Barack Obama [Archive] - Page 2 - Trans Ladyboy Forum

TracyCoxx

02-03-2009, 11:37 AM

The meltdown? The consensus is that Greenspan was the key player. The conservative fundamentalist philosophy of Milton Friedman that the Republicans and Greenspan worshiped is what led to this debacle.

I've given my rundown on the conservative viewpoint of how the meltdown happened here:
ACORN does more than just voter fraud. Carter created the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) which encouraged lenders to make loans to poor minorities. Banks pretty much ignored the CRA because it made no financial sense. So ACORN harrassed banks until they would start making the questionable loans. They would hold sit ins at the banks to drive away costomers. They would also show that banks weren't complying with CRA at public hearings and thus preventing bank mergers which the banks wanted.

So the banks started making some bad loans to the poor. This still wasn't enough for ACORN. The banks told ACORN that Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae wouldn't buy the loans from them so that's all they could do.

So ACORN lobbied congress and Clinton to enforce the CRA and force Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae to buy the bad loans. Now that there was actually a market for bad loans banks started making loans to the poor. Clinton further enforced it by creating a CRA index for banks that the banks would use to compete. So they would actually compete to see who could make the most loans to the poor.

The obvious result of this madness is that people started defaulting on their loans in such great numbers that Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae couldn't insure all the bad loans, and the govt had to step in to help Freddie and Fannie last summer.

The real problem was that since there were so many defaulted loans, no one was really sure how much the loans were worth anymore and so the flow of money siezed up and banks began to go under. Thus the financial melt down.

Where was Obama in all this? He was head of the Chicago Annenburg Challenge where he and his buddie Bill Ayers helped raise millions for ACORN. Obama was also a layer for several of ACORN's court cases and gave them leadership training. Then he moven on to the senate where he continued to support ACORN and Freddie & Fannie. This is why after being in the senate for only 2-3 years Obama was the 2nd highest receiver os campaign funds from these organizations.

This is what happens when these idealistic policies make it into the real world.

If Obama is president, do you think he'll blame ACORN and all these bad policies for the financial mess? No. He'll put the blame on Bush who had been warning congress 17 times since 2001 that this would happen. So the problem will go unfixed and you can get ready to pay even more in taxes as the govt spends trillions more on future bailout packages.
Looks like I already have an answer to what Obama will do concerning ACORN, and there's that near $1 trillion dollar bail-out package. ACORN is eligible for $4 billion of Obama's spending package. Gee... it's almost like I'm psychic :rolleyes:

Care to add more meat to your theory?

SluttyShemaleAnna

02-03-2009, 11:39 AM

randolph

02-03-2009, 11:44 AM

As an atheist, shemale lover, and sometimes a transvestite, I certainly don't agree with much of the Republican agenda. But... I agree whole heartedly with their fiscal conservatism and anti-welfare stance (well at least for real republicans, there's been too many RINOs lately), and most of their foreign policy.

As for Rush and Hitler, please explain your comparison.

One example; Rush has demonized "liberals" as if they were a dire threat to the country.:frown:
Hitler demonized "Jews" as if they were a dire threat to the country.:frown:

I grew up as a Republican and I still believe in fiscal conservatism(aka, Eisenhower).:yes:
However, the Republican party has become corrupted by religious fundamentalism and the military/industrial complex. :frown:
Actually, the Democrats are pretty well corrupted and not far behind.:frown:
Obama?? Hope:cool:

CreativeMind

02-03-2009, 03:51 PM

What distresses me (as an American Libertarian) is that at minimal 30% of votes that are in the democractic favor are fraudulent. i.e. multiple ,dead, non citizens and 'made up' voters. Yet they get away with it because of apathy,stupidity and fear of onslaught by the very anti Republican media.

This TOTALLY pisses me off. In fact, this is one of the primary reasons why I DO support the concept of a 21st century, modern times and current with today's technology "National ID card" to verify EXACTLY "who" you are and IF you are in fact a legal citizen and all that. Hell, in this day and age, think of it -- you could walk around with ONE card in your wallet that is your Driver's license, your ID card (for voting), it could be programmed and activated as your Mastercard and Visa too, it could hold your medical information in digital form if you were in an accident and suddenly taken to a hospital, it could have your insurance information -- for crying out loud, it could serve as your friggin' library card to boot! With today's technology, it could literally be all sorts of things in one.

Yet why don't we do that? Because those on the ultra Left always bitch that something like a national ID card would be an "invasion of privacy"...it's having "too much information" available...and yet we all go through life with ALL of those things I just mentioned ANYWAY. In fact, if you DON'T have those things, life in the 21st century is essentially tougher on you as well. So even using the base argument of "quality of life" it makes sense to upgrade systems across the board for proper identification of everyone.

Bottom line: you're right, New Believer. Regardless of WHICH political party you belong to...and let the record show that I totally respect the right of everyone to pick a side based on their own personal beliefs....but when you start having numbers that are off at a staggering 30% rate OR -- like we just had in the Obama election where Ohio was an outright joke over voter registrations and irregularities, which the Ohio Election Board REFUSED to even investigate -- then democracy is in the toilet when you can't even stage a fair and honest vote count.

Or new case in point: the still undecided Minnesota Senate race where Norm Coleman had beaten crock of a candidate Al Franken until magically an entire box of uncounted ballots just HAPPENED to be discovered -- after the fact -- in the trunk of someone's car, thus throwing everything into pandemonium. Not to mention, you KNOW the Franken election is for utter shit when even now ALL... yes, ALL... Minnesota polls show that the people there DON'T want Franken in office by a wide and sizable margin. So with such a wide poll margin going in one direction, just who the hell voted for him to supposedly make him the winner, hmm? :frown:

CreativeMind

02-03-2009, 04:14 PM

I am amazed we have hard core Republicans on this site. If my memory serves me well, Senior Bush stated that Homosexuals, Transsexuals and Atheists should be denied the right to vote!:censored:

No offense, Randolph, but your memory doesn't seem to be serving you well since I tried Googling this in various ways and could NOT find a single instance of Bush Sr. ever saying that. On the other hand, since you're so interested in personal rights, you CAN easily Google "same sex marriage" and immediately discover that Obama is against that even as we speak.

But, hey, when talking about social rights and politics, why talk about the guy currently in the Oval Office when it's far easier to blur the argument by pointing backwards 17 YEARS in time to mention someone no longer in power?

Anyway, I suppose Republicans will continue to worship Rush Limbaugh as the Germans worshiped Hitler. It is a mean spirited intolerant destructive view of the world which will perpetuate the misery we are in.:frown:

Ah, the ol' Rush finger pointing tactic as well. You mean Republicans listening to him as opposed to those on the Left worshipping at the media altar of Keith Olbermann and his ego and anger fueled rants...or worshipping a hate-fueled web site like the Daily Kos...which likewise are sooooo helpful to raising the country out of its misery?

randolph

02-03-2009, 06:01 PM

Creative Mind
No offense, Randolph, but your memory doesn't seem to be serving you well since I tried Googling this in various ways and could NOT find a single instance of Bush Sr. ever saying that.

This popped up with search (bush atheist)
When George Bush was campaigning for the presidency, as incumbent vice president, one of his stops was in Chicago, Illinois, on August 27, 1987. At O'Hare Airport he held a formal outdoor news conference. There Robert I. Sherman, a reporter for the American Atheist news journal, fully accredited by the state of Illinois and by invitation a participating member of the press corps covering the national candidates had the following exchange with then Vice President Bush.

Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists?

Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in god is important to me.

Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?

Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

Sherman (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?

Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists. :frown:

Obama is interested in saving this country from the irresponsibility of past administrations. We need to FLUSH RUSH!

randolph

02-03-2009, 06:30 PM

Last month, Republican Congressional leaders filed into the Oval Office to meet with President George W. Bush and talk about renewing the controversial USA Patriot Act.

Several provisions of the act, passed in the shell shocked period immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, caused enough anger that liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union had joined forces with prominent conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly and Bob Barr to oppose renewal.

GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

"I don't give a goddamn," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."

"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"

I've talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution "a goddamned piece of paper." :frown:

So Creativemind, is Bush is your good buddy???

TracyCoxx

02-03-2009, 06:55 PM

lol, a republican supporter mentioning the economy! Hey, I got an idea, lets have less regulation, that will solve the crisis caused by unregulated markets!!

and I love the idea of republicans of fiscal conservatives. I didn't realise that mountains of debt and a banking system in collapse was fiscal conservatism.

Did you read the part I wrote in parenthesis? Here, let me reprint it for you.
But... I agree whole heartedly with their fiscal conservatism and anti-welfare stance (well at least for real republicans, there's been too many RINOs lately), and most of their foreign policy.

Perhaps you don't know what RINO means. Republican In Name Only. As for your crack about regulation, the markets HAVE been regulated. It was government intervention that I was referring to above that forced banks to make loans to unqualified recipients. So much for that idea.

randolph

02-03-2009, 07:19 PM

Did you read the part I wrote in parenthesis? Here, let me reprint it for you.

Perhaps you don't know what RINO means. Republican In Name Only. As for your crack about regulation, the markets HAVE been regulated. It was government intervention that I was referring to above that forced banks to make loans to unqualified recipients. So much for that idea.

You are partially right. Both Republican and Democrats supported easy loans to low income people. Unfortunately, crucial oversite regulations essential to keep the system from spinning out of control were ignored or removed. Greenspan and the rest of the free marketers had the naive view that markets would automatically regulate themselves. They didn't realize that a "free" market opens things up for the Madoff types.

TracyCoxx

02-03-2009, 07:23 PM

One example; Rush has demonized "liberals" as if they were a dire threat to the country.:frown:
Hitler demonized "Jews" as if they were a dire threat to the country.:frown:Perhaps he didn't like what Carter did to the country with those double digit inflation rates, double digit interest rates, double digit unemployment, and long gas lines and gas rationing. Yes, these things really did happen. Please tell me how this is not a threat to the country? Please (after reading what I wrote above about ACORN and the CRA), tell me how the CRA is good for the country?

But on to your analogy. You're saying Rush has done to liberals what Hitler has done to the Jews? Rush forces liberals into concentration camps under gunpoint? Rush puts liberals into labor camps and to the gas chamber and runs experiments on them? How many liberals has Rush's men killed? 6 million? 6 hundred? Even 6? Any??? Has he even shot a spit ball at one?

However, the Republican party has become corrupted by religious fundamentalism
Actually, the Democrats are pretty well corrupted and not far behind.:frown:

On this we agree :respect:

TracyCoxx

02-03-2009, 07:28 PM

Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.
:censored:

Lac79

02-03-2009, 07:37 PM

meh, Government is always fail, no matter who is in charge. I wish I had my own Island with Areeya and Sheila Ferraz... yes... oh yes... ok, gotta go take care of something now :turnon::D

McLuvinladyboys

02-03-2009, 07:54 PM

Such bullshit. I'm not a neocon. What I said I said out of a sense of patriotism. Since when should one nation allow the people of another to make decisions for it? That's stupid. That's the borderless world concept. What if Americans made the decisions for Brits? Frenchies? Canadians? How'd they like it if they didn't have say so over who becomes their leaders and government officials? Or couldn't have any say over things like taxes and property rights?

If you're going to reply to me with such a jackassed comment and insult don't bother. Anyone of any nation with half a mind would agree with me. You don't let foreigners elect your officials.

they might have been able to save us from 8 years of bush jr? just a thought there, i mean we wouldnt have HAD to listen, but someone could have warned us..oh wait they sort of did. never mind

McLuvinladyboys

02-03-2009, 08:05 PM

You tell'em Ogryn. I'd really like to hear hanghaveock explain why the US leaders should be chosen by other countries? Is that the way it's done in Indonesia?

maybe hank has already answered this, but i am an american and i have an answer as to why people from other countries might doubt the average americans ability to choose thier own leaders.
1. the average american cant find washington dc on a map. go ahead and try it. ask people on the street, you will be SHOCKED
2. most of us are fat lazy and too busy voting on the latest american idol and whether or not sanjaya is hot or funny looking to worry about whether or not we should be going to war
3 speaking of war a shit load of americans STILL BELIEVE THAT IRAQ OR SADDAM BOMBED THE WORLD TRADE CENTER. those same americans cant find iraq on a map(i will bring the map up a few more times i am sure)
4. the "average" american is lucky to have his GED or be able to read. sad but true. most americans are uneducated and our education system is pretty fucked up so even if you did finish high school if you didnt go to a decent college you didnt really learn anything anyway
5 we voted for BUSH JR TWICE!!!
and that last one i think is the one that should be the clincher. if we had another republican as president i think we would have deserved to have europe come over here and take the reins for a little while.

of course i do wonder a few things about this post period
1 why are we discussing obama here in a forum dedicated to ladyboys and populated by(as it seems) very few americans? it just seems out of place thats all
2 what would non americans know about the situation here if they have not lived here? look i wouldnt presume to know anything about english prime ministers, and someone said something about america taking a big inevitable step and voting in a non white as president. other than disraeli who was jewish and i think still technically white, has england had a black prime minister? a woman yeah and that isnt too surprising from a country that has had (has) a queen. so females in high places..not so much a big leap so why is it such a big deal that we have? so what i have news for you, the colour of the mans skin, not such a big issue as you might think(i wouldnt stand next to him if we were down south though)

McLuvinladyboys

02-03-2009, 08:18 PM

But on to your analogy. You're saying Rush has done to liberals what Hitler has done to the Jews? Rush forces liberals into concentration camps under gunpoint? Rush puts liberals into labor camps and to the gas chamber and runs experiments on them? How many liberals has Rush's men killed? 6 million? 6 hundred? Even 6? Any??? Has he even shot a spit ball at one?

:

yeah however you and i know that if he could he fucking would rush is a total douche bag he and that other fat fuck micheal moore are two sides of the same disgusting coin. both of them have thier own agendas and are just stirring up trouble

i think however that randolph was obviously not saying that rush is putting people in concentration camps and its rather foolish of you to take it there.
what he IS saying, is that rush, like those who worked for the nazis is attempting to create an atmosphere of fear, paranoia, and hatred for those who he disagrees with.
he tells blantant lies and blames all the countries woes on the dems. sounds like hitler blaming germanys woes on the jews.

McLuvinladyboys

02-03-2009, 11:41 PM

one last reason i thought of as to why others might think americans cant pick leaders for themselves.
we get caught up in what i like to refer to as "non issues" things like abortion, gay marriage. non issues. first its stuff that either states can decie for themselves(like legalizing pot) or things that people can govern for themselves. its really easy. let gay people get married and let people have abortions. it wont cause the end of the world AND if you are gay and choose to get married, or you are preggo and want an abortion then you get one. if you dont want the abortion dont get one and if you dont want gay people to get married, well get over it, it really doesnt effect you anyway.

so these types of snowblinding bullshit issues get thrown around. do you really think the average american understands why our economy is failed, and why we are in the economic troubles we are having.
with that being the case how can we be expected to vote on the complex issues that surround such things, how do we know who is going to properly represent us if we dont know what the proper issues are

TracyCoxx

02-03-2009, 11:53 PM

i am an american and i have an answer as to why people from other countries might doubt the average americans ability to choose thier own leaders.

Since november I too have had these doubts.

1. the average american cant find washington dc on a map. go ahead and try it. ask people on the street, you will be SHOCKED
2. most of us are fat lazy and too busy voting on the latest american idol and whether or not sanjaya is hot or funny looking to worry about whether or not we should be going to war
3 speaking of war a shit load of americans STILL BELIEVE THAT IRAQ OR SADDAM BOMBED THE WORLD TRADE CENTER. those same americans cant find iraq on a map(i will bring the map up a few more times i am sure)
4. the "average" american is lucky to have his GED or be able to read. sad but true. most americans are uneducated and our education system is pretty fucked up so even if you did finish high school if you didnt go to a decent college you didnt really learn anything anyway
5 we voted for BUSH JR TWICE!!!
and that last one i think is the one that should be the clincher. if we had another republican as president i think we would have deserved to have europe come over here and take the reins for a little while.

Hell... the average american probably couldn't even:
1. State Newton's 3 laws
2. Identify the prominent mineral on the moon's surface
3. Write a lagrangian equation for a basic pendulum
4. Derive Maxwell's equations in tensor form

or even:
5. Say why Bush Jr attacked Iraq
6. Know that al Qaeda planned to use nerve gas to kill 80,000 people in Jordan, or that the nerve gas came from Iraq before the Iraq war.
7. Knew that Clinton and several democrats in congress had been whining about Iraqi WMD throughout Clinton's terms and right on through till 2003.
8. Know what Obama promised other than 'Change'.
9. Suck their tits while stroking their cock.

TracyCoxx

02-04-2009, 12:14 AM

yeah however you and i know that if he could he fucking would rush is a total douche bag he and that other fat fuck micheal moore are two sides of the same disgusting coin. both of them have thier own agendas and are just stirring up troubleIf you honestly think that Rush would like to have all liberals gassed, I think you have paranoia issues and a weak grasp of reality. Besides... liberals make up a significant percentage of his audience. He's gotta keep those ratings up.

i think however that randolph was obviously not saying that rush is putting people in concentration camps and its rather foolish of you to take it there.
what he IS saying, is that rush, like those who worked for the nazis is attempting to create an atmosphere of fear, paranoia, and hatred for those who he disagrees with.
he tells blantant lies and blames all the countries woes on the dems. sounds like hitler blaming germanys woes on the jews.
I think that libs too easily compare republicans they don't like with Hitler (probably because they're attempting to create an atmosphere of fear, paranoia, and hatred for those who they disagree with). To make such comparisons demonstrates a real lack of understanding of one, what the republicans agenda is, and especially two, what Hitler did. Randolph didn't make a comparison between Rush and say, McCarthy, or any of a number of people who would want to lock up their philosophical enemies (even that comparison would be a stretch). Randolf compared Rush to Hitler. I can only assume to say he thought Rush was actually as bad as Hitler.

CreativeMind

02-04-2009, 12:50 AM

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"

I've talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution "a goddamned piece of paper." :frown:

So Creativemind, is Bush is your good buddy???

Actually, this will probably shock you, Randolph (or probably not), but - yes - he is still my "good buddy" because the Constitution IS just a goddamned piece of paper. Well, I take that back since on the surface that sounds rather harsh. Truth be told, I actually consider it to be a blessed piece of paper since I'm religious at heart and I do feel America is God's gift to the world. But all the same, it's still just a piece of paper. Look, here's my personal viewpoint, which is the same basic POINT that Bush was essentially trying to make in his outburst, which you're now trying to demonize or radicalize by taking it out of context...

The Constitution is a legal document, but our Founding Fathers DESIGNED and MEANT for it to be flexible. They DESIGNED and MEANT for it to be altered and amended over time, recognizing that time and history would march on. And even more important, they realized events would change the world around America...they would change the country both without and from within...and thus there would naturally have to be revisions or even all-new interpretations of the Constitution over time. Off the cuff examples: the eventual abolishment of slavery, voting rights for women, etc. The bottom line: the Constitution was NEVER meant to be a document that was SO written in stone that you could NEVER change it or even debate aspects of it.

That's why your anecdote has no weight once you put it into THAT proper context. Because the simple point remains that Bush -- as the sitting President and in the aftermath of 9/11 -- felt that the Patriot Act and it's various tangents needed to be enacted for the security of the country. That was his personal belief and conviction as President, who IS the one person sworn and charged to protect the nation at all costs. As a result, he wasn't going to be swayed from doing what he felt was necessary, which basically makes him the same as all Presidents before him...and, yes, all Presidents yet to come...who will likewise feel that way once they are actually sitting in the Oval Office and feeling the weight and responsibility of protecting the nation upon their shoulders.

Now me -- personally -- that's how I see it. Which is why I agree with Bush's outburst. In fact, again not to shock you, IF I were ever elected President... and IF I were sitting in the Oval Office and there was something that I believed in SO strongly and personally... and IF there was something I felt we absolutely, positively needed to do to ensure the nation's security or prosperity or continuation of particular ideals that I held true to my heart... AND THEN some staffer came up to me and said, "Gee, Mr. President, I'm not sure the Constitution allows for that", I have news for you: I'D SAY THE EXACT SAME THING.

In short, I'd turn to my Chief of Staff and say "Fuck this shit. I'm not listening to this guy. It's a piece of paper that someone is interpreting one way. So, go find me Constitutional scholars and lawyers who see it MY way and let's fight this out in the court until I get my way. Because by all that's holy, I INTEND TO GET MY WAY ON THIS."

Of course, this leads to the far broader discussion that BEING President allows you to pick and appoint Federal Judges...right up to stacking the Supreme Court, if history times itself right while you're the one sitting in the Oval Office...who will see and interpret things "your way" and thus legally allow you to do what you want. But, hey, that's a whole other topic for debate!

CreativeMind

02-04-2009, 01:16 AM

I think that libs too easily compare republicans they don't like with Hitler (probably because they're attempting to create an atmosphere of fear, paranoia, and hatred for those who they disagree with).

To make such comparisons demonstrates a real lack of understanding of one, what the republicans agenda is, and especially two, what Hitler did.

Randolph didn't make a comparison between Rush and say McCarthy, or any of a number of people who would want to lock up their philosophical enemies (even that comparison would be a stretch). Randolf compared Rush to Hitler. I can only assume to say he thought Rush was actually as bad as Hitler.

Bravo, Tracy. Good for you. That's totally correct and is exactly WHY I hate to ever see the lame-ass "(insert name) is just like Hitler" analogy that the Left loves to fling at the Right so much, in particular because it has NO proper historical context and because, in the end, it actually minimizes the very real horrors that Hitler actually did.

Not to mention it pisses me off as a person and is an analogy that is especially prickly to me -- when it's tossed about and treated lightly -- since I actually DID lose family to that fuck in WWII, who thankfully is now burning in the hottest pits of Hell.

randolph

02-04-2009, 10:21 AM

Wow, politics seems to be more exciting than sex on the forum these days. Obviously the allusion to Hitler was extreme. It was simply to make a point that extreme rhetoric from anybody (Hitler, Mussolini, Almadajid(sic), Bin Ladin, etc.) is bad. It stirs up the baser instincts and encourages violent acts. Obviously Rush doesn't come close to being a true agitator, he doesn't have the brains or the charisma. He is a bombastic egocentric opportunist that uses pseudo conservative rhetoric to capture a naive audience.;):lol:

randolph

02-04-2009, 10:54 AM

This is from Washington Monthly
While the Country in in free fall we have Republican politics.
A STRUGGLING STIMULUS.... President Obama probably thought this would be easier. He won a sweeping victory in November, and entered office with a huge approval rating. His party enjoys big majorities in both the House and Senate. In the midst of a global economic crisis, the president presented an ambitious stimulus package, which enjoyed support from economists, the business community, state officials, and the public. For a while, the most common criticism of the proposal was that it wasn't big enough, and wasn't prepared to spend enough money.

That was before the White House lost control of the debate.

Watching the reaction from Republicans and most news outlets, I keep thinking of an analogy. There's a nine-alarm fire, and Obama's the fire chief. He wants to send the cavalry, hoping to save lives and contain the fire from spreading out of control, while simultaneously taking fire-prevention steps for the future. Soon, Republicans start wondering if 2% of the tools on the fire-engines are entirely necessary for fighting the fire. Democrats think nine trucks is an excessive number, and maybe if Obama sent seven, it'll make Republicans happier. (Said Sen. Ben Nelson, "I don't know, hundreds of gallons of water sounds like an awful lot.")

Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Lou Dobbs, and Joe Scarborough try to convince the community that Obama is making a big mistake trying to put out a fire with water, which is just socialism in disguise.

Conservatives want to know why Obama won't just give people a tax cut, so the public can buy fire-extinguishers, axes, and Dalmatians of their own. The Washington Post runs four op-eds from Amity Shlaes, arguing that Fire Chief Roosevelt overreacted during the last nine-alarm fire, and it would have gone out on its own if he'd just left it alone.

And while the fire keeps burning, the Senate wants to figure out how to address the fire in a way that costs less and satisfies the concerns of "centrists."

Senate Democratic leaders conceded yesterday that they do not have the votes to pass the stimulus bill as currently written and said that to gain bipartisan support, they will seek to cut provisions that would not provide an immediate boost to the economy. [...]

Moderate Republicans are trying to trim the bill by as much as $200 billion, although Democrats working with those GOP senators have not agreed to a specific figure.

It's unclear whether the Senate lacks the votes to pass the stimulus plan, or whether the Senate lacks the votes to overcome a Republican filibuster of the plan. I think it's the latter.
-Steve Benen 11:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)

TracyCoxx

02-04-2009, 01:47 PM

randolph

02-04-2009, 02:52 PM

I am concerned that Ila will pull this thread unless we get some sex in here, so here goes. ;)

As Melissa noted earlier in PEEK, from a CBS story: "Rush Limbaugh was detained for more than three hours Monday at Palm Beach International Airport after authorities said they found a bottle of Viagra in his possession without a prescription."

He was reportedly returning from the Dominican Republic at the time which, as Terrance Heath notes, leaves a big, gaping hole in the story.

What was Rush doing in the Dominican Republic? Why was he returning from a country known for its thriving sex trade, with a bottle of Viagra that didn't have his name on it?

From a 2001 Wired.com article:

the Dominican Republic is one of the biggest sex tourism destinations in the world, thanks in part to Internet sites that extol the country as a "single man's paradise."

...

Among banner ads for Viagra, members can shuffle through pictures of dull-eyed prostitutes engaged in flagrante delicto with the members/amateur pornographers.

Is it fair to go after Limbaugh for his woes? Of course, just as it's fair game to out gay politicians who support bigoted policy toward gays.

Limbaugh inveighs against medical marijuana users regularly, making him a WORLD CLASS HYPOCRITE.

But I like Terrance's alliterative aspersions:

These are not nice questions, which is why most people won't ask them. But Rush is not a nice guy. And when a pundit whose party pokes its noses into people's private affairs as a matter of policy is caught pocketing pills to pump up his penis, on his way back from a country plenteous with prostitutes...:rolleyes:

Well pardon me if I'm compelled to prod and ponder why this public personality required a prescription for his penis in that place, and where he put it while he was there. :eek:

Humm, I doubt he could shut up long enough to get the Viagra to work.:lol:

TracyCoxx

02-05-2009, 12:31 AM

LOL that is a good one :lol:

Sure it's ok to drudge this stuff up on him. We're all human, and that's just funny anyway.

GRH

02-05-2009, 03:54 PM

Maybe I'm missing something, but I thought the US government didn't actually have $900 billion to spend. But then I didn't think they had $850 billion to spend a couple of months ago, so I must be missing something.

Some people conveniently forget positions from past administrations that spent trillions on bogus foreign wars all the while cutting taxes for the upper 1% of populace. America has not only outsourced many of its jobs overseas, but has now outsourced (over MANY years) our future economic prosperity to too much leverage-- a position which sunk the current economy to begin with, only in the hands of banks/businesses/consumers as opposed to government.

That said, I AM being critical of W's administration, but as an independent, I'm HIGHLY skeptical of the scale of the current government spending. I've been sick at home for a few days, and I don't know what it says for my state of mind/boredom, but I've been watching C-Span many hours a day. And I must say, my personal opinions have been largely resonating with Republican politicians who are skeptical and opposed to such tremendous amounts of government spending.

randolph

02-09-2009, 02:53 PM

That said, I AM being critical of W's administration, but as an independent, I'm HIGHLY skeptical of the scale of the current government spending. I've been sick at home for a few days, and I don't know what it says for my state of mind/boredom, but I've been watching C-Span many hours a day. And I must say, my personal opinions have been largely resonating with Republican politicians who are skeptical and opposed to such tremendous amounts of government spending.

It remains to be seen whether we can spend our way out of this debacle. Since the government can create (print) money, this might reduce the future tax load on our children. However, printing money often results in inflation. Oh Oh My, Obama has his work cut out for him and the Republicans will make it even more difficult.:frown:

TracyCoxx

02-10-2009, 12:08 AM

It remains to be seen whether we can spend our way out of this debacle. Since the government can create (print) money, this might reduce the future tax load on our children. However, printing money often results in inflation. Oh Oh My, Obama has his work cut out for him and the Republicans will make it even more difficult.:frown:

Huh?? Between this package and the bail out package as well as our usual budget overruns, we will be borrowing 2.5 trillion dollars this coming year. You can't just magically print it. Maybe that's why democrats are falling for this BS. They think Obama will just pull the money out of his ass. He'll probably lower taxes on the lower income. Maybe even mid-income. But he'll be raising taxes on the rich for sure. You know... the ol tax the people who actually make this economy work, and let the rest leech off it ploy. But everyone who needs a loan (and their children, and their children's children) will be facing tougher times ahead when interest rates go up to pay off this gargantuan debt.

randolph

02-10-2009, 09:36 AM

Huh?? Between this package and the bail out package as well as our usual budget overruns, we will be borrowing 2.5 trillion dollars this coming year. You can't just magically print it. Maybe that's why democrats are falling for this BS. They think Obama will just pull the money out of his ass. He'll probably lower taxes on the lower income. Maybe even mid-income. But he'll be raising taxes on the rich for sure. You know... the ol tax the people who actually make this economy work, and let the rest leech off it ploy. But everyone who needs a loan (and their children, and their children's children) will be facing tougher times ahead when interest rates go up to pay off this gargantuan debt.

Yes the debt is very scary! However, we had four trillion in debt after WWII and managed to get over, it somehow. We also managed to get over the huge Reagen debt while Clinton was President. It seems our financial system is a gigantic Ponzi scheme, we need to keep pouring money into one end to make it work.:frown:

TracyCoxx

02-12-2009, 08:59 AM

randolph

02-12-2009, 09:52 AM

We didn't get to $4 trillion until '92 during the first Gulf War. And at no time has the debt ever gone down. See this chart here (http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm). You might be thinking of the budget surplus that Clinton managed by the end of his term.

Yes your right. Thanks for the graph.:cool:

CreativeMind

02-12-2009, 08:40 PM

Yes the debt is very scary! However, we had four trillion in debt after WWII and managed to get over, it somehow. We also managed to get over the huge Reagen debt while Clinton was President. It seems our financial system is a gigantic Ponzi scheme, we need to keep pouring money into one end to make it work.:frown:

Well, first of all, Tracy already corrected you on the history of debt size.
So, good job there, Tracy!

As for the rest of what you wrote, I just have to say -- no offense -- that this is ALSO the crock of party ideologies and sort of demonstrates (perhaps accidentally and unintentionally) how too many people can get caught up in their party and NOT looking at the ACTUAL problem and how to resolve it best. Case in point, look at what you just said. You wrote (quote): "We also managed to get over the huge Reagan debt while Clinton was President." So, on the surface, you seem to be sneering a bit at Reagan (Republican), blaming him for a huge debt which thankfully Clinton (Democrat) saved us from. Well, Clinton actually didn't, but that's a whole other topic!

Yet all the same, think about this.
WHY did Reagan get elected?

Answer: because all of America hated...I mean just HATED...Jimmy Carter. I mean, seriously, is there anyone here old enough to actually remember the Carter years? Who suffered through them? We had an energy crisis and the price of gas was through the roof -- and that's when you could even find gas, since we also had rationing and gas lines that wrapped around city blocks. In fact, the ties between energy production and tense relations with the Middle East got SO bad that Carter (yes, Jimmy boy) actually had to go on national TV and give a speech declaring that the Persian Gulf was now considered SO vital to the national security of the United States that any attempts by a Middle East country or political faction to try and interfere with the flow of oil to the U.S. would be considered an act of war. To this day I still I remember watching Carter's speech in college with friends, and all of us looking at each other and only half-jokingly saying "So when we all get drafted, which branch do you want to end up in?" Carter's Middle East policies were a disaster --capped off by the historic Iranian hostage situation and the botched rescue mission which was such a clusterfuck that it only further proved how incompetent Carter was.

And then there was the Carter economy, of which there is NO historic dispute: namely, it SUCKED. There was double-digit unemployment AND double-digit inflation. Let me say that again: it was DOUBLE DIGIT which means it was actually WORSE than what we're facing now. To put it mildly, the economy under Carter was in the complete shitter. So with all of that going on, the American people viewed Carter as a total peanut-farmer fuck-up, a simple southern boy that the presidency was above, who simply had to go. So he was booted out of office, leaving the U.S. in some serious economic and foreign woes. Gee, sound familiar? Of course, it gets even better, because here's your lesson in history repeating itself...

When Reagan came to office the first thing he said was we needed to do was cut taxes AND increase government spending. We needed to jump-start the U.S. economy BIG TIME. And he did since here's NO debating what Reagan ultimately did. The Reagan years and his fiscal policies led to one of the GREATEST economic expansions in ALL of American history and the recovery he oversaw -- reversing the dismal Carter era -- was nothing less than startling and miraculous.

Which is why I find it hysterical whenever the Left talks about the "Reagan debt" and sneers about it (as well as usually adding a side note how Clinton saved us all) or goes on about the money Reagan spent to get us out of the Carter recession...

...Yet this is the SAME Left that now is out championing at the top of their lungs savior Obama (oops, I meant President Transparency) and HIS plan to spend a TRILLION DOLLARS doing exactly what Reagan did, only Obama wants to do it on a FAR more mammoth scale.

So, the way I see it, given the Obama stimulus plan, the Left has now officially and 100% lost ALL rights to ever bitch about Reagan or any debt he ran up, since he (or his proportionate debt load) will now not even be in the same league as the toilet Obama is now going to flush us down. Frankly, I think the Obama plan is just overflowing with bullshit political pork, not to mention it's a colossally bad joke that's only going to bite us in the ass and tank the economy more. Case in point, I loved that the other day when Timothy Geitner, the so-called "financial genius" (and tax cheat, which I guess makes him a financial genius) that Obama declared we HAD to have as Treasury Secretary (because he was the ONLY person who could handle this crisis) FINALLY unveiled his ideas for what should be done...

...At which point the stock market tanked another 500 points.

Good job! Can't wait to see what's next!

randolph

02-12-2009, 08:51 PM

Poking fun at Republicans can be quite entertaining, they are so wedded to the fantasies of dear old Uncle Miltie. In his old age he admitted he was wrong on a lot of his monetary theories. Why? because he didn't factor the criminal element. So lets see now, how many Republicans were arrested during the Bush administration? :frown:

randolph

02-13-2009, 10:50 AM

It looks like the Reflublicans are willing to take down the country with their failed party.

Paul Krugman noted today that congressional Republicans, instead of acting "chastened" after electoral and governmental failure, remain committed to "deep voodoo," and arguments that have "bordered on the deranged."

Given all of this, Andrew Sullivan argues that the Republican Party has "declared war" on the president.

Their clear and open intent is to do all they can, however they can, to sabotage the new administration (and the economy to boot). They want failure. Even now. Even after the last eight years. Even in a recession as steeply dangerous as this one. There are legitimate debates to be had; and then there is the cynicism and surrealism of total political war. We now should have even less doubt about what kind of people they are.

Tough stuff, to be sure. The question, I suppose, is what the White House -- and a president who's repeatedly committed to trying to find common ground with the failed minority party -- is going to do about it. If Sullivan is right, and the Republican Party is driven by a combination of partisan schemes and a desire to see Obama fail, how will the administration respond?

Joe Klein argues, persuasively, that the president "should have no illusions about the good faith of his opponents."

Obama should now understand that the Republicans are not reliable partners -- at least, not for the moment. Most are stuck in the contentious past, rutted in Reaganism, intent on taking a Hooverist course on the economy (although there remains cause for optimism on foreign policy). The President's default position, after the stimulus fight and the Gregg fiasco, should be to appoint Democrats to significant domestic policy positions -- the notion of making a public show of bipartisanship, by reaching across the aisle to someone like Senator Gregg, gives the opposition too much credibility and leverage. :censored::frown:

TracyCoxx

02-13-2009, 10:33 PM

You could have slightly reworded this to talk about the democrats and the Bush administration.

It looks like the Democrats are willing to take down the country with their failed party.

Congressional Democrats, instead of acting "chastened" after electoral and governmental failure, remain committed to conspiracy theories and arguments that have "bordered on the deranged."

Given all of this, the Democrat Party has "declared war" on the president.

Their clear and open intent is to do all they can, however they can, to sabotage the administration (and the economy and war to boot). They want failure. Even now. Even in times as steeply dangerous as this. There are legitimate debates to be had; and then there is the cynicism and surrealism of total political war. We now should have even less doubt about what kind of people they are.

Tough stuff, to be sure. The question, I suppose, is what the White House -- and a president who's repeatedly committed to trying to find common ground with the failed minority party -- is going to do about it. If the Democratic Party is driven by a combination of partisan schemes and a desire to see Bush fail, how will the administration respond?

The president "should have no illusions about the good faith of his opponents."

Bush should now understand that the Democrats are not reliable partners -- and never have been. Most are stuck in the contentious past, rutted in Kennedyism, intent on taking a Carterist course on the economy.:censored::frown:

This could have been written in 2004 and would have been very accurate. It's amazing how the democrats have such amnesia over how they have treated Bush over his presidency. And now they expect to govern as if nothing has happened. The democrats have blamed EVERYTHING on Bush - from Clinton's CIA intelligence screwups to the Carter & Clinton financial mess to steering Hurricane Katrina to the poor areas of New Orleans with some classified weather machine. So drop the act. The BS has been so prevalent that you have to have really been paying attention while things happened, or do some serious research to cut through it.

Now you guys want to pass this spendulus package with all the obvious pork it contains. When we're deep into a recession, how can you POSSIBLY justify overspending by $2.5 TRILLION???! Seriously... tell me what a good idea that is.

randolph

02-13-2009, 11:30 PM

Today my wife and I had lunch at a local restaurant. My wife went to the restroom and overheard two lesbians badmouthing Obama. As we left the restaurant, they drove off in a new Mercedes sports car. I guess I have more to learn about capitalism.:confused::lol:

hankhavelock

02-14-2009, 10:53 AM

You could have slightly reworded this to talk about the democrats and the Bush administration.

This could have been written in 2004 and would have been very accurate. It's amazing how the democrats have such amnesia over how they have treated Bush over his presidency. And now they expect to govern as if nothing has happened. The democrats have blamed EVERYTHING on Bush - from Clinton's CIA intelligence screwups to the Carter & Clinton financial mess to steering Hurricane Katrina to the poor areas of New Orleans with some classified weather machine. So drop the act. The BS has been so prevalent that you have to have really been paying attention while things happened, or do some serious research to cut through it.

Now you guys want to pass this spendulus package with all the obvious pork it contains. When we're deep into a recession, how can you POSSIBLY justify overspending by $2.5 TRILLION???! Seriously... tell me what a good idea that is.

You sit there, with cock out and everything and you and your kind have had eight horrible years to screw up the entire world... which you did! Luckily you're GONE! One can only hope that the reactionary front will for ever be gone.

You and that regime that you voted for has created SO much havoc in this little world, and you still are fucking cocky enough to plead your case? Shame on you, shame on you.

Geo Bush and Dick Cheney were the most incompetent (and most likely corrupt) socalled leadership this world has ever witnessed... and you still salute them? How can you? It's simply beyond me.

But you're beyond reach - a true believer, I guess.

Good riddance.

H

randolph

02-14-2009, 11:53 AM

Geo Bush and Dick Cheney were the most incompetent (and most likely corrupt) socalled leadership this world has ever witnessed... and you still salute them? How can you? It's simply beyond me.

Hey Hank, Thanks for the support. It's sadly apparent that Reflublicans will never change. They will be on the street living out of their cars along with the rest of us and they will still blame somebody else. They are incapable of taking any responsibility for their actions. Fuck em!:censored:

TracyCoxx

02-14-2009, 12:10 PM

Now you guys want to pass this spendulus package with all the obvious pork it contains. When we're deep into a recession, how can you POSSIBLY justify overspending by $2.5 TRILLION???! Seriously... tell me what a good idea that is.
Geo Bush and Dick Cheney were the most incompetent (and most likely corrupt) socalled leadership this world has ever witnessed... and you still salute them? How can you? It's simply beyond me.

Hey Hank, Thanks for the support. It's sadly apparent that Reflublicans will never change. They will be on the street living out of their cars along with the rest of us and they will still blame somebody else. They are incapable of taking any responsibility for their actions. Fuck em!:censored:

So you can't say it's a good idea. I don't blame you. Well Republicans can't either so that's why they're not voting for it.

randolph

02-14-2009, 01:08 PM

Tracy
Now you guys want to pass this spendulus package with all the obvious pork it contains. When we're deep into a recession, how can you POSSIBLY justify overspending by $2.5 TRILLION???! Seriously... tell me what a good idea that is.

Well it's not a good idea when we are already deep in debt. So what should we do, give the remaining rich a tax break? Or, here is a novel idea, lets start a war! Wars have got us out of depressions in the past. Oops, I forgot, we are already in a war that has cost trillions thanks to the Bush/Cheny con job. So maybe it will work to help people keep their jobs, borrow money and get the economy flowing again by pouring money into the system. For the sake of all of us including the skeptics, it better WORK!

randolph

02-14-2009, 01:45 PM

For any one interested in politics, democracy and capitalism, I am reading and recommend the "The Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein, a bestseller. She helps clarify what Milton Friedman and Reaganomics is all about.:yes:

TracyCoxx

02-15-2009, 01:33 AM

Well it's not a good idea when we are already deep in debt. So what should we do, give the remaining rich a tax break?
No one is saying give the rich a tax break. They're already paying 35% to taxes. What percentage are you paying?

Or, here is a novel idea, lets start a war! Wars have got us out of depressions in the past. Oops, I forgot, we are already in a war that has cost trillions thanks to the Bush/Cheny con job.
Whatever was spent on the Iraq war over the last 5+ years was matched this WEEK ALONE on the spendulous package. I thought the republicans were overspending, but DAYYYUM!

So maybe it will work to help people keep their jobs, borrow money and get the economy flowing again by pouring money into the system. For the sake of all of us including the skeptics, it better WORK!

I'm sure there are at least a few things in there to actually create jobs and stimulate the economy. But a very large percentage does not stimulate the economy. Let's not forget something. Every penny of this spendulus package comes from foreign money that we will have to pay back. How will we pay it back?

In order of really obvious to debatable is:
First, all the pork that has nothing to do with stimulating the economy (and there is a LOT), should be cut out of the stimulus package. This is one of those No Shit things and should be obvious to anyone outside of Washington, regardless of your party.

Second, cut out everything that provides for illegal aliens. Providing services to illegal aliens encourages more of them to come into the country and consume resources tax free. This does not stimulate the economy - it does the opposite.

Third, all the billions in thanks-for-getting-Obama-elected money for groups like ACORN, Hollywood, etc should be cut out. That has no business in a stimulus package, and there's no reason my kids and their kids should incur debt for that.

Fourth (here's where it starts getting trickier for democrats), there's a whole class of services the bill wants to provide that parents are perfectly able to provide. Give the people tax breaks, or make it easier for corporations to hire more people and people will be able to provide these things for their selves and their own children. It's more efficient and it gives people pride to be able to support themselves and their families.

Fifth (even more tricky for democrats), the government should not be in the business of buying homes for people. That is insane.

Sixth (democrats wet dream), no national health care for the general population. This is way too costly.

Cutting all these things should be seriously considered when you consider for a moment that we don't have the money to do this. If you don't agree, tell me why these things are important enough to add another $800 billion to our national debt. Again, how will we pay it back? The US govt is going to have to start spending less than it receives in taxes. Will we be able to do this? The spendulus package will create jobs at government expense. To spend less than the govt receives, those jobs will eventually have to be axed. Unless we're going to tack on another several hundred billion dollars to our budget every year for the foreseeable future. Extra points if you can tell me what the effect of a rapidly growing debt does to the economy.

Before you go on a rant again about the republicans, I will whole heartedly agree that they have spent too much as well. I will not agree that they caused the financial mess over the last 8 years though when Bush has been warning congress throughout his two terms about it, and the roots of the financial problems started 30 years ago. But yes, they have spent too much.

So Obama says
First of all, when I hear that from folks who presided over a doubling of the national debt, then, you know, I just want them to not engage in some revisionist history. I inherited the deficit that we have right now and the economic crisis that we have right now.Now Obama is revising history himself, but aside from that, he spent half of his speech saying how the policies of the last 8 years wrecked the economy, then says they doubled the debt. So his solution is to increase the debt another 25% in his first 2 months of office?

CreativeMind

02-15-2009, 04:28 AM

You sit there, with cock out and everything and you and your kind have had eight horrible years to screw up the entire world... which you did! Luckily you're GONE! One can only hope that the reactionary front will for ever be gone. You and that regime that you voted for has created SO much havoc in this little world, and you still are fucking cocky enough to plead your case? Shame on you, shame on you.

Geo Bush and Dick Cheney were the most incompetent (and most likely corrupt) socalled leadership this world has ever witnessed... and you still salute them? How can you? It's simply beyond me.

But you're beyond reach - a true believer, I guess. Good riddance.

Hey Hank, Thanks for the support. It's sadly apparent that Reflublicans will never change. They will be on the street living out of their cars along with the rest of us and they will still blame somebody else. They are incapable of taking any responsibility for their actions. Fuck em!:censored:

And yet ironically for both Hank and Randolph, new polls out this weekend show that for opposing Obama's spending plan, Republicans have actually GAINED significant Congressional approval ratings and -- wait for it -- now trail the Democrats by only one mere point. In fact, other polls show that with the Obama plan now out there, if the midterm elections were held right now...this very day...the Republicans would likely gain back seats in Congress, thus thwarting the Obama dynasty even more. Which just goes to show you have fast political fortunes are won and lost.

And with that in mind, it's no wonder that the far Left is getting vocally disgruntled and angry at Obama themselves, since they too realize the clock is ticking down on them...that Middle America and the more moderate, middle of the road Clinton democrats don't like what they're seeing...and thus they realize if they don't ram through their ultra Left programs now, come midterms it really will be over.

So for Hank -- when you're out bitching about the "last 8 years", DO try to remember that it was the Democrats and NOT the Republicans who completely controlled Congress for the last 2 of those years, which (gee, what a shock) is ALSO when the economy started to go into the toilet...

And for Randolph -- when you're out on the street pushing your car, likewise try to remember those two lesbians you mentioned before, who are now ALSO bitching about Obama because that paints a FAR more telling picture.

Overall, Obama is starting to show the classic signs of a politician who needs to get his act together. And since he's only been in office a short bit, he needs to do it fast or else he will become Jimmy Carter Part 2. Right now people are still willing to give him -- as the new guy on the job -- the benefit of the doubt for a little bit longer him...but only for a LITTLE BIT longer. That's why Obama's PERSONAL approval rating is still up around 65-70% right now, and yet support among the American people for his stimulus plan is only at 30-odd percent. In short, people like the GUY, but they don't like his PLAN, nor are they buying the typical bullshit that the Left is trying to ram down everyone's throats right now (which actually brings us back to a basic political notion that, on the whole, America is still "center right". In short, people don't mind SOME change, but they don't want DRASTIC change.)

The bottom line is this: in every single poll out there, the OVERWHELMING majority of Americans are worried more than ever before. The BAD news for Obama right now is that polls show the vast majority of Americans STILL feel his stimulus plan is all wrong, no matter how many speeches he gives... they STILL doubt it will work at all, and they STILL feel it's filled with more pork than actual job creation... and worst of all (and what truly scares the utter shit out of them) people also overwhelmingly feel that Obama and the Democrats are planning to come knocking on their door YET AGAIN to collect and spend even MORE money.

So, you guys can rant about "the last 8 years" and do your usual tirades about Bush all you want. But he's gone, Obama is in charge, and the American people are NOT the type to ever look back -- the truth is they're looking Obama square in the eyes and saying "This crisis hit the fan BEFORE election day. You TOLD us that IF we elected you, YOU would have all the answers. So shut up about Bush and PROVE you really did deserve this job. Otherwise you're history in 4 years." And as I noted before, it's certainy bad news for Obama and the Democrats that approval ratings for their economic choices are tanking... that they're decisions have caused Wall Street to slide even further into a dark hole... and most amazingly of all, for all the bitching that people like Hank might do as an overseas citizen, it must amaze him to know that here in America Republican approval ratings are actually back UP now and only 1 point behind Obama and the Dems.

randolph

02-15-2009, 09:37 AM

The bottom line is this: in every single poll out there, the OVERWHELMING majority of Americans are worried more than ever before. Creativemind

Well duh! we are descending into a depression! Can Obama's program save us, I sure hope so. The consequences of failure are dire indeed. As Naomi Kline points out in her new book, the capitalists will further erode our democracy and we will end up with plutocracy with no say in government, no civil rights and no freedom of speech. I am afraid the Reflublicans in their delight in wishing Obama's failure are inviting what they fear most, the loss of our democracy.:censored::frown:

randolph

02-15-2009, 10:43 AM

by David Glenn Cox
Excerpt from "Let the Sky Fall"

Let us wipe the stars from our eyes. These Republicans are not going to cooperate, not now, not ever. They will use every tool at their disposal to subvert, obstruct, divert, and defame because, in the words of their hero, they want to see Obama fail. If you or a few million other Americans suffer, well, they just don't care. Why should they? They never cared before; they're the party of self, self-righteous and self-aggrandizing. They accept their wealth as a God-given prerogative to rule over the unwashed multitudes. Even now they preach if we don't do anything the economy will fix itself in a year or two. We just have to take our medicine, but what they mean is you have to take their medicine and that's just too bad for you.

They have proven by their behavior that they are not a party of democratic principles but a party of semi-compassionate fascism. They will cede no ground because of an election, or a wave of public sentiment. They will do whatever they deem necessary to bring down this administration, even let the sky fall.

So, let the sky fall, let the sun crash and commence with the days of iron rain. Let the blood of the guilty and the tears of the innocent mix and intermingle in the sewers of greed. They seek the truth through gold, eternal life through eternal wealth, and the gospel of freedom through the cleansing of the iron rain. They see men as tools and tools as men; Heaven and Hell being all in one place, at their discretion alone. The war has begun, the blood will flow into the crop circles of the damned, and in the puddles of the iron rain.

TracyCoxx

02-15-2009, 12:17 PM

The bottom line is this: in every single poll out there, the OVERWHELMING majority of Americans are worried more than ever before. Creativemind

Well duh! we are descending into a depression!

Source?

What makes you think we're descending into a depression? The liberal news media? Obama's rhetoric? Despite their criticisms of the Republicans using scare tactics to stir up support for the war, the democrats (and their press secretaries... I mean the media) are using scare tactics to convince people that this is the end of times, and therefore drastic measures need to be taken, like putting us much further into debt.

We're at 7.5% unemployment now, which sucks, but it's nowhere near the 25% during the great depression. What numbers are you looking at?

Can Obama's program save us, I sure hope so. The consequences of failure are dire indeed.Better go buy 1000 cans of pork & beans, get a shotgun, and hide in a bomb shelter with all your cash.

Even now they preach if we don't do anything the economy will fix itself in a year or two.Who says it'll fix itself in a year or two? Probably more like 5-10 years. But at least after that we won't have a larger debt or expensive social programs to deal with. I think it's better if we cut spending. Isn't that what you'd do if you were over spending and had lots of debt? The govt should also free up cash flow for businesses. Those businesses ARE the economy. Not the government.

randolph

02-15-2009, 01:06 PM

Source?

The govt should also free up cash flow for businesses. Those businesses ARE the economy. Not the government.

Agreed, I thought that's what Obama is trying to do, provide cash to get businesses going again.

Oh, by the way, I LIKE your new avatar!:p:drool::turnon::coupling:

TracyCoxx

02-15-2009, 02:54 PM

Agreed, I thought that's what Obama is trying to do, provide cash to get businesses going again.Only 3% of the stimulus package is for general businesses. Although if you're in the business of "green energy", you'll do better.

Oh, by the way, I LIKE your new avatar!:p:drool::turnon::coupling:

Thanks :)

TracyCoxx

02-16-2009, 02:21 PM

randolph

02-16-2009, 03:03 PM

More news on BO... Now he wants to move control of the US Census from the Commerce department to the friken Whitehouse. For those who don't know, the Census is used to determine how voting districts are defined, which has a huge effect on the outcomes of elections. Something like this should not be in the hands of any one party. It's nothing but a blatant power grab.

The voting districts are determined by local state legislators or in the case of Californa by a new special nonpartisan committee. In most cases, voting districts have been manipulated for many years to strengthen the incumbents chances of reelection. It's called gerrymandering.:frown:

franalexes

02-16-2009, 06:08 PM

BUT, It doesn't belong in the Whitehouse!

randolph

02-16-2009, 06:31 PM

BUT, It doesn't belong in the Whitehouse!

I haven't seen ANY news on this, where is it reported?

TracyCoxx

02-16-2009, 07:00 PM

I haven't seen ANY news on this, where is it reported?

No surprise there. The mainstream news has become Obama's corpse of press secretaries. The link I'm about to post will probably make your skin crawl, but nevertheless, the story is accurate. <link (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/09/gop-sounds-alarm-obama-decision-census-white-house/)>.

This is bigger than gerrymandering. This would have the power of the executive office (i.e. a full branch out of the US's 3 branches) behind it, and a majority of congress. Let's say this happened 3-4 years ago, when the Republicans had the Whitehouse and Congress. Would you be ok with the Whitehouse having control of voting districts under those circumstances?

randolph

02-16-2009, 07:40 PM

TracyCoxx

02-16-2009, 09:27 PM

Isn't Fox news mainstream?Nah, even left wing bloggers and talk radio hosts are seated in front of Fox News at the Whitehouse press conferences now.

This tudu seems to involve Utah getting another congressman by counting their missionaries that are out of state!They are one group that is affected, and because of that they raised the issue. That doesn't change the fact that this has huge repercussions for future elections does it?

Well good ole Karl Rove went all out to manipulate elections and Repubs cheered him along.:frown:And Obama's campaign copied Rove's strategy to get into the Whitehouse. Fine. That's a campaign strategy. That's not the same as using the power of the executive branch to define political boundaries is it?

I don't think you're going to be able to put lipstick on this pig and keep a straight face. Would you answer the statement and question I asked you from above?
This is bigger than gerrymandering. This would have the power of the executive office (i.e. a full branch out of the US's 3 branches) behind it, and a majority of congress. Let's say this happened 3-4 years ago, when the Republicans had the Whitehouse and Congress. Would you be ok with the Whitehouse having control of voting districts under those circumstances?

randolph

02-16-2009, 09:30 PM

If you are calling Obama a pig then I am through with you!:censored::no::frown:

CreativeMind

02-16-2009, 10:11 PM

Isn't Fox news mainstream?
This tudu seems to involve Utah getting another congressman by counting their missionaries that are out of state!

Quote from Wordpress.com
"Critics note that the method of counting can skew the census. Democrats have long advocated using mathematical estimates, a practice known as "sampling," to count urban residents and immigrants. Republicans say the Constitution requires a physical head count, which entails going door-to-door.

In 2000, Utah, which has three congressmen, was extremely close to landing a fourth House seat based on U.S. Census numbers, but the nation's most conservative state fell short by a few hundred votes because the Census Bureau wouldn't count Mormon missionaries from Utah serving temporarily overseas.

The GOP took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, but was ultimately unsuccessful. Utah leaders had hoped the 2010 census would rectify the problem, but now worry that they will lose again if the census is managed by partisans."

Well good ole Karl Rove went all out to manipulate elections and Repubs cheered him along.:frown:

Well, wait a minute, Randolph -- now you're running circles around your OWN argument.

First of all, you said (quote): "This tudu seems to involve Utah getting another congressman by counting their missionaries that are out of state!" So to begin, I'd ask: what the hell is wrong with that? While it sounds like a great sound bite at first -- I mean, my gosh! Counting people who aren't really there! What a dirty Republican trick! -- the issue is where were the missionaries? And even more to the point, the REAL question is: how long will they be gone for? Look, last time I checked, we have this thing called "absentee ballots." We recognize that someone who isn't home at the time of an election...in his actual voting district...should STILL maintain his full citizenship rights and they deserve to have their vote counted.

So if a Mormom missionary has taken on a 6-month assignment to preach in Africa or Ugakawakawakaland or wherever the heck he is, the POINT is that his legal residence is STILL in Utah and that's WHERE he'll be coming home to because that's where he freakin' lives. So NOT counting him is equally ridiculous. It's like saying right now "Let's take a 100% fair count of ALL Hollywood residents, to find out once and for all who ACTUALLY lives there" -- but just because I was visiting friends in Vegas this weekend and wasn't around, I shouldn't be added to the tally. As if a simple 2-day weekend trip away completely NEGATES my place of residence where I ACTUALLY do live the other 363 days of the year. That's just ludicrous.

The whole POINT of the national census is NOT to take a friggin' guess at who may or may not be living in an area, to just toss a dart at the wall and randomly pick any ol' number. The POINT of the Census has always been to know just how many people live in different areas, to get as EXACTING a count as possible. And when I say an "exacting count", I mean literally just that. An actual head count -- yes, even taking into account those people who weren't at home that day because they were on a trip. Because the bottom line is THEY'RE COMING BACK! BECAUSE THEY FUCKING LIVE THERE!

In fact, this is one instance where I'll be blunt and truly partisan: Obama and the Democrats are full of fucking SHIT on this Census issue. Trying to move it into the White House and under its direct control and away from the Commerce Department (where it has historically been) is clearly a move to pull another bullshit Acorn voting fraud stunt, a less than obvious ploy to ultimately manipulate the data to realign districts to their political favor.

For Heaven's sake, look at what you wrote above. Again, I quote: "Democrats have long advocated using mathematical estimates, a practice known as "sampling," to count urban residents and immigrants. Republicans say the Constitution requires a physical head count, which entails going door-to-door."

Gee, that's rather IRONIC, isn't it? After all, who could POSSIBLY debate that an actual physical head count isn't more accurate than trying to do an "mathematical estimate"? For fuck's sake, you're even using the word "estimate" which -- by pure definition -- acknowledges that it's NOT an accurate number. That it's a "best guess" number!

Not to mention, there's also the utter CROCK to this. I love that when it comes to the Census and counting heads and determining Congressional voting districts that the Democrats are in favor of "estimates" and "mathematical models" -- yet this is the same party that when it came to the infamous Florida recount wanted every hanging chad counted thrice over or even now in the still disupted Minnesota Senatorial election between Al Franken and Norm Coleman are arguing (again) that every single ballot must be found or uncovered at all costs to ACCURATELY determine who won.

Gee, funny how that Left wing hypocrisy works.
Things are only worth ACTUALLY counting so long as it will seal a Democratic win.
Otherwise, what the hell -- let's just take a guess and go with that.

randolph

02-16-2009, 10:33 PM

The missionary issue was settled by the SUPREME COURT!

Obama is not taking over the census, the White House wants to review the operation of the census department. There is very little news out there on this issue. As usual Fox News picked this up and made a big deal out of it. If it was a big deal there would be some good coverage.

CreativeMind

02-16-2009, 11:15 PM

I don't think you're going to be able to put lipstick on this pig and keep a straight face. Would you answer the statement and question I asked you from above?

If you are calling Obama a pig then I am through with you!:censored::no::frown:

Randolph, take it easy. Don't read too much into the words, instead read between the lines. Tracy wasn't calling Obama a pig per se -- she was playfully and wittily using a line that came about during the Presidential campaign, which started when Sarah Palin made an infamous joke during her nomination convention speech, which is now part of pop culture, that compared Hockey Moms to pit bulls with lip stick...

...Which, shortly afterwards, Obama tried to mock during an appearance, but he stupidly mangled the words (later claiming he misspoke and was mentally exhausted from being on the campaign trail) where HE created a momentary political and media firestorm as many people felt HE had actually called Palin a pig.

Besides, purely on it's surface, you can take her words on face value for what they actually mean. Namely, you can't put lipstick on this Census pig and dress it up and pass it off for something it's not. The bottom line remains, as I explained in my post as well, that what Obama and the Democrats are trying to do is to clearly circumvent particular government agencies to ultimately manipulate Census data, which in turn will affect Congressional redistricting. Any way you try to slice it, THAT'S what they're up to and everyone sees it for what it is. Hence her "lipstick on a pig" analogy is dead on target.

TracyCoxx

02-16-2009, 11:18 PM

If you are calling Obama a pig then I am through with you!:censored::no::frown:

LMAO
It's an expression. And the pig I was referring to is the ISSUE of moving the Census to the Whitehouse.

Edited to add:
BTW, nice dodge. I almost forgot you still haven't answered my statement/question:
This is bigger than gerrymandering. This would have the power of the executive office (i.e. a full branch out of the US's 3 branches) behind it, and a majority of congress. Let's say this happened 3-4 years ago, when the Republicans had the Whitehouse and Congress. Would you be ok with the Whitehouse having control of voting districts under those circumstances?

Let's go a step further...
the White House chief of staff can't be expected to handle the census in a neutral manner. Emanuel ran the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in the 2006 election, and he was instrumental in getting Democrats elected into the majority.This Emanuel guy is the Carl Rove of the democratic party. Would you be ok with Carl Rove overseeing the Census?

CreativeMind

02-16-2009, 11:20 PM

Obama is not taking over the census.
There is very little news out there on this issue.
As usual Fox News picked this up and made a big deal out of it.
If it was a big deal there would be some good coverage.

TOO...MANY...MOCKING...ANSWERS...FLOODING...INTO HEAD!
BRAIN OVERLOAD! CAN'T...PICK...JUST...ONE!!!

Obama isn't trying to do anything wrong.
"If it was a big deal there would be some good coverage."
>snicker< (wiping tears from my eyes)
Thanks for the best laugh I got all day with THAT one, Randolph! :lol:

randolph

02-17-2009, 09:57 AM

TOO...MANY...MOCKING...ANSWERS...FLOODING...INTO HEAD!
BRAIN OVERLOAD! CAN'T...PICK...JUST...ONE!!!

Obama isn't trying to do anything wrong.
"If it was a big deal there would be some good coverage."
>snicker< (wiping tears from my eyes)
Thanks for the best laugh I got all day with THAT one, Randolph! :lol:

Well I guess it is good to know that some people find our present situation humorous. Isn't laughter the best medicine? It's just hard for me to laugh when thousands of people are losing their jobs and homes.:frown:

CreativeMind

02-18-2009, 05:06 AM

Well I guess it is good to know that some people find our present situation humorous.
Isn't laughter the best medicine?
It's just hard for me to laugh when thousands of people are losing their jobs and homes.:frown:

Randolph, I COMPLETELY sympathize with the plight of people in need right now -- trust me, I know MORE than enough people facing some pretty dire situations right now. I live and work in Los Angeles/Hollywood and people are losing their jobs left and right do to the poor economy overall, which in turn is likewise shutting down productions (and other things) left and right in this town. Not to mention (and most people have forgotten this due to the national crisis) but out here -- even in the midst of this madness -- the Screen Actors Guild never did come to a new contract agreement and they're STILL threatening to go on strike and shut things down in this town 100%. And if that happens...coupled with the national crisis...you might as well kiss Los Angeles good-bye for years to come. This place will officially become a ghost town.

Hell, even as it is, you should kiss California all but good-bye. As of today, California is facing a $32 BILLION deficit with the stimulus plan possibly sending around $10 billion in bail out aid to the state. Which means we'd still be a whopping $22 Billion in the hole -- hence today's latest news that as of Friday Arnold will be laying off 20,000 state workers. Not to mention the state also has told the taxpayers they're NOT getting any tax refunds this year -- we're all getting fucking "IOU's" in the mail since the state is completely bust.

Of course this also leads to another political wildfire -- namely that in the midst of this, the LA TIMES just issued a news report tallying the cost of illegal immigrants here at $5 billion a year, while other studies show it running as high as $10 Billion. So at a time when the state is $32 Billion in the hole -- and nearly a THIRD of that loss is due to illegal aliens living here and draining public services dry -- this state is quickly becoming an economic, political, and societal powder keg.

Or as someone said on TV today (I forget who, but I caught the comment in passing and thought it was dead-on): "They say that as California goes, so goes the rest of the nation. Well, if that's the case, WE'RE ALL SCREWED."

Anyway, the reason I made my humorous comment before was due to your one-two punch statement that IF Obama was doing anything wrong, it would get plenty of coverage. PUH-LEEZE. As the election showed, the media is SO in Obama's pocket and SO determined to back him and even protect him that you're right -- it isn't funny. In fact, it's sad. It's a sad day for democracy and honest journalism when we've reached that point.

An example off the top of my head: Chris Matthews on MSNBC going from being a firebrand and saying it was his job was to "relentlessly find the truth and ask hard questions of the Bush Administration" to him declaring on air that listening to Obama speak "sends a shiver up my leg" and that he now feels (and I quote): "It's my job now to make sure Obama succeeds." Excuse me? TO MAKE SURE he succeeds? Gee, I thought his job as a fucking journalist was to report the news, not SHAPE it.

So going back to your post and my reply, the notion of these clowns in the media reporting ANYTHING bad that Obama does is all but inconceivable at this point...

TracyCoxx

02-18-2009, 06:47 AM

And why would you basicly give a shit what any one thinks? You just send the marines... simple! And good for you! Or is it?

The current American rethoric and waging of war has made it harder to be a Westerner in this world. It's time for an optimistic change. Barack will to a degree bring that.

Peace (love and harmony)!

HankyPanky

And in the end, isn't that truly what the socalled "American Dream" is all about? I mean, before it was hijacked by the military fascists who sort of indicate that to be a TRUE American with hand on heart, tears in the eyes and gun (and sexuality) in the closet you MUST be an ultra right winger believing in the "small-town-set" of values?

Hopefully all that will fade away and die out with the current believers.

Peace!

LOL :lol: LOL
Sorry HankyPanky... Obama sucks as a president so far, but at least he's continuing Bush's war.

Or, here is a novel idea, lets start a war! Wars have got us out of depressions in the past.
Ask, and ye shall receive.

More Than 17,000 Troops Headed to Afghanistan (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/17/troops-headed-afganistan/)

I haven't seen ANY news on this, where is it reported?Yeah, funny isn't it. CNN forgot to report on this trivial bit of news.

TracyCoxx

02-18-2009, 07:15 AM

In other news (that's off Randolf's radar), Feinstein was trying to slip something into the spendulous package that would require internet providers to guarantee that child pornography would not be transmitted through them. Sounds nice... BUT this would require ISPs to monitor your network activities, and slow down internet speeds so that packets could be analyzed. And once ISPs see what all us perverts are looking at on transladyboy, they'll probably not be happy with that and shut that down as well. Democrats will probably also want to apply the Fairness Doctrine to the internet as well so they can guarantee that what you're reading is fair and balanced according to them. Feinstein's initial attempt was stopped, but he was looking for other sneaky ways to stick it into the bill. I haven't heard yet if he was successful. No one really knows what other surprises are in that bill.

And if an additional $787 Billion to our debt weren't enough, now Barry wants to spend ANOTHER $50 Billion for people who are defaulting on their loans because ACORN insisted the government should give them the loans. Will the madness ever end? Nah, we're only at the beginning of what is likely going to be the longest 4 years in American history.

randolph

02-18-2009, 10:21 AM

Did you all see Frontline on PBS? Bernake et. al. are clue less they really have no idea how to deal with this crisis. They are just throwing money at it and hoping it works! God save us!:frown::censored::turnoff:

Well at least we can play with ourselves and dream about ladyboys. We don't need a loan for that unless we want to go to Thailand! ;):lol::turnon:

randolph

02-18-2009, 10:45 AM

Here's a treat for all you Repubs. Yeah I know you don't need to say I told you so.:coupling::frown:

CreativeMind

02-18-2009, 09:25 PM

Here's a treat for all you Repubs. Yeah I know you don't need to say I told you so.:coupling::frown:

Well, politics have erupted yet again over that very cartoon you posted. Which everyone with a functioning brain should know combines two simple things -- the sad innocent that happened yesterday where an elderly woman was attacked by an out of control chimpanzee, which police then had to shoot AND the current economic crisis and the bailout bill, which polls show everyone basically hates and really was written by a bunch of dumb monkeys (ie. Congress).

Of course now the Left is out in force and all over talk shows, calling that cartoon a racist slur against Obama (even though the monkey is clearly meant to symbolize EVERYONE that's in government right now), plus they're bitching that the idea of even alluding to him being a chimp is demeaning to the office of the Presidency.

Which I find laugh out loud funny (and utterly hypocritical) since the far Left just spent the last 8 years openly calling and nicknaming Bush "the chimp".

So, I guess it was okay to label Bush a chimp or use images portraying him as a monkey, yet when you call Obama that it becomes grounds for censorship and demanded public apologies and all sorts of pther things. Which brings us full circle to my post above about the laughable idea that today's mainstream media will ever go after Obama fairly versus acting as his perpetual press secretary and protector.

randolph

02-18-2009, 10:37 PM

Signs Of The Times

That the Financial Times has a headline that reads "Greenspan Backs Bank Nationalization" is truly a sign that we live in strange, strange times. Any moment now the sun shall become as black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon shall become as blood, and the stars of heaven shall fall unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind, and the seas shall turn to blood, and we shall hear an angel flying through the midst of heaven, saying with a loud voice, Woe, woe, woe, to the inhabiters of the earth by reason of the other voices of the trumpet of the three angels, which are yet to sound!

But in the general amazement, it's important not to lose sight of the fact that Alan Greenspan is not just one of the last people on earth I would have expected to endorse nationalization. He's also one of the people most responsible for the calamity that makes nationalization necessary (though as Yves Smith reminds us, he is not alone.) " "Greenspan Backs Bank Nationalization" is not like "Hayek: Keynes Was Right!". I've been trying to figure out what it is like, and I've come up with a few possibilities:

"Kaiser Wilhelm Backs Surrender To France, Allies:
Wars Of Aggression Wrong, German Monarch Claims"

"Typhoid Mary: Attention To Hygienic Food Preparation Vital To Public Health"

"Mao Zedong Backs Privatization:
'Great Leap Forward' An Act Of Idiotic Hubris That Cost Millions Of Lives For No Earthly Reason, Dictator Concedes
Backyard Smelters 'Particularly Boneheaded'"

"Sherman To Atlanta: Oops! My Bad!"

"Alaric: Great Cities Should Be Left Unmolested:
'I Liked Rome Better Before We Sacked It', Visigoth Laments"

"Satan Backs Christ's Effort To Redeem Mankind On Cross:
Regrets Involvement In Fall"

So what do the Repubs think of this?;):confused:

TracyCoxx

02-19-2009, 06:40 AM

So, I guess it was okay to label Bush a chimp or use images portraying him as a monkey, yet when you call Obama that it becomes grounds for censorship and demanded public apologies and all sorts of pther things. Which brings us full circle to my post above about the laughable idea that today's mainstream media will ever go after Obama fairly versus acting as his perpetual press secretary and protector.

Thou shalt not criticize Obama. That is illustrated in the mainstream media where hardly anyone noticed that Obama sent over 17000 troops to Afghanistan. And certainly no one here has criticized this when if Bush had done it, he would be called everything from Warmonger to Hitler.

There's also this:
"Even as it pulls back from harsh interrogations and other sharply debated aspects of George W. Bush's 'war on terrorism,' the Obama administration is quietly signaling continued support for other major elements of its predecessor's approach to fighting al-Qaeda. In little-noticed confirmation testimony recently, Obama nominees endorsed continuing the CIA's program of transferring prisoners to other countries without legal rights, and indefinitely detaining terrorism suspects without trials even if they were arrested far from a war zone. The administration has also embraced the Bush legal team's arguments that a lawsuit by former C.I.A. detainees should be shut down based on the 'state secrets' doctrine. It has also left the door open to resuming military commission trials."

Not to mention the troops he's committed to Afghanistan. Of course, I have no problem with this, but where is the outrage from all the peaceniks here? I guess it goes back to the Golden Rule: Thou Shalt Not Criticize Obama

TracyCoxx

02-19-2009, 06:47 AM

But in the general amazement, it's important not to lose sight of the fact that Alan Greenspan is not just one of the last people on earth I would have expected to endorse nationalization. He's also one of the people most responsible for the calamity that makes nationalization necessary (though as Yves Smith reminds us, he is not alone.)

Greenspan says it's necessary to temporarily nationalize some banks. And says "I understand that once in a hundred years this is what you do."

As for his responsibility in the calamity. What did he do? Force Freddie and Fannie to make loans available to people who couldn't afford them? No... that was Carter & Clinton.

randolph

02-19-2009, 09:53 AM

Latest news from Transmicro.

Dr. Lotta Cummings recently returned from Thailand and reported on her research. She analyzed the IQ of visitors to ladyboys before and after imbibing in ladyboy cum for several days. To her amazement, she found that IQ increased significantly after consuming ladyboy cum.

It occurred to me that this might be the solution to our problems in Washington. We should arrange for Hank to send a planeload of ladyboys to Washington for the exclusive use of politicians. ;):lol::cool:

TracyCoxx

02-19-2009, 09:25 PM

There's a woman in my town who can't pay her mortgage. ACORN is coming to her rescue and organizing a sit in and saying she does not have to be evicted. Apparently they think the bank should just eat that loss. If banks can't depend on getting loans paid off, they might stop making loans. Oh wait... that's what was already happening. Let's see... who was behind that the first time? Oh yeah ACORN. The ones who are eligible for a 4 Billion dollar atta-boy from Obama's spendulous package.

Let's make a new welfare program... let's have the government start bailing out people who can't pay their mortgage. Gee now, what effect do you think that will have on the economy? Well Obama wants to find out.

Obama's $275 billion program offers $75 billion in incentives to lenders to lower payments by at-risk homeowners to 31 percent of their income. The other $200 billion would be drawn from money approved by last year's Congress to bolster efforts by federal lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to offer affordable mortgages and bring stability to the housing market.That's right. A new multi-hundred billion dollar bailout package. And no, we don't have that money either.

10-05-08
Hey, if Obama is elected, do you think he'll tell mortgage companies to stop making bad loans to minorities? LOL fat chance. Then of course, he'll raise taxes on businesses, so all these factors combine into sort of a perfect storm for financial disaster. So this is only the beginning.

Anyone listening to me yet?

randolph

02-19-2009, 09:51 PM

There's a woman in my town who can't pay her mortgage. ACORN is coming to her rescue and organizing a sit in and saying she does not have to be evicted. Apparently they think the bank should just eat that loss. If banks can't depend on getting loans paid off, they might stop making loans. Oh wait... that's what was already happening. Let's see... who was behind that the first time? Oh yeah ACORN. The ones who are eligible for a 4 Billion dollar atta-boy from Obama's spendulous package.

Let's make a new welfare program... let's have the government start bailing out people who can't pay their mortgage. Gee now, what effect do you think that will have on the economy? Well Obama wants to find out.

That's right. A new multi-hundred billion dollar bailout package. And no, we don't have that money either.

10-05-08

Anyone listening to me yet?

So do you have a better idea?
Oh sure, people can sleep in their cars, but what if they have lost their car? Oh, to hell with them they are too stupid to worry about, let them find some cardboard to sleep under. After all we are a "poor" country, we cant afford to take care of ugh, poor people, its all their own fault anyway. Sighing on to easy loans on houses that would gain in value. After all the smartest people in the country believed that, even the great guru Mr. Greenspan believed it. Why should we question all that wisdom, I'm just a poor working stiff who wants a roof over my head.:frown:

hankhavelock

02-20-2009, 01:47 AM

Agreed, I thought that's what Obama is trying to do, provide cash to get businesses going again.

Oh, by the way, I LIKE your new avatar!:p:drool::turnon::coupling:

Yes, Tracy's avatar is, indeed, cute... unfortunately her political views are not...

Obama is trying his best to clean up the Republican mess after eight years of insanely incompetent, corrupt and war-mongering policies. And obviously the Reps sit back and smile and think "how can YOU clean it up...?"

It may take a little while, but we're on the way, not least because President Obama acknowledges the fact that we're in this together. Geo and Dick only thought of their own wealth, not their country's (and certainly not the world's). They were the most dangerous administration that your country has ever had.

But the scorned Reps and hard core conservatives will for ever plead their lost case... keep in mind that their intellectual base is Hannity, Lambaugh, Wolfowitch and their kind... so what can we do? Not exactly rational ppl with a wish to move forward... but I guess that's what conservatism is all about... let's NOT move any where if not backwards.

F****** fascists!

H

TracyCoxx

02-20-2009, 06:46 AM

Sighing on to easy loans on houses that would gain in value. After all the smartest people in the country believed that, even the great guru Mr. Greenspan believed it. Why should we question all that wisdom, I'm just a poor working stiff who wants a roof over my head.:frown:

You still haven't explained Greenspan's role in the financial crisis. Bush has been trying to warn congress starting in 2001 with this:
The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity."

And repeatedly warned congress throughout his 2 terms. He warned them 17 times in 2008 alone. Democrats continued to say Fannie & Freddie were fine right up until they collapsed. Perhaps it was those "smart people" you were listening to?

So do you have a better idea?
Oh sure, people can sleep in their cars, but what if they have lost their car? Oh, to hell with them they are too stupid to worry about, let them find some cardboard to sleep under. After all we are a "poor" country, we cant afford to take care of ugh, poor people, its all their own fault anyway.
If anyone, from the US government down to Joe Blow, has financial problems and debt, you need to cut spending. The republican congress and Bush both had problems with this. $261 billion of our 2008 budget goes towards interest on the debt. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget,_2008) So you need to cut spending. Quit living beyond your means, or else the debt will obviously continue to grow. And you'll have to cut it drastically just to be able to actually start reducing the debt. That's not what Obama wants to do though. His solution is to go orders of magnitude beyond the overspending that the republicans have done. Which will lead to hyper-inflation.

The American people are not too stupid to earn a living. But increasingly they have been getting too lazy, and they've been able to pull off being lazy because the democrats will side with them and say ohh poor us. We need a hand out. And increasingly the lazy are getting hand outs. Being lazy works for them. And it's working for that lazy idiot in my town who has ACORN flocking to her rescue.

TracyCoxx

02-20-2009, 09:50 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM

randolph

02-20-2009, 10:29 AM

Ahem! Who created all this current debt?
If anyone, from the US government down to Joe Blow, has financial problems and debt, you need to cut spending. The republican congress and Bush both had problems with this. $261 billion of our 2008 budget goes towards interest on the debt. So you need to cut spending. Quit living beyond your means, or else the debt will obviously continue to grow. And you'll have to cut it drastically just to be able to actually start reducing the debt.

Also, it was not Milton Friedman who created this mess but his fiscal philosophy that dominated the Chicago school of economics in the 50s and 60s. The naive belief that capitalism can automatically regulate and control itself without government regulation. There is absolutely no evidence in history to support that belief. Capitalism is the way to generate wealth, no doubt. However, it must be carefully regulated to prevent excessive speculation and criminals like Madoff from screwing things up. Granted, when the good times roll every body wants to get into the act and commonsense goes out the window. The encouragement of low income people to buy houses was not a bad idea in itself, IF carefully regulated. The illusion that housing values would go up forever is what messed up the system. Greenspan further encouraged the speculation by keeping the Feds interest rate too low. The final problem is the innovative creation of bundled securities that nobody really understood and were completely unregulated. Greenspan had no idea how the financial risk was spiraling out of control.
Anyway, we are all in this together! :frown:

A democrat decided to buy a used car and went to a dealer who happened to be a republican. The dealer showed the democrat a car and they took it out for a test drive. The democrat took over driving and as they started to cross a railroad track the car stalled. The democrat was frantically trying to get the car started as a train bore down on them. The republican salesman said, forget about getting the car started, I am a republican and I believe the train will stop before it hits us.:lol:

franalexes

02-20-2009, 12:58 PM

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1039849853

Some people are starting to figure it out.

randolph

02-20-2009, 01:10 PM

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1039849853

Some people are starting to figure it out.

Its a big problem to bail out our neighbors with billions but it was not a problem to spend billions destroying Iraq and killing thousands of our boys and Iraq citizens? :frown:

franalexes

02-20-2009, 01:18 PM

You think we should bail out the crooked bankers and wall street first?

randolph

02-20-2009, 01:20 PM

You think we should bail out the crooked bankers and wall street first?

Those guys should all be in jail! :frown::censored:

franalexes

02-20-2009, 01:24 PM

Those guys should all be in jail! :frown::censored:

But they are not. They are in the Carribean on a beach, writing checks to the Democrat National Committee.

randolph

02-20-2009, 01:27 PM

But they are not. They are in the Carribean on a beach, writing checks to the Democrat National Committee.

Franny get your gun, we are going after them.:yes::cool:

CreativeMind

02-20-2009, 01:49 PM

A democrat decided to buy a used car and went to a dealer who happened to be a republican. The dealer showed the democrat a car and they took it out for a test drive. The democrat took over driving and as they started to cross a railroad track the car stalled. The democrat was frantically trying to get the car started as a train bore down on them. The republican salesman said, forget about getting the car started, I am a republican and I believe the train will stop before it hits us.:lol:

Of course, the ACTUAL punchline to this story being...

With the train's warning horn honking again and again, the Republican finally did have the brains to step out of the car. Why? Because a fucking train was bearing down on them and he realized it was the only sane thing to do.

Meanwhile, the Democrat continued to just sit in the car because he felt the car breaking down wasn't his fault. Even though this was the car HE examined on the lot and HE picked to drive and even though HE was the one driving it.

So, true to his political beliefs and even with a goddamn freight train bearing down on him -- its warning horn STILL repeatedly blowing -- the Democrat was more than willing to sit there, arms folded across his chest like a spoiled child having a temper tantrum, till somebody ELSE came along and GAVE him a new car or till somebody ELSE came along and THEY PAID for repairing his car or till somebody ELSE came along and got behind his car and using THEIR sweat and effort pushed him out of the way -- all while he continued to sit comfortably in the car, putting in no effort at all on his part.

Because in the end, why should the Democrat have the simple common sense to open the car door and get out himself when he can get somebody else to do it for him? :lol:

CreativeMind

02-20-2009, 01:57 PM

But they are not. They are in the Carribean on a beach, writing checks to the Democrat National Committee.

Yeah, gotta love Obama feeling our pain.
Hey, Big O, how about paying some of your OWN bills?
Or will my tax dollars go to bailing YOU out as well?

CHICAGO SUN-TIMES
February 20, 2009

Chicago has yet to recoup the $1.74 million cost of President Obama's victory celebration in Grant Park -- despite a burgeoning $50.5 million budget shortfall that threatens more layoffs and union concessions.

"The Democratic National Committee has not yet paid us,'' Peter Scales, a spokesman for the city's Office of Budget and Management, said Thursday after questions from the Chicago Sun-Times. "We're reaching out to them this week."

Stacie Paxton, a spokeswoman for the Obama-controlled DNC, explained the reimbursement delay by saying, "We are still looking at various costs and bills.'' She would not say whether parts of the bill are disputed.

The city spent $1 million on police protection for the rally. The Office of Emergency Management and Communications racked up more than $120,000 in expenses, including $19,500 paid to police official Neil Sullivan to quarterback election night logistics.

In late October, Mayor Daley assured that the cash-flush Obama campaign would reimburse the city for every penny spent on the rally. "We have a financial crisis," he said at the time. "The City of Chicago could not afford $2 million on this because we're gonna be laying off people, cutting back. That [cost] would really be unfortunate. It's a huge cost to the City of Chicago.

"This is not a presidential visit. This is a political event, and they've agreed to pay for all those services -- all the expenses of that. ... It's costly, but they raised quite a bit of money. There's no [shortage] of money in that campaign."

The day after the Nov. 4 election, Daley was asked again whether the Obama campaign would pay up.

"Yeah. I don't know why you're so negative. What is this? He just won for president, and you say, 'He's not gonna pay his bills,' " the mayor said then.

On Dec. 9, the day the Sun-Times disclosed the $1.74 million tab, Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt referred questions to the DNC. Paxton confirmed then that the rally was a "DNC-sponsored event" and that the party was discussing the itemized bill with the city.

randolph

02-20-2009, 05:01 PM

But they are not. They are in the Carribean on a beach, writing checks to the Democrat National Committee.

Franny get your gun we are going to the Caribbean. :frown::lol:

randolph

02-20-2009, 05:11 PM

Dear CommonDreamer,

When Congress passed the George W. Bush $700 billion bank bailout plan, the goal was to rescue our banking system by propping up the banks that deregulation had allowed to become 'too big to fail.' We now know that the bailed out banks didn't use our money to start lending more - rather they paid out big bonuses to executives and bailed out the banks' shareholders. In return for our money the American people got nothing.

We, the people, became majority owners in many of the major banks. But we have no voice in the way the banks are run. If taxpayers are footing the bill for rescuing the banks, why shouldn't we get ownership, at least until private buyers can be found?

Nobel laureate economist Paul Krugman calls this a "a classic exercise in 'lemon socialism': taxpayers bear the cost if things go wrong, but stockholders and executives get the benefits if things go right."

Yes, we get f++++d regardless who is in the Whitehouse.:censored::frown:

randolph

02-23-2009, 08:29 PM

On top of everything else we are now going to spend $600 million dollars in Gaza to repair what the Israelis did! FuXXXXXed again!:censored::frown:

TracyCoxx

02-23-2009, 09:47 PM

WTH???
1. It's not our responsibility to magically solve all the world's problems.
2. The Palestinians brought the destruction on themselves by breaking the cease fire. They're responsible for their predicament.
3. Why can't the Palestinians make the repairs? If they can't afford to, what's the difference? We can't either!

Will the Obama administration please, for once, do something that makes sense?!

CreativeMind

02-23-2009, 11:09 PM

On top of everything else we are now going to spend $600 million dollars in Gaza to repair what the Israelis did! FuXXXXXed again!:censored::frown:

WTH???
1. It's not our responsibility to magically solve all the world's problems.
2. The Palestinians brought the destruction on themselves by breaking the cease fire. They're responsible for their predicament.
3. Why can't the Palestinians make the repairs? If they can't afford to, what's the difference? We can't either!

Will the Obama administration please, for once, do something that makes sense?!

I hate to break it to you both, but you'd better get used to MORE of this happening in the days, weeks, months and years to come, especially with Obama in office and the rest of the world -- especially socialists -- SO in love with him and feeling he's some sort of cult figure. Or as conservative columnist Michelle Malkin correctly notes, we now live in the age of a "savior based economy."

So what's next? A Global New Deal? Gee, guess who Europe and other poor countries 'round the world are gonna expect to pick up the tab for THIS one!

CNN
February 22, 2009

BERLIN, Germany (CNN) -- The world needs a "global New Deal" to haul it out of the economic crisis it faces, Prime Minister Gordon Brown of the United Kingdom said Sunday.

"We need a global New Deal -- a grand bargain between the countries and continents of this world -- so that the world economy can not only recover but... so the banking system can be based on... best principles," he said, referring to the 1930s American plan to fight the Great Depression. Brown was speaking as the leaders of Europe's biggest economies met to try to forge a common position on the global financial crisis ahead of a major summit in London in April.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy said the world's response to the global financial meltdown had to be profound and long-lasting, not just tinkering around the edges. "Europe wants to see an overhaul of the system. We all agree on that. We're not talking about superficial measures now or transitional measures -- we're talking about structural measure, which need to be taken," he said.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the host of the meeting, urged nations of the world to work together to fight the problem. "Confidence can only be restored if people in our countries feel that we are pulling in the same direction and have understood that we really must learn lessons from this crisis," she said.

** Translation: America will pay for this!

And she proposed that a new institution grow out of the crisis, "which will take on more responsibility for global [financial] mechanisms."

** Translation: But the EU will be in charge and America has to do what we say!

The Europeans say they have agreed international financial markets must be regulated more thoroughly. That also means stricter rules for hedge funds and credit-rating agencies. European and world leaders have been holding frequent summits as they struggle to cope with a financial crisis that has affected banks, homeowners, businesses and employees around the world.
advertisement

London will host a meeting of the Group of 20 nations in April. The G-20 includes the G-7 leading industrialized nations -- Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States -- as well as the world's largest developing economies: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea and Turkey, plus the European Union. The managing director of the International Monetary Fund and the president of the World Bank, plus the chairs of the International Monetary and Financial Committee and Development Committee of the IMF and World Bank, also participate in G-20 meetings.

TracyCoxx

02-24-2009, 06:52 AM

This is like we're all on a passenger jet, in stormy weather, over the water, and rather than Captain Sullenberger at the helm, there's a 6 year old up there.

CreativeMind

02-24-2009, 08:40 PM

This is like we're all on a passenger jet, in stormy weather, over the water, and rather than Captain Sullenberger at the helm, there's a 6 year old up there.

Well, the big question is how will the markets react to his speech tonight?

Yesterday, the markets dropped 250 points in a giant sell-off. Today, the markets rebounded as investors picked up assorted things, feeling a bit more at ease that Obama is not looking to nationalize the banks -- even though the White House has given every indication THAT option is still on the table. In fact, I don't know why anyone would think it's off the table. For crying out loud, right now Citibank is actually asking the government to step in and buy up more of its common shares.

So, all day people and commentators on the financial shows have been saying one of two things is going to happen. Either Obama will give an "okay" speech tonight and calm SOME fears and the market will continue on, trying to rebound naturally...a bit up...a big down...back and forth till it finally equalizes over a long period of time...

...OR others are predicting if his speech talks too much about far reaching government programs (and thus further spending) that he still wants to ram through right now (like universal health care) that tomorrow morning you could see one of the biggest sell-offs in history because Wall Street will basically be running for the hills.

Oh, and with tonight's speech Obama needs to earn back the American people's sense of good will and the sense of "hope" he ran on. While I know people like Hank (who is overseas) adore and love Obama, here at home in the latest national poll Obama has dropped yet another 10 points in terms of his Job Approval rating. So right now only 59% of the American people...and dropping...think he's doing a good job.

randolph

02-24-2009, 09:32 PM

Obama is not God, he does not have a magic wand to wave around and solve this crisis. He has only been in office a few weeks for Peat's sake! He not only has to deal with Repubs. who voted AGAINST the largest tax cut in history but lobbyists determined to hold on to lucrative connections between capitalists and Congress. No one can solve this alone, it will take a concerted effort of all of us to dig ourselves out of this hole. Its time to "flush Rush" and learn how to cooperate! :yes::cool:

CreativeMind

02-24-2009, 10:50 PM

randolph

02-24-2009, 11:16 PM

"flush Rush"? Well, since you like catchy rhyming phrases,
I assume in that same spirit of "cooperation" the Left is willing to "ban Olbermann"?

Well Olberman seems to do a pretty good job of pointing out all of the misleading information and downright lies Ann Coulter spews out. Anyway, we would probably be better off without all of the media windbags.:yes:

franalexes

02-25-2009, 07:39 AM

Why is Talk Radio only a right wing success story? Could it be that no one is intersted in the left or no one wants to sponsor it? Duh!

CreativeMind

02-25-2009, 07:52 AM

No one can solve this alone, it will take a concerted effort of all of us to dig ourselves out of this hole.
Its time to "flush Rush" and learn how to cooperate! :yes::cool:

"flush Rush"? Well, since you like catchy rhyming phrases,
I assume in that same spirit of "cooperation" the Left is willing to "ban Olbermann"?

Well Olberman seems to do a pretty good job of pointing out all of the misleading information and downright lies Ann Coulter spews out.

LMAO! So much for cooperation.
That was short-lived!

Fine, keep mad dog Keith. We'll keep Rush.
Now we're right back where we started!

randolph

02-25-2009, 10:09 AM

LMAO! So much for cooperation.
That was short-lived!

Fine, keep mad dog Keith. We'll keep Rush.
Now we're right back where we started!

But wait! what about trannie Annie?;):lol:

randolph

02-25-2009, 10:17 AM

Why is Talk Radio only a right wing success story? Could it be that no one is intersted in the left or no one wants to sponsor it? Duh!

Could it be that the right wing likes bombastic windbags?;)

franalexes

02-25-2009, 10:24 AM

Did you notice Pelosi last night? She acted like she had a pogo stick up her ass. Honestly, if Obamasan had farted she would have applauded.

new believer

02-25-2009, 10:31 AM

Did you notice Pelosi last night? She acted like she had a pogo stick up her ass. Honestly, if Obamasan had farted she would have applauded.

what i like about Pelosi is her perpetual 'surprised' look.
like someone just came in her mouth when he promised he would'nt.

randolph

02-25-2009, 10:34 AM

Did you notice Pelosi last night? She acted like she had a pogo stick up her ass. Honestly, if Obamasan had farted she would have applauded.

Obama "worship" is getting ridiculous.
Currently I am reading "So Damn Much Money" by Robert Kaiser. It is a fascinating book about the expansion of the lobby industry in recent years. Kaiser documents how lobbyists rule Washington. Democrats and Republicans alike should read this book. A wake up call for saving whats left of our democracy.

randolph

02-25-2009, 11:18 AM

LEHRER: How well did he do?

David Brooks on Bobby Jindal.
BROOKS: Not so well. You know, I think Bobby Jindal is a very promising politician, and I opposed the stimulus package - I thought it was poorly drafted - but to come up at this moment in history with a stale, "government is the problem...we can't trust the government"...it's just a disaster for the Republican Party. The country is in a panic, now. They may not like the way the Congress passed the stimulus bill. The idea that government is going to have no role in this...in a moment where only the Federal government is big enough to do stuff...to just ignore all that and say government's the problem...corruption, earmarks, wasteful spending - it's just a form of nihilism. It's just not where the country is, it's not where the future of the country is. There's an intra-Republican debate: some people say the Republican party lost its way because it got too moderate, some people say they got too weird or too conservative. He thinks they got too moderate, and he's making that case. I think it's insane. I think it's a disaster for the party. I just think it's unfortunate right now.

CreativeMind

02-25-2009, 04:11 PM

BROOKS: Not so well. You know, I think Bobby Jindal is a very promising politician, and I opposed the stimulus package - I thought it was poorly drafted - but to come up at this moment in history with a stale, "government is the problem...we can't trust the government"...it's just a disaster for the Republican Party.

Considering that Obama's popularity has finally begun to dip...
Considering his job performance rating is slowly sliding towards only 50%...
Considering that 2/3 of the American people feel Obama's economic plan is for shit...
And considering that every time Obama opens his mouth about how he's going to fix the economy, Wall Street tanks even more (And yes, it was down again today. So much for the great "inspirational" speech last night)...

...It's pretty clear that Brooks (who, by the way, is a dope most of the time anyway) STILL doesn't get it. It's not a "stale" message -- it's what the average person really DOES still believe. The Reagan years produced one of the longest stretches of sustained economic growth in America's history by doing things completely opposite from what Obama is doing now. The problem is Obama started down that path, but now he's veered wildly off the road and gone utterly spend crazy. It's like he's in race between how fast he can print money and turn right around and spend it. The Obama glow has begun to wear thin and the irony here is that he dropped a phrase saying "I get it", not realizing it's the American people who "get it" -- and what they get is that spending is totally out of control and needs to be MASSIVELY reigned in.

Brooks needs a reality check and a bucket of cold water to the face. The problem is, given his political leanings, Brooks refuses to acknowledge that the average American STILL believes in Reagan's classic line "Government isn't the solution to the problem. Government IS the problem."

BROOKS: The country is in a panic, now. They may not like the way the Congress passed the stimulus bill. The idea that government is going to have no role in this...in a moment where only the Federal government is big enough to do stuff...to just ignore all that and say government's the problem...corruption, earmarks, wasteful spending - it's just a form of nihilism.

LMAO! This is why I love Brooks. What a buffoon. On the one hand, he's saying the Republican are guilty of nihilism. And yet on the other hand, he is literally saying (regarding the Democrats): "Okay...yes...I admit it, the stimulus bill was passed in a shitty way...yes, the government really should stay out of people's lives...yes, the Obama stimulus plan is filled with corruption, earmarks, and wasteful spending -- but so what? It's your only hope!!!"

What was that about nihilism again?

randolph

02-25-2009, 06:28 PM

The Democratic Reagan

Obama's speech was his best rhetorical moment since Grant Park on Election Night. This guy is really good and reminds me of Reagan: Tremendous stage presence, great smile, easy to like, knows how to hit the big theme and avoid the minutia (thus making his speech about 20 minutes shorter than a typical Bill Clinton address to Congress). Like Reagan, his numbers might not pencil out, but he's not going to talk about many of those numbers. He has the strategic advantage of being more popular than any single one of his policies. He can thus tug a policy along behind him, as if it were a distracted puppy.

The opposition party may feel virtuous in sticking to what it claims are its principles, but in a chamber dominated by a young, charismatic leader, the Republicans simply look like old, crotchety sticks-in-the-mud. The Yesterday Party, still defending the gold standard, and wondering if it was a good idea to give women the vote.

Every Republican in the chamber probably had the same nagging thought: This is likely going to be the first of eight of these things. Obama showed no rookie moves. The only real hope for the GOP is to rely on that old historic standby, dominant party overreach. Moral hazard could create enough moral outrage to give the GOP at least a semblance of a foundation for a 2012 challenge. Obama knows that, which is why he said so directly, "I get it." ;)

TracyCoxx

02-26-2009, 12:19 AM

CreativeMind

02-26-2009, 03:21 AM

I'm losing count. What is our deficit at now? About 3 or 4 Trillion? At what point does the rest of the world realize all these IOUs we're giving them is worthless? What value do they get out of it? We're not producing nearly enough to ever pay it back. Not before, and certainly not now. They're basically donating all kinds of products to us. Someone tell me why?

Well, in terms of money spent, here's the AP headline that just went out across the wires.
The lead paragraph tells you all you need to now about how economically fucked we are...

OBAMA SENDING FIRST BUDGET TO CONGRESS
February 26, 2009

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama is sending Congress a $3 trillion-plus budget, a spending blueprint that will project astronomical deficits that reflect the cost of getting the country out of a deep recession and a severe financial crisis.

Oh, and Tracy -- to answer your point about worthless IOU's, I saw someone on TV the other day who had actually run the numbers -- and you'd better brace yourself. To pay for all of Obama's plans to date, in other words to cover all of the money he's already committed us to, right now the income tax rate on every single person working in America...regardless of their income level...would have to be raised to 95%. Oh yeah, and you'd have to do that till at least 2013.

These morons in Washington have crossed a line of spending insanity in ways that it's nearly impossible to tabulate anymore. Seriously, think about that -- the only way to pay for Obama's plan and to actually dig ourselves back out of this bigger deficit hole would be for every single one of us to give the government NINETY FIVE PERCENT of our income. For the next SEVERAL YEARS.

I'm sure you could live on only 5% of your salary, right? But hey, look on the bright side. At least there will be a high speed train connecting Disneyland and Las Vegas. Not that you'll have any money to visit either place or even be able to buy a ticket to ride the train -- but at least it will be built!

randolph

02-26-2009, 09:31 AM

How come massive deficits created by democrats are so much worse than massive deficits created by republicans? Just wondering.:frown:

randolph

02-26-2009, 10:01 AM

by Dr. Mark Skousen

The U.S. financial system is a mess - according to the World Economic Forum, the United States ranks 40th among banking systems around the world. Without federal bailouts, the two largest banks in the country, Citibank (NYSE: C) and Bank of America (NYSE: BAC), would be in bankruptcy, and the good old USA would be headed for the Greater Depression, as my friend Doug Casey likes to call it.

You'll never guess where the world's No. 1 banking system is. No, it's not fabled Switzerland, nor booming Hong Kong. While the central banks around the world are desperately trying to stem the flow of red ink, this country's red is emblazoned on its iconic mounted police force. It's right next door: Canada. The land of hockey and moose has the world's soundest banking system. While European and Asian banks are collapsing, Canada stands out as an oasis of financial calm.

Canadian Banks Receive Highest Rankings

According to the Global Competitiveness Report, Canadian banks received the highest ranking, a 6.8, out of a possible 7.0 (healthy, with sound balance sheets). The lowest ranking of one means insolvent and possible government bailout.

Canada's stock has been rising quietly - the Canadians are known for their modesty and self-restraint - as American financiers and media are astonished to find that their northern neighbors have somehow avoided the subprime lending scandal and the housing market mess.

What's Canada's secret? With the exception of oil-rich Alberta, Canada did not have a strong construction surge as the United States did during the boom years, and mortgage interest is not tax deductible in Canada.

Canadian banks are national in scope. The top five banks have branches in all 10 Canadian provinces, making them less susceptible to downturns. They have large numbers of loyal depositors and a more solid base of capital, and are regulated more tightly than their U.S. counterparts - they are more liquid and less leveraged.

Canadian Banks - Four of The Top 10 Largest North American Banks

Lets move to Canada!:yes::cool:

randolph

02-26-2009, 01:31 PM

Rush later followed up, saying, "The first unsolicited reports from the upcoming female summit already in. They're saying it's a waste of time, women will not like me any more than the ones that already do, that you have to be an Oprah today in the media to attract." He said that he was nevertheless still intent on holding a summit.

Face it, Rush. We're just not that into you.
UpdateJill Zimon updates on how day one of Limbaugh's "EIB Network Female Summit" went today. One highlight:

One thing about the Female Summit: sorry, no transsexuals. We're not going to have anybody who's had an addadictomy, and we're not going to have anybody who's had a chopadickoffamy. We're going to have women from birth.;):lol::turnoff:

CreativeMind

02-26-2009, 05:24 PM

How come massive deficits created by democrats are so much worse than massive deficits created by republicans?
Just wondering.:frown:

I'll answer you two ways...

First, they're not "so much worse" (to use your words). On the surface, they're EQUALLY horrible for having been created by EITHER party. Speaking as someone who would define himself as being fiscally conservative (translation: don't spend what you don't have), I will be completely fair and say I was EQUALLY pissed at Bush for the deficit that he and over-spending the Republicans did on his watch. And you know what? So were lots of other Americans, which is why voters ultimately knocked them out of office.

But Second, that doesn't excuse the Democrats now doing the exact SAME thing. And let's be honest, that IS what they're doing. They realize they control the White House and both sides of Congress and -- as I noted in another post -- the far Left realizes they're operating under a clock that's ticking downward right now. They realize they have to toss money around and fund whatever Left-leaning things they can right now and before the midterm elections occur, at which point Republicans will likely pick up a few seats and gain enough votes to more effectively block things once again.

Not to mention, the reason Obama's budget IS "so much worse" is because of the sheer size of it. I mean, come on, this is also the height of hypocrisy. All through the campaign season, one of the things Obama harped on again and again was Bush and his deficit spending across 8 years -- and yet now, in only ONE MONTH, Obama has actually managed to spend MORE. In one month!!! I can't wait to see what the next 3 years and 11 months bring!

So in that regards this IS "so much worse". Maybe I learned something wrong growing up, but I was taught that the way to fill up a hole in the backyard was to break out a shovel and throw some dirt into it. You FILL the hole and get it back to ground level. But I certainly wasn't taught that you break out a shovel and DIG DEEPER and make the hole BIGGER.

randolph

02-26-2009, 06:11 PM

CreativeMind

02-26-2009, 06:42 PM

We are still a rich country with lots of rich republicans.
Since this country made them rich isn't it time they give some of it back?

Sure, I have no problem with people who are successful "giving back".
Of course, we're also still a country filled with lots of rich Democrats TOO.
So I assume you have no problem sticking THEM with a hefty bill as well, right?

randolph

02-26-2009, 07:53 PM

Sure, I have no problem with people who are successful "giving back".
Of course, we're also still a country filled with lots of rich Democrats TOO.
So I assume you have no problem sticking THEM with a hefty bill as well, right?

Yes that's OK if they can keep their Prius's.:lol:

TracyCoxx

02-26-2009, 10:52 PM

How come massive deficits created by democrats are so much worse than massive deficits created by republicans? Just wondering.:frown:

Since no one is saying that, let's dispense with the blanket statements. It's a bit more complicated than that. Using this (http://static.scribd.com/profiles/images/auw7rfzmnovul-full.gif) and this (http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm) data, I found:
Clinton with a democratic congress: $225B deficit
Clinton with a republican congress: $22B surplus
Bush with mixed congress: $11B deficit
Bush with republican congress: $339B deficit (republican bums thrown out)
Bush with democrat congress: $704B deficit

Obama with democrat congress: $2.7 Trillion deficit (throw the bums in prison)

Do you see now that there are massive deficits, and then there are MASSIVE deficits?

TracyCoxx

02-26-2009, 11:44 PM

Although I am a democrat, I believe in fiscal conservatism. I hate debt and always made every effort to get out of it as soon as possible. I carefully invested my savings in conservative stocks and real estate. Now I see my efforts going down the tubes because of fiscal incompetence of government, bankers and speculators. Obama's spending program is terrifying and will very likely result in serious inflation (paying off debt with cheaper dollars). This will further reduce the value of my retirement savings. So what are the alternatives? War got us out of the last depression (which incurred trillions of debt) but we are already in two wars, costing trillions. We are still a rich country with lots of rich republicans. Since this country made them rich isn't it time they give some of it back?

I'm glad you can admit that Obama's spending (don't forget the democrat congress too) is terrifying and will result in serious inflation. I've already admitted that republicans can rack up debt too. But hopefully from my last post you can see that the debts that the dems are racking up is in a whole other class.

Obama's only been there a month, and they've already generated 2.5 times more debt than Bush has during all 8 years of his presidency! Look at the numbers yourself. I'm not lying. All this in one fucking month!

I've been doing some reading and I see what you're talking about with Greenspan. So yeah, I'll admit he's had a hand in the financial melt down. But the other stuff I mentioned about ACORN, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the CRA are also very much to blame. The real problem that is looming closer is when our debt reaches a point where other countries will no longer accept our IOUs. When they realize we don't have the ability to repay it because we're a nation of consumers rather than producers now. They will eventually make the decision to base their markets on another currency, perhaps the Euro rather than the dollar. At that point, the dollar will collapse, and you can kiss your ass goodbye. At $10 Trillion in debt, we were already putting serious strain on the worth of our IOUs. Obama's instant $2.7 Trillion deficit is probably a shock to the system and no one can say how the world will respond.

This is why myself and others did not want Obama to become president since over a year ago. People called us racists, and they now celebrate the first black president. I couldn't give a flying fuck about that. I'm more concerned with the longevity of this country. He was one of the most liberal members of the senate. I knew he was going to increase the size of government and rack up a ginormous deficit, which would result in inflation and high taxes, but holy shit. I didn't expect it to be this bad. And there's no one who will stop him. Even the republicans in the house are a bunch of pussies. They collaborated with the dems to produce the additional $410B spendulous part II plan that has over 9000 earmarks in it. The republicans are no longer the conservatives we need, and the dems are rabid with power. I don't see anything that's going to keep the dollar from collapsing.

Investing your money in stocks for the long term has always been the best advice because the US economy has been strong. But because of a series of events from the 1930s through the 40s when the USD was designated the international monetary standard, to the 70s when we got off the gold standard, to CRA and to the housing bubble, things are changing. When Obama and others blame all this on the last 8 years alone, it only shows they either have a very limited understanding of what is going on, or they're lying through their teeth.

Sorry for all the doom and gloom, but things ain't pretty right now.

randolph

02-27-2009, 10:09 AM

Yes, I have to agree with you, the volume of debt is becoming monstrous. To top it off Obama claims it can be reduced by the end of his first term. That's pure fantasy! The "experts" assure us that everything will be fine. Well IF our financial institutions and government had behaved like Canada, we wouldn't be in this mess. The people that got us into this mess are the ones saying they will get us out of it.
Panic will not get us out of this, however. If Obama can keep us from panic then there is a chance we can pull through this. He is the only one I know of who has the charisma to do it.

randolph

02-27-2009, 10:44 AM

Feb. 27 (Bloomberg) -- So long, Milton Friedman. Hello, James Tobin.

After a three-decade run, the free-market philosophies of Friedman that shaped U.S. policy are being eclipsed by the pro- government ideas of Tobin, the late Yale economist and Nobel laureate who brought John Maynard Keynes into the modern era.

Tobin's stamp is on the $787 billion stimulus signed by President Barack Obama, former students and colleagues say. His philosophies are influencing Austan Goolsbee, a former Tobin student advising Obama, and Ben S. Bernanke, head of the Federal Reserve. Unlike Friedman, Tobin provides guidance for today's problems, said Paul Krugman, a Princeton University economist.

"Hard-line doctrines don't seem very appropriate at this troubled moment," said Krugman, a New York Times columnist who also worked with Tobin at Yale from 1977 to 1979. "Tobin was never a guru in the way Milton Friedman was; he never had legions of Samurai ready to spring to the defense of his theories, but that's part of why he is so relevant right now."

The decision by Bernanke last September to invoke the Fed's emergency powers and put mortgages and other assets on the central bank's balance sheet "is pure Tobin," Krugman said. Bernanke cited Tobin's 1969 essay on monetary theory in a 2004 paper discussing options available to the Federal Reserve for stimulating the economy when interest rates approach zero.

Tobin's experience of the depression as a teenager in the 1930s gave him a lifelong loathing of unemployment.

'Livid' Response

"As a young professor I did a paper where I analyzed the optimal unemployment rate," said Joseph Stiglitz, a professor at Columbia University in New York, who knew Tobin at Yale. "Tobin went livid over the idea. To him the optimal unemployment rate was zero."

Like Keynes, Tobin was an advocate for the role of government in maintaining full employment, said James Galbraith, an economist at the University of Texas in Austin. The current economic and financial crisis has validated that philosophy, said Galbraith, a former Tobin student and the son of the late John Kenneth Galbraith, who was a friend of Tobin.

"It's clear that the position that the federal government has a responsibility for the level of employment, for the economy, has prevailed," Galbraith said. "The position that the Fed can walk away from the level of employment has completely collapsed. That was the absolutely dominant position coming out of the University of Chicago."

In contrast to the Friedman-influenced proponents of tax cuts, deregulation and tight control of the money supply, followers of Tobin are more receptive to government intervention in the economy, including stimulus spending.

Herbert Hoover

"I do not believe that over the next two years, we can make major deficit reduction or balancing the budget a goal," Goolsbee, nominated by Obama to the Council of Economic Advisers, said at a Senate hearing on Jan. 15. "I think that would run the risk of repeating one of the mistakes of Herbert Hoover that led us into Depression."

Goolsbee was Tobin's research assistant at Yale.

Tobin was born in 1918 in Champaign, Illinois, the son of a former reporter who was a publicist for the University of Illinois football team. His high school years during the depression motivated him to study economics at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, Tobin said in an essay written for the Nobel committee.

"The miserable failures of capitalist economies in the Great Depression were root causes of worldwide social and political disasters," he wrote. Economics "offered the hope, as it still does, that improved understanding could better the lot of mankind."

Nobel Winners

Tobin, who died in 2002, won the 1981 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his analysis of the effect of financial markets on inflation and employment. His followers have been honored as well. Krugman won the 2008 prize, for work on international trade and economic geography. Stiglitz shared the 2001 award, which cited analyses of markets in which some participants have much better information than others. ;)

randolph

02-27-2009, 05:45 PM

Wealthy families
Over the past three decades, these families have seen their incomes double and triple while the rest of the country stagnated. Now Obama proposes to increase their tax bill by $12,000 - not even enough to get them back to the rates they were paying when Ronald Reagan left office. This is a very, very modest nod toward fiscal fair play, very much in keeping with Obama's modest optics. You'd have to drink several pitchers of Rush Limbaugh's Kool-Aid to think this counts as soaking the rich.;)

TracyCoxx

03-01-2009, 08:54 PM

Panic will not get us out of this, however. If Obama can keep us from panic then there is a chance we can pull through this. He is the only one I know of who has the charisma to do it.If I remember right, Carter also had charisma. It's what got him elected. It didn't stop the economy from going down the crapper. Charisma helps actors succeed. This is the real world though. We need someone who knows what he's doing.

Wealthy families
Over the past three decades, these families have seen their incomes double and triple while the rest of the country stagnated. Now Obama proposes to increase their tax bill by $12,000 - not even enough to get them back to the rates they were paying when Ronald Reagan left office. This is a very, very modest nod toward fiscal fair play, very much in keeping with Obama's modest optics. You'd have to drink several pitchers of Rush Limbaugh's Kool-Aid to think this counts as soaking the rich.;)

What generates more money for the government. Taxing those who make more than $250,000, or keeping taxes as they are and put millions of tax payers back to work? Which is better for the economy?

Small business owners who make around $250,000 - $300,000 are not all that rich. They're the Joe The Plumbers of America. And as for the richer... if you make it too uncomfortable for them here, they will take their business elsewhere. Then they'll each employ thousands of Chinese or Indians, instead of thousands of Americans.

CreativeMind

03-01-2009, 10:09 PM

[QUOTE=TracyCoxx;69420]If I remember right, Carter also had charisma. It's what got him elected. It didn't stop the economy from going down the crapper. Charisma helps actors succeed. This is the real world though. We need someone who knows what he's doing.

Well, this is the irony of history repeating itself. Carter was elected for one reason and one reason alone: he came on the heels of Nixon/(temporarily Ford) at which point there was that classic "populist mood" that always seems to swept through the nation in a cyclical nature (created by Nixon/Watergate) that the government was bad...it was totally corrupt...the Emperor from Star Wars was running things...thus Washington needed a thorough cleaning.

The only problem being, of course, that while Nixon himself might have been bad for what he did, it didn't mean the WHOLE SYSTEM was corrupt or wrong. As a result, as people voted with a traditional and emotional knee jerk reaction, it was out with temporary Ford and in with good ol' Jimmy. It was out with a genuinely good politician known for working in a true bipartisan way, who had an established Congressional record for getting things done, and in for a guy who simply smiled at you alot. Because -- gosh darn it! -- didn't seeing him smile at you make you FEEL good?

Well, it felt good on Inaugeration Day. Anyone here old enough to remember that? I do. I remember how the press drooled all over Carter and Rosalyn, and praised them for walking the parade route waving to people. Because -- gosh darn it! -- he was smiling! And that MUST mean "goodness" was back in the White House!

Of course, what it REALLY resulted in was a true idiot in the Oval Office. It resulted, as Tracy noted, with having someone in the White House who didn't have a clue. It resulted in double digit inflation. It resulted in double digit unemployment. It resulted in gas rationing. It resulted in a military that was so underfunded that we LITERALLY had to ground portions of the Air Force because we LITERALLY could NOT afford to fly planes because we LITERALLY didn't have the spare parts to fix them if something broke on them. So they HAD to stay grounded in case of emergency, otherwise we were fucked (which we already knew we were). Oh yeah, and on Carter's watch...since he believed in globalism and America not taking a strong stance or involvement on foreign affairs...we had the Iranian Revolution, which laid the foundations of radical Islam rising up -- personified by the Iranian Embassy hostage situation, which sealed Carter's presidency as an utter failure and complete embarrassment.

So, I feel good that Obama has that mega-watt smile and waves alot and--

Oh fuck. What was that I said about history repeating itself???

CreativeMind

03-01-2009, 11:04 PM

Small business owners who make around $250,000 - $300,000 are not all that rich. They're the Joe The Plumbers of America. And as for the richer... if you make it too uncomfortable for them here, they will take their business elsewhere. Then they'll each employ thousands of Chinese or Indians, instead of thousands of Americans.

This is what is utter lunacy about the Obama economic plan.
It's like a dog chasing his own tail that just runs in place and in circles.

The economy is bad, so Obama wants you to go out and spend money to get it going again. But the economy is bad because people have ALREADY spent their money -- heck, they've OVER spent and are deeply in debt. Someone on TV made a brilliant analogy to Obama and his plan, where Obama is a husband and the American people are the wife. The commentator noted it's like a husband coming home, only to find his wife sitting at the kitchen table, pulling her hair out, frantically trying to pay their monthly bills. And the wife says, "We have no money left in our checking account! How are we ever going to pay these bills?"

At which point the husband says "You're right, honey. We have to get out of this hole we're in. We really need to rebuild our savings account. Come on, let's go to the store and buy a few plasma TVs. THAT ought to do the trick!"

randolph

03-02-2009, 10:34 AM

Just to set the record straight on The Shah of Iran. From Wikipedia.
The Shah came to power during World War II after an Anglo-Soviet invasion forced the abdication of his father, Reza Shah. Mohammad Reza Shah's rule oversaw the nationalization of the Iranian oil industry under the prime ministership of Mohammad Mossadegh. During the Shah's reign, Iran celebrated 2,500 years of continuous monarchy since the founding of the Persian Empire by Cyrus the Great. His White Revolution, a series of economic and social reforms intended to transform Iran into a global power, succeeded in modernizing the nation, nationalizing many natural resources and extending suffrage to women, among other things. However, the decline of the traditional power of the Shi'a clergy due to parts of the reforms, increased opposition.

While a Muslim himself, the Shah gradually lost support from the Shi'a clergy of Iran, particularly due to his strong policy of modernization, secularization and conflict with the traditional class of merchants known as bazaari, and recognition of Israel. Clashes with the religious right increased communist activity and a 1953 period of political disagreements with Mohammad Mossadegh, eventually leading to Mossadegh's ousting, caused an increasingly autocratic rule. In 2000, U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright stated:

"In 1953 the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran's popular Prime Minister, Mohammed Massadegh. The Eisenhower Administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons; but the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development. And it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs."[1]

randolph

03-02-2009, 05:47 PM

And finally, Rush Limbaugh generated huge applause at CPAC for labeling the White House agenda as a "bastardization of the Constitution." He proceeded to say, "We believe that the preamble to the Constitution contains an inarguable truth that we are all endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, among them life, liberty, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness." Given his interest in the "bastardization of the Constitution," it's worth noting that these words aren't in the preamble to the Constitution.:lol:

TracyCoxx

03-03-2009, 06:31 AM

WTH...? North Korea is calling Obama a warmonger. I thought Bush was the warmonger?

randolph

03-03-2009, 04:34 PM

I wonder what McCain and Palin would be doing right now?:eek:

CreativeMind

03-03-2009, 10:16 PM

I wonder what McCain and Palin would be doing right now?:eek:

Actually, I laughed at that Obama editorial cartoon, but NOT for the reason the artist intended...

The gag the cartoonist meant is simply this: as Obama is about to sign the Stimulus Bill, the "bipartisan" pen runs out of ink -- i.e. the analogy/symbolism being that the Republicans are now no longer willing to help.

What DID make me laugh was the size of the pen. So, I would scratch off the word "bipartisan" and simply have Obama saying the pen has gone dry, at which point the cartoon is still funny -- but more important, it would be far more accurate. That's because then we'd see Obama signing a bill SO big and composed of SO many pages that he used up all of the ink in the pen -- even one that humongous -- all because he just signed off on SO MANY RIDICULOUS THINGS!!!!!!!!

randolph

03-03-2009, 10:42 PM

Actually, I laughed at that Obama editorial cartoon, but NOT for the reason the artist intended...

The gag the cartoonist meant is simply this: as Obama is about to sign the Stimulus Bill, the "bipartisan" pen runs out of ink -- i.e. the analogy/symbolism being that the Republicans are now no longer willing to help.

What DID make me laugh was the size of the pen. So, I would scratch off the word "bipartisan" and simply have Obama saying the pen has gone dry, at which point the cartoon is still funny -- but more important, it would be far more accurate. That's because then we'd see Obama signing a bill SO big and composed of SO many pages that he used up all of the ink in the pen -- even one that humongous -- all because he just signed off on SO MANY RIDICULOUS THINGS!!!!!!!!

The reason I posted the cartoons is to pose the question, what do you think McCain would be doing if he was president?

TracyCoxx

03-03-2009, 11:12 PM

The reason I posted the cartoons is to pose the question, what do you think McCain would be doing if he was president?

McCain mentioned a housing bailout, which I shuddered at. Obama, before the election disagreed with it. Obama changed his mind, maybe McCain would have too. Who knows. I don't think McCain would have been a good conservative now, but I don't think he would be nearly as bad as Obama either. Everytime BO gets on TV, the stock market takes another plunge. The American people have no confidence in him that he can get the economy going. I guess charisma doesn't pay the bills. :turnoff:

CreativeMind

03-04-2009, 01:33 AM

Everytime BO gets on TV, the stock market takes another plunge. The American people have no confidence in him that he can get the economy going. I guess charisma doesn't pay the bills. :turnoff:

TRUE STORY 1:

By now I'm sure you've seen or heard the bit about Chris Matthews on MSNBC last week, and how he blurted out a very sarcastic "Oh God" -- off camera, but into a live, open mic so it got picked up and broadcast -- when Bobby Jindal gave the Republican response to Obama's address. With that in mind...

Last night, I had to pull an all-nighter. So there I was, at my desk and typing away, meanwhile off to the side I had the TV on for some background "white noise" to help keep me awake. Around 3:00 AM, I turned on Morning Joe (Joe Scarborough's show on MSNBC) just to see what they'd be talking about. Scarborough is moderate to say the least, but last night he was actually in rare Republican form and was just RIPPING into the Obama budget and RIPPING into how much Obama's team has dropped the ball every step of the way. A short while later, Joe and his co-host Mika were then interviewing Ray La Hood, Obama's Transportation Secretary. Given his particular cabinet position, La Hood was basically there to talk up the Democrats' desire to rebuild infrastructure, but Scarborough went right back to ripping the budget a new one.

Well, Scarborough and Hood went back and forth arguing over the budget, Scarborough not giving an inch, but no matter how much he confronted Hood about pork and insane levels of spending, Hood remained a loyal foot solder towing the official Obama line. So, in an attempt to try and shut Scarborough down, in order to move on to other talking points, Hood finally said (in a truly jaw-dropping moment): "Come on, Joe. You're not being fair. You can't blame Obama for this budget. You can't pin these numbers and spending him. Remember, this is Bush's budget. Congress is voting on Bush's last budget and all the things that he (Bush) put in there."

At which point, off camera and into his still open mic (ala the Matthews incident), you could hear a stunned Scarborough turning to someone back in the studio and saying: "Did he actually just say this is BUSH'S budget???"

CreativeMind

03-04-2009, 02:33 AM

Everytime BO gets on TV, the stock market takes another plunge. The American people have no confidence in him that he can get the economy going. I guess charisma doesn't pay the bills. :turnoff:

TRUE STORY 2:

Going back to Tracy's point about Obama opening his mouth and the stock market dropping, I swear this is true. In fact, now that I think of it, I can't believe that I didn't see this as a clip shown throughout the day simply because it was SO perfect. Then again, that might tell you a little something about media bias and how the mainstream news is doing whatever it can to help Obama...

This morning, I was curious to see if the various cable news channels would show Timothy Geitner or any of the other Obama people giving their latest testimonies on Capitol Hill, since Team Obama was scheduled to try and do various things today to generate positive press about their economic plan. So, I started to watch Fox News, but since I had just pulled an all-nighter, I fell asleep on the couch with the TV still on. A short while later, I woke up literally in time to catch Obama just as he began to answer some questions at the White House, where he was sitting alongside Gordon Brown (the visiting British Prime Minister who is pushing this lame idea of the US and Europe banding together to create a "Global New Deal" that, of course, America is supposed to bank roll).

However, what was truly hysterical was that off to the right hand side of the screen, tucked down in the corner, was a smaller box that showed the current stock market numbers. Well, as Obama started to talk, I noticed the market was at +14 and I thought: "Well, at least it's a positive number today." But then a split second later I thought, "Wouldn't it be funny if the people on Wall Street were watching this too, so we could literally see in real time exactly how they react to anything Obama says?

Well, sure engouh Obama started to answer various reporter questions, and then he launched off into yet another mini-speech to defend his budget and all of the spending he wants to do...

...At which point the +14 went to +13.

Then a moment later it was 12.

Then Obama continued on about the money he wants to spend,
that he anticipates yet ever more stimulus packages, and it went to 11...

Then 10...

...And as I continued to watch, I just laughed out loud and thought: "Wouldn't it be funny if it went from a positive number to a negative one AS he was talking? So that the more he talks, the lower the market goes?

And sure enough, that's exactly what happened. In the short time Obama had talked, the market had literally flipped...gone from positive to negative...and went from +14 to -14. Which put a funny image into my head because I could almost imagine a White House aide standing off camera who was freaking out and who was urgently whispering to him: "Stop talking! Don't even finish your sentence! You're only making it worse!!!"

randolph

03-04-2009, 10:08 AM

Since Canada seems to know how to run their finances, why don't we let the Canadians take over the country. We are sitting here letting the "experts" that got us into this mess try to get us out of it. I like Obama but what can he do? The freight train is coming down the tracks and he is desperately trying to get the car started and off the tracks while all these "experts" stand around giving conflicting advice. Meanwhile the Republicans deny the train is coming and believe the car will start by itself! :frown:

TracyCoxx

03-04-2009, 11:22 PM

Since Canada seems to know how to run their finances, why don't we let the Canadians take over the country.

Dude, you are so much like these people
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S13LwVDJb0E

We are perfectly able to handle the mess we're in if the politicians would either get back to the basics or get out of the way. FYI... I was on a telecon with some Canadians today, and they said their economy sucks too.

randolph

03-05-2009, 09:21 AM

Dude, you are so much like these people
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S13LwVDJb0E

We are perfectly able to handle the mess we're in if the politicians would either get back to the basics or get out of the way. FYI... I was on a telecon with some Canadians today, and they said their economy sucks too.

That tube is very funny!
However you ignored the last sentence of my post. "Meanwhile the Republicans deny the train is coming and believe the car will start by itself!" Again, what would McCain do if he was president?:eek:

randolph

03-05-2009, 12:08 PM

By Ed Rollins
CNN Contributor

Editor's note: Ed Rollins, who was political director for President Reagan, is a Republican strategist who was national chairman of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's 2008 presidential campaign.
Ed Rollins says the Republican Party has lost its relevance amid very low favorable ratings from voters.

Ed Rollins says the Republican Party has lost its relevance amid very low favorable ratings from voters.

(CNN) -- The cold winds of March have obviously affected the intelligence and thought processes of people who need to get their thinking straight.

The idiotic debate raging in Washington this week around Michael Steele, the newly elected chairman of the nearly defunct Republican Party, and Rush Limbaugh, a conservative icon for the past 35 years, is beyond foolish.

The battle to be the "de facto leader" of this party is akin to the question of who wants to steer the Titanic after it hit the iceberg. Who represents the party or its values is not relevant when only 26 percent of voters have a positive impression of the party at all and only 7 percent very positive, according to the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey.

The Democratic Party is the reverse, with 49 percent positive. When 60 percent of the country approves of the job President Obama is doing, every Republican leader is going backward.

Are Republicans able to get their act together? With Rush Limblab going at it, its very doubtful.:lol::lol::lol:

CreativeMind

03-05-2009, 09:50 PM

...The battle to be the "de facto leader" of this party is akin to the question of who wants to steer the Titanic after it hit the iceberg. Who represents the party or its values is not relevant when only 26 percent of voters have a positive impression of the party at all and only 7 percent very positive, according to the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey.

The Democratic Party is the reverse, with 49 percent positive. When 60 percent of the country approves of the job President Obama is doing, every Republican leader is going backward.

Are Republicans able to get their act together? With Rush Limblab going at it, its very doubtful.:lol::lol::lol:

Too bad that's ALSO incredibly creative and deceptive math at work.
Then again, the article came by way of CNN, which speaks volumes...

See, the problem is the Democratic number is 49%, BUT what CNN did (and let the record show that CNN is notorious for doing this, in order to spin whatever argument they're trying to push) is that they broke the other number APART, to try and make it look smaller. So, in truth, you have to ADD the 26 (positive) and 7 (very positive) for the Republicans together, at which point you come up with 33%.

Now, at first you might say "Well, that's still 49% for the Democrats against 33% for the Republicans, so that's still a wide gap." Except THAT wouldn't be true EITHER since election surveys showed that going into the Bush/Kerry election there was about an 8-10 point divide between registered Democrats and Republicans ANYWAY.

So REALLY what we're talking about here is that the Republican base is still what it has been for years (a number roughly in the mid thirties, sometimes breaking 40), meanwhile the Democrats are more solidly in the forties...and the rest are Independents and Libertarians and whatever else. In fact, just for the record, despite any crowing by the Obama crowd over voter registrations going into the last election, in truth the FASTEST and LARGEST growing political affiliation are actually people renouncing BOTH parties and officially listing themselves as Independents now.

In fact, here's a better example of how fast and loose CNN always plays with the facts and with numbers...

Recently, CNN issued a report talking about how "Red State Republicans" were the biggest buyers of porn, far more than Blue states. They came to this conclusion by looking at the bank transaction records for where the most porn was being bought or downloaded, etc. As a result, the assertion that CNN and Left leaning commentators then made was that Republicans or conservative Red States were hypocrites and not the traditionalists they claim to be.

HOWEVER...over at NewsBusters (which is a great site for debunking journalistic crocks), they posted a response from a Harvard Business School Professor who hit the nail on head by noting it was faulty math right from the start. For example, using Utah as an example, the STATE could be considered "red" because it is composed of 51% Republicans and 49% Democrats...so Republicans are in the majority...but the actual majority of PORN buyers could still statistically come entirely from the 49% Democratic pool. The point being, that since you DIDN'T actually study or break down "who" was actually buying the porn...and since they ONLY looked at the state where it was going...the numbers were deceptive from the start.

Not to mention, the Limbaugh thing has actually now been revealed to be an actual White House orchestrated PR stunt to desperately divert attention from the day's daily news -- which is the fact that Obama is likewise quickly being revealed to be an utter idiot when it comes to dealing with the economy. Not to mention, it's become clear that Obama is LESS worried about our money and our savings, and he's MORE interested in being a one-term president, if that's what it comes to, so long as he manages to ram through his various Liberal programs and gets them made into law. After only a month in office, it seems clear that the number one thing Obama wants is to turn the country DRASTICALLY left and to set certain things into law, even if it means he doesn't get reelected.

randolph

03-05-2009, 10:01 PM

Although the piece was published by CNN, it was written by Ed Rollins who was Regan's political director. As a Republican, I assume he knows what he is talking about.;)

TracyCoxx

03-07-2009, 12:30 AM

That tube is very funny!
However you ignored the last sentence of my post. "Meanwhile the Republicans deny the train is coming and believe the car will start by itself!" Again, what would McCain do if he was president?:eek:

I answered you about McCain in post 385. And about that sentence...
Meanwhile the Republicans deny the train is coming and believe the car will start by itself! :frown:Republicans have been warning about the oncoming train called Obama since before he was elected. This huge pork filled debt he's generating comes as no surprise to us. And the effect it will have on the economy also will come as no surprise.

Democrats' strategy for the economy is like a car that has run out of gas on a train track. They borrow someone else's gas to restart the car and then turn to drive it straight into the on coming train.

Or like a swimmer who has swam out from shore into the ocean. After a while he starts to become very tired. Instead of swimming back to the shore, he swims with all his might further out to sea until he can't swim another stroke and drowns.

TracyCoxx

03-23-2009, 11:59 PM

Damn. I hate being right about this stuff....

The real problem that is looming closer is when our debt reaches a point where other countries will no longer accept our IOUs. When they realize we don't have the ability to repay it because we're a nation of consumers rather than producers now. They will eventually make the decision to base their markets on another currency, perhaps the Euro rather than the dollar. At that point, the dollar will collapse, and you can kiss your ass goodbye. At $10 Trillion in debt, we were already putting serious strain on the worth of our IOUs. Obama's instant $2.7 Trillion deficit is probably a shock to the system and no one can say how the world will respond.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123780272456212885.html
China Takes Aim at Dollar
BEIJING -- China called for the creation of a new currency to eventually replace the dollar as the world's standard, proposing a sweeping overhaul of global finance that reflects developing nations' growing unhappiness with the U.S. role in the world economy.

History will show that while the problem has been growing for decades, it was Obama's administration that delivered the crushing blow to America. Hang on people... this is going to suck.

TracyCoxx

03-25-2009, 07:31 AM

Looks like the love fest is ending between the rest of the world and Obama.

STRASBOURG, France - A top European Union politician on Wednesday slammed U.S. plans to spend its way out of recession as "a way to hell."

Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek, whose country currently holds the EU presidency, told the European Parliament that President Barack Obama's massive stimulus package and banking bailout "will undermine the stability of the global financial market."

And regarding why it is "brilliant" that a black man gets the presidency? Not only is that in itself of immense historical value for all non-whites (in the whole world), but it is a break with former times inherent racism and is very true to the original American spirit of no judgement based on any thing but talent. Aside from that, I belive his policy is promising. He is a bridge builder and can hopefully mend some of the terrible wounds that your friend George Bush amBUSHED this world with.Yes. He may be tossing our economy, along with the global economy into the crapper, but at least he's black! Wohoo!

I think in 4 years (I can't see it lasting more than 4) we'll all be saying:
He has in general made it considerably harder to be a Westener anywhere in the world.... He's merely a dumb guy who never should have been elected... and now he'll laugh his ass off and ride into the sunshine to collect his fat pension, apparently totally unaware of the fact that he has left the world so much worse off than [four] years ago.

TGirl lover

03-25-2009, 12:33 PM

hankhavelock

03-25-2009, 01:15 PM

I had high hopes for Obama. Especially since we finally got rid of that dumbass Bush, but now I'm very disappointed. Obama is driving this economy even farther into the ground. Should have voted for McCain. Just hope he is only a 1 term pres.

Well, what did you expect? Give the man a chance, please. He has to clean up 8 years' mess after the most horribly incompetent socalled president that America ever had... Barack's task is tuff... but he'll do it. Don't worry. But he still has Republicans and even Democrats against him in Congress, and the financial crisis is so severe that it cannot be undone in three months...

So be glad you didn't vote for McCain or any other Republican, for that matter. Give Barack a chance to get his plan in motion. Read his book "The Audacity of Hope" - that's well written reading and will give you a better knowledge of Barack's plan. Trust me, Barack is a thoroughly good guy and talented above measure!

H

hankhavelock

03-25-2009, 01:33 PM

Looks like the love fest is ending between the rest of the world and Obama.

STRASBOURG, France — A top European Union politician on Wednesday slammed U.S. plans to spend its way out of recession as "a way to hell."

Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek, whose country currently holds the EU presidency, told the European Parliament that President Barack Obama's massive stimulus package and banking bailout "will undermine the stability of the global financial market."

Yes. He may be tossing our economy, along with the global economy into the crapper, but at least he's black! Wohoo!

I think in 4 years (I can't see it lasting more than 4) we'll all be saying:

Honey, you lovely thingy, why don't you flirt up Sean Hannity... I'm sure you'd have TONS in common... ;-)

And it's ironic, that a Republican talks about ANYONE "tossing our economy". You had 8 years, baby - 8 blissful years of war mongering and stupidity and a total anti-branding of the whole f****** Western world thanks to your "lovely" joke of a president. So excuse me, darling, but you had your shots and BLEW it.

Now let's get serious and get rid of the incompetents.

At least give Barack a chance, ok? I know you hate his liberal politics from deep within you - the same way I thoroughly detest the neanderthal politics of the right wing... but now you have a new president. At least give him a chance to clean up the MESS that your beloved Geo Bush made.

Be decent here.

You guys love so much to do the theatrical socalled patriotism with hands over heart and "My fellow Americans..." and all that shit...

Now PROVE it, baby! Prove that you ARE a fellow American, and not only to the ultra right wing of your great country, but to the whole world...

Be decent and fair. And support your president in his difficult task.

Peace!

H

TracyCoxx

03-25-2009, 07:45 PM

Well, what did you expect? Give the man a chance, please. He has to clean up 8 years' mess after the most horribly incompetent socalled president that America ever had...
As a non-US citizen, I don't expect you to know the ins and outs of the cause of our financial meltdown, and all you have to fall back on is your trusty "Bush Did It" mantra, but it's not anywhere near that simple. I don't know how much you know about the US government, but you may be surprised to hear that it's not made up of only one person. There's a congress too, made up of a house and senate. That's the legislative branch. There's also a judiciary branch.

You're focusing on the guy who has, for 7 of his 8 years in office, been warning congress about the financial instability of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. His last year in office, he warned them 17 times. Youtube is full of videos of congressmen insisting that Freddie Mac and Frannie Mae were financially sound. The main culprits are Carter, Clinton, and Congress for the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), and Alan Greenspan for artificially creating the housing bubble. btw, you can't just blame Bush for Greenspan. He was in office during the terms of several presidents. I think most of this has already been discussed several times in this thread. I know... it's not as trendy as saying it's that idiot Bush, but you know those pesky facts. They keep rearing their ugly heads.

Barack's task is tuff... but he'll do it. Don't worry. But he still has Republicans and even Democrats against him in Congress, and the financial crisis is so severe that it cannot be undone in three months...I certainly don't expect him to turn the crisis around in three months, or even a year. But call me crazy, if our problem is the collapse of mortgage companies who lent money to uncreditworthy people, let's NOT give $3.5 billion to the group who led the push for CRA. (BTW, since that same group is being charged in 14 states for voter fraud, let's NOT have them working on the census either.)

You want me to give Obama a chance, when his strategy is Carter's failed financial policy on steroids. That strategy has already had a chance. It didn't work. The republicans are getting a lot of blame by the conservatives in this country for not being conservative. Yes, they did rack up some debt when they had control of congress, but in one month, Obama and the democratic congress has racked up 2.5 times the amount of debt raised during all 8 years of Bush's presidency, including debt from Bush's wall street bailout. And they're still talking about more trillion dollar bailouts to come. The world isn't going to keep buying our debt, and when we had a debt of $10 trillion, Obama had the NERVE to expect the world to fork up another $2.5 trillion. Like the top european union official said, Obama's policies will undermine the stability of the global market. That's not Sean Hanity talking. That's the Czech prime minister. And it's also China's central bank governor. But I know you'll go right a head and tell me that the best way out of debt is borrow another $2.5 trillion. Makes perfect sense for an enlightened person such as yourself.

So be glad you didn't vote for McCain or any other Republican, for that matter. Give Barack a chance to get his plan in motion. Read his book "The Audacity of Hope" - that's well written reading and will give you a better knowledge of Barack's plan. Trust me, Barack is a thoroughly good guy and talented above measure!He may very well be a good guy, but he's in way over his head. McCain isn't on the top of most republican's list, but I know he wouldn't implement strategies like Obama has that would put the country and the world economy in this much danger. I'm not going to read about the audacity of a community organizer who thinks he can be president. I'm reading about how to stay afloat when the dollar collapses.

sesame

03-25-2009, 08:28 PM

Originally Posted by Wall Street Journal
China Takes Aim at Dollar
BEIJING -- China called for the creation of a new currency to eventually replace the dollar as the world's standard, proposing a sweeping overhaul of global finance that reflects developing nations' growing unhappiness with the U.S. rolesuck. in the world economy.

History will show that while the problem has been growing for decades, it was Obama's administration that delivered the crushing blow to America. Hang on people... this is going to suck

Did you not read this from the wall st. Journal, Tracy?
However, the technical and political hurdles to implementing China's recommendation are enormous, so even if backed by other nations, the proposal is unlikely to change the dollar's role in the short term. Central banks around the world hold more U.S. dollars and dollar securities than they do assets denominated in any other individual foreign currency.

Tracycoxx: "we're a nation of consumers rather than producers"

Prove, sister, prove! Please provide logic and facts to back up your statements. It sounds interesting though! Does the US produce nothing? Does it not add anything to the world economy, but only consume? Thats ridiculous!

CreativeMind

03-26-2009, 12:05 AM

And it's ironic, that a Republican talks about ANYONE "tossing our economy". You had 8 years, baby - 8 blissful years of war mongering and stupidity and a total anti-branding of the whole f****** Western world thanks to your "lovely" joke of a president. So excuse me, darling, but you had your shots and BLEW it. Now let's get serious and get rid of the incompetents.

At least give Barack a chance, ok? I know you hate his liberal politics from deep within you - the same way I thoroughly detest the neanderthal politics of the right wing...but now you have a new president. At least give him a chance to clean up the MESS that your beloved Geo Bush made.

The IRONY to Hank's Euro-centric vision of how Americans should feel or treat Obama being that it's actually opposite to how most Americans feel at this point.

First, for all of Hank's labeling Bush as a "joke of president", its fascinating that Obama's job approval rating has literally plummeted over his first 60 days in office. In fact, he now ranks LOWER than Bush did at this same point in time when Bush had been elected. Not to mention, Obama's disapproval numbers are soaring -- in fact, one poll has him at 46% which means he's now a mere 4 points away from literally having HALF of the country officially regretting his election and wishing McCain was in the Oval Office instead.

The second irony -- again in direct contrast to Hank's view as a non-American -- is that he somehow thinks Republicans are "war mongers" or "stupid" and no one wants them back in power. Yet again, that's the irony of him being the outsider and having a viewpoint ON America versus the rest of us actually living here and BEING Americans where we see things much differently. Case in point (which I'm sure is going to make Hank's jaw drop since he seems to blame Bush and the Republicans for everything) is that right now the Republicans are actually TIED with the Democrats in overall public opinion ratings. And in fact, in upcoming key elections the Republicans are now actually taking LEADS in the polls because Americans have come to realize "Oh no! What the FUCK were we thinking electing a Democratic president and putting him together with an ALL Democratic Congress so they could do whatever they wanted, no questions asked? We have to get more Republicans elected FAST or the Democrats are going to shit this country up big time!"

Case in point: here we are in the midst of a global economic meltdown, and yet Chris Dodd is up for re-election as Connecticut's Senator. He's the head of the Senate banking committee, so you'd think the average person would want to be SURE he was re-elected to have a consistent voice in power, not to mention that since he's a staunch democrat he'd obviously be a key supporter of Obama...

...And yet as of today, a virtual no-name unknown whom the Republicans are putting up against Dodd is LEADING in the polls.

Oh! And as for Hank's view that Bush was a joke of a president who "blew it", even IF you want to blame Bush for walking out of the White House and leaving behind $1 trillion deficit, it's laughable that you think Obama is somehow better when he's now officially TRIPLED that same number in a mere 60 days -- even worse, some estimates put the number at a NINE TRILLION DEFICIT several years out and once Obama is out of office, at which point our kids and our grandkids will be stuck paying for his idiotic socialist dreams and his buffoonish financial decisions.

CreativeMind

03-26-2009, 12:13 AM

Honey, you lovely thingy, why don't you flirt up Sean Hannity. I'm sure you'd have TONS in common... ;-)
Now let's get serious and get rid of the incompetents.

At least give Barack a chance, ok? I know you hate his liberal politics from deep within you - the same way I thoroughly detest the neanderthal politics of the right wing... but now you have a new president. At least give him a chance to clean up the MESS that your beloved Geo Bush made.

Here's the bottom line truth, regardless of how Hank and other Euros feel AS outsiders.
Truth be told, this how AMERICANS now are starting to feel and I'll use a blunt analogy so there's NO mistaking my point.

People ALWAYS wake up from the bender they were on the night before. They may be hungover a bit, but there's that infamous moment when they suddenly realize "Oh shit! Who's that laying there asleep in the bed next to me? What the hell did I DO last night?!?"

The point being that while Euros may love him, here at home Americans are quickly realizing that Obama -- who now can't even speak coherent sentences unless a teleprompter is feeding them to him -- won the election for the simple reason that he was the "feel good" candidate of the moment. He was the slick looking and talking politician that people picked up at the bar, got drunk with, took to bed, and thus he got elected for the most ridiculous of reasons ("Look he's young and cute! What a smile! Look he's black! If we elect him, we can say we're not racists once and for all!"). The only problem is, now Americans are waking up from their bender, they're looking at the person still asleep in bed next to them -- most of all, they're seeing their taxes going UP, their savings going DOWN, and Obama talking about social changes they DON'T believe in...

...And they're now realizing Obama really did dupe them. He really was the equivalent of that hotty who LET YOU pick her up in a bar on election night, when you were in a drunken stupor, and suddenly now...when you're awake and consciously thinking about what you've done...you're suddenly worried and wondering if you stupidly caught an STD while screwing around carelessly the night before. In short, now that "fun time" and your bender is over, you realize you're back to real life and the serious issues that life involves.

Worst of all, as Obama soars our deficit, he's now on the verge of becoming Jimmy Carter Part 2 -- and yes, even in recent polls Americans STILL think Carter was a WORSE president than Bush ever was. That's pretty telling when you consider where Obama may end up on the historical ladder, if he does become another Carter.

Here in Hollywood -- which is certainly Democratic territory and extremely left-leaning -- lately I've seen a bumper sticker on several cars while I've been out driving. I'm not sure where it comes from, but I've run across it several times now. But because this is SUCH the democratic territory, it made me raise an eye brow and laugh. It simply says: Yeah, I voted for him. I'm sorry, America -- where the "o" in "sorry" is the famous Obama "o" from his campaign posters (where you saw the American flag flowing inside).

In other words, even here in democratic territory, the point of the sticker is:
"I'm sorry I fell for it! The rest of you were right!"

CreativeMind

03-26-2009, 12:29 AM

Did you not read this from the wall st. Journal, Tracy?

Quote:However, the technical and political hurdles to implementing China's recommendation are enormous, so even if backed by other nations, the proposal is unlikely to change the dollar's role in the short term. Central banks around the world hold more U.S. dollars and dollar securities than they do assets denominated in any other individual foreign currency.

Sesame, I think you might be missing the point of the article relative to Tracy's post.

The REASON that China -- as well as Russia and other now-vocal countries like Brazil among others -- are calling for an all-new "global currency" (as Tracy pointed out) is BECAUSE they are "holding more U.S. dollars and dollar securities than they do assets dominated in any other individual foreign currency" (to re-quote the article). They want to GET RID of all those dollar-based securities they're currently holding in their own banks. They want to DUMP them and no longer be tied to U.S. economics or market fluctuations. The problem is they can't do it now because of the crisis and the fact that so much of the world economy...including their own...is centered ON the dollar. Hence, they want to break FROM the dollar as soon as possible and create an all-new currency that they CAN control on their own terms.

The result being that Tracy's post is completely accurate in terms of the point she was trying to make. Things ARE going to get A LOT rougher in the days and years ahead as these countries do whatever they can to start dumping their dollars and dollar-based securities. And things will get A LOT rougher for America as these same countries likewise refuse to buy up our outstanding debt loads -- which again, is the cornerstone of our own system and it's what Obama desperately needs and is literally PRAYING will happen (ie. countries buying OUR debt) in order to keep our own economy afloat.

TracyCoxx

03-26-2009, 08:58 AM

I had high hopes for Obama. Especially since we finally got rid of that dumbass Bush, but now I'm very disappointed. Obama is driving this economy even farther into the ground. Should have voted for McCain. Just hope he is only a 1 term pres.
Democrats should have picked Hilary as their candidate. Right now, I would love to have her as president. And she's not even on my top 500 list.

sesame

03-26-2009, 02:41 PM

Ok, Creativemind, lets assume for a moment that America's economy is shaking right now;and lets also assume that this group of other countries including China buys US debt!! And then in one strategic sweep they cause a controlled meltdown of US economy, just like what happened to USSR! Is that possible? China is very ambitious now and its not a friend of America. If US falls as a superpower, guess who will be the next Big Boss? Do I sound like a conspiracy theorist? :p Ridiculous, or should I say, Riddiqulous? :D

Are the American politicians playing nine pins with the fate of their own country? Have the Democrats gone mad overnight with Obama on the lead? And are the "sharp witted & patriotic" Republicans watching everything sucking thumbs? Is Obama hell bent on a meltdown of the US? Or Is he keen on fixing the already tattered economy presented to him by Bush? Is the media trying to frame him by making the public misunderstand his plan with distorted facts and figures?

franalexes

03-26-2009, 03:00 PM

the answers are within.

Are the American politicians playing nine pins with the fate of their own country? YESHave the Democrats gone mad overnight with Obama on the lead? YESAnd are the "sharp witted & patriotic" Republicans watching everything sucking thumbs? Being out numbered they are not much helpIs Obama hell bent on a meltdown of the US? No, but his policies AREOr Is he keen on fixing the already tattered economy presented to him by Bush? START WITH BARNEY homophobeless FRANKIs the media trying to frame him and making the public misunderstand with distorted facts and figures? The public is already aware of how the figures are distorted. AND THEY ARE RIGHTFULLY CAUTIOUS>

sesame

03-26-2009, 03:24 PM

Ok, lets watch the NY house race and see who can draw the ball in his court!

Democrat Scott Murphy strongly supports Obama and the stimulus plan that would funnel $24.6 billion into New York to fund construction projects and help fill gaps in state education costs, among other things.

Recent Siena College poll found the Democratic president had a 65 percent approval rating in the traditionally Republican district. It was even higher ie, 72 % in Warren, Washington and Essex counties, which are strongly Republican. ;)

Risk factors:

The district has more than 196,000 registered Republicans compared to about 125,000 registered Democrats. There are more than 118,000 voters who aren't affiliated with either party.

Also, Republican Jim Tedisco, says the stimulus plan has a serious flaw _ the protection of bonuses to executives of bailed out companies like American International Group. That means sticking taxpayers with $165 million in lavish bonuses for failed executives at AIG! :eek: Well, thats what Jim Tedisco is bickering about.

TracyCoxx

03-27-2009, 09:14 AM

Did you not read this from the wall st. Journal, Tracy?China and other countries who hold our debt would certainly rather they did not have to abandon the dollar because they have so much of their wealth tied into the dollar. The fact remains though, the US will never be able to pay down its debt. Politicians have convinced the American people that they are entitled to so much from the government that we won't be able to decrease the amount we spend. Obama's administration now tells us we are entitled to succeed. Otherwise we'll get a bailout.

So while China and other countries would dearly love for us to pay back our debt, they will come to the realization that we will not. Maybe they have already come to this realization. It will certainly be painful for them to switch currencies, but more and more their economy, and the world's economy is based on trading US IOUs that they will realize is worthless. That cannot continue forever. Because of our recession and decreased demand for products from China, they are laying off millions. Meanwhile, the international community is wanting them to put environmental regulations in place while they produce for us. They have said they want us to foot that bill since we're the ones benefiting from it. So in the future, whether or not they decouple their economy from the dollar, they will agree to take on less and less of our debt.

Tracycoxx: "we're a nation of consumers rather than producers"

Prove, sister, prove! Please provide logic and facts to back up your statements. It sounds interesting though! Does the US produce nothing? Does it not add anything to the world economy, but only consume? Thats ridiculous!
If we add to the world economy, why is our debt increasing? If we can't produce tangible products, we're not going to lower our debt. We used to have a huge manufacturing base. Bit by bit companies have called on international companies to produce those products for tax reasons, fewer regulations, cheaper labor, etc. Just about everything you own has "Made in China" or somewhere stamped on it.

TracyCoxx

03-27-2009, 09:19 AM

Is Obama hell bent on a meltdown of the US? Or Is he keen on fixing the already tattered economy presented to him by Bush?
Alright, enough of this BS. The cause of the financial meltdown has been explain enough in this thread for whoever will read it. YOU prove that Bush caused the financial mess.

sesame

03-27-2009, 09:06 PM

I know something that the US is expert in producing in huge quantities; but I am sure they would'nt like to share this kind of technology with other rivals. Can you guess? ;)

Weapons of mass destruction, nuclear technology (I dont know where the raw materials come from) and stealth aircrafts. :D Yeah, the Nighthawks! Not many countries have such hi-tech toys. Frisbees, Wobblin Goblins, otherwise known as F117A! They have retired this model last year. :no:

cumfucius1

03-28-2009, 09:06 AM

According to conspiracy theorists, JF Kennedy was assassinated not by Lee Harvey Oswald but a well-coordinated group of people connected to the US Govt. Kennedy was an obstruction to the interests of war-loving military officials and politicians and businessmen. Poor disturbed oswald couldnt have pulled it or shoot him from multiple angles alone. Also, his autopsy was very poorly done and the report was edited.

The idea made for a pretty good Oliver Stone movie but I am sorry there was no conspiracy. Oswald was a loner with a twisted need to belong to something or anything to feel important. Unfortunately trained as a marine to be an expert with a rifle.

TracyCoxx

03-31-2009, 12:11 AM

Alright, enough of this BS. The cause of the financial meltdown has been explain enough in this thread for whoever will read it. YOU prove that Bush caused the financial mess.

Sesame?? Are you there?

hankhavelock

04-05-2009, 06:41 AM

I am amazed we have hard core Republicans on this site. If my memory serves me well, Senior Bush stated that Homosexuals, Transsexuals and Atheists should be denied the right to vote!:censored:
Anyway, I suppose Republicans will continue to worship Rush Limbaugh as the Germans worshiped Hitler. It is a mean spirited intolerant destructive view of the world which will perpetuate the misery we are in.:frown:

Yup! Todays' Reps are NOT our friends :-) They are a bunch of dinosaurs who feel so deeply hateful to a democratic world with an IQ above 5... to the neocon Reps this is all about two sides: either we're a bunch of socialist, marxist, muslim, gay, transsexual, anti-american terrorists or a good group of "God"-fearing, corrupt, totally-"patriotic", double-standard, laissez-faire capitalist fascists who weep like sheep when we hear a national anthem, put our devious hands over our devious hearts and pour our blood...... nothing in between... :-)

But good for the world that they had their kicks... and now are out of here... bloody undemocratic, hateful nazis...

Well, Reagan was different, but that's another talk. He was the last truly democratic Republican. He fucked up American economy, but he did end the cold war. That's his claim to fame - and a good one!

H

Babapranja

04-05-2009, 05:07 PM

Obama Rulez

TracyCoxx

04-07-2009, 08:20 AM

With BO's international tour and recent international events, we've found out something else he sucks at. Foreign policy. Why threaten to shoot down North Korea's missile if he's not prepared to actually do it? He looks like a fool now. Not that I really wanted him to shoot down North Korea's missile, but don't make the threat unless you can back it up.

Now he's discovering how useless the UN is.

Doesn't he have anyone who has a clue about international protocols that can advise him? When British Prime Minister Gordon Brown came to visit BO, he brought:
- a first edition of Sir Martin Gilbert's authorized biography of Churchill, all seven volumes of it.

- a framed commissioning paper for HMS Resolute, rescued by an American whaler in 1856 (part of HMS Resolute was later made into the desk presented by Queen Victoria to President Rutherford B. Hayes in 1880, and used by American presidents to this day).

- a pen holder fashioned from the timber of HMS Gannet, a sister ship of the Resolute that also served for a time on anti-slavery missions off Africa (if it weren't for this ship, Obama's ancestors from Kenya would likely have been made to be slaves in Arabia).

Obama's gifts to Brown?
- a special collector's box of DVDs containing 25 American movies
- toy helicopters modeled after Marine One from the Whitehouse giftshop for the PM's sons.

Michelle Obama then made the horrific mistake of touching the Queen. I don't see the big deal, but if that's against protocol, she should have been briefed (or perhaps she was).

Then after meeting the King of Saudi Arabia, the President of the United States prostrates himself and kisses the ring upon his hand.

Headlines from abroad:
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung:
Obama presented himself as a 'new kid on the block'... as a newbie who still had a lot to learn.

Suddeutsche Zeitung:
Obama's words have a certain degree of humility to them and sometimes even a slight meekness. Obama is not trying to make himself look like an important global leader, but instead is taking pains to speek in a clear and direct manner so as to avoid problems.

London Telegraph:
Isn't it time for him to go home yet?... His long stay means that we are hearing rather a lot from him, way too much in fact... I'll wager that within a year or so he'll be marked down as a wind-bag.

Frankly, I hope he makes his international tour permanent.

sesame

04-08-2009, 09:33 AM

Ah, gifts and presents from the US diplomats... Hmmm, it brings up the memory of the recent Clinton stupidity. When Secretary of State Hillary Clinton greeted Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in Geneva, she presented him with a big red & yellow ugly looking Reset button. On that button was engraved "peregruzka" in Russian.

Mrs Clinton said, "We want to reset our relationship and so we will do it together. We worked hard to get the right Russian word. Do you think we got it correct?" she asked Lavrov.

"You got it wrong," Lavrov said." Both diplomats laughed. "It should be "perezagruzka" (the Russian word for reset,) Lavrov said. "This says 'peregruzka,' which means 'overcharged.'":p

sesame

04-08-2009, 09:53 AM

Cowboy capitalism
always depended on subsidies to businesses
such as corporate farming, suburban development,
pharmaceuticals, energy and aerospace. George W. Bush
and the Republican majorities of the early 2000s simply
drove this essential hypocrisy to a disastrous extreme
by increasing deficits and allowing deregulated
financial markets to run wild. In the process,
they ruined the world economy
and pushed it off the edge.

TracyCoxx

04-08-2009, 11:17 PM

Sesame, you're already skating on thin ice since you've made claims about Bush somehow being the sole cause of the financial crisis without backing any of it up with facts. Now what are you ranting about?

I looked up the first thing you wrote:
Cowboy capitalism always depended on subsidies to businesses such as corporate farming...

The facts don't seem to be on your side...
President George W. Bush vetoed the $289 billion U.S. farm bill despite the likelihood of a congressional (democratic congress) override, saying the bill subsidizes multimillionaire farmers while Americans face higher grocery prices.So who is practicing "Cowboy capitalism"? The democrats in congress? I won't waste my time with the rest of your rant since you'll probably want to rethink it, assuming you've thought about it at least once.

But let's get back to this:

Is Obama hell bent on a meltdown of the US? Or Is he keen on fixing the already tattered economy presented to him by Bush?Alright, enough of this BS. The cause of the financial meltdown has been explained enough in this thread for whoever will read it. YOU prove that Bush caused the financial mess.

Vanillas

04-20-2009, 04:44 AM

I voted for Obama and have no regrets. He is, excuse the cliche', the man for the times. He is one of the few - though certainly not the first - US President who could be described as such. American politics are dialectical and the history of the country is largely the history of the tensions and counter-tensions that comprise this process. While the majority of presidents have been centrists (Bill Clinton is a good example) there have been a small number who have pushed the country and the body politic too far from center. This has also happened as the result of the collective policies of a series of presidents (Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan, for example). But whether one or several, the necessary corrective is always the same: A presidential successor who creates a counter-tension that begins re-establishing the center (although not QUITE the same center as before but, ideally, a more democratic one).

The above could be described in Hegelian terms as Thesis, Antithesis and Synthesis. A historical example may help to illustrate this. John Adams (thesis) served the last four years of the Federal period, a time of centralized power in the Executive Branch. The exceedingly close election of 1800 (recall that it was decided in the House of Representatives and by a single vote) went to Republican (aka Anti-Federalist) Thomas Jefferson (antithesis). His election ushered in a period of States' Rights and a decidedly weaker national government. This in turn resulted in many years of centrist presidents and relatively calm politics (synthesis). Another such president was Andrew Jackson who successfully defeated Nicholas Biddle and vetoed the charter of the Second Bank of the United States, a bank that, had it gone on unchecked, could have conceivably owned the country. Other examples include Abraham Lincoln following the feckless presidencies of Fillmore, Pierce and Buchanan; The rigorously honest Rutherford B. Hayes following the corruption and cronyism of Ulysses S. Grant; Theodore Roosevelt fighting the entrenched second generation robber barons; And, in the memory of many people alive today, FDR following the ideologically bound Herbert Hoover. Thus each of these presidents served when policies or conditions had shifted so far from center as to make them untenable. The times called for a president who was sufficiently courageous and visionary to take the country in a decidedly different direction, toward real progress that can only come from synthesis.

Finally, it is my contention that Barak Obama is, or certainly has the potential to be, such a president. Following the economic excesses of deregulation and the cowboy xenophobia of George W. Bush, he is certainly off to a good start.

CreativeMind

04-24-2009, 03:28 AM

I voted for Obama and have no regrets. He is, excuse the cliche', the man for the times. He is one of the few - though certainly not the first - US President who could be described as such...

The times called for a president who was sufficiently courageous and visionary to take the country in a decidedly different direction, toward real progress that can only come from synthesis.

Finally, it is my contention that Barak Obama is, or certainly has the potential to be, such a president. Following the economic excesses of deregulation and the cowboy xenophobia of George W. Bush, he is certainly off to a good start.

I don't know if I'd say he was off to THAT good a start. In the time he's been in office, Wall Street has actually gotten WORSE than it was under Bush, and so far -- despite committing the United States to a possible $3 TRILLION deficit for the coming fiscal year AND committing us to deficits of up to $1 Trillion per year for the next 10 years as well (all of which FAR EXCEEDS any spending excess that Bush was responsible for) -- the economy STILL hasn't stabilized. In short, for all that money spent, to date you got boopkiss. Nada. The big donut hole.

Look, Obama's our President so on a purely American level, I will root for the guy and hope he does a good job -- for ALL our sakes. I think that's a natural inclination most people have, to HOPE that their latest President won't turn out to be a total schlub. But so far his economic plans stink... some of his cabinet appointees are dubious at best, if not outright appalling... his foreign policy views are 180 degrees opposite from mine, so he's not gonna gain any points there... and now we have this whole brouhaha over the "torture memos", which is actually threatening to divide the country again and only polarize us even MORE.

But I have to hand it to the Left-leaning press yet again. I laughably love how they tilt every headline or byline to lean Obama's way to help the guy out...well, that is until you ACTUALLY read a news story with a discerning eye and take into account the ACTUAL facts.

Latest laughable example: yesterday the AP wire issued an article with the headline: Americans High On Obama; Direction of the US. The first two paragraphs of the article then stated: For the first time in years, more Americans than not say the country is headed in the right direction, a sign that Barack Obama has used the first 100 days of his presidency to lift the public's mood and inspire hopes for a brighter future. Intensely worried about their personal finances and medical expenses, Americans nonetheless appear realistic about the time Obama might need to turn things around, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll. It shows most Americans consider their new president to be a strong, ethical and empathetic leader who is working to change Washington.

The only problem is, that was an INCREDIBLE parsing of words. If you ACTUALLY read the REST of the article, buried down in paragraph NINE it then stated: And yet, the percentage of Americans saying the country is headed in the right direction rose to 48 percent, up from 40 percent in February. Forty-four percent say the nation is on the wrong track. Not since January 2004, shortly after the capture of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, has an AP survey found more "right direction" than "wrong direction" respondents. The burst of optimism didn't last long in 2004.

Huh? Excuse me? Let me get this straight. The HEADLINE states "Americans High on Obama and Direction of the US" and yet THEN you're telling me...almost as if purposefully trying to bury it in the article...that only 48% of the people actually feel that way. Which means that LESS THAN HALF of the country actually feels that Obama is doing okay. I mean, last I recall my high school math, 48 was still less than 50.

Not to mention, you're talking about a 48 to 44 split -- with 44% of the American people definitely feeling he's NOT doing a good job and the country is NOT headed in the right direction. That's nearly a tie right there. So why doesn't the headline more ACCURATELY say "100 days into Obama, Americans still evenly divided on direction of country." Oh, that's right -- because if you said THAT and actually told the TRUTH, then people wouldn't instantly be able to see a pro-Obama headline, which is what you want MOST in journalism to create a subliminal impression upon those who only skim headlines or the first two paragraphs of a news article.

And even MORE laughable is the fact that, as with any poll, the final line of the AP article also states -- again as if mumbling under their breath so you don't pay attention -- The AP-GfK Poll was conducted April 16-20 by GfK Roper Public Affairs and Media. It involved telephone interviews on landline and cell phones with 1,000 adults nationwide. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3.1 percentage points. Excuse me? A 3% margin of error? Gee, that means the split could actually be 45-44, meaning Obama still has LESS THAN HALF of the country supporting him and in fact its only a ONE POINT DIFFERENCE between the two opposing sides.

But hey, why quibble about the truth when it makes SUCH a better banner headline and reveals SUCH a more obvious bias to declare "Americans high on Obama; Direction of US" as opposed to being RESPONSIBLE journalists and more ACCURATELY saying (for example): "Confidence in US up; But still less than half revealing a bitter divide" or some such headline like that? Which would be the truth and would be FAR more reflective of the actual facts that the article itself put forth.

Either way, we're only 100 days in with over 1,000 left to go. And in that time, as I noted, the economy stinks... unemployment continues to worsen... news reports today indicate a new wave of credit card defaults are heading our way like a tsunami which could result in yet another massive bailout... home mortgage defaults and foreclosures are also up again... oh, yeah, and for all the smiling that Obama did overseas while saying "America was wrong in the past and I apologize for everything we've ever done", Europe STILL gave him the finger about helping to fight terrorism, and Iran is still that much closer to having an atomic bomb, which will surely destabilize the Middle East.

But hey, on the positive side, at least soon people will be able to PayPal money to someone they know in Cuba or maybe buy some cigars.

So, added together, I'm not ready to proclaim Obama the savior of our country quite yet OR even say how good (or bad) a President history will ultimately judge him to be. On the other hand, given the way he's going with his policies, I might need to make a sign soon, so I can get out there and participate in the big Fourth of July Tea Parties that will be coming up next. Simply because I'm just waiting for the other shoe to drop on the Obama tax and spend strategy -- ie. "Hey, guess what? Your taxes ARE gonna go up! BIG TIME! But hey, I smile nice and make you feel good, so I'm sure you won't mind me and Congress pilfering your wallets and bank accounts some more!"

TracyCoxx

04-24-2009, 02:57 PM

The first 100 days is always a significant milestone in a president's term. Obama's 100th day in office comes with him breaking a record.

Drum roll please....
The earliest recorded 'Debt Day'! Four days before BO's 100th day the bank will run dry. Let the borrowing begin. Nice one.

franalexes

04-24-2009, 06:26 PM

OBAMA

One
BIG
ASS
MISTAKE
America

nyguy35

04-24-2009, 06:51 PM

Obama is terrible, easily the worst president in my lifetime. The way that he has embarrassed and shamed the USA on the world stage is nothing short of disgusting.

The Conquistador

04-24-2009, 10:45 PM

http://thehill.com/dick-morris/obamas-leap-to-socialism-2009-04-21.html

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_47/b4109124802970.htm

The government couldn't find their ass with both hands behind their back. Hope you'll like the government run economy:frown:

State run newspapers aren't so bad, right?
Right?

Riiiiiiiight?

tslust

04-25-2009, 01:14 AM

I find it amazing. Before the election and the inauguration, I couldn't go anywhere without running into an Obama supporter. Now everyone I talk to says "I didn't vote for him." Where did all of Obama's loyal masses go?

The Conquistador

04-25-2009, 04:20 PM

A graphic representation.
http://i671.photobucket.com/albums/vv74/mrmught/obamas-handiwork.jpg

CreativeMind

04-25-2009, 10:33 PM

Yes! CHANGE you can believe in!

NOT.

Obama Budget Chief on Hill: Dems Plan to Scrap Middle Class Tax Cut
ABC News.com
March 25, 2009 4:45 PM

President Obama's budget chief hinted that the president's signature campaign issue - a middle class tax cut - will not likely survive a budget battle with Democrats on Capitol Hill.

On a conference call with reporters in advance of the President's trip to the hill to speak before the Senate Democratic caucus, OMB Director Peter Orszag indicated that while 98% of the budget mark-ups in the House and Senate are on par with the administration's budget blueprint, some campaign trail promises, like middle class tax cuts, may get left on the cutting room floor...

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/03/obama-budget-ch.html

transjen

04-25-2009, 10:43 PM

transjen

04-25-2009, 10:51 PM

Now for a little shot of reality, To start with he inherated a big mess that was not his doing, Where he ran into trouble started with him promising everyone the sun and the moon and had no idea how to keep them promises and worst of all he inherated a house and senate that will never put party aside to help the country the GOP refuse to accept any blame and keep yelling trickle down will fix everything and the dems just want to tax the rich which equals nothing but a big mess

The Conquistador

04-25-2009, 11:33 PM

Here is an insightful look into the economic collapse and our part in it.
http://arthurshall.com/x_2009_economy.shtml

CreativeMind

04-26-2009, 12:59 AM

GEE sounds like everybody misses W, If so you can all suport the female verson of W named Sarah or you can all back another Bush named Jeb granted he's a little smarter then W but rest assured he is just as sneaky and as dishonest as his brother and just as quick to point his finger at someone else and say not my fault :no: Jennifer

Just for the record, Jen, as I stated in a post above, I think most Americans DO want to root on their new President...as I said before, most Americans DON'T want their newest President to turn out to be a total schlub...so I have no problem giving Obama a chance. As you noted in your other post here, there's no question that Obama certain inherited a lot of problems.

That said, the same is true of ALL Presidents inheriting things from their predecessor. We're talking about the most powerful nation in the world, the economic engine that likewise drives the world economy. So saying Obama inherited a lot of problems was certainly true of Bush, TOO. Lest we all forget out history, GW inherited a recession from Clinton that we likewise had to pull ourselves out of. Not to mention the Clinton years were the time when Al Qaeda first tried to topple the World Trade Center using a van bomb, after which they regrouped, they acquired their funding, they entered the country illegally, they took their flight school training (all of which happened under the radar screen of Clinton) and then once Bush was in office only 8 or so months...when he was the new guy on the job...he was faced with the consequences of the 9/11 attacks.

So, I can appreciate the magnitude of what Obama is facing AS President of the United States. The weight on his shoulders is more incredible than most could ever bear, and there's a definite reason every President -- even if they only serve one term -- goes in looking vigorous and full of life, and then comes out looking haggard with stress lines all over their face, their hair now completely gray.

For the record, my personal gripe with Obama is that I just felt the Left...and certainly the Left-leaning media...did SUCH a pile-on whenever it came to Bush, which started from the day he did win Florida and he did legitimately beat Gore (and yes, for those on the Left, regardless of the Supreme Court hearings, they ultimately DID go back and recount ALL of the Florida ballots, which only served to prove that Bush DID win the state. In fact, once the full recount was done, Bush's margin of victory actually TRIPLED over Gore. Don't believe me? Feel free to Google it.) So, to my mind, that's where much of this animosity began. It began in an election where the Left was SO angry that Gore lost, and they only became even MORE embittered when Bush beat Kerry -- and let the record show that Bush won BOTH the electoral college AND the popular vote there, so there was NO disputing that he had fairly won.

My problem with Obama goes to a phrase that I believe Michelle Malkin, a conservative blogger, gets credit for creating. Namely, the Obama years are now about a "Savior based economy", where somehow Obama is going to "save us" from ourselves -- which frankly, is a presumptuous and arrogant attitude that I wouldn't tolerate from ANY politician or ANY party. There's nothing I hate more than any politician who feels they know what's better for you than you do, or that they know how to spend your money better than you do. Which is why you see so many of us groaning about Obama because these attitudes were the CORE of his campaign while running, which many bought into. Hell, they obviously bought into the sales pitch -- that's how he got the votes and won. And frankly THAT'S what actually TERRIFIES me about Obama. An elected politician is just that -- he's an elected person. He'll run the clock and then be out of office. But the bottom line is that he's just a MAN, not a sainted "savior". And the fact that Obama labeled himself "The One" makes me raise an eyebrow about an ego run amuck.

And here's another reason you'll see many of us bitching. As it's been often noted in this thread, currently HALF of the country does NOT pay taxes AT ALL. Seriously, stop and think about that -- for all the griping that people always do about their taxes and whatnot, you literally have a 50-50 shot -- the next time someone bitches to you about their taxes -- of turning to them and saying, "Wait a minute. Did you actually PAY anything?" and havign them turn to you and answer, "Uh...no, actually I didn't have to pay anything at all."

So what we're REALLY seeing at work here...what's FINALLY being played out on a national level and ripping us (as a country) even further apart...is a true class warfare battle. Those on the Left like to label it a war of "The haves versus the have-nots" to make it sound more humanistic. Meanwhile, those on the Right like to label it "Those who work hard versus those who are expecting a free hand out."

So, its not that people necessarily wish that W was back in power. For crying out loud, he DID piss off many of us on the Right for how much he DID spend himself. And THAT'S why you're seeing so many of us bitching even LOUDER now. Because it's all about the money we're spending and where it's going. When it comes down to that, I almost do wish Bush was back in office simply because W creating a $900 Billion deficit isn't even in the same league as Obama creating a $3 TRILLION deficit for this year alone -- not to mention he and the Democrats in Congress have ALSO committed us to deficits projected to be $1-1.5 TRILLION for each of the next 10 years TOO. And let me repeat that: that's what they project them to be, which given the way our government usually fouls things up and the way they can never add up a column of numbers doing basic math, that means the deficits will likely be MUCH HIGHER.

So again, it's not that I want Bush back, but for crying out loud given the choice between a guy who had a cowboy way of walking and talking and who served up $900 Billion in debt VERSUS a slick talking Harvard lawyer who now is trying to mandate how everyone will have to live their lives, who in comparison is serving up a $13 TRILLION debt (or more) all to accomplish his personal visions about social engineering -- gee, this one really isn't TOO hard for me to pick between.

transjen

04-26-2009, 03:19 PM

This is an argument neither of us can win so i'm won't even try. But to clear a little about myself first i'm not a dem or rep i'm a independent and have been since i was old enough to vote, What party a canadate belongs to makes no nevermind to me i vote on what the person will do and what they stand for, I never liked W mainly because in 2000 he struck me as an idiot and in 08 i didn't care for Obama because i found him lacking he gave great speeches but he always lacked what he would do and how he gave promises but no clear answer to how he would do it .But as he has only be in office for under a 100 days i'm still ready to wait and see. Regaurdless on which side you are on it took awhile to get into this mess and it will take awhile to get out

franalexes

04-26-2009, 04:09 PM

Yes! CHANGE you can believe in!

I see you got it wrong too.
That's "CHAINS you can believe in."

The Conquistador

04-26-2009, 06:43 PM

[quote=CreativeMind;79302]Yes! CHANGE you can believe in!
I see you got it wrong too.
That's "CHAINS you can believe in."

No he's right. President Zero said he'd bring change; he just never specified if it was change for better or for worse.

TracyCoxx

04-26-2009, 11:44 PM

TracyCoxx

04-28-2009, 07:34 AM

The latest Barack blunders....
The swine flue pandemic is here and BO still does not have anyone confirmed to head the Health & Human Services or the Center for Disease Control. But then again, that might be a good thing considering who he put in charge of Homeland Security.

Then he pulls another stunt in New York City. They had Airforce One flanked by two fighter jets buzzing the location where the World Trade Center stood. The FAA knew about it, but were told not to tell anyone. People were frightened and evacuated buildings by the thousands. Dumbass!

transjen

04-28-2009, 04:54 PM

TracyCoxx

04-28-2009, 06:11 PM

randolph

04-28-2009, 08:00 PM

Finally a wised up Republican, Arlen Specter:yes:

from Yahoo News
Deep red. But keeping the government in deficit is exactly what Reagan did. Despite his years of lip service to balancing the budget, total discretionary spending had climbed almost 16 percent by the time he left office, dwarfing the Carter budgets he had once criticized. Revenues, limited by Reagan's tax cuts, were never able to keep pace. The result was a spiraling national debt that nearly tripled during his two terms, hitting $2.7 trillion.

Some of Reagan's aides, including William Niskanen, the former chairman of Reagan's council of economic advisers, believe there is a simple explanation for these growing deficits: Reagan's tax cuts simply did not do what supply-side economists said they would do. Because the cuts didn't substantively increase tax revenues, they didn't allow Reagan to shrink the deficit. They also didn't decrease the size of government by choking off spending. "The 'starving the beast' hypothesis is understandably popular among politicians--that you can have tax cuts without a deficit increase--but it's just empirically wrong," says Niskanen, now chairman emeritus of the Cato Institute. "That idea has destroyed for several decades the traditional Republican commitment to fiscal responsibility."

This, many historians believe, may be Reagan's real legacy. "The combination of military spending, tax cuts, and ultimately a failure to control most domestic spending led to a fiscal straitjacket by the end of the decade," says Zelizer. In 1991, Reagan's successor, George H. W. Bush, was forced to increase taxes to close huge gaps in the budget, but government debt still climbed past $4 trillion on his watch. When George W. Bush adopted a Reaganesque economic policy, with Dick Cheney, early in his first term, famously saying that "Reagan proved deficits don't matter," more tax cuts and more spending led to even more debt. By the time Obama took office, the federal government was more than $11 trillion in the red.

The lesson of Reaganomics, in other words, may be a simple one. In times of economic crisis, all roads seem to lead to the same place: deficits. The real test of a president and his economic policy, historians say, is what happens to those deficits when the economy recovers. For all of his many successes--and for all the support his ideas still enjoy on Capitol Hill--that is a test Reagan seems to have failed.

Vanillas

04-29-2009, 04:08 AM

randolph

04-29-2009, 11:01 AM

The Republican Party is fast marginalizing itself into oblivion. Unless they begin to broaden their base -and fast- they will go the way of the Federalists and the Whigs. And, despite the fact that my personal politics are left of center, I do NOT wish for this. American politics are dialectical and work best when the opposing parties are competitive. If I was a Republican I would want Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber to take a house by the sea together. Rush Limbaugh I would encourage to take an early retirement and a vow of silence. Then I would encourage the moderates (and there actually are some) to begin finding their voice, a voice that acknowledges both Science and the fact that Ronald Reagan does NOT belong on Mt. Rushmore. They are in the desert now largely because for eight years they blindly followed the bidding of a near idiot. But they don't have to stay there.

I agree, a viable two party system is essential for our democratic system. The Republicans from Regan on have tried to destroy the two party system (aka Carl Rove). Compromise and reconciliation kept this country going since its inception. If the GOP can't free itself from Limbaugh (et all) then another party needs to be created to replace it. The Grand Old Party has become a white elephant. How about the LBR party (lets be reasonable). ;)

CreativeMind

04-30-2009, 12:23 AM

Well the nomminee is on hold do to a few GOP who don't like her stand on abortion

I will say that the GOP are obsessed with abortion. It could be the head of Nasa they're confirming and they'll ask what his stance on abortion is.

Well, to be a bit fair to the GOP, a big backbone to their support are pro-life religious groups and the GOP has definitely staked out the ground as being the anti-abortion party. That said, the so-called nominee on hold -- Kathleen Sebelius, who as of yesterday has been approved -- was someone who has repeatedly stated she's pro-life, a devout Catholic and personally against abortion...and yet her record as Governor of Kansas shows the direct opposite and that she's pretty much every pro-life person's worst nightmare legislatively speaking. Not to mention, she has likewise taken campaign contributions from a rather repugnant abortion doctor well-known and well-documented for performing exceedingly late term abortions, even if they skirted the law -- and she lied about the size of the contributions.

Then again, she ALSO didn't pay her taxes properly.
But hey, that's almost a REQUIREMENT now to be on Team Obama...

transjen

04-30-2009, 01:24 AM

Well, to be a bit fair to the GOP, a big backbone to their support are pro-life religious groups and the GOP has definitely staked out the ground as being the anti-abortion party. That said, the so-called nominee on hold -- Kathleen Sebelius, who as of yesterday has been approved -- was someone who has repeatedly stated she's pro-life, a devout Catholic and personally against abortion...and yet her record as Governor of Kansas shows the direct opposite and that she's pretty much every pro-life person's worst nightmare legislatively speaking. Not to mention, she has likewise taken campaign contributions from a rather repugnant abortion doctor well-known and well-documented for performing exceedingly late term abortions, even if they skirted the law -- and she lied about the size of the contributions.

Then again, she ALSO didn't pay her taxes properly.
But hey, that's almost a REQUIREMENT now to be on Team Obama...
The GOP being the pro life party is the biggest sham ever pulled second only to they don't want tax money. Just think if the GOP ever really baned it then they'll lose there biggest get the troops to the poles and they would loose the biggest non issue to talk about you had the sawed off runt W you had the senate and the house and you have the unsupreme court 5/4 and yet W didn't ban it for Rev Farrwell that alone tells me the GOP is playing the pro lifers as chumps

randolph

04-30-2009, 10:12 AM

From Washington Monthly

STEELE TAKES GOP TALKING POINTS OFF THE TABLE.... One of the more common concerns voiced by conservatives, especially at the recent "Tea Parties," relates to bailouts. Republicans on the Hill have tried to pick up on this, and distance the party from the practice.

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele decided to step on his party's message quite a bit this morning.

Michael Steele says the GOP would be "disingenuous" if it blamed Democrats for poor economic performance, since Republicans started the bailout process in the first place.

"Look, we can't go back out and start pointing fingers at Democrats and saying, 'Look how bad they're performing, look at what they're doing with the economy,' when we jumpstarted this thing," Steele said on MSNBC's Morning Joe. "We were the ones that put the $700 billion on the table and said, 'All right, let's start nationalizing the banking system.'"

Added Steele, "So now, for us to stand back and go, 'Oh, that's a bad thing to do' is disingenuous."

I suppose this is intended to be candor. To hear Steele tell it, Republicans are owning up to the moments where its actions were inconsistent with its principles. Perhaps there's some value in that.

But the Republican goal of late is to connect the majority to the unpopular bailouts, and blame Democrats for poor management of the economy. The RNC chairman just went on national television to say those criticisms against Democrats just aren't fair and aren't even accurate.

Maybe Steele is a DNC plant? :lol:

CreativeMind

04-30-2009, 10:55 PM

...that alone tells me the GOP is playing the pro lifers as chumps

Well, keep in mind that the pro-lifers have nowhere else to go. I mean, they CERTAINLY can't go to the Democratic party -- after all, part of the Democratic platform that gets ratified at each and every convention is a formal legal statement that the party will absolutely, positively stand behind pro-choice stances, including even expanding abortion rights.

So, the pro-choicers are sort of between a rock and a hard place. To them, abortion is an issue nearest and dearest to their heart, but unfortunately they're swimming against a strong tide. The problem they have is that while every poll shows that most Americans are actually AGAINST abortion -- that is, the larger number of Americans would obviously like to see the number of abortions that get performed each year drastically reduced -- all the same, most people ALSO tend to think it should still be a personal decision that gets left up to a person/couple.

I mean, it's just one of those classic political quandaries. Do you like Obama? Right now, the polls show that a majority of people DO. Do you like Obama's policies and the direction of the country? The same polls show that people DON'T. At which point you're left scratching your head and saying, "Huh? How can you have both?" Abortion is the same -- ask people if they are against abortion, the majority say "Yes." Ask them if you think it should therefore be outlawed to support that viewpoint, then they suddenly say "No."

transjen

04-30-2009, 11:08 PM

I always find it funny that the GOP claims they are the party of freedom and they believe that goverment should have no say in peoples lives yet they want to ban same sex marrige and ban abortion isn't that goverment saying how to live your life? Where's the freedom to marry who you love? And where's the womans choice to have or not have a baby? FYI i'm not in favor of abortion and i not in favor of an out right ban mainly because every case is differnt and sadly at times it's the best for those involved talking about medical reasons Jennifer

TracyCoxx

04-30-2009, 11:59 PM

Michael Steele says the GOP would be "disingenuous" if it blamed Democrats for poor economic performance, since Republicans started the bailout process in the first place.

Not all republicans were for the bailout. They could have changed the accounting system to one that makes more sense, and that would have instantly erased a lot of the money problems.

There was also pork in those bills but not like the obama stimulus packages. That supported every pet democrat project ever thought up plus gave a reward to everyone who supported BO.

I always find it funny that the GOP claims they are the party of freedom and they believe that goverment should have no say in peoples lives yet they want to ban same sex marrige and ban abortion isn't that goverment saying how to live your life? Where's the freedom to marry who you love? And where's the womans choice to have or not have a baby?I agree with you there. If the GOP favors small government, then they shouldn't be trying to dictate social issues like that and religion. I don't think they have a consistent philosophy driving all their policies.

randolph

05-01-2009, 05:46 PM

transjen

05-01-2009, 06:14 PM

Look for things to really get ugly, The first of the unserprem court has handed in his letter now the fur will be flying i can hear RUSH'S ditto heads screaming there goes our country :eek: Jennifer

TracyCoxx

05-01-2009, 06:49 PM

CreativeMind

05-02-2009, 10:58 AM

From Greg Laden
According to a Washington Post/ABC poll, only 21% of Americans identify themselves as Republicans. That is getting dangerously close to the percentage of Americans who believe they have seen UFOs or alien craft or have been abducted by aliens. I think they may be the same individuals.

Gee, could Fox news and Rush losing their devotees?
Or, is just plain reality setting in.

My grand parents were republicans, my parents were republicans and I voted for Eisenhower. Since then the grand old party has lost its true conservatism. Then conservatism meant fiscal and social responsibility. Now it means cut taxes and spend more money (irresponsible Reaganomics), pander to right wing extremists and sell out to corporate interests...

You don't think that those 79% that don't identify themselves as republican think like you do, or like BO does do you?
I would be one of the 79% who does not consider myself a republican.

Well, it's sort of interesting that you would call it "irresponsible Reaganomics" given that the Reagan years DID account for some of the most robust economic growth in all of American history, not to mention Reaganomics DID pull us out of the utter financial catastrophe that was named Jimmy Carter.

And I wouldn't be so worried about that 21% identification number. In politics, it all changes on the stop of a dime. In fact, here's a historical footnote to consider: that's the SAME percentage that existed back when Nixon left office due to Watergate, which ironically set the stage for Carter's election. And yet it only took 4 simple years of Carter being the total fuck-up that he was for him to turn the country against him, at which point Reagan rode into office on a vote that now saw the country completely flip-flopping once again and becoming anti-Democrat. And of course, four years after that Reagan won reelection in a 49 state landslide that saw a return of sky Republican "voter identification" percentages.

Oh, and one more thing for the record. While the news media (in particular the New York Times) is so "enchanted" with Obama's first 100 days in office, right now he actually has LESS of an approval rating than Jimmy Carter did at his 100 day mark. And again, we all know how well things worked out there!

transjen

05-02-2009, 03:09 PM

Oh here we go agian let slam Carter and maybe they'll let up on slaming Bush, I got news for you the lousy 70 ecomy started in the early 70s under Nixon and Ford so Carter inherted the problems and trurt be told Jimmy Carter on his worst day was a 1000 times better then George W Bush, And you want to know why the NY Times is overjoyed with Obama's first 100 days? It easy to see after 8 years of disater named George W Bush the most hated and worst US president of all time who should have been impeached. :yes: Jennifer

TracyCoxx

05-03-2009, 01:17 AM

Well at least you're hot.

TracyCoxx

05-04-2009, 08:19 AM

Impressive. 50 years ago they made a cartoon about Obama's term.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WB6p5QPVhPI

jenny_jizz

05-04-2009, 10:02 AM

XonDemand

05-04-2009, 12:00 PM

he is doing his job...

can not get any worse

randolph

05-04-2009, 07:02 PM

Impressive. 50 years ago they made a cartoon about Obama's term.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WB6p5QPVhPI

Apparently you are equating Obama's program to communism. Pouring billions of dollars into weak and failing capitalist companies in order to bail out our capitalist system hardly seems communistic. :frown:

transjen

05-04-2009, 07:31 PM

Was just watching Lou Dobbs on CNN and it sounds like things are slowly picking up but sadly the job market is still lagging but then with all the out sourcing that's not surpising, So looks like Obama's plan is working :D Jennifer

CreativeMind

05-04-2009, 10:20 PM

Apparently you are equating Obama's program to communism. Pouring billions of dollars into weak and failing capitalist companies in order to bail out our capitalist system hardly seems communistic. :frown:

Well, actually that's EXACTLY the definition of why his programs ARE communistic (or socialistic since others like to slap that label on things as well).

Pure and simple: if capitalism was allowed to work -- and given a chance to properly re-balance itself exactly as a capitalistic system SHOULD -- then Obama should NOT be pouring billions of dollars into these "weak and failing companies" you're talking about. Instead, by the pure definition of capitalism, these companies SHOULD be allowed to fail or go under completely -- or at the very least as we're now seeing with Chrysler, be forced into filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in order to TRY and survive, but do it through actual across the board reorganization efforts.

For example, and again using Chrysler, instead of wasting billions and billions of taxpayer dollars on them which simply got flushed away for nothing (which is what we've done to date), they should have received NO bailout...they should have been forced into Chapter 11 much sooner...at which point a Bankruptcy Judge would have had the court appointed power to say to all concerned: "Okay, Management, this is what YOU now have to do to save this company, the sacrifices I'm ordering you to make...okay, dealerships, this is what YOU have to do and the sacrifices you have to make...oh, ye! And you Union people, I'm also ordering YOU to renegotiate and restructure your contracts for the same reason. You want to save your jobs, these are the concessions you'll have to make TOO."

Would it have been painful for Chrysler to do a Chapter 11 sooner?
Yes, but look where we are -- we've wasted billions and now we ARE at that same place.

Would it have put people out of work?
Yes, but that is now going to happen ANYWAY.
So again, we've now wasted BILLIONS of dollars simply delaying the inevitable.

Is this the proper way to do things?
Yes, because you're now letting the actual market decide. That's capitalism at work. Well, unless you're like Obama and you believe in propping up companies that continue to manufacture products that nobody wants to buy, so now the government sticks its nose in and says "Ah, fuck it. We'll keep it afloat just for the hell of it. Here, take some free money on us."

And if that's what Obama supporters believe in, please PM me and tell me where I can get or download the filing forms to apply for some of these bailout funds. Because if I knew that I could get free money from the government that would just be given to me to continually produce a product that no one has any interesting in actually buying or owning, I would have gotten in on this gravy train a long time ago!

transjen

05-04-2009, 10:39 PM

So bailing out the US automakers is socialism but W bailing out wallstreet wasn't? All that was need was more GOP leadership and Regannogmics after all look what 8 years of deregalation and trickle down did for us Regan's trickle down only lead to a sea of red ink in the 80s and W was even worse but it appears that the GOP is fine with a sea of red ink as long as there is tax cuts for billonairs but the moment a dem gets in power all of a sudden they are worried about the debit

CreativeMind

05-05-2009, 12:12 AM

So bailing out the US automakers is socialism but W bailing out wallstreet wasn't?

Except that it's not the same thing, Jen. The core reason for bailing out Wall Street is that it served a UNIVERSAL purpose across the board -- in short, we ALL have money invested in Wall Street (whether you like it or not, things like your pensions and college saving funds and whatnot are back-boned BY Wall Street and as stocks and bonds). Not to mention, we obviously ALL keep our money in banks. So again, you can't let the financial system melt down because of the ripple effect it could have across the ENTIRE economy -- not to mention the fact that MILLIONS and MILLIONS of people would be losing their savings and pensions and whatnot. So propping up the banking system only makes sense. Though I would agree that paying out extravagant bonuses should be cut off. After all, you don't deserve a bonus for "a job well done" if your company is taking billion dollar losses.

ON THE OTHER HAND...if you let companies like Chrysler go under -- or as I noted above simply let them slip into a Chapter 11 for financial protection from creditors while they reorganize themselves -- that serves three purposes.

First, the market is self-correcting itself, which is always the healthiest way to fix an economy.

Second, you're not taking public taxpayer money and using it to prop up a private company. Which is always bad because then you've entered the slippery slope of "Why should my tax dollars go to saving Chrysler? Hey, my local florist shop down the block is going under. So if we're just gonna give out money to businesses that can't sustain themselves...that can't drum up the business they need to stay afloat...then why doesn't he get a few hundred grand from the government to stay in business TOO? Why give Chrysler money, but not the next guy in line?

Answer: Because if you DO give it to the next guy in line, just how long of a line are you intending to create? What is the cut-off point? And, in turn, just how much of the public's taxpayer dollars are you planning to continually spend?

And third, unlike propping up the banks, no one is hurt by Chrysler going under -- well, aside from the actual workers, but that's the price ANY company pays for going under. My point being, there is MORE THAN ENOUGH competition out there, which means that even if Chrysler goes under nobody's buying choices are impeded upon. You will still have PLENTY of choices from whom to buy a car. So the consumer isn't affected either. Hell, look at it this way: the consumer is obviously NOT affected by Chrysler going under since by pure logic the very reason that they are folding is BECAUSE they were building something that no one wanted.

CreativeMind

05-05-2009, 12:15 AM

All that was need was more GOP leadership and Regannogmics after all look what 8 years of deregalation and trickle down did for us Regan's trickle down only lead to a sea of red ink in the 80s and W was even worse but it appears that the GOP is fine with a sea of red ink as long as there is tax cuts for billonairs but the moment a dem gets in power all of a sudden they are worried about the debit

Reagan inherited one SERIOUSLY fucked-up mess from Jimmy Carter, and yet still turned things around and oversaw one of the largest expansions of economic growth in all of American history. People were HAPPY with the Reagan years, which would explain WHY he won over Carter and only 4 years later won reelection in a 49 state crushing landslide. And keep in mind that to this day, in all polls of the American people, Reagan STILL comes out as one of the top 5 FAVORITE Presidents in all of American history.

Now, did Reagan leave a deficit? Sure he did. But he also had to fix so many of the things that Carter screwed up that he had to spend even as we were growing. But even the amount Reagan left was able to be reigned back in by Clinton and the Newt Gingrich-led GOP Congress, which only goes to show that Reagan deficit was actually something that was manageable. In other words, Reagan spend "about" the right amount. So to compare the Reagan deficit to W. Bush's isn't accurate -- they weren't even in the same league.

Furthermore, if you've followed this thread, you'd see that those of us that are more Conservatively minded WERE mad at W. (and still are) for the spending that he did. Hey, we're playing fair. That's why he pissed us off, too. In the end, Bush spent too much and created a $1 TRILLION dollar deficit all his own.

Of course, right now I'd be ECSTATIC if we only had Bush's deficit to deal with. Because now we've got Obama who is just one year alone...hell, in just the first 4 months of his administration...will now TRIPLE that number to between $2.5 and a full $3 Trillion.

And even more jaw-dropping and truly insane, Obama's economic plan calls for trillion dollar deficits every year for the next 10 years. So if we're gonna do a side-by-side comparison, Bush's ONE trillion deficit compared to Obama's THIRTEEN trillion looks amazingly great right now to a helluva lot of people and economists, most of whom are now actively using the phrase "an unsustainable deficit" because they feel this is all going to come back and SERIOUSLY bite us in the ass over the next decade, as the bills come due on Obama's programs.

So, I'm glad you think CNN told you things are getting better -- but they're not. The only reason Wall Street was up about 200 points today is because the housing market numbers weren't nearly as bad as people expected...the only problem being, the only reason they WERE good is because some of the TARP money was reaching banks (and in turn lenders) to close on pre-existing and outstanding home sale mortgages. The problem with that being that many of the people now getting these bank loans -- in other words, who had their paperwork held up -- are just like the people who got us into the mess to begin with. Namely, they shouldn't be buying homes anyway. So in some regards this is like a dog chasing his own tail and running in circles. Once again, we're only setting ourselves up for another fall down the road.

And the other reason Wall Street was up today was because people were scrambling to scoop up stocks before the Treasury Department officially releases the banking industry "Stress Test" results -- which the Obama crew purposefully held back because it's already been leaked that the banks they tested did NOT do as well as it had been hoped, and thus even MORE tax payer money will probably have to be given to them.

transjen

05-05-2009, 12:59 AM

Jimmy Carter recieved the fucked up mess from Ford/ Nixon which you smean to overlook and Regan left a hugh sea of red ink but you say that's fine BUT when Obama recieved his hugh fucked up mess from W and his crew you cry foul because he's spending to much well BS you're pissed off that Obama won and you were the sameway when Clinton won and wecked your dreams of a hundred year reign of straight GOP ruling the whitehouse. Now if trickle down is so wonderful why the mess from W after 8 years of trickle down? Because you can have two wars and only give hugh tax cuts to the super rice and jam it up everyone elses rear end , So fine you hate Obama because he's going to undo every fucked up mess created by W but you have W to thank because he destroyed your party and he's why Obama won hopeful they bring warcrimes up on him :yes: Jennifer

TracyCoxx

05-05-2009, 01:14 AM

TracyCoxx

05-05-2009, 01:36 AM

So bailing out the US automakers is socialism but W bailing out wallstreet wasn't?

W shouldn't have had to bail out wall street. This isn't really a capitalistic system though is it? Not after the government has already stepped in and required banks to make loans to minorities who were not able to repay the loans. After that happened, it wasn't purely capitalism anymore.

All that was need was more GOP leadership and Regannogmics after all look what 8 years of deregalation and trickle down did for us Regan's trickle down only lead to a sea of red ink in the 80s and W was even worse but it appears that the GOP is fine with a sea of red ink as long as there is tax cuts for billonairs but the moment a dem gets in power all of a sudden they are worried about the debitJen, we've already gone over regulation, yet you keep holding on to that myth. Republicans were asking for regulation. Dems didn't want it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hN31-nKndg8

As for the rest, Obama's red ink is 2.5 times greater than the red ink from all of Bush's 8 years - including Bush's wall street bailout. Please explain how this debt is no worse than W's debt?

randolph

05-05-2009, 12:08 PM

TracyCoxx

05-05-2009, 08:36 PM

Jimmy Carter recieved the fucked up mess from Ford/ Nixon which you smean to overlook and Regan left a hugh sea of red ink but you say that's fine BUT when Obama recieved his hugh fucked up mess from W and his crew you cry foul because he's spending to much well BS

Hey Jen,
Very well put!
I love you. :inlove::hug::kiss:
*** replace the above hypocritical quote with the quotes below and I think you've got it Randolf ***

Yes Jennifer, but...
Although I am a democrat, I believe in fiscal conservatism. I hate debt and always made every effort to get out of it as soon as possible. I carefully invested my savings in conservative stocks and real estate. Now I see my efforts going down the tubes because of fiscal incompetence of government, bankers and speculators. Obama's spending program is terrifying and will very likely result in serious inflation (paying off debt with cheaper dollars). This will further reduce the value of my retirement savings.

the volume of debt is becoming monstrous. To top it off Obama claims it can be reduced by the end of his first term. That's pure fantasy!

You people provide such great entertainment :respect:

transjen

05-05-2009, 10:13 PM

The idea that this debt can be paid off by the end of his first term is to silly to comment on and even with a best case serino he'll only mange to pay down half the debt but in realty i think 1/3 is possiable if both parties trim the pork and tell the special intrests groups to shove off, I feel one hugh savings can be made if we stop all perks to illegal aliens we have enought problems helping US citizens, And another way is only giving tax cuts and credits to companies that has they whole work force here in the US keep the jobs here and then you'll collect more tax rev

randolph

05-06-2009, 12:04 AM

*** replace the above hypocritical quote with the quotes below and I think you've got it Randolf ***

Yes Jennifer, but...

You people provide such great entertainment :respect:

Well, I guess that's what we are here for. :lol:

Anyway, I read where the current massive spending is a smaller percentage of GNP than what Roosevelt spent in the 1930s. In the 1980s I thought the Reagen debt was the end of the world but Clinton helped clear that up. Supposedly, the recovery from the 1930s depression took so long was that Roosevelt didn't spend enough!

By the way, its fun to chat with intelligent conservatives, they are so rare nowadays.:respect:

randolph

05-09-2009, 07:49 PM

From Washington Monthly

BEYOND THE ICONS.... In light of the silly Republican in-fighting this week over whether or not to obsess over Ronald Reagan, MSNBC's "First Read" said, "The issue of Reagan reminds us of the Kennedy-obsession Democrats had for decades. One could argue it took the Democrats nearly 30 years to kick the Kennedy habit (maybe longer). So, this Reagan issue may take the Republicans another 10 years to get over."

That's probably a misread on how Dems perceive JFK. Jonathan Chait explained:

The Democratic obsession with the Kennedys is/was primarily stylistic. It recurs whenever a young, stylish presidential candidate makes people feel inspired. It is not, and really never has been, common for Democrats to argue that a certain course of action is wise simply because a Kennedy once advocated it. But Republicans have been doing so with regard to Reagan for twenty years now.

I think that's exactly right. There have been various discussions in Democratic circles over the last couple of decades about the future direction of the party, what policy priorities should be emphasized, how to grow the party, etc. It's exceedingly unusual for party leaders to reference John F. Kennedy as some kind of policy signpost. That's not to say his memory isn't widely revered; it is. But when considering domestic, economic, or foreign affairs, when was the last time a leading Democrat said, "Let's just do what JFK would do if he were here"?

In contrast, for many Republicans, the answer to almost every significant policy and/or political question is, "Follow Reagan." More than two decades after the 40th president left office, the obsession in some corners is kind of creepy, and bears no resemblance to the Democratic affinity for JFK. Kennedy is looked to more as a symbol of inspiration; Reagan is considered some kind of timeless, all-knowing sage. In GOP circles, to reference his name or ideology is to be self-evidently correct.

To borrow "First Read's" word, Democrats have never had this "habit" with regards to Kennedy.

Ramesh Ponnuru suggested this points to a certain vacuity on the left, since conservatives' "reverence for Reagan" is rooted in "philosophical content."

But this misses the point. The left's "philosophical content" is rooted outside the memory of JFK. Some on the left don't even care for Kennedy's approach to policy (see Yglesias, Matt). As Chait added, liberalism's "philosophical content does not consist of latching onto an old president, glossing over the reality of his record, and trying to recreate all of his actions whether or not they have any bearing upon the circumstances of the present day.... The 'philosophical content' of Reagan-worship is a cult-like process for circumscribing original thought."

It's painful to think it "may take the Republicans another 10 years to get over" this, but given what we've seen of late, it may take even longer than that.:(

TracyCoxx

05-10-2009, 08:57 AM

The Democratic obsession with the Kennedys is/was primarily stylistic...

It's exceedingly unusual for party leaders to reference John F. Kennedy as some kind of policy signpost.

When considering domestic, economic, or foreign affairs, when was the last time a leading Democrat said, "Let's just do what JFK would do if he were here"?

In contrast, for many Republicans, the answer to almost every significant policy and/or political question is, "Follow Reagan." More than two decades after the 40th president left office, the obsession in some corners is kind of creepy, and bears no resemblance to the Democratic affinity for JFK.

This post pretty much sums it up. Democrats want a president who makes them feel good. They don't really give a hoot about (or in many cases even comprehend) policy.

And then in contrast, republicans want a president who can get the job done. What is creepy is that the democrats think that is creepy. The presidency is not a popularity contest. The person in office is required to run the largest super power the world has ever known (and btw, there used to be two superpowers before Reagan came along. Think about that.). That is done through policies and leadership. Reagan demonstrated both very well and history shows he is one who got it right.

The Democratic obsession with the Kennedys is/was primarily stylistic. It recurs whenever a young, stylish presidential candidate makes people feel inspired.

One could argue it took the Democrats nearly 30 years to kick the Kennedy habit (maybe longer).

Yes definitely much longer. Why do you think they elected Obama... a young stylish presidential candidate? And the vast majority of democrats who elected him could not tell you what is policies were. LOL! Now THAT is creepy.

transjen

05-10-2009, 02:25 PM

Gee wasn't everybody saying that W was the man everyone wanted to drink a beer with back in 04 ?

TracyCoxx

05-10-2009, 03:16 PM

I give up, what does that have to do with anything being discussed here?

The Conquistador

05-10-2009, 03:48 PM

Tracy! It is obvious that you have not seen the glory of our lord and savior Barack Obama!

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Jesus-Missing-From-Obamas-Georgetown-Speech.html

Until you accept President Zero into your heart, you will not see the candy dreams and promises for a better future through socialism. Silly conservative! Your hard-earned paycheck is for social dregs and degenerates! Obama is your savior! Why else would Jesus not be allowed to bask in his glory?:rolleyes::no:

franalexes

05-10-2009, 06:55 PM

transjen

05-10-2009, 11:25 PM

randolph

05-10-2009, 11:38 PM

Not long ago Republicans were saying that we would elect a black President when pigs fly.

Guess what? Swine flu! :lol:

randolph

05-10-2009, 11:46 PM

I find it odd and refreshing that on a porn site, which one would expect to be liberal, we find little or no support for the annointed one.
I do think the best reason to vote conservative, is now in the WhiteHouse.
As I said, " odd".

Yes, it is interesting that conservatives are attracted to transsexual porn. Perhaps that is why many Republicans still like Bush, they love getting screwed.
:coupling::lol:

The Conquistador

05-11-2009, 12:17 AM

Ah yes lets start the great old BS myth the that US is always better off with an good old conservertive in the white house after all look at the wonderful job W did with his 8 yrs a true president zero :yes: Jennifer

I for one don't like Bush at all. He was a horrible Commander in Chief for me and his policies were at best, crappy. With that said, I have no more love for President Zero than I do for Bush. What pisses me off is all this Obama worship that people engage in; it's absolutely disgusting! He is just a man for fucks sake! Nothing more! It seems that alot of people are blinded by this whole "Ooooh! He's a black guy! His blackness will change the world!" bullshit. The elections are not a damn popularity contest! The elections should be about policy, not who is more photogenic or makes you feel good or whatever. Obama has clearly stated his policies and all his policies stink of expanded government powers and loss of private ownership. His bailouts and "universal healthcare" plans are going to drive this economy down even further and yet everyone is so ready to accept this in the name of change. Good grief! :frown: Snap out of it. And this crap about if I'm a conservative, I must love Bush and I must be racist and yadda yadda yadda? Where's the proof? Instead of thinking it in terms of black and white, try thinking of it in terms of the lesser of two evils. If Obama supporters actually took time to look at his proposals, you'd see that he is a wolf in sheeps clothing.

Meh! Whatever floats your boat...:confused:

CreativeMind

05-11-2009, 12:20 AM

Ah yes lets start the great old BS myth the that US is always better off with an good old conservertive in the white house after all look at the wonderful job W did with his 8 yrs a true president zero :yes: Jennifer

But keep something in mind, Jen. As I've noted in passing before, if you read through this thread you'll see that many of us here who lean to the Right have ALSO criticized Bush for NOT being a true Conservative. So when you mockingly say "we were better off when it was a Conservative in the White House", many of us will reply "You're right. Too bad we haven't actually had one in the White House in ages!"

Bush's problem was that he tried to placate things too much towards the middle. And more often than not, he didn't even go to the middle, but instead crossed over to the Left by allowing the Democratically controlled Congress to do whatever it wanted the last few years he was in office. Case in point: he allowed them to spend money like no tomorrow and he never stood up like a TRUE conservative and vetoed a single penny of it. He just let all that money go out the door and never once opposed the Democrats the way many of us -- the true conservatives -- wanted him to do.

And THAT'S why so many people became disillusioned by the Republicans in the last election. In the end, they had no real choice. Both the Right AND the Left have seemingly decided that they're both in favor of big government no matter what...they're willing to spend all of our tax dollars no matter what (and then some!)...and THAT'S what has left people feeling angry and left out, which is why you're seeing a slow burning anger beginning to build, not to mention the shifts in the polls.

Plus, that's why so many people have switched their party affiliations to become Independents instead. In fact, both the Republicans and, yes, even the Democrats even though they're in power right now should be worrying BIG TIME that people changing their party affiliations to become registered Independents instead is the fastest growing movement of all. And keep in mind that far more Republicans have switched than Democrats, which means the far greater number of those Independents DO actually lean to the Right -- they're just not happy with the way things are going.

Which is why Obama has so far been smart enough to realize that he's going to have to piss off the Left a bit and do certain things that they object to, because he knows this ever-growing Independent base is what he's going to desperately need to get reelected. The truth is the Independents are going to be the true deciding factor in all national elections for quite some time to come.

CreativeMind

05-11-2009, 12:34 AM

Yes, it is interesting that conservatives are attracted to transsexual porn.
Perhaps that is why many Republicans still like Bush, they love getting screwed.
:coupling::lol:

This isn't about Republicans. The truth is pretty soon EVERYONE is going to discover a newfound love for transsexual porn. Because once America gets the tab for the $13 TRILLION deficit that the Obama budgets are now setting into place across the next 10 years...and once America has to finally pay those bills all on its own because no one will lend us any more money...everyone is REALLY going to know what taking it up the ass truly feels like!

Which means things will never seem brighter for stars like Areeya or Amy or Kimber James or whoever is your favorite.
After all, they'll be the new cult figures to represent our economy! :eek:

transjen

05-11-2009, 12:41 AM

Back it up Chatlie Bush in his last two years was always saying if such and such goes thru he'll VETO IT the only things he signed was items he wanted, I know you and Rush are trying to shift all the blame and you all want another idiot in the white house aka Sarah or Jed but try as you may it won't work if the GOP ever wants a true chance the need to leave the far right and tread more to the middle and talk about true plans to balance the budget secure the boarders and Sarah and Jeb are not the voices to do it nor or your Regancrats , you have such a voice running in 08 but none of your party would listen or vote for him his name is Ron Paul. S.I.G Jennifer

person123

05-11-2009, 01:28 AM

mr barack could be working for the illuminati. his actions will speak louder than words

TracyCoxx

05-11-2009, 07:51 AM

Ah yes lets start the great old BS myth the that US is always better off with an good old conservertive in the white house after all look at the wonderful job W did with his 8 yrs a true president zero :yes: Jennifer

Strawman argument. Bush isn't a true conservative. Neither are many of the GOP unfortunately. That's why there's the discontent with the GOP right now.

Conservatism represents moderation, practicality, prudence, and cautious consideration of action based on known facts.

Current day politicians who call themselves "conservative" typically act based on immediate feelings rather than temperance and reasoning from good evidence to action. The Bush administration allowed the market to run free yet undermined freedom of privacy, and religion. The Bush administration has restricted the 4th Amendment right against warrantless searches, opened medical records, fostered the funding of religions in the name of "faith based initiatives," and ordered intrusive background checks on government employees in non-sensitive positions.

He also had no problem in changing the constitution, and has called it just a piece of paper. He was a failure at securing the borders.

Then there's the wall street bailout. That is not something conservatives do, although you could say that the financial situation needed to be rescued because of liberal tampering (i.e. the Community Reinvestment Act).

mr barack could be working for the illuminati. his actions will speak louder than words
Illuminati? I always think 'Crackpot' when I hear that word.

randolph

05-11-2009, 11:30 AM

This isn't about Republicans. The truth is pretty soon EVERYONE is going to discover a newfound love for transsexual porn. Because once America gets the tab for the $13 TRILLION deficit that the Obama budgets are now setting into place across the next 10 years...and once America has to finally pay those bills all on its own because no one will lend us any more money...everyone is REALLY going to know what taking it up the ass truly feels like!

Which means things will never seem brighter for stars like Areeya or Amy or Kimber James or whoever is your favorite.
After all, they'll be the new cult figures to represent our economy! :eek:

Well, OK! I'll take Vanity anytime over Cheney. :yes::coupling:

Humm, I need to figure out how to get multiple quotes on a post. :confused:

randolph

05-11-2009, 11:33 AM

Strawman argument. Bush isn't a true conservative. Neither are many of the GOP unfortunately. That's why there's the discontent with the GOP right now.

Conservatism represents moderation, practicality, prudence, and cautious consideration of action based on known facts.

Current day politicians who call themselves "conservative" typically act based on immediate feelings rather than temperance and reasoning from good evidence to action. The Bush administration allowed the market to run free yet undermined freedom of privacy, and religion. The Bush administration has restricted the 4th Amendment right against warrantless searches, opened medical records, fostered the funding of religions in the name of "faith based initiatives," and ordered intrusive background checks on government employees in non-sensitive positions.

He also had no problem in changing the constitution, and has called it just a piece of paper. He was a failure at securing the borders.

Then there's the wall street bailout. That is not something conservatives do, although you could say that the financial situation needed to be rescued because of liberal tampering (i.e. the Community Reinvestment Act).

Illuminati? I always think 'Crackpot' when I hear that word.

Hey Tracy,
I voted for Eisenhower and I would have voted for Colin Powell if he had run.
They are true Republicans.:respect:

randolph

05-11-2009, 11:47 AM

My Dad used to sing this song during the Depression. :)

The version published in 1908 goes:

Why don't you work like other folks do?
How the hell can I work when there's no work to do?

Refrain
Hallelujah, I'm a bum,
Hallelujah, bum again,
Hallelujah, give us a handout
To revive us again.

Oh, why don't you save all the money you earn?
If I didn't eat, I'd have money to burn.

Whenever I get all the money I earn,
The boss will be broke, and to work he must turn.

Oh, I like my boss, he's a good friend of mine,
That's why I am starving out on the bread line.

When springtime it comes, oh, won't we have fun;
We'll throw off our jobs, and go on the bum.

TracyCoxx

05-12-2009, 08:19 AM

Humm, I need to figure out how to get multiple quotes on a post. :confused:

It's black magic.

Hey Tracy,
I voted for Eisenhower and I would have voted for Colin Powell if he had run.
They are true Republicans.:respect:

Eisenhower was before my time, but Powell did look good for a while until he threw his hat in the ring with Obama. I wonder what true republican attributes Powell saw in Obama? Any idea?

My Dad used to sing this song during the Depression. :)

I'll be singing these songs in the depression Obama creates...

I was born in a welfare state
Ruled by bureaucracy
Controlled by civil servants
And people dressed in grey
Got no privacy got no liberty
Cos the twentieth century people
Took it all away from me.

There is trouble in the forest
And the creatures all have fled
As the maples scream 'Oppression!'
And the oaks just shake their heads

So the maples formed a union
And demanded equal rights
'The oaks are just too greedy
We will make them give us light'
Now there's no more oak oppression
For they passed a noble law
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe and saw

There's nothing wrong with Capitalism
There's nothing wrong with free enterprise
Don't try to make me feel guilty
I'm so tired of hearing you cry
There's nothing wrong with making some profit
If you ask me I'll say it's just fine
There's nothing wrong with wanting to live nice
I'm so tired of hearing you whine
About the revolution
Bringin' down the rich
When was the last time you dug a ditch, baby!
If it ain't one thing
Then it's the other
Any cause that crosses your path
Your heart bleeds for anyone's brother
I've got to tell you you're a pain in the ass
You criticize with plenty of vigor
You rationalize everything that you do
With catchy phrases and heavy quotations
And everybody is crazy but you
You're just a middle class, socialist brat
From a suburban family and you never really had to work
And you tell me that we've got to get back
To the struggling masses (whoever they are)
You talk, talk, talk about suffering and pain
Your mouth is bigger than your entire brain
What the hell do you know about suffering and pain . . .
(Repeat first verse)
(Repeat chorus)
There's nothing wrong with Capitalism
There's nothing wrong with Capitalism
There's nothing wrong with Capitalism
There's nothing wrong with Capitalism

You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometimes well you just might find
You get what you need
Oh baby, yeah, yeah!

Give a man a free house and he'll bust out the windows
Put his family on food stamps, now he's a big spender
no food on the table and the bills ain't paid
'Cause he spent it on cigarettes and P.G.A.
They'll turn us all into beggars 'cause they're easier to please
They're feeding our people that Government Cheese

Give a man a free lunch and he'll figure out a way
To steal more than he can eat 'cause he doesn't have to pay
Give a woman free kids and you'll find them in the dirt
Learning how to carry on the family line of work
It's the man in the White House, the man under the steeple
Passing out drugs to the American people
I don't believe in anything, nothing is free
They're feeding our people the Government Cheese

Decline and fall, fall down baby
Decline and fall, said fall way down now
Decline and fall, fall down little mama
Decline and fall, decline and fall

Give a man a free ticket on a dead end ride
And he'll climb in the back even though nobody's driving
Too fuckin lazy to crawl out of the wreck
And he'll rot there while he waits for the welfare check
Going to hell in a handbag, can't you see
I ain't gonna eat no Government Cheese

Everybody's a victim
Seems we're going that way
Everybody's a victim
We're becoming like the USA

Wear a ribbon for this
Hug a stranger for that
Light a candle to the dead
And soon you'll forget
That you ever had
A brain inside our head
We value everythin the same
We turn it into farce
So we don't know a crisis
'Till it kicks us up the arse
Because...

Everybody's a victim
Seems we're going that way
Everybody's a victim
We're becoming like the USA
Everybody's a victim
Seems we're going that way
Everybody's a victim
We're becoming like the USA

randolph

05-12-2009, 08:01 PM

OK since we are into poetry today, here is one of my favorites.

Bob Dylan
Masters of War

Come you masters of war
You that build all the guns
You that build the death planes
You that build all the bombs
You that hide behind walls
You that hide behind desks
I just want you to know
I can see through your masks.

You that never done nothin'
But build to destroy
You play with my world
Like it's your little toy
You put a gun in my hand
And you hide from my eyes
And you turn and run farther
When the fast bullets fly.

Like Judas of old
You lie and deceive
A world war can be won
You want me to believe
But I see through your eyes
And I see through your brain
Like I see through the water
That runs down my drain.

You fasten all the triggers
For the others to fire
Then you set back and watch
When the death count gets higher
You hide in your mansion'
As young people's blood
Flows out of their bodies
And is buried in the mud.

You've thrown the worst fear
That can ever be hurled
Fear to bring children
Into the world
For threatening my baby
Unborn and unnamed
You ain't worth the blood
That runs in your veins.

How much do I know
To talk out of turn
You might say that I'm young
You might say I'm unlearned
But there's one thing I know
Though I'm younger than you
That even Jesus would never
Forgive what you do.

Let me ask you one question
Is your money that good
Will it buy you forgiveness
Do you think that it could
I think you will find
When your death takes its toll
All the money you made
Will never buy back your soul.

And I hope that you die
And your death'll come soon
I will follow your casket
In the pale afternoon
And I'll watch while you're lowered
Down to your deathbed
And I'll stand over your grave
'Til I'm sure that you're dead.

CreativeMind

05-12-2009, 09:15 PM

OK since we are into poetry today, here is one of my favorites...

Ohhh! Well, if we're doing poetry, I've got one to share, too!
>cough cough< (clearing throat)

There once was a man from Nantucket...

Oh, wait. Wrong one.
Let me check my notes again... :p

JenniferParisFan

05-13-2009, 12:12 AM

I never can understand why everybody is so obsessed with politics. We're only on this world for a short period of time and no matter what we do, good or bad, the world keeps spinning and the human race survives. For me the only way I would ever get seriously involved in politics is if there was a real need for revolution.

That being said I still enjoy reading everyone's opinions and often hope that I could feel so strongly about politics as you do. So thanks and keep up the good work.:respect:

Oh and I voted for Obama and I'm from one of the most "racist" states in the US, Indiana, so if he does end up destroying this country, as most of the conservatives i know seem to think he's going to do, then you can blame me for it if you want to. And one final thing, I absolutely hate it when people already start to judge Obama and his policies before they even go into affect. They aren't changing anything and to me it seems like they just want to be able to say, "I told you so" just incase his plans dont work as well as he thought they would.

But everyone is entitled to their own opinion, so don't let mine or anyone else's by themselves change yours. First get all of the facts and then decide for yourself.

randolph

05-13-2009, 12:26 AM

Ohhh! Well, if we're doing poetry, I've got one to share, too!
>cough cough< (clearing throat)

There once was a man from Nantucket...

Oh, wait. Wrong one.
Let me check my notes again... :p

OK I'll bite (cough)
There once was a man from Nantucket
who found a golden bucket
Madoff by name he gained lots of fame
when people filled his bucket
he managed to tucket
where nobody knew his game
he was their pappy
keeping everyone happy
until the market turned crappy
the bucket went dry
and people began to cry
Oh pappy oh pappy where did you tucket

(I hope Fran doesn't read this!)

transjen

05-13-2009, 12:32 AM

These same people were yelling the same thing when Clinton beat the first Bush back in 92, Just replace there fears of Clinton with Obama and it the same claims differnt name that's all :eek: Jennifer

TracyCoxx

05-13-2009, 01:08 AM

No, actually I was neutral on that one.

randolph

05-13-2009, 07:25 PM

The Conquistador

05-13-2009, 11:48 PM

I second that nomination!:yes:

TracyCoxx

05-13-2009, 11:50 PM

Creative Mind got me thinking about the GOP,s standing.
Some people say its so bad that it has become a "cult". I am concerned, we need a strong counter to the Democrats proclivity to spend, spend,spend. I am a populist but it needs to be regulated just like the capitalists need to be regulated. So what can be done to rehabilitate the GOP?

I think you're right. No matter what side you're on, it's good to have at least two parties to keep each other in check. The repubs are little yapping chihuahuas now and the dems are clearly taking advantage of the one party government they're in now.

After Bush was elected in 2000, the dems were devastated and it seemed like they would never find their way, but they did. Perhaps the same will happen to the repubs. Either that or the conservatives will have to recreate what they had without the republicans, which I hope they can pull off.

They need a candidate that can defuse the big social issues (i.e. gay marriage, abortion). They need a candidate that would appeal to the independent crowd.
A gay candidate is unlikely to go very far. A lesbian is also unlikely to gain much support. So how about a transsexual? A strong intelligent transsexual would appeal to the secret desires of many men, women, conservatives and liberals alike. So who would be a likely candidate? She should be intelligent, witty, willing to kick ass and of course, good looking. Humm, I am thinking of a feisty redhead that doesn't hesitant to flame when necessary. Not only that, she likes guns and trucks! Of course, our darling Fran would fit the bill nicely. Sarah Palin you are toast. ;)

Although I do not normally base my vote on which minority hasn't held the office yet (that's why we're in the mess we're in now) Fran would certainly have my vote! :respect: I get dibs on being her intern though :turnon:

bsexy

05-14-2009, 12:48 AM

Barack is great, rocky road to travel though.

TracyCoxx

05-14-2009, 08:59 AM

Barack is great, rocky road to travel though.

Ah, you must be talking about his basketball skills.

randolph

05-18-2009, 12:48 PM

The Govt. is debating whether to give the fired CEO of GM a severance pay of twenty million dollars! So what did we vote for anyway? All the guys that screwed up the economy (except Madoff) are being rewarded! I am beginning to think Obama is a closet Republican.:frown::censored::coupling:

TracyCoxx

05-22-2009, 12:38 AM

Obama makes the very irresponsible statement:
you can't get corporate jets. You can't go take a trip to Las Vegas or go down to the Super Bowl on the taxpayer's dime

Why not? There are many conventions there where businesses go to stay up to date with the latest in their field, make partnerships, and find customers. This was seen by many as a message to companies across the nation to stay away from Las Vegas for corporate meetings and conventions.

The Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority reports over 400 conventions and business meetings scheduled to take place in Las Vegas recently have canceled, translating into 111,800 guests and 250,000 "room-nights". The canceled events cost the Las Vegas economy over $100 million, not including gaming revenue.

BTW... Obama is having a political fundraiser later this month. Where would that be? Las Vegas. What an ass.

In other news, looks like the senate isn't going along with Obama's Ready Fire Aim approach to closing Gitmo. They have denied the closing of Gitmo with a vote of 94-3 LMAO!!! This whole thing has been a complete joke. Early in his presidency, BO says he's going to close the facility. Then they're scratching their heads trying to figure out exactly how this will be done, and where will they put the inmates.

And FYI, we're no longer fighting a Global War on Terror. It's a uhhhh... "overseas contingency operation".
And terrorist attacks are now to be referred to as "man-caused disasters". Is this what they're wasting their time with?