GOP Hatred on Display

[Sasquatch]

Nice, so these people blame it only on poor minorities like your post above states? Cool.  

BTW, I found another Obama quote worthy of signature line material:

"Secularists are wrong."

Preach it brother!!!

Actual quote: Secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square.  

BTW, you need to correct your brother-in-arms. He disagrees with you:

There is nothing false in what I wrote.

And I am sure the huff post believes just like FL does.

[NCVol]

They didn't blame it ONLY on poor minorities, just that they were a big cause, poor people, with no power and less money brought the banks down.... 

What you DON'T read about in the essays that blame CRA are the derivatives, the repeal of Glass Steagall, the levering up of the Wall Street titans, or that banks weren't forced to do a damn thing, they made loans because it was profitable.  Skim off the top, get dog shat rated AAA, sell it off, make a little more at that point, and it's all good, seven figure bonuses all round the executive dining room!!!  And risk is offloaded to some sucker who thought AAA meant safe! 

BTW, I forgot Bachmann's quote

Because of CRA, Bachmann said, Loans started being made on the basis of race, and often little else,” she said.

It doesn't get any more explicitly tied together than that by a former Presidential candidate!!!

[Flummoxed Lummox]

[CD]

My, my. Much liberal ado about nothing. Read the Hill quote again. Was the soldier booed? Or was the DADT issue booed? And was the handful of people that did boo any big deal?

My God, you will make a mountain out of a molehill. . .misinterpret any event. . .to vainly attempt to prove what, exactly? If anything, that minor moment of that particular debate only showed that a handful of attendees either apparently do not approve of the new policy regarding gays in the military, or that the handful were booing the question re whether the candidates supported repeal of DADT. Either way, who cares? This non-event proves GOP “hatred”? Laughable.

And BTW, to oppose the new policy is not to hate gays. It is to oppose a policy that many people, including this veteran, believe will degrade the military’s effectiveness. That’s not hatred, except maybe in leftist La La Land.

Oh and, speaking of hate (as reported in pjmedia:

Occupy Oakland: “Now is the time to spread hate”

The motley crew of communists, criminals and creeps who use the meaningless label “Occupy Oakland” to somehow justify their violence rioted again today for the umpteenth time. In the middle of the melée, self-styled Occupy Oakland spokesperson and former Weather Underground revolutionary Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz gave a speech enunciating the Occupy movement’s new ethos:
 

The first speaker, Roxanne Dunbar Ortiz, took perhaps the most pointed stance, urging the crowd to fight the rich.
 
“Passionate, organized hatred is the element missing in all that we do to try to change the world,” said Ortiz, a retired professor from Cal State East Bay. “Now is the time to spread hate, hatred for the rich.”
 
Any further questions?

[NCVol]

And BTW, to oppose the new policy is not to hate gays. It is to oppose a policy that many people, including this veteran, believe will degrade the military’s effectiveness. That’s not hatred, except maybe in leftist La La Land.

Oh and, speaking of hate (as reported in pjmedia:

So, should the guy get kicked out that day, or should they wait till his tour is over, let him clear a few more houses, kill a few more terrorists, then send him home?

[CD]

NCVol, I’m afraid your question makes no sense, for two reasons:

1.   It is out of context from what you were replying to, namely the portion of my post that you quoted. I simply pointed out that to disagree with a policy, is not to hate any person that the policy may affect.

2.   One must assume that at any given point in time, some policy is in effect. Your question pretends that there is no policy.