Jeep thing or sheep thing?

N

'nuther Bob

Guest

• Jul 24, 2003

• #881

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 18:16:38 GMT, "David Allen"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>K-Mart isn't a state insitution, nor a charitable organization, nor a social
>welfare organization.

Churches/Religious organizations take in billions of dollars each year
and use the same "services" as most businesses in a city/town use.
Yet,
they are exempt from most all income and property taxes. (FWIW, most
non-profits are only income tax exempt, not property and other tax
exempt, except in special cases).

Bob

 

N

'nuther Bob

Guest

• Jul 24, 2003

• #882

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 18:11:31 GMT, "David Allen"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Liberals think we tax too little.

Yes, if you are talking about "classic" liberals, and not what the
neo-conservatives call liberals (anyone who doesn't agree with them).

>Conservatives think we spend too much.

Yes, if you are talking about real conservatives, and not those
neo-conservatives we have today. (The neo's just want to direct
the spending/business in their direction).

Bob

 

M

Matthew S. Whiting

Guest

• Jul 24, 2003

• #883

Marc wrote:
> "Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Marc wrote:
>>
>>>"Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Marc wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>JD wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Marc wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I tend to see it as religious rights not being in the domain of the
>>>>>>>>>>federal government. It can't abrogate the right to the free
>>>>>>>>>>practice of religion (an individual right) nor can it pass law
>>>>>>>>>>establishing a national religion (a state right?).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Then leave it as that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The religions file with the IRS and their establishment is
>>>>>>>>>recognized by the federal government. After recognized by the
>>>>>>>>>federal government, they receive subsidies from federal, and often
>>>>>>>>>state and local governments as well. Wouldn't you say that may tend
>>>>>>>>>to be "an establishment of religion?"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Really? What sort of subsidies? How do I get them for my church?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The tax breaks are a huge subsidy plus with all this "faith based"
>>>>>>>privatization going on in some social services a lot of churches are, in
>>>>>>>effect, subsidized for doing their Christian duty anyway.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Sorry, but not having to give money to the government when it has no
>>>>>>right to that money does not constitute a subidy. I guess if you are a
>>>>>>communist or socialist, maybe that is more true.
>>>>>
>>>>>Then they are subsidizing them by not stealing the same amount from them.
>>>>>Regardless of your political beliefs and hate towards others, the treatment
>>>>>given to religious organizations is advantageous to them.
>>>>
>>>>Hate towards others? That's quite a stretch.
>>>
>>>
>>>Are you using communist and socialist in a derogatory manner? It seems so.
>>>You are berating anyone that might possibly disagree with you before they
>>>get a chance, even if they do not fit the labels you've already put on
>>>them.
>>
>>Criticizing or even berating is far different than hating. I'm sorry
>>you don't understand that. I criticize my kids now and then as well,
>>but hardly hate them.
>
>
> And if you walked in the door and criticized your kids and berated them
> before you'd even found a reason, then that would smack of hate.
>
> Waiting until my post, then calling me a communist would have been one
> thing. Calling all people that may disagree with you communists (and using
> communists in a derogatory manner) indicates a great intolerance for those
> with a differing view. I've never met an intolerant person that wasn't
> also full of hate.

Then you don't get out much. I think communism is a fatally flawed
system. I've never hated communists. I think homosexuality is flawed
behavior, but I don't hate homosexuals. I've never met a "completely"
tolerant person (if such a person can exist), who could think for
themselves. Unbridled tolerance is not a virtue. As a society, we
don't tolerate a lot of things: murder, rape, tax evasion, etc. Get
used to it.


Matt

 

D

DTJ

Guest

• Jul 24, 2003

• #884

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 07:27:30 -0800, Marc <[email protected]> wrote:

>Waiting until my post, then calling me a communist would have been one
>thing. Calling all people that may disagree with you communists (and using
>communists in a derogatory manner) indicates a great intolerance for those
>with a differing view. I've never met an intolerant person that wasn't
>also full of hate.

One can be intolerant and not hateful.

I am intolerant of homosexuality, but I have friends who are gay.

I am intolerant of communism, but I don't wish to see all communists
die.

I am intolerant of fascist dictators like Saddam, Taylor et cetera,
but I would sooner see them leave power than see them die.

You seem to be imposing your viewpoint on others. If you hate
everything you can't tolerate, that does not mean everyone else is the
same way.

 

D

DTJ

Guest

• Jul 25, 2003

• #885

On 24 Jul 2003 17:11:21 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> DTJ <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 01:44:49 -0800, Marc <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Yup. The only difference between a right-wing conservative and a left-wing
>>>liberal is that the conservatives want to subsidize the rich and the
>>>liberals want to subsidize the poor.
>>
>>How is taxing the rich at more than 50%, while not taxing anyone who
>>makes less than $25,000 subsidizing the rich?
>>
>>Take your time responding.
>How is giving the rich back money when we have a deficit not subsidizing
>them, at the expense of the next generation?

Wow, for an alleged college professor you sure have little common
sense.

Try this very slowly...

People who make less than $26,000 per year pay 4% of all taxes yet
make over 13% of the money. People who make $87,000 pay 66% of the
taxes yet make less than half the money.

So, even a little brain like your should understand that when you cut
taxes to stimulate the economy, the people paying 83% of the taxes
(those making more than $50,000) are the ones who get the tax cut.

I thought psychology majors had to take basic math.

 

D

DTJ

Guest

• Jul 25, 2003

• #886

On 24 Jul 2003 17:11:55 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

>>Guys, I would not argue with poor Lloyd. It really isn't fair to have a
>>battle of witts with an unarmed man.
>>
>Why is it bigots think everybody wants to hear their bigotry?

Pointing out your lack of intelligence does not make one a bigot.

 

D

DTJ

Guest

• Jul 25, 2003

• #887

On 24 Jul 2003 17:16:18 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

>>Well, Lloyd - the publisher of that book sure seems to think that the
>>APA has proven scientifically that it does no harm. Here - I'll run it
>>by you again - I'll type real slow so you can read it:
>
>And so you claim the absence of proof is the proof of absence?

Yo loyd, the claim is made by your co-professors.

 

J

JD

Guest

• Jul 25, 2003

• #888

David Allen wrote:

(snip)
> Well, here we are. We have our traditional liberal/conservative way
> of looking at life. Liberals think we tax too little. Conservatives
> think we spend too much.

Seems to me conservatives did a damn fine job of spending us from a budget
surplus to a huge deficit in under 2 years.

JD

 

B

Bill Putney

Guest

• Jul 25, 2003

• #889

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> How so? What religions don't have the concepts of not murdering, not
> stealing, etc? In fact, what sets of moral values do not?

Excellent point, Lloyd. You might also similarly ask "What religions
don't have the concepts of not having same-sex sex".

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

 

B

Bill Putney

Guest

• Jul 25, 2003

• #890

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> Why is it bigots think everybody wants to hear their bigotry?

Many of us are asking ourselves that every day when we read your posts,
Lloyd.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

 

B

Bill Putney

Guest

• Jul 25, 2003

• #891

Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> In article <[email protected]>, Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >> OK, lying scumbag alert.
> >
> >
> >Well, Lloyd - the publisher of that book sure seems to think that the
> >APA has proven scientifically that it does no harm. Here - I'll run it
> >by you again - I'll type real slow so you can read it:
> >
> >"Many researchers is [sic] the fields of Psychology and Human Sexuality
> >have been taking a fresh look at the 'conventional' wisdom which has
> >been the basis for evaluation of intergenerational male/male sexual
> >activities. The long assumed 'harm' of such activities has failed to be
> >supported by research, and the sociocultural 'wrongness' based on this
> >'harm' is therefore left without any rational basis. An extremely
> >thorough and exhaustive paper, 'A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed
> >Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples' was published in
> >the July, 1998 Psychological Bulletin, the journal of the *AMERICAN*
> >*PSYCHOLOGICAL* *ASSOCIATION* [my emphasis]. It brought forth howls of
> >protest from right wing radicals all the way up to and including the
> >United States House of Representatives, but after the furor subsided,
> >the paper, having been subjected to intensive examination at every
> >level, has been judged to be true, accurate and objective science."
> >
> >Got that? "...The long assumed 'harm' of such activities has failed to
> >be supported by research,
>
> And so you claim the absence of proof is the proof of absence?

I didn't claim that. I simply quoted a publisher who takes the
"scientific" publishings of the APA to its natural conclusion to justify
the premise of their book for perverts. The APA's study was
"scientific", therefore, by Lloyd-logic, it's conclusions are
indisputable fact; the book's premise lines up with the "fact" that is
scientifically" proven in the APA study. By Lloyd-logic (APA would
never publish any unscientific study = referenced paper was scientific
study = scientific proof = fact), how can you dispute the premise of the
book?

You've painted yourself into this corner. Don't expect me to try to get
you put of it.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

 

B

Bill Putney

Guest

• Jul 25, 2003

• #892

Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> In article <[email protected]>, Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> >> Marc <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >Perhaps you'd like the APA to endorse faked studies that only find what
> you
> >> >want them to find?
> >
> >And of course you think such a study was honest? Hardly. Much less,
> >scientific. Anyone who thinks little boys who've beem sexually molested
> >by grown men are not scarred for life is pathetic - no matter how much
> >"scientific proof" he has coming out his sphincter to prove otherwise.
>
> You don't seem to feel similar sympathy for little girls. Is it because
> they'd ghave been molested by heterosexuals?

Gee willikers, Lloyd. I didn't state that I like hot fudge sundaes
either, but that doesn't mean that I don't like them. We weren't
discussing heterosexuals and little girls - abusers of children of
either gender are worthy of the same harsh punishment. But since you
mention it, I don't see the agenda of the pervert community hawking
books specifically advocating that men rape little girls or that women
rape little boys. Hey - BTW - has the APA published a scientific study
showing that little girls are not harmed by being raped by men, or
little boys by women? Why haven't they put the same focus on that?
Could it be that certain people are pushing the homosexual pervert
agenda over the just-as-sick heterosexual pervert agenda? Do you think
maybe...?

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

 

D

David Allen

Guest

• Jul 25, 2003

• #893

"'nuther Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 18:16:38 GMT, "David Allen"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >K-Mart isn't a state insitution, nor a charitable organization, nor a
social
> >welfare organization.
>
> Churches/Religious organizations take in billions of dollars each year
> and use the same "services" as most businesses in a city/town use.
> Yet,
> they are exempt from most all income and property taxes. (FWIW, most
> non-profits are only income tax exempt, not property and other tax
> exempt, except in special cases).
>
> Bob
>

Legislative councils generally feel it's a good thing to not make it hard
for charity and social welfare to flourish. I suppose voters can, in
general, take a dim view of churches being categorized as such and demand it
end.

Most people think of churches less cynically, i.e., they aren't just
charades or cons to separate people from their money and enrich
themselves... tax free.

 

B

Bill Putney

Guest

• Jul 25, 2003

• #894

Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> In article <[email protected]>,
> DTJ <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On 23 Jul 2003 16:04:14 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
> >
> >>He and others here would only be satisfied with herding gays into gas
> >>chambers.
> >
> >Typical liberal hysteria.
> >
> >When you know your argument is weak, attack the enemy with
> >fabrications.
> Hey, it's you homophobes who've been attacking. Sauce, goose, gander.

"Hey it's you God-phobes (i.e., God-haters by the re-written definition
of "phobia/phobe") who've been attacking. Duck, duck, goose."

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

 

D

David Allen

Guest

• Jul 25, 2003

• #895

"JD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:ZB%[email protected]...
> David Allen wrote:
>
> (snip)
> > Well, here we are. We have our traditional liberal/conservative way
> > of looking at life. Liberals think we tax too little. Conservatives
> > think we spend too much.
>
> Seems to me conservatives did a damn fine job of spending us from a budget
> surplus to a huge deficit in under 2 years.
>
> JD
>
>

Where should I start?

First, either you're horrible misinformed, or you're so partisan that you'll
sign on to any fantasy that lays blame for the deficit on GW or
conservatives in general just becaue they're Republicans.

Second, the deficit is not due to conservative spending. There are two
major factors: 1) the recession that started while WJC was still in office,
2) 9/11 and the war on terrorism.

The "exhuberant irrationalism" of the late 90's and the corporate book
cooking laid the ground work for the economic "pop". Not anything
conservatives did.

 

D

Dingleberry

Guest

• Jul 25, 2003

• #896

"Kuzie" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > "Kuzie" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > >"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > >news:[email protected]...
> > >> In article <[email protected]>, Bill Putney <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > >> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> > >> >> DTJ <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> >> >On 21 Jul 2003 16:48:05 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
> wrote:
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >>OK, cite that evidence of yours. Because mine is what the
> American
> > >> >> >>Psychological Association and American Medical Association say,
> based
> on
> > >> >> >>scientific research.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >Cite yours. Then look at the actual data, not a gay/lesbian groups
> > >> >> >interpretation. You, if you really are a scientist, will quickly
> see
> > >> >> >the error of your ways.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >>
> > >> >> http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html
> > >> >>
> > >> >> http://www.significantdifference.org/hooker.html
> > >> >>
> > >> >> http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/statements.html
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Now, these documents have extensive references. Arguing with the
> APA
> about
> > >> >> this issue is like arguing with the AMA that, say, being left-handed
> is
> caused
> > >> >> by the devil.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I challenged you before -- if you're got research showing otherwise,
> post
> it.
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >> >Once again, here's an excerpt from amazon.com from the description of
> a
> > >> >book called "Understanding Loved Boys and Boylovers":
> > >> >
> > >> >"Many researchers is the fields of Psychology and Human Sexuality have
> > >> >been taking a fresh look at the "conventional" wisdom which has been
> the
> > >> >basis for evaluation of intergenerational male/male sexual activities.
> > >> >The long assumed 'harm' of such activities has failed to be supported
> by
> > >> >research, and the sociocultural 'wrongness' based on this 'harm' is
> > >> >therefore left without any rational basis. An extremely thorough and
> > >> >exhaustive paper, 'A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties
> of
> > >> >Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples' was published in the July,
> > >> >1998 Psychological Bulletin, the journal of the *AMERICAN*
> > >> >*PSYCHOLOGICAL* *ASSOCIATION* [my emphasis]. It brought forth howls of
> > >> >protest from right wing radicals all the way up to and including the
> > >> >United States House of Representatives, but after the furor subsided,
> > >> >the paper, having been subjected to intensive examination at every
> > >> >level, has been judged to be true, accurate and objective science.
> > >> >
> > >> >"Previous to this, a collection of papers by such authors as Bullough,
> > >> >Bernard, Schild, Warren, Bauserman, et al., was published as 'Dares to
> > >> >Speak', edited by Joseph Geraci. Before that there was 'Male
> > >> >Intergenerational Intimacy' by Brongersma. Both of these volumes are
> > >> >currently in print, and are available.
> > >> >
> > >> >"The above mentioned paper and books are intended primarily for
> > >> >researchers, educators, and other people knowledgeable in these areas.
> > >> >Therefore, I have authored a "layman's" introductory volume,
> > >> >'Understanding Loved Boys and Boylovers', which essentially covers the
> > >> >same premises, data, and conclusions as the above, but which is
> written
> > >> >in mostly non technical language..."
> > >> >
> > >> >So much for the APA and so-called "science". Some things are just
> plain
> > >> >wrong no matter how much you try to hide behind false science. I do
> not
> > >> >bow to the "wisdom" and "science" of the APA like you do Lloyd.
> > >> >
> > >> >Bill Putney
> > >> >(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> > >> >address with "x")
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> > >> >http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> > >> >-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
> > >> And does Tim McVeigh's actions mean all Christians are baby-killers, or
> that
> > >> this is official Christian doctrine?
> > >
> > >Guys, I would not argue with poor Lloyd. It really isn't fair to have a
> > >battle of witts with an unarmed man.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Why is it bigots think everybody wants to hear their bigotry?
>
> Why is it liberal morons think everyone wants to hear their extreme left
> wing ramblings?

It's one of those mysteries of life. Like, why do liberals think
everyone who disagrees when them is a bigot?

Why do they like to use made up words like 'homophobia'?

 

L

Larry Kessler

Guest

• Jul 25, 2003

• #897

Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:

>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> How so? What religions don't have the concepts of not murdering, not
>> stealing, etc? In fact, what sets of moral values do not?
>
>Excellent point, Lloyd. You might also similarly ask "What religions
>don't have the concepts of not having same-sex sex".

Buddhism
Reform Judaism
Wicca
United Church of Christ
Unitarian Universalism

 

M

Marc

Guest

• Jul 25, 2003

• #898

Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, Marc <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>Marc wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> It isn't ethical to molest children, either...
>
>> >>No, Marc - the American Pschological Association has proven
>> >>"scientifically" that it's OK for men to have sex with boys - that
>> >>there's no harm done, and we all know how wonderful and above question
>> >>the APA is. Get in step with the times, man. According to the APA,
>> >>what the priests did to all those altar boys is just fine. 8^)
>> >
>> >Perhaps you'd like the APA to endorse faked studies that only find what you
>> >want them to find?
>
>And of course you think such a study was honest? Hardly. Much less,
>scientific. Anyone who thinks little boys who've beem sexually molested
>by grown men are not scarred for life is pathetic - no matter how much
>"scientific proof" he has coming out his sphincter to prove otherwise.

Sometimes you find the opposite of what you want. You can either hide it,
or treat it like you would if you found what you are looking for.

The federal government sponsored a study to prove that drugs were unsafe.
The interesting part of the study was that people smoking marijuana became
more "safe" than sober drivers (and the drunks got worse, but some got
better after the first drink or two, then worse after). So, the federal
government went out to find that drugs are bad. They instead proved that
people driving under the influence of marijuana are safer than sober
people.

Many studies for year back long before this one are available on the NHTSA
web site. I've looked for this one and have not been able to find it.
I've seen the study other places and verified the title and document number
exist (and I could order it, if I wasn't a cheap bastard), but the
government is apparently hiding its own findings because it didn't like
them.

The findings of the APA were obviously the opposite of what it was looking
for. It had two courses. It could either lie like a politician, or
publish the findings as they would have if the study had proved what they
expected.

Do you prefer the disclosure, or lies and deceit?

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

 

S

Snubis

Guest

• Jul 25, 2003

• #899

On Fri 25 Jul 2003 02:09:44a, Larry Kessler <l_k_e_s_s_l_e_r@w_t.n_e_t>
wrote in news:[email protected]:

> Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>> How so? What religions don't have the concepts of not murdering, not
>>> stealing, etc? In fact, what sets of moral values do not?
>>
>> Excellent point, Lloyd. You might also similarly ask "What religions
>> don't have the concepts of not having same-sex sex".
>
> Buddhism
> Reform Judaism
> Wicca

Wicca isn't a real religion.

> United Church of Christ
> Unitarian Universalism

 

N

'nuther Bob

Guest

• Jul 25, 2003

• #900

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 02:40:46 GMT, "David Allen"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Where should I start?
>
>First, either you're horrible misinformed, or you're so partisan that you'll
>sign on to any fantasy that lays blame for the deficit on GW or
>conservatives in general just becaue they're Republicans.

How come when the Democrats are in office it's always their fault if
the economy is sour, but when the Republicans are in office it's
never their fault ?

>Second, the deficit is not due to conservative spending. There are two
>major factors: 1) the recession that started while WJC was still in office,

Which Bush has prolonged and done nothing to end... except to pass
a second tax cut that even the economic conservative Greenspan says
we can't afford.

>2) 9/11 and the war on terrorism.

Or like spending 100b in Iraq for no apparent constitutional purpose.
What are there, maybe 100 million tax payers ? That works out to
about $1000 each. Send in your check.

>The "exhuberant irrationalism" of the late 90's

Yep, electing Bush depressed everyone.

>and the corporate book
>cooking laid the ground work for the economic "pop". Not anything
>conservatives did.

Except the conservative steadfastly opposed the imposition of
new rules regulating the accounting industry. Efforts to force
division of accounting companies that provide both consulting (to
increase profits) and accounting (to track profits) led to an obvious
conflict of interest that got us where we are today. Conservatives
are still fighting financial regulation in all areas and their
friend in the White House is not helping the situation.

Bob