|
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
On Feb 6, 4:11 pm, (Way Back Jack) wrote:
On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 12:57:31 -0800 (PST), marcia wrote: Get it out of the pockets of the right-wing bankers who tanked the economy Didn't realize that Franklin Raines of Freddie and the other idiot at Fannie were right-wingers. Not to mention the Fed. Govt, pressuring the right-wing bankers to make home loans to deadbeats. And it was Jimmy Carter's "Community Reinvestment Act" that started the ball rolling. Willie kept it rolling when he rewrote regulations that would have prevented much of the abuse. You are aware of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996 (PRWOR, aka "welfare reform") that took place under Clinton, limiting the amount of time an individual can be eligible for welfare, and enforcing work and/or education requirements on most recipients, right? Yeah, a conservative Congress compromised with Willie into changing AFDC into TANF, but abuse still prevails. Abuse will always prevail whenever humans are involved. You don't think there was any abuse by wealthy bankers of the $350 billion tossed at financial institutions? Yeah, I know: Whatever goes wrong, it's always the liberals' and never the conservatives' fault (or vice-versa). That's why I typically stay out of the political threads. It's my understanding (I'll have to find a cite because I haven't discussed this in awhile) that the Community Reinvestment Act mortgages actually out-perform standard commercial mortgages. I've read the act, and it *clearly* states loans are to be made using sound business practices. The real problem loans were the ninjas (no income, no job or assets) -- the no-documentation loans -- that were popular prior to the real estate bubble popping. You really can't blame that on either party. Also, the Democrats had nothing to do with the banks converting all those bad ARMS and ninja loans (most of which were *not* part of government mandates) into complex derivatives that now can't be disentangled for refinancing. Nor did the Democrats have anything to do with financial institutions leveraging their investments 40:1, which is *way* beyond typical accepted practice (ask Greenspan). |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
On Feb 6, 4:13 pm, "Gregory Hall" wrote:
"marcia" wrote in message ... On Feb 6, 3:43 pm, "Gregory Hall" wrote: "marcia" wrote in message ... On Feb 6, 3:14 pm, "Gregory Hall" wrote: "marcia" wrote in message ... Or, people who don't rely on welfare or medicaid, but whom Jack doesn't approve of receiving SSDI because his crystal ball says they're too healthy to get it. Also in Jack's world: Once on disability, always on disability. Once on disability = always a leach. Even if you can't work because of a disability it's your family's responsibility or the responsibility of church and charities if you have no family members. Why has it become your RIGHT to force me as a taxpayer to take care of you because you are disabled, in many cases self-inflected either by stupidity or sloth. (I use 'you' figuratively speaking this isn't necessarily meant as a personal attack.) How about you liberals reach into your OWN pockets for money and take your filthy hands out of mine? -- Gregory Hall Why is it conservatives' arguments always seem to assume liberals don't practice what they preach? *Everyone* who works pays into Social Security, not just Republicans. I pay into it; disabled people (in most cases) paid into it before they became disabled. You don't like welfare and disability; I'm not particularly happy about how much money we spend on the military, particularly on the war in Iraq, where we never should have gone to begin with. I'm not happy about underwriting corporate welfare, or the fact that my tax dollars were partially used to subsidize year-end bonuses for the financial "geniuses" who were largely responsible for the current state of our economy. We individual taxpayers don't get to pick and choose how our dollars are spent. We're all stuck paying for some programs and policies we don't personally support. Why is that, Marcia? Well, the answer is simple. It is liberals and socialists who forced these welfare programs on everybody. Conservatives want nothing to do with them but are forced to contribute anyway. So when I say take your filthy hands out of my pocket and reach into your own instead you liberals say, "**** you - we're gonna make everybody pay whether they want to or not." In other words charity doesn't start at home for a liberal. Charity starts by reaching into somebody else's pocket. It's all too easy being generous with somebody else's money, isn't it. But when it comes to donating your own you liberals are such a stingy lot.http://digg.com/politics/Conservativ...e_30_more_than... That's the difference. -- Gregory Hall Okay, Greg. Take my money out of Iraq. Get it out of the pockets of the right-wing bankers who tanked the economy. Give me back my portion of the money that went to the oil companies who continue making record profits every quarter, without reinvesting in refineries, etc., and instead invest in green energy. It doesn't work like that, Marcia. When you agree to have taxes taken out of your paycheck you have no say as to how they are spent. You can't vote for taxes and then whine out loud that you expect to have a say in how they are used. It's too late after the horse is out of the barn. Exactly my point, Greg. Many of us like the programs you despise and despise the programs you like, so we're all paying for *some* things we don't approve of because we have no control over how the budget is spent. And you're totally wrong about it being bankers who tanked the economy. It was left-wing policies, namely banks being supported by liberals like Barney Frank assisted by the liberal CEO's of Fanny May and Freddy Mac, to lend money for mortages to minorities and other people who could not possibly pay back the loans. (Community Reinvestment Act - the root cause liberal legislation) These bad loans were bought up by Freddy and Fanny and packaged and sold on up the line. When it came to the point where these people who could not possibly pay off loans they never should have been given in the first place started defaulting in droves then the whole Ponzi scheme came tumbling down. This was largely percipitated by oil going up to 150 dollars a barrel and gasoline, diesel and heating oil prices skyrocketing so people used up all their mortgage money paying for energy. This is also caused by liberal polices that restrict drilling and exploration for new petroleum reserves. That's just plain wrong. Read my response about mortgages to Way Back Jack, because I don't want to type the whole damned thing again. See where I'm going with this? The Republicans initiated a few programs/policies/wars I don't approve of, but still have to finance. Doesn't matter. The minute you approve of any taxes you give tacit approval of all the things those taxes are used for. As long as you are for any income taxes or payroll taxes you have lost total control of how and where they are spent. I understand that, but don't see any viable alternative. What's your solution? Anarchy? You are aware of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996 (PRWOR, aka "welfare reform") that took place under Clinton, limiting the amount of time an individual can be eligible for welfare, and enforcing work and/or education requirements on most recipients, right? Was that the one the Republican majority in congress crammed down his unwilling throat? Is that how you remember it? -- Gregory Hall |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
On Feb 6, 4:34 pm, Robb wrote:
Whiner, spray Tax and Fruitcake remover on your paycheck. ROFL! That was the highlight of my day. I'm gonna steal that line. :) |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
"Robb" wrote in message
... Gregory Hall wrote: "marcia" wrote in message news:b7697920-1841-4e1f-a97a- ... On Feb 6, 3:43 pm, "Gregory Hall" wrote: "marcia" wrote in message news:e69fbbc4-28d9-4b44- ... On Feb 6, 3:14 pm, "Gregory Hall" wrote: "marcia" wrote in message news:f70e74df-b388-404b- ... Or, people who don't rely on welfare or medicaid, but whom Jack doesn't approve of receiving SSDI because his crystal ball says they're too healthy to get it. Also in Jack's world: Once on disability, always on disability. Once on disability = always a leach. Even if you can't work because of a disability it's your family's responsibility or the responsibility of church and charities if you have no family members. Why has it become your RIGHT to force me as a taxpayer to take care of you because you are disabled, in many cases self-inflected either by stupidity or sloth. (I use 'you' figuratively speaking this isn't necessarily meant as a personal attack.) How about you liberals reach into your OWN pockets for money and take your filthy hands out of mine? -- Gregory Hall Why is it conservatives' arguments always seem to assume liberals don't practice what they preach? *Everyone* who works pays into Social Security, not just Republicans. I pay into it; disabled people (in most cases) paid into it before they became disabled. You don't like welfare and disability; I'm not particularly happy about how much money we spend on the military, particularly on the war in Iraq, where we never should have gone to begin with. I'm not happy about underwriting corporate welfare, or the fact that my tax dollars were partially used to subsidize year-end bonuses for the financial "geniuses" who were largely responsible for the current state of our economy. We individual taxpayers don't get to pick and choose how our dollars are spent. We're all stuck paying for some programs and policies we don't personally support. Why is that, Marcia? Well, the answer is simple. It is liberals and socialists who forced these welfare programs on everybody. Conservatives want nothing to do with them but are forced to contribute anyway. So when I say take your filthy hands out of my pocket and reach into your own instead you liberals say, "**** you - we're gonna make everybody pay whether they want to or not." In other words charity doesn't start at home for a liberal. Charity starts by reaching into somebody else's pocket. It's all too easy being generous with somebody else's money, isn't it. But when it comes to donating your own you liberals are such a stingy lot.http://digg.com/politics/ Conservatives_charitably_donate_30_more_than... That's the difference. -- Gregory Hall Okay, Greg. Take my money out of Iraq. Get it out of the pockets of the right-wing bankers who tanked the economy. Give me back my portion of the money that went to the oil companies who continue making record profits every quarter, without reinvesting in refineries, etc., and instead invest in green energy. It doesn't work like that, Marcia. When you agree to have taxes taken out of your paycheck you have no say as to how they are spent. You can't vote for taxes and then whine out loud that you expect to have a say in how they are used. It's too late after the horse is out of the barn. And you're totally wrong about it being bankers who tanked the economy. It was left-wing policies, namely banks being supported by liberals like Barney Frank assisted by the liberal CEO's of Fanny May and Freddy Mac, to lend money for mortages to minorities and other people who could not possibly pay back the loans. (Community Reinvestment Act - the root cause liberal legislation) These bad loans were bought up by Freddy and Fanny and packaged and sold on up the line. When it came to the point where these people who could not possibly pay off loans they never should have been given in the first place started defaulting in droves then the whole Ponzi scheme came tumbling down. This was largely percipitated by oil going up to 150 dollars a barrel and gasoline, diesel and heating oil prices skyrocketing so people used up all their mortgage money paying for energy. This is also caused by liberal polices that restrict drilling and exploration for new petroleum reserves. You wingnuts have perfect insight (by virtue of hindsight), I love the way Repugs insist that people would rather have a car than a house. Until winter, or the middle of summer. Yeah. See where I'm going with this? The Republicans initiated a few programs/policies/wars I don't approve of, but still have to finance. Doesn't matter. The minute you approve of any taxes you give tacit approval of all the things those taxes are used for. As long as you are for any income taxes or payroll taxes you have lost total control of how and where they are spent. Whiner, spray Tax and Fruitcake remover on your paycheck. You are aware of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996 (PRWOR, aka "welfare reform") that took place under Clinton, limiting the amount of time an individual can be eligible for welfare, and enforcing work and/or education requirements on most recipients, right? Was that the one the Republican majority in congress crammed down his unwilling throat? Google hates you? You're another of those liberal history revisionists, huh? Read it and weep: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...3133219AANXEA3 "Q: What about the political landscape in 1996-and the realities of the welfare state-pushed welfare reform to the top of the agenda in 1996 and made its passage possible? "A: Then-governor Bill Clinton surprised Republicans by making welfare reform a major issue in his 1992 campaign. His skillful use of welfare reform was a key ingredient in his victory, especially in battleground states like Ohio. But when President Clinton failed to push welfare reform, Republicans in the House formed working groups to draft legislation that they believed would revolutionize several of the nation's major welfare programs and save money for taxpayers. With Congressional Republicans united behind a revolutionary welfare reform bill, and with Clinton and the Democratic Party badly divided on welfare reform, the shocking elections of 1994 gave Republicans control of both the House and the Senate. Another factor pushing welfare reform to the top of the agenda was public support. Polls showed that the public favored work over welfare by huge margins. Another important factor was strong evidence that the old system, which gave people cash without expecting anything in return, contributed to making people dependent on welfare and to having babies outside marriage. When the moment of truth arrived in 1996, the old welfare system had no serious defenders." Like I said, it was crammed down Clinton's throat. He used welfare reform to get elected but never had the first intention of actually reforming it. Typical lying liberal. -- Gregory Hall |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 13:25:18 -0800 (PST), marcia
wrote: On Feb 6, 4:11 pm, (Way Back Jack) wrote: On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 12:57:31 -0800 (PST), marcia wrote: Get it out of the pockets of the right-wing bankers who tanked the economy Didn't realize that Franklin Raines of Freddie and the other idiot at Fannie were right-wingers. Not to mention the Fed. Govt, pressuring the right-wing bankers to make home loans to deadbeats. And it was Jimmy Carter's "Community Reinvestment Act" that started the ball rolling. Willie kept it rolling when he rewrote regulations that would have prevented much of the abuse. You are aware of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996 (PRWOR, aka "welfare reform") that took place under Clinton, limiting the amount of time an individual can be eligible for welfare, and enforcing work and/or education requirements on most recipients, right? Yeah, a conservative Congress compromised with Willie into changing AFDC into TANF, but abuse still prevails. Abuse will always prevail whenever humans are involved. You don't think there was any abuse by wealthy bankers of the $350 billion tossed at financial institutions? Yeah, I know: Whatever goes wrong, it's always the liberals' and never the conservatives' fault (or vice-versa). That's why I typically stay out of the political threads. It's my understanding (I'll have to find a cite because I haven't discussed this in awhile) that the Community Reinvestment Act mortgages actually out-perform standard commercial mortgages. I've read the act, and it *clearly* states loans are to be made using sound business practices. The real problem loans were the ninjas (no income, no job or assets) -- the no-documentation loans -- that were popular prior to the real estate bubble popping. You really can't blame that on either party. Also, the Democrats had nothing to do with the banks converting all those bad ARMS and ninja loans (most of which were *not* part of government mandates) into complex derivatives that now can't be disentangled for refinancing. Nor did the Democrats have anything to do with financial institutions leveraging their investments 40:1, which is *way* beyond typical accepted practice (ask Greenspan). There's plenty of blame to go around but the MSM absolutely refuses to recognize Clinton's rewrite in 1994 when he unveiled his National Homeownership Strategy, which broadened the CRA in ways Congress never intended. |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
On 06 Feb 2009 21:38:13 GMT, Robb wrote:
Way Back Jack wrote: Yeah, a conservative Congress compromised with Willie into changing AFDC into TANF, but abuse still prevails. Ever going to migrate to the new century Wayback? How many "enterprises" are capable of abusing various states debit systems, anyhow? I'll migrate into socialism with fists flying and feet kicking, twinky. |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
"Way Back Jack" wrote in message
... On 06 Feb 2009 21:38:13 GMT, Robb wrote: Way Back Jack wrote: Yeah, a conservative Congress compromised with Willie into changing AFDC into TANF, but abuse still prevails. Ever going to migrate to the new century Wayback? How many "enterprises" are capable of abusing various states debit systems, anyhow? I'll migrate into socialism with fists flying and feet kicking, twinky. And guns blazing in my case. -- Gregory Hall |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
On Feb 6, 9:17*am, marcia wrote:
On Feb 5, 10:08 pm, "Piltdown Man" wrote: A brilliant genius! Sez a sock with seven posts to its name, all in groups where Gregory Hall/Capt. Neal hangs out. Pitiful when you have to sock up to boost your own ego. relevant groups added Why should you be surprised that Greggie does this? |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
In article ,
says... On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 16:12:57 -0500, Kali wrote: In article , says... On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 15:07:58 -0500, Kali wrote: In article , says... On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 13:35:04 -0500, Kali wrote: In article , says... Marcia wrote in reference to my antipathy toward most things liberal (paraphrased): Jack, that's a strange attitude for someone who worked at SSA. _______ Yeah, I have this belief that society has a duty to help those who cannot work because of a physical or mental impairment, as opposed to redistributing the wealth to healthy welfare mammies, mammy. Just another example of my contradictory nature. ____ Posted from alt.free.newsservers So, people who rely on welfare for 6 mos - 2 years for medicaid and food while waiting for SS to be approved are welfare mammies, then when their SS is approved, they are worthy of help. What part of "healthy" don't you understand? Ok, let's take what he said literally. I'll read "healthy welfare mammies" as young, single, black mothers, living at or below the poverty level. Are white ones ok - the 18 year-old daughter of a laid off steel worker, for example? What about males? They aren't mammies, so are they ok for food stamps and medical assistance? What hand-outs designed to help these people get off the govt teet, like job training and Pell grants for college? Who will watch "welfare mammies" babies while they are at work, or school? Who gets help and who doesn't? You make a lot of presumptions regarding race, sex, etc. "welfare mammies" http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/mammies/more/ They come in all flavors. A thought cop or just being disingenuous, perhaps. You know about whom I am talking. "welfare mammies" http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/mammies/more/ They come in all flavors, but if you think I'm not including the pale varirty, perhaps next time I'll say "welfare mammies and sows." Iz zat better? So just the females who get pregnant and have babies. Single and married? Just the single ones? What about the fathers of those children, presumably the "pappies" and the "boars"? And while we're on the subject of "welfare mammies" - who is opposed to funding for family planning, sex education, birth control, abortion, educational assistance, job finding assistance, and child care? The same people who bitch about "welfare mammies". -- Kali With the exception of educational assistance, I'm absolutely against of those left-wing abominations, Hillary. Your solution for poverty? -- Kali It starts with responsible parenting. Are people so ****ing stupid so as not to realize that they should not make babies until they are established? But they don't ca da gubmint will take care of 'em. That's what LBJ told the mammies / sows when he promised us all cradle-to-grave entitlement but delivered the massive welfare state we have today. How about those fathers? It continues with those parents teaching personal responsibility and making the effort to leave the liberals' victim plantation of dependence and self-pity. People who live in poverty have no sense of personal responsibility? Sex education should be delivered by parents. You want to spend taxpayer money to teach Junior and Sally to wait until they're married and most importantly be MONOGAMOUS? They're not going to listen to those "educators" anyway; they certainly haven't the past 50 years. I want children to be educated about sexual reproduction, hormonal changes in young adulthood, birth control options and resources, and STDs and AIDS. Job-finding? Get your nose into the want-ads; you want Uncle Sam to lead you by the hand to employers' doors? Do you know anything about poverty and opportunity? Yeah, I'm all for low-interest or even no-interest tuition money for those needy students who crave education and treat education as a precious gift as we see among many Asians and Jews, Asians and Jews? but for most of the rest of your socialist perks, fahgetaboutit. Your ignorance won't help solve the problem of poverty. Socialism doesn't solve it, but since you mention socialism, may as well mention that capitalism doesn't solve it, either. -- Kali |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
"Kali" wrote in message
... In article , says... On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 16:12:57 -0500, Kali wrote: In article , says... On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 15:07:58 -0500, Kali wrote: In article , says... On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 13:35:04 -0500, Kali wrote: In article , says... Marcia wrote in reference to my antipathy toward most things liberal (paraphrased): Jack, that's a strange attitude for someone who worked at SSA. _______ Yeah, I have this belief that society has a duty to help those who cannot work because of a physical or mental impairment, as opposed to redistributing the wealth to healthy welfare mammies, mammy. Just another example of my contradictory nature. ____ Posted from alt.free.newsservers So, people who rely on welfare for 6 mos - 2 years for medicaid and food while waiting for SS to be approved are welfare mammies, then when their SS is approved, they are worthy of help. What part of "healthy" don't you understand? Ok, let's take what he said literally. I'll read "healthy welfare mammies" as young, single, black mothers, living at or below the poverty level. Are white ones ok - the 18 year-old daughter of a laid off steel worker, for example? What about males? They aren't mammies, so are they ok for food stamps and medical assistance? What hand-outs designed to help these people get off the govt teet, like job training and Pell grants for college? Who will watch "welfare mammies" babies while they are at work, or school? Who gets help and who doesn't? You make a lot of presumptions regarding race, sex, etc. "welfare mammies" http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/mammies/more/ They come in all flavors. A thought cop or just being disingenuous, perhaps. You know about whom I am talking. "welfare mammies" http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/mammies/more/ They come in all flavors, but if you think I'm not including the pale varirty, perhaps next time I'll say "welfare mammies and sows." Iz zat better? So just the females who get pregnant and have babies. Single and married? Just the single ones? What about the fathers of those children, presumably the "pappies" and the "boars"? And while we're on the subject of "welfare mammies" - who is opposed to funding for family planning, sex education, birth control, abortion, educational assistance, job finding assistance, and child care? The same people who bitch about "welfare mammies". -- Kali With the exception of educational assistance, I'm absolutely against of those left-wing abominations, Hillary. Your solution for poverty? -- Kali It starts with responsible parenting. Are people so ****ing stupid so as not to realize that they should not make babies until they are established? But they don't ca da gubmint will take care of 'em. That's what LBJ told the mammies / sows when he promised us all cradle-to-grave entitlement but delivered the massive welfare state we have today. How about those fathers? It continues with those parents teaching personal responsibility and making the effort to leave the liberals' victim plantation of dependence and self-pity. People who live in poverty have no sense of personal responsibility? Sex education should be delivered by parents. You want to spend taxpayer money to teach Junior and Sally to wait until they're married and most importantly be MONOGAMOUS? They're not going to listen to those "educators" anyway; they certainly haven't the past 50 years. I want children to be educated about sexual reproduction, hormonal changes in young adulthood, birth control options and resources, and STDs and AIDS. Job-finding? Get your nose into the want-ads; you want Uncle Sam to lead you by the hand to employers' doors? Do you know anything about poverty and opportunity? Yeah, I'm all for low-interest or even no-interest tuition money for those needy students who crave education and treat education as a precious gift as we see among many Asians and Jews, Asians and Jews? but for most of the rest of your socialist perks, fahgetaboutit. Your ignorance won't help solve the problem of poverty. Socialism doesn't solve it, but since you mention socialism, may as well mention that capitalism doesn't solve it, either. -- Kali Starvation solves poverty. Allow it to happen. End of problem. Feed the starving and increase the problem. You liberals seem to think you can change the survival of the fittest law. Won't happen. Never has happened in the history of the world. -- Gregory Hall |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
On Feb 6, 5:16 pm, "Gregory Hall" wrote:
"Kali" wrote in message ... In article , says... On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 16:12:57 -0500, Kali wrote: In article , says... On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 15:07:58 -0500, Kali wrote: In article , says... On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 13:35:04 -0500, Kali wrote: In article , says... Marcia wrote in reference to my antipathy toward most things liberal (paraphrased): Jack, that's a strange attitude for someone who worked at SSA. _______ Yeah, I have this belief that society has a duty to help those who cannot work because of a physical or mental impairment, as opposed to redistributing the wealth to healthy welfare mammies, mammy. Just another example of my contradictory nature. ____ Posted from alt.free.newsservers So, people who rely on welfare for 6 mos - 2 years for medicaid and food while waiting for SS to be approved are welfare mammies, then when their SS is approved, they are worthy of help. What part of "healthy" don't you understand? Ok, let's take what he said literally. I'll read "healthy welfare mammies" as young, single, black mothers, living at or below the poverty level. Are white ones ok - the 18 year-old daughter of a laid off steel worker, for example? What about males? They aren't mammies, so are they ok for food stamps and medical assistance? What hand-outs designed to help these people get off the govt teet, like job training and Pell grants for college? Who will watch "welfare mammies" babies while they are at work, or school? Who gets help and who doesn't? You make a lot of presumptions regarding race, sex, etc. "welfare mammies" http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/mammies/more/ They come in all flavors. A thought cop or just being disingenuous, perhaps. You know about whom I am talking. "welfare mammies" http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/mammies/more/ They come in all flavors, but if you think I'm not including the pale varirty, perhaps next time I'll say "welfare mammies and sows." Iz zat better? So just the females who get pregnant and have babies. Single and married? Just the single ones? What about the fathers of those children, presumably the "pappies" and the "boars"? And while we're on the subject of "welfare mammies" - who is opposed to funding for family planning, sex education, birth control, abortion, educational assistance, job finding assistance, and child care? The same people who bitch about "welfare mammies". -- Kali With the exception of educational assistance, I'm absolutely against of those left-wing abominations, Hillary. Your solution for poverty? -- Kali It starts with responsible parenting. Are people so ****ing stupid so as not to realize that they should not make babies until they are established? But they don't ca da gubmint will take care of 'em. That's what LBJ told the mammies / sows when he promised us all cradle-to-grave entitlement but delivered the massive welfare state we have today. How about those fathers? It continues with those parents teaching personal responsibility and making the effort to leave the liberals' victim plantation of dependence and self-pity. People who live in poverty have no sense of personal responsibility? Sex education should be delivered by parents. You want to spend taxpayer money to teach Junior and Sally to wait until they're married and most importantly be MONOGAMOUS? They're not going to listen to those "educators" anyway; they certainly haven't the past 50 years. I want children to be educated about sexual reproduction, hormonal changes in young adulthood, birth control options and resources, and STDs and AIDS. Job-finding? Get your nose into the want-ads; you want Uncle Sam to lead you by the hand to employers' doors? Do you know anything about poverty and opportunity? Yeah, I'm all for low-interest or even no-interest tuition money for those needy students who crave education and treat education as a precious gift as we see among many Asians and Jews, Asians and Jews? but for most of the rest of your socialist perks, fahgetaboutit. Your ignorance won't help solve the problem of poverty. Socialism doesn't solve it, but since you mention socialism, may as well mention that capitalism doesn't solve it, either. -- Kali Starvation solves poverty. Allow it to happen. End of problem. Feed the starving and increase the problem. You liberals seem to think you can change the survival of the fittest law. Won't happen. Never has happened in the history of the world. -- Gregory Hall Some of us evolved beyond that point, and are able to incorporate ethics and compassion into our worldview. Your branch of the hominid family tree apparently didn't. |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
"marcia" wrote in message
... On Feb 6, 5:16 pm, "Gregory Hall" wrote: "Kali" wrote in message ... In article , says... On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 16:12:57 -0500, Kali wrote: In article , says... On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 15:07:58 -0500, Kali wrote: In article , says... On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 13:35:04 -0500, Kali wrote: In article , says... Marcia wrote in reference to my antipathy toward most things liberal (paraphrased): Jack, that's a strange attitude for someone who worked at SSA. _______ Yeah, I have this belief that society has a duty to help those who cannot work because of a physical or mental impairment, as opposed to redistributing the wealth to healthy welfare mammies, mammy. Just another example of my contradictory nature. ____ Posted from alt.free.newsservers So, people who rely on welfare for 6 mos - 2 years for medicaid and food while waiting for SS to be approved are welfare mammies, then when their SS is approved, they are worthy of help. What part of "healthy" don't you understand? Ok, let's take what he said literally. I'll read "healthy welfare mammies" as young, single, black mothers, living at or below the poverty level. Are white ones ok - the 18 year-old daughter of a laid off steel worker, for example? What about males? They aren't mammies, so are they ok for food stamps and medical assistance? What hand-outs designed to help these people get off the govt teet, like job training and Pell grants for college? Who will watch "welfare mammies" babies while they are at work, or school? Who gets help and who doesn't? You make a lot of presumptions regarding race, sex, etc. "welfare mammies" http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/mammies/more/ They come in all flavors. A thought cop or just being disingenuous, perhaps. You know about whom I am talking. "welfare mammies" http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/mammies/more/ They come in all flavors, but if you think I'm not including the pale varirty, perhaps next time I'll say "welfare mammies and sows." Iz zat better? So just the females who get pregnant and have babies. Single and married? Just the single ones? What about the fathers of those children, presumably the "pappies" and the "boars"? And while we're on the subject of "welfare mammies" - who is opposed to funding for family planning, sex education, birth control, abortion, educational assistance, job finding assistance, and child care? The same people who bitch about "welfare mammies". -- Kali With the exception of educational assistance, I'm absolutely against of those left-wing abominations, Hillary. Your solution for poverty? -- Kali It starts with responsible parenting. Are people so ****ing stupid so as not to realize that they should not make babies until they are established? But they don't ca da gubmint will take care of 'em. That's what LBJ told the mammies / sows when he promised us all cradle-to-grave entitlement but delivered the massive welfare state we have today. How about those fathers? It continues with those parents teaching personal responsibility and making the effort to leave the liberals' victim plantation of dependence and self-pity. People who live in poverty have no sense of personal responsibility? Sex education should be delivered by parents. You want to spend taxpayer money to teach Junior and Sally to wait until they're married and most importantly be MONOGAMOUS? They're not going to listen to those "educators" anyway; they certainly haven't the past 50 years. I want children to be educated about sexual reproduction, hormonal changes in young adulthood, birth control options and resources, and STDs and AIDS. Job-finding? Get your nose into the want-ads; you want Uncle Sam to lead you by the hand to employers' doors? Do you know anything about poverty and opportunity? Yeah, I'm all for low-interest or even no-interest tuition money for those needy students who crave education and treat education as a precious gift as we see among many Asians and Jews, Asians and Jews? but for most of the rest of your socialist perks, fahgetaboutit. Your ignorance won't help solve the problem of poverty. Socialism doesn't solve it, but since you mention socialism, may as well mention that capitalism doesn't solve it, either. -- Kali Starvation solves poverty. Allow it to happen. End of problem. Feed the starving and increase the problem. You liberals seem to think you can change the survival of the fittest law. Won't happen. Never has happened in the history of the world. -- Gregory Hall Some of us evolved beyond that point, and are able to incorporate ethics and compassion into our worldview. Your branch of the hominid family tree apparently didn't. Ethics and compassion you proudly finance on the backs of the unwilling who know better. Yah, right! All that you liberals believe in and work for serves only to destroy your pie-in-the-sky reality. -- Gregory Hall |
Please don't feed the rich, swarming like locusts on fossil fuels.
Please don't feed the rich, swarming like locusts on fossil fuels.
|
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
On Feb 6, 5:28 pm, "Gregory Hall" wrote:
"marcia" wrote in message ... On Feb 6, 5:16 pm, "Gregory Hall" wrote: "Kali" wrote in message . .. In article , says... On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 16:12:57 -0500, Kali wrote: In article , says... On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 15:07:58 -0500, Kali wrote: In article , says... On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 13:35:04 -0500, Kali wrote: In article , says... Marcia wrote in reference to my antipathy toward most things liberal (paraphrased): Jack, that's a strange attitude for someone who worked at SSA. _______ Yeah, I have this belief that society has a duty to help those who cannot work because of a physical or mental impairment, as opposed to redistributing the wealth to healthy welfare mammies, mammy. Just another example of my contradictory nature. ____ Posted from alt.free.newsservers So, people who rely on welfare for 6 mos - 2 years for medicaid and food while waiting for SS to be approved are welfare mammies, then when their SS is approved, they are worthy of help. What part of "healthy" don't you understand? Ok, let's take what he said literally. I'll read "healthy welfare mammies" as young, single, black mothers, living at or below the poverty level. Are white ones ok - the 18 year-old daughter of a laid off steel worker, for example? What about males? They aren't mammies, so are they ok for food stamps and medical assistance? What hand-outs designed to help these people get off the govt teet, like job training and Pell grants for college? Who will watch "welfare mammies" babies while they are at work, or school? Who gets help and who doesn't? You make a lot of presumptions regarding race, sex, etc. "welfare mammies" http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/mammies/more/ They come in all flavors. A thought cop or just being disingenuous, perhaps. You know about whom I am talking. "welfare mammies" http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/mammies/more/ They come in all flavors, but if you think I'm not including the pale varirty, perhaps next time I'll say "welfare mammies and sows." Iz zat better? So just the females who get pregnant and have babies. Single and married? Just the single ones? What about the fathers of those children, presumably the "pappies" and the "boars"? And while we're on the subject of "welfare mammies" - who is opposed to funding for family planning, sex education, birth control, abortion, educational assistance, job finding assistance, and child care? The same people who bitch about "welfare mammies". -- Kali With the exception of educational assistance, I'm absolutely against of those left-wing abominations, Hillary. Your solution for poverty? -- Kali It starts with responsible parenting. Are people so ****ing stupid so as not to realize that they should not make babies until they are established? But they don't ca da gubmint will take care of 'em. That's what LBJ told the mammies / sows when he promised us all cradle-to-grave entitlement but delivered the massive welfare state we have today. How about those fathers? It continues with those parents teaching personal responsibility and making the effort to leave the liberals' victim plantation of dependence and self-pity. People who live in poverty have no sense of personal responsibility? Sex education should be delivered by parents. You want to spend taxpayer money to teach Junior and Sally to wait until they're married and most importantly be MONOGAMOUS? They're not going to listen to those "educators" anyway; they certainly haven't the past 50 years. I want children to be educated about sexual reproduction, hormonal changes in young adulthood, birth control options and resources, and STDs and AIDS. Job-finding? Get your nose into the want-ads; you want Uncle Sam to lead you by the hand to employers' doors? Do you know anything about poverty and opportunity? Yeah, I'm all for low-interest or even no-interest tuition money for those needy students who crave education and treat education as a precious gift as we see among many Asians and Jews, Asians and Jews? but for most of the rest of your socialist perks, fahgetaboutit. Your ignorance won't help solve the problem of poverty. Socialism doesn't solve it, but since you mention socialism, may as well mention that capitalism doesn't solve it, either. -- Kali Starvation solves poverty. Allow it to happen. End of problem. Feed the starving and increase the problem. You liberals seem to think you can change the survival of the fittest law. Won't happen. Never has happened in the history of the world. -- Gregory Hall Some of us evolved beyond that point, and are able to incorporate ethics and compassion into our worldview. Your branch of the hominid family tree apparently didn't. Ethics and compassion you proudly finance on the backs of the unwilling who know better. Yah, right! All that you liberals believe in and work for serves only to destroy your pie-in-the-sky reality. -- Gregory Hall You proudly finance an unethical war and attendant crimes against humanity on the backs of the unwilling who know better. And now our conversation has come full circle. Yawn. |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
"marcia" wrote in message
... On Feb 6, 5:28 pm, "Gregory Hall" wrote: "marcia" wrote in message ... On Feb 6, 5:16 pm, "Gregory Hall" wrote: "Kali" wrote in message . .. In article , says... On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 16:12:57 -0500, Kali wrote: In article , says... On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 15:07:58 -0500, Kali wrote: In article , says... On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 13:35:04 -0500, Kali wrote: In article , says... Marcia wrote in reference to my antipathy toward most things liberal (paraphrased): Jack, that's a strange attitude for someone who worked at SSA. _______ Yeah, I have this belief that society has a duty to help those who cannot work because of a physical or mental impairment, as opposed to redistributing the wealth to healthy welfare mammies, mammy. Just another example of my contradictory nature. ____ Posted from alt.free.newsservers So, people who rely on welfare for 6 mos - 2 years for medicaid and food while waiting for SS to be approved are welfare mammies, then when their SS is approved, they are worthy of help. What part of "healthy" don't you understand? Ok, let's take what he said literally. I'll read "healthy welfare mammies" as young, single, black mothers, living at or below the poverty level. Are white ones ok - the 18 year-old daughter of a laid off steel worker, for example? What about males? They aren't mammies, so are they ok for food stamps and medical assistance? What hand-outs designed to help these people get off the govt teet, like job training and Pell grants for college? Who will watch "welfare mammies" babies while they are at work, or school? Who gets help and who doesn't? You make a lot of presumptions regarding race, sex, etc. "welfare mammies" http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/mammies/more/ They come in all flavors. A thought cop or just being disingenuous, perhaps. You know about whom I am talking. "welfare mammies" http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/mammies/more/ They come in all flavors, but if you think I'm not including the pale varirty, perhaps next time I'll say "welfare mammies and sows." Iz zat better? So just the females who get pregnant and have babies. Single and married? Just the single ones? What about the fathers of those children, presumably the "pappies" and the "boars"? And while we're on the subject of "welfare mammies" - who is opposed to funding for family planning, sex education, birth control, abortion, educational assistance, job finding assistance, and child care? The same people who bitch about "welfare mammies". -- Kali With the exception of educational assistance, I'm absolutely against of those left-wing abominations, Hillary. Your solution for poverty? -- Kali It starts with responsible parenting. Are people so ****ing stupid so as not to realize that they should not make babies until they are established? But they don't ca da gubmint will take care of 'em. That's what LBJ told the mammies / sows when he promised us all cradle-to-grave entitlement but delivered the massive welfare state we have today. How about those fathers? It continues with those parents teaching personal responsibility and making the effort to leave the liberals' victim plantation of dependence and self-pity. People who live in poverty have no sense of personal responsibility? Sex education should be delivered by parents. You want to spend taxpayer money to teach Junior and Sally to wait until they're married and most importantly be MONOGAMOUS? They're not going to listen to those "educators" anyway; they certainly haven't the past 50 years. I want children to be educated about sexual reproduction, hormonal changes in young adulthood, birth control options and resources, and STDs and AIDS. Job-finding? Get your nose into the want-ads; you want Uncle Sam to lead you by the hand to employers' doors? Do you know anything about poverty and opportunity? Yeah, I'm all for low-interest or even no-interest tuition money for those needy students who crave education and treat education as a precious gift as we see among many Asians and Jews, Asians and Jews? but for most of the rest of your socialist perks, fahgetaboutit. Your ignorance won't help solve the problem of poverty. Socialism doesn't solve it, but since you mention socialism, may as well mention that capitalism doesn't solve it, either. -- Kali Starvation solves poverty. Allow it to happen. End of problem. Feed the starving and increase the problem. You liberals seem to think you can change the survival of the fittest law. Won't happen. Never has happened in the history of the world. -- Gregory Hall Some of us evolved beyond that point, and are able to incorporate ethics and compassion into our worldview. Your branch of the hominid family tree apparently didn't. Ethics and compassion you proudly finance on the backs of the unwilling who know better. Yah, right! All that you liberals believe in and work for serves only to destroy your pie-in-the-sky reality. -- Gregory Hall You proudly finance an unethical war and attendant crimes against humanity on the backs of the unwilling who know better. And now our conversation has come full circle. Yawn. War is not unethical. War is the ANSWER! The spoils always go to the victor. That's another natural law you wimp liberals refuse to believe. More survival of the fittest. -- Gregory Hall |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
"Robb" wrote in message
... Gregory Hall wrote: Starvation solves poverty. Allow it to happen. End of problem. Feed the starving and increase the problem. You liberals seem to think you can change the survival of the fittest law. Won't happen. Never has happened in the history of the world. A Blunderbuss Award for our ignorant rednek hillbilly wingnuts. You help Wayback teach his daughters about gonorrhea, won't you? -- Robb | Shared Secrets Usenet Share your liberal kumbayah with the next terrorist homicide bomber who walks into your restaurant and explodes himself. Spare me your pie-in-the-sky. -- Gregory Hall |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
How many days has the dweeb been in office, not counting Saturdays and Sundays for Vanity Fair photo shoots? India: "You're barking up the wrong tree." EU: "We'll have a trade war." Kirghizistan: "Yankee Go Home!" Iran: "We have lift-off!" His exsistence has been charmed. He's never really earned anything politically: did nothing in the State Senate, had a cup of coffee in the US Senate, and skated into the White House on the shoulders of the media and white liberal "guilt." But he's finding out that other Nations don't pamper him as we do, the latest being socialist Canuckistan whom you would think would be his bed partner. It's going to be interesting watching this empty suit squirm. Yo, Barry, It gets harder. On 06 Feb 2009 22:18:40 GMT, Robb wrote: Gregory Hall wrote: "Way Back Jack" wrote in message ... On 06 Feb 2009 21:38:13 GMT, Robb wrote: Way Back Jack wrote: Yeah, a conservative Congress compromised with Willie into changing AFDC into TANF, but abuse still prevails. Ever going to migrate to the new century Wayback? How many "enterprises" are capable of abusing various states debit systems, anyhow? I'll migrate into socialism with fists flying and feet kicking, twinky. So - abuse of debit systems is 0.00%. Thanks for the acknowledgment. And guns blazing in my case. Yessir, kill kill kill a taxman for jeezus! Both of you are totally mentally owned, mere slaves to a vast liberal left-wing conspiracy. Get potato next week. Week after FEMA Peanut Butter! -- Robb | Shared Secrets Usenet |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
On 06 Feb 2009 22:08:12 GMT, Robb wrote:
Way Back Jack wrote: There's plenty of blame to go around but the MSM absolutely refuses to recognize Clinton's rewrite in 1994 when he unveiled his National Homeownership Strategy, which broadened the CRA in ways Congress never intended. Jingo Jingo Jingo all the way. (one minute congress didn't do it, next minute congress did it, and the Media knew nothing). I bet you're against those 'orrible society destroying conspiracies known as the Annenberg Foundation and CFR, arent ya! Got any poison Ameros yet? How about putting all the Mexicans on a boat and sending them to Africa Wayback, would that soothe your soul? The media know plenty, but they just give ya the one side. Wouldn't be so bad if it were only the commentators. But it also includes the journalists. |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 17:12:45 -0500, Kali wrote:
In article , says... On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 16:12:57 -0500, Kali wrote: In article , says... On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 15:07:58 -0500, Kali wrote: In article , says... On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 13:35:04 -0500, Kali wrote: In article , says... Marcia wrote in reference to my antipathy toward most things liberal (paraphrased): Jack, that's a strange attitude for someone who worked at SSA. _______ Yeah, I have this belief that society has a duty to help those who cannot work because of a physical or mental impairment, as opposed to redistributing the wealth to healthy welfare mammies, mammy. Just another example of my contradictory nature. ____ Posted from alt.free.newsservers So, people who rely on welfare for 6 mos - 2 years for medicaid and food while waiting for SS to be approved are welfare mammies, then when their SS is approved, they are worthy of help. What part of "healthy" don't you understand? Ok, let's take what he said literally. I'll read "healthy welfare mammies" as young, single, black mothers, living at or below the poverty level. Are white ones ok - the 18 year-old daughter of a laid off steel worker, for example? What about males? They aren't mammies, so are they ok for food stamps and medical assistance? What hand-outs designed to help these people get off the govt teet, like job training and Pell grants for college? Who will watch "welfare mammies" babies while they are at work, or school? Who gets help and who doesn't? You make a lot of presumptions regarding race, sex, etc. "welfare mammies" http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/mammies/more/ They come in all flavors. A thought cop or just being disingenuous, perhaps. You know about whom I am talking. "welfare mammies" http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/mammies/more/ They come in all flavors, but if you think I'm not including the pale varirty, perhaps next time I'll say "welfare mammies and sows." Iz zat better? So just the females who get pregnant and have babies. Single and married? Just the single ones? What about the fathers of those children, presumably the "pappies" and the "boars"? Absolutely. Instead of staying home and making sure little Shantavious and Ayisha, Joe Bob and LuLu Belle are doing their homework, the old man is out spreading his seed all over town, making new babies for me to support. Great example for the kids. And while we're on the subject of "welfare mammies" - who is opposed to funding for family planning, sex education, birth control, abortion, educational assistance, job finding assistance, and child care? The same people who bitch about "welfare mammies". -- Kali With the exception of educational assistance, I'm absolutely against of those left-wing abominations, Hillary. Your solution for poverty? -- Kali It starts with responsible parenting. Are people so ****ing stupid so as not to realize that they should not make babies until they are established? But they don't ca da gubmint will take care of 'em. That's what LBJ told the mammies / sows when he promised us all cradle-to-grave entitlement but delivered the massive welfare state we have today. How about those fathers? Ayuh. It continues with those parents teaching personal responsibility and making the effort to leave the liberals' victim plantation of dependence and self-pity. People who live in poverty have no sense of personal responsibility? A disproporionate share do not. Sex education should be delivered by parents. You want to spend taxpayer money to teach Junior and Sally to wait until they're married and most importantly be MONOGAMOUS? They're not going to listen to those "educators" anyway; they certainly haven't the past 50 years. I want children to be educated about sexual reproduction, hormonal changes in young adulthood, birth control options and resources, and STDs and AIDS. Good. Then you teach them. Job-finding? Get your nose into the want-ads; you want Uncle Sam to lead you by the hand to employers' doors? Do you know anything about poverty and opportunity? Sure. Those who fail to take advantage of the opportunity could end up in poverty. Yeah, I'm all for low-interest or even no-interest tuition money for those needy students who crave education and treat education as a precious gift as we see among many Asians and Jews, Asians and Jews? but for most of the rest of your socialist perks, fahgetaboutit. Your ignorance won't help solve the problem of poverty. Socialism doesn't solve it, but since you mention socialism, may as well mention that capitalism doesn't solve it, either. It starts with personal responsibility. Socialism runs counter to that mindset. |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
On 06 Feb 2009 22:27:45 GMT, Robb wrote:
Gregory Hall wrote: Starvation solves poverty. Allow it to happen. End of problem. Feed the starving and increase the problem. You liberals seem to think you can change the survival of the fittest law. Won't happen. Never has happened in the history of the world. A Blunderbuss Award for our ignorant rednek hillbilly wingnuts. You help Wayback teach his daughters about gonorrhea, won't you? Maybe your groups should be more concerned about STD: Syphilis rate up for 7th year in row Wed Mar 12, 2008 5:33pm EDT Email | Print | Share| Reprints | Single WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. syphilis rate rose for the seventh straight year in 2007, driven by a continued surge in cases among homosexual and bisexual men, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said on Wednesday. Since 2000, when the national syphilis rate sank to a low of 2.1 per 100,000 people after a decade of progress in the 1990s, the rate has soared by 76 percent, the CDC reported. Homosexual and bisexual men accounted for 64 percent of syphilis cases in 2007, up from about 5 percent in 1999. CDC officials expressed concern not only because the recent increases in this bacterial sexually transmitted disease follows years of declines, but also because syphilis can elevate a person's risk of being infected with the AIDS virus and the odds of giving it to someone else. They also called rises among women and blacks troubling. The overall national rate of syphilis rose by 12 percent in 2007 from 2006, reaching 3.7 cases per 100,000 people, based on preliminary CDC data released at a meeting in Chicago. The rate for men was 6.4 per 100,000, a 14 percent rise from 2006. The number of syphilis cases nationwide jumped to 11,181 in 2007 from 9,756 in 2006, with men accounting for six times as many cases as women. Rates for men and women had been roughly equivalent a decade ago. Syphilis hit the black community very hard, with rates six times higher for men and 13 times higher for women than among whites, the CDC said. The rate for black men, 21.5 cases per 100,000, has risen 99 percent since 2003. Syphilis rates have been surging in homosexual and bisexual men in the past decade, particularly among those who are highly sexually active with multiple sex partners. RISKY BEHAVIOR "Having multiple sex partners and other high-risk behaviors like not using condoms do put you at higher risk for HIV and syphilis," CDC epidemiologist Dr. Hillard Weinstock said in a telephone interview. "Syphilis can increase the likelihood of HIV transmission two to fivefold. And CDC recommends that sexually active men who have sex with men get tested for syphilis, HIV and other STDs at least annually," Weinstock added. "It is imperative that we make STD screening and treatment a central part of the medical care for gay and bisexual men," while also finding ways to avoid these infections including HIV in the first place, said Dr. Kevin Fenton, who heads the CDC's STD, AIDS, tuberculosis and viral hepatitis prevention effort. (snip) http://www.reuters.com/article/domes...0954820080312? feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews&rpc=22&sp=true |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
"Way Back Jack" wrote in message
... How many days has the dweeb been in office, not counting Saturdays and Sundays for Vanity Fair photo shoots? India: "You're barking up the wrong tree." EU: "We'll have a trade war." Kirghizistan: "Yankee Go Home!" Iran: "We have lift-off!" His exsistence has been charmed. He's never really earned anything politically: did nothing in the State Senate, had a cup of coffee in the US Senate, and skated into the White House on the shoulders of the media and white liberal "guilt." But he's finding out that other Nations don't pamper him as we do, the latest being socialist Canuckistan whom you would think would be his bed partner. It's going to be interesting watching this empty suit squirm. Yo, Barry, It gets harder. He's totally out of his league. When he speaks it's all a bunch of liberal talking points. Individual statements don't make sense. From day to day said statements are often contradictory. The man has no convictions other than his liberal brainwashing. He's a walking, talking, teleprompter that loses power from time to time which results in stuttering and incoherency. He's going to be a worse failure than Jimmie Carter. The voters should be ashamed of themselves. Dopes! -- Gregory Hall |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
On 06 Feb 2009 23:15:41 GMT, Robb wrote:
Way Back Jack wrote: On 06 Feb 2009 22:27:45 GMT, Robb wrote: Gregory Hall wrote: Starvation solves poverty. Allow it to happen. End of problem. Feed the starving and increase the problem. You liberals seem to think you can change the survival of the fittest law. Won't happen. Never has happened in the history of the world. A Blunderbuss Award for our ignorant rednek hillbilly wingnuts. You help Wayback teach his daughters about gonorrhea, won't you? Maybe your groups should be more concerned about STD It's no concern to me - you brought it up "Cheri Poppin Daddie". I did????? Uh, no, I said that parents need to provide the education in that regard. Not hands-on education. What is it with all you knuckle draggers that makes you want to "school and teach your little kids all-about-sex". Knuckle draggers? We don't play pro basketball. Huh - nothin' as good as first dibs! Have you done your annual 1040abc_Express Exam yet? You're confusing me with ya boy, Barney Frank. Sorry, that's a cheap shot Wayback, I forgot you're old, therefore have no tax liability. Now you're confusing me with ya boy Tim Geithner. LOL! -- Robb | Shared Secrets Usenet |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
On 06 Feb 2009 23:15:41 GMT, Robb wrote:
What is it with all you knuckle draggers that makes you want to "school and teach your little kids all-about-sex". Your folks again: Sex Trial Begins For U.S. Cult Leader United Press International Atlanta, Jan. 5--(UPI) The trial of a multi-faceted cult leader charged with sexual abuse of children began Monday in Georgia, the Atlanta Journal Constitution reported. Nuwaubian cult leader Malachi York, born Dwight York, has alternately claimed to be Egyptian royalty, a rabbi, a Muslim imam and a space alien. He has pleaded guilty to child molestation charges twice.And now, after a federal judge rejected one of those pleas as being too lenient, the leader of the Middle Georgia-based United Nuwaubian Nation of Moors, is facing 13 federal counts of racketeering and child molestation and is accused of using his sect to satisfy his sexual appetite for children and to hide monetary proceeds. York, 58, now claims to be a Creek Indian named Chief Black Thunderbird Eagle and argues the courts have no jurisdiction over him. York was arrested in 2002 by nearly 300 federal and local law enforcement agents who feared a violent repeat of the disastrous cult raid in Waco, Texas. York was arrested after leaving the property, and no incidents occurred. http://www.beliefnet.com/story/138/story_13820_1.html Six Million Kids Sexually Abused http://allafrica.com/stories/200508151194.html ABOUT six million children have in the last 11 years suffered various forms of sexual abuse countrywide, the president of the Uganda Medical Association has said. Dr. Margaret Mungherera was on Friday speaking at a National Psychosocial Support Consultative workshop at Hotel International in Muyenga, Kampala. Mungherera, also a founder member of Hope After Rape (HAR), a local NGO, said a study began in 1994 by HAR found that a quarter of the abused children and young adults were male. She said the study showed that sexual intercourse occurred in only 7% of the cases, while the remaining 93% were other forms of sexual abuse. She said most of the sexual abuse cases were not reported to the authorities because of the fear and trauma undergone by the victims. She said there was gross under-reporting of other forms of sexual abuse where sexual intercourse did not occur. Mungherera said there was a tendency for most organisations investigating cases of sexual abuse to concentrate on the abuse of girls at the expense of the boys. _________ |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
Barry was so damn frustrated by the Repubs in the House not buying into Porkulus. Why? He didn't need them for it to pass. I'll tell ya why. The shrewd ******* is hedging. If it fails, he can say that both sides were for it. If it fails without support from the other side, his side can kiss the 2010 and 2012 elections goodbye. On 06 Feb 2009 23:34:33 GMT, Robb wrote: Gregory Hall wrote: "Way Back Jack" wrote in message ... How many days has the dweeb been in office, not counting Saturdays and Sundays for Vanity Fair photo shoots? India: "You're barking up the wrong tree." EU: "We'll have a trade war." Kirghizistan: "Yankee Go Home!" Iran: "We have lift-off!" His exsistence has been charmed. He's never really earned anything politically: did nothing in the State Senate, had a cup of coffee in the US Senate, and skated into the White House on the shoulders of the media and white liberal "guilt." But he's finding out that other Nations don't pamper him as we do, the latest being socialist Canuckistan whom you would think would be his bed partner. It's going to be interesting watching this empty suit squirm. Yo, Barry, It gets harder. He's totally out of his league. When he speaks it's all a bunch of liberal talking points. Individual statements don't make sense. From day to day said statements are often contradictory. The man has no convictions other than his liberal brainwashing. He's a walking, talking, teleprompter that loses power from time to time which results in stuttering and incoherency. He's going to be a worse failure than Jimmie Carter. The voters should be ashamed of themselves. Dopes! U.S. Senate made a tenative agreement to one whopper of a 780 billion dollar bailout for you guys, don't thank a liberal but you'll be spending a tax credit this year. Maybe get some free goberment cheese - if your luk holds. Hold on We're not done YET!! Sending in overpaid teachers to lern' all the little virgins how to not become "STD infected whores". BOYS!!! Get "Factory in a Kit" - opportunity to invest in your own business with goberment designed OSHA approved, UnionJack bicycles. Start manufacturing and hire yo friends and mommas. Don't smoke pot, put chicken inside pdf's now available on your local GOV_BroadBand website! "Build a bridge to somewhere and save a nation" -- Robb | Shared Secrets Usenet |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
On 06 Feb 2009 23:52:40 GMT, Robb wrote:
Way Back Jack wrote: On 06 Feb 2009 23:15:41 GMT, Robb wrote: What is it with all you knuckle draggers that makes you want to "school and teach your little kids all-about-sex". Your folks again: The Lunatic Fringe title belongs wholly to the person(s) acting it. While I appreciate your caring sentiment towards Africa, I doubt you mean it, and even if you do, there's really not much to do without funds. And that's another thing, how much is Barry gonna dump into Mother Africa? BTW that's the second time (recently) you've copied that websites content and posted it to the group, Wayback. It's called education by rote. |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
On 06 Feb 2009 23:52:40 GMT, Robb wrote:
BTW that's the second time (recently) you've copied that websites content and posted it to the group, Wayback. Thought it was more like 4 times. |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
On 07 Feb 2009 00:25:00 GMT, Robb wrote:
Way Back Jack wrote: On 06 Feb 2009 23:52:40 GMT, Robb wrote: BTW that's the second time (recently) you've copied that websites content and posted it to the group, Wayback. Thought it was more like 4 times. Oh I don't know, I just recall seeing it. When you find something that you want to post E-mail the website to ask if you can post the article to Usenet. They'll likely agree, if you mention including attribution and a link. Fair Use (for "sections") works in the publics behalf anyway. I just said that to tweak your nose. ;) Might've been 6 times. |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
On 07 Feb 2009 00:07:13 GMT, Robb wrote:
Way Back Jack wrote: On 06 Feb 2009 23:52:40 GMT, Robb wrote: Way Back Jack wrote: On 06 Feb 2009 23:15:41 GMT, Robb wrote: What is it with all you knuckle draggers that makes you want to "school and teach your little kids all-about-sex". Your folks again: The Lunatic Fringe title belongs wholly to the person(s) acting it. While I appreciate your caring sentiment towards Africa, I doubt you mean it, and even if you do, there's really not much to do without funds. And that's another thing, how much is Barry gonna dump into Mother Africa? Probably enough to cause you a serious case of chokage. BTW that's the second time (recently) you've copied that websites content and posted it to the group, Wayback. It's called education by rote. Actually it's theft goberment-dweeb-employee, "wannabe teacher". Here's some more theft: A 40-Year Wish List You won't believe what's in that stimulus bill. "Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before." So said White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel in November, and Democrats in Congress are certainly taking his advice to heart. The 647-page, $825 billion House legislation is being sold as an economic "stimulus," but now that Democrats have finally released the details we understand Rahm's point much better. This is a political wonder that manages to spend money on just about every pent-up Democratic proposal of the last 40 years. APWe've looked it over, and even we can't quite believe it. There's $1 billion for Amtrak, the federal railroad that hasn't turned a profit in 40 years; $2 billion for child-care subsidies; $50 million for that great engine of job creation, the National Endowment for the Arts; $400 million for global-warming research and another $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects. There's even $650 million on top of the billions already doled out to pay for digital TV conversion coupons. In selling the plan, President Obama has said this bill will make "dramatic investments to revive our flagging economy." Well, you be the judge. Some $30 billion, or less than 5% of the spending in the bill, is for fixing bridges or other highway projects. There's another $40 billion for broadband and electric grid development, airports and clean water projects that are arguably worthwhile priorities. Add the roughly $20 billion for business tax cuts, and by our estimate only $90 billion out of $825 billion, or about 12 cents of every $1, is for something that can plausibly be considered a growth stimulus. And even many of these projects aren't likely to help the economy immediately. As Peter Orszag, the President's new budget director, told Congress a year ago, "even those [public works] that are 'on the shelf' generally cannot be undertaken quickly enough to provide timely stimulus to the economy." Most of the rest of this project spending will go to such things as renewable energy funding ($8 billion) or mass transit ($6 billion) that have a low or negative return on investment. Most urban transit systems are so badly managed that their fares cover less than half of their costs. However, the people who operate these systems belong to public-employee unions that are campaign contributors to . . . guess which party? Here's another lu-lu: Congress wants to spend $600 million more for the federal government to buy new cars. Uncle Sam already spends $3 billion a year on its fleet of 600,000 vehicles. Congress also wants to spend $7 billion for modernizing federal buildings and facilities. The Smithsonian is targeted to receive $150 million; we love the Smithsonian, too, but this is a job creator? Another "stimulus" secret is that some $252 billion is for income-transfer payments -- that is, not investments that arguably help everyone, but cash or benefits to individuals for doing nothing at all. There's $81 billion for Medicaid, $36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits, $20 billion for food stamps, and $83 billion for the earned income credit for people who don't pay income tax. While some of that may be justified to help poorer Americans ride out the recession, they aren't job creators. iAs for the promise of accountability, some $54 billion will go to federal programs that the Office of Management and Budget or the Government Accountability Office have already criticized as "ineffective" or unable to pass basic financial audits. These include the Economic Development Administration, the Small Business Administration, the 10 federal job training programs, and many more. Oh, and don't forget education, which would get $66 billion more. That's more than the entire Education Department spent a mere 10 years ago and is on top of the doubling under President Bush. Some $6 billion of this will subsidize university building projects. If you think the intention here is to help kids learn, the House declares on page 257 that "No recipient . . . shall use such funds to provide financial assistance to students to attend private elementary or secondary schools." Horrors: Some money might go to nonunion teachers. The larger fiscal issue here is whether this spending bonanza will become part of the annual "budget baseline" that Congress uses as the new floor when calculating how much to increase spending the following year, and into the future. Democrats insist that it will not. But it's hard -- no, impossible -- to believe that Congress will cut spending next year on any of these programs from their new, higher levels. The likelihood is that this allegedly emergency spending will become a permanent addition to federal outlays -- increasing pressure for tax increases in the bargain. Any Blue Dog Democrat who votes for this ought to turn in his "deficit hawk" credentials. This is supposed to be a new era of bipartisanship, but this bill was written based on the wish list of every living -- or dead -- Democratic interest group. As Speaker Nancy Pelosi put it, "We won the election. We wrote the bill." So they did. Republicans should let them take all of the credit. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123310466514522309.html |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
In article , -
says... Way Back Jack wrote: The shrewd ******* is hedging. If it fails, he can say that both sides were for it. If it fails without support from the other side, his side can kiss the 2010 and 2012 elections goodbye. I predict another Dem sweep in 2010, as more and more middle class people wake up and see the GOP for what it is, not what it says it is. Stonewalling and whining about tax cuts is about all they're good for right now, with a few exceptions: vulnerable Rethugs up for reelection in 2010. Are you trying to master stating the obvious? Tax cuts != stimulus spending. Yet that's all the Repubs can come up with. The Bush tax cuts were an Epic Fail, and they keep banging that same drum. And they are opposed to productive spending that will get the biggest return in terms of change in one year real GDP. Compare these from Moody's Economy.com: Lump sum tax rebate: 1.02 Temp across the board tax cut: 1.03 Temp payroll tax holiday: 1.29 Perm/extend AMT patch: .48 Bush tax cuts permanent: .29 Cap gains/div tax permanent: .37 Perm cut corporate tax rate: .30 Extend unemployment benefits: 1.64 Temp increase in food stamps: 1.73 General aid to state govt: 1.36 Increased infrastructure spending: 1.59 http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/do...the-impact-of- the-fiscal-stimulus.pdf Get the money out to the people who will spend it now. Corporate tax cuts? Epic Fail in terms of stimulus. -- Kali |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...502766_pf.html The Fierce Urgency of Pork (...) And yet more damaging to Obama's image than all the hypocrisies in the appointment process is his signature bill: the stimulus package. He inexplicably delegated the writing to Nancy Pelosi and the barons of the House. The product, which inevitably carries Obama's name, was not just bad, not just flawed, but a legislative abomination. It's not just pages and pages of special-interest tax breaks, giveaways and protections, one of which would set off a ruinous Smoot-Hawley trade war. It's not just the waste, such as the $88.6 million for new construction for Milwaukee Public Schools, which, reports the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, have shrinking enrollment, 15 vacant schools and, quite logically, no plans for new construction. It's the essential fraud of rushing through a bill in which the normal rules (committee hearings, finding revenue to pay for the programs) are suspended on the grounds that a national emergency requires an immediate job-creating stimulus -- and then throwing into it hundreds of billions that have nothing to do with stimulus, that Congress's own budget office says won't be spent until 2011 and beyond, and that are little more than the back-scratching, special-interest, lobby-driven parochialism that Obama came to Washington to abolish. He said. Not just to abolish but to create something new -- a new politics where the moneyed pork-barreling and corrupt logrolling of the past would give way to a bottom-up, grass-roots participatory democracy. That is what made Obama so dazzling and new. Turns out the "fierce urgency of now" includes $150 million for livestock (and honeybee and farm-raised fish) insurance. The Age of Obama begins with perhaps the greatest frenzy of old-politics influence peddling ever seen in Washington. By the time the stimulus bill reached the Senate, reports the Wall Street Journal, pharmaceutical and high-tech companies were lobbying furiously for a new plan to repatriate overseas profits that would yield major tax savings. California wine growers and Florida citrus producers were fighting to change a single phrase in one provision. Substituting "planted" for "ready to market" would mean a windfall garnered from a new "bonus depreciation" incentive. After Obama's miraculous 2008 presidential campaign, it was clear that at some point the magical mystery tour would have to end. The nation would rub its eyes and begin to emerge from its reverie. The hallucinatory Obama would give way to the mere mortal. The great ethical transformations promised would be seen as a fairy tale that all presidents tell -- and that this president told better than anyone. I thought the awakening would take six months. It took two and a half weeks. On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 12:48:47 -0500, Kali wrote: In article , - says... Way Back Jack wrote: The shrewd ******* is hedging. If it fails, he can say that both sides were for it. If it fails without support from the other side, his side can kiss the 2010 and 2012 elections goodbye. I predict another Dem sweep in 2010, as more and more middle class people wake up and see the GOP for what it is, not what it says it is. Stonewalling and whining about tax cuts is about all they're good for right now, with a few exceptions: vulnerable Rethugs up for reelection in 2010. Are you trying to master stating the obvious? Tax cuts != stimulus spending. Yet that's all the Repubs can come up with. The Bush tax cuts were an Epic Fail, and they keep banging that same drum. And they are opposed to productive spending that will get the biggest return in terms of change in one year real GDP. Compare these from Moody's Economy.com: Lump sum tax rebate: 1.02 Temp across the board tax cut: 1.03 Temp payroll tax holiday: 1.29 Perm/extend AMT patch: .48 Bush tax cuts permanent: .29 Cap gains/div tax permanent: .37 Perm cut corporate tax rate: .30 Extend unemployment benefits: 1.64 Temp increase in food stamps: 1.73 General aid to state govt: 1.36 Increased infrastructure spending: 1.59 http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/do...the-impact-of- the-fiscal-stimulus.pdf Get the money out to the people who will spend it now. Corporate tax cuts? Epic Fail in terms of stimulus. -- Kali |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
In article , top-
posted like a maroon and said... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...502766_pf.html The Fierce Urgency of Pork (...) By Charles Krauthammer. What's the matter, you can't make the argument yourself? Any comment on the (lack of) stimulus the Rethug tax cuts would provide? You need to stop reading "GOP Sour Grapes" and check with some real economists. You can start with Nobel Prize winning Paul Krugman: NYT Blog, February 6, 2009, 1:33 pm What all but 5 Republicans support "Thirty-six out of 41 Republican Senators voted for the proposed DeMint amendment to the stimulus bill — a massive package of permanent tax cuts that would create a huge hole in the budget, while doing very little to help the economy. There isn’t much room for bipartisanship when 87.8% of the other party is totally irresponsible." Latest spending cuts: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/...uts/index.html "Bipartisan group of senators reaches compromise on stimulus bill Items partially cut include funds for FBI construction, federal hybrid cars, EPA Items entirely cut include funds for federal prisons, NASA, school construction" On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 12:48:47 -0500, Kali wrote: In article , - says... Way Back Jack wrote: The shrewd ******* is hedging. If it fails, he can say that both sides were for it. If it fails without support from the other side, his side can kiss the 2010 and 2012 elections goodbye. I predict another Dem sweep in 2010, as more and more middle class people wake up and see the GOP for what it is, not what it says it is. Stonewalling and whining about tax cuts is about all they're good for right now, with a few exceptions: vulnerable Rethugs up for reelection in 2010. Are you trying to master stating the obvious? Tax cuts != stimulus spending. Yet that's all the Repubs can come up with. The Bush tax cuts were an Epic Fail, and they keep banging that same drum. And they are opposed to productive spending that will get the biggest return in terms of change in one year real GDP. Compare these from Moody's Economy.com: Lump sum tax rebate: 1.02 Temp across the board tax cut: 1.03 Temp payroll tax holiday: 1.29 Perm/extend AMT patch: .48 Bush tax cuts permanent: .29 Cap gains/div tax permanent: .37 Perm cut corporate tax rate: .30 Extend unemployment benefits: 1.64 Temp increase in food stamps: 1.73 General aid to state govt: 1.36 Increased infrastructure spending: 1.59 http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/do...the-impact-of- the-fiscal-stimulus.pdf Get the money out to the people who will spend it now. Corporate tax cuts? Epic Fail in terms of stimulus. -- Kali -- Kali |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
Mr. Obama would have us believe that unless they pass his 900 billion dollar "stimulus" package immediately, our entire nation is going to plunge into oblivion. That's right, no time to study or rationally review anything! Just throw massive amounts of worthless money at random targets and "hope" it all somehow gets better. Didn't we learn anything at ALL from the last "stimulus" fiasco? More precisely... is there anybody left in Washington with a brain? And why the big rush Mr. President? Could it be because your "stimulus" package is so full of pork it virtually oinks? It's been jokingly referred to as every Democratic special interest group's 40 Year Wish List. Most American's don't find that all that funny. Even The Wall Street Journal said "By our estimate only $90 billion out of $825 billion, or about 12 cents of every $1, is for something that can plausibly be considered a growth stimulus. And even many of these projects aren't likely to help the economy immediately. The rest is pork." Here's some of what we can expect out of this newest spending orgy. The only thing it will stimulate is my sense of outrage!!! What part of THIS COUNTRY IS ALREADY BANKRUPT do they not understand? $2 billion earmark to re-start FutureGen, a near-zero emissions coal power plant in Illinois that the Department of Energy defunded last year because it said the project was inefficient. A $246 million tax break for hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film. $650 million for the digital television converter box coupon program. $88 million for the Coast Guard to design a new polar icebreaker (arctic ship). $448 million for constructing the Department of Homeland Security headquarters. $248 million for furniture at the new Homeland Security headquarters. $600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees. $400 million for the Centers for Disease Control to screen and prevent STD's. $1.4 billion for rural waste disposal programs. $125 million for the Washington sewer system. $150 million for Smithsonian museum facilities. $1 billion for the 2010 Census, which has a projected cost overrun of $3 billion. $75 million for "smoking cessation activities." $200 million for public computer centers at community colleges. $75 million for salaries of employees at the FBI. $25 million for tribal alcohol and substance abuse reduction. $500 million for flood reduction projects on the Mississippi River. $10 million to inspect canals in urban areas. $6 billion to turn federal buildings into "green" buildings. $500 million for state and local fire stations. $650 million for wildland fire management on forest service lands. $1.2 billion for "youth activities," including youth summer job programs. $88 million for renovating the headquarters of the Public Health Service. $412 million for CDC buildings and property. $500 million for building and repairing National Institutes of Health facilities in Bethesda, Maryland. $160 million for "paid volunteers" at the Corporation for National and Community Service. $5.5 million for "energy efficiency initiatives" at the Department of Veterans Affairs National Cemetery Administration. $850 million for Amtrak. $100 million for reducing the hazard of lead-based paint. $75 million to construct a "security training" facility for State Department Security officers when they can be trained at existing facilities of other agencies. $110 million to the Farm Service Agency to upgrade computer systems. $200 million in funding for the lease of alternative energy vehicles for use on military installations. Oink. Oink. Oink. On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 14:23:42 -0500, Kali wrote: In article , top- posted like a maroon and said... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...502766_pf.html The Fierce Urgency of Pork (...) By Charles Krauthammer. What's the matter, you can't make the argument yourself? Any comment on the (lack of) stimulus the Rethug tax cuts would provide? You need to stop reading "GOP Sour Grapes" and check with some real economists. You can start with Nobel Prize winning Paul Krugman: NYT Blog, February 6, 2009, 1:33 pm What all but 5 Republicans support "Thirty-six out of 41 Republican Senators voted for the proposed DeMint amendment to the stimulus bill — a massive package of permanent tax cuts that would create a huge hole in the budget, while doing very little to help the economy. There isn’t much room for bipartisanship when 87.8% of the other party is totally irresponsible." Latest spending cuts: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/...uts/index.html "Bipartisan group of senators reaches compromise on stimulus bill Items partially cut include funds for FBI construction, federal hybrid cars, EPA Items entirely cut include funds for federal prisons, NASA, school construction" On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 12:48:47 -0500, Kali wrote: In article , - says... Way Back Jack wrote: The shrewd ******* is hedging. If it fails, he can say that both sides were for it. If it fails without support from the other side, his side can kiss the 2010 and 2012 elections goodbye. I predict another Dem sweep in 2010, as more and more middle class people wake up and see the GOP for what it is, not what it says it is. Stonewalling and whining about tax cuts is about all they're good for right now, with a few exceptions: vulnerable Rethugs up for reelection in 2010. Are you trying to master stating the obvious? Tax cuts != stimulus spending. Yet that's all the Repubs can come up with. The Bush tax cuts were an Epic Fail, and they keep banging that same drum. And they are opposed to productive spending that will get the biggest return in terms of change in one year real GDP. Compare these from Moody's Economy.com: Lump sum tax rebate: 1.02 Temp across the board tax cut: 1.03 Temp payroll tax holiday: 1.29 Perm/extend AMT patch: .48 Bush tax cuts permanent: .29 Cap gains/div tax permanent: .37 Perm cut corporate tax rate: .30 Extend unemployment benefits: 1.64 Temp increase in food stamps: 1.73 General aid to state govt: 1.36 Increased infrastructure spending: 1.59 http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/do...the-impact-of- the-fiscal-stimulus.pdf Get the money out to the people who will spend it now. Corporate tax cuts? Epic Fail in terms of stimulus. -- Kali -- Kali |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 14:23:42 -0500, Kali wrote:
You can start with Nobel Prize winning Paul Krugman: Not intersted in socialist economists. But can understand why those of you tit suckers who want Uncle Sugar to pay for abortions, sex ed, child care, job-finding assistance would be. Surprised you don't want the government to provide you with a personal trainer and a masseuse. |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
On 06 Feb 2009 23:55:34 GMT, Robb wrote:
Way Back Jack wrote: The shrewd ******* is hedging. If it fails, he can say that both sides were for it. If it fails without support from the other side, his side can kiss the 2010 and 2012 elections goodbye. Are you trying to master stating the obvious? But, but, but ... if the communists think that this is such a sure thing, they would want to take all the credit for it. Even someone educated by MTV should see that. |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
On 07 Feb 2009 20:49:16 GMT, Robb wrote:
Way Back Jack wrote: I thought the awakening would take six months. It took two and a half weeks. On cue. Are you going to drop Townhall in here next? Right after I finish reading the "journalism" the other idiot provided from Pravda West (NYTimes). Wayback, if you're retired wouldn't you be happier up in Alaska blowing giant assed holes in things? Like polar bears, wolves, Sarah Palins husband? It's more fun trying to educate brainwashed liberals. |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
On 07 Feb 2009 20:59:38 GMT, Robb wrote:
Restless wrote: On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 14:23:42 -0500, Kali wrote: You can start with Nobel Prize winning Paul Krugman: Not intersted in socialist economists. More like disenchanted with life. You do know an "economist" is nothing special, except for the specialized education, anyone can be one, no license required. Tell it to the other idiot who worships at his altar. But can understand why those of you tit suckers who want Uncle Sugar to pay for abortions, sex ed, child care, job-finding assistance would be. Surprised you don't want the government to provide you with a personal trainer and a masseuse. How far was your jump to conclusion? Read the other idiot's wish list. |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
On 07 Feb 2009 21:06:34 GMT, Robb wrote:
Way Back Jack wrote: On 06 Feb 2009 23:55:34 GMT, Robb wrote: Way Back Jack wrote: The shrewd ******* is hedging. If it fails, he can say that both sides were for it. If it fails without support from the other side, his side can kiss the 2010 and 2012 elections goodbye. Are you trying to master stating the obvious? But, but, but ... if the communists think that this is such a sure thing, they would want to take all the credit for it. Even someone educated by MTV should see that. Wearing an achy-breaky heart on your sleeve today? Cheer up WayBack, someone will drag you kicking-and-screaming into the decade of prosperity. ;) I mean, the Unholy Trinity of Obama - Pelosi - Reid were damn near grinding their molars to dust trying to get the other side to cave. |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
On 07 Feb 2009 21:13:35 GMT, Robb wrote:
Way Back Jack wrote: On 07 Feb 2009 20:49:16 GMT, Robb wrote: Way Back Jack wrote: I thought the awakening would take six months. It took two and a half weeks. On cue. Are you going to drop Townhall in here next? Right after I finish reading the "journalism" the other idiot provided from Pravda West (NYTimes). You know, you can recycle the chips on your shoulder. Yeah, ol' Barry really lost his cool over this porkulus thing. Sometime better tell him that it gets harder. The media has already devolved from paralyzed adoration to bobby-soxer doting. Wayback, if you're retired wouldn't you be happier up in Alaska blowing giant assed holes in things? Like polar bears, wolves, Sarah Palins husband? It's more fun trying to educate brainwashed liberals. Wasn't it John McCain that proclaimed you guys as racists, xenophobes and kooks? Talk about a brainwashing, dude, that must have been rougher than riding a motorcycle upside down on your face. (it's a visual, try hard) Barry's the one who played the race card, even against our first black prez, Willie C. |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
On Feb 7, 4:20 pm, (Way Back Jack) wrote:
On 07 Feb 2009 21:13:35 GMT, Robb wrote: Way Back Jack wrote: On 07 Feb 2009 20:49:16 GMT, Robb wrote: Way Back Jack wrote: I thought the awakening would take six months. It took two and a half weeks. On cue. Are you going to drop Townhall in here next? Right after I finish reading the "journalism" the other idiot provided from Pravda West (NYTimes). You know, you can recycle the chips on your shoulder. Yeah, ol' Barry really lost his cool over this porkulus thing. Sometime better tell him that it gets harder. The media has already devolved from paralyzed adoration to bobby-soxer doting. Wayback, if you're retired wouldn't you be happier up in Alaska blowing giant assed holes in things? Like polar bears, wolves, Sarah Palins husband? It's more fun trying to educate brainwashed liberals. Wasn't it John McCain that proclaimed you guys as racists, xenophobes and kooks? Talk about a brainwashing, dude, that must have been rougher than riding a motorcycle upside down on your face. (it's a visual, try hard) Barry's the one who played the race card, even against our first black prez, Willie C. Oh, please. He never played the race card. Cite? Cite? Cite? I agree with the cuts. We need to hold back some money for universal health care. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:01 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com