[waltero]

Is it any wonder why some would prefer Trump over Hillary (or any other politician). Trump might be a Bold faced liar but I think people prefer that over a Backstabbing liar.
Who is better equipped to be president; an Idiot or a Lawyer? We know why Hillary wanted to be President, why do you think Trump desired to be president? Maybe in 20/20 you guys will play ball (doubtful). I'm sure it must have felt like an "in your neck" moment when a "female" lost to a so called idiot...Don't take it so hard...it's not you, its Hillary.

[talaniman]

Just as some would prefer anyone other than the dufus, of course there would be those that would prefer anyone other than Hillary. Personally I preferred Biden back then, but obviously that didn't happen. It would have been interesting though how HC would have dealt with a republican senate and house though, probably been impeached in a week, like the dufus would be if the senate flips in 2020, and the dufus gets re elected.

[jlisenbe]

Time for you to admit it. You support Trump in spite of his strange behavior because he proclaims he is anti-abortion (which anyone who has followed Trump from his NY days knows that is simply a matter of convenience designed to attract votes).

I've said many times that my hopes for Trump were that he would appoint federal judges who would respect the Constitution and the rule of law, bring about a healthy economy, and balance the budget. So far it seems that I'm 2 for 3. If he were not opposed to abortion, I would not vote for him.

As to Hillary, you're conflicted about the role of women in society - a woman president is a bit too much for you. We surmise this from your previous post here commenting how the Bible would advise re a present-day position concerning a woman.

Wow. Talk about nonsense. I would have no problem with a female pres, especially if she was a Margaret Thatcher clone. The Bible speaks against women having authority over men in the church or being the "lead teacher". It says nothing about a female president.

[Athos]

I've said many times that my hopes for Trump were that he would appoint federal judges who would respect the Constitution and the rule of law, bring about a healthy economy, and balance the budget. So far it seems that I'm 2 for 3. If he were not opposed to abortion, I would not vote for him.

Three Pinocchios. You said you wanted conservative judges.

Wow. Talk about nonsense. I would have no problem with a female pres, especially if she was a Margaret Thatcher clone. The Bible speaks against women having authority over men in the church or being the "lead teacher". It says nothing about a female president.

Four Pinocchios. Do you think women should be preachers just like men?

[jlisenbe]

judges who would respect the Constitution and the rule of law

I.e, conservative judges.

Four Pinocchios. Do you think women should be preachers just like men?

You need to come out of your fantasy world. I have consistently said the same thing on this board.

Not sure why we are suddenly talking about female preachers, but with that topic, no, I don't think women should preach in the same capacity as men, nor male preachers always preach in the same capacity as women. I just go with what Paul said.

[Wondergirl]

I just go with what Paul said.

Paul lived until 64 or so A.D. This is 2019.

[tomder55]

Originally Posted by jlisenbe I just go with what Paul said.



Paul lived until 64 or so A.D. This is 2019.

some things are timeless .

[tomder55]

This is a load of crap and you know it. Goldman Sachs et al falsified packages of mortgages and sold them as AAA securities KNOWING they were toxic. Everything you wrote as a cause is nothing but phony right-wing talking points trying to excuse Wall Street.

The Federal government has long exercised massive control over the housing and financial markets;including its creation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. For years irrational lending standards were FORCED on lenders by the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) .
The CRA forced banks to make loans in poor communities, loans that banks may otherwise reject as financially unsound. That is just a fact . The loans were then filtered through Freddie and Fannie at taxpayer's expense ; which purchased, and guaranteed loans made by lenders and whose debt is itself was implicitly guaranteed by the federal government. The banks ,in an attempt to salvage some kind of profit out of this arrangement, wrapped up bundles of subprime loans and sold them to Fannie and Freddie whose primary mandate was to "promote home ownership," not to apply sound lending standards. There are other factor like cheap money policies by the Fed . But you get the idea. Free market principles would've prevented GWOT .

And that brings me to il Duce . He was the father of this disaster .
Cuomo was Housing and Urban Development (HUD) director under Clintoon . He helped trigger the financial crisis by pushing Fannie and Freddie to buy more subprime mortgages to increase home ownership among the poor. Many of those homeowners eventually defaulted, and the mortgage-backed securities market later collapsed. Don't believe me ? Read the very liberal Village Voice's take .
https://www.villagevoice.com/2008/08...e-and-freddie/

What is really disgusting about that human piece of excrement is that then as NY AG ,he aggressively went after the banks he forced to make the loans .

You didn't mention it but Obama's DOJ could have tried harder to indict the criminals, but it caved.

If there was malfeasance then the emperor should've prosecuted .Why didn't he ? Don't you think that is a legitimate question to ask ?Could it be that as a community organizer he strong armed banks into making the loans ? see 'Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance''.
In that case ,on behalf of ACORN ,Obama sued Citibank charging discrimination in lending .Citi settled for roughly $950,000 .That settlement was only the tip of the iceberg. When Citibank, in April 1998, sought federal approval for a merger with Travelers Group, it only got OK from the Clintoon administration after it promised ito provide $115 billion bad loans.Intimidation tactics, public charges of racism and threats to use CRA to block business expansion enabled ACORN to extract hundreds of millions of dollars of bad loans and contributions from America’s financial institutions.Promises were made by others to the tune of $600 billion between 1993 and 1998.

It was easy to blame Bush and greedy capitalism for the financial melt down ;and I have already given Bush the blame he deserves . Both he and Bubba kept score on how many poor now owned homes . Bush kept the policy in place on his watch. But make no mistake . It was the aggressive progressive socialist polices of Bubba ,Cuomo, and the emperor that were the real cause of the crisis .

[talaniman]

Free market principles were abused by big banks and it's called old fashion greed. I mean who offers variable interests rates and deferred ballon payments to low/average income people unless they plan to take over the property and sell it again to another poor victim when conditions cannot be met? That's not a free market principle, thats extraction of wealth or putting an unreasonable obstacle on the younger generation, most of them average wage earners.

Profits over people is not a free market principle, it's an excuse to screw over people because it's profitable. The feckless government had it right, put people in houses but forgot to regulate the dirty tricks that hardline greedy capitalists come up with. That's why big money HATES regulation. Let me add to the to big to fail axiom...to big to jail!

Don't believe me? Take all those rich guys and send 'em to jail and see what happens to banks and consumers when the economic structure collapses. Greed has no ideology. Mo' MONEY is God!

[Athos]

The Federal government has long exercised massive control over the housing and financial markets;including its creation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. For years irrational lending standards were FORCED on lenders by the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) .

Good Lord. You're so wrong in so many ways. The CRA existed decades before the crash. Why did it take so long? This is one of the chief false causes put out by the right wing.

Free market principles would've prevented GWOT .

Then why did Bush immediately go to bailouts? Free market principles would have destroyed the world economy, making the 30's depression look like a bump in the road. The rest of that paragraph above (not included) is so much hogwash.

Many of those homeowners eventually defaulted, and the mortgage-backed securities market later collapsed.

It collapsed because the securities were CRIMINALLY RATED AS AAA. Goldman sold them KNOWING they were toxic. Lloyd Blankfein, ex-ceo, had the balls to tell Congress that Goldman was correct in marketing toxic securities while getting rid of those same securities it held in its own portfolio because they were toxic. (Read that twice if it sounds weird. It is weird). Holder settled for fines when what was needed was jail time for the bank crooks. Fines mean nothing to the big banks.

If there was malfeasance then the emperor should've prosecuted .Why didn't he ?

He did. Penalties were fines.

Don't you think that is a legitimate question to ask ?Could it be that as a community organizer he strong armed banks into making the loans ?

Not a chance. You're way off the mark with this as is the rest of that paragraph. .

It was easy to blame Bush and greedy capitalism for the financial melt down ;and I have already given Bush the blame he deserves . Both he and Bubba kept score on how many poor now owned homes . Bush kept the policy in place on his watch. But make no mistake . It was the aggressive progressive socialist polices of Bubba ,Cuomo, and the emperor that were the real cause of the crisis .

Absolutely amazing how you righties continue to indirectly blame the poor for something they had nothing to do with. Blaming socialism, Cuomo and Obama for the crisis boggles the mind. OBAMA WAS NOT EVEN PRESIDENT WHEN IT HAPPENED!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Athos]

no, I don't think women should preach in the same capacity as men, nor male preachers always preach in the same capacity as women.

Care to clarify that sentence?

[jlisenbe]

Paul lived until 64 or so A.D. This is 2019.

So you're saying we should throw the entire NT out the window since this is, after all, 2019? What a strange belief.

Care to clarify that sentence?

Clarification? OK, I'll offer two.

a. 1 Tim. 2:12. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man.

b. Titus 2:4&5. so that they (older women) may train younger women to love their husbands and children, 5 to be self-controlled, chaste, good homemakers, under the control of their husbands, so that the word of God may not be discredited.

The first is a prohibition while the second is a clear command. In our modern, 2019, often ineffective church, both are frequently ignored due to, I suppose, cultural influences. When I look at this sick culture we live in, I wonder why the church would consider allowing it to influence us. It's supposed to be the other way around. As Paul puts it in Philippians, " that you may prove yourselves to be blameless and guileless, innocent and uncontaminated, children of God without blemish in the midst of a [morally] crooked and [spiritually] perverted generation, among whom you are seen as bright lights [beacons shining out clearly] in the world [of darkness], 16 holding out and offering to everyone the word of life."

[talaniman]

Were these edicts from God, or from ancient man declaring they were from God. No snark, I honestly want to know.

[jlisenbe]

Were these edicts from God, or from ancient man declaring they were from God.

As I'm sure you know, there is a wide variety of beliefs about that. If they (and the rest of the Bible) is indeed God's word, then it should be listened to above all else. If it is just the words of deceived ancient people. then it should be thrown away. It's an important question. In fact, it is probably THE important question.

[Athos]

Clarification? OK, I'll offer two.

a. 1 Tim. 2:12. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man.

A clear statement of your belief in the superiority of men over women. Helps to explain your disdain for Hillary Clinton.

[Wondergirl]

WG: Paul lived until 64 or so A.D. This is 2019.

So you're saying we should throw the entire NT out the window since this is, after all, 2019? What a strange belief.

I simply reminded you what year this is -- full of human interactions and architectural structures and modes of transportation and styles of clothing Paul would never have dreamed of. Yet his words hold true (but we too readily toss out those words that don't work for us), such as Gal. 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

[paraclete]

A philosophical argument which leads us nowhere. I can just tell you there appear to have been few successful governments led by women. From the Biblical perspective getting right back to Genesis, it is said woman will try to rule man but he will not let her, why should the weaker vessel rule, because she speaks more words?

Genesis 3

¹⁶ To the woman he said,“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
with painful labor you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you.”

If you accept the word of God then he made it plain who should rule

[Wondergirl]

A philosophical argument which leads us nowhere. I can just tell you there appear to have been few successful governments led by women. From the Biblical perspective getting right back to Genesis, it is said woman will try to rule man but he will not let her, why should the weaker vessel rule, because she speaks more words?

Genesis 3

¹⁶ To the woman he said,“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
with painful labor you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you.”

If you accept the word of God then he made it plain who should rule

Exactly! Just as we accept and obey this word of God:

Leviticus 19:19, “Keep my decrees. Do not mate different kinds of animals. Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.”

[jlisenbe]

A clear statement of your belief in the superiority of men over women. Helps to explain your disdain for Hillary Clinton.

Actually, it was a clear quote from scripture. It says nothing about men being superior over women. You have so much anger and hate that it clouds your judgement. You really should consider laying that aside.

[jlisenbe]

I simply reminded you what year this is -- full of human interactions and architectural structures and modes of transportation and styles of clothing Paul would never have dreamed of.

Pardon me for saying this, but I can't help but doubt that you were merely pointing out what is glaringly obvious to everyone over the age of four. He lived in a culture different from ours, but the truths he spoke of cut across all cultures. The most obvious take on your comment was that you were implying that in our modern age, we don't need some of the antiquated concepts that Paul wrote about, but perhaps that was not your intent. Still, you think they did not have to work through the same human interactions we have to work through?

Yet his words hold true (but we too readily toss out those words that don't work for us), such as Gal. 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

Why not simply believe them both? The Galatians passage teaches that nationality, social status, or gender are not marks of superiority. We are all equal in worth and importance in Christ, which is a glorious truth and one which was revolutionary in Paul's day as well as ours, but we do not all have the same roles to play. There is no contradiction there. Rather, they are complimentary truths.