certainly played a role in the 2008-9
                                      collapse, but probably not in the straightforward manner a lot of
                                      folks think. I've watched close to a dozen documentaries on the
                                      collapse, and the one I found the most helpful was the CNBC DVD
                                      'House of Cards'. According to this particular documentary, the
                                      seeds were sown when Fannie Mae ran into management and accounting
                                      problems and was temporarily put out of business. At that point in
                                      time, Wall Street saw a vacuum and a golden opportunity to step
                                      in and fill the void. Up to this point, mortgages were still being
                                      done in a fairly responsible manner. But once Wall Street entered
                                      the picture, the profit motive became the driving force, along with
                                      lots of predatory lending ("the breath test") and in which things
                                      really got crazy. Only after this initial foray into recklessness,
                                      when Fannie Mae once again re-entered the market, and saw itself losing
                                      market share, did it also begin to adopt some of these same tactics
                                      simply to survive in a market that was now out of control.

                                      So a case could be made that the problems arose because of an attempt
                                      to privatize what was previously a fairly smooth running government
                                      operation, and with the resulting company taking advantage of its unfair
                                      position in the market (because of lingering IMPLICIT government
                                      guarantees) with lots of attendant corruption and greed and mismanagement.
                                      But as bad as it was, Fannie Mae was still being fairly
                                      responsible with respect to mortgages. It was only after it was
                                      put out of business for a while while Congress investigated "accounting
                                      discrepancies", and then RE-ENTERED a radically transformed
                                      market, that it too began to adopt some of these irresponsible lending
                                      practices simply to survive.

                                      Some of the other documentaries that I think are worth a watch (my
                                      eyesight is so bad that reading is no longer an option) are:

                                      The Warning
                                      Ten Trillion and Counting
                                      Inside Job
                                      Inside the Meltdown
                                      Money, Power and Wall Street
                                      Breaking the Bank

                                      >
                                      > Wall Street then took advantage of this build-up of unqualified
                                      > house-owners and everything is fine...until house prices nudge down.
                                      > When that happens, the house of cards begun by egalitarian Democrats
                                      > falls down, quickly and with devastating results. Could regulations
                                      > preventing the sale of mortgage bundling trading instruments have
                                      > prevented the collapse? Possibly, but that still means you have
                                      > forgotten the REAL driver behind the financial debacle of 2008: Democrat
                                      > egalitarianism.

                                      Here is where we disagree, although I suspect things are murky enough
                                      for different interpretations. I think things started to go south
                                      when they attempted to privatize a government operation, but in which
                                      the break wasn't clean resulting in a privately held corporation with
                                      an unfair implicit government guarantee resulting in rampant mismanagement
                                      and corruption. But, in spite of this, lending was still fairly responsible.
                                      It was only AFTER Wall Street usurped the market position formerly held
                                      by Fannie Mae that lending practices became irresponsible.

                                      PR
                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.