"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
On Sun, 01 Mar 2009 11:18:44 -0500, hpeer wrote:
Stephen Trapani wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 11:51:36 -0500, Marty wrote:
Jon, I think he must be really great, President for only 40 days and
already decisions made by 10 years of Republican Congresses and 8
years of Republican Presidency are his fault! Now that's talent!
More interesting is how all of these guys got into financial trouble
in only 40 days. That's talent also.
That said, this really isn't the right place.
In order to fervently believe what we want to believe we have to
desperately ignore what we have to ignore in order to think that the
Congress has been controlled by Republicans for the last four years.
Whatever you do, *don't* actually check this easily checked fact
anywhere, like, say, he
Instead, use blinding strategies like maybe ridicule this **** out of
this post so you can continue to blame who you've been blaming, instead
of learning anything new. After all, we wouldn't all want to be
supporting a large increase in the same thing we've been doing for the
last four years, would we? That would be insane!
The problem is that Congress has been ruled by POLITICIANS, whatever
their ilk. People whose only goal is to get reelected. No fish monger
ever cried "Bad fish for sale!"
The problem is the people who perfumed over the stink figuring they were
going to get a piece of the profit.
People vote for who tells them what they want to hear. Forget the 2000
election. Who voted for W in 2004? The People! Idiots.
So don't blame Bush now, and don't blame Obama in 2012. They are merely
characters in a play - speaking their lines - written by "We The People."
In fact, while I don't remember exactly what Obama said during the
primary and the campaign the overwhelming recollection I have is that
he intended to "bring the boys home" right now! Of course, once
elected "right now" isn't exactly "this instance" it is "sometime next
year", "the year after", "well, maybe in a while".
He was reported on the news, over here, as saying that he is going to
balance the budget by "cutting government expenditures and taxing rich
people" which seems a little misleading coming, as it did, just after
the reporting that it was "the biggest bail-out in history".
My impression is that Obama, to give him all the credit due was simply
the better "politician". and I suppose deserves to be President.
On the other hand, I have the sneaking suspicion that it may not make
much difference what party is in power as if the boat has a big hole
in it all you can do is bail.
Bruce in Bangkok
He said 16 mos. It's now going to be 19, plus longer for core troops. I
think he's following the advise he's being given by the generals and
following his campaign promise as best he can.
I don't think what he's attempting to do is misleading, although it may not
be intuitive. The short term needs to be dealt with in the, um, short term.
The longer term is next.
"j" ganz @@