Barack Obama

[TracyCoxx]

No one likes higher taxes but whats your answer?
Don't spend money you don't have. Rudimentary stuff like that.

Keep cutting taxes on the rich?Do you pay 35% income tax? No? The rich do.
Well King George did that and started two wars of which only one was called for , You can't fight two wars and cut taxes wake up and smell the coffee and face facts the party is over and now it's time to pay the piper :eek: Jennifer
The higher taxes we're about to pay are not because of the wars. It's because of BO's out of control spending, and the wallstreet bailout.

[transjen]

The wall street bailout was a gift from King George not Obama, And the rich don't pay anywhere near 35% with all thier taxcuts and tax loopholes and shelters , Next you'll tell me that King Georges taxcuts really helped the poor and hurt the rich. Like i said the King's party is over and it's time to pay the piper and i know Reagan and Bush always promised the rich that they'll never have to pay for the party and that the ones not invited will foot the bills, Hence your real fear of Obama :yes: Jennifer

[The Conquistador]

I don't like Barack, but I just can't help but wonder what Michelle would look like with a fat dong between her legs:yes::p

[transjen]

I don't like Barack, but I just can't help but wonder what Michelle would look like with a fat dong between her legs:yes::p Well she does look very manly so you never know :confused: Jennifer

[randolph]

She is a fine powerful women. That's why BO has to stay in shape. ;)

[hankhavelock]

She is a fine powerful women. That's why BO has to stay in shape. ;)

and, indeed, in power... :D

[TracyCoxx]

The wall street bailout was a gift from King George not Obama,Obama endorsed it, and spent half of it. The necessity of the wall street bailout is because of CRA. I have yet to see you refute this, or explain exactly how Bush caused the financial mess. And sorry, blaming it on the war doesn't cut it. We've been at war before.

And the rich don't pay anywhere near 35% with all thier taxcuts and tax loopholes and shelters,
So what percentage do they end up paying? I think you're just mindlessly passing on an old lefty myth.

See this: http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/wm2420.cfm
According to a report issued by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the tax cuts significantly increased the share of federal income taxes paid by the highest-earning 20 percent of households compared to their levels in 2000, President Clinton's final year in office.

In 2006, the latest available year from CBO, the top 20 percent of income earners paid 86.3 percent of all federal income taxes, an all-time high.[1] This is an increase of over 6 percent from 2000, when the top 20 percent paid 81.2 percent. During the same period, the bottom four quintiles all saw their share of the federal income tax burden fall sharply:

* The bottom 20 percent of income earners' share of federal income taxes fell from -1.6 percent in 2000 to -2.8 percent in 2006;
* The next 20 percent's share declined from 1.1 percent to -0.8 percent;
* The middle quintile's share dropped from 5.7 percent to 4.4 percent; and
* The fourth quintile's share decreased from 13.5 percent to 12.9 percent.


Next you'll tell me that King Georges taxcuts really helped the poor and hurt the rich.
Like Reagan says, Here we go again. Who owns the businesses? The rich. Who employs the poor? The rich. If the rich pay less taxes they can afford to pay more workers. And if you'll actually read what I quoted above you'll see the poor are paying less taxes too. Is it that hard to understand?

Like i said the King's party is over and it's time to pay the piperBut we're not paying the piper. And you know what a party is? Shoving 1,000 page trillion dollar spending bills through congress without giving anyone a chance to read it. That's a party. BO and his lefties have come up with a mountain of new programs that dwarfs by 2.5 times anything Bush has done during his 8 years, including Bush's wall street bailout. That is FACT. That is the problem with it. We're going to have to pay the piper for this for generations.

[randolph]

Ah yes Tracy, I have been wondering where you get your statistics. Here is a brief analysis of the right wing Heritage Foundation, the experts on spin doctoring statistics.

From "Democratic Underground".
Back in college we had to read a book called "How to Lie With
Statistics". It was one of the best books I've read and incredibly
valuable in cutting though the fog of bullshit the politicians and
corporations use.

In this case I want to bring up examples of how the Right distorts the Reagan record. Here's a prime example on the issue tax cuts from
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/BG1443es.cfm
I've edited out references to other tax cuts.

That propaganda house known as the Heritage Foundation shows some of the most creative misuse of statistics and distortions as can be imagined... all to paint a false picture of the Reagan record... then try to seal the deal with this conclusion:

"High rates of taxation and a tax code that punishes working, saving,
and investing do not add up to a recipe for long-term prosperity.
History shows clearly that lower tax rates are an integral part of a
reform package that maximizes freedom and prosperity. Reducing all
income tax rates is a responsible way to promote long-term economic
growth."

Let's look at their claims

CLAIM: "Lesson #1: Lower tax rates mean faster growth.
The Reagan tax cuts: The economic effects of the Reagan tax cuts were
dramatic. The tax cuts helped to pull the economy out of a severe
downturn and ushered in a period of record peacetime economic growth.
During the seven-year Reagan boom, yearly economic growth averaged 4
percent."

This is the classic one variable analysis. It pretends NOTHING else
was going on in the economy that led to the recovery. In reality businesses had learned to become more energy efficient after repeated oil shocks. Oil prices had dropped from record highs... nearly $75 a barrel constant 2000 dollars. Interest rates also dropped as a result of the Fed's tight money policy. Then there was pent-up consumer demand. Last was Reagan's own deficit spending for his defense buildup. Do they get any credit? Nah.... just tax cuts. Why is that?

Heritages claims also do not prove any causal relationship between tax cuts and economic growth. They only claim one. In reality there have been economic recoveries without tax cuts.... and even with tax HIKES... as we've seen in 93.

The Right lauds JFK's tax cuts for producing an economic boom yet the
top rate was 70%? How can that be when Heritage also claim "History shows clearly that lower tax rates are an integral part of a reform package that maximizes freedom and prosperity." OK... bring back the JFK tax levels!!!!

CLAIM: "Lesson #2: Lower tax rates do not mean less tax revenue.
The Reagan tax cuts: Total tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent during
the 1980s. The results are even more impressive, however, when one
looks at what happened to personal income tax revenues. Once the
economy received an unambiguous tax cut in January 1983, personal
income tax revenues climbed dramatically, increasing by more than 54
percent by 1989 (28 percent after adjusting for inflation)."

There are four kinds of distortions used here.

The first is bait and switch. What do they mean by "during the 1980s"?
Doesn't that include both Carter and Bush1's terms? While their
statement is technically true.... revenues were 517 Billion in 1980
and 1032 billion in 1990... which I assume are the years they used...
the Heritage Foundation fails to mention that Reagan's own first FY82
budget bought in a mere 617 billion... going up to 991.2 billion in FY89... Reagan's last budget. Where Heritage implies a 515 Billion dollar increase there was but 374 billion.... 72% of their number. In reality revenue growth was predictably anemic after Reagan's tax cuts.

The second distortion is not to include Reagan's own tax HIKES in
those revenue numbers. How could they have omitted that?

There is more on the site. :eek:

[TracyCoxx]

And your source is democratic underground. Do I really need to point out the bias here?

[randolph]

I think the bankruptcy of GM signals the end of the US as the dominant world power. The myopia of Greenspan and the worship of Milton Friedman's faulty economic theories allowed a runaway housing boom to turn into a gigantic Ponzi scam. We now risk rampant inflation in order to pay for the misdeeds. If Obama and his advisers can get us out of this mess he would deserve more than the Nobel prize. I am not holding my breath. :frown::turnoff::broken:

[transjen]

I think the bankruptcy of GM signals the end of the US as the dominant world power. The myopia of Greenspan and the worship of Milton Friedman's faulty economic theories allowed a runaway housing boom to turn into a gigantic Ponzi scam. We now risk rampant inflation in order to pay for the misdeeds. If Obama and his advisers can get us out of this mess he would deserve more than the Nobel prize. I am not holding my breath. :frown::turnoff::broken: During WWII we pumped out more jeeps, planes, tanks, guns, bullets you name it and that was a big reason we won now every thing is made over seas if another wolrd war breaks out we are screwed because we can no longer make anything anymore, And Greenspan was only following orders from King George oh yes Regan nomics baby the biggest :coupling: ever invented :( Jennifer

[randolph]

During WWII we pumped out more jeeps, planes, tanks, guns, bullets you name it and that was a big reason we won now every thing is made over seas if another wolrd war breaks out we are screwed because we can no longer make anything anymore, And Greenspan was only following orders from King George oh yes Regan nomics baby the biggest :coupling: ever invented :( Jennifer

Yes Jen, right on! :hug:
Eisenhower must be spinning in his grave, the last real Republican.
He warned us but nobody listened. :frown:

[TracyCoxx]

Awe man! All of this has been staring me in the face and I've only just now picked up on it. Why does Hank in Indonesia obsess over US affairs? Why is he so smitten with BO?

Because Obama, aka Barry Soetero was (perhaps still is) a citizen of Indonesia. I knew about this for a while but just didn't connect the dots with Hank.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=72656

(And yes, normally one would not be qualified to be president of the US if one had ever been a citizen of another country, but this IS Obama after all)

[transjen]

Awe man! All of this has been staring me in the face and I've only just now picked up on it. Why does Hank in Indonesia obsess over US affairs? Why is he so smitten with BO?

Because Obama, aka Barry Soetero was (perhaps still is) a citizen of Indonesia. I knew about this for a while but just didn't connect the dots with Hank.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=72656

(And yes, normally one would not be qualified to be president of the US if one had ever been a citizen of another country, but this IS Obama after all) Question ,Was he actually a citizen or did he just live there? John McCain was born in Panama due to the fact his father was stationed there but i wouldn't call him a citizen of Panama :no: Jennifer

[CreativeMind]

Question ,Was he actually a citizen or did he just live there? John McCain was born in Panama due to the fact his father was stationed there but i wouldn't call him a citizen of Panama :no: Jennifer

But the problem with Obama...for some strange reason that has conspiracy buffs in a tizzy...is that he still, to this day, has NOT released his full birth records from the hospital in Hawaii. Which has led many to believe that he actually wasn't born there or born a true US citizen. Or that his actual original birth record doesn't state that he was born a US citizen, which would mean he was technically and even more importantly legally ineligible to be President.

In fact, fueling the fire IS a rather interesting fact to will leave most average people scratching their heads: to date Obama's legal team has spent...wait for it...over ONE MILLION DOLLARS to keep his hospital birth records SEALED. Now, I don't know about the rest of you, but I've applied for jobs in the past where I've had to provide a state-certified birth certificate or other kinds of documentation regarding the hospital where I was born, so my employer could do the usual 60 second phone call to confirm my citizenship. Most people have at one point or another.

Which begs the million dollar question (yes, pun intended) that even I'd like to know, and I'm not even a conspiracy nut: Seriously, who the fuck spends a MILLION DOLLARS IN ATTORNEY FEES TO BLOCK anyone from seeing your actual birth records? And considering we're talking about the freakin' President of the United States, why are so many in the media afraid to really cover this story -- especially since there's now something like over 100 civil lawsuits across the nation...with more being added all the time...demanding access to those hospital records, and yet the Obama people KEEP shelling out more and more legal fees to KEEP BLOCKING access to them.

It doesn't take a Brainiac to see something odd is going on, for whatever reason.

[TracyCoxx]

Question ,Was he actually a citizen or did he just live there? John McCain was born in Panama due to the fact his father was stationed there but i wouldn't call him a citizen of Panama :no: Jennifer

Here's a better photocopy of his school records.
http://rosettasister.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/barry-soetoro-indonesia-school-record.jpg

Line 2 says "Warga negara" which means "Citizen" in indonesian. Then it says "Indonesian".

In 1981 when he visited Pakistan, he listed Indonesian as his citizenship.

[TracyCoxx]

Which begs the million dollar question (yes, pun intended) that even I'd like to know, and I'm not even a conspiracy nut: Seriously, who the fuck spends a MILLION DOLLARS IN ATTORNEY FEES TO BLOCK anyone from seeing your actual birth records? And considering we're talking about the freakin' President of the United States, why are so many in the media afraid to really cover this story -- especially since there's now something like over 100 civil lawsuits across the nation...with more being added all the time...demanding access to those hospital records, and yet the Obama people KEEP shelling out more and more legal fees to KEEP BLOCKING access to them.

It doesn't take a Brainiac to see something odd is going on, for whatever reason.

Exactly. It's just standard paperwork. You want to be considered as a candidate for president of the US, you submit your documents -- NOT A WEB ADDRESS WITH A PHOTO OF YOUR BIRTH CERTIFICATE THAT DOESN'T MATCH THE OTHER BIRTH CERTIFICATES FROM HAWAII FROM THAT PERIOD. It's just standard paperwork that every candidate should submit. Yet as CreativeMind says, Obama has blocked every attempt to see the actual papers. Oh, BTW. The company that has verified the accuracy of the web images is Fact Check - funded by the Chicago Annenburg Challenge, of which BO was a board member. Oh well, I'm way past being surprised at all the BS associated with BO.

[transjen]

I know this story has been kicking around since like Oct and i'm kinda left saying What's up, To me why not just put a halt to it and show the birth cert :confused: I can't say who's right as there is so much coming from both sides, Anywho i do find it odd that the same people care so much about records never cared about a chicken shit AWOL air national guard member's miltary record can't be found and his is the only one who's record is missing :confused: :confused: Jennifer

[Bionca]

Wow using WorldNetDaily as a source... guess it's better than the FreeRepublic. Guess this means DailyKaos and EntertainmentTonight are valid sources to. *shrug*

[TracyCoxx]

I'm not an expert at what are valid resources. I needed a source for a story I read about months ago from more legit sources and what was printed in the world net article covered all the bases. I know you see "World Net" and have what you need to call it bunk. But the actual source is BO's school in Indonesia. That photocopy of his school records that lists his citizenship was not made up by World Net. If you're so inclined, and I know you're not, you can google this story and find the same story in whatever your favorite news outlet is.

The fact is, he has spent millions in legal fees to keep his physical birth certificate from being shown. Source? The US Supreme Court.

[CreativeMind]

Wow using WorldNetDaily as a source...guess it's better than the FreeRepublic.
Guess this means DailyKaos and EntertainmentTonight are valid sources to. *shrug*

Well, the Daily Kos WOULD claim they're a valid news source for breaking certain news stories given their diary/blog structure composed by private citizens, people who supposedly have their ears to the ground and thus are giving you an "unfiltered truth." Which is why it's only fair to run the Internet tables and say that everyone ELSE is therefore a valid news source as well, regardless of where they land in the political scheme of things (ie. being on the Left, Middle or Right). In short: welcome to the digital age of the 21st century where anyone with a web site, blog or camcorder and YouTube account can claim to be a valid "reporter" who is breaking a news story.

Besides, while you might not like WorldNetDaily as a "true" news source, keep in mind that the document they are talking about IS a document that actually DOES exist. There's no denying that. So, the bottom line is that while you might not like the messenger, it doesn't discount the story or item they are bringing forth.

Better example still -- Who would've ever predicted that it would take the NATIONAL ENQUIRER of all things...the quintessential supermarket tabloid infamous for its fluff stories...to be the ONE "newspaper" that actually did the job of BEING reporters and following John Edwards, and being the ones to ultimately break the truth about his affair and "love child", which destroyed his run for the Presidency and any future political aspirations?

[TracyCoxx]

Ok, why has Obama's legal people reversed the conviction of Black Panther members who were charged and convicted with voter intimidation? There are videos showing them flashing weapons at voters to intimidate them into voting for Obama.

WHY?!!

[cheersm8]

Hi all, just adding a thought. Nothing to do with Barack Obama, but still relative. I'm a Brit, so I'm asking this, as a Brit. Do you Americans ever feel that you country is to big, both geographiclay, and population wise, to ever have a satisfactory 'please all' president? OK OK, I know that many countries do, and all countries are diverse in the attitudes of their populace, but I do feel that the USA has such varying ideals, beliefs wants and don't wants etc, often town by town differences, not just state by state, that having one President could never be a worthy representative of your nations wishes.
So, whoever the luckless soul is who has the presidential seat is going to be dog wipe to some, and candy to others.

[TracyCoxx]

Cheersm8, good question. It takes a president without the audacity to believe that he is the solution to everyone's problems. He should recognize what you say - that America is large and diverse, and also recognize that Americans are capable of solving many of their own problems.

The US is (supposed to be at least) a government for the people, by the people. It was recognized early on that different regions will have different needs. Thats why there are states, and the states are supposed to be largely self governing. The president should also be well aware of the self correcting nature of capitalism. He should strive to keep the government small and lean. Otherwise, they are inefficiently manging what can be better managed by states who can tailor policies for their specific population.

That said, capitalism isn't perfect. And for that, and other things there are places where US govt can and should step in as a stabilizing force. The US government needs to manage foreign policy, the economy and foreign trade. The president is also commander in chief and is therefore responsible for national security. Other than those things, the national government needs to get out of the way.

[Bionca]

Well, the Daily Kos WOULD claim they're a valid news source for breaking certain news stories given their diary/blog structure composed by private citizens, people who supposedly have their ears to the ground and thus are giving you an "unfiltered truth." Which is why it's only fair to run the Internet tables and say that everyone ELSE is therefore a valid news source as well, regardless of where they land in the political scheme of things (ie. being on the Left, Middle or Right). In short: welcome to the digital age of the 21st century where anyone with a web site, blog or camcorder and YouTube account can claim to be a valid "reporter" who is breaking a news story.

Besides, while you might not like WorldNetDaily as a "true" news source, keep in mind that the document they are talking about IS a document that actually DOES exist. There's no denying that. So, the bottom line is that while you might not like the messenger, it doesn't discount the story or item they are bringing forth.

Better example still -- Who would've ever predicted that it would take the NATIONAL ENQUIRER of all things...the quintessential supermarket tabloid infamous for its fluff stories...to be the ONE "newspaper" that actually did the job of BEING reporters and following John Edwards, and being the ones to ultimately break the truth about his affair and "love child", which destroyed his run for the Presidency and any future political aspirations?

1) You are correct, and I think the Internet is doing a horrid thing wrt proper investigative journalism. If opinion can be counted as valid news, and editorializing by the reporter is accepted as fact "news" and "source" become meaningless terms.

2) WND has a deplorable history of fuzzing facts, omitting important bits that don't confirm their intended outcome, fail to cover stories. In short they are only a hair better than the Freepers (the Free Republic).

[Bionca]

I'm not an expert at what are valid resources. I needed a source for a story I read about months ago from more legit sources and what was printed in the world net article covered all the bases. I know you see "World Net" and have what you need to call it bunk. But the actual source is BO's school in Indonesia. That photocopy of his school records that lists his citizenship was not made up by World Net. If you're so inclined, and I know you're not, you can google this story and find the same story in whatever your favorite news outlet is.

The fact is, he has spent millions in legal fees to keep his physical birth certificate from being shown. Source? The US Supreme Court.

Here you go:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp

Snopes has ZERO political aspirations and isn't trying to curry favor with any social element.

[megawatty101]

Has anyone made a picture of what the CiC would look like as a Ladyboy in Chief?

[TracyCoxx]

Here you go:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp

Snopes has ZERO political aspirations and isn't trying to curry favor with any social element.

What's your point? The Snopes article only verifies what I've been saying. Obama has fought in court to keep his original physical birth certificate from being seen. It does say that it has been seen though...

Those who have actually touched and examined (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html) the original certificate have verified and documented that it bears all the elements of a valid certificate of live birth.

Where the word 'examined' links to http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

What authority does factcheck.org have to verify a presidential candidate's legal documents? Why does Obama recognize factcheck's authority while fighting to keep his birth certificate out of the courts?

Perhaps it would be easier to accept fact check's claim of authenticity if both factcheck and Obama's Chigaco Annenberg Challenge were not both funded by the Annenberg Foundation. This is a circumstantial connection, but has Conflict of Interest written all over it. To avoid the appearance of wrong doing Obama should have had his facts checked by an organization with zero ties to him, or even better, simply show it to the courts. Seriously... why not? When his swearing in was flubbed, he redid it the next day. Legally he didn't even have to. But he did it to remove any appearance of foul play. Same thing with the birth certificate. Just show it to the courts to remove any appearance of foul play.

[Bionca]

I really don't know what to say without sounding like I'm trying to be insulting. Obama's mother was a US citizen and she gave birth in Hawaii. That makes him a US citizen.

Indonesian school records ... seriously??

As far as why doesn't he show the records? Well if I was in his position, I wouldn't. As long as the SCotUS, Congress, and the Senate were satisfied with the information presented. Also, one must look at the initial reasons that this was even brought up. I wouldn't dignify those accusation with a response either.

[CreativeMind]

Perhaps it would be easier to accept Factcheck's claim of authenticity if both Factcheck and Obama's Chigaco Annenberg Challenge were not both funded by the Annenberg Foundation. This is a circumstantial connection, but has Conflict of Interest written all over it.

Conflict of Interest doesn't even BEGIN to describe it considering at one point Obama himself was actually the fucking Chairman of the Annenberg Challenge Board -- from whence Factcheck was born. Not to mention, Annenberg has ALSO locked away and blocked all access to records and meeting notes from when he served in that capacity, too!

[transjen]

Conflict of Interest doesn't even BEGIN to describe it considering at one point Obama himself was actually the fucking Chairman of the Annenberg Challenge Board -- from whence Factcheck was born. Not to mention, Annenberg has ALSO locked away and blocked all access to records and meeting notes from when he served in that capacity, too! You want F:censored:N conflict of intrest go back to 2000 and check on a bitch named Harris in FL and a worm named Jeb in FL, Harris was in charge of elections and also ran KING GEORGE's FL election campaign talk about a conflict of intrest :yes: Jennifer

[CreativeMind]

I really don't know what to say without sounding like I'm trying to be insulting.
Obama's mother was a US citizen and she gave birth in Hawaii.
That makes him a US citizen. Indonesian school records... seriously??

Well, the problem is you turned a question into a statement of fact. The issue at hand is the debate over whether or not he actually WAS born in Hawaii or were those records forged after the fact.

And keep another X-Files conspiracy fact in mind. By nature, Presidents are instant worldwide celebrities. EVERYONE wants to say they had a part in his life. And, hell, Obama supposedly has a 70-plus popularity rating, right? So you'd REALLY think that people would want to race forward and say "I was there when it ALL began." And yet mysteriously NOT ONE doctor has come forward and stated he delivered Obama in a Hawaiian hospital...NOT ONE doctor has come forward to say he witnessed the birth...NOT ONE nurse has come forward to say she was in attendance either...and NOT ONE hospital worker has been able to attest to working at a hospital where Obama was born.

As far as why doesn't he show the records? Well if I was in his position, I wouldn't.
Also, one must look at the initial reasons that this was even brought up.
I wouldn't dignify those accusation with a response either.

Why wouldn't you? These days for most job applications you have to produce a state certified birth certificate to prove your legal status to work. You know, I saw a message board where people were debating the Obma birth certificate issue and someone summed it up perfectly...

"If someone legally challenged you on your legal citizenship what would you do.
(A) Produce your vault copy Birth Certificate and quickly end the challenge or...
(B) Hire attorney's to represent you in an attempt to dodge it?

When the DNC challenged Senator McCain on the same issue because his birth was in Panama, he produced his in 2 days and abruptly ended the challenge. Meanwhile Obama has hired no less than THREE high priced and high powered law firms to duke it out in court to keep his birth certificate locked away. And he's spent over a million dollars to keep the fight going, with no sign in sight that he'll give up the battle to keep it locked away.

Seriously, think about that for a minute and then ask yourself the incredibly simple question "what's wrong with this picture?": When the Democratic National Committee thought it could make political hay out of McCain's birth, he responded by immediately producing his original birth certificate AND supplemental hospital records within 48 hours. Boom! Issue settled just like that. And yet in stark contrast, when asked to produce the same kind of paperwork, Obama digs in and proceeds to spend a million fucking dollars (and counting) to legally fight anyone seeking to see his.

You don't have to be a conspiracy nut to realize something funny is going on...

[CreativeMind]

You want F:censored:N conflict of intrest go back to 2000 and check on a bitch named Harris in FL and a worm named Jeb in FL, Harris was in charge of elections and also ran KING GEORGE's FL election campaign talk about a conflict of intrest :yes: Jennifer

Actually, that's NOT a conflict of interest AT ALL. State officials -- whether elected or appointed -- have EVERY RIGHT to have their own political affiliations. If you're going to say Jeb Bush was a conflict of interest by virtue of being governor at the time, how is that any different from all the Kennedy's that have run for office while other Kennedys hold assorted government positions?

And Katherine Harris simply did her job. Florida state law REQUIRED HER to certify the election results by a selected deadline, which is what she did. And ultimately, if you even want to go there, I have no problem having that fight since I'll be more than happy to talk about Ohio and the Obama election, where the EXACT SAME CONFLICT that you're bitching about occurred, where the woman who was in charge of certifying election results that were in dispute was (1) a lifelong Democrat and (2) an incredibly active Obama supporter and campaigner in her own right, down to having helped with fund raising AND -- more important -- being the person charged with purging the election results of any fake votes (identity theft, etc).

Sorry, Jen, but if you want to go there, THAT door swings both ways...

[TracyCoxx]

You want F:censored:N conflict of intrest go back to 2000 and check on a bitch named Harris in FL and a worm named Jeb in FL, Harris was in charge of elections and also ran KING GEORGE's FL election campaign talk about a conflict of intrest :yes: Jennifer

Before FactCheck "verified" BO's birth certificate, if someone asked you who should verify his birth records who would you say should do it? Would FactCheck suddenly and naturally spring to mind? Or some government entity like the court or a congressional committee?

It was Harris's job, as defined by Florida law to rule on which candidate wins Florida based on the election results. If not her, tell me who?

And was she wrong? Which recount showed Gore ahead?

I really don't know what to say without sounding like I'm trying to be insulting. Obama's mother was a US citizen and she gave birth in Hawaii. That makes him a US citizen.

Indonesian school records ... seriously??It doesn't sound like you're all that familiar with the case his critics are making. I can lead you to the water, but I doubt you'll drink it. If you want to discuss this based on the issues both sides have brought up, then I'll leave it to you to come up to date.

[transjen]

It was Harris's job, as defined by Florida law to rule on which candidate wins Florida based on the election results. If not her, tell me who?

And was she wrong? Which recount showed Gore ahead?

Yes she was wrong but she didn't give a rat's ass she wanted KING GEORGE and did everything to make sure he stole the election even before the results were being recounted she went on TV saying she intends to give FLs votes to KING GEORGE,And after the unsupreme court ruled for the lieing little weasel they did finish the recount and GORE had more votes but it was to late as we all got F:censored: With KING GEORGE the biggest desaster to ever hit the US. The truth is the weasel stole the election thanks to his shit brother and a bitch named Harris and 5 GOP unsupreme court judges who put party first and pissed on the US :yes: Jennifer

[Sadist]

Just a thought....do you honestly believe that if Obama were not a legal citizen of the U.S., that John McCain would have conceded on election night, or that the Republicans would have ever allowed him to be seated as President? Bush v. Gore went all the way to the Supreme Court, if there was any doubt about his citizenship, trust me, the Republicans would have fought it all the way.

I don't care if you like Obama or not, but lets use some common sense here.

God I hate how stupid this country has become.

[CreativeMind]

Just a thought....do you honestly believe that if Obama were not a legal citizen of the U.S., that John McCain would have conceded on election night, or that the Republicans would have ever allowed him to be seated as President? Bush v. Gore went all the way to the Supreme Court, if there was any doubt about his citizenship, trust me, the Republicans would have fought it all the way.

I don't care if you like Obama or not, but lets use some common sense here.
God I hate how stupid this country has become.

Actually, I would argue that it isn't that the country has become "stupid" -- but rather "lazy" when it comes to actually stopping and thinking and following through on things. Certainly today's journalists, for the most part, have become incredibly lazy when it comes to following certain stories through to their full and natural outcome. Now, part of that blame can be placed ON the news organizations themselves -- for example newspapers faced with dwindling revenue sources, so they simply can't afford the research or investigative staffs that they once did. AND I would also blame the advent of "commentary journalism", where reporters are no longer interested in asking the basic questions of "who, what, where, why, and when" and instead are more interested in inserting their own personal beliefs or political leanings into a story so it DOESN'T reach a truthful conclusion, but rather the one they WANT it to reach for their own reasons.

Perfect example of the former, newspapers like the NY Daily News or magazines like Time and Newsweek which have had to cut their staffs drastically. Perfect example of the latter, the same one I noted above -- the fact that it took the fucking National Enquirer to break the John Edwards story, simply because the other papers literally refused to pursue the story because they knew it would upset the Democratic side of things during the campaign season. And that's not me making a baseless accusation. For crying out loud, the friggin' Editor in Chief of the National Enquirer has since been on TV and given interviews where he's specifcally talked about how they actually OFFERED to share the Edwards story and some of their leads, free of charge, with other news outlets to cover all of the bases, and they were literally told "no" by other papers for that very reason -- namely, they didn't want to do anything that could potentially generate bad news coverage for the Democratic side.

So, since you brought it up, I would argue back that common sense is what you seem to be missing here -- which is WHY (as I mentioned before) that there are now over 100 civil lawsuits (and more growing in number with each passing week) over the Obama birth certificate. And why? BECAUSE THE STORY DOESN'T FIT THE PARAMETER OF COMMON SENSE. Again, I'll ask the most BASIC and the most COMMON SENSE question of all: why the hell would ANYONE hire not one...not two...but THREE high powered law firms and then spend OVER A MILLION DOLLARS (and counting) to BLOCK access to your birth certificate?

Seriously, this really is so fucked up that it's incredible, if you are ACTUALLY willing to read the background research on this case. Seriously, it would be one thing if we were talking about a private citizen who was trying to protect his records because along the way he committed a crime and changed his name, so now the certificate would out his real identity or something. I mean, I could understand a story like that -- but even THEN that person would eventually run out of money (and thus the case would implode since the legal fees could no longer be covered) OR the person would just admit what he was trying to cover up OR he would just move on, realizing he could no longer hide the truth.

But we're not talking about a normal, everyday, average citizen here.
We're talking about the friggin' President of the United States.

And, for the record, McCain conceding on election night has nothing to do with this issue AT ALL. As I noted above, McCain produced MORE than enough documentation about his birth and his natural born status along the way, when the DNC tried to dodge the Obama birth certificate issue by pointing the finger at McCain and his birth in Panama. But therein lies the true crock of this -- when the DNC challenged McCain, when they tried the age-old diversion tactic of trying to turn the tables on him, he gladly produced his records. As I said before, BOOM...issue settled. But when the same challenge was made to Obama, he instantly lawyered up.

Seriously, if you can't see that SOMETHING is incredibly fucked up about someone lawyering up to such a massive degree and then spending a million dollars to BLOCK their birth certificate being seen or examined, then common sense really IS DEAD. Again, ask yourself the most common sense question of all. Who the fuck spends a million dollars -- think about that A MILLION DOLLARS -- to HIDE their birth certificate as opposed to simply saying "Oh, you nuts are driving me crazy! HERE! Here it is! Are you happy now?" just to make this story go away once and for all?

After all, wouldn't THAT be the most common sense thing to do?

[CreativeMind]

And after the unsupreme court ruled for the lieing little weasel they did finish the recount and GORE had more votes but it was to late as we all got F:censored:

Actually, that's NOT true at all. A consortium of newspapers DID get together several months after the election and DID stage a recount, just to see once and for all who had actually gotten the most votes in Florida.

The result -- while it was still a semi-close election in the state, Bush's margin of victory over Gore actually INCREASED. So, Bush would have won REGARDLESS of whether or not Katherine Harris had extended the deadlines for recounts (which again, Jen, she was NOT authorized to do by Florida law).

[red727]

hehy guys just wanted to say hello to all

how's everybody doing?

[transjen]

Actually, that's NOT true at all. A consortium of newspapers DID get together several months after the election and DID stage a recount, just to see once and for all who had actually gotten the most votes in Florida.

The result -- while it was still a semi-close election in the state, Bush's margin of victory over Gore actually INCREASED. So, Bush would have won REGARDLESS of whether or not Katherine Harris had extended the deadlines for recounts (which again, Jen, she was NOT authorized to do by Florida law). WELL EXCUSS ME HAIL BUSH just keep repeteing that lie Rush BUSH did not win it was fixed from the start by his shit brother and bitch Harris, Funny how they never had voting problems in FL till 2000 when the shit f :censored: govnors scum bag bother happens to be running for president and that happens to be the year FL's voting machines take a dump yeah rite keep tell your lies that Bush won the truth is he didn't :no: Jennifer

[TracyCoxx]

And after the unsupreme court ruled for the lieing little weasel they did finish the recount and GORE had more votes but it was to late as we all got F:censored:
You got a source for that?

[TracyCoxx]

HAIL BUSH

Well he was ok, but let's not get carried away.

[transjen]

You got a source for that? Yes it was the Charlotte SUN TIMES or SUN HAROLD i forget which now but it was a locale paper in SW FL that did the recount :yes: Jennifer

[tslust]

Just a thought....do you honestly believe that if Obama were not a legal citizen of the U.S., that John McCain would have conceded on election night, or that the Republicans would have ever allowed him to be seated as President? Bush v. Gore went all the way to the Supreme Court, if there was any doubt about his citizenship, trust me, the Republicans would have fought it all the way.

I don't care if you like Obama or not, but lets use some common sense here.

God I hate how stupid this country has become.

The issue of obama's citizenship was raised by a Democrat lawyer (Phil Berg) from Philadelphia, PA. There is, apparently, some discrepancy between accounts of obama's birthplace. His mother's side of his family say he was born in Honolulu, HA, while his father's family claims that he was born in Kenya. The Philadelphia lawyer requested to see obama's birth certificate to solve the issue over his place of birth. The obama campaign (this started before the election) refused to provide the document. The lawyer filed a suit to obtain the birth certificate. The obama gave him a document, but it could not be recognized as a legal copy of a birth certificate. This case is still an ongoing matter and has yet to be resolved(they keep appealing it up the Judicial ladder).

All that being said; obama is just as much as an American citizen as Clinton, Bush, Limbaugh, McCain, or even Charles Manson. It doesn't matter that obama's father wasn't an American, it doesn't even matter where he was born. His mother was an American, therefore he is an American by blood. The Fourteenth Amendment says so.

[Bionca]

Well he was ok, but let's not get carried away.

For all your trying to distance from him earlier I figured your true colors would show.

[CreativeMind]

And after the unsupreme court ruled for the lieing little weasel they did finish the recount and GORE had more votes but it was to late as we all got F:censored:

You got a source for that?

Yes it was the Charlotte SUN TIMES or SUN HAROLD i forget which now but it was a locale paper in SW FL that did the recount :yes: Jennifer

Again, a temporary story that was later proven to be wrong. In the heat of things, several local Florida papers -- whose Editorial boards clearly leaned Left -- tried to claim that Gore had more votes in order to keep the issue alive. But then Gore conceded and they had no leg to stand on. But as I pointed out above, AFTER the election was over and AFTER the dust had settled, several national newspapers went back and staged a full recount to settle the issue once and for all. The result? Read for yourself...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2001-04-03-floridamain.htm


Newspapers' recount shows Bush prevailed

George W. Bush would have won a hand count of Florida's disputed ballots if the standard advocated by Al Gore had been used, the first full study of the ballots reveals. Bush would have won by 1,665 votes - more than triple his official 537-vote margin - if every dimple, hanging chad and mark on the ballots had been counted as votes, a USA TODAY/Miami Herald/Knight Ridder study shows. The study is the first comprehensive review of the 61,195 "undervote" ballots that were at the center of Florida's disputed presidential election.

USA TODAY, The Miami Herald and the Knight-Ridder newspapers hired the national accounting firm BDO Seidman to examine undervote ballots in Florida's 67 counties. The accountants provided a report on what they found on each of the ballots...

The newspapers then applied the accounting firm's findings to four standards used in Florida and elsewhere to determine when an undervote ballot becomes a legal vote. By three of the standards, Bush holds the lead...

The newspapers' study took three months to complete and cost more than $500,000. It involved 27 accountants who examined and categorized ballots as they were held up by county election officials.

[desirouspussy]

I don't really want to get involved in American politics but there is one thing I just dont understand. It seems that many people, including the experts, classify George Bush II as the worst American president ever. I can understand that first time mistake, but how could you people ever elect him for a second term?????

Diana

[transjen]

I don't really want to get involved in American politics but there is one thing I just dont understand. It seems that many people, including the experts, classify George Bush II as the worst American president ever. I can understand that first time mistake, but how could you people ever elect him for a second term?????

Diana Forget the claims by Creative Mind, Bush did not win in 2000 he stole the election and was appointed president 5/4 by the unsupreme court and 04 there have been questions about Ohio plus Weasel Bush ran on fear after9/11 claiming only he could protect us from the terrorist :eek: Jennifer

[CreativeMind]

I don't really want to get involved in American politics but there is one thing I just dont understand. It seems that many people, including the experts, classify George Bush II as the worst American president ever. I can understand that first time mistake, but how could you people ever elect him for a second term?????

Diana

Try to remember something, Diana: Americans don't see things the same way the rest of the world does. I mean, I know that's a pretty obvious statement, but frankly Europeans and other countries around the world just... don't... get... that... no matter...how many times...we say it. It's funny, but the same way that Europeans or other foreigners look as us and say "Why don't you just do this?", we look back at the rest of you with an incredulous look and say "Why the hell would ANYONE want to do that?"

Bottom line: We're Americans, and we have our own ideals and views of how things should be done.

That said, keep in mind two things. When George Bush ran against John Kerry, America was still feeling the effects of 9/11 on our psyche. We still wanted a President that we felt would keep us safe, and we had already begun the Iraq War and many Americans didn't feel it was wise to change Commander-in-Chiefs in the middle of things. Not to mention, as an opponent for the office, John Kerry did a piss poor job of convincing anyone he was anything but a two-faced liar.

In fact, if you want to know WHY Bush won a second term, here's all you need to know and it plays off that last point. The night that the election was held in 2004, an exti poll was taken. And the two questions that the poll asked was very simple and very insightful and ultimately revealed why Bush won.

The first question was: "Who do you think is more likely to say whatever they need to say in order to get elected?" In other words, who was more likely to be a typical politician that would lie out of both sides of their mouth -- say one thing, one day, to one group of people, on one side of the country, but then say a different thing, the next day, to another group of people, on the other side of the country.

The result: 75% said Kerry would say whatever it took to get elected...but only 25% said Bush.

The poll then asked a second parallel question. It asked "Who do you think is more likely to tell you what they REALLY think -- regardless of whether or not you will agree with them?" In other words, if you ran into Bush or Kerry in a bar or while you were out shopping and said "Look, no bullshit and all kidding aside, just lay it on the line for me. Tell me what you REALLY think about abortion...tell me what you REALLY think about gay marriage...etc, etc, etc."

The result: It literally flipped. 75% felt Bush was more likely to tell you what he REALLY thought, whether you agreed with him or not...while only 25% felt Kerry would tell you what he REALLY felt in his heart.

And lastly, your one statement is a bit deceptive when you say he was the worst president ever and even the "experts" agree with that. That's a very disingenuous statement since you're NOT actually naming any of these so-called "experts" -- and let's be totally honest. So many people who do different things call themselves "experts" with the thinnest of qualifications, thus making their opinions either valueless or just another opinion that's no better than the next person's.

Case in point: back in the fall as the new election was held, 40 prominent Presidential scholars and biographers and researchers were asked to rank all of the Presidents through history, and Bush did NOT land in the last spot -- in fact, he didn't even make the bottom 10. Most agreed that it was too early for history to judge him, especially if the war in Iraq turned around (which it seems to have done) and a democracy (of sorts) was actually established there.

Another example of that: those same scholars noted that for years and years, Dwight Eisenhower was always considered "average" as a Presidentat best, but now looking back with the passage of time...and looking back on his two terms as President and looking at the economy he oversaw, his dealings with foreign matters, etc...he suddenly leaped into the Top 10 and is now regarded of as one of the most successful and best Presidents ever.

[transjen]

Shall we make the lieing weasel Bush a saint now or shall we just make him GOD? Most eveybody hated the weasel GEORGE W BUSH the man never told the truth a day in his life and has never been held accountable a day in his life be it drunk driving drug use not paying taxs on stock options being AWOL from the air national guard lieing about WMDS and the countless other crimes he committed , plus he F:censored: up the econemy big time and ran up record debts, But the weasel did give hope to the retarted by showing even a retart can be president if he has family in high enough places to steel an election :eek: Jennifer

[CreativeMind]

Forget the claims by Creative Mind, Bush did not win in 2000 he stole the election and was appointed president 5/4 by the unsupreme court and 04 there have been questions about Ohio plus Weasel Bush ran on fear after 9/11 claiming only he could protect us from the terrorist :eek: Jennifer

LMAO! Jen, I love you. You are always so nice overall on the boards.

But, yeah, just "forget the claims by Creative Mind" -- you know, my mad scientist claims -- BWA-HA-HA-HA (insert maniacal laughter here). You know, the claim that I could back up with an actual news link, which again cited an actual recount that cost over half a million dollars, that was conducted by a reputable accounting firm and which was sponsored by a consortium of nationally recognized newspapers. A recount, by the way, that was held and conducted to the very same standards that GORE wanted. And the end result? Bush still won.

But, hey, I'm sure THEY were all on the take, TOO, right? :p

Look, no one is saying it wasn't a close election, but you people on the Left have GOT to get over "Bush derangement syndrome" and just accept that he won the Florida race. Seriously, get on with your lives. And when it came to his 2004 re-election, he not only won the Electoral College, but he won the POPULAR vote by a wide margin of OVER 3 MILLION VOTES. Which is what cracks me up. When Bush won a tight election...he stole it. He didn't have the numbers to make you happy. But then when he turns right around and DOES win by a wide margin and with large numbers...you still can't change your tune. Somehow he stole THAT election too.

And yet you people on the Left are ALSO the same ones who refuse to acknowledge the lies and fraudulent votes that a group like Acorn got away with in the Obama election. And let the record show that's NOT just me making a baseless accusation. For fuck's sake, they're now under FEDERAL INDICTMENT in 14 states for voter fraud.

What makes this so laughable to me is that those on the Left...who apparently toss and turn in their sleep and just can't accept Democrats lost the Florida election and who continue...to this day...to still bitch about it and play their broken record...

...Are the SAME people who are now insisting that Al Franken won the Minnesota Senate race, even though the numbers in that election are SMALLER and TIGHTER than they were in the Bush/Gore race.

Funny how that works, isn't it? :eek:

When it was Bush, it was a stolen election.
Or not every vote was counted.
Or they weren't counted right.
Or the margin wasn't wide enough to declare him winner.

But when it comes to Al Franken and AFTER the election is over and the votes are tallied and Norm Coleman wins, suddenly... gasp!... something like 300 votes are "accidentally" discovered in a box in the back seat of a car that... gasp!... "someone" conveniently forgot to turn in which... gasp!... just HAPPENS (>wink, wink<) to be JUST enough to tip the election. At which point that IS good enough for those on the Left to say "Franken won! I don't care if it was only by one vote! He won! That's good enough for me! No need to count or recount any further! We're done here! Move along! PAY NO ATTENTION TO THAT MAN STANDING BEHIND THE CURTAIN OVER THERE!"

[CreativeMind]

Shall we make the lieing weasel Bush a saint now or shall we just make him GOD?

Plus he F:censored: up the econemy big time and ran up record debts, But the weasel did give hope to the retarted by showing even a retart can be president if he has family in high enough places to steel an election :eek: Jennifer

First...no one is calling for Bush to be a Saint or god. For crying out loud, Jen, if you really read what many of us have been posting and saying here -- instead of having just a knee-jerk reaction to simply outright hating Bush -- you'd clearly see that many of us on the Right WERE MAD AT BUSH for many of his mistakes, such as spending too much. And WE'VE CRITCIZED HIM AND SAID IT HERE IN THIS THREAD REPEATEDLY.

Which brings me to addressing your second point.
Tell you what, let's have a show of hands over this one...

In the long run, as each and every American is FINALLY going to have to pay the piper for all the debt that our government has racked up, to reduce the national debt, who are you REALLY going to be MORE mad at? And who do you REALLY think your children or grandkids, your young nieces and nephews, are REALLY going to be pissed at as they grow up themselves and inherit tomorrow's financial world as all these bills come due?

George Bush, who left you with a $900 Billion dollar debt, which frankly was too large and should be held against him.

OR...

Barack Obama, who in only his first 100 days in office, has spent more money than EVERY PRESIDENT since George Washington COMBINED. And whose budget for this year could actually exceed TWO TRILLION-PLUS DOLLARS -- and still counting and going upwards since he's not even done spending yet, since NOW he wants to tack on Healthcare reform this year TOO. Which means in just ONE YEAR ALONE he's already managed to TRIPLE the Bush debt. Not to mention his economic plan, according to the Congressional Budget Office (which is a non-partisan group and simply runs the numbers to an accurate degree) has ALSO already calculated that Obama's plan is going to run a ONE TRILLION DEFICIT PER YEAR -- per year!!! -- FOR THE NEXT 10 YEARS AS WELL.

So, let's have a show of hands. Who did worse?
Bush leaving you with $900 Billion in debt...
...Or Obama leaving you THIRTEEN TRILLION DOLLARS in the hole?

Come on, I know everyone took basic math.
This one isn't THAT tough to answer. :cool:

[desirouspussy]

And lastly, your one statement is a bit deceptive when you say he was the worst president ever and even the "experts" agree with that.

What I said was 'It seems that many people, including the experts, classify George Bush II as the worst American president ever'.

It appears you are twisting things around a bit. Perhaps a habit you picked up from George Bush.;)

[transjen]

The 900 billon is not counting the wars KING GEORGE always left the funding for them out of the budget and every other month was running to congress for more funds for the troops, As far as Obamas buliding apon the debt is due to his idea on how to restart the econemy, His plan is to create jobs by rebuliding roads dams and other projects, Will it work? IN the short term i think it will help but the jobs created are only tempery at best as sadly KING GEORGE was on the lets outsource all the US jobs express, Oh if you and Rush are so worried about the debt level then stop crying we need more tax cuts for the rich only and by the way the 13 trillon debt figure is counting KING GEORGES WARS :eek: Jennifer

[Bionca]

First...no one is calling for Bush to be a Saint or god. For crying out loud, Jen, if you really read what many of us have been posting and saying here -- instead of having just a knee-jerk reaction to simply outright hating Bush -- you'd clearly see that many of us on the Right WERE MAD AT BUSH for many of his mistakes, such as spending too much. And WE'VE CRITCIZED HIM AND SAID IT HERE IN THIS THREAD REPEATEDLY.


It's funny I read this over and over on political discussion boards, and I have for the past year and a half. You know when it was politically prudent for Cons to distance themselves from Bush. Suddenly he went from being a poor guy who wasn't given a chance by whining liberals to "spending like a drunk sailor". Funny how those behaviors were hardly invisible during the previous 7 years, but rank-n-file Cons were so willing to overlook that as long as Georgie stopped funding foreign aid that supported abortion and/or birth control, threatened a Constitutional amendment to define marriage, and gave tax money to churches to fund their programs rather than secular bodies.

Now when you all are being called out you are trying to play it off like "yeah he made some mistakes, and he wasn't a real Scotsman..urm Conservative". Better yet distancing yourselves from the social right wing that kept getting your stuff elected because middle America is starting to be wary of that agenda.

You all may have been spending the past 8 years ranting into the wind, and I have no doubt that you honestly feel what you are saying. However, I have been seeing the same stuff on different sites posted by people who couldn't stop blaming (whining, divisive, communist, petulant, etc.) liberals/Democrats for 6+ years of the trouble with Bush/Cheney/Rove.

[megawatty101]

I really don't know what to say without sounding like I'm trying to be insulting. Obama's mother was a US citizen and she gave birth in Hawaii. That makes him a US citizen.

Indonesian school records ... seriously??

As far as why doesn't he show the records? Well if I was in his position, I wouldn't. As long as the SCotUS, Congress, and the Senate were satisfied with the information presented. Also, one must look at the initial reasons that this was even brought up. I wouldn't dignify those accusation with a response either.

I think the dumbass GOP fell into a trap with the Muslim school thing. The real story is that Obama is obviously a friggin secular guy posing as a Christian, when so much of what he says contradicts claiming to be religious. The Muslim thing was a red herring. It sounded so far fetched and silly, thus making anyone who went on to make other inquiries about Obama look silly. The citizenship flap was the coup de gras.


The press played their part for Obama however, by not investigating Obama's Church. WTF was he doing in a liberation theology "church?" Anyone interested please google up liberation theology and black liberation theology, anyone with some reasoning will realize that adherants to this faith can't actually believe in the supernatural. If instructions say to put marxist principles above a supposedly omnipotent diety, you have a problem.

[transjen]

Where was the press in 2000? Why was W left untouched why was nothing said about his drinking and drug useage and why wasn't he asked about being AWOL from the AIR NATIONAL GUARD and why no questions asked about how he got in instead of going to nam? :eek: Jennifer

[randolph]

Where was the press in 2000? Why was W left untouched why was nothing said about his drinking and drug useage and why wasn't he asked about being AWOL from the AIR NATIONAL GUARD and why no questions asked about how he got in instead of going to nam? :eek: Jennifer

Yes Jen, the Reflubs are adept at throwing stones at the other guy (i.e. Clinton's blow job) but looked the other way while their buddies raped the whole country. Now they are nit picking Obama instead of banding together to help Obama save our way of life.

FLUSH RUSH! CHAIN CHENEY!

[megawatty101]

Where was the press in 2000? Why was W left untouched why was nothing said about his drinking and drug useage and why wasn't he asked about being AWOL from the AIR NATIONAL GUARD and why no questions asked about how he got in instead of going to nam? :eek: Jennifer

That was touched on. I got news of it and I was in Marine Corps Boot Camp!

[megawatty101]

Yes Jen, the Reflubs are adept at throwing stones at the other guy (i.e. Clinton's blow job) but looked the other way while their buddies raped the whole country. Now they are nit picking Obama instead of banding together to help Obama save our way of life.

FLUSH RUSH! CHAIN CHENEY!

Well are we so sure we can trust Obama? That's what a lot of people are saying. First he goes out of his way to say the U.S. is not a Christian nation, it's a secular one (which can be taken either way) than bends statistics to say that the U.S. is one of the largest Muslims nations.


The truth is this guy is a Chameleon. I would have been happier with Hillary, I knew what she stands for. There's a lot of Democrats I would have been happier with. When Obama acts like he is an outsider but he's been plucked from obscurity by some of the most powerful Democratic party insiders, that makes me wonder. When he constantly changes his tune to fit whoever he's speaking with, that makes me wonder. When he goes out of his way to Apologize to the world for America's mistakes but says little to nothing about what the Muslim world has done and is doing to the West, I really wonder.


There are times when I like this guy, but with this trip and some other statements, I really dislike him. It's too bad the GOP didn't run somebody better than McCain. But they're still punchdrunk from 2006 and the other parties aren't large enough yet.

[transjen]

Of course we all know W never lied :lol: In fact when did that lieing little weasle W ever tell the truth? Q: how did you know W was lieing? A: his lipps were moving :yes: Jennifer

[TracyCoxx]

Oh if you and Rush are so worried about the debt level then stop crying we need more tax cuts for the rich only and by the way the 13 trillon debt figure is counting KING GEORGES WARS :eek: Jennifer

LOL all of Bush's debt during his 8 years in office is 8% of that $13 trillion. Obama's debt during his first 2 months is 21%. What part of this don't you understand?

Of course we all know W never lied :lol: In fact when did that lieing little weasle W ever tell the truth? Q: how did you know W was lieing? A: his lipps were moving :yes: Jennifer
Jen you are so full of blind hate for Bush. I don't think you've ever backed up anything you've said, and consequentially no one takes you seriously. And btw, if you claim Bush lied about WMD, then you'd have to conclude that Madeleine Albright, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, Sandy Berger, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden and John Edwards also lied about the same thing. Half these people "lied" about WMD before Bush ever took office.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5p-qIq32m8

You got a source for that?Yes it was the Charlotte SUN TIMES or SUN HAROLD i forget which now but it was a locale paper in SW FL that did the recount :yes: Jennifer

This is the closest you've ever come to backing up any of your claims. Unfortunately it's a dead end. I can't find anything to your sources that even you don't have. What your claiming happened would have been huge news... that when all the votes were carefully counted, free of any deadlines, Gore won!? That's huge news. Give me some sources!

[transjen]

OH excuss me, HE only ran up a small debt which was fine becacuse it was for tax cuts for the super rich , and the little guys will get humped paying it back now you're pissing your pants over the super debt caused by the no good rotten Dems and worst of all they expect the super rich to pay there share God forbid horrors of horrors :eek: :eek: And of course you will never believe anything i say or any souce i could mention unless it from a rightwing news sourse like Rush or foxnews, To you W is GOD and you will never see him for the peice of crap he was and of course you believe he never did anything wrong and you are quick to blame the Dems for everything, And here's a source for you it's called a history book in which you will find Clinton didn't take half info and cherry pick it to twist into a form he could use to start a war with Iraq :yes: W lied Clinton wanted more postive proof. Clinton's only error was not hunting down Binladin [ i know i probly spelled his name wrong] W didn't hurt him either oh he gave speechs and sound bits but he never put any real effert in hunting him my souce is he's still out there :eek: Jennifer

[TracyCoxx]

OH excuss me, HE only ran up a small debt which was fine becacuse it was for tax cuts for the super rich , and the little guys will get humped paying it back now you're pissing your pants over the super debt caused by the no good rotten Dems and worst of all they expect the super rich to pay there share God forbid horrors of horrors :eek: :eek:Whatever humping the little guys will do will be multiplied by orders of magnitude to pay back BO's debt. And yes the little guys will pay too. It may not be through their income tax statement (or then again it might be), it will also be in fees and expenses for things like bringing their cars up to new environmental standards, or via inflation as companies operating expenses go up courtesy of BO. Prepare to bend over... we're all going to get it up the ass. :coupling:

And of course you will never believe anything i say or any souce i could mention unless it from a rightwing news sourse like Rush or foxnews,
Wrong. You provide NO source and when I point that out you make the leap in logic that I will only accept right wing sources. Explain.

To you W is GOD and you will never see him for the peice of crap he was and of course you believe he never did anything wrong
Wrong. He is not god. He is not king. And if you ever pay attention on here I have pointed out several things he's done wrong.

and you are quick to blame the Dems for everything,
Wrong. Not everything - like you do with Bush. Only for what they've done. Point out one unsubstantiated complaint I've had about the dems.

And here's a source for you it's called a history book in which you will find Clinton didn't take half info and cherry pick it to twist into a form he could use to start a war with Iraq :yes:
If you're going to use a history book as a source, at least look at a history book. This is how we use sources. Put a friken link to the source so anyone can look at it: http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html And that wasn't even a right wing source now was it?

CLINTON: Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
:OWNED:

W lied Clinton wanted more postive proof. Clinton's only error was not hunting down Binladin [ i know i probly spelled his name wrong]
Oh... that caught me off guard. From reading your posts I didn't think you were worried about spelling. I usually don't nitpick, but since you brought it up... (excuss, becacuse, souce, sourse, peice, postive, probly, effert, souce, hugh, craper, stampping) You didn't look at that youtube video I posted did you? I'll try again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5p-qIq32m8
Clinton and many other democrats already had all the proof they needed that Iraq had WMD.

W didn't hurt him either oh he gave speechs and sound bits but he never put any real effert in hunting him my souce is he's still out there :eek: JenniferIf I were completely ignorant about a subject I would usually avoid it and not advertise my complete ignorance about it. It would be embarrassing. Anyone with any motivation can at least find dozens of things that Bush did to try and find Bin Laden. And that's only if you casually glance over headlines throughout the years. Then there's another layer of information - if you take the time to look - that will show many other things he's done. And then there's the top secret stuff we won't know about for 50 years.

While Bush did have people on the hunt for Bin Laden, he didn't focus all his efforts there. Because while Bin Laden is hiding in some piece of shit cave in a mountain in Afghanistan or Pakistan, cut off from his organization to keep from raising red flags and getting himself caught, we're destroying Al Qaeda. All Bin Laden can do is grumble at us via video tapes.

[randolph]

Tracy,
You are obviously smart, well informed and articulate. However, that does not give you the right to try to humiliate Jen by ridiculing her spelling. Jen has a right to her opinion of Bush and you can defend him all you want. Just keep it civil. :respect:
The fact remains that Bush was the worst President in the history of the US.:censored:

[tslust]

First of all, let me say that although I have strong opinions on the topic of obama, I've mostly kept them to myself on this forum. I've just been having too much fun watching Jen and Tracy battle it out.
Yes Jen, the Reflubs are adept at throwing stones at the other guy (i.e. Clinton's blow job) but looked the other way while their buddies raped the whole country. Now they are nit picking obama instead of banding together to help obama save our way of life.
Well I think the Republicians should give obama as much support and respect as the Democrats and pMSNBC gave Bush.:yes: But, that's just my opinion.
Q: how did you know W was lieing? A: his lipps were moving :yes: Jennifer
Actually, that's true about all politicians.:yes:

[transjen]

Whatever humping the little guys will do will be multiplied by orders of magnitude to pay back BO's debt. And yes the little guys will pay too. It may not be through their income tax statement (or then again it might be), it will also be in fees and expenses for things like bringing their cars up to new environmental standards, or via inflation as companies operating expenses go up courtesy of BO. Prepare to bend over... we're all going to get it up the ass. :coupling:
So let me get this straight if the GOP was still in power no one would get humped or have to pay this debt? Oh yeah i forgot all aboutl Reganenomics just cut taxes for the top and don't worry about the debt. Those on the right are fine with the debt amount only as long as the REP'S are in power but the minute a Dem get in power they start with they standard BS about the debt level being way to high, It happend with Clinton when good old Newt who could careless about it when Regan and Bush [the father of W] where in power but when Clinton took over all of a sudden it became his top concern. And with W it appears the GOP is fine with deffecit spending but only when they are in charge. You are defending W by claiming his spending was not as bad because it was a smaller amount. Sorry but it's the same thing no matter the amount it is still spending over what you have and you are just trying to muddie up the water and protecting W. And it appears you are also fuzzy on the level W ran up as it looks like you are not putting the WALL STREET bailout amounts to his account, And yes i know Obama voted yes but it was W and his lap dog who made the case for it and it was W who demanded not rules be attached for what the money can and can't be used for there fore Obama made a stupid error but voting yes and giving W's pals a blank check , But it was still W screwing the US people like he has done for his whole 8 years :eek: Jennifer

[TracyCoxx]

So let me get this straight if the GOP was still in power no one would get humped or have to pay this debt?
That's not what I said is it? The debt generated over the last 40 years, 8% of which you could say is Bush's (and the congress') would have to be paid if government continued like it has under Bush. With Obama, now 21% more debt will have to be paid. Hopefully his next 3 years won't be so traumatic, but I'm not holding my breath. Criticize what I'm saying, not the words you're sticking in my mouth.

You are defending W by claiming his spending was not as bad because it was a smaller amount. Sorry but it's the same thing no matter the amount it is still spending over what you have and you are just trying to muddie up the water and protecting W. And it appears you are also fuzzy on the level W ran up as it looks like you are not putting the WALL STREET bailout amounts to his account,No, I am including the Wall Street Bailout. I still don't think you are clear on how unprecedented this is.

Look at this chart on our monetary base over the last 100 years:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/AMBSL_Max_630_378.png

You can see how much money BO artificially put into the economy. That is all debt. We are in deep shit territory.

[randolph]

That's not what I said is it? The debt generated over the last 40 years, 8% of which you could say is Bush's (and the congress') would have to be paid if government continued like it has under Bush. With Obama, now 21% more debt will have to be paid. Hopefully his next 3 years won't be so traumatic, but I'm not holding my breath. Criticize what I'm saying, not the words you're sticking in my mouth.

No, I am including the Wall Street Bailout. I still don't think you are clear on how unprecedented this is.

Look at this chart on our monetary base over the last 100 years:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/AMBSL_Max_630_378.png

You can see how much money BO artificially put into the economy. That is all debt. We are in deep shit territory.

Tracy,
Is it all really debt? It seems a lot of it is investment in company stock and the TARP money apparently is temporary loans to banks. If the economy recovers, I would like to think that this massive "debt" will diminish before we are eaten up by inflation. :broken:
Lots of ifs ands, buts, maybes and hopefuls :eek:

[TracyCoxx]

Tracy,
Is it all really debt? It seems a lot of it is investment in company stock and the TARP money apparently is temporary loans to banks. If the economy recovers, I would like to think that this massive "debt" will diminish before we are eaten up by inflation. :broken:
Lots of ifs ands, buts, maybes and hopefuls :eek:

It's like if you graduated high school. You don't have many prospects for work so you get a college loan and go to college. Yes, it's debt. You hope that once you finish college you can get a job and pay back your college loan. It will be difficult and take many years, but many people do it successfully.

Only the US is not like a newbie right out of highschool. We have an advanced industrial base and an ok educational system, but because of some bad decisions that let companies go abroad and other bad policies that allowed our lending infrastructure to fail we are in a precarious position. Obama's US is more like a 30-something yuppie who is already in debt that got laid off and wants to put himself further into debt for an education loan to go get a graduate degree. Yes, it's also debt in this case too. Whatever job he gets as a result of the graduate degree will probably be too little, too late.

Where has he invested this money he printed or borrowed from the Chinese? In short term jobs (when their job is done they will be right back out on the street), in government jobs (which only adds to the size of the government as well as the budget which is already too high), and in more very expensive entitlements like nationalized health care (which will either provide everyone with substandard health care or will be spending more money we don't have forever). And also on a buttload of pork.

What else does BO do while we are financially strapped? Implement environmental policies that will further stress everyone.

BO: "So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It's just that it will bankrupt them."

These costs don't stop at producers of energy. They will be passed on down to everyone who uses energy. Do you know of anyone who doesn't? Do you know of anyone who doesn't buy products that take energy to produce? So forget the financial mess he's already put us in by creating all this debt. The environmental and healthcare policies alone will be enough to put us into bigtime inflation.

I'm not for raising taxes on the rich, or lowering taxes on the rich. It's fine the way it is. What needs to be done is to slash government down so it stops devouring our tax dollars.

[CreativeMind]

BO: "So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It's just that it will bankrupt them."

These costs don't stop at producers of energy. They will be passed on down to everyone who uses energy. Do you know of anyone who doesn't? Do you know of anyone who doesn't buy products that take energy to produce? So forget the financial mess he's already put us in by creating all this debt. The environmental and healthcare policies alone will be enough to put us into big time inflation.

The other week Obama made news (and certainly raised eyebrows in the Pentagon as well as foreign policy circles) when he made the statement "Iran has a right to nuclear power." Now, only an utter idiot wouldn't realize at this point that Iran is racing the clock to construct its first nuclear warheads -- in fact, they just upped the number of centrifuges they've got online to enrich their uranium yet again, raising the number now to a whopping 5,000. I mean, come on, at this point everyone knows what their up to.

That said, tonight on TV someone had a great comment that made me laugh out loud when they basically noted: "So, let me get this straight. Now Obama thinks Iran has a right to nuclear power, and he thinks Americans have a right to crappy glass solar power panels. Good thinking there, Mr. President!!!" :lol:

[CreativeMind]

Just another funny thought that occurred to me, as I was posting a moment ago...

We recently passed the 100 day mark for Obama in office. That means there's about 1,200 or so more days before the next Presidential election. And yet in only 100 days, this Obama thread has already become 12 pages long. So, extending that average out for those next 1,200 or so days that means by the time we get TO that election this thread could be 144 pages long.

It just struck me as funny that the longest thread here at the forum could ultimately NOT be about anything Trans related! :p

[transjen]

Over 12 pages of back and forth and pretty much accomplishing nothing, Those of you who tend to vote REP will never like anything he does and say's and pretty much no matter what anyone says or does will change that, So until 2012 you just have to grumble and curse but rember the world will not end after all the world surrived 8 yrs of W and no one could be worse then him well maybe Palin or Jeb but the sun will raise tommorow :yes: Jennifer

[hankhavelock]

Over 12 pages of back and forth and pretty much accomplishing nothing, Those of you who tend to vote REP will never like anything he does and say's and pretty much no matter what anyone says or does will change that, So until 2012 you just have to grumble and curse but rember the world will not end after all the world surrived 8 yrs of W and no one could be worse then him well maybe Palin or Jeb but the sun will raise tommorow :yes: Jennifer

:-) good point ! The right-wing Americans will keep their glorified attitude to the world and their socalled love of "God and country", their insistance on every man's right to own an M16 (to kill the liberals), and their deeply rooted hate of every thing that isn't white, hetero and speaks English...

[TracyCoxx]

The other week Obama made news (and certainly raised eyebrows in the Pentagon as well as foreign policy circles) when he made the statement "Iran has a right to nuclear power." Now, only an utter idiot wouldn't realize at this point that Iran is racing the clock to construct its first nuclear warheads -- in fact, they just upped the number of centrifuges they've got online to enrich their uranium yet again, raising the number now to a whopping 5,000. I mean, come on, at this point everyone knows what their up to.Israel needs to quit listening to the US and do what they need to do to protect themselves. Iran has made no secret of what their goal is.

That said, tonight on TV someone had a great comment that made me laugh out loud when they basically noted: "So, let me get this straight. Now Obama thinks Iran has a right to nuclear power, and he thinks Americans have a right to crappy glass solar power panels. Good thinking there, Mr. President!!!" :lol:

LOL... yup. BO has shown many times that he doesn't think things through.

[randolph]

Did any of you see Bill Mowers interview with Jeremy Cahill?
http://rebelreports.com/
It left me deeply depressed. If he is correct, Obama is following Bushes policies in the Middle East. More private mercenaries, a big embassy (fortress) in Pakistan and more killing of civilians.:no:
Obama's rhetoric in Egypt sounds good but if we continue killing Muslims, its just hot air.:censored:

[TracyCoxx]

and their deeply rooted hate of every thing that isn't white, hetero and speaks English...
Yeah lets go carpet bomb the continent of Africa with nukes!!!! Yeah baby. You and your deep rooted hate for anything that's white, hetero and speaks English... How can you stand to see that white english speaking face of yours in the mirror?

Over 12 pages of back and forth and pretty much accomplishing nothing, Those of you who tend to vote REP will never like anything he does and say's and pretty much no matter what anyone says or does will change that, So until 2012 you just have to grumble and curse but rember the world will not end after all the world surrived 8 yrs of W and no one could be worse then him well maybe Palin or Jeb but the sun will raise tommorow :yes: Jennifer

Well hopefully it has dispelled some myths and some people have learned from it. There have been 577 replies on this thread and 6433 views. It's obviously not just the few of us reading it. I believe we will survive. We have survived the New Deal which lengthened the depression and diverted a large percentage of our income into inefficient social security from then till who knows how far into the future. It's not the kind of cancer that can just be turned off. We have survived Johnson's civil rights policies which went beyond merely making races equal and started programs like Affirmative Action which replaced one type of racism with another. We survived Carter's double digit inflation, unemployment and interest rates, and his Community Reinvestment Act - another cancer. Each liberal democratic president adds more burdensome baggage that future generations will have to bear. But yes, socialist countries do survive. It's just not my kind of country.

[TracyCoxx]

Did any of you see Bill Mowers interview with Jeremy Cahill?
http://rebelreports.com/
It left me deeply depressed. If he is correct, Obama is following Bushes policies in the Middle East. More private mercenaries, a big embassy (fortress) in Pakistan and more killing of civilians.:no:
Obama's rhetoric in Egypt sounds good but if we continue killing Muslims, its just hot air.:censored:

Well if any president understands Muslims, it's Obama. Before becoming president he was against a lot of what we were doing in the mideast. He has probably since learned that even though Muslims are mostly peace loving people, there are extremists out there and that there are very good reasons for what we're doing out there. His timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq has gone from April 2010 to the end of 2011. Bush wanted to get the troops out too, but there are realities that the commander in chief faces that Obama is learning about.

He was going to release photos of alleged torture in Iraq and other places. He changed his mind on that after realizing that would only be counterproductive.

He promised in January that his policies would limit unemployment to 8% in February. It's June now. Unemployment is at 9.4% and still rising.

He thought bailing out GM would work. That was a wasted effort and GM filed for bankruptcy anyway. He has changed his mind on a number of his policies. And check this out: I commend Obama on correcting bad policies once he realizes they will not work. It says a lot when someone can admit to mistakes rather than to insist on going down a path they should realize is wrong.

[randolph]

"I commend Obama on correcting bad policies once he realizes they will not work. It says a lot when someone can admit to mistakes rather than to insist on going down a path they should realize is wrong." Tracy

Yes Tracy this is encouraging, and a great improvement over the Bush years. Lets hope he finds the right path before its too late. Of course, he is not omnipotent, he has to deal with Congress who are a bunch of money grubbing assholes for sale to the highest bidder. Can anything positive get done in this country full of corrupt politicians, Dem. and Repub. alike? It doesn't look good. :censored:

[transjen]

Well hopefully it has dispelled some myths and some people have learned from it. There have been 577 replies on this thread and 6433 views. It's obviously not just the few of us reading it. I believe we will survive. We have survived the New Deal which lengthened the depression and diverted a large percentage of our income into inefficient social security from then till who knows how far into the future. It's not the kind of cancer that can just be turned off. We have survived Johnson's civil rights policies which went beyond merely making races equal and started programs like Affirmative Action which replaced one type of racism with another. We survived Carter's double digit inflation, unemployment and interest rates, and his Community Reinvestment Act - another cancer. Each liberal democratic president adds more burdensome baggage that future generations will have to bear. But yes, socialist countries do survive. It's just not my kind of country. And what myth's were dispelled? All i have seen so far is that the Bush lovers hate Obama and DEMS period and anything Bush and his party did was great and wonderful and the DEMS do every wrong and screw everything up, I knew that mindset before i ever came here and it appears you will never be happy unless the GOP control everything for life and like W everything is your way or the highway. So what has really changed? W divide this country to those on the right vs those on the left and Obama will not be able to undivide the country and i dout any one man or woman can fix it. At the rate we are going another civil war will break out and those on the left will live in the north and those on the right will live in the south. :eek: Jennifer

[transjen]

:-) good point ! The right-wing Americans will keep their glorified attitude to the world and their socalled love of "God and country", their insistance on every man's right to own an M16 (to kill the liberals), and their deeply rooted hate of every thing that isn't white, hetero and speaks English... Hank my friend that is not completely true W and the GOP love Latino's as they see them as cheap labor and a way to bring down the pay scale for every worker hence more profit for big bussness the rich get richer and everyone else get's the shit :eek: Jennifer

[TracyCoxx]

And what myth's were dispelled? All i have seen so far is that the Bush lovers hate Obama and DEMS period and anything Bush and his party did was great and wonderful and the DEMS do every wrong and screw everything up
That is all you will ever see. I was talking about the other readers of this thread.

W divide this country to those on the right vs those on the left and Obama will not be able to undivide the country and i dout any one man or woman can fix it. At the rate we are going another civil war will break out and those on the left will live in the north and those on the right will live in the south. :eek: Jennifer

That might be a good solution, except that the parties are not even self consistent. So once you divide the US up to North & South the dems will be bickering amongst themselves and gop will be bickering amongst themselves. I don't like much of the south anyway. Too many rednecks and bible thumpers.

[transjen]

That might be a good solution, except that the parties are not even self consistent. So once you divide the US up to North & South the dems will be bickering amongst themselves and gop will be bickering amongst themselves. I don't like much of the south anyway. Too many rednecks and bible thumpers. I hope it nevers happens but the way thing are going i can see it happening in the future, And i only said the left will live in the north and the right in the south because of the 04, 06,08 election maps showing how each state voted in those three years the GOP won in the south and the DEMS did very well in the north, I'm refering to the maps i saw on CNN during election night. In the end it would work for a short time but truth be told the GOP needs DEMS to blame for any miss fire and the DEMS need GOP to blame for miss fires :eek: Jennifer

[Bionca]

Yeah lets go carpet bomb the continent of Africa with nukes!!!! Yeah baby. You and your deep rooted hate for anything that's white, hetero and speaks English... How can you stand to see that white english speaking face of yours in the mirror?



Well hopefully it has dispelled some myths and some people have learned from it. There have been 577 replies on this thread and 6433 views. It's obviously not just the few of us reading it. I believe we will survive. We have survived the New Deal which lengthened the depression and diverted a large percentage of our income into inefficient social security from then till who knows how far into the future. It's not the kind of cancer that can just be turned off. We have survived Johnson's civil rights policies which went beyond merely making races equal and started programs like Affirmative Action which replaced one type of racism with another. We survived Carter's double digit inflation, unemployment and interest rates, and his Community Reinvestment Act - another cancer. Each liberal democratic president adds more burdensome baggage that future generations will have to bear. But yes, socialist countries do survive. It's just not my kind of country.

Well, given US policy in Africa we don't actually need to bomb them. Years of supporting destabilizing rebels, removing funding for HIV/AIDS education if it mentions condoms, and on and on...

The "reverse racism" crap is so played. First, a group that was systematically kept from any sort of self-determination, power, or equal access to redress their concerns cannot magically become equal with the stroke of a pen.

As much as you may like to think we live in a post-racist or post-sexist society, we absolutely do not. White guys have had generations of looking out for the other. For example:

Great great grandpa arrived a poor immigrant from Germany. He knew some Germans who gave him a job and his family did ok. Great Grandpa did better because he got a decent inheritance and was able to get through school. Grandpa got to go to college because his dad donated money to Ohio State - he even had a wing of the hospital named after him. Grandpa started a business and did very well. Dad has a degree and continues the family business and will retire early.

American Blacks my grandfather's age started where great great grandfather did as far as social and economic power. That's 80+ years to play catch-up. More so since, you know, none of my family had to fear lynching.

[Bionca]

The bank and business bailouts are purely Capitalist policies NOT Socialist - not even close.

[randolph]

The bank and business bailouts are purely Capitalist policies NOT Socialist - not even close.

Yes, true enough, but what bugs me is that we are bailing out the bastards that created this mess through blatant irresponsible greed. These guys are no better than Madoff yet we are letting them continue to run the economy. Why is Obama going along with this? :frown:

[transjen]

Yes, true enough, but what bugs me is that we are bailing out the bastards that created this mess through blatant irresponsible greed. These guys are no better than Madoff yet we are letting them continue to run the economy. Why is Obama going along with this? :frown: This was W paying back his cohorets, It was passed and signed before Obama was in office so there is little he can do, The question is why the senate believe W when he was caliming the sky was falling and if wallstreet wasn't bailed out the econemy would be ruined and everything would be lost and sadly the senate believed him and passed the bailout the way Wwanted it and W did what he has done to the american people what he has done his entire 8 yrs in office in other words the american people got :coupling: big time :frown: Jennifer

[TracyCoxx]

The bank and business bailouts are purely Capitalist policies NOT Socialist - not even close.

No, a purely capitalist system would allow a failing company or financial institution to fail. That's what bankruptcy is for. A socialist system would make them part of the government.

[TracyCoxx]

This was W paying back his cohorets, It was passed and signed before Obama was in office so there is little he can do, The question is why the senate believe W when he was caliming the sky was falling and if wallstreet wasn't bailed out the econemy would be ruined and everything would be lost and sadly the senate believed him and passed the bailout the way Wwanted it and W did what he has done to the american people what he has done his entire 8 yrs in office in other words the american people got :coupling: big time :frown: Jennifer

Do you know what a lame duck is? A president in his last 2 years of his 2nd term is pretty much considered a lame duck. You're saying Bush in his last three months forced congress to pass a bail out his way and only his way? Oh yeah... that's right. EVERYTHING is Bush's fault.

[transjen]

Do you know what a lame duck is? A president in his last 2 years of his 2nd term is pretty much considered a lame duck. You're saying Bush in his last three months forced congress to pass a bail out his way and only his way? Oh yeah... that's right. EVERYTHING is Bush's fault. And of course you think nothing was ever his fault, Who was demanding it be passed? It was W and the guy who replaced Greenspan and both said it had to be done right away rember? Yes i know you and the others royalists are still trying to rewrite everything so W is not heald accountable for anything. 9/11 was Clinton's fault the millions of lost jobs from 01 thru now was also Clinton's fault the wallstreet collaspe was also Clinton's fault as is the debt W ran up. W wasn't at fault for anything, Everyone is just bashing poor George and history will declare him the second greatest president just under Regan :lol: Jennifer

[randolph]

No, a purely capitalist system would allow a failing company or financial institution to fail. That's what bankruptcy is for. A socialist system would make them part of the government.

Conservatives are highly critical of the bailouts. Since you seem to be an expert on this issue, what do you think the consequences would if there was no bailout by the government? What would happen to the economy, jobs, medical care, education, food supply, energy supply, a place to live? What would happen to credit, loans, financing food production, construction, infrastructure?
Just wondering ;)

[TracyCoxx]

Conservatives are highly critical of the bailouts. Since you seem to be an expert on this issue, what do you think the consequences would if there was no bailout by the government? What would happen to the economy, jobs, medical care, education, food supply, energy supply, a place to live? What would happen to credit, loans, financing food production, construction, infrastructure?
Just wondering ;)

It would be hard for sure. We would have to make some tough decisions and reform to actually fix the problem. No where have you heard anyone say how we fix this so it doesn't happen again. Go back to the gold standard. Balance the budget. If the government does anything it should make America a profitable place for companies to produce again. Then we can start to export and work down our debt. Then we could take care of the economy buy back our country and lower taxes. People will again have more money for medical care, education, food, energy and houses.

The worst thing that we can do is continue bad policies that put us in this mess in the first place. You can't solve the problem of inflation, which is the creation of money and credit out of thin air, by more money and credit out of thin air, and not changing policy. We need to get back to free-market capitalism. Americans need to save more and not buy everything on credit. If lending companies were forced to make realistic loans by the market, then Americans would save more.

The Chinese work hard and save, and they're buying up the world. But we borrow and spend and consume, and now it's caught up to us and it's undermining our whole system.

It would be painful, but it wouldn't last as long as what BO is doing. BO is propping up a failed system so the agony lasts longer. He's doing exactly what we did in the depression.

BO is trying to prop up home prices. You want the price structure to adjust and let the price of houses to go down. Price fixing does not work.

It would be a bad year, but BO's way will be a bad decade... at least.

[TracyCoxx]

And of course you think nothing was ever his fault, Who was demanding it be passed? It was W and the guy who replaced Greenspan and both said it had to be done right away rember? Yes i know you and the others royalists are still trying to rewrite everything so W is not heald accountable for anything. 9/11 was Clinton's fault the millions of lost jobs from 01 thru now was also Clinton's fault the wallstreet collaspe was also Clinton's fault as is the debt W ran up. W wasn't at fault for anything, Everyone is just bashing poor George and history will declare him the second greatest president just under Regan :lol: Jennifer

Before you pin the blame on Bush, you should know a little more history...

** 2001
April: 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."

** 2002
May: The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)

** 2003
January: Freddie Mac announces it has to restate financial results for the previous three years.

February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that "although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations," "the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them." As a consequence, unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market. ("Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO," OFHEO Report, 2/4/03)

September: Fannie Mae discloses SEC investigation and acknowledges OFHEO's review found earnings manipulations.

September: Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.

October: Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.

November: Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk." To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)

** 2004
February: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator: "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore...should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator." (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)

February: CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted." Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, "Keeping Fannie And Freddie's House In Order," Financial Times, 2/24/04)

June: Deputy Secretary of Treasury Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and called for reform, saying "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System." (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)

** 2005
April: Treasury Secretary John Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America... Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system." (Secretary John W. Snow, "Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee," 4/13/05)

** 2007
July: Two Bear Stearns hedge funds invested in mortgage securities collapse.

August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options." (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, The White House, 8/9/07)

September: RealtyTrac announces foreclosure filings up 243,000 in August - up 115 percent from the year before.

September: Single-family existing home sales decreases 7.5 percent from the previous month - the lowest level in nine years. Median sale price of existing homes fell six percent from the year before.

December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs - and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon." (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, The White House, 12/6/07)

** 2008
January: Bank of America announces it will buy Countrywide.

January: Citigroup announces mortgage portfolio lost $18.1 billion in value.

February: Assistant Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, says "A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully." (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)

March: Bear Stearns announces it will sell itself to JPMorgan Chase.

March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and "move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages." (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)

April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by ... helping people stay in their homes." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)

May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.

"Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08)

"[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that - and Congress is making progress on this - is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)

"Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)

June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying "we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)

July: Congress finally heeds the President's call for action and passes reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.

Gee thanks congress for that timely action.

[randolph]

http://seekingalpha.com/article/141605-the-coming-economic-collapse-part-1?source=article_sb_picks

The economic articles at Seeking Alpha are very scary. Stock market collapse, depression, soaring inflation all coming down the pipe in spite of the massive bailout. Well, maybe gold is not a bad idea. :(

[transjen]

Before you pin the blame on Bush, you should know a little more history...

** 2001
April: 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."

** 2002
May: The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)

** 2003
January: Freddie Mac announces it has to restate financial results for the previous three years.

February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that "although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations," "the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them." As a consequence, unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market. ("Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO," OFHEO Report, 2/4/03)

September: Fannie Mae discloses SEC investigation and acknowledges OFHEO's review found earnings manipulations.

September: Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.

October: Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.

November: Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk." To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)

** 2004
February: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator: "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore...should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator." (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)

February: CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted." Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, "Keeping Fannie And Freddie's House In Order," Financial Times, 2/24/04)

June: Deputy Secretary of Treasury Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and called for reform, saying "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System." (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)

** 2005
April: Treasury Secretary John Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America... Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system." (Secretary John W. Snow, "Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee," 4/13/05)

** 2007
July: Two Bear Stearns hedge funds invested in mortgage securities collapse.

August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options." (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, The White House, 8/9/07)

September: RealtyTrac announces foreclosure filings up 243,000 in August - up 115 percent from the year before.

September: Single-family existing home sales decreases 7.5 percent from the previous month - the lowest level in nine years. Median sale price of existing homes fell six percent from the year before.

December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs - and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon." (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, The White House, 12/6/07)

** 2008
January: Bank of America announces it will buy Countrywide.

January: Citigroup announces mortgage portfolio lost $18.1 billion in value.

February: Assistant Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, says "A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully." (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)

March: Bear Stearns announces it will sell itself to JPMorgan Chase.

March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and "move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages." (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)

April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by ... helping people stay in their homes." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)

May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.

"Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08)

"[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that - and Congress is making progress on this - is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)

"Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)

June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying "we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)

July: Congress finally heeds the President's call for action and passes reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.

Gee thanks congress for that timely action. A very nice little fairy tale but hard to swallow from a president who only believe goverment should not be involved and let the lenders take care of it this is the son of a man who like Reagen believed in dereguration , And since most of the dates you list are when he had all three branchs in his pocket if he did ask it was BS for he know full well the REPs would never put regulations in place so the lieing weasel could lie and say i tried and it's not my fault :no: Jennifer

[transjen]

before i get accused of not giving credit to what W accomplished in his 8 yrs, I'll will give him credit for what he did and he deserves credit and should not be cheated. W spent more time on vaction then any other president and yet he still manged to screw up everything way to go W. He lost more jobs then he created agian way to go W. He lied to congress about WMDS and started a BS war causing over 4000 brave troops their lives for his lies agian why to go W. He was warned about Binladin and he didn't pay attention to the warning as he was more conserned with tax cuts and making plans to invade Iraq agian way to go W. On 9/11 he was safely in FL reading my pet goat to 1st graders and when his aid told him what happend he just went back to reading the book no schook no anger nothing perhaps because he know ahead of time about the planed attack and wanted to use it as his excuss to invade Iraq after all Rove and Newt always said another Peark Harbor is what the GOP needed for support say way to go W. W fast tracks more free trade aggreements causing even more job loses by allowing more US companies to pack up and leave to find cheap labor and lies about how we should be thankful for all the job these aggrements will create but he forgets the jobs created will not be here so way to go W. Just some of the credit that W is due and if the secert stuff he did ever become public there should be more credit given him and hopefully when the war crimes trails start he will receve all the credit he deserves :yes: Jennifer

[TracyCoxx]

A very nice little fairy tale but hard to swallow from a president who only believe goverment should not be involved and let the lenders take care of it this is the son of a man who like Reagen believed in dereguration , And since most of the dates you list are when he had all three branchs in his pocket if he did ask it was BS for he know full well the REPs would never put regulations in place so the lieing weasel could lie and say i tried and it's not my fault :no: Jennifer

Nice spin. Well I guess evidence and reality don't rank too high with you.

He was warned about Binladin and he didn't pay attention to the warning as he was more conserned with tax cuts and making plans to invade Iraq agian way to go W. On 9/11 he was safely in FL reading my pet goat to 1st graders and when his aid told him what happend he just went back to reading the book no schook no anger nothing perhaps because he know ahead of time about the planed attack and wanted to use it as his excuss to invade Iraq after all Rove and Newt always said another Peark Harbor is what the GOP needed for support say way to go W.

I knew you were brainwashed, but OMG. I'm going to avoid violating the rule about arguments in Dilbert's Rules of Order. Enjoy your fairy tale.

[randolph]

Re: Tracy's post Bush warnings
The repeated requests by Bush to do something is not surprising. If Bush could get congress, to do something and we got a recession then Bush could blame Congress. Also, Congress did not want to do anything for the same reason. The Bush sequence of warnings shows that the Bush administration was aware that things were going wrong for years and did nothing. Bush did not need Congress to do something, the Treasury and the Fed could have done something to calm down the financial system. Greenspan could have simply raised interest rates to calm things down. The extremely low rates produced and excess of liquidity that the financial markets had to deal with, which resulted in the abuses that led to the meltdown. The booming housing market and stock market were good for Bush and helped compensate for the bad news from Iraq and his low ratings. :frown:

[TracyCoxx]

Re: Tracy's post Bush warnings
The repeated requests by Bush to do something is not surprising. If Bush could get congress, to do something and we got a recession then Bush could blame Congress.
Congress (mostly dems) repeatedly said that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were financially sound. I have posted videos of this. You can see it from their own lips. We now know this to be completely false. Bush had been warning congress about it throughout his 2 terms. He had been asking congress to regulate the financial institutions, which we now know they needed. Leave the spin out and let's just deal with the facts. Otherwise we'll be saying "Is too" "Is not" "Is too" "Is not" for all eternity.

Also, Congress did not want to do anything for the same reason.

This is why they didn't want to do anything about Freddie & Fannie:

Top Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
Campaign Contributions, 1989-2008

Name Office Party/State Total
1. Dodd, Christopher J S D-CT $133,900
2. Kerry, John S D-MA $111,000
3. Obama, Barack S D-IL $105,849
4. Clinton, Hillary S D-NY $75,550
5. Kanjorski, Paul E H D-PA $65,500
6. Bennett, Robert F S R-UT $61,499
7. Johnson, Tim S D-SD $61,000
8. Conrad, Kent S D-ND $58,991
9. Davis, Tom H R-VA $55,499
10. Bond, Christopher S S R-MO $55,400
11. Bachus, Spencer H R-AL $55,300
12. Shelby, Richard C S R-AL $55,000
13. Emanuel, Rahm H D-IL $51,750
14. Reed, Jack S D-RI $50,750
15. Carper, Tom S D-DE $44,389
16. Frank, Barney H D-MA $40,100
17. Maloney, Carolyn B H D-NY $38,750
18. Bean, Melissa H D-IL $37,249
19. Blunt, Roy H R-MO $36,500
20. Pryce, Deborah H R-OH $34,750
21. Miller, Gary H R-CA $33,000
22. Pelosi, Nancy H D-CA $32,750
23. Reynolds, Tom H R-NY $32,700
24. Hoyer, Steny H H D-MD $30,500
25. Hooley, Darlene H D-OR $28,750

These are total contributions made from 1989-2008. Interesting isn't it how Obama worked his way up to the number 3 spot (Hilary's up there too) on Freddie and Fannie campaign contributions after, what 2 years in congress? Near where others have been in office for 20+ years. Things that make you go hmmmmm.

The Bush sequence of warnings shows that the Bush administration was aware that things were going wrong for years and did nothing.
What can Bush do? He can only ask congress to act.

Bush did not need Congress to do something, the Treasury and the Fed could have done something to calm down the financial system.With what money? Doesn't that come from congress?

Greenspan could have simply raised interest rates to calm things down. The extremely low rates produced and excess of liquidity that the financial markets had to deal with, which resulted in the abuses that led to the meltdown. The booming housing market and stock market were good for Bush and helped compensate for the bad news from Iraq and his low ratings. :frown:
Yes, Greenspan could have raised interest rates. He liked to make his presidents look good and did so for both Clinton and Bush. Even with higher interest rates, the CRA required Freddie and Fannie to make loans available to minorities who couldn't afford them. But yes, it might have at least caused these people requesting loans to rethink if that was wise.

[transjen]

Why not show a list of top donors to W? showing the drug companies, investment banks insurence companies credit card companies the oil industry, W raised more funds from special intrest that anyone could have from there wildest dreams agian you are quick to point the blame over to the DEMS and over look at what THE LIEING WEASEL W did :eek: Jennifer

[randolph]

Yes, Greenspan could have raised interest rates. He liked to make his presidents look good and did so for both Clinton and Bush. Even with higher interest rates, the CRA required Freddie and Fannie to make loans available to minorities who couldn't afford them. But yes, it might have at least caused these people requesting loans to rethink if that was wise.

This was not only unwise but just plain stupid, it put the whole system at risk. We should have learned from Johnsons subsidized housing fiasco. Democrats, especially Dodd will have to take a lot of blame for ignoring that. Dodd got a lot of money from fanny/freddy because he was in charge of the committee overseeing them.
It is very apparent that until we prevent Congressmen from being bribed by special interests the public will continue to get screwed and the economy will be at risk. The airwaves belong to the public why cant we require the TV stations to provide free air time for politicians? this would dramatically reduce the need for vast amounts of campaign money to get elected. The billion dollars spent by Obama is obscene something must be done to restore credibility to government.

[TracyCoxx]

I take back some of what I said about BO learning from his mistakes. He claimed his stimulus package would limit the loss of jobs and that unemployment would peak at 8% by this fall. It's already at 9.4% and still rising.

His solution? Keep spending money... and faster!!!

[randolph]

I take back some of what I said about BO learning from his mistakes. He claimed his stimulus package would limit the loss of jobs and that unemployment would peak at 8% by this fall. It's already at 9.4% and still rising.

His solution? Keep spending money... and faster!!!

Where I live, the streets are full of cars, the restaurants are full of people and the discount stores are busy. Gottschocks department store is out of business, however. Houses are cheeep, prices are back where they were fifteen years ago. No homeless on the streets. lots of sales and food discounts, gas going up, however. It is a strange recession.

[megawatty101]

Of course we all know W never lied :lol: In fact when did that lieing little weasle W ever tell the truth? Q: how did you know W was lieing? A: his lipps were moving :yes: Jennifer

What's that supposed to tell me? Because Bush was a liar and a screwup, I'm supposed to give Obama a pass? Presidents change, Issues remain.

[megawatty101]

Well, given US policy in Africa we don't actually need to bomb them. Years of supporting destabilizing rebels, removing funding for HIV/AIDS education if it mentions condoms, and on and on...

The "reverse racism" crap is so played. First, a group that was systematically kept from any sort of self-determination, power, or equal access to redress their concerns cannot magically become equal with the stroke of a pen.

As much as you may like to think we live in a post-racist or post-sexist society, we absolutely do not. White guys have had generations of looking out for the other. For example:

Great great grandpa arrived a poor immigrant from Germany. He knew some Germans who gave him a job and his family did ok. Great Grandpa did better because he got a decent inheritance and was able to get through school. Grandpa got to go to college because his dad donated money to Ohio State - he even had a wing of the hospital named after him. Grandpa started a business and did very well. Dad has a degree and continues the family business and will retire early.

American Blacks my grandfather's age started where great great grandfather did as far as social and economic power. That's 80+ years to play catch-up. More so since, you know, none of my family had to fear lynching.


Why don't we just break up the country then? Would that be fun? Seeing that white guys are so damn awful. Fuck you Bionca, those evil white guys you like to trash built the civilization that allows you to draw another breath. Where else would you be safe in a country untouched by Western civilization?

[randolph]

Why don't we just break up the country then? Would that be fun? Seeing that white guys are so damn awful. Fuck you Bionca, those evil white guys you like to trash built the civilization that allows you to draw another breath. Where else would you be safe in a country untouched by Western civilization?

Way out of line Megawatt! Bionca is highly regarded around here, she is articulate and intelligent so back off! :censored:

[ila]

Why don't we just break up the country then? Would that be fun? Seeing that white guys are so damn awful. Fuck you Bionca, those evil white guys you like to trash built the civilization that allows you to draw another breath. Where else would you be safe in a country untouched by Western civilization?

You can express your disagreement in less vehement and less offensive language.

[LuvAmy]

obama was in germany(dresden) and he is 1000 times better as g.w. bush(i hope so) and ..yes i hate G. W. -.-

..but obama must even SHOW that he's better!.. ;)

[Bionca]

Why don't we just break up the country then? Would that be fun? Seeing that white guys are so damn awful. Fuck you Bionca, those evil white guys you like to trash built the civilization that allows you to draw another breath. Where else would you be safe in a country untouched by Western civilization?

What does this have to do with "Affirmative Action"? Your racial projection is also quite misplaced. Stating that blacks in America did not start on an even footing and struggled to even be recognized as full citizens generations after the Civil War is a simple statement of fact - not a moral judgment on while people.

Please show me where I "trashed" white guys -

Considering that it's only Conservatives that like to threaten the break up of the nation, I'm also a little amused that you would lay that at my feet.

[CreativeMind]

Considering that it's only Conservatives that like to threaten the break up of the nation, I'm also a little amused that you would lay that at my feet.

While Rick Perry as Governor of Texas, taking part in the Tea Bag tax protests and in expressing an ultra conservative viewpoint, might have alluded to Texas one day becoming so pissed off that the state might want to secede from the Union in general protest...

...Let the record show that it was LIBERAL Vermont that went so far as to draft up an official manifesto to actually DO IT and who actually TRIED to put secession up to state vote during the Bush years. Not to mention, back before the current economic recession hit and back when times were better, it was LIBERAL California that once had a strong grassroots movement that likewise advocated doing the same.

So, no offense, but it's hardly "only Conservatives" that have become so disgruntled with the opposing side that they would threaten to break up the nation. Just saying' that political door actually swings both ways...

[TracyCoxx]

While Rick Perry as Governor of Texas, taking part in the Tea Bag tax protests and in expressing an ultra conservative viewpoint, might have alluded to Texas one day becoming so pissed off that the state might want to secede from the Union in general protest...

...Let the record show that it was LIBERAL Vermont that went so far as to draft up an official manifesto to actually DO IT and who actually TRIED to put secession up to state vote during the Bush years. Not to mention, back before the current economic recession hit and back when times were better, it was LIBERAL California that once had a strong grassroots movement that likewise advocated doing the same.

So, no offense, but it's hardly "only Conservatives" that have become so disgruntled with the opposing side that they would threaten to break up the nation. Just saying' that political door actually swings both ways...

You're right. It's not just conservatives. I saw many liberals after the 2004 election hoping to lop off those burdensome red states they labeled as "Jesus Land" so they could have their John Kerry. I'm not really sure who Bionca was referring to, but I don't think she was referring to Rick Perry. He was at a Tea Party where a bunch of people were all riled up and they started shouting Succeed Succeed!. A reporter asked Rick Perry if he thought Texas should succeed. He said no, and that it didn't make any sense to do so. That would not be Rick Perry bringing up succession.

[randolph]

When the Bush boys took over, a lot of us "liberals" thought about leaving home and going to Canada. However, on second thought, most of us decided to stick it out even though the family was dysfunctional. Now were not only dysfunctional but broke. "Hey buddy can you paradigm" ;):lol:

[Bionca]

While Rick Perry as Governor of Texas, taking part in the Tea Bag tax protests and in expressing an ultra conservative viewpoint, might have alluded to Texas one day becoming so pissed off that the state might want to secede from the Union in general protest...

...Let the record show that it was LIBERAL Vermont that went so far as to draft up an official manifesto to actually DO IT and who actually TRIED to put secession up to state vote during the Bush years. Not to mention, back before the current economic recession hit and back when times were better, it was LIBERAL California that once had a strong grassroots movement that likewise advocated doing the same.

So, no offense, but it's hardly "only Conservatives" that have become so disgruntled with the opposing side that they would threaten to break up the nation. Just saying' that political door actually swings both ways...

Perry made some very thinly veiled support for Texas leaving the US. Some disgruntled conservatives in Oklahoma followed suit - although this was briefly reported as a more wide-spread initiative.

I wasn't aware of Vermont. California can hardly be called a Liberal state. You have the coast which is very Libreral, but San Diego, Sacramento, The OC, the mountains can hardly be called anything close to Liberal. Cali is about as Liberal as Ohio - you have Pelosi, we have Kucinich.

[transjen]

A serious question here, Was Perry just saying this for disgruntled REPS or does he really think Texas would be better off on their own or would they become part of Mexico? Personily i think he was only throwing some red meat to the core GOP ers in his state for his reelection bid :yes: Jennifer

[Bionca]

No, a purely capitalist system would allow a failing company or financial institution to fail. That's what bankruptcy is for. A socialist system would make them part of the government.

As my friend Jodi wrote:

It is not the state taking control of banks, markets, finance. That's why there were no provisions in the initial 2 page plan for oversight or accountability. That's also why it was written by a former head of Goldman Sachs. That's what Wall Street is demanding.

This isn't socialism. It's the triumph of neoliberal dominance of the state.

Rather than the government gaining control of the financial sector, it is the government being held hostage by the financial speculators. The taxpayer being accountable for the excesses of a bullish market with no oversight, no restraint, and absolutely no "self correction".

The government was told a story of doom and failures of epic proportions that would have a global reach unseen before. The ones who spear-headed this, who ignored the signs, who tried to bank as much as they could as long as they could did not get "rescued" by the government. They asked and received the assistance from the government.

With no stipulations. With no plan to pay it back. With no direction

Now that the administration is (slowly) trying to install the means to collect and oversee the dispensaion of the funds... they cry "foul". The blow up over GM's CEO being fired by the people who denamd "responsibility and accountability" is shameful.

[TracyCoxx]

A serious question here, Was Perry just saying this for disgruntled REPS or does he really think Texas would be better off on their own or would they become part of Mexico? Personily i think he was only throwing some red meat to the core GOP ers in his state for his reelection bid :yes: Jennifer

It's been sensationalized through reporting. They don't show that it was people in the crowd at the Tea Party who started talking about it not him. They don't show him saying no, there's no reason to secede, they just show him citing his belief that Texas could secede if there was a hypothetical reason to do so. I saw the live video of the reporter who talked to him. He said no, Texas should not secede, and that it wouldn't make sense to do so.

[transjen]

It's been sensationalized through reporting. They don't show that it was people in the crowd at the Tea Party who started talking about it not him. They don't show him saying no, there's no reason to secede, they just show him citing his belief that Texas could secede if there was a hypothetical reason to do so. I saw the live video of the reporter who talked to him. He said no, Texas should not secede, and that it wouldn't make sense to do so. Thanks, that is why i was asking as i do not live in Texas and when i first heard about it i didn't pay much attention to it :yes: Jennifer

[randolph]

From Washington Monthly:
LEADERSHIP VOID.... The latest poll from USA Today/Gallup points to some interesting results about the state of the Republican Party. It notes, for example, that "one-third of Republicans now say they have an unfavorable opinion of their party."

That's not a good sign. (By contrast, only 4% of Democrats have an unfavorable view of their party.) It's hard to say whether these are Republican moderates who believe the GOP has shifted too far to the right, Republican conservatives who believe the GOP isn't far-right enough, or some combination of the two. Either way, it's a discouraging figure for the party.

But just as important were questions about the Republican Party's leadership, which is obviously in an awkward state in the wake of the Bush/Cheney era.

A 52% majority of those surveyed couldn't come up with a name when asked to specify "the main person" who speaks for Republicans today. Of those who could, the top response was radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh (13%), followed in order by former vice president Dick Cheney, Arizona Sen. John McCain and former House speaker Newt Gingrich. Former president George W. Bush ranked fifth, at 3%.

So the dominant faces of the Republican Party are all men, all white, all conservative and all old enough to join AARP, ranging in age from 58 (Limbaugh) to 72 (McCain). They include some of the country's most strident voices on issues from Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court to President Obama's policies at home and abroad. Two are retired from politics, and one has never been a candidate.

The vacuum is only part of the problem. When a party loses power, a leadership void is inevitable and largely unavoidable. That 52% of Americans can't think of the leading GOP voice isn't necessarily awful; I'm a little surprised that number isn't even higher.

Well at least Sarah Palin wasn't mentioned. :eek:

[randolph]

Humm, looks like Obama is doing some payback. :frown:

[TracyCoxx]

Humm, looks like Obama is doing some payback. :frown:

Don't forget ACORN. Since '94, they've raised $53 million. Now they're eligible for $8 billion between this year and the next. And who says crime doesn't pay?

[CreativeMind]

From Washington Monthly: LEADERSHIP VOID. The latest poll from USA Today/Gallup points to some interesting results about the state of the Republican Party. It notes, for example, that "one-third of Republicans now say they have an unfavorable opinion of their party"...

And yet for all this "Doom and Gloom" talk that the media likes to TRY and perpetually drum up, in the upcoming Gubernatorial races for both New Jersey and Virginia -- where Democrats once had clear and sizeable leads -- the Republicans are now leading in ALL the polls. Not to mention that just yesterday, thanks to two defections, the Republicans seized control of the New York State Senate as well.

Not to mention that many other polls show that Republicans are now being favored as a voter's choice in 2010 for Congressional seats, to specifically break up the Democratic strangle hold that exists on Capitol Hill right now, and as a way to stop Obama from spending any further and from enacting too many of his "changes you can believe in" (insert hacking, mocking cough here)...

[CreativeMind]

That's not a good sign (for the Republicans)...

Well, since you were so quick to quote the Gallup Poll, let's ACTUALLY see how it's doing today, shall we?

Obama Job Approval....59%
State of the Nation.....64% DISSATISFIED.
Economic Outlook.......54% GETTING WORSE
Consumer Mood..........54% NEGATIVE.
Live Evaluation...........45% STRUGGLING

Oh, and the latest Rasmussen Poll likewise shows that 45% of the country now wants Obama's economic plan CANCELLED.

Huh. Maybe it's just me, but I wouldn't consider any of THAT to be a good sign for the Democrats EITHER.

[randolph]

And yet for all this "Doom and Gloom" talk that the media likes to TRY and perpetually drum up, in the upcoming Gubernatorial races for both New Jersey and Virginia -- where Democrats once had clear and sizeable leads -- the Republicans are now leading in ALL the polls. Not to mention that just yesterday, thanks to two defections, the Republicans seized control of the New York State Senate as well.

Not to mention that many other polls show that Republicans are now being favored as a voter's choice in 2010 for Congressional seats, to specifically break up the Democratic strangle hold that exists on Capitol Hill right now, and as a way to stop Obama from spending any further and from enacting too many of his "changes you can believe in" (insert hacking, mocking cough here)...

Perhaps the GOP is better off without any leadership. ;)
Also, the massive spending is not only scaring the hell out of the Republicans.:frown:
Plus Obama is following Bush Doctrine in the Middle East. Growl!:censored:

[CreativeMind]

A 52% majority of those surveyed couldn't come up with a name when asked to specify "the main person" who speaks for Republicans today...

Meaning that 48% have no problem coming up with a few names. And for the record, since you want to point to a number like that, keep in mind that studies in the last few years -- on average -- have showed that something like 40% of the people polled can't name the CURRENT Vice-President or Speaker of the House...something like 60% can't name one of their own two State Senators...and a staggering 80-plus % can't name their own local Congress person.

Not to mention, I LOVE the laugh out loud hypocrisy of the Left on this. Those on the Left will point to something like this article (mind you, with the next elections still a year and half away) and they will be the first to say "You Republicans need to HURRY! You don't have a definite spokesperson or your next candidate yet! Can't you see the click is ticking? TIME is of the essence there!!!!"....

...And yet these will be the SAME people, when hard questions are asked about Obama or fingers pointed at the obvious fuck-ups he's now clearly committing, that will be the first to get defensive and say, "For crying out loud, what's your hurry? He's only been in office for 100 days! Why are you watching the clock so much????"

Well at least Sarah Palin wasn't mentioned. :eek:

Only because the Left is doing everything they can to STILL try and tear her down since they know what a populist powerhouse she remains. Which frankly, says something about how cowardly the Left is or about the Left's own faltering confidence in Obama, given his already lagging poll numbers. Look, there's just no way to deny it. It speaks VOLUMES that months after the election is over that the Left is STILL running scared shitless over Sarah Palin, especially when she's not even running for anything.

[randolph]

Meaning that 48% have no problem coming up with a few names. And for the record, since you want to point to a number like that, keep in mind that studies in the last few years -- on average -- have showed that something like 40% of the people polled can't name the CURRENT Vice-President or Speaker of the House...something like 60% can't name one of their own two State Senators...and a staggering 80-plus % can't name their own local Congress person.

Not to mention, I LOVE the laugh out loud hypocrisy of the Left on this. Those on the Left will point to something like this article (mind you, with the next elections still a year and half away) and they will be the first to say "You Republicans need to HURRY! You don't have a definite spokesperson or your next candidate yet! Can't you see the click is ticking? TIME is of the essence there!!!!"....

...And yet these will be the SAME people, when hard questions are asked about Obama or fingers pointed at the obvious fuck-ups he's now clearly committing, that will be the first to get defensive and say, "For crying out loud, what's your hurry? He's only been in office for 100 days! Why are you watching the clock so much????"



Only because the Left is doing everything they can to STILL try and tear her down since they know what a populist powerhouse she remains. Which frankly, says something about how cowardly the Left is or about the Left's own faltering confidence in Obama, given his already lagging poll numbers. Look, there's just no way to deny it. It speaks VOLUMES that months after the election is over that the Left is STILL running scared shitless over Sarah Palin, especially when she's not even running for anything.

Do YOU want Sarah Palin running for President?
She believes man roamed with dinosaurs! (gasp, choke, cough)

[transjen]

Well, since you were so quick to quote the Gallup Poll, let's ACTUALLY see how it's doing today, shall we?

Obama Job Approval....59%
State of the Nation.....64% DISSATISFIED.
Economic Outlook.......54% GETTING WORSE
Consumer Mood..........54% NEGATIVE.
Live Evaluation...........45% STRUGGLING

Oh, and the latest Rasmussen Poll likewise shows that 45% of the country now wants Obama's economic plan CANCELLED.

Huh. Maybe it's just me, but I wouldn't consider any of THAT to be a good sign for the Democrats EITHER. Yeah next you'll show that 97% feel we were better off with W. Polls are BS a few diehards can swing a poll in either way and give a false reading :yes: Jennifer

[TracyCoxx]

Do YOU want Sarah Palin running for President?
She believes man roamed with dinosaurs! (gasp, choke, cough)

I don't.
Conservative economics - yes
Strong foreign policy - yes
Protect US sovereignty - yes
Fundie Bible thumper - NO

is that too much to ask? Apparently it is.

[CreativeMind]

Yeah next you'll show that 97% feel we were better off with W.
Polls are BS a few diehards can swing a poll in either way and give a false reading :yes: Jennifer

First of all, I made NO such claim about Bush, so it's disingenuous to make such a claim. Of course, what I do love is that fresh after election day and back when the Left wanted to trumpet "political mandates" and how America wanted to enact ALL of Obama's change, it had no trouble yelling "He's got a 70% approval rating! Look at the polls! You can't deny that they reflect what people want!"

But as his ratings now drop -- to the point, as I noted above, that it's now a LESSER number than the number of people who DON'T like the way he's running the country -- suddenly THEN the polls are total BS and not worth looking at. Or they've been somehow rigged and fixed.

Gee, funny how that works... :p

[TracyCoxx]

Rush:
Conservatives see Americans. They see human beings. They see potential. Liberals look at a group of people and they see incompetence, they see people that can't overcome the obstacles of life, they want a government program to help them.

So true...

[randolph]

I don't.
Conservative economics - yes
Strong foreign policy - yes
Protect US sovereignty - yes
Fundie Bible thumper - NO

is that too much to ask? Apparently it is.

You know what? I agree with you. :yes:

[TracyCoxx]

You know what? I agree with you. :yes:

Holy :coupling:!

At the risk of throwing harmony back into chaos I have a question for you. Since it seems to be so hard to find a candidate that has all the qualities we like we have to make a choice.

Conservative economics
Strong foreign policy
Protect US sovereignty
Fundie Bible thumper

or

Spread the wealth, socialist type economics
Toothless foreign policy and apology tours
Illegals welcome -Open border policy
Secular government (possibly even muslim since he says we're not a christian nation but does say the US is one of the largest muslim countries in the world)

Which way do you compromise and why?

[randolph]

Holy :coupling:!

At the risk of throwing harmony back into chaos I have a question for you. Since it seems to be so hard to find a candidate that has all the qualities we like we have to make a choice.

Conservative economics
Strong foreign policy
Protect US sovereignty
Fundie Bible thumper

or

Spread the wealth, socialist type economics
Toothless foreign policy and apology tours
Illegals welcome -Open border policy
Secular government (possibly even muslim since he says we're not a christian nation but does say the US is one of the largest muslim countries in the world)

Which way do you compromise and why?

No, I don't agree with the second set of policies, however I don't believe the Dems. are that stupid either. Obama is showing a very aggressive stance in the Middle East. Not that I agree with that either. Basically, I am a frustrated Republican of the old school (pre Reganomics).
This is what I like.
1- A fiscally responsible pay as you go government (no Reaganomics or Bush BS or Johnson BS, Clinton was better).
2- A reasonably ethical government that encourages thrift and responsibility.
3- A secular government that stays out of religious issues (ie abortion, gay marriage)
4- A government that keeps hands off other countries politics.
5- a government that actively fosters environmental/energy sustainability.
6- a government that carefully regulates capitalism but encourages "free" enterprise.
In the good old days we tried to avoid avoid foreign entanglements and we prospered (we made our own stuff). The world has changed (a LOT more people) trade is the name of the game so we have to compete.
As long as we keep giving away our productivity to China I don't see how we can afford elaborate welfare/health care programs. We don't have enough people working to support them.:frown:

Congress is so beholden to special interests (Dems. and Repubs. alike), I don't see much hope of any positive results. The banks own Congress so what are we to do? We have allowed ourselves to get thoroughly fucked up with materialism (from China). We need to make our own stuff, develop our own energy, and fuck the Chinese and fuck the Arabs.:coupling::yes:

[tslust]

Congress is so beholden to special interests (Dems. and Repubs. alike), I don't see much hope of any positive results. The banks own Congress so what are we to do? We have allowed ourselves to get thoroughly fucked up with materialism (from China). We need to make our own stuff, develop our own energy, and fuck the Chinese and fuck the Arabs.:coupling::yes:

I couldn't agree with you more.

[TracyCoxx]

No, I don't agree with the second set of policies, however I don't believe the Dems. are that stupid either. Obama is showing a very aggressive stance in the Middle East. Not that I agree with that either.
I wouldn't say his middle east stance is aggressive. He's continuing some of what Bush has done, is planning on canceling other things and is canceling the rest. I see no new offensive under his administration. (The increased activity in Afghanistan doesn't count, that was happening anyway under Bush). He appoints a flunkie to homeland security who seems more concerned about US military returning home, and right wing extremists (does that mean me?) than terrorists. Oh, and his administration doesn't use the word terrorist anymore. "War on terror" is gone, and "acts of terror" is now called "man made disasters". Ok, so what does he call the war on terror? He's got troops over in Afghanistan fighting for something. What is it? Is it a war? Police action? What is this activity we're involved in that brings us into other countries? He's canceling many of the covert actions and interrogation methods that have kept us safe up till now. I think he's delaying getting out of Iraq because if it implodes, no one can deny BO would be to blame.

Basically, I am a frustrated Republican of the old school (pre Reganomics).
This is what I like.
1- A fiscally responsible pay as you go government (no Reaganomics or Bush BS or Johnson BS, Clinton was better).
2- A reasonably ethical government that encourages thrift and responsibility.
3- A secular government that stays out of religious issues (ie abortion, gay marriage)
4- A government that keeps hands off other countries politics.
5- a government that actively fosters environmental/energy sustainability.
6- a government that carefully regulates capitalism but encourages "free" enterprise.

Ok, I added your points under the candidates we had a choice on. Since this is the 2 candidates we had I also changed Protect US sovereignty to Weak stance against illegal immigration for McCain. Here are the two new lists:

McCain
1 - Conservative economics
2 - A more ethical government that encourages thrift and responsibility.
3 - Strong foreign policy that includes influencing other countries politics.
4 - a government that carefully regulates capitalism but encourages "free" enterprise.
5 - Fundie Bible thumper
6 - Weak stance against illegal immigration

or

Obama
1 - Spread the wealth, socialist type economics
2 - Toothless foreign policy and apology tours
3 - Illegals welcome -Open border policy
4 - A secular government that stays out of religious issues (possibly even muslim since he says we're not a christian nation but does say the US is one of the largest muslim countries in the world)
5 - a government that actively fosters environmental/energy sustainability by taking control of car companies and aiming to put coal mining out of business

These were our two candidates. I see that each candidate had good points & bad points. I'm wondering why you chose Obama if he violates 1,2,6 and as you're finding out 4 in your list of points?


In the good old days we tried to avoid avoid foreign entanglements
Are you talking about before the Spanish American war? ;) But seriously, the Korean war and Vietnam war was because of other countries politics. I know the republicans didn't start the Vietnam war, but Nixon continued it.

As for your comments on losing productivity, special interests and :coupling:ing the Chinese and Arabs, I agree.

[TracyCoxx]

Steve Balmer, CEO of Microsoft on Obama's plans to enact a higher tax on U.S. companies' foreign profits:
"It makes U.S. jobs more expensive," Ballmer said in an interview. "We're better off taking lots of people and moving them out of the U.S. as opposed to keeping them inside the U.S."

[randolph]

Tracy,
Nobody will tell me how to do selective quotes so my comments are not synchronized like yours.
Re: Randolph's six points
I don't particularly agree with your interpretations of my points and how they relate to the two candidates.
I think you exaggerate the negative aspects of the Dems. and overly support Repub. views but you are a conservative, right? ;)
I used to like McCain, I think he has the best interests of the country at heart. However, He does seem to be somewhat erratic in his thinking.
Obama promised an alternative to the mean spirited hegemony obsessed Bush administration. :(
Will he come through, it remains to be seen. :cool:
Obama is very limited on what he can do, its up to Congress to come up with legislation that Obama can support. :lol:
I think you exaggerate Obama's "socialist" tendencies. His massive support of the banks would question that. He has "assured" us that owning GM is temporary. Will the Gov. allow GM to fail when it owns it. :rolleyes:

Oh, I was thinking of the Monroe Doctrine as a start. Yes, I know we have rarely minded our own business, Teddy Roosevelt, Woody Wilson, Kennedy, Johnson, Ect. :no:

[jimnaseum]

Obama will reduce the Republican party to Rush, Newt, Cheney, Hannitty, and O'Reilly for the next eight years. Nothing's going to stop the Democratics except the Natural Disasters that occur during that time. Obama's hand on the Rudder of the US might be the steadiest in it's history. I'm not makin' this shit up, it's going on!

[transjen]

Steve Balmer, CEO of Microsoft on Obama's plans to enact a higher tax on U.S. companies' foreign profits: Steve Balmer and Bill Gates were crying the same thing when King George was cutting taxes for the super rich, And US companies will keep crying as long as the US worker demands a living wage :eek: Jennifer

[CreativeMind]

Obama's hand on the Rudder of the US might be the steadiest in it's history. I'm not makin' this shit up, it's going on!

At the end of last week, the Dems cheered because the stock market was up something like 15 points -- wow, 15! -- yet yesterday it plummeted over 200 points... then it dropped another 100 today... all while Obama continues to pitch his plan for universal health care, which is now estimated to cost taxpayers yet another TRILLION dollars just to start up. Needless to say, Wall Street and others aren't sold on what he's selling. Not even the AMA is on board. Why? Because once again in Obama Land those who can actually count and who have a real sense of money are asking the one basic question: "So where the hell is the money going to come from to pay for THIS???"

Answer: that's right, yet again the Left feels it can hit up the so-called "rich" in the country. The only problem is Obama's idea of who is "rich" has once again dropped, and now you're "rich" to him if you're simply a standard middle class family. Which means we're now officially talking about increasing taxes, across the board for everyone, which is certainly a joke in an economic downturn as severe as the one we're enduring.

Not to mention, you're talking about sticking a $1 TRILLION health care bill on top of spending $2 TRILLION in stimulus funds, which all by itself was going to raise our debt level to such a staggering number that it will now leave our kids with a $1 TRILLION deficit per year for the next 10 years -- thus putting the United States nearly $13 TRILLION in the hole. Sorry, but I don't care what kind of fuzzy math the Left wants to trot out, there's simply not enough "rich people" to tax and cover THAT kind of debt load.

Since the start of the year, like clockwork, weekly unemployment figures continue to roll in at an amazing rate of over 600,000 jobs shed per week. But I loved that last month the Obama White House crowed they "saved" 30,000 jobs. Seriously, think about that. Four weeks in a month times 600,000 per week translates into 2.4 MILLION jobs lost, yet they were so proud they saved 30,000. And now the White House has changed its own language about "creating" jobs to "saving" jobs instead. And topping it off, there are now meetings taking place overseas to discuss dumping the American dollar in favor of creating a new world currency simply because the rest of the world has lost faith in the American dollar, given the sheer amount of money that Obama is trying to spend, borrow, or simply asking the Fed to continually print up so he can spend that money TOO.

Sorry, but if this is your idea of the "steadiest hand in history" on the rudder of the U.S economic ship, I would sincerely advise everyone to strap on their life jackets and start heading to the life boats because there's one SERIOUSLY huge motherfucking iceberg ahead.

[randolph]

We are going to need more than life jackets to survive the relentless give away of our productivity to Japan, Korea, Taiwan and now China. Beginning in the 1960's we have allowed our core production to go overseas (cars, tvs, electronics, computers, tools, ect). How can we afford full health care without lots of blue coller jobs to pay for it? Detroit is dead, GM is dead, Chrysler is dead. Our own corporations have betrayed us by moving their manufacturing overseas and our government has actively encouraged it. We are committing slow suicide and nothing is being done about it. Corporate profits rule, to hell with the country. :frown::censored:

[TracyCoxx]

... all while Obama continues to pitch his plan for universal health care, which is now estimated to cost taxpayers yet another TRILLION dollars just to start up.Wait. I don't understand. I thought we were out of money? Who's the guy who says, "uh sorry BO. We're out of money. You can't do that."?

[sexchannel]

I have not read all the thread so i will just say i think Obama is seen as a positive step forwards to a more peaceful world , i dont think it matters what country you are in .....corporate profits will always screw over the little guys

[sexchannel]

p.s he is very good at killing flies

[TracyCoxx]

I have not read all the thread so i will just say i think Obama is seen as a positive step forwards to a more peaceful world , i dont think it matters what country you are in .....corporate profits will always screw over the little guys

Well it's not your country he's :censored:ing up.

[transjen]

How can you F:censored: up a country that was all ready F:censored:ed by King George? You can point fingers all you like but this F:censored:ing mess all started under King Georges rain and since his ran the ship straight in to the iceberg he should take the blame plus he controled all three branchs of goverment for his first 6 yrs in which time he did what ever he wanted too and sadly he was allowed to do what ever he wanted for his final two years, He left a big mess to clean up a mess that will take in all likely hood at least 15 yrs to clean up :eek:

[TracyCoxx]

Sorry Jen, but if you're not going to back up any of your claims then I'm going to have to call BS yet again.

[transjen]

Sorry Jen, but if you're not going to back up any of your claims then I'm going to have to call BS yet again. Just look back from 01 thru 08 who was in the white house now everyone knows the answer when did the bottom fall out? The house of cards started to fall in late 04 to early 05 you can cry BS all you want, Face facts your golden boy F:censored:ed up the country just like every company he ever ran :yes: Jennifer

[TracyCoxx]

Just look back from 01 thru 08 who was in the white house now everyone knows the answer when did the bottom fall out? The house of cards started to fall in late 04 to early 05 you can cry BS all you want, Face facts your golden boy F:censored:ed up the country just like every company he ever ran :yes: Jennifer

I think we already discussed this, and in terms of facts you came up empty. But go on and believe what you want to. It seems that it's important to you to believe that Bush is the lone evil man who destroyed America regardless of any facts. I'm more of a facts person which means my view has something to do with reality. So as I said before: Enjoy your fantasy.

[JohnTB]

How can you F:censored: up a country that was all ready F:censored:ed by King George? You can point fingers all you like but this F:censored:ing mess all started under King Georges rain and since his ran the ship straight in to the iceberg he should take the blame plus he controled all three branchs of goverment for his first 6 yrs in which time he did what ever he wanted too and sadly he was allowed to do what ever he wanted for his final two years, He left a big mess to clean up a mess that will take in all likely hood at least 15 yrs to clean up :eek:

Listening to the ravings a man who:
1. cannot spell 'reign'

2. does not understand the American system, and

3. who calls George W, 'a king'

is a true waste of our time...

[ila]

Listening to the ravings a man who:
1. cannot spell 'reign'

2. does not understand the American system, and

3. who calls George W, 'a king'

is a true waste of our time...

Regardless of your opinion of transjen's posts there is no reason to call her a man. Her profile clearly states female. Your first sentence is just plain insulting.

[TracyCoxx]

Yeah, Jen is most definitely female. And a hot one at that!

[transjen]

I said it awhile back that this thread is kinda pointless mainly due to the fact that since 01 there are only two types of people those who love W and those who hate W, As for Obama those who love W will hate Obama no matter what he says or does :yes: Jennifer

[TracyCoxx]

I said it awhile back that this thread is kinda pointless mainly due to the fact that since 01 there are only two types of people those who love W and those who hate W, As for Obama those who love W will hate Obama no matter what he says or does

Well hopefully it has dispelled some myths and some people have learned from it. There have been 654 replies on this thread and 7269 views. It's obviously not just the few of us reading it.

Woah... Deja Vu. Is this like Groundhog day or something?

[JohnTB]

Regardless of your opinion of transjen's posts there is no reason to call her a man. Her profile clearly states female. Your first sentence is just plain insulting.

Oversight on my part - sorry!

[JohnTB]

Oversight on my part - sorry!
Oversight and 'insulting' are NOT synonomous!

[TracyCoxx]

Oversight not withstanding, all your other points are correct.

[TracyCoxx]

There are a couple of foreign policy developments happening this week. The Iranian post-election uprising, and North Korea both threatening to launch missiles at Hawaii and Alaska and also transporting a ship load of nuclear materials in the pacific.

Obama supporters: How would you think that Obama will, or should handle these events?

What should he do now? What should he do if the uprisings in Iran are stopped with deadly force? What should he do if North Korea launches a missile near Hawaii or Alaska? What should he do about the ship load of nuclear materials?

[tslust]

There are a couple of foreign policy developments happening this week. The Iranian post-election uprising, and North Korea both threatening to launch missiles at Hawaii and Alaska and also transporting a ship load of nuclear materials in the pacific.

obama supporters: How would you think that obama will, or should handle these events?

What should he do now? What should he do if the uprisings in Iran are stopped with deadly force? What should he do if North Korea launches a missile near Hawaii or Alaska? What should he do about the ship load of nuclear materials?

obama will do what just he's done so far; he'll go appologize for America's arrogance and interventionist policies then extend an "olive branch" to those nations threatening to wipe us and our allies off the map. As far as obama's supporters, they'll do what they always do. Instead of trying to defend and rationalize their guy's (obama's) policies and statements, they'll just blame Bush.

[randolph]

Thia is from Joe Kline at Time
I've been receiving a steady stream of favorable emails from Iranian-Americans regarding my appearance on Larry King last night. They're delighted that I made it clear that Iran is different from the other countries in the region--better educated, more sophisticated, with far greater rights for women (although not nearly enough). And they also appreciated the fact that when King asked me what John McCain should do right now, I said, "Be quiet."

The Washington Post has a piece today about the efforts of some Republicans to make hay out of the situation in Iran. McCain, who spent the entire 2008 election making misleading statements about the nature of the Iranian government (I wonder if he still thinks Ahmadinejad is more powerful than the Supreme Leader), has been at the forefront of this. It is very unseemly. I have yet to hear what possible good it would do for the President of the United States to encourage the protesters, except to give the Iranian regime a better excuse for killing more of them. McCain's bleatings are either for domestic political consumption or self-satisfaction, a form of hip-shooting onanism that demonstrates why he would have been a foreign policy disaster had he been elected.

To put it as simply as possible, McCain--and his cohorts--are trying to score political points against the President in the midst of an international crisis. It is the sort of behavior that Republicans routinely call "unpatriotic" when Democrats are doing it. I would never question John McCain's patriotism, no matter how misguided his sense of the country's best interests sometimes seems. His behavior has nothing to do with love of country; it has everything to do with love of self.

Repubs are just passing the same old shit. :censored:

[CreativeMind]

Thia is from Joe Kline at Time...

I've been receiving a steady stream of favorable emails from Iranian-Americans regarding my appearance on Larry King last night. They're delighted that I made it clear that Iran is different from the other countries in the region--better educated, more sophisticated, with far greater rights for women (although not nearly enough). And they also appreciated the fact that when King asked me what John McCain should do right now, I said, "Be quiet."

Well, let's remember two things. First of all, we're talking about freakin' Joe Klein here, who is about as Left of Left as you can possibly get. For crying out loud, this moron actually thinks Ahmadinejad and Bush are equivalent to each other, for delusional reasons I won't even go into because it would take too long to type out.

Second, I always love when news commentators give out their personal opinions (which is fine since that's what they get paid for), BUT THEN they try to back their assertions up with a vague toss-away comment like "You can't believe the number of emails I've been getting from people who agree with me." Well, actually, I DON'T believe it, so how about giving out some actual numbers? What, do you normally get 10 positive emails from readers and this time you got 13, so you see that as a 30% spike -- when in reality you just got 3 extra emails?

To be fair, I'm sure he has received some email, but I'm willing to bet good hard cash that he hasn't gotten as much as he makes out since he just wants a quick excuse to say "See? I got mail, so I was right!" Or I'm willing to bet that an even GREATER number of Iranian-Americans are paying NO attention to a boob like Klein, and they are posting away elsewhere online or out marching in protest in complete opposition to his viewpoints.

Hell, we just had a big protest rally this weekend in Los Angeles -- and there were others around the country, too -- in support of the Iranians seeking true democratic change. So, here's what I'd love to see. I'd love to see Joe Klein standing up in the middle of one of THOSE crowds and stating his view (and these are his words): "The protesters (in Iran) admire our freedom, but they are appalled -- and insulted -- by our neocolonialist condescension over the past 50 years... They do not believe they live in an Evil Empire. They still support their revolution. They shout "Allahu Akbar" in the streets, which was the rallying cry of 1979. They are proud of their nuclear program, even if many have doubts about the efficacy of weaponizing the enriched uraniam that is being produced."

Riiiiiiiiiiiight. They love things the way they are, and they still support the revolution of 30 years ago. Yes, Joe, and I guess that would explain why half the fucking country is out in the streets setting fire to things and standing up to the military demanding change. Hell, even an AP press story noted the other day: "On the streets, witnesses said protesters shouted "Death to Khamenei!" - another sign of once unthinkable challenges to the authority of the successor of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the father of the Islamic Revolution. "

But nice to know Joe Klein thinks they're all just having a tiny tiff and we should completely keep our mouths closed and not take any sides.

[CreativeMind]

To put it as simply as possible, McCain--and his cohorts--are trying to score political points against the President in the midst of an international crisis. It is the sort of behavior that Republicans routinely call "unpatriotic" when Democrats are doing it. I would never question John McCain's patriotism, no matter how misguided his sense of the country's best interests sometimes seems. His behavior has nothing to do with love of country; it has everything to do with love of self. Repubs are just passing the same old shit. :censored:

Well, wait a minute...let me get this straight. FIRST you say you won't question McCain's patriotism, which by pure definition means you feel he's doing or saying things because he genuinely loves his country, which in turn means that the ideas he's expressing are what he REALLY believes deep in his heart ARE in the best interests of the country...

...BUT THEN you want to turn right around and say "His behavior has nothing to do with love of country; it has everything to do with love of self." No offense, Randolph, but you can't have it both ways. You can't try to sound like the nice guy and say "I respect McCain for his service to his country and I won't question his patriotism", but then instantly stab him in the back and say "He's only doing this for himself." The two statements just don't jive.

And for the record, what McCain and many of the Republicans are simply doing is staking the SAME ground that Reagan took against military regimes himself. As others have noted, the best parallel for Iran right now would be Poland during the Reagan years, where the people likewise staged a political revolt because of constantly shitty and corrupt elections. And frankly, I do think Obama is taking the wrong path here, all because he's trying to weasel his way and have it both ways. He's trying to say muddled things, send mixed messages, so that no matter who comes out on top he can then say "See! I was on your side all along."

To that end, I respect what Reagan did a helluva lot more, when he basically went on national TV and in a televised speech essentially told the Polish government in no uncertain terms: "Get your shit together and have fair elections and respect the will of the people and let democracy be respected or else the United States will cut you off in a heartbeat. And even after we cut you off, then we'll do whatever we can to repeatedly fuck you over again and again just to ram the point home."

Now THAT was a President showing some balls and taking a stand FOR an emerging democratic movement when it needed emotional support the most. For being a former college professor, Obama could certainly learn a few things from the history books.

[tslust]

And frankly, I do think Obama is taking the wrong path here, all because he's trying to weasel his way and have it both ways. He's trying to say muddled things, send mixed messages, so that no matter who comes out on top he can then say "See! I was on your side all along."

:respect:I couldn't agree more.:respect:

[TracyCoxx]

To put it as simply as possible, McCain--and his cohorts--are trying to score political points against the President in the midst of an international crisis. It is the sort of behavior that Republicans routinely call "unpatriotic" when Democrats are doing it. I would never question John McCain's patriotism, no matter how misguided his sense of the country's best interests sometimes seems. His behavior has nothing to do with love of country; it has everything to do with love of self.

Repubs are just passing the same old shit. :censored:

Obama hasn't really done anything yet, and I doubt anything you or I say will compromise BO's foreign policy. For the last 8 years I've been hearing democrats criticize Bush's policies, but I've never heard them say what should be done when a crisis comes up before action is taken. Dems are great at criticizing and monday morning quarterbacking, but rarely state what should be done before there's something to criticize or rally behind.

So tell me, what do you think Obama should do with regards to Iran and N. Korea?

[hankhavelock]

Obama hasn't really done anything yet, and I doubt anything you or I say will compromise BO's foreign policy. For the last 8 years I've been hearing democrats criticize Bush's policies, but I've never heard them say what should be done when a crisis comes up before action is taken. Dems are great at criticizing and monday morning quarterbacking, but rarely state what should be done before there's something to criticize or rally behind.

So tell me, what do you think Obama should do with regards to Iran and N. Korea?

You never get the point, do you, Tracy? Well, sucker on in your republican and worldly limited bliss of complete lack of understanding of what's really going on here. The fact is that America is not alone in this world. But I doubt you'll ever understand the geo-political truths to that statement. And what's worse, I doubt you give a shit...

This is about a change in paradigms, NOT about what would your republican candidate have done differently...

Luckily and to your irritation, I'm sure, I've had my chance to explain the concepts first hands with quite a few Americans, and fact is that once they are truly educated about the mechanisms of socialism contra capitalism, they begin to understand that Barack Obama is far from socialism. But he does share a world's care for the reasonability in having a society, where all citizens are equal and none "more equal than others" in their opportunities.

I'm speaking to unlistening ears, I'm certain.

America has been on the verge of becoming a police-state - as Jesse Ventura said it: Fascism by definition is when corporate money, religious right and government team up to rule as they please. Add to that the former administration's doctrines that allowed them to enter other contries without an explained reason. Iraq is a formiddable example.

Barack Obama brings humanism back into the American way again (an old virtue of your own country's history, Tracy) and I feel sad about the backlashing republican rightwingers. But I guess you'll be around for a while.

H

[TracyCoxx]

Wow, this seems to be a really hard question for dems to answer. And Hank, you don't seem to have any clue what I'm asking. Just read the question and answer it. There's no hidden agenda to it. I've explained everything I hope to understand from this question.

There's the Iranian post-election uprising and the Iranian government crackdown. And North Korea both threatening to launch missiles at Hawaii and Alaska and also transporting a ship load of nuclear materials in the pacific.

Obama supporters: How would you think that Obama will, or should handle these events?

What should he do now? What should he do if the uprisings in Iran are stopped with deadly force? (actually, now they are) What should he do if North Korea launches a missile near Hawaii or Alaska? What should he do about the ship load of nuclear materials?

If you think BO should do nothing then say he should do nothing. If you think he should respond in some way, then how? I know you feel the need to bring in a favorite GOP punching bag like McCain or Bush, but this has nothing to do with them. Hank, if this is a new paradigm then no need to bring up a republican candidate. I didn't, so why did you? You're still stuck with the old paradigm. It's as simple as this: How should Obama respond?

[JohnTB]

You never get the point, do you, Tracy? Well, sucker on in your republican and worldly limited bliss of complete lack of understanding of what's really going on here. The fact is that America is not alone in this world. But I doubt you'll ever understand the geo-political truths to that statement. And what's worse, I doubt you give a shit...

This is about a change in paradigms, NOT about what would your republican candidate have done differently...

Luckily and to your irritation, I'm sure, I've had my chance to explain the concepts first hands with quite a few Americans, and fact is that once they are truly educated about the mechanisms of socialism contra capitalism, they begin to understand that Barack Obama is far from socialism. But he does share a world's care for the reasonability in having a society, where all citizens are equal and none "more equal than others" in their opportunities.

Tracey, et al,

First, I am an American and well educated...I am not an Obama fan; was not a McCain or Bush fan, either... I am an Independant who leans Right...

1.
Never argue with anyone who cites Jesse Ventura for his political support. It demonstrates a lack of credibility and lack of intellectual sourcing...

2.
Never argue with someone who ignores the question, writes a long winded and unrelated diatribe in response and NEVER addresses the discussion at hand...see point number one...





I'm speaking to unlistening ears, I'm certain.

America has been on the verge of becoming a police-state - as Jesse Ventura said it: Fascism by definition is when corporate money, religious right and government team up to rule as they please. Add to that the former administration's doctrines that allowed them to enter other contries without an explained reason. Iraq is a formiddable example.

Barack Obama brings humanism back into the American way again (an old virtue of your own country's history, Tracy) and I feel sad about the backlashing republican rightwingers. But I guess you'll be around for a while.

H
First, I am an American and well educated...I am not an Obama fan; was not a McCain or Bush fan, either... I am an Independant who leans Right...

1.
Never argue with anyone who cites Jesse Ventura for his political support. It demonstrates a lack of credibility and lack of intellectual sourcing...

2.
Never argue with someone who ignores the question, writes a long winded and unrelated diatribe in response and NEVER addresses the discussion at hand...see point number one...

[randolph]

Obama hasn't really done anything yet, and I doubt anything you or I say will compromise BO's foreign policy. For the last 8 years I've been hearing democrats criticize Bush's policies, but I've never heard them say what should be done when a crisis comes up before action is taken. Dems are great at criticizing and monday morning quarterbacking, but rarely state what should be done before there's something to criticize or rally behind.

So tell me, what do you think Obama should do with regards to Iran and N. Korea?

Welll, bomb the shit out of them, what else? ;):lol::censored:

[TracyCoxx]

LMAO! I assume you're being facetious. This is very interesting. I've really stumped you guys. There's no Bush or McCain policy you can trash. There's no Obama policy you can blindly support. When your Messiah hasn't spoken yet and you can't blame it on Bush you have no clue what to think about something. Or perhaps you do know what should be done but want to hold back because you're pretty sure BO will botch it and then you would look pretty silly trying to rally behind him. Good stuff... :respect:

[transjen]

I think he should stay out of it, After all it's IRAN'S election not ours so step aside and let IRAN sort out there own problem after the dust clears see who's in charge and take it from there :yes: Jennifer

[TracyCoxx]

Thanks Jen, although by now that one is a safe bet since Obama has done little so far. Now for the tougher one since we're still waiting to see what happens. North Korea. What should be done about their ship full of nuclear materials they're carting around in the Pacific? And what should Obama's response be if North Korea fires more missiles despite Obama's warnings?

And what should his response be if one of those missiles N. Korea launches is aimed towards Hawaii or Alaska?

[transjen]

The nuclear genie was let out of the bottle a long time ago and once freed it can never be rebottled, N KOREA is beating it's chest talking tough when they should remain silient, He's talking big so you have to keep your cool and hang tough and call his bluff he'll fold as he knows full well we can blow him off the face of the earth which will happen if a nuke hit's the US and any attemp will end in his country being invaded. He can't win so call his bluff :eek: Jennifer

[JohnTB]

I think he should stay out of it, After all it's IRAN'S election not ours so step aside and let IRAN sort out there own problem after the dust clears see who's in charge and take it from there :yes: Jennifer

Well said!

And, waht of the the Iranian President's [attempted] flattery toward OB [or, was it intended as an insult] when he said OB was acting like his presecessor {George W. Bush}

[tslust]

I think he should stay out of it, After all it's IRAN'S election not ours so step aside and let IRAN sort out there own problem after the dust clears see who's in charge and take it from there :yes: Jennifer
:respect:That's a great idea.
The nuclear genie was let out of the bottle a long time ago and once freed it can never be rebottled, N KOREA is beating it's chest talking tough when they should remain silient, He's talking big so you have to keep your cool and hang tough and call his bluff he'll fold as he knows full well we can blow him off the face of the earth which will happen if a nuke hit's the US and any attemp will end in his country being invaded. He can't win so call his bluff :eek: Jennifer

One dangerous thing about N. Korea is that they have the world's best artillery. Also they have the third largest army in the world. They have enough artillery and rockets to completely wipe Seoul off the map in (at best) a several hours. Or if you believe the N. Korean propaganda, in a matter of minutes. Their guns and rockets are dug into those hills and mountains. For the last 56 years, they've been fortifying their entire country. If it comes to war against N. Korea, it would probably have to be a ground war. Most of their positions can't be taken out from the air.
Military casualties could possibly range from 661092 - 1,152,772 U.S. and Allies 4,407,275 - 5,812,075 N. Korea and possibly China. Those are the, "top end" estimates.

[The Conquistador]

:respect:That's a great idea.


One dangerous thing about N. Korea is that they have the world's best artillery. Also they have the third largest army in the world. They have enough artillery and rockets to completely wipe Seoul off the map in (at best) a several hours. Or if you believe the N. Korean propaganda, in a matter of minutes. Their guns and rockets are dug into those hills and mountains. For the last 56 years, they've been fortifying their entire country. If it comes to war against N. Korea, it would probably have to be a ground war. Most of their positions can't be taken out from the air.
Military casualties could possibly range from 661092 - 1,152,772 U.S. and Allies 4,407,275 - 5,812,075 N. Korea and possibly China. Those are the, "top end" estimates.

Here's what I think will happen. North Korea will keep launching doodads and will keep doing it to annoy people. However, in the event that they launch towards the US, they will have signed their death warrant. If they launch towards SK or Japan, Obama will:
A) Try to rally up the UN and convince them to help out with the attack against NK because he is one of those team player types and will want to make it look like a joint effort, rather than a US spearheaded effort like in Iraq.

Or

B) If a US base in SK or Japan is hit, Zero will have no choice but to invade lest he lose face with alot of Americans. NK will be invaded by a force of US troops, ROK soldiers and Japanese SDF. NK will be able to fuck up Seoul pretty good with their artillery but military bases will be mostly untouched due to the C-RAM systems. Once that first shot is fired though, NK arty will be lit up by SK and American artillery de to the fact that the C-RAMs track rounds once they are in the air and will have a precise fix on their location.

NKA mechanized forces will probably come down the Kaesong-Munsan approach and will be met with Javelins, AT-4s, attack choppers and Spectre gunships not to mention whatever mechanized we have. The initial push into South Korea will be massive but short lived.

Meanwhile, the coast will be blocked by naval ships and any artillery needed will be provided by 6 inch guns. The noisy NK diesel subs will be dispatched by our nuclear powered ones. Any air to air combat will be an epic fail for KJI's pilots.

The subterrainian tunnels that are there and the people inhabitating them will learn firsthand what the words"Daisy Cutter", "BLU-82" and "Thermobaric" have in common.

Of the people left standing, we will try to win hearts and minds with MREs. Since KJI felt it was necessary to starve his people so that he can have his ass handed to him, his subjects will be a bit more open to having us there. There might be a resettlement akin to when the Berlin wall came down.

Or

C) Zero convinces Russia and China to get involved as the Chinese will want to look like the sane older brother compared to North Koreas batshit insane policy. They will also want to keep it hushhush that they were the ones who supplied NK with nuclear materials and the ability to weapoonize them. NK will be split up between China, Russia an South Korea. And in the end, Kim Jong Il won't be so ronery.

Sorry if this sounds like gibberish; I'm typing via Ipod touch and Im really sleepy. That and my arguements are mostly based on hearsay, conjecture and groping at straws. ;)

[TracyCoxx]

I think [Obama] should stay out of it, After all it's IRAN'S election not ours so step aside and let IRAN sort out there own problem after the dust clears see who's in charge and take it from there :yes: Jennifer

Is this just your opinion or has the democratic party abolished the Truman Doctrin? it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures.

And, waht of the the Iranian President's [attempted] flattery toward OB [or, was it intended as an insult] when he said OB was acting like his presecessor {George W. Bush}I couldn't really give a crap about what Ahmadinejad says. Anyone can realize he's full of shit.

The obvious first line of defense in Hawaii and/or Alaska are our anti-missile defense systems. BO wants to slash $1.2B from missile defense programs for FY 2010! Who's side is he on?

One dangerous thing about N. Korea is that they have the world's best artillery. Also they have the third largest army in the world.It may be large, but I would imagine it's poorly maintained. How could it not be if it's so large? They do not have a large economy to support it. Iraq had the 4th largest army. As of 2006 it was the 9th largest. What happened?

Obama will:
A) Try to rally up the UN and convince them to help out with the attack against NK because he is one of those team player types and will want to make it look like a joint effort, rather than a US spearheaded effort like in Iraq.
What are you talking about? In 2002, Bush went to the UN to ask for help with Iraq. He got a unanimous vote from them. As many as 40 countries were in the fight against Iraq.

[transjen]

Yes that was and still is my opion, Also my opion the middle east has been at war with one enother for thousands of years i say fine you fight it out amongst yourselves and when it's over who ever is left standing give us a call :frown: Jennifer

[TracyCoxx]

Ok. Fair enough. So if that was democratic foreign policy, who's running the country then? Since that's not the policy now.

[tslust]

It may be large, but I would imagine it's poorly maintained. How could it not be if it's so large? They do not have a large economy to support it. Iraq had the 4th largest army. As of 2006 it was the 9th largest. What happened?
Firstly, when it comes to war, you must never underestimate the enemy. True, the Iraqi Army was very formidable (mainly in '91) force on paper. However almost all of their tanks and planes were obsolete Soviet epuiptment. The bulk of their ground forces were made up from conscripts, who had little or no training and experience. Our forces were just as green, but were better equipted, led, and trained.
Secondly, the enemy rarely ever follows your plan for him. The Iraqis were almost obsessed with fixed defences. Patton said, "Fixed fortifications are monuments to man's stupidity." The problem for the Iraqis was they seem to have forgotten that they were fighting in the desert. Desert Warfare is always a war of mobility. However, N. Korea is much different. War in N. Korea would be a war of attrition. The N. Korean Army may not have the "nice toys" that we have. They are fairly well equipted, the Chinese have seen to that, because in N. Korea, the Army comes first; all other matters (including starving children) are secondary.
Remember you must never underestimate your enemy. Understimation leads to overconfidence, which leads to complacency, which turns into unnecessary casualties.

[TracyCoxx]

What do you think a Town Hall meeting with the president is? Most people would say that's when anyone can come to an open forum and ask questions, any questions, of the president. Not in BO's world where he wants strict control over what is said and what the state run media reports. Chip Reid and none other than ultra-liberal Helen Thomas (she's 89 years old and has been has covering the White House during every presidency since JFK) called White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs out and put him on the hot seat.


Gibbs: "... But, again, let's--How about we do this? I promise we will interrupt the AP's tradition of asking the first question. I will let you [Chip Reid] ask me a question tomorrow as to whether you thought the questions at the town hall meeting that the President conducted in Annandale-"

Chip Reid: "I'm perfectly happy to-"

Helen Thomas: "That's not his point. The point is the control--"

Reid: "Exactly."

Thomas: "We have never had that in the White House. And we have had some, but not-- This White House."

Gibbs: "Yes, I was going to say, I'll let you amend her question."

Thomas: "I'm amazed. I'm amazed at you people who call for openness and transparency and-"

Gibbs: "Helen, you haven't even heard the questions."

Reid: "It doesn't matter. It's the process."

Thomas: "You have left open-"

Reid: "Even if there's a tough question, it's a question coming from somebody who was invited or was screened, or the question was screened."

Thomas: "It's shocking. It's really shocking."

Gibbs: "Chip, let's have this discussion at the conclusion of the town hall meeting. How about that?"

Reid: "Okay."

Gibbs: "I think-"

Thomas: "No, no, no, we're having it now--"

Gibbs: "Well, I'd be happy to have it now."

Thomas: "It's a pattern."

Gibbs: "Which question did you object to at the town hall meeting, Helen?"

Thomas: "It's a pattern. It isn't the question-"

Gibbs: "What's a pattern?"

Thomas: "It's a pattern of controlling the press."

Gibbs: "How so? Is there any evidence currently going on that I'm controlling the press--poorly, I might add."

Thomas: "Your formal engagements are pre-packaged."

Gibbs: "How so?"

Reid: "Well, and controlling the public-"

Thomas: "How so? By calling reporters the night before to tell them they're going to be called on. That is shocking."

Gibbs: "We had this discussion ad nauseam and-"

Thomas: "Of course you would, because you don't have any answers."

Gibbs: "Well, because I didn't know you were going to ask a question, Helen.
Go ahead."

Thomas: "Well, you should have."

Gibbs: "That's good. Have you e-mailed your question today?"

Thomas: "I don't have to e-mail it. I can tell you right now what I want to ask."

Gibbs: "I don't doubt that at all, Helen. I don't doubt that at all."


To watch the whole exchange, and it's quite entertaining, go to
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q37kt0ga0OA

Afterwards, Helen Thomas said to CBS that not even Richard Nixon tried to control the press the way President Obama is trying to control the press.

"Nixon didn't try to do that," Thomas said. "They couldn't control (the media). They didn't try. What the hell do they think we are, puppets?" Thomas said. "They're supposed to stay out of our business. They are our public servants. We pay them."

LOL you go girl!!!

[The Conquistador]

What are you talking about? In 2002, Bush went to the UN to ask for help with Iraq. He got a unanimous vote from them. As many as 40 countries were in the fight against Iraq.

I know that. What I was trying to say was that ever since we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, military action will be looked at with alot of scrutiny. Hypotheticaly, if we were to invade, the general view of the public would be that there is some secret motive to invade and a missile from KJI would be reason enough to do so. A force of mostly US troops would be seen as a cover for clandestine operations, just like people believe that the invasion of Iraq was only for oil. If it was a multinational force mostly comprised of UN peacekeepers with the US in the rear rather than spearheading the operations, military action would be a bit more palateable, people would be alot less suspicious of why we went there and it would make Zero look like Jesus Christ:Teamplayer.

[TracyCoxx]

A force of mostly US troops would be seen as a cover for clandestine operations, just like people believe that the invasion of Iraq was only for oil. If it was a multinational force mostly comprised of UN peacekeepers with the US in the rear rather than spearheading the operations, military action would be a bit more palateable, people would be alot less suspicious of why we went there and it would make Zero look like Jesus Christ:Teamplayer.
The UN couldn't scratch its ass without the US showing the way. When have they taken the lead against any country? The US has always had to do what is necessary with or without the international community because we're usually the ones who can get the job done. The UK has the right stuff too.

[CreativeMind]

What do you think a Town Hall meeting with the president is? Most people would say that's when anyone can come to an open forum and ask questions, any questions, of the president. Not in BO's world where he wants strict control over what is said and what the state run media reports. Chip Reid and none other than ultra-liberal Helen Thomas (she's 89 years old and has been has covering the White House during every presidency since JFK) called White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs out and put him on the hot seat.

Afterwards, Helen Thomas said to CBS that not even Richard Nixon tried to control the press the way President Obama is trying to control the press.

"Nixon didn't try to do that," Thomas said. "They couldn't control (the media). They didn't try. What the hell do they think we are, puppets?" Thomas said. "They're supposed to stay out of our business. They are our public servants. We pay them."

LOL you go girl!!!

Well, it would seem that the public is likewise starting to finally wake up to all the media manipulation and controlled imagery and information flow, which was inevitable because no matter how much spinning the talking heads do on TV...trying to convince you that things are great...people ultimately look at their own lives and their friends and say "What the hell are you talking about? Life SUCKS right now!"

Here's a bottom line truth about politics: a shitty economy and sky high unemployment and people scrambling to simply make their bills is always going to create A LOT of really pissed off people, no matter who you are. Which is a lesson that the anointed one is about to learn.

From today's Real Clear Politics...

Ohio: Obama Under 50% Approval

President Obama's job approval in Ohio has dropped significantly in the last two months, dipping under the 50% mark for the first time, according to a new poll by Quinnipiac University.

In the last Quinnipiac poll in Ohio taken in early May, Obama enjoyed a healthy 62% job approval rating, with only 31% disapproving.

Today, Obama's job approval stands at 49%, with 44% disapproving - a twenty-five point drop in just eight weeks.

Not surprsingly, Obama has seen a corresponding drop among voters' approval of his handling of the economy: two months ago he had a net +21 approval (57/36), today it is -2 (46/48).

[TracyCoxx]

Obama met with Putin today. Putin felt the need to educate Obama about the cold war. He lectured Obama for an hour while BO sat there and listened. What a chump. Oh well... it's not the first time BO has been tutored by a communist.

[transjen]

Obama met with Putin today. Putin felt the need to educate Obama about the cold war. He lectured Obama for an hour while BO sat there and listened. What a chump. Oh well... it's not the first time BO has been tutored by a communist. So i guess you would have prefered he put on a cowboy hat stood up give em the finger and said war starts as soon as i'm safely hidin away bring em on, Hell let's go to war with everyone but England and Mexico as all we need cheap labor :eek: Jennifer

[transjen]

What do you think a Town Hall meeting with the president is? Most people would say that's when anyone can come to an open forum and ask questions, any questions, of the president. Not in BO's world where he wants strict control over what is said and what the state run media reports. Chip Reid and none other than ultra-liberal Helen Thomas (she's 89 years old and has been has covering the White House during every presidency since JFK) called White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs out and put him on the hot seat.



To watch the whole exchange, and it's quite entertaining, go to
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q37kt0ga0OA

Afterwards, Helen Thomas said to CBS that not even Richard Nixon tried to control the press the way President Obama is trying to control the press.

“Nixon didn’t try to do that,” Thomas said. “They couldn’t control (the media). They didn’t try. What the hell do they think we are, puppets?” Thomas said. “They’re supposed to stay out of our business. They are our public servants. We pay them.”

LOL you go girl!!! After all W was always upfront and never had hand picked questions, :lol: Jennifer

[TracyCoxx]

So i guess you would have prefered he put on a cowboy hat stood up give em the finger and said war starts as soon as i'm safely hidin away bring em on, Hell let's go to war with everyone but England and Mexico as all we need cheap labor :eek: Jennifer

What are you talking about?

After all W was always upfront and never had hand picked questions, :lol: Jennifer

Did he? When? And if he did, why would Helen Thomas (who probably hates Bush as much as you do) criticize Obama as being the worse she's ever seen. Worse than even Nixon?

[transjen]

What are you talking about?



Did he? When? And if he did, why would Helen Thomas (who probably hates Bush as much as you do) criticize Obama as being the worse she's ever seen. Worse than even Nixon? Every thing that sawed off little runt W did was staged the genrel public was never allowed near him only hand picked loyal Bushies were allowed to ask safe questions with the answer always being 9/11, , Nixon is not the wosrt president the title goes to GEORGE W BUSH the biggest disaster to ever before the USA and his suprme court picks will screw us all for the next 40 years, I didn't vote for Obama but he's a hell of a lot better that the lieing weasel thief GEORGE W BUSH ever was :yes: Jennifer

[TracyCoxx]

Every thing that sawed off little runt W did was staged the genrel public was never allowed near him only hand picked loyal Bushies were allowed to ask safe questions with the answer always being 9/11, , Nixon is not the wosrt president the title goes to GEORGE W BUSH the biggest disaster to ever before the USA and his suprme court picks will screw us all for the next 40 years

George Bush hand picked reporters to ask questions and screened their questions before his town hall meetings? When? And if he did, why would Helen Thomas (who probably hates Bush as much as you do) criticize Obama as being the worse she's ever seen. Worse than even Nixon?

[transjen]

George Bush hand picked reporters to ask questions and screened their questions before his town hall meetings? When? And if he did, why would Helen Thomas (who probably hates Bush as much as you do) criticize Obama as being the worse she's ever seen. Worse than even Nixon? She must be having a senior moment and forgot all the crap W pulled because it will be hard for anyone to be worse then W ,Well ok Jeb and Palin may give him a good run after all she has the same outlook and mind set and Jeb also has the same mindset but no one will ever be worse then W, If W ever had a town meeting it must have been in 2000 and i don't consider a miltary base a town hall meeting, Funny when he was supposed to be in the AIR NATIONAL GUARD he wouldn't go anywhere's near a miltary base but after 9/11 you couldn't keep him away :yes: Jennifer

[TracyCoxx]

BO is in the process of making our economy worse and is threatening another stimulus package because spending the first $trillion and creating the conditions for hyper-inflation somehow didn't cure our money problems. Well hey, if that didn't work, maybe if he does it again it will work this time.

Now, while threats to the US are growing stronger, he cuts spending on anti-missile weapons while N. Korea openly endeavors to put Hawaii, Alaska and our West Coast within striking distance. After the US wins the Cold War and becomes the lone superpower, he goes to Russia to restore their status as a superpower, and signs an agreement to weaken our defenses to the point that this could actually be a reality.


Is Obama the most naïve president in U.S. history?

It is hard to fathom what the United States will gain from Barack Obama's much-hyped agreement with Dmitry Medvedev to further cut America's nuclear arsenal. Washington and Moscow have agreed in principle a framework to reduce their nukes by about a third, to 1,500 to 1,675 warheads over the next seven years. Even more significantly, the two leaders have pledged to cut their nuclear delivery systems (intercontinental ballistic missiles and long-range bombers for example) to just 500-1,100 units, a move that works greatly to Russia's advantage as its force projection is far weaker than the U.S. in this area.

The new deal, which Obama hopes to wrap up with the Kremlin by December, creates a far more level playing field for the Russians, whose strategic conventional weapons capability is greatly outclassed by that of the Americans, and whose deteriorating nuclear weapons stockpile is aging and in decline. The whole agreement makes no sense, and is little more than a vanity exercise for Barack Obama who has ludicrously pledged to carve out a nuclear-free world. Surely a better strategy would be to further build up America's defences, including a global missile defence shield, rather than cut defence spending and further gut the superpower's nuclear capability.

At this rate, even Jimmy Carter looks like General Patton compared to the dove-like current U.S. president. Why cut nuclear weapons at a time when rogue regimes such as North Korea and Iran are busy building their own programmes? Does the President seriously believe this move will encourage the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong Il to renounce their nuclear designs? What evidence is there in history that a unilateral policy of disarmament will prompt tyrannical regimes to change their behaviour?

It is also unclear what kind of odious quid pro quo deal Washington will have to sign up to in order move the agreement forward. President Medvedev, who serves as little more than Vladimir Putin's right hand, has made it abundantly clear that the United States will have to sacrifice any plans for a 'third site' missile defence system in eastern and central Europe for Moscow to sign up to a news arms treaty. This would be a huge betrayal of key U.S. allies Poland and the Czech Republic. No doubt Moscow will also demand the Obama administration give the Russians a bigger say over NATO expansion eastwards, including blocking the entry of Georgia and Ukraine.

By agreeing to a grand bargain with the Medvedev/Putin regime, President Obama has unwisely opened a Pandora's box of concessions that will only enhance Russia's hand in its "Near Abroad". At the same time, the Obama administration's naïve approach will strengthen the resolve of America's enemies such as Iran to aggressively pursue their nuclear ambitions and exploit the weakness of a president who is gravely undercutting American global power in an increasingly dangerous world.

This is not what someone who is working to protect his country does. He is actively working to tear it down.

BO can suck it

[TracyCoxx]

If W ever had a town meeting it must have been in 2000 and i don't consider a miltary base a town hall meeting

So you can't say when or cite even circumstantial evidence that he screened questions? You're just yapping again?

[transjen]

Like i said W never did a town hall and since everything he did or said was staged oh yeah the White house also paid reporters to write favorably about no child left behind which was covered on CNN around the time CROSSFIRE was canced and Wolfe got his current show :yes: Jennifer

[sissygirl]

So it's very evident to me that transjen is too biased to accept anything other than her own opinion. to me the bottom line is that Obama is trying to be a dictator and the demo congress and senate is rubber stamping anything he says to do. if this lack of independent thinking continues this wonderful country of ours will be bankrupt, stuck with a socialised med system like the British and the Candians have that is too expensive to maintain and does not meet the individuals needs. do some reasearch on the effectiveness of these systems and make you own opinion.

not enough time is being spent to even read the bills that these idiots are signining as evidenced by the joke speed reader they have that reads these before the congress what a joke our gov't is becomiing. SS is almost broke, the railroads are broke, the US mail system is broke and yet Obama lovers think the Govt can manage helth care. Are they on drugs or something or our their collective heads so far up thier butts that they have turned stupid. Oh yea and put all the cost on the shoulders of anyone that is successful and has made a decent living or has savings and income. Force them to give it away to the lazy folks who are looking for an handout. look it up its the majority of the Obama supporters. notice the congress nor the senate will be under any of these heath care systems being forced on the American people. Reason Obama at the town hall meeting refused to answer the questions concerning if one of his daughters was sick which system would he want to use. that was very telling to those not wearing "rose colored glasses"

Obama is going to have to claim ownerships for this mess he has and is creating since GW will have had nothing to do with this crap going forward.

I may be a sissygirl but can still think independently

[transjen]

So it's very evident to me that transjen is too biased to accept anything other than her own opinion. to me the bottom line is that Obama is trying to be a dictator and the demo congress and senate is rubber stamping anything he says to do. if this lack of independent thinking continues this wonderful country of ours will be bankrupt, stuck with a socialised med system like the British and the Candians have that is too expensive to maintain and does not meet the individuals needs. do some reasearch on the effectiveness of these systems and make you own opinion.

not enough time is being spent to even read the bills that these idiots are signining as evidenced by the joke speed reader they have that reads these before the congress what a joke our gov't is becomiing. SS is almost broke, the railroads are broke, the US mail system is broke and yet Obama lovers think the Govt can manage helth care. Are they on drugs or something or our their collective heads so far up thier butts that they have turned stupid. Oh yea and put all the cost on the shoulders of anyone that is successful and has made a decent living or has savings and income. Force them to give it away to the lazy folks who are looking for an handout. look it up its the majority of the Obama supporters. notice the congress nor the senate will be under any of these heath care systems being forced on the American people. Reason Obama at the town hall meeting refused to answer the questions concerning if one of his daughters was sick which system would he want to use. that was very telling to those not wearing "rose colored glasses"

Obama is going to have to claim ownerships for this mess he has and is creating since GW will have had nothing to do with this crap going forward.

I may be a sissygirl but can still think independentlyWell look who's like the pot is calling the kettle back, The fact is everything you are accussing Obama with is everything W did the congress rubber stamp that was W ,rose colored glasses agian W making a big mess and claiming not my fault W, You say i won't accept reality well look in the mirror sweetie W was not picked by GOD , W and his bozos created this mess with an unjustified war and trickle down Reganomics and of couse you think only Sarah or Jeb can save us by picking up where W left off, In truth no matter what a Dem does you scream oh shit there goes the country and when are the GOP going to accept credit for the mess they made from 01 thru 08? :yes: Jenniefer

[Ramboner]

I'm not a fan of Obama in the least. I think he's half-baked and immature. Then again, I wasn't a fan of Bush either. It saddens me that America can't find better people to lead our country. I'm almost apathetic at this point when it comes to politics. I mean...I care but I feel like I don't have the power to change things for the better in the political realm.

I don't understand how the TS/TV community can support Obama when he always comes down on the side of the Christian fundie crowd when it comes to LGBT rights. Sure...his rhetoric isn't nearly as dismissive and harsh as his GOP opponents but the end result is always the same.

[TracyCoxx]

Well look who's like the pot is calling the kettle back, The fact is everything you are accussing Obama with is everything W did the congress rubber stamp that was W ,rose colored glasses agian W making a big mess and claiming not my fault W, You say i won't accept reality
Well... I think it's pretty common knowledge around here that you don't. For example, congress has not rubber stamped everything Bush wanted passed. This is something that is pretty easy to verify and yes, you've just illustrated again how little of what you say has anything to do with reality. I think we'll call your reality Jen's World. It extends all the way out to your gyri.

[transjen]

HAIL BUSH, BUSH IS MY GOD HAIL BUSH :censored::censored::censored::censored::censored:

[TracyCoxx]

Ugh, now she's a Bush fanatic. I guess no matter which way she goes, it's always to the max.

[transjen]

Why silly me W was the greatest president ever and no one will ever top him because he was hand picked by GOD to lead us into greatness but those rotten no good DEMS messed everything up and tried to blame poor George for everything and after all W never made a mistake in his life and a lot of people never gave him a fair shot because of 2000, This is RUSH'S reality and it appears to be Tracey's as well so just for you two here's a HAIL BUSHto make you feel better and rember 2012 is just around the corner and prehap just prehaps Jeb Bush can rig another election and we can have another wonderful 8 more Bush years :eek: Jennifer

[Jenae LaTorque]

I finally noticed all the action on this thread and the question I have is what is wrong with this country's electoral process that we can't get a good leader into the White House? I think one of the big problems we have is that we really don't know the men we elect as President any more. We have to pick between two images that are produced by massive (read money here) propaganda campaigns that are altered and twisted along the way to fit the polls and surveys. I am not even sure that any rational man would want to be President seeing as the political reality is that to run for the office means to bend over and let the public count the pimples on your ass. Every so often we do elect a moral man who hasen't been totally corrupted by politics in Washington; Pres. Obama and before him, Pres. Carter. And what good does that do us? Very little I'm afraid.

On a sideline here; what about Nostradamus? Did he not predict that we would have an ineffectual leader at this time?

[TracyCoxx]

This is RUSH'S reality and it appears to be Tracey's as well
No, you're talking about Jen's World again. If you've paid any attention you'll find that I have hardly ever, if at all, praised Bush. I have defended him against the bullshit that you Bush Derangement Syndrome sufferers spew, because I think the bullshit needs to be cleared before any real discussions can be had.

rember 2012 is just around the corner2012 will hopefully be a great year, but I'm looking forward to November 2nd, 2010. Polls are showing a growing discontent among voters, which thankfully you are not a member of, and it looks like repubs will stage a comeback. Then BO will find it hard getting anything passed. But he's taking full advantage of his rubber stamp congress while he has it.

Every so often we do elect a moral man who hasen't been totally corrupted by politics in Washington; Pres. Obama and before him, Pres. Carter. And what good does that do us? Very little I'm afraid.Well there is a huge mess that has to be cleaned up.

On a sideline here; what about Nostradamus? Did he not predict that we would have an ineffectual leader at this time?

You mean like how he predicted 9/11?

"In the City of God there will be a great thunder,
Two brothers torn apart by Chaos,
while the fortress endures,
the great leader will succumb,
The third big war will begin when the big city is burning"

Nostradamus 1654

[randolph]

LMAO! I assume you're being facetious. This is very interesting. I've really stumped you guys. There's no Bush or McCain policy you can trash. There's no Obama policy you can blindly support. When your Messiah hasn't spoken yet and you can't blame it on Bush you have no clue what to think about something. Or perhaps you do know what should be done but want to hold back because you're pretty sure BO will botch it and then you would look pretty silly trying to rally behind him. Good stuff... :respect:

Well look at history. Every since the Spanish/American War we have made every effort to economically dominate the world. If we have to do it by invading a country, we do it. if we have to assassinate the leader, we do it. If we have to destroy a legitimate Democracy, we do it. It doesn't matter who is in the Whitehouse, our economic interests come first. This is why we are the richest most powerful country on earth. No President is going to change that. It would be nice if we showed a little more humanity while doing it, however. I think Obama will do that.

[TracyCoxx]

Well look at history. Every since the Spanish/American War we have made every effort to economically dominate the world. If we have to do it by invading a country, we do it.
Stop your America bashing and revisionist history. In the Spanish/American war we did not invade Spain. We came to the aid of Spanish colonies who wanted to break free of Spain.

if we have to assassinate the leader, we do it. If we have to destroy a legitimate Democracy, we do it.We do not assassinate leaders. Which leader are you talking about? And what democracy did we destroy?

It doesn't matter who is in the Whitehouse, our economic interests come first. This is why we are the richest most powerful country on earth. No President is going to change that. It would be nice if we showed a little more humanity while doing it, however. I think Obama will do that.We are the richest most powerful country on earth because of freedom, capitalism, and a huge production base. The Bretton Woods system, which established the US dollar as an international reserve currency in 1944 didn't hurt either.

[randolph]

Stop your America bashing and revisionist history. In the Spanish/American war we did not invade Spain. We came to the aid of Spanish colonies who wanted to break free of Spain.

We do not assassinate leaders. Which leader are you talking about? And what democracy did we destroy?

We are the richest most powerful country on earth because of freedom, capitalism, and a huge production base. The Bretton Woods system, which established the US dollar as an international reserve currency in 1944 didn't hurt either.

Yes, conservatives like to view our country with rose colored glasses. I suggest you read Naomi Kline's book "Disaster Capitalism". It's a well documented review of how the CIA and Milton Freedman's graduate students collaborated on taking over Chile.
"From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli" the Marine theme and Teddy Roosevelt's statement "Speak softly and carry a big stick" well state our international policy.
From the very first, trade was an essential part of American business. We developed fast schooners to out run the pirates. We took over the Spanish colonies to enhance our trading interests. We occupied the Philippines after the Spanish American war against the will of the Phillipinos and had a nasty war with them to show them who was boss. We got rid of the elected leader of Iran and installed the Shaw, to control the oil supply. We have bombed Panama and Grenada, messed around in central America. We have loaned money to little countries to buy our military equipment, then the military stages a coup and opens up favorable trade arrangements with us. We set up NAFTA with poor Central American countries to unload cheap subsidized agricultural commodities that put the local farmers out of business. The list goes on and on.
Now we have subjected the world to the greatest Ponzi scheme in history, all in the name of business for America.
Ah yes, "My Country tis of thee sweet land of liberty" :frown:

[TracyCoxx]

Yes, conservatives like to view our country with rose colored glasses. I suggest you read Naomi Kline's book "Disaster Capitalism".
Let's see.... Naomi Klein... Ah, here she is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Klein). Her parents were war resisters who ran to Canada. Her mother was a feminist. Her grandparents were communists. Her husband is Avi Lewis. He is the host of the Al Jazeera English show!:lol: Ok, so what does she say that I might, in my most wildest dreams give a flying F about?

From the very first, trade was an essential part of American business. We developed fast schooners to out run the pirates.
We did not invent trade. It is a practice that has been encouraged for thousands of years. And of course, pirates should be run out and were, not just by us, but other countries as well. They were a thorn in the side of all countries who participated in evil activities like trading.

We took over the Spanish colonies to enhance our trading interests. We occupied the Philippines after the Spanish American war against the will of the Phillipinos and had a nasty war with them to show them who was boss.
You are mischaracterizing history again. On January 20, 1899 President McKinley appointed the First Philippine Commission (the Schurman Commission), to investigate conditions in the islands and make recommendations.
Should our power by any fatality be withdrawn, the commission believes that the government of the Philippines would speedily lapse into anarchy, which would excuse, if it did not necessitate, the intervention of other powers and the eventual division of the islands among them. Only through American occupation, therefore, is the idea of a free, self-governing, and united Philippine commonwealth at all conceivable.
That was the sentiment of the time, and after over 100 years you can monday morning quarterback it to your own political leanings. Which you do, but at least be accurate. You should at least recognize that from the 1400s through the 1900s the western world was in an expansionist mode. The US and many other countries were participating in a land grab because, yes, having territory in strategic parts of the world, or containing valuable resources is beneficial to any nation. We were certainly not the only nation doing it. In addition... If we free a country from an oppressive government, then of course, the country is without a government. That leaves a power vacuum. A responsible nation becomes responsible for territory that it frees. If it's able to stand on its own, leave it alone. If not, adopt it until they are able to stand on their own unless joining is beneficial to both.

We got rid of the elected leader of Iran and installed the Shaw, to control the oil supply.
Are you talking about the Iran/Iraq war?

We have bombed Panama and Grenada, messed around in central America.
In Grenada, Deputy Prime Minister Bernard Coard, a Communist hard-liner backed by the Grenadian Army, had deposed Prime Minister Maurice Bishop and established military rule, then had Bishop killed. Then there was also the presence of Cuban construction workers and military personnel building a 10,000-foot airstrip in Grenada to allow military transport planes loaded with arms from Cuba to be transferred to Central American insurgents. Plus there were 800 American medical students enrolled at St. George's School of Medicine in Grenada. But you say forget all this. It was for economic reasons only.

In Panama, we were going after Noriega. If you have an economic case for that, go for it.

We set up NAFTA....NAFTA was signed by George H.W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas. All three of them promoted it. We did not force it on the Mexicans. Salinas is an adult, and was even president of Mexico. I think he's a big boy. If it worked out badly for Mexico then it's his responsibility. Some say it worked out good for Mexico because poverty rates fell.


The list goes on and on.Yes, and you've shown how your Socialist-Red colored glasses color your view of the world. You ignore the facts surrounding each and every instance you cited and substitute America's evil thirst for money. I thought I warned you about revisionist history. If America is so hungry for economic gain, I'd like to know, why, oh why, didn't Bush have the Iraqis pay for the upgrades above and way beyond repairing what was destroyed from the war, security and training? They certainly could afford it, and it was all in their best interest.

Honestly.... Naomi Klein???

[jdawg]

I'd like to know who said NAFTA worked out? There's a reason why Mexican farmers are coming across the border in droves and it isn't because they like tex-mex.

[jdawg]

Tracey, we fucked up democracy in Chile. Remember Allende? Secondly the shah was put in place in 1953 because the british got pissed at Mossadegh for wanting to nationalise the oil fields. Furthermore Vietnam was to stop the spread of communism. I'd say we've done our fair share of messin around where we shouldn't be.

[tslust]

There's a reason why Mexican farmers are coming across the border in droves and it isn't because they like tex-mex.

:lol:that's great:lol:

[TracyCoxx]

Tracey, we fucked up democracy in Chile. Remember Allende?Yes, we fucked up that Marxist. That was back when we did something about Communism. Now we elect students of Communism to our highest office, and the house & senate. But anyway, I suppose you forgot about the Soviet Union and the Cold War. What did the USSR do when they found an ally in Cuba? Tried to put nukes 90 miles from the US. I know Chile is a ways off but I think the feeling was that we should keep Communism out of our hemisphere. Besides, that doesn't have much to do with the topic randolph brought up that we toppled democracies for our financial gain.

Secondly the shah was put in place in 1953 because the british got pissed at Mossadegh for wanting to nationalise the oil fields.
Go gripe at a Brit. I am all for severing our dependence on the mideast for oil.

Furthermore Vietnam was to stop the spread of communism. I'd say we've done our fair share of messin around where we shouldn't be.Why were we trying to stop the spread of Communism? Might there be a reason?

[jdawg]

Stopping the spread of communism and financial gain go hand in hand. We literally get freaked out when marxists take office because nationalisation fucks with our corporations. The US has no right to take out democratic leaders in the name of capitalism. When the US learns this the world will be a better place.


Oh and I dont care about Soviet imperialism. This isn about them and I'm fully aware that everybody from Lenin to Gorbachev was a piece of shit.

[jdawg]

And btw it was the CIA who took out Mossadegh. The British cried tp us so we sent Kermit the frog over there to start a coup. In fact it was really the start of our relationship with Iran today. Without that silly coup, it's unlikely that Khomeni would be leading Iran. But god forbid somebody nationalises his oil to help his people. stopping nationalisation is far more important than being a force for democracy and accepting their peoples wishes.

[TracyCoxx]

The inspector general, Niel Barofsky, for the $700 billion stimulus package (TARP) says that it has expanded well beyond $700B.

TARP has evolved into a program of unprecedented scope, scale and complexity. Moreover, TARP does not function in a vacuum but is rather part of the broader government efforts to stabilize the financial system, The total potential federal government support could reach up to $23.7 trillion.

He also says the total financial exposure of TARP and related programs alone could reach $3 trillion.

This kind of burden on our country defies the imagination.

[The Conquistador]

Remember Tracy. It pisses people off when you tell them "You're wrong, and I can prove it!"

[JohnTB]

The Kennedys were not killed by white supremacists, they were killed by the mob, Malcom X was killed by his own people, the Nation of Islam, and Martin Luther King was only killed after he spoke out against Vietnam and poverty and the FBI stopped protecting him.

the mob or the cia.OK, Where's the beef ?? tHE EXPRESSION ALLUDES TO THE EVIDENCE - STATEMENTS MADE BY YOU ARE PRESENTED AS FACTS - THEY ARE NOT - SUSPICIONS, OPINIONS, SOME OTHER ADJECTIVES WITH WORDS I WON'T USE HERE - BUT NOT FACTS....

Show me the beef!!!!

[TracyCoxx]

The Dow is over 9000 again and housing has had the biggest growth in 7 months. Is it time to start praising BO's economic recovery plan?

No. Money from Tarp (the spendulous package) hasn't even begun flowing yet. So to all of you (I think Jen said this) who said "should we just do nothing?", yes... if nothing means let capitalism fix itself, that's what is happening now. Of course all that will be sabotaged when BO's economic recovery begins to save us with monstrous taxes. It will be defeat snatched from the jaws of victory, and unemployment will continue to rise and inflation will skyrocket. Add to that cap & trade and the health care fiasco and BO's buddy Bill Ayers will be left flabbergasted at how much more effective Obama has been than he was in his war against capitalism.

[randolph]

The Dow is over 9000 again and housing has had the biggest growth in 7 months. Is it time to start praising BO's economic recovery plan?

No. Money from Tarp (the spendulous package) hasn't even begun flowing yet. So to all of you (I think Jen said this) who said "should we just do nothing?", yes... if nothing means let capitalism fix itself, that's what is happening now. Of course all that will be sabotaged when BO's economic recovery begins to save us with monstrous taxes. It will be defeat snatched from the jaws of victory, and unemployment will continue to rise and inflation will skyrocket. Add to that cap & trade and the health care fiasco and BO's buddy Bill Ayers will be left flabbergasted at how much more effective Obama has been than he was in his war against capitalism.

Come on Tracy, don't you realize who Obama is bailing out? He is bailing out your buddies the capitalists! The capitalists are the ones that fucked up the economy with their relentless greed and now we the taxpayers have to save their asses. If it was up to me, I would drag their bonus stuffed asses through the streets! Obama is on your side! :frown::censored:

[TracyCoxx]

Come on Tracy, don't you realize who Obama is bailing out? He is bailing out your buddies the capitalists! The capitalists are the ones that fucked up the economy with their relentless greed and now we the taxpayers have to save their asses. If it was up to me, I would drag their bonus stuffed asses through the streets! Obama is on your side! :frown::censored:

That was old news. It was in their contracts to receive bonuses. The white house doesn't have the authority to change that. Although they would if they allowed the companies to declare bankruptcy. But the method preferred by Omama is to give them millions, and THEN let them go bankrupt. Anyway, the democrats considered ways to prevent them from getting their bonuses. They would do a retroactive tax at about 90%. Just for them. Only thing is that violated the constitution. You can't make a law to punish someone retroactively for something that was legal when they did it. So the white house made it clear to the companies that they would not be handing out the bonuses.

Now for the other side of the story... The asswipes that put those companies in financial trouble were long gone with their large severance pay. The companies hired new executives to clean up the mess. Those executives were payed $1. Their real salary was the bonuses that would come later. So they worked 60-80 hour weeks, restructuring the companies, and putting them back on track financially. Then it comes time for them to receive their bonuses. Their bosses tell them sorry. There will be no bonuses at the request of the president. I hope you understand.

[randolph]

That was old news. It was in their contracts to receive bonuses. The white house doesn't have the authority to change that. Although they would if they allowed the companies to declare bankruptcy. But the method preferred by Omama is to give them millions, and THEN let them go bankrupt. Anyway, the democrats considered ways to prevent them from getting their bonuses. They would do a retroactive tax at about 90%. Just for them. Only thing is that violated the constitution. You can't make a law to punish someone retroactively for something that was legal when they did it. So the white house made it clear to the companies that they would not be handing out the bonuses.

Now for the other side of the story... The asswipes that put those companies in financial trouble were long gone with their large severance pay. The companies hired new executives to clean up the mess. Those executives were payed $1. Their real salary was the bonuses that would come later. So they worked 60-80 hour weeks, restructuring the companies, and putting them back on track financially. Then it comes time for them to receive their bonuses. Their bosses tell them sorry. There will be no bonuses at the request of the president. I hope you understand.

So you believe its Okay for someone to sit behind a computer on wall street, do their job, and get a multimillion dollar bonus? Millions of people are out of work so these guys can get their bonuses. It that just? Is this really a Democracy?
We have a Plutocracy, of, by and for the rich. All of the government money is going to support capitalism. You just don't seem to get it.

Someone once said "doubt is the beginning of wisdom" ;)

[jdawg]

Capitalism often times fixes itself, this is true. What we need to figure out is whether going from crisis to crisis is healthy. Any system that requires bubbles to burst from time to time to such devestating effect on the people isn't a system I want to support.


Now we can also get into the question of whether capitalism can ever be reformed enough to where there isn't a recession every 20 years. I don't believe so. That's not to say that I don't believe in markets completely, I'm a Proudhonian syndicalist, but I don't believe that with our current structures of power we will ever reform this system or any system. In fact reform doesn't work anyways. Revolutionary action is the answer. Not violent revolution, but a complete change of thought and structures for society.

[randolph]

Capitalism often times fixes itself, this is true. What we need to figure out is whether going from crisis to crisis is healthy. Any system that requires bubbles to burst from time to time to such devestating effect on the people isn't a system I want to support.


Now we can also get into the question of whether capitalism can ever be reformed enough to where there isn't a recession every 20 years. I don't believe so. That's not to say that I don't believe in markets completely, I'm a Proudhonian syndicalist, but I don't believe that with our current structures of power we will ever reform this system or any system. In fact reform doesn't work anyways. Revolutionary action is the answer. Not violent revolution, but a complete change of thought and structures for society.

Never heard this term so here is a brief quote.
"What Proudhon really objected to with respect to private property was the earning of income from the labour of others through such means as rent, interest and wage labour. After paying employees their wages, the capitalist retains the remaining profit without contributing any productive labour himself. Associated together, the workers create a productive capacity greater than the sum of their individual powers, but it is the capitalist who reaps the benefit. The workers acquiesce in their own exploitation because their only alternatives are starvation and misery."
This is essentially my complaint about capitalism. The capitalists will exploit the workers any way they can (look at China). The role of government should be to control and restrain the exploitative tendencies of capitalism. Capitalists would be very happy if all there workers were slaves and they kept all the wealth created by the labor of the workers. A democratic society needs to see to it that the capitalists share the wealth with their workers.

[TracyCoxx]

So you believe its Okay for someone to sit behind a computer on wall street, do their job, and get a multimillion dollar bonus? Millions of people are out of work so these guys can get their bonuses. It that just? Is this really a Democracy?

Like I said before, other than the dollar they get, that's pretty much their only salary. And yes, it's ok for someone to get millions to benefit a company making billions. They may do their work on the computer, but that doesn't mean they don't put a hell of a lot of work into it.

Bill Gates became the richest guy in the world because he knew what IBM didn't at the time... that operating systems is where the money is at. Is a single thought in someone's head really worth over $100 billion? Well, actually it was a few thoughts at very strategic moments. The man is a genius at business and he deserves what he has made. I think it's inspiring. Anyone can do it. Republicans believe in peoples potential. Democrats believe that people are incompetent and need help. For an individual, like Bill Gates, to become so powerful that they employ thousands of people and donate over $2 billion/year to charities is not in the democrats plan. They want people to become dependent on the government. They want to control people. That's your kind of democracy.

All of the government money is going to support capitalism. You just don't seem to get it.No, I don't get it, since capitalism refers to an economic and social system in which trade, industry and the means of production are privately controlled. If capitalism is controlled by government money, it's not capitalism. Thanks to BO, you can now exclude Chrysler and GM from capitalism. And the banks too.

Capitalism is fine. Executives getting multi-million dollar bonuses is fine (as long as they are part of the solution). What is NOT fine is what happens when government and big business mix.

For example... Paulson, former head of Goldman Sachs, became treasury secretary. When the financial crisis comes, the first thing he does, besides prop of Fannie & Freddie is let Bear Sterns (a Goldman Sachs competitor) and Lehman Bros (Goldman Sachs largest competitor) fail. When deciding if he should let AIG fail, he had a conference with Lloyd Blankenfein, CEO of Goldman Sachs. They decide, yes bail out AIG with $85 billion. Who's the biggest payout from AIG? Goldman Sachs, for $12.9 billion!

Paulson needs someone to head up TARP. Who does he pick? Neil Cashcarry from Goldman Sachs. Neil decides Goldman Sachs has to be changed into a bank holding company. Which means they now have access to money from TARP, FDIC, and other fed money. Neil is then replaced by Gary Ginsler (yes a partner at Goldman Sachs).

Becoming a bank holding company also gets the SEC off their backs. So who watches over Goldman Sachs now? Steven Friedman, former chairman of Goldman Sachs and now at the Fed. Friedman, overseer of Goldman Sachs also held a lot of stock from Goldman Sachs, and he was also on the board of directors of Goldman Sachs! Gee, isn't that a conflict of interest?

Oh, no it isn't. Timothy Geithner, current secretary of treasury, can we please have someone on the Goldman Sachs board of directors over seeing Goldman Sachs? Sure, no problem. Geithner gives Friedman a temporary 1 year waiver, which allows him to keep his Goldman Sachs stock, stay on the board, and allows him to buy an additional 52000 shares of Goldman Sachs stock, which he makes $3 million off of.

So now Goldman Sachs has a new derivative. They have just purchased 10% of the Chicago Climate Exchange and $1 billion of carbon assets. This is the new currency under the Obama administration.

There's a new lobbyist for Goldman Sachs. Michael Pease. He's joining the director of government affairs. They hired him because their previous lobbyist, Mark Patterson, has just been named the chief of staff for Timothy Geithner. Michael Pease is now in Barney Frank's office.

And yes, I know Paulson was Bush's pick. I didn't favor Bush's Wall Street bailout either. But BO, as usual is taking any of Bush's shortcomings and showing how bad it can really get by allowing this Goldman Sachs crap to continue. And that's only the tip of the ice berg. Much of the spendulous money is going towards other leeches of society, like ACORN and bringing them into the government.

Just take things back to before all the bailouts, get rid of welfare programs like the Community Reinvestment Act, and we're a strong country again. Unfortunately, I think democrats and RINO republicans have damned this country.

[jdawg]

Proudhon was indeed against that, but he came to a different conclusion than yourself. After service in the 1848 government he realised representative democracy was no better than any other system before it. So he became an anarchist. His conclusion was that the workers should control everything as a whole through purely democratic means.



with all of the words like "plutocracy" that you use, you might like anarchist thought. It should be noted that they can be quite outrageous at times and some anarchists were just as socially conservative as the christian right, but overall the writers of the 19th century were amazing.

[randolph]

Proudhon was indeed against that, but he came to a different conclusion than yourself. After service in the 1848 government he realised representative democracy was no better than any other system before it. So he became an anarchist. His conclusion was that the workers should control everything as a whole through purely democratic means.

with all of the words like "plutocracy" that you use, you might like anarchist thought. It should be noted that they can be quite outrageous at times and some anarchists were just as socially conservative as the christian right, but overall the writers of the 19th century were amazing.

Should workers control everything? Not necessarily, there are good examples of worker run companies like Winco and cooperatives like Tillamook the workers at GM are going to have a good stake in the new GM. Capitalists are needed to develop a credit system which enables the economic system to expand. Capitalism can work well when the workers get to participate in the expansion. Henry Ford realized that when he gave his workers five dollars a day wages, it helped build the middle class. In order to maintain a strong middle class we need a fair taxation system and a rational credit system. I am becoming very disappointed with Obama and his financial buddies, they are allowing the financial system is manipulate the funding and vastly expand our tax liabilities. It seems very little of it is going to help people who are laid off and losing their homes.

Yes I feel like an anarchist when I see how the government bends over and lets the capitalists have at it. :coupling::frown:

[randolph]

Like I said before, other than the dollar they get, that's pretty much their only salary. And yes, it's ok for someone to get millions to benefit a company making billions. They may do their work on the computer, but that doesn't mean they don't put a hell of a lot of work into it.

Bill Gates became the richest guy in the world because he knew what IBM didn't at the time... that operating systems is where the money is at. Is a single thought in someone's head really worth over $100 billion? Well, actually it was a few thoughts at very strategic moments. The man is a genius at business and he deserves what he has made. I think it's inspiring. Anyone can do it. Republicans believe in peoples potential. Democrats believe that people are incompetent and need help. For an individual, like Bill Gates, to become so powerful that they employ thousands of people and donate over $2 billion/year to charities is not in the democrats plan. They want people to become dependent on the government. They want to control people. That's your kind of democracy.

No, I don't get it, since capitalism refers to an economic and social system in which trade, industry and the means of production are privately controlled. If capitalism is controlled by government money, it's not capitalism. Thanks to BO, you can now exclude Chrysler and GM from capitalism. And the banks too.

Capitalism is fine. Executives getting multi-million dollar bonuses is fine (as long as they are part of the solution). What is NOT fine is what happens when government and big business mix.

For example... Paulson, former head of Goldman Sachs, became treasury secretary. When the financial crisis comes, the first thing he does, besides prop of Fannie & Freddie is let Bear Sterns (a Goldman Sachs competitor) and Lehman Bros (Goldman Sachs largest competitor) fail. When deciding if he should let AIG fail, he had a conference with Lloyd Blankenfein, CEO of Goldman Sachs. They decide, yes bail out AIG with $85 billion. Who's the biggest payout from AIG? Goldman Sachs, for $12.9 billion!

Paulson needs someone to head up TARP. Who does he pick? Neil Cashcarry from Goldman Sachs. Neil decides Goldman Sachs has to be changed into a bank holding company. Which means they now have access to money from TARP, FDIC, and other fed money. Neil is then replaced by Gary Ginsler (yes a partner at Goldman Sachs).

Becoming a bank holding company also gets the SEC off their backs. So who watches over Goldman Sachs now? Steven Friedman, former chairman of Goldman Sachs and now at the Fed. Friedman, overseer of Goldman Sachs also held a lot of stock from Goldman Sachs, and he was also on the board of directors of Goldman Sachs! Gee, isn't that a conflict of interest?

Oh, no it isn't. Timothy Geithner, current secretary of treasury, can we please have someone on the Goldman Sachs board of directors over seeing Goldman Sachs? Sure, no problem. Geithner gives Friedman a temporary 1 year waiver, which allows him to keep his Goldman Sachs stock, stay on the board, and allows him to buy an additional 52000 shares of Goldman Sachs stock, which he makes $3 million off of.

So now Goldman Sachs has a new derivative. They have just purchased 10% of the Chicago Climate Exchange and $1 billion of carbon assets. This is the new currency under the Obama administration.

There's a new lobbyist for Goldman Sachs. Michael Pease. He's joining the director of government affairs. They hired him because their previous lobbyist, Mark Patterson, has just been named the chief of staff for Timothy Geithner. Michael Pease is now in Barney Frank's office.

And yes, I know Paulson was Bush's pick. I didn't favor Bush's Wall Street bailout either. But BO, as usual is taking any of Bush's shortcomings and showing how bad it can really get by allowing this Goldman Sachs crap to continue. And that's only the tip of the ice berg. Much of the spendulous money is going towards other leeches of society, like ACORN and bringing them into the government.

Just take things back to before all the bailouts, get rid of welfare programs like the Community Reinvestment Act, and we're a strong country again. Unfortunately, I think democrats and RINO republicans have damned this country.

If the government has a stake in a stock company, I don't see why that automatically makes the company non-capitalist. It will still function in a capitalist way within the economic system. Some companies should be owned by the public like utilities and health care facilities, they provide essential services that everyone needs. Manufacturing companies that provide goods for sale work best in the competitive environment of private enterprise. ;)

[randolph]

I always knew Fox news was stupid but this is over the top. :lol:

[ila]

I always knew Fox news was stupid but this is over the top. :lol:

I see Egypt moved and changed the shape of its borders. The big question is what happened to Iraq?

[TracyCoxx]

I always knew Fox news was stupid but this is over the top. :lol:

OMG LOL. Reminds me of when CNN said 18 crew members on the space station were getting ready to evacuate. There were only 3 at the time.

[sesame]

Its good to be back.
But it feels better to see the old homely atmosphere. Tracy, Randolph and Hank fighting over politics... forever.

Mind you, I didnt say US Politics, as this topic is over Obama. Thats because, whatever these Bigbosses do, their effects are seen all over the world for decades. So, I guess its international politics. Also, theres Mrs. Clinton, touring the world, sealing nuclear deals and selling weapons all over the planet.

[randolph]

How Government Works
Once upon a time the government had a vast scrap yard in the middle of a desert.
Congress said, "Someone may steal from it at night." So they created a night watchman position and hired a person for the job.

Then Congress said, "How does the watchman do his job without instruction?" So they created a planning department and hired two people, one person to write the instructions, and one person to do time studies.

Then Congress said, "How will we know the night watchman is doing the tasks correctly?" So they created a Quality Control department and hired two people. One to do the studies and one to write the reports.

Then Congress said, "How are these people going to get paid?" So they created the following positions, a time keeper, and a payroll officer, then hired two people.

Then Congress said, "Who will be accountable for all of these people?" So they created an administrative section and hired three people, an Administrative Officer, Assistant Administrative Officer, and a Legal Secretary.

Then Congress said, "We have had this command in operation for one year and we are $18,000 over budget, we must cutback overall cost." So they laid off the night watchman. ;)

[transjen]

How Government Works
Once upon a time the government had a vast scrap yard in the middle of a desert.
Congress said, "Someone may steal from it at night." So they created a night watchman position and hired a person for the job.

Then Congress said, "How does the watchman do his job without instruction?" So they created a planning department and hired two people, one person to write the instructions, and one person to do time studies.

Then Congress said, "How will we know the night watchman is doing the tasks correctly?" So they created a Quality Control department and hired two people. One to do the studies and one to write the reports.

Then Congress said, "How are these people going to get paid?" So they created the following positions, a time keeper, and a payroll officer, then hired two people.

Then Congress said, "Who will be accountable for all of these people?" So they created an administrative section and hired three people, an Administrative Officer, Assistant Administrative Officer, and a Legal Secretary.

Then Congress said, "We have had this command in operation for one year and we are $18,000 over budget, we must cutback overall cost." So they laid off the night watchman. ;) :lol: Jersygirl Jen

[transjen]

Ok i'm going to throw this question out there.
What do you think about the US going with a so cared universal heathcare? And should abortations be covered? Not talking about the cases where the mothers life is endangered just the woman doesn't want the baby. And should SRS be covered?
:cool: Jersygirl Jen

[randolph]

Ok i'm going to throw this question out there.
What do you think about the US going with a so cared universal heathcare? And should abortations be covered? Not talking about the cases where the mothers life is endangered just the woman doesn't want the baby. And should SRS be covered?
:cool: Jersygirl Jen

Boy, this topic should generate some opinions.
Mine- We need universal health care, period. The Bush tax cuts to the rich would have paid for it. SRS is a complex of diseases and should be treated by health care. Abortions? If a women doesn't want her baby, she should give it away for adoption! If she doesn't want a pregnancy she should pay for the abortion and learn how not to get pregnant.
Humm, I guess trannys could make girls pregnant, if they have the balls to do it. Although, I don't think anyone ever got pregnant through anal sex. :lol:
;)
Question? are tranny sperm gay? :eek:

[TracyCoxx]

How Government Works
Once upon a time...
So true. And exactly why the government should not take over banks, car companies or health care.

[franalexes]

Holly crap Jen! You didn't step in a puddle, you went for the whole ocean!

Anyway, that said, abortion is the taking of a life. It is similar to capital punishment. I support both, but only for those that truely deserve it.

Think about my answer a long time before responding.

[randolph]

From Tracy,
Bill Gates became the richest guy in the world because he knew what IBM didn't at the time... that operating systems is where the money is at. Is a single thought in someone's head really worth over $100 billion? Well, actually it was a few thoughts at very strategic moments. The man is a genius at business and he deserves what he has made. I think it's inspiring. Anyone can do it. Republicans believe in peoples potential. Democrats believe that people are incompetent and need help. For an individual, like Bill Gates, to become so powerful that they employ thousands of people and donate over $2 billion/year to charities is not in the democrats plan. They want people to become dependent on the government. They want to control people. That's your kind of democracy.
Tracy,
This is total BS. Gates was incredibly lucky to get the contract to supply IBM's PC with a disk operating system. He adapted much of the PC DOS system from CPM. He made millions by being a monopoly and IBM's naive belief that the PC would be a novelty with little market potential.

Democrats believe people are incompetent?
The rich have an overwhelming advantage over the rest of us. The little guys need some help to become competitive and as a businessman my self, I can assure you, the rich will do everything in their power to stay being rich and that includes doing in the competition any way they can. :yes:

[randolph]

Holly crap Jen! You didn't step in a puddle, you went for the whole ocean!

Anyway, that said, abortion is the taking of a life. It is similar to capital punishment. I support both, but only for those that truely deserve it.

Think about my answer a long time before responding.

From what you say. Do you believe a fetus could deserve to be aborted? :frown:

[randolph]

So true. And exactly why the government should not take over banks, car companies or health care.

Yes, i knew you would agree with this. It is an exaggeration, obviously. The problem is, do we put up with some inefficiency of a government health care system or a private health care system that denies sick people the help they need. Actually, Medicare costs have risen significantly slower than private health care services. I presume you have health care, probably provided by your employer. What if you get laid off and you have no health care, think about it. The other problem with private health care is that even with private health care many people are going bankrupt over medical costs anyway. :frown:

[TracyCoxx]

Ok i'm going to throw this question out there.
What do you think about the US going with a so cared universal heathcare? And should abortations be covered? Not talking about the cases where the mothers life is endangered just the woman doesn't want the baby. And should SRS be covered?
:cool: Jersygirl Jen
Universal health care obviously should be DOA. My mom emailed me complaining about the health care package they are considering. As a sr citizen she is rightly worried that healthcare will be cut for seniors so that illegal aliens. This is insanity.

Here's what Dr. Dave Janda, keynote speaker at a congressional dinner had to say...

The underlying method of cutting costs throughout the plan is based on rationing and denying care. There is no focus on preventing health care need whatever. The plan's method is the most inhumane and unethical approach to cutting costs I can imagine as a physician.

The rationing of care is implemented through The National Health Care Board, according to the plan. This illustrious Board "will approve or reject treatment for patients based on the cost per treatment divided by the number of years the patient will benefit from the treatment."

Translation.....if you are over 65 or have been recently diagnosed as having an advanced form of cardiac disease or aggressive cancer.....dream on if you think you will get treated.....pick out your coffin.

Oh, you say this could never happen? Sorry.... this is the same model they use in Britain.

The plan mandates that there will be little or no advanced treatments to be available in the future. It creates The Federal Coordinating Council For Comparative Effectiveness Research, the purpose of which is "to slow the development of new medications and technologies in order to reduce costs." Yes, this is to be the law.

It goes on to say......"Doctors and hospitals not adhering to guidelines will face penalties." According to those in Congress, penalties could include large six figure financial fines and possible imprisonment.

So according to The ObamaCare Plan.....if your doctor saves your life you migh t have to go to the prison to see your doctor for follow -up appointments. I believe this is the same model Stalin used in the former Soviet Union.

Section 102 has the Orwellian title, "Protecting the Choice to Keep Current Coverage." What this section really mandates is that it is illegal to keep your private insurance if your status changes - e.g., if you lose or change your job, retire from your job and become a senior, graduate from college and get your first job. Yes, illegal.

Then ther e is Section 1233 of The ObamaCare Plan, devoted to "Advanced Care Planning." After each American turns 65 years of age they have to go to a mandated counseling program that is designed to end life sooner.

This session is to occur every 5 years unless the person has developed a chronic illness then it must be done every year. The topics in this session will include, "how to decline hydration, nutrition and how to initiate hospice care." It is no wonder The Obama Administration does not like my emphasis on Prevention. For Mr. Obama, prevention is the "enemy" as people would live longer.

After I finished my Capitol Hill presentation, I was asked by a Congressman in the question-answer session: "I'll be doing a number of network interviews on the Obama Health Care Plan. If I am asked what is the one word to describe the plan what should I answer?"

The answer is simple, honest, direct, analytical, sad but truthful. I told him that one word is FASCIST.

Then I added, "I hope you'll have the courage to use that word, Congressman. No other word is more appropriate."

Suck it Obama

[TracyCoxx]

The problem is, do we put up with some inefficiency of a government health care system or a private health care system that denies sick people the help they need.BO's plan also denies sick people the help they need... see above.

I presume you have health care, probably provided by your employer. What if you get laid off and you have no health care, think about it.Then I would be screwed. Because then my status would change and I would be forced to change to the national health care plan, rather than get other private insurance coverage when I get another job.

[randolph]

A significant portion of Medicare costs are in the last six months of a persons life. Does this make sense?:no:

[TracyCoxx]

Democrats believe people are incompetent?
The rich have an overwhelming advantage over the rest of us. The little guys need some help to become competitive and as a businessman my self, I can assure you, the rich will do everything in their power to stay being rich and that includes doing in the competition any way they can.

So any guy off the street that wants to start a business should be profitable? And if he is not, then more successful companies should be penalized? Shoo... Away with you.

[randolph]

Dr Dave Janda is a well known physician in the sports medicine field. He obviously has put a very negative spin on public health care. Is what he says really the way the system would work or is he spinning things out of context. I haven't heard such a negative view from other reviewers of the proposed system. :frown:

[randolph]

So any guy off the street that wants to start a business should be profitable? And if he is not, then more successful companies should be penalized? Shoo... Away with you.

I don't think what you are saying has anything to with what I said.

For many years I ran a small business. We didn't make much money but we supported about eight families. Running a business is not easy, I can assure you. I have dealt with local bureaucrats, state bureaucrats and federal bureaucrats. They all suck. The big guys get the premium treatment.
By the way, did you know that Bill Gates paid the salaries of several employees in the local building department so the department would expedite his building plans? :frown:

[transjen]

Dr Dave Janda is a well known physician in the sports medicine field. He obviously has put a very negative spin on public health care. Is what he says really the way the system would work or is he spinning things out of context. I haven't heard such a negative view from other reviewers of the proposed system. :frown: Can you say SCARE TACTICS, His worst nightmare is universal health care that would derail his gravey train so he's pulling out the Carl Rove play book and want's to scare everyone in to accepting the messed up health system


:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

[randolph]

The chart shows the tarp money loaned to the banks, the amount paid back and the amount of bonuses paid to employees. Obama doesn't seem to mind this. This really pisses me off. :censored::censored::censored:

[randolph]

Can you say SCARE TACTICS, His worst nightmare is universal health care that would derail his gravey train so he's pulling out the Carl Rove play book and want's to scare everyone in to accepting the messed up health system




:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

A comparison of health care costs. So is private health care more efficient?

[The Conquistador]

Suck it Obama

Hey Tracy! Can Obama and I switch places? He doesn't deserve the privlige of having a womans cock in his mouth.

[randolph]

Hey Tracy! Can Obama and I switch places? He doesn't deserve the privlige of having a womans cock in his mouth.

Okay Mr. Post, I would issue a word of caution. Tracy's cock may be desirable, however, you may be subjected to hours of right wing political rhetoric trickling down from the ultimate conservative spin machine, the Heritage Foundation. ;):lol:

[TracyCoxx]

Hey Tracy! Can Obama and I switch places? He doesn't deserve the privlige of having a womans cock in his mouth.
Please do. I wouldn't want that commie touching me anyway. Sexy commies like Jen are ok though :yes:

Okay Mr. Post, I would issue a word of caution. Tracy's cock may be desirable, however, you may be subjected to hours of right wing political rhetoric trickling down from the ultimate conservative spin machine, the Heritage Foundation. ;):lol:
No, I promise no soapbox while my cock is being sucked.:turnon:

[randolph]

Please do. I wouldn't want that commie touching me anyway. Sexy commies like Jen are ok though :yes:


No, I promise no soapbox while my cock is being sucked.:turnon:

So, I guess you don't consider Obama a commie? ;):lol: