2012 Presidential Race

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanicaFan

What some of you guys, including Janvan, said to me is HIGHLY OFFENSIVE. Attacking me personally, calling me and idiot, moron, troll, etc. That is clearly a violation of TOS.

But I am done arguing in here. It's clearly going nowhere. I never could reason with a liberal...lol Oh well, just wait until November gets here and this will be settled once and for all. I just hope you all can seriously look at how bad this country has become and will even get worse if we re-elect this President. There is no hope with him.

Obama himself said that if he cant turn this economy around in 1 term than he is done. Well, the economy didnt turn around, it got worse and he is running again so this again shows he cant keep any of his promises.

So take care everyone, Im out of this topic.

---

You are out of this topic but still posting replies, that's awesome, I wish I had those powers!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanicaFan

http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/e...s/2shirt10.jpg

---

He left this topic but even managed it to post TWICE after he told us that he left this topic, this guy is great... I'm curious whether I'm able to post on a forum which I actually left.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanicaFan

These pictures say it best. They are so true.... Sorry, I know the truth is hard sometimes. :)

---

Yes, you definitely have a hard time with accepting the truth because you probably still don't understand that your Danica was by FAR not one of the talented drivers on the IndyCar grid and is by FAR not one of NASCAR's talents either. :s mokin:

Danicafan, I would challenge you to approach statements made by Sean Hannity et al, with the same degree of skeptism you would give to Rachel Maddow.


Consider the statement: "The Obama stimulus has been a complete failure."

The only problem is that it is not true.

My business is brokering trees and shrubs. My customers are primarily landscape contractors. I would hear people say that, but know that I was shipping a bunch of Interstate rest areas and highway projects directly tied to the act back in 2010. (heck,some projects are still ongoing, now.) So I can directly tie a good chunk of my commissions (I am 100% commission) to the stimulus. I am no insider and neither are my customers. I can say this, if not for stimulus spending on infrastructure projects (Which I personally believe is a responsibility of government, just like the military) things would have been worse. To this I can personally attest.

This, among other things has led to my gradual disillusionment with conservative pundits and the republican party. Hyperbole exists on both sides of the equation.

With my basic understanding of how economy works, stimulus is/was used to keep the U.S. economy running in hard times. Since the U.S. has a huge budget deficit, the stimulus money was borrowed from somebody somewhere. If it produces macroeconomic stability and sustainable growth, it will qualify as a success. If not, it's another chunk of money wasted. I believe the jury is still out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by D-Type

Just a thought:

Was it Obama, the Republican Party, the Democrats, the Communists, the Socialists, the Liberals, the Green Party, al Qaeda, the Taliban, or someone else who made the decision enabling the US lending agencies to grant mortgages to "sub-prime" customers?

---

It was two parties. First, the US Congress who required lenders to loan to pretty much anyone regardless of creditworthyness in order to eliminate "redlining" and second, some, but not all, of the lenders who were busy lapping up commissions and kick backs for all the loans made.

Quote:

---

And who made the decision to fund these from the world's banking system.

---

Not sure what you mean by that.

Quote:

---

Who tried to sort out the resultant mess?

---

Well, that really depends on what you mean by "sort out". A number of parties tried to do something, mostly too little too late. But once again our Congress stepped up to spend way too much money which they didn't have and also required lenders, some of whom weren't guilty of the excesses, to write down loans. A lose, lose proposition for everyone.

It is never a good idea to save someone from their own stupidity (absent a threat to life and limb) because they'll never learn not to be so stupid. Now all the Americans who used good judgement in their financial dealings are saddled with the cost of bailing out the stupid people through the debt we have accrued.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexamateo

My business is brokering trees and shrubs. My customers are primarily landscape contractors. I would hear people say that, but know that I was shipping a bunch of Interstate rest areas and highway projects directly tied to the act back in 2010. (heck,some projects are still ongoing, now.) So I can directly tie a good chunk of my commissions (I am 100% commission) to the stimulus. I am no insider and neither are my customers. I can say this, if not for stimulus spending on infrastructure projects (Which I personally believe is a responsibility of government, just like the military) things would have been worse. To this I can personally attest.

---

Your example is one of the very few I have seen where the stimulus money actually "hit the street". There is a large chunk of your and my money gone missing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

It was two parties. First, the US Congress who required lenders to loan to pretty much anyone regardless of creditworthyness in order to eliminate "redlining" and second, some, but not all, of the lenders who were busy lapping up commissions and kick backs for all the loans made.


Not sure what you mean by that.


Well, that really depends on what you mean by "sort out". A number of parties tried to do something, mostly too little too late. But once again our Congress stepped up to spend way too much money which they didn't have and also required lenders, some of whom weren't guilty of the excesses, to write down loans. A lose, lose proposition for everyone.

It is never a good idea to save someone from their own stupidity (absent a threat to life and limb) because they'll never learn not to be so stupid. Now all the Americans who used good judgement in their financial dealings are saddled with the cost of bailing out the stupid people through the debt we have accrued.

---

Required them? i bought this place in 01 and it was a bullsh8t process---but I kept it and haven't missed a payment.

But I read every line carefully and I didn't see anything with a Congressional rubber stamp.

It may be that Congress, always ready to spread their cheeks for anybody with money, wrote legislation that ALLOWED lenders more looseness , and the LENDERS , eager for virtually free money, fell all over themselves to finance sales regardless of circumstances---and regardless of if the person had been victim of up-selling, partial or faulty advice on total costs, went ahead and lent money...They got of $5000 here for essentially typing my name and adress into a form and pressing "PRINT" and if i had defaulted, they'd make the same closing costs again and again and again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanicaFan

These pictures say it best. They are so true.... Sorry, I know the truth is hard sometimes. :)

---

DanicaFan.
Better start getting accustomed to the fact that President Obama will be re elected to a second term - and that eventually many of the republicans in congress will stop the battle to avoid Obama's re-election - because that battle was lost - and will now put the interests of the country first.

** my second thought is wishful thinking of course but I can't give up in humanity.

My first comment . . . . put that one in the bank.

:s mokin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

It was two parties. First, the US Congress who required lenders to loan to pretty much anyone regardless of creditworthyness in order to eliminate "redlining".

---

Can you link to the exact bit of legislation you're referring to?

The last time someone claimed this (might have been you but not sure) it turned out that Congress banned lenders from using demographic information such as race and religion as lending criteria but did nothing to ban credit ratings assessments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

It is never a good idea to save someone from their own stupidity (absent a threat to life and limb) because they'll never learn not to be so stupid. Now all the Americans who used good judgement in their financial dealings are saddled with the cost of bailing out the stupid people through the debt we have accrued.

---

Actually its a bit more complicated than that. I believe the USA has made a net profit from bailing out AIG. The British government is making a killing helping bail out the Irish and the Arabs/Chinese are also making a handsome profit bailing out institutions and countries. The British government ripped the banks off massively in return for bailing them out at the time of the credit crunch charging rates and fees bordering on usury. Not that I mind of course. On the other hand of course governments have also lost money on many institutions such as RBS and Northern Rock in the UK, however the idea that we are saddled with the cost isn't completely true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz

I don't know. I'd probably use some plain language, like "people who stand for unlimited competition" or something.

---

The problem with simplifying is that it doesn't describe accurately what people stand for.

Your description of "people who stand for unlimited competition" presumably is aimed at the right. However this political group is often against immigration because ultimately it increases the level of competition within society, therefore they are only for unlimited competition where it suits them and not as a universal principle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by race aficionado

DanicaFan.
Better start getting accustomed to the fact that President Obama will be re elected to a second term - and that eventually many of the republicans in congress will stop the battle to avoid Obama's re-election - because that battle was lost - and will now put the interests of the country first.

** my second thought is wishful thinking of course but I can't give up in humanity.

My first comment . . . . put that one in the bank.

:s mokin:

---

race has a dream :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanicaFan

These pictures say it best. They are so true.... Sorry, I know the truth is hard sometimes. :)

---

Again, forgive me if I don't consider you someone whose opinions are worth taking seriously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malbec

Your description of "people who stand for unlimited competition" presumably is aimed at the right. However this political group is often against immigration because ultimately it increases the level of competition within society, therefore they are only for unlimited competition where it suits them and not as a universal principle.

---

Indeed — also, the sort of person who has no problem with both complaining about immigration and moving to the Costa del Sol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by D-Type

Just a thought:

Was it Obama, the Republican Party, the Democrats, the Communists, the Socialists, the Liberals, the Green Party, al Qaeda, the Taliban, or someone else who made the decision enabling the US lending agencies to grant mortgages to "sub-prime" customers? And who made the decision to fund these from the world's banking system. Who tried to sort out the resultant mess?

In other words, are people shooting at the right target?

---

A certain section of the US electorate will believe they are so long as the President is black. Sad but, I feel, true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malbec

The problem with simplifying is that it doesn't describe accurately what people stand for.

Your description of "people who stand for unlimited competition" presumably is aimed at the right. However this political group is often against immigration because ultimately it increases the level of competition within society, therefore they are only for unlimited competition where it suits them and not as a universal principle.

---

Not true. It's the illegal immigration most are against. America has a fine tradition of welcoming new people - it has been one of the factors which built the country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

[/B]
Not true. It's the illegal immigration most are against.

---

Simply saying 'Not true' doesn't make it so. Certainly in the UK it is the case that many don't make the distinction, and thus is the 'debate' shaped.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

[/B]
Not true. It's the illegal immigration most are against. America has a fine tradition of welcoming new people - it has been one of the factors which built the country.

---

The right wing isn't limited to the US.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by race aficionado

DanicaFan.
Better start getting accustomed to the fact that President Obama will be re elected to a second term - and that eventually many of the republicans in congress will stop the battle to avoid Obama's re-election - because that battle was lost - and will now put the interests of the country first.

** my second thought is wishful thinking of course but I can't give up in humanity.

My first comment . . . . put that one in the bank.

:s mokin:

---

He wont get re-elected. And sorry but Obama doesnt have the country's best interests in mind, he has his OWN.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanicaFan

He wont get re-elected.

---

I look forward to looking back at this statement in a few months' time.

Tell me — were you impressed by Romney"s behaviour when he came to Europe? Even conservatives on this side of the Atlantic were acutely embarrassed by him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanicaFan

And sorry but Obama doesnt have the country's best interests in mind, he has his OWN.

---

Nice slogan — no doubt one you've heard elsewhere and decided to copy — but essentially empty and meaningless. I wouldn't even say that of David Cameron*, a man for whom and for whose party I would never vote, and whose policies I consider terribly misguided. Trying to second-guess someone else's personal motivation for doing something is, I tend to think, problematic.

(* — David Cameron is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, in case you were unaware.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

It was two parties. First, the US Congress who required lenders to loan to pretty much anyone regardless of creditworthyness in order to eliminate "redlining" and second, some, but not all, of the lenders who were busy lapping up commissions and kick backs for all the loans made.

---

As the former owner of a mortgage company and a former mortgage banker (who worked for a bank accused of red-lining), I'd be curious to know more about this requirement by Congress, that forced banks to lend to anyone regardless of creditworthiness. Even my bank was not "required" to make loans, even though we had indeed used red-lining principles in making decisions.

Unfortunately, what you're talking about is an urban legend created on right-wing talk radio a couple of years ago. Usually Barney Frank is touted as the author of this non-existent legislation. One version even has the U.S. government paying banks a "stipend" (complete misuse of the word) for the loans they made to minorities. There were efforts to bust up red-lining. But no bank was forced to make the first loan to a borrower that did not meet a bank's minimum lending standards - they just couldn't use different standards based on race, gender or location. Also, FNMA and FHLMC set minimum lending standards for their conforming mortgages. But just as right now, banks can elect to tighten those standards. But they (on their own) cannot lower the underwriting standards, they cannot discriminate and they cannot red-line.

For those who aren't well versed in the mortgage market, here is a factoid for you: banks and mortgage companies made subprimes because of the profits. That's why. They even placed many borrowers, who qualified for primes, into subprimes because the rate and fee profits were 300%+ greater. The bank that I'm doing my refi with right now never entered the subprime market. The free will to make or not make loans was never put in the hands of Congress.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malbec

Can you link to the exact bit of legislation you're referring to?

The last time someone claimed this (might have been you but not sure) it turned out that Congress banned lenders from using demographic information such as race and religion as lending criteria but did nothing to ban credit ratings assessments.

---

Sorry, I didn't see your post before I addressed this as well. But you are correct. Again, this claim has become an urban legend that was spread mostly (as far as I know) on right wing talk radio. And yes, it is a false claim.

While I think the Tories are a bunch of toffs in it for their own gain. I'd agree that Tory policies are merely seriously misguided rather than corrupt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

While I think the Tories are a bunch of toffs in it for their own gain. I'd agree that Tory policies are merely seriously misguided rather than corrupt.

---

British politics may have its serious faults, but at least it isn't as pointlessly polarised as is US politics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior

Sorry, I didn't see your post before I addressed this as well. But you are correct. Again, this claim has become an urban legend that was spread mostly (as far as I know) on right wing talk radio. And yes, it is a false claim.

---

I'll defer to your industry experience. The part about greedy lenders stands though, as you've just reenforced.

By the way, I don't listen to talk radio. Though I'll confess that a few years ago I'd tune into Rush ever once in a while at lunch - but that was just for laughs. It was more entertaining than the day time TV in the lunch room.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malbec

The problem with simplifying is that it doesn't describe accurately what people stand for.

Your description of "people who stand for unlimited competition" presumably is aimed at the right. However this political group is often against immigration because ultimately it increases the level of competition within society, therefore they are only for unlimited competition where it suits them and not as a universal principle.

---

Actually "people who stand for unlimited competition" do exist and some of them would even go so far as to suggest that the only role of government is to prevent civil disorder, which basically suggests that government's duties are defence, the police and the judiciary and that's all. Such thinking falls squarely in the realm of the Austrian School of economics, as championed by Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek.

Ironically this is what's known in economics as "liberal" and even falls into the philosophical position of Libertarianism. On the classic left-right scale (before the American press buggered it up royally), no government whatsoever, is defined as the ultimate rightist position on a left-right scale.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz

These days various segments of the society group themselves along different lines and that traditional left/right paradigm no longer works. Even in the world of economics the lines of division between the free market and government regulation are very mich blurred. It's about time to refresh our thinking.

---

The terminology works utterly perfectly. It is the media and politics who like to spin things to coerce people's thinking to either sell them ideas or products.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

Actually "people who stand for unlimited competition" do exist and some of them would even go so far as to suggest that the only role of government is to prevent civil disorder, which basically suggests that government's duties are defence, the police and the judiciary and that's all.

---

While I have no doubt that such people exist, I am yet to meet one, and I include in this the time I spent working in politics. One hears even the most rabid right-wing Tory MPs urging the government to intervene in, for example, assisting British industry in exporting its wares.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanicaFan

He won't (sic) get re-elected. And sorry but Obama doesn't (sic) have the country's best interests in mind, he has his OWN.

---

And, pray tell, just what are those personal interests? And, how do they compare with those of Romney, a former venture capitalist whose own interests at Bain Capital would often seem to be at odds with the nation's interest? Please, try to be coherent and specific, in actual sentences of your own, if possible, not parroting some of the code words or terms that you have used in the past. Demonstrate that you are capable of articulating the reasons behind such a statement.

As an aside, exactly what happens when President Obama is re-elected? Will the skies darken and the sun vanish? Will the tides neither ebb nor flow? Will the poles tilt? Will birds no longer sing? Will Kansas experience the Rapture? Just curious so as to be prepared for the consequences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Capps

And, pray tell, just what are those personal interests? And, how do they compare with those of Romney, a former venture capitalist whose own interests at Bain Capital would often seem to be at odds with the nation's interest? Please, try to be coherent and specific, in actual sentences of your own, if possible, not parroting some of the code words or terms that you have used in the past. Demonstrate that you are capable of articulating the reasons behind such a statement.

As an aside, exactly what happens when President Obama is re-elected? Will the skies darken and the sun vanish? Will the tides neither ebb nor flow? Will the poles tilt? Will birds no longer sing? Will Kansas experience the Rapture? Just curious so as to be prepared for the consequences.

---

Splendid.

I think that if we can engage DanicaFan in reasonable dialogue, that we might be able to draw him out. Obviously he is a dyed-in-the-wool card carrying Republican and that's fine, there's room in a discussion, provided that's what it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanicaFan

He wont get re-elected. And sorry but Obama doesnt have the country's best interests in mind, he has his OWN.

---

If you look at all the major indicators (DJIA, TED Spread and the LIBOR-OIS), they spiked in the period from mid-October through to early January 2009. An election occurs in November '08 and we have a lame duck until January 20, 2009.
This means to suggest that any incoming president, would have inherited an economy like a recently exploded hand grenade.

My question, is if McCain had been elected in '08, he still would have been faced with precisely the same sets of problems; since we know this to be true, how do you think he would have handled it differently?

Secondly, given that the electorate deliberately voted in a hostile congress in 2010, if McCain had been President, what's not to suggest that there'd wouldn't be another hostile congress voted in but with the colours flipped?

It's all very well to suggest that the President has done a bad job but at some point the American people have to fess up to the fact that they deliberately made the job more difficult than it needed to be. My conjecture is that if McCain had been President then this whole discussion would be pretty well much identical but with the colours flipped.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

I think that if we can engage DanicaFan in reasonable dialogue, that we might be able to draw him out. Obviously he is a dyed-in-the-wool card carrying Republican and that's fine, there's room in a discussion, provided that's what it is.

---

I think the very first post demonstrated that reasonable dialogue would not, shall we say, be a strong point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

It's all very well to suggest that the President has done a bad job but at some point the American people have to fess up to the fact that they deliberately made the job more difficult than it needed to be.

---

Some — not all of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

Secondly, given that the electorate deliberately voted in a hostile congress in 2010, if McCain had been President, what's not to suggest that there'd wouldn't be another hostile congress voted in but with the colours flipped?

---

And that, friends and neighbors, explains how US politics works. We don't want one party control. There is way too much room for excess that way. A divided House & Senate vs a different party President requires compromise. The Republicans have assumed that if they oppose everything they will win everything. They are wrong. The Democrats have assumed the few times they have controlled both, that they can steamroller whatever they like. They are also wrong. The greatest advances have been made when a Congress of one party and a President of another have worked (reluctantly) with each other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

The terminology works utterly perfectly. It is the media and politics who like to spin things to coerce people's thinking to either sell them ideas or products.

---

What term do you call people like me who never buy the fixed ideological package from either side but prefer to exercise their own judgment in determining what's best for them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz

What term do you call people like me who never buy the fixed ideological package from either side but prefer to exercise their own judgment in determining what's best for them?

---

Nor do I, but I would still describe myself as left-leaning, at least. I don't think the terminology really matters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

British politics may have its serious faults, but at least it isn't as pointlessly polarised as is US politics.

---

But is it? In the UK you have die hard Labour and die hard Conservative (die hard LibDem's don't exist :laugh: ). Same as you have staunch Democrats and Republicans in the USA. However there must be a significant number who are prepared to switch from one the other, otherwise the government would never change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

And that, friends and neighbors, explains how US politics works. We don't want one party control. There is way too much room for excess that way. A divided House & Senate vs a different party President requires compromise. The Republicans have assumed that if they oppose everything they will win everything. They are wrong. The Democrats have assumed the few times they have controlled both, that they can steamroller whatever they like. They are also wrong. The greatest advances have been made when a Congress of one party and a President of another have worked (reluctantly) with each other.

---

It also explains why US politics doesn't work. Such a thing might have functioned when views were less polarised, but today — and I consider this largely to be the fault of the right — I don't hold out much hope.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

But is it? In the UK you have die hard Labour and die hard Conservative (die hard LibDem's don't exist :laugh: ). Same as you have staunch Democrats and Republicans in the USA. However there must be a significant number who are prepared to switch from one the other, otherwise the government would never change.

---

Of course there are the diehards, but look at the nature of debate in the two countries, and you'll see why I feel we can look at our political system with a small degree of satisfaction at least. I don't think we would ever have a discussion about 'death panels', for a start.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Nor do I, but I would still describe myself as left-leaning, at least. I don't think the terminology really matters.

---

I would describe myself as right-leaning in conventional terms but it means I am pigeonholing myself within a simplistic and narrow stereotype. For instance, I'm all for economic competition but I don't think losers should be stomped into the ground and left to die in the cold. They should get some help in whatever shape, but that help should not let them live a care free life and discourage them from trying again and again. The help should not be excessive, but for the reasons of humanity I'd better err on the generous side when I determine the extent of help. I can go on indefinitely. There are plenty of fine lines to be observed and overtones to be heard. With this in mind calling myself a right winger might be adequate in certain circumstance, in some cases it might not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

I'll defer to your industry experience. The part about greedy lenders stands though, as you've just reenforced.

By the way, I don't listen to talk radio. Though I'll confess that a few years ago I'd tune into Rush ever once in a while at lunch - but that was just for laughs. It was more entertaining than the day time TV in the lunch room.

---

In the early 90's, I was a daily G. Gordon Liddy listener... and it wasn't just for laughs. :eek: :D

Imagine a typical $200K, 30 year fixed rate mortgage at say, 4%. A prime might have 0 points and 1% origination. What many bankers did was tell that qualified borrower that they were actually marginal, give them a subprime rate and the rate might have been 4.5% with 2 points and 1% origination. On the prime loan, the banker would make $2K gross off the origination. But off the subprime, he'd make the same $2K for the origination + $4K for the 2 points + $8K for jacking the rate (rule of thumb: 1% on the rate equals approximately 8 discount points - so an added half percent on the rate equals approximately 4 discount points). For doing roughly the same amount of work, would you rather make $2K or $14K? How could people afford to pay those outrageous fees? Easy. The banker works with a "friendly" appraiser, jacks up the value of the house and fully finances the closing costs. Everybody happy! Everybody feelin' good!

It was a huge, complex problem... much more complex than I may have suggested above. I just wanted to give one, fairly simple example. Congress did play a part though. While no one actually forced banks to lend money at above market rates and fees (that would be like forcing me to remove Salma Hayek's clothes :o ), by not keeping a watchful eye on and properly regulating FNMA, FHMLC and HUD, Congress allowed a largely unregulated/poorly regulated market for mortgage backed securities to develop - prime, subprime and mixed. These mortgages (the good, the bad and the ugliest) were packaged and resold by investment banks as MBS's to whomever would gobble them up (pension funds, sovereign wealth funds, etc.). The ratings agencies (S&P, Fitch, Moody's, etc.) would then place whatever fake rating that the banks (clients paying the bills) wanted, so as to inflate the value of the securities.

Crooked mortgage bankers, crooked appraisers, crooked real estate agents, crooked/stupid/ignorant borrowers, crooked investment bankers, crooks at FNMA and FHLMC, idiots at the Fed, idiots in Congress and the White House... lots of idiots and crooks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz

I would describe myself as right-leaning in conventional terms but it means I am pigeonholing myself within a simplistic and narrow stereotype. For instance, I'm all for economic competition but I don't think losers should be stomped into the ground and left to die in the cold. They should get some help in whatever shape, but that help should not let them live a care free life and discourage them from trying again and again. The help should not be excessive, but for the reasons of humanity I'd better err on the generous side when I determine the extent of help. I can go on indefinitely. There are plenty of fine lines to be observed and overtones to be heard. With this in mind calling myself a right winger might be adequate in certain circumstance, in some cases it might not.

---

And I would agree with pretty much all of that, but still would never call myself 'right-leaning' under any circumstances. I don't believe there is any terminology able to explain accurately what you describe, so sticking with the existing terms is fine.

I have to question the sanity of dyed in the wool party supporters who'd vote for a party no matter what. At the next general election I'm most likely to be voting Labour or Green, however that doesn't mean that I won't acknowledge their faults and consider what other points of view has to say. At the same time, however, my mind would be broadly made up long before the election, once the manifestos and candidates had been confirmed. I would agree with Bill Maher that voters still undecided close to the election are idiots:
[youtube]Lv0ryYJY-UM[/youtube]
(skip to 2:10)

Sorry about spamming this topic with Bill Maher videos, however this just had to be shown :D
[youtube]9kKiCvWdbxE[/youtube]
Remind you of any forum members?